Seriously though, why are we buying the non-STOVL versions of the F-35? This is the only version we need.
The F-35B isn't VTOL, it is STOVL. Common misconception. That means it takes off over short distances, and lands vertically. It can't take off vertically. This gets the same job done while being much more fuel efficient.
It can take off vertically, but it will most likely never do that in operations because you severely limit the payload by doing so.
The blind spot comes from the location of the lift fan right behind the cockpit that restricts rearward view. Not sure how bad it is or what has been done to address it, but rearward visibility does seem to be worse than many other aircraft with higher-sitting cockpits.
Well a blind spot without the helmet. Last I heard, they were having trouble with that and it wasn't yet in use on the currently operational F-35Bs.
Of course, once that does get into service it'll be an excellent fix.
I know that the F-35C has the biggest wings and that bigger wings are supposed to improve certain flight characteristics like take-off, turning, and rate of climb at the price of reduced stability. The question is that if bigger wings are best, then why does the A have smaller wings?
My question is why the inclusion of larger, folding wings, strengthened landing gears and carrier hooks make it so the plane becomes incapable of including an internal cannon like the 35A.
Bigger wings mean lower stall speed which is needed for landing on a carrier. Also should improve maneuverability due to lower wing loading.
Smaller wings will have a higher stall speed meaning you need a runway to land on and they have higher top speed due to lower drag.
> has no use unless you only have britcuck sized carriers
The following ships would like a word with you:
USS Bonhomme Richard
USS Iwo Jima
USS Makin Island
Of course, we also have 11 carriers that can launch full-sized birds without the gimped fuel load and munitions payload of the B. The F-35C has 150% of the combat radius of the Super Bug, the B's is barely any higher. The advantage on helo carriers is a fast, long-range plane compared to the Super Cobras the USMC has as strike aircraft below STOVL planes.
No, even with the door closed it does have a more restricted rearward view than say the F-22 or F-16 (which have the cockpit sitting higher). However, with that helmet mounted sight that lets you see through the plane, that's kind of a moot point.
max G rating is 9 for A 7.5 for C and 7 for B
I think it will be less relevant as time goes on, at least that is what the DOD and NG/LM/Boeing believes. All the 6th gen fighter concepts are flying wing design. Which means only one thing, maneuverability is not even considered.
>maneuverability is not important anymore
yes that why F-35 specs were downgraded from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 during development.
it's because of a doctrine change, definitely not because they couldn't make it turn right.
>Maneuverability is the most important aspect of a fighter in 2016.
>he says in reply to an image showing a fucking F-35 hovering
Even the Harrier could not VTOL with a full combat load and had to make a STOVL roll first. Doesn't mean it's STOVL only.
The F-35 can turn just fine. No, it can't make quite as sharp turns as Eurocanards but it can turn well enough to perform adequately in a 2016 dogfight. The plane's main job is to serve as a mobile launch platform for air-to-air missiles. The missiles can out-run and out-turn anything that flies, and that's what really matters.
I'm still not convinced that the PAK FA is actually stealthy. Just look at those exposed engines.
>thinks engine covers are engines
also, see pic related.
Part of the reason it costs so much more than the other variants currently is because the navy has bought so few of them and they'll always be the least numerous variant.
Price is rapidly going down on the A and B versions because more and more are going in to production.
Production lot LRIP-9 was signed in November and contained 42 As, 12 Bs and only 2 Cs
missile performance depends greatly on how much energy it has available at launch and how much it loses while intercepting the target.
a plane that has more power and turn rate will have an advantage whether it's firing a missile or evading it.
Tories were the ones who were going to go CATOBAR as soon as they were in office. Then they found it'd cost at least another £2 Bn to redesign the flight deck blocks and certify everything (because BAE are fucking sharks), which they couldn't afford due to the spending cuts they HAD to make because of Labour.
Labour actually spent lots of money on defence. The problem was that it was money that the govt. didn't actually have and they'd always promise more than they could afford - which was a recipe for disaster and left an absolutely massive black hole in the MoD's finances.
Anon, that's 4 more internal missiles than any other production aircraft, except F-22 of course. Let's be realistic, Raptor is the plane to beat in A2A; F-35 just fills things out.
If an F-35 went up against and F-22, the F-35 would have the advantage because of IRST. The F-22 only has radar. The F-35 has a package of several advanced sensors that it can pool data from.
But that's retarded, you should be focusing on how they work in concert; F-35s acting as a forward sensor net that sniffs out targets for F-22s to mug. You probably won't beat the AMRAAM surprise, but if you somehow manage it, you get the grand prize of six more, brought to you at almost Mach 2 and with as little warning as the first time around.
if you fire an amraam without a radar lock, how do you prevent it from locking on the f-35 instead of the enemy? AFAIK IFF is L-band and AMRAAM seeker is X-band
also, it's four more. side-bays contain only sidewinders.
