Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

I think the MMM-174 is supposed to be RIM-174, aka SM-6.

F-16.net Sponsor

handyman wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

handyman wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

If Russia sells the PAK-FA to South Korea, I will shave my head and eat my own hair. Guiness

I wouldn't be so shocked.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 334858.jpg

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=15200

You might want to read that second page you sent me boss.

"Ambitious Russian development projects like the 5th generation PAK-FA fighter are not suitable for South Korea’s expeditionary ambitions because of they are unlikely to be interoperable with the armed forces of the United States and key U.S. allies, with which any regional ROKAF deployment would have to operate."

Yeah so? Thats just one opinion.

Hey, yo. YOU sent it to support YOUR argument. Point being, read your sources.

I actually concur with Conan on the critical point and skepticism of a fully mature, completed F-15SE ready by 2017. I do think Boeing is making a fundamental error here, in taking an almost 'F-35-like' self-defeating (long delay expected) business marketing approach to the plan. imho, it should be an incrementally phased in Program, not an 'all or nothing', 'full blown SE or bust', bird. Increment 1.0 could forget the canted stabs I think... rather focus initially on the CWB, EW management suite, computer, initial stealth treatment and perhaps blockers (as an example only). That increment should be mature by 2016 as a goal. An increment 2.0 then could take the upgrade up a level, as would a final increment 3.0 e.g., with the fancy canted tail and future stealth treatments, etc. The program however should enable block/increment 1.0 jets to be retrofitted accordingly, perhaps minus a canted tail retrofit.

As far as the critical comments against accelerating development on Air-launched derivatives of extremely capable and mature surface launched systems, I'm open to all arguments against it but thus far haven't been close to being convinced otherwise. An AMRAAM C7/D is currently and will/should continue to be a capable medium range intercept system for the remaining decade. The suggested AIM-162 (involving perhaps two variants employing MOTS) and MMM-174 would in no way be argued as to replace that 'medium range' system. They would simply enable greater tactical flexibility and range especially against opposing LO/VLO targets.

Bottom line: an evolved F-15k/SG 'F-15SE-lite' variant operational by 2017/2018, (properly armed with enhanced asymmetrical munitions) would be first (before a block III F-35) to detect, track and most successfully engage an opposing 'Red-Flag' VLO target. For good measure, add MALD-J, an enhanced 270mm-280mm aperture 'Strategic IRST' + next-gen Rafael/elta SoJ/EA jam pod on the centerline within the package. Basically, an escort the F-22 would kill for. imho. Respects-

geogen wrote:

As far as the critical comments against accelerating development on Air-launched derivatives of extremely capable and mature surface launched systems, I'm open to all arguments against it but thus far haven't been close to being convinced otherwise. An AMRAAM C7/D is currently and will/should continue to be a capable medium range intercept system for the remaining decade. The suggested AIM-162 (involving perhaps two variants employing MOTS) and MMM-174 would in no way be argued as to replace that 'medium range' system. They would simply enable greater tactical flexibility and range especially against opposing LO/VLO targets.

The issue I see here, is that you're not going to be able to detect VLO targets at ranges that the AIM-120C7/D wouldn't be able to handle(i.e. you're not going to see VLO vs VLO BVR engagements at 100nm(more like 20nm). That's why the USAF etc... aren't terribly concerned about the range "limitations" of the late model AMRAAMs.

Quote:

Bottom line: an evolved F-15k/SG 'F-15SE-lite' variant operational by 2017/2018, (properly armed with enhanced asymmetrical munitions) would be first (before a block III F-35) to detect, track and most successfully engage an opposing 'Red-Flag' VLO target. For good measure, add MALD-J, an enhanced 270mm-280mm aperture 'Strategic IRST' + next-gen Rafael/elta SoJ/EA jam pod on the centerline within the package. Basically, an escort the F-22 would kill for. imho. Respects-

I disagree. The larger RCS of the F-15 would offset any sensor advantages, as a VLO target would have the first look advantage, and be able to maneuver into an advantageous position. The Silent Eagle would have advantages against 4/4.5gen aircraft, would be on the defensive vs a 5th gen aircraft.

Well in the meantime the F-35 won't be ready for at least another seven years. Which means that by the time it's ready, the USAF will consist of fighters armed with 90's era technology and few airframes less than 30 years old. It's too late to turn back now, as everything is now resting on the JSF.

If this were the year 2000, it would have made a lot of sense to output one more batch of advanced F-16's and complete the transition from the F-15C to the Raptor. Had the US moved to procure a final batch of block 52+ F-16's like those of the UAE and completely replaced the F-15C with Raptors in the early 2000's, we'd be in good condition today.

