F-35 Program - General Discussion

[Boagrius]

And herein lies the biggest problem with Mr Kopp et al's asinine 1 v 1 fighter comparisons.

How is the 1 un-supported Flanker even going to find said F-35 before it is well within the F-35's weapons NEZ? The reailty is they simply won't. IRST cannot search the entire sky p, is weather dependant and is range limited in any case, fighter radar is ineffective at extreme range for detecting let alone tracking LO aircraft and LO aircraft exercise (or should) extreme EMCON conditions, for obvious reasons.

Kopp etc have an obvious agenda however the reality is that the F-35 driver while happily remaining unknown to said Flanker, will be busily setting him or herself up for the most advantageous firing position even if the farcical 1 v 1 nonsense were to happen. When entire flights of F-35 are doing so, things are going to look very bleak for red air. When entire force packages can't be detected or located a lot of hurt is going to ensue...

In exercises they need to set up scenarios such that F-35 emits it's own location so there even is the possibility if ACM or whatever training is being sought.

In combat scenarios the F-35 most certainly will NOT be emitting let alone broadcasting it's position and everyone knows what happens when you can't find who is shooting you, nor where to shoot back...

A personal favourite is the amount of utterly concocted stats, diagrams, graphs, charts etc that usually accompany the aforementioned drivel, all while drowning the above in enough technical jargon to convince the layman of the author's "expertise". Don't get me started on "Col Grisha"... lol

 

[Ranger25]

USMC stands up second squadron of F35B

The USMC yesterday stood up their second squadron of F35Bs transitioning from Harriers. The plan is to transition two per year now


https://news.usni.org/2016/06/30/20458#more-20458



Good news for the F35 community.

 

[aussienscale]

now that Sweetman has a real job with NGD he might have a better appreciation

Well our old friend LO has not, that I have noticed, posted on Keypub since he got the gig A little bit of sanity has returned, but the infected still tout his dribble, but they get quieter by the day

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

nice transatlantic refueling vid

https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/...5as-during-their-first-transatlantic-flights/

note the range differences between the A's and B's

note how different the A's range is compared to what all the "anti-JSF hysterics" were claiming

 

[t68]

nice transatlantic refueling vid

https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/...5as-during-their-first-transatlantic-flights/

note the range differences between the A's and B's

note how different the A's range is compared to what all the "anti-JSF hysterics" were claiming

On another forum I visit the reason for the extra tanking for the B's was to keep them topped up if they had to divert for whatever reason, and supposedly the A's required less for large tanks but also they had a C130 trailing for SAR support if one went down, would imagine if they did that for the A's then the B's crossing would also had that support. Also it should be noted that the way they have worded it the B's required 15 tanker but each individual aircraft tanked 5 times compared to the A's for times each. I imagine the extra tanking was a safety recommendation

But as I said only going of information from another forum.

 

[gf0012-aust]

they wouldn't be conducting transoceanic flights all that often (ie 7 seas transfers), so this would not be a normal package

 

[ASSAIL]

On another forum I visit the reason for the extra tanking for the B's was to keep them topped up if they had to divert for whatever reason, and supposedly the A's required less for large tanks but also they had a C130 trailing for SAR support if one went down, would imagine if they did that for the A's then the B's crossing would also had that support. Also it should be noted that the way they have worded it the B's required 15 tanker but each individual aircraft tanked 5 times compared to the A's for times each. I imagine the extra tanking was a safety recommendation

But as I said only going of information from another forum.

I really get cranky when so called "experienced" commentators bang on about the B models endurance.
Range is moot when they deploy from a mobile platform or forward base and in most cases they will be able to stay on task longer and spend less time airborne than an A.

 

[t68]

I really get cranky when so called "experienced" commentators bang on about the B models endurance.
Range is moot when they deploy from a mobile platform or forward base and in most cases they will be able to stay on task longer and spend less time airborne than an A.

No one mentioned endurance when commenting on the different tanking options from the JSF variants for the trans Atlantic flights, more of why the B tank so often was for saftey precautions not endurance

 

[ASSAIL]

No one mentioned endurance when commenting on the different tanking options from the JSF variants for the trans Atlantic flights, more of why the B tank so often was for saftey precautions not endurance

My post was a general comment, not a reflection on what you posted. I should have made that clearer.

 

[t68]

My post was a general comment, not a reflection on what you posted. I should have made that clearer.

Ah sorry my bad

 

[Volkodav]

My post was a general comment, not a reflection on what you posted. I should have made that clearer.

Well comparing the types performance to, not just Harrier and Seaharrier, but just about any fighter or attack type that has been flown from carriers there aren't many that could match its performance and probably none (with the obvious exception of the F-35C) that could match its capability. Factor in the B should be able to fly from light carriers, previously limited to Harriers of even helicopters, in useful numbers.

I'm not sure what the limit in size of carrier required is but Spain will operate them from JCI and Italy from Cavour, while, if I recall correctly, there was originally discussion of them operating from the Invincibles and Garibaldi, could for instance a ship of Chakri Naruebet operate half a dozen or more of them? The performance and capability of the type is such you have to wonder if it will make mini carriers an effective option again.

 

[t68]

.

I'm not sure what the limit in size of carrier required is but Spain will operate them from JCI and Italy from Cavour, while, if I recall correctly, there was originally discussion of them operating from the Invincibles and Garibaldi, could for instance a ship of Chakri Naruebet operate half a dozen or more of them? The performance and capability of the type is such you have to wonder if it will make mini carriers an effective option again.

there was this discussion in the old "A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?" way back in 2010 the general consensus was something the size of Cavour would be need to make an effective JSF carrier.

