What is up with the F-35? Part II

[Blademaster]

No, it's that the F-22 carries it's loadout internally. For the F-35 to provide a meaningful service, it won't...and thus it will show up on radar just like an F-16.

F-35's stealth and the use of it is meant for first day strikes and to kick the door down, i.e., knock out radar coverages. Once they do that, they can start loading munitions externally. But that begs the question, why not design a plane only for a couple hundred units instead of buying thousands and buy another version where stealth is not needed but long range, heavy ordnances and ability to carry multiple strikes in one sortie and consume less fuel? That would be more cost effective in the long run. The way the USAF is run and operated, it seems that they don't really care about how much fuel they consume and the associated costs with consuming so much fuel. That is why Afghanistan costed so much money because the Air force or the Navy keeps flying expensive sorties.

Heck, I never understood why the Air force required B-2s to fly all the way halfway around the globe from St. louis and back for each strike. Why can't they stage B-2s closer to the theater, not too close but close enough to do away with those expensive refuelings or does the Air Brass seem to think that money falls from the skies?

[Chogy]

I believe the B-2 missions were done to demonstrate capabilities, to show to a potential enemy - "Look what we can do. We can fly an invisible airplane from our own nation to anywhere on the globe, and drop a nuke or JDAM on your heads."

B-52's (or tactical air) could have done those same missions with ease.

[Jimmy]

F-35's stealth and the use of it is meant for first day strikes and to kick the door down, i.e., knock out radar coverages.

Absolutely. But when are the Marines going to be tasked for that mission?

Once they do that, they can start loading munitions externally. But that begs the question, why not design a plane only for a couple hundred units instead of buying thousands and buy another version where stealth is not needed but long range, heavy ordnances and ability to carry multiple strikes in one sortie and consume less fuel? That would be more cost effective in the long run. The way the USAF is run and operated, it seems that they don't really care about how much fuel they consume and the associated costs with consuming so much fuel. That is why Afghanistan costed so much money because the Air force or the Navy keeps flying expensive sorties.

That's not really true. At the unit and base level fuel concerns absolutely exist, even in SWA. How much they mattered depended on leadership (we had a group commander who preferred to have us fill the flying hours box regardless of any training being accomplished, so we'd circle overhead for hours with a crew full of people reading magazines and accomplishing nothing but burning JP8).

When the B-2 flies a sortie like what they did to South Korea, it's absolutely a "show the flag" moment. Also, since it was a training mission the flying hours came from the regular allotment for training sorties. Normally exercise sorties like that would've been known of months in advance...personally I think this one was a short-notice tasking. When the call came down, it would've taken about 20 minutes for the scheduling shop to cut 2 or 3 normal sorties from the weekly schedule and set up the tankers. Chances are every time a B-2 takes off it meets at least one tanker for training anyway, we almost always did and if we cancelled the refueling was A Big Deal.

Heck, I never understood why the Air force required B-2s to fly all the way halfway around the globe from St. louis and back for each strike. Why can't they stage B-2s closer to the theater, not too close but close enough to do away with those expensive refuelings or does the Air Brass seem to think that money falls from the skies?

The B-2 does forward deploy, too. Guam, Diego Garcia, and I think Lakenheath? That costs a HELL of a lot more than just flying a long sortie. Because along with the jets, you've got crews, maintenance, life support, etc. Plus the associated tankers and all THEIR support infrastructure. I had to build a "max effort" (24/7 radar coverage) requirement plan for AWACS for a theoretical tasking. Opening a FOL for the USAF is not a cheap, easy, or small endeavor. Flying a supersortie is preferred for a lot of reasons.

[rundown]

Source for what? That the RCS for an external-stores-equipped F-35 will light up a radar?

No, that is not what I meant. I meant that it will show on radar "just like an F-16"(c). I have some minor issues with "just like". As for CAS, I was speaking specifically about F-35B, keeping in mind that CAS aircraft will encounter a competent air force (I am not going to go into possible future scenarios here--but it could be near-peer opponent) under some adverse conditions and it will have to be truly multi-role.

