Jump to content

The F-35 Thread


Groove

Recommended Posts

None of the above. I'm in the Space Systems LOB. I specifically work on satellite communication subsystems (both ground and orbital). I've worked GPS IIF, GOES-R, GOES-S, SBIRS, and a few others. I also do the majority of the pre-launch ground umbilical characterizations for Vandenberg SLC-3 launches. IIAAIAS!

 

 

 

First I'll preface it with the fact that in a high threat environment you likely wouldn't be flying CAS sorties anyway because the FLOT is usually several miles behind where the fighters/strikers are operating. Warfare changes with time though, so in the future perhaps that won't be the case.

 

F-16 isn't necessarily superior in the CAS role, I think they would perform quite similarly aside from the Viper having more (albeit smaller) rounds for the gun.

 

F-15E is superior in terms of payload capacity and pilot workload. The GIB can offer a lot of assistance in this role in finding targets, working the radios, prepping weapons, etc., leaving the pilot to "do some of that pilot sh!t." Some of that may be negated by the increased SA in the F-35, but that remains to be seen.

 

As for the A-10...you've got to be joking right? The Hog was designed specifically to do two things: kill tanks pouring through Fulda Gap, and provide CAS. It has incredibly long loiter times, fantastic payload capabilities, the Avenger is arguably the best CAS weapon available in today's most common combat theater, it's incredibly robust and has extreme survivability, the best pilot protection of any allied aircraft, and fighting low and slow is where it excels most. IMO, the only real advantage the F-35, F-15, or F-16 have over the Hog is the speed at which it can get to the TIC.

 

Ya left out the 'big thing' with Hogs...

 

Hog pilots are supposed to be the Gods of CAS (and CSAR support/BAI/SCAR). Everybody else has a bunch of other missions to train for, typically. Hopefully that'll change as they dump Hogs over the next few years.

 

P.S. You worked on GPS IIF? I watched the sixth one go up from the KSC parking lot in person back in May 2014. It was a blast (pun intended).

Lord of Salt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

P.S. You worked on GPS IIF? I watched the sixth one go up from the KSC parking lot in person back in May 2014. It was a blast (pun intended).

 

I worked on the 10, 11, and 12 birds but I didn't participate in their launch activities. I try to avoid CCAFS like the plague. Per diem sucks, facilities suck, humidity sucks...I could go on for days about everything that sucks about working out there. The ONLY plus side IMO is that LM owns several condos on Cocoa Beach and we stay there instead of in a hotel.

 

Hog pilots are supposed to be the Gods of CAS (and CSAR support/BAI/SCAR). Everybody else has a bunch of other missions to train for, typically. Hopefully that'll change as they dump Hogs over the next few years.

 

Good point that I completely forgot about. Also just FYI, SCAR has pretty much been buried and replaced with XINT (airborne alert interdiction) and XATK (airborne alert attack). AFAIK the SCAR acronym isn't even listed anymore in the latest AFDD 1-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the above. I'm in the Space Systems LOB. I specifically work on satellite communication subsystems (both ground and orbital). I've worked GPS IIF, GOES-R, GOES-S, SBIRS, and a few others. I also do the majority of the pre-launch ground umbilical characterizations for Vandenberg SLC-3 launches. IIAAIAS!

Ok, but why would F-35 has problem with visual when it has DAS ( which as far as i know have automatic tracking function)

 

 

 

F-15E is superior in terms of payload capacity and pilot workload. The GIB can offer a lot of assistance in this role in finding targets, working the radios, prepping weapons, etc., leaving the pilot to "do some of that pilot sh!t." Some of that may be negated by the increased SA in the F-35, but that remains to be seen.

While i agree that F-15 can carry more weapon , iam not sure if it really makes that much of a different. If we consider F-15E with external weapons and F-35 with an internal weapon then for certain F-15E can carry a lot more. But it is a moot point since F-15E wont be able to get into area that requires F-35 to use its internal configuration.

If we compare F-15E and F-35 both in external configuration then i think the different is negligible.

For most CAS target, i would say weapons such as SDB II , SPEAR, APKWS can do great job. You dont need massive bombs like GBU-31 or super long range weapon like JASSM.

F-35 in external configuration can carry a maximum of 24 SDB II /SPEAR along with 4 AAM for self-defense

F-15E can carry a maximum of 28 SDB II along with 4 AAM for self-defense.

Very small different IMHO.