T68

The next question is do they go the LHD route and expanded the bukerage and munitions storage capacity and purchase two more Canberra class or a dedicated STOVL ship like the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi (551), each has its own pro and cons. If two are acquired then a purchase of approx 40 F35B need to be purchased 16 airframes per carrier plus an additional 8 for training or aircraft attrition.

swerve

But she's too small! Adequate as a Harrier carrier, but not for F-35B. The reason Cavour & Juan Carlos 1 are similar in size is because that was calculated to be what was needed for efficient F-35B operation.

 

[Stampede]

I really get cranky when so called "experienced" commentators bang on about the B models endurance.
Range is moot when they deploy from a mobile platform or forward base and in most cases they will be able to stay on task longer and spend less time airborne than an A.

I agree, the talk of the A v B range thing re the F35 is nonsense as they are a common airframe each designed for their own taskings.
Just wondering however without any aspirations of conventional aircraft carriers did the RAAF consider the C model with its greater range as the F18 replacement. Having operated a maritime fighter for a generation off coventional airstips I guess cost was the main deterrent.
Any thoughts.

Regards S

 

[John Fedup]

I think cost has to be the biggest negative for the C versus A version. Like Australia, Canada has used a naval fighter (CF-18). Naval fighters are well suited to some of our less than idea landing strips and our current tankers are compatible with the Cs (and Bs). The large difference in price (at the time) negated the advantages the C offered over the A. If Canada and Australia specified Cs then perhaps the CAN-OZ-USN total purchase could have got the cost down to a more reasonable level justifying it as a better alternative. Right now the main concern is getting an "A" version. This assumes our idiot PM will reverse his anti-JSF stance.

 

[Boagrius]

This assumes our idiot PM will reverse his anti-JSF stance.

You never know, I suppose if the court of public perception starts to shift as the F35 matures, he could simply rebrand himself as a former skeptic of the jet who has come around since it has "proven" itself. The press on the F35 has been a little more on the positive side since it made its airshow debut recently... will be interesting to see if that trend continues and, if so, what effect that might have in Canada.

 

[John Fedup]

You never know, I suppose if the court of public perception starts to shift as the F35 matures, he could simply rebrand himself as a former skeptic of the jet who has come around since it has "proven" itself. The press on the F35 has been a little more on the positive side since it made its airshow debut recently... will be interesting to see if that trend continues and, if so, what effect that might have in Canada.

The Canadian public put junior into office so I wouldn't count on the public for jack$hit. The best path is our allies proving the the F-35s performance capabilities so RCAF brass can really put the pressure on the pollies to get on board. Better still, perhaps an electoral defeat in 2019-20.

 

[Boagrius]

The Canadian public put junior into office so I wouldn't count on the public for jack$hit. The best path is our allies proving the the F-35s performance capabilities so RCAF brass can really put the pressure on the pollies to get on board. Better still, perhaps an electoral defeat in 2019-20.

Fair enough. I kind of sympathise as an Aussie - I get the impression there is a similar disconnect here between the increasing seriousness of the national strategic outlook and the general public's appreciation (or lack thereof) of such. Anyway, won't get too sidetracked by politics. At any rate it is encouraging that the F35 program has made some solid forward strides of late, here's hoping the trend continues.

 

[Oberon]

Fair enough. I kind of sympathise as an Aussie - I get the impression there is a similar disconnect here between the increasing seriousness of the national strategic outlook and the general public's appreciation (or lack thereof) of such. Anyway, won't get too sidetracked by politics. At any rate it is encouraging that the F35 program has made some solid forward strides of late, here's hoping the trend continues.

And just as the F35 program is approaching IOC comes news that Russian Sunflower OTH radar is now able to detect stealth aircraft such as the F35.

 

[Boagrius]

And just as the F35 program is approaching IOC comes news that Russian Sunflower OTH radar is now able to detect stealth aircraft such as the F35.

Nothing "new" there per se. There are a variety of long wavelength radars that can "detect" the F35 (in fact just about any old radar can in theory). The question is at what range, and can you produce a targeting quality track out of the data the radar is providing you at a range that is operationally useful?

My understanding is that with search radars like Sunflower (or even JORN, in our case) the answer to these questions is a resounding no. So yes, you might be able to tell what neighbourhood the jet is in but you're still stuffed when it comes to actually trying to lock a weapon on the thing.

Meanwhile you (OPFOR) are now dependent on large, overwhelmingly static ground based radar sets to have any idea of where the local F35s are at any given moment. Meanwhile, constantly emitting immobile ISR nodes like that are, suffice it to say, rather vulnerable to attack and difficult to replace. So if and when they eat a JASSM or two, things get grim pretty quickly (ie. the ISR network/IADS becomes susceptible to collapse).

^Just my (layman's) understanding of things.

 

[r3mu511]

... and can you produce a targeting quality track out of the data the radar is providing you at a range that is operationally useful?

If the diagrams of this particular russian system ("Sunflower": http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/podsolnuhecoanxeg6z48qt.jpg, and http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/images/podsolnukh-image01.jpg) are correct, then that system might have a azimuth resolution on the order of ~3.2 degrees (based on the images showing an apperture 32 elements wide, and under the assumption of half-wavelength spacing for phased arrays).

That ~3.2 degrees resolution would mean that at a range of 100 km, the beamwidth would encompass an arc w/c is ~5.6 km in width. At 200 km range from the target, the arc width would expand to ~11.2 km. Not sounding too good for use for fire control purposes. Maybe more useful to be used to vector an interceptor to "search" for the target inside that ~11.2 km box. (They could probably use techniques like DBS to improve the resolution, but that would mean it would probably mainly be useful for larger angles off of broadside of the array).