F-35 & F-16 (Block 50 +) - Comparison of frontal view.

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

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 00:02

@battleshipagincourt:
F-35's don't need to be escorted as closely by F-22's, freeing them up performing their own missions. Plus SAMs are generally more of a concern than fighters, since those only last as long as their airfields.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3840
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 00:09

battleshipagincourt wrote:Everyone seems to always bring up drag when it weighs against the F-16, yet forget about it completely in times like this. An F-16 goes into battle with a full weapons load and external tanks, meaning it expends more fuel going to the target than returning from the target. If planned accordingly, the F-16 would drop its tanks just before entering hostile airspace (almost empty) and then drop its bombs, leaving you with a clean airframe and maybe ~80 % of its internal fuel + CFT's to get home.

If F-16's configured for ground attack are forced into combat long before reaching the target, then they would also have to jettison their air to ground ordinance for agility, aborting the primary mission altogether. This is where the F-22 would really work well with the F-16. Raptors proceed ahead of the Falcons, taking out enemy fighters and relaying data back for missile tracking. The F-16's would likely carry four AIM-120's each, doubling that of a standard F-35 weapon load. By itself the falcon may not be a spectacular fighter, but using them in conjunction with the F-22 offers the greatest number of fighters sharing many of the Raptor's benefits as a force multiplier.

Multiple F-35's working together or in conjunction with the F-22 doesn't yield the same force-multiplier benefits as you would get from using older fighters. And they all cost roughly the same for mostly redundant benefits.



And what would you suggest as a substitute? A cruise missile?

The point is that you want a flexible armament for a fighter. The F-22 is limited only to 1,000 Ib munitions, but that's really all you need for most targets. So what's the drawback?

The drawback is that you might want a specific kind of bunker busters for a target and find that while an F-22 must mount it externally, the F-35 can carry it without compromising its low RCS. A more flexible armament for a fighter is always better than to always have to cherry pick from a limited range of munitions which normally aren't favored for the job.


And what of those targets which aren't well-defended? I don't think a F-35's stealth would have much impact against a band of insurgents hiding in a cave. Yet the F-35 is more expensive than an F-16. An A-10 is even more cost-effective and capable than an F-16 for such jobs.




-how far away is the target, if the F-16 still has full CFTs, and 80% internal fuel?
-the benefit of the F-35 is that it is far less reliant on F-22s for escort, as they will likely betray their presence only after their bombs have been dropped. You do realize that some F-35s in the package can also be configured for a pure A/A load out.
-how do you figure that a non-NCW aircraft will be a better force multiplier? The F-16 will be more reliant on force multipliers.
-JDAMs, LJDAMs, JSOW, SDB, will be able to handle any bunker that an F-16 could engage.
-for targets that aren't well defended, the F-35 has a larger payload capacity than an F-16 or A-10, as well as greater range, situational awareness, sensor capability, etc.... This means either being able to hit targets further away, or more loiter time
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3074
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 00:52

The F-35 isn't going to carry the JDAM-ER so you need something to carry those weapons. F-16 will soldier on well into F-35's formal introduction.
Offline

majorzaid

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2011, 04:03
  • Location: Wesley Chapel

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 00:56

geogen wrote:Welcome Majorzaid -

I guess I'm unsure exactly w/ the precise intent of your thread though. (no disrespect). But you want to compare the frontal 'view'? Ok... and??

As for the range comparison; yes, as battleship noted: an F-16 with CFT and 3 EFT would have far superior range. And if your IOC 2017 sortie was requiring (or giving you) a GBU-10/24, then that would of course have to go under the F-35's wing too. Furthermore, as far as A2G load-outs go... its likely that a next gen Litening SE (improved G4) pod would be the superior kit (especially when operated by a dedicated back-seater, cough) than the 3rd gen EOTS. So imho, depending on the mission, something worth dragging.

Hmmm, now what I'd like to see cobbled together is a comparative frontal of view X-47B and F-35!! Anyone able to do that in their free time? Exec?? :thanks: :thumb:


Don't worry, Geogen, no disrespect was taken. My point, was to open a discussion about the clean configuration that the F-35 presents while still carrying large amounts of fuel, and a mix of (potentially) up to 6 missiles and bombs internally. For a similar capability, the later model F-16 often will need conformal fuel tanks and/or drop tanks, targeting pods, and will carry it's missiles externally. As with the F-16, the F-35 can definitely carry additional under wing missiles and/or bombs, as well as external under wing fuel tanks, but it doesn't need to. So, for only part of the capability of an F-35, the F-16 must fly very dirty.

