Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Last edited by redbird87 on Jun 20, 2012 - 04:40 AM; edited 1 time in total

The F-35 may very well be able to turn and climb adequately with the SUs. It certainly will have situational awareness advantages which will go a long ways towards avoiding this kind of merged fight. Still, with 2 versions having no internal cannon and potentially no AIM-9 capability, this has to be a concern. As I understand it, the F-35 is best off stealth-wise moving towards the enemy. Moreover, it doesn't have the horsepower to turn and fly away like an F-15 or F-22 might once it's limited number AIM 120s are expended. That makes its pre-merge options tough. 1) Keep flying towards the enemy, which maintains the best stealth aspect and engage.........oh yeah, we may not be carrying carrying AIM-9s to augment our 180 25mm rounds (F-35A version). Or.... 2) Turn to get out of there and lose much of the stealth advantage, hoping that Mach 1.6 (and more importantly the acceleration to get there), is quick enough to escape.

I know those in love with the platform will jump on me and say that the enemy will have been completely blotted out of the sky by then. I'm sorry to be skeptical, but I do not believe the F-35 will forever be invisible and totally protected by our small number of F-22s. It just won't be able to avoid the merge in all situations. A few AIM-9s would be nice to have on-board when that happens. Hopefully we get that done by IOC. $120 million a pop is a lot of money in this budget environment for a plane that may be in trouble up close against something like a well piloted F-5 with AIM-9s and cannon (much less state of the art Sukhois, Rafales, etc ).

F-16.net Sponsor

So, here is the thing: there are probably a lot of classified things that we are simply not aware of. We have some preliminary information that people in the know are not concerned about how the F-35 will perform in combat, and a number of hints that the new AMRAAMs might change the nature of WVR combat. It seems to me that the F-35 could have been designed with a rail internal AA hard point, but LM chose not to. Everyone who actually has access to all of this secret information seems to be undeterred by our less informed complaints, so my money is on them knowing something we don't.

count_to_10 wrote:

So, here is the thing: there are probably a lot of classified things that we are simply not aware of. We have some preliminary information that people in the know are not concerned about how the F-35 will perform in combat, and a number of hints that the new AMRAAMs might change the nature of WVR combat. It seems to me that the F-35 could have been designed with a rail internal AA hard point, but LM chose not to. Everyone who actually has access to all of this secret information seems to be undeterred by our less informed complaints, so my money is on them knowing something we don't.

Why does everyone seem to think LM decides the capability of the airplane? The customer sets the requirements, and contractor comes up with the best design it can to meet the requirements. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Redbird87 said...... "Moreover, it doesn't have the horsepower to turn and fly away like an F-15 or F-22 might once it's limited number AIM 120s are expended. That makes it's pre-merge options tough."

The F-35 has over 40,000 lbs of thrust and can hit Mach 1.62 fully fueled and armed, how many other aircraft can do that???

Quote:

Why does everyone seem to think LM decides the capability of the airplane? The customer sets the requirements, and contractor comes up with the best design it can to meet the requirements. Rolling Eyes

Well, that too.

alloycowboy wrote:

Quote:

Redbird87 said...... "Moreover, it doesn't have the horsepower to turn and fly away like an F-15 or F-22 might once it's limited number AIM 120s are expended. That makes it's pre-merge options tough."

The F-35 has over 40,000 lbs of thrust and can hit Mach 1.62 fully fueled and armed, how many other aircraft can do that???

Yeah, but what happens to both the IR signature and Radar signature when that 40K lb roman candle is lit and moving away from the enemy? They are now talking about production of this plane continuing through 2027 and it being in the inventory until 2065 (both ridiculous sounding time frames to me). Does anyone really think Mach 1.62 is going to evade 5th gen missiles in 2020 even? Clearly, more internal weapons are needed, so the plane could do what it's designed to do well - bore in towards the enemy undetected and destroy them.

What a simplistic view of evasion. I'm starting to think redbird came in here to yank your yokes, fellas.

madrat,

Please enlighten us with a more comprehensive view of the process. As a taxpayer, I'd like to know exactly what I'm getting for $162 million a copy (which was the latest unit price quoted by the pentagon including development and production). It's a simple question. It's common knowledge that much of the F-35s vaunted stealth goes away if it has to "turn and burn" (there I am, being simplistic again). That's true even with today's threat, much less 2040, 2060 ect......the life expectancy DOD and Lockheed are promising. What will this bird do (with it's current suite of limited internal arms) if it encounters more enemy aircraft than is can account for in a BVR fight? Evade in one of many high speed methods your going to now explain? Use it's EW capability, use it's cannon, joust perhaps with its lead antenna? Maybe Scotty can beam them out. I'm sorry, but for $162 million a copy, I'd like to know as much (unclassified of course) as possible.

redbird87 wrote:

madrat,

Please enlighten us with a more comprehensive view of the process. As a taxpayer, I'd like to know exactly what I'm getting for $162 million a copy (which was the latest unit price quoted by the pentagon including development and production). It's a simple question. It's common knowledge that much of the F-35s vaunted stealth goes away if it has to "turn and burn" (there I am, being simplistic again). That's true even with today's threat, much less 2040, 2060 ect......the life expectancy DOD and Lockheed are promising. What will this bird do (with it's current suite of limited internal arms) if it encounters more enemy aircraft than is can account for in a BVR fight? Evade in one of many high speed methods your going to now explain? Use it's EW capability, use it's cannon, joust perhaps with its lead antenna? Maybe Scotty can beam them out. I'm sorry, but for $162 million a copy, I'd like to know as much (unclassified of course) as possible.

