wrightwingIs the ASPJ fitted to the F-35? Is it carried internally or externally?
Internal.
wrightwingIt is the other way around. The ones blamed as “haters” are intrested to learn the real cabilities of the F-35 in relation of other state of the art fighters. To post some advertisement claims from the producer is of little help about that, when limited to general claims only. In A2A flight capabilities the F-35 will not differ much from a late F-16, when in A2G it is better. The problem is, even the late F-16s fell behind the Eurocanards already and we have still no real idea where the F-35 will settle in in the end. 😉
The F-35 will be considerably more capable than any F-16 in A2A. Not only does it have far greater situational awareness, but it much more difficult for an enemy to detect/engage, giving it contempt of engagement(or engagement on its terms). Additionally, it’s got a far greater NCW capability(info sharing, 3rd party targeting, etc…)
wrightwingYou’re thinking of the NGJ stand off jammer, not the ASPJ from BAE.
I’m not sure one can use the lack of negative press as evidence to support an alleged shortcoming. Additionally, the F-35 will already be cruising at a higher speed, and unencumbered with external stores, so the likelihood that a combat loaded F-16 will out accelerate an F-35 is minimal.
The EODAS will still provide marked advantages in the WVR realm.
wrightwingIt’s not the missile diameter, that’s the limiting factor with regards to the AIM-120 vs JDRADM, so much as the fin length. The JDRADM can be packed tighter.
The F-35 starts out with an RCS advantage of several orders of magnitude smaller, than the Typhoon, and also has an extensive EW/EA suite, and a superior ESM suite.
I’ve yet to see anything written about the F-35 being sluggish in the transonic region, especially since rapid acceleration to M1.6 is one of the objectives(and it’s likely that the F-35 would already start accelerating from a higher cruise speed).
As for turn performance, it’s difficult to say at this point at what point in the envelope, the F-16 may or may not enjoy advantages. LM has put out charts showing superiority in acceleration, ITR, and STR for what it’s worth.
The ASRAAM may enjoy range advantages(which is good for a less stealthy aircraft), but the -9X has better turning performance, close in. The- 120D also has HOBS capabilites(haven’t heard anything about the Meteor in this regard).
wrightwingIt isn’t. A fully combat loaded F-35 ceases to be cleaner since that implies external weapons. When using internal missiles only on the other hand it is restricted to 4 AAMs – the Typhoon can carry an equivalent payload semi-recessed with little to no drag penalty whatsoever, so no difference there either. Unless airframe size is increased (F-22) to maintain an acceptable distribution of cross-sectional area internal bays only improve RCS and increase weight, with little effect on drag.
As for fuel, this is again a question of signature. The F-35 can’t afford to rely on external tanks since this would negate most of its stealth advantage and therefore internal fuel capacity is larger than what would be considered ideal with respect to optimising performance. Consequences are increased structural weight and (again unless the aircraft as a whole is enlarged) more drag. Drop tanks don’t cause as big a drag penalty in subsonic cruise as many believe, it’s when going supersonic or turning hard that the problem starts. At that point you can just get rid of them though, while the F-35 still has to carry its oversize airframe around.
Note how Beesley specifically refers to *subsonic* acceleration in his comment? In that part of the envelope, T/W-ratio and wing aspect ratio are probably the dominant factors determining acceleration, and since the F-35 is quite similar to the F-16 in these respects it doesn’t come as a surprise that both are close. Now, what about acceleration from Mach 0.9 to 1.2+, where the F-16 is still very good?
Regarding high-speed turning, the F-16 does quite well but the Typhoon is reputedly superior, so where does that leave the F-35?
A- the 4 internal AAM is only the initial capability. The planned load out is 6, if we’re going to discuss what’ll be more representative over the course of the F-35s service(and possibly more when JDRADM comes into service).
B- with external stores, the F-35 is still stealthier than the Typhoon.
C- I suspect the M.8 to 1.2 will be comparable if not superior.
