Loke– Will 4th gen fighters like the Rafale F3, Typhoon Tranche 3, Gripen NG and Su-35S be able to achieve parity against the F-35 in BVR combat? Not happening.
Some fundamental flaws in your thinking here…
I suggest the following two scenarios instead:
1. F-35/Eurocanards against an alien invasion. Logically, if aliens are able to make it to earth their technology is far ahead of anything we’ve got on earth. So the F-35 will lose, as will Rafale and Typhoon. Thus the F-35 has no advantages whatsoever compared to Rafale/Typhoon in this scenario.
2. F-35/Eurocanards against vintage WW2 fighters. F-35 will of course win (no need to explain why); as will the eurocanards (no need to explain why). Thus the F-35 has no advantages whatsoever compared to Rafale/Typhoon in this scenario.
vs. discussions are great, we all learn so much from them.
/sarcasm
LokeBut the USAF will mainly use the F-35 as a bomb truck, not for a2a missions — F-22 and the next fighter jet (the “6. gen” bird) will handle that.
Realistically, only China will have the resources to build a VLO plane at the level of the F-35; the others (including Russia) will not. And China may have the resources but so far seems not to have the capabilities. And if there is no VLO platform on “the other side” the F-35 reigns supreme. A 4.5 gen fighter will probably never get close to the F-35, making the dogfighting capabilities irrelevant.
By the time China gets the capabilities to build “true” VLO systems with decent sensors and sensor fusion the F-35 has probably evolved quite a lot, and most likely even the new US 6. gen fighter will start to get ready by that time (unless the US economy is too weak by that time…)
Point is, the US already has a lot of the “6. gen” tech; and if they see that China is catching up rapidly my guess is the US will speed up development if this happens.
I have previously pointed to the F-35 as a very curious bird since IMHO it is “overkill” when faced with today’s threat scenarios, but may struggle when faced with what could become available 20-40 years down the line. Most people laughed at me making such a statement, but this discussion seems to me to support my view on this. Anyway hopefully the F-35 has much better growth potential than what is publicly known and then all will be fine.
Lokei’m sorry i just woke up so i may miss subtle sarcasm,
are you saying PAK-FA isnt going to outmaneuver F-35 ?
Nope I am saying that the F-35 will have so much better SA and stealth than the PAK FA that the F-35 pilot will most likely never get in a dogfight with the PAK FA. Only when the F-35 has run out of missiles and try to outrun the PAK FA, will the PAK FA have a chance. But will the PAK FA pilot take that risk? If the F-35 suddenly start to flee the PAK FA pilot may guess that the F-35 is out of missiles, however it may also be a ruse, or maybe the F-35 is running out of fuel and still have missiles left. Also there could be other F-35s in the area that the PAK FA did not spot yet. So trying to hunt down a fleeing F-35 could be very dangerous.
So therefore there is little chance of dogfight with the PAK FA. And that’s the whole point they are trying to make; not until a new fighter with LO and sensors similar to the F-35 does the F-35 need to worry. However when that happens (or if) then the F-35 pilot may need to start worry… but then again, given the massive investments in the F-35 perhaps they can come up with something else to compensate for the poor dog-fighting capabilities of the F-35.
LokeWow, you completely missed the whole “AF-02 was under restrictions & without a lot of combat systems” part huh?
What restrictions did it have that would affect the “dog fight” scenario?
What combat systems did it lack that affected the “dog fight” scenario?
I thought dog fights were all done at WVR; thus if you get into such a situation, how relevant is the radar at that point? EODAS is different; if it was flying without EODAS then I guess that would be a major drawback.
There are some oddities with the statement, for instance:
And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.
I may be wrong of course but my understanding of the phrase “dog fight” is that it involves gun only. Does the above sentence imply that when finalized the F-35 pilot will be able to aim and fire the gun with the helmet and without having to point the airplane at its target?
Anyway it seems to me that they don’t say that the claims about the poor dog-fighting capabilities of the F-35 are completely off, but rather their main argument seems to be “it does not matter because the F-35 will never get to that point”. No doubt they are right, at least until somebody is able to field a 5. gen fighter that is at a similar level in terms of stealth and sensors but have better dog fighting capabilities. Of course that may never happen… I strongly doubt Russia will have the economy to develop such a fighter (PAK FA does not cut it IMHO) and China is still quite far behind. On verra.
