Is the F35 a waste of time?

[sferrin]

Originally Posted by DJ.

But you are already stated with no uncertain terms, that there is no way in hell that PAK-FA or JXX could possibly in any way be anywhere near close to capability of F22.

So?

[obligatory]

Originally Posted by LmRaptor

Thats the big issue .

There is another issue too. If the F-35 traveling 1100 km/h fire a U-turn missile against something behind it, the missile will have to overcome 1100 km/h just to stand still in the air, its 4-6 sec fuel is probably spent by that time, so it will just fall of the sky.
Nice fantasy tho

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by Sign

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
Not good news in the F-35 fanclub..

Australian Air Power and Dr Carlo Kopp has been discredited so many ways its not funny.........

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by LmRaptor

Sorry here it is:

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/so...odasvideo.html

This is why the F-35 is going to have unparalleled Situational Awareness!



(i.e. First Look, First Shot, First Kill)

[aurcov]

Originally Posted by dionis

Yes really.

How many times is a ground radar level and head on with a fighter?

Apparently ~ 5000 times (the F 117 flew ~ 5000 war sorties in 1991 and after, and only one was shot)...

The trick is to know the direction of the enemmy radar and to tailor the trajectory so to offer the lowest RCS. See in the attachement the F 22 central MFD.

[aurcov]

Originally Posted by CommanderJB

While I'm sure it'll be ready I can't ever imagine a pilot sacrificing precious AMRAAM slots given his huge advantage in BVR for a capability he shouldn't even need. The 'DAS makes manoeuvrability irrelevant' is also an interesting claim as it's interesting to see how DAS enables the aircraft to avoid any incoming missiles if he doesn't have any jamming in his rear area and a nozzle from a very large engine with fairly unimpressive IR damping. I mean, sure you'll be able to see the missile heading for you, but I wouldn't have though that capability would 'makes manoeuvrability irrelevant' by any measure unless you have serious anti-missile capabilities to back it up with. And with limited aspect jamming, limited IR signature suppression and no towed decoys it's a little hard to see how that could be claimed.

Go to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produc...tor/index.html and check the two videos down the page. As you may see in the second video that shows the f 22 flying downtown Orlando, there is no jet-induced degradation of the F 22 MLD starring back. And consider that the F 35 DAS is more advanced than the F 22 MLD. Also, in the F 35 the DAS will detect the launching plane, not only the incoming missile (this is what today MLD can already offer).

[aurcov]

Originally Posted by Sign

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
Not good news in the F-35 fanclub..

Anyone who quotes Kopp should be banned for at least 1 month ...

[aurcov]

Originally Posted by obligatory

There is another issue too. If the F-35 traveling 1100 km/h fire a U-turn missile against something behind it, the missile will have to overcome 1100 km/h just to stand still in the air, its 4-6 sec fuel is probably spent by that time, so it will just fall of the sky.
Nice fantasy tho

This scenarion is about a dogfight, when the atacker is close behind the F 35. For a glimpse of the 9X capabilty, go to http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/aim-9x/ and check the video "Unleasing the Next Generation Sidewinder". So, yes, the 9X will fall, but it will fall in the other guy head. It is true that the datalink is not yet implemented in the 9X, so for the LOAL it will take 2-3 more years.

[ocay84]

It may be true that F-35 is not stealth as we thought but I think it will be enough stealthy aircraft with combination BAE System Baracuda-EW suit it will have capability avoid enemy radars, so that F-35 will be enough survivable in areas which defended by modern SAMs.

But in other point of view Eurocanards also have modern EW suit and data fusion capability to avoid EW radars but it is possible only in stand-off distance. With combination stand-off bombs (like SDB, AASM, HOBOS..) they have effective first day strike capability like F-35.

[jbritchford]

What I was getting at originally was

'What will the F-35 do so much better than the F-22 that will justify both its additional development costs and greater cost per unit than legacy style systems?'

The US or NATO is unlikely to go to war with any nation with stealth capabilities in the forseeable future. If they do, then the F-22 can ensure air dominance and attack high value ground targets.

The current requiremenet is simply for cheap, non stealthy CAS aircraft with multi role a2a ability, like the F16 or the Gripen.


Just a speculative note; would it have been a cheaper/easier option to navalise the Raptor for the USN than develop F-35C?

[LordAssap]

jbritchford = 'What will the F-35 do so much better than the F-22 that will justify both its additional development costs and greater cost per unit than legacy style systems?'

