VnomadThe AIM-9X Block III is there to provide six MRAAM shots (external and internal). This was confirmed by the Navy AAM program manager at the Navy League show earlier this year.
If theoretically, the USAF or an export customer like Israel were to commit itself to funding/developing-as-offset modifications for six missile carriage, would the USN cancel the AIM-9X Blk 3 development?
The AIM-9X Blk3 would allow 4 MRAAMs to be carried (two externally) along with two 2000lbs/JSMs. In an air superiority configuration it would allow a more flexible 8 missile loadout, which is hardly rare for other aircraft. Just as importantly perhaps, in a (thus far theoretical) block 5 aircraft, in a stealth configuration, it would allow retention of a pair of missiles for WVR exigencies, while still retaining the option of using all six at medium range. (The Rafale probably employs the MICA much the same way.)
All said and done, for a service which will operate less than 100 F-35Cs over the coming decade (compared to nearly 700 SHs & Growlers, I doubt the missile’s development would be primarily focused on the F-35. Its more likely they want a jam resistant IIR MRAAM.
Edit:
The Block III “overlaps the range capability” of the AIM-120 Amraam, Schulte says.
Along with Navy efforts to add an infrared search and track system to the Super Hornet, it’s a response to “a particular threat that presents difficulties in RF” (radio-frequency). Asked whether the threat is Chinese, Schulte says “it could be.”
Boeing has said that the Hornet IRST program is a response to “RF-denied environments,” a likely reference to high-powered jamming. The new missile will use the Block II seeker, datalink and optical fuze but will almost certainly require a new motor.
VnomadLet me put it this way.. Can and F-35 successfully intercept another F-35? Can it shoot it down (BVR)? If you tell me yes, then that means that there is a sensor suite that can detect VLO targets, and if it can shoot down another F-35 then there is a missile (BVR) that can shoot down a VLO target.
Having just admitted that to ourselves then the only thing left is to acknowledge if the exhibited arrogance related to the F-35 is founded on the belief that no one else will get to have another VLO plane or another sensor suite that can pick up VLO planes or another missile that will be capable of hitting VLO targets from BVR or a combination of the above.
VLO aircraft aren’t invincible and no one is making such a claim. It is just harder to shoot down than older aircraft. The Eurofighter and Rafale IOCed almost the same time as the F-22, but there’s a reason why sporting F-22 ‘kill’ markings is a big deal.
Because if any of the above materialises then the situation changes rather drastically, doesn’t it?
It doesn’t in the least. The actual question is – if you’re a pilot tasked with intercepting a flight of hostile PAK FAs, would you rather be in a Gripen, Super Hornet, Rafale or F-35A?
VnomadThe F-35 currently has the capability to carry 4 internal AMRAAMs, but has the internal capacity for 6.
Only in fan dreams. There is no longer any serious effort to do six internal AMRAAM. That’s why USN is looking at AIM-9X Block III.
What does one have do with the other? Its not like the USN can stuff more Aim-9Xs in the internal bay than it can Aim-120s.
Vnomadthing is, even escorted, if you have a fighter equipoed with the like of the meteor, regardless whether it’s stealth or not, it will have the ability to shoot at the bombers way before any escort fighter get into position to fire.
1. Fighters ‘with the likes of the Meteor’ will eventually include the F-35 (right now it doesn’t include the EF or Rafale either).
2. Your scenario ignores the possibility of the escorts being LO. Which if they are will have the first shot opportunity against the interceptor.
now, take the F-35, with AMRAAMs it will have to close in to the point where it will be insides escorters’ firing range long before having the possibility to shoot at the bombers.
So the escorting fighters have weapons with longer ranges than the Aim-120D but shorter than the Meteor. Your whole result is predicated on the choice of weapon, with the aircraft’s capabilities playing a minimal role.
