F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

euromaster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2009, 15:42

Unread post11 Aug 2019, 22:54

ricnunes wrote:I'll address only a few of the points that I was able to read:


You did not read the points you replied to either apparently because getting to the bottom of your post I cannot see a point you did not cherry pick single lines from. You even went on mentioning things I have already addressed.

For instance you totally and completely fail to grasp the concept of Stealth and sensor fusion


I never said anything against either of those things, in fact my opening statement previously was that the F-35 was an excellent support/sensor plane. Sensor fusion is not new on the F-35, the Typhoon has it, albeit admittedly to a lesser degree.

I also said stealth was a tool in its toolbox. I am not ignoring stealth, merely the "media" depiction that is often cited as actual fact too often.

And you even have the nerve of saying that everyone here is basing their knowledge on outdated info


I know for a fact they are because some of the claims and lines on this forum seem quoted almost word for word from the very early publications first made for the Typhoon (not just this thread, but others).


completely fail to grasp the modern concepts of modern warfare


I think your just angry and repeating what I have already told you, ironic considering you keep saying I am looking in a mirror. It has been clearly displayed from just the last few posts I have replied to that modern warfare is not being discussed but instead a rose tinted view, probably from a video game. I will not generalize all posters, I am sure some are aware of military doctrine.


As it was already told you and apparently you chose to ignore


As a matter of fact I stated quite clearly how the que of a cruise missile attack would work. It does not take long between intel/firing. A system like the S-400 is indeed mobile, but they are not fast at setup or set down as you seem to believe. They are a complex that can take some time to position and what is more, some cruise missiles can loiter meaning a cruise missile may be already in the air and then close to range as soon as the complex is detected via other intel.

A military does not hold the worth of a cruise missile above the plane and its pilot, for many reasons. And no aircraft, not even the F-35 has any place within a hundred or more kilometers of an S-400 system, even if it knows where that one individual launcher is etc. There could be more, and more that can target it at its low altitude. That is sheer fact whether you want to believe it or not. I have already informed you of this.

The F-35 is so bad compared to the Typhoon that these countries are developing aircraft similar to the F-35 to replace the Typhoon.


The Tempest is not at all like the F-35, it will also be a high performance fighter to a high spec and 6th gen. Hence why it is replacing another high performance fighter while the F-35's the UK already has is a supportive aircraft as it should be.

should be already well known by now.


A great deal is known to me but sadly, despite me trying to share my information I am simply given a lot of complaining about how you think your right.

You can only pursuit and ultimately shot at what you can actually detect!


Indeed, and I thought even Americans realized even a stealth aircraft is not invisible no? and is even more visible if/when it is firing weapon systems/closer it is to a target. In fact, Yugoslavia taught us that valuable lesson. I suggest you just re-read my post since you missed some information that may serve you well. Also a word of advice, quit quibbling over semantics.

useless and futile exercise


Only if your not interested in learning anything at all. I am providing a lot of information and corrections and expect little more in return than adherence to the courtesy outlined in the sites guidelines. Angry rants and apparent aggression/personal attacks are merely a fallacious waste of my time but admittedly I cannot assume the age of the posters I am talking to so maybe reality is just not as fun as fictional combat?

Clearly you have a very high opinion/assumption of the aircraft Ricnunes looking at your posts but your not helping it by ignoring its flaws, or giving it almost supernatural capabilities. :D


Clearly I am going to be treated as an adversary football fan entering your club after you have had a lot of embarrassing losses but I am only trying to correct some of the flaws in the reasoning here to better clarify the overall understanding of military combat, most notably the use of the air-force of course. There is no good sticking your chins in the air and ignoring any negative criticism over your favorite players as an analogy. Facts are facts and the truth is the F-35 has a role, just not as a broad combat aircraft. It's role is a supporting aircraft for superior combat planes (F-22 while their active, Typhoons etc) and then possibly striking lesser assets when safe to do so.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 665
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post11 Aug 2019, 23:45

optimist wrote:It's also nice to have this titbit for relevance. The fastest speed of a missile launch in anger, was by the M2.5 capable f-15, It was launched around the speed of M1.2. Google wasn't my friend when I tried to find the exact speed, it was under M1.3.

Do you have the source for this? I was looking for it awhile ago but couldn’t find it.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 00:48

I will risk getting in the middle of the fight...

Honestly, I can share many of euromaster's comments:

- Modern IADS are not some place you want to send your fighters into, to see what they find. Examples from real world (i.e. use of stealth planes vs CMs in Syria) or developmental directions in US for their new 6th gen. platforms show that there is an intrinsic need for high-end kinematics and range to be able to challenge modern AD and that missiles are the low-risk, acceptable way to go. The ongoing development of stand-off and supersonic land attack weapons only underlines that fact.

- Stealth is undeniably useful. It is not a panacea though, when confronting a powerful adversary with advanced technology. Again may examples from real world show its limitations.

- It is frequent to find some apparent mixing of scenarios (3rd world vs. peer rivals) when talking about what can be achieved only through stealth and information. A F-35 with short-range, subsonic PGMs may be useful against isolated S-300 or similar level SAMs (though not a prospect the responsible military staff would enjoy too much, I suspect), but against a multilayered, redundant IADS with all the supporting assets Russia or China have it is IMHO simply going to suffer massive attrition and low success rates and not be really viable. Equally, pk of AAMs used against aware targets is going to be dramatically lower than what experience against unaware and defenceless 3rd world rivals shows. So I think that the first step to reach understanding among us is to differentiate what kind of scenario is being discussed, because assumptions about workable approaches are going to differ massively between permissive and non-permissive environments.

