Some F-35 things

[MigBuster 2,884]

I have been reading up on the F-35 and it's not good. Looks like it will be the most useless fighter ever designed. After all it was a fighter designed by committee. Here is just a fraction of what I have found.

 

Mach on Entry: High Mach increases the energy of BVR missiles, sending them further. The design top speed of the Su-35S is 2.25, limited by canopy and radome heating, so it has surplus power and the fuel to burn to sustain high Mach numbers. The drag of the external stores is likely to reduce this to something below Mach 2, but the missiles are cleared for launch at all speeds. The JSF has yet to demonstrate a flight above Mach 1.05, but even if it reaches its design speed of Mach 1.6, it is clearly inferior.

 

 

What is the source for these? - and where are they getting their information from?

 

Most of the articles you see slagging off the F-35 are by the clueless or by people massaging figures to make it look bad - the above looks like its written by a sim player comparing two 4th gen jets!

 

For example - lets take 1 paragraph "Mach on entry" from the above - is that totally true?

 

 http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/edwards-afb-about-to-start-f-3.html

 

Interestingly, while it's not remotely close to being as fast as its older F-22 sibling, the guys at Edwards have been routinely taking the F-35 up to its max speed of Mach 1.6 with internal payloads. 

 

I'm pretty Sure the Su-35 will never be flying anywhere near M2.0 in combat (it has neither the fuel, the time or the drag index to do so with missiles)  - and flying high speed at 40k ft where the whole world saw you on radar 2 hours ago cant be that great an idea   

 

 

 

They have no idea on the capability of the ECM and radar systems on the F-35 - that's classified -  but if you look at the resource going into it you would be hard pressed to say it not in a different world compared to whats on the Su-35.

 

EODAS only optimized for A-G? where did they get that from - its supposed to be able to pick up A-A missiles and ID aircraft for the pilot, as well as pick up SAMs and ground fire.

 

You can post it on here http://www.f-16.net/ - and have it ripped to shreds - so suggest doing some actual research on it first

Edited July 11, 2013 by MigBuster

[fireengineer 1]

These are public reports made by Australian military. They are very detailed and unbiased. The F-35 has a great sales pitch but that's about all that is great about it. There are about 50 such reports, very detailed and it's bad news.

I'm pretty Sure the Su-35 will never be flying anywhere near M2.0 in combat (it has neither the fuel, the time or the drag index to do so with missiles)  - and flying high speed at 40k ft where the whole world saw you on radar 2 hours ago cant be that great an idea 

 

Really? Seeing the enemy at 40K and Mach 2 is one thing, getting a low and slow F-35 with 120's to hit it is another. The Russian R-77 and R-37 will have been fired minutes before the 120 can even get a solution. There are serious issues with the 35, it is a jack of all trades and master of none.

[MigBuster 2,884]

You mean APA Carlo Kopp.....

 

Really? Seeing the enemy at 40K and Mach 2 is one thing, getting a low and slow F-35 with 120's to hit it is another. The Russian R-77 and R-37 will have been fired minutes before the 120 can even get a solution. There are serious issues with the 35, it is a jack of all trades and master of none.

 

Okay - tell me how the Su-35 targets and fires anything at the F-35 when it has no idea its there? - the radar is far superior to the OLS-35 and works in any weather - as i said the Su-35 will be detected by everything and will be on the defensive straight away.

 

Low and slow? since when was M1.6 slow..........and how long can the Su-35 fly above M1.6 on internal fuel when its miles from base say......

[fireengineer 1]

You mean APA Carlo Kopp.....

 

Okay - tell me how the Su-35 targets and fires anything at the F-35 when it has no idea its there? - the radar is far superior to the OLS-35 and works in any weather - as i said the Su-35 will be detected by everything and will be on the defensive straight away.

 

Low and slow? since when was M1.6 slow..........and how long can the Su-35 fly above M1.6 on internal fuel when its miles from base say......

You are supposing a lot of things there. Reverse that and tell me how an F-35 miles from base will outfight a Su-35 that has twice the number of BVR missiles and triple the fuel? Also keep in mind the Russian missiles will out reach the Aim-120 by a large margin. The F-35 is LO but not in the class of the F-22 or the B-2, stealth will not help against lower frequency radars, the list goes on and on.

[MigBuster 2,884]

You are supposing a lot of things there. Reverse that and tell me how an F-35 miles from base will outfight a Su-35 that has twice the number of BVR missiles and triple the fuel? Also keep in mind the Russian missiles will out reach the Aim-120 by a large margin. The F-35 is LO but not in the class of the F-22 or the B-2, stealth will not help against lower frequency radars, the list goes on and on.

