Your Alternative to the F-35?

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 08:46

Ah Conan, you're such a lovely bloke...

So what you point out here, so eloquently I might add, is that the actual aircraft is of secondary importance and that training and tactics have a far greater bearing than the technology built into the aircraft. Bravo. So explain again why you need a super duper high tech wonder when simply increasing the training budget will gain you the same result? Again, bravo, good point.
...when flown by well trained pilots with the appropriate tactics an 'inferior' fighter was able to perform very well enough and in fact prove superior against aircraft that had better 'paper' statistics
It sounds like you’ve reconciled yourself with the fact that the F-35 will not be a brilliant air-to-air performer and that training and tactics will be crucial to ensuring that the aircraft will perform ‘well enough’ in that role. I guess that shows that at least you’re not completely immune to reality. ;) It would help though if you didn’t mislead the more gullible people out there into believing that the F-35 can be the ‘high’ end of the mix when it was designed from day one to be the ‘low’ part.

I’m afraid to think what you’ll do with yourself if they do cancel it Conan, you’ve obviously made an enormous emotional investment in the development of the aircraft, but I think it’s blinding you to the likelihood that at some point ‘they’ will realise that the promises that were made by LM in regard to the F-35 are rapidly becoming unachievable and that the money will be better spent on F-22s and Block 60s and of course, training.

Always nice chatting.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25148
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 09:04

jeffb, it will be interesting to read your explanation of your statement: "...the likelihood that at some point ‘they’ will realise that the promises that were made by LM in regard to the F-35 are rapidly becoming unachievable...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 09:30

@jeffb

The F-22 got cancelled because when they did the computer simulated ACM modeling the F-35's were able to go one for one with the F-22's. The F-22 are nice and stealthy from the front and side but from the rear they have the infrared signature of "a bitch in heat".

See the Flir imagery of the F-22 at the Paris Airshow.

Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 10:09

jeffb wrote:Ah Conan, you're such a lovely bloke...


Et tu... :D

So what you point out here, so eloquently I might add, is that the actual aircraft is of secondary importance and that training and tactics have a far greater bearing than the technology built into the aircraft. Bravo. So explain again why you need a super duper high tech wonder when simply increasing the training budget will gain you the same result? Again, bravo, good point.


Because it isn't 1939 anymore, something you obviously fail to grasp, when you and Eric consider the F-35 anything like the Buffalo.

The complexity of modern air combat is clearly lost on you. What do you reckon an E-3C might have achieved in support of a Buffalo for example? Do you think that they might have allowed the long range capable Buffalo's to maneuvre into a superior tactical position prior to engaging the Japanese fighters coming against them and thus not have to rely on their inferior agility and performance in the merge?

Could that technological advantage combined with appropriate tactics have provided an advantage there instead of cruising to altitide and then trying to spot the enemy using the same sensor he had? (Mark 1 eyeball)

The aircraft is important obviously, but sheer airframe perfrmance isn't as important as you blokes think, nor is it historically the dominant factor in what makes a "great" fighter. Otherwise every combat aircraft (including the Russian and Chinese ones) would resemble the MiG-25...

It sounds like you’ve reconciled yourself with the fact that the F-35 will not be a brilliant air-to-air performer and that training and tactics will be crucial to ensuring that the aircraft will perform ‘well enough’ in that role. I guess that shows that at least you’re not completely immune to reality. ;) It would help though if you didn’t mislead the more gullible people out there into believing that the F-35 can be the ‘high’ end of the mix when it was designed from day one to be the ‘low’ part.


On the contrary I think it will be an extremely effective combat aircraft in all forms of combat.

The high/low thing is such a ridiculous idea, it's used by people like you to justify your ridiculous opinions without any other real insight. Why don't you go and read the F-16 v F-15 forum on this very site (it's only 8 pages) before coming up with such ridiculous crap?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-188.html

Interesting to see what Eric used to think before he became besotted by groupthink though...

