Much-Maligned F-35 Seeks Worthy Opponents

[allardjd 1,853]

http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170418-F35.html

 

It appears that, as more of them become operational, the F-35s (and F-22s) are making heavy demands on the forces providing adversary services.  If you're going to have problems with a new platform, that's not a bad one to be saddled with.

 

“Nothing gets close to these things [the F-35s]” said Jeffrey Parker, a former Air Force fighter pilot and chief executive of ATAC LLC, a Textron company that provides opposing aircraft for U.S. fighter squadrons and electronic threat simulation against Navy strike groups. “I’ve flown against the [Marine] F-35Bs down at [Marine Corps Air Station] Beaufort [S.C.] It’s an impressive airplane. Even in the hands of students, it’s a very capable fighter.”

 

“The Raptor (F-22) is such an uneven fight, that if you send out two Raptors against anything else, there’s no challenge, no work for the pilots to do. For a ‘two-ship’ they want 12 bandits."

 

...and that, boys and girls, is a nutshell description of the differences between 4th generation (F-15, F-16, F-18) and 5th generation (F-22, F-35) fighters.  It's mainly in the electronics and the stealth.  With respect to stealth, 5th generation jets are; 4th generation planes are not - it's that simple.  It's hard to fight 'em if you can't find 'em.

 

John

[brett 2,301]

"Not that we are boasting or anything". Maybe some Mig-29's would make some good fodder.

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

Yet apparently the F-35 still has many teething problems, not the least being overheating tail pipes etc. Another issue is the time required to change an engine. A report in Air International a couple of months ago indicated that engine changes are taking up to 4 times longer than that for the F-18. The VTOL version is less of a problem due to the large drop down doors at the tail which aid access. The downside of the VTOL version is that due to the lift fan and associated equipment means that, like the Harrier before it, it cannot take off vertically if carrying max fuel and stores. No doubt these problems will eventually be sorted out, in the meantime we have to Aircraft carriers entering service in the next year or so, but have no aircraft apart from Helos to fly from them. The F-35 is now overdue, over budget and overweight! The Stealth capability is great, no-one can find them because they aren't there to find! 

[allardjd 1,853]

1 hour ago, dodgy-alan said:

The Stealth capability is great, no-one can find them because they aren't there to find!

 

F35s aren't all THAT rare. There have been 231 built up to last month - that's about 40 more than all the F-22s built before the line was terminated, about 170 more than all the Rafaels built so far and approaching half of the number of Typhoons built to date.  Production of Typhoons started in 1994, so well over 20 years to get to about 500 - that suggests they are being assembled by Swiss watchmakers, paid by the hour, in a union shop under a cost-plus contract. 

 

Over 50 F-35s were built in 2016 and the new Ft. Worth plant is expected to crank out 17 per month once it's fully operational.  The 2020 target, which may or may not happen, is over 600 cumulative total, with about 180 going to US allies by then.

 

Yeah, they have some engineering problems to be worked out.  Name a modern warplane that didn't/doesn't.  If you're designing a hat or a door knob or a garden rake, you can probably get it 100% right on the first try - not so much with combat aircraft.

 

John

 

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

1 hour ago, allardjd said:

Yeah, they have some engineering problems to be worked out.  Name a modern warplane that didn't/doesn't.  If you're designing a hat or a door knob or a garden rake, you can probably get it 100% right on the first try - not so much with combat aircraft.

 

John

 

 

 

That goes for the Oldies as well apparently. The SB2C Helldiver I am currently enjoying, according to Wikipedia, was sent back for a few "fixes" before the type would be accepted, " The U.S. Navy would not accept the SB2C until 880 modifications^[7] to the design and the changes on the production line had been made, delaying the Curtiss Helldiver's combat debut until 11 November 1943

some of which burdened the plane with a bunch more weight that helped earn it's reputation as a lumbering underpowered, but still useful aircraft, for a short time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SB2C_Helldiver

[allardjd 1,853]

I understand the Helldiver was considered a stinker - not well loved by the aircrews who flew them.  It carried a bigger bomb load than the Dauntless, but that wasn't enough to give it a good reputation with the Navy.