- F-35 is being considered, also in US, as a numbers plane and nobody there is planing, now or in the future, to try to reach air superiority against a peer or near-peer rival without other planes with better kinematics in terms of speed and flight altitude. This is no offence against F-35, just a plain statement about its very design intent.

Maybe his criticism of F-35 is or sounds harsh, but in the end, a plane is designed with a certain set of goals in mind. The type of claim underlying some posts is like "F-22 is the best in everything, but the F-35 is also the best in everything"... this kind of approach cannot be sustained.

We know the F-35 has impressive avionics, more affordable stealth, a monster engine, low subsonic drag and great range for its size, great high-AoA controllability and many other advantages which deserve praise as far as engineering is concerned. But what we cannot do is to take a set of requirements as contradictory as that of the F-35 and expect it will produce a world beater in every aspect. The very design traits that LM (quite smartly IMO) adopted to achieve payload, range and good subsonic performance detract from supersonic performance and service ceiling, in particular weight, wing sweep and fineness.

I would in any case advocate for allowing people to share their thoughts and information with a welcoming and open mind, lest we transform the forum in little more than an echo chamber suiting our particular ideas... just my two cents.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 05:23

euromaster wrote:There seems to be some holes in the knowledge on this site and some erroneous comments. A lot of it looks like old information from the mid 90's that is either out of date or was just media fanfare which is fine I guess for casual/fantasy discussion which is not a problem but some of it seems to be taken literally. For example;
I thought I would reply to both of you here because you both, with respect seem to have a rather fantasy view of modern warfare or how an air arm would be used against integrated air defense of this level.

Just to be clear it is absolutely not the thinking of any military to send pilots in with short/med range weapons (60-100km range) to suppress IADS that include high end long range weapons such as S-400. No aircraft will be expected to travel potentially hundreds of kilometers within the radius of such a weapons capability of attack.

What's more, the question of cost is also nonsensical, The potential cost of losing an aircraft and its pilot is unfeasible compared to launching cruise missiles. The military has no qualms about firing hundreds of cruise missiles, I do not need to declassify anything, you can read up on Syria, Iraq war etc, cruise missiles were like candy even against limited air defense, let alone S-400 or better class IADS.

I will tell you what would happen, you would get intel either from satellite, UAV or on the ground, some other recce. Then cruise missiles, either from air or from the coast will be launched on que within a relatively short space of time between intel. Not everyone bears this in mind but there is a "command" layer that work closely with the tactical assets, you do not just have assets in a vacuum.

An F-35 would be even less likely to do this due to its general low performance air-frame, other high end aircraft like an F-22/Typhoon may be able to survive being spotted and be able to leave a hostile zone of control, while an airframe akin to a low end legacy aircraft air-frame such as the F-35 which has performance more like a carrier strike craft or bomb boat (somewhat like the Rafale actually) would not be able to out climb or outmaneuver an opposing high end aircraft.

Actually, I would say you hold a fantasy view of modern warfare, you are assuming modern SAM can't move and simply stay at the same location all the time will no camouflage whatsoever so that you can detect and eradicate all of them with satellite or ground intel. That can't be any further from the truth. That never happened, and will never ever happen.
Even in Viet Nam war, where US literally have troop on ground and S-75 is for the most parts a stationary system, they couldn't know the location of all SAM site beforehand. They didn't just plan operation Iron Hand for fun. Fast forward to Yugoslav War, the SAM was hiding so well that even super long into the conflict, SA-3 still managed to down our aircraft.
You may not have this in mind but satellite intel is terrible when your targets can move, which all modern SAM can, some take less than 10 minutes to pack up and move away. Intel from troops on ground, is even harder, you don't just magically have troop on their territories let alone anywhere near their SAM site. Of course, USA military open their strike by a barrage of Tomahawk, but that mostly works as a way to damage enemy's airfields, stationary long-range early warning radar, communication center ..etc. It is NOT a way to ensure all SAM are destroyed, it is not a practical way to ensure your aircraft can fly into enemy air space unchallenged. You know there is very good reason for missiles such as HARM, AARGM-ER, ALARM, KH-58USE, KH-31, MARTEL to exist, and they don't just use very long range cruise missiles to carry out SEAD operation, because more often than not, satellite images either didn't give you the location of the enemy well camouflaged SAM or the SAM location aren't what you originally thought, because they are mobile. The fact that you don’t want your fighters to fly within enemy air space when some long range SAM still lurking somewhere is irrelevance. It does happen and it will happen.
Regarding your assessment of low end / high end fighter survivability versus IADS, that is factually incorrect and so far from reality that it is laughable. A clean or lightly loaded Eurofighter will out accelerate and out climb an F-35, no doubt. But to out accelerate or out climb a surface to air missile? Don’t even think about that. Never happen. And F-35 don't have to out climb or out maneuver something that can't detect it, while Eurofighter surely have to deal with the swam of missiles comming its way.
Furthermore, Eurofighter with 2 Storm shadow is not lightly loaded by any stretch of imagination, with 2 Storm shadow you will be slower, less maneuver and significantly more visible than an F-35 with internal SPEAR or JSM. What do you think will happen when your Eurofighter with 2 Storm shadow flying into an air space defended by Mig-31 or Su-35 equipped with R-37 or RVV-DB ? or if it has to face J-16 with PL-15 missile? or an F-35 with JNAAM. If you think they will ignore that slow, sluggish , highly visible Eurofighter with Storm Shadow then I have bad new for you.


euromaster wrote:It would also be vulnerable to lower end, low altitude air defenses, possibly even manpads on certain strike trajectories. Meanwhile aircraft that can travel to target at 50-60k feet or more are only vulnerable to the highest capability SAM's like the S-400+ itself.

