Long time lurker, first-time poster. I’ve had some thoughts about the F-35 and was interested in what others believe.
Has the F-35 been considered in terms of its characteristics as an air defence interceptor? A precedent I’m thinking of is the air defence variant of the Tornado. It was not considered a necessity that the aircraft be an exceptional dogfighter; the important characteristics were that it had a good fuel load, a high-speed supersonic dash, a powerful radar, advanced digital avionics with Link 16 datalink and IFF.
Thinking about, for example, the Canadian air defence environment, the F-35A could provide these sort of capabilities. It has a genuine 1.6 mach capability flying clean (while 4th gens have lower speeds due to drag created by targeting pods, fuel tanks, etc). It has a very powerful radar and superb datalink / MADL / fusion capabilities. The ability for an F-35 to dash quickly to an unidentified target and use its DAS and EOTS to identify it at long-range could be very useful. It can fuse that optical / visual information with its radar data to provide a long-range identification, or to provide visual information for analysts on the ground (for example if an aircraft were damaged in a way that was externally apparent, the F-35 might be able to detect this at distance and so provide that information earlier in the process and speed up the OODA loop). So I think the F-35 could be a good air defence interceptor; the mix of its high-speed in clean configuration and excellent sensors really make it well-suited to the role. And looking at the $85 million price tag, it seems like a bargain for the Canadians.
What about as a strike fighter / SEAD? I don’t think anyone denies that it could be very good in that role. Its ability to penetrate an air defence networks, the data fusion capability, the ability for a group of fighters to move as a sort-of wolf pack communicating using the stealthy MADL datalink, the ability to carry up to eight SDB-II / Spear 3 class weapons to launch at range 100km range. A wolf-pack of eight F-35s could approach an air defence site like an S-400 and launch 64 SDB-II, at a total cost of around $7.5 million for the munitions (approx $120,000 each); a very favourable exchange rate given the most advanced Russian interceptor missiles like 48N6E2 cost around $1 million+. The S-400 can either choose to engage the incoming SDB-II with its longer range, expensive interceptors costing around 10 times as much as each SDB, or save their more expensive interceptors and wait until the targets are closer, but then take a much greater risk of leakage. In addition, the Spear 3 is a powered weapon so engagement with long-range interceptor missiles may not be an option as the small, stealthy Spear 3s coming flying in low to the ground. Assume every single one of those incoming gets shot down. The F-35 can return to base, load up and fly out and release another 64 weapons, another $7.5 million. For $30 million expenditure in munitions, they can launch 256 guided weapons, they can essentially afford to keep firing until the S-400 runs out of ammunition. Consider that an S-400 regiment costs over $1 billion US dollars. It seems like the traditional asymmetric Russian cost advantage is actually reversed when you’re looking at these expensive Russian SAM versus F-35.
What about close air support? While it is far from the best aircraft in the CAS domain, it could certainly provide serviceable CAS in the same way any aircraft with targeting pods (including B-1 bombers) can provide CAS using GPS/laser-guided bombs. No question it could step into the CAS work currently undertaken by F-15 and F-16.
The F-35 will also have an excellent career ahead of it as a reconaissance aircraft; its ability to “sniff” out electronic and radar emissions, to get electro-optical imagery at a long slant-range, its capacity to capture SAR imagery with short blasts of its powerful radar and not least its ability to infiltrate into airspace and much closer / into the enemy area, make it a very good intelligence-gathering platform.
What is the only drawback area? Some would argue air-to-air combat. I personally think there are strong arguments why it would be very good in the modern air-to-air combat arena. In an era of data fusion and the ability to positively ID targets at long-range, in an age of long-range, ramjet-powered air-to-air missiles like Meteor, and all-aspect, HOBS, HMD-aimed missiles, the idea that manoeuvrability is even in the top three most important characteristics of a counter-air fighter seems somewhat anachronistic. What primarily makes the F-22 an extremely formidable fighter is its first-look, first-shot, first-kill capabilities. Its mix of all-aspect stealth with high use of sensitive passive sensors, the advanced computing algorithms and software that allows it to put together a picture of the airspace with sparing use of the LPI radar, these are what allow it in the first instance to be so successful. And those are things that the F-35 can do well too. Its stealth may not be as good as the F-22s, but its radar and passive sensors (both in ability to process and fuse, and also in the vintage and sophistication of its ESM and electro-optical systems) are far superior to F-22.