The F-35s may be in firing range of the escorts but that doesn’t mean they’ve been detected, let alone tracked. That’s the advantage of a VLO aircraft.
and even if he manages to shoot, it will give away it’s position and get chased by the angry “bad guys”…
When (rather than if) it shoots, the ‘bad guys’ will be more worried about a clutch of AMRAAMs heading for them than a flight of interceptors heading away.
all that while being significantly slower and unable to escape (especially as from the rear its stealth is reduced, not to speak of the huge IR beacon it carries behind (its engine, for those who are a bit slow)
First thing the escorts will do spotting the incoming missiles is undertake evasjve action. By the time they’re done with that the F-35s will have left missile range. And what it lacks in supercruise capability it makes up for with gobs of internal fuel, for those still desirous of a lengthy tailchase.
if it has the pylons (and space) for two 2000lbs bombs, seems to me that it could’ve been smart to do as the F-105 did: install and carry internal “drop tanks” instead when bombs aren’t needed, allowing for more fuel with almost zero aerodynamic penalty
It carries over 8 tons of fuel internally. More than the F-22 IIRC. I can’t see any user being ready to sacrifice two internal hardpoints for more fuel.
VnomadThe point is that the power/RCS/range effect is non-linear.
The range-RCS equation has always been non-linear. ??? And if you’re suggesting that it doesn’t apply to small radar seekers (or applies differently), please do post the graphs/charts/equations depicting the actual relation.
And at a certain point, degrading the radar seeker is no longer of value unless you can reduce an IR seeker’s range to the same level.
That applies only to dual-mode seekers, which haven’t been fielded on an AAM yet (AFAIK). But even for a dual-mode unit – the baseline range for a radar seeker would be higher than for an IR seeker, so degrading the former until their ranges are comparable is certainly of value.
Likewise, the “they’ll track stealth aircraft to greater range” has a limit. With ground-based early warning, it’s the horizon. For a tactical fighter, it’s “and how much of the airspace do you really want or need to see, Mr Pilot?”
This doesn’t in anyway level the playing fielding for conventional aircraft against VLO aircraft. A low volume radar search against the former will still result in track ranges far higher than for the latter.
VnomadThe question is more: is it good bang for the buck given the task ?
In Canadas case, no, it aint, the main task there is interception, and with an operational cost higher,
but (intercept) performance lower, it just aint.
Main task is interception against…?
Russian bombers? Bears, Backfires, Blackjacks, or PAK DAs? Escorted? If so, by Su-30s, Su-35s, or PAK FAs?
VnomadAs for seeker range: The radar range equation is not your friend because seekers are not intended as long-range devices. Received energy at the transmitter varies with the fourth power of range, and stealth gets very, very difficult to do as the range closes in. And don’t be surprised to see more dual-mode seekers coming along with more compact IR systems and GaN AESAs.
The seeker on the missile is limited by its aperture/power/cooling limitations but the principle of operation is no different from a fire control radar. Stealth will indeed get more ‘difficult to do as the range closes in’, the advantage obvious is that the range needs to be a lot closer for the F-35 than it does for conventional aircraft.
Every manufacturer will try to maximize the range of its product and seekers on modern BVR missile are pretty impressive (25km for the Astra’s Agat seeker IIRC). Same applies to GaN seekers; they’ll track stealth aircraft at longer ranges, but non-stealth aircraft at far far longer ranges. IIR for dual mode seekers is more useful for its jam-resistance/kill-probability than for its range (active seekers will continue to out-range it).
Vnomad“Also worth noting is that the F-35’s VLO capability will make it harder for a missile to get a lock in the terminal stage, compared to a 4.5G fighter (even one with a comparable EW system). ”
Also worth noting that you need to add “I hope” after such an absolute statement. Otherwise it is simply fanboy dreams.
The track range of a radar depends on the RCS of the target. Higher RCS -> higher range. Lower RCS -> lower range. Most modern BVR missiles employ active seekers. Active radar seekers -> small radar on-board. Lower RCS -> lower seeker range. Six absolute statements.
VnomadThe F-22s will not turn and run away. However, they will withdraw to refuel or RTB to rearm.
That’ll still leave the F-35s or B-2s that its escorting with their feet in the fire. To recap –
– F-35 handicapped because it ‘needs’ F-22 escorts.
– F-22 has the advantage of being able to ‘turn and run away’.
– Escort and fast exfil don’t go together.
Alternatively, if your/Gen Hostage’s point was simply that the F-22 is better than the F-35 at air superiority roles – I agree. That shoot-and-scoot tactic will be especially useful against enemy AWACS, refuelers, etc.