An F-35 could be vulnerable to a large range of popup threats at its low altitude. So as cool as it would be for an F-35 to fly in invisible and bomb S-400's without the whole defense grid not having any idea like a hollywood movie (maybe our friend Maverick will do it :) ) this is not the reality.

On one hand, you over exaggerated the difference in performance between F-35 and Eurofighter, on the other hand, you grossly undermine the capability of SAM versus fighters. Eurofighter can cruise at 50k ft but so is F-35, tell me what Manpads can climb to 50k ft?
mhUOqyV.png


and you think that flying at 50k -60 kft will make you vulnerable to only the highest capability SAM's like the S-400+ ? what year are you in? Even S-125-2T Pechora 2T and Buk-ME2 can climb to the heigh of 25 km
buk_51.gif

Tetraedr-SA-3-Envelope-firing-r.gif


Obviously, I am not the only one who thinks F-35 will be far more survivable and effective than Typhoon.
Evaluation report from the Danish type selection show the same conclusion.
1.PNG

1.PNG

2.PNG




euromaster wrote:This is not necesserily true, where F-35 has stealth in its tool box, Typhoon and other high end performance aircraft have speed and altitude. And like I said, you won't get aircraft doing any SAM dodging, there is absolutely no reason for them to get anywhere near high class SAM systems in modern war and unless someone messes up on a colossal scale even a stealth aircraft would not be sent into such a hot zone.

There is no use an F-35 going into a combat zone with only 4 or so missiles or less, maybe only 2 AA missiles and 4 bombs, taking out one low end/low altitude system such as a Buk launcher or equivalent and then getting pinged by the 3/4 nearby Buk's, manpads, S-400's etc, then getting run down by faster aircraft such as SU-35's, MiG-35's etc. Its just absurd and would not happen in todays information environment. Especially while it has legacy missiles. It may require 2-3 AMRAAM missiles to assure the defeat of a 4.5+ or 4.5++ gen aircraft.

Speed and altitude of Typhoon is pathetic compared to that of XB-70, SR-71, YF-12, yet even those are not survivable against modern SAM. Unless your either enemy messed up on a colossal scale or they have no proper tactic/capability, you will never eradicate all their long-range SAM with your cruise missiles barrage, like it or not, your fighters will fly inside air space with some long range SAM lurking around, ready to go online at any moment.
With sidekick launchers, carrying a asymmetric load out, F-35 can have 4 AIM-260/AIM-120D + 4 SDB II/ SPEAR. F-35 can get in, destroy a 92N6E “Grave Stone radar or shoot down Su-35 and silently get out, because it is stealthy. Typhoon don't have that option. A Typhoon flying into defended space will be quickly overwhelmed by dozens of SAM and AAM coming from various directions before it has the chance to do anything.






euromaster wrote:These are not true mitigation's. Your talking about future systems, especially with the SACM. By the time F-35 gets SACM, European aircraft may be flying with DEW's....and SACM is not =/= long range, high performance missiles. Their sorely needed for the F-35 to be a relevant combat platform I agree but your not there yet. The US is dragging its feet in missile design, its mostly in the post 90's era while everyone else is reaching out to the 2020's, even China.

How exactly do you know SACM is not high performance? It is likely not long range, i agree,but it was designed like that because a stealth aircraft can get closer to target before they are detected or attacked. That a luxury that a conventional aircraft like Eurofighter simply don't have. Furthermore, they didn't intend to use SACM to replace everything. It is just one tool in the box. F-35 can carry a combination of 4 LREW or AIM-260 + 4 SACM. That should be enough to deal with a variety of threat.
Regarding DEW, it is ironic that you would mention that, there are funded programs and studies looking to put laser weapon on F-35. I can bet there is nothing similar for Rafale or Eurofighter
Capture.PNG


euromaster wrote:How exactly? This is factually incorrect, CAPTOR is a very capable radar, even more so than some of the early generation PESA and even AESA variants for what it wants to do and potential adversary aircraft do not use anything that actually "requires" the next gen AESA CAPTOR-E that may come out sooner (especially if in full war time) than Block 4, and certainly before F-35 has a viable combat load.
Meanwhile there is literally no example where having few missiles is a greater benefit, especially with low PK weapons like AMRAAM against later gen targets.

CAPTOR is only more "capable" than certain PESA in the sense that AWG-9 can have longer detection range than J/APG-1 because it is bigger. All other advantages of electronic scanned array such as high scan rate, irregular scan pattern, low side lobes, adjustable radar weighting function then CAPTOR fall short.



euromaster wrote:No the advantage is always with the airframe unless there is a large disparity between missiles. E.g., the Rafale airframe although nothing like a Typhoon/F-22/F-35, high end flankers etc it carries Meteor which makes previous legacy missiles such as AMRAAM/R-77 obsolete in the same way AMRAAM made Sparrow seem dated. However, a Typhoon launching a Meteor with its two way data link at 60-65+k feet while supercruising at a higher degree will always offer greater energy and reach to the lower altitude bomb boat aircraft such as the F-35. And only the F-35 in UK service will get the Meteor unless the US wisely signs up for it and closes their generation gap disadvantage.

