• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
GR66 said:
Totally out of my lanes question here...

One of the major selling points of the F-35 vs. a cheaper missile carrier is its sensor capability.  Would it be possible to have an F-35 act as a form of "mother ship" and transmit it's information to helmet mounted HUD's in nearby less "capable" aircraft?  I know it's a hypothetical question at this point but it seems to go along with the model of what some are suggesting for swarms of armed UAV's.

First off, there really isn't a "cheaper missile carrier." Super Hornet might be, depending on how they structure a potential Brazilian order and the order package's features. However to make it cheaper you would likely go with an older avionics package that would not have the ability to do what you're asking.

On that note, really the only sustained situation where a so-called  4th and 5th generation generation aircraft will operate together  is with the Navy and the F/A-18E/F for the first 10 years of service. The key capability for them will be the upgrade of the Super Hornet with Advanced Mission Computer 4 (AMC 4), which will unlock a lot of major capabilities. Its quite possible that it would get MADL as well during a future iteration... but that's not clear.

MarkOttawa said:
At the moment the F-35 (and F-22) has problems communicating with 4th gen. fighters:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-seeks-information-on-connecting-4th-and-5th-gen-fighters-382396/

Mark
Ottawa

By 2025 there will be very few such aircraft in service for the USAF, or our major NATO allies. Really you're looking at the two hundred or so F-15E and maybe less than a hundred Golden Eagle depending on how that program will unfold. The F-16s should mostly or completely be out of service by then, maybe the A-10 as well. That's the entire point of the JSF program; its going to replace most tactical aircraft in the US military service and among the NATO allies.  By 2025, it will represent the baseline capability in the western world, not the F-16, Eurofighter or any other aircraft.
 
MilEME09 said:
Why not just buy an AWACS then?, problem with drones is the limits on them such as speed, operational range, and weapons load out. If your drone fires its only two AIM-9's you have an expensive target, that probably can only intercept for a few seconds.

http://nation.time.com/2013/05/20/overheard-on-the-flight-deck-of-the-uss-george-h-w-bush/?iid=obinsite

This UAS (drones refer only to unmanned aircraft flying a pre-determined route) seems like it has pretty good speed, operational range, and weapons load out.  The problem with the 2 x AIM-9 is the same as with the load out of a conventional aircraft.... once you expend all ammo, you're basically done.  A f35/F-22 would just take a bit more time to kill than an UAS once it's weapons are gone.
 
HB_Pencil:

By 2025 there will be very few such aircraft in service for the USAF, or our major NATO allies. Really you're looking at the two hundred or so F-15E and maybe less than a hundred Golden Eagle depending on how that program will unfold. The F-16s should mostly or completely be out of service by then, maybe the A-10 as well. That's the entire point of the JSF program; its going to replace most tactical aircraft in the US military service and among the NATO allies.  By 2025, it will represent the baseline capability in the western world, not the F-16, Eurofighter or any other aircraft.

"Upgrades expected to keep F-16 flying past 2030"
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20120919/NEWS/209190330/Upgrades-expected-keep-F-16-flying-past-2030

"BAE Calls F-16 Upgrade Push ‘Logical Step’
...
In the U.S., Lockheed is the main contractor on a $2.8 billion Air Force program to upgrade about 350 of the single-engine fighters’ airframes and avionics systems. The multi-year effort slated for certain Block 40 and Block 50 versions is designed to keep the aircraft viable after 2025 in part because of delays to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program..."
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/06/18/bae-calls-f-16-upgrade-bid-logical-step/

And those Typhoons and Rafales will stlll be operational with the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and France--rather major allies.  Germay, France and Spain have no plans to buy F-35s and the British and Italian numbers are most likely to be far less than once planned:
http://news.sky.com/story/1086720/philip-hammond-unsure-about-f-35-order
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/defence-italy-f-idUSL5N0EB2WJ20130530

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
HB_Pencil:

"Upgrades expected to keep F-16 flying past 2030"
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20120919/NEWS/209190330/Upgrades-expected-keep-F-16-flying-past-2030

"BAE Calls F-16 Upgrade Push ‘Logical Step’
...
In the U.S., Lockheed is the main contractor on a $2.8 billion Air Force program to upgrade about 350 of the single-engine fighters’ airframes and avionics systems. The multi-year effort slated for certain Block 40 and Block 50 versions is designed to keep the aircraft viable after 2025 in part because of delays to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program..."
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/06/18/bae-calls-f-16-upgrade-bid-logical-step/

Yes, 350 F-16s may get upgrades to get them to 2030... but that's not the aircraft the RCAF will likely ever operate with. By 2025, there will be approximately 800 to 900 or so F-35As and 180 F-22s in USAF service. The F-35s will go to frontline squadrons (such as the Marines in Iwakuni)...and those will be the squadrons the RCAF will see operationally.

