Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Air Defense Variant?  
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7685 times:

I was thinking that an air defense variant of the F-35A might be a good idea for some customers, and the US air national guard. I think it would play to the inherent strengths of the aircraft. It would be similar in concept to the F-106.

Allow me to explain what this would hypothetically look like:

-F-35A airframe configured to carry an 8 missile mix (all internal only) of asraam, amraam, and Meteor. For example, 4 asraam/aim9x and 4 Meteor/amraam.

-Removal of anything that could be used for air to ground, including external hardpoints. Yes. I am saying not one damn pound for air to ground. Nothing to compromise A to A performance. Period. (Look, I realize external hardpoints give more flexibility, but internal weapons stowage is the whole point of a design like the F-35. I cringe when I see pictures of it or the F-22 with external anything on them other than fuel tanks for ferry flights).

-This, in combination with a MTOW reduced to 50,000 lbs should easily allow for empty weight to be reduced to the original F-35A spec of 26,300 lbs. Maybe even less. This means a TOW of around 48,000 lbs with full internal fuel, 8 internal air to air missiles and internal gun ammo (which I think should be increased to 350 rounds at least).

-50,000 lb thrust version (demonstrated) of F-135 engine for 1 to 1 or greater thrust to weight ratio even at MTOW.

-Possible addition of axis-symmetric thrust vectoring nozzle

-Flight clearance to mach 1.8 (normal operations)


Such an aircraft, I think, would match or exceed the performance of any current fighter aircraft in the air to air role, and be inferior to the F-22 only in terms of supercruise and stealth.

I believe it could be quite attractive to certain customers.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7681 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
I believe it could be quite attractive to certain customers.

Such as?

Reality is, most countries can't afford a single mission focused on A/A only. Look at the last few conflicts in Libya, Syria and now Mali. None of those countries had any sort of Air Force. This is what makes the F-35 so attractive, it can do both A/A and A/G/Sea very effectively. A package of F35's loaded in A/A config is still a lethal weapon. The days of hundreds of fighters flying around the sky in actual combat is over. Unless someone within Europe starts getting frisky I don't see the need for another A/A fighter, the F-22 is overkill as it is.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7531 times:

All those changes would be beyond the current F-35 team. They can't even get it to trap land on an aircraft carrier yet or stay within 5 years of the schedule.

Even with 43,000lbs of thrust, the engine already produces so much heat on the frame that it damages the frame and the exterior coatings. At 50,000lbs of thrust it would make matters worse for the frame.

Because the exhaust gasses travel along a tunnel inside the frame, the heat and pressure must be dealt with frame side as well. Maybe the engine can produce 50,000lbs, but that does not mean the frame can take it, especially with the hot gasses traveling inside the frame.

I suspect the F-35 already has a big heat IR signature and a more powerful engine would only make it worse. The inlet temperature of the engine is already over 600F hotter than other fighter engines and the exhaust gasses are hotter as well and it expels a larger volume of hot gas to produce about twice the thrust of most other fighter engines. The F-35 does not mitigate this via a flat, scattered or square exhaust, like the F-22, B-2, F-117 and other stealth planes do. The exhaust and the gas plume is round and that's the worst shape for IR stealth, as it's equally visible and thick from all angles.

All this heat and the large volume of gas is well and good for performance. But not good for your IR signature, which will make you as visible as a glow stick from 50 miles away on IR sensors. Even if the frame heating is fixed 100%, which it currently is not and who knows if it ever will be, the F-35 is a hot potato. Overall, not very IR stealthy. I wouldn't want to be the guy sitting in that thing, knowing enemy fighters are looking for me with their IR sensors and not their radar, while having inferior aerodynamic and kinetic performance. IR guided beyond visual range A2A missiles are being developed, that are initially guided via datalink by other IR other aircraft.

