F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[SpudmanWP]

This stuff changes at least once a year (if not more). I am at work and without my data, so it will have to wait a few hours.

 

[RobWilliams]

Definately has changed a lot since then !! Although I have not seen him on for a bit, Spudman WP is all over this stuff, particulary the block upgrades for weapons and software, Im sure he will update you when he comes by

Spud, you there ?

He was around a bit earlier, so I'll wait with baited breath Whenever I try look this stuff up I find the original basic information but nothing really new, just looking in the wrong places I guess

I'm particularly keen on the status of the UK weapons package.

EDIT: Thanks for the reply Spud, i'll be glad for the information

 

[Bonza]

I don't need to read nothin

Then get the hell out.

 

[old faithful]

For one thing it is a 9G capable aircraft, so the MiG-29 is not "more" maneuverable than the F-35A.

For another, a fighter aircraft armed with AMRAAM and Sidewinder air to air missiles is FAR more than "barely able to defend itself" as all the Yugoslavian and Iraqi MiG-29 pilots who have been splashed by AMRAAM and Sidewinder in REAL air combat between VERY competent and reasonably competent air forces, can attest...

Any aircraft that is capable of turning at 9G is "super-maneuverable" however given you seem to think we are in 1916 judging by your handle and your apparent understanding of what matters in air combat ie: "super-maneuverability" it will undoubtedly be a waste of time pointing out to you that historically the most successful fighter aircraft are those that facilitate the opportunity for a pilot to engage his enemy first.

Once that was done by physically hauling your aircraft around to get into a firing position and the aircraft that could do that quickest or could fire first without having to maneuvre invariably won the engagement.

However technology in the form of sensors, helmet mounted cueing systems and high off-boresite launch capable weapons have been invented and these primarily have resulted in the situation that physical agility is not the be-all of air combat that it once was.

If I can look at you and engage you with a weapon without having to turn at all, what difference does our relative agility make?

Here is a real world demonstration of what I'm talking about. This is what the AIM-9x Sidewinder Block I could do in 2000, 12 years ago when launched from an F/A-18C Hornet, a contemporary of your MIG-29.

AIM-9x SIDEWINDER Trial - YouTube

Your "Super Flanker" doesn't have to be more manueverable than me to win in combat. It has to be more more maneuverable than my missile if I get the first shot away, otherwise you and your Super Flanker will die and everything that is built into the F-35 is designed for exactly that reason.

Low observability, high off-boresite weapons, 360 degree sensor and auto-tracking capability means any agility advantage you possess is irrelevant because your agility and performance doesn't mean squat if you can't evade my missiles.

Fighting an LO aircraft is akin to putting you in a ground environment and asking to you to fight a well trained, well equipped sniper, when he is set up in a hide, ready to take his shot whenever he desires and you are blindfolded, deaf and dumb and have no reliable way to determine if there even is a sniper present, let alone a reliable way to target and engage said sniper before he can reliably engage you.

Great video, thanks for posting.

How does ASRAAM compare?

 

[the road runner]

I don't need to read nothin.

Probably why you do not understand what you are talking about.IF you did take the time to read this post, you would give yourself a greater understanding of how and why the JSF will be a game changer.Its your loss.

I am glad i took the time to read this forum on JSF has taught me quite a bit.

 

[ADMk2]

Great video, thanks for posting.

How does ASRAAM compare?

The common consensus seems to be that ASRAAM is a faster missile (faster firing off the rail and higher speed in flight) with a longer range and good sensor and off-boresite capability.

AIM-9X seems to be the more agile missile with a higher off-boresite capability and better sensors, though slower and shorter ranged (as a result of the use of the legacy missile body).

 

[colay]

The common consensus seems to be that ASRAAM is a faster missile (faster firing off the rail and higher speed in flight) with a longer range and good sensor and off-boresite capability.

AIM-9X seems to be the more agile missile with a higher off-boresite capability and better sensors, though slower and shorter ranged (as a result of the use of the legacy missile body).

