Forum: General F-35 Forum

underhill wrote:

Body lift = lots of drag. As TTS remarked, F-22 gets away with it with power (although I suspect the aero might be better) and the Russians (MiG-29 and Su family) have a thin-section blended wing with Concorde-like leading edge on the inner section.

The philosophy is different too. In air-to-air, the external fuel is there to get you to the fight, not through it, and the drag of external weapons is relatively low, even if pylon-mounted. In air-to-ground, the idea is to size your engine to give you high subsonic speed on intermediate power, even dirtied up on ingress (which was why F100/110 developments made the difference between F-16 B40s and B50s), as well as decent climb and initial cruise altitude (good for range). No, it's not ideal but for a fighter that does lots of things it is a good compromise.

Lamoey - I take it that your Marine had never been anywhere near an F/A-18E/F CAS or FAC-A operation.

Well said, Underhill. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way on Falcon 6.0, so Wright et al aren't going to believe you. I guess the product brochure has become the real test of a jets capabilities.

F-16.net Sponsor

cola wrote:

Immaterial. The important thing is that the program is initialized AFTER JSF program reassessment and with a good reason.

It wasn't the JSF program reassessment that led to the Golden Eagle plan. It was the fact that the F-22 production line was being closed at 187.

Quote:

Ww, where do you get your military knowledge from? Video games?
Fortunately, there are numerous officers in US military that daily take care of all these things, you take for granted.

I take nothing for granted. You however can't answer simple questions- on a systems level, which air force can go toe to toe with the USAF/USN? No other air force has the support assets, the NCW capability, or the numbers of tactical aircraft, that the US has. No non-NATO(except Israel) air force trains to the standards of realism, or has the same amount of flight hours/pilot. By any metric that you wish to compare capabilities, other forces are going to pale in comparison.

Quote:

Ww, if one side is willing to pay the prize, then what is it that your baby-video-game's strategy offers, as a solution?
We all heard OberKommandoWehrmacht predicting a victory over the Soviet Union in 6 weeks.
We all saw how that ended.

To quote Patton, the object of war isn't to die for your country, but to make the other SOB die for his. Willingness to pay the price, has to be tied to a force structure that can maintain high attrition rates, over a prolonged period.

Quote:

But I answered the question...how would MN's Rafales drop laser bombs, if there was no SuperEtendards to light the targets, in Afghanistan?

Of course were the funding there, they'd all be able to self designate, like all F-16s and F-18s, much less F-35s.

wrightwing wrote:

twintwinsingle wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

I think what everybody keeps forgetting when looking at the F-35 is that it has been optimized using advanced computational fluid dynamics. So its lift to drag ratio is going to be far superior to the F-16 and F-18 especially when it is carrying weapons internally. So in ACM it's going to make mincemeat out of aerodynamically dirty F-16's and F-18's. Also the test pilots let slip that the F-18's and F-16's have to go full afterburner to keep up with the F-35 at full military power so we know at least the F-35 is a slippery airplane. Whistle

Alloy, I'd bet the F-35 can really get moving, compared with a Viper or Hornet. It has more drag, to be sure, but not so much more as to negate a 25%+ increase in thrust! The F-135 motor in Mil power has (roughly) the thrust of a -220 in MAX AB. I'd be very surprised if the -16 and -18 guys weren't having to stroke AB to keep up with the -35. That, however, doesn't say much (or anything) about how the jet turns. The F-105 could go like a raped ape in a straight line, pretty much nothing could hang with it (especially on the deck). Same goes for the F-111, Tornado, MiG-23, SU-24...all of these jets can flat out run. Just don't ask any of them to turn. The F-35 may be able to turn pretty well, I don't know. The F-35A hasn't been taken to 9G yet, to my knowledge, so we'll have to wait and see. But, unless it is really, using some unprecedented, ground-breaking technology with the wing (and, hey, maybe it is), I think that heavy jet with a fairly small wing is going to bleed energy very quickly. Computational fluid dynamics can't change physics, or aerodynamic theory and especially not aerodynamic reality.

All 3 models according to LM, will be superior to F-16/F-18s in ITR/STR and in acceleration. The F-35 with full internal weapons load, is supposed to handle better than clean legacy jets.

