F-35 grounded - again

[Catch22]

Found this from the Ottawa Citizen:
Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

Geo

Thanks Geo, but it's quite old. I wonder what they saw then.

 

[buffnut453]

But surely better airframes make for better aircraft?

Sometimes. But sometimes technology and good tactics overcome better airframes. I remember an exercise I was on once where Tornado F3s, probably one of the worst dogfighting airframes, completely waxed a squadron of F-15s because they made intelligent use of data derived from a variety of sensors.

Su-35 has 2d thrust vectoring nozzles, the F-35 doesn't.

And everything I've seen about the thrust vectoring nozzles is that they're great for airshows or a one-off snapshot but in combat, where energy is a key asset, they are of limited, if any, utility.

It all comes down to the stealth profile. Do you think that stealth won't be defeated in the life of the F-35? Or even by the time it enters service for Australia (around 2018-202)? Or even now?

I dunno but I do know that "defeat" is a very loaded phrase. Stealth isn't an invisibility cloak but it does help you avoid being detected. If that gives you even just a couple of seconds advantage, that's all you need to kill the other guy first.

With 2 medium range missiles on board the F-35 will soon be in a knife fight if there are more than 2 enemy aircraft and/or the missiles aren't 100% accurate.

Firstly, it's hard to imagine a scenario where a single F-35 would engage in one-on-one combat - CAPS always have at least 2 airframes to ensure you always have one aircraft pointing "up threat". Secondly, stealth isn't that important for air defence operations so you can hang more missiles off the pylons. I still reckon the sensors onboard the F-35 give it an advantage over most other combat aircraft out there today.

I was kinda thinking about the outmanoeuvring part. Does that still apply to the Sidewinder?

See Matt's earlier post about the AIM-9X over-the-shoulder capability. You can't outmanoeuvre AAMs with an aircraft.

If it isn't needed, why does it have one?

Because guns are used for more things than just air combat. They can also strafe targets on the ground. Multi-role, remember?

Compared to the F-111s that the F-35s are also replacing (albeit indirectly. As an interim replacement we got F-18Fs, which also require more tankers than previously).

But the F-111 is out of service. The F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 so it's less dependent on tankers than the RAAF's current inventory.

Still, less effective than internal carriage for the F-35, meaning more likely being detected and shot down.

It's more complex than that. If the enemy can only detect the F-35 at shorter range than the F-35 can detect the enemy then the F-35 still has a crucial time/distance advantage. Yes, carrying external stores will increase the radar cross section of the F-35 but it's still likely to be much smaller than a conventionally-designed aircraft, so detection ranges for the adversary will be much shorter which means the F-35 can get its kill in first.

 

[wuzak]

The F-35 is not ment to be a dog fighter. Never has. It is to work side by side with the F-22. F-22 does all the air to air. F-35 is ment to get in, drop pay load, and get out. Air to air missles are for self-defence if things get hairy. But if it needs to, the F-35 can dog fight....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSMNOaZVFaA Best video that I know to kinda describe the mission of the F-35.....

What if you don't have F-22s? Like, say, Australia?

 

[beaupower32]

What if you don't have F-22s? Like, say, Australia?

Then you use what you got. F-35's will have to play the air superiority roll.


I have a feeling that the F-35's will probably play a roll much like the F-117 did. Stealth strikes on high value targets. Plus the added bonus of being able to dog fight if able.....

 

[wuzak]

Firstly, it's hard to imagine a scenario where a single F-35 would engage in one-on-one combat - CAPS always have at least 2 airframes to ensure you always have one aircraft pointing "up threat". Secondly, stealth isn't that important for air defence operations so you can hang more missiles off the pylons. I still reckon the sensors onboard the F-35 give it an advantage over most other combat aircraft out there today.

So if there are 2 F-35 and 4 enemy aircraft then the odds are still the same.

Or if Australia put up all 100 of its proposed purchase, and the enemy has more than 200 aircraft in opposition.

 

[wuzak]

And everything I've seen about the thrust vectoring nozzles is that they're great for airshows or a one-off snapshot but in combat, where energy is a key asset, they are of limited, if any, utility.

Then why does the F-22 have them?

The PAK-FA will probably have 3d vectoring nozzles in production.

I dunno but I do know that "defeat" is a very loaded phrase. Stealth isn't an invisibility cloak but it does help you avoid being detected. If that gives you even just a couple of seconds advantage, that's all you need to kill the other guy first.

Well lets say the enemy can detect you at longer ranges than your missiles can reach, and their missiles can reach that far? Would that count as defeat?

Because guns are used for more things than just air combat. They can also strafe targets on the ground. Multi-role, remember?

Yes, I remember. It's an attack plane that can do some self defence.

But the F-111 is out of service. The F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 so it's less dependent on tankers than the RAAF's current inventory.

Yes, all that is true.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Will be carefull of what I do post.....

