SpudmanWPThree things are driving up the F-18 & EF cost.
1. The whole research, development, testing, and deployment of the boom systems can only be spread across 42 airframes.
2. By the time Japan has their co-production lines open, the build rate of ~10 airframes a year would drive up the cost of the F-18 and EF significantly.
3 Another cost driver for the F-18 & EF is weapon integration. The F-35’s UAI allows Japan’s weapons to be integrated at about 10% the cost of traditional integration
SpudmanWPI do not think the empty slots on the CFTs can be used as the BRU-61 (the SDB launcher) is too wide and would cause an obstruction.
I looked over all the loadouts on http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations and could not find any that had anything on the upper CFT slots when the lower ones had large munitions.
btw, the F-35 can carry up to 32 SDBs which is 4 more than the F-15E (as the F-15E can also carry 8xSDBs on the the wing STA2/8) 🙂
SpudmanWPMore good info here
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/06/north-korean-sam-network.html
SpudmanWPOn the simulation, i will only state the obvious:
2 fighters with 4 missiles each is twice as good as 1 fighter with 8 missiles,
I agree with you. It’s EF that said otherwise as apparently they can willfully ignore inbound AAMs.
and flying into opfor controlled air space with both AWACS & fighters, without having AWAC support yourself is madness,
Which is why the F-35 was designed with such a good radar, ESM, & LPI datalinks.
and should be left to cruise missiles,
Always an option (JSM, JSOW, JSOW-ER, JASSM, JASSM-ER, SDB1/2, LRASM-A, LRASM-B, etc). Again this just goes to show the folly of EF’s simulation eg the F-35s were not allowed the benefit of proper armaments, route planning, threat analysis, etc as this was the only way to allow the EFs to win.
As to your computer problems, if you ever feel like setting up a Teamviewer session, I’ll give you a hand 🙂
SpudmanWP1] No of fighters outweighs no of missiles
Huh? The F-35s would have 16 and the EFs up to 32. That’s a 2:1 advantage in number of weapons for the EFs.
1]2] I don’t know your definition of ‘IFR’ but i agree it is the best BaI striker, or at least will be, probably
In-Flight Refueling
1]3] F-35 is always going to pass 25º to 30º on their way to a target,
The quote from EF says
the F-35’s frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35’s most likely approach path to a target.
That leaves a small 5° approach cone. The F-35’s avionics were designed to counter falling into traps like this by allowing on-the-fly route planning to go around threats in their flight path.
btw where is that little ring/degree mark on the keyboard ??????????:confused: I’m always forced to use *
Hold down the ‘alt’ key and press 0176. Use charmap to discover more ‘alt’ key combinations.
4] Well the strikers will have to pass those patrol’s, if they want to get to the target behind, meaning they will have to fight their way through, which didn’t pan out that well.
It will be handled with planning. If there are known high-threat CAP in the area, they will send in F-35s with 4-6 internal AAMs flying high and spread out. I would envision the AWACS being the first target of several max-range AMRAAMs (for at least a mission kill) with the help of AESA jamming and a few MALD & MALD-Js thown in for good measure. Btw, this can all be done without ever having to activate the F-35’s radar (and give the AWACS notice) thanks to all the EM in the air. Due to the extreme launch range, the AWACS will also not get a MLD hit.
5]Yes, the attacker forgot to establish air superiority, i.e all the AWAC & fighter support that you thought unnecessary.
The F-35 can provide it’s own escort and you would not need AWACS on ingress due to already knowing where the EFs and AWACS are thanks to them flooding the air with EM.
6] I bet they have a really good clue what the real RCS is
Tell me, how is the consortium (not the British Govt btw) supposed to have access to that level of classified info?
The only question left is how much of that was or will be handed to EF buyers or F-35 buyers. By the way all serious AFs do such simulation work to counter hostile fighters/weapon-systems.
Partner nations have FULL access to F-35 info and have imbedded staff in the JPO.
Running into a CAP of high performance fighters makes the F-35 as vulnerable as the EF.
Which is why the F-35 perform Air-Superiority roles as opposed to just the A2G role envisioned in the EF test.
The present EW-suit of the EF allows to defeat the AAMs of the F-35 and some other types have a similar capable EW-suit
Not sure if you are aware, the latest AMRAAM has a dual way datalink and GPS based INS. These two features together greatly enhance the likelihood of a successful engagement. While the AMRAAM is in flight, it is getting precise GPS coordinate updates of the target’s location. Spoofing no longer has a good chance of working due to the AMRAAM ignoring the spoofing signals because it knows the true location of the target. If it ever does start to get distracted, then any F-35 in the area (not just the launching F-35) gets it back on course via the datalink before it makes a turn.
