Note: Just like I depend on American Mercenary to "keep me honest" when it comes to the US Army's concept of Mechanized, Airborne and Light units, I'll be leaning on Lou G's thoughts (along with others) to get a better view of the F-35. Understand that my main issue is the COST. I don't believe the USMC can afford it. Even if it can fly Mach 10, obtain a 100 to 1 loss rate and then give the pilot a blowjob on the way back to base, I still think its too expensive. But capabilities do need to be discussed. That's where we start this thing.
LouGWednesday, November 06, 2013 7:30:00 AMMy question is simple. Not getting into OPSEC, but do the improvements being sought by NAVAIR to improve/mod the current Super Hornet make it competitive or is it simply spin. What capabilities do the Growler actually bring to the electronic warfare fight and can the F-35 duplicate or better them? If the F-35 is MATCHING current capabilities in aerial performance does frontal stealth bring so much to the table that it will provide overmatch against enemies that have the same capability or should we be focusing on different tech to regain our edge?
The performance comparisons between the F-35 and the 18 and 16 were based on slick jets. My test pilot friend told me the F-35C performed really well with a full internal load of bombs and missiles (2x2000pd bombs and 2xAIM-120). Since we were both legacy Hornet guys, he compared it to carrying the same load with an F/A-18C. He said the performance was "much" better than what we experienced in a Hornet.
Why is it that the F-35 is always compared to the legacy F-18? Sure, it might be equal to, or even improving on the legacy Hornet's performance, but shouldn't beating a damn-near-40 year-old design be the bare minimum expected of it?
ReplyDeleteIf we're going to compare the F-35's performance against anything, it should be against what's out there now. Compare it to the Super Bug, the Typhoon, the Rafale, and especially the Su-35.
LockMart test pilot and PR stooge Billie Flynn said the (internal weapons only) F-35 flew better than fully loaded Typhoon. Then he got called out on it. The thrust-to-weight and wing loading numbers just don't add up.
http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/#.Unpb9pFF5Zg
If the F-35 flies as good as the LockMart PR department says, why did they need to lower the specs? Why aren't they wowing the public with actual performance numbers to back up their claims? All we seem to get is a "trust us!"
well i can answer why they go with the Hornet C instead of Super Hornet for comparison. its because the super hornet is inferior to the hornet in all flight regimes!
Deleteas for the rest of it?
if you're talking about a Harrier replacement then you have a big (but expensive) smile on your face. if you're the US Navy or USAF then you should be pissed. the performance just isn't good enough. its MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the Harrier but the F-16, and F-15?
not enough to warrant new aircraft.
and it would be even more expensive if they just made B models.
I use the F/A-18C comparison because that is what my friend and I flew. Legacy Hornet and Super Hornet are fairly similar in the maneuvering regime.
DeleteYeah, it will perform much better untill a hole bunch of 4gen fighters with IR /EO sensors will detect it. Then it will have to use it's radar to engage them with their only 2 lucky Amraams hopping they don't have jammers.
ReplyDeleteI doubt he USNavy will send the F-35C for interdiction in such a risky configuration.
A Super Hornet with 2 stand off bombs and 4 amraams and 2 Aim-9X will be more practical and secure
yeah, I am sure the "enemy" will be loading down their Migs, Chengdus and Sukhois with 6-10 IR and radar guided missiles, making them unable to maneuver away from the AMRAAM.
DeleteAlso, I am SURE the 4 dozen or so modern Russian jets that can actually fly will be able to shoot down dozens of F-35s with very well trained pilots.
Lets not forget that IRST systems of blocked by clouds and ranges longer than 20 kilometers :)
Also, the F-35 can carry 2 AMRAAMS and 2 AIM-9Xs or 4 AMRAAMs internally, not just 2.
For interdiction with 2 bombs inside it can only carry 2 amraams, not 4, and they don't carry Aim-9X internally, not even a cannon.
DeleteThe enemy don't need to send airplanes with 6 to 10 missiles, for the same price the Chinese can send double or triple of enemy airplanes over Taiwan with 4 missiles each if they want.
After using their only 2 Amramms with 50% of success... the F-35 will have to deal with other 2 airplanes with internal canons and 4 missiles each.... (Good luck)
DeleteThe F-35 is still to early in testing to be sure how it really performs...
ReplyDeleteBut consider this:
-The biggest issue with the Super Hornet performance is its canted pylons.The ASH with the EWP,internal IRST and new engines should be a big improvement over this.
