wrightwingYes, it is, which is in accordance with statements from the Russian air force and it seems logical that the Chinese air force, which has had a 5th generation fighter programme active for some time now, will not be significantly far behind. Even if they end up two or three years late from their current position they’ll still have had plenty of time to assemble a few squadrons.
According to them, the PAK FA should have flown several years ago though. That’s why I’m not absolutely confident that they’ll reach IOC on time either.
So you’re telling me Australia should take absolutely no regard to Indian and Chinese military air capabilities in 15 years while planning its future air force? Hardly. How about the USA scrap all weaponry intended to strike Russia while we’re at it because there’s no Cold War any more?
We might be taking the most prudent course for the moment but that does not insure us against projected threats.
I’m not saying that Australia shouldn’t look at potential threats. I AM saying that the only choice superior to the F-35 is the F-22, and unless it gets approved for export, is a moot point. I AM also saying that unless these PAK FAs/J-XXs are carrier based, I’m not seeing aircraft based in mainland China/India as a threat to Australia. I also don’t see them being exported in any significant number to any other Air Force in this time period either. This is why my earlier statement that the most likely(and most dangerous threat) in the next 15-20yrs is going to be Su-30/35s. In otherwords, if the likelihood that there’s an aircraft that is a significant threat, but it won’t exist for 20yrs, what do you propose doing for the time being, with the current threats?
Given that Russia is also developing a brand new series of new-generation missiles alongside the PAK FA, I won’t assume a massive weapons advantage until I see that either. As for subsystems, while I expect the US to maintain an advantage in EW and ESM capabilities, I also expect them to make less difference than they classically would against an evolved 4th generation design given the stricter confines of a stealthy VLO enemy flight profile and the naturally higher resistance of AESA radars to jamming.
With the exception of the R-73’s HOB capability exceeding the AIM-9L/M, at what point have Russian AAMs been superior to the latest US/Western AAMs?
The advantage of having a VLO airframe, means that whatever jamming is going on is going to be even more effective, because it’ll be that much easier to hide with the higher noise floor(or spoof, or conduct EA against emitters).
The F-35 will be far more mature in 15-20yrs too, with significantly more capability than the current version(i.e. F-16A vs. a Blk 52/60).
wrightwingThere is no need to perform R&D effort of the same order of magnitude, the mistakes have already been made once, no use to repeat them. The process of developing a stealth fighter today will be much more straightforward today.
I’m pretty sure that no other countries have access to the plans for previous stealth research, so they know what the lessons learned from mistakes were.
wrightwingWhile Paralay’s drawings may not be (to the best of our knowledge) accurate, they do show how it is possible to fit long, wide weapons bays into a design that are conceivably big enough to take a K-100 (evidently the correct name for the KS-172 these days, at least until they change it again). In all likelihood I actually suspect that they won’t carry them at all, their being replaced by the new missiles under development which are likely to have less exorbitant space requirements, but we’ll have to wait to see either way.
These missiles are 25 feet long, and weigh 1,650 pounds. You might fit them inside a Blackjack or Backfire, but I don’t see a fighter size aircraft carrying them internally.
wrightwingIn 2024, PAK FA production will have been underway for eight or so years, and that’s probably about the time China will be showing the J-XX off at airshows, meaning they will probably have several squadrons in the air as well. Exports of these aircraft might not take place until maybe 2030 or later, but to claim that in 15 years there will be no reasonable 5th generation fighter threat is… misguided, in my opinion. As is the fact that none of these three countries are ever likely to either directly or indirectly (i.e. via aircraft loans) face off against other well-equipped countries in the foreseeable future.
As I’ve already said is a probability, yes.
What’s not a ‘big leap’ is to assume they will have native supercruise, carry more weapons internally, carry powerful AESA radars and be VLO. Any such combination is more than a little threat to the JSF in the air superiority role it will be playing for its export customers.
-this is assuming that the PAK FA/J-XX reach IOC in 2016, and the first examples haven’t even flown yet.
-loaned aircraft, to attack Australia? :rolleyes: As I said earlier, aside from Russia, China, India, there is very little likelihood of any foe of Australia having a 5th Gen aircraft in the next 15 to 20years. Should Australia wait 15 to 20 years to replace its fleet, to see if the F-35 is good enough in A/A against those threats?
-by this time the F-35 will far more mature and capable than any of the current block variants being tested, and will have far superior weapons(AIM-120D+/JDRADM/AIM-9X Blk2+/ASRAAM/etc….), as well as the electronic attack capability, which will be available by that block series.