The ability of, say, four F-22s to work together in a stealthy wolfpack, communicating quietly with their MADL datalink, with maybe flying in the front door using its radar to recon the enemy airspace while two others, flying below radar horizon and operating passively, to creep up and then smash into the side of enemy fighters with Meteor / AMRAAM missile shots… it’s a much more tactical approach, much more about stealth, ambushes and surprise attacks, information asymmetry, where the first moment an enemy aircraft realises it is being engaged is when its Missile Approach Warning sensor goes off. In such a situation, an Su-35 might be able to dodge one or even two inbound Meteor / AMRAAM, but as it progressively loses (E-M) energy, the third or fourth incoming shots become deadly.
So with the above you have a good air defence fighter, a good strike fighter / interdictor, a serviceable CAS platform, an excellent intelligence-gathering platform, and what could be a very good counter-air platform if well-trained pilots and battle managers are playing to its strengths, does that not seem like a pretty damn good all-rounder? When you consider what the average, middle power nation like Canada, or Belgium, needs out of their air force and the fact they can’t afford to purchase more than one type of fast jet, doesn’t that actually seem like an amazing deal if coming in at $85 million (what you’d spend anyway for a legacy 4th gen like Super Hornet, and considerably less than a Rafale)? You get an aircraft that allows you, as a nation like Canada or Australia or Belgium, to contribute to almost all aspects of coalition air operations, whether flying clean / stealthy on the first day of war or flying with externally-mounted weapons on hardpoints for interdiction or CAS missions on the 7th or 8th day.
The only area in which it might not be excellent (air-to-air combat… and that is very much debateable), is the area in which a Canada or a Belgium will not be engaging unless it were part of a coalition anyway. Belgium will never be fighting Russia alone. Canada will never be fighting China alone. The F-35 seems like the Swiss Army Knife or aircraft, and an excellent contribution if need be to coalition operations.
With all that in mind, I find it mind-boggling that people would propose that Canada get anything other than the F-35. 10 years ago, when all of the mainstream information about F-35 was mindlessly positive and there were all sorts of problems in the development programme, it was definitely ahead of the curve for someone to be aware of the issues with the aircraft. Now every mainstream media outlet attacks the F-35, its challenges are well-known but there is also significant information out there about its capabilities, people seem like they think bashing the F-35 means they’re “woke” when in fact the people who actually know what they’re talking about are saying it’s shaping up to be a pretty good aircraft.
Apologies again for the long post, if you got this far thanks so much for reading.
By: JSR - 25th January 2019 at 16:29
@garryA. I cant repeat same things over and over.
Now that you realized that Flanker can’t carry Brahmos and reach supersonic, you try to go back on your words. It not that easy. You made a dumb argument, you should own it
there is no evidence either way whether it can carry or not as tests just started. so premature speculation. Flanker is designed for 2500 to 3000L fuel tanks with big wing tip pods.. Flanker life is pretty long. don’t be surprised in post 2020 period Flanker carrying hypersonic missiles to supersonic speeds.
[quote]
Irrelevant, Zircon is a different missile and can’t be carried by fighter. If i was to use your kind of “logic”, i could also argue that Sparrow is already Mach 8-10.[/quote]
I put definition as Mach 3.5 to Mach 5 Brahmos is not hypersonic projects.you conflate the two things. hypersonic Brahmos is separate project not including improvements to current project.
[quote]
nope, i didn’t
I just couldn’t be bothered when you started to speak your usual retarded nonsense like it is the biggest project or that Japan is bad at engineering [/quote]
so India with world largest net addition of population cannot create world largest missile project they are fully committed to Brahmos project with world largest procurement orders. and Japan is abandoning all projects left and right that need material science and heavy engineering knowledge. Even when Japan was land of rising sun it could only manage about 100 Mitsubishi F-2 spread over 20 years. Extremely slow production rate for single engine Non-TVC fighter without CFT tanks. There is no special super-duper missile designed for Mitsubishi F-2.
By: XB-70 - 23rd January 2019 at 02:03
[USER=”34398″]F/A-XX[/USER] – I doubt it is the coatings since the Raptor is cleared for going higher. I’d wager it is to maximize engine life and reduce the stresses on it. You really wouldn’t want any chance of it failing on you given that it’s the only one you got.
By: LastOfGunfighters - 23rd January 2019 at 01:32
I’d still be interested to learn what exactly limits the F-35 to about Mach 1.6 (it did 1.67 in testing IIRC). Personally I doubt it’s the aerodynamics. It’s not a Mach 2+ design but I’d fully expect it to match the F/A-18 or Rafale if that was the limiting factor. Maybe it’s the stealth coatings?
