And here we enter the realm of distinguishing between detection and targeting again. IRST gives good bearing accuracy but very poor range accuracy that is only suitable for targeting over relatively short distances, detection distance is also limited relative to radar. Furthermore it is easily foiled by cloud cover.

What’s often forgotten here is that passive targeting has very limited testing to back it up and no combat validation whatsoever and some of the claimed passive targeting tests aren’t even truly passive and used other active sources for ranging. Radar and ARH on the other hand are well proven in both testing and combat. Furthermore, not only does the F-35 have a better AESA radar than the competitors, it also has a better IRST system too. So in addition to offering the best undetectability it also offers the best detection and comes with some of the most combat proven and best tested AAMs in AIM-120 and soon Meteor too. It also has a 360deg targeting capability WVR, extending out to BVR with ASRAAM. But basically let’s ignore all that because other aircraft can do some airshow manoeuvres better.

So you maintain that even if the F-35 comes up again an opponent with an equally low signature, it will prevail !! because it has IRST (or similar) better than the competition, (whilst you don’t know what the competition offers), and better missiles.. and better radar. Well look at that, these are the things the other side is saying. More over, the other side has begun designing planes to specifically counter any advantage the F-35 might have, and one side in particular, even had access to said plane’s data. … wow.

The micro-turbofans used in modern corporate jets typically have SFC half that of the military class turbofans. The digitalized Williams FJ-44 is a fuel sipper that can crank out 3500 pounds of subsonic thrust at a .46 sfc for an installed weight of 650 pounds in its biggest version. While not really suitable for dogfighting where a high TWR is preferable, it would dramatically boost cruise range for strike packages that fly in the high subsonic cruise parameters.

The USAF has already used micro-turbofans with stealth coatings for decades, so they are familiar with their usage. Integrating one into a centerline drop tank for F-16CJ’s or for underwing drop tanks on the F-15E would boost range compared to using purely its own power. And with both fighters able to move fuel in/out of the drop tanks, it’s conceivable that they would still operate when the drop tanks hit bingo fuel, so they aren’t lugging around a ton of dead weight.

The concept would work even if instead of a fuel tank, it’s simply a turbofan-integrated ordnance. The B-52 loaded with twelve cruise missiles underwing all fired up at takeoff would be a sight to see for sure. Even ALCM turbofans are rated to fly a few hundred hours whereas their mission calls for but a few. Taking advantage of the most fuel efficient engines underwing just seems like a no-brainer.

Thoughts?

I remember we run a short study at uni similar to this. I believe the conclusion was that not all pylons can withstand the force and stresses.

OK you have weapons, now you have to find a target to shoot at. Are you sending a few scout Su-33’s into a hive of F-35B’s it can’t see to recon and track the ship? Are you flying satellites over an SM-3 armed Tico? The key to this engagement is recon, my money’s on the Bees.

The more I dwell these fora the more I think the F-35 is a magical, mythical beast. Seriously though, on different levels this is not right.

First of all you can’t apply the 35s as a cure to all ailments, any LHA will have a huge signature on radar and no matter how many 35’s you have covering it, you will be seen. So the P-700s do not need the Su-33s or anything else to come closer, they will find you.

Second, employing specific tactics to prove that the 35 is a good sensor asset just to cover the LHA, is in my mind a poor choice, they are there to cover the amphibious operations, not to cover the LHA with an entire squadron.

Third I think a lot of people in here (irrespective of how good the 35 is or isn’t) have identified that the whole marines procurement program is somewhat … confused.

We can invent or identify advantages of the F-35 all day long, but please don’t tell me they built a ship in a certain way so that the 35s can fly cover for it in a very certain way. It’s just nuts.

Couldn’t possibly imagine what use a flying, stealthy sensor platform would have in a fleet with no CVNs. The difference in the sensor coverage of a fleet with just AEGIS coverage compared to a fleet with F-35B’s on a LHD is marginal at best….right? What are they thinking?

And that is the reason they are doing it. They are going to use those F-35s as sensor assets to provide better situation awareness. right ?

Fly from outside the range of the road-mobile ASCMs and destroy them, use submarines or ASW destroyers to destroy the SSKs, or use ASW helicopters to destroy them at range. You might lose someone, but that’s a risk of war.

The Invincible Class carriers that took back the Falklands were small relative to the LHA-6.

But isn’t that what you have carriers for? Why take them out from 60 miles when you can take them out from 180 miles?(!!)

What is the reason for providing close air support with F-35s when you can get the same air support from carrier based 35s which just have to fly 100 miles longer than the ones you have on the LHA? 100 miles longer will not make or break the amazing F-35 are they? You are not gonna sent marines in without achieving air superiority first anyway and to do that you’ll need a CNV anyway aren’t you?

All this reeks of all branches wanting to have a share of the pie but noone really gave it any thought on how all this is justified…

If the LHD needs a CVN to protect it why does 6 or even 12 F35B on the LHD make any difference?

If the rasion d’etre for the aircraft is campaigns against insurgents why is stealth important?

With regard to the concept of anphib ops, which is a very valid topic for the F35 thread, the only opposition that would justify a full amphib operation are very likely to have access to nukes and in such a scenario would have no hesitation in taking out the entire naval force with one. There is a reason why Normandy and Inchon where the last major amphib ops, the Russians and Chinese aquired the bomb shortly after Inchon.

