What should the USAF buy?

[F-15 Eagle]

I just did, but the simple fact that the F-35A was NEVER meant to have THAT capability (Mach 1.3 supercruise) should count for something.
That aircraft was never meant to be a supercruiser, high energy ATA fighter, that´s the RAPTOR, but to be capable of long range penetration and/or high "tempo" loitering CAS.
It has a massive internal fuel fraction with the correspondent fuselage generated drag, a wing sweep angle identical to the one of the A-7 Corsair and fixed air intakes optimized for low RCS and high subsonic speed...
That´s a very, very, very advanced fighter bomber, a highly lethal oponent both in ATG or ATA, BUT it´s not a high speed interceptor.

I do think that RJ Mitchell (the guy who invented the Spitfire) once said something like this: "a fighter his all engine and no fuel, a bomber his all fuel and no engine". And the JSF has a massive fuel fraction... (and a bloody BIG engine)

Cheers

So the F-35 does have supercruise? I don't remember anything about the F-35 having a supercruise capability.

 

[not_so_sis]

the plane has some awesome features, not sure if you have seen this video or not but worth a view.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk"]YouTube - F-35 JSF Simulator in operation[/ame]

and whether it manages to supercruise or not, like you said its an awesome plane that will acheive its core roles with or without.

 

[Sintra]

So the F-35 does have supercruise?

Depends
"Supercruise" acording to Lockheed Martin definition? NO.
Capable of transonic speed on Dry Thrusth in the ideal conditions? Yes.
Operationally meaningfull? Ermmmmmmmmmmmmm... let´s wait until it hit´s IOC to find out?

Cheers

 

[guppy]

1. Not only the USN but also the USAF will rely on the F-35A for air to air conmbat to serve with the F-22 and Super Hornet in air combat.
2. The U.S. F-35s don't even use the ASRAAMs anyway, only AMRAAMs and AIM-9s.
3. The F-35 already has the ability to carry 14 AAMs, the link already proved that and it doeas not matter what you may think of it because the F-35 can still cary 14 AAMs whether or not it will ever need to.
4. Only the British F-35s have not been certified to carry 4 internal ASRAAMs on the ground lauchers but the American F-35s can still carry 4 internal AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs. So in the American F-35s the air to ground ejectors will carry AMRAAMs or AIM-9s just not the British F-35s, manly because America will rely on the F-35 for air to air combat like the F-22 but the British will not.

The F-35 already has the ability to carry 14 missiles?
Come on, write LM an e-mail and ask that question. Yes the F-35 can carry 14 AAMs. I am sure that we can strap a crewchief on the weapon pylon too, and give him a M-16 to boot. Hmm...where have I seen that before?

Carrying 14 missiles is entirely different operationalising a 14 missile configuration.

Why would America need the F-35 for the air sup role, if the Brits do not have that need? Are you saying that the RAF is more capable than the USAF/USN/USMC combined? ???

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The F-35 already has the ability to carry 14 missiles?
Come on, write LM an e-mail and ask that question. Yes the F-35 can carry 14 AAMs. I am sure that we can strap a crewchief on the weapon pylon too, and give him a M-16 to boot. Hmm...where have I seen that before?

Carrying 14 missiles is entirely different operationalising a 14 missile configuration.

Why would America need the F-35 for the air sup role, if the Brits do not have that need? Are you saying that the RAF is more capable than the USAF/USN/USMC combined? ???

For the LAST time America needs the F-35 for the air sup role because they need to replace the F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, AV-8Bs and F/A-18s. 183 F-22s is not enough and the F-35 will be the main fighter to replace some 2500 aging fighters and attack aircraft. The Brits will use the F-35 as a Harrier replacement well the Americans will use the F-35 to replace the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s(which all do air sup missions) and A-10 and AV-8 attack aircraft.

Now your making stuff up and putting words in my mouth. I never said the RAF and RN are more powerful than the USAF/USN/USMC, I said the U.S. and U.K. both have different needs for the F-35. The U.S. will need the F-35 to replace most of its fighter AND attack aircraft well the Brits only need the F-35 to replace its Harrier attack aircraft.

You also misread what I said. I said the F-35 will have the capability to carry 14 AAMs if need be, though it is unlikely the F-35 will need carry that many in a single mission but they will have the option of 14 AAMs. The most common air to air load out will be 4-6 AAMs maybe 8.

 

[f-22fan12]

Low signature is not the holy grail in ATA, speed is more important.
Do you honestly believe USA would export F-35 to half the world if they thought it would be any problem to shoot them off the sky if need be ?

