Well said, Willard. Just a quick note on one of your points as well:
Originally posted by Willard856
2. There are no details on what the scenario and setup was for the simulation. If it was purely within visual range (WVR) I wouldn't be at all
surprised if the JSF getting smacked was the outcome. It isn't a WVR fighter.
Interestingly enough, in some configurations it's not a vastly superior BVR fighter either. Well, maybe not as much as they'd like us and potential
buyers (Australia) to believe. Check this out:
An air-to-air load of eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is conceivable using internal and external weapons stations, as well as a configuration of six
two thousand pound bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s.
Even though it's an article from
Wikipedia it's something you can find elsewhere and that
I've known for some time, so if you don't believe me I'm sure we can all use the Google button
. Did you catch the important part of that
excerpt? I direct your attention to the part saying "using internal and external weapons stations," noting that there's some weirdness here.
You're probably all saying "Wait... External? Wouldn't that compromise the stealth characteristics of this proclaimed 'highly stealthy'
platform?" and you would be right. While its RCS is no doubt still smaller than a Flanker's (as would be a bird, a flying toaster, and probably a
large asteroid's), it will take a hit from the ordinance.
If you consider the fact that the JSF is a multirole (and in the United States, will probably focus more on the ground aspect with its bigger brother
around to take care of the skies), it'll probably seem evident that it should be carrying some A2A and A2G mixes to take advantage of the capability
to switch quickly from one role to another (hence, multirole). One idea that I believe was brought up by Westpoint in a long-lost thread was the idea
of fitting out part of an entirely F-35 force with A2A munitions, and the remainder with nothing but A2G ordinance, thus allowing the anti-air part to
defend the probably more mission-critical anti-ground force. This will boost its particular capabilities, but if a group of enemies turns to engage
while the rest stay on course to target, the OpFor will have fewer targets to concentrate upon, and thus gains a bit of an advantage over engaging the
entire group. As well, if one of the defenders is lost, the group takes a higher loss to the overall anti-air capability. In the event that all the
defending force's anti-air section is downed, then the remaining anti-ground group is done. Game over. AIM-9s versus R-77 does not go well for Mr.
Sidewinder. Overall, I'm not sure this strategy is as effective as mixing it up on each a/c.
From this large mound of annoying logic, it could be reasonable to assume that F-35s will run with at least some A2G ordinance. As you can see, this
will decrease the amount of available space for missiles. If that's true, then the F-35s may or may not have been at a disadvantage since Sukhoi's
jets are massive missile boats. IIRC Su-35 has 12 rails for missiles, versus F-35 topping out at 10, both mixing up WVR and BVR missiles. I believe
that some specific variants of flankers also have 14 rails, but I can't remember which ones at this point. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm aware that
the difference between pylons is small, but consider the fact that while JSFs would likely have A2G ordinance, Flankers wouldn't. They have other
planes for that, like Su-34 or its predecessors. Thus, you've got a fighter made entirely for this: fighting other jets. So it would be reasonable to
assume that the Flankers are carrying as many missiles as they can, a respectable sum. Can anyone say "ripple-fire"?
I know that speculating that F-35s to be at a disadvantage is unfair, but combat is never fair. In fact, to my knowledge, weapons are designed solely
to make combat more unfair. But if they thought the same way I do, it wouldn't be difficult to see why the F-35 may have had difficulty in the event
that these claims about the exercises were true.
But if it was a WVR situation, I agree with Willard. Not surprised.
Sorry for the rant
.