I love the "according to LM part of that, Wright. Awesome. You really think that a loaded F-35 (50+K weight and 43K thrust) is going to handle better than a 25K weight, 30Kthrustclean F-16? Really? That doesn't pass the common sense test, Bro. Wright, I'm not knocking you and I'm not trying to be ugly, but the 3K fuel dump in 6 sec comment and this last comment about a loaded F-35 out-turning a clean Viper tells me you can't apply common sense to what you hear. You clearly don't know what jets can and cannot be expected to do. You need to be able to look at performance claims and say to yourself,"does that sound reasonable?". I don't think you can do that. Therefore, how can you expect to champion the F-35 when you can't distinguish truth from fiction? Do some more reading on current capes and that will help you understand future capes a bit better. Respectfully.

wrightwing wrote:

There are other factors that could result in a miss, as well as countermeasures. The weapon might have been fired outside of its WEZ/NEZ, it might have malfunctioned/not been armed properly, failed to ignite. The issues with Pk of modern missiles, is that we're only given raw figures(i.e. this many missiles were fired at X number of enemy jets). That doesn't tell the whole story, since we don't have the data showing how many of the missiles passed within lethal range. In other words, if you fire 2 missiles at an enemy, and both are within lethal range, that still works out to a .5 Pk, but is it really an accurate assessment of the missile's effectiveness?

.

Wright, Pk is a single missile probability of kill. That takes into account all factors. Load crew mistakes, missile build mistakes, motor that doesn't fire, hung weapon, no fuze, full-up miss, etc. Why? Because these are all things you must deal with in combat. Pk gives you a rule of thumb for hom many missiles it should take to kill a target, not accounting for bandit kinematic defeat of your missile. So, I do think it's an accurate assessment of missile capes.

wrightwing wrote:

twintwinsingle wrote:

Alloy, if they employ several miles away from each other, the likelihood of ending up in a 1 v 1 is increased. If a bandit gets into WVR, chances are it's only with one of them. In 4th gen tactics, flying the standard visual formations ensures that if one guy mrges with the bandit, the other guy is no more than a couple of miles away. There's a brief 1 v 1, but in just a few seconds, your buddy can bring weapons to bear. If the other guy is way out there, you have to fend for yourself for significantly longer until your buddy (or his missile) shows up. But, lobbing a missile from miles away into your friends general location is usually a bad idea.

Of course this will also ensure that it's far more difficult for a foe to know where your buddy is, so he'll have to deal with you, while worrying about the wingman.
Or the wingman can designate for your missiles, while you bug out, etc... with third party targeting.

Wright, I can tell you that once you merge with a jet like a Flanker, there is no "bug out" option. He can stay with you and his missiles can get you. Bottom line is, if you merge, YOU need to be able to beat the other guy. I think if a lot of things end up working, The F-35 will be good to go. I think a few (not a lot) of the tech items failing will put the guy in a world of hurt. Not to mention, what if the 120D, or helmet or 9xB2 need some development to improve their capes (almost always necessary)? Then you may not even have the advertised capability going out the door to a code 1 jet. I'm just playing devils advocate here, but it's all stuff that is still a factor today.

alloycowboy wrote:

So who wants to break the news to "Cola" that France is planning to retire its Mirage 2000's and Super Etendards by 2015 and rely soley on Dassult Rafales. I guess that pretty much shaters his assertion that an airforce needs more then one type of jet fighter. You just got to live it when a troll goes down in flames by his own examples!

France plans to replace M2000s and SEs, with Neurons (or similar types of UCAVs).
How does that leave AdlA on a sole model?

twintwinsingle wrote:

Wright, Pk is a single missile probability of kill. That takes into account all factors. Load crew mistakes, missile build mistakes, motor that doesn't fire, hung weapon, no fuze, full-up miss, etc. Why? Because these are all things you must deal with in combat. Pk gives you a rule of thumb for hom many missiles it should take to kill a target, not accounting for bandit kinematic defeat of your missile. So, I do think it's an accurate assessment of missile capes.

We still don't know how many of the missiles that were fired came within lethal range though, which is my point. If 2 missiles were fired, and either would've killed the target, that doesn't mean that the Pk is only 50%. We also don't know the circumstances for the firing of each missile(i.e. were missiles knowingly fired outside of their WEZ, to mission kill/put on defensive a foe, in order to set up a kill shot?)

wrightwing wrote:

on a systems level, which air force can go toe to toe with the USAF/USN?

None, but that's beside the point.
US has larger mil. budged than the rest of the world combined.
You think the US can take on, the rest of the world? Very Happy

Quote:

Willingness to pay the price, has to be tied to a force structure that can maintain high attrition rates, over a prolonged period.

Soviets pulled it off, Chinese in Korea pulled it off (and only McArthur's threat of nuking the China stopped them), Chinese again pulled it off in Vietnam and let's not get into the situation in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan.

twintwinsingle wrote:

Wright, I can tell you that once you merge with a jet like a Flanker, there is no "bug out" option. He can stay with you and his missiles can get you. Bottom line is, if you merge, YOU need to be able to beat the other guy. I think if a lot of things end up working, The F-35 will be good to go. I think a few (not a lot) of the tech items failing will put the guy in a world of hurt. Not to mention, what if the 120D, or helmet or 9xB2 need some development to improve their capes (almost always necessary)? Then you may not even have the advertised capability going out the door to a code 1 jet. I'm just playing devils advocate here, but it's all stuff that is still a factor today.

