Is the F-35 doomed?

[djpav]

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35 (http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler11102009.html)

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.

[Vivendi]

It is certainly not doomed.

I suggest you read some of the threads on F-35 on this forum. I think you will find plenty of information that demonstrate to you that it is far from doomed, and also why that is so.

You will also find some critisism of the person that wrote the article that you qouted... It's not the first time he critisise the F-35.

[SpudmanWP]

It sounds like someone regurgitated a Kopp "analysis".

[F-15 Eagle]

It sounds like someone regurgitated a Kopp "analysis".

Not that wackjob again. Nether one of those guys knows what they are talking about. I think it was wrong to cut off the F-22 production at 187 planes and I think its also wrong to cut back of the F-35. They need the F-35. Those guys rather see the air force fleet crumble by not replacing the 25-40 year old F-15s and F-16s.

Edit: Why in the hell do people get this idea that the F-35 and F-105 are related? They are too different jets from a completely different era.

The F-35 is more like a F-22 that can do the job of both the F-15 and F-16/F18.

[PeterCrisp]

I could understand the US wanting to keep the F35 at almost all costs but if it was such a rubbish aircraft why would the export customers buy it? They can't have all been fooled by the term 5th Gen.

[Feanor]

I could understand the US wanting to keep the F35 at almost all costs but if it was such a rubbish aircraft why would the export customers buy it? They can't have all been fooled by the term 5th Gen.

Pro-tip: it's actually not a rubbish aircraft. The poster just doesn't know his stuff. ;)

[latenlazy]

I could understand the US wanting to keep the F35 at almost all costs but if it was such a rubbish aircraft why would the export customers buy it? They can't have all been fooled by the term 5th Gen.
Maybe because those who're actually doing the buying know it isn't a rubbish aircraft?

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)


I find those argument that the F-35 will suck at dogfighting ridiculous. Stealth isn't just good for avoiding long range detection, but missile locks as well.

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

At worst, if it needs to carry a heavier payload it can carry them externally. External stealth pods aside, it can also go into an area after the air force achieves air superiority. which means it doesn't need to worry about compromising its stealth.

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Maybe it can fly slower, or maybe its sensors are much better at getting a lock at further distances outside the range of weapons that can endanger it.

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.
No.

[energo]

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35 (http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler11102009.html)

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.

Consider that all reliable evidence suggests that the F-35 has been designed with F-16 and F/A-18-like performances. In fact, the F-35 will out perform these in a tactical loadout, some of which has has already been demonstrated (climb out). Wheeler seems to be forgetting that the 49k take-off weight is with a huge 0.4 fuel fraction and no aerodynamic penalties. Expect the F-35 to be a sprinter once down to it's maneuvering weight. And it's stealthy.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

[Sea Toby]

If the F-35 was a POS, all of the nations would have pulled out of buying the aircraft, including the USA. NONE HAVE! What a load of tripe!

LM is building them on time and on budget. Development may have been delayed a year or two, but with a new aircraft and new technology engineering has to be done before the program proceeds. In fact, of all of the most recent new aircraft, the development delays for the F-35 have been the LEAST by far.... At the moment I know of no building program delays....

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Not that wackjob again. Nether one of those guys knows what they are talking about.

Actually they do know what they are talking about for the most part, that’s the worst thing. They are out there deliberately misleading people.

I think it was wrong to cut off the F-22 production at 187 planes and I think its also wrong to cut back of the F-35. They need the F-35. Those guys rather see the air force fleet crumble by not replacing the 25-40 year old F-15s and F-16s.
You can blame LM for the F-22A, they screwed the pooch on that one. In 10 years half of that small fleet won’t be able to conduct air superiority missions (what the platform was designed for) because of software obsolescence and the fact that upgrades designed for the newer end of the fleet can not be applied to the older platforms.

Edit: Why in the hell do people get this idea that the F-35 and F-105 are related? They are too different jets from a completely different era.

Because in terms of airframe design, weight and to an extent the platforms intended roll they are similar. But to use that to make judgements on the F-35A's capability fundamentally misunderstands (or misrepresents) the nature of the battle-space the F-35A will be operating in. Just the F-35A's sensor and weapons package makes it more lethal than any other non F-22A platform yet devised. You could put that sensor/weapon combination on an F-16 and it would be more capable than the USAF's F-15C fleet. Battle isn’t just about instantaneous turn rates and energy management any more, information dominance is the name of the game and from that perspective the F-35A is a killer.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If the F-35 was a POS, all of the nations would have pulled out of buying the aircraft, including the USA. NONE HAVE! What a load of tripe!

LM is building them on time and on budget. Development may have been delayed a year or two, but with a new aircraft and new technology engineering has to be done before the program proceeds. In fact, of all of the most recent new aircraft, the development delays for the F-35 have been the LEAST by far.... At the moment I know of no building program delays....

EVERY new platform has delays. LM is performing well on the JSF program; IIRC the F-22A had HEAPS of problems in SDD. They lost an airframe due to a bug in the flight control software.

[Vivendi]

If the F-35 was a POS, all of the nations would have pulled out of buying the aircraft, including the USA. NONE HAVE! What a load of tripe!

LM is building them on time and on budget. Development may have been delayed a year or two, but with a new aircraft and new technology engineering has to be done before the program proceeds. In fact, of all of the most recent new aircraft, the development delays for the F-35 have been the LEAST by far.... At the moment I know of no building program delays....
Agree that delays have been minor compared to other programs.

However there have been some delays, and I would be surprised if there will not be more:

F-35 changes sought to avert more problems (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/12/334683/f-35-changes-sought-to-avert-more-problems.html)

Most likely both timelines and budget will grow. But this is normal!

If you want to talk delays in military aviation, look at the A400... Or the NH90.... And I think also the Eurofighter Typhoon had some delays. F22 has been mentioned. Etc..

[B3LA]

It's way too early to completely write the F-35 off as a dud.
Let's give it at least a couple of years more before we do that.
It has proven to be a very interesting project to follow, especially
since my tax money do not fund it. :cool:

[energo]

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35 (http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler11102009.html)

[..]

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

Couple of more remarks.

Actually, the F-35 will take 5700 lb of internal weapons, pull 9G's with that, and carry well over 18000 pounds if including the wing stations.


As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Wheeler is comparing against the spesific requirements of the 1970-1980s. The F-35 probably wont replace the A-10 in some narrow tactical niches, but it will probably more than make up for that due to its vastly longer sensor reach, self protection, network and data fusion. Sure the A-10 can do repeated strafes, but it also has a slower resonse time. What works best will depend on the conflict, type of mission and quality of the operational planning as much as the technical abilties of the platform in question.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

[Grand Danois]

Sprey, Wheeler et al. wants something radically different from todays concept of air power - check attachments and link to get an idea of what Sprey-Wheeler world looks like.

In short:

anything larger than an F-16 = bad
advanced avionics, radars in particular = bad
LO = bad
BVR = bad

Pierre Sprey's ideal US airpower fleet - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/pierre-spreys-ideal-us-airpowe.html)

[Feanor]

But that seems strange. Given modern GBAD, how does he expect those light fighters to perform missions in environments saturated with S-300 class systems, covered by Tunguskas, Shilkas, and Pantsyrs, as well as Tor and Buk medium level systems? His light fighters will taken out in bucket-loads. Not to mention the larger heavier fighters they go up against will have an advantage in engagement ranges due to more powerful electronics, radar, etc.

[Haavarla]

Couple of more remarks.

Actually, the F-35 will take 5700 lb of internal weapons, pull 9G's with that, and carry well over 18000 pounds if including the wing stations.

Wheeler is comparing against the spesific requirements of the 1970-1980s. The F-35 probably wont replace the A-10 in some narrow tactical niches, but it will probably more than make up for that due to its vastly longer sensor reach, self protection, network and data fusion. Sure the A-10 can do repeated strafes, but it also has a slower resonse time. What works best will depend on the conflict, type of mission and quality of the operational planning as much as the technical abilties of the platform in question.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo


Agreed.
Somtimes tactics like striking medium/low, fast and be in the next valley when the boms hit the target are prefereble.
The A-10 cant do that, cause it dont have the speed.



Thanks

[caprise]

...Wheeler seems to be forgetting that the 49k take-off weight is with a huge 0.4 fuel fraction and no aerodynamic penalties...

I see what you mean(Internal vs external loud out), but weight (and a big belly)has always a aerodynamic penalty AFAIK.

Regards C.

[merocaine]

"Sprey, Wheeler et al. wants something radically different from todays concept of air power..."

There whole concept of war fighting is radically different. Its a fundamental philosophical difference.
They are of the opinion that the US is geared to fighting a 2 generational war, based on fire power not maneuver. There vision is a US military that is geared to fighting a war of movement, a third generational conflict, this is why they focus on tactical aviation so much.

[energo]

I see what you mean(Internal vs external loud out), but weight (and a big belly)has always a aerodynamic penalty AFAIK.

Regards C.

You're absolutely right, although I would have to argue that you would still have to carry that weight in droptanks on a 4th gen fighter, limiting parts of the flight profile. However, as I think Spray (and thus Wheeler) is well aware of, it's more meaningfull to compare trust-to-weight and wing loading at comparable fuel fractions rather than some arbitrary fuel state. Doing so the F-35 comes out pretty much on par or even favorable to some of todays top fighters. Even better than the mighty F-16A.

That said, the F-16 showed that high wing loading does not necessarily mean lacklustre performance; even though it has a much higher wing loading it outperforms the F-15 in most cardinal performance parameters.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

[Palnatoke]

While I have no knowledge of aviation, I can't help thinking that it's odd that we continues to develop more and more complex, cabable and expensive systems while the conflicts that we fights grows more and more asymetrical and unsuited for our complex machines.

It's like we have transferred the raison behind the cold war's nuclear armament to conventional war, in which the new signal is: "Look how cabable, complex and expensive our machines are, you don't have a chance to build something nearly as cabable, complex and expensive; so you loose"
The surprising part is that we still have the nukes, the cold war's logic still applies to all circumstances in which these new machines also applies. And the cases in which our nukes don't apply, f.ex. the case of mr Bin Laden, or Mullah Omar of talliban, the new machines are equally ineffective.

In the mean time our soldiers come home in coffins - slained by some recycled wire and some fertilizer.

[Grand Danois]

An analogy could be that soldiers in A-stan are using sophisticated vehicles, with advanced comms, esm, sigint, jammers, night vision and TIRs, robotic weapons mounts, central tire inflation, and armoured and designed to withstand or deflect IEDs, RPGs, and small arms fire.

Makes the mission possible in a whole other way than a M113 "Gavin" variant would.

The enemy would still use remote controlled explosive devices...

[Grand Danois]

"Sprey, Wheeler et al. wants something radically different from todays concept of air power..."

There whole concept of war fighting is radically different. Its a fundamental philosophical difference.
They are of the opinion that the US is geared to fighting a 2 generational war, based on fire power not maneuver. There vision is a US military that is geared to fighting a war of movement, a third generational conflict, this is why they focus on tactical aviation so much.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right, but to my eye, Wheeler would like to fight the way they did in WWII or Korea...

[Palnatoke]

GD

It would, imho, be a great idea to spend a lot more ressources on protecting our soldiers in A-stan from the primary weapon of the enemy. Then we could continue to bomb them with our F16s (or the like) well knowing that their obsolete RCS, is irrelevant since taliban doesn't have radars....

And we could say clearly that if a power wants to fight us, against whom our F16s aren't good enough.. then:

235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Kr + 142Ba + ENERGY
235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Sr + 140Xe + ENERGY

[Grand Danois]

GD

It would, imho, be a great idea to spend a lot more ressources on protecting our soldiers in A-stan from the primary weapon of the enemy. Then we could continue to bomb them with our F16s (or the like) well knowing that their obsolete RCS, is irrelevant since taliban doesn't have radars....

This is called this-war-itis. A military has to have to look at its future beyond a conflict like A-stan. What about conflicts where RCS does matter?

And we could say clearly that if a power wants to fight us, against whom our F16s aren't good enough.. then:

235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Kr + 142Ba + ENERGY
235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Sr + 140Xe + ENERGY

And what about everything between peace and nuclear war, e.g. the US disarmed massively after WWII, relying on nuclear weapons, only to find out it had to rearm conventionally to fight North Korea.