 

John

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

I think most aircraft have hiccups, just not so well publicised. In the modern age, the slightest thing can go viral in a matter of hours, back in the days before the internet etc you only found out about them IF the manufacturers deemed it necessary to inform the press.

There is a very well known story regarding the TSR-2 where at a press conference some young female journalist was slagging off the aircraft left right and centre, telling the chap she was talking to that it couldn't do anything right.  When asked how she knew this, she told him that she'd been told by the pilot. "That's Funny" the guy replied,"Because I am Roland Beaumont and I am the bloody pilot! You are talking out of your arse!" It's not recorded what her reaction was but this came out in a biography some years ago.

The F-35 may eventually go down as a great aircraft, I hope it does, if not the various users are going to be severely hampered when the shooting starts. There is a lot of well publicised money riding on it's success and failure is not an option. I really want to see it succeed and confound all the doubters, myself included.
I think for us Brits, we're still pretty pissed at our narrow minded government scrapping the Harriers way ahead of time and leaving our new carriers, (and indeed the Royal Navy as a whole)with no offensive air capability apart from helicopters. We invented the Aircraft carrier yet now we don't actually have one in service! The 2 new ones are yet to even begin sea trials and will not be operational for some years. The new aircraft won't be ready even then! Had we gone for conventional aircraft with a through deck, cats and traps etc we could have at least had the decks open to accept visiting aircraft from other navies and have had the CTO version of the F-35 in service a lot sooner. As it stands we're now limited to what type of aircraft can use the ships. Yet again the narrow mindedness of our MoD procurement people have let us down. It would seem that everyone in the aviation industry who gave them good advice was ignored and now we're stuck with a poor decision. To retrofit the carriers at this stage would set the programme back even further.  It seems in a world full of uncertainty, the stroke of a pen has condemned the RN to acquire a ship that is yet again a compromise. The F-35 has just got itself caught up in it,  Who knows what the future holds for us all, but with Trump, Kim Jong Un, and Putin all posturing the world is a dangerous place. That aircraft HAS to succeed, too many are depending on it.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by dodgy-alan
spelling error

[Tristarcaptain 282]

It's hard to believe that the UK was once a major producer of GREAT aircraft.  Over the last years, they have made lots of very expensive mistakes and cancellations.  Alan has already mentioned the Harrier, which was retired far too early, then there is the cancellation of the TSR 2 (just don't get me started on that one!! ), the Nimrod MR4A and the failure to develop the English Electric Lightning to it's full potential 'because in the future, it would be not manned interceptors, but missiles'......how wrong they were!

 

Martin

[Quickmarch 488]

12 minutes ago, Tristarcaptain said:

clip..... 'because in the future, it would be not manned interceptors, but missiles'......how wrong they were!

 

Martin

 

I seem to recall a Canadian Interceptor that was scrapped for the same reasons. 1959 - almost sixty years ago. 

[allardjd 1,853]

I believe you're right, March.

 

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow

 

The UK and Canada don't have any monopoly on that kind of thing - the Northrop YB-49 and the B-70 Valkyrie come quickly to mind - not interceptors but promising aircraft whose development was halted for reasons of economy, policy or politics.  

 

The cancellation of the B-1A, later brought back as the hobbled B-1B is another example.

 

John

[J G 927]

I hope the F35 is proved to be an excellent fighting platform as the UK have most their eggs in this basket for the foreseeable future.

 

Much as we can speculate in this forum the acid test is always conducted in combat:

 

The English Electric Lightning is heralded as a great plane, but it was never properly tested in combat. I have my suspicions that if it had been it would have fallen short of what would have been needed, with its critically short endurance and its pathetically low armament. . I still love the aircraft, but for what it represents as an aircraft and not a fighting machine. 

 

On the other hand, the little Harrier which, at its entry into service was thought to be a gimmick and of no real practical value. however it was forced into combat during the Falkland's conflict and proved not only a superb air to air fighter, but also an excellent ground attack aircraft. I also love this aircraft, but for many reasons: I Love it for the aircraft it is, the typically British eccentricity of its design and for it proven battle capability.