The one advantage this design does have, is when you use afterburner, as the exhaust flame is mostly inside the frame. Discounting any negative frame heating effects. Look at pictures of the F-35 afterburner and you'll barely see the flame from the side. From the rear you clearly see it in the exhaust shaft inside the frame. It is a massive engine and it is impressive it barely produces and afterburner flame outside the frame. But the frame must somehow deal with the heat it is exposed to. When they went to MACH 1.6, the heat damage to the frame from the engine quickly limited the top speed to high subsonic or low supersonic, till they dealt with it. I haven't heard that they have, doesn't mean they haven't though.

This is also not to mention that the number of missiles you wish to fit inside. They'll never fit. It can barely fit 4 as it is. Smaller short range missiles on the F-35 make no sense, because if a fight brews close in well within visual range, stealth is irrelevant and the F-35 is vastly inferior aerodynamically and kinetically - if it even has any missiles left. Perhaps this is why the F-35 doesn't have an internal cannon.

[Edited 2013-02-06 20:59:17]

[Edited 2013-02-06 21:11:33]

[Edited 2013-02-06 21:14:25]

User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7484 times:

Interesting. Back in the day (70's, 80's, and 90's) the standard loadout for both the F-14 and F-15 was 4 AIM-9 and 4 Sparrow/AMRAAM.

Nowadays things have shifted to 6 AMRAAM and only 2 AIM-9, an many times no AIM-9/ASRAAM;

They are basically going back to the late 1950's philosophy that all AA engagements will be at extended ranges. Seems a bit like putting all your eggs in one basket.

If The F-35 can fit 6 AMRAAM, it should be able to fit 4 AIM-9/ASRAAM + 4 AMRAAM without too much modification.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 1):
Unless someone within Europe starts getting frisky I don't see the need for another A/A fighter, the F-22 is overkill as it is.

Not that I disagree, but never thought I would see the day when the primary role of fighters was bombing/ground attack with air to air relegated to a distant second, but that is the reality of pretty much every "fighter" being built today. I guess the Cold War was an aberration in that respect, with the greater focus on air defense/air to air combat. Although, to be fair, when aircraft were first introduced into combat, the purpose was first and foremost ground pounding, with air to air combat necessarily coming afterwards... kind of depressing, actually, as it means we are moving back to bomb trucks.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7112 times:

An interesting concept for the F-35, but with the cost to design and test the changes, it would be better to just buy more F-22s. Yes, I know the line is closed, but you still get a much more capable aircraft.

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7088 times:

LM avers it won't be necessary as the F-35 is already inherently superior...even if they do say so themselves.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/


However, there is no mention of Russian types.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Voukadinov - BGspotters



.....or upcoming stealth fighters like the J-20/J-31...    .....

.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=48392



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6959 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 3):
Nowadays things have shifted to 6 AMRAAM and only 2 AIM-9, an many times no AIM-9/ASRAAM;

They are basically going back to the late 1950's philosophy that all AA engagements will be at extended ranges. Seems a bit like putting all your eggs in one basket.

FYI, AIM-120D incorporates HOBS capability. As AIM-120D is entering full-rate production, and older version of the AIM-120 go beyond their life expectancies and thus removed from inventory, AIM-120D would be a very creditable WVR weapon. AIM-120D also includes a two way datalink, and since F-35 has a 360 degree coverage with IR sensors, a F-35 could launch a AIM-120D at a enemy fighter behind it, and have the F-35's sensors provide guidance towards the enemy fighter through the datalink.

AIM-9X Block II will be cleared on F-35 on Block 4, with IOC in 2015.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 2):
This is also not to mention that the number of missiles you wish to fit inside. They'll never fit. It can barely fit 4 as it is.

They can fit 6 AIM-120's; they need to redesign two internal pylons to do so. Remember that after AIM-120C-3, the wings and tail of the AIM-120 were clipped to allow the F-22 to carry 6 AIM-120's, instead of the original 4. Block 5 is the target for internal carriage of 6 AIM-120D's.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 2):
Maybe the engine can produce 50,000lbs, but that does not mean the frame can take it, especially with the hot gasses traveling inside the frame.