Totally understand! I may be out there at the end of April/ beginning of May. maybe we could finally meet for a beer!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What if you don't have F-22s? Like, say, Australia?

That's something your military procurement planners need to answer. Personally I don't think Australia will have issues with the aircraft in either role providing she can afford them, that where my original comment was made about the F-16. I know the 16 was considered years ago but with hindsight being 20/20, I think it was the better aircraft especially if costs are a major factor.

 

[beaupower32]

Totally understand! I may be out there at the end of April/ beginning of May. maybe we could finally meet for a beer!

Sounds good. Just let me know!

 

[wuzak]

Personally I don't think Australia will have issues with the aircraft in either role

I suppose that is correct considering that in all likelihood it won't really be tested and the roles that it will do will be like those that the F/A-18As we have did in Iraq.

 

[Lucky13]

I remember that JAS 39 Gripen crash! To go back to the Gripen, with the A/B, C/D and now later our E/F's, which are in full swing, development, flights etc., our DoD has alreay agreed to buy them, I was wondering with these E/F, which reminds me of the F-18's development into the Superhornet, our Gripen will have larger wings I think, fuselage, more hardpoints, super cruise etc., etc. (and don't forget that we also work on the a 'SeaGripen'), a carrier born version, like the F-18 E/F, it's almost a completely new aircraft, anyhoo, what kinda possibilities does the F-35 have, seeing that they're as expensive as they already are, I can imagine that the upgrades won't be cheap either and also that they (US) will keep the best and most advanced upgrades to themself and not let other customers get them...

 

[beaupower32]

Of course the US will have the greatest stuff for themselves. Just the way it is. The good thing about all three varients is all the common hardware they have. There are so many parts that are interchangable, its crazy. Sure there are some differences. The F-35 has its own butilt in targeting system, which is very cool to look at. IT also has DAS, which you can look up on youtube. A note about DAS. We had a pilot do a low level flight with DAS on. Which dispays a picture on the visor, and basically he can look through the plane at the world around him. Anyways, he said the picture was so clear, that he would rather fly with DAS, than without. WHat we also have to think is that the further the program goes along, the prices will start to drop on things as they get better and to where they will be in the real world. Just like a car. development cost are high at first, but as production goes along, prices drop and settle down. I think by the time the full rate production planes come along, the planes will be below 100 million, where they are advertised to be.....

 

[Matt308]

Remember too, that often times the latest technology is driven by foreign customers. To imply that the US will keep all the best technology to themselves does not account for the temporal development spirals over the course of the airframes lifecycle. Good past examples of that include the US fielding Block 40 F-16s, but selling Block 50/60 to foreign customers. Or perhaps the latest example that did not get traction, Silent Eagle. Just ask the Isreali's what they intend to do with the F-35. I bet they won't tell you, but they do want the source code for a reason.

 

[ivanotter]

How will the defence budget cuts impact F-35 now? Is Obama in favour of this project?

It looks bad for nearly anything.

Ivan

 

[Matt308]

I don't see any severe cuts to the F-35. DoD training is a huge budget drain and is likely to take the most meaningful blow in my opinion. This is why the sequester was such a stupid idea to begin with.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How will the defence budget cuts impact F-35 now? Is Obama in favour of this project?

It looks bad for nearly anything.

Ivan

Right now it seems Obama is in favor of this program and will continue to fund it if his Sec of Defense is happy with the progress and the fixing of the issues found during testing. I do know the USAF wants the F-35 badly and will sell it's soul to get it IMO.

 

[buffnut453]

Well lets say the enemy can detect you at longer ranges than your missiles can reach, and their missiles can reach that far? Would that count as defeat?

That's the nub of the problem, although it's not just detection range and missile range but also missile acceleration and speed - all of this is highly dependent on the engagement parameters as well as the specific performance characteristics of the airframe, systems and weapons. Unfortunately, it's a question we're unlikely to resolve on this forum because the specific RCS for the F-35 under different loads are, I suspect, highly classified.

As for thrust vectoring nozzles, I suspect we could see a 2D nozzle applied to the F-35 at some point after it enters service. Bear in mind that, apart from F-22, thrust vectoring nozzles have all been retro-fits to existing airframes. As such I don't see it as an insurmountable problem but adding it now will simply induce further cost and delay.

 

[Matt308]

and weight that the F-35 can ill afford at this stage of development.

 

[wuzak]

I think by the time the full rate production planes come along, the planes will be below 100 million, where they are advertised to be.....

Unless, of course, orders are cut again.

 

[wuzak]

That's the nub of the problem, although it's not just detection range and missile range but also missile acceleration and speed - all of this is highly dependent on the engagement parameters as well as the specific performance characteristics of the airframe, systems and weapons. Unfortunately, it's a question we're unlikely to resolve on this forum because the specific RCS for the F-35 under different loads are, I suspect, highly classified.

That is true.

We also don't know the detection capabilities of Russian systems. Or what they will be able to do in 5 years.