That also could have made a positive impact on the JSF program as well, as the schedule and budget wouldn't have needed to be so rigid. Remember that the fighters the JSF will be replacing are badly outdated... and delays in procurement means having to keep old fighters flying well past their design life. At least if a stopgap generation of 4.5 gen F-16's were procured, they could have alleviated the situation up until the F-35 was available. And even as the F-35 came online, 4.5 generation fighters still would have had a lot to offer for years to come. Canceling the Raptor at 187 was just stupid, as F-15's cost almost as much to maintain... and older Eagles cannot be decommissioned as a result.

Unfortunately we're in a bad place now, as this stopgap measure no longer seems feasible or sensible. Had this been done in the early 2000's, it could have made a lot of difference... the time and budget pressures on the JSF might not have been so great, they would have learned more from working with technologies for the JSF, and it would have yielded a fallback plan.

WW - with all respect... the problem there is that the thinking is just way too 'inside the box'. It's just not how things will pan out in reality though, imho, 10 yrs out.

For one, what you are suggesting is that the F-35 will not be able to track and target a hostile VLO target until it is 20nm from the F-35? Wow. Now that raises some seriously interesting tactical and kinematic related thoughts on this topic and would be a very interesting and worthy new Thread here on F16.net if someone might wish to start one?

Secondly, I think you are assuming and underestimating (dangerously) how a future air combat strategy 5-10 yrs out (let alone 15 yrs out) might be modernized and enabled to detect a hostile VLO target farther out than this 20nm from your own blue force launch platform. No next-gen cued targeting methods from off-board sensors, i.e., from UCAV, AWACS, F-22, sats, etc? And I guess there's no VLO tracking concerns either w/ lighting afterburners 120nm out, when your next-gen large aperutre LW IRST is searching for just that?

Morevover, if the 'other guy' has a long range shooter who can see your VLO, via 'off board' cue platforms, or act as a surrogate launch truck... how will you engage/counter him at extended range without that strategic flexibility or deterrence to do so?

Remember, in the future there will only be an expansion and acceleration of 'offboard' tactical cueing capabilities. Way back in Desert Storm, something like 38 of 42 Air-air kills were attributed to AWACS support. And in the future, 'AWACS' capabilities and other 'offboard' capabilities will advance just in time for that 2017/2018 Red-flag exercise in which you would not want to be flying an F-35A without your properly next-gen armed/equipped F-15E+/SE escort... imho.

A very long article indeed but a 'perhaps how things may be' in the future... MADL in F-35

FIFTH GENERATION AIRCRAFT AND 3 DIMENSIONAL WARFARE Or, How to Build the Honeycomb 07/19/2011

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21086

"The F-22 and F-35 have sophisticated sensors and self defense capabilities, which, in and of themselves, when combined with stealth enable these aircraft to become true game changers. But in and of themselves is not where the real game changing capability comes into play. Networking the aircraft is essential to shaping the new distributed air operations con-ops. Through networking, the U.S. can create a honeycomb with distributed decision makers able to shape a chaos generating strike capability that is predicated on the unique environment that is ever changing from one mission to the next.

The current USAF’s leadership unwillingness to put the MADL communications system into the F-22 makes absolutely no sense, and indeed represents a strategic refusal to leverage the capabilities of the aircraft.

The role of systems such as MADL was underscored in a recent discussion with a former senior USAF officer involved in the F-22 program. The former senior USAF officer referred to the opportunity to shape the 5th generation aircraft wolf pack as a “roving motorcycle gang....”

geogen wrote:

For one, what you are suggesting is that the F-35 will not be able to track and target a hostile VLO target until it is 20nm from the F-35? Wow. Now that raises some seriously interesting tactical and kinematic related thoughts on this topic and would be a very interesting and worthy new Thread here on F16.net if someone might wish to start one?

Well first we need to define VLO, with regards to threats. Is the threat RCS equivalent to the F-35? Smaller? Larger? These are all important factors, which will determine just how far away the onboard sensors can detect the target. I suspect a target of equal or better RCS, will be detected by the EOTS before the radar. As for the 20nm figure, that was an engagement range, not first contact. Even against cruise missiles, with significantly larger RCS than the F-35/22, 30 or 40nm is pretty good. Now obviously with NCW, the shooter's sensors need not be the cueing source, but in order to engage a target further out than the shooter's sensors can see, you either need another platform in front of the shooter, or some other asset with significantly greater capabilities than current AWACS have. I think you're a bit optimistic that significant advances in capability will occur in the next 10-15yrs, with regard to offsetting stealth.

Quote:

And I guess there's no VLO tracking concerns either w/ lighting afterburners 120nm out, when your next-gen large aperutre LW IRST is searching for just that?

