Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

What's so great about the F-18 core that you would want to build a new fighter around it? For an,aircraft that is expected to arrive in,2030, to use core technology tracing it's roots,back to the disco era is hard to fathom.

F-16.net Sponsor

arkadyrenko wrote:

I think this discussion is getting hung up on a "6th gen fighter." There is no reason why the F/A-XX absolutely has to be a 6th gen fighter. If Boeing offered a radically redesigned and long range F/A-XX aircraft, based off the F/A-18 core, for deployment in 10 - 15 years, I think the fact that it's not 6th gen can be over looked. But, that will depend entirely on if a Boeing design can offer acceptable performance.

Furthermore, basing it off an existing design as much as possible will allow them to develop and produce the fighter far easier than a "clean sheet" design.

What will be a key sign is Lockheed leaking a plan for an extended range JSF. I'm surprised they haven't shown some cool pictures of a JSF delta wing or something.

Radically redesigning something sounds like a clean sheet to me. When you compare the F-15 and F-22 one might say that the F-22 could've been VLO optimized evolution of the F-22 when in fact they're totally different designs. When it comes to flight performance and multirole capability the F-18 is top notch and I believe that would be a good baseline for the F/A-XX capability-wise. I'd rather see Boeing base something off the YF-23 than anything else. However, since Boeing is involved with the F-22, maybe it can start there.

Why not just take the original F-22 and base their new fighter on that? Given as they originally intended to make a naval version of the Raptor, why not just do that now? While they're at it, they could even make corrections to make the Raptor a better multi-role fighter with updated technologies and stealth.

This obviously won't happen, though it would be a nicer pipe dream than some newer and better generation 6 fighter based off the F-18.

popcorn - the plan I guessed at only makes sense if Boeing can deliver a plane relatively quickly. Given that I can't find a good source for that original suggest, I don't think its going to happen. Which is Boeing's loss, really. The Navy has no one to blame but itself.

When did it become mandatory to jump generations for each subsequent fighter? That's something which I want to know.

Anyhow, given current trends, the US is going to a sole source fighter producer in 10 years. And the USAF / USN have mortgaged their entire future on a single airframe. I hope Lockheed's / the USAF future air combat simulations are accurate, because if they're not, well, the USAF / USN are in for a world of hurt.

arkadyrenko wrote:

popcorn - the plan I guessed at only makes sense if Boeing can deliver a plane relatively quickly. Given that I can't find a good source for that original suggest, I don't think its going to happen. Which is Boeing's loss, really. The Navy has no one to blame but itself.

When did it become mandatory to jump generations for each subsequent fighter? That's something which I want to know.

Anyhow, given current trends, the US is going to a sole source fighter producer in 10 years. And the USAF / USN have mortgaged their entire future on a single airframe. I hope Lockheed's / the USAF future air combat simulations are accurate, because if they're not, well, the USAF / USN are in for a world of hurt.

There's no official definition of what,constitutes,a "generation", the basis for justifying a new platform,would have to be the value-add it will bring over the current design. You have to push the envelope otherwise you may just as,well stick with what you already have and just go thru with a program of block upgrades/tech refreshes. The problem with this approach is eventually you hit the wall n terms of inherent constraints where it may no longer be practical or feasible to,achieve a desired capability level and you risk being leapfrogged by someone with a more,daring vision.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

They really should have given the F-22 the greater technological edge than the F-35 for the purpose being that it's the specialized and expensive fighter that you're not going to go bombing third world countries with. When you add mission capability and survivability into a fighter, you'd better ***** well be fighting a first-world air force. Anything less than that and you're diminishing what your air force can do.

To put this into perspective, if you're confronting a dozen Cold War-era Mig-29's, you're better off having six modern F-16's than two F-35's. The only times in which you're better off having fewer more advanced fighters is if the technological advantages outweigh strength in numbers.

The 2 F-35s should be comparably as effective, as the 6 F-16s. The only advantage would be that the F-16s could ripple fire missiles. The question is whether or not that would be more effective than the element of surprise.

wrightwing wrote:

The 2 F-35s should be comparably as effective, as the 6 F-16s. The only advantage would be that the F-16s could ripple fire missiles. The question is whether or not that would be more effective than the element of surprise.

Two F-35's can't be in six places at once. They are NOT comparably as effective. If your combat effectiveness doesn't depend on stealth, then having fewer F-35's becomes a disadvantage... because each fighter is more expensive to operate and maintain.

The ONLY situations in which F-35's are a better choice than an older generation fighter is if you're confronting a technologically superior foe. If you're not confronting many of them, then the F-35's expensive survival features become a liability.

