F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Good2Golf · 3 Jul 2015

Not like an F-14 Tomcat would have won a dogfight against any contemporary foe of the day, but its AIM-54 Phoenix LRAAM could reach out to 160km. Point is, using sensors to work the battlespace and ROE to allow beyond visual range (BVR) distances, was the greatest expectation of JSF to a dogfighter? It was never designed as such, so why complain when it doesn't/mightn't compare as favourably as an aircraft (F-16) that was religiously disciplined to stay nimble and lethal in the energy-maneouvre realm, sustaining relatively high corner speeds (aka manoeuvre speed, Va) that is pretty hard to beat, even with today's technology. John Boyd's penultimate work had nothing to do with his OODA loop, and even though the USAF was no fan of his, his work on E-M theory and it's implementation by the team at General Dynamics in designing the F-16 are pretty hard to beat. I see that none of the so-called 'experts' have brought up the two aircraft's performance requirements to compare. That would show why the dogfight 1V1 performance is not as relevant...multi-static radar and sensor feeds to the F-35's DAS put the 35 in a league ahead the 16 as far as integration into weaponized battle-spaces.

Not that I'm an apologist for how the JSF program has been unfolding, but comparing its jack-of-all-trades flight characteristics without situating the marked increase in targeting and weapons integration renders the dogfight contrast essentially irrelevant.

Call the JSF an F/A-35, or even go as far as to call it an E/F/A-35, given its on-board and networked capabilities and comparison with a pure, true "F" jet (16). I can't recall any articles complaining that the B-2 didn't truck as much 'poundage' as the B-52...

:2c:
G2G

MarkOttawa · 7 Jul 2015

More from AvWeek's critical Bill Sweetman (further links at original):

Behind That F-35 Air Combat Report

...The F-22 Raptor was designed to be highly agile with a large usable flight envelope (hence its monster tail surfaces) and it had a complex, space-consuming arrangement that allowed AIM-9 missiles to be fired in lock-on-before-launch mode almost anywhere in the forward hemisphere.

The JSF is not as agile, but program leaders say that it will prevail in BVR because of stealth and situational awareness, and in WVR it will use its 360-deg. target-tracking device- the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) - to cue high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles (AAM) on to its adversaries.

What they don't say as loudly is that it can't do both, at least on the same mission. Unlike the F-22 (and the Chengdu J-20 and Sukhoi T-50) it doesn't have side bays and trapezes for rail-launched AAMs. If the F-35 carries AIM-9s it does so externally, and by Lockheed Martin's own definition it is not stealthy.

This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995...
http://aviationweek.com/blog/behind-f-35-air-combat-report

So if RCAF F-35s were doing NORAD air defence would they hang Sidewinders or other missiles externally?

More on weapons:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lightning-rod-f-35-fighter-family-capabilities-and-controversies-021922/#PimpMyRide:Weapons&Accessories

Plus:
http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/16/f-35-weapons-suite/

Mark
Ottawa

Ostrozac · 7 Jul 2015

Good2Golf said:
Not like an F-14 Tomcat would have won a dogfight against any contemporary foe of the day, \

It wasn't that bad an aircraft. Two USN F-14s splashed two Libyan Mig-23 at close range with Sidewinder and Sparrow in the Gulf of Sidra in 1989. So it could at least win a dogfight against the Flogger.

But yes, the F-14 was optimized for long-range engagement.

SupersonicMax · 8 Jul 2015

The Gulf of Sidea incident was hardly a dogfight in the pure sense. One was shot down pre-merge, the other was shot down through 90 degrees of turn in what ended up being a 2v1 engagement.

Dogfight is much more than just the aircraft. I know guys who had kills against very innexperienced F-22 drivers and guys that got gunned by very experienced Alphajet drivers.

Oldgateboatdriver · 8 Jul 2015

I know the Tomcat was optimized for the AWG-9/Phoenix missile combination, but weren't the pilots trained in dogfighting with the guns too? Isn't it what Miramar was all about? After all, the Tomcat is classified as a fighter, not an interceptor.

Underway · 8 Jul 2015

If the F-35 is 70% ground, 30% air should that not go into the calculation for the type of aircraft we need? Is NORAD more important than bombing? And if it is then shouldn't we be getting an air superiority fighter?

Or why not a mixed fleet. What's out there that classifies as air superiority that's being built right now? And what would be a good complement for it?

Kirkhill · 8 Jul 2015

If I understand correctly, both the F22 and the Typhoon were conceived as Air Supremacy aircraft. Both saw their numbers cut. Speculation had that that was partly due to cost. It was also speculated that it was due to the lack of sufficient threat to justify a larger fleet. Both saw themselves modified to accommodate more Air to Surface capabilities. In the Typhoon's case the RAF has been selling off new aircraft they are committed to buy but can't afford/don't want/don't need.

GR66 · 8 Jul 2015

Underway said:
If the F-35 is 70% ground, 30% air should that not go into the calculation for the type of aircraft we need? Is NORAD more important than bombing? And if it is then shouldn't we be getting an air superiority fighter?

Or why not a mixed fleet. What's out there that classifies as air superiority that's being built right now? And what would be a good complement for it?

I'm curious about what a realistic air threat against Canada actually looks like? Are we looking at escorted bomber strikes with conventional weapons against military/political/economic targets in central Canada? How far into Canadian airspace would a Russian (Chinese?) bomber have to penetrate in order for targets in the populated southern strip of our territory to be reached by air-launched cruise missiles?