The hilarity is that the F-35's Block5 upgrade includes a dual A2A internal rail, raising the internal AIM-120 load to 6.
Meaning the F-35 will carry as much internally as the PAK-FA, and more than the J-20
Those xbox-huge combloc missiles are really coming around to bite them in the ass. They need to scale that shit down.
And what does this prove?
That Russia can paint over their exposed, last-gen engines?
India pulled out of the PakFA because they don't believe Russia can deliver true next-generation engines.
it's called aerodynamics.
apparently russians consider lift-to-drag ratio more important than rear-aspect stealth.
true. but the next engine should be ready in 2018. let's wait and see
We should have heard rumors of protoypes by now....
I am willing to bet that the RuAF and IAF knows more about the status of the aircraft than we do. The orders have only gone down, it is clear that all is not well with the project.
My guess is that the aircraft gets put on ice for a few years then comes back ~2020 with new engines.
>if you fire an amraam without a radar lock, how do you prevent it from locking on the f-35 instead of the enemy
To "fire an amraam without radar lock" means to fire it in track while scan mode, where you are still using your radar to look at the enemy, but you are not directing ALL of you radar energy at the target in question. Since you are only using a fraction of the radar energy, the target might ( probably wont) know you are looking at him with radar, and you can still launch an amraam at him this way. The only time he will KNOW an amraam is incoming, is when the missile turns on its own radar, about 5 to 10 nm and <10 sec from impact.
I know much much less about the amraam's ability to be fired using data linked targeting info, but basically, from what I know, the launching aircraft can leave its own radar off, receive info from a buddy ( or awacs whatever), put this info into the missile, and fire.
So for example, the SU-27 will see an AWACs on its 9 o'clock, 200miles away. The F-22 or 35, on the SU's 12 o'clock will use the data from the awacs to fire amraams, and the SU will never know that an enemy was at his 12, until his RWR screams at him that an amraam is in the terminal phase headed right for him.
Oh, and I forgot to explain the rest. You can fire an AIM-120 in TWS mode and keep the target painted until the missile hits. This way the missile will fly all the way there listening to your aircraft's radar's instructions for the intercept. Only at the last, 5nm or so, does it turn on it's own radar seeker to find the target. I THINK, if the target is still bugged in TWS or STT radar modes, the missile will also listen to the aircrafts radar too, using both sources of info.
But you can also launch one "fire and forget". After you bug the target in TWS and fire,( or fully lock him up in STT and fire), if you lose radar track of the target, or deliberately snip the radar track ( maybe you want to 180 and gtfo away after launch), the missile will use the target's last known vector and try to predict where the target will be, and it then heads to intercept. Same as before, it turns its seeker on when it thinks it is in the terminal phase of the intercept.
Now, if there was a friendly really really close by to the target, or where the amraam thought the real target was headed, it may lock onto that instead, lacking any other guidance from the launch aircraft. IIRC this is called launching an AIM-120 "mad dog".
But with the modern stuff, what with all the classified new fangled data links and IFF, who knows if amraams still work this way.
AMRAAMs have a 2-way data link; F-22s and F-35s will (eventually) be able to talk to each other; so the F-22 tells the AMRAAM not to lock onto the guy at XYZ. Or, if they can't talk to each other, they give encryption keys to each other before entering the combat zone and when the missile is launched, the F-35s tell the AMRAAM "don't hit me bro" as well as give it updates on where to fly to hit the enemy.
Hardly. Your two SU-35s come across two F-35s flying clean. Both launch AMRAAMS and bug, while cuing an F-22. Now, if you're radiating, you're as good as dead; your first warning will be the missiles going terminal. You could go in without radiating, but that just increases you chances of getting spotted first, fired on first, and being forced to bug out or eat an AMRAAM to the face. F-35s don't even need to fire on you; they can just run you around chasing ghosts until the F-22 shows up.
Assuming at least one SU-35 survives, before it can even begin to try and track down the F-35s, it has to get past the F-22, which is stealthier, faster, more manuverable, and more lethal. To boot, there's an added layer to the entire game; even if you don't radiate, the F-22 doesn't have to radiate to kill you. An F-35 can illuminate you from a standoff distance while the F-22 silently puts you in the no escape zone.
This is why everything that's not VLO is pork; when your enemy can engage and disengage at will, dictating the course of the fight is impossible.
Minor note, but the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22, at least from the front:
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
>AMRAAMs have a 2-way data link
can anyone confirm? seems unlikely to me. one-way datalink is possible through fire-control radar, but two-way would need a second antenna on a missile and a dedicated receiver.
as anon already pointed out, amraam is not fire-and-forget. it's semi-passive, and it needs to have the target illuminated by a radar until it gets within the effective range of it's own active seeker.
even a LPI radar will light up a RWR in TWS mode. so one of the aircraft participating in the attack will inevitably get revealed.
what would make more sense in this scenario would be to have f-22 provide the illumination, and f-35 the missiles.
