F-35 combat scenario

[tigisfat]

Our recent dialogues about F-35s have had me reading my butt off. I'm by no means an expert an expert when it comes to aerial combat, but like many here, I know a fair amount for not having been a combat aviator. I want opinions from our SOH armchair experts (and our actual combat aviators from current and previous generations of aerial warfare) because I've come across something that is, to me at least, suspicious.


the RAND corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation) ran several simulations involving the employment of F-35s. During these simulations, newer Sukhoi fighters were able to defeat F-35s by denying them the AR. The Sukhois avoided the F-35s easily, and because of the profiles that F-35s must fly, were able to immediately knock down their tanker, as the tanker had to get a lot closer to the fight. As a reaction to these studies, then Aussie defense minister Fitzgibbon wanted a briefing about the F-35 from his guys. A USAF Major acting as chief of Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch said that he worries at the thought of "the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons".

I make jokes about cancelling the F-35 program, but to make any conclusion regarding this data seems a little obtuse, just like my pics of the F-22 in the Super Hornet's crosshairs.

Do you think this scenario is realistic? I don't have access to the whole report, but what's to say that the Super Flankers can avoid the F-35s? Would an F-35 really fare that poorly against Flanker variants optimized for interception?

 

[deathfromafar]

There's a million ways to skin a cat so to speak. When you compare the F-35 with the average non-stealth assets we currently have in service, it compares much better in terms of range and overall flexibility than the F-16's, and close to par with FA/-18C/D/E/F, F-15E. So the question about exposing tankers while not invalid wouldn't be any different than current fighters. Always, there's a certain amount of Force Protection that needs to be in place to cover support assets.
The real threat to strike assets is Surface to Air weapons like the S300 and variants and other SA weapons. Conventional aircraft like the F-16, 18/C/D/E/F, and F-15E are very vulnerable to such systems without appropriate SEAD/DEAD components. That's where Stealth assets are truly of the greatest benefit. Knock out Command Structure, Air Defense, Enemy Airfields and Aircraft while they are on the ground, and you own the battlefield. After that, it would be easier to utilize conventional Strike assets to widen the scope and bring a successful conclusion to a given scenario.

As far as the Sukhois are concerned, not as big a worry as some would think. While they are making advances in radar systems, the Sukhois have a large RCS at most angles and the engine fans give NCTR a glaring aspect to grab onto. The F-35 and F-22 will eat them alive. Close in(if that even happens), hell, it's whoever gets the shot off first but I bet better money on our newest TA/FC systems over anything made in the East.

We have gotten our hands on many of their current Air to Air weapons like R-73, R-77, and various R-27's. The most potent of these being the short range IR R-73. That weapon in many ways mirrors the design philosophy of the old US Navy Agile Dogfight Missile program which was canceled back in the mid 70's. It's a good concept that the Russians made good on. Personally, I envy that design! As far as BVR types, the stablemate R-27's are quite good but despite their long burn/range capability, their probability of a hit at distance is very. Like most long range BVR missiles, if the target changes position/bugs out in enough time before the missile gets into the box, it will likely be a miss. As any weapon of such type, there's an optimum range/hit envelope even if it can go much further. The R-77 as has been told is nowhere near a match for the AMRAAM as claimed. It's active radar and electronics are said to be very prone to ECM and Deception as well as having very poor "on active" target discrimination filtering/IFF capability. In other words, when uncaged, if it loses lock it will bloodhound it's way to another target risking fratricide.

 

[tigisfat]

The real threat to strike assets is Surface to Air weapons like the S300 and variants and other SA weapons.

The real question of mine is, how would the F-35 fare against the S400? That system has been called "god's flyswatter" and poses a serious hazard to manned flight. I'd be interested to see how some of our high altitude supersonic stealth UAV's can stand up to it.

 

[deathfromafar]

The real question of mine is, how would the F-35 fare against the S400? That system has been called "god's flyswatter" and poses a serious hazard to manned flight. I'd be interested to see how some of our high altitude supersonic stealth UAV's can stand up to it.

It's hard to tell but it is known that at least a couple of stealth assets in use have passed over an S300 net without incident. The 35 is pretty stealthy where it needs to be. My guess is that the engineers know enough about the S300 or like systems and have to take into account all of that. Active Self Protection would defeat the purpose of stealth. As soon as you go active and the jammers start "arguing" with the Missile Battery's Radar/Fire Control, it could be a very bad thing!

I'm sure the planners have the gouge they need to address this. There are other "Electronic Countermeasures" besides active jamming that can shut down the latest Russian type Air Defenses and Datalink systems. Just ask the Israelis and Syrians!

 

[Ken Stallings]

The MIGCAP has a primary duty of protecting the tankers and the AWACS. Sure, if you presume the tankers can be shot down then a whole slew of aircraft can be prevented from achieving mission success.

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt everytime he takes a hop!

Ken

 

[tigisfat]

It's hard to tell but it is known that at least a couple of stealth assets in use have passed over an S300 net without incident.

The S300 can be outfitted so many different ways though, depending on systems like the clamshell or flaplid accompanyment.

The part that bugs me is the fact that aircraft like the F-117 are going to be hard to replace in terms of actual visibility. Anyone who knows how radar and low-oberservable technology works knows that one loose fastener or one millimeter of incorrectly applied sealant means that the whole aircraft will be lit up like the fourth of july. If the aircraft's biggest advantage is it's low observable technology, I'd really like to see how they expect it to be our workhorse in frontline duty. There's a reason that the F-117 and B-2 world have companion trainer programs.

 

[Railrunner130]

I'm not sure where Rand would be able to do such a realistic study and publicly release it. My thought is that the true performance specs of the F-35 would be classified and even vary depending on model.

I think the most manouverable version would be the F-35B VSTOL version, followed by the lighter F-35A conventional version and the carrier version would be last because of the added weight.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[viking3]

F-35

My view on it is that the more you ask an aircraft to do the less capable it is at all you ask. Jack of all trades, master of none. I don't know enough of the capalities to say that is the case but it does seem applicable. I know enough about electronic countermeasures and radar to know that the capabilities are there to detect and target any aircraft even the stealthy ones with the right frequencies and power, lots of power.

Regards, Rob:ernae:

 

[Ken Stallings]

My view on it is that the more you ask an aircraft to do the less capable it is at all you ask. Jack of all trades, master of none. I don't know enough of the capalities to say that is the case but it does seem applicable. I know enough about electronic countermeasures and radar to know that the capabilities are there to detect and target any aircraft even the stealthy ones with the right frequencies and power, lots of power.

Regards, Rob:ernae:

That adage is not as true as it used to be. The reason the saying got so much traction is because in the past humans had to do things with very little assistance from computers. Today, the combination of automation and miniaturization have allowed a single aircraft to perform multiple duties in ways where it can truly be a master of many trades.

I think one example can be used to portray the difference.

In the past, bombs had to be dropped manually, with simply the skill of the pilot. This required either a precise method of aiming while in level flight or dive bombing (which made aiming vastly easier).

During the inter-war years, dive bombing was considered the best way to accurately employ bombs. It required a specialized airframe to withstand the aerodynamic loads. Thus, when the German Luftwaffe tried to keep designing the "be all" Zertroyers (Bf-110, Me-210, Me-410) the aircraft ended up way too heavy due to the requirement for dive bombing and it was a lousy escort fighter.

On the other hand, today you can launch highly precise bombs in level flight using lasers or GPS guidance to make the small corrections needed. So, nothing needs to be altered on the airframe. Further, no speciallized equipment is really needed.

Over the years, aircraft have morphed to weapons platforms.

The problem the F-35 would have faced is if one design was required to be VSTOL, carrier borne, and multi-role fighter. In fact, there are three distinct designs being concurrently worked on. This is the challenge Lockheed Martin is facing. The added weight of the lift fan on the VSTOL version is a serious squanderer on both range and payload. The added weight of the carrier landing gear is the same for the Navy. But, for the USAF version, those problems are not present. In fact, the area where the lift fan was on the original Marine VSTOL version is being used as an extra fuel tank.

Ken

 

[Bjoern]

There's a million ways to skin a cat so to speak.

That.