BTW: Great comments all.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 00:59

JDAM-ER? If you mean the US version it was canceled but would have likely fit anyways as it only changes the depth, not width or length of the JDAM. Boeing & a Korean company, Times Aerospace Korea, LLC (TAK), are developing one and so is the Australian Air Force (with Boeing). I think that the Boeing/TAK & RAAF programs will merge.

As you can see the Boeing/TAK JDAM-ER (wings on top) adds very little to the height of the JDAM.

Image

Here is the Boeing/RAAF (wings on bottom) version:

Image

With wings extended:

Image

Do you mean JASSM-ER or JSOW-ER?

The F-35 can carry the JASSM-ER externally and the JSOW-ER internally. What's the problem?
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7724
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 04:46

majorzaid wrote:
geogen wrote:Welcome Majorzaid -

I guess I'm unsure exactly w/ the precise intent of your thread though. (no disrespect). But you want to compare the frontal 'view'? Ok... and??

As for the range comparison; yes, as battleship noted: an F-16 with CFT and 3 EFT would have far superior range. And if your IOC 2017 sortie was requiring (or giving you) a GBU-10/24, then that would of course have to go under the F-35's wing too. Furthermore, as far as A2G load-outs go... its likely that a next gen Litening SE (improved G4) pod would be the superior kit (especially when operated by a dedicated back-seater, cough) than the 3rd gen EOTS. So imho, depending on the mission, something worth dragging.

Hmmm, now what I'd like to see cobbled together is a comparative frontal of view X-47B and F-35!! Anyone able to do that in their free time? Exec?? :thanks: :thumb:


Don't worry, Geogen, no disrespect was taken. My point, was to open a discussion about the clean configuration that the F-35 presents while still carrying large amounts of fuel, and a mix of (potentially) up to 6 missiles and bombs internally. For a similar capability, the later model F-16 often will need conformal fuel tanks and/or drop tanks, targeting pods, and will carry it's missiles externally. As with the F-16, the F-35 can definitely carry additional under wing missiles and/or bombs, as well as external under wing fuel tanks, but it doesn't need to. So, for only part of the capability of an F-35, the F-16 must fly very dirty.

BTW: Great comments all.



Pretty much what the USAF has been saying since the start. Stealth for initial 1st day of war attacks, doing SEAD/DEAD and clearing the way for legacy jets later on.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 05:49

Agreed Popcorn, once the enemies air defences have been nutralized the USAF can bring in the B-52's and B-1b's and carpet bomb at will.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 07:32

Prinz_Eugn wrote:@battleshipagincourt:
F-35's don't need to be escorted as closely by F-22's, freeing them up performing their own missions. Plus SAMs are generally more of a concern than fighters, since those only last as long as their airfields.


You clearly aren't seeing the point. You don't escort F-16's with F-22's; you use the Raptor as an advanced AWACS. With four F-22's a significant distance ahead of a large formation of F-16's, the stealth planes relay data back and the F-16's launch their missiles at long range. This should work just as well with ground targets as air/air opposition. Anti-radar missiles would effectively clear a corridor of SAM's and an F-16 can launch such weapons outside the threat range.

Now let's compare that to a full force of F-35's, since you don't seem to appreciate the force multiplier effect. You can afford maybe half as many of those in comparison to F-16's, meaning you can only deliver a fraction of what you normally could with legacy fighters. And although those fighters are capable of evading enemy radars, you only have half as many to accomplish your goal.

Now if this were a formation of F-16's with a pair of advanced F-22's sending back data, each of those legacy fighters are worth essentially the same as an F-35 in many ways. From only 5 of an enemy position, a stealth aircraft can be just as visible to radar as an F-16 launching missiles from 50 miles away.
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 09:34

battleshipagincourt wrote:
You clearly aren't seeing the point.


I like how you are advocating the F-16 over the F-35 and then claim others "don't get the point."

Whats wrong with F-22's escorting F-35's though? I notice your little scenario allows the F-16's to have full escort by F-22's but for some reason you've ignored that option for the F-35's. I know you claim the F-22's aren't escorting the F-16's in your scenario, which is odd as they sure do sound like they are.
Though in all fairness Prinz was correct in what he said, the F-35 doesn't need the F-22 as an escort (or as you termed it an AWACS) as it should be superior to the Raptor in that role anyway with its EO-DAS and EW suite (that is a follow on from the F-22's AN/ALR-94) not to mention a significantly more advanced radar set it will be a better information collection platform and much better suited to locating hostile SAM sites and inbound aircraft than the F-22.