VnomadWhich block of F-16’s ? Not all performed equally…
All of them were more agile than the Super Hornet.
I don’t think this is even physically possible. You can’t have the first shot if you have ran out of missiles for instance.
Fine. Add the proviso that the aircraft must have missiles left.
But there are other reasons at play. For example the enemy may lead you in a position where launching a weapon is not permitted due to the launch parameters of the plane during the manoeuvre (I don’t have any data on the F-35 on this, I really don’t know what its launch envelope is)
If we’re being pedantic, I’d like to point out that the operative bit was ‘almost always have first shot’.
Until it it sees widespread adoption and fielded use, it remains a gadget. I do recognise however that this is my personal view and I could be wrong. (also nobody knows the details of the fixes of the issues we talked about.
Its scheduled to be fielded on over 3000 aircraft. NG has a naval version under development for the USN. And the Chinese are reportedly developing a similar system for the J-31. That’s pretty widespread I’d say.
Also, the EF fields a similar helmet, while the Gripen and Rafale will have similar IR sensors; not a comprehensive system as on the F-35, but that’s enough to prove the technology works.
Details of the fixes have been released and have been discussed on the thread.
That is just it. Nobody knows when the opposition missiles will work better. Each weapon has an envelope of optimum operation and therefore increased Pk. Although your math is correct, it is also not telling the full picture.
Unless Russia or China starts fielding missiles with Pks vastly higher than their American or European analogues, the F-35’s exchange ratio will remain unaffected.
Also worth noting is that the F-35’s VLO capability will make it harder for a missile to get a lock in the terminal stage, compared to a 4.5G fighter (even one with a comparable EW system).
VnomadWhat they actually need that rate for (and it is a prerequisite for just hitting the SAR targets, not the basis for further cuts) is to dilute their monstrous overhead.
The economics of production applies as much to fighter jet production as it does to automobiles. If the overhead is massive that’ll be reflected in a higher baseline i.e. current costs but wouldn’t prevent unit costs from falling (unless LM is subsidizing LRIP aircraft).
All airplane production rates are low by the standards of most manufacturing. Airplanes and engines are largely hand-assembled from parts that predominantly come from a supplier base that feeds all the primes, and higher production rates do les than you’d think for costs.
“For every dollar that we save in production cost on this airplane, 80 percent of it can be attributed to economies of scale,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manger, said on April 17. “That’s just buying things in bulk. Instead of buying 10 titanium forgings, we now buy 100 and we get a good price deal.”
The remaining 20 percent comes from efficiencies in the production process.
Your bold assertion of the F-35’s air-to-air capabilities is a courageous response to amateur critics who say things like:
The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as wel….I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers…Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after.
Man wants his F-22s upgraded. Man’s gonna get his F-22s upgraded. (The F-35 program meanwhile’s been firewalled from the sequester.)
This is still mild stuff compared to what was flung at the F-16 to secure F-15 production.
Meanwhile the USMC, USN, Israelis, Brits etc are all planning to employ their F-35s without any F-22 support. As far as the USAF is concerned one would hope that in an actual war, F-22s escorting F-35s or B-2s won’t ‘turn and run away’ after engaging the enemy.
And from Lukos’ link:
The cost of the U.S. Air Force model of the plane, which accounts for 27 of the 43 aircraft, will go down by nearly 4 percent, said one of the sources.
25% increase in production, 4% fall in cost. Sounds good.
A 35% reduction in cost from a 500% increase in production appears quite doable from those figures, even accounting for diminishing returns.
Vnomad1. It remains to be seen.
Its got the agility of a lightly loaded F-16C and maneuvers nearly as well as the SH at high angles of attack.
2. So it pays to be somewhat agile to have a fighting chance at least.
The F-35 will almost always have the first shot even within visual range. With the EODAS doing the tracking for him and beaming imagery directly on his visor, the F-35 pilot can identify and engage enemies at all aspects. He shoots first and his opponent is the one worrying about ‘a fighting chance’ against the missile.
3. That is a nice gadget, let’s see how it performs first.
‘Gadget’ implies its trivial add-on, which it isn’t. And its performing just fine. There were issues with the helmet but they’ve been addressed with Gen 3 unit that starts deliveries next year.