Those 350 F-16 will replace aircraft at the bottom of the force structure; CONUS ANG squadrons that won't see their F-35s until 2028 or so. Currently there are 359 F-16C and Ds in the reserves... and those will be replaced by the CAPES aircraft. Then again, given how DoD just moved the IOC date up by a year that they may accelerate production and forgo CAPES altogether.

That's why the only legacy aircraft RCAF F-35s will operate with after 2025 are F-15Es, and maybe F-15Cs... but I doubt it. Should we be concerned about operating with Californian ANG squadrons? probably not. ANG deployments are usually to less demanding environments; Navy ones are extremely rare.

MarkOttawa said:
And those Typhoons and Rafales will stlll be operational with the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and France--rather major allies.  Germay, France and Spain have no plans to buy F-35s and the British and Italian numbers are most likely to be far less than once planned:
http://news.sky.com/story/1086720/philip-hammond-unsure-about-f-35-order
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/defence-italy-f-idUSL5N0EB2WJ20130530


Mark
Ottawa

The situation in those countries will likely look quite similar to the USAF frontline/ANG issue. You'll probably see the Italians and Brits use their F-35s at the forefront of operations given their capabilities. The Eurofighter will likely remain home in the UK or see limited service as the B-team. That's pretty apparent based on Stephan Hillier's comments to parliament a few years back. (see question 118)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/860/860.pdf

I'll respond to your other points later.
 
Haletown said:
No plans for Canada to acquire B models, just the A type.
That's unfortunate.
I'm not a big jet guy but a VSTOL variant would probably be pretty sweet in so far as working with the combat arms goes.
 
That would not make any difference in the support that you would see.

They're not going to land at a FOB and pick up passengers.
 
Loachman said:
That would not make any difference in the support that you would see.
Because the non-green Airforce doesn't deploy where there aren't 4-star+ hotels?    :whistle:
 
Again, forgive my ignorance but do all the aircraft need to be the latest and greatest 5th Generation technology?  Are we locked into a mindset toward air combat that is limiting us?  Are we treating each aircraft as its own individual fighting system that has to do everything...go to the enemy, locate the enemy, carry the weapons, maneuver away, etc.  The same "Knights of the Air" as in WWI but with better technology and better sharing of information with other weapons systems?

The question was asked "why not an AWACS then"?  Why not?  Could we put the focus on developing missiles that have greater range and improved ability to be guided toward targets by sensor platforms rather than expensive multi-role aircraft?  What if you had a few F-35 type aircraft to work like a "stealth AWACS" to locate the enemy aircraft and help guide the munitions to the target.  The actual weapons carriers could be much cheaper aircraft since it isn't designed to enter hostile territory or directly engage enemy aircraft.  Could anti-aircraft missiles be designed as "multi-stage" weapons so they can be fired from much further away...picture a cruise missile carrying and anti-radiation missile deep into enemy territory where it engages based on sensor information from the stealth recon aircraft.

Just a thought.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
The problem with the 2 x AIM-9 is the same as with the load out of a conventional aircraft.... once you expend all ammo, you're basically done.  A f35/F-22 would just take a bit more time to kill than an UAS once it's weapons are gone.

How would an enemy pilot know when the Blue guys have expended all their missiles?  They can count the shots but they won't know how many F-35's or F-22's are in the area . . . all that LO technology at work.

Brave Mig/Sokhoi driver who would go in hot pursuit of aircraft he can't sense just because he counted four AMRAAM's fired.  He'd be very brave and very dead.

 
Loachman said:
That would not make any difference in the support that you would see.

They're not going to land at a FOB and pick up passengers.

I was thinking about something like this
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-islands/

But then we'd be susceptible to this I guess
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/6_harrier_jets_destr.php
 
GR66 said:
The question was asked "why not an AWACS then"?  Why not?  Could we put the focus on developing missiles that have greater range and improved ability to be guided toward targets by sensor platforms rather than expensive multi-role aircraft?  What if you had a few F-35 type aircraft to work like a "stealth AWACS" to locate the enemy aircraft and help guide the munitions to the target.  The actual weapons carriers could be much cheaper aircraft since it isn't designed to enter hostile territory or directly engage enemy aircraft.  Could anti-aircraft missiles be designed as "multi-stage" weapons so they can be fired from much further away...picture a cruise missile carrying and anti-radiation missile deep into enemy territory where it engages based on sensor information from the stealth recon aircraft.

