What is up with the F-35? Part II

[Loke]

The Pk (probability of a kill) of a modern AIM-9 launched in parameters is better than 90%. And in the Gulf War, there were more AIM-7 kills than AIM-9, which says two things - the AIM-7 (and AIM-120) are no longer unreliable, and pilots will not fly through the envelope of a long-ranged missile to engage in a close, turning fight. To do so is extremely foolish. Thus, sensors and weapons which allow the first shot are critical.

Thanks for very interesting and informative post.

I suspect the actual Pk value will strongly depend on what's on the receiving end.

Consider that modern fighters have sensors and systems to detect incomings. So even if the F-35 is potentially not detected, the incoming certainly will be. On modern fighters these systems will notify the pilot, but they will also automatically take some actions, like launch chaffs/flares, followed by evasive manouvers. If the incoming uses radar, the modern fighter will use it's built-in jamming systems to try to break the lock.

If all of the above fails, the modern fighter can also use a missile to go for a hard-kill. It is known that the IRIS-T missile should be suitable for such a task, and I am sure other missiles can be as well.

Against older teens, MiGs etc. the Pk may be very high. But if you try to fire a missile at the latest version of the Typhoon, Rafale, or Su-35 my guess is you will see a much lower Pk, in particular those fighters that has the option to use one of it's own missiles for a hard-kill of the incoming.

One thing that concerns me with the F-35 is that although it has decent kinematic performance it is still far behind the Su-35, Typhoon, Rafale, PAK FA etc. If the F-35 runs out of missiles and tries to leave the conflict, the abovementioned fighters could (if they have sufficient fuel left) hunt down and kill the F-35, assuming it's close enough to be detected.

My (uneducated) guess is that the F-35 will find killing 4. gen fighter like the teens, Mig, etc. very easy; 4.5 gen fighters like Typhoon and Su-35 much harder but still quite risk-free; the question really becomes how it will fare when faced with other 5. gens like the PAK FA. It must go much closer to get a lock, since the RCS of the PAK FA is much lower than 4/4.5 gen fighters. And the PAK FA will presumably have the same or better countermeasures than today's 4.5 gen fighters. Unlike the F-35 it's kinematic performance will be more like the F-22.

The F-35s a2a advantage may erode faster than one could hope for -- (hopefully I am wrong about that!)

Of course I know that the level of training, support, tactics etc. is also very important -- a good pilot in an F-16 can probably shoot down an F-35, so the above is really in a hyphotetical situation where both sides have the same skill sets, level of training, support etc.

[Chogy]

I have a doubt. If traditional WVR combat is so irrelevant with today's super-reliable long range missiles and the US's obvious lead in high performance LPI radars, why was the more agile YF-22 selected over the less agile but stealthier YF-23?

The selection process was an immensely complex affair, with undoubtedly some political insider crap also influencing the decision. But what would the easiest "sell" be to select the F-22? "It's more maneuverable." Everyone not in the know nods their heads and says "Makes sense" because that's what they expect; that the more nimble fighter is better.

Consider that modern fighters have sensors and systems to detect incomings. So even if the F-35 is potentially not detected, the incoming certainly will be. On modern fighters these systems will notify the pilot, but they will also automatically take some actions, like launch chaffs/flares, followed by evasive manouvers. If the incoming uses radar, the modern fighter will use it's built-in jamming systems to try to break the lock.

The time of flight of an AIM-9 is measured in a handful of seconds. It is a mach 3+ sliver with a smokeless motor. Pretty much impossible to visually acquire.

The target may detect a launch and start puking out chaff and flares, but these will do little to nothing vs. an AIM-9M or better. And maneuvering does little against a 30 to 40 G missile.

The data gathered on the missiles in the U.S. inventory comes from WSEP, weapons system evaluation programs... thousands of missiles fired over the years to verify performance and evaluate capabilities. The targets are not straight and level sitting ducks. They do everything that a manned system would do that is under attack, including countermeasures. The missiles really are that good. And even if 94% Pk drops to 75%, does that really alter the equation?

And we must assume that Russia produces equivalent missiles when we theorize about the A-A battle. This is what drives the evolution of sensors, stealth, and weapons.

If all of the above fails, the modern fighter can also use a missile to go for a hard-kill. It is known that the IRIS-T missile should be suitable for such a task, and I am sure other missiles can be as well.

I have some very serious doubts about this capability. Lasers, maybe, in the future. But not yet, and not for a long time, I am thinking.