[Palnatoke]

Well I see it as a balance act; Large powers like US, UK, Fr needs to be able to balance/dominate potential enemies, smaller powers might do better adding in other cababilities, in an allience structure.

This is called this-war-itis. A military has to have to look at its future beyond a conflict like A-stan. What about conflicts where RCS does matter?


I don't think it's " this-war-itis", we can expect that these are conflicts that our army and securty forces will fight. That's not saying that our forces shouldn't be able to provide a credible deterence against a - realistic - traditional aggressive foe. As I read the ballance, NATO has a relatively huge (and useless) traditional fighting power against which there exists no credible enemy. So with or without 5th generation fighters, I see little difference.

On the otherhand there exists untraditional powers against which our huge traditional armies are useless. I think we should be much more concerned about that. Maybe then the west can change it's post WW2 record of loosing (or not-worth-the-effort) about every major war we fights.





And what about everything between peace and nuclear war, e.g. the US disarmed massively after WWII, relying on nuclear weapons, only to find out it had to rearm conventionally to fight North Korea.

Well, in my oppinion, NATO should be able to do a 1st. gulf war, not necessarely in such a sweeping, overpowered, fachion like it were conducted, but it should with in reach and acceptable cassulties.
In a replay of the korean war, I suggest that we this time start with the tactical nukes.

I am not advocating that we disarm, we should re-arm in my oppinion. But we should arm ourself to tomorrow's war, not yesterday's war.

[Grand Danois]

Balancing act is exactly the word I had in mind

OK, if the context is the Danish military then I think fighter jets do have their place especially when subcontracting to alliance ops. An all army Danish military doesn't can't maintain the same manpower levels as a balanced one.

And there are scenarios which pertains to Denmark, where a small fighter for is needed for sovereignty reasons.

I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic - just not an acceptable solution. :D

[Palnatoke]

Balancing act is exactly the word I had in mind

OK, if the context is the Danish military then I think fighter jets do have their place especially when subcontracting to alliance ops. An all army Danish military doesn't can't maintain the same manpower levels as a balanced one.

And there are scenarios which pertains to Denmark, where a small fighter for is needed for sovereignty reasons.

I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic - just not an acceptable solution. :D

If we take DK as an example of a small NATO country: The budget for buying new fighter airplanes (most likely F35), 40 billion DKr, is nearly twice the yearly total defense expenditures of around 22 billion Dkr. For comparison the less-than-best-in-world Danish healthcare system (a major political issue in this country) could, according to the responsible, be ramped up to the very best in world, with an investment of 100 billion DKr, money that we don't have.
DK together with No and Sw are the proud weltmeisters of giving foreign aid to developing countries; That bill is 14 billion Dkr.
The entire education budget (primary schools, youth education, higher education) is around 120-150 billion..
So 40 billion is a lot of money.

So far, what has the airforce used it's fighter assets for? The most sexy I can remember was dropping bombs on tallibans, helping the balts "showing the flag" in their airspace, and showing the flag when an antiquated russian bomber lost it's direction (or witts) and got too close to bornholm. Now, not being an air general, I am pretty sure that a F16 can accomplish these tasks. I add to this that allready now, deploying the 6-7 F16s standing ready for rapid deployment to f.ex. Afgh, is so expensive that the defense hardly got the money and the allience demand for fighter aircrafts are near nill, since the allience got plenty of fighter aircrafts for the task at hand. It is my impression that the danish contribution to nato "fighter air tasks" are quite moderate or, rather, insignificant.

Where Denmark has been able to contribute significantly is in navial deployments, lately in Lebannon and anti piracy at the horn of africa. And ofcourse with a- relative to size, and many other NATO countries - disporportional army engagement in Afghanistan, where a lot of soldiers have been lost and billions of good money fired at "the enemy".

These policies of engagement has earned Denmark a lot of credit, and some influence, amoung our major security partners (noticably US/UK) on whom our national security fundamentally rest upon, and as such the danish defense has proven that it is relevant in danish security and foreign policy. But it's not the fighting wing of the airforce that doing the job. If US/UK wants some airpower, they deploy a carrier that has more airplanes than the entire danish airforce, but having denmark sending, say 1000, ground troops is partly 1000 US/UK families that doesn't need to miss their "loved ones", but more importantly it's a strong political signal to send infanteri into harms way, deploying air assets is more a question of "money", and it won't give DK the same credit.

So from a "do what you are best at" or cost benefit analysis, I think it's pretty sound to suggest that those 40 billion could be used a lot better on systems surporting the army (maybe some more air transports, helicopters or a full deployable brigade?) or on the navy, than a few hugely expensive fighters, that will probably only be used for fancy formation flying on the Queen's Birthday. Ofcourse then our old f16s has to soldier on, and should we feel threathed at some point in the future, a land based air defense system could be aquired, if needed (which is also consistent with the obvious future scenario: Robots will dominate the sky).

I stress that for a large country, the above doesn't apply.




I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic

I am not sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason to f.ex. pretend that we are willing to sacrifice so and so many 10000s of young men to stop country X from running over Taiwan, instead we suggest a diplomatic solution, if ignored, the tactical nukes are used, and if ignored, it's nuclear holocaust. Then country X won't begin in the first place.

[Grand Danois]

If we take DK as an example of a small NATO country: The budget for buying new fighter airplanes (most likely F35), 40 billion DKr, is nearly twice the yearly total defense expenditures of around 22 billion Dkr. For comparison the less-than-best-in-world Danish healthcare system (a major political issue in this country) could, according to the responsible, be ramped up to the very best in world, with an investment of 100 billion DKr, money that we don't have.
DK together with No and Sw are the proud weltmeisters of giving foreign aid to developing countries; That bill is 14 billion Dkr.

The entire education budget (primary schools, youth education, higher education) is around 120-150 billion..
So 40 billion is a lot of money.

The fighter acquisition itself will cost less than 20 bn dkk. Running the entire fighter arm of the air force is something like 80-90 bn dkk over 35 years.

In that period we'll use 525 bn dkk on foreing aid, 4 725 bn dkk on education and 770 bn dkk on military total.

One can always convert the public expenditure on science, culture, mayor's salaries, military to daycare and hospitals for sake of argument. :D

So far, what has the airforce used it's fighter assets for? The most sexy I can remember was dropping bombs on tallibans, helping the balts "showing the flag" in their airspace, and showing the flag when an antiquated russian bomber lost it's direction (or witts) and got too close to bornholm. Now, not being an air general, I am pretty sure that a F16 can accomplish these tasks. I add to this that allready now, deploying the 6-7 F16s standing ready for rapid deployment to f.ex. Afgh, is so expensive that the defense hardly got the money and the allience demand for fighter aircrafts are near nill, since the allience got plenty of fighter aircrafts for the task at hand. It is my impression that the danish contribution to nato "fighter air tasks" are quite moderate or, rather, insignificant.

It's not only for deployment, it's also a "force in being". And we are required by NATO to patrol our skies, btw.

Rapid deployment is not for afgh or the baltics - you should check out operation allied force - if you were to undertake such an operation in the future, we would need a capable, survivable jet with can work in lockstep with our allies.


Where Denmark has been able to contribute significantly is in navial deployments, lately in Lebannon and anti piracy at the horn of africa. And ofcourse with a- relative to size, and many other NATO countries - disporportional army engagement in Afghanistan, where a lot of soldiers have been lost and billions of good money fired at "the enemy".

These policies of engagement has earned Denmark a lot of credit, and some influence, amoung our major security partners (noticably US/UK) on whom our national security fundamentally rest upon, and as such the danish defense has proven that it is relevant in danish security and foreign policy. But it's not the fighting wing of the airforce that doing the job. If US/UK wants some airpower, they deploy a carrier that has more airplanes than the entire danish airforce, but having denmark sending, say 1000, ground troops is partly 1000 US/UK families that doesn't need to miss their "loved ones", but more importantly it's a strong political signal to send infanteri into harms way, deploying air assets is more a question of "money", and it won't give DK the same credit.

So this is the only type of operations we should provide support to; I'd argue that we should also be able to provide an air force component as not to limit ourselves to grunt conflicts only.

So from a "do what you are best at" or cost benefit analysis, I think it's pretty sound to suggest that those 40 billion could be used a lot better on systems surporting the army (maybe some more air transports, helicopters or a full deployable brigade?) or on the navy, than a few hugely expensive fighters, that will probably only be used for fancy formation flying on the Queen's Birthday. Ofcourse then our old f16s has to soldier on, and should we feel threathed at some point in the future, a land based air defense system could be aquired, if needed (which is also consistent with the obvious future scenario: Robots will dominate the sky).

I stress that for a large country, the above doesn't apply.


You can't convert air force expenditure to army expenditure, i.e. extrapolate the sums spent into additional army capability. We don't have that potential.


I am not sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason to f.ex. pretend that we are willing to sacrifice so and so many 10000s of young men to stop country X from running over Taiwan, instead we suggest a diplomatic solution, if ignored, the tactical nukes are used, and if ignored, it's nuclear holocaust. Then country X won't begin in the first place.

The US monopoly in nukes didn't prevent NK to attack SK and the US never used nukes (though Macarthur wanted to nuke the chinese). In fact, in the future with proliferation we're seeing today, this logic is bound to fail.

Btw, i didn't think I said you was sarcastic - it's just that it's a type of argument that I would use when being ascerbic. ;)

[Vivendi]

GD,

on a related note: Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the decision on figher jet?

On of the main arguments in Norway to make a decision during fall 2008 was to make sure that Norwegian industry would be able to position itself in the competition for contracts.

It seems that the Danish industry now see they got a problem:

Industry demands more from Lockheed - Politiken.dk (http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article833968.ece)

Which begs the question: Why not make a decision, and thereby help out the industry? We already know which plane belongs to the future; it also happens to be the cheapest, produced by Denmarks closest ally, and Denmark is even a partner and makes investments every year. So why not just spell it out, make an official statement and remove the uncertainly for industry? Making a decision to buy the F-35 (if that happens to be Demarks choice :rolleyes:) does not mean to immediately sign the dotted line, neither does it mean a final commitment to number of aircrafts. I am confused ... :confused:

[Grand Danois]

GD,

on a related note: Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the decision on figher jet?

Yes.

Chronologically:

The defmin insisted on making an 4 year defence agreement which included the opposition, parties for the sake of a parliamentarian united position on defence the coming years.

He got that.

What then happened was that defence command made a gargantuan and massive PR ferkup leading to the resignation of the highest ranking uniform in the danish military - the chief of the defence command, together with two high ranking officers, both of whom are under investigation.

In the process of this, the defmin was left in a poor position, as he was massively let down by his own institutions. This in turn lead to a massive attack by the opposition on the defmin.

Which is why he has an awful position to negotiate anything at the moment, leading to a postbonement - as he is required to include the opposition in any decision as per the agreement.

So, type selection will be made when things calm down.

[F-15 Eagle]

Its all lies, they are lairs and they know it.

Actually they do know what they are talking about for the most part, that’s the worst thing. They are out there deliberately misleading people.


You can blame LM for the F-22A, they screwed the pooch on that one. In 10 years half of that small fleet won’t be able to conduct air superiority missions (what the platform was designed for) because of software obsolescence and the fact that upgrades designed for the newer end of the fleet can not be applied to the older platforms.




Because in terms of airframe design, weight and to an extent the platforms intended roll they are similar. But to use that to make judgements on the F-35A's capability fundamentally misunderstands (or misrepresents) the nature of the battle-space the F-35A will be operating in. Just the F-35A's sensor and weapons package makes it more lethal than any other non F-22A platform yet devised. You could put that sensor/weapon combination on an F-16 and it would be more capable than the USAF's F-15C fleet. Battle isn’t just about instantaneous turn rates and energy management any more, information dominance is the name of the game and from that perspective the F-35A is a killer.

I do blame LM for the most part though a little blame goes to the government. They took way too long and kept dragging their feet of the F-22.


I think the F-35 will be killer in both areas, and why wouldn't it?

[Toptob]

I think this is a decent enough thread, so I'll dignify it with a response.

To the first post: as other people said, the source is questionable.

To all the people responding: I have only seen one or two decent responses to the allegations made in the article from the first post. Sometimes I worry that some of you people cant even read or something, because nowhere did it say that the F-35 and the F-105 are related except for their (prospected) performance.