So "kinematics" will always matter.

kinematic and energy-matter if you can lock target and launch your missile. If you can't, it is irrelevant.





euromaster wrote:This is not always going to be the case. Its no different than saying a higher altitude fighter always chooses when to strike, this is often the case but not always. They are all different tools at the aircrafts disposal. A stealth aircraft may be found on IRST even beyond its own effective range. This is especially true with legacy missile equipped planes like US aircraft, most notably the F-35. The F-22 is not so beleaguered by this disparity thanks to its high end air-frame but an F-35 at low altitude against developed IRST's with low PK missiles even at level altitude targets? nobody wants to be that pilot.

The "fair fight" will never exist for the F-35 unless it is facing legacy aircraft or has support from better fighters

Detection distance and engagement distance of IRST aren't the same. For many IRST system, they can find target from 50-60 km, yet the LRF distance is only 15-20 km, and they have no choice but to get closer. IRST performance is also weather/cloud-dependent, unlike radar.
Image
Image

A lower altitude target have less energy but also much harder to detect with IRST thanks to ground clutter

Image

Also, if your idea of future Eurofighter being a better fighter than F-35 have to rely on:
_ F-35 doesn't get sidekick launcher
_ F-35 aren't allowed to use JNAAM or Meteor
_ LREW, AIM-260 doesn't improve kinematic significantly from AIM-120D
_ Third stream engine such as X100 doesn't improve IR signature of F-35
Then it probably not that solid.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 07:47

southerncross wrote:I will risk getting in the middle of the fight...

Honestly, I can share many of euromaster's comments:

- Modern IADS are not some place you want to send your fighters into, to see what they find. Examples from real world (i.e. use of stealth planes vs CMs in Syria) or developmental directions in US for their new 6th gen. platforms show that there is an intrinsic need for high-end kinematics and range to be able to challenge modern AD and that missiles are the low-risk, acceptable way to go. The ongoing development of stand-off and supersonic land attack weapons only underlines that fact.

a


Yet that is the exact mission requirement for the f-35. To go in unassisted and deploy a 2000lb bomb on Sam sites
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ighter.pdf
. “But the requirements that we were given to
build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in. In other words,
we had to find the target, ... penetrate
the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the
target, and ... destroy it by ourselves.”
.....The goal is not to simply suppress
enemy air defenses. The goal will be
to destroy them.
“I don’t want to destroy a double-digit SAM for a few hours,” he
said. “What we’d like to do is put a
2,000-pound bomb on the whole complex and never have to deal with that
... SAM for the rest of the conflict.”
At present, that is difficult to do.
Adversaries, O’Bryan pointed out,
recognize that the basic American
AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation
Missile has a light warhead able to do
little more than damage an air defense
array. Thus, they have adapted to the
threat by deploying spare arrays with
their mobile systems
Last edited by optimist on 12 Aug 2019, 08:53, edited 3 times in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 08:29

zerion wrote:
optimist wrote:It's also nice to have this titbit for relevance. The fastest speed of a missile launch in anger, was by the M2.5 capable f-15, It was launched around the speed of M1.2. Google wasn't my friend when I tried to find the exact speed, it was under M1.3.

Do you have the source for this? I was looking for it awhile ago but couldn’t find it.


Mach 1.4 at 33K ft during Operation Allied Force with the F-15C flown by Cesar Rodriguez : https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-15-vs ... ied-force/

It was also mentioned in this Dogfights episode : https://youtu.be/a3RoJZ-tH1Q?t=2176
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 08:39

For those who thinks F-35 has moderate kinematic performance:
This is Typhoon's official brochure:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=5525&start=1200
Sea level acceleration: 30 seconds from 200 knots to Mach 1.0.

F-35's acceleration at 15000ft is almost the same as that of typhoon at sea level!

Typhoon has moderate kinetic performance? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Offline

euromaster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2009, 15:42

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 10:00

garrya wrote:you are assuming modern SAM can't move and simply stay at the same location all the time


Please don't straw-man my statement, I never said they would not move. I said the time between intel and que of a cruise missile is not nearly long enough for an S-400 scale complex to all suddenly move. There are many parts of the complex, they cannot all just be up on the road. A cruise missile even fired at say a max range of 500 km takes seconds to reach the target (S-400 takes minutes to setup, let alone moving out of missile radius). And many cruise missiles, most notably newer block tac tomahawks can loiter as I told Richnunes. You could have a couple of loitering missiles at the very edge of projected SAM range at the same time as an intel vehicle, say a UAV or a satellite is being positioned ready for the off. You could have several from different angles of attack as well.

That can't be any further from the truth.


What I have actually said is the exact truth. The assumption that stealth allows you to get within 100's of km range is a dubious one but I will not talk of classified information but let us speak more of risk again, the military does not, and will not risk that aircraft unless it is against lesser systems, that are not part of a larger complex/IADS. Not when it can fire cheaper cruise missiles. Do you understand the disaster of losing an F-35 to a Russian system? not just the plane and the pilot, but sensitive frame information that may be recovered and the media fanfare. Would be enough to make even Lockheed gulp.

stationary long-range early warning radar, communication center ..etc. It is NOT a way to ensure all SAM are destroyed


Nobody mentioned "all sams", this is an exaggeration. I am talking about a projected path where you want to send an aircraft. Instead, you rely on sat intel, forces on the ground, covert ops and more recently, high end UAV's and/or battlefield surveillance. The later has come a long way in modern warfare, you can literally scan hundreds if not thousands of kilometers per second at long range with some systems, including through cloud cover.

The fact that you don’t want your fighters to fly within enemy air space when some long range SAM still lurking somewhere is irrelevance. It does happen and it will happen.