Like I said. In the future, when more jets do high-off-boresight heaters. The turning to the nth degree, won't mean much. IMO the pilots issue does matter. As mentioned many times before, these are exercises. No one wants to go up against an F-16 in real life. If they do, they are crazy There is a real good chance it can be your last day. Of course a lot of this is mutual support. Mutual support is definately at the top of the list of things that will keep you alive.


Funny How things change. Eric used to think the "pilot issue" mattered too. Of course he actually spent some time around pilots back then. Now he hangs around "experts" so I guess he's just better informed these days...

With 9G agility, F-16 like acceleration and climb and F/A-18 like agility, HMS/EODAS and HOBS missiles, (I'm talking about the A model if it isn't clear enough) it's going to be a very useful WVR fighter. With LO, the best radar, sensor, EW and comms capability of any fighter, plus the same BVR weapons as every other "better" fighter carries it's going to be a lethal BVR fighter too. Thinking otherwise is demonstrating immunity to the effects of reality.

I’m afraid to think what you’ll do with yourself if they do cancel it Conan, you’ve obviously made an enormous emotional investment in the development of the aircraft, but I think it’s blinding you to the likelihood that at some point ‘they’ will realise that the promises that were made by LM in regard to the F-35 are rapidly becoming unachievable and that the money will be better spent on F-22s and Block 60s and of course, training.

Always nice chatting.


i'll be disappointed if that was to happen sure. It would mean RAAF won't be getting the most capable air combat aircraft it can buy.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 13:57

Conan wrote: The complexity of modern air combat is clearly lost on you. What do you reckon an E-3C might have achieved in support of a Buffalo for example? Do you think that they might have allowed the long range capable Buffalo's to maneuver into a superior tactical position prior to engaging the Japanese fighters coming against them and thus not have to rely on their inferior agility and performance in the merge?

Could that technological advantage combined with appropriate tactics have provided an advantage there instead of cruising to altitide and then trying to spot the enemy using the same sensor he had? (Mark 1 eyeball)

Very likely, but in the context of our little comparison shouldn’t the opposing force have its own E-3C equivalent? Wouldn’t they also have the ability to radio enemy contacts to one another? Wouldn’t they also have the ability to synthesise an overall picture of the battle as well and act in a coordinated fashion? What then? All things being equal, won’t the aircraft with the superior performance still have the advantage?

Conan wrote:On the contrary I think it will be an extremely effective combat aircraft in all forms of combat.
…because? Is this some form of faith based combat simulation? You’ve stepped beyond using photographs to determine aircraft RCS, now you don’t even need to see the aircraft fly to know it will outfly, outshoot and generally outperform the raptor or any other opposing aircraft. Now that’s ridiculous.

Conan wrote:I'll be disappointed if that was to happen sure. It would mean RAAF won't be getting the most capable air combat aircraft it can buy.
It really is like a religion with you isn’t it? There is absolutely no evidence of the things you claim yet you have complete faith that they exist. Ooh look fairies :D


@Alloy: The reason the F-22 was cancelled was because the costs were growing out of control. Gates believed that LM could deliver a cheaper more effective solution. They still could if they can sell 3000+ copies. Problem is, with nearly another decade of development and testing to go, they probably can’t.

The F-22 has all aspect stealth unlike the F-35 which does not, never has and was never intended to have. The output of the F119 means that the F-22 requires very little use of afterburner and as you know, can maintain substantially supersonic flight using military thrust only. It’s tail structure and TV nozzles were specifically designed to mask and reduce it’s IR signature from nearly all aspects, so I really wouldn’t be concerned about this issue if I were you, certainly not in comparison with the F-35.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 15:33

jeffb wrote:Very likely, but in the context of our little comparison shouldn’t the opposing force have its own E-3C equivalent? Wouldn’t they also have the ability to radio enemy contacts to one another? Wouldn’t they also have the ability to synthesise an overall picture of the battle as well and act in a coordinated fashion? What then? All things being equal, won’t the aircraft with the superior performance still have the advantage?


