F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Marc the Article also states, "USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuver the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring". Additionally the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots" another USAF pilot says" so when you read the whole article it makes it quite obvious that someone is exaggerating.
Pfeiffer also notes the Eurofighter has better acceleration and can outclimb the F-22, he also states that the Raptor sinks when using its TVC, although one USAF source says he is skeptical of the German claims. Rather than sink, I would say the Raptor squats and pushes the tail down when using TVC to increase pitch.
The whole purpose of this excercise was to get the German pilots up to Nato standard and into the same league as the RAF boys, in fact the eight birds in this excercise had software upgrades to bring them up to standards, the last bird received its upgrade on the flight line in Alaska, the other German birds had not yet been upgraded when this excersise was performed.
The Typhoon is good, but I doubt it is on the level of the F-22 without TVC, which does remain an option for all the Eurofighters as an upgrade.

Thanks again Marc for linking the article, it is indeed interesting, and I would suggest that everyone give it a once over.
 

south

Well-Known Member
By saying the raptor sinks when using TVC what they mean is that it descends. This happens due to the massive increase in drag when flying at extreme AOA.

The typhoon is alpha limited - which means that has a maximum AOA that the flight control computer will let it fly to. This is a significant handicap in close in dogfighting and the reason that the F22 should be able to gain an edge against a typhoon.
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
@South:

What do Partner nations carry now for OCA/DCA?

It's not a matter of missiles, but how effectively it can employ them. Look at the F-15E vs the F-22. The F-15E can carry 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Aim-9Ms, the same as the F-22 (plus the added bonus of a 2nd crewman and JHMCS). However, the F-22 is vastly superior than the F-15 in DCA/OCA because of its RCS, defensive avionics and superior radar.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Spud, I agree that the F22 is superior because it can get in closer than the legacy jets hence taking shots that are harder to defeat. The F-35 will be similar in CONOPS (though not to the same level as the F-22 due to having a larger RCS and less performance) and yet it will be limited by not carrying an IR missile and only having half the internal loadout (4vs8).
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
Remember that all the partner's voted on what features would be IOC and which would wait till a later block (internal IIR is likely Blk4 and 6 internal AAMs is tentatively in Blk5).

When is the last time a fighter has launched more than 4 AAMs in a single engagement and why did it have to?
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Marc the Article also states, "USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuver the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring". Additionally the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots" another USAF pilot says" so when you read the whole article it makes it quite obvious that someone is exaggerating.
Pfeiffer also notes the Eurofighter has better acceleration and can outclimb the F-22, he also states that the Raptor sinks when using its TVC, although one USAF source says he is skeptical of the German claims. Rather than sink, I would say the Raptor squats and pushes the tail down when using TVC to increase pitch.
The whole purpose of this excercise was to get the German pilots up to Nato standard and into the same league as the RAF boys, in fact the eight birds in this excercise had software upgrades to bring them up to standards, the last bird received its upgrade on the flight line in Alaska, the other German birds had not yet been upgraded when this excersise was performed.
The Typhoon is good, but I doubt it is on the level of the F-22 without TVC, which does remain an option for all the Eurofighters as an upgrade.

Thanks again Marc for linking the article, it is indeed interesting, and I would suggest that everyone give it a once over.
Thanks for pointing that out, but you completely missed the point of my post.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Spud, I agree that the F22 is superior because it can get in closer than the legacy jets hence taking shots that are harder to defeat. The F-35 will be similar in CONOPS (though not to the same level as the F-22 due to having a larger RCS and less performance) and yet it will be limited by not carrying an IR missile and only having half the internal loadout (4vs8).
I suppose the root cause is that the "parent" airforce and biggest planned operator already has the F-22 so can do without the extra missiles. I agree is doesn't help the customers who are relying on the F-35 to do everything on day one. I suppose it means additional airframes will have to be deployed to achieve a given aim.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
Fair enough, but how many of those nations are going to need that full self escort strike capability in a day one scenario when the aircraft is at it's IOC level of capability?