Am I correct that ASRAAM does not employ data links? It does have the ability to be cued to a target's coordinates but this data must be downloaded to the missile before launch?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Correct, ASRAAM does not have data links or TVR and must have an idea where to look prior to launch..

 

[colay]

Correct, ASRAAM does not have data links or TVR and must have an idea where to look prior to launch..

Thanks. The new generation of IR Missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X, I get the impression from various sources that their range has been extended significantly to "beyond WVR" distances. If true, this makes a VLO platform even more lethal. Probably one of the reasons for the 2-way data link on the Blk 2 Sidewinder?

 

[ADMk2]

Thanks. The new generation of IR Missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X, I get the impression from various sources that their range has been extended significantly to "beyond WVR" distances. If true, this makes a VLO platform even more lethal. Probably one of the reasons for the 2-way data link on the Blk 2 Sidewinder?

Yep, though the ASRAAM has a better range capability than the AIM-9X, I understand through it's significantly bigger rocket motor.

 

[Marc 1]

Found a quote from some fast jet pilots that I found interesting:

Grune says that the Raptor's advantage lies in its stealth and ability to dominate air-to-air fights from beyond visual range. That is not disputed by USAF sources.

"Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat," Pfeiffer says. "But once you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects."

It was from this article:

IN FOCUS: German Eurofighters impress during Red Flag debut

There is the usual willy waving from both sides obviously, and it did not involve the F-35 for obvious reasons, however it did bring home that the way the VLO F-22 is going to be operated, they believe that the traditional fighter furball is going to represent a only very small part of future air to air engagements. Kinda proves what AD, GF, AD, Spudman et al have been saying all along - it's not about instantaneous turn rates and thrust vectoring and zipping along at Mach 2+. It's about exploiting the LO properties of your airframe and the combat system you are connected to to plug the bad guys before they even see you - let alone get to engage you in a dogfight. That's not to say the F-35 will be a total lame duck, just to point out that the concept of how fighter engagements are fought has changed.

 

[colay]

Found a quote from some fast jet pilots that I found interesting:

Grune says that the Raptor's advantage lies in its stealth and ability to dominate air-to-air fights from beyond visual range. That is not disputed by USAF sources.

"Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat," Pfeiffer says. "But once you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects."

There is the usual willy waving from both sides obviously, and it did not involve the F-35 for obvious reasons, however it did bring home that the way the VLO F-22 is going to be operated, they believe that the traditional fighter furball is going to represent a only very small part of future air to air engagements. Kinda proves what AD, GF, AD, Spudman et al have been saying all along - it's not about instantaneous turn rates and thrust vectoring and zipping along at Mach 2+. It's about exploiting the LO properties of your airframe and the combat system you are connected to to plug the bad guys before they even see you - let alone get to engage you in a dogfight. That's not to say the F-35 will be a total lame duck, just to point out that the concept of how fighter engagements are fought has changed.

I recall an interview with Paul Metz in the early days and he described exercises,going up against F-15s. He would actually tell the opposing pilots the quadrant he was in and they would scan for him with their radar, to no avail. Then he would tell them his heading, still no dice. The Eagle pilots really only had a brief window of opportunity to catch a glimpse of him as his Raptor roared over their canopies.


Granted, opponents may have better radars nowadays but it just goes to show IMO that stealthiness will confer the tactical advantage should the fight enter the WVR arena for whatever reason. At those speeds, seconds are critical. It may be a WVR fight for only one of the pilots, his opponent may be oblivious until it's too late.

