Forum: Program and politics

hb_pencil wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

The question is what can a F-15EJ or F-15SE do that an F-35 can't?

Range is the biggest advantage, thrust to weight, top speed and total payload.

IIRC the F-15SE can't really carry that much internally in a stealthy configuration that an F-35 can't carry in said stealthy configuration. Top speed means little for the roles it will serve and range may be sacrificed by not using CFT and drop tanks. That and I sincerely doubt that the F-15SE will be as survivable and as LO as an F-35. No amount of RAM or conformal weapons bays will ever make a legacy aircraft as stealthy and LO as a dedicated VLO platform.

F-16.net Sponsor

Few of the competitions are based upon capability alone so I thought I'd post a link the the Janes article. It explicitly states that capability put the F-35 over the SHornet, Typhoon and any version of the Eagle. Note that Japan is facing T-10 series today and T-50, J-20, JXX tomorrow. Note that Japan is a maritime nation that may need antiship capability. I think this decision is strong evidence that the F-35 is one of the most revolutionary aircraft of all time as it enables a force to fight in a new way. It's big in the same way monoplanes, radar, pulse doppler, and BVR missiles that work were. Only it's bigger than any of those as it combines so many innovations in one frame.

tacf-x wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

The question is what can a F-15EJ or F-15SE do that an F-35 can't?

Range is the biggest advantage, thrust to weight, top speed and total payload.

IIRC the F-15SE can't really carry that much internally in a stealthy configuration that an F-35 can't carry in said stealthy configuration. Top speed means little for the roles it will serve and range may be sacrificed by not using CFT and drop tanks. That and I sincerely doubt that the F-15SE will be as survivable and as LO as an F-35. No amount of RAM or conformal weapons bays will ever make a legacy aircraft as stealthy and LO as a dedicated VLO platform.

Oh I agree, but he didn't ask for an assessment, just what can it do that the F-35 can't.

Someone might confuse me as a rampant F-35 fanboy if I did.

The F-15 can probably accelerate better and definitely reach a higher top speed. It can react faster to stuff happening given the same information as the F-35. However, if you're paying around 100 million for an aircraft you need it to pump data into the network as well as use it.

I read a book by Jim Dunnigan about 20 years ago. He wrote that the computing power of the entire Soviet fleet was in 1, ok, maybe 2, US submarines. Extend the analogy to today. The winner is has the most bandwidth and the most data flowing into their system and being processed into information that can be acted upon. There's only one manned fighter designed to be a part of that system from the beginning.

Top speed is almost irrelevant, nothing has proven the F-35 *can't* supercruise either, it just can't supercruise like the F22 at [Link pending approval]+. While the F-35's calling card is the sensor suite and LO I think people are too quick to dismiss the kinematics, especially in combat mode when all the players have more then a few thousand pounds of fuel and weapons on board, with the F135 spec'd to 43k pounds but tested to 50-55k pounds if more performance is needed they can always turn up the wick if they feel it is prudent.

Well, if you look at the wing loading and TWR it doesn't look too good. Running the engine like that is likely to wear it out faster and will burn lots of fuel. I just don't think they wanted anything more than F-16/18 kinematics. If there's a shortcoming the US can always develop something like F-22 airframe with the F-25 innards. I don't think there is a shortcoming.

Think about how a war will really be fought. If a SAM site fires, you know one of the almighty double digit SAMs, then those big missiles put out a big signature. That site is going to be hammered and "Shoot and scoot" means something different for a tank or SP gun vs a SAM site. That site is going to be hammered while the F-35 has VLO, jamming by its buddies, and kinematics to defeat the shot. How long are these SAM sites going to last? Remember that the F-35 is supported by other systems. How big a threat is enemy air when radar is pointed at the enemy airbases and the almighty T-10 series jets have their compressor faces exposed for everyone to see? That means they can be tracked from when they turn on their engines onwards. I don't think it's unreasonable to propose F-35's putting JDAMs on the runway before or as the enemy takes off. Once theyre gone and the SAMs are dead the F-35 can use pylons.

Too many people propose a joust where some enemy plane is "vs" an F-35 with both in the air already. Or the SAM is just sitting there undetected while it uses its radar to see the F-35. Which is it? Undetected or using its radar? How good is the Growler at geolocation? Unless the US Navy is grossly incompetent it should be pretty good. That is unless the geolocation sensors are on some UAV that networks with the Growler and the F-35.

Unless some adversary can jam the datalinks or input false tracks I don't see the F-35 being beat.

