Amiga500Compared to what? Again, if you have an aircraft that is designed to complement or in some cases, replace the capability of conventional carrier aircraft, than the cost comparison isn’t just between the two aircraft, but also needs to include the carriers that come with it.
VTOL aircraft will never adequately replace CATOBAR aircraft.
Don’t be under any illusions otherwise.
Define the role of an LHD.
The drone itself would have to have take off and landing capabilities similar to the aircraft, if it is to operate from those ships.
No it doesn’t. Simply due to weight.
No such drone exists today.
Of course it doesn’t, because no money has been invested in one.
And a drone like the Predator is certainly not a replacement. Leaving aside the obvious, it’s also not an aircraft that can operate in a high-threat environment. You may say that you’re only loosing drones…but you’re also not completing your missions.
With some minor tweaking, it easily can be (not predator, but a clean sheet, the numbers, particularly weight were included for demonstration purposes only).
With none of the capabilities that other program brings. Sure, if your aim is just making something cheap, lots of options are available.
As earlier, define what an LHD is supposed to do.
Is it to support the landing of troops and the forming of a beach-head, or is it to give the USMC a tool to wave in a pissing contest with the Navair and USAF?
Amiga500The point is that, Gripen aside, there are no other good STOL designs knocking about and putting baby-carrier ops in makes the niche fighter a very useful commodity.
For me, the added expense doesn’t even come close to justifying itself.
The money would be better spent on unmanned lightweight strikers that could operate off an LHD and work within a 50-100 mile radius of the baby carrier.
Given:
– A predator weighs approx a tonne at MTOW.
– There has been substantial work on auto-recovery onto CATOBARS.
– Capability has already been demonstrated in theatre.
– Many more UCAVs could be carried/stored than manned VTOLs.
– Combat losses are monetary only, thus assets can be committed to effectively suicide missions if it were necessary to save troops.
It would be a piece of cake (given a fraction of a manned VTOLs budget) to install a catapult, arresting gear and the control hardware. Indeed, it would probably be already done and working if it had started at the same time as an alternative program that I will not name.
Amiga500Its just engineering right Amiga500?:)
As Mildave indicates – physical fitting can be a problem.
I’m kinda surprised they let B have a different weapons bay to A & C. It just opens up a whole can of worms for down the line.
If they are gonna cripple A and C by making it common with B, then at least get the important interfaces exactly equal!
(I’m sure MBDA will happily spend several million of MoD money “on software” before finding out it doesn’t fit “due to unforseen installation compatibilities”. :D)
Anyway, getting back to thread topic.
Can we agree that the only main differentiator between STOVL and VTOL is the ability to operate from very small ships? (LHDs)
[Which assumes compact STOVLs will always find a suitable piece of road or a short semi-prepared rough field when operating off land-bases. I believe that is a reasonable assumption. Has there been any instances of in-theatre Harrier VTOL operation from ground bases at all?]
Amiga500Everyone DOES know that nobody’s minds are being changed here, right?
Yip.
I’ve realised I’ve kinda hijacked the thread though… so will leave the F-35 argument till another thread pops up.
So…. back to VTOL strike.
Amiga500Which fighter aircraft is actually equipped with a long-wave radar – or will be?
None. But they don’t need to be if their search area is reduced to a small size and they are vectored in from favourable azimuthal angles (with respect to the F-35).
Who is actually sure of the F-35’s LO qualities against LW radar anyway?
Me.
They will be practically non-existent. Like the F-22.
When wavelength ~= feature size, shaping and to a large extent RAM* are irrelevant.
*although there are multiple layer types that claim to improve traditional performance.
Amiga500Very obviously because some of the people with Camels and rifles also have double-digit SAMs and, as witnessed over Georgia, they can be bloody dangerous for airspace denial even without the supporting AD infrastructure found in a ‘major conflict’. A sub ‘major conflict’ scenario may not mean one thats necessarily low-threat.
Fighting someone with SA-11s or SA-17s is not a minor conflict. It may be a limited campaign, but is not a minor conflict.
When is the last time Marines went off their own bat into a similar combat zone?
The last parallel I can think of would be Somalia… but there the opfor only had RPGs, not even MANPADS.
Other than that your arguments are spurious. SDB is a DEAD weapon of choice for more than just the F-35…by your reasoning the F-22’s strike mission is toothless by the same measure.
The F-22 can deploy HARM externally and have the kinematic performance to evade counter shots.
The F-35 cannot.
The same physics that you point to, for lower frequency radar detection of an airframe optimised to defeat I/J band frequencies, also limit resolution.
I never said it doesn’t limit resolution.
However, that resolution is sufficient to allow vectoring of intercepts to a sufficient accuracy.
Furthermore, improved compute algorithms, combined with the continued improvements in compute power make it simply a matter of time before resolution becomes sufficient to use for targeting SAMs.