We have previously heard from LM and other “reliable” sources that the F-35 is comparable to a clean F-16 — this report seems to not support those statements. And that is not a good thing…. If LM “twisted the truth” on those things; what else did they “twist the truth” on?
And before somebody again says that “Axe is a lying F-35 hater”; well if he was lying why did the official statement linked to above not clarify that? They did not say he was lying, instead they had a much weaker “taken out of context” statement, that did not become more convincing when you read the rest of the statement.
LokeI think this is much less dramatic than it sounds:
first, this was a test done in January; they will probably tweak the F-35 to improve things.
Second; dog fights are rare these days; of course should not be ignored but also should not be the top priority.
Third, situational awareness remains a very important parameter also in a dog fight. I suspect that only when the F-35 meets a fighter that have similar levels of SA will the AC performance become a real issue. It will take a long time until we reach that point; and by then perhaps the F-35 has evolved even further. Perhaps a DEW that can swivel?
Quotes I believe are relevant:
“In any practice engagement I have had in the last 20 years where I have turned with another aeroplane in a bigger picture environment – rather than the static one by ones, two by twos or four by fours – every time I have tried to do that I have ended up being shot by somebody else who actually is not in the fight. As soon as you enter a turning fight, your situational awareness actually shrinks down because the only thing you can be operating with is the aeroplane you are turning with. The person who has the advantage is the person who can stand off, watch the engagement and just pick you off at the time. So you got to be really careful about how you use those KPIs.”
the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane…. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis…. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God’s-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter – and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements.”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/
LokeTest Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
The fateful test took place on Jan. 14, 2015, apparently within the Sea Test Range over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California. The single-seat F-35A with the designation “AF-02” — one of the older JSFs in the Air Force — took off alongside a two-seat F-16D Block 40, one of the types of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace.
The two jets would be playing the roles of opposing fighters in a pretend air battle, which the Air Force organized specifically to test out the F-35’s prowess as a close-range dogfighter in an air-to-air tangle involving high “angles of attack,” or AoA, and “aggressive stick/pedal inputs.”
The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.
But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.
“Insufficient pitch rate.” “Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time.” “The flying qualities in the blended region (20–26 degrees AoA) were not intuitive or favorable.”
The F-35 jockey tried to target the F-16 with the stealth jet’s 25-millimeter cannon, but the smaller F-16 easily dodged. “Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution,” the JSF pilot complained.
And when the pilot of the F-16 turned the tables on the F-35, maneuvering to put the stealth plane in his own gunsight, the JSF jockey found he couldn’t maneuver out of the way, owing to a “lack of nose rate.”
The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn.
The JSF tester found just one way to win a short-range air-to-air engagement — by performing a very specific maneuver. “Once established at high AoA, a prolonged full rudder input generated a fast enough yaw rate to create excessive heading crossing angles with opportunities to point for missile shots.”
But there’s a problem — this sliding maneuver bleeds energy fast.
Full story: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875
Seems not to match with what other reports have stated… I know Axe is very sceptical to the F-35. Has he misrepresented the report?
LokeDisagree, a positive ID will continue to be required, at least for as long as there might be friendly manned a/c in vicinity,
but i think lasers will turn current fighters obsolete faster than drones
You misunderstand; I do not mean that a positive ID is not required, but rather that the positive ID will be made by the AI system running on the computer inside the UCAV and not by an (error-prone) human. A good AI system is as good as the best human expert, and in times of stress and fatigue, much better.
Try to think about the task of driving a car in an ever-changing, dynamic environment. Not simple, eh? But today we have systems that can do that. In a few years they will be ready to drive amongst us, and people will soon realize that accident rates tend to go down when the automatic systems are allowed to run the show, instead of error-prone humans.
LokeSensor fusion = Time
Speed = distance / Time => Time= Distance / Speed
By going fast you deny the use of information.
A M0.9 UCAV relying on passive sensor will have a SA bubble of roughly 35miles (at the very best).
35/1125 = 0.031 hour = 1.8 min = 108 sec
Your UCAV would have 1 min and 48s to detect, assess, report, wait for the Human decision, position itselft for a weapon launch and fire to counter a gun only threat.
Now let say that the bad guys have Amraam… Good luck to your Robotic Alter Ego 😉
Who said anything about a human decision?
Don’t you know that these days we have cars driving themselves? An 100% automatic UCAV is a no-brainer with today’s technology.
