The F-35 Thread

The claim that Navy pilots find the F-18 better than the F-14 in a dogfight is a gross generalization that is simply not true. You've had Navy pilots flying opposite planes claiming the opposite about each others aircraft, which is common within the field (USAF F-15 vs F-16, USN F-18 vs F-14 etc). The actual truth is in the EM charts, anyone claiming otherwise is fooling themselves, period.

That having been said the F-18 has it's advantages in a fight with the F-14, and vice versa, the F-14 having the better STR & climb rate, whilst the F-18 has its extreme nose authority and I would assume a similar ITR. But the F-18 is NOT the F-35, the F-18 most likely possesses both a higher ITR & STR over the F-35 at the most common dogfighting speeds, which after a few passes usually stabilise themselves around M 0.6.

This is what it boils down to. US doctrine (quite rightly IMO) does not treat post merge WVR combat as a good way to obtain favourable kill ratios. HMD cued HOBS missiles simply make fighting in the "phonebooth" too much of a coin flip for any manned fighter you care to throw into the mix.

 

Hence, they have moved away from "dogfighting" towards killing the enemy from BVR ranges or at least in the pre-merge - leveraging the technological lead they enjoy over the competition in VLO technology, sensors/ISR and networking.

 

The F35, like any jet, must be judged on its own merits and it has plenty of them. I think it's fair to say that the F35's particular combination of VLO, sensors, networking capability, EW suite and aerodynamic performance is unprecedented. To relegate it to the strike role going forward seems bizarre and wasteful given what it is likely to bring to the air to air arena.

 

Even in the "phonebooth" (which is only a small and diminishing part of the overall air to air combat domain), SACM is already in the pipeline to provide an internally storable WVR missile. With "insta-cueing" via EODAS, the F35 is pretty well placed to excel there too, albeit as a Plan B (or C/D/E/Z) contingency.

Yes it will be exciting to see wether or not their bet was correctly placed, if it was then future aircraft design will be heavily influenced.

Yes it will be exciting to see wether or not their bet was correctly placed, if it was then future aircraft design will be heavily influenced.

I don't think it is a "bet" so much as an observation based on operational experience, modelling and the data gathered from years of large scale exercises like Red Flag(!?). The data would need to have been off by a LONG way for the F35's BFM handling characteristics to become a particularly relevant determinant of its overall usefulness as an air to air combat asset going forward.

god forbid r&d professionals actually know more about designing aircraft than internet armchair bfmers

I don't think it is a "bet" so much as an observation based on operational experience, modelling and the data gathered from years of large scale exercises like Red Flag. The data would need to have been off by a LONG way for the F35's BFM handling characteristics to become a particularly relevant determinant of its overall air to air combat performance going forward.

Problems start arising if electronic countermeasures catch up however, then all of a sudden we're back to having to maneuver the aircraft into a firing position to make the kill.

That having been said the F-18 has it's advantages in a fight with the F-14, and vice versa, the F-14 having the better STR & climb rate, whilst the F-18 has its extreme nose authority and I would assume a similar ITR. But the F-18 is NOT the F-35, the F-18 most likely possesses both a higher ITR & STR over the F-35 at the most common dogfighting speeds, which after a few passes usually stabilise themselves around M 0.6.

...After a few passes...

That assumption is what makes or breaks your entire argument.

I'm leaning towards breaks, tbh.

god forbid r&d professionals actually know more about designing aircraft than internet armchair bfmers

...After a few passes...

 

That assumption is what makes or breaks your entire argument.

 

I'm leaning towards breaks, tbh.

Elaborate?

Are you saying that in WVR dogfights a few circles are not common? esp. when multiple opponents are facing off...

Problems start arising if electronic countermeasures catch up however, then all of a sudden we're back to having to maneuver the aircraft into a firing position to make the kill.

I suppose it is just as well that the F35 probably has the most sophisticated EW suite of any tactical fighter either current or planned...