You are buying into an advertising slogan, because that is how LockMart defines 5gen.
Care to show me where any government in the world thinks that VLO is not the defining feature of 5th Gen fighters?
However, the obvious alternative explanation is that they are outliers, like the MiG-25 with its high-Mach capability, rather than representing some kind of generational advance.
So going from baby steps in RCS reduction (HAVE Glass & F-18E/F) to a 1/1000th the size is not generational?
As for points 1-18, it is very easy to throw such things out without any backup as to whether they are (a) real and (b) unique to the F-35/F-22 in the 2018 timeframe. Most fail one of those tests. It’s up to you to demonstrate that they don’t, because they are your claims.
I did not say they were unique to the F-35, just all of its major features (I probilbly missed a few). If you have a question about some of them, I will gladly fill you in.
SpudmanWPSpud – Of course the F-35 is a 5th-generation fighter, because that is a LockMart-generated term, filched from the Rooskies, that has been defined to mean “any non-bomber with a semblance of a bowtie RCS”. If there are other unique attributes common to the F-35 and F-22, please share.
A VLO “bowtie” RCS is the defining quality of a 5th gen fighter, so I’m not sure what you expect a defining characteristic (that cannot be applied to a 4th gen airframe) to be. Just to be sure I will put up everything the F-35 has 😉
1. VLO RCS airframe
2. Active and passive IR reduction measures
3. Internal weapons bays (essential for VLO)
4. Advanced ESM gear
5. Internal space available for AESA jammers if ever required
6. Advanced AESA capable of active jamming in conjunction with the ESM
7. Full integration from ALL data sources
8. HMD with 3D audio cuing
9. Voice activated avionics
10. Fiber optic interconnect to all weapon stations and avionics
11. Ability to launch any weapon based on any weapon quality track from any data source.
12. Continuous 360 IIR WVR tracking of missiles and planes
13. Internal & automatic diagnostics and logistics
14. PnP weapons integration (via UAI)
15. Internal IRST and FLIR (essential for VLO)
16. Built-in training via simulated targets, linkable worldwide
17. Directional & LPI datalinks
18. When fully fueled and armed, it has better flight performance than many 4th gen assets that are loaded similarly.
There was another detail that also should be included:
namely that while F-35 was stuck with 2 AAM’s, they had numerical superiority by no less than 2:1, that is 8 F-35 vs 4 EF,
that would normally tilt the scale in favor of the numerically superior side by far.The defender also didn’t know ‘exactly’ where the incursion would take place,
but a fighter-bomber simply havn’t got fuel to fly entirely unpredictable flight path,
his options are restricted
1. The EF’s carry at least 4 if not more AAMs, so the EFs had the AAM advantage in numbers.
2. The F-35 has more options on flightpath than most 4th gen assets due to large fuel load and much better IFR support than anyone else on Earth.
3. How are the EFs supposed to position themselves “25º to 30º angle to the F-35’s most likely approach path to a target” without knowing where and more importantly when the F-35s are coming.
4. Since the AWACs and EFs will be blasting all that EM energy into the area, what liklyhood will the F-35’s fall into the trap?
5. The main problem that I have with EF’s claims is that it completely ignores the role of the mission planners in the equation and it sets up the F-35s assuming they will blindly proceed into a trap.
6. There is also the issue of EF not having a clue as to the real RCS or other capabilities of the F-35
SpudmanWP@SpudmanWP
Are you responding to my post, or just posting randomly? It doesn’t seem to be particularly related to my post, but I would like confirmation 🙂
Consider yourself “confirmed” 😉
SpudmanWPEven Eurofighter does not claim they can “simply batter” the F-35 in A2A. They only claimed the ability to defeat the F-35 on three conditions:
1. The Eurofighters had AWACs support (likely, but this remains the weakest link for EF).
2. They knew EXACTLY when and where the F-35s were coming from (not going to happen a vast majority of the time).
3. The inbound F-35s were NOT configured for A2A (as they only had two AMRAAMs [models unknown] each as opposed to high-flying F-35s with 4-6 AMRAAM-D (or D+/NGMs)).
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/farn10-eurofighter-boasts-typh.html
That type of scenario simply would not happen IRL.
SpudmanWPAustralia has the chance to get in on the component work for the 3000+ Partner F-35s. Japan cannot touch those (except for doing LM’s & P&W’s share of the work) so Australia (or any Partner) in essence has a much better deal.
Having the FACO will actually increase the chance of FMS deals as the overall program production capacity can be increased.
SpudmanWPAppropriately manage JSF misinformation in the media.
