Forum: General F-35 Forum

With networked fighters are you seriously going to get into a dog fight? I don't think so! It's too easy to fire a medium or long range missle from outside the dogfight engagement area.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by count_to_10 on May 16, 2012 - 11:51 PM; edited 1 time in total

Current IR detectors can pick out aircraft by their contrast against the background, at least at reasonably close ranges. You are talking about opti-camo for IR stealth.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Parting Shot:
How wicked will the F-35 be in WVR (or CAS) when they get laser guided cannon shells working cheaply enough?

I'm thinking that small laser guided missiles would be more useful. A cannon still has to be fired forward, but a small, Stinger sized missile could be programed to turn around at hit a target behind you, and you don't need the dead weight of a cannon barrel.

[quote="SpudmanWP"]1. No such thing as IR stealth. That paint (or whatever) would not work (anytime soon) for two reasons:
.....A. It would violate the law of energy conservation. All the energy created and absorbed by the airframe has to go somewhere. It cannot be erased or ignored.
.....B. IF it absorbed and hid all it's energy, it would then be a cold black spot (as opposed to a hot white spot) which would still show up on sensors (especially in WVR).
quote]

With all due respect, I don't see how IR stealth would be in violation of the conservation of energy. The idea is not to make the heat energy disappear, but to disperse it into the surroundings in a way which is harder to detect than the normal blow-torch like jet exhaust.
Aircraft like the F-117 and B-2 used techniques to alleviate their IR signature, as have Tacit Blue and Bird of Prey, not to mention the more performance-minded F-22 and F-35. While I'm not sure about the F-35's level of IR stealth, I believe the F-22 might have a hard time being targeted by the F-35, because of its IR-reducing features.

tacf-x wrote:

VERY wicked Spudman, VERY wicked. In fact, I think I remember reading an article saying that attack helicopters will be getting that laser guided cannon treatment so it's only a matter of time before we have CAS F-35As packing laser guided 25mm shells.

My word, that's cool... > Very Happy

firstimpulse wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

1. No such thing as IR stealth. That paint (or whatever) would not work (anytime soon) for two reasons:
.....A. It would violate the law of energy conservation. All the energy created and absorbed by the airframe has to go somewhere. It cannot be erased or ignored.
.....B. IF it absorbed and hid all it's energy, it would then be a cold black spot (as opposed to a hot white spot) which would still show up on sensors (especially in WVR).

With all due respect, I don't see how IR stealth would be in violation of the conservation of energy. The idea is not to make the heat energy disappear, but to disperse it into the surroundings in a way which is harder to detect than the normal blow-torch like jet exhaust.
Aircraft like the F-117 and B-2 used techniques to alleviate their IR signature, as have Tacit Blue and Bird of Prey, not to mention the more performance-minded F-22 and F-35. While I'm not sure about the F-35's level of IR stealth, I believe the F-22 might have a hard time being targeted by the F-35, because of its IR-reducing features.

That only makes a difference for rear-aspect-only heat seakers. Modern IR sensors can see the whole plane, engine heat or no.

The story goes that Vietnam F-4 pilots would be in a combat area, and would be so overwhelmed by the lights and sounds coming out of thier cockpits that they would start turning the off.

One charactoristic of the F-35 is the situational awarness and EW suite are so sophisticated the pilot need not preform aggressive manuevers in a dogfight. Are there examples of the ease of operations in the cockpit or that the workload has been addressed. On top of that you have AWACS and other networked fighters in the airways fighting for airwaves. What good is all the gi-wiz if they get turned off, leaving the pilot to fend for himself.

Any illustrations?

It's not so much invisibility, as dispersing the exhaust to avoid creating ridiculously obvious flares. See the Apache's engine exhausts.

@count to 10 agreed completely on the Stinger part, a while back I proposed loading a bunch of those into the space on an F-15 occupied by the ammunition drum, and possibly even firing backwards. That last part would avoid spending energy and time to get the target in the missile's killzone.

I don't see the fascination with the gun or the fanciful "stinger packs". Both are only useful in a few situations. AMRAAM min range is something like 2nm and it has some HOBS capability. It seems like an F-35 could use an AMRAAM instead of a gun or a Stinger at short range or it could use an AMRAAM at longer ranges. Do a few calcs and estimate the MER of a Stinger in A2A. I think there's a reason no fixed wing aircraft has ever mounted stingers.

The Typhoon uses the ASRAAM which is optimized for longer range at the expense of some HOBS etc. They don't seem to be concerned about the really short range stuff. Rafale with MICA the same thing.

An actual Stinger is probably of limited use -- I was just thinking something that had about that weight and form factor, which you could pack into a plane instead of a gun. Laser guided or just plain data link guided, you could end up with a multipurpose weapon for close in fighting.
As far as maximum range goes, isn't a stinger longer range than the cannon?

Adding weight and cost and complexity for "close in" fighting seems to be a waste of $. Why not spend a fraction of that $ to be better able to get it over at long range? The F-22, F-35, and Typhoon were all designed to do that and Rafale is getting Meteor so it can too. Only the losers want to get in close because they can't win at range.

We are talking about an alternative to guns in WVR combat. The idea is to have something that doesn't add as much weight to the airframe as a medium or long range missile, and can be used inside their minimum range. Having a pack of small missiles sounds less complicated than a multi-barrel cannon.

How about neither?

shingen wrote:

How about neither?

Also an option.
This is rather out-there speculation, anyway, and I don't think any of use can accurately evaluate the trade offs involved. The Vulcan cannon is a known quantity, while this other option would need to be researched -- at some cost. Maybe it isn't worth the effort, even if it would be technically "better".

river_otter wrote:

It's pretty much a given the F-22, and probably the F-35 as well, have refrigeration of some sort under particular airframe hotspots, which pump heat into the fuel. The fuel gets burned and goes away from the plane, thus not violating the law of energy conservation while the plane stays cool.

Dang, took the words out my mouth on that one.

The Rocketdyne F-1 engine, used in the Saturn V moon rockets, used cryogenic fuel to cool the exhaust extensions, sucking heat off the bell while preheating the fuel and increasing burning efficiency. Win-win.

As an aside, they also bled cool gas along the inside of the bell creating a laminar sheet of insulating gas. By the time the gas heated up, it was exhausted. Brilliant! Very Happy

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 may change everything we know about modern dogfighting?