Look, you always have to "maneuver" the aircraft into a firing position to make a kill - BFM is just one way (and not a very good one anymore) to get there. The race between missiles and countermeasures is a constant one. If the US reached the point where enemy countermeasures had the upper hand to the point of rendering BVR weapons useless, then it is not a given that they'd simply fall back into BFM dogfighting of all things (!?). There are many ways to approach modern day WVR combat, and post merge BFM is just one of them.

It's far more likely that they'd invest in (short term) tactical adjustments to leverage the F35s VLO and sensor advantages in tandem with the US' monstrous ISR capability/footprint to prevent neutral merges from occurring in the first place, and by investing in more capable AAMs/guidance packages in the medium term to reclaim the ability to reliably kill from a distance.

At any rate, the above is a very vague and arbitrary hypothetical. There is very little real world data to suggest it will come to pass in the foreseeable future and there is a HUGE amount of investment occurring across the board in the US military to ensure it never does.

Elaborate?

 

Are you saying that in WVR dogfights a few circles are not common? esp. when multiple opponents are facing off...

"Lightning 1 Pitbull times two." "Lightning kill two ship F-18 bulls xxx/xx (...)"

Or, heck, drop the BVR weapons and just focus on pre-merge stuff and pilots that don't commit to neutral merges like us flight sim types! :)

Edit: Also, as for my above post, I should have said "Those assumptions make or break (...)" ---> There's quite a few assumptions in there that IMHO create a very unlikely scenario. (or multiple unlikely scenarios)

This goes for every scenario you have listed - You keep saying "this turns like that" but you're ignoring how you've gotten to that turn fight - That is where all the fun happens IMO.

"Lightning 1 Pitbull times two." "Lightning kill two ship F-18 bulls xxx/xx (...)"

 

Or, heck, drop the BVR weapons and just focus on pre-merge stuff and pilots that don't commit to neutral merges like us flight sim types! :)

 

Edit: Also, as for my above post, I should have said "Those assumptions make or break (...)" ---> There's quite a few assumptions in there that IMHO create a very unlikely scenario. (or multiple unlikely scenarios)

 

This goes for every scenario you have listed - You keep saying "this turns like that" but you're ignoring how you've gotten to that turn fight - That is where all the fun happens IMO.

Sweep is spot on. There are a long list of things that would need to go very wrong before an adversary could render the AIM120D so impotent (nevermind whatever replaces it!). Unlike the simplified modelling shown for the B/C versions in DCS, the D model can be guided to a target via a variety of means (and sources of targeting data) that would all need to be systematically defeated first (unlikely).

Even if the enemy turns up with "really good ECM" there are an abundance of BVR/pre merge techniques that could be employed by such a VLO aircraft before simply saying "welp, the slammers ain't workin folks - someone crank up the Kenny Loggins cuz it's dogfightin time!" :smilewink:

"Lightning 1 Pitbull times two." "Lightning kill two ship F-18 bulls xxx/xx (...)"

 

Or, heck, drop the BVR weapons and just focus on pre-merge stuff and pilots that don't commit to neutral merges like us flight sim types! :)

 

Edit: Also, as for my above post, I should have said "Those assumptions make or break (...)" ---> There's quite a few assumptions in there that IMHO create a very unlikely scenario. (or multiple unlikely scenarios)

What assumptions?

The only assumptions I've made have been in regards to the F-35's kinematic performance, which is all any of us can do about the F-35, good or bad, we assume.

I'm trying come at this from both angles however, having also pointed out that maneuverability may not matter, however in a situation where it does matter I'm worried about the F-35's chances.

This goes for every scenario you have listed - You keep saying "this turns like that" but you're ignoring how you've gotten to that turn fight - That is where all the fun happens IMO.

What do you mean?

Remember all I've done is put forth the hypothetical scenario that a WVR engagement happens after either a failed attempt at BVR.

Look, you can look at a Su-35 that ran out of guns if you want to look at the worst, what he's saying is that it shouldn't happen under any circumstances and with any 10% decent pilot.