No because things are NEVER equal. Not ever. That is reality. China or India buy a handful of AWACS platforms (7 and 3 respectively) and suddenly things in your apparent belief system are equal? Equal to the 68x E-3C and 75x E-2C 2000 Hawkeye's the US are running? A ratio of roughly 20:1 and 45:1 respectively. Obviously equal?

Are the 270x SU-27/30/J-11's China are running equal to the 187x F-22A's, 367x F-15C/D's, 223x F-15E's, the US is running? A ratio of 2.8:1 in so-called "Tier 1" fighters. Equal?

Even if some sort of engagement occurred where 1 SU-30 had to fight 1 Super Hornet with no force multiplier support and both aircraft knew where each other was precisely and each pilot agreed to attack from a particular spot known to the other, starting from an agreed upon speed and altitude, it STILL wouldn't be equal because of weapon and sensor system differences, different fuel states, different drag effects, pilot training and skill and so on.

What if the Super Hornet pilot was a fighter combat instructor with thousands of hours in his bird and the SU-30 driver had only just graduated his course. Would that make a difference do you think? Or is that irrelevant and only sheer straight line speed important? Those "kinematic games" we hear people waffling on about?

The aircraft's performance differences wouldn't really mean a thing in such a situation unless each agreed to get into a turning gun fight and not use any of the advantages of a modern combat aircraft like radar, EW, IRST, helmet mounted tracking systems, high off-boresite missiles etc, before or during said fight.

A scenario I'm sure most would find far-fetched...

because? Is this some form of faith based combat simulation? You’ve stepped beyond using photographs to determine aircraft RCS, now you don’t even need to see the aircraft fly to know it will outfly, outshoot and generally outperform the raptor or any other opposing aircraft. Now that’s ridiculous.


I never said it will out-perform the Raptor. I said I believe it will be a very effective combat aircaft in all forms of air combat. I've listed the reasons a thousand times so I won't go down that path again, but consider another thing. You don't believe L-M's claims about how good it's aircraft is, fine. But you do apparently believe it's claims about how good it's previous two aircraft are?

Isn't that attitude just a bit contemptible? Fort Worth knows what it's doing so long as it's the F-16 and F-22A we're talking about...

It really is like a religion with you isn’t it? There is absolutely no evidence of the things you claim yet you have complete faith that they exist. Ooh look fairies :D


Yeah you're right. Maybe the F-35B didn't really land on USS Wasp the other month for 10 days of trials either, it was just a really good L-M simulation...

Maybe the F-35A hasn't really flown at M1.6 hitting it's KPP. It's all a big lie...

There's no evidence of L-M's claims at all? You'd have to believe in fairies to honestly believe that.

Goodnight Tinkerbell.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 23:34

jeffb wrote:
@Alloy: The reason the F-22 was cancelled was because the costs were growing out of control. Gates believed that LM could deliver a cheaper more effective solution. They still could if they can sell 3000+ copies. Problem is, with nearly another decade of development and testing to go, they probably can’t.



The USAF just let a new contract for further block modifications for F-22. It will cost about $74m per airframe.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/1 ... -f-22-fix/
Last edited by maus92 on 25 Nov 2011, 00:55, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

VarkVet

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1450
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2006, 04:31

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 00:42

Alternative?

Marry Poppins with AESA and some of that supercali stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-Z0SSyUcw
My eyes have seen the glory of the Lord and the esthetics of the Flightline
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 379
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 01:21

No, no, no! We need the biggest baddest AIM that can be lofted. I propose the AIM version of the Pegasus rocket:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/launc ... wn101.html

I initially wanted two of those to be lofted on the fastest, high-flyer I could think of, the SR-71, because those two variables seem to be all the rage in certain quarters. But obviously it cannot do that.

No. Put two of them on a B-52, one with a radar seeker and one with a IIR seeker - just like the Rooskies do!

Fire control data?

Steal the L-band anti-stealth technology from the Rooskies which obviously can detect anything 500 miles away, and cram a doubly-ranged version into the B-52.

Now it can put two AIMs 1000 miles downrange; you think a T-50 can outrun that?

