FBWIf the LHD needs a CVN to protect it why does 6 or even 12 F35B on the LHD make any difference?
If you are asking this question then there is no point in discussing amphibious ops with you. The CVN would provide air cover for the entire task force. The Marines use their air wings in direct support of marine operations on land. The LHD are not supposed to self protect.
If the rasion d’etre for the aircraft is campaigns against insurgents why is stealth important?
It’s not, “stealth” is not needed for all missions that the F-35b is supposed to undertake, that would be why there are under wing pylons available.
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 woudl 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.
LHD(A) class ships are extremely valuable for low to medium intensity conflicts that have been common for the last 25 years. They are floating bases operating: helos for attack, insertion, SAR. Just because they won’t be re-storming the beaches of Normandy doesn’t mean that the flexibility they provide could be matched by the few CVN available.
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?
Each MAW is made up of aircraft needed to support Marines on the ground. Few of the F-35B will be operated from the LHA’s. The Marines want an aircraft with a high sortie rate that will (may) be able to operate out of forward bases. Even a strike against a moderately well defended target would exclude Harriers. Right now, the Marines have F-18’s as a fast mover. Those are not going to last.
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!
Again, different roles. The CVW would provide air cover for entire task force, the Navy’s small deck amphibs directly support troops ashore, or used in support of an air campaign, add flexibility, free up sorties from the Carrier. Ask the Royal Navy what difference the use 6 to 12 STOVL fighters can make in a medium intensity conflict!
FBWYou are missing the point.
If the environment is permissable why is the F35 needed?
The F35 gang can’t have it both ways. Either the LHD is going to be sailing into an environment which carries a large threat to the LHD itself or the LHD will be kept well out of the way of a threat environment.
Do you really think that a ship of the nature of an LHD will be permitted to stand in close and become a honey pot of a target?
LHD are expected to operate close enough to shore for LCAC’s to reach the beach. Current doctrine for an over the horizon landing would be roughly 20 miles off LZ. Whether the Marines amphibious landing doctrine is realistic considering today’s threats is a question for a different forum. And yes, if the situation required, the amphibs would operate in a high threat environment, presumably under the cover of the Navy’s CVN’s and protected with the same assets that protect those big deck carriers. If those assets are unable to protect a LHD (Aegis, CAP fighters, RAM missiles, etc), then the carrier operating a hundred miles off the coast would also be vulnerable.
Even if amphibious operations are rare, there is no question that the F-35’s operating from LHD will be used in contested airspace. A more realistic use for the small deck amphibs will be in support of campaigns similar to the strikes against ISIS. Even in this limited role, the F-35b offers advantages over the Harrier (larger combat radius, and VLBB which is no small matter considering the expense of smart munitions).
FBWSo how is that any different from the F-35B operating off an LHD?
Niche? Yes
The F-35b will be the only aircraft the Marines will operate going forward (save for some F-35c to round out Marines CVN commitment), that hardly qualifies as a niche. Considering that the “B” will also see service for the RAF/RN, AM, and probably other operators in the future, over 500 will be built IF the orders stay unchanged.
Permissible environment required? Yes
– That is your querulous opinion, all the operators intend to use it as a first day strike aircraft. I’ll stick with the opinion of the operators over an armchair analysis
Replaceable by UCAV’s for the tasks envisaged within this niche? Yes
– Eventually, sure some of the strike missions will be usurped by UCAV, but the F-35’s will still be part of equation.
The role of the A-10 (as used currently) has to a large degree already been usurped by: B-1, predator drones, and to a lesser degree any aircraft that will carry the SDB-II. The current drones have the longer loiter time, equal to better sensors for identifying, classifying targets. The CPH for drones vs. aircraft like the A-10 should be cut and dry, except the loss rate for the drones is still quite high from crashes and software glitches, etc.
FBWi nodded following in that link
“They do and they are. They’re called A-10s (AW&ST Dec. 9, p. 15) and transferring them to the Marines would do more than create a durable, focused force to provide CAS, not just for the Marines but for the Army and special operations forces. It would give the Navy’s army’s air force a mission.”could an A-10 work off a carrier ?
Sure, once. Seriously, the problem would not be take-off, but how would you recover the aircraft? The issue with the marines taking the A-10 would be the same as the air force keeping them. The defense budget would have to support a niche aircraft that cannot operate in anything but a permissive environment, one that Ucav’s are rapidly being fielded to fill.
