Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

I have read somewhere (perhaps in an Oz Parliament Report earlier this year?) that the RAAF intend to operate a minimum of four F-35As together in mutual support. But what if there are five (or more) with one (or more) always stealthy nearby?

F-16.net Sponsor

Strictly speaking, if the talk about maneuvering is almost irrelevant is true, then a F-35 that turns tail will be put into a very disadvantageous position. But, this is a truism, if the other guy's behind you and has a shot at you, you're in trouble.

I think the more interesting question is: does the F-35 have enough internal weapons to achieve the ideal set out by the Lockheed marketing department of an 'escort-less' strike. The optimal outcome is the NGADM (I think that's correct) is fully developed; this gives the F-35, or any fighter, a combo of anti-air and anti-radiation in a single missile package. But, in an imperfect world, is two missiles enough? (And, can the F-35 carry the HARM internally?)

Final question: I've heard about the AIM-9X being able to do 'over the shoulder' shots. If that can't be carried on the internal missile racks, does the F-35 loose its DAS advantage?

arkadyrenko wrote:

Strictly speaking, if the talk about maneuvering is almost irrelevant is true, then a F-35 that turns tail will be put into a very disadvantageous position. But, this is a truism, if the other guy's behind you and has a shot at you, you're in trouble.

I think the more interesting question is: does the F-35 have enough internal weapons to achieve the ideal set out by the Lockheed marketing department of an 'escort-less' strike. The optimal outcome is the NGADM (I think that's correct) is fully developed; this gives the F-35, or any fighter, a combo of anti-air and anti-radiation in a single missile package. But, in an imperfect world, is two missiles enough? (And, can the F-35 carry the HARM internally?)

Again, why would you want to aspire to this? It might matter for smaller nations with limited means, like Canada when operating against a weak opponent (in an expeditionary role). Even then they can rely on other nations to provide other capabilities.

However for larger operators like the US and Japan, tasking formations of aircraft with different roles (SEAD, A2G and A2A) is going to be a reality if you're going up against stiff resistance.

Really while I think on the tactical level you're going to see significant difference in aircraft conops, you'll still see strike packages with different aircraft carrying out different roles.

1. Go back and re-read the sections about maneuvering and chasing down a fleeing F-35.

2. The "ideals" of escort-strike were not made up by LM, but are the requirement set out by the JSF program from the start.

3. Four AMRAAMs (2 per F-35 in a 2-Ship package) should be more than enough to deal with the typical A2A threat that they will face. If intel thinks that there will be a high enough threat to justify it, the A2G F-35s can be escorted by A2A F-35s that can pack 4-6 AAMs each).

4. The tech in NGM (previously known as JDRADM) is not that advanced above what we have now, depending on what it's final design is.

5. No, the AARGM cannot be carried internally and it's due for Blk6 external carriage.

6. Both the 9x and AMRAAM are capable of "over the shoulder" shots. It's a matter of LOAL capability, not final target aspect. So no, the F-35 does not lose it's EODAS advantages when only carrying the AMRAAM.

Lightndattic wrote:

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.

My thoughts exactly, submarine and sniper tactics generally can be related to stealth fighter tactics. Legacy AC fighter tactics do not apply unless you have become the visable, and even then you have counter air tactics (i.e. the F-22 in visible range and adversary AC not being able to lock on). Detection, position, suprise and evasion advantage are key to success.

I would imagine any 'fleeing' (fleeting?) F-35 will be running towards this 'bad boy' Very Happy

: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f ... s/download

And as mentioned by SWP 6 missiles for internal carriage later....

12 AMRAAMs?

That is the current max (4 internal + 8 external AMRAAMs) and two external 9x.

I can't see the drag numbers on that being pretty. Additionally, if these are operating within range of fairly survivable land bases, we can also take into account F-22s providing AWACS and targeting as well as higher-performance intercepts to handle emerging threats.

SpudmanWP wrote:

That is the current max (4 internal + 8 external AMRAAMs) and two external 9x.

No doubt that won't be enough to,satisfy some.. Very Happy

popcorn wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

That is the current max (4 internal + 8 external AMRAAMs) and two external 9x.