All this leads back to the question why does the USMC need a supersonic, stealthy, STOVL aircraft? In what scenario is it actually going to be able to use all of those attributes at once?

If it is up against an opponent that requires supersonic and stealth the platforms it will operate off (LHD’s) cannot be close to the opposition or they will be targeted at the very least, which means that resources that should be allocated to the primary mission must be re-tasked to protect the LHD impacting the effectiveness of the primary mission. If those defensive resources are coming from a CVN why the heck do 6 to 12 F35’s on the LHD make a difference as you’ve got a full carrier strike wing to play with!

If the opponent is capable of threatening an LHD, which if supersonics and stealth are required they probably are, the idea that land based F35’s in the conflict zone are going to be any less vunerable is strange to say the least. So what’s the point of STOVL? (Particulalrly when the supporting assets required to sustain ops require a full runway.)

If the opponent does not require supersonics and stealth what value are these attributes with the undoubted compromises and cost they bring to the design?

A few posts up I mentioned the USS America, you guys might wanna have a look at it…it is very telling about this F-35 craziness

Obligatory – The A-10 would not work off a carrier, but could be well suited to expeditionary operations. And Marine air’s sea-based, non-CV element is limited in size, with only small units attached to each deployed LHA/LHD.

FAXX – just try learning to read. It might help.

All these problems would never exist if the marines instead of different planes simply wanted different ships…..

The fundamental problem you seem to have is that you believe a F-16 replacement could be created and produced for substantially less than an F-35. What you are forgetting is that the latest models of the F-16 are radically different aircraft from the original ones, with radically higher prices. You could buy an F-16 Block 60 (or the hypothetical block 70 that has been kicked around some) but the problem is that such an aircraft is already likely easily busting through $50 million a copy… and that is for an upgraded version of an aircraft that has been in production for 30 years. A clean slate design would require many billions of R&D just to get off the ground. (literally and figuratively) These R&D costs would have to be amortized over the fleet of the new aircraft.

Think about the original F-16s… daylight only… sidewinders, dumb bombs, rockets and a cannon.

Contrast that to a hypothetical fully modernized F-16:

New cockpit with multi-function displays
Helmet mounted display/sight
Modern RWR
Modern internal jammer/towed decoy
AESA radar
IRST
Missile warning system
Datalink (preferably a next generation datalink, MADL or similar)
All new computer (required for above)
All new software (required for above)
All new internal networking, power supply, cooling (required for above)
Conformal fuel tanks
Uprated engine
RCS reductions
Integration of at least one modern WVR missile
Integration of at least one modern BVR missile
Integration of a modern targeting pod
Integration of a whole list of air to surface weapons

What would it cost to develop such an aircraft? The F-16 Block 60 R&D reportedly cost ~$3billion back in 1998, and that didn’t include everything above… and remember we are talking about an upgrade program, not even a clean slate design. Figure no less than $5-6 billion to develop the avionics for a fully outfitted 4.5 generation fighter.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110706/DEFSECT01/107060305/UAE-May-Buy-More-F-16s

Remember, this isn’t the cost of the planes, or even the cost of developing the planes… this is the price of developing the upgrades alone. If you managed a production run of a few hundred jets you could expect the R&D cost per jet alone to hit $10-20million.

How much do modern avionics cost once developed?

For that we can look to France, which has just finished upgrading the first of the Rafale F1s to the F3 standard. This upgrade swaps out essentially all of the Rafale’s avionics for new equipment, but does not include a variety of the features above, including an AESA radar, IRST, towed decoy, etc.

What is France paying to upgrade 10 Rafale F1s? Try 240 million Euros. (~$300million)

$30 million per plane to bring existing airframes up to the current standard.

http://www.janes.com/article/44260/french-navy-receives-first-upgraded-rafale-f3

You realize we aren’t even talking about developing a new airframe yet, right? Nor do either of the two upgrades above include everything on the wishlist.

The bottom line is that modern fighters are awfully expensive. Nobody anywhere is going to develop a “new F-16” with the features people want that will be more than incrementally cheaper than the F-35.

The Gripen NG is the closest anyone has come up with and that hasn’t flown yet and won’t be operational until the 2020+ timeframe. (First delivery scheduled for 2018…likely with limited capabilities initially…) So there you will be in the year 2020 with a brand new 4th generation fighter that will likely cost very nearly the same as an F-35 in the same timeframe. (Brazil is buying 36 for $4.5billion.)

The hypothetical 5th generation F-16-class aircraft that would cost half what an F-35 does simply isn’t possible.

No, the fundamental issue is that you think I am saying a plane like the f-35 could have been developed for less money. I said NATO (and I dare say he USAF ) didn’t need the f-35 and that the cheaper alternative would not be an f-35 and would never have this price tag.

It is a classic logic pitfall, because you are thinking inside the F-35 box. The price tag of this plane has skyrocketed in a way that inflation can not account for.

You mentioned 50-60 mil for a later generation f-16. That is a far cry from the 150mil that this plane has. Unless you believe LM.

Militaries want the f-35 because they don’t want to be left out of the VLO race, but there is nothing else to choose anyway. That doesn’t prove the plane is right, it just proves it’s the only one you can get.

Time will tell, my 2c, this plane is all kinds of wrong