No, it will not. Sorry but I have to keep contradicting you here. Your stating something I know to be incorrect. Your stating it probably because you think the F-35 was developed to be able to threaten an S-400 deep in enemy territory? Or entire complexes? Not at all. What your referring to in the earlier conflicts were against inferior IADS and even they were extremely dangerous to aircraft of the time, S-400 and later Buk series etc are all so far beyond that its not even a fair comparison and the distribution of different SAM's of varying capabilities for a larger/more developed military such as Russia and even China is even more dangerous for any aircraft.

The F-35 is designed to be able to strike at mild IADS, nothing like S-400 or better. They could probably threaten earlier Buk vehicles if they are already known to be scarce in the area and not supported by hostile aircraft.


What do you think will happen when your Eurofighter with 2 Storm shadow flying into an air space defended by Mig-31 or Su-35


This is unlikely because again, intel, the primary use of storm shadow and other cruise missiles is their stand-off nature, you launch it from well beyond the likely zone of control of an enemy air defense. If such an aircraft is spotted, it will just launch the munitions and from there it has all the possibility of out climbing or out maneuvering those aircraft, and using long range next gen weapons like Meteor to just destroy those aircraft beyond their effective range. Thanks to its energy they will also likely be at a disadvantage in most cases.

Meanwhile lets turn this on its head, as I have done already. The F-35 has just dropped its few bombs on a S-400, somehow magically avoided all detection but its bay opening, heat from its weapons and further, the obvious loss of the S-400 in the complex creates not only SAM alerts and pings but also leaves the F-35 a slow bomb boat deep in hostile territory. It can be run down by basically all Russian/Chinese fighters and there is no projected missile even looking to the 30's that it can use to try and out-reach those aircraft and if it tried, its energy is so poor it will never match the higher altitude fighters. If it gets locked by a SAM (and it will) the pilot may as well eject if hot enough. If its just a couple of pings an F-35 may be able to rely on some jamming but the cost of sending a poorly armed aircraft with a poor frame in a hostile zone is nonsensical. It just will never happen.

you think that flying at 50k -60 kft will make you vulnerable to only the highest capability SAM's like the S-400+ ? what year are you in? Even S-125-2T Pechora 2T and Buk-ME2 can climb to the heigh of 25 km


No, I was thinking 60-65k+ feet for "only the highest quality", but even you must realize that if your aircraft can only climb to 40-50k like F-35 (I can tell you 50k is not common honestly) there are a lot more SAM's that can target you. From the lower end Buk's to the later generation Buk-ME2 you mentioned. The Buk-ME2 "can" climb to 25km, but what you seem to misunderstand is that the Buk series once it reaches above 60k feet struggles for range. The missile is not designed to hold that range for more than a few kilometers. 25km altitude is for a hit within maybe seconds.

This is why high rate of climb is important and why high high end fighters will always climb to avoid SAM's. Because a SAM rocket obviously has less energy (not just fuel, kinetic/potential) and because fighters have a massive energy advantage at height a fighter can afford to burn more energy on more aggressive turns, the missile will struggle heavily at 60k feet let me tell you. This is why you would use a S-400 to ensure chase of a Typhoon that climbs to 65-70k feet. An F-35? hah, don't even waste an S-400, sortie it down with ease or launch Buk. It will never out-climb any but the obsolete missiles.

compared to that of XB-70, SR-71, YF-12, yet even those are not survivable against modern SAM


Because it is not just a question of speed and altitude is it. Its energy. I went into a little more detail above but Spy planes are not designed to be as agile as a super-maneuverable fighter. The Typhoon, much like the F-22 were both designed to a high spec for supersonic, high altitude agility AND speed/climb. Is this why you think altitude is irrelevant? why do you think any nation bothers to fly high end, high altitude air frames and not just cheaper, single engine strike craft that struggle past 45k feet? Like I said many times, tools in the toolbox, the F-35 relies entirely on stealth, which is dubius and can be exposed by countless threats from its own angles, launching weapons, evolving radar and most notably IRST/different radar bands. Once that happens the pilot may as well eject because with his few weapons and legacy air-frame characteristics he is not going to survive 4.5+/4.5++ gen attack.

F-35 can get in, destroy a 92N6E “Grave Stone radar or shoot down Su-35 and silently get out, because it is stealthy.


Sorry but is not that easy. First of all, "getting in" is a complicated series of goal posts by itself. I may be tagged by a pop up SAM which will then communicate with others connected to the complex, which leads to a downed fighter. Being low altitude means there are far more SAM's capable of this, and far more likely that the human eye will see it as well. As fighters flying at above 50k-65k or so feet are "above" the cloud layer.

Then we have the "destroy 92N6E" , again, good luck getting out because you have just created a spike in RCS (door opening, weapon drop) and Heat (weapon launch) and the loss of an asset in a connected system. This gives your general location. Further, SU-35? again, unlikely. With AMRAAM (AIM260 not out yet, not sure why its being brought up all the time) your effective range of around 60-80 km with C-7 variant (generous) will bring you dangerously close to potential detection through radar and will certainly give IRST an easy time. Funny thing is, being low altitude is good against IRST, but bad against SAM's, so your in a quandary. Do you want to climb to avoid low altitude SAM's or descend to 20-30k or below where you still may be vulnerable to most medium range SAM's but will be more and more visible to IRST at longer ranges.

There is also the question of "first kill/first shot" this is a common error for stealth claims at least for those using legacy missiles such as AMRAAM. First kill with a single shot, or even a couple is highly unlikely what with jamming, decoys and chaff/flares (as the embarrassing show of the AIM-9X showed, alas....the US military has been hit hard over the past decade, luckily it has chums to help it out). In fact, it is suggested against a 4.5+ gen target to use up to 3/4 in a salvo using legacy weapons, and this is at under 60km. I cannot see the F-35 surviving, even if it managed to unlikely task of shooting down a SU-35.