-seeing as how none of us have seen the PAK FA/J-XX layout, we don’t know what the internal payload will be, how low the RCS will be, how good the avionics suites will be, how good the engines will be, etc…. we also don’t know just how high the F-35’s actual performance is yet(or how high it will be then with higher thrust engines). Out accelerating a clean F-16 using only dry thrust is a pretty significant indicator of the current capabilities.
wrightwingSupercruise is a design goal for the PAK FA, it’s larger than a Fulcrum but smaller than a Flanker with more powerful engines, and its weapons bays are large enough to carry Kh-58 mods, R-37Ms, and possibly even KS-172s. The rest I don’t know and haven’t claimed to, but I think those are already some fairly interesting points to mull over.
It’s gonna have to be bigger than a Flanker, to carry KS-172s internally, and in any event, it’s not gonna carry many R-37/KS-172s due to their size/weight.
wrightwingIf you ordered F-35 as an export customer today, what would be the first possible delivery date?
Before any adversary receives their first 5th Gen fighter.
It depends on what your enemy is. As a fighter, F-35 is only superior to legacy fighters, it certainly does not look that good against incoming future threats.
The PAK FA and J-XX haven’t even flown yet, so it’s a bit premature to say how they look compared to the F-35.
wrightwingAnd now this coppy of a stripped down, 20yrs old Chinese MK should pe on par with, or even better that the Su-35? I find this claim to be somewhat difficult to accept just like that. So Logan Harke, no offends, but until you back up your claim with some credible sources I respectfully call your post Horse Manure 🙂
Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but he isn’t claiming that the J-11B is better than the Su-35. He is saying that just because you built something first, doesn’t mean someone else might not find a way to make improvements.
I’m not saying that the J-11B’s better than an Su-35, just that the idea that someone can’t make a certain something better than you because you made it first is silly.
Logan Hartke
wrightwingOnce again, LM telling me is not LM showing me and waiting until they do is simply my prerogative. If I take every claim at face value then I’d believe every fighter is superior to every other one, so some scepticism is, I rather think, natural.
Hmm… China, India or Russia, perhaps? Not that Australia really has anything to worry about from the last one, though other F-35 customers do.
So far.
Exactly. It’s designed and sold as a striker to the US and then sold as fighter to the rest of the world, which is my point. Not saying it isn’t a capable fighter, as I’ve already acknowledged, just that the emphasis depends on the customer, whereas the design doesn’t.
We get rid of a squadron of F-111s and buy a squadron of Super Hornets for their strike capabilities. Oh yes they are a replacement, albeit a more multifunctional one than the aircraft they supplant. As we are buying the Super Hornets we are not going to ditch them after ten years. Even I don’t think Defence are spending $6 billion for just ten years of ‘stop-gap’. They’re supplemental strikers and at this rate they are the only thing that’s going to bring us up to 4 air combat squadrons. With current economic conditions (and other factors) I highly doubt that we are going to buy any more F-35s than we have planned.
As I’ve already said, China? India? Indonesia isn’t the only country in Australian defence planning any more. And as for larger opponents losing ‘in today’s world’, I’ll believe that when I see it.
Who says its competitors are and will be limited to 4th generation aircraft? Certainly not me. And 6 AAMs are plenty if you assume a 100% Pk and a comparable number of enemies. I don’t do either.
If you read my posts you will see I have never once claimed nor ever will that the F-35 cannot use its wing stations. No matter how many times I say this however it just doesn’t seem to filter through that there is no mission profile which would persuade an F-35 user to degrade his primary air-to-air combat advantage and survivability in order to carry more AAMs. The pylons are the perfect thing for CAS or strike when mixed with other stealthier, A2A internally-configured Lighting IIs in a package. But I will not believe that the external pylons are of any relevance in an air-to-air battle.
No; but then, I don’t know if it can, do I?
Because it doesn’t carry weapons in external pods to begin with, just a shot in the dark here, but I’m guessing it’s maybe because of an RCS penalty? And if it’s already much less stealthy than the F-22, am I really going to want to degrade it when facing 2nd gen or better AESAs? Again, just a guess here, but my initial instinct is… ‘nah’.
Here’s the takeaway. The gravest threat an F-35 is likely to face in the next 15yrs is an Su-30(or maybe even an Su-35 if anyone ever buys them). Russia, China, and India may have PAK FAs, and J-XXs in this point in time, but it’s going to be a long time before these aircraft are exported to any potential adversaries. What this means is that vs. non-stealthy aircraft(AESA or not), the F-35 is still going to have a lower RCS with external AAMs, and situational awareness advantages. Additionally, once those AAMs are fired, the RCS degradation won’t be an issue. You’re also failing to consider the block upgrades that will be occurring over this time, to the F-35(and the improved BVR/WVR weapons that will exist by then). In summary, until any foe has parity in 5th gen aircraft, the F-35 will be superior to any threat.
wrightwingWe are talking about is ability to do two roles at once…
It’s not gonna be flying in a single ship formation though. You could have mixed loads within the group, with some loaded only with AAMS. The important takeaway is that on a strike mission, the F-35s are going to avoid enemy fighters unless they absolutely have to engage, to maintain the element of surprise.
