It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How a smart Flanker operator can deal with the F-35 JSF

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I agree with Tomcat Ha, beside that inlet on F-35 is a good reflactor for the powerful radar on Flanker.

I took 15minute to completely read WP23 post. I found that all advantage he given to the F-35 only based on LO, but we have to admit that LO out of F-35 to Flanker is not due to its perfect stealth design compare with F-22 but just its smaller than Flanker plus Flanker is a quite big cross section fighter without any LO character.

Also, WP23 assumed that F-35 and Flanker will detect opposite AWACS simultaneously, since Flanker can carry 4-5 Ks-172 LRM each, why they wouldn't shoot AWACS that command F-35? Don't forget the nose for equip radar on Flanker is much bigger than F-35, whereas Flanker has also fitted AESA which might be more powerful than F-35 so that could catch F-35 at the same time when F-35 get Flankers signature, here is no need I have said the reason at first why F-35 shouldn't take such stealth confidence same as F-22.

The other situation F-35 must face to is they would have to confront amount of Flankers double ... maybe trinal to itselves. When engerneer designed F-22, they had already realized they have no way to avoid aerial dogfight in future combat, that's why they still put gun on F-22. While Flankers know where your AWACS is, they must know which direction you are. I am not saying that F-35 unwearing, what I mean is please don't dress the voile but thinking people can not see




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I agree with Tomcat Ha, beside that inlet on F-35 is a good reflactor for the powerful radar on Flanker.

I took 15minute to completely read WP23 post. I found that all advantage he given to the F-35 only based on LO, but we have to admit that LO out of F-35 to Flanker is not due to its perfect stealth design compare with F-22 but just its smaller than Flanker plus Flanker is a quite big cross section fighter without any LO character.

Also, WP23 assumed that F-35 and Flanker will detect opposite AWACS simultaneously, since Flanker can carry 4-5 Ks-172 LRM each, why they wouldn't shoot AWACS that command F-35? Don't forget the nose for equip radar on Flanker is much bigger than F-35, whereas Flanker has also fitted AESA which might be more powerful than F-35 so that could catch F-35 at the same time when F-35 get Flankers signature, here is no need I have said the reason at first why F-35 shouldn't take such stealth confidence same as F-22.

The other situation F-35 must face to is they would have to confront amount of Flankers double ... maybe trinal to itselves. When engerneer designed F-22, they had already realized they have no way to avoid aerial dogfight in future combat, that's why they still put gun on F-22. While Flankers know where your AWACS is, they must know which direction you are. I am not saying that F-35 unwearing, what I mean is please don't dress the voile but thinking people can not see



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
AWACS have more impact on conventional aircraft than they do on VLO ones. AWACS is a nice asset to have but for a VLO fighter like the F-22 or F-35 it is not a necessity.
That being so you would wonder why that future operators of the F-35 like Australia, Turkey and Sth Korea are only now going to the trouble of obtaining AEW&C like the 737 Wedgetail. Seems they may have gotten more out of an investment if they had bought E-3's or E-2C's 10-15 years back. I understand you are making a general statement here Westy, but it begs the question if this were the case.

LEE.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


`common software glitches`

if i bought something that randomly shut down - it would be thrown back at the company i bought it from with a `fix it or i want my money back` - fixing problems with later production runs is a BS way of doing things.

thats like saying ` don`t worry your pc might restart randomly but in some future patch we`ll fix it - but in the mean time , put up with it`.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
My point is that stealth planes are just very stealthy from one side.


That is too simplified. All dedicated VLO airframes are optimized for all aspect "stealth", this includes the F-35. Others are also optimized for a low visual, infa red and acoustic signature etc... Granted the frontal hemisphere or head on aspect is the one with the lowest radar signature. This is done for a number of reasons, one reason being any opponent will likely be facing toward your front given your tactics etc... Still that does not mean that from other angles or views VLO airframes have a conventional signature, they will still be stealthy and hard to detect. Some areas are more detectable so you use superior situational awareness to dictate the engagement ensuring you do not compromise position.


Originally posted by tomcat ha
If you get behind one it will be much much easier to dectect one.


Naturally, point is a fleet of VLO aircraft with their better "view" of the battlefield have more freedom, so to speak, to move around and make sure this does not happen. Unlike with conventional airframes where your every move is observable by the enemy VLO offers concealment and more time to respond to the tactical scenario.


Originally posted by tomcat ha
Because of awacs like systems the stealth planes know where the enemy planes are and thus will be able to proceed to keep themselves in a stealthy position.