Against older teens, MiGs etc. the Pk may be very high. But if you try to fire a missile at the latest version of the Typhoon, Rafale, or Su-35 my guess is you will see a much lower Pk, in particular those fighters that has the option to use one of it's own missiles for a hard-kill of the incoming.

Not so sure on this. An inbound AIM-9 sees heat and edges. It doesn't know what is making the signature, and doesn't care. A 9G Su-35 behaves exactly the same as a 9G MiG-21 in terms of evasion.

What the modern airframes definitely have is superior survivability. Where an AIM-9 might shred a MiG-17 to ribbons, a Su-35 might limp home one engine. But the effect is the same; hors-de-combat.

One thing that concerns me with the F-35 is that although it has decent kinematic performance it is still far behind the Su-35, Typhoon, Rafale, PAK FA etc.

First, how on earth can you know of the kinematic performance of the PAK-FA? And as far as that goes, lacking E-M diagrams for all of them, it's all conjecture. The bold portion mirrors the media's and layman's POV - the inability to see beyond raw agility. "Because the Su-35 is more nimble, it must be better." I'm sorry, no, it doesn't work that way.

If the F-35 runs out of missiles and tries to leave the conflict, the abovementioned fighters could (if they have sufficient fuel left) hunt down and kill the F-35, assuming it's close enough to be detected.

If you refer to a separation from a visual fight, a sphere roughly 8 miles in diameter, I have already mentioned that separating, exiting this sphere, when confronted with a modern enemy, is approaching the impossible, which is why I emphasized so strongly that engaging in this manner is extremely risky and dangerous.

Open the distance a bit - make it 10 miles or greater. Now, the separating aircraft has an advantage, and it is very difficult for the attacker to chase down the separating jet. This is due to the kinematics of the tail chase. A separating jet will tend to dive low at 0 G, which produces the best acceleration, and as the altitude drops, missile kinematics also drop enormously due to drag. The envelope shrinks by maybe 75% at sea level vs. higher altitudes.

My (uneducated) guess is that the F-35 will find killing 4. gen fighter like the teens, Mig, etc. very easy; 4.5 gen fighters like Typhoon and Su-35 much harder but still quite risk-free; the question really becomes how it will fare when faced with other 5. gens like the PAK FA. It must go much closer to get a lock, since the RCS of the PAK FA is much lower than 4/4.5 gen fighters. And the PAK FA will presumably have the same or better countermeasures than today's 4.5 gen fighters.

This is simply too broad of a conjecture to address.

And the PAK FA will presumably have the same or better countermeasures than today's 4.5 gen fighters. Unlike the F-35 it's kinematic performance will be more like the F-22.

Again, how in the world do you know about PAK-FA kinematics? No one outside of the design bureau knows, and I doubt that the jet has been fully flight tested in that sense. It takes years to do so.

Of course I know that the level of training, support, tactics etc. is also very important -- a good pilot in an F-16 can probably shoot down an F-35, so the above is really in a hyphotetical situation where both sides have the same skill sets, level of training, support etc.

I have mentioned in the past that the analogy of the "wily, experienced pilot in the F-5 can take the noob in the F-16" is simply false. There can in fact be a hardware disparity so vast as to be insurmountable. You cannot kill what you cannot detect. By the time the F-16 will even see a blip on his radar, he will have already eaten more than one missile.

[kuku]

so why not just have big planes with big radars, guns, missiles and bombs, is there anything planes like F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, J-20 etc. of the world bring to the table that make such planes essential?

[TopHatter]

so why not just have big planes with big radars, guns, missiles and bombs,

You're assuming a "one-size-fits-all" formula will work in the real world. It doesn't, it takes all kinds, large and small. Doesn't matter if you're talking about planes, ships or ordnance. And that's not limited to the military either.

[Chogy]

Loke, I re-read my post, and it comes off as a bit abrasive and argumentative. If so, I apologize. You asked some honest and hard questions.

I need to look more into the possibility of what you refer to as a "hard kill." There are two reasons I'm thinking it is not yet practical. First (primary) is acquisition of the inbound. If the attack is beam or stern, the best current sensors can do is alert, not track, and it requires a track to be able to guide any counter shot. If the attack is in front, the defender's AI radar may be able to detect + track, but if the decision is made to engage an inbound missile, the processor time involved in doing so successfully means that situational awareness of the inbound threat aircraft is going to go down the drain.

A better option for the defender would be to turn 180 degrees, and run.

so why not just have big planes with big radars, guns, missiles and bombs, is there anything planes like F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, J-20 etc. of the world bring to the table that make such planes essential?

A fighter still needs maneuverability, just not to the level of hyper, high AOA stuff as seen at air shows. I'd want high instantaneous turn rate so as to re-orient my axis. A fighter can get through 180 degrees in 8 seconds or less, while a bomber or cargo airplane will need 6 to 10 times that. In addition, large airframes tend to be subsonic, and a high dash speed is also important in a fighter, with 1.4 to 2.2 M being an adequate top speed.

All that said, IMO it is entirely possible to create a stealthy "missile truck" with an immense missile load and fuel load. An SR-71 with improved stealth, internal weapons, and a modern, very high-powered AESA radar could blow through enemy territory and wreak havok on an enemy's air assets, but it'd be a very expensive one-trick pony. A 4-ship of F-22's could do the same thing.

[kuku]

From what the new computers, radars and smart bombs claim to do I think the same missile truck could do a lot of work as a bomb truck or a survaillance platform as well.
I understand that there is a need for all sizes, a harrier can do things a bomber can not.

[Stitch]

The selection process was an immensely complex affair, with undoubtedly some political insider crap also influencing the decision. But what would the easiest "sell" be to select the F-22? "It's more maneuverable." Everyone not in the know nods their heads and says "Makes sense" because that's what they expect; that the more nimble fighter is better.

Very interesting.

A while back (decades, in fact), I had a chat with a friend who was somewhat involved in the ATF selection process (he worked for Lockheed in Sunnyvale,CA before it was Lockheed/Martin), and he said the F-23 was actually a better all-around platform, but that it would be a hard-sell to Congress; the F-22 was (supposedly) selected because it would get the funding, and the F-23 would not, because "it's not a fighter", just a really good missile platform. Politics, again.

[Stitch]

All that said, IMO it is entirely possible to create a stealthy "missile truck" with an immense missile load and fuel load. An SR-71 with improved stealth, internal weapons, and a modern, very high-powered AESA radar could blow through enemy territory and wreak havok on an enemy's air assets, but it'd be a very expensive one-trick pony. A 4-ship of F-22's could do the same thing.

So, basically, an F-12 with a modern AESA radar and AIM-54 missles? That probably would've happened, if the program hadn't been shut-down by McNamara back in 1965.

[NUS]

So, to put it simple, Chogy is saying that we should replace infantry units with platoon of snipers and platoon of sappers.

Well, it might be true for a world of aviation , with three important notes:

1) Missile performance should be as advertised at 90% PK. So far no real combat use of missiles had such success rate.

2) Electronic warfare should be ignored as a non-factor.

3) No surprises at war. No ambushes, no human mistakes, no technical failures.

[S2]

NUS Reply

"So, to put it simple, Chogy is saying that we should replace infantry units with platoon of snipers and platoon of sappers."

And modern infantry still employ muskets? Don't be needlessly foolish. NATO understood years ago that stand-off was essential to eroding, blunting and then stopping a Warsaw Pact assault. By 1989 the Warsaw Pact understood this too and accepted the fait accompli. There'd be no ground assault upon Western Europe. The Warsaw Pact, and Red Army, had no answer. They'd LOST the moment recognition of NATO's intrinsic superiority struck them.

This is no different. We seek to optimize our killing power while surviving to fight another day. We COULD settle for air combat upon terms and technological limitations with which you are comfortable. Or seek solutions changing the paradigm. We choose the latter.

Perhaps Russians don't understand? Perhaps Russians CAN'T understand? Or, to put it in terms you might understand, perhaps not all Russians think as simply as you?

[NUS]

[B] They'd LOST the moment recognition of NATO's intrinsic superiority struck them.

This is no different. We seek to optimize our killing power while surviving to fight another day. We COULD settle for air combat upon terms and technological limitations with which you are comfortable. Or seek solutions changing the paradigm. We choose the latter.

Perhaps Russians don't understand? Perhaps Russians CAN'T understand? Or, to put it in terms you might understand, perhaps not all Russians think as simply as you?

Hilarious!

It's amazing how your mind works.

Step one. Declare yourself superior.
Step two. Declare anyone who question it as an idiot unable to understand your "intrinsic superiority"!

Solipsism pales in comparison with this triumph of narcissism and arrogance! :wors:

And the funniest thing, i wasn't even disagree with Chogy, i merely pointed to possible limitations of BVR combat.