 

No I'm not - I'm pointing out that top speed at high Mach is useful for interception and running away that's about it - the fuel and time it takes to get there is substantial and cant be sustained - a jet with the RCS of the Su-35 and in full afterburner is not exactly low vis (The F-35 has an IRST as well! ). Also the tactical situation means you don't always get to choose where you fight - you don't have the luxury of just going to M2.0 when you feel like it.  

 

The number of missiles the Su-35 carries will add drag slowing it down and increase its RCS and its chance of ever getting a first shot in must be <10% - so its irrelevant whether Wikipedia / APA tells you Russian R-77s have some kind of range advantage (because these figures are classified anyway). The only scenario where the Su-35 could be used to effect is in massive numbers - but tbh I dont think they made that many - focus will turn to stealth jets like the PAK-FA  because the Su-35 is pretty much obsolete.

 

Who says the F-35 isn't as stealthy as the F-22 btw ? - again a guess based on a photo - not much use

 

The thing about the APA stuff is look at the totally ridiculous 1v1 head on scenarios (and the F-111 agenda) they always portray - if the Su-35 ever went head to head with an F-35 - its not the F-35 the Su actually sees that's likely to be firing at it.

 

 

If I were you I wouldn't worry about the F-35 - the Su-35 is the one you should be worried about - and although it seems illogical at first - you have to get round the new way of fighting with sensor fusion etc etc

Edited July 11, 2013 by MigBuster

[thodouras95 25]

I have been reading up on the F-35 and it's not good. Looks like it will be the most useless fighter ever designed. After all it was a fighter designed by committee. Here is just a fraction of what I have found.

 

Electronic Support Measures: Air combat aircraft emit radiation from jet engines, radar, JTIS/MIDSs terminal, radio transmissions. Specialised equipment in combat aircraft knows the frequencies of these transmissions and has sensors to detect them. Attempts are made to minimise emissions through a process of ‘Emission Control’ (EMCON) but these can only be partially successful. Both the JSF and the Su-35S have a full range of these sensors, and are assessed as being equally effective in ESM capability.

 

ESA Radar X-Band: This is the primary sensor for jet fighters. The radar cross section of the F-35A is substantially lower than that of the Su-35S especially in the front sector, but the Sukhoi has sufficient power and a much larger antenna to partially overcome that difference. Both types are ‘networked’ so in a multi-ship engagement, the geometrical spread of the Su-35S flight in part negates the lower observability of the JSF by illuminating the JSF from angles where its low observability is weakest. Expect the F-35A to often get the ‘first look’, but the Su-35S flight to detect the JSF outside the range of the JSFs' BVR missiles. So where it matters, the limited low observability of the JSF provides little advantage.

 

ESA Radar L-Band: The Su-35S will have this lower-frequency radar in its wing leading edges. The JSF is ‘stealthed’ for X-Band, not for L-Band. While the antenna size of the Su-35S L-Band radar limits its performance, there will be times when the L-Band radar detects the JSF before the X-Band radar. The JSF does not have an L-Band Radar and is assessed accordingly.

 

Infra-Red Search & Track: There is a different approach to Infra-Red sensors. The JSF has a superb Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) designed to cover the sphere around the aircraft, but strongly optimised for air-to-ground operations. The Su-35S has a large aperture OLS-35 IRST optimised to scan for other aircraft at long range in its area of interest. DAS is a ‘staring array’ while the OLS-35 is a ‘scanning array’. The difference in detection range is like the difference between a person searching with a naked eye compared with another searching with a telescope. If the telescope is pointed in the right direction, it will get first detection. Add to that the factor that the JSF has the hottest engine in the market, and the IRST of the Su-35S is assessed as a superior aid to air combat.

 

Identification: Not much need to be said here. The threat of fratricide in BVR air combat has led to the development of identification systems that will reliable separate friend from foe. Fratricide still happens though, especially in mixed, close-in fights.

 

Engagement:

 

Mach on Entry: High Mach increases the energy of BVR missiles, sending them further. The design top speed of the Su-35S is 2.25, limited by canopy and radome heating, so it has surplus power and the fuel to burn to sustain high Mach numbers. The drag of the external stores is likely to reduce this to something below Mach 2, but the missiles are cleared for launch at all speeds. The JSF has yet to demonstrate a flight above Mach 1.05, but even if it reaches its design speed of Mach 1.6, it is clearly inferior.

 

Altitude on Entry: Like Mach, a higher altitude adds potential energy to BVR missiles, sending them further, while an enemy’s missiles must ‘climb the hill,’ severely reducing range. A second factor is that missiles fired from a higher altitude have less drag, again increasing range. The JSF is optimised for Strike missions flown at about 15-25,000 feet, while the Su-35S is optimised for air combat missions at about 40,000 feet and above, with a combat ceiling close to 60,000 feet. Points go to the Su-35S on operating altitude.

 

Missile Range: The RVV-SD and the AIM-120D have roughly equivalent ranges, but when the RVV-SD has a high-Mach, high-altitude launch; it will outrange the AIM-120D. The Su-35S is assessed at delivering a longer BVR engagement range. This area of superiority will be increased once the RVV-AE-PD ramjet missile becomes operational. In addition, the Su-35S can carry the very long range R-37 and R-172 missiles, with ranges to 200 nautical miles.

 

Missile Seeker Diversity: The AIM-120D currently has an active radar seeker, while the RVV-SD/R-77ME and the R-77TE have active and infra-Red (IIR) seekers respectively. Mixed sensor seekers complicate defences, for example, the F-35 may turn to defeat an active seeker and expose a hot part of the aircraft to an IR seeker. Russian doctrine is to ‘pair’ missiles with an active seeker followed by a IR seeker, creating diversity in the fight and creating ‘kill’ opportunities. The Russian missiles also have the option of passive anti-radiation seekers, designed to home on X-band radar. This diversity in missile seeker sensors gives an advantage to the Su-35S.

 

Signature Exposure: This is a factor that primarily affects the JSF, known to have a ‘Pacman’ radar cross-section at X-Band, with a Low Observability ‘notch’ at the front. As it manoeuvres, it can turn the notch away from an aircraft searching sensor, and expose a higher radar cross-section to that search, or expose a broadside or rear-side to another aircraft. The F-35 relying on a ‘can’t see me, can’t kill me’ capability, has more to lose in a spread, manoeuvring engagement than the Su-35S, which will generally be detectable by the JSF for most of the engagement. This exposure can occur, for example, when the JSF is guiding a missile and turns away to reduce the closure rate, thereby exposing both the aircraft and an incoming missile to longer range detection, or detection from a widely spaced wingman. As the JSF is reliant on signature reduction for survival, it has more to lose if its signature increases, so is assessed as more vulnerable in the dynamics of a multi-ship, networked, turning engagement where signature management is very difficult.

 

Endgame Electronic Countermeasures (ECM): The ‘modus operandi’ of stealth aircraft is not to radiate, or return radiation, which is the way ECM countermeasures work. Su-35S has ECM, JSF does not, except for intended AESA Radar jamming modes across a limited forward cone of about 120 degrees. ECM based on Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) can be very effective, especially against missiles with limited processing power and time to resolve targets. The Su-35S also has several ECM modes. The JSF is assessed as inferior, because it does not employ ECM to defeat attack.

 

Decoys Towed / Fired: The Su-35S has the option of deploying towed decoys to lure a closing missile away from the body of the aircraft. The JSF approach is different, with small ‘Gen-X’ active decoys being fired as a missile closes. These measures are assessed as being approximately equivalent, with the towed decoys which are at co-speed to the target likely to present the more effective countermeasure.

 

Flares and Chaff: These are outmoded countermeasures, but still add to the difficulty of guiding a missile to close proximity of an airframe. The GSh-301 is claimed to have rounds that fire chaff forward of the aircraft, so chaff-discrimination processing in a closing missile might be deceived. Nonetheless, the countermeasures are assessed as equivalent.

 

Mach for a Tail-Chase / Fuel Reserves for Afterburner: At some time in a fight, an aircraft has to depart, for example when ‘Winchester’ or out of ammunition, or  ‘Bingo’ or down to just enough fuel to get home. Then the fight becomes a tail-chase. The Su-35S with its higher Mach can close on a JSF, the reverse is not the case. The ability of the Su-35S to carry large fuel loads, and the prodigious consumption of the JSF F135 engine in maximum afterburner exacerbates this perilous situation for the JSF. The advantage is with the Su-35S in these aspects of engaging in a fight when the JSF is attempting to disengage.

 

Disengagement: This is one of the under-assessed areas of future air combat. When missiles of roughly equivalent range are fired, they travel for over 100 seconds to the target. This transit time provides an opportunity for countermeasures to defeat the attack. Missile motor launch-flares are intensive and difficult to hide from Infra-Red sensors, so in many engagements, there will be early warning of an incoming missile. Active seekers ‘light-up’ at about 10 nautical miles from the target, still providing valuable warning time. Here is a range of disengagement measures:

 

Airframe Agility: Once warned of a launch, the defending aircraft can sometimes defeat the attack by rapidly turning away to force the missile into a tail-chase.

 

Antenna Coverage: AESA radars like the JSF APG-81 working from a fixed back-plate cover a cone of about 120 degrees. The Su-35S has an ESA radar working from a gimballed ‘swash-plate’ that covers about 240 degrees around the nose, and there is a second radar in the ‘stinger’ albeit with less capability, to cover the remainder of the sphere. If the Su-35S and the JSF fire a BVR missile at the same time and at maximum range, the Su-35S can turn away to about 120 degrees off the line joining the two aircraft, while the JSF is constrained to about 60 degrees. This runs the JSF into the Su-35S’s missile, while the Su-35S is running away from the JSF’s missile. The result could be an RVV-SD hit and an AIM-120 miss. Points to the Su-35S on this aspect.

