4 ms·

I don't think any modern fighter yet has all aspect IRST. They are usually mounted above the nose and have somewhat limited field of vision. Current USAF tacti

by vlehto 11y ago

I don't think any modern fighter yet has all aspect IRST. They are usually mounted above the nose and have somewhat limited field of vision. Current USAF tactic is probably to illuminate targets with AWACS and engage them from long range with F-22. Then conduct SEAD mission with F35. Pretty much as you said. That's actually somewhat good idea against future enemy stealth fighters, if you can simply increase that AWACS radar power. (Easier said than done, you probably need couple orders of magnitude more power.) But radar guided missile ranges have been increasing recently, S400 should have 400km range. Fighters might be able to dodge that massive missiles, but AWACS plane is probably doomed. And radars tend to show on radar. Current short and medium range missiles are so good, that as long as you have lock on, the "no escape zone" is quite large. Increase in computation power and seeker resolution has rendered chaff and flares almost obsolete. (Or that's what most sources tell you. They don't get to test those systems in real life engagements too often.) This and combined to off bore-sight launch capability has led analysts to predict mutual kill in any close combat situation involving relatively modern fighters. One major problem with selling the F35 is to convince other countries that they actually need a flying platform anymore. If missiles are as good as everybody is saying and if Russia, China and India are able to launch stealthy aircraft, why not just buy trucks with IRST sensors and heat seeking SAM missiles? You can buy quite a bunch of such systems with the price of single F35. F35 flying in a pack and using their radars one at the time? Cool. But if PAK FA has the stealth they claim it will have, you are better off with just IRST, because as completely passive, it doesn't warn anybody about anything. Ditch the radar and get ~400kg more fuel on board, or equally lighter aircraft.

dogma1138 11y ago
I never made a comment about the F-35's potential performance it's a weapons platform not a fighter jet. That said the PAK-FA is not in production and given the Russian track record it might never actual enter any production, the procurement that was initially intended for 2007 with a 2016 delivery was halted and with the Russian economy in the toilet it looks like the well will be dry for quite a while. The Russians had a bet that their gas would fund their rearmament they've had 5 stealth programs in the works with the most advanced (in terms of progression) the PAK-FA costing over 10 bln. which was unprecedented for Russian defense spending. So currently with the falling gas prices and economic sanctions it almost looks like a repeat of the Reagan era forcing the Russkies to spend them selves out of existence. I would also take any potential performance of Russian jet with a huge grain of salt they've always looked superior and scary as fuck on paper but every time western Jets faced against them mainly in the middle east the soviet jets were left splattered on the ground, and while it's true that Israeli pilots might have been better trained than their Arab counterparts by all accounts they shot down just as many soviet "advisers" as Egyptian or Syrian pilots.
- vlehto 11y ago
  What you're saying is correct for short term. I guess my point is that F35 service life is not goint to be four decades long, as it was for F16. It's too optimized for current threat enviroment, which is likely to change a lot in just few decades. Unless China implodes, gas prices remain very low for Russia for several decades in a row. And India suddenly remembers how Mahatma Gandhi was a great guy.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    The F35 can also evolve, an F16 block 16/25 is quite a different beast from a modern Block 52/52+ one. Heck if the F15 gets it's SE variant you could potentially extend it's life for 3 or more decades, and even without it it's probably good for another 20 years or so as it doesn't look like anyone is building a strike fighter with similar payload delivery capabilities and speed. Heck if the US can find use for it's B52 fleet till ~2050 (which will make it the first aircraft to serve for a whole century) they could probably find a use for an F35. Heck convert them all to drone and use them as expandable weapon delivery platforms you are unlikely to see much dog fighting in 2030.
    - vlehto 11y ago
      Yes you can use it. But F16 was still credible aerial superiority fighter against everybody in 2005. Mostly because of collapse of Soviet union, as there was a decade of low intensity R&D with everything except F-22. Now with latest SAM missiles and long range air-to-air missiles being slowly adopted by everybody, stealth is the only way to go. If you wish to control airspace with impunity. Lot less is required just to defend your own with credibility. My guess is that F35 is going to see new more stealthy radar, new all aspect IRST, new RAM coatings better optimized against IR emission. Some engine tweaks are going to happen to later models. Then at some point (decided by everybody else) it comes obvious that F35 is going to run into some other stealth aircraft and get mutual kill. Some active protection system adopted from tanks, but no matter how successful that is, some startstreak type "I'll throw tungsten rods at you as soon as I detect that shotgun blast". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile) Missiles already travel at speed of mach 3, which is same that autocannon shells. Maybe you could also (finally) get some use for metal storm concept, and implement five round burst cannon inside AA missile. (That kind of cannon can get significant weight reduction once you don't need to worry about fatigue and safety factors to keep close by personnel safe.) The final nail in the coffin is engines. F35 engines have very good thrust/weigh, but they have poor fuel economy. This allows big weapons load for quick short mission. But if we accept that you can't after-burn, you don't need to turn that fast, and you won't survive to shoot more than 4 missiles etc, then your top priority is low fuel usage, long loiter and long range. Back to the missileer concept. The problem with F22 and F35 is exactly their success. They are the first prototypes of the stealth/missile age. I'm expecting bit similar situation than with first swept wing afterburning planes. Those things got outdated in a decade. But if China implodes, then everything slows down.

by vlehto 11y ago

dogma1138 11y ago

I never made a comment about the F-35's potential performance it's a weapons platform not a fighter jet. That said the PAK-FA is not in production and given the Russian track record it might never actual enter any production, the procurement that was initially intended for 2007 with a 2016 delivery was halted and with the Russian economy in the toilet it looks like the well will be dry for quite a while. The Russians had a bet that their gas would fund their rearmament they've had 5 stealth programs in the works with the most advanced (in terms of progression) the PAK-FA costing over 10 bln. which was unprecedented for Russian defense spending. So currently with the falling gas prices and economic sanctions it almost looks like a repeat of the Reagan era forcing the Russkies to spend them selves out of existence. I would also take any potential performance of Russian jet with a huge grain of salt they've always looked superior and scary as fuck on paper but every time western Jets faced against them mainly in the middle east the soviet jets were left splattered on the ground, and while it's true that Israeli pilots might have been better trained than their Arab counterparts by all accounts they shot down just as many soviet "advisers" as Egyptian or Syrian pilots.

vlehto 11y ago
What you're saying is correct for short term. I guess my point is that F35 service life is not goint to be four decades long, as it was for F16. It's too optimized for current threat enviroment, which is likely to change a lot in just few decades. Unless China implodes, gas prices remain very low for Russia for several decades in a row. And India suddenly remembers how Mahatma Gandhi was a great guy.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  The F35 can also evolve, an F16 block 16/25 is quite a different beast from a modern Block 52/52+ one. Heck if the F15 gets it's SE variant you could potentially extend it's life for 3 or more decades, and even without it it's probably good for another 20 years or so as it doesn't look like anyone is building a strike fighter with similar payload delivery capabilities and speed. Heck if the US can find use for it's B52 fleet till ~2050 (which will make it the first aircraft to serve for a whole century) they could probably find a use for an F35. Heck convert them all to drone and use them as expandable weapon delivery platforms you are unlikely to see much dog fighting in 2030.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    Yes you can use it. But F16 was still credible aerial superiority fighter against everybody in 2005. Mostly because of collapse of Soviet union, as there was a decade of low intensity R&D with everything except F-22. Now with latest SAM missiles and long range air-to-air missiles being slowly adopted by everybody, stealth is the only way to go. If you wish to control airspace with impunity. Lot less is required just to defend your own with credibility. My guess is that F35 is going to see new more stealthy radar, new all aspect IRST, new RAM coatings better optimized against IR emission. Some engine tweaks are going to happen to later models. Then at some point (decided by everybody else) it comes obvious that F35 is going to run into some other stealth aircraft and get mutual kill. Some active protection system adopted from tanks, but no matter how successful that is, some startstreak type "I'll throw tungsten rods at you as soon as I detect that shotgun blast". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile) Missiles already travel at speed of mach 3, which is same that autocannon shells. Maybe you could also (finally) get some use for metal storm concept, and implement five round burst cannon inside AA missile. (That kind of cannon can get significant weight reduction once you don't need to worry about fatigue and safety factors to keep close by personnel safe.) The final nail in the coffin is engines. F35 engines have very good thrust/weigh, but they have poor fuel economy. This allows big weapons load for quick short mission. But if we accept that you can't after-burn, you don't need to turn that fast, and you won't survive to shoot more than 4 missiles etc, then your top priority is low fuel usage, long loiter and long range. Back to the missileer concept. The problem with F22 and F35 is exactly their success. They are the first prototypes of the stealth/missile age. I'm expecting bit similar situation than with first swept wing afterburning planes. Those things got outdated in a decade. But if China implodes, then everything slows down.