You couldn't be more right. That's why I have consistently said the F-22 is a good bit better than the F-35. The U.S. would NEVER risk selling a comparable aircraft to countries around the world.

 

[f-22fan12]

so you think the MiG-21 is better than the F-35?

how did a Mach 1.8 F-18 shoot down a Mach 2.8 MiG-25?

speed isn't the end all / be all of combat effectiveness



1. yes

they've done it in the past, exporting top-of-the-line aircraft (F-14)

2. the F-22 is still better

3. as i mentioned before, it is more than just the aircraft itself that determines the outcome of a battle

even if an opponent was equipped with say 20 raptors, the US would still win because of all their support capabilities (awacs, satellite, intelligence, hammering airfield with tomahawks, etc, etc)

I have full confindence that U.S. leadership would not even risk selling a plane that could possilby defeat U.S. forces to any country.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Then the next point would be that having a "dirty" air to air configuration will be counter productive especially againt Flanker type threats. You need to delay threat acquisition for as long as you can. 10 missiles hanging on the wings will not achieve that. Plus the dual missile launchers, have they been developed yet?

Thus, logically, I don't see why a 14 missile configuration would have any sort of priority. If there is really a need to improve its air to air capability, they would focus on putting more missiles internally.

cheers

guppy

Whether this "missile barge" configuration is useful for anything other than dealing with a soviet style maritime strike package, with dozens of platforms and 100+ missiles to deal with is beyond me. However if someone felt the need, even for a publicity stunt (i remember seeing a few shots of RAAF F/A-18C's with a 12 AAM load) i really don't see it as being that difficult. They could just use off the shelf dual rail launchers, and i don't see the carriage clearance as being a major issue, they've already cleared them for F-22A use. I don't think they need to do a whole several month long testing campaign for each hard point.

 

[Sea Toby]

If the Russians have to shoot 14 missiles to knock down one US aircraft, says something about their missiles don't it? The US aircraft could shoot only one or two missiles to get the same result, shooting down a Russian aircraft. Who is shooting blindly in your opinion, and why?

It is who sees who first that counts in dogfighting. Watch Battle of Britian videos on You Tube. With BVR, the systems take over, but it is who sees who first usually wins. I don't hold much prospect for the blind.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

i said "the engagement envelope is more dependent on the missile than the plane (although speed and altitude can have an effect)"

which is exactly correct

some missiles (like the Meteor) have a far superior engagement envelope to other missiles (like the AMRAAM) even if the other missile has a kinematic launch advantage

The platform still determines the engagement envelope, not just the missile. Remember its not just aircraft carrying missiles that are being discussed here, its weapons systems. Its the combination of the sensor, information management tech & missile that matters +the way the three are integrated with the decision maker (pilot). In simple terms BVR engagements are dominated by sensor capabilities, and you can bet your ass there are many 4th gen platforms equiped with radars with smaller track radii (vs average fighter sized RCS) than Meteor's max range. Therefore in all of those occasions the limiting factor in the missiles engagement envelope will be the platform not the missile.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't think they need to do a whole several month long testing campaign for each hard point.

The test is more than just missile release. Each pair of points needs to be tested on issues such as

• loaded,
• empty,
• cycled,
• disparate weights,
• flight handling
• handling on specific parameters (eh atypical engagement profiles)
• stress tested
• impact of carriage on other aspects such as stress frame alert etc....

weapons release then has to go through all flight profiles as well, its not a trivial task.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The test is more than just missile release. Each pair of points needs to be tested on issues such as

• loaded,
• empty,
• cycled,
• disparate weights,
• flight handling
• handling on specific parameters (eh atypical engagement profiles)
• stress tested
• impact of carriage on other aspects such as stress frame alert etc....

weapons release then has to go through all flight profiles as well, its not a trivial task.

I'm not saying its trivial. But I really don't think such tests are going to be significantly constricting. Once the weapons testing is done on a single hard-point surely you don't need to go through the whole process 4 times. Surely dual weapon carriage will be in the interest of the USAF/USN/USMC if such tests have already been conducted on the F-22A & the system is already used on the Hornet family.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not saying its trivial. But I really don't think such tests are going to be significantly constricting. Once the weapons testing is done on a single hard-point surely you don't need to go through the whole process 4 times. Surely dual weapon carriage will be in the interest of the USAF/USN/USMC if such tests have already been conducted on the F-22A & the system is already used on the Hornet family.

