# Lockheed says F35 will replace F15's



## Torch (Feb 4, 2010)

SINGAPORE 2010: Lockheed says F-35s will replace USAF F-15s


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

The F-35 is a lot more maneuverable than being credited for, but I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter.


----------



## Butters (Feb 4, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-35 is a lot more maneuverable than being credited for, but I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter.



We might not but LM seems quite happy to:

"Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed vice president for business development, supported Lockheed's analysis, saying a single F-35 provides the capability of six F-15s in air-to-air simulations. Although the F-35's projected top speed of M1.6 falls short of the F-15's M2.5 maximum, O'Bryan says, the F-35's higher level of stealth offsets the F-15's speed advantage in calculations of overall survivability."

Let's see... if one F-35 equals six F-15Cs, then 8 F-35s equals... Umm, does this mean that 2 Spanish Typhoons can lay the whoopass on 48 F-35s?

JL

PS: BTW, did you see where Gates said that 8 Predators (IIRC) were equal to 36 F-16's as CAS assets?

EDIT: Here's the link to the O'Bryan quote:

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...10-lockheed-says-f-35s-will-replace-usaf.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

Butters said:


> We might not but LM seems quite happy to:
> 
> "Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed vice president for business development, supported Lockheed's analysis, saying a single F-35 provides the capability of six F-15s in air-to-air simulations. Although the F-35's projected top speed of M1.6 falls short of the F-15's M2.5 maximum, O'Bryan says, the F-35's higher level of stealth offsets the F-15's speed advantage in calculations of overall survivability."
> 
> ...



I saw it Butters and you continue your rant. Bottom line I think the aircraft is going to be built and its going to be one of the most advanced combat aircraft to date. In the mean time if I was you i'd write your PM and start getting DND to put together a purchase proposal.


----------



## red admiral (Feb 4, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-35 is a lot more maneuverable than being credited for,



Lockheed Martin says it is very maneuverable, that isn't the same as actually being very maneuverable. You've got to bear in mind the massive marketing campaign currently going on (with Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale etc. as well) and manufacturers statements with a pinch of salt. The F-35 has a comparatively high wing loading and a comparatively low thrust/weight ratio combined with a fairly draggy stealth airframe (stealth features add a lot of drag and weight). It's not going to be as manoeuverable as contemporary aircraft unless Lockheed Martin has used some magic pixie dust.

How much manoeuverability actually matters for the F-35 is another matter. Plenty of capability to stop the combat before it gets within visual range.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

red admiral said:


> Lockheed Martin says it is very maneuverable.


And did you read the rest of my post???

"But I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter."

I've seen it fly - it is VERY maneuverable. With that said, I would hope ANY potential F-35 customer takes 
Steve O'Bryan's comments with a grain of salt and determine their own needs. 

As a former Lockheed employee and having worked with marketing folks they will tell you anything and it doesn't matter what company they work for. The fact remains the F-35 will be a record beater and it seems Lockheed has already put their money where their mouth is


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 4, 2010)

red admiral said:


> How much manoeuverability actually matters for the F-35 is another matter. Plenty of capability to stop the combat before it gets within visual range.



I agree but similar thinking had the USAF eliminating guns from aircraft in the 60s-70s which proved to be a terrible mistake.

I personally believe vector thrust maneuvering will only be seen in airshows and rarely in combat.

.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

comiso90 said:


> I agree but similar thinking had the USAF eliminating guns from aircraft in the 60s-70s which proved to be a terrible mistake.


Right On!


comiso90 said:


> I personally believe vector thrust maneuvering will only be seen in airshows and rarely in combat.
> 
> .



Not when it happens automatically!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

Gates defends F-35, rejects increase in F/A-18s - Yahoo! News

Hot off the press!


----------



## Glider (Feb 4, 2010)

If you ask us nicely, we promise to sell you some Typhoons to replace the F15 in the air to air role just in case the F22 doesn't want to get dirty.


----------



## twoeagles (Feb 4, 2010)

My Lockheed retirement is safe - no worries! The F-35 will be everything it is promised to be. As for highly maneuverable, how maneuverable would it need to be if it shot you down before you detected it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

Glider said:


> If you ask us nicely, we promise to sell you some Typhoons to replace the F15 in the air to air role just in case the F22 doesn't want to get dirty.







twoeagles said:


> My Lockheed retirement is safe - no worries! The F-35 will be everything it is promised to be. As for highly maneuverable, how maneuverable would it need to be if it shot you down before you detected it?



Right on!!!!

BTW - I check the status of my retirement about once a year, thanks for reminding me!


----------



## Waynos (Feb 4, 2010)

comiso90 said:


> I personally believe vector thrust maneuvering will only be seen in airshows and rarely in combat.
> 
> .



And not even then with the F-35. It doesn't have it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

Waynos said:


> And not even then with the F-35. It doesn't have it


It doesn't mean it hasn't been considered - HOWEVER "if" it was installed, it would affect over all performance.