Pratt tested a F135 engine to 50,000lbs back in 2010. Also remember that on the F-16, the original Pratt & Whitney F100 was only good for 23,830 lb full afterburner. Later versions fitted to the F-16 Block 50 were good for 28,500lbs full afterburner.

It clear that the F135 engine has room and potential for growth. The engine will be developed over time to improve thrust, fuel efficiency, durability, and time between overhauls, like any other jet engine.

Also noted that is the F135 engines will spend less than 10% of their lives providing MAX power; it will more likely be less than 2% (Based on F-16 AB usage) With the F135's 28K MIL thrust, MAX usage will likely be less than what any F100 or F110 had been previous.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6957 times:

The F-35C now takes 43s longer to get from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2. Well the Typhoon takes less than 40s in total, so no dice. The claims by LM are getting more and more desperate.

The F-35A started off at 61s, that's now down to 69s. These LM claims really make LM lool bad - like they really drank waaaay too much F-35 koolaid.

[Edited 2013-02-08 18:18:50]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6953 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
I was thinking that an air defense variant of the F-35A might be a good idea for some customers, and the US air national guard.

The irony of your question is that the F-16, which the F-35 will primarily replace, starting as a simple point defence fighter and morphed from there. The flexibility of multi-role platforms, when you have a limited number, is more beneficial. Remember that National Guard units also deploy and often have to do more than air to air.

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
-F-35A airframe configured to carry an 8 missile mix (all internal only) of asraam, amraam, and Meteor. For example, 4 asraam/aim9x and 4 Meteor/amraam.

I don't think you will fit eight of the above air to air missiles in the bay. There is a lot of talk about a new missile LM is developing called the CUDA, which will be shorter but with a larger diameter than the AIM-9 and probably allow you to load at least 12 (and maybe 16) in the internal bay or a configuration mix of CUDA and AMRAAM based on need.

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
-50,000 lb thrust version (demonstrated) of F-135 engine for 1 to 1 or greater thrust to weight ratio even at MTOW.

The extra thrust wouldn't provide a significant enough benefit for the increased maintenance requirements, especially given an F-35 in air to air config would be lighter already. Any fighter pilot worth his salt doesn't go into an engagement anywhere near MTOW, more likely somewhere between 25-75% fuel load plus weapons. In that state the F-35 has a very healthy T/W ratio.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 4):
An interesting concept for the F-35, but with the cost to design and test the changes, it would be better to just buy more F-22s. Yes, I know the line is closed, but you still get a much more capable aircraft.

A full-rate production F-35 is probably 2/3 the price of an equivalent F-22 before you consider production rate re-start. The F-35 will fly further, carry a similar weapons load and require significantly less maintenance. What it doesn't have is the 100nm supercruise but I am not sure that would be enough of an advantage for the extra cost.

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 3):
Interesting. Back in the day (70's, 80's, and 90's) the standard loadout for both the F-14 and F-15 was 4 AIM-9 and 4 Sparrow/AMRAAM.

Nowadays things have shifted to 6 AMRAAM and only 2 AIM-9, an many times no AIM-9/ASRAAM;

There is a good reason for that. The AMRAAM is a phenomenal missile that is just as lethal WVR as it would be BVR, especially in the hands of an F-35 which has all round situation awareness. Then you add in the fact that almost all fighter combat is BVR and the load-out makes more sense.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6946 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 7):
The F-35C now takes 43s longer to get from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2. Well the Typhoon takes less than 40s in total, so no dice. The claims by LM are getting more and more desperate.

In what configuration, and with what loads? If a Typhoon can do 40s in a clean configuration, but the F-35C's numbers are for an aircraft loaded with bombs and missiles, it is not a fair or proper comparison.

If you can't make the comparison between apples to apples, any comparison is utterly useless.