Testing for one hard point is not the same as testing for others - and definitely not for different platforms. There is no relationship between certification of the platform with "x" hard points - and certainly not between platforms.

each pair of hard points has to be tested because it impacts on handling profile, on centre of gravity issues, stall issues, thrust and PW issues, landing and takeoff impact, and can impact on basics such as doctrine. On a carrier it's even more significant due to trap measurement issues for the wires.

a fully loaded fixed wing combat jet with multiple hand points will start to handle like truck. it changes things considerably.

why do you think it took so long to certify different weapons on the Hornets and F-111's?

it impacts upon not just the rails, but the harness, the weapons software, combat system, load bearing surfaces (multiple ejectors cause significant stress - so the platform has to not only be able to support multiple weapons, but its got to be in a structurally sympathetic part of the wing, and that could mean an impact on existing harness routes, fuel lines etc....)

each weapons release has to go through a designated of cycles to be certified. It's not like testing a hard drive. It's a physical test, mounting and dismounting.

missiles also have to go through the mount/dismount test - and thats why after a certain number of dismounts they can no longer be used.

there is an enormous amount of work in testing for weapons carriage and platform certification

and there definitely is NO relationship between mount/dismount and certification tests for the F-22 and the JSF except that they both have to meet baseline acceptance conditions.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Testing for one hard point is not the same as testing for others - and definitely not for different platforms. There is no relationship between certification of the platform with "x" hard points - and certainly not between platforms.

each pair of hard points has to be tested because it impacts on handling profile, on centre of gravity issues, stall issues, thrust and PW issues, landing and takeoff impact, and can impact on basics such as doctrine. On a carrier it's even more significant due to trap measurement issues for the wires.

a fully loaded fixed wing combat jet with multiple hand points will start to handle like truck. it changes things considerably.

why do you think it took so long to certify different weapons on the Hornets and F-111's?

it impacts upon not just the rails, but the harness, the weapons software, combat system, load bearing surfaces (multiple ejectors cause significant stress - so the platform has to not only be able to support multiple weapons, but its got to be in a structurally sympathetic part of the wing, and that could mean an impact on existing harness routes, fuel lines etc....)

each weapons release has to go through a designated of cycles to be certified. It's not like testing a hard drive. It's a physical test, mounting and dismounting.

missiles also have to go through the mount/dismount test - and thats why after a certain number of dismounts they can no longer be used.

there is an enormous amount of work in testing for weapons carriage and platform certification

I realize its not simple, but again i don't see it as being that constricting in aggregate terms. Considering the number of weapons that the F-35 will be cleared for carriage at IOC, I don't think its unreasonable to think that a dual launcher will be incuded or deployed soon after.

and there definitely is NO relationship between mount/dismount and certification tests for the F-22 and the JSF except that they both have to meet baseline acceptance conditions.

I didn't mean to infer there was, simply that this indicates a level of intent. The process also has to be comparable in the level of difficulty.

 

[DarthAmerica]

If the Russians have to shoot 14 missiles to knock down one US aircraft, says something about their missiles don't it? The US aircraft could shoot only one or two missiles to get the same result, shooting down a Russian aircraft. Who is shooting blindly in your opinion, and why?

It is who sees who first that counts in dogfighting. Watch Battle of Britian videos on You Tube. With BVR, the systems take over, but it is who sees who first usually wins. I don't hold much prospect for the blind.

The Russians carry so many missiles due to their tactical doctrine which calls for multiple shots per target, or ripple fire, preferably with different seeker types. This improves kill probability and seriously complicates ECM/IRCM. Even if their missiles has absurdly low hit/kill probabilities after two or three shots the chance of one hitting is much higher. Say for example without ECM their AAM had a .5 pk for a manuevering fighter. That improves to .75pk with just two shots. Even if countermeasures are involved and the pk dropped to .3 that same two shots would still have a respectable ~.5pk. THATS IF the two missiles have the same type of seeker. If they are RF and IR respectively then the pk could improve if say the RF ECM works but the IRCM doesn't. Thats just typical old school Soviet brute force methodology but it works if used properly! Remember also that back in those days when their 6-10+ AAM armed fighters were being designed they enjoyed decent numerical advantages too.