----------



## Butters (Feb 4, 2010)

I'm going to address Joe's criticisms of my various 5th Gen-related posts as soon as I get the time, but until then here's something for the believers in the gospel of the holy trinity of stealth, BVR doctrine, and the do it all JSF.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

Just to clarify: The Rand Corp is neither left-wing nor an affiliate of CDI / APA. And whether you agree with their conclusions, or not, their study is worth the read.

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2010)

Butters said:


> I'm going to address Joe's criticisms of my various 5th Gen-related posts as soon as I get the time, but until then here's something for the believers in the gospel of the holy trinity of stealth, BVR doctrine, and the do it all JSF.
> 
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
> 
> ...



Its a good read Butter, in fact its and excellent read but it was put out 2 years ago and there are a few things assumed and not addressed...

No MC numbers for the Chinese during this fictional conflict

This scenario assumes the Flanker works as advertised.

It gives info about WW2 and Korea with no relevance in today's world.

In the end it give an argument to build MORE F-22s and F-35s.

And I see other "facts" in that report that aren't true, but again have nothing to do with the report....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2010)

The same propaganda General Dynamics and the Pentagon gave us about the F-111 in the 1960's sounds quite similar to what were hearing about the F-35.

"Multi-role" = good at nothing, mediocre at best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> The same propaganda General Dynamics and the Pentagon gave us about the F-111 in the 1960's sounds quite similar to what were hearing about the F-35.


I remember the same things said about the F-15 and F-16 during the mid 70s.


syscom3 said:


> "Multi-role" = good at nothing, mediocre at best.



Tell that to F/A-18 drivers who, during GW1 shot down MiGs with bombs on their stores, and then went on to bomb targets inside Iraq. in today's world, the F/A-18 and F-15E can be truly called "multi role" and these aircraft do "everything" well and have proven it in combat....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I remember the same things said about the F-15 and F-16 during the mid 70s.



Nope. They were both designed from the onset as fighters, both with some influence on what went wrong with the F-111. Being a fighter also meant they could be used as an interceptor or fighter-bomber. But neither were designed to be a true bomber.



> Tell that to F/A-18 drivers who, during GW1 shot down MiGs with bombs on their stores, and then went on to bomb targets inside Iraq. in today's world, the F/A-18 and F-15E can be truly called "multi role" and these aircraft do "everything" well and have proven it in combat....



And yet it sacrificed something to get both. Its a great fighter, but its also not a true great bomber either. 

The A6, A7 and A10 all performed well because they were designed from the outset to drop bombs as a primary mission.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Nope. They were both designed from the onset as fighters, both with some influence on what went wrong with the F-111. Being a fighter also meant they could be used as an interceptor or fighter-bomber. But neither were designed to be a true bomber.


I was talking about the bad press during the Carter administration where there were some that wanted to scrap the F-15 for being too costly and criticized the F-16 when it got airborne during high speed taxi tests.

BUT.......



syscom3 said:


> And yet it sacrificed something to get both. It’s a great fighter, but its also not a true great bomber either.


*Show us some documented negative evidence that the F-16, F-15E and F/A-18 suffered in their "multi role mode" operationaly during the past 15 or 20 years!!!!! *


F-15E drives consider themselves bomber pilots that could "knife fight" as well (I work with a few of them). 

One of the guys I work with who flew the F-15E said the roles were transparent with he exception with a little sacrifice in load out (depending on the mission) and range.


----------



## Glider (Feb 5, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> The A6, A7 and A10 all performed well because they were designed from the outset to drop bombs as a primary mission.



And the A6, A10 and A7 could only complete those missions with control of the air, a luxury that the future may not allow for.

The F15 and F18 can operate wherever they like and mix it with the best the opposition can currently field.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2010)

With today's PGMs BVR missiles, and planes capable of carrying both simoultaneusly, the need for a dedicated (medium) bomber fighter is not present anymore. 

A dedicated attack plane ("front-line bomber"), well protected, maneuvrable even when loaded, in league of A-10/Su-25 could be a good idea, but I guess there is no military budget today for new designs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2010)

The F/A-18 basically replaced the A-6, A-7, S-3, and F-14. If that's not "multi-role" I don't know what is.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> A dedicated attack plane ("front-line bomber"), well protected, maneuvrable even when loaded, in league of A-10/Su-25 could be a good idea, but I guess there is no military budget today for new designs.



Perhaps...

The plan is to use aircraft like the F-35 that could carry smaller, more accurate weapons that could do the same job. Don't forget helicopters as well.

Personally I believe an aircraft like the A-10 is always needed. Current plans have the A-10 around until 2028.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2010)

Two things 'bout the 5th gen fighters:
-the proliferation of more advanced FLIR/IRST sensors is likely to go way up
-the usage of supercruise would not be such a great advantage: the plane traveling Mach 1,5 some time would heat up the surface skin and present itself like a glowing torch even for today's IRST/FLIR


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Two things 'bout the 5th gen fighters:
> -the proliferation of more advanced FLIR/IRST sensors is likely to go way up
> -*the usage of supercruise would not be such a great advantage: the plane traveling Mach 1,5 some time would heat up the surface skin and present itself like a glowing torch even for today's IRST/FLIR*



 Now I don't know where you got that from but that's TOTALLY false.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2010)

Why?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Why?