[rundown]

Jimmy is a member of USAF. Notice the military professional moniker by his name. IIRC he works on an AWAC.......

I am certainly not a member of USAF but I have some interest in operational (as in combat operations) issues (and know about them some minor things;) which derive not merely from pure design (and technological) practices for weapon systems but from their use in a different combat scenarios as a force, not as, however sexy (or otherwise), single pieces of machinery.

[Stitch]

I believe the B-2 missions were done to demonstrate capabilities, to show to a potential enemy - "Look what we can do. We can fly an invisible airplane from our own nation to anywhere on the globe, and drop a nuke or JDAM on your heads."

B-52's (or tactical air) could have done those same missions with ease.

I think it also has something to do with the support services (and, probably more importantly, the personnel) required to effectively maintain and operate the B-2; the B-2 has special climate-controlled hangers and, I'm sure, specialized support equipment. If I'm not mistaken, there are only a few places on the planet capable of long-term support for the B-2, Whiteman & Diego Garcia being two of them. It takes a lot of logistics infrastructure to base a B-2 anywhere but the US, even temporarily; the hardware may already be there, but you still need specialized materiel and personnel to properly maintain a B-2.

[Jimmy]

No, that is not what I meant. I meant that it will show on radar "just like an F-16"(c). I have some minor issues with "just like". As for CAS, I was speaking specifically about F-35B, keeping in mind that CAS aircraft will encounter a competent air force (I am not going to go into possible future scenarios here--but it could be near-peer opponent) under some adverse conditions and it will have to be truly multi-role.

You're reading WAY too much into what I said. I have zero doubt that any fire control radar will pick up a laden F-35. I was suggesting that it would look like a relatively small aircraft, not specifically exactly like an F-16.

My expectation based on experience is that it will have a similar RCS to maybe a T-38, if I had to pick something. However, on the operator side of the screen, it's gonna look exactly the same on almost any airborne system and most ground-based systems because the signal is processed prior to display.

[Stitch]

Chances are every time a B-2 takes off it meets at least one tanker for training anyway, we almost always did and if we cancelled the refueling was A Big Deal.

Just to back that up, I remember seeing this picture from Guam with the caption "B-2 Taking Off With Tanker Support"; now, I only see ONE B-2, but I see FOUR KC-135 Stratotankers:



Jimmy: Did a B-2 REALLY require FOUR KC's, or where those tankers for other strike aircraft?

[Jimmy]

It's more likely they were all going to a different base or other aircraft like you mentioned. Four ARs is a looong flight...too long for the tankers to all takeoff at the same time. They would have been staggered by several hours.

[rundown]

You're reading WAY too much into what I said. I have zero doubt that any fire control radar will pick up a laden F-35. I was suggesting that it would look like a relatively small aircraft, not specifically exactly like an F-16.

My expectation based on experience is that it will have a similar RCS to maybe a T-38, if I had to pick something. However, on the operator side of the screen, it's gonna look exactly the same on almost any airborne system and most ground-based systems because the signal is processed prior to display.

May be I do, in terms of reading too much. But my issue was not merely with similarity of the radar mark on screen but with the fact of the distance (range), which in classic formula of radar range varies directly with the square root of lower case sigma (together with a bunch of other things, including power density etc.) which is RCS. That is, the lower RCS--the shorter is the distance (range) of detection. I know for certain (I certainly don't know actual figures) that F-35's RCS is smaller than that of F=16 and with all other conditions being equal, that is having the same payload on the external points, F-35 does gain a tactical advantage in terms of its detection range. How much of an advantage?? I don't know. As for F-35B I have a soft spot for the bird--not because it is, necessarily, such a great bird (I know very little about aviation professionally, let alone from a design practice point of view) but because I love the concept and see its potential, whose implications are enormous.

[Jimmy]

Maybe you can expound on what enormous implications you see. Because what I see is a mission set that demands a skillset that doesn't match the F-35B except STOVL capability. What the Marines really need is an A-1 Skyraider. But they weren't going to get money for that.