Just a thought.

you might find this an interesting read . . .

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1258/RAND_MG1258.pdf

 
Interesting interview . . .

http://vimeo.com/68632129

The changes the F-35 will bring to the future of combat aviation are touched on and there are hints of the sensor capability to assist ground forces in their situational awareness.

 
Haletown said:
How would an enemy pilot know when the Blue guys have expended all their missiles?  They can count the shots but they won't know how many F-35's or F-22's are in the area . . . all that LO technology at work.

Brave Mig/Sokhoi driver who would go in hot pursuit of aircraft he can't sense just because he counted four AMRAAM's fired.  He'd be very brave and very dead.

assuming it's a 1:1 fight (2:2, 3:3, etc)... Peer on peer, particularly in operations could very prove to be large numbers of OPFOR aircraft against far smaller numbers of friendly.  Particularly in regards to Carrier based operations against a formed body of near peer aircraft.  The Chinese in particular will have a fleet of Gen 5 aircraft similar to the F22 (not as capable, but close enough) and more capable than the F-35 (J20, J31).

Further, consider a PAK FA has 16 hard points compared to the F35s 11, has rear and front X band radar (35 only has front), a L Band radar, and a reported max detection range of a target 1m squared at 300km compared to the F35s 150 km. 

Chinese and Russians would also have some sort of AWACS system, Ground based radar, etc to monitor where their and our aircraft are, so wouldn't be completely clueless as to the number of F22s, F35s, etc in the area.

Not to say that NATO cannot win, but playing the F35 up to be a supreme fighter isn't accurate either.  F35 is a complement to the F22 and replacement for the Warthog and other F/B aircraft. 
 
The F-35 will never replace the warthog in the true sense. I can just see the look on a USAF general's face when a F-35 comes back full of 14.5 and 23mm holes.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
assuming it's a 1:1 fight (2:2, 3:3, etc)... Peer on peer, particularly in operations could very prove to be large numbers of OPFOR aircraft against far smaller numbers of friendly.  Particularly in regards to Carrier based operations against a formed body of near peer aircraft.  The Chinese in particular will have a fleet of Gen 5 aircraft similar to the F22 (not as capable, but close enough) and more capable than the F-35 (J20, J31).

Further, consider a PAK FA has 16 hard points compared to the F35s 11, has rear and front X band radar (35 only has front), a L Band radar, and a reported max detection range of a target 1m squared at 300km compared to the F35s 150 km.

And where have I heard this type of claim before?

Ahhh, yes - seventies and eighties Cold War...

Fears of the ten-foot-tall Soviet Superman and his hordes of indestructible T64/T72s and MiG 25s and even more terrifying vehicles and aircraft vastly superior to ours that were about to appear in frontline units any day, and in numbers that we could never hope to match. Everything that we were planning for at least two decades out was always just about to be rendered obsolete.

The CIA used to put out an annual book - the title escapes me - about all of this scary stuff, most likely just to frighten politicians into spending more on defence.

Then Viktor Belenko defected to Hakodate with a MiG 25 in 1976 and some calming occurred.

Thirteen years later the Berlin Wall started to be demolished, and we got a much better appreciation of true Soviet capabilities.

Appearances can be deceiving.

We can see these Russian and Chinese "wonderjets", but will only "know" what they tell/leak to us, and that can be very, very far from the truth.

Those people have been perfecting the art of deception for centuries.
 
Loachman said:
The CIA used to put out an annual book - the title escapes me -
The two most popular were the Annual Threat Assessment and The World Factbook.

We can see these Russian and Chinese "wonderjets", but will only "know" what they tell/leak to us, and that can be very, very far from the truth.
You mean, completely unlike our F-35 cheerleaders?  :whistle:
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
assuming it's a 1:1 fight (2:2, 3:3, etc)... Peer on peer, particularly in operations could very prove to be large numbers of OPFOR aircraft against far smaller numbers of friendly.  Particularly in regards to Carrier based operations against a formed body of near peer aircraft.  The Chinese in particular will have a fleet of Gen 5 aircraft similar to the F22 (not as capable, but close enough) and more capable than the F-35 (J20, J31).

