OooShinyWow, interesting preview of the B’s air to air and CAS capability.
Davis also defended the aircraft from criticisms that it can’t outperform an F-16 in a dogfight or A-10 in providing close air support to ground troops. “I love the F-16, I think it’s a great airplane,” he said. But in a dogfight, he’d rather be in a new Joint Strike Fighter than a legacy Fighting Falcon, he added.
While the exchange rates from the operational readiness inspection are classified, he said, “We put a four-ship up against nine bad guys. It didn’t go so well for the bad guys. It went poorly for the bad guys, all of them.”
Davis acknowledged the F-35B isn’t slated to receive its cannon until 2017. But he said the plane was able to perform close air support missions using the GPS and laser-guided bombs. “We used the kind of profiles we’re using out there in Syria and they did very, very well,” he said. “And unlike in Syria, we actually had some high-threat conditions out there, as well, where they did the close air support, did it very effectively in a medium- and a high-threat scenario.
A clean sweep in a 4 vs 9 scenario, very nice.
OooShinyThat formula does not apply to ESA antennas (or any array antenna in fact), it only works with planar (or parabolic) ones.
Heh, just happened to be read about that just now. Gain calculation for electronically scanned, planar arrays. Electronically scanned and planar arrays are not exclusive terms. One term (ESA) describes the beam steering method used and the other states the array shape (planar or 2D as opposed to linear).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239530[/ATTACH]
Another version of the same equations deal with array gain = element gain * count, though element gain is also dependent on array area and wavelength.
OooShinyOther than some PR advertisment, what is “stealth” datalink, really? Theoratical discussions are good, but I am not aware of anything on any known/projected aircraft that can detect good old TKS-2-27, Lazur, link-16, MIDS etc datalinks let alone capable of detecting and pinpointing the target location.
Datalink signals for all of those systems are omni-directional (usually L-band) radio signals. While some offer jam resistance by spreading signals over a frequency range, they are all most certainly detectable by ESM equipment capable of detecting in sub 2GHz range.
The L-band signal produced during transfer of data and voice over these links can be detected by external receivers, even if the receiving ESM equipment can’t decipher the data packets being transmitted.
Intraflight comms such as voice comms or datalink transmissions such as position updates, fuel states, SAR images, track data will all produce a signal intermittently which can be tracked by receivers built for the task. The issue is significantly worse with most TKS-2 comms as the throughput of TKS-2 is a max of only 4kbps compared to 120+kbps for typical NATO standards. TKS-2 needs to “talk” for a comparatively long period of time to transfer data.
IFDL and MADL use high frequency, short range, very low sidelobe, high gain, directional signals to prevent the enemy from ever receiving the signal sent between members of the flight.
OooShinyOn different forums alone, there are a dozen engineers, and two hundred+ enthusiasts that aren’t even agreed upon one single maneuverability parameter of F-35, And someone come to conclutions about its entire combat capabilities from a freeware computer game? Why not use LOMAC instead? At least it looks better than text, IRSTs there won’t classify targets from 45,3 nm away and no funny things like “R-37M (tech late 1990s) ECM = always success” crap.
Actually, the simulator’s mechanics are extremely impressive. Its the out of the box signatures and sensor ranges that seem to be out for a few things.
– The engine supports front,side,rear,top RCS as well as Infrared signature for each aircraft, so they are more exposed to enemy sensors when turning or viewed from the side.
– It supports visual signatures as well as night vision goggles…etc
– I’m pretty certain infrared signature, and subsequently enemy IR detection range increases significantly when aircraft use afterburners, I’m in the process of testing the effects of those types of details
– It supports RCS at two different frequencies 0-2GHz, 2GHz+
– It factors in pilot experience, which adds to missile evasion capability as well as speeding up the OODA loop for engagement
– ECM doesn’t “always” work. Defensive ECM used as a countermeasure just gives the target a chance (usually 15% – 20%) to lure the missile before the target has to evade and survive a weighted PK roll
– Judging by the database tables, it supports different top speeds and agility for about 5 altitude bands
– It supports buddy illumination and cooperative engagement capability
– Seems to use range formulas using target’s RCS from each aspect as well as taking into account the class of the radar.