Don’t forget- the stealth load out is only a first day of war, kick down the door profile. After that, you can carry external loads, and still have a lower RCS than 4.5 Gen fighters.
wrightwingAnd like everyone else waving the F-35 flag.. you miss the point entirely.
In ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION the F-35 is LIMITED TO 2AG weapons and 2 AA weapons.Possible FUTURE developments is out of scope of ths discussion.
How is the IR signature rear on different to any other fighters?
But in any case you’ll be able to hear it before it arrives… 😉
(Considering that it will be almost noiser then any other fighter in the sky ..lol)
It is not limited to 2 A/G weapons and 2 A/A weapons. It can carry 2 2000lb JDAMs and 2 AIM-120s, or it can carry 8 SDBs and 2 AIM-120s, or it can carry 4 SDBs and 3 AIM-120s, or it can carry 4 AIM-120s, and this is right now. It WILL carry 6 AIM-120s once the Block 5 upgrade happens.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
In a pure stealth air to air configuration, the F-35 currently carries four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles internally in its weapons bays, Davis said. While this configuration gives the jet a significant punch, Davis said studies have been undertaken that would increase the stealth air to air war load to six to possibly as many as eight air to air missiles which would be carried internally.
wrightwing“”The Joint Strike Fighter could be upgraded to carry up to six internal AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, according to a Lockheed Martin executive. “Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs”, G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin’s strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. “It’s a capability second only to the F-22.”””
The word “COULD”… as opposed to… WILL BE was used.
So again… The F-35 is limited to 2 large AG weapons and 2 AA weapons internally.Were will the funding for this “upgrade” come from?
“”The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs. It’s not clear, however, whether the short-take-off, vertical landing F-35B variant, which has smaller weapon bays, would be able to carry the added weapons.””An executive for a competing fighter program, speaking at the conference, said that the six-missile capability would be a major improvement for the JSF. Until now, competitors have criticised the JSF because it carries only two AAMs – supporting only a single engagement – in stealth mode.Once you start hanging weapons externally… you may as well buy more Gripens, Rafale, Hornets…
The LM website DOES not mention any upgrades to the weapons bay…
Nor does the official F-35 website..“”The problem is that your are INCORRECTLY assuming that the F-35’s exhaust is hotter. Besides, modern IR seekers don’t even rely of exhaust heat, but more of airframe heat.””
So a seeker wont be fooled into tracking an exhaust plume?
And the F-35s skin is “cooler” then other other airframes flying out there?
I dont follow your reasoning…
Check out page 9, where it discusses the Block 5 A/A load out. It is a matter of will, not could.
http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf
wrightwingIt would be very interesting exactly what aircraft they are refering to and what basis they have for that statement.
I think that question was already answered in the article too.
compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI.
wrightwingBut the current economic condition makes a nicer case for not going for too many more raptors 🙁
More Raptors would be less wasteful than a lot of the stuff that the money will be spent on.
wrightwingPlanar arrays also can have LPI and NCTR. The APG-63 had them both as far back as Desert Storm.
They don’t have nearly the resolution though.
wrightwingDetection range is directly proportional to scan rate. AWG-9 had respectable range in “cued search” mode, where the mechanical array is commanded to perform “mini scan” of a small volume of airspace (i.e. high scan rate). The problem with mechanical scanning is the arrays have large mass and swinging that mass back and forth with motors takes time. For MSAs, the scan rate isn’t terribly high when large volumes of airspace need to be searched due to the slowness of pointing the array. Detection range for AWG-9 in “volume search” mode is a fraction of the max range of cued search mode. Another issue is while the AWG-9 is in cued search, it ignores everything outside that small search volume.
ESAs don’t have the slow scan problem and can maintain high scan rates over large volumes of airspace. ESAs can also split duty with a portion of the array elements doing A2A volume search, other elements doing cued search, and still other elements doing ground mapping and GMTI. The receive elements also have relative higher gain because they do not suffer from waveguide losses like a MSA. This allows ESAs to recognize faint returns that could go unnoticed by a MSA.
In addition to what you’ve mentioned, AESAs also have the advantages of LPI, greater resolution(i.e. NCTR), EA, etc… and as far as the APG-77’s max range, to my knowledge, nobody here knows(or can say) the actual figure. The common stat tossed around is 125-150nm in LPI mode against a 1m^2 target.
What does that work out to against a 5, 10, 15, ….m^2 target, or if you’re not using LPI mode?
Sign In