A Typhoon flying into defended space will be quickly overwhelmed by dozens of SAM and AAM coming from various directions before it has the chance to do anything.


You think so? Well thing is, so will an F-35, hence why, like I keep telling you, you do not send aircraft into high end defended IADS. If the Typhoon pilot is forced onto this sort of mission by you personally (the military would not, nor would it do so to an F-35 pilot) he would enjoy the advantage of higher ceiling, at 60-65k+ feet he will only need to worry about S-400 and Buk mk3 (the Mk3 missile has a little more legs, even at high altitude). But the thing is, he will never have to worry about adversary aircraft, why? because they are all of lesser performance and have yet to equip next generation BVR missiles. Typhoon could loft Meteor (up to 6 if also carrying SPEAR/Brimstone. ) well beyond the effective range of pretty much any adversary aircraft to the point even if detected, it may just create a no fly zone as it moves. Meaning it will only be targeted by S-400+ sams. The F-35 has to worry about everything from medium altitude SAMs, to every potential fighter, including legacy aircraft since it does not outperform them.

How exactly do you know SACM is not high performance? It is likely not long range


Size, you said it yourself. Its range is going to be short. Also;

designed like that because a stealth aircraft can get closer to target before they are detected or attacked.


Sorry but this is never an excuse. Its a media/marketing pitch for a short range missile sure but this is not a reality, just wishful thinking. Yes maybe it can get closer to some legacy systems, but short range also increases your likelihood of detection, why do you think their trying to link F-22 with AIM-120D if 120C was enough range? Range is always preferred so long as you can maintain decent PK at range. Meteor does this thanks to its Ramjet, it can save energy and has a high end/ECM resistant seeker designed for high ECM battle-space. The SACM is touted as a cheap, small missile for filling internal bays. AIM-260 and later LREM (not likely for bays due to its projected size) are a higher end missile made for range/high ECM environments.

That a luxury that a conventional aircraft like Eurofighter simply don't have.


They do not need it because there is no aircraft that will be required to get within 300-500 km of one. No air-force would expect that from its pilots, I doubt even Russia would unless desperate.

F-35 can carry a combination of 4 LREW or AIM-260


Do not bring up the LREW for internal bays, this is not likely to be the case. Given a few years AIM-260 may enter on the F-35, but LREW and what it will transform into is a ways of, from what I personally know, it will be more for a 6th gen fighter, where carriage will not be so cramped, not F-35 unless it gets degraded from a very long range weapon to a shorter ranged one below Meteor. Problem is, Typhoon is already flying with Meteor, which is superior to AIM-260 according to all specs/requirements of that missile and further, AIM-260 is out years after Meteor, a superior missile has been released. Not ideal really if US wants to claim it can be a runner up in air superiority. Like I said before, they should consider buying Meteor.

funded programs and studies looking to put laser weapon on F-35. I can bet there is nothing similar for Rafale or Eurofighter


The F-35 may gain a DE countermeasure from BAE in the not so distant future. Whether Typhoon/Rafale will acquire it is up to the needs of said defense organizations.

kinematic and energy-matter if you can lock target and launch your missile. If you can't, it is irrelevant.


Again, not true. Performance works both ways. Even if we took the fictional idea of an invisible F-35 and allowed it to get into firing it's "first shot", you still have to contend with high end maneuvering, jamming, decoys etc of the target, its possible an F-35 carrying only two AMRAAM (if on your strike mission) or even 4 will have to empty its internal bay just to make sure the target is downed. Further, a faster frame lends energy to the missile, so even the stealthy aircraft, like the F-22 benefit dramatically from higher altitude/speed. The F-22 and F-35 questions of stealth aside would not have the same chance of hitting a target even with the same missile. The F-22 and Typhoon will exceed the PK of a missile launch from a F-35 in most scenarios.

Detection distance and engagement distance of IRST aren't the same. For many IRST system, they can find target from 50-60 km, yet the LRF distance is only 15-20 km, and they have no choice but to get closer. IRST performance is also weather/cloud-dependent, unlike radar.


I thought we would get to some of the old information. The 50-60km range is dated, for legacy IRST. Newer IRST, like PIRATE also have Search and passive track combined and can be slaved to the radar/vice versa if needed. The early pre-upgraded tests some users cite found that PIRATE could detect/track at 100km+, for a subsonic target at 30k feet. Anyone who has made even limited research into how an IRST works and its capabilities will understand that 30k feet is not an ideal altitude for an IRST, nor is subsonic flight, its capability increases dramatically at every 10k feet, and as supersonic is reached. I am not as knowledgeable on newer Russian/Chinese IRST although reports do indicate they are not far behind the west in terms of IRST but because the US has put so many of its eggs into the F-35 basket it has given both of those nations, especially China as it grows into a more modern military a high interest in developing ever more advanced IRST.

You could be looking at an F-35 being detected by future IRST (2020's?) well beyond its effective missile ranges (100-200 km's).

A lower altitude target have less energy but also much harder to detect with IRST thanks to ground clutter


Only at VERY low altitudes. Like below 30k feet. Again your referring to older IRST, mostly those on American aircraft before the F-35, where the US did not rate IRST highly and their development suffered. The new one on F-35 has just as much if not better clarity than most current IRST including eastern designs and may even be able to match PIRATE in some areas ( F-35 has 360 degree coverage thanks to DAS). Software updates since the early 2000's have made systems like PIRATE have little issue differentiating ground clutter, that said, ground clutter has always been the red herring, its not been nearly as much as an issue post later 90's.