D-the F-35 will outturn an F-16 according to LM, and outpoint an F-18, so it’ll be much closer to parity, and this isn’t taking into consideration the HOBS advantages.
wrightwingIf you want to retain the F-35’s ability to remain stealthy (and possibly supercruise,) the loadout would have to be internal: 2 AIM’s (sta 5 & 7) and 2 A-G (sta 4 & 8) weps max.
The F-35 can carry 8 SDBs and 2 AAMs internally.
wrightwing[QUOTE=Jwcook;1674630][QUOTE=Scooter;1674594]
How will it know were the Typhoon is? Typhoons have detected LPI radars before…(F-22) so how are they vectored onto the front quarter without alerting the Typhoons who I suppose are cruising at low speed just to allow the JSF to be able to manage an intercept…?:)
1st why would it merge? lol and how did it avoid the return BVR Missiles? and How will it disengage if its speed is lower than a Typhoon?
So far I see nothing that provides the JSf with the outstanding performance you are promoting.
Cheers
A- I would love to see an authoratative source corroborate the Typhoon’s having detected the LPI signals from the F-22(and what the conditions/range were).
B- the Typhoons aren’t going to be cruising around at higher speeds than the F-35, if they hope to have much range or station time. The only time they’ll be flying supersonic is if they have detected a target, and are increasing their kinematic performance, or if they are breaking contact.
C- combat loaded, the Typhoon won’t enjoy any significant speed advantages, as the F-35 can fly M1.6 with a full internal combat load.
wrightwingThe Russians have never put an F-22 on a pole, and conducted RCS testing, so any claims about it are dubious at best. As for their claims about detecting stealth aircraft, they have said. 01m2 at 90km, which translates to a much shorter range vs. 001 or .0001(especially when EA/EW are being utilized to degrade performance)l
wrightwingIn your dreams… Not even Raptor can come close to 8:1 score, let alone your beefed up A-6.
F-35 will be very glad to hold parity with Eurocanards (A-A wise)…
In a BVR fight, I don’t have any doubt that an F-22 could achieve that sort of exchange rate or better. As for a beefed up A-6.:rolleyes:
wrightwingThis was my response to your AESA jamming point. Any jamming will give away the location of the F-22/35 and the coordinates gathered will be enough to lock the TI systems on the F-22/35.
If the jamming continues for a longer time period, a missile can be even launched in HOJ mode as Trident pointed out.
This assumes that it is apparent to the SAM site, that jamming is occurring. Not all jamming is of the noise type, and it isn’t necessary to jam continuously to get inside the kill chain. Good luck in using HOJ against a non-noise type jammer.
Then the question is how effective it will be against networked brute force systems.
Brute force systems will be more vulnerable, due to them giving every ESM system in range precise information, making it more difficult for them to use passive defense measures(relocation).
The MALD Jamming is also unlikely to affect networked systems which get their surveillance data from a primary brute force system.
The MALD J wouldn’t rely on overpowering a network, so much as using more discreet methods(i.e. distributed denial of service attacks). Other options are HPM cruise missiles, which would cause serious issues for an air defense network.
Right. A large number of expensive JDRADM could bring the reaction times of the IADS to its knees. My point is that the cheap F-22/SDB solution will likely not work against future systems.
You have to look at the synergy of all the systems being brought to bear though. It’s not any single piece of the puzzle that’s the end all be all solution. It’s the fact that there’ll be large numbers of networked, stealthy platforms(with significant ISR capabilities), along with other platforms putting the EOB together, for situational awareness. This will make the task of hiding/jamming much more difficult. Then factor in these stealthy platforms having EA capabilities, along with MALD J, EA-18G, EC-130, etc… creating mass confusion. Then add in large numbers of SDBs, AARGMs(and JDRADM when operational), along with HPM cruise missiles, ATACMs, JSOW/JASSM, simultaneously attacking various aspects of the IADS. Gaps will quickly be opened, when all this is brought to bear.
No I’m not saying that. It was my response to you close SDB release scenario for high speed and vertical drop. This should be impossible to archive at 50nm, at least when it come to speed.
For your scenario a release distance of 15-20nm is more realistic and then yes, the Nebo would likely become deadly at such a distance especially with opened weapon bays and TI systems which would get any faint echo provided by the Nebo.