 

So where will the F35 fall? who knows. Its stealth capability is a good feature when remaining invisible to aggressors, it STOL and VTOL capabilities are an asset when required to land at a base with a damaged runway, its supersonic capability another useful feature.  All of these attributes are untested, and the true value of the aircraft will not be fully realised until they are used in conflict.

 

Lets hope that peace dictates that they are never called on to prove their metal in battle. 

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

5 hours ago, J G said:

I hope the F35 is proved to be an excellent fighting platform as the UK have most their eggs in this basket for the foreseeable future.

 

Much as we can speculate in this forum the acid test is always conducted in combat:

 

The English Electric Lightning is heralded as a great plane, but it was never properly tested in combat. I have my suspicions that if it had been it would have fallen short of what would have been needed, with its critically short endurance and its pathetically low armament. . I still love the aircraft, but for what it represents as an aircraft and not a fighting machine. 

 

 

Things were actually a lot worse than we were lead to believe in fact. Throughout the 60s and 70s the RAF, like the other services was really struggling to operate. We had a large number of different aircraft in service, all requiring different systems and equipment. It was costing a fortune to operate. Many of the QRA aircraft had just enough fuel in them for one interception before they had to refuel. A lot of the time guns were unarmed as there was very little ammunition for them.  All the live stuff and fuel etc was being sent out to the Malaysia and Suez etc, where it was needed for operations. The home defence squadrons were starving as a result. Had the Russians pressed home an attack at that time we'd have been severely tested to provide an adequate response. We were all Show and very little Go, largely as a result of swinging cuts in the 1957 defence white paper, (Thank Duncan Sandys for that !) .It wasn't until PM Wilson pulled the British forces back from East of the Suez in 1967 that the much needed supplies started to feed back to home defence. Even when the Lightning gave way to the Phantom in the defence role, they were still operated at reduced fuel loads because basically we couldn't afford to run them!  All this came out a few years ago when the restricted "D Notice" was lifted. Looking at the info that came out, it is understandable why the RAF had to start getting rid of multiple aircraft types that were all doing the same thing. 

[allardjd 1,853]

6 hours ago, J G said:

On the other hand, the little Harrier...proved not only a superb air to air fighter

 

I agree with a lot of what you said but have to take issue with this.  The Falklands war proved nothing about the Harrier's air to air prowess in a contested environment.  I believe there were only three gun kills, none against fighter types, and most of what they did was interception of strike aircraft operating near the limit of their range using Sidewinder missiles.   Those opponents had no desire and very little capability to engage in "air to air" combat against the Harriers while they were near bingo fuel, were hundreds of over-water miles from their bases, were very likely not carrying much in the way of A-A stores and were unescorted by fighter types equipped for A-A.

 

The Harrier was an innovative and capable aircraft - probably able to be credibly called a "great" one.  It served well in the Falklands and gave heroic service there but I think it's a stretch to characterize it as an effective ACM platform.  It never was that against its contemporary ('70s, '80s) adversaries and would be toast in any kind of fight with 4th generation opponents, much less 5th generation.

 

John

[J G 927]

John, I think that you haven't quite understood meaning, or perhaps I am guilty of not explaining my self properly.

 

There were two types of Harrier operational during the Falklands conflict. The Royal Navies Sea Harriers and the RAF's ground attack aircraft.

 

The former were tasked with providing CAP over the fleet and the latter with ground attack missions against Argentine positions on the islands, although some Sea Harriers were used in a ground attack role in the closing stages against targets around Port Stanley, also a role they were designed to do. 

 

In the role of CAP at sea, the prime mission is that of interceptor, to meet and destroy any threats to the fleet. You would expect an aircraft to have a an advantage in an offensive role (all other things being equal) because of its close proximity to its base and therefore better endurance. But that's as far as it goes. In this role the Harrier performed superbly with no losses in air to air combat, and a total of six Harriers lost, two to ground fire and the rest to accidents. The Argentine air force lost a total of 98 aircraft of which only 14 were Island based helicopters, and a further 13 Pucaras destroyed on the ground. There were thought to be only 5 Argentine aircraft shot down by ship to air missiles.