And for comparison's sake against the F-16:

F-16C, F-110-GE-129, operation weight 20455 lb.
1) AA config: 4*AA missiles, sta 1,2,8,9; 50% fuel
- drag index 30, weight roughly 26000 lb
15k feet/.8 mach sustained G: 5.5G
30k/mach .8~1.2: 35 sec
Max speed: Mach 1.90

2) AG config: 2*AA missiles, sta 1,9; 2*GBU-31, station 3,7; IRIS-T; 2*600G tanks, sta 4,6; 50% fuel
- drag index 150, weight roughly 35000 lb
15k feet/.8 mach sustained G: 4.0G
30k/mach .8~1.2: 84 sec
Max speed: Mach 1.44

And for these 2 paramters, F-35 variants are:
F-35A 4.6G, 55 + 8 sec
F-35B 4.5G, 65 + 16 sec
F-35C 5.0G, 65 + 43 sec
Max speed: Mach 1.6

Also, the claims are not by Lockheed Martin, they are by one of their test pilots, Billy Flynn. If you don't know his record, he's a ex-Canadian Forces CF-18 pilot and squadron commander, who HAS flown combat missions over Kosovo. He has an excellent reputation in Canada. And he has not been afraid to say who he is and what he thinks, or even who he works for. "He is not one to make outlandish claims" as a friend put it to me. He's known as being brash, but extremely well informed in his brief due to his wide range of experiences.

He has actually FLOWN the aircraft(s) in question (he's also worked as a test pilot flying the Eurofighter as well) and understands the context of comparison, rather than commenting ANONYMOUSLY on what he thinks.

Is there a chance (however slight) that he knows what he is talking about? You have a guy who has flown 4 different types of combat aircraft comparing and telling you one thing, and 2 other guys who haven't flown those types but don't work for LM telling you another... who to believe?


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6871 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 7):
The F-35C now takes 43s longer to get from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2. Well the Typhoon takes less than 40s in total,

The eurocanard fanboi's are getting desperate. I wonder by how much that number increases when the Typhoon isn't in airshow configuration with next to nothing for fuel. A Typhoon with no external tanks isn't going to travel great distances, add weapons and external stuff it becomes a giant, overpriced pig.

[Edited 2013-02-08 23:27:22]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
If a Typhoon can do 40s in a clean configuration, but the F-35C's numbers are for an aircraft loaded with bombs and missiles, it is not a fair or proper comparison.

They're both clean and the F-35 is not carrying any bombs or anything external.

....acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.(now 69 sec. for the A version and much more for the C); .....Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

Total desperation to put out and push false statements like these. Claiming an F-35 has faster acceleration than a lighter and smaller fighter, even though both have almost the same amount of thrust, is clearly false. It doesn't matter who makes these statements, it's just not physically possible and provably false by the already measured flight performances.

Thrust/Weight Ratios with 50% fuel and After Burner:

Typhoon: 1.29
F-16C: 1.19
F-35A : 1.09

The total wet area of the F-35 is much greater than that of the Typhoon as well, due to the large internal weapons bays and stealth of the F-35. This makes is more draggy, which requires it carry more fuel to cover the same distance as the Typhoon. The thrust/weight ratio of the F-35 is *bar none* the worst of all fighters, *bar none*, no matter the apples to apples configuration.

It's simple arithmetic.

I'm done with this thread. Anyone who wants to believe LM PR over arithmetic, go ahead.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4782 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6807 times:

Yes, it will make a great target..


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6792 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):
They're both clean and the F-35 is not carrying any bombs or anything external.

....acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.(now 69 sec. for the A version and much more for the C); .....Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.

The problem is the comparison; a F-35 armed with 2 JDAM's and 2 AIM-120's internally has the same drag index and coefficient as a F-35 with no weapons onboard. A F-35 in a 'clean' state operates practically identically as a F-35 armed with internal weapons.

The only true comparison will be between a F-35 armed with 2 JDAM's, 2 AIM-120's and enough fuel to go 500nm to a Eurofighter armed with 2 JDAM's, 2 AIM-120's, a Sniper pod, jammer pod, and enough fuel in both internal and external fuel to go 500nm.

We don't go to war with fighter jets configured for air shows (clean, no weapons, minimal fuel). Legacy jets, including Eurofighter, do not go to war in the kinds of configurations posted above.