Also, if your idea of future Eurofighter being a better fighter than F-35 have to rely on:


It is already better. Future Typhoon will be more effective still thanks to a fighter unique next generation swivel plate AESA. Giving it more of a wide brim searchlight to look for potential threats at long range rather than what most fighters have today, a low angle flashlight.

F-35 doesn't get sidekick launcher


It will but what I am saying is, it is absurd it needs an upgrade to have 6 internal long range missiles. Absolutely ridiculous. Its like if we had a fighter aircraft (fictional analogy) that could not reach Mach 1 without afterburner and then saying, in 4 years maybe we can get an upgrade to reach mach 1, while everyone has Mach 2 capable jets and some cruising at Mach 1.8.

F-35 aren't allowed to use JNAAM or Meteor


Only the small number of carrier born F-35B's in the service with the UK will eventually have access to a Meteor class weapon, in like, a few years. Typhoon flies it now. The US on the other hand may not get a Meteor level missile for another half a decade, assuming the LREW project is not canceled like so many use projects before it.

LREW, AIM-260 doesn't improve kinematic significantly from AIM-120D


LREW is a design concept/will not likely apply to F-35 as I said before. But again, your saying that maybe in a couple of years the US will field the AIM-260, a missile that is inferior to not just the incredible Meteor, but also eastern alternatives (more dangerous). The US seems to still think its military is in the early 2000's while Europe, most notably the UK does not seem to be happy unless it is cutting edge. The US' defense contractors as I said before are ripping it a new one. Lockheed is exceptionally powerful, the AIM-260 would not even exist if they were not. Their basically capable of selling the US a missile that is going to legacy on release compared to a European design. Instead they could have further funded Raythean and fast tracked their design. Its not like they have not been supplying the US with missiles for decades.....



Third stream engine such as X100 doesn't improve IR signature of F-35


Apart from the rear, where such an improvement would have minimal impact the engine and its plume make for a small percentage (under 6%) of what an IRST detects. It relies more on frictional heat from high speed travel through a cold ambient background temperature. Some things on aircraft can never be cool enough to deny IRST, even at long range, aside from frictional heat, unless you want your F-35 to freeze up at altitude you need heating. It cant hug the ground and never detect/see opposing aircraft while being vulnerable to all SAM's (including manpads if low enough) just to avoid IRST :wink:

gta4 wrote:For those who thinks F-35 has moderate kinematic performance


Indeed it does. An F-35 struggles to maintain supersonic for more than short periods of time. The Typhoon can cruise, and can climb to some of the highest altitudes under a spyplane/MiG-35 class of fighter. The F-35's single engine is of no comparison to higher end twin engine fighters such as the F-22/Typhoon etc.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove. Do you think the F-35 matches twin engine fighters such as the F-22, Typhoon, SU-35 etc in kinematic performance? Or do you understand the fact is mostly comparable to legacy air-frames?


optimist wrote:Euromaster, did you miss this?


No it just did not relate to what we were discussing. Most aircraft can drop bombs on SAM's. So long as those SAM's are not long range enough to strike them. That 2012 article has no new insights. If you have a July 2019 article that describes the F-35 potentially bombing a S-400 that may relate more to our current discussion though.
Last edited by euromaster on 12 Aug 2019, 11:51, edited 4 times in total.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 11:02

Euromaster, did you miss this?
The exact mission requirement for the f-35. To go in unassisted and deploy a 2000lb bomb on Sam sites
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ighter.pdf
“But the requirements that we were given to
build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in. In other words,
we had to find the target, ... penetrate
the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the
target, and ... destroy it by ourselves.”
.....The goal is not to simply suppress
enemy air defenses. The goal will be
to destroy them.
“I don’t want to destroy a double-digit SAM for a few hours,” he
said. “What we’d like to do is put a
2,000-pound bomb on the whole complex and never have to deal with that
... SAM for the rest of the conflict.”
At present, that is difficult to do.
Adversaries, O’Bryan pointed out,
recognize that the basic American
AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation
Missile has a light warhead able to do
little more than damage an air defense
array. Thus, they have adapted to the
threat by deploying spare arrays with
their mobile systems
Aussie fanboy
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2845
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 11:48

LOL at F-35 being that slow. Sure when totally clean, then yes Eurofighter is faster and likely flies somewhat higher. Even in air-to-air configurations they are not that far apart as F-35 is still totally clean while EF Typhoon is not. Especially if they carry EFTs. I do agree that EF Typhoon has supercruise capability while F-35 does not have that.

In air-to-ground configurations F-35 is much faster and flies much higher as it's still clean while EF Typhoon has massive drag from external bombs, missiles, EFTs and targeting pod.

If cruise missiles were as good against SAM systems, as euromaster claims here, then there would be no need for anti-radiation missiles or even stand-off jamming systems like Growler.

I also doubt UAV survivability against advanced SAM systems to allow targeting.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 12:03

euromaster wrote:The Tempest is not at all like the F-35, it will also be a high performance fighter to a high spec and 6th gen. Hence why it is replacing another high performance fighter while the F-35's the UK already has is a supportive aircraft as it should be.


Really??
And how do you know that? :roll:

Do you know what will be the Tempest performance such as on acceleration, agility and speed parameters?

These are all rhetorical questions because the answer is clear: You (and anyone else, BTW) don't know!
You don't even know what will be the Tempest top speed, for instance.