-The F-35C just had its performance lowered...and its still far behind in development compared to the A and even the B versions.
-We still dont know it any significant changes to the airframe have to be made in order for the F-35 C to catch the wire.I suspect that it may still grow in weight and its performance lowered even more.
Consider also that the RCS testing of the ASH and the SilentEagle wont be known for sure until Boeing completes its testing this fall.
We should also consider that the F-35 cant use many of the USN weapons in its internal bays(Harpoon,Harm,907kg bombs,LRASM,etc)
The ASH weapons pods are non-function mockups, the new engines haven't flown / don't exist yet, and the Internal IRST system is ALSO a mockup right now.
DeleteCall me when all 3 of those improvements are fully integrated and are funtional on a Super Hornet.
you can't play the "it doesn't work yet" card unless you take away the F-35's helmet, code that is still fucked to high heaven, mythical weapon fits that haven't been trialed and a tail hook that isn't certified. you can't have it both ways. additionally the full combat configured F-35 won't be viable till after 2020 at the soonest. a 20year airplane development program is still cutting edge?
Deletenot bloody likely.
Is any of what i said a lie?
DeleteWhat do you think that is worst?designing an EWP or fixing the entire design flaw of the F-35C?
Dont tell me that the US monting an internal IRST in a ASH is impossible...Oh God...you are right...if only that had been done before...(cough *japanese F-15*cough)...
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/military/fa18ef/docs/bkgd_advanced_super_hornet_0813.pdf
Yes indeed F18E/F sucks in terms of aerodnamics outside very low speed envelope and also lacks power. Outboard canted pylons cause a lot of drag but its the only way to release weapons cleanly otherwise ordinance is just as likely to hit the plane as it is to hit the intended target.
DeleteSome acceleration numbers: load 2 short range AA, 2 BVR + 50% fuel at 30.000ft
mach 0.9-1.2
F16 = 28 Seconds
F22 = 24 Seconds
F18C = 42 Seconds
F18F = cca 88 seconds
Advanced Super Hornet Y2018+ less than 50seconds
F35 A = 63 Seconds
F35 C = 108 seconds
F-35 has trouble with trans-sonic because of its big body area. Compare it to the F-16 from .6 to .9 Mach and it is very similar to the F-16.
DeleteThis is definitely not my field, but I thought this article was interesting (if not provocative).
ReplyDeleteClose Air Support fighter proposal
http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/close-air-support-fighter-proposal/
good article.
DeleteLet's be honest. This is no longer about whether or not the Super Hornet is better than the F-35. The question has been answered. This is about raw lobbying power in congress, which Lockheed has juggernaut of right now.
ReplyDeletewell yeah! you know you're right! if we were actually trying to put a war winning plane in action then we would abandon this thing now, put as much stealth reduction and upgrades on legacy airplanes and then build a plane for the services that match their own unique requirements.
Deleteone good thing came out of all of this.
the lie that one plane can do it all and do it cheaply is officially dead.
its too hard, produces a plane by committee and producing less than optimal results.
I agree with Sol, I have never been sure if the F-35 is the right aircraft for the Marine Corps. Especially if we are going to be fighting in low intensity conflicts. We flew our Hornets and Harriers out flight hours looking for IEDs and providing over watch in OIF and OEF. Very expensive for the amount of times we supported the Marine on the ground. (Our only mission) A modern OV-10 or AT-6 could perform the same missions for much less in terms of the aircraft and per flight hour.
ReplyDeleteIf we are preparing to fight in a high intensity conflict with and adversary armed with double digit SAM and 4th Gen + aircraft, then the F-35 is probably a smart buy. I would not want to fly a Hornet (Legacy or Super) into an SA-20 envelope.
Without fueling the fire of whether or not to cancel the F-35 I can give some insight that I received when I was on active duty and from my friends flying the jet.
The F-35 was never advertised as a "Super Maneuverable" aircraft but on par in that regards to the 4th generation aircraft it is meant to replace.
The F-35 is supposed to be very stealthy. How stealthy is it? Lots of guesses out there but the real numbers are highly classified. If it works as advertised it is supposed to significantly shrink the engagement envelope of threat SAMS and aircraft. Bottom line, is I do not know and that is the type of question you do not ask.
The F-35 has some great systems. An AESA radar, Electro-optical Targeting system (fancy name for a advanced FLIR) and the Distributed Aperture System (DAS). The DAS provides 360 degree threat awareness. The DAS picked up a missile launch and tracked it from over 800nm away.