Also you're not seriously claiming an F-16 receiving datalink data is as usefull as an F-35 are you? Really? I can't get my head around how anyone can think that. Datalinked data won't allow the F-16 to lower its RCS or use the EODAS or allow it to have the F-35's Barracuda suite.

( You're not Geogen using another account are you? Its just that I can't think of anyone else who honestly, and seriously thinks the F-16 is the superior option over the F-35, I guess there are two of you now. Hey, maybe you could start a website, sort of like the Mike Sparks of the aviation world. Instead of M113 forever we can have F-16 forever... )
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 11:14

You clearly aren't seeing the point. You don't escort F-16's with F-22's; you use the Raptor as an advanced AWACS. With four F-22's a significant distance ahead of a large formation of F-16's, the stealth planes relay data back

This is nothing more, but a ‘forward escort’ thing.
One question – how is the F-22 going to datalink data to F-16? Link-16 which will give away Raptors position?

and the F-16's launch their missiles at long range. This should work just as well with ground targets as air/air opposition. Anti-radar missiles would effectively clear a corridor of SAM's and an F-16 can launch such weapons outside the threat range.

You clearly have no idea how modern air combat works.
Launching missiles at their extreme ranges (30-40nm for AMRAAM), especially when you don’t fly high&fast (like the Raptor) is the best way to waste your missiles. That’s why it’s always better to close in and fire your missiles from as close as you can. It’s extremely hard to do when you fly in an F-16 loaded with bombs, fuel tanks (high RCS, low acceleration, maneuverability).

Now let's compare that to a full force of F-35's, since you don't seem to appreciate the force multiplier effect. You can afford maybe half as many of those in comparison to F-16's

The F-35 is supposed to be just a little bit more expensive than the newest versions of the F-16. So, maybe like 4:3 ratio?

meaning you can only deliver a fraction of what you normally could with legacy fighters. And although those fighters are capable of evading enemy radars, you only have half as many to accomplish your goal.

If you can evade radars and other fighters you don’t need many aircrafts to accomplish the same task.
Read about the F-117 – 2 of them could perform a mission that otherwise you’d need several dozen different aircrafts(and high probability of losses).

[quote]Now if this were a formation of F-16's with a pair of advanced F-22's sending back data, each of those legacy fighters are worth essentially the same as an F-35 in many ways. [quote]
No they’re not. It’s just you who don’t understand that.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7724
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 13:07

This slide reflects the "force multiplier" effect the 5Gen jets are projected to have. IIRC, it was included in one of Lt.Gen Dave Deptula's presentations. Note you need 2/3rds less platforms to accomplish the same job with a greater probability of success and lower loss rate by going with a F-22/F-35 strike package.


Image
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3840
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 13:17

battleshipagincourt wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:@battleshipagincourt:
F-35's don't need to be escorted as closely by F-22's, freeing them up performing their own missions. Plus SAMs are generally more of a concern than fighters, since those only last as long as their airfields.


You clearly aren't seeing the point. You don't escort F-16's with F-22's; you use the Raptor as an advanced AWACS. With four F-22's a significant distance ahead of a large formation of F-16's, the stealth planes relay data back and the F-16's launch their missiles at long range. This should work just as well with ground targets as air/air opposition. Anti-radar missiles would effectively clear a corridor of SAM's and an F-16 can launch such weapons outside the threat range.

Now let's compare that to a full force of F-35's, since you don't seem to appreciate the force multiplier effect. You can afford maybe half as many of those in comparison to F-16's, meaning you can only deliver a fraction of what you normally could with legacy fighters. And although those fighters are capable of evading enemy radars, you only have half as many to accomplish your goal.

Now if this were a formation of F-16's with a pair of advanced F-22's sending back data, each of those legacy fighters are worth essentially the same as an F-35 in many ways. From only 5 of an enemy position, a stealth aircraft can be just as visible to radar as an F-16 launching missiles from 50 miles away.