There's a countermeasure for everything. Even stealth technology isn't the answer to everything.

The real question of mine is, how would the F-35 fare against the S400? That system has been called "god's flyswatter" and poses a serious hazard to manned flight.

If Saudi-Arabia seals the S-400 deal an excercise could provide the answer.

The part that bugs me is the fact that aircraft like the F-117 are going to be hard to replace in terms of actual visibility.

The F-35 will be a much better package than the F-117. The latter sacrificed versatility for stealth while the former tries to find a half decent balance between those two.

If the aircraft's biggest advantage is it's low observable technology, I'd really like to see how they expect it to be our workhorse in frontline duty.

Apparently there's more than just stealth, like very sophisticated electronic defensive systems.

I think the most manouverable version would be the F-35B VSTOL version, followed by the lighter F-35A conventional version and the carrier version would be last because of the added weight.

The F-35B would only take the crown of the tight turn radius king among those three. An extra lift engine weighs even more than carrier-specific equipment.

During the inter-war years, dive bombing was considered the best way to accurately employ bombs. It required a specialized airframe to withstand the aerodynamic loads. Thus, when the German Luftwaffe tried to keep designing the "be all" Zertroyers (Bf-110, Me-210, Me-410) the aircraft ended up way too heavy due to the requirement for dive bombing and it was a lousy escort fighter.

...but an all the better night fighter since the airframe was good for installing radars. If you didn't get the attention of a very good tailgunner or got outrun (or later gunned down) by lighter, faster wooden airframes you were basically the king of the sky in one of those failures the Zerstoyers (nice word!) were as day fighters.

On the other hand, today you can launch highly precise bombs in level flight using lasers or GPS guidance to make the small corrections needed. So, nothing needs to be altered on the airframe. Further, no speciallized equipment is really needed.

Bombcat hooray! :d

 

[tigisfat]

If Saudi-Arabia seals the S-400 deal an excercise could provide the answer.

I"d be willing to bet there are already S400s being moved around the US for evaluation and exercises.

The F-35 will be a much better package than the F-117. The latter sacrificed versatility for stealth while the former tries to find a half decent balance between those two.

Well, to me it doesn't matter where the balance is, either the aircraft is trackable or it's not. The reason the F-117 had a place (IMHO) is because of it's initial strike capability. I know that the defense radar nets of many countries are far beyond where they were in 1991, but you could program an entire Wing of F-117s to have their bombs explode at the exact same instant while completely unseen to kick off a war. I don't think we have anything else that can do that, but stealthy UACVs would be perfect for that. My worry is that F-35s and B-2s can't support an initial strike like the one that was pulled off at 3 AM on Iraq to kick off the first Gulf War.

 

[Bjoern]

I"d be willing to bet there are already S400s being moved around the US for evaluation and exercises.

I'd hold against that. This is not "Oh hai, our country just ceased to exist. Here, have this top notch russian hardware for evaluation!" but "Dammit, why won't the Russians sell one freaking copy for evaluation?!?"

Well, to me it doesn't matter where the balance is, either the aircraft is trackable or it's not. The reason the F-117 had a place (IMHO) is because of it's initial strike capability.

And it's near indectability at that time.

My worry is that F-35s and B-2s can't support an initial strike like the one that was pulled off at 3 AM on Iraq to kick off the first Gulf War.

The question is if a massive suprise strike like in Gulf War 2: The Empire Strikes Back (the first edition was that minor, eight year long border dispute between Saddamland and "Oh hey, we've suddenly found our religion"land three years before) is still a valid method of starting something in 20xx. After all the whole world could watch the command and control bunkers blow up live on TV...

 

[Ken Stallings]

The question is if a massive suprise strike like in Gulf War 2: The Empire Strikes Back (the first edition was that minor, eight year long border dispute between Saddamland and "Oh hey, we've suddenly found our religion"land three years before) is still a valid method of starting something in 20xx. After all the whole world could watch the command and control bunkers blow up live on TV...

It's kind of like any rational judgment made prior to going to war. You have to decide how you can win it, and if you are willing to do that. If you cannot determine either, then the only reason you have left that's rational is if you have to defend yourself to avoid annihilation.

Ken