Who wouldn’t? Notice they did not say “suppress negative info”, “manage info”, “manage the media”, etc. They specifically target misinformation.
This would include such factual BS as “it’s not really 5th gen”, “it’s not really a fighter”, “OMG the program is doing so bad that it should be canceled”, etc.
Not negative; but reality.
Whatever your opinion might be, claiming that the F-35 is not 5th gen or a fighter is not based in reality.
The JSF will have limited capabilities on entering service. There has been talk of A2A modes not being available until 2016.
Blk1a included basic A2A and has already been delivered to Eglin AFB. Blk2A has even more A2A modes and is already flying in CatBIRD and will be released to production soon. Blk3 (USAF/USN IOC) will have full A2A (internal and external stores) and will be released prior to 2016.
It is a fact that 4th gen assets require more support* if they have to fight a modern IADS. When is the last time the USAF did that?
The F-35 out-ranges the assets that it is replacing therefore requires less IFR. Libya could hardly be called a modern IADS yet escorts and SEAD assets were still used. The F-35 would be less reliant on these.
* Given the weaknesses of the F-35
Please enlighten us on the weakness that would require other assets to support.
SpudmanWP@ToolCool: You might have a point about the Rafale’s vs the F-35’s introduction into service, if it weren’t for the fact that they differ greatly on their purpose at introduction.
The Rafale was rushed into service even before IOT&E was even started. The F1 model was the most basic of A2A fighters and to this day (11 years later) has not fully fulfilled it’s “omni-role” promises. Due to obsolescence issues with hardware the latest Rafales off the line have no IRST and still do not have an HMD. Hope you don’t need that missing IRST at night and good luck cuing that HOBS missile without an HMD.
Compare that to the F-35A. It’s introduction to service is as a training fighter . This will be Block 1 (LRIP1-3) which is fully capable of performing it’s mission (eg training). After the Eglin standup, the follow-on F-35As will head to IOT&E units to prepare for operational use. The F-35B will go IOC with Blk2 (LRIP4-7) (and I dare say a better multi-role fighter than the F1 Rafale) which will allow both A2A and A2G operations with FULL sensor integration and all the hardware working. The F-35A/C will then go IOC with Blk3 (LRIP8 through FRP) which has all the bells an whistles (more SEAD/DEAD modes, more weapons, etc).
It is the DoD that determines F-35 introduction and not “LM is pushing to introduce it already”. The DoD want training to begin at Eglin and even had it as a “carrot” if LM delivered the jets to Eglin this year (which they did). If it was up to LM, the DoD would have stuck to the original IOC plan that declared IOC with the IOT&E units instead of introducing the artificial 2 year delay to IOC by having IOT&E happen before IOC.
SpudmanWPThe original IOC dates were 2010/11/12.
Right now the IOC dates are in the 2015(B) / 2017(A&C) ranges. If they slide further to the right, concurrency still saves the program money. If you waited till after SDD then LRIP would be starting in 2018.
The only reason that you would have to support 4th gen assets for any longer than planned is if the Congress slowed down the LRIP cycles (which is what’s happening). The increased cost is due to the Congress backing AWAY from concurrency vs sticking with with it. Another reason that concurrency costs seems like the are a bigger problem than they are is due to those costs being felt up-front, rather than spread across the next 30 some-odd years (as the 4th gen assets are replaced).
SpudmanWPIn answer to your question; concurrency will be higher – as they will have to extend the hours of the 4gen fighters anyway – since the “5”th (and I use that term loosely) gen “fighter” (and I use that term even more loosely) is likely to have insufficient capabilities (i.e. A2A modes not yet enabled) or is likely to be grounded when needed due to yet another defect that would not have existed with the usual waterfall (prototype-to-build) approach.
A bit negative there don’t you think and drinking the APA koolaid much?
As they say in court, you’re assuming facts not in evidence.
Objection sustained 😉
Oh and “plus the associated increased pressure on IFR, escort, etc assets” is a complete red herring. Additional support beyond what the new aircraft would need is not required for the conflicts the USAF are involved in these days.
Really? It is a fact that 4th gen assets require more IFR, escorts, jamming support, etc than 5th gen assets. Those costs for the added 8-10 years will have to be added to the whole concurrency calculation whether you want to or not.
SpudmanWPIYO, what would it cost to keep 3000+ 4th gen fighters flying (plus the associated increased pressure on IFR, escort, etc assets) for the 8-10 added years that it would take to complete SDD?
Now compare that cost to increased concurrency costs. Which one is higher?
SpudmanWPWhile there is an increased cost related to LRIP, how do you think that compares to keeping 3000+ aging 4th gen fighters flying for 8-10 more years beyond what is already planned?
Sign In