Last edited by arkadyrenko on Jan 15, 2012 - 04:39 AM; edited 1 time in total

What the SAM sites will do is a "shoot and scoot;" flick the radar on see what is happening, then shift the radar off. That will be helped with bistatic radar / decoy radar emitters. The first will give the general location and the second will mask the location of the real emitters. Second, the F-35 flight won't be able to do SEAD, because it will be already tasked with an objective. Finally, new SAM site strategy places protection batteries around the radar emitters. But in either case, having VLO or LO depending on your definition, will help the F-35.

The existence of datalinks, however, isn't such a great proposition, especially over longer ranges.

The problem with the F-35, at least for Japan, is twofold. First, does the plane have the kinematics to be an interceptor? Odds are no. Thus Japan will need a proper replacement for the F-15. I've seen an article saying that Japan is upgrading the F-15's, that gives a suggestion for the F-35's role. Second, the F-35 will take a long time to be delivered. If the Japanese wish for a fighter in the next 5 years, they have to accept a lower ability.

The question is: what does the F-35 add for Japan's security? I bet it'll be anti-ship strike.

arkadyrenko wrote:

What the SAM sites will do is a "shoot and scoot;" flick the radar on see what is happening, then shift the radar off. That will be helped with bistatic radar / decoy radar emitters. The first will give the general location and the second will mask the location of the real emitters. Second, the F-35 flight won't be able to do SEAD, because it will be already tasked with an objective. Finally, new SAM site strategy places protection batteries around the radar emitters. But in either case, having VLO or LO depending on your definition, will help the F-35.

The existence of datalinks, however, isn't such a great proposition, especially over longer ranges.

The problem with the F-35, at least for Japan, is twofold. First, does the plane have the kinematics to be an interceptor? Odds are no. Thus Japan will need a proper replacement for the F-15. I've seen an article saying that Japan is upgrading the F-15's, that gives a suggestion for the F-35's role. Second, the F-35 will take a long time to be delivered. If the Japanese with for a fighter in the next 5 years, they have to accept a lower ability.

The question is: what does the F-35 add for Japan's security? I bet it'll be anti-ship strike.

I believe, in their parlance, it is referred to as 'anti-landing craft' strike ( Laughing

), but I agree with you. The F-35 would need to have much higher max speed to serve as an interceptor. From this, we can either assume that the JASDF will be flying F-15Js for the foreseeable future, or the ATD-X will be Japan's pseudo-Raptor for the A2A arena. Frankly, Japan is probably the one country that could pull off something comparable to a Raptor in a reasonable time frame.

southernphantom wrote:

arkadyrenko wrote:

What the SAM sites will do is a "shoot and scoot;" flick the radar on see what is happening, then shift the radar off. That will be helped with bistatic radar / decoy radar emitters. The first will give the general location and the second will mask the location of the real emitters. Second, the F-35 flight won't be able to do SEAD, because it will be already tasked with an objective. Finally, new SAM site strategy places protection batteries around the radar emitters. But in either case, having VLO or LO depending on your definition, will help the F-35.

The existence of datalinks, however, isn't such a great proposition, especially over longer ranges.

The problem with the F-35, at least for Japan, is twofold. First, does the plane have the kinematics to be an interceptor? Odds are no. Thus Japan will need a proper replacement for the F-15. I've seen an article saying that Japan is upgrading the F-15's, that gives a suggestion for the F-35's role. Second, the F-35 will take a long time to be delivered. If the Japanese with for a fighter in the next 5 years, they have to accept a lower ability.

The question is: what does the F-35 add for Japan's security? I bet it'll be anti-ship strike.

I believe, in their parlance, it is referred to as 'anti-landing craft' strike ( Laughing

), but I agree with you. The F-35 would need to have much higher max speed to serve as an interceptor. From this, we can either assume that the JASDF will be flying F-15Js for the foreseeable future, or the ATD-X will be Japan's pseudo-Raptor for the A2A arena. Frankly, Japan is probably the one country that could pull off something comparable to a Raptor in a reasonable time frame.

What makes you think that an F-15, a Typhoon, or any other jet is going to be able to flt at M1.6 for any length of time with a combat load out? What makes you think that any other jet once it jettisons it's external fuel tanks so that it can make it's top speed is going to have a better fuel state than a F-35?

Tell me is there a jet out there that is unaffected by the drag induced by external weapons stores? Your argument, which is clearly based on max speed is flawed. The F-35 will be a fine interceptor as it has none of the aerodynamic disadvantages of 4 gen jets.

The Typhoon should have a good combo of endurance and speed with supersonic tanks.

So a Typhoon with 2/motors running at MIL (approx 26K thrust), with 2 supersonic tanks (giving approx 2000 gallons total) and weapons will have greater range/speed than a Lightning II at MIL (approx 28K thrust) with (approx 2700 gallons) internal fuel, no external stores (non-even tanks)...