F-15E has another pair of eye but how about the automatic search and track function of DAS ? Machine make a lot less mistake than human and they dont get tired or distracted

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

 

As for the A-10...you've got to be joking right? The Hog was designed specifically to do two things: kill tanks pouring through Fulda Gap, and provide CAS. It has incredibly long loiter times, fantastic payload capabilities, the Avenger is arguably the best CAS weapon available in today's most common combat theater, it's incredibly robust and has extreme survivability, the best pilot protection of any allied aircraft, and fighting low and slow is where it excels most. IMO, the only real advantage the F-35, F-15, or F-16 have over the Hog is the speed at which it can get to the TIC.

 

There are a few argument that supports A-10 in CAS over F-35

1/ A-10 has better loiter time.Fair enough since A-10 is a slow aircraft and has quite high bypass engine , and loiter is useful

 

2/ A-10 has better airframe armor and better cannon. I think these are quite overrated feature. A-10 armor and GAU-8 won't help it duel with mobile short range AA and if it uses Maverick then the advantages of armor and cannon is moot.

2008_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade_-_9K22_Tunguska.jpg

tor.jpg

 

3/ A-10 can carry more than F-35. May be, i guess it depend on the kind of weapon too, SDB II is not intergrated on A-10 AFAIK, so A-10 may not be able to attack as many targets as F-35. Moreover, in future, we have weapons like APKWS , LOGIR , GBU-X ,JAGM. Technically if those weapon are integrated on A-10 it can carry more. But if it is really that important shouldn't B-1B be the best CAS platform with its loiter time , speed , loadout and double crew member ?.

 

I would argue that F-35 also has advantages over A-10 in CAS.

1/ it has a radar so finding target will be much quicker with GMTI function, DAS has automatic target track too

2/ it has DAS and DIRCM so much safer against sneak up MANPADS

3/ it go to target/run aways quicker.

 

Generally, the point is i dont see how F-35 is bad in CAS, it may not be the best one there is, but at least comparable to most others asset.


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People often Forget that the F-16 has performed more CAS missions in the last few conflicts than any other aircraft. So the whole slow and loiter argument seems not to be that big of a deal.

If you can see the enemy from as far away as the F-35 can, you don't neet to be slow. The only argument for the A-10 is the low operational cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but why would F-35 has problem with visual when it has DAS ( which as far as i know have automatic tracking function)

 

I'm sure the DAS will be a helpful tool but the pair of Mk 1 optical receivers will remain the best sensors for BFM and ACM IMO.

 

But it is a moot point since F-15E wont be able to get into area that requires F-35

 

Reference what I prefaced my statements with:

 

in a high threat environment you likely wouldn't be flying CAS sorties anyway because the FLOT is usually several miles behind where the fighters/strikers are operating.

 

In current operations there really aren't high threat environments. It's not like skinnies are cruising the streets in Shilkas or Sparkas, they're using unguided .50 cal and 20mm guns mounted in the back of some Toyota truck. So while the F-35 has all this cool tech, it's not really any sort of an advantage in a realistic theater of operations.


Edited by RyboPops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point that I completely forgot about. Also just FYI, SCAR has pretty much been buried and replaced with XINT (airborne alert interdiction) and XATK (airborne alert attack). AFAIK the SCAR acronym isn't even listed anymore in the latest AFDD 1-2.

 

Wasn't aware that SCAR got booted as an acronym, thanks for the info!

Lord of Salt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-16 isn't necessarily superior in the CAS role, I think they would perform quite similarly aside from the Viper having more (albeit smaller) rounds for the gun.

 

 

The never ending CAS debate has been raging forever - there are a few million posts on this thread and other forums that would be worth reading.

 

Guns rounds - interestingly (or not) the F-16 actually has less (~500) than the F-104 (~750) it replaced in some forces, and of course its gun is fixed rate at ~6000 rpm ( firing time of ~5.1 secs).

 

The GAU-22 on the F-35 is a break from the norm on US fighters having half the firing rate (might be variable ) and is closer to some of the Russian birds that carry 150 rnds MiG-29 / Su-27 and the Su-25 carries 250 rnds on given figures but when you look at the available firing time instead of just rounds it doesn't look as bad.

 

F-35A firing time would be around 3.3 secs and the B/C would be 4.1 secs. This of course is still somewhat lower than the A-10 (16.8 secs) and the only tac jet higher than that I know of was the A-7A/B (>40 secs max)

 

One would hope it is far more accurate than the M61 A1 for AG - of course in regards to AG payload / range / loiter and sensors in an uncontested environment the F-16 is so vastly lacking to F-35 there is barely any comparison.