You may detect a target at that range, that's receding, but there's no way you're going to make a 120nm tail chase shot, with a ESSM, Phoenix, R-37, etc... Against a head on target, the range will be considerably less(especially if it's not using afterburner), and entirely dependant on climactic conditions. This IRST will still likely need cueing, as the FOV at long ranges will still be rather narrow.

guys, look at south korea map and its airspace. It's small. It's highly urbanized with cities next to international boundaries. (crowded, everything is exposed)

The entire idea a jet can take off without somebody noticing is pretty dubious, nevermind VLO, stealth and all that jazz. I'll put a cheap telescope with infrared camera and point it to runway plus wireless phone, and it's over. I know what plane and which direction it goes ... next thing you know it's dogfight. F-35 is useless. Too expensive for cannon fodder/cheap rush yet too pokey for real dogfight against Sukhoi and migs.

Then there is a problem with china. Which means low orbit sat, UAV, J-20, su-35/carriers, submarines, destroyers, frigates, etc. few squadron of F-35 aren't going to cut it. It's a sitting duck.

I am willing to bet, this is why SK is thinking seriously about air superiority. It's the only game left.

Altho south korea acquiring pakfa combined with their manufacturing capability will be something I want to see. I do believe with 60 SK pak-fa, SK will have the strongest air force in pacific. But I doubt it's going to happen. US political pressure won't let it to happen.

bigbird2 wrote:

But I doubt it's going to happen. US political pressure won't let it to happen.

Oh I don't know about that, i'm sure if you gave them a ring and informed them that they've got it all so badly wrong they will change their minds, especially after they listen to your expert reasoning... Wink

Last edited by treebeard on Jul 29, 2011 - 10:07 AM; edited 1 time in total

bigbird2 wrote:

guys, look at south korea map and its airspace. It's small. It's highly urbanized with cities next to international boundaries. (crowded, everything is exposed)

The entire idea a jet can take off without somebody noticing is pretty dubious, nevermind VLO, stealth and all that jazz. I'll put a cheap telescope with infrared camera and point it to runway plus wireless phone, and it's over. I know what plane and which direction it goes ... next thing you know it's dogfight. F-35 is useless. Too expensive for cannon fodder/cheap rush yet too pokey for real dogfight against Sukhoi and migs.

Then there is a problem with china. Which means low orbit sat, UAV, J-20, su-35/carriers, submarines, destroyers, frigates, etc. few squadron of F-35 aren't going to cut it. It's a sitting duck.

I am willing to bet, this is why SK is thinking seriously about air superiority. It's the only game left.

Altho south korea acquiring pakfa combined with their manufacturing capability will be something I want to see. I do believe with 60 SK pak-fa, SK will have the strongest air force in pacific. But I doubt it's going to happen. US political pressure won't let it to happen.

When a stealth/VLO platform is not a necessity because it won't be to any advantage, why buy a costly PAK FA when a Su-30/35 comes at half the price? Because if stealth is useless, why waste money on the purchase and maintenance of a VLO design which probably won't bring better flight characteristics compared to a Su-30/35 (possibly updated with western/Japanese avionics like the Indian MKI)? And when you're on that boat, it will be a question whether it's not cheaper, logistically-wise, to buy more F-15K's.

Yes. I would say, F-15SE is the likeliest winner. Boeing will offer better avionic and weapon tech transfer. Euro fighter is middle of nowhere solution unless they open up the engine completely. (which they won't). Plus is a little dated design, mediocre. F-35 is token player, an expensive dud.

pak-fa is interesting odd man out. But technologically the most promising if combined with korea's long term investment. But politically impossible. Unless South Korea and Russia prepare a long term consortium, a little like India. If that is the case, we will see Pak-fa rules the sky for next 20 years, it's the next mig-21, F-16. Everybody and their cousin will want it in their garage.

if I were the russian, I will offer this to the korean. You can have the complete schematic, everything else is co-development, just like our India deal. On top of that, we offer to co-development/cost sharing navalized pak-fa. ...we may even throw in our experience running aircraft carrier...

South Korea would be fool not to sign this deal. and russia would be fool not to offer this deal.

PS. the KFXIII, will have to stand up against pakfa, J-20, su-33, J-11B, and ATDX (plus another 2 rumored chinese fighters)

I suggest reading other sources than APA, before making ridiculous assertions. The F-35 will be better than F-15s, F-16s, or F-18s, in a dogfight, not to mention having the unique capability of full spherical engagement, superior situational awareness, first look/first shoot, etc....

F-35 will be juicy S-300 - S-400 target, before the landing gear fully retracted after take off. It's a token player in this contest.

wrightwing wrote:

I suggest reading other sources than APA, before making ridiculous assertions. The F-35 will be better than F-15s, F-16s, or F-18s, in a dogfight, not to mention having the unique capability of full spherical engagement, superior situational awareness, first look/first shoot, etc....

Careful there bud. Don't feed it.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

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