From recollection, even in Op Falconer when performing OCA the RAAF fighters were carrying 3x AMRAAM, a pair of Sidewinders, and a single Paveway II, yet 4x BVR missiles internally or 3x AMRAAM and a single 500-2000lbs weapon or 4x SDB's, PLUS external carriage options isn't enough for F-35A at IOC?

Obviously there is some difference between GW2 and a higher end air to air threat and I get that more weapons is always good, but I fail to see how an F-35A carrying it's load, which is only two IR heaters short on a Hornet wartime load on internal carriage only at IOC, is insufficient? Sure the Hornet could have carried more. F-35A can too if need be, though you sacrifice some LO and some drag to do so.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I suppose it means additional airframes will have to be deployed to achieve a given aim.
and different conops for everything else providing COP feeds... so it can be done, just more aggressive S2/J2 management during events
 

south

Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but how many of those nations are going to need that full self escort strike capability in a day one scenario when the aircraft is at it's IOC level of capability?

From recollection, even in Op Falconer when performing OCA the RAAF fighters were carrying 3x AMRAAM, a pair of Sidewinders, and a single Paveway II, yet 4x BVR missiles internally or 3x AMRAAM and a single 500-2000lbs weapon or 4x SDB's, PLUS external carriage options isn't enough for F-35A at IOC?

Obviously there is some difference between GW2 and a higher end air to air threat and I get that more weapons is always good, but I fail to see how an F-35A carrying it's load, which is only two IR heaters short on a Hornet wartime load on internal carriage only at IOC, is insufficient? Sure the Hornet could have carried more. F-35A can too if need be, though you sacrifice some LO and some drag to do so.
Hopefully none.

On Falconer that was the Hornets DCA loadout when they were doing the HVAA protection thing. The GBU12 was to facilitate DT if missions if required. If they werent trying to facilitate DT their loadout could have been 6x Aim120 and 2xAim9. Their OCA loadout was something more like 2xGBU12, 2AIM9, 1xAIM120, 2-3tanks, 1xNitehawk pod. This reflects the threat from a beat up IqAF as the war progressed and showed that they werent even going to get airborne. Even if they did the big threats were some Mig25/29 and Mirage F1, of limited numbers and relatively poorly trained aircrew where the best weapon they possessed is an AA10A.

China different story - greater numbers, better weapons, better aircraft, better SA, self protection jammers, not crippled by 10 years of sanctions.... minor leagues vs major leagues. Having an increased loadout gives you flexibility.

Last comment - the JSF is a fat kid with a magic suit (albeit one with jedi like SA). Take away its magic suit and its a fat kid. I would be reluctant to sacrifice LO until you are in an Falconer scenario where the threat has already been beaten up/removed as that is its biggest single advantage.
 
Last edited:

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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..
The problem is much of the extra volume is in depth so as to accommodate a 2,000 lbs bomb. And to utilise depth for missiles requires stacking which means if the lower missile fails to drop you can’t get to the higher ones. Unless someone approves a stacked missile rack (Northrop proposed one for their F-23) then the F-35 won’t be carrying more than three missiles per bay.

The Boeing X-32 had side mounted bays with a fold out rack upon which all ordnance was mounted. This would have made it super easy to replace the bomb with at least two AMRAAMs and also to carry rail launched missiles like AIM-9X. If you had a canister launched missile like the original Taildog (which became ASRAAM) or the General Dynamics AIM-152 (de funded Phoenix replacement) you could fill the entire volume with missiles so would be about six per bay. However with the F-35 everything has to be dropped from a deep hole or slung onto the doors.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hopefully none.

On Falconer that was the Hornets DCA loadout when they were doing the HVAA protection thing. The GBU12 was to facilitate DT if missions if required. If they werent trying to facilitate DT their loadout could have been 6x Aim120 and 2xAim9. Their OCA loadout was something more like 2xGBU12, 2AIM9, 1xAIM120, 2-3tanks, 1xNitehawk pod. This reflects the threat from a beat up IqAF as the war progressed and showed that they werent even going to get airborne. Even if they did the big threats were some Mig25/29 and Mirage F1, of limited numbers and relatively poorly trained aircrew where the best weapon they possessed is an AA10A.