The sim is not freeware, and as mentioned previously, there’s a “professional” version of the software available of which the main feature is a database editing GUI for modelling the aircraft with known stats. BAE recently signed a contract with the game maker for the product and testimonials on the sim’s web site are from US military officers who are also using it.
Editing the database without the gui is just a matter of applying changes to the tables and applying changes to the scenario files which I’m also working on. I’ve already got my first SQL query running that modifies aircraft RCS (its best to implement aircraft/weapon/sensor feature changes as update queries because the database gets refreshed/reset with every patch).
Using just the built-in signatures and ranges, my observations on combat with stealth aicraft (based on results using the sim):
– In many on many engagements, if initial detection happens at close range as in less than 20 miles and is mutual (eg stealth on stealth), the victor is usually the side that can sort its targets the most effectively in a short period of time.
My previous test of 4v4 F-35 vs PAK FA resulted in pretty much a tie over 10 rounds, but when I took control of F-35 target allocation and let the T-50’s do their own allocation (each aircraft firing volleys at the first target they saw) results went from even to massively favoring the F-35s.
When all T-50s became defensive because they each had 4 missiles coming at them from different angles, they spent much of their time pointing away from the enemy and being unable to fire. The impact of being swarmed by the initial volley was similar to suppression fire for infantry. In the initial volley, the T-50’s usually lost 2. With 2 left over, still flying defensively, the F-35s closed the range and finished them off with their remaining missiles.
With engagements that have both sides detecting each other at the same time and both within their weapons’ NEZs, it seems the side who can take the first “effective” shots will win. The game takes into account the decision delay for pilots of various skill levels (novice to ace) which contributes to the delay in being able to sort targets after initially detecting the enemy. Reducing this delay and the sorting process seems to be one of the biggest factors for success in the mutual surprise (stealth v stealth) scenario “so far”.
In no way do I think that using the out of the box vehicles in basic head to head testing will allow one to say categorically that X is better than Y. What I can do is test, remodel aircraft capabilities, test again under all different scenarios and see what tactics and capabilities work for a majority of the setups.
With this last test I discovered that “first shot, first kill” has caveats and other requirements than just signature.
BTW detection for IRST when using the vanilla database happens around the 15-20nm mile mark, not 50nm like you said. Max range is sometimes set to 50nm but actual detection is adjusted by the target’s infrared signature from whatever angle its viewed from. I discovered this the hard way using a scout to target a group of “active” Rafales for my shooters, then as soon as I turned side on to them, boom! no more scout.
This is what it feels like on the receiving end of a lost signature control/initiative battle, nothing to see but missile contrails with seconds to decide and react:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239269[/ATTACH]
Moments later, 2 men down, 2 defensive, 1 enemy detected but nobody in a position to counter attack. This is the type of thing simple comparisons of EM capabilities doesn’t factor in and something the kinematics defeats signature control crowd really need to open their eyes to:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239270[/ATTACH]
Something to note. At this moment in the screen shot above, my F-35’s are all flying as slowly as possible. Under the following conditions:
– VLO has detected LO aircraft at short-medium range
– LO aircraft is within NEZ (even if flying slowly)
– LO aircraft has not detected VLO aircraft
there’s a period of time where it seems best to slow down and spend some time sorting the targets properly, reducing IR signature and allowing time to check the impact of the first volley so a followup can be performed. Once the stealth aircraft turn, they pop up on IRST, so its best to fly directly at the target for as long as possible.