By: SpudmanWP - 22nd January 2019 at 18:38
Full, up to mach 1.6.
By: halloweene - 22nd January 2019 at 17:27
What is the standard envelope for F-35 to lauch AMRAAM from inner storage?
By: XB-70 - 21st January 2019 at 01:19
On this a particular mention to XB-70 #43 post that explain how state-ot-the-art avionics of F-35 with its emphasis on sensor- and data-fusion can be a real help in many scenarios involving both A2A than A2G.
Above all because he IMHO correctly point how this capability is not exclusive to it but can involve all planes of the same gen (and I would add also other planes actually in production/deep modernization process).
I would put a less emphasis on internal carrying of weapons, planes like Mig-31 or Typhoon carry their missiles in semi conformal recesses and also in other planes designed for aerial combat there is always been the research of the least possible impact of weaponry to general performances, so an advantage exist but is not so decisive.
I appreciate the compliment, Marcellogo. This thread started out with promise, but now it’s gone. And I didn’t think I was emphasizing internal weapons storage too much, but I can understand different interpretations of what I wrote. I mainly stressed the comms and sensors. In the event of a stealth bomber attack, detection ranges would be very short and so a tight “picket” would be needed. And the sensors and comms would be crucial. And with large stand off bombers, the missiles would spread out over 100s or even 1000s of square miles. That is too great an area for one aircraft to cover and so they will need to signal one another and work as a team once again. I only briefly mentioned the internal weapons of the F-35 because many modern fighters appear to get the best of the F-35 without taking them into account. They even the odds to a point.
Anyways, this thread is pretty much dead.
By: mig-31bm - 19th January 2019 at 01:36
[USER=”77048″]St. John[/USER]
No, I mean ionosphere altering machines
Ah you mean HAARP, they are massive too
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3847444}[/ATTACH]
By: St. John - 18th January 2019 at 15:49
Do you mean weather altering machine?
No, I mean ionosphere altering machines, although some foil hat fashionistas claim that those machines alter the weather too. Sunspot activity and certain weather conditions can also duplicate this affect, which is why you get E-skip, F2-skip and Tropospheric propagation.
By: garryA - 18th January 2019 at 07:42
None your pics prove supersonic launch of missiles
Oh really? even the one where F-35 carried AARGM-ER internally and doesn’t affect its top speed at all.
and where have you put the evidence that Flanker can fly at Mach 1.5 while carry multiple Brahmos ? oops you couldn’t because it doesn’t exist
where did you prove that Flanker can fly at Mach 1.5 while carrying multiple Kh-31? oops you didn’t either
Kh-31/Kh-58 not have same role as Kinzal/Brahmos even though Kh31/kh58 are multirole.
Your original claim is:
there is no point of carrying high speed missile if it inhibit fighter from going supersonic
Now that you realized that Flanker can’t carry Brahmos and reach supersonic, you try to go back on your words. It not that easy. You made a dumb argument, you should own it
Mach 3.5 to Mach 5 Brahmos is not same project as hypersonic Brahmos
It is whether you like it or not
Zircon already at Mach 8
Irrelevant, Zircon is a different missile and can’t be carried by fighter. If i was to use your kind of “logic”, i could also argue that Sparrow is already Mach 8-10.
Don’t assume stuff when you lack scientific insights.
That quite ironic coming from the guy who didn’t know 6*6 =36
Even existing stock of brahmos missile can be upgraded to long range version. show me other missile whose range can increase so easily to existing stock?
AARGM-ER
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tAARGM_Er_Range_Extension.png Views:t1 Size:t374.9 KB ID:t3847363″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847363″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Sparrow
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tCapture.PNG Views:t1 Size:t360.3 KB ID:t3847364″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847364″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Did you drop that argument about size , scope and procurement of Brahmos project? or its continuity to infinity.
nope, i didn’t
I just couldn’t be bothered when you started to speak your usual retarded nonsense like it is the biggest project or that Japan is bad at engineering
By: JSR - 18th January 2019 at 07:05
None your pics prove supersonic launch of missiles. Kh-31/Kh-58 not have same role as Kinzal/Brahmos even though Kh31/kh58 are multirole.
Even existing stock of brahmos missile can be upgraded to long range version. show me other missile whose range can increase so easily to existing stock?