China different story - greater numbers, better weapons, better aircraft, better SA, self protection jammers, not crippled by 10 years of sanctions.... minor leagues vs major leagues. Having an increased loadout gives you flexibility.

Last comment - the JSF is a fat kid with a magic suit (albeit one with jedi like SA). Take away its magic suit and its a fat kid. I would be reluctant to sacrifice LO until you are in an Falconer scenario where the threat has already been beaten up/removed as that is its biggest single advantage.
True, but I think it's a bit more than hopeful that we won't be fighting China alone with nothing more than F-35A at it's introduction to service level of capability...

I think it likely the Shornets at least will be hanging around far longer than the current RAAF headsheds might like...

What do you think of the idea of Shornet missile barges carrying AMRAAM -D (or whatever replacement BVR missile is chosen, Meteor isn't entirely beyond the realm of possibility I guess given ASRAAM) in large numbers, while LO F-35A's sneak around providing targetting and picking off high value targets?
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Remember that all the partner's voted on what features would be IOC and which would wait till a later block (internal IIR is likely Blk4 and 6 internal AAMs is tentatively in Blk5).
Well there was no point in voting for an IOC even more demanding than the one Lockheed failed to meet on schedule, cost, etc…

When is the last time a fighter has launched more than 4 AAMs in a single engagement and why did it have to?
From memory there were a couple of F-15s in Op Allied Force that came close or exceeded four combat shots. But just like using the past 20 years of air battle to belittle the AMRAAM like APA and friends (‘It shoot down a Black Hawk dude!’) it’s also not a valid basis for establishing benchmarks for current capability. Because the Iraqi and Yugoslavian air forces are not the highest threat which NATO and friends air forces are planning on being able to defeat.

It’s pretty consistent across all NATO and friends OCA/DCA requirements four 4 BVR (AMRAAMs) and 2 WVR (AIM-9X) missiles are required. The BVR missile requirement has been pushed up to six based on experience with LO, high SA aircraft and fair enough to.
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
4 BVRs from a F-35 is equiv to 6-8 missiles from a 4th gen asset for several reasons.

1. Because it can get closer before launching, the BVR will retain more energy and have a higher pK, thereby taking less missiles to get the job done.

2. The Aim-120D's GPS assisted INS will allow the the AMRAAM to get much closer before having to go "active" and leave the target with very little time to utilize countermeasures.

3. Due to superior SA, the BVR can continue to receive updates on the target's location not only from the launcher, but also from any asset in the area. This way the launching AC (or any other) F-35 can continue to track the target and someone else can send the update thereby ensuring the launcher does not give his position away.

4. HOBS shots taken with AMRAAMs will have a higher pK than a AIM-9 due to a bigger motor, a 2-way datalink, a larger warhead, and a GPS assisted INS.

Also, keep in mind that 6 internal AAMs are on the way. When they get here, they will liklely be a simple rack/software update (by all accounts). Most partner nations will not even have half their F-35s by the time Blk5 rolls in.

Who knows, they might get off their asses and finish NGM first.

btw, General Dynamics' AAAM proposal was my favorite of the two.

View attachment 5429
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
4 BVRs from a F-35 is equiv to 6-8 missiles from a 4th gen asset for several reasons.
But these are all statistical, probability, reasons. If you have four missiles you can’t fire eight. A Hornet with eight missiles can still shoot down eight aircraft or put eight missiles in someone’s general direction to force them to break off an engagement, etc.

btw, General Dynamics' AAAM proposal was my favorite of the two.
It was pretty much the ideal AESA integrated missile combining fore and aft terminal ICWI illumination with an IR terminal seeker which pretty much removes most opportunities to decoy it. It would also make for a fearsome HOBS weapon with that huge booster to turn the missile 180 degrees and accelerate it. Plus the reigniting sustainer would make for very high performance at long range against a low level, thick air, target as well as at high level. Of course but to get the most out of this weapon your aircraft needs to have a rear facing antenna. But considering the size of the radar in the add on pod for legacy aircraft it could have been reasonably integrated into the F-22, F-35. Plus GD must have been thinking stealth aircraft by designing a folding fin missile for high density carriage.

