some F35 info (1 Viewer)

Gentlemen, you have to understand with the F-35 you're looking at a whole new concept in combat system integration. Start thinking outside the box. We've been programed to believe that most if not all aerial combat is close in VR engagements or where you have to get right on top of a ground target to take it out with a precision strike. For the past 25 years there have been systems developed where you could place a bomb within feet of a target from 30 miles away, or take an aerial target out BVR from 40 miles away, but in many cases you had a 285 computer "doing the math" contained in a first generation stealth aircraft or within a platform loaded with bulky ECMs to blind the enemy. We are now loading up a small, fast combat aircraft with supercomputers capable of full scale battlefield integration rather than just concentrating on several targets within a limited combat situation, coupled with stealth capability. Also conceptualize smaller more lethal weapons that may use a fraction of explosive force that we are so accustomed to, and will have twice the killing power. I believe we are on the verge of seeing a combat aircraft that will finally negate "strength in numbers" providing our adversaries don't acquire similar or better technology.

Leave the nostalgic air warfare thinking behind - if this thing pans out it will be able to take out targets with greater precision than anything we've ever seen coupled with the ability to communicate and coordinate attacks with other aircraft as well as land and sea weapons systems.

Marcel said:

On the other hand, the F-35 is only stealthy when it doesn't use the points on the wing, so only carying 2 bombs in the inner bay. When you use external points for carrying additional bombs, the advantage for stealth is gone. So stealth is not an issue in these missions. or you have to fly 3 times as often as the F-16, or have 3 times more aircraft to deliver the punch. As it will be now, we only have 3 times less F-35's as we have F-16's so the that won't work. External carying it should be then, making the F-35 about as vulnerable as the F-16, but much more expensive.

Click to expand...

A couple of points.


Even if what you are saying is 100% correct (and it's not, more on that later) then the F-35 would deliver two types of capability. Stealthy when needed, or not stealthy if stealth is not required. One aircraft with two very distinctly different operating capabilities, in the past that was the task of two different airframes, with associated duplication of costs. Specifically lets compare that to the F-117 and the F-16 working together.


From one operational unit you could configure the aircraft as needed for the task at hand, the first set of aircraft on target in stealthy mode, internal weapons only, to reduce air defense systems, the following aircraft, from the same unit, with external stores to handle everything else.


But the rest of it is that your statement of "When you use external points for carrying additional bombs, the advantage for stealth is gone" is not quite correct.


Reduced RCS is always reduced RCS, and lessens detection range. RCS is the sum of the parts.


Way over simplified here, but the basics are something like this: If the external stores on a specific aircraft angle (example on the nose) increases the RCS by 30 dBsm then it is the sum of the aircraft plus stores that make up the total RCS. If the basic airframe is 20 dBsm and the stores add 30 dBsm then the total is 50 dBsm. But if the basic airframe is 3 dBsm and the stores are still the same 30 dBsm then the total is 33 dBsm. The advantage in reduced detection and survivability is still to the stealthier aircraft.


Lets talk about that example in real world application, what does it mean, even though those are obviously not real world numbers. The exemplar 17 dBsm reduction would reduce maximum detection range significantly, the detection of the reduced RCS aircraft, even with external stores, would happen at much less than half the range of the non-RCS reduce platform with the same external stores. There would also be a REAL advantage to active countermeasures used by or to assist the lower RCS platform. The J/S (jammer to signal) ratio of a self protection jammer would increase by 17 dB, or the ratio would improve by a factor of 50. The same would apply to stand off jamming in support of the strike mission, there would still be a 17 dB improvement in J/S. This is like the jammer being used having 50 times as much power as it does. That is pretty significant.


So the lower RCS platform, with external stores and when compared to a non-RCS reduced platform with the same external stores, will be detected later on an ingress, and any supportive active countermeasures will be significantly more affective.


But survivability is not just about getting to the target, it is also about getting away. Once the weapons are away the pylons still increase the platform RCS, but the stealthy bird is now much more stealthy than the aircraft designed without RCS reduction in mind.

T!

I must have written the following (in varying forms) a dozen times now in different forums.

The F-35 will be in service for at least 40 years, and so it was designed with the best estimates available of likely threats that it may have to face over that lifetime. Preparing any military force for low-intensity/COIN warfare is great if you can absolutely guarantee that those are the only adversaries you will face. Unfortunately we can't guarantee such a state of affairs given a resurgent Russia (from 2 perspectives: national politico-military AND commercial arms sales to any country that the West won't deal with) and China flexing its growing military muscle in the Pacific. It's a case of hope for the best but plan for the worst.

As to stealth or not stealth, that's clearly a mission-specific decision. Stealth will typically be required for pinpoint targets such as key IADS or C2 nodes where elimination of the target is vital to prosecution of the rest of the air campaign (perhaps involving non-stealthy platforms - think of punching a hole in a SA-10 defensive ring so that non-stealth platforms can attack a broad range of targets). That's an entirely different mission, requiring different tactics and weapon loads, than cab-rank CAS missions in low-threat environments where the aircraft must carry as many bombs as possible in order to maximize mission duration. As we are learning from current operations, one of the best platforms for the latter mission is the good ol' B-52.

Now...to the question of F-16 vs F-35 load capacity, the F-16 can carry 17,000lb of external stores whereas the F-35 can carry 15,000lb external and 3,000lb internal for a total of 18,000lb. That doesn't seem like much of a delta...so no reason why the F-35s couldn't satisfy the same mission as today's F-16...but the F-35 can do things the F-16 could never accomplish, like deep strike into airspace defended by modern surface-to-air weapons.

Some more good news for the F-35 programme - seems like the worst of the software issues have been mitigated, as demonstrated on this operational deployment to Mountain Home AFB:

F-35 Software Runs Smoothly During Mountain Home Deployment

Sorry screwed up previous post but Lockheed Martin has officially unveiled Israel's first F-35

Not bad stats. I'd be interested to learn about the ROE and scenarios for the engagements with the F-15Es.

Vindication is near!

And the cost savings are coming!!!
DoD, Lockheed Eye F-35 Program Savings Through 2 Cost Reduction Strategies

Maybe the name should be F-35 Vindicator

gjs238 said:

Maybe the name should be F-35 Vindicator

Click to expand...

It would have to be Vindicator II.

Hmmm a twin engine version? 80000lbs of thrust? yeeeeehaaa

Torch said:

Hmmm a twin engine version? 80000lbs of thrust? yeeeeehaaa

Click to expand...

Hi All

Could the Air Frame handle that much Thrust?

FLYBOYJ said:

Say what you will about the F-35, but it has the world's most advanced engine

Click to expand...

Joe, did you catch the article/video at the bottom of the page, captioned: "America's $400 Billion Warplane Has Some Major Flaws"?

GrauGeist said:

Joe, did you catch the article/video at the bottom of the page, captioned: "America's $400 Billion Warplane Has Some Major Flaws"?

Click to expand...

Yep - one minute praise, the next minute condemnation!