F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Bhurki]

interceptor missiles are probably cheaper and easier to build than ballistic missiles, hypersonics and cruise missiles

No, they aren't. (With the minor exception of manuevering hypersonic missiles)

 

[Skywatcher]

People are missing out on the big picture. The F-35 is a pretty awesome piece of kit but it has one mission critical "failure" because the US is now focusing everything on China. To take on China, they want to have much, much greater range. The calculus involves 5th gen fighters stationed in Asia and aircraft available from carriers. All of those need range to attack Chinese positions and PLAN. PLAN is totally exposed but to reach targets on the mainland, they need to get past the PLAN and islands so that US carriers can be stationed right next to the coastlines. Do all that before thousands of Chinese cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are fired at those Asian bases and even the carriers.

If they had an extremely stealth (low flight/ high speed/ even lower signatures) that could allow them to fly as far as Tibet from those bases and carriers positioned well outside of PLAN's and mainland missile's engagement spheres, then they could do as they please. The F-35 doesn't give them anywhere close to that range with weapons and some combat maneuvers. One of the main requirements of their 6th gen platform is to extend the range of the fighter to perform strikes and air superiority at least as far as coastal provinces. Since the F-35 doesn't offer this, their next step in weapons procurement is to realise these capabilities and be able to truly bring the fight to China.

Therefore all the rush to bring 6th gen into service is so that they regain the momentum of being able to call the shots. At the moment, Chinese access denial will make it at least too expensive an exercise to attempt such an engagement. Once they have penetrating counter air, their carriers can sit comfortably outside PLA's engagement sphere while launching attacks as they please. Asian bases will be up for grabs but interceptor missiles are probably cheaper and easier to build than ballistic missiles, hypersonics and cruise missiles. While that problem may be settled by attrition, the carriers will be able to regain their effectiveness without becoming quite as exposed to perform their jobs.

That presumes the range of the maritime A2/AD engagement envelope doesn't extend as well.

 

[ougoah]

That presumes the range of the maritime A2/AD engagement envelope doesn't extend as well.

A2/AD in the form of AShBM is already going to cover pretty much most of the western pacific but A2/AD in more conventional forms as in an equivalently numerous and capable PLAN is far from reality. That's going to take time and I suspect they want to achieve deep strike capabilities with the complement of their new MRBM and IRBMs, before PLAN gets to some sort of parity with USN.

So Chinese AA/AD is essentially AShBM/HGVs against carriers (bases can be ignored since they're static targets that can be overwhelmed if the need is there) and PLAN capability in taking on USN alone beyond the first island chains. With the former, that capability is expected to expand both in range and hit probability but they're working on countering these weapons. PLAN probably is only good enough to slow down the USN if those former AA/AD aids are countered and the conflict occurs beyond the reach of coastal supplements like PLAAF.

There is a lot of value in a extremely long ranged stealth fighter which can contend with PLAN within the cover of the rest of China's coastal forces, without exposing the carrier groups to more tools in the Chinese arsenal. This range problem is the main issue with the US military right now as China becomes the main military focus.

They have removed ballistic missile restrictions recently so they can place ballistic missiles around China.

 

[Skywatcher]

I don't think you can build an escort aircraft with both the range to make it into western China from beyond the First Island Chain, and make it small and light enough to fit on an aircraft carrier.

 

[j17wang]

UAE buying F-35 is a given. UAE is never going to buy Russian in the foreseeable future. It's more about politics than capability of aircraft really. Also, US can bully with CAATSA to prevent countries from buying Russian.

UAE actually has huge amounts of russian armour in its land forces, but agree that they won't be buying russian aircraft. Its not gucci enough when you consider new toys in Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi air forces.

 

[ougoah]

I don't think you can build an escort aircraft with both the range to make it into western China from beyond the First Island Chain, and make it small and light enough to fit on an aircraft carrier.

Why not? Plenty of large aircraft have been made for carriers, E-2, B-25 etc. Not to mention modern carriers are going to be more accommodating for these things and that's not to say such a multirole fighter aircraft needs to be anywhere near that large to achieve that range. They are probably going to look at new engines and whatnot that can make these things possible. At least a goal is set where the primary dissatisfaction with the F-35 is lacking range and the next generation is to overcome this.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

So far it’s Sams 1 Fighters and bombers 49.
The limitations of line of sight, Altitude, identification, missile range and speed mean that SAMS are a fixed defense that has holes. You have to layer on other systems to gap fill. You say it’s like Go. Yet a Sam site is more like a rooked King.
The king radar the rook missile launcher and a number of smaller defensive weapons in place to keep it from being flanked by a threat outside its comfort zone.

A high altitude system with a medium system with a close in last line.
Russian fans love to point to the Saudi Arabia oil tanks that were attacked yet guarded by PAC as a failure of the PAC system. The problem of course is PAC is a medium altitude system meant to defend against attack by IRBM and fighters. The attack thought was by Cruise missile and low performance drones at low altitude.
That would require a whole different system. We have seen Israelis rip apart Russian supplied Pantsir systems in Syria and go right past S300 why? Because the system was not designed to take on what it was facing or what it was facing was equipped well enough that the system was spent.
Or the claims of S400 going to mean island X off China’s coast can’t launch aircraft. Yet curvature of the earth means that it’s only really able to see aircraft at max range at max altitude. And not even able to attack them.
Or So called Counter stealth systems that are only able to tell you that something is in that direction. It might be a threat or maybe a cloud. Or flocks of birds.

You are playing snakes and ladders as well.

The SAM vs aircraft game can be described as lottery, or return calculation of long term investment of low liquidity something.

The SAM has a chance for every flyover to kill the aircraft, all that the aggressor can do is to decrease the chance of kill, all that the SAM can do increase this chance.

Now, say the SAM system has 5% chance to kill the intruder. It means that an average aggressor will not last longer than 20 mission.

So, if the aggressor aircraft cost 100 million, without pilot training and full life cost of ownership then the average mission will cost 5 million. If a long term missile cost 2 million then the investment into the aircraft is a waste of money and resources.


If you start to factor in the maintenance of airstrips, the cost of airfields, training, maintenance, development of munitions for the aggressor aircraft and so on the cost of missions will grow dramatically.


The above calculus was true for the Serbian war example.

Only luck of the USA at that time was the low training level and discipline of the average Serb SAM crew. However if the air campaign last longer the USA would see unpleasant development regards of skill level

At the end of the day the SAM vs intruder game boiling down to the training, discipline of operation and capability of the crew. The system that they operate is less important than the capability of the humans.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Why not? Plenty of large aircraft have been made for carriers, E-2, B-25 etc. Not to mention modern carriers are going to be more accommodating for these things and that's not to say such a multirole fighter aircraft needs to be anywhere near that large to achieve that range. They are probably going to look at new engines and whatnot that can make these things possible. At least a goal is set where the primary dissatisfaction with the F-35 is lacking range and the next generation is to overcome this.

Problem with the F35, with the Ford and so on is the military doctrine, that hasn't changed since the 40s.

The current aircrafts, ships and the structure of the USA military organised around the battlefield requirements and experiences of 1943.

The F35 is the latest version of the 2nd WW Mustang/lightning whatever aircraft .


If the enemy magnitude smaller/weaker than them all of this inefficiency irrelevant. With similar / bigger enemy the efficiency of resource utilisation is the king.

 

[XavNN]

Update: F-35 Block 4 Upgrades And New F-35B At-Sea Users

U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs and U.S. Navy F-35Cs will mature with Block 4 software upgrades. But Full F-35 Production Waits for the Biden Administration to Make Key Production Decisions. Meanwhile, the number of foreign operators of F-35B is growing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Skywatcher]

Why not? Plenty of large aircraft have been made for carriers, E-2, B-25 etc. Not to mention modern carriers are going to be more accommodating for these things and that's not to say such a multirole fighter aircraft needs to be anywhere near that large to achieve that range. They are probably going to look at new engines and whatnot that can make these things possible. At least a goal is set where the primary dissatisfaction with the F-35 is lacking range and the next generation is to overcome this.

A 4,000-5,000km combat radius 6th generation fighter is probably going to have a MTOW of well over 60 tons.

The FB-22 had a combat radius of about 3,300km and a MTOW of 54 tons. Sure, more fuel efficient engines would extend the range/shave off some weight, but 6th generation features like DEW will more than cancel out any weight savings from the more fuel efficient engines.