That Flanker pilot is still gonna have to worry about stealthy wingmen, and the fact that his weapons/sensors will have more difficulty acquiring/maintaining lock, than will the F-35's. Obviously there's always the fog of war, but an aircraft with a conventional RCS is going to have a lot of disadvantages. The Flanker's only hope is in the raw performance, and depending on its fuel state, may not be able to maintain.

cola wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

on a systems level, which air force can go toe to toe with the USAF/USN?

None, but that's beside the point.
US has larger mil. budged than the rest of the world combined.
You think the US can take on, the rest of the world? Very Happy

In which scenario, do you envision the US taking on the entire world?

Quote:

Soviets pulled it off,

They would've had a hard time pulling it off, had the Germans not had multiple fronts.

Quote:

Chinese in Korea pulled it off (and only McArthur's threat of nuking the China stopped them), Chinese again pulled it off in Vietnam and let's not get into the situation in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan.

You're speaking of political issues, not military ones. The US military's ability to maintain its losses, is based upon political willingness vs. force structure. With regard to Vietnam, had the gloves been taken off, the outcome would've been much different. The N. Vietnamese ability to continue fighting would've been significantly different, had airfields, protective dykes around rice paddies, and other significant strategic targets been on the table. Iraq has a democratically elected government, and far better security than at any time since Saddam was taken out. Ultimately, Afghanistan will need a political/social victory, as a pure military victory isn't going to change the attitudes necessary for meaningful change.

Wright, I can't speak for every type of missile assessment, but in the one's I'm familiar with, if 2x missiles pass within lethal radius and function (fuze) properly, they are both considered successful shots (i.e. a 1.0). A shot outside of the missiles effective range(outside the computed WEZ) is not counted against the missile, since the missile (in theory) could not have completed the intercept even if it functioned perfectly. Again, I haven't seen every type of assessment, but the one's I have seen seem to be pretty accurate and honest looks at the realistic chances of dropping a guy with a given missile.

For LO considerations in A-A, I'm with you wright. However, the assumption is that if you merge, the Flanker see's you. The Raptor, F-35, F-117 aren't INVISIBLE, they are hard to detect on radar. If you merge, the flanker can see you and can fight you visually.

wrightwing wrote:

In which scenario, do you envision the US taking on the entire world?

Ww, you can't compare US against Iraq (or France for that matter), due vast discrepancy in finances and population, can you?
I'm pretty sure the US aspire to a larger ability to project its power then busting an Iraq-size country, at least according to its budget.

Quote:

They would've had a hard time pulling it off, had the Germans not had multiple fronts.

BUT they did and would have, anyway.
Stalin reduced Soviet pop. several times over to what they lost in WW2 and still had soldiers to spare.

Quote:

You're speaking of political issues, not military ones.

Political issues, you say?
So, the American guns overheating and busting in Korea, due the amount of killed Chinese is a political matter? (McArthur was a gentleman, not a butcher)
Carpet bombing in Vietnam with combat reagens' was also a political matter? (Did you know that it took ~50,000 small-arms rounds to kill a single NV soldier?)
As for Iraq, WITH MY OUTMOST PIETY AND RESPECT for US troops there, Juba is a political issue, too?

twintwinsingle wrote:

This argument about the F-35 being a superior CAS platform is pointless. I've flown "old school" CAS with the Mark-1 eyeball as well as "modern" CAS with TGP's, JDAM, IDM, data-link and I can tell you that the tech doesn't change CAS that much. More often than not, you're trying to find one guy or one small unit on the battlefield. Sensors don't help much with that. I still need to tell a sensor where to look, even if it's an 64" display. Sensors, even the F-35 sensors, don't have an easy button that finds your guy. You need to tell them what to do. Contrary to poular belief, the "sensor sponge" is useful in SEAD, A-A but useless in CAS. Why? Because a toyota truck is't emitting much, other than cigarette smoke. Nothing to sponge. .

haha well thats actually one thing you CAN conclude from simulators such as Falcon 4.

twintwinsingle wrote:

For LO considerations in A-A, I'm with you wright. However, the assumption is that if you merge, the Flanker see's you. The Raptor, F-35, F-117 aren't INVISIBLE, they are hard to detect on radar. If you merge, the flanker can see you and can fight you visually.

This has been concluded on quite a few threads over the years - Merging is the last thing an F-35 wants to do against a Flanker with any kind of HMS system and HOBS missiles - so it relies on Stealth and stand off Technology working.

Lets hope you get a bit more faith in modern technology especially if you will be flying one in the near future Very Happy

In the context of CAS, isn't Blue Force Tracker intended to provide the precise GPS locations of friendlies and bad guys for more effective targeting? I think the pace and complexity of modern warfare has long passed the stage where the unaided eye can cope effectively.. mother nature needs all the help it can get lifting the fog of war on today's battlefield.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Lightning II Documentary (Criticisms)