Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

bigbird2 wrote:

here is a quickie scenario.

Suppose a F-35 take off from an airstrip outside Seoul. You don't know when, but can guess within 10-20 hrs range. So put an observer to further pint point. Bring it up within minutes. Have early warning radar turned on within second an F-35 hit a taxi way. long range SAM ready to fire.

Here's a quickie scenario

Suppose a [insert name of any other fighter aircraft here] take off from an airstrip outside Seoul. You don't know when, but can guess within 10-20 hrs range. So put an observer to further pint point. Bring it up within minutes. Have early warning radar turned on within second an [insert name of any other fighter aircraft here] hit a taxi way. long range SAM ready to fire.

See what i did there?

bigbird2 wrote:

Now suppose you have that landing gear of yours dangling 15-20 second after take off. A full load slow fighter that really isn't high G climber? That got to worth another 5-10 seconds.

As would be the case with pretty much every fighter, fully loaded and fuelled for your hypothetical scenario. So what's your point?

bigbird2 wrote:

Do you think an Awacs flying 200 miles away won't see such shiny object for 20-30 seconds?

Shiny object? Confused

Are they implemeting some chrome/polished paint scheme for F-35's now? First i've heard of it..... Rolling Eyes

F-16.net Sponsor

extended and unloaded, a landing gear piston is about one feet long of pure shine. You have 3 of them. They are practically an antenna network.

At any rate, cover it up with anti radiation fabric and have pilots follow strict landing gear deployment proceedure at the cost of safety margin.

But that still doesn't answer F-35 performance at low and slow then quickly regain dogfight posture. How fast can a plane gain altitude and acceleration inside anti missile bubble, etc. Clearly a heavy fighter with high thrust to weight ratio have huge advantage. Would one want to be in a T-50 flying ultra low and slow hiding in urban clutter from missile detector or in F-35? thrust vectoring is designed for this acrobatic move.

Wow...at first I thought he was trying to egg everyone on...but after his response to Pecker's post I'm convinced he really doesn't get it.

Your quickie scenario is implausible for several reasons:

1. NK has squat for fighters, bombers, IADS, or AWACS.
2. China will likely not (and Russia will certainly not) come to NK's aid if it (NK) starts a shooting war.
3. Try doing research as it will help you understand how pitiful the NK's SAM system really is, especially to a 5th gen asset.
4. Even assuming that an AWACS would see a Seoul-based F-35 at launch, it's gear will be up within seconds thereby denying the SAM with launch coordinates. That AWACS will then be the first aircraft shot down soon thereafter.
5. Most of SK's airbases are well south of Seoul.

While I rarely agree with Spud on anything here, I'll concure on some points that in NK's mid-term long-range IADS is not likely to be an issue of extreme calculations, as much as their artillery and TBMs are. Moreover, it is not likely or credible... as Spud mentioned... if any such possibly implied threats of Kremlin 'kinda-sorta-if-one-reads-it-that-way' proliferating future S-400 type systems -- if SK doesn't select the Pak-fa -- is being intended. If the case, then that would only ring some alarm bells and indicate inability to trust Kremlin's stance so much so in greater geo-strategic game.. So one shouldn't see that particular angle of future threats to SK, imho, a country which is one of the strongest multi-polar and legitimate independent powers (forever divided peninsula, or eventually unified) going forward.

I will concur with bigbird however that in a small air-space scenario and given an immdiate defensive counter-air capability e.g., putting the pliot into the most rapid/advantageous dogfighting (or missile evading) position (e.g., +/- 100nm from base)), a superior performance airframe would probably be more effective in that role.

Perhaps unique for Korean peninsula in this case, the most valuable F-35 type would be the STOVL operating from remote roadways and special short tactical runways in time of crisis. That would arguably equate to a higher deterrent imho. Not saying I would promote the F-35 aquisition as a valid program, but just giving that perspective.

Lastly, as broader strategic sovereignty proposal for SK, one might once again contemplate perhaps 3-4x 'large' air survey, early warning and defense oriented Air-ships. The ability would increase long range rocket and artillery launch intel, pinpointing positions which could supplement 'awareness' especially in case 'other platforms' become unavailable during crisis. Beyond the valuable real-time info, a further defensive capacity could envision EASM/SM-6 placements being a vital first response? Off topic to the initial thread but relevant to the expanded discussion I guess.