Air to groud as a bomb truck?

The US or NATO is unlikely to go to war with any nation with stealth capabilities in the forseeable future. If they do, then the F-22 can ensure air dominance and attack high value ground targets.

Agreed, more to it as the "Service" once stated, they never intended to go to war with the F-35 WITHOUT the F-22, what people tend to forget is that this couple inherited from the Hi-Lo doctrine of the 70's and that original requierements (and therefore design features) of F-35 were for a supersonic replacement for the Harrier II+.

This gives F-35 what i regard limited Air-superiority capabilties considering the USAF requierements for it and current 4th generation fighter performances:

1) Supercruise.

2) High Max Ceilling.

3) EM Low Observability

4) IR Low Observability.

5) High maneuvrability.

F-35 responds ONLY two out of five of these requierements.

The current requiremenet is simply for cheap, non stealthy CAS aircraft with multi role a2a ability, like the F16 or the Gripen.

Curent yes but that which made the design characteristics and thus the performances weren't for a true multirole, only for limited A2A as with the II+...

Just a speculative note; would it have been a cheaper/easier option to navalise the Raptor for the USN than develop F-35C?

I don't think so, it is in FACT a lot more difficult to navalise an aircraft designed for a land-based role than the other way around...

I DO apreciate your non-nosense and objective aproach to the subjects you tackle... Happy New Year to ALL.

[wrightwing]

Originally Posted by jbritchford

What I was getting at originally was

'What will the F-35 do so much better than the F-22 that will justify both its additional development costs and greater cost per unit than legacy style systems?'

The US or NATO is unlikely to go to war with any nation with stealth capabilities in the forseeable future. If they do, then the F-22 can ensure air dominance and attack high value ground targets.

The current requiremenet is simply for cheap, non stealthy CAS aircraft with multi role a2a ability, like the F16 or the Gripen.


Just a speculative note; would it have been a cheaper/easier option to navalise the Raptor for the USN than develop F-35C?

The F-35's avionics have a lot more A/G capabilities, and the geometry of the weapon bays allows for a wider variety of A/G weapons in the VLO mode, than the F-22.

[wrightwing]

Originally Posted by LordAssap

This gives F-35 what i regard limited Air-superiority capabilties considering the USAF requierements for it and current 4th generation fighter performances:

1) Supercruise.

2) High Max Ceilling.

3) EM Low Observability

4) IR Low Observability.

5) High maneuvrability.

F-35 responds ONLY two out of five of these requierements.

Actually the F-35 meets 3 of those, and possibly 4 once the full flight testing is finished.

[flex297]

Originally Posted by Scooter

Australian Air Power and Dr Carlo Kopp has been discredited so many ways its not funny.........

Originally Posted by aurcov

Anyone who quotes Kopp should be banned for at least 1 month ...

He has never been discredited by anyone except a bunch of fanboys full of rage and revenge for dissing of their beloved bird. You all together would not be able to provide a half amount of the analysis he does.

Please, read his article step by step and provide data on the contrary. Although, I am not sure whether you are able to even understand what he writes, let alone prove him wrong.

[sferrin]

Originally Posted by flex297

He has never been discredited by anyone except a bunch of fanboys full of rage and revenge for dissing of their beloved bird. You all together would not be able to provide a half amount of the analysis he does.

Please, read his article step by step and provide data on the contrary. Although, I am not sure whether you are able to even understand what he writes, let alone prove him wrong.

Except that Carlo doesn't have access to any actual real information. Oops.

[CommanderJB]

Originally Posted by aurcov

Go to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produc...tor/index.html and check the two videos down the page. As you may see in the second video that shows the f 22 flying downtown Orlando, there is no jet-induced degradation of the F 22 MLD starring back. And consider that the F 35 DAS is more advanced than the F 22 MLD. Also, in the F 35 the DAS will detect the launching plane, not only the incoming missile (this is what today MLD can already offer).

Sorry, but I really can't see how what you've posted relates to what I said at all. Obviously it picks up missiles and sees things well at night. I never contested that. What caused my eyebrows to raise was the claim that it 'made manoeuvrability irrelevant' because in the event of not getting the first shot (which DAS should have little effect on in A2A at least as the F-35 would seem certain to see any approaching aircraft from a very great distance with its ESM gear anyway) then seeing a missile heading for you is no great comfort unless you can do something about it. When you combine the fact that DAS operates within a sphere that will be covered by a Mach 4 missile in a matter of seconds, and that the pick-up of long-range missiles will be delayed even further because their motors will have gone cold some while ago, other than chaff and flares, it's difficult to see what the JSF driver is going to do except manoeuvre.