Also, if all you have to say is that the author of some piece is biased or just stupid or something. Please tell it to your mom/GF/wife, because if one person has said that the second one doesnt really add to the discussion. Instead try to prove why someone is full of shit. (with links and stuff)

Now the small country debate and since everyone is sprinkling opinions here's mine:

I totally agree that the F-35 is a terribly lavish expense for most of the partner nations. I take the Netherlands as my example because thats where I'm from. The government, or rather the airforce wants to purchase 85 F-35's for 6Bn euro's. I say we don't need, nor can we afford the F-35.

First of all, we will never get 85 aircraft for 6Bn. The lightning will go horribly over budget, and as projections stand today it would be closer to 45 aircraft. BUT LM refuses to give price estimations to our government so we dont know really. And we cant decide if the F-35 will fit our budget. The airforce, being the American fanboys that they are had already decided they wanted the new american plane before the yanks even thought of it. So there's little choice for parliament, and that's a real pickle for them.

But if, if we would for instance purchase the Gripen. There would be a fixed price which we already know. We would have a very capable aircraft in sufficient numbers to make sense to have them at all with running costs that are very very decent.

And finally the whole partner program is just total nonsense. We (the NL) were promised offsets in the development stage, which by far have not been met. And I can just feel it that the other promises of offsets wont be met. Also there wont be any TOT, which we would have with most other aircraft. So all in all, I think the F-35 program is one big scam.

To summarize my opinions:
1: F-35 schedule is sketchy at best (as with all aerospace projects)
2: The price has been kept low to lure partners into the program, and will be much higher than anticipated.
3: Other aircraft (i.e. gripen for NL) can deliver more then enough capability for much less costs.
4: The partner program is a joke, we (the NL) havent seen the promised offsets. And its questionable if the Yanks will keep their promises to all their partners.
5: I'm sure the F-35 will be a pretty capable aircraft, but there are too many bad practices surrounding it to make it not worth the effort.
6: As I read threads on this forum, I see that a lot of people are very biased that on other topics arent. Some posts in this thread really disappointed me, and I think that people let the idea of the F-35 blind them a little.

I want to add however that:
1: I am pretty new to this forum and I dont want to insult anyone.
2: I am no defense professional.
and 3: Feanor is the bee's knee's

[Grand Danois]

To summarize my opinions:
1: F-35 schedule is sketchy at best (as with all aerospace projects)
2: The price has been kept low to lure partners into the program, and will be much higher than anticipated.
3: Other aircraft (i.e. gripen for NL) can deliver more then enough capability for much less costs.
4: The partner program is a joke, we (the NL) havent seen the promised offsets. And its questionable if the Yanks will keep their promises to all their partners.
5: I'm sure the F-35 will be a pretty capable aircraft, but there are too many bad practices surrounding it to make it not worth the effort.
6: As I read threads on this forum, I see that a lot of people are very biased that on other topics arent. Some posts in this thread really disappointed me, and I think that people let the idea of the F-35 blind them a little.

I want to add however that:
1: I am pretty new to this forum and I dont want to insult anyone.
2: I am no defense professional.
and 3: Feanor is the bee's knee's

1) The schedule is indeed the weak part - but only the flight testing, everything else seems to be on track.
2) the pricing are best estimates on available data - e.g the LRIP that will be built now will be CHEAPER than projected (per unit). Cost overruns on SDD doesn't run into recurring fly away costs.
3) Define capability today and 30 years from now. A long sqn of Gripen C/D for air policing only could fit the bill for many small nations. Note that I said C/D - the official SAAB RBI figure on Gripen NG is in fact more expensive than the F-35!
4) There has been no offsets related to production in Holland, because no jets has been ordered! As to the expenses from the SDD phase, Holland has gotten about half of them back, halfway through the SDD phase. Btw, there are many more contracts and companies involved in the partner nations than you can find in public (da intarnez).
5) Which ones?
6) or perhaps they understand what the concept of the F-35 offers and why the US/LM/partners/ aren't building a jet like Gripen.

cheers :)

[Palnatoke]

GD

The budget is around 40 bn Dkr (as I understand it) for aquiring the system, you can chose to view those money over 30-35, years, in which case the simple way to determine the finance costs, is by the cost of a loan at 40bn on the international market running for 30-35 years. Without knowing at which interest rate the danish state can loan money, I am pretty sure that the end bill will be substancially higher than 40 billion. My point is that it's a lot of money, that, imho, requires carefull thought before spendt.

I am not saying that we shouldn't have a "fighter wing" of the airforce, but I am suggesting that there is a third option: Keep the F16s. According to "Ingeniøren", this is will be a much cheaper solution (Poland actually just bought f16s....).


Vivendi

Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the decision on figher jet?

I guess that I am not the only one that doubts the wisdom and cost-benefit of the airforce's (understandable) wish to get new fancy toys.
Also, some might suggest, we do have a security strategy in DK, which actually stippulates that there is no threath against danish territory for a forseeable future, in other word's the F35 (forget about the gripen) will not be used in a territorial defense, so the use of the f35 will only be in international missions on foreign soil, and of obvious reasons DK will only be in such conflicts together with major allience partners (F.ex. the US), and it seems to me that such partners are much more interested in our ground forces and navy, than adding a few F35s to the vast pool of the USAF.

Smaller european countries are forced to think their security in an allience context, and hence the small country, depending on the allience for security, should ask it self: "How can I surrport the allience in the best way possible, and thereby surport my own security". It's obvious to me that the small country have some "economy of scale" against it, when we talk of these complex and expensive systems (like modern fighters, large scale airtransportation etc) so maybe the small country should concentrate on strength contributions more suited to be deployed by a smaller country. F.ex. DK could choose to concentrate on having the full brigade ready for international deployment that the last two defense reviews have called for, but a goal yet unfullfilled (money being the problem, not recruitment)- then the americans, brits or germans can bring the modern fighters to the table.

[Grand Danois]

The budget is around 40 bn Dkr (as I understand it) for aquiring the system, you can chose to view those money over 30-35, years, in which case the simple way to determine the finance costs, is by the cost of a loan at 40bn on the international market running for 30-35 years. Without knowing at which interest rate the danish state can loan money, I am pretty sure that the end bill will be substancially higher than 40 billion. My point is that it's a lot of money, that, imho, requires carefull thought before spendt.

In ballpark numbers:

The acquisition budget, i.e. buying jets and implementing them into the air force with initial spares (basically the first 2-4 years) is 20 bn DKKor about 70 mn USD per jet if 48 were to be purchased. That would be a unit procurement cost.

Over the lifetime of the jets an additional 20+ bn DKK or more is required in spares, external support etc.

And running the entire fighter wing is 80-90 bn (or thereabouts) over the period (includes procurement, spares, weapons, support, basing, personnel, everything).

The Norwegians calculated that it would cost 145 bn NOK running their fighter air arm over a similar period, but with 56 jets - and including major base modifications, btw.

I am not saying that we shouldn't have a "fighter wing" of the airforce, but I am suggesting that there is a third option: Keep the F16s. According to "Ingeniøren", this is will be a much cheaper solution (Poland actually just bought f16s....).

The Ingeniøren solution would provide an additional 4-8 years of airframe life (correct me if I remember wrong), which would also include an expensive overhaul. Just to keep old, expensive per flight hour jets flying (they need a fair amount of maint).

I would almost insinuate that it would be cheaper to transfer to Gripen C/Ds right away.

Anyways - there were several options available to the politicians and they chose the "global warrior model" where JSF is the best fit over the "nightwatch model" where Gripen C/D (or E/F) would be the best fit.

I believe they chose wisely with the former model, so we're are just not going to agree. ;)

[Palnatoke]

I believe they chose wisely with the former model

I think that this deal hangs in the balance. The Social democrats have not given their nod, we know the traditional position of SF and R, and the goverment will run a great risc pushing this through with the votes of DF alone. The election is not that far away, and it would be a good position for the Soc to be able to say: Look the goverment just spended 40Bn, on an unneeded new fighter, while the old had half their lifetime left, and the national economy is imploding; How's that for fiscal responsibility?.

But OK, let's say 100 Bn in all. The same as "regionerne" demanded for new hospitals and the like, which I quess is also over the same time length.

[Grand Danois]

I think that this deal hangs in the balance. The Social democrats have not given their nod, we know the traditional position of SF and R, and the goverment will run a great risc pushing this through with the votes of DF alone. The election is not that far away, and it would be a good position for the Soc to be able to say: Look the goverment just spended 40Bn, on an unneeded new fighter, while the old had half their lifetime left, and the national economy is imploding; How's that for fiscal responsibility?.

But OK, let's say 100 Bn in all. The same as "regionerne" demanded for new hospitals and the like, which I quess is also over the same time length.

lol! The "Regions" will spend 280 bn DKK on medicinal supplies on just the hospitals in this period !!! It's 6.2 bn this year with with expected growth to 10 bn dkk in 2016... and this is just for medication on hospitals...

Building the new "super" hospitals may cost 100 bn dkk, but the vast, vast majority of expenses are on salaries.

Anyways I found the danish article you metioned - I thought Ingeniøren made articles inaccessible after three weeks.

Fortrolige tal fra Forsvarskommission: F16-kampfly holder længe endnu*| Ingeniøren (http://ing.dk/artikel/96400-fortrolige-tal-fra-forsvarskommission-f16-kampfly-holder-laenge-endnu)

Bluntly, the article doesn't say 20 years beyond 2020. I've read more accurate reports of this notam which say less than 10 years extra and btw, there are official spreadsheets on how many hours each and every danish F-16... but my Google Foo isn't up to finding it.

I did find these, though, in danish:

national audit, see II.9:
http://www.rigsrevisionen.dk/media%28438,1030%29/A508-07.pdf sec. II.9

and

http://www.fmn.dk/Nyt%20og%20Presse/Documents/evt_anskaf_ny_kampfly.pdf

They both say the F-16s are economically untenable beyond mid-term, then bugger all and let's rebarrel them! :D It just ain't cheaper.

On Polish F-16s; they were delivered in 2006-2009. We need new jets in 2016-2020 - which can slide 2 years to the left. Ten years has passed.

[Palnatoke]

GD

The figure Bent Hansen put out for modernisation was 100 Bn, that is ofcourse exclusive the running costs of the health care system.


Bluntly, the article doesn't say 20 years beyond 2020

No it implies " beyound 2029". I think that one could suggest that, that implies that the smart move is to wait and see....


One could speculate that, given the nice security situation of DK for the moment, what's important is that DK mantains the cabaility to expand it's airforce in the future, should the security situation deteriorate. F16s could do that for us.

It just ain't cheaper.

I think that is highly debateable.

[Grand Danois]

I think that is highly debateable.

Well, I'm going to take the cheap route and make a call to authority and say, with the sources at hand, that taking the F-16s out to 2029 is technically doable but a bad economical decision. :D

btw, "endnu" would mean "yet" or so. As in "yet another 20 years."

[Palnatoke]

Well, I'm going to take the cheap route and make a call to authority and say, with the sources at hand, that taking the F-16s out to 2029 is technically doable but a bad economical decision. :D."

Well I don't think highly about the authorativeness of those behind that claim.

Anyway I admit that 2030 is not helping us a lot, besides stalling a little bit longer, which seems to be what we are doing.

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35 (http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler11102009.html)

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.









I wouldn't be to concerned about the F 35 joint strike fighter program, to many countries have invested in this program. Their would just be delay's on deliveries that's all. The best thing Australia could do is build their own F35 joint strike fighters under licence from the US. This would help the US and be great for the Australian Defence Industry.

[StingrayOZ]

Thats not going to happen. While we might get additional building rights (like turkey fought for) it would add to the cost per plane and would take longer.

Australia is a partner nation that has had real benefits and production given to it. Australia seems pretty happy with that part of the F-35 program. The only part we aren't happy with was delivery dates, which were always going to be close for us anyway. Our rebarrelling went tits up which ment we had even less time than we thought. The F-111 are pretty much offline, and our F-18 are completely shagged.

Hence the Superhornet buy/lease. Which still means we can get a full loadout of F-35, but we can hang out a bit longer, get used to flying a aircraft with simular technologies and even once the F-35 deliveries go ahead, we don't have to be first dressed. We can also opt to keep some as electronic warfare varients if we want or pass them onto the USN which is pretty happy with the whole thing too.