And to answer your question, yes, maybe Russians can not understand your "intrinsic superiority". But worry not, for you are not the first. Russia have a long history of "misunderstanding" with self-proclaimed "superior" nations. You are in a good company.

[Doktor]

Let's hope your superior nations wont misunderstand each other now. They had a nice "understanding" in the past 60 years.

[S2]

NUS Reply

"It's amazing how your mind works.

Step one. Declare yourself superior.
Step two. Declare anyone who question it as an idiot unable to understand your "intrinsic superiority"!"

Sooo...the Red Army proved victorious by recognizing and exploiting a tangible advantage?

Now...I DID call you "...needlessly foolish..." for conflating Chogy's treatise with a red herring about infantry. That observation still seems very reasonable given this latest response by you.

"...Solipsism pales in comparison with this triumph of narcissism and arrogance!..."

Relative to the triumph accrued from the inexorable march of internat'l socialism?

You lost. We achieved standoff and survivability. A system of systems emerged which could kill, survive and kill again. Your generals acknowledged it then. Why can't you now?

"...And the funniest thing, i wasn't even disagree with Chogy, i merely pointed to possible limitations of BVR combat..."

Bullshit. Now you squirm within your box. Let's revisit-

"So, to put it simple, Chogy is saying that we should replace infantry units with platoon of snipers and platoon of sappers.

Well, it might be true for a world of aviation , with three important notes:

1) Missile performance should be as advertised at 90% PK. So far no real combat use of missiles had such success rate.

2) Electronic warfare should be ignored as a non-factor.

3) No surprises at war. No ambushes, no human mistakes, no technical failures."

"...And to answer your question, yes, maybe Russians can not understand your 'intrinsic superiority'..."

Please note my allowance for the vast numbers of Russians who've far transcended or altogether avoided your particular affliction.

"...But worry not, for you are not the first. Russia have a long history of "misunderstanding" with self-proclaimed "superior" nations. You are in a good company."

Perhaps your faith in Mother Russia will spur you to review your own nation's race to BVR AAM capability coupled with fifth generation stealth platforms. The clues you seek might be closer than imagined.

[Chogy]

So, to put it simple, Chogy is saying that we should replace infantry units with platoon of snipers and platoon of sappers.

Well, it might be true for a world of aviation , with three important notes:

1) Missile performance should be as advertised at 90% PK. So far no real combat use of missiles had such success rate.

2) Electronic warfare should be ignored as a non-factor.

3) No surprises at war. No ambushes, no human mistakes, no technical failures.

You've totally over-analyzed my statements and position. I will re-phrase it again. "Maneuverability as an attribute has fallen below RCS, sensors, and weapons in the hierarchy of desirable traits for a modern fighter."

This doesn't mean maneuverability doesn't have a place, it simply means a loss of 2 degrees per second sustained turning rate does not doom a platform to mediocrity.

The media and lay analysts need to purge "Top Gun" from their subconscious, and air-show attendees should be given brochures that flatly state "What you are about to see has as much to do with real air combat as a paintball tournament has with modern ground combat."

Missile performance should be as advertised at 90% PK. So far no real combat use of missiles had such success rate.

In the Falklands conflict, the AIM-9L was patched into the British Sea Harriers literally in a matter of days. All the pilots had was audio, no other launch parameters. Range was estimated by eye. The result was 22 kills of 24 or 25 shots taken, in combat, against an aggressive and capable enemy. That was the -9L, two variants earlier than what is fielded today.

In the Gulf war, pilots tended to fire more than one missile; they'd ripple fire, which is a hangover from Vietnam. It took years for the USAF to get pilots to stop doing this.

The result over Iraq was missiles 2, 3, or 4, flying through the fireball created by missile 1.

No surprises at war. No ambushes, no human mistakes, no technical failures.

I addressed human mistakes. It's a good thing that new pilot who fired out of parameters (or ripple fired) has stealth, data-linking, and additional missiles available, along with wingmen for support. I'm not sure what the remainder has to do with my position that the matured turning fight is no place any pilot wants to be by choice.

[Stitch]

In the Gulf war, pilots tended to fire more than one missile; they'd ripple fire, which is a hangover from Vietnam. It took years for the USAF to get pilots to stop doing this.

That was because the old AIM-7E had a PK of only about 25%, so the pilots would double (or triple) their chances by ripple-firing Sparrows. The AIM-9B had about the same PK, and that was assuming you could get a tail-aspect shot to begin with.