[CommanderJB]

Originally Posted by sferrin

Except that Carlo doesn't have access to any actual real information. Oops.

Of course, the same thing goes for 99% of people who 'discredit' him...

[LordAssap]

Of course, the same thing goes for 99% of people who 'discredit' him...

Perhaps not but he have got enough knowledge and credential to make a proper analysis.

Which is way out of reach of most writers we know...

[dionis]

Originally Posted by aurcov

Apparently ~ 5000 times (the F 117 flew ~ 5000 war sorties in 1991 and after, and only one was shot)...

The trick is to know the direction of the enemmy radar and to tailor the trajectory so to offer the lowest RCS. See in the attachement the F 22 central MFD.

What a bloody brilliant idea! The enemy are dunces and have their mobile, modern SAM systems in just one spot and glued to the ground!

[dionis]

Originally Posted by Carlo Kopp

When the Soviet Union collapsed during the early 1990s, it possessed the largest and most dense IADS globally, equipped with some of the most advanced and longest ranging Surface to Air Missile (SAM) systems in existence. Despite its depth, density and enormous geographical extent, this IADS was readily penetrated by the US Air Force’s F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter, which was specifically built to defeat this system. The B-2A Spirit stealth bomber, at that stage in advanced development, was also designed to penetrate this IADS and its then planned successors with virtual impunity."

The only sketchy and non-analytical part of that article is that LOL!

So the Americans invaded Russia?

[swerve]

Originally Posted by CommanderJB

... the pick-up of long-range missiles will be delayed even further because their motors will have gone cold some while ago, ....

Not all of them. Meteor will still be burning, though throttled back until the terminal phase.

[wrightwing]

Originally Posted by CommanderJB

Sorry, but I really can't see how what you've posted relates to what I said at all. Obviously it picks up missiles and sees things well at night. I never contested that. What caused my eyebrows to raise was the claim that it 'made manoeuvrability irrelevant' because in the event of not getting the first shot (which DAS should have little effect on in A2A at least as the F-35 would seem certain to see any approaching aircraft from a very great distance with its ESM gear anyway) then seeing a missile heading for you is no great comfort unless you can do something about it. When you combine the fact that DAS operates within a sphere that will be covered by a Mach 4 missile in a matter of seconds, and that the pick-up of long-range missiles will be delayed even further because their motors will have gone cold some while ago, other than chaff and flares, it's difficult to see what the JSF driver is going to do except manoeuvre.

If DAS can see waves in the ocean, I suspect a missile travelling at Mach 4 will have a larger IR signature. Additionally, the DAS should see a threat aircraft/missile, before they see the F-35.

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by wrightwing

If DAS can see waves in the ocean, I suspect a missile travelling at Mach 4 will have a larger IR signature. Additionally, the DAS should see a threat aircraft/missile, before they see the F-35.

The F-35 will also be linked with many other sources. Which, is why its situational awareness is going to be unprecedented amoung fighters....

[LordAssap]

Originally Posted by Scooter

The F-35 will also be linked with many other sources. Which, is why its situational awareness is going to be unprecedented amoung fighters....

Perhaps it's time to look at what others are doing in this field?

[LordAssap]

Originally Posted by wrightwing

Actually the F-35 meets 3 of those, and possibly 4 once the full flight testing is finished.

Really? Demonstrate PLEASE.

L-M says it doesn't supercruise.

The engine doesn't have ANY IR reducing measures.

Its Operational ceilling is 10.000 ft lower than that of a 4th generation aircraft.

It is STRUCTURALY limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9 G vs 11 G possible for ours (and even more structuraly i.e 9 g + 90%).

To compensate for this they'll have to do a lot of software twicking because the harware isn't designed for it.

I'm waiting impatiently.

[sferrin]

Originally Posted by CommanderJB

Of course, the same thing goes for 99% of people who 'discredit' him...

The thing that's so funny is that he thinks if he cons the Austrailian government into avoiding the F-35 that they'll get the F-22. Their choice isn't between the two but between the F-35 or no stealth. Sure, some will say "we have ECM" but how many ECM equipped aircraft have been shot down? (It's a rhetorical question as everyone knows the answer is "lots".)

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by LordAssap

Really? Demonstrate PLEASE.

L-M says it doesn't supercruise.