FBWAnd before you come around saying “ridiculous, otherwise why so many customers line up for it?”, the answer is simple: most deciders who buy it today (and manage to have nice relations with their US counterparts) mostly have no clue about combat aircraft (as politicians in general have little to no clue about most stuff they take decisions about) and follow the reasoning that was given years ago by Bird and Fortune (humoristic show but so true):
[/url]
This statement simply does not hold up to scrutiny:
1. In Australia, you have the military vigorously defending the choice to the political opposition.
2. In South Korea, you had the competition altered because the military, not the politicians lobbied for the inclusion of the F-35.
3. In Canada, you have the military pushing for the F-35 with, again, and opposition party(ies) wanting to reopen the bidding.
Simply put, if you are arguing that the politicians have no clue about combat aircraft, the choice of the F-35 by the military of said nations is contrary to your logic.
FBWLukos – You have a wing loading above that appears to be derived from Sprdlyscotsman’s “analysis” over at the kiddie board. The problem is that the guy uses an “equivalent” wing loading for his comparisons, in which he adds tail area to wing area, on the basis that (in photos) the tail has positive incidence (angle relative to aircraft datum), while subtracting tail area from wing area for the F-15 and others.
The problem is that the tail has highly negative alpha (angle relative to airflow) because it is in the immediate area behind the wing and immersed in a downflow. In fact, the clean and fully fuelled F-35A/C is nose-heavy and carries a lot of trim drag. Its net wing area (the size of the wing) is also an unusually small fraction of gross area (the normal quoted 460 sq ft) and the span loading for the A is high (it’s the same weight as a Super H but almost ten feet shorter).
Adding tanks makes the nose-heaviness worse. What the Norway data is telling us is that when you put the tanks on, the aircraft becomes both heavier and less aerodynamically efficient (tank drag, trim drag, wing at high loading = even more energetic vortex loss at the tips). This could also result in a lower initial cruise altitude (less efficient again) and there could be other factors (eg greater weight mandates more afterburner time).
It’s really simple: Stealth costs money and results in performance trades. Is it worth it? The answer is mission-dependent and, of course, dependent on the threat.
That is a theory, the other possibility is that the external tanks as designed, were too close to the body of the aircraft. Which can explain the separation issue the tanks faced. Simply put, the tanks caused a increase in interference drag between the airframe and the tanks. The F-35 does not differ greatly from the design of the F-22 as far as a trapezoidal wing with the tail set far to the rear of the aircraft. The F-22 does not suffer from the high trim drag from a nose heavy design, I would not think that the F-35 which has most of it’s mass over the wing to be any different in that regard.
FBWAlso (for those of us who can’t see the obvious) the profile includes 50 nm at low alt, and nominal JSF profiles (A/C) are HMMH.
– Low Observable, has Lockheed released the KPP mission profile in an official document? I’m not challenging you in a “show me your source” argument. I’ve not been able to confirm: a. if the mission profile is the same across variants b. whether the profile was altered since the release of the SAR report. The minutes of the Australian Parliamentary hearing hinted at a relaxation of the altitudes and cruise profile.
FBWAm I reading the F-16 flight manual example correct: it’s a hi-lo-lo-hi mission with the low level part beginning at 600nm from base for an 88nm dash. That’s not bad at all. 810nm radius without low level dash, and thats without CFTs or 600gal tanks. Without targeting pod and AMRAAMs too though.
Yeah, it’s impressive. I put that up to point out the impact of altitude/ type of mission on combat radius. The more time spent low/fast on a mission the shorter the radius.
FBWYes, this is true. But armed or not makes relatively little difference here as the internally carried ordnance makes hardly 7% of the overall MTOW.. The real problem is that you take sensor radius and present the figure as combat radius of the aircraft, even if there is clearly written EOTS and radar coverage..
That was a reaction to your post in which you accused the other poster of posting false figures, even if the figures were correct (both defined as combat radius).
So, just for the record, I want you to confirm that you believe that the radius of the F-35 is between the 584-613 n.mi for basically all missions? Or is it that the F-35’s radius 584-613 at an optimal cruise altitude/ speed combat configured? Really, this seems to be the crux of your argument so I would like you to confirm your view. P.S. the Norway briefing gives the 728 n.mi as radius with external fuel and 673 with internal alone for that mission profile which I left out after reading your response on your “sensor coverage” statement. Seems you need to look at the information a bit more. Btw, I don’t take any of those numbers as fact yet. But your statement remains, well obviously wrong.
“the F-35 has a radius of 673 nautical miles on internal fuel alone and 728 nautical miles using external tanks.”- http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf
OOPS- Thanks for playing. Are these figures accurate to date? Probably not, but I was making a point about combat radius being calculated by mission. You bit the bait.
FBWPlease be so kind as point me to the specific post of mine in which I have referred to the figure as range. Thanks.
Quite on the contrary. Both figures of mine come from LM specsheets.