The DAS system is also used to provide the video for the helmet that has been a problem. When using the DAS mode, the pilot can look through the jet. There are some lag issues and seam issues, but my test pilot friend said it is not that bad but it is not up to fairly stringent standards. The pilots fly with the Helmet Mounted Display system every flight and besides the DAS mode, it is working very well.
The F-35C did (does) have tailhook design problems because of the shape of the tailhook and the closeness of the hook to the main landing gear. It remains to be seen if LM can fix this problem.
The biggest thing I can bring to the discussion is that I have a few friends who are flying the aircraft and they feel it is performing well. They also say the F-35 is a step up from the aircraft they used to fly. (All legacy Hornet guys except for one Harrier guy). I think they would tell me if it sucked.
I think the pilots opinions are important to dispel some stories in the media, but it should not be used as advocacy for the purchase of the jet. That is reserved for policy makers and big wigs doing cost benefit analysis. Also, as Sol points out, what are we giving up to get the F-35.
i'll take reasoned opinion and smile. i just won't tolerate pie in the sky views that its perfect and we MUST have it. great analysis. keep em' coming!
DeleteThe guys flying the F-35 and feel it's performing well are flying in very restricted conditions in a development program.
DeleteDr. Gilmore, Chief tester, testifying in June:
"Buffet and transonic roll off (TRO) (when lift is unexpectedly lost on a portion of one wing) continue to be a concern to achieving operational combat capability for all variants. Control laws have been changed to reduce buffet and TRO, with some success; however, both problems persist in regions of the flight envelope, and are most severe in the C model."
In regard to training:
"Aircraft operating limitations prohibited flying the aircraft at night or in instrument meteorological conditions; hence, pilots needed to avoid clouds and other weather. However, the student pilots are able to simulate instrument flight in visual meteorological conditions to practice basic instrument procedures. These restrictions were in place because testing has not been completed to certify the aircraft for night and instrument flight. These restrictions are still in place on the training system.
"The aircraft also were prohibited from flying close formation, aerobatics, and stalls, all of which would normally be in this early familiarization phase of transition training that typically is an introduction to aircraft systems, handling characteristics throughout the aircraft envelope, and qualification to operate/land in visual and instrument meteorological conditions. This familiarization phase is about one-fourth of the training in a typical fighter aircraft transition or requalification course."
One of my friends is a test pilot. TRO has been known for awhile and it is not unique to the F-35. While any un-commanded movement of an aircraft is unwanted, the TRO in the F-35 causes a mild wing rock when transiting through Mach 1. If the aircraft is maneuvering the wing rock is a little more pronounced. If the aircraft sits right below Mach 1 and mild dutch roll will start. All of this is not optimum but also manageable by the pilot.
DeleteI believe the Super Hornet had a more severe TRO problem in testing. The legacy Hornet still has an issue with Transonic pitch up. If an F/A-18A/B/C/D is maneuvering above Mach 1 and the aircraft decelerates below Mach 1, the nose could pitch up adding more G to the loaded aircraft and potentially over-stressing the aircraft. The fix is for pilots to be cognizant while maneuvering above Mach 1.
The F-35s should have software Block 2A by now and that should have changed the rules about flying through clouds and performing actual instrument approaches. It was scheduled for this summer but I am not sure where it stands. These limitations have always been part of the schedule since my first F-35 brief in 2007. This is why they are only training experienced fleet pilots right now (at least USMC pilots), because they knew that the entire envelope was available to the first pilots.
I do know that the F-35s in Eglin and Yuma can do close formation now because it has been in the news.
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013/02/130201-F-zz999-804.JPG
http://media.dma.mil/2013/Aug/28/2000708395/600/400/0/120203-M-RB277-058.JPG
Interesting. There's a David McSpadden stationed at Eglin AFB. Information Security Manager.
ReplyDeleteWhoa!!!!! is that real!
Deletehttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-mcspadden/71/4b2/2a9
Deletehaha don't dox me. you'll be sorely disappointed.