Other airforces may have to perform simular leases/buys, that can be arranged. Hopefully the F-35 will stay on track. Its that sort of optioning that keeps countries like Australia which had a massive imperiative to get something *NOW* in the F-35 program. However, when it became clear we weren't going to get a silver bullet force of F-22's we were dead keen on staying in the F-35 program. It really is the best option if you have the money.

[B3LA]

I do not think that there's a chance in Hell that the F-35 project will be stopped now.
Too much US ego and US $ has already been invested in it.
The US have recklessly put all of their eggs in one dubious looking basket and all old wealthy
NATO members will be forced to buy from it.
They do not have any other options. Sure, they will put up a nice show for the public and they
will all barter and bicker over price and terms, but the bottom line is that classical :
"either you are with us, or you are against us".

Fine, that's the rules of the game and not much to complain about.

What does bother me however, is that all US allies might get an extremly expensive runt that
won't deliver what LM has promised and that the "western" air forces will become weaker from it.
That is not acceptable. Time will tell...

[Sea Toby]

What does bother me however, is that all US allies might get an extremly expensive runt that
won't deliver what LM has promised and that the "western" air forces will become weaker from it.
That is not acceptable. Time will tell...

All three prototype versions have flown, and have been for years. The prototype versions beat Boeing prototype versions in a flyoff watched and developed by the funds of several nations. This so called American aircraft is more a multi-nation program from the very start of the program than any previous aircraft. While there have been some setbacks, the program proceeds and many off the production line aircraft have been built and are being tested. Not once has anyone or any nation complained about the product as yet. Even the GAO and CBO, US government watchdogs, continue to support the program.

The testing program of the production line aircraft is continuing without much of any major setbacks. Since so many nations wish to buy this aircraft, this aircraft is going through the most comprehensive testing of any aircraft in history. So far the aircraft is passing all tests and meeting its specifications called for. For some reason uninformed people are questioning this aircraft. I suspect all of them have other agendas to undercut this aircraft falsely.

There is not ONE crumb of evidence that this aircraft won't deliver as promised. NOT ONE!

[Aussie Digger]

What does bother me however, is that all US allies might get an extremly expensive runt that
won't deliver what LM has promised and that the "western" air forces will become weaker from it.
That is not acceptable. Time will tell...

It is an aircraft that will dwarf all other current aircraft types in numbers built, so the chances of it being greatly more expensive than existing types, is extremely low.

It is an aircraft that is being designed with performance and agility levels superior to those possessed by F-16/F/A-18 aircraft.

It is an aircraft that even if some "downgraded" level "export" aircraft is built, will possess a level of low observability MANY times greater than any other aircraft currently available in the market.

It is an aircraft with outstanding range performance, fuel fraction and load carrying ability.

It is an aircraft with second to none, sensor, avionics and weapons capability.

It is an aircraft that will be EASY to maintain, even compared to current generation aircraft.

In short, it will be a superb aircraft for ANY nation who chooses to buy it. Thinking otherwise is delusional...

[merocaine]

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right, but to my eye, Wheeler would like to fight the way they did in WWII or Korea...

Well not they way America did at any rate.
They take there cue from how the German Army used Air power tactically in the early phases of the conflict. Rightly or wrongly they rubbish the F35 because it is not the best solution to how they believe a war should be fought. There is no surprise that they consider A10 to be Americas most important combat aircraft, its ability to provide close air support to to advancing troops is second to none.

[GI-Gizmo]

The F-35 is a step forward, not backwards like the article tries to point out. Sure, you cannot escape the rules of aerodynamic mathematics which regulate performance on the basis of wing area, thrust-to-weight ratio and weight, but it is alot more complicated than predicting performance based on a few numbers. LockMart developed the Raptor and alot of that technology went into the Lightning II which makes it a leap ahead of any other multirole fighter on anyone elses CAD hard drive. The manufacturing process involves revolutionary building processes, advanced composites and metals and the Lightnings design is truly sensor evading which gives our pilots a huge advantage. The future of US airpower involves the Lightng linked with unmanned systems, force multipliers of all types, satellite sensors and communications and advanced weaponary to deliver cut-throat strikes to enemy forces while taking on and evading even the most advanced air defense systems and fighters. The end of digfighting has been declared many times before and has always been proven wrong once combat ensued. The distributed aperature system DAS, combined radio frequency and infrared SAIRST, the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, Barracuda EW suite combined with the helmet-mounted dispay system lets the pilot become one with the aircraft and use high-off boresight weapons to look and shoot at any target around the Lightning. When needed the 25mm cannon will also come in handy. The Lightnings on-board sensors are amazing and when meshed together with off-board sensors such as UAVs, AWACS, Satellites, etc. true sensor information fusion can occur which provides the computers, pilots and commanders with a real picture of what is going on and enables them to be a step ahead of the enemy and dominate the battlespace.
For strike and bombing missions the Lightning can fly low profile sorties for the beginning of the war when air space is still dangerous. Stand-off weapons can be used, as well as high altitudes or nap-of-earth flying. Once enemy air defenses are crippled the Lightning can be equipped with up to 18,000lbs. payload using external hardpoints. The electro-optical targeting system is like an advanced sniper XL targeting pod built in the aircraft, the AN/APG-81 AESA radar also has amazing capabilities in air-to-ground mode. It can map, detect movement and provide the pilots with a clear image of the ground during night and bad weather. The radar can also be used to jam, disrupt and destroy enemy radars and signals as well as be used as a high bandwidth communications method for friendly forces. It is a truly amazing multimode radar. For close air support the Lightning will use all of its advanced abilities to aid friendly forces and threaten and destroy enemy forces. Special sensors and munitions combined with advanced gear and gadgets that ground forces will have by the time the Lightning becomes the main CAS platform will enable it to provide quick, pinpoint, exact and devastating air cover.

[merocaine]

Special sensors and munitions combined with advanced gear and gadgets that ground forces will have by the time the Lightning becomes the main CAS platform will enable it to provide quick, pinpoint, exact and devastating air cover.

Its the aim of the US armed forces to maintain full gadget domanince. :)

[Grand Danois]

Well not they way America did at any rate.
They take there cue from how the German Army used Air power tactically in the early phases of the conflict. Rightly or wrongly they rubbish the F35 because it is not the best solution to how they believe a war should be fought. There is no surprise that they consider A10 to be Americas most important combat aircraft, its ability to provide close air support to to advancing troops is second to none.

Mmmm. That's what I had in mind. The Germans are a better analogue.

[Grand Danois]

Its the aim of the US armed forces to maintain full spectrum gadget domanince. :)

fixed that for ya. ;)

[merocaine]

ah yes that reads better now!

[Viktor]

I liked mutch more McDonald Douglas JSF project than this F-35.
Its range/payload/speed/agility etc are under every common sense for a future fighter and by my opinion it is obsolete the moment its made. Its one big mistake.

[Feanor]

I liked mutch more McDonald Douglas JSF project than this F-35.
Its range/payload/speed/agility etc are under every common sense for a future fighter and by my opinion it is obsolete the moment its made. Its one big mistake.

Compared to what?

[Aussie Digger]

I liked mutch more McDonald Douglas JSF project than this F-35.
Its range/payload/speed/agility etc are under every common sense for a future fighter and by my opinion it is obsolete the moment its made. Its one big mistake.

Do you mean Boeing? McDonnell Douglas hasn't existed since 1997...

Which tactical fighter has a better range/payload capability whilst remaining in a "stealth" configuration?

It's speed is adequate (Mach 1.6), fighters rarely ever get beyond this speed anyway and it's agility is designed to be superior to the F-16 and F/A-18 both notably agile aircraft.

Your criticism seems a bit "light on" for detail. Perhaps you could expand a bit so a proper rebuttal can be made?

Cheers.

[swerve]

Do you mean Boeing? McDonnell Douglas hasn't existed since 1997...

Cheers.
But before being taken over by Boeing, it had submitted a JSF proposal, supported by Northrop Grumman & BAe. I presume that's what he means. It was eliminated in 1996.

Some pictures (http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_cddr_mda-ngc-bae.htm)

[Feanor]

One quick comment though, AD, there are nations for whom it will not be a good buy. Obviously nations who can't afford to maintain a modern fighter jet. But also nations who are not expecting high-tech conflicts in the near future, and are concerned about developing domestic industry through ToT, and licensed production. China and India come to mind. Brazil seems to be following a similar pattern.

[Viktor]

Compared to what?

Compared to what will come .. in air defence and stealth fighters ...

Actually even now Rafale/Typhoon/Su-35BM/MIG-35 would give it a hard time by my opinion.

[Viktor]

But before being taken over by Boeing, it had submitted a JSF proposal, supported by Northrop Grumman & BAe. I presume that's what he means. It was eliminated in 1996.

Some pictures (http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_cddr_mda-ngc-bae.htm)

Thats it. good old McDonald ... so sad it faded away.

As I read it the project was dismissed because it was far to advanced at time.

[Viktor]

Do you mean Boeing? McDonnell Douglas hasn't existed since 1997...

Look at the swerves post above.


Which tactical fighter has a better range/payload capability whilst remaining in a "stealth" configuration?

F-22 ... and will most likely have China 5th generation and Russia/India PAK-FA....

It's speed is adequate (Mach 1.6)

Its not.


It's speed is adequate (Mach 1.6), fighters rarely ever get beyond this speed

Yes only problem is rarely offently occures in fight and than what? ... Besides its Mach 1.6 is its max speed .. for how long its able to keep up with such small speed ...

and it's agility is designed to be superior to the F-16 and F/A-18 both notably agile aircraft.

Its being designed to be .. but turned out not to ...



Your criticism seems a bit "light on" for detail. Perhaps you could expand a bit so a proper rebuttal can be made?

Well LM since I last time checked out removed celling from its page (witch was about 15 000m first time I sow) ... so how can you expect any detailed info from me ...

[Haavarla]

Yes only problem is rarely offently occures in fight and than what? ... Besides its Mach 1.6 is its max speed .. for how long its able to keep up with such small speed ...

Its being designed to be .. but turned out not to ...

Well LM since I last time checked out removed celling from its page (witch was about 15 000m first time I sow) ... so how can you expect any detailed info from me ...

Here we go again:)
Well, i don't think the Norwegian DoD will be disepointed IF it can't go past 1.6M or be more agile over our current F-16..

You have to look at the big picture here, the F-35 will be a much improved all around platform over the F-16.
Take the improved loiter time on subsonic speed and the situational awareness.
It will clearly have lower RCS on a internal mission configuration vs the F-16.

What i'm worried about is if we can cougfh up the funds for the 56 aircraft when the contract are beeing negotiated..

The F-35 will clearly be better than the current F-16/F-18 today on a overall tender.
I don't see where you are going when compairing the F-35 with the F-22, Su-35S, Pak-Fa or the chinese 5th fighter.
We had to choose between the JAS and the JSF.
The JSF won, thats it..



Thanks

[Viktor]

Well, i don't think the Norwegian DoD will be disepointed IF it can't go past 1.6M or be more agile over our current F-16..

obviously

You have to look at the big picture here, the F-35 will a much improved all around platform over the F-16.
Take the improved loiter time on subsonic speed and the situational awareness.
It will clearly have lower RCS on a internal mission configuration vs the F-16.

Well I agree with you. I would like my country to get some but that will never happen. Im just sorry that they did not put two engines on it with wider internal bay and modify wings so you can have a real monster there .. but than again that would make him F-22. So F-35 is made to work with F-22 witch was made to clear the skies when F-35 comes in the picture. Now F-35 will have to do it.

Anyway any info about its price?

[Haavarla]

obviously



Well I agree with you. I would like my country to get some but that will never happen. Im just sorry that they did not put two engines on it with wider internal bay and modify wings so you can have a real monster there .. but than again that would make him F-22. So F-35 is made to work with F-22 witch was made to clear the skies when F-35 comes in the picture. Now F-35 will have to do it.

Anyway any info about its price?


Nope:)
I've seen a lot of different figures on different forums and non any thrust worthy, so i think i leave it with that..
One positive thing here is that the time-line which the Norwegian DoD have planned the procurment phase, is when the fly-away cost per unit are down at the lowest(2017-2020).
And of course that its been in service in some years by then, which mean LM should have killed all minor problems if there are any when the F-35A enter service.



Thanks

[Viktor]

To make one thing clear. Im speaking here about F-35 not Norway.

[Haavarla]

To make one thing clear. Im speaking here about F-35 not Norway.