Your search radar is cueing only so its up to the cued platform to actually get the track and shoot cycle sorted. Thats IR as well as the opposing BVR missiles is it?
The search radar knows the historical flight path of the F-35. Not hard to guide the intercepts onto the beam.
You say: “To be a force multiplier, you have to be able to influence a large area within a finite time. Speed is of the essence.”. Is that some clever form of semantics or someones dictionary definition?. To be a force multiplier you have to be able to multiply force!.
Which means you have to be able to affect more than one wee area.
Enabling the big decks to be free of ties to a fixed beachhead or to be free of small-scale operations incorporating modern airspace-denial threats (like Syria could easily develop into….as a wild example!) is allowing them to apply their force with greater flexibility and efficiency…..it is therefore multiplying the potential of the available force in theatre…..simple as that.
If the beach heads were ever faced with a modern foe, you can be damn sure protection wouldn’t be left up to a dinky LHD with a few JSFs.
It is quite silly to suggest as much, as I suspect you are acutely aware.
Amiga5001) SDBs can hit moving targets. Also, even if you couldn’t, unless you’re carrying out CAS, your air-defense assets and other high-priority targets that need to be eliminated first, aren’t going to be so mobile.
But are going to be guarded. A few glider bombs are unlikely to cut it.
2) Seriously? According to their brochures, I’m certain. How is an Su-35 going to get a lock on an F-35 (that is well aware of the Su-35s presence and intentions)?
What can I say, your a hypocrite.
You believe LockMart powerpoint without question (despite their woeful track record), yet consider everything else to be propaganda lies?
3) Really? F-35 cannot hide from search radars? Says who?
When the radar wavelength is of the order of surface features, then nothing is invisible – shape is irrelevant and RAM is irrelevant. Basic physics.
The RCS of any target is dependent on both the angle to the radar transmitter (and receiver(s) for bi-static/multi-static configurations) and the wavelength of the radar wave.
4) How fast do you have to go? When was the last time ANY strike mission, in the last 70 years, has been carried out at supersonic speed? 5 times maybe?
To be a force multiplier, you have to be able to influence a large area within a finite time. Speed is of the essence.
5) What sacrifices? This plane flies further, faster (in typical combat conditions), stealthier and with better sensors than anything out there (bar F-22, maybe). What was sacrificed?
Read up on Boyd’s energy-maneuverability would you?
6) You’re saying the Iraqis knew that there were F-117s flying overhead bombing them? So did the Serbs?
Oh I know for a fact they knew there were F-117s flying overhead bombing them. The mere presence of explosions would be enough to give that away!
Whether the Iraqis could pinpoint them is a different question.
The Serbs obviously were able to do so to some degree.
1 kill and 1 more claimed airframe write-off.
7) You do have to guide your missiles with radar, if you intend to have them engage a target beyond 15km, maybe.
Ever hear of the MICA-IR? Or the R-27T? Or the R-77 IR?
Amiga5001: You are only limited to 2 bombs when you are going against the heaviest targets in the most restricted environments. Normal targets only require a SDB (of which you can carry 6-8) or the new cruise SDB-sized missile from MBDA. In a less restrictive environment you can carry 15k lbs of munitions internal & external.
Leaving aside the external munitions, there has been numerous claims over the SDBs ability to infiltrate an IADS.
Not convinced in the slightest it will be able to accomplish this from suitable stand off ranges.
2: The F-35 is only 2nd to the F-22 in A2A as has been shown in multinational manned simulations. How is carrying 4 AMRAAMs internally “barely capable of self-defence”?
It cannot carry 4 AMRAAMs when carrying strike munitions.
I’ll not even dignify the first sentence with a response.
3: The F-35B can go M1.6+ armed. The F-18 cannot even do that and it’s a great deal faster than the AV-8B.
Don’t get me started on the F/A-18. My feelings on its ability as an aerodynamic platform should be commonly known around here by now.
4: All VLO aircraft have the best RCS to the front followed by the rear then the sides. This applies to the F-22, B-2, and X-47 as well. While the rear and sides of the F-35 are not as good as its front, they are still orders-of-magnitude lower than the front, rear, and sides of any 4th gen asset.
The latter is somewhat debatable. Additionally, if the RCS from that angle aren’t low enough to prevent detection and tracking within an IADS, then its pretty much a moot point.
5: What do you think deep strike is? The F-35B has the range to hit Baghdad from 200+nm out in the gulf or strike 100nm inland of China from 200nm East of Taiwan. That is without IFR or buddy tanking. As far as OPFOR, see #2
Your “point” in #2 is farcical.
When the penny drops and you realise the F-35 is little more than a bomb truck that can see whats around it, but can do little to influence what is around it – then you’ll realise just how much LockMart have fleeced your nation.
6: The F-35 is designed to reduce the detection range of any radar, including long waves.