From Flight in 1989: “After the Phoenix Falls” by Doug Richardson
missile system | phoenix falls | air missile | 1989 | 1128 | Flight Archive

In October 1988 the US Navy's Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) awarded contracts to two industrial teams for a four year technology-validation phase of the AAAM. One team was a combination of Hughes and Raytheon, two rival companies which have come to dominate the US market for medium/long-range air-to-air missiles. The other links General Dynamics with Westinghouse.
Under a programme known as the Advanced Missile System (AMS), GD has studied technology for long range air-to-air missiles for more than a decade. The first practical results to emerge, in the late 1970s, were a new five-cavity klystron microwave tube, the construction of a demonstration integrated-guidance section and integrated missile receiver, and the testing of an experimental Interrupted Continuous Wave (ICW) transmitter.
The latter was strictly lab-test hardware —it filled a two-bay electronics rack—but provided the experience needed to propose ICW technology for the AAAM semi-active radar seeker. Using ICW technology, the launch aircraft can "time manage" its radar, switching the beam from one target to another in rapid succession so that this single illuminator can handle a multiple engagement.
By the end of the decade a full-scale airframe had been built. Looking rather like a stretched Standard surface-to-air missile (SAM), this featured long-chord cruciform wings and narrow-chord cruciform tail fins, plus a short tandem-rocket booster. The missile is 12ft long (3-65m), 5- 5in (140mm) in diameter, and weighs 386lb (175kg).
A first-generation seeker gimbal and a second-generation control section were tested in the early 1980s, while 1983 saw trials on a ground test stand of a heavy-walled prototype of the proposed rocket motor and thrust-vector control (TVC) system. Other tests checked the performance of the proposed warhead against what were described as "RA-5-size targets". A second series of wind tunnel tests on the missile airframe began in 1983. The EO guidance mode was tests carried out by day and night.
The GD/Westinghouse missile has folding wing and tail surfaces, and is delivered from the depot packed in a circular storage/launch tube. The team has released artwork showing how 12 of these tubes could be carried in two lateral rows of six under the fuselage of an F-14D.
Tomcat will also need to carry a multifunction airborne track illuminator (ATI) pod, either on one of its fuselage stations or an underwing pylon. This unit is 11ft 10in (3.6m) long, 16in (406mm) in diameter, and weighs 750lb (341kg). It is self-powered by a ram-air turbine whose vanes are located about a quarter of the way from the forward end. On the US Navy's next-generation fighter, currently expected to be a derivative of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter, the functions of the ATI will be handled by the aircraft's Westinghouse-developed radar.
Targets would be detected initially either by the F-14D's APG-71 radar or by its infrared search and track system (IRST), then handed over to the ATI pod. This uses its front facing antenna to track the targets and compute the engagement envelope for each one. It also has a limited degree of search capability.
The aircrew selects the target to be engaged, then fires the missile. The round will leave the launch tube under the power of its tandem-mounted rocket booster. At burnout this will be jettisoned, and the main solid-propellant rocket motor (sustainer) ignited to power the round for the first stage of its flight out to the target. After launch, the crew is free to manoeuvre its aircraft to reduce the closure rate. There is no need to keep the aircraft pointed towards the target —a drawback to conventional semi-active radar- homing-missile attacks. The ATI pod even has a second rearward-facing antenna.
Like the Hughes AIM-120 AMRAAM, AAAM will fly an optimised trajectory under the control of an inertial midcourse guidance system. Uplink facilities are provided, so that the parent aircraft can transmit targeting updates should these be needed.
In the later stages of flight, the missile activates its terminal guidance seeker. Still later, the radome is jettisoned, allowing the missile's infrared seeker to begin operation. Home-on-jam attacks are also possible.
While the sustainer is burning, its jet-tab thrust vectoring control (TVC) system will supplement the missile's aerodynamic control surfaces. This will probably be of greatest importance when engaging targets flying at high altitude. In such cases, the sustainer is re-ignited for a second burn. This extra power, plus the use of TVC, is expected to allow the missile to have the same manoeuvrability at 100,000ft (30,500m) as today's Sparrow has at 20,000ft (6,000m).
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not sure if anyones posted about it yet, the article is a tad old but I only heard about it because of the Farnborough airshow