One thing that's obvious to me though is they weren't expecting to engage 10 targets in a sortie. Think about it a minute. They are flying around with SARH missiles in a head on engagement where detectiong ranges for the larger radars would be in the tens of km. With closure rates of M1.4 to M4.0 thats not a lot of time to be guiding missiles to multiple targets. We are probably looking at 100 seconds at best until the merge. Just enough time to detect, track, shoot and then guide missiles to 1 or 2 targets if you know they are coming via GCI. A typical armamment probably looked more like 2-4 BVR weapons and a pair of WVR missiles and the cannon.

US early BVR weapons prior to AIM-7M were over estimated IMHO but better than their Warsaw pact equivilents in terms of pk. Western weapons were always planned to be technologically superior and better performing. A lot of the tactics were hammered out over Viet Nam against real current at the time Soviet Aircraft. The AMRAAM continued the trend. One thing we learned though was "how" you entered the fight had a lot to do with how successful BVR intercepts were. "How" was determined by good situational awareness which permits you to get the first look so you can set up your shot. AEW and AWACS had reached maturity by now so the how was well understood. The British learned a bit about this in the Falklands.

By denying that same situational awareness to the enemy you greatly increased your odds even more. So here come the ATFs and JSF. They don't really need to carry a dozen AAM. Just enough to knock 2 to 4 threat aircraft out of the fight, RTB and do it all over again until the air is clear over time. Because the ATF/JSF are very difficult to detect in the first place, chances are GCI radar, EW sites located far back and diminutive fighter radars would not see these aircraft until they were being engaged while in low energy states from unexpected angles with little warning. There would hardly be time to do evasive action or use countermeasures so it's likely the enemy attrition would have been quite high as we saw in the Bekaa Valley, ODS and OAF when the enemy fighters are fighting blind.

I've given both eastern and western points of view. The proven western method has never required more than a few BVR weapons even in heavily contested airspace. It's so proven that the eastern method has rarely if ever had a chance to validate itself. I can only think of one recent instance I know of where western fighters, F-15C's, didn't have enough AAMs. I won't bore you with details but the target was a Mig-25 and if you can't guess why it wasn't hit by a whole bunch of F-15C's shooting at it then you should know it ran away with it's tremendous speed. That however is an issue of not having the right type of AAM rather than not enough. I think thats mentioned on ACIG and Wiki IIRC. I'll try to find it later.

-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

I realize its not simple, but again i don't see it as being that constricting in aggregate terms. Considering the number of weapons that the F-35 will be cleared for carriage at IOC, I don't think its unreasonable to think that a dual launcher will be incuded or deployed soon after.

Reality is always different from theory. It does take time, and it requires physical testing. You can't bypass the fundamentals unless you want to risk the platform. On the latest tier 1 platforms? they won't be fast tracking anything - it will be done properly.

I didn't mean to infer there was, simply that this indicates a level of intent. The process also has to be comparable in the level of difficulty.

nope, single engine vs twin. just that item alone means far more different testing parameters. .... and there's a whole lot more.

It's not a simple sign off, it has to be rigorously done.

 

[not_so_sis]

I have full confindence that U.S. leadership would not even risk selling a plane that could possilby defeat U.S. forces to any country.

They dont really have any choice but to use such planes and be part of a worldwide deal,the sales are only with allies, however alot of thier older planes are being used by potential threats, America has made the mistakes of arms sales to people they come to fight eventually too many times.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I realize its not simple, but again i don't see it as being that constricting in aggregate terms. Considering the number of weapons that the F-35 will be cleared for carriage at IOC, I don't think its unreasonable to think that a dual launcher will be incuded or deployed soon after.

Well even if they don't use the duel missile launchers right away the F-35 can still carry 4 internal and 4 external AMRAAMs plus 2 AIM-9Xs on the wing tips.

 

[guppy]

Reality is always different from theory. It does take time, and it requires physical testing. You can't bypass the fundamentals unless you want to risk the platform. On the latest tier 1 platforms? they won't be fast tracking anything - it will be done properly.




nope, single engine vs twin. just that item alone means far more different testing parameters. .... and there's a whole lot more.

It's not a simple sign off, it has to be rigorously done.

gf is absolutely right. It is really not a simple affair. Would you beleive if I told you that it might even be necessary to change the flight control software? It is very easy to do a one time qualification of a 14 missile configuration but in a restrictive manner and probably for propoganda only. That means you cannot fire any of the missiles, limited maneuvering etc. In fact it will probably be only for inert missiles. To hang 14 missiles on the jet, the SOF (safety of flight) ground tests is already heinously complicated. Then think about the exponential numbers of possible missile configurations. Every possible combination must be considered and analysed. For example, if a software program causes all the missiles to fail to fire on one wing. There is then a multiple missile asymetry. What type of maneuvering limits should be imposed? Should the flight control software be modified to prevent inadvertent flight departure? If so, then the flight testing of the fight control software needs to be partially redone. It is definitely no mean feat.