No doubt that won't be enough to,satisfy some.. Very Happy

That's about what the Raptor can carry. I don't see how it wouldn't be enough, except for those Ace Combat types used to 150 AIM-9Ms and 60 AMRAAMs. No competitor system can carry more. The J-20 can carry 2 SRAAMs and 6 AMRAAM-class weapons (possibly PL-12), from what we've seen so far, and AFAIK there's no indication on the T-50.

arkadyrenko wrote:

...if the talk about maneuvering is almost irrelevant...

Maneuvering isn't irrelevant. But, in this day and age any fighter with a HMCS and a HOBS missile with an imaging seeker makes relatively minor aircraft performance differences all but meaningless in the WVR arena. What starts to sway the exchange ratio is the SA and positional advantage that one arrives with -- and F-35 will have the means to enjoy both.

That being said, anyone in a hurry to make a merge in this kind of fight is delusional.

Now we've gotten into a good discussion. Very good points by all and a good synopsis bigjku. I very well "knew turn and burn" was an over simplification, but I did have legitimate concerns about the internal weapons capacity of the aircraft (and still do). I assumed that if F-35s were the lone type of strike aircraft in a fight, they would come in phases or "layers", such that when the lead birds are out of Class V, the next layer of stealth configured birds would over-watch them. Frankly, that makes more sense than the F-35 loaded to the gills with external missiles over-watching. Clearly if F-22s or even F-15/F-18 are in the equation in an OCA or over-watch role, the entire scenario changes. But for $162 million per unit (the DoDs current figure, not mine) a set of F-35s should be able to go it alone.

In combat, every situation is different and has been mentioned, quantity has a quality all it own. If Taiwan buys the F-35 for example, it's not inconceivable that the Chinese will attempt to "flood the zone" in a daylight fight with F-5 / F-16A quality aircraft. Frankly, this is more a plausible approach for them to employ to achieve air dominance than something like the J-20 getting it done alone on the high-tech side. Of course the Taiwanese would have some of 3rd and 4th generation aircraft of their own, but no F-22s or even F-15s. Again, without writing paragraphs, I know this is a simplification. The viability of Taiwan's airfields post ballistic attack, the proximately and survivability of our carrier groups, land-based support from Japan are all huge factors here.

Still, in such a scenario (the very type of scenario that is prompting governments to spend so much money on a limited number of F-35s), will the bird's internal missile capacity and 180 cannon rounds be enough if the enemy has a significant numerical advantage? Opinions vary. I respect the opinion of those that say it will. I hope it's true.

Spudman, going in order.

1. May have misunderstood about the maneuvering discussion. But arguing that the F-35 isn't in an awkward position if it has to run away is silly. Of course it'll be in an awkward position. Everyone will be.

2. / 3. That's the discussion question: is 2 internal missiles per airframe enough for self contained strike packages. If we just say it depends, that's no fun. That question becomes more relevant when we consider the types of missile carried by F-35. Which leads to part 4.

4. I was under the impression that the whole point of the JDRADM program was to combine anti-radiation and air-to-air modes into one missile. That combination is of particular importance if you need to fit the missile into the weapons bay of a fighter. If the NGM is just a revamped AIM-120; then one looses the whole point of the JDRADM program. And, without the combined weapons capability in one missile, the F-35 'self-escort' capability decreases.

5. The question was AIM-9X, not AARGM. And if the F-35 can't carry AIM-9X, that's silly.

6. Didn't know that about the AIM-120. Sounds cool.

As for the F-35 carrying 12 missiles, fun but besides the point in this discussion. Unless you're fighting the North Koreans. At which point every A2A pilot will have the 'ace in a day' look in their eyes.

Last comment

Quote:

Detection, position, suprise and evasion advantage are key to success.

Talk about stating the obvious.

Dude, in this thread alone, you've used $120M twice and $162M twice. Which is it? Please tell us which 'unit cost' you're talking about, which variant, and which LRIP lot -- since they all vary accordingly. Then, tell us how many production numbers DoD has taken out of the buy since 2007, and tell us why economies of scale don't matter; make sure you point out the concurrency monster and make us more afraid.

What is a 'set' of F-35s?

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

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