Those green bubbles are Electronic Surveillance Coverage, that means passive range of the BAe Systems EW suite. The red bars with 728 mile range are for EOTS and radar coverage. You got it all written there.
Yes, it sounds implausible. For two reasons:
1. The F-35’s max. combat radius of 584 miles is for aircraft with internal load only. Pure removing ordnance (for recon mission) would have relatively little impact on the radius as the only difference would be slight drag decrease due to reduced weight, nothing else.
2. That would completely contradict your own bold assumption that marketing information provided is going to show data that presents the aircraft in the most favorable way. If there was a way to achieve real combat radius of 728 miles, then the figure would appear in the specsheet. Just like the 800 n.mi figure of the F-16.1. As already pointed out, the F-35 is a completely different weight class than F-16
2. I think it’s not a coincidence that it’s Israel who is interested in 600-gal drop tanks as they are in unique position among the F-35 client states, practically completely surrounded by hostile, or at least relatively hostile nations. With the tanks they could be aiming at the 750-mile figure, still a long shot from their current combat radius which is 1,060 miles (F-15E).
Please refer to the A9-4 through A9-17 of the F-16 manual of which I posted the link. It shows a mission profile for an F-16 with two mk-84, two aim-9, and two 370 gallon tanks. Second, you obviously paid no attention to what both Spud and I posted about the F-35 range with two 2000lb bombs and two amraams, as to what the range represents so I will repeat: It is a strike mission with combat time included, meaning that fuel burn will increase for an unspecified distance. There is an allowance for engine life degradation, meaning that the engine will be less efficient as flight hours increase. The combat radius, to my knowledge, does not specify what altitudes the KPP requires nor what speeds, but it is intended to give an accurate representation of the F-35 range in a combat mission. You can quote ranges of other aircraft’s ideal combat radius all day, but without the specifics of what speeds and altitudes those numbers are based on, it is meaningless.
For the second time, read the chart from the Norway briefing, the aircraft is armed. I’ve no idea why you decided to say that the 728 n.mi would be with ordinance removed. Look, this is tiresome because you want to pick and choose data. You do realize that combat range changes for the type of mission, yes? An aircraft flying an intercept will fly at different speeds and altitudes from at CAP mission, or a strike mission. This is not rocket science. Your obtuse refutation of the difference between optimal combat range and the KPP of the F-35 is mind boggling. To my knowledge LM has not released ranges for all mission profiles for the F-35, do you know the ferry range of the F-35?
As for your original comment-
1. You are mixing F-16’s combat radius with F-35’s range.
those were your words, remember?
FBWNo. I was extremely consistent with the term combat radius from the very start. The one having used the word range was you.
That “crap from a marketing brochure” is LM’s own document.
That 728n.mi figure is sensor coverage radius. That means combat radius of the aircraft extended by range of its sensors.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232272[/ATTACH]I was never taking the F-16 on purely internal fuel, you were. F-35 will carry EFTs at some point but they only will be able to increase the aircraft’s combat radius by a relatively narrow margin.
Grasping at straws. I was never interested in comparing F-16s without EFTs as they almost never operate without them.
You need to quit that overprotective attitude towards your pet and start reading these charts properly.
First off, I did not start the hostile tone, you did by jumping in while I was pointing out that the figures that that previous poster was using were misleading so you can drop the “overprotective toward your pet” stuff. Second, re-read the initial posts I was referring to the difference between combat radius of both aircraft with similar configurations (if that was unclear, my mistake). You clearly referred to 584 n.mi as it’s range, go back and read your post, don’t attack me because you made a typo.
I find it amusing that you take the LM brochure at face value for the f-16, but not LM marketing information on the F-35. They produce both, and I am going to make a bold assumption that marketing information provided is going to show data that presents both aircraft in the most favorable way, agreed?
As far as the Norway briefing, I think you need to look at that again, see those green bubbles reaching out from the end of the F-35 path? That is the sensor range. Then read the chart: “The resulting radius is 728 n.mi, or a total distance of 1,476 n.mi. Range of altitudes during the cruise is 5,000 to 25,000 ft” Now I will admit that I may be wrong, but that seems pretty cut and dry. Considering the range of the F-35 on a strike mission of 584 n.mi (or 610 if you want to use the new parameters established by relaxing some of the altitude/speed requirements from the KPP), does 728 n.mi at higher altitudes and slower speeds seem implausible?