The only thing holding back fully automatic UCAVs that make a decision to fire in a fraction of a millisecond are “ethical” rules, that will be thrown out the window immediately after the sh!t hits the fan and one is facing a “neer-peer” opponent.
LokeI thought than adding an impressive stray of decimals would make an impression. 😀
Well, the decimals were rather impressive 🙂
LokeLike what countries? Myanmar?
BREAKING NEWS!
The Baltics have made secret plans to invade Finland. They have run out of saunas and wood.
LokeBut I doubt that a Mach.9 aircraft, Manned or Unmanned with passive sensors would survive long enough in an A2A scenario to make any positive impact on a tactical situation.
Wrong;
“speed is life” has been replaced by “information is life”. Thus stealth (to deny the opponent information) in combination with advanced sensors and sensor fusion (to collect “information”) are much more important factors than speed alone.
And missiles fly faster than even the fastest jet…
LokeSigh…
TomcatVIP, I am not impressed by your calculations here.
Are you really not aware of the challenges involved in calculating these costs? Each deal is different; also, infrastructure and other costs need to be added, so the figure you are quoting is quite irrelevant. Also, you need to make numerous assumptions. How on earth do you know whether your assumptions are even close to reality?
Instead of making such silly statements (sorry!) it should suffice to say:
1. F-35 costs will keep dropping the next 5 years as production ramps up
2. F-35 will reach IOC in the near future; even if delayed, is should not hurt Finland too much since their purchase is still several years into the future.
3. Costs of Gripen E is difficult to estimate currently; one the one hand you would expect it to be rather low (light-weight single-engine fighter with many cheap components, including the mature and “low-cost” F414 engine (how much does an F135 cost?)); on the other hand we don’t know how many countries will purchase it in addition to Sweden and Brazil. However most likely it does not really matter since my guess is that Finland will in any case choose a 5. gen fighter, and there is just one in town…
LokeNo this is to do with the 90 odd Rafales that weren’t ordered..36 supposed to be ordered, but they may look for ” another MMRCA
Your response is not satisfactory.
Gripen E is of course far above and beyond the Tejas mk1, however it remains a single-engine, lightweight 4.5 gen fighter.
IF the Tejas mk2 is successful one would expect it to be quite close in performance to the Gripen E. It even comes with the same engine! (F414)
Thus, it would make absolutely no sense at all to purchase Gripen E as an “MMRCA substitute” unless the Tejas mk2 is not very sucessful.
LokeUnder what circumstances would the Finns find themselves facing an S-400? Are the Russians going to place them on the border so that their RADAR coverage extends into Finland? 100-150 million per example is hard to justify for that reason alone. Especially for an aircraft that is near IOC, but not capable of fulfilling all of its intended roles. Finland is not going to invade Russia. The U.S. and NATO would get involved long before the opposite would happen (when is there a conflict the U.S. does stay out of?).
????
The only country that could possibly threaten Finland, is of course Russia.
IF such a situation should arise, rest assured that Russia would use whatever means they deem necessary to handle the conflict.
I would turn this around and ask; why on earth would they NOT put S-400 along the border of Finland during a conflict that has the potential to escalate to a full-blown war? Why would they not do it? Please make your case!
F-35 has had a lot of issues, it is far above budget, however it is coming along nicely now. The costs for developing F-35 are staggering; HOWEVER most of the bill is picked up by US tax-payers. In particular, when Finland is about to go shopping, the F-35 price will be significantly lower than what it is today. Finland will not be hit by the huge budget overruns, that will all be history and sunk costs when they place their order.
LokeI can’t vouch for what they are thinking, but I think 40 is an absolute minimum number and they’d prefer at least 50. Remember that Finland is not part of any major alliance and has to take care of her own air superiority needs. Can’t just count on buying a nominal number of fighters and expect a Big Brother fly in if there’s trouble. If we can’t afford sufficient number of F-35’s, then it’s probably out of the contest.
My guess is that Finland would struggle to finance 50 F-35… however the others may not be more attractive since they don’t have the same capabilities as F-35. Russia can position S-400 to cover large parts of Finland. How safe will a 4.5 gen fighter be in such an environment?
Why not? Hornets and NH90’s were assembled in Finland too. It is often forgotten that Finland has reasonably capable, if small, aviation industry.
capable yes, but it would increase the cost too much. Things have changed since the Hornets were assembled. Costs have gone up, and budgets have gone down. Local assembly for such a small number of a/c will increase the unit price considerable!
Sign In