>I read the opposite, but that was a while ago.
Was that the "F-22 = marble, F-35 = golf ball"?
If so, that came from 2005, before the first F-35 was fully assembled. They didn't even do RCS testing on the actual jet until the late 2000s (pic related).
Maybe, but the F-35 has a stealthy tail as well.
Unlikely; one of (if not) the biggest contributors to IR signature is exhaust plume. The F-35's engines are just F-22 engines with a greater bypass ratio and some upgrades, so the F-22 was almost certainly have a larger IR signature.
2 way data link confirmation from Raytheon (see the subtext of the F-22 image):
>it needs to have the target illuminated by a radar until it gets within the effective range of it's own active seeker.
It doesn't need illumination, it just needs target data, which you can get from either ESM or IRST.
>round nozzle - no stealth. they made it jaggy but that's mostly for show
The reason why the F22 went for vertical TV only was because flat nozzle disperse heat better. This is public knowledge and something that is mention in the Russia state media documentary about possible future PAK FA upgrade.
Partly; one of the big reasons is because having 2 4 big slabs to organise active cooling in is easier. The F-35's nozzle petals though are actively cooled as well.
Also, jagged nozzles that are good for radar stealth also = good for IR reduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIKZjARXcos
>flat nozzle disperse heat better
yeah because that really helps when you have two 80 MW heat sources on your plane
Dunno who you're link to, but AFAIK the AIM-120 will always turn on it's own radar for terminal interception; otherwise there's too high a risk of it missing (the radar might be 150km away and due to EW being used by the enemy, the radar lock might be 10m off / the enemy might be too far away for the missile's frag warhead to get it.
Still, I could be wrong.
Given that there are no photos of missiles on the inner pylon, I am lead to believe that the F-35 can currently only mount a2a missiles on the door pylons until that dual rail is introduced.
Might not be pictures of it, but pic related is weapons deployment test for the inner pylon from 2013.
>The flat nozzle on the F-22 is for thrust vectoring, buddy.
Just like the flat nozzles on the B-2 and F-117, amirite?
This - mostly. A flat nozzle provides a thinner vernier of exhaust when viewed from above or below, which reduces IR visibility from these critical aspects. It also mixes and diffuses with surrounding air more readily, minimizing the temperature plume. It's also mechanically and geometrically simpler, though I'm not so sure it's beneficial from an RCS standpoint (round surfaces are bad for RCS, but 90-degree internal angles are even worse, generally-speaking).
>Remaining in full afterburner when a heatseeker is inbound
And also what [>>28429367] and [>>28429382] said.
>as anon already pointed out, amraam is not fire-and-forget.
Yes it is, completely so from Pitbull onward and optionally even during inertial midcourse. The drawback of course is that if you DO "forget" an AMRAAM during midcourse, it won't know what the target is doing and won't be able to correct for any maneuvers/course changes the target makes during midcourse until it acquires the target (if it even does at all).
>even a LPI radar will light up a RWR in TWS mode.
So "low probability" = absolute certainty? Cool story bro.
Not really, but everybody pretends so carriers won't be turned into museums like they deserve.
Every once in a while they will do a "test" in which they send a drone along a predictable flight path that they know in advance. They blow it up with a fighter under ideal conditions and then say "No one could ever mass more than a one cruise missile in a single attack! Super carriers are literally the most important and relevant thing forever!"
>On those it was more because they couldn't model a stealth plane in 3d yet.
But the F-22 is an exception? Don't be silly.
>The F-35 is smaller in RCS
Yes, *frontal* RCS.
Of course they can, under the right circumstances.
I wouldn't put my money on either fighter-interception or ground-based, though. Airstrikes (by bomber or cruise missile) are very difficult to stop once underway, and air defense is and always has been a game of attrition.
The Vietnam where US Navy Phantoms didn't use guns and performed better than USAF Phantoms using guns? The same one where even the USAF Phantoms achieved most of their kills with missiles?
F-35 is literally 55 years old, why is your goverment spending money on making new ones when it already exists?
>Navy pilots were registering kill ratios of 13 to 1, while the Air Force, which [added guns to their F-4s, but] did no comprehensive overhaul of its approach to combat, actually saw its kill ratios worsen for a time.
More here: http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/the-f-4c-phantom-ii
As much as radar stealth, and VLO shaping on aircraft is, so is proper intelligence on your enemy's radars. VLO absolutely helps, but if you suddenly have a radar pop up 15 miles from you, that you intelligence failed to account for, you're in for some shit VLO or no. The neato thing is, the F-35's sensor suite is suited for this environment, and can scan for such pop up threats that may have been missed, so even at a VLO disadvantage, it can have the intel advantage and coordinate itself and likely other strike groups to account for this new target.