Mach 3.5 to Mach 5 Brahmos is not same project as hypersonic Brahmos. Zircon already at Mach 8. Don’t assume stuff when you lack scientific insights.
Did you drop that argument about size , scope and procurement of Brahmos project? or its continuity to infinity.
[quote]
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/03/true-brahmos-unleashed-today-next-1000-km-weapon.html
‘True’ BrahMos Unleashed Today, Next 900-km Weapon
“It was a successful test, where we launched the BrahMos to a range in excess of 400 km. Shortly, existing BrahMos units will be converted to the ER capability, and future units will too,
As reported earlier here on Livefist, a ‘final’ BrahMos version, sporting a range of over 900 km, will complete modifications and be ready for a first test by the end of 2019.
[/quote]
By: garryA - 18th January 2019 at 05:58
I don’t know you put irrelevant pics. none of your pics shows the multi-shot capability of high speed missiles nor the launch speed of aircraft nor any manufacturer link for such information.
For once, use your brain like normal people, you could have easily search for the information by the name i gave, the photo is to illustrate their size.
For example:
AARGM-ER is the next version of AGM-88 which can fit inside F-35, in which case it has a negligible impact on drag, and similar to AGM-88, it can also be carried by normal aircraft pylon
an F-35 should be able to carry 6 AARGM-ER: 2 internal + 4 external, while F-16 is limited to 4 (same number as AGM-88)
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t4%20harms.jpg Views:t1 Size:t91.1 KB ID:t3847348″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847348″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:trN0uecJ.png Views:t1 Size:t297.9 KB ID:t3847349″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847349″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
For Rampage,it take likes 2 seconds to Google the production video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb8M6IeSiAE
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t4D38575200000578-0-image-a-5_1528970593016.jpg Views:t1 Size:t30.7 KB ID:t3847350″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847350″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
The photo of ASM-3 speak for itself.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tten-lua-khong-doi-ham-xasm3-co-gi-dac-biet_14614724.jpg Views:t1 Size:t45.9 KB ID:t3847351″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847351″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
Now, where is the photo of Flanker with multiple Brahmos? where is the evidence that it can reach Mach 1.5 with Brahmos?, you said yourself that supersonic missile are useless if the aircraft can’t carry multiple of them and can’t reach Mach 1.5 with them, so now by your logic clearly Brahmos and Kinzhal is useless???
The Brahmos with increase speed of between Mach 3.5 to Mach 5 is not same as hypersonic brahmos.
It is the hypersonic Brahmos, and it is under development, they initially set the Mach 7 goal, but then realized that they can’t reach that and thus they changed the objective to Mach 5
By: JSR - 18th January 2019 at 05:28
[USER=”71228″]garryA[/USER]
I don’t know you put irrelevant pics. none of your pics shows the multi-shot capability of high speed missiles nor the launch speed of aircraft nor any manufacturer link for such information.
Plus that Japanese engineering is joke. just look at Fukashima and its aviation industry. its country is no longer capable of breakthrough research. so why even post such pics with draggier aircraft with fuel tanks.
The Brahmos with increase speed of between Mach 3.5 to Mach 5 is not same as hypersonic brahmos.
Brahmos has order book of $4.5b in 2018 and to that past 20 years of procurement. its huge project just integration complex in India is 40 acres. plus 20k people from NPO working on technologies developed based on it.
[quote]
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/indias-brahmos-cruise-missile-will-breach-mach-7-barrier-decade-768046
The company has an order book worth over $4.5 billion,[/quote]
[quote]
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/january-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/5908-india-to-develop-new-long-range-variant-of-brahmos-missile.html
The IAF is reported to have placed orders worth approximately USD650 million for the BRAHMOS-A. [/quote]
you will be hearing about Brahmos for next 50 years atleast. it will have much longer and versatile life than MIG-21.
By: LMFS - 18th January 2019 at 04:25
[USER=”71228″]garryA[/USER]
of course there must be overlapping between the OTH radars, you don’t want an early warning system that loses track of the aggressor 1000 km before reaching your country…
By: garryA - 18th January 2019 at 04:19
Maybe I miss your point, but to me a VLO plane without surprise has lost most of its advantages, interceptors can be sent in its direction for identification and even missiles with active seeker can be launched against them
We are talking about a huge fixed radar system that a few miles in length and have a blind area that is between 900-2700 km in front of it.