Respects-

bigbird2 wrote:

here is a quickie scenario.....

Yes brilliant - so according to you anything that takes off will be shot down soon after takeoff by long range SAMs............
Doh

Last edited by flighthawk on Jul 31, 2011 - 05:03 PM; edited 2 times in total

geogen wrote:

e.g., putting the pliot into the most rapid/advantageous dogfighting (or missile evading) position (e.g., +/- 100nm from base)), a superior performance airframe would probably be more effective in that role.

Good luck with that then - your best bet would be to detect the missile and deploy countermeasures.
At the actual speeds required to (stand any chance of avoiding) avoid missiles in higher energy states, the F-35A is getting reviews of EM performance on par with other world class jets such as the FA-18 - and might actually be superior to many other platforms - something else that people don't realise.

bigbird2 wrote:

extended and unloaded, a landing gear piston is about one feet long of pure shine. You have 3 of them. They are practically an antenna network.

Umm, one little issue with your little scenario. ROK's current F-4, F-5, F-16 and F-15 (and soon to be F-35) FW's are based at airbases which are a) back from the border (eg. Cheongju) and b) snugly nestled in behind mountain ranges 1800+ft high.

Putting all your fighters in Seol would be, well.... kinda silly?

Also, IMO, in the Korean scenario where each side's airfields are well within range of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or artillery and unlikely to last the first few hours, the F-35B would be the best contender for this role. Just enough range for the job, and immune to losing an airfield.

Bigbird2 indeed.......big for a bird brain! Very Happy

I think Spuddies' latest reply shot down your frankly ridiculous ideas.....crash and burn buddy. In your fantastical scenario, a b....y PAK FA will not do any better than an F35 against your super magical Xray eyes long range SAM (as far as I know they do not exist!), better kinematic performance or not. And you are suggesting F 15s, with their relatively large RCS!!! Under your scenario, they will be blown up by your Sooper SAM as soon as they leave their hangars Shocked

!!!

Another thing, an F 35 carries quite a lot of fuel internally.....enough to a terrain following flight through SK and perform useful combat over NK, be it A-A against a Flanker (must be some non existent plane of the NKAF) or A-G.

A F 35 may not the most optimum performer kinematically in the A-A role of a KFX III fighter but you are just ridiculous. I guess what they say is true...a troll can be spotted a mile away! Pity that forums on F 16.net are pulled down to such level.

Bigbirdbrain2, if you did not understand the points in my post above, don't worry.....it was my expectation.

And why do you think they won't let Turkey have S-300 system? And everybody who has no business suddenly went banana.

Because as a system it renders Israel entire air force useless, including F-35. No more bombing Iran via northern route, no more bombing Syria, etc. Israel entire northern airspace front is now closed.

Google Turkey, NATO and S-300. Too lazy to post.

geogen wrote:

Perhaps unique for Korean peninsula in this case, the most valuable F-35 type would be the STOVL operating from remote roadways and special short tactical runways in time of crisis. That would arguably equate to a higher deterrent imho. Not saying I would promote the F-35 aquisition as a valid program, but just giving that perspective.

I think F-35B is over. The notion that marine can create a safe austere base is dubious. They gonna have "taliban with stinger" problem . It is cheaper to create networked manpad and stake all the good landing site, than trying to actually operate F-35B in real world condition.

A system with 5-10 manpad covering 20-30 square miles probably will cost around $100K (missile not included)

with this, an operational commander has to find location so remote and hard to attack, he won't be able to supply his F-35 effectively. Which sort of defeat the point having STOVL if one has to create a fully secure base + air supply line. F-35B then becomes a burden. It's in itself become front line objective, part of the problem.

[[[ Lastly, as broader strategic sovereignty proposal for SK, one might once again contemplate perhaps 3-4x 'large' air survey, early warning and defense oriented Air-ships. The ability would increase long range rocket and artillery launch intel, pinpointing positions which could supplement 'awareness' especially in case 'other platforms' become unavailable during crisis. Beyond the valuable real-time info, a further defensive capacity could envision EASM/SM-6 placements being a vital first response? ]]]

It's difficult to say, since the geography is so tight and everybody has their finger on the trigger. It's a complete noodle. Do you know Almaz design Koreas M-SAM Cheolmae-2 multi band radar? lol... Russia is the one ready to work with South Korea to develop medium range missiles. US is the one not allowing SK. (sort of pissing off the Korean to no end. I wonder how long this will last.)