OooShiny– RCS – same from front, could be even slightly less from side, 4x greater from behind
– IR at equal speed – same from front and sides, 2x more from behind
– RVV-BD as Meteor equivalent, RVV-SD as equivalent for AMRAAM, RVV-MD IR-guided SRAAM – you can look up the specs http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/
– IRST – hard to say, should be more advanced than that but make it equal to EOTS as a start. Look up 101KS-O type, plus 101KS-N, 101KS-V and 101KS-U distributed system
– Sh-121 radar (1,526 TRMs) range +30% compared to AN/APG-81. Plus two N036B-1-01L X-band cheek arrays made by NIIP
– datalink signature – no data, make the same
– RWR – no data, make equal for both LPI and non-LPIregd. ROE, I’ll leave it entirely up to you…
Think some of those rankings are dubious at best. Think when I make my alterations, I’ll assume no LPI datalinks on the T-50. There’s been no mention of it as a feature from a reasonable sources, so as with what seems to be the rule here, if it hasn’t been mentioned as a feature, it doesn’t have it. Its other issue as far as emissions is the wing mounted l-band arrays which are easily detectable by RWR due to their very long duration pulse widths.
The APG-81 also has more TR modules, US manufacturers are ahead of the curve in computing and module development and the 81 is a higher generation radar, regardless of design date differences, so system maturity will have an impact on range, LPI and jamming protection. The N036 is Russia’s first proper fighter AESA with the Zhuk AE being a bit of a toy, so the refinement of the unit is not going to be as high as the NG built ones.
First test run of T-50 vs F-35 in Command.
The first test was done using the out of the BOX F-35’s and T-50 using a standard internal CAP loadout. The F-35 used was obviously block 4 with 6 internal Aim-120Ds.
The formation was 3 line abreast out the front, 20 miles or so separation all running passive with another flying 30 miles behind with the radar running (which is a setup I’d expect all stealth aircraft to use vs legacy aircraft to keep the emitter out of legacy fighters’ reach). Setup was the same for the T-50s.
Some things I noticed
– Even though both sides has one member using active radar, neither detected the other until around 35nm and by IRST only and usually from the almost side on aspect
– The game ranks the T-50 with a higher agility than the F-35 which lowers the PK of each missile fired at it
– It also gives the T-50 a higher proficiency rating by default, further lowing the PK
– The game gives the Aim-120D a base PK 5% higher than the R-77M
– The T-50 gets two chances to spoof incoming missiles, Himalayas ECM and Chaff, while the F-35 only gets chaff
The end result for the first run though was:
2 x F-35’s shot down
4 x T-50’s shot down
Battlelog:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239219[/ATTACH]
After running through 10 times the T-50 had its share of wins and due to both aircraft being stealthy there were a few leaks.
Final score after 10 runs, F-35’s 26 T-50’s 28. Due to both sides detecting each other at close range, it pretty much came down lucky missile shots.
Given the F-35’s can find parity using this simplified model it would be interesting to see how much more effective they would be using some of the little networking and integration tricks that are the real strength of the F-35, capabilities the T-50, and all other fighters simply don’t have.
The other factor to consider in a campaign is that the T-50 will never appear in any theatre with a numbers advantage over the F-35, unless by surprise attack which is unlikely. If the F-35 and T-50 detect each other at the same time and at reasonably close range (both within NEZ), then both sides are going to lose airframes, but the T-50s will run out far sooner and numbers will allow the blue side to strike more T-50s on the ground with swarmed MALD + JASSM-ER attacks. The other benefit is that it enables the F-35’s to overwhelm the T-50 in numbers. When I switched to 5 v 3 scenarios, the stats went to F-35’s 36, T-50’s 9 over 10 runs, less leaks, more kills.
F-35 vs Su-35 was very one sided, 4-0 to the F-35’s was the most common outcome. They just see the Su-35’s coming from too far away and always get the first shots. Even long range low PK shots occasionally get 1 or 2, then the survivors get overwhelmed with missiles from everywhere. All Su-35’s see is incoming missiles before they know anything’s there, in some cases they don’t ever see what’s attacking them at all.
OooShinyThe frequency of the A-50 radar is ~2-4 GHz, which means a wavelength of ~7.5-15cm.
X-band fighter control radars are ~8-12 GHz, or 2.5-3.75 cm.