 

A note on the MK1 eyeball - it cannot see in the dark and cannot see through certain cloud and smoke - but it can when looking through EODAS sensors via the Helmet - that also give the pilot a full 360 view even going straight through the airframe. What about zoom? not without binoculars - but even the basic TGP is far better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2/ A-10 has better airframe armor and better cannon. I think these are quite overrated feature. A-10 armor and GAU-8 won't help it duel with mobile short range AA and if it uses Maverick then the advantages of armor and cannon is moot.

 

I disagree, because your logic falls short. You don't bring a gun to fight AA, that is suicidal, and would never even be considered, barring a few exceptions. The Missiles are exactly there because they offer a standoff capability, and the ability to crack open heavily armored Tanks, that is why it can carry a lot of em. the 30mm was never intended to be used to knock out heavy tanks, as it simply lacked the penetration to do so (side armor aside). The 30mm was designed to shit on anything that had less armor then an MBT, because trucks, APC' and the like are just as important to knock out as Tanks.

Keep in mind, that when the A-10 entered service, the Warsaw pact Divisional AA systems consisted of a mix of 9K33 OSA, the ever reliable ZSU-23-4. the Tor and Tunguska don't show up until the mid 80's, at which point the A-10's standoff capability was improved yet again. And Keep in mind, neither of those systems ended up in the inventories of Poland, East Germany or Czechoslovakia, which continued to rely on their older AA assets. Even then, the amount of units present wasn't enough to fully stock all divisions with the stuff they needed.

 

the A-10's are nearing the end of their lifetime, and replacement is inevitable. Question is, if its preferable to replace it with the F-35, which is not only problematic in its development, but is also made and designed by a company that exhibits the very worst of monopoly traits that a government can wish for. The extreme reliance the USAF, USMC and the USN will have on Lockheed Martin in itself is a reason to pass up the F-35 in favor for another aircraft, given that history have proven that any monopoly is bad for everybody except the monopolist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the A-10's are nearing the end of their lifetime, and replacement is inevitable. Question is, if its preferable to replace it with the F-35, which is not only problematic in its development, but is also made and designed by a company that exhibits the very worst of monopoly traits that a government can wish for.

 

The USAF is already seriously looking for an alternative cheap CAS platform. If the current US government understands one thing, than the danger of monopolies for the customer.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-requests-funding-for-low-cost-fighter-test-434520/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, because your logic falls short. You don't bring a gun to fight AA, that is suicidal, and would never even be considered, barring a few exceptions. The Missiles are exactly there because they offer a standoff capability, and the ability to crack open heavily armored Tanks, that is why it can carry a lot of em. the 30mm was never intended to be used to knock out heavy tanks, as it simply lacked the penetration to do so (side armor aside). The 30mm was designed to shit on anything that had less armor then an MBT, because trucks, APC' and the like are just as important to knock out as Tanks.

Keep in mind, that when the A-10 entered service, the Warsaw pact Divisional AA systems consisted of a mix of 9K33 OSA, the ever reliable ZSU-23-4. the Tor and Tunguska don't show up until the mid 80's, at which point the A-10's standoff capability was improved yet again. And Keep in mind, neither of those systems ended up in the inventories of Poland, East Germany or Czechoslovakia, which continued to rely on their older AA assets. Even then, the amount of units present wasn't enough to fully stock all divisions with the stuff they needed.

 

That exactly what iam talking about:

If you fight against AA like 9K33 OSA, Tor and Tunguska the armor and cannon of A-10 won't help. It will have to use missiles/guided bomb instead. In which case the F-35 will be better because its sensor and weapons have much longer range.

 

If you fight against an armor division that can;t fight back then the armor isn't very useful and something like cluster bomb and APKWS can do similar job as the gun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That exactly what iam talking about:

If you fight against AA like 9K33 OSA, Tor and Tunguska the armor and cannon of A-10 won't help. It will have to use missiles/guided bomb instead. In which case the F-35 will be better because its sensor and weapons have much longer range.

 

If you fight against an armor division that can;t fight back then the armor isn't very useful and something like cluster bomb and APKWS can do similar job as the gun

 

Doesn't sound like you read what he wrote at all...

 

How many of the tasks that the A-10 has been carrying out for the last couple of decades will the F-35 be capable of taking care of as effectively? That's the question you should ask yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2017/March/Pages/F35vsA10FlyoffPosesMoreQuestions.aspx

 

Twenty-three highly experienced CAS, CSAR and FAC-A pilots who flew the A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B, and who are now flying the F-35 were interviewed to compare their fourth-generation jets with the faculties of the F-35. The results of those conversations were decidedly mixed.