The F-22 and F-35 do not need AWACS to locate enemy fighters and therefore position themselves accordingly. Although AWACS helps, a four ship of F-35's or F-22's will do just fine when it comes to locating and destroying enemy aircraft. This does not mean however that an AWACS does not have benefits or other uses in which it could come in handy. It just mean you don't have to ground your aircraft because an AWACS is not present.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I'm referring to IOT&E and IOC of military systems, particularly radar systems, not toaster ovens from Walmart, although I'm sure they got through similar trials. Most radar systems have bugs and or defects when they initially enter service, as the program matures and more information is gathered software updates are implemented to correct these issues. And as the service cycle extends eventually new versions are developed and procured etc... What the AN/APG-79 is experiencing is not uncommon among radars in early production phase. The AN/APG-77 went though similar issues until it was updated, and now the Raptor sports a new version all together with both hardware and software changes, the APG-77(V)1.

Point being, eventually once the production run expands (beginning next year) more fixes will become available until the radar matures and no major issues are apparent. The Super Hornet's AESA will be just fine and give much needed capability for the future.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


Having a credible AEW capability not only enhances the overall effectiveness of your forces but allows you to expand your area of operations. The geo-political and military circumstances are not the same now as they were in the past and there are a host of reasons why there might be a proliferation of AWACS type systems. Obviously an AWACS is going to be used in a much larger role than just guiding your small F-35 force. To me there really is no question that the F-35 or F-22 can operate effectively without AWACS, in the Raptor's case it's actually been demonstrated.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Also, you seem to be disregarding Russian tinkering with the RCS. Although it's not a completely new airframe made with stealth directly in mind as the F-35 is, it has had many of its previous problems alleviated. First off, the original Su-27 was huge. A beast. The Su-35 BM has had a serious decrease in the size of its empennage, so the RCS logically therefore becomes smaller. The actual amount of decrease in the area has yet to be fully measured, but it certainly can't hurt. Also, the Russians had known that a big issue with frontal detection is the monstrous engine ducts reflecting back radar waves. Solution? Lengthen the ducts a bit, and lather the inside with a heavy coat of RAM. It may not be a fully-stealth airframe, but it does work. A mixture of the new radar and stealth improvements does give the Flanker a smaller RCS, so the F-35 may not detect it at such ranges with the certainty you express.


They've put a RAM coating on the front stage compressor blades as well I believe.


Anyway, I personally believe the F-35 is a fudge too many - trying to do too much all at once has reduced it to a generally bad aircraft.

Less maneuverable than an F-16, twice the price of an F-16, actually, more in-line with the price of an F-15! (yet single engined).

Its strength a collection of sensors that could be packed into any aircraft.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-22 and F-35 do not need AWACS to locate enemy fighters and therefore position themselves accordingly.


But when they are having to look for themselves they are much more visible (and vulnerable).

I think that is the point that was being made.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


And thats the whole reason why military procurement is total BS and full of *puckey* - lets buy something that `sort of works` now and fix it when we can - its complete *garbage* - and in the `real` world that sort of attitude will break a company - look at GM and there problems. You cannot wait for a product to `mature` to fix issues - make it work properly first time.

and to be honest - it will be later than 2008 before the SH`s aesa is working as designed - the raptor has had more years with aesa and as you said- they`re is a new version to address short comings and add capability

Mod Edit: Please do not circumvent profanity censors.

[edit on 9/11/07 by FredT]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   





You know it's less manueverable than the F-16 how exactly. Its flight envelope hasn't been completely established by any means.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
non of you think that air intake on F-35 is a big RCS reflactor?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Are we making a russia vs US debate out of this? I thought that the plan was to simulate a 2nd/3d rate country with F35 vs a 2nd/3d rate country with a SU3x?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
They've put a RAM coating on the front stage compressor blades as well I believe.


Right-o, I was going to say that but was not sure. I figured I might as well leave it out for now until I could find where it was, but there's that problem solved.



Anyway, I personally believe the F-35 is a fudge too many - trying to do too much all at once has reduced it to a generally bad aircraft.


It's not necessarily a bad aircraft, it's just been rendered weak (relative to F-22) because of the ideas behind the design. It's supposed to be a 5th-gen, stealthy platform with all new ground-breaking tech... And be affordable. This scheme unfortunately never seems to output the amazing results one hopes for. Well, at least not as ground-breaking as something like the B-2's "Budget unlimited. Make stuff blow up." philosophy.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
You may be selling the Flankers short. Just because they are running Russian tech does not mean that they will be completely oblivious to the F-35's.


It has nothing to do with Russian tech, it's just physics and common sense. The frontal, and even overall, RCS of the F-35 is very low. Fighter radars, whether Ibris or AESA, cannot track or properly detect a target that small at such ranges. The Flanker may very well know that "something" is out there but unless otherwise assisted not much else


Originally posted by Darkpr0
Also, you seem to be disregarding Russian tinkering with the RCS. Although it's not a completely new airframe made with stealth directly in mind as the F-35 is, it has had many of its previous problems alleviated.