Have you never wondered why the US has kept its antiquated fleet of B-52's when it's got the B-1b and B-2 at its disposal? It's because the B-52 fleet is cheaper to operate and have a higher reliability than the other options. And because most operations don't require the survival features of the B-1b and B-2, these bombers become too expensive to operate. The same thing applies to the F-35.

You're missing the point.

To get the F-16 to any appreciable range while carrying bombs, you have to have wingtanks, which means less external stores. With tanks, the F-16 can only carry 2x2000 lb JDAMS while F-35 can carry 6 (hows that for 3:1). Here we are talking about no SAM/AAA threat.

There is also the issue of better SA with the F-35 (in any environment).

SpudmanWP wrote:

To get the F-16 to any appreciable range while carrying bombs, you have to have wingtanks, which means less external stores. With tanks, the F-16 can only carry 2x2000 lb JDAMS while F-35 can carry 6 (hows that for 3:1).

Try 4, not six. The F-35 isn't exempt from drag either, resulting in them having to carry wing tanks to compensate for the drag caused by external weaponry. And let's not forget that you can just as easily load four 2k JDAMS, conformal fuel tanks, centerline tank, and four AAM's on an F-16. That is comparable to the F-35's maximum weapons load while carrying external fuel.

Also you're completely missing the point. Unless your enemy conveniently concentrates everything in one place, an F-35 with six 2k class weapons won't have the range to drop all those weapons in one sortie.

It's 6x2k JDAMS, not 4 for the F-35. It's outer pylons are rated for 2500lbs.

An F-16 would need the CFT and centerline tanks just to get to the baseline range of a clean F-35. From there the first two JDAMs are a drag freebie for the F-35 but penalize the F-16 (Advantage F-35). The second set penalize the F-16 more than the F-35 (multiple wing stores interacting - Advantage F-35). The third set for the F-35 is not even possible on the F-16 (Advantage F-35).

As far as target spacing for a single mission, that is what route planning is for. From 40-50k feet, a 2k JDAM can go for miles before impact. The F-35 does not have to directly overfly the target in order to strike it. There is also JDAM-ER on the way which will increase this standoff range.

All of these things are only looking at the range of the fighters and still does not take into account the increased SA benefits of the F-35.

In a multi-target mission, wouldn't aircraft be more likely to be armed with SDB than JDAMs?

battleshipagincourt wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

The 2 F-35s should be comparably as effective, as the 6 F-16s. The only advantage would be that the F-16s could ripple fire missiles. The question is whether or not that would be more effective than the element of surprise.

Two F-35's can't be in six places at once. They are NOT comparably as effective. If your combat effectiveness doesn't depend on stealth, then having fewer F-35's becomes a disadvantage... because each fighter is more expensive to operate and maintain.

We're still talking about engaging 12 Migs right? If the estimates are correct, about the F-35 being 4 to 8x more effective, then they'd enjoy a better exchange ratio, than the F-16s.

count_to_10 wrote:

In a multi-target mission, wouldn't aircraft be more likely to be armed with SDB than JDAMs?

Depends on the target set. If you are going after larger buildings, bridges, command centers, bunkers, etc... then you want the biggest bang you can bring.

On other thing, the F-35 can carry the big 5k bunker busters, which the F-16 cannot.

The 16 USN F/A-18C/D squadrons with 192 planes are replaced by 180 F-35C; and 16 USMC F/A-18C/D squadrons with about 192 planes are replaced with 80 F-35C . The last F/A-18D was delivered to the USMC in 2000. The Corp is also adding 340 of the F-35B. The F/A-XX will be replacing 24 squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets of about 432 planes. The first Super Bug squadrons was formed in 2001 making the oldest S.B. only 11 years old. The tactics for the Navy and Corp F-35C and the Corp F-35B will be developing for years, while the F/A-XX is still in design. Perhaps it will develop into the F-35D Super Lightning. Very Happy

SpudmanWP wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

In a multi-target mission, wouldn't aircraft be more likely to be armed with SDB than JDAMs?

Depends on the target set. If you are going after larger buildings, bridges, command centers, bunkers, etc... then you want the biggest bang you can bring.

On other thing, the F-35 can carry the big 5k bunker busters, which the F-16 cannot.

The longer-term solution would be the Hypervelocity Penetrating Weapon, a 2000-lb weapon designed,to,rival the current 5000-lb Bunker buster in performance. You can fit a pair of these in the internal,weapons bay so stealth and aircraft performance are not compromised..

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Marines view F/A-XX as threat to F-35