The only thing that exists regarding the Tempest is an intention to develop a 5th gen (yes, this will be a 5th gen) fighter aircraft and about it only a single static mock of what the real should apparently look like exists and all of this in the event/case of it actually ever gets build.

It's funny that earlier you stated that the F-35 being a 5th gen fighter aircraft is all "marketing" but what to say about a "6th gen" fighter aircraft??
It's also funny to see other companies which are in fact trying to beat down the F-35 but since they so far haven't been successful at this then all they can do is to perform actual marketing stunts (something that these other companies accuse LM of :roll: ) such as coming up with a "6th gen" which is actually a "5th gen"...
And with all these facts at hand you still claim that the F-35 is an "inferior aircraft", even getting to the ridiculous claim of it being inferior to the Typhoon :doh:

Bottom line and a hint for you: All these companies are trying to beat (or at least build something comparable to) the F-35 and NOT the Typhoon or any other 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft!


euromaster wrote:I said the time between intel and que of a cruise missile is not nearly long enough for an S-400 scale complex to all suddenly move.


Oh, yes it can!

Even this monster of a radar/system, the Nebo-M:

Image

Can be deployed in 15 minutes and be un-deployed in the same 15 minutes and move/drive away to another location:

Image


Now imagine the more mobile and compact components of a S-400 system, such as Radars, Launchers and Command Centers!

As per the rest of your post, I didn't even bother reading it.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 12:22

hornetfinn wrote:I also doubt UAV survivability against advanced SAM systems to allow targeting.


DITTO!

It's funny to see/read people mentioning that UAVs will be used as the "definitive" targeting platform against Air-Defense systems but they forget that UAVs are far more vulnerable to these same Air-Defense systems compared to STEALTH manned aircraft (such as the F-35).
For instance UAVs heavily reply on communication with the outside, comms which can be jammed thus limiting or even denying the ability for the UAV or UAVs to complete the task as hand.
Moreover in order for the UAVs to be cheap or cheaper than manned aircraft (otherwise they usefulness would be limited at best) they can't have the same in-build stealth features (such as advanced RAM coatings) and they won't have defensive electronic warfare equipment or at least not nearly as advanced as those found on manned aircraft which again means that UAVs will be far more vulnerable to those same air defense systems which they were supposed to help to defeat.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 12:42

optimist wrote:Yet that is the exact mission requirement for the f-35. To go in unassisted and deploy a 2000lb bomb on Sam sites
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ighter.pdf

Yes, I am aware of this. But on the one hand, such requirements were set in the 90's and the AD technology has advanced quite a bit since then, and on the other, as I wrote, the kind of theater in which you plan to operate is key. An isolated and outdated SAM site in some 3rd world country is not the same as Russian airspace protected by early warning, OTH, PCL, EW, interceptors etc. etc. They can know when a fighter is heading down the runway in Germany, so your stealth is not going to have the same surprise effect as against a primitive AD, I hope we all understand that you cannot tackle those two completely different kinds of missions just by relying on unsupported F-35s. In the first scenario they can fulfil the mission (not a given), in the second they are going to be shot down almost certainly.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 13:43

The old, yes, but that article wasn't this year. argument, So the required CONOPS have been thrown out and it's not even block 4 yet. You win, mighty eurocanards rule the sky, I'm done with this.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 16:30

southerncross wrote:Yes, I am aware of this. But on the one hand, such requirements were set in the 90's and the AD technology has advanced quite a bit since then,


If you want to believe in BS such as the F-35 was designed having 90's requirement solely in mind and being only designed to shield/hide from systems that existed in the 90's (and not current and above all FUTURE systems) then I have some bridges to sell you or you might as well believe in Santa and his Leprechauns :roll:


southerncross wrote:and on the other, as I wrote, the kind of theater in which you plan to operate is key. An isolated and outdated SAM site in some 3rd world country is not the same as Russian airspace protected by early warning, OTH, PCL, EW, interceptors etc. etc.


Hence why STEALTH is VITAL for the SURVIVABILITY of future aircraft in future conflicts, NO??
The only way a combat aircraft will be able to survive in such integrated air defense system/grid is if it can hide from that same system/grid. As such I have a news flash for you: The only way to achieve this with STEALTH!
Second flash news: 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft like the Typhoon, Su-35, whatever... won't be able to hide from such integrated air defense systems and as such to survive in such environment! Unless there are F-35's (in the case of NATO/Allied aircraft) around to save their sorry a$$'s.

Whether or not you believe it (and it really doesn't matter in what you believe or not), the fact is that STEALTH is here to stay and just revolutionized aerial warfare just like jet engines and guided missiles/ordinance did before it (stealth).
Everyone else is just trying to catch up with the F-35 and namely with one of its most important features which is Stealth and Internal Weapons carriage. Examples of this:
- Russia with Su-57, China with J-20 and J-31, France/Germany with FCAS, UK/Sweden with Tempest and so on...
All of the examples above are designed to have STEALTH in MIND! (as well as Internal Weapon carriage which of course is vital for Stealth!)

What's curious if not outright pathetic is that the only reason why there's these discussions about questioning the role and importance of Stealth in future aerial combat is that NO other nation has managed to reach and develop aircraft with the same or similar level of Stealth as the US did (with their F-35, F-22, B-2 and F-117)!
In the end putting into question the role of Stealth nowadays would be akin to putting into question the role of the Jet Engine in the late 1940's but "feel free" to continue with your "theories"...

Finally, I echo optimist words: I'm also done "preaching" to a few poping up "new members" (many/most of whom have Troll like behavior) just like playing a Wack-a-Mole game and repeating the same facts over and over again and as such, I'm also done with this! :roll:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests