pfunk Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 (edited) ok, heres some added facts about the varients, as you can see, the planes can be quite different from eachother to accieve the role they are designed to replace wiether it be payload or range F-35 Variants US Air Force The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft. The Air Force variant includes an internal gun, infrared sensors, and laser designator. This is the technologically simplest version of the JSF, in that it does not require hover or aircraft carrier capability. Therefore it does not require the vertical thrust or the handling qualities for catapult launches, augmented control authority at landing approach speeds and strengthened structure to handle arrested landings. At the same time, the Air Force F-35 will have to improve upon the high standards created by the F-16. Since replacement of the F-16 by the F-35 will entail a significant payload reduction, the F-35 faces a very demanding one shot one kill requirement. US Navy The requirement for carrier operations creates the largest differences between the Air Force and Navy version. The naval version has larger wing and tail control surfaces to enable low-speed approaches to aircraft carriers. Leadingedge flaps and foldable wing tip sections account for this increased wing area. The larger wing area also provides the Navy version with an increased payload capability. To support the stresses of carrier landings and catapult launches, the internal structure of this version is strengthened. In addition, the landing gear has longer stroke and higher load capacity, and of course an arresting hook is added. Compared to the F-18C, the F-35 has twice the range on internal fuel.. The design is also optimized for survivability, which is a key Navy requirement. Like the USAF version, the Navy version will incorporate an internal gun and sensors. This new fighter will be used by the Navy as a first-day-of-war attack fighter in conjunction with the F/A-18 Hornet. The Navy plans to purchase 480 JSF. US Marine Corps The distinguishing feature of the USMC version of the JSF is its short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL). There will not be an internally mounted machine gun, but an external gun can be fitted. This version requires controllability on all axes while hovering. Another critical design feature is its impact on the ground surface beneath it during hover. The USMC expects their version of the JSF will replace the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier. The Marine Corps expects to purchase 480 STOVL versions of the F-35. United Kingdom Royal Navy and Air Force This version will be very similar to the one procured by the United States Marine Corps I think the airforce wont see any gains with this plane, but they will have the F-22, you notice, numbers arnt thier for the AF to purchase Edited March 2, 2004 by pfunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 It's true that most if not all military campaigns in the last decade have featured very little or no air-to-air combat, the emphasis being almost completely on air-to-ground missions. While this has been true in the recent past, it may not necessarily always hold true for future conflicts.What worries me is that the US military and by extension most of the militaries of the Western world seem to be planning their aviation procurement mostly based on the assumption that future conflicts will be mostly air-to-ground and there seems to be somewhat of a neglect in the desire to improve or even just maintain present air-to-air and fleet defence capability. Also, as I've mentioned several times, the US military seems to be placing all it's eggs in one basket with all these expensive stealth planes (F-117, B-2, F-22 & F-35). Radar defeating stealth is fine until somebody goes and develops a long range passive detection system that will render it obsolete, which will probably happen sooner rather than later. To be honest, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I really don't think the F-35 is it. Graham As far as stealth technologies, thier are constant upgrades being done to combat different types of radar and detection devises.As far as being up to date, my coisin has worked in the airforce in stealth technologies and the only thing that is unclassified is the fact when he 1st started he worked in the "nose of the plane" and when he retired, he told people to "work in the nose of the plane" his projects were the Stealth Bomber and part of the F-22 and F-117 stealth technologies. He allways told us, newwer/ better stuff is going on. basically they have a platform that will serve itself to new technologies. Thier comes a time when the cost of upgrading defeats the cost of new and we are at that time, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 F-35 Variants US Air Force The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft. you notice, numbers arnt thier for the AF to purchase 1763 sounds like a lot of aircraft to me. But it does say that the AIr FOrce will purchase that many aircraft. Is it a typo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 (edited) Found this interesting read on the web, I'm trying to find the actual aviation week article.....Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' IMO, this is clear evidence to me that the U.S. needs to maintain air superiority through planes such as the F-22 and to maintian the competence of the pilots through these type of exercises. Doesn't seem very clear to the writer of the article that the F-22 is the answer, though no argument about pilot training. "It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles. Minor correction: the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is big, but has some stealth improvements that reduce its radar cross section. The regular Hornet isn't too much bigger than the F-16. BTW, the original story is here: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan.../m15vsu0524.xml Edited March 2, 2004 by ewilen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Found this interesting read on the web, I'm trying to find the actual aviation week article.....Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' IMO, this is clear evidence to me that the U.S. needs to maintain air superiority through planes such as the F-22 and to maintian the competence of the pilots through these type of exercises. Great read! Interesting to say the least! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 (edited) Other criticism (as pointed out on BBS's and Usenet): the tests not only assume perfect execution on the part of the Sukhoi pilots, but also that it's a 1-1 engagement and they do not consider the effect of AWACS. With AWACS present and/or other friendly fighters who split off after contact and fly a converging intercept pattern, I doubt there's a way the "doppler defeating" maneuver would accomplish much. And--again--in any realistic scenario, the US will enjoy a huge numerical advantage--as well as having AWACS. Edited March 2, 2004 by ewilen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Other criticism (as pointed out on BBS's and Usenet): the tests not only assume perfect execution on the part of the Sukhoi pilots, but also that it's a 1-1 engagement and they do not consider the effect of AWACS. With AWACS present and/or other friendly fighters who split off after contact and fly a converging intercept pattern, I doubt there's a way the "doppler defeating" maneuver would accomplish much.And--again--in any realistic scenario, the US will enjoy a huge numerical advantage--as well as having AWACS. I agree with you there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 F-35 Variants US Air Force The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft. you notice, numbers arnt thier for the AF to purchase 1763 sounds like a lot of aircraft to me. But it does say that the AIr FOrce will purchase that many aircraft. Is it a typo? sorry, I meant that the AF is only ussing as a complement for the F-22 and only taking the role of the 16 as far as the af is concerned. I should really reread my posts before hitting the submit button,,,,just a work thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Re: RCS. Has little relevance to size of the plane. F-18C's have a smaller RCS than F-18A's. And E's are bigger than C's, but have smaller RCS. F-16C's have a smaller RCS than F-16A's. B-1B's have a smaller RCS than any other plane except "true" stealths. A-12/SR-71 are also in that category. (Yes, the SR-71 was designed back in the late 50's to have a low RCS, and it does---just not low by modern standards---it was ahead of its time in EVERY way) And one of the stealthiest (if not THE stealthiest) planes is the very large B-2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Yes, going back and reading the excerpt, I see that nothing was said about size, only RCS. My mistake. Not relevant to the overall point, though, which is that the scenario cited is highly artificial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Ya know that Su30mki is a big threat but that article does not go into detail of how russian pilots are always relegated to depending on GCI. I read about that in my flanker sim booklet. Its often brought up how the F-4s in the luftwaffe were able to take on the east german fulcrums and take advantage of them since theyh were so gci dependent...and further more annhuilated them in mock battles. (I think this was during the reunification of germany where the airforce was taking time for the pilots to get used to and reorient training togethere). It also does not go into detail about how hard that damn radar is to use in the flanker! Trust me its nowhere near as eay nor understandable as US teen fighter radars! Capability yues ease of use hell no. I dont even think the flanker is HOTAS yet. Now if the Su30MKI was US avionics based, HOTAS, and in the hands of a skilled pilot....then...crap...thats a freaking threat... I cant comment on russian dogfighting techniques but david or anyone in the know...are they known for being knife in masters? I have heard rarely anything asides from them getting show shot down by iaf phantoms while flying egypotian migs and some in korean mig 15s getting shafted by sabvers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Isn't the Su-30MKI unique to the Indian Air Force and equipped with European mostly French avionics ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 french? I doubt it man. Some of their other planes maybe but I think is all russian. I doubt it is unique to india they just ordered more than russia(they could afford it rusia dont even got frontline Su-37s...yet) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Everybody needs to read this: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/feature.htm And part 2: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6b.htm RAAF (Australia), F-22/F-35/Eurostuff/F-111/F-18 comparisons. GOOD stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 3, 2004 Author Share Posted March 3, 2004 Interesting articles, although a bit out of date now in some areas. Also, the author seems a bit misinformed about the capabilities of modern European Fighters (Typhoon, Rafale & Gripen) or Eurocanards as he refers to them. It's my opinion that he is severely underating them by placing them in the same league as US teen series fighters. Also, the author seems to rate the JSFs air-to-air capabilty far too highly IMO. Is he even aware that the F-35 can't use Sidewinders from internal bays? That's one advantage that the Boeing JSF contender had over the F-35. The author also makes reference to the JSF being used in the CAS role, a role for which I still think it is poorly suited. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Also, the author seems to rate the JSFs air-to-air capabilty far too highly IMO. Is he even aware that the F-35 can't use Sidewinders from internal bays? That's one advantage that the Boeing JSF contender had over the F-35. Like the general concensis says, I really dont think the JSF is, or was designed to be a Air-Air role, just support role for the F-22. That will be the plane for air combat. even the bays only lend themselves to air to ground roles and the lack of guns on most varients. for playing the role of the harrier, IMO it will do an awesome job and doesnt require auxilary cooling as the harrier does in vertical takeoff, much more efficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 More about the Su-30MKI http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/Su-30.html There is mention of French and Israeli systems. MKI variant is used by India only having both canards and TVC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobyrz Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 (edited) To add a little bit of humor and what if.... An American Su-27? Edited March 3, 2004 by Mobyrz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Everybody needs to read this:http://www.sci.fi/~fta/feature.htm And part 2: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6b.htm RAAF (Australia), F-22/F-35/Eurostuff/F-111/F-18 comparisons. GOOD stuff. Yes, good article. I came across it before but only just now read it carefully. Note that whatever the author thinks of the JSF (and he makes some very good points), he correctly emphasizes the strike role over air superiority. He even spends as much or more time talking about the F-22 as a strike aircraft. The one flaw I noticed is that while he sees the ballistic missile threat as a problem for the F-35, he fails to turn the argument around and look at how unmanned delivery systems (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs) and highly survivable strike aircraft (F-35, F/A-22, and even B-2) armed with GPS-guided weapons are likely to severely reduce the importance of the "classic" air superiority mission. What good are opposing Sukhois going to be if they're destroyed on the ground, have their runways holed, and their command infrastructure wrecked? pfunk: That will be the plane for air combat. even the bays only lend themselves to air to ground roles and the lack of guns on most varients. The Marine variant probably won't have an internal gun; the Navy one will or won't depending on sources; the AF variant definitely will and will be by far the most common variant in the US inventory. And as we've gone over, the F-35 will definitely be able to carry AMRAAMs internally along with bombs, and may well be able to carry Sidewinders internally and well as externally (albeit with some likely loss of stealth). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 To add a little bit of humor and what if....An American Su-27? You know, come to think of it, I wonder if the U.S. has ever tried to get ahold of some Su-27s to use as agressors. I know about the Luftwaffa pilots using MiG-29s, but I meant more like trying to own some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I'm sure the Russians would sell them to us if we offered cash. BTW, what the heck is that pointy thing between the engines on the Flanker? It always bothered me. It it just for streamlining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 The US has some mIg 29s, older migs, and a handful of Su27s that were destined for another country but bought by the US when they negotiated a deal with that country(not russia itself rather the country russia sold the planes to) ON the new flankers like the 35, maybe the 30mki, aand definitely the 37, the rearward nosecone is a rearward facing randome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I'm sure the Russians would sell them to us if we offered cash.BTW, what the heck is that pointy thing between the engines on the Flanker? It always bothered me. It it just for streamlining? Seems like everything over thier is for sale, they need an economy boost, but not by selling weapons. is this a rumor, or did they delay production of the F-22 again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Speaking of the Flanker, how do the Su-37 and F-15ACTIVE compare in performance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztek Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Back to topic ... I've been working on A-10's At Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson AZ for about 3 years now. It's an awesome airframe and from what I've seen first hand - irreplaceable. Here's my contribution to the topic ... I drew this up a few years ago during a runway closure here, and use it around the shop to dress it up a lil'.I work in Fuel Cell (Aircraft Fuel Systems Repair) hence the "Open Fuel Tanks" sign in the foreground. The A-10 is a beautiful airframe and pretty easy to maintain overall. I think right now, Sheet Metal and Metals Tech are the 2 most strapped workcenters mainly because of the structural issues previously talked about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imode Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Okay, so I'm seeing more recent news saying that F-35 is to fill the CAS role of the F-16, while there will be upgrades to the existing A-10 fleet. This is specifically mentioned in the Janes article that started this thread as well. Now, this begs the question-- While the F-35 will never fill the role of an A-10, how well can it perform the role of the F-16 in CAS? Also, when we say Close Air Support, how close is close? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I don't know but I like that picture. A lot. Great work, Aztek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Close enoufh to NOT give away its stealth elementwhic means FAR away LOL. Actually I dont know but it does not seem meant for CAS. I mean msot of its stuff isnt dumbob or rocketry its gps or jdam guided stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Hey, of course the F-35 could fill the F-16's CAS role, since the F-16's CAS role is pretty much non-existant. The A-16 was cancelled, the gunpods on a regular F-16 suck hard, and the Air Force pretty much gave up on having the F-16 do any sort of dedicated CAS. If they're in the area, you can call them in, but it's about 5th on their list of roles they can fill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 This thread is outpacing my ability to post stuff on it so I'll try to sum up. The F-35 is not an F-16 or F/A-18, and it was not designed to do everything they are capable of doing. It was designed to do everything they are doing better than they do it now. Think of it this way: the vast majority of combat missions flown by both the F/A-18 and the F-16 are ground attack missions, generally thier loadout consists of 2 PGMs in the 2,000 lb class (normally either JDAMs or Paveways), 3 fuel tanks, 2 AMRAAMs, and 2 Sidewinders. A F-35 could carry all that minus the sidewinders, and carry it all internally, and thet does more than just affect stealth. As someone quoted earlier "I don't care what it was designed to do, I care what it can do," well a F-16 was designed to break mach 2 but it can only do that while carrying a pair of sidewinders, try hanging the loadout I just listed above on it and it would be hard pressed to break the sound barrier. A F-35 on the other hand might only be able to hit a top speed of Mach 1.5, but it will do it with an operational warload (note that if they added a pair of sidewinders on the wingtips it might kill stealth but it would also lower grag by breaking up wing tip vortices). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 A-16 ? I remember something like mounting a scaled down podded version of the GAU-8 30mm gun called the GPU-8/A. Think the ANG is the only operator of the gunpod. The mount wasn't good so it gave a shotgun effect kinda like a longer range standoff cluster bomb. I think the A-10 should be put back into production like they did for the Kaman Sea Sprite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 The A-16 was a dedicated CAS F-16, to replace the A-10. Didn't go for it. (I think they used F-16 #2 for testing--if you ever see an F-16 painted like an A-10, that's it). Testing went well, so they started putting gunpods on ANG F-16's. Then "the real world" showed that they didn't work well at all. Thus ending CAS-equipped F-16's, and most certainly a dedicated purpose-built CAS A-16. BTW---speed sucks for CAS. Slow=accurate. Best Vietnam CAS by far was from the AD-1. Prop plane. Best CAS now? A-10, the slowest jet we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imode Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 This thread is outpacing my ability to post stuff on it so I'll try to sum up.The F-35 is not an F-16 or F/A-18, and it was not designed to do everything they are capable of doing. It was designed to do everything they are doing better than they do it now. Think of it this way: the vast majority of combat missions flown by both the F/A-18 and the F-16 are ground attack missions, generally thier loadout consists of 2 PGMs in the 2,000 lb class (normally either JDAMs or Paveways), 3 fuel tanks, 2 AMRAAMs, and 2 Sidewinders. A F-35 could carry all that minus the sidewinders, and carry it all internally, and thet does more than just affect stealth. As someone quoted earlier "I don't care what it was designed to do, I care what it can do," well a F-16 was designed to break mach 2 but it can only do that while carrying a pair of sidewinders, try hanging the loadout I just listed above on it and it would be hard pressed to break the sound barrier. A F-35 on the other hand might only be able to hit a top speed of Mach 1.5, but it will do it with an operational warload (note that if they added a pair of sidewinders on the wingtips it might kill stealth but it would also lower grag by breaking up wing tip vortices). Thanks Nied. That pretty much sums up my points I had earlier, though in a less meandering and convoluted way. While no one can argue with the dogfighting capabilities of the F-16, rarely are they called upon to perform that duty outright. When having a choice of an F-15 or an F-16 to confront an enemy air assault, I don't think anyone would send an F-16 first. --- Look at the deployment numbers from Desert Storm, what was probably the last "big" air conflict we had. F-15 (all models) - 168 F-16 (all models) - 249 Out of 33 total air victories, 27 were made by F-15's and a grand total of two were made by F-16's even though they accounted for nearly 60% of the USAF's forces and flew the most sorties over Iraq. Now, a total of 7 F-16's were either shot down or damaged, all by ground-based artillery and missile fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 (edited) A-16 should have a color scheme like this: So instead of using the Pave Claw gunpod they went back to Cluster Bombs which did the job much better. Edited March 5, 2004 by hellohikaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I'm sure the Russians would sell them to us if we offered cash.BTW, what the heck is that pointy thing between the engines on the Flanker? It always bothered me. It it just for streamlining? Its for holding the countermeasures and ECM. Probably helps with the streamlining too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.