I know.
The prize can and quite possible will be different for the different level F-35 development partners and the time-line which the F-35 are procured(then-years dollar), how many units beeing procured and bla bla bla...
And for the pesimistic folks around here, any delays and setbacks on the development..;)

Sooo we'll just have to wait and see.




Thanks

[Bonza]

Im just sorry that they did not put two engines on it with wider internal bay and modify wings so you can have a real monster there .. but than again that would make him F-22.

With regard to the internal bay of the F-35, it's actually cleared for heavier carriage weights than that of the F-22. You can't just look at air-to-air missile payload and say the F-22's internal carriage is superior. You have to look at weight clearance as well.

If missile count is still a concern, then consider the following:

1. If there is a demonstrated need for increased internal carriage, there is the space and weight capacity in the F-35's bay to accommodate that - there have already been whispers about AMRAAM carriage being increased to six.

2. In situations where number of missiles is a primary tactical concern, an F-35 can carry a substantial external carriage which, while detrimental to RCS, should not be discounted. Use of a heavily missile laden F-35 as a "shooter platform" could potentially figure into the next point:

3. The capability to cue missile shots via datalink means that while a platform's individual carriage may not necessarily look impressive, the potential missile shots available at a given time within a battlespace is still substantial.

3. There's indications that JDRADM, when developed, will be internally carried by the F-35 in larger numbers than the current AMRAAM allows.

[Aussie Digger]

Look at the swerves post above.

Why, you blokes are making these claims, not Swerve and certainly not, I...

F-22 ... and will most likely have China 5th generation and Russia/India PAK-FA....

Really?

F-22's internal payload is 6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 (2380lbs) or 2x 1000lbs JDAM and 2x AMRAAM (2670lbs). (Internal). The F-22 is also cleared to carry 4x external AMRAAM missiles on top of this load. (4010lbs total).

F-35's internal payload (A/C model) is 2x AMRAAM and 2x 2000lbs class weapons (4670lbs).

So, no, the F-22 does NOT have the payload capability of the F-35.

Range? Well both have 18000+ lbs of fuel carried internally, but the F-22 is heavier AND has 2 engines.

Make your own mind up but consider - similar fuel load, (slightly in favour of F-35) one engine v 2 engines, (in favour of F-35) one heavy aircraft v one lighter aircraft, (in favour of F-35) both predominantly carry stores internally (no advantage) and one is designed to fly supersonically for longer periods than the other (supersonic flight realises increased fuel burn over economic subsonic flight. Supercruise only realises decreased fuel burn compared to supersonic flight achieved with reheat - in favour of F-35).

As for Russian/Chinese 5th Gens. I'll consider them when I actually see an airframe flying and production orders being placed. Until then it is nothing but sheer speculation.

Its not.

Really. Why not? Because of the extended periods of time fighters spend ABOVE M1.6... :rolleyes:

You are kidding yourself if you seriously think this is the case. EVERY fighter spends the majority of it's operational flying hours flying subsonically. It is only for particular roles that supersonic speeds are reached and these are generally reached during acceleration towards the "merge" and for A2G weapons launch roles.

The idea that a fighter than can do M2 outmatches a fighter than can "only" do M1.6 is absolute rubbish. If we were talking about a race, you would be right. But we are NOT. We are talking about combat and it is a FACT that even a M2.5 capable aircraft (such as the F-15) has rarely exceeded M1.4 in combat.

The reason is A) the restrictions on the airframe carrying external weapons, B) the restrictions on an in-service airframe itself - the older it gets the more it's performance is restricted and C) the amount of time available in combat to build up to these enormous speeds.

Further questions also present themselves if you want to talk about sheer speed:

First of all, what are your weapons rated to? A fighter might well be able to do M2.5 for a period of time, but what can it's weapons withstand? What speed can it achieve carrying external sensor pods (which cannot be ejected) and the fuel tanks it needs to achieve ANYTHING like a decent range, unless it has a massive internal fuel load?

So, bearing these things in mind, please feel free to show me why M1.6 is insufficient for a modern fighter...

Yes only problem is rarely offently occures in fight and than what? ... Besides its Mach 1.6 is its max speed .. for how long its able to keep up with such small speed ...

1. M1.6 with an operational warload is not "small". (F-35's KPP - key performance parameter is to achieve M1.6 with a full internal fuel load of 18500+ lbs of fuel, plus 5700lbs of weapons PLUS it's usual A2A and A2G sensor payload).

2. M1.6 is NOT the F-35's speed limit, but rather the KPP, ie: F-35 MUST be able to achieve M1.6. In no way does that mean that F-35 can ONLY achieve M1.6. As a further example, it's air intakes are designed to "flow" up to M2.0 airspeeds. Make of that what you will... :)

Its being designed to be .. but turned out not to ...

Really. You know this or are you speculating?

Prove how you know this... L-M is still describing it as such...

Well LM since I last time checked out removed celling from its page (witch was about 15 000m first time I sow) ... so how can you expect any detailed info from me ...

Look harder or prepared to be embarassed when you make the claim. PLENTY of information is available. PDF's for Norway contain all sorts of information...

Ceiling is 50,000 feet+ too...

[Grand Danois]

(F-35's KPP - key performance parameter is to achieve M1.6 with a full internal fuel load of 18500+ lbs of fuel, plus 5700lbs of weapons PLUS it's usual A2A and A2G sensor payload).

It's better than "just" meeting KPP - it's meeting them at end-of life conditions.

The weight purge of a few years ago was so “intensive,” Crowley said, that “there’s not thousands of pounds” of weight left to be saved on the F-35. However, even with a three percent annual weight growth, the key performance parameters, or KPPs, won’t be affected.

“All of our predictions for performance are based on an end-of-life, worst-case” scenario relative to the F135 engine’s power capacity, “so the true performance of the jet, throughout its life, will be much better.”

Fighter of The Future (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/July%202009/0709Fighter.aspx)

cheers

[Viktor]

Why, you blokes are making these claims, not Swerve and certainly not, I...

Whats the problem?


F-22's internal payload is 6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 (2380lbs) or 2x 1000lbs JDAM and 2x AMRAAM (2670lbs). (Internal). The F-22 is also cleared to carry 4x external AMRAAM missiles on top of this load. (4010lbs total).

F-35's internal payload (A/C model) is 2x AMRAAM and 2x 2000lbs class weapons (4670lbs).

So, no, the F-22 does NOT have the payload capability of the F-35.

Well you can interpert as you like but the fact that in standard configuration F-22 carries 6 AIM-120 and F-35 only 2 says enough for itself.


Really?

Yes. You had a interview with Vympel director some while ago in witch it mentioned some hudge internal bay being constructed for next generation AAM and based on F-35 analisis I have no doubt China will make same mistake in constructing its own 5th generation.


Range? Well both have 18000+ lbs of fuel carried internally, but the F-22 is heavier AND has 2 engines.

Make your own mind up but consider - similar fuel load, (slightly in favour of F-35) one engine v 2 engines, (in favour of F-35) one heavy aircraft v one lighter aircraft, (in favour of F-35) both predominantly carry stores internally (no advantage) and one is designed to fly supersonically for longer periods than the other (supersonic flight realises increased fuel burn over economic subsonic flight. Supercruise only realises decreased fuel burn compared to supersonic flight achieved with reheat - in favour of F-35).


F-22 (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html)
F-35A (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html)
F-35B (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35b-stovl-specifications.html)
F.35C (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35c-cv-specifications.html)

So keep on the good work. Range does not depend only on factors you remembered to mention.


As for Russian/Chinese 5th Gens. I'll consider them when I actually see an airframe flying and production orders being placed. Until then it is nothing but sheer speculation.

Well Pogosyan already said PAK-FA is made to match F-22 not F-35 and something similar announced China so as you see no one really cares mutch about F-35 and that is problem since F-22 producton stoped.


Really. Why not? Because of the extended periods of time fighters spend ABOVE M1.6...

You are kidding yourself if you seriously think this is the case. EVERY fighter spends the majority of it's operational flying hours flying subsonically. It is only for particular roles that supersonic speeds are reached and these are generally reached during acceleration towards the "merge" and for A2G weapons launch roles.

The idea that a fighter than can do M2 outmatches a fighter than can "only" do M1.6 is absolute rubbish. If we were talking about a race, you would be right. But we are NOT. We are talking about combat and it is a FACT that even a M2.5 capable aircraft (such as the F-15) has rarely exceeded M1.4 in combat.

The reason is A) the restrictions on the airframe carrying external weapons, B) the restrictions on an in-service airframe itself - the older it gets the more it's performance is restricted and C) the amount of time available in combat to build up to these enormous speeds.

Further questions also present themselves if you want to talk about sheer speed:

First of all, what are your weapons rated to? A fighter might well be able to do M2.5 for a period of time, but what can it's weapons withstand? What speed can it achieve carrying external sensor pods (which cannot be ejected) and the fuel tanks it needs to achieve ANYTHING like a decent range, unless it has a massive internal fuel load?

So, bearing these things in mind, please feel free to show me why M1.6 is insufficient for a modern fighter...

Following your logic it was mistake in the first place to make fighter that can go above the speed of sound.

1. M1.6 with an operational warload is not "small". (F-35's KPP - key performance parameter is to achieve M1.6 with a full internal fuel load of 18500+ lbs of fuel, plus 5700lbs of weapons PLUS it's usual A2A and A2G sensor payload).


Where did you get this from?


2. M1.6 is NOT the F-35's speed limit, but rather the KPP, ie: F-35 MUST be able to achieve M1.6. In no way does that mean that F-35 can ONLY achieve M1.6. As a further example, it's air intakes are designed to "flow" up to M2.0 airspeeds. Make of that what you will...

Oke .. where did you get this from? That would be good but than again same can be said about any fighter than.

1) Its its KPP speed so max one is lets say 30 percent higher .. hehe
2) Su-24 can go Mach 2 or so but still flies at KPP Mach 1.4 lol


Really. You know this or are you speculating?

Prove how you know this... L-M is still describing it as such...


Smalest T/W ratio. If its any smaller I doubt It could even fly.

Ceiling is 50,000 feet+ too...

Thats small to.

Look harder or prepared to be embarassed when you make the claim. PLENTY of information is available. PDF's for Norway contain all sorts of information...


Embarassed?? ... what because of different opinion.

[Bonza]

Having a differing opinion is one thing, but you're speaking in absolutes - for example, you expressed that a larger bay on the F-35 would make it more like the F-22, and when informed of the F-35 being cleared for heavier internal carriage, you bring up AMRAAM capacity as though this proves your point.

AMRAAM capacity isn't the be-all and end-all, and reality certainly doesn't support your logic that the Raptor has a larger internal carriage than F-35. Larger AMRAAM payload - for now, sure. But please read my post above.

And no, Aussie Digger's logic does NOT dictate it was a mistake to build supersonic fighters in the first place. Either you're putting words in his mouth for the sake of argument, or you totally misunderstood his point.

[Palnatoke]

AD

The idea that a fighter than can do M2 outmatches a fighter than can "only" do M1.6 is absolute rubbish. If we were talking about a race, you would be right. But we are NOT. We are talking about combat and it is a FACT that even a M2.5 capable aircraft (such as the F-15) has rarely exceeded M1.4 in combat.


I don't know about "outmatches", but speed has a role. F.ex. in a long range engagement (which I for one believe is the 2030+ future) , say, fighter A, would fire it's missile(s) at fighter B, then turn around and escape the re-action from fighter B (a missile). The faster fighter A is, the longer the missile of fighter B has to fly (and, say, a difference of 0.5mach will result in significant longer fly time for the missile).


On a general note, the F35 distinquishes herself only by virtue of it's stealth characteristics, besides stealth the plane has it's pros and cons, yes, it's loaded with the finest of electronics, but that is what we would expect from any brand new fighter. So if we ignore the political dimension, the question, in my mind, is what does stealth mean in air combat in the periode 2020-2050?

Will stealth be "make or break"? Or will radars and other sensors during the next decade "catch up" with the challenge of stealthy objects and assure timely detecton the moment you got a line of sight - regardless of the stealth of the F35?

Personally I bet my money on the advances of electronics, it appears to me that the task of "hiding" an object from an electromagnetic field is much harder than the opposite, and going by Moore's law, we can expect that a future radar will be able to perform much more extensive and complex DSP on the return signal. Future more Material physics is an area that have seen giant leaps the last decade or two. When this new scientific understandnig is transformed into practical "technic", who knows which kind of radars you can make?