 

All 23 pilots picked the F-35 over their previous fighter for CAS missions in a high-threat environment. However, more than half picked their fourth-generation jets over the F-35 for CAS in low-threat situations. Those preferring their previous jet over the Lightning II cited current software and hardware limitations that do not allow targeting and employment options available to them in their previous jets. For example they mentioned hands-on switching between electro-optical and infrared sensors.

 

_______

 

this isnt about a10 magic gun and armor vs f35, but about cult of the gun fanatics and mc cain and mc sally political agendas.... for very long time, cas will be provided with legacy platforms and dromes rather that f35 which will have more important roles like interdiction or recon.

 

a10 alwas did small number of cas mission (and most of the time droping pgm like others) small deployed numbers cant be everywhere... other platforms will be always doing majority of cas. so its more important to make specialized munitions which everyone can carry rather that specialized platform, which cant be everywhere anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...when you look at the available firing time instead of just rounds it doesn't look as bad. F-35A firing time would be around 3.3 secs and the B/C would be 4.1 secs. This of course is still somewhat lower than the A-10 (16.8 secs) and the only tac jet higher than that I know of was the A-7A/B (>40 secs max)

 

I fail to see anything logically sound about this statement/argument.

 

of course in regards to AG payload / range / loiter and sensors in an uncontested environment the F-16 is so vastly lacking to F-35 there is barely any comparison.

 

I'm assuming you meant in a contested environment?

 

A note on the MK1 eyeball - it cannot see in the dark and cannot see through certain cloud and smoke - but it can when looking through EODAS sensors via the Helmet - that also give the pilot a full 360 view even going straight through the airframe. What about zoom? not without binoculars - but even the basic TGP is far better than that.

 

Nightime visibility is completely irrelevant in terms of BFM. It has never and likely will never occur at night for a slew of reasons. Furthermore, ask any real world fighter pilot what happens when you're wearing NVGs and you pull more than ~3 Gs. I'll give you a hint...it's the worst pain a man can feel. :cry:

 

The extreme reliance the USAF, USMC and the USN will have on Lockheed Martin in itself is a reason to pass up the F-35 in favor for another aircraft, given that history have proven that any monopoly is bad for everybody except the monopolist.

 

I was quite pleased to see the LM/Boeing joint venture lose the LRSB contract for this very reason.


Edited by RyboPops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nightime visibility is completely irrelevant in terms of BFM. It has never and likely will never occur at night for a slew of reasons. Furthermore, ask any real world fighter pilot what happens when you're wearing NVGs and you pull more than ~3 Gs. I'll give you a hint...it's the worst pain a man can feel. :cry:

 

I'm curious to know these reasons. Is this some sort of internationally signed gentleman's agreement? Generally during wartime, whoever gives way in the name of comfort generally gets killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I fail to see anything logically sound about this statement/argument.

 

OK let's leave that for now.

 

 

I'm assuming you meant in a contested environment?

 

 

No - although also better in a contested environment - in terms of capability (only) in a non contested environment the F-35A for example has the large internal bay + 4 heavy wing pylons for AG.

A typical USAF F-16C B30 from Bagram has max 2 AG pylons - not just because of the 370 wing tanks but because only 2 pylons (3/7) appear to have been wired for smart munitions (JDAM etc).

Of course the F-35A doesn't have drop tanks because that fuel percentage was moved internally which explains the massive fuel load.

 

 

 

Nightime visibility is completely irrelevant in terms of BFM. It has never and likely will never occur at night for a slew of reasons. Furthermore, ask any real world fighter pilot what happens when you're wearing NVGs and you pull more than ~3 Gs. I'll give you a hint...it's the worst pain a man can feel. :cry:

 

That might have been the case with separate NVGs but it is all built into the standard flight helmet in an F-35 (projected onto the Visor) so that makes no difference what so ever. Suggest asking an F-35 pilot who has to wear it during BFM etc regardless because that's where his HUD is. DAS has other functions like classifying aircraft which is also displayed in the helmet. EODAS is by NG so check out the advertised capability. :thumbup:

Whether the multispectrum DAS display is currently suitable for use in BFM is something else you can ask - or maybe I will.


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to know these reasons. Is this some sort of internationally signed gentleman's agreement? Generally during wartime, whoever gives way in the name of comfort generally gets killed.