FYI, the pilots at Elgin AFB flew their first 4 ship formation with the F-35 late last week:
http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123335153
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...glin-f-35-pilots-fly-tactical.html
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013/02/130201-F-zz999-805.JPG
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013/02/130201-F-zz999-804.JPG

They also did tactical intercepts with a number of F-16's and apparently, it went well.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6523 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):
They're both clean and the F-35 is not carrying any bombs or anything external.

So who cares? Fighters don't go into war unarmed and in an airshow config.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
Yes, it will make a great target..

Inspirational as always...


User currently offlineFSXJunkie From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
I was thinking that an air defense variant of the F-35A might be a good idea for some customers, and the US air national guard. I think it would play to the inherent strengths of the aircraft. It would be similar in concept to the F-106.

The F-22 would be better, a critical aspect of air defense is linear speed, and Mach 2.[Classified] (F-22) is alot better than Mach 1.5ish..."maybe" of the F-35

Quote:
-Allow me to explain what this would hypothetically look like:

F-35A airframe configured to carry an 8 missile mix (all internal only) of asraam, amraam, and Meteor. For example, 4 asraam/aim9x and 4 Meteor/amraam.

Why internal only? in air defense missions you do not need a stealth profile, external AAM hardpoints would increase the aircraft's stamina in defending airspace against an OpFor who is attacking in force

Quote:
-Removal of anything that could be used for air to ground, including external hardpoints. Yes. I am saying not one damn pound for air to ground. Nothing to compromise A to A performance. Period.

That's why the externals would only mount AAM's. Unless it's nuclear your 8 missile combo platter won't get much done before the aircraft is forced to withdraw, and in an air defense scenario you have to maximize your ability to blunt an enemy offensive, you do this by maximizing linear and climb performance and payload (the more AAM's per defending aircraft, the less likely OpFor will successfully penetrate your airspace.)

Quote:
(Look, I realize external hardpoints give more flexibility, but internal weapons stowage is the whole point of a design like the F-35. I cringe when I see pictures of it or the F-22 with external anything on them other than fuel tanks for ferry flights).

*Facepalm*

The reason for clean wings is for STEALTH, you need stealth in offensive mission profiles to maximize survivability against OpFor's defenses.

When you are in a defending or non combat ferry role stealth is USELESS! The sole purpose of stealth is to trick NORAD's evil Communist twin, not to trick NORAD itself.

Quote:
Such an aircraft, I think, would match or exceed the performance of any current fighter aircraft in the air to air role, and be inferior to the F-22 only in terms of supercruise and stealth.

...and be left in the contrails of Tu-160's as well as most Russian built mach 2 fighter/strike platforms

Quote:
I believe it could be quite attractive to certain customers.

Doubt it, everybody wants the Raptor, Japan and Korea are building their own analogs to that since the US is denying export sales for the F-22.

[Edited 2013-02-09 23:21:28]

[Edited 2013-02-09 23:23:12]

User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6469 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 15):
That's why the externals would only mount AAM's. Unless it's nuclear your 8 missile combo platter won't get much done before the aircraft is forced to withdraw, and in an air defense scenario you have to maximize your ability to blunt an enemy offensive, you do this by maximizing linear and climb performance and payload (the more AAM's per defending aircraft, the less likely OpFor will successfully penetrate your airspace.)
Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 15):
The reason for clean wings is for STEALTH, you need stealth in offensive mission profiles to maximize survivability against OpFor's defenses.

When you are in a defending or non combat ferry role stealth is USELESS! The sole purpose of stealth is to trick NORAD's evil Communist twin, not to trick NORAD itself.

But as soon as you start hang external tanks and ordnance on the thing (be it F-22 or F-35 or F-15), you're going to start killing your "linear speed". The F-22 is faster than an F-15 only when it’s clean and the F-15 isn’t.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6435 times:

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 15):
The F-22 would be better, a critical aspect of air defense is linear speed, and Mach 2.[Classified] (F-22) is alot better than Mach 1.5ish..."maybe" of the F-35

The F-22 does not fly all day at M1.5, M1.8 or M2. It does so in short dashes and all range figures for an F-22 using supercruise always reference a 100nm supercruise distance.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 15):
The reason for clean wings is for STEALTH, you need stealth in offensive mission profiles to maximize survivability against OpFor's defenses.