Drag alone would say the F-35 would travel further, not to mention the fuel consumption of twin engines.

I'd place my bet on the F-35 making it home from your long range mission as well; MUCH better surviveability factor.

TEG

southernphantom wrote:

I believe, in their parlance, it is referred to as 'anti-landing craft' strike ( Laughing

), but I agree with you. The F-35 would need to have much higher max speed to serve as an interceptor.

When has an F-15 ever flown close to it's top speed in combat(hint: never)? One of the reasons why the F-35 wasn't designed to have a M2+ top speed, was based on experience from air combat, and the speeds that were representative. F-15s have gotten up to ~M1.4 in combat, and even that isn't typical. This is why a M1.6+ combat speed was considered to be far more useful, than a never used M2.5 theoretical top speed.

About the F-35 vs the Typhoon. The Typhoon should be able to fit 4 - 6 AAMs in minimal drag configuration. (flush with the airframe).

Here, the airframe drag becomes an issue. The F-35 appears to have a larger frontal area than the Typhoon. (A consequence of needing to internally stow 2000lb bombs.) That means in a baseline situation the F-35 will fly slower than the Typhoon (also means that the Typhoon can go supersonic with a lower fuel cost than the F-35). Isn't it odd that the Typhoon, with its two motors outputting less than the F-35's one motor, can super-cruise while the F-35's super-cruse has always never been conclusively proven? The airframe of the F-35 does not appear to be as conducive to high speed flight, compared to the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon, or the PAK FA. That is not to diminish the F-35, it is just to say that the F-35 wasn't built to be a high speed interceptor.

If Japan wants a fighter to go on 15 minute alert, the F-35 won't be the optimal airframe. Hence, Japan's upgrading program for the F-15's. Japan needs, as well as an "anti-landing ship" aircraft, an interceptor to intercept Chinese patrol planes (and maybe bombers). That requires a different airplane and different airframe than the F-35.

I re-iterate: F-35 was designed to be a strike fighter, it's first priority was to drop bombs and retain some capability for A2A combat. Only later, with the early termination of the F-22, was the F-35 signaled to be the replacement for F-15Cs. Even then, that doesn't appear to be a foregone conclusion, as the USAF is keeping 'golden eagles' around and has pushed up the replacement for the F-22.

handyman wrote:

Lets face it, everybody wants a slice of the LO game. T50 and J20 are the best F35 salesmen Lockheed could ever dream of.

Quoted for truth. I give it 5 years before China rolls out a stealthy J-10 replacement. 10 at the most. When that happens watch how fast the UK retires the Typhoon and expands F-35 purchases.

arkadyrenko wrote:

About the F-35 vs the Typhoon. The Typhoon should be able to fit 4 - 6 AAMs in minimal drag configuration. (flush with the airframe).

Here, the airframe drag becomes an issue. The F-35 appears to have a larger frontal area than the Typhoon. (A consequence of needing to internally stow 2000lb bombs.) That means in a baseline situation the F-35 will fly slower than the Typhoon (also means that the Typhoon can go supersonic with a lower fuel cost than the F-35). Isn't it odd that the Typhoon, with its two motors outputting less than the F-35's one motor, can super-cruise while the F-35's super-cruse has always never been conclusively proven? The airframe of the F-35 does not appear to be as conducive to high speed flight, compared to the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon, or the PAK FA. That is not to diminish the F-35, it is just to say that the F-35 wasn't built to be a high speed interceptor.

If Japan wants a fighter to go on 15 minute alert, the F-35 won't be the optimal airframe. Hence, Japan's upgrading program for the F-15's. Japan needs, as well as an "anti-landing ship" aircraft, an interceptor to intercept Chinese patrol planes (and maybe bombers). That requires a different airplane and different airframe than the F-35.

I re-iterate: F-35 was designed to be a strike fighter, it's first priority was to drop bombs and retain some capability for A2A combat. Only later, with the early termination of the F-22, was the F-35 signaled to be the replacement for F-15Cs. Even then, that doesn't appear to be a foregone conclusion, as the USAF is keeping 'golden eagles' around and has pushed up the replacement for the F-22.

1. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft. With external stores it's not even "stealthy".

2. The people who've actually flown the F-35 (i.e. not you) as well as the designers, and customers ALL state manueverability is on par with if not better than the Super Hornet and F-16. So tell us, do you honestly believe that the marginal difference in manueverability between the F-35 and Typhoon (assuming it exists) is going to enable a Typhoon to out manuever a HOBS missile?

Forum: Program and politics

Japan F-35 Decision Genuinely Based Upon Capability