 

[jack412]

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes

re the claim that the f-16 is $7,000, the f-35A is $21k and the $31k for the F-35BC


That doesn't seem apple to apple, the F-35 would be the same at $7,000 and the b/c is about 50% dearer than the F-16c/d, which will make it $10,500 by their method, because the USA costs the f-16c/d at $22,500

page 84
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

Total Unitized Cost (Base Year 2012 $) F-35 a/b/c $31.923 -- F-16c/d $22.470

Lm said the f-35a is 10% more than the f-16 and that would make it $24.750

The reason RAAF is lower @ $21k is because the partners don't pay the full SDD costs

 

[ADMk2]

So the testing of F-35 continues apace. The most recent info relates to continuing weapons pit drop testing.

Some interesting pics released in recent days are attached.

I see:

Photo 1: BLU-109 (2000lbs penetrating weapon) warhead equipped JDAM with AIM-120C AMRAAM on the other station.

Photo 2: Mk 84 warhead equipped JDAM.

Photo 3: Twin internal carriage capability of AIM-120C AMRAAM, confirming F-35's ability to carry 4x AMRAAM's internally at the present time, despite some people's opinion to the contrary on this matter...

Funny how real information on the program continues to dispel so many nonsensical internet myths. Fancy that...

(Pics courtesy of Lockheed Martin).

 

[south]

3 Aim120 per bay would be really nice. Or 2 Aim120 and an Aim9X B2.

 

[ADMk2]

3 Aim120 per bay would be really nice. Or 2 Aim120 and an Aim9X B2.

It's being worked towards (the 3rd AMRAAM per bay anyway). Expanded internal carriage is due by Block IV (from recollection, Spud might be able to clarify) and I believe they are working towards a diagonally stacked AMRAAM / AIM-9X / ASRAAM carriage option to provide that increased load-out.

F-22 has 3x internal AMRAAM storage and fit checks have confirmed carriage of SDB (broader diameter than AMRAAM) can be configured in the dual carriage pic shown below. F-35's bays are longer, wider and deeper than the F-22's so it "should" not be a problem.

Given this (and time and money) I've no doubt the F-35 will get the extra internal load-out when it needs it.

 

[south]

I understand that it will get 6 (from ~2020) however for the fighter with larger internal bays than the F-22 that is going to be many nations only choice it probably should have been planned with a greater loadout from day one..

 

[ADMk2]

I understand that it will get 6 (from ~2020) however for the fighter with larger internal bays than the F-22 that is going to be many nations only choice it probably should have been planned with a greater loadout from day one..

It is a cost and schedule issue. It is being designed with the capability to carry greater load-outs at Block 3 than 2-4 AMRAAM and/or 2 air to ground weapons or 8x SDB's, just not internally.

Many capabilities have been postponed to ensure it can get into service in a reasonable timeframe. The newer Block upgrades are intended to roll out every 2-3 years depending on user requirements.

The IOC capability to carry AIM-9X, AIM-120C, Paveway II/III, JDAM, JSOW-C, Small Diameter Bomb and possibly the Kongsberg JSM internally as well as additional payload externally, seems nothing to sneeze at...

How many F-35 contemporaries can boast this sort of capability (not the internal carriage options obviously) at IOC?

I would think that many airforces would have their hands full just introducing this level of capability?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Don't forget that UAI will allow for the use of many more munitions without the traditional block upgrade program requirements.

 

[south]

All that I'm saying is that given that this aircraft is going to be the front line fighter for most nations that will be operating it, the internal A2A loadout for the start of its life is not enough.

Carrying 2xAIM120's only when going downtown on the first day of the war on a self escort strike mission is not going to make me feel comfortable. An F-35 performing OCA or DCA on the first day of the war with only 4xAIM120's is probably going to run out of rockets...

It also makes it a bit hard for the people that are claiming that its going to be able to cue a HOBs AIM9X B2 with EODAS when it isnt going going to be carrying one.

Not saying anything about A2G ordnance or UAI or whatever.. Do I feel that bringing the stuff that you listed into service is going to stress an airforce - yeah maybe but given that most western airforces are already operating 4 out of 6 of those weapons systems and that the SDB and JSOW are very similar to JDAM I dont think that it will cause too many teething problems.