[the road runner]

Will stealth be "make or break"? Or will radars and other sensors during the next decade "catch up" with the challenge of stealthy objects and assure timely detecton the moment you got a line of sight - regardless of the stealth of the F35?

My understanding is that when you have to spend money on upgrading your Radars/sensors to detect LO Aircraft,thats less money you get to spend on other parts of your defence Forces.

This point has always stuck out in my mind as being a major advantage of choosing a Lo Aircraft.

Great post AD

[Bonza]

On a general note, the F35 distinquishes herself only by virtue of it's stealth characteristics, besides stealth the plane has it's pros and cons, yes, it's loaded with the finest of electronics, but that is what we would expect from any brand new fighter. So if we ignore the political dimension, the question, in my mind, is what does stealth mean in air combat in the periode 2020-2050?

I don't agree that the electronics systems can be discounted from the equation because "we can expect that from any new fighter". The F-35's electronic systems are a level above anything being demonstrated by other manufacturers and countries, so I don't think it's fair to treat it as though it's merely a typical development rather than something exceptional.

Remember too that low observability/signature management isn't a static thing. The capability of detection systems will increase, but the capability of technology to respond to those systems will increase also.

[Todjaeger]

AD

I don't know about "outmatches", but speed has a role. F.ex. in a long range engagement (which I for one believe is the 2030+ future) , say, fighter A, would fire it's missile(s) at fighter B, then turn around and escape the re-action from fighter B (a missile). The faster fighter A is, the longer the missile of fighter B has to fly (and, say, a difference of 0.5mach will result in significant longer fly time for the missile).

Yes, speed does have a role, but not the one referenced above. The duration of a missile's flight is determined by the range to the target. It is not a direct correlation to the speed of the target aircraft. The max speed of an aircraft (and its ability to sustain that speed) determine an aircraft's ability to close with, or possibly escape from, an engagement or target. That may, or may not matter depending on the engagement. For example, Fighter A has a lock on and shoots an AIM-120C-7AMRAAM at Fighter B from a range of 30 n miles... Whether Fighter B's max speed if Mach 2.5, or 'only' Mach 1.6 does not really matter. Either way, Fighter B still cannot effectively outrun the inbound missile.


On a general note, the F35 distinquishes herself only by virtue of it's stealth characteristics, besides stealth the plane has it's pros and cons, yes, it's loaded with the finest of electronics, but that is what we would expect from any brand new fighter. So if we ignore the political dimension, the question, in my mind, is what does stealth mean in air combat in the periode 2020-2050?

Will stealth be "make or break"? Or will radars and other sensors during the next decade "catch up" with the challenge of stealthy objects and assure timely detecton the moment you got a line of sight - regardless of the stealth of the F35?

Personally I bet my money on the advances of electronics, it appears to me that the task of "hiding" an object from an electromagnetic field is much harder than the opposite, and going by Moore's law, we can expect that a future radar will be able to perform much more extensive and complex DSP on the return signal. Future more Material physics is an area that have seen giant leaps the last decade or two. When this new scientific understandnig is transformed into practical "technic", who knows which kind of radars you can make?

The poster seems to be ignoring the significant amount of work done in a number of discplines to allow the F-35 to achieve information/situational dominance. The is a combination of changes to and developments in sensors to provide more all-aspect information, changes to avionics in how information is both processed, as well as how the pilot will interaction with the avionics. Lastly, there is the work done to reduce the signature of the JSF so that it is LO.

Taking the above example of Fighter A vs. Fighter B, even if the range is increased to a much greater degree... The max speed of Fighter B again becomes moot if Fighter A can detect and engage Fighter B without Fighter B becoming aware of it. Speed allows one to act, but if one is ignorant of the need to act, it does no good.

-Cheers

[Feanor]

Todjaeger what if the range of engagement in your scenario is more like 100 nm? Then does it change? What if fighter A fires from the very edge of the engagement envelope, and then uses superior speed to escape? Then can it outrun the missile?

[Todjaeger]

Todjaeger what if the range of engagement in your scenario is more like 100 nm? Then does it change? What if fighter A fires from the very edge of the engagement envelope, and then uses superior speed to escape? Then can it outrun the missile?

The situation has a number of different variables, so changing the details of a scenario around canl have a large impact. Within an engagement there will an NEZ (No Escape Zone), this basically the range at which an aircraft cannot escape from an inbound missile. This range is of course variable depending on the missile, as well as the speed of both the launching and targeted aircraft, the max acceleration of the targeted aircraft, and other factors...

As for Fighter A, there is no need for it to 'escape' since it is the launching platform. The scenario I had given was whether or not Fighter B could escape a missile fired from Fighter A. Given a range of just 30 n miles (IIRC edge of BVR/WVR envelope) Fighter B would not have the ability to escape.

-Cheers

[Feanor]

So there is an egagement range at which fighter b would be able to use greater speed to escape from the missile? In that case the speed still has relevance. A fighter that has M3, will be able to escape from much closer engagement ranges, then a fighter that hits it's limits at M1.6.

[Aussie Digger]

Whats the problem?

Opinions based on a lack of understanding and research...

Well you can interpert as you like but the fact that in standard configuration F-22 carries 6 AIM-120 and F-35 only 2 says enough for itself.

What "standard" configuration?

F-35 will have the ability to carry 4x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally at Block III and have a defined growth path to 6x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally for F-35 Block IV/V depending on customer requirements.

If air to ground payloads are carried internally, BOTH aircraft feature reduced air to air payloads, the difference being that F-35A/C can carry 2000lbs class munitions (and obviously smaller ones) internally whereas F-22 can only carry 1000lbs JDAM and SDB.

Yes. You had a interview with Vympel director some while ago in witch it mentioned some hudge internal bay being constructed for next generation AAM and based on F-35 analisis I have no doubt China will make same mistake in constructing its own 5th generation.

Me? I've never heard of the director of Vympel...



F-22 (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html)
F-35A (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html)
F-35B (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35b-stovl-specifications.html)
F.35C (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35c-cv-specifications.html)

So keep on the good work. Range does not depend only on factors you remembered to mention.

Please note the F-22's 1600nm range is ONLY achieved with the addition of external drop tanks. This is a ferry configuration, NOT a combat configuration for the F-22A.

It's range on internal fuel only is less impressive. F-35A/C's range is always measured on internal fuel only since external fuel tanks were dropped for integration in the SDD phase.

However, I did mention range/payload rather than simply range, so whilst I do firmly believe the F-35's range exceeds the F-22's on internal fuel alone, the performance I was referring to was a combination of range AND payload.

No fighter on earth besides the F-35 can carry 5000lbs+ of weapons internally AND carry it's sensors internally AND carry 18500lbs+ fuel internally.


Well Pogosyan already said PAK-FA is made to match F-22 not F-35 and something similar announced China so as you see no one really cares mutch about F-35 and that is problem since F-22 producton stoped.

Very easy to announce things. Much more difficult to design, build and test an ACTUAL 5th Generation fighter. Something L-M has done twice now and no other manufacturer in the world has yet achieved.

I'll believe Pogosyan's claims when I see PAK-FA make it's first flight. You know, that flight that was meant to take place in June, then August, then November and now apparently it's December 2009???

:)

They should care. By the time F-35 is finished production, the USA will have a fleet of 2600 5th generation fighter aircraft in-service. Even the most ardent critic should be prepared to admit that, this presents a rather large threat to ANY force...


Following your logic it was mistake in the first place to make fighter that can go above the speed of sound.

No, I mentioned quite clearly that supersonic speeds ARE regularly achieved by tactical fighters. What is not regularly achieved are M2 + speeds and the reasons are because of how long it takes to get there, how much fuel it burns and it's operational utility in ANY scenario except fleeing a fight trying to save one's own skin...

Where did you get this from?

Google. It's your friend...

Oke .. where did you get this from? That would be good but than again same can be said about any fighter than.

1) Its its KPP speed so max one is lets say 30 percent higher .. hehe
2) Su-24 can go Mach 2 or so but still flies at KPP Mach 1.4 lol

You seem fixated on maximum speed. It is almost entirely irrelevent, for the majority of combat roles. If pure speed was the most important factor for a tactical fighter, every fighter would be built like the MiG-25 Foxbat.

As should be patently obvious they are not. Not even Russian and Chinese fighters, so perhaps you could draw an inference or 2 from this, eh?

Smalest T/W ratio. If its any smaller I doubt It could even fly.

T/W. Really in what configuration, the usual 50% internal fuel rubbish? A REALLY useful metric. Do you comprehend that at 50% fuel a fighter is either on the way home OR on the way to the tanker? It is NOT a combat configuration that a fighter would WANT to be in, if a fight was likely, so why it's considered useful for thrust to weight comparisons baffles me a little bit, however it is popular, so I'll use it too.

Please bear in mind also that 50% fuel for the F-35A/C is more than 9200lbs of fuel. That is greater than the total internal fuel capacity of some current tactical fighters including the F-16, Rafale and Gripen and very close to being the same as the total internal fuel load of fighters including F/A-18 Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon.

If you want to compare T:W ratios, perhaps you could try it at the same fuel weights and see how F-35 goes? You'll see it stacks up VERY well...

Or perhaps we could just compare the F-35 to a modern "threat" fighter - the SU-30Mk. (This is done not to try and prove which is better in a pi**ing contest but rather to illustrate that the F-35's physical characteristics is not as bad as some like to make out. I will NOT discuss a comparison between the 2 any further in accordance with the rules of the board).

Weight: ~12.7 tons (F-35A) vs ~17.7 tons (SU-30)
Internal Fuel: ~8.4 tons (F-35A; configuration 240-4.7) vs ~9.4 tons (SU-30; max. overload w/modifications)
Fuel Fraction: ~0.40 (F-35A) vs ~0.35 (SU-30MK)
Wing Area: 42.7 sq-m (F-35A) vs 62 sq-m (SU-30)
Engine type: 1 x P&W F135-PW-100 (F-35A) vs 2 x Saturn AL-31FL (SU-30MK)
Engine bypass: 0.57:1 (F-35A) vs 0.59:1 (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (A/B): 19.5 tons (F-35A) vs 24.9 tons (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (Dry): 12.7 tons (F-35A) vs 15.3 tons (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (A/B w/50% fuel): 1.15:1 (F-35A) vs 1.11:1 (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (Dry w/50% fuel): 0.75:1 (F-35A) vs 0.68:1 (SU-30MK)
Radar: 700mm class AESA (F-35A) vs 1000mm class MSA or PESA (SU-30MK)
RCS: ~0.0014 sq-m (F-35A) vs ~10 sq-m (SU-30MK)

Your turn...

[Todjaeger]

So there is an egagement range at which fighter b would be able to use greater speed to escape from the missile? In that case the speed still has relevance. A fighter that has M3, will be able to escape from much closer engagement ranges, then a fighter that hits it's limits at M1.6.

Speed certainly has relevance, but only to a degree.

For starters, fighters are still going to be mostly flying at subsonic speeds since it is more fuel efficient. Even for an aircraft designed with the ability to supercruise for tactically useful distances (i.e. the F-22 Raptor), the extra speed has a drastic negative impact on range and flight duration. IIRC the F-22 has an unrefueled range of ~ 700 miles, which drops to around 500 miles total, including a 100 mile supercruise dash.

The long and short of the above means that an aircraft capable of flying at Mach 3 will still need a chance to accelerate to reach that speed, while the inbound missile will most likely already be traveling at Mach 3+.

Another important distinction to remember is that the target aircraft is not really trying to (or capable...) of outrunning a missile. Taking the MiG-25 Foxbat as an example of a fighter, it has a top speed of ~Mach 3.2, which is still not enough to keep an AMRAAM from being able to close on the MiG since it has a top speed of ~Mach 4. Rather, an aircraft which has been targeted with missile needs to get itself to a location further from the point of launch than the missile's range is. Additionally, it needs to do this faster than the missile can.

Will a high speed aircraft can help the above situation, it is much easier to be at long range already.

-Cheers

[Feanor]

That was my only point. We are in agreement then that speed is tactically relevant, but is not the decisive feature.

I'll believe Pogosyan's claims when I see PAK-FA make it's first flight. You know, that flight that was meant to take place in June, then August, then November and now apparently it's December 2009???

To the best of my knowledge it's still supposed to fly this month. Do you have a source stating otherwise?