 

Not a bad record.

 

 

 

 

[allardjd 1,853]

Agree - not a bad record and that's probably an understatement - it's a very, very good record.

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your meaning, and I certainly don't have any intention to disrespect or denigrate the Harrier or the people who operated them - it was an innovative and, for what it was intended for, an effective platform.  The Harrier was ingeniously and effectively employed during the Falklands war.  

 

I do still think that it's necessary to qualify the statement that the Harriers had "...no losses in air to air combat...".  The fact is, nobody was challenging them and there was little if any of what would normally be thought of in those terms.  Argentine fighter types, armed for and intent on air to air combat with the Harriers simply weren't there.  The Argies were flying, primarily, strike missions, without escort, plus a few reconnaissance and clandestine supply missions.  I recall there may have been one sweep by Mirages or some such that didn't manage to find any adversaries, but aside from that, there were no fighter types looking to mix it up with the Harriers in air to air combat. The vast majority of the air to air engagements by the Harriers were interceptions of strike aircraft that had almost no capability to engage with them and whose primary objective with respect to the Harriers was to evade and escape them.

 

Argentina hoped for air superiority and, ultimately, victory by either damaging/destroying Hermes and Invincible or by making the ground war last long enough that the carriers could not remain on station.  They failed in both respects.  Argentina made no serious attempts, mainly because they didn't have the logistical capability, to defeat the UK air forces in conventional air to air combat, ala BoB.

 

The Harrier was a lot of things and performed those roles well, but air superiority fighter was never on the list.  It enjoyed air superiority in the theater in spite of alarmingly low numbers of them being available, but that was entirely due to the logistic and geographical limitations of their opponents.  If the Falklands were 50 miles offshore, it would have been a much different air to air environment.

 

John

[allardjd 1,853]

“It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/“its-fighting-mr-invisible”-how-i-went-war-against-stealth-f-20426

 

Interesting article, though kind of light on operational and technical detail.  One thing I found particularly interesting was the idea that using T-38 Talons (much cheaper to operate than most types) as adversaries could provide a fairly good simulation of more advanced types for BVR engagements.  I guess that makes sense at a certain level - BVR combat has less to do with performance and maneuverability than it does with sensors and longer range weapons.  

 

4th generation tactics are more or less based on the concept that if you get to the merge, you've already missed your best opportunity to be the winner by failing to toast the opponent while BVR.  Not sure how much that concept applies if you're in a 5th generation ride.  At visual ranges, radar is arguably less vital, stealth advantages are negated (at least electronic stealth - visual stealth is another story) and the ability to maneuver effectively becomes more important.  Offsetting that, however are 360 degree sensor capabilities and HOBS weapons that literally let an advanced fighter pilot look, down, see the enemy between his legs or over his shoulder and launch a missile that will turn toward the enemy.  That's powerful stuff and of course in that kind of situation the T-38 has an even higher probability of being seconds away from becoming toast than, say a MIG 29.

 

I was a little frustrated by the lack of more technical details in the article but I detect the smell of censorship there, protecting the true capabilities of our top-line stuff.

 

John

 

EDIT:  The title fails to acknowledge it but there were Typhoons and Rafaels involved too, against the T-38s, making this an even less fair fight.

[brett 2,301]

Like taking a knife to a gunfight. I want to read the story about the stealth aircraft going against each other.

[allardjd 1,853]

8 hours ago, brett said:

I want to read the story about the stealth aircraft going against each other.

 

Two invisible men, who can't be seen by one another, nor by anyone else.  Strange stuff - even better at night.  Of course once someone opens a weapons bay door he's visible, but as I understand it the doors open and close very quickly and only when he's ready to shoot.  None of that sounds like much fun.