The Su-35 BM is nowhere near the F-35 in terms of stealth. It is less than ten percent smaller then the baseline Su-35 and it has enlarged intakes. It's basic shape and overall geometry has remained the same. Selective RAM strategically applied will not lower it's signature to the point where it starts to matter. Not to mention this only applies from very specific head on and without it's much touted external payload capability. The RCS of the Flanker would really only matter if it was near or below 1M2. And I can say with confidence a loaded Su-35 will not be anywhere near that, even from direct head on.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
…so the F-35 may not detect it at such ranges with the certainty you express.


For the sake of argument lets be very gracious and assume a loaded frontal RCS figure of 3M2 for the Flanker. The F-35 (according to public sources) should still be able to detect and track it near maximum AIM-120D range from head on. Though given that they (F-35) will have first detection they can maneuver and get a much better look from an angle.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
Also, the BM does have a nice new set of heavy-duty jammers… But I assume that any missile that can be launched can be switched to "Home on Jam".


Not only that but those ECM pods would act as a long range beacon alerting the F-35's to the general area of the Flankers. It's passive RWR system will likely be able to pick up the signal long before the Flankers are even in radar range. Working much like the ALR-94 it can cue the APG-81 to the location of the Flankers. Providing once again superior situational awareness and first detection capability. This enables the F-35 driver to dictate the terms and increase the effectiveness of the F-35.

Furthermore this also touches upon another point. The Flankers "reduced" RCS would lose any effectiveness it might have had if it's location and presence is revealed by the Ibris being active before hand.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
Remember, that the Irbis is going to be a fair improvement over current Russian radars. …especially since missiles are not made with quite as much stealth in mind as was the Lightning II.


It does not matter, detecting air to air missiles is not an easy thing to do, least of which because they have a very low RCS by nature. First you have to be lucky enough to have a missile come head on and not from behind or from your flanks where you won't be able to detect it. Second the missile would have to reveal it's side in order for there to be any significant return. Given the diameter of the AMRAAM and it nose cone shape in combination with small fins the RCS of it head on will be very very small. Honesty you'll have more warning time when it's seeker goes active.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
I'm not entirely sure what the F-35 has in the realm of dedicated ECM of its own…


The F-35 can use it radar in order to "electronically attack" and jam other systems from stand off ranges much like the Super Hornet and the Raptor. This however would give it's presence and location away as it cannot function under LPI mode. Still, AESA radars are harder to jam and disrupt due to their inherent design than normal M-Scan or even PESA.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
Just out of curiosity, what would make you think that the F-35's have instant situational awareness that is immediately superior to all possible Russian counterparts?


I was under the impression that the purpose was to discuss a likely Su-35BM vs. F-35 scenario with very limited support. Sure there are conditions which can increase the situational awareness of the OPFOR but that is not the point. On an individual basis the F-35's will enjoy better awareness due to their design and capabilities.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
I'd first like to hear your thoughts on which countries the F-35 would most likely be deployed from so we can discover the ground on which our discourse will stand.


Well naturally the US but since that is not an option then certainly it has to be Israel followed by Turkey. All the other current and possible partners are not likely to engage in hostilities or do so without direct US involvement.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
First off, "Virtually Impossible" is a pretty big claim. As you've already said, anything flying can be shot down.


It is not a big claim, it is fact, you cannot detect, track, launch and guide missiles against the F-22 for example because it opened it's bay doors for a fraction of a second. It is just not plausible, even if the F-22 was inside radar and missile range. As I said before you'd be lucky to even detect that. Anyway simulated combat, trust me when I say that the US has thrown virtually every combination and scenario it can think of against the Raptor and it still dominates. Even when it is purposely handicapped or placed in extremely unrealistic scenarios.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
True, but the idea behind LPI is to decrease radar output to decrease likelihood of successful enemy tracking. So there will be some sort of decrease (I believe it's a heavy thinning of the beam, so that you have to aim it pretty directly to gain full lock?).


That is only part of it. In LPI mode each TR module sends out an individual beam that scans a particular area at it's normal output level. However each beam is operating on a different frequency and randomly switching that frequency up to one thousand times per second. The result is that the total power output is the same but to the enemy RWR it looks like ordinary backscatter "noise". Also there is no thinning of the beam, so to speak, the coverage area is the same as the radar automatically assembles the returns of each individual beam to compose a normal radar picture.