I think when he says your understanding is simplistic he means that the situation is nowhere near as simple as firing off your missiles and turning to run away. If the other side is dumb enough to simply charge after the F-35 in a tail chase then they deserve the pasting they are going to get. Even going with the simple scenario of an F-35 shooting and then turning tail and getting chased like you hypothesize it is just not that simple.

Even at maximum speed for both aircraft an SU-35 only has about 273 MPH of overtake speed on the F-35. It is only closing in a tail chase at about 4.5 miles per minute. If the flight is taking head on shots from F-35's they are going to evade so they likely have to turn, then accelerate and then pursue so attach whatever penalty to that you want. That is also the clean speed for the SU-35 as well so it may or may not even have that closure rate.

If the engaged target gets turned away and the F-35 turns away as well the range will open at 3/4ths of a mile every second. I will gain that back that distance to re-engaged at about 1/10th that rate (.075 miles per second). If both sides turn away at say 45 seconds out (half the flight time for an AMRAAM at max distance roughly) then I will open around 30 miles distance between the two fighters. If the fighters were say 40 miles apart when this happened (again roughly half the distance of an AMRAAM max range shot) then we will be around 70 miles apart with me still having to turn to chase the F-35. As the F-35 will cover around 29 miles during the flight time of an R-77 to max range I would need to get back within 58 miles or so to have a chance in this engagement.

That would take me 2.5 to 3 minutes at full speed to get into kill distance not accounting for the fact that I have to turn and am probably not getting my top speed but something a bit less as I am carrying external weapons. That is of course after whatever burner I used evading the missile. Fuel starts to become an issue pretty quick and I would bet on the F-35 nation being far more likely to have tanker support than its opposition so it is going to be able to run at least as long as your chase plane. A tail chase after being shot at is nowhere as simple as you are making it out to be.

But more than that what you propose is not a realistic combat scenario, particularly for the US where your primary concern seems to rest. They are not going to stage an airborne joust where one side shoots and then runs so the other side can shoot.

redbird87 wrote:

It's common knowledge that much of the F-35s vaunted stealth goes away if it has to "turn and burn"

This applies to all stealth aircraft from the F-117, the F-22, and even the B-2. Stealth aircraft are designed to have the smallest RCS from the front, then the rear, and finally the sides. This means that while the RCS from the rear is larger than from the front (by at least 10x), it is still much smaller than a 4th gen fighter's RCS from its front (by at least 10x). The F-35 has many RCS treatments from the rear including a first-of-its-kind faceted nozzle, aligned surfaces, and sawtooth edging on all panels. Remember too that while you may get an idea of where a retreating F-35 is, getting a lock, sending a weapon, and having that weapon catch up to a m1.6+ outbound F-35 (who, btw, can track the SAM in flight and knows it is coming and where from) is a different matter entirely.

So the bad guy is chasing the F-35 and the latter nonchalantly flings a missile over his shoulder at his pursuer.

...which doesn't even need to hit the pursuer, in order to cause the pursuer to not be pursuing anymore.

I also find it amusing to see air-to-air engagements treated as duels, which means not only 1:1 but also facing each other and moving toward each other. In real life their initial paths aren't likely to have anything to do with each other, so they could meet at a variety of angles. And because radar only covers an area in front of the plane carrying it, it's likely that one will be in the other's radar cone while not having the other in its own radar cone. And whichever one spots the other first has the choice to turn to the side, go around, carry on with the mission without fighting at all, choose to approach but do so from some angle other than head-on...

delvo wrote:

...which doesn't even need to hit the pursuer, in order to cause the pursuer to not be pursuing anymore.

I also find it amusing to see air-to-air engagements treated as duels, which means not only 1:1 but also facing each other and moving toward each other. In real life their initial paths aren't likely to have anything to do with each other, so they could meet at a variety of angles. And because radar only covers an area in front of the plane carrying it, it's likely that one will be in the other's radar cone while not having the other in its own radar cone. And whichever one spots the other first has the choice to turn to the side, go around, carry on with the mission without fighting at all, choose to approach but do so from some angle other than head-on...

More than that it strikes me as far more likely that an F-35 squadron or two would be inbound on a strike mission(s) with a small number of F-22's riding herd or possibly some F-35's with 4 or 6 AAM's doing the same.

When you turn to go tearing a$$ after the F-35 that shot at you just what are you turning into? You might see the less stealthy rear aspect of the F-35 but do you see the one still pointing at you that was trailing a few miles behind the other element just for this situation? Do you see the F-22 that is flying top cover? Do I really want to go barreling down the pipe after a target that obviously knows I am here and that I am pursuing him when his friends that I might not be able to see might be out there as well?

In reading "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert Shaw, I believe required reading for fighter pilots. I recall a comment or quote that a reasonably high percentage of air to air engagements acured without the opposing pilot even knowing he was a target. Today, unbelievable SA and stealth are added to the equation and you exponetially increase the potential outcome.

This book was published back in 1985 by Naval Press, technology and tactics are considerably different since then. What tactics have been specifially drawn up just for stealth and SA, including counter stealth which the US has to be the presumed leader.

strykerxo wrote:

In reading "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert Shaw, I believe required reading for fighter pilots. I recall a comment or quote that a reasonably high percentage of air to air engagements acured without the opposing pilot even knowing he was a target. Today, unbelievable SA and stealth are added to the equation and you exponetially increase the potential outcome.

This book was published back in 1985 by Naval Press, technology and tactics are considerably different since then. What tactics have been specifially drawn up just for stealth and SA, including counter stealth which the US has to be the presumed leader.

That's a great book to learn the fundamentals of A-A combat. If you take that info and blend in tactics used in submarine warfare (the original stealth weapons), you'll have a good idea of how to employ 5th gen fighters in modern combat.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35 semi-stealth to stealth transition in Air to Air fight?