Ku-band is 12-18 GHz, 1.5-2.5 cm.
Other than a ~0.05dB/km difference in atmospheric attenuation between the 2GHz and 8GHz, can you tell me what the impact that difference in frequency has on the detection range of an aircraft sized target? What factor of range calculation does it alter and by how much?
OooShinyI do plan to test that one, download of Command is under way right now and I hear the database can be edited. If you want a sim to be done then provide me the following assumptions to use and wait a couple weeks for me to get used to the database/sim, depending on family/work commitments:
-RCS (m^2) figures in comparison to the F-35 as a multiplier for front, side, back (eg. front 1/10th, 1/1000th that of the F-35, side 1/10th…etc), i can calculate and test detection ranges on that. Many minutes of flying unarmed aircraft at each other from all angles coming up.
-IR signature in comparison to the F-35 at MIL as a multiplier for front, side, back
-Missile type, agility and range in comparison to meteor and 120D as a multiplier. assume same alt and launch speed against stationary, medium alt target
-IRST range against same sized aircraft target in comparison to EOTS as multiplier
-Radar range comparison against 1m^2 target as multiplier. Assume LPI mode. (if the database supports it, then side and rear radar will need to be factored too)
-Detectable range of the T-50’s radar signatures vs the APG-81 as a multiplier. Assume LPI mode. Assume same, modern RWR (if the database supports it, then side and rear radar will need to be factored too)
-Detectable range of the T-50’s datalink signature vs the F-35 as a multiplier. Assume same, modern RWR
-RWR detection range comparison vs the F-35’s suite vs LPI signals as a multiplier
-RWR detection range comparison vs the F-35’s suite vs non-LPI signals as a multiplier
-In a 4v4 what formation do you want T-50s to start at (eg. line abreast with 20 mile separation)
-All active, all passive, some active with rest passive and where will the active T-50s be in the formation?
-Assuming neutral territory, m0.9 optimum cruise at 40,000ft to start?
I’ll assume for T-50:
– Highly agile
– m1.7 cruise, m2.2 top speed
OooShinyRoyal Aeronautical Society
TIM ROBINSON puts virtual F-35s into perhaps the most accurate non-classified high-fidelity simulation of a future air combat clash.
http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat
I played around with H3 Milsim, the predecessor to Command a few years back and continually got the same results as that guy with the 4 v 4 – F-35 vs Su-35 scenario. I’d even gone to the trouble of editing the database to simulate public figures for RCS, radar and IRST range, best cases, worst cases and tested with a few different altitudes, speeds and missile ranges and the F-35s annihilated the flankers in dozens of tests with very few losses – usually in the scenarios where the F-35 was effectively no longer stealthy.
I’d turned up the missile evasion settings on the flankers, and in every engagement they were put on the defensive from the first shots and eventually became overwhelmed by the incoming fire, more so when I added my own shortened range CUDA missiles to the F-35s. Some loadouts were with 12 CUDAs which resulted in carnage, some with 8 + 2 meteors or slammers.
Interestingly, the maker of the Command software signed a contract for the sim with BAE earlier this month. Certainly doesn’t hurt the product’s credibility.
OooShinyLO – The spatial awareness required to be able to function while looking in the reverse view, even in a 3D environment does not take very long at all to develop. Before too long, F-35 pilots will be plugging their helmets into PCs at the base and flying full simulations using the HMDS as a screen for hours a day. The fact you think fighter pilots of all people would have such limited spatial intelligence is surprising.
Its not like they’re going to be lingering in rear view for minutes at a time. They’ll be toggling back and forth to check the location and attitude of the target, the white plane against a black background with a big target symbol around it. Unlike legacy fighters which only have HMS, the F-35 pilot won’t be pointing his head at the target to queue missile seekers. DAS and offboard sensors will already have the target ID’d, tracked and locked.
The pilot presses the fire button when the aircraft tells him to and a missile, from some platform somewhere will be launched based on whatever within range has favorable launch parameters.