DeleteSuper Hornet vs. F-35 and.... the F-35 still has to show proof of life and neither are up for anti-access work.... http://goo.gl/r8V3Jw
ReplyDeleteIn the artic or the ocean I would prefer to be to in a formation of LO Super or Duper Hornets and Growlers, fully loaded with amraams, aim-9x, 22mm cannon, two engines, double crew,, jammers, atflirpod, Stan off off weapons, harpoons, anti radiation missiles, decoys sat communications, electronic countermeasures... etc, than to be in a single airplane with just 2 amraams and 2 bombs.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=7kWLAtouIdU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcofXehQmy0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I can't speak about aerodynamic performance, but I can speak about Electronic Warfare, having served as Jam Control Authority (JCA) for Prowlers, Growlers, CEASAR, and even Italian JEDI birds and having operational experience as an Army EWO in Afghanistan. The airframe doesn't really matter in terms of what jamming pods are loaded onto the bird. Only the Growler has a crew of two personnel, a pilot plus the guy in bag who works the EW mission. Every other bird has a crew of 3 at least, generally capable of carrying 4 personnel.
ReplyDeleteIf you put the same jamming pods on the F-35 that you put onto a Growler, you totally negate the "stealth" aspect of having a 5th Gen fighter. You cannot simultaneously emit and hide, so I don't think that there will be an Electronic Attack (EA) version of the F-35 that will replace the Growler. Considering that the mission for EA platforms for the Navy and USMC is doctrinally to jam then destroy Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) by jamming radar return signals, there is no point destroying the stealth capability of an F-35 to do the same job a legacy airframe can already do.
In terms of jamming capabilities, the bird with the ability to generate the most electricity will generally be the more effective jammer (within the limitations of the jamming pods). That the F-35 can generate less than an EA-18G says to me, from a purely electrical standpoint, that the F-35 would be less effective than the Growler. When you look at jamming pods across air platforms, you see this to be true, but I don't want to get into actual capabilities in terms of reduction in effective radiated power by going with lower powered aircraft on an open forum.
So to sum up, stealth doesn't matter, but power generation does, when it comes to EA.
Sol I'd love if there were a way to vote up/down or like/dislike comments. Some of these guys make great points.
ReplyDeleteThe job isn't always to "emit" and stay hidden.
ReplyDeleteA traditional radar guided terminal threat missile has a harder time against a low observable surface. Onboard jamming reduces that radar guided termainal threat missile's ability to kill you even more.
Both the F-35 and Super will not stand up to emerging high-end threats. With that, the nose-on low-observable ability of the F-35...narrow aspect as it is, is not too bad vs... legacy threats.
The Super does a different approach to that for nose-on with some low observable portions, covered by a proper mulit-aspect jammer....
..vs legacy threats.
Growler? The onboard gear is good.... against legacy threats. 10 years ago, in an effort to sell the next generation jammer, the U.S. Navy beat on the old 99 pods as being too expensive to maintain and obsolete vs emerging threats. Guess what gear they had to field on the Growler when NGJ got delayed? And, if NGJ works out, it will only help some. The Growler vs. higher threats is slow, draggy, and fuel dependent to a high degree. Against emerging threats, even with the NGJ it will get into a threat area, but won't get out. And with its' limited power output vs. emerging threats, it may make an OK escort jammer, but what is needed are some, fast, powerful, stand-off jammers. And even then I don't think the Vietnam/Operation:ALLIED FORCE 1999 strike model will work.
Send in JASSM and Tomahawk Block 4 excorted by F-22s where needed to hit actual strategic targets and spend little time on SEAD-DEAD, an integrated air defense system has to actually stop a force from hitting POL, airfields, weapons storage areas and many other kinds of strategic targets. And oh-by-the-way, these will not be on mainland China.
The non-"fifth-generation" Joint Strike Failure contributes nothing to any of this. And against lessor threats, the Super actually brings value and affordability.
Eric Palmer, having worked with Army ADA officers who have trained against Prowlers and Growlers, the reason the NGJ was back burnered is the same reason the Army killed off the Comanche project, there isn't a current system out there that requires the capabilities of the NGJ. When it comes to RADAR technology, logical control, pulse code frequency modulation makes a great anti-jam technique when you have logical filtering control. The great thing about electronics is that the prices continually come down for capabilities gained, so going away from analog to DRFM is where the industry is headed if my guess is correct.
ReplyDeleteAs far as using missiles to take out strategic targets, I have no problems with that tactical solution. However that is not a replacement for having Air EA with jammers and HARM capabilities. Because you can fly over a country forever, bomb it to rubble, and not win. You need boots on the ground at some point.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyV3t_Zj7dA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=0aHIybbzqRc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ML4OKFepr8
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=Z83zXB8j5ow&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Both carried outside.....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=2253&newst=8#.Un1Po_mkosY
http://www.asdnews.com/image-52016/Boeing_and_Kongsberg_Complete_JSM_Check_on_F/A-18_Super_Hornet_.htm