Higher frequency radars can be cued in its direction with increased power and reduced noise threshold for increased performance
There is a limit for duty cycle, and i don’t think OTH with their massive skip zone will be useful at all for cueing unless your high-frequency radar can detect stealth aircraft from > 900 km and your missiles can attack aircraft from that distance, which is pretty much wishful thinking
By: LMFS - 18th January 2019 at 03:59
I don’t think anyone would argue that OTH radars can’t detect LO targets (aircraft, cruise missiles) at long range. Does that have tactical implications? Does it negate the employment of LO aircraft?
In other words “who cares?”
Maybe I miss your point, but to me a VLO plane without surprise has lost most of its advantages. Higher frequency radars can be cued in its direction with increased power and reduced noise threshold for increased performance, interceptors can be sent in its direction for identification and even missiles with active seeker can be launched against them. All that is tactically relevant I think…
By: mig-31bm - 18th January 2019 at 01:23
[USER=”77048″]St. John[/USER]
ionospheric modifiers can be used to transmit higher frequencies
Do you mean weather altering machine?
By: St. John - 17th January 2019 at 16:13
Under normal conditions only frequencies below 30MHz are capable of forming a skywave for OTH capability. However, ionospheric modifiers can be used to transmit higher frequencies.
By: mig-31bm - 17th January 2019 at 14:32
I want to add that OTH radars are early warning radar but not all early warning radar are OTH.
This is VHF early warning radar
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”medium”,”data-attachmentid”:3847232}[/ATTACH]
This is OTH radar
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”medium”,”data-attachmentid”:3847233}[/ATTACH]
OTH radars are much bigger, the whole array is several km long and they are stationary
By: Ozair - 17th January 2019 at 09:54
I assume both of you realise that skywave propogation only works for certain periods of a day… It is not a 24/7 radar and therefore has significant tactical limitations.
By: garryA - 17th January 2019 at 06:31
[QUOTE=”panzerfeist1] I got some very good source information your going to like that I can proudly say this will be my last post regarding this topic.
I found a very good answer for this and I am sure you will be surprised.
PG6
But it seems that pg 7 has the solution to this problem you mentioned.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that a very good source, far better than internet tabloid
But looking into the study, they clearly mentioned that you need a large amount of scatters distributed along the beam path to achieve this resolution, seem too convenient ? besides a resolution cell of 80 meters in optimum condition is still far larger than the physical size of any fighters
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847168″,”data-size”:”large”}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847169″,”data-size”:”large”}[/ATTACH]
[QUOTE=”panzerfeist1]I am assuming anything below that 500 nautical miles you have said is a blind spot and cant be covered correct? I realized there was a 60 degree limit for some OTH radars meaning you can not get a 70, 80 or 89 degree coverage to get that blindspot covered but there is something that I believe we have both missed(although it benefits my point anyways of no blind spots).
http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa51.en.html
http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/pic/OTH-SW.big.jpg
The red waves are gigahertz and green waves that you see on that image are the HF waves. and they can cover those remaining 500 nautical mile blind spot by simply just not needing to use the ionosphere[/QUOTE]
I didn’t miss that, you will noticed that i wrote OTH-B in my previous post
There are two kinds of OTH radar with very different operating principles
The Sky wave OTH radar, also known as OTH-B, they overcomes the earth curvature limitation by using very low frequency so they can “bounce” (scatter) their wave off the ionosphere, this is the kind of OTH radar with 2000-5000 km detection range and 900-2700 km blind range
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GVPdJzfiJE
The Surface wave OTH radar, also known as OTH-SW, they overcome the limitation of the earth curvature by using a very low transmission frequency from 1.6-3 Mhz (could be up to 20 Mhz). These electromagnetic waves tend to bend around edges or curves, they are coupled to the conductive ocean surface forming a “ground wave” that can bend over the horizon and will follow the curvature of the earth, this is the kind of OTH radar without blind range but the maximum detection range is only around 300-400 km and they need to be on the shoreline because they relies on the conductive characteristic of the ocean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f9JpDmrmMc
http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa51.en.html
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/radar-electronic-countermeasure/
Even if you can merge the two, you still have the blind range.
[QUOTE=”panzerfeist1]Although in my opinion its more preferable to have low altitude missiles that can use buildings or hills as cover from radars and missiles along with the benefit of being below the radar horizon[/QUOTE]
At extended range, it better to cruise at high altitude because the drag is less so your missile can fly further
Sign In
January 10, 2019 at 4:12 pm