I'll get my coat!
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 02:10

Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3670
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 02:54

jeffb wrote: Ah Conan, you're such a lovely bloke...

So what you point out here, so eloquently I might add, is that the actual aircraft is of secondary importance and that training and tactics have a far greater bearing than the technology built into the aircraft. Bravo. So explain again why you need a super duper high tech wonder when simply increasing the training budget will gain you the same result? Again, bravo, good point.


It won't give you the same result against a well equipped near peer enemy. If the only tactic that you can use, is to avoid certain airspace in order to survive, then that put's a pretty hefty constraint on mission planning.

It sounds like you’ve reconciled yourself with the fact that the F-35 will not be a brilliant air-to-air performer and that training and tactics will be crucial to ensuring that the aircraft will perform ‘well enough’ in that role.

What fact are you referring to? The kinematic performance of the F-35 combined with its superior avionics, and low RCS, will make it a very effective air to air fighter. Good tactics will only increase it's effectiveness, but are by means the only thing that it has going for it.

I guess that shows that at least you’re not completely immune to reality. ;) It would help though if you didn’t mislead the more gullible people out there into believing that the F-35 can be the ‘high’ end of the mix when it was designed from day one to be the ‘low’ part.


Low compared to the F-22. Not compared to 4.5 gen and earlier aircraft.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3670
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 02:57

alloycowboy wrote:@jeffb

The F-22 got cancelled because when they did the computer simulated ACM modeling the F-35's were able to go one for one with the F-22's. The F-22 are nice and stealthy from the front and side but from the rear they have the infrared signature of "a bitch in heat".


See the Flir imagery of the F-22 at the Paris Airshow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU


Any aircraft in afterburner is going to have a large IR signature. That's the point of supercruising, to avoid the necessity of afterburners. Once in WVR, it doesn't matter if the enemy can spot you on their IRST. The question is how far away can they spot you, in dry thrust.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3670
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 03:32

jeffb wrote: [Very likely, but in the context of our little comparison shouldn’t the opposing force have its own E-3C equivalent? Wouldn’t they also have the ability to radio enemy contacts to one another? Wouldn’t they also have the ability to synthesise an overall picture of the battle as well and act in a coordinated fashion? What then? All things being equal, won’t the aircraft with the superior performance still have the advantage?


How many E-3C comparable aircraft does Russia or China have? North Korea, Iran? The notion that any foe would have equivalent situational awareness is a bit of an overstatement to say the least.

because? Is this some form of faith based combat simulation? You’ve stepped beyond using photographs to determine aircraft RCS, now you don’t even need to see the aircraft fly to know it will outfly, outshoot and generally outperform the raptor or any other opposing aircraft. Now that’s ridiculous.


No one said that the F-35 could outfly the F-22. What has been said is that compared to other aircraft, the F-35 is still a very good performer, without factoring in VLO and avionic advantages, or pilot skill.

It really is like a religion with you isn’t it? There is absolutely no evidence of the things you claim yet you have complete faith that they exist. Ooh look fairies :D


The plane has been flown by a lot of experienced pilots, that have very positive experiences/commentary. Additionally, the avionics systems have performed superbly. I think it takes more faith, to think that once operational, the plane will be a dog.

The F-22 has all aspect stealth unlike the F-35 which does not, never has and was never intended to have.

False

http://tinyurl.com/cu2uvsr
All-aspect advanced stealth enables the F-35 to dramatically reduce the detection and engagement ranges of enemy defense systems or aircraft.


The output of the F119 means that the F-22 requires very little use of afterburner and as you know, can maintain substantially supersonic flight using military thrust only. It’s tail structure and TV nozzles were specifically designed to mask and reduce it’s IR signature from nearly all aspects, so I really wouldn’t be concerned about this issue if I were you, certainly not in comparison with the F-35.