>if you suddenly have a radar pop up 15 miles from you, that you intelligence failed to account for, you're in for some shit VLO or no.
True, but forcing the enemy to maintain such tight EMCON just to have a shot at downing a stealth fighter is quite crippling in of itself.
>The neato thing is, the F-35's sensor suite is suited for this environment
Ehhhhhh.... not really. EO-DAS makes sure you won't miss the launch, and the low RCS itself ensures that they'll have to light you up like a Christmas tree just to get a return (meaning your RWR has a massively better chance of picking them up, even if they're LPIR), but spotting them real-time before they go loud is still pretty challenging. I suspect SAR would be your best bet (or MTI if they're using shoot-and-scoot tactics), but that requires emitting. Might be better off just running silent and tolerating the risk.
EODAS and EOTS can look for the heat signatures of the trucks and generators in the SAM battalion (at a short / medium range of course). Or, if you do want to run SAR, you can just have one jet take the risk while others fly along on standby to provide EW support if it's engaged.
>EODAS and EOTS can look for the heat signatures of the trucks and generators in the SAM battalion (at a short / medium range of course).
EOTS is the telescope... plenty of detail and sensitivity but very narrow field of view. Hardly sufficient for scanning everything in front of you.
DAS has a whole-sky view with staring arrays, but the magnification is pretty poor. It's sensitive enough for missile launches but I think you'd have to be VERY close in order to pick up the thermal signature of a truck.
>Or, if you do want to run SAR, you can just have one jet take the risk while others fly along on standby to provide EW support if it's engaged.
That's probably a wise approach.
Pretty sure there have been tests of the F-35 detecting ballistic missile launches with EODAS, though I think they may have failed. This was over a year ago and I may be incorrect.
They didn't fail; an exercise coincided with the test launch of a Falcon 9 rocket 800 nautical miles away. During the exercise they had a BAC 1-11 fitted with the F-35's radar, EODAS, etc for testing, participating in the exercise.
They decided to see if they could track the Falcon 9 launch from the BAC 1-11 and it turned out they could, fusing data from the EODAS and radar:
imo it looks like the DAS system will be pretty capable at identifying enemy missile launches. Hopefully it will be more capable at detecting IR threats than all current MAWS, I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
The core of what was demonstrated (the detection and tracking of the missile by fusing EO-DAS and radar data) is a 'mature' capability, but detecting ballistic missiles might not be in it's official repertoire of capabilities.
Another 'mature' capability of the jet is "You Are The One", where it can detect whether a missile is headed towards it (and whether it needs to deploy countermeasures).
Probably helps minimize threats like DF-21D by keeping F-35s between the CBG and the launch positions so there's always someone watching. Also, IIRC, this is the first real BM launch detection capability organic to the CBG, as opposed to relying on shit like the Cobra radars.
Yep, it's not new, but the difference with the EODAS (besides those other features) is that it provides a proper 360 degree, high resolution view. Other MAWS in the past have been much simpler things that simply told the pilot that (eg) there's been a missile launched to their right, or under them, or behind them, etc. EODAS gives you exact coordinates that you can potentially use to drop bombs (if they haven't moved, etc).
You're thinking of the AIM-120A-C, with the big fins. You are correct that the F-22 could only carry 4 internally.
The AIM-120D has much smaller fins, so 6 can be carried--and the F-22's bays were designed with the AIM-120D in mind.
If you mean in regards to the You Are The One thing; yep - obviously the details are classified, but it runs algorithms on the missile path and presumably compares that path with your location vs the location of your wingmen. The end result lets you avoid wasting your flares / chaff and (also) potentially giving away your position.
What exactly is wrong with surface based interception?
I love how clueless burgers trash talk SAMs for hours, until someone dares speak poorly of standard missile.
See, I would think the same logic would apply; multi-layered integrated air defense systems with high redundancy of weapons and sensor systems require massive amounts of effort to penetrate.
The main reason the F22 uses 2d vectoring is because NASA did the tests and ran the numbers to figure out that 3d vectoring provides only a very marginal increase in performance(something like single digit percentage points) for a massive increase in complexity.
It's not THAT remarkable. MAWS have been pretty abundant since the late '90s, though most systems are rear-aspect only. The F-22's MWS was one of the first all-aspect MAWS, and the F-35's EO-DAS brings the same concept to a whole new level with substantially more powerful, higher-resolution sensors.
Nothing, I'd argue it's generally more effective than air-based interception, but it's still far from foolproof. The only sure-fire way to stop an enemy attack is to go on the offensive for yourself and take out their assets while they're still on the ground. Otherwise you're going to eat plenty of bombs before you manage to make a big enough dent in their offensive capabilities.