Further, consider a PAK FA has 16 hard points compared to the F35s 11, has rear and front X band radar (35 only has front), a L Band radar, and a reported max detection range of a target 1m squared at 300km compared to the F35s 150 km. 

Chinese and Russians would also have some sort of AWACS system, Ground based radar, etc to monitor where their and our aircraft are, so wouldn't be completely clueless as to the number of F22s, F35s, etc in the area.

Not to say that NATO cannot win, but playing the F35 up to be a supreme fighter isn't accurate either.  F35 is a complement to the F22 and replacement for the Warthog and other F/B aircraft.

I'm sorry, but significant parts of your posts are based on highly inflated claims. I get the sense you've been reading Carlo Kopp's work, which has earned a high degree of contempt from professional defence analysts and military officials.

On a practical level... What conditions does the SH121 radar is able to target an aircraft at 300nm? (And what use is 11 pylons when that will vastly increase your RCS?) And how many PakFAs will be built compared to F-35s?  While for most of these technical question the public can't get a truly accurate number (unless you work for DoD), there is plenty of evidence that suggests the Russian capabilities are significantly less impressive than officially stated, and they lag far behind the US military. Consider that the West has been pouring billions into radar, sensor and avionics development over the past twenty years ($56 billion on the F-35 alone), while the Russians have seen significant contraction. In real terms they probably saw over 70 to 80% of their defence funding dry up between 1990 and 1999. Technological development has lagged badly in a numbers of areas, and most of the Russian tier two producers in avionics closed shop during the lean years. These are critical for pushing technological development of radars and keeping costs down... there are hundreds of such producers in the west, who also straddle the civil and military markets.

Let me copy a segment of this year's IISS Military Balance which gives a sense of the issues involved:

The defence industry has been starved of
investment for some 20 years. It has a high proportion
of obsolete equipment and renewal is costly. The
domestic machine-tool industry has also severely
contracted and is no longer able to manufacture many
modern, advanced types, obliging arms factories to
import. There are acute shortages of younger skilled
manual workers and technical personnel. Even
in such a dynamic sector as the radio-electronics
industry, one-fifth of specialists are over retirement
age, including two-thirds of all doctors of science and
55% of science PhD candidates. Overall, the average
age of personnel at defence industrial enterprises is
46, and 48 in R&D organisations. Many enterprises
lack modern quality-management systems. There is
mounting evidence of serious problems in achieving
acceptable standards of quality and reliability,
exemplified by six costly failed space launches during
2011 and the first half of 2012, and the long delay in
accepting the new Bulava ICBM into service. There
are capacity constraints in some sectors, notably in
air-defence systems.



Moreover there is significant evidence that shows the quality of Russian electronics are not there. I would add to the military balance's discussion of the Bulava, the severe difficulties that the Algerian and Indian governments have had with their aircraft purchases. A recent Indian government audit found that over half of the missiles bought by India were non-operational. Consequently, several countries have moved to replace their Russian avionics with Western versions... like India contracting Israeli Aircraft Industries for their Mig-29s upgrades. In reality alot of the Russian claims have been exploded in order to suggest significantly better performance than possible. Quite a bit of it is propaganda, in order to market their aircraft or drum up public support.

The Chinese are a different case. They don't have a fleet of 5th gen fighters yet, nor are there any indication that they will be superior at all. Chinese engine technology is decades behind ours; markedly inferior to Russian works (which is why they continue to buy Russian engines) which is inferior to western technology. I suspect that in 10 to 20 years they may be able to catch up... but its a difficult process; this it requires you to develop expertise across the entire range of systems. There is quite a bit of speculation that China's programs aren't going as well as people think; last year they decided to purchase the SU-35 from Russia... despite having two separate fighter programs ongoing.

None of this is meant to be flippant about the quality or capability of Russian or Chinese systems. I think they will be potent and require a serious level investment. However That's what the west has been doing, particularly with the F-35. It been pouring tens of billions into its radar and sensor development... which will continue past the IOC of 2017.
 
Journeyman said:
The two most popular were the Annual Threat Assessment and The World Factbook.
You mean, completely unlike our F-35 cheerleaders?  :whistle:


The reality with the US is that you have probably the most transparent process in the world when it comes to procurement. You have a detailed annual report card in the SAR, as well as teams of experts working to identify program problems and the like, both inside the DoD and outside (like the GAO or CBO). The reason why all this criticism exists is because of that system... because none of it exists in other countries like France and Russia; that would harm the "profitability" of their systems. In reality it covers up a much less impressive performance compared to western counterparts.
 
Back
Top