That’s great except for the fact that F-22s have hit targets nearly 100 miles away with SDBs. It’s not likely that radar will detect an F-22 at that range, weapons bays open or not. F-35s will be able to launch their SDBs supersonically too, for that matter.
Performance of the NGJ and more so the MALD-J against modern multi-band high power systems remains questionable and F-22/35 AESA jamming would be deadly in presence of ESM systems.
NGJ isn’t even in service yet, and it’s already questionable? The F-22/35 EA would use very narrow beams, which would be very difficult to spot/utilize anything like a HOJ, for counter fires.
The main objective will be to get the launching aircrafts, if this goes wrong the PDS are to protect the system for another chance during the next engagement. But I agree with you, a massive and concentrated attack would likely kill the system, it depends on the numbers.
It’d only take 8 F-22/35s to send 64 SDBs towards a single site. A squadron could launch 192 SDBs in a single sortie. A B-2 could launch over 200 SDBs in a single sortie. Even if the Pantsir has a 100 % PK, it still has to reload at some point.
wrightwingWhy do we assume the S-XXX will have to emit first? Unless their positions are known in advance (which would constitute a tactical error by the defenders), the F-22/35 are going to have to go active to locate them, if the SAM sites stay passive. Make sure the S-XXX relocate regularly and only come on the air if something trips one of the Protivnik-GE or Nebo-SVU EW radars and is shown as being inside or close to their NEZ. In other words, ambush tactics against anything that is on its way toward a high value area or one of the EW sites.
Which is precisely why any air campaign would involve taking out sites like Protivnik-GE or Nebo-SVU EW radars, as well as the SAM sites themselves. Even Russia doesn’t have large numbers of these radars or S-400s, much less any other potential threat nation, so it’s not as if there’d be overlapping coverage, nationwide.
At that point a legacy airframe will suffice as a host, no need to shell out on a gold-plated stealth platform.
The legacy aircraft couldn’t get within SDB range of an S-300/400, much less have the element of surprise.
wrightwingI’m not so sure that the Iraqi Air Force was the main threat so much, as the huge number of AAA and SAMs, coinciding with the fixed wing assets.
wrightwingThe price of that sacrifice will, or will not, be made clear in the future (dependant on who the F-22 faces or does not face off against).
As I said; swapping a 360 deg passive sensor for a limited field passive sensor… good move? Not a chance. The ALR-94 was never gonna be ditched.When was the last fighter that took to the air without a radar? The F-86? How would the F-22 perform its role as an interceptor without radar? Solely by using IRST?
You’re still completely missing my point. I’ve never suggested that the radar or ALR-94 were going to be ditched in favor of the IRST. My point was that due to other priorities, and the desire to get as many F-22s as possible, it was decided that the IRST wouldn’t be part of the initial kit(though it’s entirely possible that it might be one of the future upgrades, along with cheek arrays, etc..). Additionally, the discreet detection capabilities of the radar/ESM, were deemed capable enough to overmatch projected threats. So to reiterate my previous posts- IRST was deemed a nice to have feature.
wrightwingI don’t share this opinion.
There are generational changes, definitively.
Is just that this new generation is not something revolutionary, from the F4/mig-23 to F-16/Mig-29 there were revolutionary changes on aerodynamics, structural design, etc.. (i would not count electronics as something ‘generational’, although the FBW concept can be considered as part of a generational step)
So you don’t feel that improved kinematic performance, huge advances in situational awareness/network capabilities, VLO, provide revolutionary capabilities vs the F-4 to F-15/16?
So, sometimes, change of generation does not mean a clearly superior aircraft, we should consider the failures of a bad managed program as well, the F-15 for example has better sustained turning than the F-22 at height..and this was not planned.
I’d love to see the source for this claim, especially considering the F-22’s larger aerodynamic control surfaces and TVC.
wrightwingOnce the the JDRADM comes online, then the F-22 will have an even longer range option. The F-35 already has this option with the JSOW-ER, and JSM when available. The issue though is that it’s harder to find mobile targets at ranges that Storm Shadow, JASSM, etc… have. SDBs will always be cheaper and more numerous in any event.
Sign In