 

Mach on Egress / Fuel Reserves for Afterburner: This is an extension of the antenna coverage capability, as the Su-35S can accelerate away from the incoming missile, forcing it to drop-short. The JSF does not have this performance and is assessed as inferior.

 

Don't have the time to respond to each and every one of these points right now, but to me it seems like one of these articles that were written based on information that they take for granted the moment that they are not known, or even not valid.

[JediMaster 451]

Did you also know that a MiG-27 is crap against an F-15? It's true! It's amazing anyone even BUILT MiG-27s when F-15s were out there!

 

See, that "analysis" totally missed the point--the F-35 is designed to attack ground targets, with AA being a secondary capability. The Su-35 is designed to attack air targets, with a secondary ground attack ability. If the F-35 was designed to attack air targets...it would be an F-22! Or rather the F-35 is an F-22 scaled down to do a different mission.

 

Complaining the F-35 isn't AWESOME in AA is totally missing the point that it's not SUPPOSED to be. It will be better than an F-16, aside perhaps from some corners of the dogfighting envelope, which it is replacing, like it's replacing Harriers and F/A-18Cs. An F-16 BTW is even worse off against an Su-35 than an F-35.

And if anyone is trying to say that after the F-22 the best possible fighter is the Su-35, well that's just speculation too since the Su-35 isn't in service either.

 

Oh, and I think it safe to say that in any possible engagement it doesn't matter how much small percentage better the Su-35 might be because it will be outnumbered by F-35s, something you wouldn't be able to say about F-22s. The number of F-35s to be built far outnumbers how many Su-35s will be built, and the countries buying them will have more F-35s than the countries buying Su-35s will get.

 

The fact the the DoD is willing to get just 185 F-22s but wants over 2000 F-35s says something about where it believes the future threats will need to be addressed, as opposed to some armchair analysts giving their opinion based on unclassified data. Fighters just aren't shooting down fighters anymore. It's all about airplanes attacking ground targets while ground fire attacks airplanes. SAMs are the #1 threat, not an enemy fighter, and the Su-35 will be shot down by a SAM long before an F-35 would. Bombing enemies on the ground are the primary mission, and an F-35 is far more likely to be successful and precise in that then an Su-35. In fact, IIRC the USAF has spent a lot of time and money making sure the F-22 is up to the job of intercepting cruise missiles, especially hard-to-detect ones, because they're more worried about that than some "super fighter" shooting them down.

Edited July 12, 2013 by JediMaster

[fireengineer 1]

Did you also know that a MiG-27 is crap against an F-15? It's true! It's amazing anyone even BUILT MiG-27s when F-15s were out there!

 

See, that "analysis" totally missed the point--the F-35 is designed to attack ground targets, with AA being a secondary capability. The Su-35 is designed to attack air targets, with a secondary ground attack ability. If the F-35 was designed to attack air targets...it would be an F-22! Or rather the F-35 is an F-22 scaled down to do a different mission.

 

Complaining the F-35 isn't AWESOME in AA is totally missing the point that it's not SUPPOSED to be. It will be better than an F-16, aside perhaps from some corners of the dogfighting envelope, which it is replacing, like it's replacing Harriers and F/A-18Cs. An F-16 BTW is even worse off against an Su-35 than an F-35.

And if anyone is trying to say that after the F-22 the best possible fighter is the Su-35, well that's just speculation too since the Su-35 isn't in service either.

 

Oh, and I think it safe to say that in any possible engagement it doesn't matter how much small percentage better the Su-35 might be because it will be outnumbered by F-35s, something you wouldn't be able to say about F-22s. The number of F-35s to be built far outnumbers how many Su-35s will be built, and the countries buying them will have more F-35s than the countries buying Su-35s will get.

 

The fact the the DoD is willing to get just 185 F-22s but wants over 2000 F-35s says something about where it believes the future threats will need to be addressed, as opposed to some armchair analysts giving their opinion based on unclassified data. Fighters just aren't shooting down fighters anymore. It's all about airplanes attacking ground targets while ground fire attacks airplanes. SAMs are the #1 threat, not an enemy fighter, and the Su-35 will be shot down by a SAM long before an F-35 would. Bombing enemies on the ground are the primary mission, and an F-35 is far more likely to be successful and precise in that then an Su-35. In fact, IIRC the USAF has spent a lot of time and money making sure the F-22 is up to the job of intercepting cruise missiles, especially hard-to-detect ones, because they're more worried about that than some "super fighter" shooting them down.

You sir have hit the nail on the head. The F-35 is a mud mover. The USA has a good air superiority fighter in the F-22, but all those other nations buying the 35 as some sort of wonder weapon, or at least billing it as such, are in denial.