Look, you can look at a Su-35 that ran out of guns if you want to look at the worst, what he's saying is that it shouldn't happen under any circumstances and with any 10% decent pilot.

The pilot isn't the issue, it's wether or not the sensors will be able to provide the advantage hoped for. If they do we're good, the F-35 is golden and future fighters wont need much in the way of maneuverability, it will be mostly about the sensors.

However if countermeasure technology, both electronic and infrared, progresses to a point where the above wont always be the case, then problems will arise.

I'm sure this fact isn't lost on the R&D guys either, which is why the F-22 is there and a restart of the production is even considered. The F-35 is the strike aircraft that is supposed to be able to easily deal with any 4th gen fighter threat on top, however throw in some 5th gen opponents and suddenly the F-22 and its superior kinematic performance might become a necessity.

Remember all I've done is put forth the hypothetical scenario that a WVR engagement happens after either a failed attempt at BVR.

Again, even a "failed attempt at BVR" does not necessitate a subsequent BFM or even WVR engagement. The F35 crews can crank away to attempt a Grinder type maneuver, go to EMCON and extend out/disengage entirely, call in support from nearby flights, close to WVR and gun down an opponent that has spent all its energy defeating slammers... the list goes on (and none of them involve the post merge). Nobody is actually saying maneuverability doesn't matter - just that getting bogged down by using it in a knife fight isn't smart anymore. To conflate the F35's BFM characteristics with its overall air to air combat capability is a fairly significant error to be frank with you.

The F-35 is the strike aircraft that is supposed to be able to easily deal with any 4th gen fighter threat on top, however throw in some 5th gen opponents and suddenly the F-22 and its superior kinematic performance might become a necessity.

The only 5th gen competitors out there to the F35 are the T50, J31 and J20. All of them have plenty of hurdles to overcome themselves before they're likely to meet an F35 flight in the air and yet none of them exhibit the same level of signals management sophistication as the F35, with the same being true of their sensor and EW suites. To surmise that they instantly necessitate "Raptor intervention" purely by virtue of being 5th gen jets is a hell of a stretch.

Ultimately we're talking about very unlikely contingencies here. It's like saying "what if enemy troops carry such good body armour that our 5.56 rounds can't kill them... we'll have to go hand to hand with our combat knives!". It's just not likely or true...

Boagrius,

I think I'm being misunderstood here as talking about tomorrow when I'm not. The F-35 is planned to be the main fighter in service with many countries for many decades to come, and it is within this period I am concerned wether or not stealth & ECM might evolve to the point where not only will visual confirmation be necessary before opening fire, but the selection of effective weapons are reduced to close range ones necessating a tail chase.

It's all hypothetical, but we've seen first hand what bad things could happen when you rely too much on one thing - which again is not saying it's a guarantee it will.

I get that, but the likelihood of your hypothetical actually coming to pass seems extremely remote given:

a.) The lack of evidence provided

b.) The tremendous lengths the US has gone to and is going to so as to prevent it from ever occurring.

I get that, but the likelihood of your hypothetical actually coming to pass seems extremely remote given:

a.) The lack of evidence provided

b.) The tremendous lengths the US has gone to and is going to so as to prevent it from ever occurring.

In all honesty though, what do we actually know about Russian or Chinese sensor, ECM & stealth capability? I would think they're keeping that at least as secret as the US are.

Also why does Russia place such a high emphasis on maneuverability in the PAK FA design if they didn't think it would be important? Those are the questions I ask myself when I start to speculate about the F-35 in future conflicts.

In all honesty though, what do we actually know about Russian or Chinese sensor, ECM & stealth capability? I presumre they're keeping that at least as secret as the US are.

Well, off the top of my head:

- We know all of their 5th gen jets are also their very first meaningful forays into the production of VLO tactical aircraft.

- We know that this shows when they are compared to those of the US.

- We know that they're only just coming to grips with fighter based AESA sets when the US has been fielding them for years.