 

Well for starters, as stated before the NVGs will not remain mounted to the helmet above ~3Gs and they WILL detach and will most likely hit the pilot right in the baby-maker. Not really a good thing to happen at TC entry, or as you're accelerating into the WEZ.

 

Now even if you are one of the lucky few (i.e. F-35 pilots) that have NVGs built into your helmet, vertigo and spatial disorientation are much more likely at night (even with NVGs on and flying straight and level), and it's almost guaranteed if you add BFM to the mix.

 

It's also important to note the distinction between BFM (the maneuvers used in a fight between two aircraft) and ACM (the contracts between FL/EL and their wingmen, and the maneuvers used to maintain two-ship mutual support). ACM can absolutely be done at night provided that an element does not fly banzai flows and remains BVR. In the event of an accidental merge at night, one of the AFIs (can't remember which off the top of my head) directs a blow-through while maintaining elemental integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - although also better in a contested environment - in terms of capability (only) in a non contested environment the F-35A for example has the large internal bay + 4 heavy wing pylons for AG.

A typical USAF F-16C B30 from Bagram has max 2 AG pylons - not just because of the 370 wing tanks but because only 2 pylons (3/7) appear to have been wired for smart munitions (JDAM etc).

Of course the F-35A doesn't have drop tanks because that fuel percentage was moved internally which explains the massive fuel load.

 

I misunderstood the OP. I mostly agree with this.

 

That might have been the case with separate NVGs but it is all built into the standard flight helmet in an F-35 (projected onto the Visor) so that makes no difference what so ever. Suggest asking an F-35 pilot who has to wear it during BFM etc regardless because that's where his HUD is. DAS has other functions like classifying aircraft which is also displayed in the helmet. EODAS is by NG so check out the advertised capability. :thumbup:

Whether the multispectrum DAS display is currently suitable for use in BFM is something else you can ask - or maybe I will.

 

Reference my previous post. As stated, one of the AFI's (I'm looking for it) dictates that WVR combat at night should not occur. Perhaps that will be (or already has been) revised in an F-35 specific instruction or supplement, otherwise they are required to adhere to published AF rules and regs.

 

I'm sure that over time the capability to fight WVR at night will be obtained, but I personally doubt it will be at the hands of a human being with an inner ear lying to them about the location of the horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of fighters, I think of the WVR arena exclusively as being able to find, sort, and engage targets at BVR ranges doesn't make a fighter IMO.

 

 

I apologize for asking a question which leads a direction I didn't intend. I recognize that a pilot equipped with traditional NVGs will have detriments with heavy maneuvering and SA. It doesn't negate the possibility of such an interaction occurring, however. If there are such AFIs, AFTTPs that either say "should" not engage in WVR or "directs blow through", then please do not post anything not releasable to the public.

 

The only thing I see as a hindrance to the jet WVR, specifically to RF 17-1 is its lack of AIM-9s. If the linked video is in any way indicative of the actual view, then clearly the IR view provides a more enhanced picture of the night than grainy NVGs, and does a damn good job of reducing IR bloom which is paramount to VID. And a Top-gun dogfight is only a scenario of many when "WVR" range is greatly increased with sensors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like you read what he wrote at all...

 

How many of the tasks that the A-10 has been carrying out for the last couple of decades will the F-35 be capable of taking care of as effectively? That's the question you should ask yourself

 

So what tasks that A-10 can do but F-35 cant ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what tasks that A-10 can do but F-35 cant ?

 

Actual CAS in a low threat environment.

 

Specifically the A-10 can get down low and close to the enemy thanks to a great deal of protection and redundancy in systems, fly in all kinds of weather, has many more times the amount of cannon rounds for direct fire (the cannon is also bigger in caliber for a larger effect on target pr. round), and has a much longer loiter time etc..

 

The A-10's ability to carry out a gun run at a low approach speed is also essential for the most effective employment of the gun.

 

What the F-35 will be able to do in a low threat environment such as afghanistan is essentially the same as what an F-16 is capable of with a few extra bombs and little extra loiter time.

 

Where the F-35 will possibly shine is in a high threat environment with lots of enemy SAMs and radar, but exactly what are the chances of the US or NATO entering a conflict where such a scenario will be present within the next two decades or so? I just don't see it tbh.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not preparing for the worst is bad strategy as if you leave a power vacuum something is going to fill it eventually and scraping army and new weapons together in a hurry has been historically slower than a build-up of a new threat.

DCS Finland: Suomalainen DCS yhteisö -- Finnish DCS community

--------------------------------------------------

SF Squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...