The F-35 isn't as fast as the F-22, but its tail structure, and LOAN nozzle most certainly are designed to reduce/mask the IR signature.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 04:45

@wrightwing.... The F-135 engine has more then double the bypass air flowing running over it, which means it may run a little bit cooler then the F-22 Raptor's F-119 engines. Whether this is going to make any substantial difference to an advanced infrared missile is another question and one I am glad I don't have to answer.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post25 Nov 2011, 07:04

Et tu tinkerbell?
:D

See now this is what I mean, you invoke an E-3C in 1941 to argue the benefits of networking your buffalo’s but claim any opposing networked force as unrealistic or so greatly reduced in capability that it is beneath consideration. That demonstrates to me that you are quite cognizant of the effects of a properly networked opposing force but are not intellectually honest enough to admit what it means for the dream that is the F-35.

BTW when I said, an E-3C equivalent I didn’t intend to restrict the scenario to mere analogues of the E-3C but to include the possibility of other off-board (or even on-board) networked assets. Indeed, L-band bistatic and multistatic setups immediately spring to mind or on-shore VHF or even OTH.

Also, when I said ‘all things being equal’ I did so in the assumption that, as a grown up, you would recognize it as a shorthand that grown ups sometimes use to describe the process of eliminating outliers to arrive at a more representative population for the purposes of comparison and/or discussion. Your rather desperate denial of such a process with your contention that nothing can be equal to the F-35 or that, because the United States operates a 3 or 5:1 advantage in numbers of E-3C type platforms, an opposing force would not be able to field even one seems…illogical. Again, it seems more like a desperate attempt to slant the playing field in favor of your poorly performing buffalos than an honest attempt to consider the implications of two networked forces meeting up over, in this case, Singapore.

Yes, yes, pilot training and experience are a huge factor as was demonstrated beautifully by Cope India and then Red Flag ‘09(? Sorry specific year escapes me at the mo). But again, by saying ‘all things being equal’ you assume, for the sake of argument, that pilots and their opponents are of roughly the same general skill and experience level when they meet.

As to F-35 vs F-22 and F-16. The F-22 is an operational (sorta) system whose capabilities have been verified by numerous, very experienced pilots. The F-16 is a well-known, well understood, cheap to procure workhorse which is good at a lot of stuff. It’s a good bomb truck over a decent range and a good fighter if you get in a pinch. Flying in airspace sanitized by F-22s it is more than sufficient to do most of the day to day jobs.

Yeah the F-35Bs landed successfully on the Wasp and then took off again showing that they can land on a moving target (but not moving very much). All-in-all, great pictures were taken. Surprises were discovered though, sideways nose landing gear loads are looking to be a problem and apparently only BF-5 is still cleared for VLs following the testing, but yes, quite successful.

And yes the A model has reportedly made it to 1.6M, but test pilots are saying that the B and C are hitting a brick wall at about 1.2M and are burning a lot of fuel to do it. It does not appear to simply be a trim issue. The B and the A are essentially identical in shape so…


@ Wrightwing – “It won't give you the same result against a well equipped near peer enemy”. Yes it will, that was Conan’s point, that the Buffalo’s enjoyed a kill advantage over a better equipped peer enemy as a result of superior training and tactics (and/or desperation).

“If the only tactic that you can use, is to avoid certain airspace in order to survive, then that put's a pretty hefty constraint on mission planning.” This is part of the conops of the F-35, remember those diagrams of the reduced SAM footprints and the F-35 sliding between them? Stealth reduces the airspace that needs to be avoided but doesn’t eliminate it. Late model IADS may well put them back as well.

“The notion that any foe would have equivalent situational awareness is a bit of an overstatement to say the least. “ Sorry, this requires too much clairvoyance for me, that or access to Russian and Chinese systems which I don’t have.

“The F-35 isn't as fast as the F-22, but its tail structure, and LOAN nozzle most certainly are designed to reduce/mask the IR signature.” I’d agree that the tail structure is designed to hide the nozzle to a certain degree but I don’t think you can claim the nozzle itself is designed to reduce the IR signature. At any rate not to the same level as on the F-22. The F135 does have more bypass air but it also has that marvellous multi level afterburner as well.

@ Maus92 – I think they are mostly upgrades to bring the fleet up to the 3.2 spec.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: magitsu and 7 guests