Anyway, since the RWR's can't discriminate between it and the normal background radiation it is "ignored". Mind you that's just the public source simplified version of it. Anyway, even though the radar can be used in this way it is common to reduce the power output of each beam to ensure as much "low probability" as possible. But as I said before the Flankers radar and signals signature is too large for that reduction in output to significantly matter.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Okay. Here is where I'm going to stop arguing stats and saying X is better than Y. This hasn't worked in previous threads, of which there's gotta be somewhere into the triple digits. So let's try something new!

Rather than let this degenerate into a "My dad could beat up your dad" situation, let's have some fun. Everyone likes looking at those precise, accurate models of buildings, complete with all the trimmin's, trees, cars, etc. (Come on, admit it. When there's a really fancy, detailed model of an airport or office building in a glass case, you just have to look!), so I propose, WestPoint, that we construct several feasible scenarios and apply known tactics to these situations to give an accurate picture of what just might happen.

So, in preparation for what I hope will be a fun exercise, I'll just define a few things about what I expect to be my force (Forgive me for not expecting you to take the BM's side, but I just don't see it happening
). Not going to say anything about the aircraft at this point, just the environment.

The first part of my personal preparation: Likely countries to use the aircraft. This will help to see the possible friendly-territory engagement areas, as well as define support for the a/c.

Full Support: Russia
Semi-Support: India
Limited Support: Venezuela

So, basically what we're looking at is when engaged in friendly territories, it'll be a relatively flat taiga terrain and possible arctic conditions (Russia), ocean, desert, and possible mountainous terrain (India), possible mountainous, possible oceanic, and flat jungle terrain (Venezuela).

Now, I don't know which (if any or even all) of these you might want to try playing out, so I just said three different ones which I'll hope are diverse enough. I hope we can have some fun with one of these threads rather than just giving out facts about the a/c which can normally be found elsewhere on the 'net. Besides, debating really does get boring after a while.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You know it's less manueverable than the F-16 how exactly.



1. Its larger, it will have a slower roll rate than the F-16 (heck, virtually everything has a slower roll rate than the F-16 - even the F-22).

2. It has a lower thrust to weight ratio.

3. For endurance, the F-16 can punch off its wing tanks when entering a furball - the F-35 has no such luxury.

4. While the wing loading of the F-35 is marginally better, this is not really a determining factor in modern A2A engagements.



I had read about it somewhere, not sure, maybe a tech paper on expanding the envelope for flight testing, maybe AFM or similar. Wherever it was, it was pretty clear that the F-35 is not as good close in as an F-16.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   
I think people need to read the Colonel's argument again



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I would just like to take this (hopefully early) opportunity to thank the posters who are contributing to this thread. I have been hoping to start something like this for a while but couldn't find the right material or argument.

Obviously a special mention and thanks to Darkpr0 and Westpoint23 for conducting even at this early stage, a thoroughly interesting discussion in such an upstanding manner. Your conversations have been a model of how an intelligent debate can be had using facts and mutual respect whilst providing entertainment and education. I have deliberately stayed out as much as possible so not to interupt the flow. If only more ATS posters could act this way,
to you guys.

Darkpr0 your idea of having a scenario game is excellent and as you said a refreshing departure to the facts, figures and debating we all usually engage in. May I suggest that as well as look at some "low, medium, high" scenarios in regards to the countries and terrain models, perhaps we could expand it later to include scenarios using AWACS, GBADS, EW, tankers etc and other fighters in say a strategic strike package, maritime strike and some good ol air to air.

I'll see if I can drag Willard and fulcrumflyer in for their thoughts as Im sure they could add a thing or two. And for that matter anyone else who can contribute to this exercise. Cant wait to see what we can come up with.

LEE.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


So to sum it up basically you're not sure but "think" it's flight performance will be inferior to the F-16? Anyway, the F-35 was designed to have a similar performance to the F-16, the fighter which it is mainly replacing. Much like how the F-22 was at one point believed to have similar performance to the F-15... I'll just say that people need to wait and see as they will be just as surprised with this bird as they were with the F-22A Raptor.

In any case the F-35 may be larger but it has more and larger control surfaces as well as the benefit of an advanced FLCS. And no the F-16 does not have a better T/W ratio when fully loaded, both dry and augmented. Not to mention the drag, G-Limits and weight distribution of tanks, weapons, pods etc... The F-35 does not have such limitations. Then of course there are the F-35's sensors, HMD, EOSS, cockpit display etc.. The combination of which offers unparalleled situational awareness in close in combat.

For further digest here is an interesting article of AA-1's* flight performance and flight envelope to date. I was pleasantly surprising when I first read it...

* AA-1 is not fully representative of the final F-35A design. It does not feature new weight reductions of the final airframe.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join