I think as usual it's more of the same, sort of managed cold war, where each side try to create new equilibrium and a situation where actual hot war is unthinkable and too expensive.

Good thing S-400 and F-35 are so stupendously expensive and unaffordable. Price is the only thing that keep both side going full retard.

bigbird2 wrote:

here is a quickie scenario.

Suppose a F-35 take off from an airstrip outside Seoul. You don't know when, but can guess within 10-20 hrs range. So put an observer to further pint point. Bring it up within minutes. Have early warning radar turned on within second an F-35 hit a taxi way. long range SAM ready to fire.

Now suppose you have that landing gear of yours dangling 15-20 second after take off. A full load slow fighter that really isn't high G climber? That got to worth another 5-10 seconds.

Do you think an Awacs flying 200 miles away won't see such shiny object for 20-30 seconds? What about a UAV or a off coast ship.

In the mean time, a surface to air missile is already half way guided by the awacs and already within its Infra rage sensor.. (the northern border is within artillery range btw. and the west sea are open dispute)

what you gonna do? start covering a huge main airbase with decoys during massive high take off rate? or fly everything from southern most air strip? ... It's even worst. flat land and russian navy. there goes element of surprise eh?

You can try flying terrain hugging mode from the south , but you won't have meaningful fuel left by the time you reach combat zone. ... toast either way facing a flanker at optimum load. F-35 doesnt' pass the giggle test in reasonable korea air war situation. I'll take remote controlled mig-15 + better cannon and I will still win the war against F-35.

I have to watch my muppet show now, so much more challenging than this argument. k'thanxbye.

There are no SAMs that can engage an F-35 that's taking off, unless you can somehow get a MANPADS near the end of the runway. You need to learn a little bit about how SAMs work, and what they're capable of, before posting. It doesn't matter if the landing gear is down 20 seconds or not, but that won't be the case in any event. Once the gear is up, the F-35 would have to fly within ~20nm of the launcher, for it(the SAM) to be a threat. The Russian navy isn't going to be involved, nor will the Chinese, so you can forget that scenario. They have no strategic interest in S. Korea, and certainly have no interest in getting involved in a major war, to help N. Korea.
You're woefully misinformed about the performance of the F-35.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

Quote:

With a full internal load of fuel and weapons, the F-35 is as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no weapons.

Now add a VLO signature, AESA/EOTS/EODAS, significant ESM capabilities much akin to the F-22's, electronic attack, DIRCM, etc...spherical engagement capabilities(if you're not sure what that means- picture a sphere around the F-35. If the F-35 can see you, he can shoot at you whether you're in front, behind, below, to the side, etc... This means that the F-35 isn't dependant on getting its nose pointed at a foe(which by the way doesn't have this capability)).

wrightwing wrote:

There are no SAMs that can engage an F-35 that's taking off,

And there is no mid range ballistic missile that can engage aircraft carrier. Or things like KN-06, small land base MIRV launcher, or long range air breathing missile.

what's your point?

I guess one point could be that this discussion could 'ease off' a bit on the gas pedal when comparing various technical viewpoints?? lol. (with the exception of Shep perhaps, haha, he's ok and can unload on me whenever he feels).

But anyway... sure, there could always be hypothetical threats to any Pak-fa, F-16XL, Su-35S, J-20, J-15, Gripen NG, F-15SE, EF, Rafale (why wasn't Rafale program included in this list btw?), F-22 and F-35 taking off. Oh yeah, I forgot - add a remote-controlled Mig-15 in that list too Smile

bigbird2 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

There are no SAMs that can engage an F-35 that's taking off,

And there is no mid range ballistic missile that can engage aircraft carrier. Or things like KN-06, small land base MIRV launcher, or long range air breathing missile.

what's your point?

My point is that there are no SAMs based in N. Korea that are a threat to an F-35, that is taking off, nor will an F-35 be tracked by N.Korean radars, from the moment it takes off. Additionally, there's no aircraft current fielded by the N. Korean air force, that will be able to challenge an F-35. The F-35 will enjoy first look/first shoot/contempt of engagement, against anything the N. Koreans send up.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35 & T-50 PAK-FA Compete S. Korea + F-15E + Typhoon