[Palnatoke]

Yes, speed does have a role, but not the one referenced above. The duration of a missile's flight is determined by the range to the target. It is not a direct correlation to the speed of the target aircraft.

This is wrong, it's a simple question of math, but without doing the equation(s) of motion, think of it in this (incorect, though instructive) way:
Iniially there is distance D between shooter and target, in the time span, t, that it takes the missile to cover the distance d, the target vill have moved s=v_t*t, where v_t is the speed of target. So the missile will have to also cover distance s which it will do in s/v_m, where v_m is the speed of missile.... etc (becarefull that you don't end up ith Zenon's paradoks;) )
If you do it the correct way you end up with a system of differential equations, where the important parameters is d,v_t and v_m, and if I am not much mistaken you can recast that only to depend on d and R where R is the ratio between v_m and v_t. So the point is proven if the ratio between v_t and v_m is significant. Without knowing the specs of a modern long range air to air missile I think it's fair to assume that the speed of the missile is less than, say, three times greater than the speed of target, in other words the ratio significant.
In the comparative analysis between a faster and a slower jet, it will only be the difference of speed between them that's interesting. Let's say that the difference is 0.5M, then I will guess (from the top of my head) that the faster yet holds some 15% range advantage in the above example.
This is ofcourse "everything equal". I am not saying that the above is crucial or make or break - I am just saying that there is an not-insignificant effect of higher speeds, but ofcourse "everything is seldomly equal"


The max speed of an aircraft (and its ability to sustain that speed) determine an aircraft's ability to close with, or possibly escape from, an engagement or target. That may, or may not matter depending on the engagement. For example, Fighter A has a lock on and shoots an AIM-120C-7AMRAAM at Fighter B from a range of 30 n miles... Whether Fighter B's max speed if Mach 2.5, or 'only' Mach 1.6 does not really matter. Either way, Fighter B still cannot effectively outrun the inbound missile.


Yes, if you recast the question in such away that no matter what the target is within the envolope of the missile, distance is irrelevant and hence the relative speeds are irrelevant. Though - everything equal - in such a scenario you end up with a high probability of a "kill-kill" (both planes destroy each other).


The poster seems to be ignoring the significant amount of work done in a number of discplines to allow the F-35 to achieve information/situational dominance. The is a combination of changes to and developments in sensors to provide more all-aspect information, changes to avionics in how information is both processed, as well as how the pilot will interaction with the avionics.


If you carefully read what I write I am not ignoring it. I am acknowledging the cutting edge electronics of the new plane, though I add that, that those electronics are not cutting edge in the near future. This plane will, just like any other plane need constant updates to stay cutting edge.


Lastly, there is the work done to reduce the signature of the JSF so that it is LO.


Yes. That's the interesting question vis a vis the F35.


Taking the above example of Fighter A vs. Fighter B, even if the range is increased to a much greater degree... The max speed of Fighter B again becomes moot if Fighter A can detect and engage Fighter B without Fighter B becoming aware of it. Speed allows one to act, but if one is ignorant of the need to act, it does no good.
-Cheers

Agreed.

[Scorpion82]

That was my only point. We are in agreement then that speed is tactically relevant, but is not the decisive feature.



To the best of my knowledge it's still supposed to fly this month. Do you have a source stating otherwise?

It was stated in a recent interview with someone from the engine manufacturer Saturn. 29th december to be exactly.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This is wrong, it's a simple question of math, but without doing the equation(s) of motion, think of it in this (incorect, though instructive) way:
........SNIP.....
In the comparative analysis between a faster and a slower jet, it will only be the difference of speed between them that's interesting. Let's say that the difference is 0.5M, then I will guess (from the top of my head) that the faster yet holds some 15% range advantage in the above example.
This is ofcourse "everything equal". I am not saying that the above is crucial or make or break - I am just saying that there is an not-insignificant effect of higher speeds, but ofcourse "everything is seldomly equal"
I have to agree with this. We need to remember the missile is not flying at an aircraft, its flying at a piece of sky that off board sensors are saying the aircraft will be at a certain point in the future. Thus the effective engagement envelope of a missile is significantly effected by the targets course and speed; a head-on shot with both shooter and target at high speed and altitude (shooter) will significantly increase the missiles maximum range.

Tod's point about a NEZ/V is indeed true; if a target is within that range it cannot out run the missile. However the target's top speed and acceleration partially determine the size of the NEZ. In simple terms the faster the other guy can move the closer you have to be to prevent him from outrunning your shot. The other critical element in determining the NEZ is information. If the target does not know he has been fired upon he cannot utilise his speed advantage to outrun the missile. Having a top speed of Mach 2 won’t do squat if you are in a low energy state and the first sign of a missile shot is your RWR goes off and the incoming's seeker has acquired you. This is why the F-35’s speed “disadvantage” will not really be relevant vs. 4th gen fighters in the BVR regime, the level of information dominance will mean that most targets will be engaged without even knowing it.


Yes, if you recast the question in such away that no matter what the target is within the envolope of the missile, distance is irrelevant and hence the relative speeds are irrelevant. Though - everything equal - in such a scenario you end up with a high probability of a "kill-kill" (both planes destroy each other).

That is entirely dependant on countermeasures.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Opinions based on a lack of understanding and research...



What "standard" configuration?

F-35 will have the ability to carry 4x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally at Block III and have a defined growth path to 6x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally for F-35 Block IV/V depending on customer requirements.

If air to ground payloads are carried internally, BOTH aircraft feature reduced air to air payloads, the difference being that F-35A/C can carry 2000lbs class munitions (and obviously smaller ones) internally whereas F-22 can only carry 1000lbs JDAM and SDB.



Me? I've never heard of the director of Vympel...



Please note the F-22's 1600nm range is ONLY achieved with the addition of external drop tanks. This is a ferry configuration, NOT a combat configuration for the F-22A.

It's range on internal fuel only is less impressive. F-35A/C's range is always measured on internal fuel only since external fuel tanks were dropped for integration in the SDD phase.

However, I did mention range/payload rather than simply range, so whilst I do firmly believe the F-35's range exceeds the F-22's on internal fuel alone, the performance I was referring to was a combination of range AND payload.

No fighter on earth besides the F-35 can carry 5000lbs+ of weapons internally AND carry it's sensors internally AND carry 18500lbs+ fuel internally.




Very easy to announce things. Much more difficult to design, build and test an ACTUAL 5th Generation fighter. Something L-M has done twice now and no other manufacturer in the world has yet achieved.

I'll believe Pogosyan's claims when I see PAK-FA make it's first flight. You know, that flight that was meant to take place in June, then August, then November and now apparently it's December 2009???

:)

They should care. By the time F-35 is finished production, the USA will have a fleet of 2600 5th generation fighter aircraft in-service. Even the most ardent critic should be prepared to admit that, this presents a rather large threat to ANY force...




No, I mentioned quite clearly that supersonic speeds ARE regularly achieved by tactical fighters. What is not regularly achieved are M2 + speeds and the reasons are because of how long it takes to get there, how much fuel it burns and it's operational utility in ANY scenario except fleeing a fight trying to save one's own skin...



Google. It's your friend...



You seem fixated on maximum speed. It is almost entirely irrelevent, for the majority of combat roles. If pure speed was the most important factor for a tactical fighter, every fighter would be built like the MiG-25 Foxbat.

As should be patently obvious they are not. Not even Russian and Chinese fighters, so perhaps you could draw an inference or 2 from this, eh?



T/W. Really in what configuration, the usual 50% internal fuel rubbish? A REALLY useful metric. Do you comprehend that at 50% fuel a fighter is either on the way home OR on the way to the tanker? It is NOT a combat configuration that a fighter would WANT to be in, if a fight was likely, so why it's considered useful for thrust to weight comparisons baffles me a little bit, however it is popular, so I'll use it too.

Please bear in mind also that 50% fuel for the F-35A/C is more than 9200lbs of fuel. That is greater than the total internal fuel capacity of some current tactical fighters including the F-16, Rafale and Gripen and very close to being the same as the total internal fuel load of fighters including F/A-18 Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon.

If you want to compare T:W ratios, perhaps you could try it at the same fuel weights and see how F-35 goes? You'll see it stacks up VERY well...

Or perhaps we could just compare the F-35 to a modern "threat" fighter - the SU-30Mk. (This is done not to try and prove which is better in a pi**ing contest but rather to illustrate that the F-35's physical characteristics is not as bad as some like to make out. I will NOT discuss a comparison between the 2 any further in accordance with the rules of the board).

Weight: ~12.7 tons (F-35A) vs ~17.7 tons (SU-30)
Internal Fuel: ~8.4 tons (F-35A; configuration 240-4.7) vs ~9.4 tons (SU-30; max. overload w/modifications)
Fuel Fraction: ~0.40 (F-35A) vs ~0.35 (SU-30MK)
Wing Area: 42.7 sq-m (F-35A) vs 62 sq-m (SU-30)
Engine type: 1 x P&W F135-PW-100 (F-35A) vs 2 x Saturn AL-31FL (SU-30MK)
Engine bypass: 0.57:1 (F-35A) vs 0.59:1 (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (A/B): 19.5 tons (F-35A) vs 24.9 tons (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (Dry): 12.7 tons (F-35A) vs 15.3 tons (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (A/B w/50% fuel): 1.15:1 (F-35A) vs 1.11:1 (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (Dry w/50% fuel): 0.75:1 (F-35A) vs 0.68:1 (SU-30MK)
Radar: 700mm class AESA (F-35A) vs 1000mm class MSA or PESA (SU-30MK)
RCS: ~0.0014 sq-m (F-35A) vs ~10 sq-m (SU-30MK)

Your turn...

Damn AD, you didn't leave much for the rest of us?! :D

[Palnatoke]

I don't agree that the electronics systems can be discounted from the equation because "we can expect that from any new fighter". The F-35's electronic systems are a level above anything being demonstrated by other manufacturers and countries

Well, demonstrated, that's propably correct. That'll be, it's correct for now. Just like other airplanes also demonstrated superiority when they where new and fresh out of the "design office".


so I don't think it's fair to treat it as though it's merely a typical development rather than something exceptional.


Well, perhaps I am not so easely impressed.

Remember too that low observability/signature management isn't a static thing. The capability of detection systems will increase, but the capability of technology to respond to those systems will increase also.

I am not so certain that you can improve stealth in the same order as electronics are improved. And certainly, the builded plane, can only marginally be improved in a number of the factors that add up to the stealthy characteristics of the plane.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, demonstrated, that's propably correct. That'll be, it's correct for now. Just like other airplanes also demonstrated superiority when they where new and fresh out of the "design office".

The bulk of the F-35's new capability lead is in its "electronics", and it's been the lions share of the R&D too. The F-35 is miles ahead of the competition in this respect, and the fact is avionics are the most readily upgraded element of the platform i.e. the F-35 is miles ahead of the competition and this lead is not entrenched in the design. It CAN and WILL be upgraded constantly. Just look at the evolution of the F-16 family, it still offers avionics options that even the Typhoon and Flanker family do not. I doubt anyone will "catch up" ever.


I am not so certain that you can improve stealth in the same order as electronics are improved. And certainly, the builded plane, can only marginally be improved in a number of the factors that add up to the stealthy characteristics of the plane.

Electronics are a critical part of "stealth". LPI sensors/comms and countermeasures are just as important to maintaining an F-35 information dominance as airframe materials and plan form alignment. Anyway the F-35 of 2030 WILL have a smaller RCS than the F-35 of 2015 simply throught improvements in signature management tech.

[fltworthy]

To the best of my knowledge it's still supposed to fly this month. Do you have a source stating otherwise?
According to latest edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, in speaking with Russian engineers involved with the program, Jane's was told that the PAK-FA would most likely be ready for flight in March 2010. They expect that there will still be a roll-out ceremony in December, however, as a face-saving measure.

[Bonza]

Well, demonstrated, that's propably correct. That'll be, it's correct for now. Just like other airplanes also demonstrated superiority when they where new and fresh out of the "design office".

Granted - although if you can name another "design office" that has the kind of money and expertise flowing through it as can be found in the US, I'm all ears. Such a thing becomes relevant when discussing the timescale of a similar system being fielded.

Given the ever increasing pace of technological advancement however I take your point that such systems will proliferate, but I don't think it's going to be soon given the lead time the US have, and given the ease with which the F-35 can incorporate new developments (which I mention in more detail below).