The elementary rules of physics would disagree with you.
7: Why would the USMC even try? Another bogus argument.
What is the point of the “B” then? If the LHDs are good for only fighting people running around on camels with rifles, why not stick with Harrier?
Any conflict against an advanced foe will be “major”. If the LHDs cannot operate in a major conflict without their hand being held by big carriers then what is the point? (Particularly if the power projection capabilities of those big carriers has been crippled to improve (relatively) the power projection capabilities of the LHDs.)
Amiga5001) How many surface munitions do you need? It can carry 4 SDBs in each bay, if I recall correctly. That’s 8. But how many do you need? Any other aircraft out there that has a strike capability remotely comparable to the F-35?
8 SDBs do nothing but hit point targets.
To carry those 8 SDBs its only self-protection is a couple of sidewinders.
2) What sophisticated opponents? Any non-US aircraft out there that are even capable of “seeing” the F-35? Sure, in the Pak-Fa thread, there are.
Yep. Loads.
The Su-35, the Rafale, the Typhoon, the MiG-35, the Gripen. All easily capable of intercepting an F-35 and destroying it.
Don’t forget, the primary seeing will have been done using a long wavelength radar which the F-35 cannot hide from.
3) How much speed and range do you need, and is there any aircraft that is comparable to the F-35B? It has a 900km combat radius. Who else can do that?
I didn’t say range. I said speed only.
If you cannot affect a wide area with actions within a short timespan, you are not a force multiplier.
4) Is frontal VLO not enough? Anyone else, besides F-22, has anything close to it?
No, its not even close to enough given the sacrifices made to achieve even that.
5) Which opfor fighters would pose a threat to the F-35? In their sales brochures, I’m sure they all do.
Outlined above.
6) If detecting a “stealth” aircraft on long wavelength radars was so easy, how did F-117s fly in and out undetected?
Who says they did?
How do you target your missiles with a long wavelength radar, even if you could see it?
You don’t have to guide your missiles with radar.
You don’t have to use radar guided missiles for that matter either.
8) Orders today, aren’t necessarily ships tomorrow. We’ll have to wait and see, but I highly doubt that the USN is going to end up with 10 carriers in the future. Nor does it need 10.
They have been asking for a sustainable force of 12 IIRC.
I would not expect it to drop below 10 until the next paradigm shift in naval weapons (rail guns/DEWS maybe).
Amiga500I don’t think the USMC or USN realized the true role or capabilities of the F-35B until much later…this thing is a true force multiplier which means that you don’t need 12 or 11 carriers anymore, but can do the job with a lot fewer.
Oh take that bull**** somewhere else would you.
When your confined to as little as 2 surface munitions, you are not a force multiplier.
When you are barely capable of self-defence in the face of sophisticated opposition, you are not a force multiplier.
When you lack the speed to cover significant ranges quickly, you are not a force multiplier.
When your all-aspect-stealth©™® is actually frontal quadrant VLO only, you are not a force multiplier.
©™® Lockheed-Martin Powerpoint.
What the F-35B does is station an air wing of survivable 5-gen aircraft with the same capabilities as the conventional USN wings, in a dozen more ships, offering deep strike capabilities to ships that couldn’t before.
My hole.
The F-35 is utterly incapable of deep strike as it will be incapable of dealing with the opfor fighter intercepts sent its way.
It is not large enough to evade long wavelength radar to guide them, it is not quick enough to out-run them, it doesn’t carry enough munitions to suppress them and it is not maneuverable enough to fight them.
But yeah… it will have total situational awareness of them (and their missiles) coming – but you (and Lockheed) have missed the bit about that information needing to be usable to be useful.
It is a completely different animal from the Harrier, and it is the aircraft the Brits dreamed they had in the Falklands on their ships.
It would need to be – its represents a 30+ year difference in technology!
That’s precisely the point. The USN doesn’t need to have 12 aircraft carriers, and deploy them anywhere the USMC is deployed, when the USMC can carry their own strike capability with them, allowing the Navy to downsize.
You are starting to demonstrate utter cluelessness on a level I didn’t believe existed.
In a major conflict, the USMC wouldn’t be able to take a p**s without the help of the USN. Don’t delude yourself otherwise.
The USN is not going to have 10 carriers in the future, and this needs to be made up somehow.
You missed the memo? The USN is not downsizing its carrier fleet! There are already 10 CVN21s on the order books… and Nimitz is going nowhere till post 2022.
Amiga500Switching to the ‘STOVL ruined the F-35’ topic am I correct in stating that JAST was the product of a merger between the USN AF-X and USAF MFR programmes?.
My previous understanding:
Originally (1993) yes. However in 1994 it merged with the Common Affordable Light Fighter and with it took on board vertical lift requirements.