Would such an attack by Russia make any political or military sense? If NORAD were to detect a bunch of Russian bombers penetrating North American airspace and launching missiles would we have any choice but to assume that it is a nuclear first-strike and retaliate in kind? Could we/would we afford to wait until the missiles actually reach their targets and we're able to determine if they are carrying conventional or nuclear warheads before we decide how to respond?

Certainly Russian aircraft DO challenge our airspace and certainly we DO need the military capability to respond to those challenges (and potentially to threaten THEIR territory if required), but is having a large number of 5th Generation air-to-air optimized fighters really our priority over a multi-mission capable aircraft?

I'd love to hear from people far more knowlegable than myself what it is they feel we really are facing as far as air threats to our own territory and what we need to counter those threats.

Ostrozac · 8 Jul 2015

GR66 said:
How far into Canadian airspace would a Russian (Chinese?) bomber have to penetrate in order for targets in the populated southern strip of our territory to be reached by air-launched cruise missiles?

Not far at all, really. Wikipedia gives a range of 3000km for the AS-15 "Kent" air launched cruise missile. The advantage of standoff weapons is... that you can standoff.

Kirkhill · 8 Jul 2015

Ostrozac said:
Not far at all, really. Wikipedia gives a range of 3000km for the AS-15 "Kent" air launched cruise missile. The advantage of standoff weapons is... that you can standoff.

And what is the probability of an Air to Air kill on an AS-15? Any platform - any weapon.

SupersonicMax · 8 Jul 2015

The reality is that in an ideal world, you'd want a fleet of Air Superiority fighters for NORAD (F-15C with AESA radars would do the job) and a self-escort striker capable of making it through Semi-modern IADS (SA-10/12/20, 15, 17)

The reality is we can only have one type. Given that the NORAD role can be successfully done by any self-escort striker, I don't see us buying anything else than a self-escort striker. If it was just me, I would buy F-15Es with AESA radars and a modern ECM suite. But I don't think bean counters would like that. The F-35 is a great choice as it is much cheaper ($95M now, likely down to $85M when aircraft go into full production) and it affords us some of the latest in terms of technology.

Whether you have 65 F-22, 65 F-18E or 65 F-35, the cruise missile attack results will be the same....

GR66 · 8 Jul 2015

SupersonicMax said:
The reality is that in an ideal world, you'd want a fleet of Air Superiority fighters for NORAD (F-15C with AESA radars would do the job) and a self-escort striker capable of making it through Semi-modern IADS (SA-10/12/20, 15, 17)

The reality is we can only have one type. Given that the NORAD role can be successfully done by any self-escort striker, I don't see us buying anything else than a self-escort striker. If it was just me, I would buy F-15Es with AESA radars and a modern ECM suite. But I don't think bean counters would like that. The F-35 is a great choice as it is much cheaper ($95M now, likely down to $85M when aircraft go into full production) and it affords us some of the latest in terms of technology.

Whether you have 65 F-22, 65 F-18E or 65 F-35, the cruise missile attack results will be the same....

Sounds to me then that so long as the unit costs for the F-35 remain in line with, or cheaper than, any 4+/5 Gen competitors and the aircraft ends up performing at least close to what has been promised, then the F-35 is a very good fit for Canada's needs. Probably a better fit than for the USA which is likely to ask its F-35s to perform a wider variety of roles.

SupersonicMax · 8 Jul 2015

You bet.

dimsum · 8 Jul 2015

SupersonicMax said:
Whether you have 65 F-22, 65 F-18E or 65 F-35, the cruise missile attack results will be the same....

What, no love for the WSOs in the F/A-18F? :stirpot:

>

SupersonicMax · 8 Jul 2015

From what I have seen in other communities (F model, Strike Eagle), I think WSOs could be an added value but I think it would require an enormous shift in mentality both for pilots and ACSOs to make it an effective crew.

But I don't like hearing breathing in the ICS

MarkOttawa · 8 Jul 2015

GR66: From NORAD commander in March (note last para):

U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat

The ability of the U.S. and Canadian military to defend North America could be jeopardized by stepped up Russian military activity, according to the commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command…

“Should these trends continue over time, NORAD will face increased risk in our ability to defend North America against Russian air, maritime and cruise missile threats,” he said…

“This past year has marked a notable increase in Russian military assertiveness,” on the world stage, he said. Russian heavy bomber aircraft flew more patrols outside Russian airspace “than in any year since the Cold War,” though he did not offer a specific number. There have also been increased Russian air patrols across the coastlines of Europe.

The NORAD commander later said that Russian flights, even down the English Channel, are at a pace “that has not been what they’ve done in the past, even back with the Soviet Union.”

Under NORAD operations, the U.S. and Canada routinely send fighter jets into the skies to monitor any Russian military aircraft approaching the U.S. coastline. The Russian operations have not extended to actually flying into U.S. or Canadian airspace, but in the last year Russia is clearly trying to keep a closer eye on NORAD…

One of the security challenges for the U.S. is to determine whether the cruise missiles on its bomber aircraft, submarines and warships are indeed conventional or may be nuclear tipped. When carried aboard submarines, ships and in the internal bays of bombers it’s nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence to know with certainty…

“They can range critical infrastructure in Alaska and in Canada that we rely on for a homeland defense mission [emphasis added],” Gortney told senators, explaining the reach of the long-range of the Russian cruise missiles.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/us-russia-military-threat-alarm-norad/

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Moderator

Army.ca Fixture

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Veteran

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Veteran

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Myth

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Fixture

Member

Army.ca Veteran

Army.ca Fixture

Army.ca Veteran

Similar threads