 

John

[hurricanemk1c 195]

I'm always suspicious of these claims (both ways), when we don't know the exact paramteres of the test. There was a leaked LM pilot report a couple of years ago discussing a lack of energy in a close dogfight situation, against a F-15 (I think) with tanks on.

 

However, I would guess a good F-35 pilot wouldn't get anywhere near a close dogfight situation, rather stand off and fire BVR. How often it would be required to do air-to-air combat is another matter. It was always said by Canberra pilots that they could run rings around a fighter at high altitude - until the fighter decided to go 5 miles away and just use a missile

[J G 927]

Quote

I'm always suspicious of these claims (both ways), when we don't know the exact paramteres of the test. There was a leaked LM pilot report a couple of years ago discussing a lack of energy in a close dogfight situation, against a F-15 (I think) with tanks on.

 

However, I would guess a good F-35 pilot wouldn't get anywhere near a close dogfight situation, rather stand off and fire BVR. How often it would be required to do air-to-air combat is another matter. It was always said by Canberra pilots that they could run rings around a fighter at high altitude - until the fighter decided to go 5 miles away and just use 

 

When it was first flying, the Canberra could fly higher than any fighter of the time, so no need to fly rings around them and missiles back then were not reliable at all.

 

The primary role for the F-35B in the Royal Navy will be as a strike aircraft and in a CAP role for the fleet. Both these roles are totally different from that of a fighter. In the first she will be pitched against air to sea threats, as the Harrier was in the Falklands war, and in the latter she will be acting in an air to sea or land strike role.

 

So to pitch the F-35B against a fighter is always going to be biased in favour of the fighter.  

 

If you make this comparison in terms of the Second World War, who do you think would prevail in a fight between an ME109E and Fairey Fulmar?  

[Andrew Godden 937]

12 hours ago, J G said:

The primary role for the F-35B in the Royal Navy will be as a strike aircraft and in a CAP role for the fleet. Both these roles are totally different from that of a fighter. In the first she will be pitched against air to sea threats, as the Harrier was in the Falklands war, and in the latter she will be acting in an air to sea or land strike role.

 

I think you have your formers and latters mixed up.

[J G 927]

Its my lexdysai   

Edited May 8, 2017 by J G

[allardjd 1,853]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 04:24, J G said:

So to pitch the F-35B against a fighter is always going to be biased in favour of the fighter.  

 

Not necessarily if said fighter is a 4th generation type (or worse).  The design spec for the F-35 was set up so it would be capable of dominating anything else available at the time other than the F-22.  Yes, it's primary role is ground attack but it's intended to be better at A-A than anything that's not a Raptor.  The intent was for the F-35 to be the "Low" in a "High-Low" mix ala F-15/F-16, a concept that worked out pretty well in practice.

 

The question remains whether the F-35 really is that good or not, and of course new things will come off other people's drawing boards in time but at any rate, that was the design intent.

 

Another point to keep in mind is that the B model is the least capable of the three flavors of F-35.  The F-35B pays a heavy price in range, payload and g-limits for it's VSTOL capability.  That's an acceptable trade-off if you're the USMC - not sure about others who don't have a USN and a USAF to watch the battlespace for/with them.

 

John

[J G 927]

Agreed John.  It was the F-35B I was talking about.  I would guess that the F-35A is the most capable as there is nothing changed in its configuration that would have a detrimental effect on its capabilities. The B's has the VTOL capability but at a cost, the C has a larger wing area and strengthened undercarriage for carrier based operations which adds more weight and a slower stall speed, but with a cost as well.

 

It's horses for courses, I guess, Each has its uses in a specific operational area. The A may well be a good fighter-bomber, but would wouldn't work on a aircraft carrier as it wouldn't be capable of taking the sustained punishment of landing on such a challenging platform.  The B has its role, One thing that came out of the Falklands war was the ability on a VTOL aircraft to takeoff and land on a ship that wasn't an aircraft carrier.  Some of the RAF harriers were shipped to the Falklands in hastily modified container ships from which, when unpacked and assembled, could fly to a land based short runway from which offensive operations could start.  VTOL is needed for this.