At speeds beyond mach (say 1.5) you're not getting that much skin friction to make the surface that hot. Additionally the outside air temps at say 40,000 feet could be 60F below. Even with a "warm" skin surface, you're looking at that heat being quickly dissipated if it’s even there.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2010)

Tnx for the info, but I wouldn't started the whole thing if I haven't read some 10 years ago that modern planes' skin heats to 60 deg Celsius when traveling at Mach 2, and 200 deg when traveling Mach 3*. If you could point me to the good source covering temperature vs. speed, it would be neat.


*260 C skin temp @ 3,2 Mach, for SR-71


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 8, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Personally I believe an aircraft like the A-10 is always needed. Current plans have the A-10 around until 2028.



Joe, wasn't the same said for the F-15, that it was going to remain around until 2020 or 2025?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Tnx for the info, but I wouldn't started the whole thing if I haven't read some 10 years ago that modern planes' skin heats to 60 deg Celsius when traveling at Mach 2, and 200 deg when traveling Mach 3*. If you could point me to the good source covering temperature vs. speed, it would be neat.


It is quite possible that you could have a portion of a fighter carry that much heat on its surface, but think what it would be around the engine! Still 60C would dissipate pretty quickly against 60 below.


*260 C skin temp @ 3,2 Mach, for SR-71[/QUOTE]

Different animal and I knew you were going to mention that. The SR-71 is much higher and faster than what we're talking with, almost at the edge of space. The SR-71 is dealing with an environment that an object would see as if it was re-entering the earth’s atmosphere. 



Thorlifter said:


> Joe, wasn't the same said for the F-15, that it was going to remain around until 2020 or 2025?



Read the same thing somewhere as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It is quite possible that you could have a portion of a fighter carry that much heat on its surface, but think what it would be around the engine! Still 60C would dissipate pretty quickly against 60 below.



Indeed it would, but it's still 60 deg 
OTOH, the FLIR cameras have been capable to notice the objects at 'normal' temperatures (10-20 deg) against a background that also has some moderate temperature, and those were capable of that some 25 years ago (cameras for LANTIRN, Maverick co). The new technology beats their performance, of course.
So the plane radiating IR (even if the skin temperature is moderate, 20-30 deg perhaps) would be even more likely noticed because the background (as seen from under that plane) is hardly emiting any IR rays.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Different animal and I knew you were going to mention that. The SR-71 is much higher and faster than what we're talking with, almost at the edge of space. The SR-71 is dealing with an environment that an object would see as if it was re-entering the earth’s atmosphere.



I've just googled out the temp, to confirm stuff I've read a decade ago


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Indeed it would, but it's still 60 deg
> OTOH, the FLIR cameras have been capable to notice the objects at 'normal' temperatures (10-20 deg) against a background that also has some moderate temperature, and those were capable of that some 25 years ago (cameras for LANTIRN, Maverick co). The new technology beats their performance, of course.
> So the plane radiating IR (even if the skin temperature is moderate, 20-30 deg perhaps) would be even more likely noticed because the background (as seen from under that plane) is hardly emiting any IR rays.



In theory yes, but what if the surrounding area is carrying the same or similar IR signature?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2010)

For that to happen (similar or same IR signature) the 'target' plane would need to be at lower altitude then the FLIR sensor (both aircraft surface mounted), making the 40 000 ft (or even 10 000 ft) alt out of the question. 

OTOH, the heavy clouds tend to hamper performance of FLIR/IRST for both sides, so the 'target' plane could put those to good use vs. such sensors.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> For that to happen (similar or same IR signature) the 'target' plane would need to be at lower altitude then the FLIR sensor (both aircraft surface mounted), making the 40 000 ft (or even 10 000 ft) alt out of the question.
> 
> *OTOH, the heavy clouds tend to hamper performance of FLIR/IRST for both sides, so the 'target' plane could put those to good use vs. such sensors*.



I think you answered the question...

Also keep in mind that the further away the target is, the harder it is to paint the target. In doing so the "tracking" plane is putting out IR energy itself, making it a target as well.

There are passive IR systems.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2010)

I was talking about passive sets all the time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> I was talking about passive sets all the time.



The problem is passive units haven't been developed (yet) to paint targets over great distances. I've worked with a company that made a passive IR unit and the antenna was the size of a refrigerator.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2010)

Any good info about IR antennae - so far I thought only RF requires one. But I guess the bigger CCD of IR sensor, the better performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Any good info about IR antennae - so far I thought only RF requires one. But I guess the bigger CCD of IR sensor, the better performance.



Correct - and it has to be sensitive enough to paint a target. Here's a photo of the test unit I worked with several years ago. I was the crew chief on this helicopter. It proved the concept, now its a matter of building a unit small enough and effective enough to fit in a fighter. The equipment to "read the IR image took up half the rear cabin on the helicopter.


----------