Now, if there is no genuine operational requirement, why would US DoD want to incur additional schedule risks, risk of cost overrun etc etc? So that congress can threaten to shut down the program? So that the allies need to totally relook their fighter replacement programs? This is one of the most important acquisition programs in modern times. US DoD cannot afford to dork up this one.

cheers

guppy

 

[guppy]

The Russians carry so many missiles due to their tactical doctrine which calls for multiple shots per target, or ripple fire, preferably with different seeker types. This improves kill probability and seriously complicates ECM/IRCM. Even if their missiles has absurdly low hit/kill probabilities after two or three shots the chance of one hitting is much higher. Say for example without ECM their AAM had a .5 pk for a manuevering fighter. That improves to .75pk with just two shots. Even if countermeasures are involved and the pk dropped to .3 that same two shots would still have a respectable ~.5pk. THATS IF the two missiles have the same type of seeker. If they are RF and IR respectively then the pk could improve if say the RF ECM works but the IRCM doesn't. Thats just typical old school Soviet brute force methodology but it works if used properly! Remember also that back in those days when their 6-10+ AAM armed fighters were being designed they enjoyed decent numerical advantages too.

One thing that's obvious to me though is they weren't expecting to engage 10 targets in a sortie. Think about it a minute. They are flying around with SARH missiles in a head on engagement where detectiong ranges for the larger radars would be in the tens of km. With closure rates of M1.4 to M4.0 thats not a lot of time to be guiding missiles to multiple targets. We are probably looking at 100 seconds at best until the merge. Just enough time to detect, track, shoot and then guide missiles to 1 or 2 targets if you know they are coming via GCI. A typical armamment probably looked more like 2-4 BVR weapons and a pair of WVR missiles and the cannon.

US early BVR weapons prior to AIM-7M were over estimated IMHO but better than their Warsaw pact equivilents in terms of pk. Western weapons were always planned to be technologically superior and better performing. A lot of the tactics were hammered out over Viet Nam against real current at the time Soviet Aircraft. The AMRAAM continued the trend. One thing we learned though was "how" you entered the fight had a lot to do with how successful BVR intercepts were. "How" was determined by good situational awareness which permits you to get the first look so you can set up your shot. AEW and AWACS had reached maturity by now so the how was well understood. The British learned a bit about this in the Falklands.

By denying that same situational awareness to the enemy you greatly increased your odds even more. So here come the ATFs and JSF. They don't really need to carry a dozen AAM. Just enough to knock 2 to 4 threat aircraft out of the fight, RTB and do it all over again until the air is clear over time. Because the ATF/JSF are very difficult to detect in the first place, chances are GCI radar, EW sites located far back and diminutive fighter radars would not see these aircraft until they were being engaged while in low energy states from unexpected angles with little warning. There would hardly be time to do evasive action or use countermeasures so it's likely the enemy attrition would have been quite high as we saw in the Bekaa Valley, ODS and OAF when the enemy fighters are fighting blind.

I've given both eastern and western points of view. The proven western method has never required more than a few BVR weapons even in heavily contested airspace. It's so proven that the eastern method has rarely if ever had a chance to validate itself. I can only think of one recent instance I know of where western fighters, F-15C's, didn't have enough AAMs. I won't bore you with details but the target was a Mig-25 and if you can't guess why it wasn't hit by a whole bunch of F-15C's shooting at it then you should know it ran away with it's tremendous speed. That however is an issue of not having the right type of AAM rather than not enough. I think thats mentioned on ACIG and Wiki IIRC. I'll try to find it later.

-DA

DA is absolutely right. It is a matter of different doctrine, tactically and operationally. Russian doctrine often smacks of flooding the skies with fighters and missiles. Sooner or later, something is bound to hit an allied aircraft, or at least they hope. Add the complexity of long range missiles with both IR and RF seekers, trust me, it reslly complicates things for the defender. Should one defend against the IR or the RF missile? Sometimes the necessary defensive reactions are contradictory. It is difficult to design a tactical maneuver to defend against both type of missiles. Just think, RF missiles love plenty of radial closure while IR missiles love beam and stern aspect. Sometimes, the only defense is run while you can. But with the F-35 and F-22, I believe they are very much more survivable.

Cheers

Guppy