Well, perhaps I am not so easely impressed.

Perhaps. :)

I am not so certain that you can improve stealth in the same order as electronics are improved. And certainly, the builded plane, can only marginally be improved in a number of the factors that add up to the stealthy characteristics of the plane.

As Ozzie said, electronic systems are a significant part of signature management, it's not just RAM and fuselage shaping and all that. If you can coax GF into a response on signature management he'd probably be the best person to ask about this, I'll freely admit to having pretty limited knowledge of the topic.

As far as improvements of the completed platform go, the software architecture of the F-35 - being all C++ - is specifically intended to allow for future developments and ease of upgrading. This is one of the issues the F-22 has - it's architecture isn't nearly so easily modified, so upgrades become (from some accounts) extremely problematic. I know this isn't the point you were addressing specifically but as electronics improvements came up I thought it was relevant (you may already know though).

I appreciate that you were referring specifically to RCS reductions, and as I said I have limited knowledge so I don't know what degree of change would be expected over the next few decades.

[Palnatoke]

That is entirely dependant on countermeasures.

Notice the "Everything equal". But yes.

Both Bonza and OB

I think that the argument, "Well this is the US and therefore the electronics are beyound other people" is not only dangerous but is also becoming quickly outdated, if it is not outdated. You can't rest on your laurels. While I am inclined to agree that there is a good chance that certain american aviation companies are a "horse head ahead", I don't think it's a very sound nor fruitfull way of argumenting.

In respect to stealth. As I understand it, structual "stealth" (reflection) as well as subression of radar ressonance are pretty well understood and not something one would expect big breakthroughs in. The dissipation of energy in material (the coating, I think it's called RAM) is probably something that holds a larger potential for improvements as do different techniques for always presenting the optimal angle to attacking radar, or mangement of EM radiation etc.
The last areas are btw not techs that are specific to F35, but could in principle be applied to any airplane's update cycle.

[Palnatoke]

As far as improvements of the completed platform go, the software architecture of the F-35 - being all C++

I am happy to learn that they didn't do it in visual basic:cool:

[Palnatoke]

To make my self clear on electronics;

Having cutting edge electronics today, is not a stand alone argument why we should buy it with a view for use the next 30 years.
Also the comparison of electronics of a brand new aircraft or recently updated aircrafts with electronics of older aircrafts is not very usefull, since the older aircrafts might be up for updates in a few years that will make them more cuting edge at that point in time.

[Scorpion82]

To make my self clear on electronics;

Having cutting edge electronics today, is not a stand alone argument why we should buy it with a view for use the next 30 years.
Also the comparison of electronics of a brand new aircraft or recently updated aircrafts with electronics of older aircrafts is not very usefull, since the older aircrafts might be up for updates in a few years that will make them more cuting edge at that point in time.

Exactly and the "the threat won't be aware of the missile until it goes active" entirely ignore the fact that almost every new fighter, including updated examples will feature MAWs which could enable them to detect a threat missile long before its seeker is going active.

[Grand Danois]

Exactly and the "the threat won't be aware of the missile until it goes active" entirely ignore the fact that almost every new fighter, including updated examples will feature MAWs which could enable them to detect a threat missile long before its seeker is going active.

From what I can deduce from how modern MAWS works, you would get a half of dozen seconds warning before the seeker goes active. An UV based system like that currently employed on the Gripen wouldn't detect a missile like AIM-120C before it going active. Don't know the potential range of the RF system on the EF, though.

[Scorpion82]

From what I can deduce from how modern MAWS works, you would get a half of dozen seconds warning before the seeker goes active. An UV based system like that currently employed on the Gripen wouldn't detect a missile like AIM-120C before it going active. Don't know the potential range of the RF system on the EF, though.

For passive systems the range much depends on the weather conditions as well, but according the russians a BVR AAM could be detected 30 km away with the SOAR for example and the technology is further evolving in that area.

[Todjaeger]

This is wrong, it's a simple question of math, but without doing the equation(s) of motion, think of it in this (incorect, though instructive) way:
Iniially there is distance D between shooter and target, in the time span, t, that it takes the missile to cover the distance d, the target vill have moved s=v_t*t, where v_t is the speed of target. So the missile will have to also cover distance s which it will do in s/v_m, where v_m is the speed of missile.... etc (becarefull that you don't end up ith Zenon's paradoks;) )
If you do it the correct way you end up with a system of differential equations, where the important parameters is d,v_t and v_m, and if I am not much mistaken you can recast that only to depend on d and R where R is the ratio between v_m and v_t. So the point is proven if the ratio between v_t and v_m is significant. Without knowing the specs of a modern long range air to air missile I think it's fair to assume that the speed of the missile is less than, say, three times greater than the speed of target, in other words the ratio significant.
In the comparative analysis between a faster and a slower jet, it will only be the difference of speed between them that's interesting. Let's say that the difference is 0.5M, then I will guess (from the top of my head) that the faster yet holds some 15% range advantage in the above example.
This is ofcourse "everything equal". I am not saying that the above is crucial or make or break - I am just saying that there is an not-insignificant effect of higher speeds, but ofcourse "everything is seldomly equal"


What I was attempting to do was keep the explanation simple, without digging out one of my physics books, since the equation is actually a bit more complicated than the above. Some of the other factors which needs to be taken into account is the headings to the shooter and target relative to each other, as well as the initial energy state of the shooter, the initial energy state of the target and the target's ability to accelerate. In addition to the max speed of the target...

Please note the quoted text which I highlighted in bold. As has been noted, most air-to-air engagements will occur when both target and shooter are at high subsonic speeds. Having checked, the main western BVR missiles (AMRAAM and Meteor) are both listed with speeds in excess of Mach 3, which would mean that the missile once fired is moving at greater than three times the initial engagement speed of the target aircraft.

Due to this speed difference, it becomes difficult for a targeted aircraft to get to a safe area outside the range of the incoming air-to-air missile unless the aircraft was already close to that range limit. Naturally, the faster the targeted aircraft is, the greater the distance it can be and still be 'close' to the edge of the missile envelope, but I would expect that pilots as a rule would only take shots when then are confident of achieving success, or they have no other alternative.

As for the avionics of the F-35 being designed to be superior to what else is currently available... Yes, considerable effort has been made to achieve that and I consider it likely to be a success. Additionally, part of the design effort has been to not only have the avionics package be superior to other aircraft, but also be easy to maintain and update, to maintain that superiority over time. What also is apparently being overlooked are systems like EO DAS, which is not something which can just be added onto an aircraft as part of an upgrade programme and other work done on F-35 systems to integrate the aircraft into a system wide response.

-Cheers

[Bonza]

To make my self clear on electronics;

Having cutting edge electronics today, is not a stand alone argument why we should buy it with a view for use the next 30 years.
Also the comparison of electronics of a brand new aircraft or recently updated aircrafts with electronics of older aircrafts is not very usefull, since the older aircrafts might be up for updates in a few years that will make them more cuting edge at that point in time.

Certainly, but then how do you integrate a system as complex as the DAS into an older aircraft? Do older aircraft even have the architecture or computing power to make such upgrades practical?

I think that the argument, "Well this is the US and therefore the electronics are beyound other people" is not only dangerous but is also becoming quickly outdated, if it is not outdated.

I know what you mean, but it's not some innate cultural expectation I have, I just find it difficult to argue with the numbers. I'd expect the same thing of anyone with a long history of successful application of air power and that many zeroes in their defence budget.

Edit: Just to reinforce, I'm not trying to push some pro-US agenda for the sake of it. In terms of pursuing information dominance, the F-35's systems are a remarkable achievement - and would be just as impressive regardless of what platform on which they appeared.

The use of object-oriented code in the F-35 software shouldn't be discounted, as it allows for tremendous flexibility in future systems integration - however I take your point on this one Palnatoke as I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of this in new aircraft, given the extremely widespread commercial base available for such software development.

Of course, it's not just a matter of putting a shiny new system into a warplane. You need the battle doctrine and information sharing systems in place to support the system before you can make full use of it. I'm not sure what other nation's priorities are in this regard, but they aren't necessarily going to be the same as that of the US. Not to say that such a system is "beyond other nations", but a) does the way they utilize airpower create a requirement for said technology, and b) are all the off-board systems in place to enable the full potential of the technology (in terms of information handling, force integration, etc).

To the last point, I think it's important to remember that the system won't operate in a vaccuum - it'll operate within the US force structure. As such, it is impressive because of the synergies it achieves across the board.

[Aussie Digger]

Certainly, but then how do you integrate a system as complex as the DAS into an older aircraft? Do older aircraft even have the architecture or computing power to make such upgrades practical?

Not even the processing power. Do older aircraft simply have the space within the airframe to fit 6x of these?

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/images/Product-images/combat/F-35.jpg

What about an optical fibre communications network in the aircraft (and the inherent bandwidth therein) instead of hundreds of kilos of cabling?

Replacing the wiring in an aircraft is not a trivial or cheap exercise...

It's easy to say that older aircraft "can be upgraded". It's not quite so practical to do so...

With a pre-planned Block upgrade path, an "open architecture" combat system, high band width fibre network within the aircraft, easily replaceable processors and C++ software and weight and space within the aircraft available for system enhancements such as an internal DIRCM, upgrading the F-35 and continuing to maintain it's capability "at the leading edge" is going to be demonstrably easier than aircraft which do not possess these features...

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Exactly and the "the threat won't be aware of the missile until it goes active" entirely ignore the fact that almost every new fighter, including updated examples will feature MAWs which could enable them to detect a threat missile long before its seeker is going active.

I highly doubt a MAWS is going to detect an incoming missile that is past it’s sustain phase (i.e. very small IR signature) outside the 20km to 30km (active phase) range. Considering dedicated IRST cannot detect afterburning targets at much greater range without cueing I don’t think a MAWS with one fifth the aperture size is going to do so against a missile without an exhaust plume.

"Long before" would imply 50 or 100% greater than that (45km~60km)? I don’t think so.

In any case, this does not alter the fundamentals of the argument. If your first indication that you have been engaged is your MAWS goes off the missile is well within its now extended NEZ. Outrunning a missile only works if you run early enough, being the point I was making.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Not even the processing power. Do older aircraft simply have the space within the airframe to fit 6x of these?

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/images/Product-images/combat/F-35.jpg

What about an optical fibre communications network in the aircraft (and the inherent bandwidth therein) instead of hundreds of kilos of cabling?

Replacing the wiring in an aircraft is not a trivial or cheap exercise...

It's easy to say that older aircraft "can be upgraded". It's not quite so practical to do so...

With a pre-planned Block upgrade path, an "open architecture" combat system, high band width fibre network within the aircraft, easily replaceable processors and C++ software and weight and space within the aircraft available for system enhancements such as an internal DIRCM, upgrading the F-35 and continuing to maintain it's capability "at the leading edge" is going to be demonstrably easier than aircraft which do not possess these features...

Additionally you have to do the R&D; the systems integration alone on the F-35 is hideously complicated. In order for other nations to "catch up" they will not only have to develop the technology being deployed on the F-35, they will have to develop and operationally deploy those technologies before the next round of F-35's block upgrades is rolled out, all a competitive disadvantage with less money, less resources and less expertise.

The US/West has held this lead since the days of the F-86 and its radar ranging gun-sight. It’s never really been made good by the Russians or Chinese. I don’t see why the next 20~30 years will be any different.

[Scorpion82]

I highly doubt a MAWS is going to detect an incoming missile that is past it’s sustain phase (i.e. very small IR signature) outside the 20km to 30km (active phase) range. Considering dedicated IRST cannot detect afterburning targets at much greater range without cueing I don’t think a MAWS with one fifth the aperture size is going to do so against a missile without an exhaust plume.

"Long before" would imply 50 or 100% greater than that (45km~60km)? I don’t think so.

In any case, this does not alter the fundamentals of the argument. If your first indication that you have been engaged is your MAWS goes off the missile is well within its now extended NEZ. Outrunning a missile only works if you run early enough, being the point I was making.

Well I have to agree that a detection long before is unlikely if the seekers acquisition range is 20 km to 30 km, it of course depends on the seeker performance and if the seeker is going to acquire the target at such a long range there is enough time to react anyway. Modern IIR seekers are capable to detect heat sources smaller than a pixel element and the question is at what range a target is detected within a reasonable FOV. IR tech isn't going to get worse either.