F-4 AUP’s dominated exercises against F-16’s with their longer range radar and 100% assumed lethality of the AIM-120 they were carrying. Real missiles don’t work as well as simulated ones. Can’t comment on stealth though.
Unless the opposition is fielding better AAMs the kill probability of the missile makes no difference to the aircraft’s loss-exchange ratio. Halve the Pk and the F-22 may ‘kill’ only half as many targets. But it’ll also ‘die’ only half as often (assuming the other side is also similarily restricted).
VnomadAgain, every one is arguing about costs Plus various inflation, however, not one person has included the “COST” that every Nation involved has already spent in the two decade long development……
SO in reality, should not the amount spent by the UK, Australia etc. be divided by the expected number of aircraft and added to the purchase price?…after, every Nation has contributed millions and millions and more……
Actually no, 95% of the aircraft’s $60 billion development cost was funded by the US govt. The Canadian contribution IIRC was about $150 million, some of which will be recovered through transferred workshare. Even if all of it is added to the 72 aircraft purchase, it would increase the purchase price only by about $2 mil.
as well there are any number of well documented reports that clearly outline the expected operating costs of the F35 vs the F18 E/F etc……and the figures come back at double the cost for the F35, and those figures have NOT been discounted or contested by LM…the figures I read where some $32,000.00 PER HOUR for the F35 vs. slightly less than $16,000.00 per hour for the F18 E/F…..so again…if those costs are added up and applied to the costs for the airframes……..in no way shape or form could the F35 ever be considered a “good value purchase”…..
Lets take those figures at face value. Difference in cost of operation = $16,000/hour.
Difference in annual cost of operation = 72 x $16K x 200h = $230M.
Therefore operating the F-35A instead of the F-18E/F will cost the Canadian govt an additional $230 million per year. This for the entire RCAF fighter fleet. That’s about 1% of an annual defence budget that exceeds $20 billion.
Also –
1. In terms of physical performance the F-35A matches or exceeds the Super Hornet on most parameters.
2. Most modern close combat missiles can pull 60-80Gs at Mach 3 and are equipped with 90 deg off-boresight swiveling IIR seekers. Long drawn out ‘Top Gun’ style dogfights are a thing of the past (nothwithstanding training setups under restrictive RoEs).
3. In WVR combat, the EODAS maintains a constant track on the target throughout the missile’s flight and provides constant updates through the 2-way datalink to ensure a high kill probability (this will be particularly important once DIRCM comes into play). So no, a Aim-9X launched from a different platform isn’t the same as one from a F-35.
4. The F-22 has dominated every exercise it has participated in, where real world combat was simulated (as opposed to friendly engagements where it fought with one if not both hands tied). Some of that was because of its brute performance (TVC, supercruise, etc) but most of that is still chalked up to stealth and avionics. The F-35 features comparable (possibly superior) characteristics at both aspects.
Vnomadno, that is not a fact, that is your faith/belief,
history suggests the pilot with the more training has the upper hand
Pilot training is not a variable when discussing a choice of aircraft. The RCAF would be loath to pits its pilots against superior Russian aircraft, while depending on better training to make up the performance deficit. Doubly so, when a plan drafted is to meet defence requirements over at least a 30 year period, during which assumptions made on pilot training may well be invalidated.
VnomadThe honest-looking schoolmarmish lady who runs the program for LMT has a presentation that says differently. 160 jets in the 2018 buy year.
Should be even easier to match the Eurocanard costs at that production rate. That’s almost 15 times higher than the Rafale’s rate of production.
As for the F/A-18 rate and cost – everything is inter-related. As you see, it is less costly than the F-35 at much lower rates. There’s no clear, level-field comparison because the F-18 is the only other aircraft currently priced under the same assumptions and ground rules as published figures for the F-35.
The SH in its current form and at its currently production rate, is no doubt cheaper but that doesn’t translate to better value. More so because the SH would still need a fair few upgrades to be credible vis a vis the F-35. Would a Super Hornet ‘International’ variant built at 24 units per year 2018-2020 for the RCAF be significantly cheaper per unit than the F-35A over the same period?
Sign In