The engine doesn't have ANY IR reducing measures.

see below

Its Operational ceilling is 10.000 ft lower than that of a 4th generation aircraft.

Numbers please

It is STRUCTURALY limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9 G vs 11 G possible for ours (and even more structuraly i.e 9 g + 90%).

Wrong, all are 9g airframes but the C model is limited for ease of maintenance

To compensate for this they'll have to do a lot of software twicking because the harware isn't designed for it.

Care to support this claim?

I'm waiting impatiently.

1) Supercruise.
Will it get to 1.7 like the F-22... no, but 1.2 is likely

2) High Max Ceiling.
Not known at this time but must meet or beat the specs of the fighters it replaces as stated in RFP.

3) EM Low Observability
No problem

4) IR Low Observability.
Not as good as F-22, but better than 4th gen. Check the a$$ end of the F135 and you will see very thick, white "feathers" in the exhaust nozzle. The only reason they would have to be thick is that they are not make out of metal.

5) High maneuverability.
In a recent flight test (with the weight UN-optimized AA-1 airframe) with a fully loaded (both fuel and 5000 lbs of simulated ordnance), the pilot stated that it accelerated as good as a clean F-16 Blk 50 and maneuvered almost as well as the F-22.

[LordAssap]

Originally Posted by sferrin

The thing that's so funny is that he thinks if he cons the Austrailian government into avoiding the F-35 that they'll get the F-22.

He's got some very valid arguments and elaborates to a level i haven't seen in this forum, so i wonder what you guys real motivation IS at bashing the guy's up.

If you think he is so bad why dont you just tell us why in technical terms?

Please counter his claims properly instead of going personal which have little impact on the subject anyway.

I dont care your opinion on the guy, this is not a saloon for old gossiping ladies but a military forum (or am i mystaking?).

1) Supercruise.
Will it get to 1.7 like the F-22... no, but 1.2 is likely

NOT according to L-M themself if you have an official refresh feel free to post it otherwise this is another legend forum trying to survive reality.

2) High Max Ceiling.
Not known at this time but must meet or beat the specs of the fighters it replaces as stated in RFP.

WRONG: As requiered 35.000ft.

3) EM Low Observability
No problem

Yes problem: Way lower than F-22.

4) IR Low Observability.
Not as good as F-22, but better than 4th gen. Check the a$$ end of the F135 and you will see very thick, white "feathers" in the exhaust nozzle. The only reason they would have to be thick is that they are not make out of metal.

Sorry mate every single engine curently inmservice posses these but NO IR superssion measure as such i.e engine case AND exhaust cooling.

5) High maneuverability.
In a recent flight test (with the weight UN-optimized AA-1 airframe) with a fully loaded (both fuel and 5000 lbs of simulated ordnance), the pilot stated that it accelerated as good as a clean F-16 Blk 50 and maneuvered almost as well as the F-22.

Yea sure. You still CANT read limited to....

For your info, the current generation of AAMs needs to pull 3 X a target amount of Gs to score a kill WITHIN its NEZ, which means a 7.0 or 7.5 Gs aircraft is history even out of the NEZ.

I leave the 9 G version off the hook as in many scenarios other aircrafts will be limited to 9 Gs too but...

When one CAN pull 11 Gs it's another story alrogether and does a LOT more for survivibility than limited EM L.O. expecialy vs an IR AAM when your engine runs hotter than anything else in the world and isn't colled as much as some concurent.

almost as well as the F-22

Below 7.0 7.5 or 9.0 G, i know a few trainers capable of this...

Welcome back to hearth.

[flex297]

Originally Posted by sferrin

Except that Carlo doesn't have access to any actual real information. Oops.

It's not like you or anyone on this forum does.. The man at least tries to analyze in depth the handful of useful info that was published. The ones who 'discredited' him so 'successfully' provided nothing but trolling..

[LordAssap]

Originally Posted by flex297

It's not like you or anyone on this forum does.. The man at least tries to analyze in depth the handful of useful info that was published. The ones who 'discredited' him so 'successfully' provided nothing but trolling..

I concur.

Note that i do not necessarly agrees with all that he wrote, in particular about Typhoon where i (Yes you read well even myself know Typhoon design basher) thought he was a tad over critical.

But i happen to have followed the F-35 story from a long time ago and have tons of vey useful archives.

People are total blinded by a technico-commercial F-35 mythology and forget the reality of the program and its design.

I personaly define it as a "Stealthy A7" rather than a true multi-role.