As far as detection range, there will be no problem spotting a laden F-35 far enough out for an engagement...this obviously assumes modern radar systems. A North Korean MiG-21 is going to be boned, but a newer Flanker or any active US fighter won't have a problem. External stores will return plenty of energy for detection at sufficient range for most radars. If there is a range advantage comparing F-35 to F-16, I do not believe it will be significant enough to impact any engagement.

[rundown]

Maybe you can expound on what enormous implications you see. Because what I see is a mission set that demands a skillset that doesn't match the F-35B except STOVL capability. What the Marines really need is an A-1 Skyraider. But they weren't going to get money for that.

I wrote some very small bits and pieces in the thread about US carriers in Naval Warfare section. I, of course, can elaborate but it has to be understood that this elaboration, in essence, requires a whole thesis--which is impossible to do in the framework of the public forum, plus time, a lot of it. So, in few words about implications I will mention just that:

1. CVNs depend themselves on Sea Control. Especially in the peer-to-peer (there are no peers currently or in foreseeable future) or near-peer scenarios. The only mission for the CATOBAR CVNs today is power projection, period. Or, in layman's lingo--bombing the shit out of the third (or fourth) world adversaries.
2. Second and first world adversaries will necessarily have Green Water navies or transitional (semi-Blue or Green Water ++) capabilities.Those navies by definition are Sea Denial navies.
3. Scenario of naval engagement (fleet against fleet) at the most remote border or the nearest "beyond" of littoral MAY involve a clash of the near-peer heterogeneous force with carrier-centric navy. This heterogeneous force may need a deployment area force protection and, realistically, the only way this could be accomplished is by means or affordable and effective deck component which inevitably comes down to the STOVL carriers and STOVL aircraft.
4. F-35B is the first STOVL machine (if not to count 11 prototypes of Yak-141--but that is a separate story) with the most important parameter--range--comparable to that of the CATOBAR aviation. That is the revolution, which addresses the most important dis-balance of the US Navy's concept of the carrier-centric navy. Will US Navy follow this revolution?? I don't know, but F-35B IOC changes the whole dynamic of discussion on the future of carrier aviation internationally. Why it is so--that is the whole issue, which could not be discussed easily in couple-three, however large, posts on a public forum. This is doctrinal issue. F-35B is a game changer.

I hope this gives some, however limited, idea about implications.

[Jimmy]

That's fine, but the Air Force and Navy are not going to base their doctrine on the USMC which is the only way that becomes a game changer. It gives the Marines a better airborne self-defense capability so they can move a bit further out from the umbrella of air superiority they would otherwise rely upon in major operations, but that doesn't do much on it's own. Extended range doesn't help with the Marines' mission set enough to justify the havoc its caused the JSF program.

Points 1 and 2...a CBG would absolutely be employed against a hostile fleet, near-peer or not. Added deck space from LHAs or LHDs would be used if available, but it's unlikely they'll be counted upon for doctrinal purposes since they don't carry enough airframes. That's not enough for a major event where a CVN or two is insufficient. It is enough for a reasonably persistent CAS presence, though...at least for a few days until other supporting assets start sharing the burden.

For foreign services, I agree it's a brave new world. But it's the wrong airplane for the Marines. Politics aside they could've done much better.

[TopHatter]

F-35B IOC changes the whole dynamic of discussion on the future of carrier aviation internationally. Why it is so--that is the whole issue, which could not be discussed easily in couple-three, however large, posts on a public forum. This is doctrinal issue. F-35B is a game changer.

I remarked on this a few years back: Every nation (and there are now quite a few) with a "Harrier carrier" or comparable type, that buys the F-35B, will enter into a new level of offensive carrier power.

It doesn't mean they'll be able to go toe-to-toe with a full-sized carrier (certainly not a supercarrier) but it's definitely a game changer.

[USSWisconsin]

I do see a wide gap between USN naval air power and the rest. This does make sense that the F35B would offer a bunch of capabilities to the other navies that they don't currently have. These things are never cheap, and choosing an older solution has its ROI costs too - if it doesn't provide a long lived solution and needs to be redone in a few years.