Lastly, in regard to the F-16 radius. Yes, you can load up and F-16 with CFT and external fuel tanks and it would outrange an F-35’s combat radius on internal fuel. I would not, did not, dispute this. The question is: what can the F-16 carry with that configuration, what mission profile can it fly? As far as the F-35 external tanks, I posted the link about them before. You have a stores separation problem with the original tanks, one that was corrected with the new EFT. As far as the 90 n.mi increase that has been quoted for the 426 gallon tanks, I have yet to see confirmation on that since the 2006 study. Israel seems to think that 600 gallon tanks are worth the design effort to gain range so obviously there will be a benefit for external tanks for the F-35.
FBW]
The EFTs for the F-35 don’t exist yet. 426-gal tanks are in development but not due til at least Block 4 (or later).The EFTs will carry ~5500 lbs in total which constitutes ca 25% total fuel increase. Of that 25%, you need to account for ca 40% ineffective EFT fuel usage due to drag penalty.. The final result will be ~99 miles extra combat radius, then.
Cheap excuse.. the false claims come from you, not me.
Wow, that is some serious twisting of facts because you were wrong. One minute ago you posted that the combat range of the F-35 was 584 n.mi. Then you post a picture confirming what I said about 584 being the radius (so you were wrong)
Now you come back with crap from a marketing brochure showing an 800 n.mi radius for the F-16. Question one, did you happen to scroll down and see those two huge bumps call CFT’s attached to the F-16 picture? Question 2, where in that marketing pamphlet is the configuration of that F-16 ( weapon load out, number of external tanks, what the deep interdiction mission means?) The Block 50/52 flight manual is readily available. There just is no comparison.
And yes, the EFT for the F-35 does indeed exist, it has not been integrated.
So, we have for an easy comparison an f-16- http://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16-Supplement.pdf just look it up
There is the 584 n.mi for the F-35 on a STRIKE MISSIOn (full weapons/full fuel)
There is the 720 n.mi radius for a surveillance mission : http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf
Any way you want to compare, the F-16, when not loaded down with external fuel, will not outrange the F-35. And if you think that the F-35 won’t carry externals at some point, then you are truly delusional.
-edit Spud beat me to it on the comparison. P.S. the only thing you prove Msphere, is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your attempt to twist the argument around only digs that hole deeper. So, little challenge for you. Go look at the F-16 flight manual mission profiles, take a look at the impact of various altitudes, drag index, and speeds. Then tell please come back and explain just how i was wrong about the F-16 having ANY comparison with the range of the F-35 with similar loads without drop tanks which was my original point.
FBWMsphere you are dead wrong, the previous poster was confusing radius with range. Look it up 584 is RADIUS and even that number is based on specific altitudes, speeds, combat time, with engine life degradation built in. Bottom line is: f-35 with two 1000lb bombs and two amraams on internal fuel has a significant combat radius advantage over the F-16. If you want to start hanging bags off the F-16 then those numbers are closer, but what is to stop the F-35 from carrying Eft’s when opposition does not require stealth. Look it up, stop posting false claims just because you are opposed to the program.
FBWOk…
No literature on the F-35 shows the plane cleared for these weapons…plese link me to some source that states me wrong…
In the case of range it is lockheedmartin that states so:
The combat range of the F-35 is 590nm/1093km -source-http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/…
The combat range of the F-16 is 800 nm(interdiction)-page 3 of the official brochure-http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/…
But dont let facts get in your way
For the weapons, I doubt Harpoon will be integrated as it is due to be replaced, near term with the LRASM (on certain platforms), and long term with Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2. What that will look like is up in the air. Both the HARM and Maverick were also due to be replaced, which is why they were not included in the weapons to be cleared for external carriage during SDD. The status of the the Maverick replacement (JAGM), is still a bit shaky, but moving foreword. IF the Maverick or HARM replacement programs are cancelled, there is no reason those weapons could not be certified for external carriage. The UAI would allow the F-35 to carry these once separation testing was done on these. Personally, I don’t think that will happen because there is no need (at least for the U.S.). As for your range comparison, the F-16’s combat radius is not 800 nm, it’s closer to 350 miles on a Hi-Lo-Hi mission with weapons and internal fuel. (it depends on load, drag index, mission profile, external fuel load), nor is the F-35’s range 590 mi, that is a mission specific radius. I thought there was some documentation for the F-35A range on a Hi-Hi-Hi mission but I’m too lazy to look for it.
As for facts getting in the way, it helps to use apples to apples examples before posting irrelevant range comparisons.
FBWIs that true? Please show me were the F-35 can use Harpoon/SLAM missiles…or the HARM missiles…or Maverick…
And please educate me why the F-35 has longer range than the F-16?
A more useful exercise would be you looking up the range of the F-16, then that of the F-35 keeping in mind that the KPP of the F-35 is mission specific. Second, try to find ANY reason that the F-35 would be unable to carry any weapon in the USAF aerial arsenal carried by other fighters.
Sign In