However I’ve since found this:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/joint_staff/jointStaff_jointOperations/795.pdf
Which would appear to indicate the USMC were involved in JAST from the get-go. This of course focuses solutions down a relatively narrow tract. Reading that – it would appear JAST is somewhat similar to what has been suggested on here – develop the building blocks in a joint program, with no commitment to a joint airframe. Thus, the initiation of the JSF program or, the channeling of technology into a “one sized solution” within JAST* (even though it was not mandated) would appear to be the problem.
*I would ask the forum members to consider that for a moment – if you were, say, Lockheed, it would be very much in your interest to convince the DoD to accept a one airframe for all solution – simply because it would be more likely to become “too big to cancel”. I’m not saying that happened… but I am saying there is real motive there for misleading DoD officials. Would you trust Lockheed not to do it?
Amiga500Really? A bit off topic, but F-35A is certainly more developed and capable, where it counts; better sensors, better weapons, better stealth, and all this against aircraft which aren’t light fighters.
But cost the same (or less) to buy and *probably* similar to operate (an extrapolation given how the F-22 spectacularly failed to meet its maintainability requirements and the usual rough and ready Russian approach).
I would disagree the F-35 has better weapons, it is the same AMRAAM/9X combo as legacy fighters currently have. I would also disagree it has better sensors on the active side. With all other things being approximately equal, there is no replacement for dish size and the F-35 ain’t got much.
The myths surrounding stealth will continue to unravel as times goes on. By 2020, I would expect that it no longer offers the F-35 enough protection from detection to be a significant contributor to the aircraft’s survivability. However, whether the myths have unraveled far enough for internet fanbois to admit it or not…
Your argument of a separate fighter for each service is understandable. However, there is certainly no guarantee that that approach would be cheaper then the current approach. In fact it would certainly be more expensive.
I’d happily bet it wouldn’t.
Amateurs think each program would have identikit costs… so 2x programs = 2x cost.
However, the majority of the funds are sucked into systems and propulsion design/development work. Nothing is stopping the majority of that work carry straight over into two completely separate airframes. The aero-stress side is not so dominant anymore.
Additionally, by removing the need to compromise across so many more requirements, there will be less trouble with each design meeting its requirements, reducing the cost of panic work to get each design to meet spec.
Amiga500Who gets to decide on what the specs will be?
Navy.
Each service will want their needs to be the top priority.
The USMC aircraft are an irrelevance. It is a complete waste letting them dictate terms to the other two.
The USAF can operate completely fine using aircraft designed primarily to operate off a carrier deck. It has happened before and should have happened again.
The USAF (and it’s partners) are building the vastly numerous A version. Why straddle them with the extra cost burden of a naval version?
Last time I checked the US taxpayer also funded the naval purchase too.
Program costs (and perhaps more importantly, program cost efficiency) will come down. The entire program has burned billions trying in vain to make the A and C work with the constraints of B. That would not have occurred in a separate platforms program.
You are talking about a per plane $15-$20 million increase in procurement costs alone plus the extra lifetime costs of supporting two engines & the extra naval equipment.
But for that you will get an effective fighter that would be capable of taking on any projected opposition aircraft with confidence.
You fancy an F-35A against a PAK-FA or J-20 in 2020? I certainly do not.
What extra naval equipment do you see adding maintenance cost? Stronger airframes = less maintenance.
Ever hear of the Harrier? 😉 STOVL works just fine.
Just fine versus what?
Its a joke and is not fit for purpose.
Amiga500@Italy: Having separate programs would have likely driven up cost due to different design teams, development, procurement, etc. Lifetime costs would also be higher for both programs due to lower economy of scale in parts and training costs.
Nah.
Keep certain items common – such as engine architecture, sensors, mission software and cockpit layout.
The airframes should be markedly different; the requirements are so disparate that one common fuselage simply doesn’t work.
For instance, the naval fighter should have 2 engines and be significantly larger. The airforce can use it (a la F-4).
The STOVL version can use one engine. Since its supposedly operating as CAS from FOB it doesn’t need the range so can take the payload hit. But I think STOVL/VTOL is a delusion using current propulsive technologies.
Amiga500Is there any point in VTOL Strike Aircraft today?
None. Whatsoever.
There never was. To operate effectively you need a logistical chain.
At a FOB, there are far, far, far higher priorities than wasting limited transports ferrying in munitions and fuel for a VTOL strike aircraft.
In the cold war, the whole idea was a sick joke. Tankers and infantrymen would be needing munition and fuel resupply by the tonne – so all available ground logistics would be devoted to that.
All FOBs would be within range of enemy artillery and/or rocketry. Good place to park some Jet A/A1 all right! Furthermore, any air transports would be extremely vulnerable to enemy fighter action and would be a bottleneck in the process of generating sorties.
Now, the idea is still a joke, but since its never been properly debunked, billions of dollars are wasted on it.
Sign In