The S300/400 WEZ is greater than the range of the AGM-88. The F-35 will be able to launch its weapons outside their WEZs, while F-16s will have to successfully dodge missiles, enroute to their launch point(against a target that's aware of inbound SEAD aircraft). You're being very optimistic, in the likelihood of success. BLUF- the presence of S-300/400 effectively creates no fly zones for legacy aircraft, whether they're supported by F-22s or not. The limitation of available F-35s will only be an issue as they're entering service. With a planned buy of 1763 airframes, it won't be an issue.
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 14:28

Ww, an S300/400 projectile fired from 120 km distance (doing avg.M3), takes over 2 minutes to reach the target.
Meanwhile the target usually fires its ARMs, turn the tail and run and no missile in this world can catch it, then.

Besides, do you have any idea at what range an S300s can burn through escort jamming screen?
It seems you thing it can do that at 100km? :D
Cheers, Cola
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3840
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 16:48

cola wrote:Ww, an S300/400 projectile fired from 120 km distance (doing avg.M3), takes over 2 minutes to reach the target.
Meanwhile the target usually fires its ARMs, turn the tail and run and no missile in this world can catch it, then.

Besides, do you have any idea at what range an S300s can burn through escort jamming screen?
It seems you thing it can do that at 100km? :D


That's all fine and good, except that the S300/400 have projectiles that can fly much further than that. It's a pretty risky proposition to fly a legacy aircraft into the WEZs of these systems.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post08 Feb 2011, 17:00

Okay, maybe I have issues with properly wording my meanings. I am not remotely suggesting that you can reasonably use legacy fighters to perform the role of a stealth fighter, but using F-16's and F-15E's in conjunction with stealth fighters (whether it's the F-35 or the F-22) offer many of the benefits without having to drop >$100 million per aircraft.

A formation of four F-22's and 36 legacy fighters (data linked) has moreorless the same situational awareness as forty F-22's. That's because the remarkable radars and sensors of the F-22 and/or F-35 becomes more and more redundant as they all share the same airspace. I also don't suggest stacking stealth with LO fighters, as that limits what a formation can engage without suffering heavy losses.

The F-35 is supposed to be just a little bit more expensive than the newest versions of the F-16. So, maybe like 4:3 ratio?


No, I'll stick with the 1:2. Key words you used there: supposed to be. I remember seeing F-35A figures as low as $27 million each, as compared to the $20 million F-16. Now what are they estimating, taking R&D into account, higher estimates in manufacturing costs, and to delays in production?

Manufacturing costs for the first lot order could very easily rival the F-22's and a best case scenario of $50 million is only realistic if you plan to buy ~2700 fighters... with each block costing 10-15% less than the last. With R&D taken into consideration, it almost would have been more viable to just buy another 300 F-22's just for the cost of the JSF program's R&D. No I'm not suggesting that an F-22 would have replaced the F-35C or be VSTOL capable; that's just a figure for comparison.


You clearly have no idea how modern air combat works.
Launching missiles at their extreme ranges (30-40nm for AMRAAM), especially when you don’t fly high&fast (like the Raptor) is the best way to waste your missiles. That’s why it’s always better to close in and fire your missiles from as close as you can. It’s extremely hard to do when you fly in an F-16 loaded with bombs, fuel tanks (high RCS, low acceleration, maneuverability).


That's true of older fighters, but the idea is that an F-22 would engage at close range while a missile carrier would trail ~50 miles behind. Transmitting data back to the missile, an F-16 would carry and launch the AMRAAM, but it would be the F-22 guiding the missile to target. This would be assuming they are carrying the AIM-120D, which will have superior range to allow for engagements beyond 50 miles. All you would have to consider is how long the missile's fuel would endure, that the enemy fighter continues closing, and the speed/altitude of the missile truck. From a supercruising F-22, this range could be as much as 100 miles. From an F-16, this would still be 50-75 miles.

One question – how is the F-22 going to datalink data to F-16? Link-16 which will give away Raptors position?


No, you'd use a secure channel. And before noting that current F-22's can't do this with older fighters yet, this is a limitation you could overcome with upgrading the Raptor's datalink capabilities as they did with the F-35.

This slide reflects the "force multiplier" effect the 5Gen jets are projected to have.


???

I don't get it. Which scenario depicts the generation five/legacy fighter force combo?

The air/ground force I suggest is 2/4 F-22's with four HARM-carrying F-16's and four F-16 strike fighters. Actually you could make due with only two F-22's because those eight F-16's can carry a total of 32 AIM-120D's among them + their A/G weapons and fuel tanks. This would do the job of that F-35/F-22 force, but only with F-16's replacing the F-35's for the same effect. You could even replace the F-22's with F-35's for the air/air defense role altogether.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests