so what will be the role of the 22 vs teh 35 when it comes to air to air combat? i know until the 22 gets upgrades all it can do is air supremacy if not mistaken so will that free up the 35s to be capable of air to air but do ground attack on first day of a battle using its stealth along with the B2s doing SEAD missions?
The F-22 has a wide by shallow bay which is ideal for mixing variations of missiles. The F-35, being little more than an F-117 with AMRAAM capability (which is to say afterburner and APG-80) is a deep by narrow bayed aircraft. Each being the result of area rule and twin vs. single engine design points.
The result is that the JSF cannot carry standard GBU-39 as most people familiar with the program have known for quite awhile. The weapon and SMER are too long which means that the aircraft is little more than a 'both pylons today I tell'ya!' F-16 and loses much of the multi-target servicing options that VLO should bring to the game-changer FDOW mission set.
Since dropping Mk.84 sledgehammer (or even .83 ballpeen) class weapons is pointlessly unnecessary in a world where you are averaging miss disntances of 2.65 meters with precision/differential GPS on above-ground IADS targets, the reality became one of going back to Boeing for a shortened SDB with a stubby EO seeker and non-scissor wings as well as an 'FLM' improved warhead to bring length down on the GBU-53 and so finally be able to stuff a miniature munition into the F-35's weapons bay. Keeping in mind that MMTD has itself been going on since 1991 and so it's not like the JSF itself (ca. 1994) 'couldn't have been designed for bomb'.
And there is another problem with this, which isn't one on munitions like the boosted AASM, and that is that glide kit SOW take /forever/ to get anywhere and are very subject to cross/headwinds in terms of making BOTOT and in some instances, laser basket.
None of which is very survival-enabling in the reactive SEAD game.
Indeed, if you want to suppress via the iron-on-antenna method, it really helps if you take an honest look at the ARM of the moment and realize that the 10" motor, big-wing controls and 13'8" length of the AGM-88D/E are what really need replacement and thanks to the limits of stealth overall, that replacement is naturally going to come in the form of an AIM-120D or Meteor carriage box volumetric.
Only then do you get Mach 3 on the target with a two way datalink and GPS capable IMU to keep the TOF counter and impact notification honest.
The 'sham' of it all is that that -even then- the F-22 is the superior carriage if not avionics platform because it can supercruise loft weapons in prebrief mode from perhaps twice the subsonic cruise standoff condition of the F-35 as well as mix whatever added (AARGM) seeker type variation you want to put in a mixed load of AMRAAM class missilebodies.
Where S2A is the principle threat and always has been, four NG-ARMs and two old-school AIM-120s is most sensible, no matter what the neither-fish-nor-fowl F-35B/K has stuffed in it's tiny bomb bay.
Unfortunately, the only way to get there from here on the Lightning without sacrificing mission targets to protective formation overlap (think B-17 box here...), is to go with something like the Boeing EFP pod designed for the Super Hornet International. Wherein you can go Four AIM-120 class weapons or a full BRU-61 of GBU-53 or twin GBU-38/54 or singletons of Mk.83/84 class, freeing up the weapons bays for whatever enabler missile loadout you feel comfortable with.
Unfortunately, this will effect the aircraft's signature and it's (drag) radius. As will the NGJ which will also be necessary if the USMC or RN expects to operate without a USN big deck and EA-18 nearby.
Given that Stealth has -always- functioned best as a secure enablement mission to conventional fighters, the question then becomes whether proliferating VLO to the world for the sake of 'ITAR be danged' profiteering was worth it.
The F-35 is the biggest triumph of salesmanship over substance since the F-104 if not the P-40.
so what will be the role of the 22 vs teh 35 when it comes to air to air combat? i know until the 22 gets upgrades all it can do is air supremacy if not mistaken so will that free up the 35s to be capable of air to air but do ground attack on first day of a battle using its stealth along with the B2s doing SEAD missions?
ReplyDeleteIf SPEAR can be kept ITAR free then it would seem to be a potential export success for the UK.
ReplyDeleteThe F-22 has a wide by shallow bay which is ideal for mixing variations of missiles. The F-35, being little more than an F-117 with AMRAAM capability (which is to say afterburner and APG-80) is a deep by narrow bayed aircraft. Each being the result of area rule and twin vs. single engine design points.
ReplyDeleteThe result is that the JSF cannot carry standard GBU-39 as most people familiar with the program have known for quite awhile. The weapon and SMER are too long which means that the aircraft is little more than a 'both pylons today I tell'ya!' F-16 and loses much of the multi-target servicing options that VLO should bring to the game-changer FDOW mission set.
Since dropping Mk.84 sledgehammer (or even .83 ballpeen) class weapons is pointlessly unnecessary in a world where you are averaging miss disntances of 2.65 meters with precision/differential GPS on above-ground IADS targets, the reality became one of going back to Boeing for a shortened SDB with a stubby EO seeker and non-scissor wings as well as an 'FLM' improved warhead to bring length down on the GBU-53 and so finally be able to stuff a miniature munition into the F-35's weapons bay. Keeping in mind that MMTD has itself been going on since 1991 and so it's not like the JSF itself (ca. 1994) 'couldn't have been designed for bomb'.
And there is another problem with this, which isn't one on munitions like the boosted AASM, and that is that glide kit SOW take /forever/ to get anywhere and are very subject to cross/headwinds in terms of making BOTOT and in some instances, laser basket.
None of which is very survival-enabling in the reactive SEAD game.
Indeed, if you want to suppress via the iron-on-antenna method, it really helps if you take an honest look at the ARM of the moment and realize that the 10" motor, big-wing controls and 13'8" length of the AGM-88D/E are what really need replacement and thanks to the limits of stealth overall, that replacement is naturally going to come in the form of an AIM-120D or Meteor carriage box volumetric.
Only then do you get Mach 3 on the target with a two way datalink and GPS capable IMU to keep the TOF counter and impact notification honest.
The 'sham' of it all is that that -even then- the F-22 is the superior carriage if not avionics platform because it can supercruise loft weapons in prebrief mode from perhaps twice the subsonic cruise standoff condition of the F-35 as well as mix whatever added (AARGM) seeker type variation you want to put in a mixed load of AMRAAM class missilebodies.
Where S2A is the principle threat and always has been, four NG-ARMs and two old-school AIM-120s is most sensible, no matter what the neither-fish-nor-fowl F-35B/K has stuffed in it's tiny bomb bay.
Unfortunately, the only way to get there from here on the Lightning without sacrificing mission targets to protective formation overlap (think B-17 box here...), is to go with something like the Boeing EFP pod designed for the Super Hornet International. Wherein you can go Four AIM-120 class weapons or a full BRU-61 of GBU-53 or twin GBU-38/54 or singletons of Mk.83/84 class, freeing up the weapons bays for whatever enabler missile loadout you feel comfortable with.
Unfortunately, this will effect the aircraft's signature and it's (drag) radius. As will the NGJ which will also be necessary if the USMC or RN expects to operate without a USN big deck and EA-18 nearby.
Given that Stealth has -always- functioned best as a secure enablement mission to conventional fighters, the question then becomes whether proliferating VLO to the world for the sake of 'ITAR be danged' profiteering was worth it.
The F-35 is the biggest triumph of salesmanship over substance since the F-104 if not the P-40.
all that is over my head, but i've got to ask. if what you're saying is true then what will the USAF do in this arena?
Delete