PICTURES: MBDA sharpens Spear missile design for F-35 integration

European manufacturer MBDA has unveiled a UK-developed design for a next-generation air-to-surface weapon suitable for internal carriage by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

To be shown for the first time as a full-scale mock-up at the Farnborough air show, the Spear concept would use a turbojet engine and a wing kit to provide a stand-off range of about 100km (54nm). "Speed and range are the two main drivers" behind this configuration, says Rob Thornley, export working group leader for MBDA UK.

"Another key requirement is to provide multiple load-out on the F-35," says Thornley. The company expects to be able to fit up to four Spear weapons and one Meteor beyond visual-range air-to-air missile in each of the F-35's two weapons bays.
IMO that's not bad at all, considering it's the F-35B's weapons bays they're talking about rather than the A/C.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
That would make for an interesting SEAD/DEAD weapon if they can get it to do NOE and get it's RCS low enough.
Definitely

What ARM are due to be integrated for the F-35 and which (if any) can be carried internally?

Could be a nice little earner, but i've no idea how much the changes you suggest would cost to do however. But is RCS particularly important? After all, ALARM dangles under a parachute biding it's time and the munition itself doesn't look particularly optimised for LO, at least to my untrained eye.
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
The F-35 will not get it's "true" ARM until Blk6 when AARGM is due for external integration. This might happen sooner or they could get off their asses and finish NGM.

Cost depends on if "multi-mode" seeker include MMW radar. If so, then a change in SW should allow for NOE.

I was concerned about NOE and RCS primarily to defeat the new breed of SAM Anti-PGM systems.

Russian / Soviet Point Defence Weapons
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
I had a few more thoughts about GD's AIM-152:

1. Program it with an "emulation" mode so that it can be used without the need for software updates.
..A. Rail-launched AMRAAM mode
..B. AIM-9 mode
..C. ESSM and Sea-Sparrow mode
2. Net-Fires like distributed launch platforms. Commanded from remote areas that can cover & create a wall of medium ranged SAMs.
3. New Medium ranged Mobile SAM, vertical or slant launched similar to Tunguska or Tor (with or without guns. If they perfect cheap laser-guided shells... definitely have guns.
4. Without a booster it would be light enough for UAV/Cruise missile hunting UCAVs to carry a few (probably just use a Stinger).
5. A HARM version of a JASSM/Tomahawk could carry 3-4 Weapon Stage sections (no booster) in it's nose. When it approaches the target, the Weapon stages make multiple attacks against the radar & command structures with an increased chance of success. The JASSM/Tomahawk could still attack a target if the point defense units are taken out by the AIM-152. The JASSM/Tomahawk could also house a MALD style jammer to help the Aim-152s and then sacrifice itself in a kinetic attack.

The increased use across all services will drive down cost due to economy of scale pricing.

The Aim-152's two-stage booster design offers many possibilities. The booster is normally 4.5ft in length and the main stage's 7.5ft brings the total to 12ft.

If you decrease the booster by 46% (a 2.4ft booster instead of 4.5ft), the entire package could fit in the same space as a Aim-9X (ie the side bays of the F-22).

For ground launched applications, switch from a 8 in diameter booster to a 10-12 inch one for increased range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top