While on the irrelevance of 1v1 dog-fighting in the real world, something occurred to me about the Axe piece. He mentioned the F-35’s difficulties in the medium AoA region but never mentioned high AoA, low speed. He also made a big point about energy loss involved with the manoeuvre that defeated the F-16. In the infamous youtube dogfight where the Rafale waxed the F-22, it was in the very low energy, high AoA regime that it actually won the fight, at around 90kts.
“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.”
When fighting with such a prolific, stealthy aircraft such as the F-35, its highly likely that the blue team will have someone waiting outside the fight and just a likely that the red team’s support aircraft will be denied access to area to be able to assist.
OooShinyHopefully if someone works out the legals around publishing the official report (if it does in fact exist), they’ll show some cahonies and post the full, untouched document and not just cherry pick and edit out what doesn’t seem negative enough for their liking. Interesting to see if AW get their hands on it and whether they can avoid just referring to it with RT-worthy interpretations of the factual data presented in a report they can’t show.
Also eager to see how the program responds if they bother. Given Doc Nelson, one of the test pilots who participated in the BFM tests has mentioned that the flight characteristics have lots of room for tweaking, perhaps they’ll just post the full report themselves in response as it gives nothing significant away.
Re: The 5-7 o’clock visibility, doesn’t the F-35 just have a button that switches the DAS display in the helmet to rear view? Seems like a no-brainer with what the system can do. No need for craning necks and the pilot would also be able to check his 6 o’clock low, and at night, a unique F-35 feature. The camera under the aircraft pointing towards the rear would be entirely redundant if the pilot had to point his helmet in that direction.
OooShinyFound the F-35 vs Rafale milestone conversation interesting. Pretty sure if we want to compare accurately, we need to go back to the original requirements phase, that’s when money started being spent after all.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236623[/ATTACH]
OooShinySeems to be a lot of defaulting back to the old monkey model excuse from fans when the combat effectiveness and record of certain jets are criticised. Can anyone detail, with credible sources, what the actual differences are between the russian model and the export model within that time period. I read the only difference between an Iranian and US f-14 of the time was the frequency hopping agility of the radar.
OooShinyAre you sure of those numbers? $650 sounds extremely low. Perhaps you meant $6,500. Same for Malaysia. $50K? Maybe someplace like Brazil, but the Malaysian military still operates within relatively sober Commonwealth traditions AFAIK.
Actually you are right, my mistake. Bangladeshi salary pages all show monthly figures rather than annual.
So a corporal gets $2,700 a year, aircraftman about $1,400 a year. The $50k Malaysian figure was from a civilian job advertisement. Seems Malaysian military salaries are only around double the Bangladeshi rates. $5100/yr for a corporal, $3,300 for a private.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_military_ranks
So salaries don’t account for all of the O&M cost difference but there’s a disparity in salaries still. Would be interesting to see the hours the Bangladeshi Mig-29s fly each year.
OooShiny“Nevertheless, I have serious doubt that countries like Bangladesh, Eritrea or Sudan would be flying something that runs at $50k a hour”
At $2m/yr per aircraft compared to $5m/yr for Malaysia, I wonder how much it has to do with the comparative salaries of the maintenance staff in those countries. Eg, an air-force sergeant in Bangladesh earns a whopping $231 USD per year – officers such as wing commanders earn a mere $650 USD a year – compared to $50,000 USD per year for a Malaysian aircraft maintainer.
Conclusion here: If you are a third world country, you’re better off buying the cheapest, most labor intensive piece of rubbish with the biggest spare parts market you can find then pay peanuts to keep it flying. Maybe Maintenance man-hours per flight hour is a better method.
Ironically, its the low wage countries which would be able to mitigate the impact of stealth maintenance costs of VLO aircraft.
OooShinyAccording to a pilot from RMAF’s 19th squadron, the squadron maintained 30 pilots for the 18 Mig-29s.
Assuming all pilots fly the airframe equally, that’s 100 hours per ac/year = $50k per flight hour.
Sign In