Red Flag exercises have demonstrated that the stealth features of the F-22 are what sets it apart from 4th gen aircraft. It can move freely within the battle space and position the engagement to it's advantage, which is much more significant than a supersonic dash.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 15):
Why internal only? in air defense missions you do not need a stealth profile, external AAM hardpoints would increase the aircraft's stamina in defending airspace against an OpFor who is attacking in force

6-8 missiles fired from an F-22 are probably worth 12-16 from a 4th gen platform that must fire from a less tactically advantageous position. If you need more than that, load up the F-35 as a missile truck and use the F-22 for direction. The F-35 can carry 12-14 AMRAAMs and has a longer range.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6406 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 17):
If you need more than that, load up the F-35 as a missile truck and use the F-22 for direction. The F-35 can carry 12-14 AMRAAMs and has a longer range.

Or have two groups of F-35's working together; one group with internal weapons, and the second group with external missiles. Remember that the F-22 lacks datalink capability with other combat aircraft other than F-22, so an F-22 pilot will have to plan the engagement over the radio with everyone, unless BACN is available for that engagement.

It was planned that F-22 will get MADL and Link-16 at a later date (that's up in the air right now sitting unfunded), but F-35 will have MADL first and comes standard with Link-16 transmit and receive. Right now, it is an utter and complete mess in regards to datalinks with the US Armed Forces, as only some of the more recent teen-series fighters have Link-16 capability, while everyone else are still stuck on conventional radios, limiting everyone's situational awareness. With the wholesale replacement of the USAF, USN, and USMC combat jet force with the F-35, it will bring everyone up to the same standard with datalinks (every F-35 will have MADL and Link-16), except for the F-22 force. Until then, BACN is the only way various systems can communicate with each other via datalinks.

With the increasing dependance on quick and easy access to information in today's war, the side that is able to get information faster, distribute it to the parties that need it, analyse and act on the information is the side more likely to win battles.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6057 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 17):
6-8 missiles fired from an F-22 are probably worth 12-16 from a 4th gen platform that must fire from a less tactically advantageous position. If you need more than that, load up the F-35 as a missile truck and use the F-22 for direction. The F-35 can carry 12-14 AMRAAMs and has a longer range.

That is where the idea of something like a B-1R being used as a stand off AMRAAM platform. The F-22 gets in close, relays guidance to the B-1R, a wall of AMRAAMs decimate an opposing force. Outside of taking on the Chinese, and they are out of their minds and send dozens of fighters out together in groups... that will never happen.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Air Defense Variant?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force Association Magazine On F-35 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 20:48:37 by ThePointblank
Air Force: F-35 Jet Delayed By 2 Years posted Tue Mar 2 2010 13:32:52 by Ken777
Brazil Signs Air Force Deal For Mi-35 Helicopters posted Tue Dec 2 2008 09:30:29 by Keesje
Czech Air Force To Have MI-35 posted Thu Nov 1 2001 12:13:32 by Sterne82
Sea Trials Of F-35 Aboard U.S.S. Wasp posted Mon Jan 21 2013 22:02:33 by Geezer
Antonov 225 Hired By French Air Force For Mali posted Mon Jan 21 2013 10:36:43 by 1stspotter
Utah Air Guard KC-135 Refueling Mississippi C-17 posted Tue Jan 15 2013 12:41:05 by flynlr
Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs posted Tue Jan 15 2013 03:54:25 by JoeCanuck
Turkey Delays F-35 Decision posted Fri Jan 11 2013 06:37:28 by TK787
Swedish Air Force JAS 39A In Green Camo. posted Tue Dec 25 2012 12:12:12 by AndersNilsson

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format