- We know that the US lead in AESA technology also crosses over into EW/jamming capabilty (ref NGJ and GaN)

- We know they're a long way from being able to present the pilot with sensor data in remotely as streamlined a way as the F35 does...

- We know that EW and VLO work hand in hand - a VLO jet is orders of magnitude easier to conceal/protect via jamming than a 4th gen one. The smaller your RCS, the more effective your jamming is and the less RF energy you will require to achieve a given outcome. This is important because even emitting with a very modern jammer (say Khibiny for example) can give you away when faced with an EW suite like Barracuda (nevermind entire networked flights of them). The US lead in VLO technology actually has very serious ramifications for the EW domain as well.

Also why does Russia place such a high emphasis on maneuverability in the PAK FA design if they didn't think it would be important? Those are the questions I ask myself when I start to speculate about the F-35 in future conflicts.

Probably because they can't compete on the VLO/sig management and sensor front so they're left with a more brute force approach. The US has been investing heavily in the VLO game for a LONG time and they're not sitting idle with it. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese can be reasonably expected to close that gap in their first serious attempts - corporate espionage or otherwise.

But the F-18 is NOT the F-35, the F-18 most likely possesses both a higher ITR & STR over the f-35

And this based on what?????

dogfighting speeds, which after a few passes usually stabilise themselves around M 0.6.

energy management has been an important part of dogfight since WW II, there are ways for fighters to regain speed such as low yo-yo , or defensive spiral,.. etc.And if the pilots using sustained turn instead of ITR , he wont lose air speed either. It no longer like in WW I where 2 aircraft keep turning in flat circle and losing air speed

And this based on what?????

It's a reasonable prediction based on the figures & visual cues we have so far.

Remember the F-18 features an STR only about 1 deg/sec lower than that of the F-16, and the ITR is slightly superior across the board until the hornet's G limit, except for the swiss hornets which are 9 G rated.

energy management has been an important part of dogfight since WW II, there are ways for fighters to regain speed such as low yo-yo , or defensive spiral,.. etc.And if the pilots using sustained turn instead of ITR , he wont lose air speed either. It no longer like in WW I where 2 aircraft keep turning in flat circle and losing air speed

No'one ever said it was? The the only reason we've been talking so much about turning performance is because you brought up a kinematic energy chart made by some other person that had terribly wrong figures for several aircraft.

ASH / Block III Super Bugs will be rated for 9G.

 

No'one ever said it was? The the only reason we've been talking so much about turning performance is because you brought up a kinematic energy chart made by some other person that had terribly wrong figures for several aircraft.

GarryA should have really posted a link to the actual PDF - it is F-35 related and the methology used is in the report IIRC ( not reading it now).

Strike Fighters A-A

The figures shouldn't be wrong (not that I have gone over it with a fine toothed comb) - because it is all manual data apart from the F-35 which is only based on known information.

And the guy who did it is an aerospace engineer - and it is done from that perspective - less exciting I know.

I don't know who took the figures out and stuck them together like that but they were totally missing the point of the paper which took months to do - it was an attempt to do something far more comprehensive than the normal amateur forum debates.

As an extreme example WWI biplane has mind blowing STR numbers but it would still easily lose to WWII plane or a modern jet in a turn fight. It's similar situation between WWII plane and a jet.

 

In documentaries US Navy pilots tell.................... .

Mostly agree - listen to this guy - Boyd was back at the drawing board by the mid 70s :thumbup:

VR experience

GarryA should have really posted a link to the actual PDF - it is F-35 related and the methology used is in the report IIRC ( not reading it now).

 

Strike Fighters A-A

 

 

The figures shouldn't be wrong (not that I have gone over it with a fine toothed comb) - because it is all manual data apart from the F-35 which is only based on known information.

 

And the guy who did it is an aerospace engineer - and it is done from that perspective - less exciting I know.

 

I don't know who took the figures out and stuck them together like that but they were totally missing the point of the paper which took months to do - it was an attempt to do something far more comprehensive than the normal amateur forum debates.

Thank you Basher, will have a look through it.