What is up with the F-35? Part II

[erik]

My question is if the Marines didn't sign onto the F-35, would they have gotten their own platform to develop and buy? Seeing that the F-35 is being used by the Navy and the Air Force, I just can't see the Marines being able to get a CAS platform of their own that is not the F-35. Better to have something then nothing?

[Jimmy]

I don't blame the Marines for jumping on board...there's no way they'd have gotten anything else. They did what they had to do to replace the Harrier. But that doesn't mean it's the right plane for the job.

[rundown]

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.

Nowhere did I imply that this is going to happen--it is not. But I pointed out that this technology (more precisely--its coming maturity) has an immense implications internationally, especially for the Sea Denial navies. NAVSEA at some point of time was considering even this:



I can quote, of course, George W. Baer from his masterpiece One Hundred Years Of Sea Power. Baer is a member of faculty in Naval War College. Or Commanders Joseph Gattuso and Lori Tanner--both with 20 years experience of flying from decks in virtually all major types of planes.

"Today naval aviation’s power is largely limited to the single venue of the aircraft carrier, and even that niche is rapidly dwindling as cruise missiles take a bigger chunk of the market. UAVs and UCAVs would enable a new force to gather information from, and act through, many more platforms. Since a force designed to secure global interests must act globally, and since no nation will have the resources to build the number of carriers the new century will require, the answer must be to use something else. Money spent furthering manned aircraft technologies and programs—the CVNX (proposed Nimitz-class carrier replacement) being one of them—is like polishing cannonballs so they will fly a little farther." (c) Gattuso and Tanner from NAVAL FORCE IN THE NEW CENTURY, published by Naval War College Review.

My point here is rooted deep into Zumwalt's understanding of the issue with carrier-centric navy. Well, and my some 10 + years in the Soviet Navy (small part of which, though, was in some not very naval conundrums on the ground). As for CAS--this is not my neck of the woods and I cannot pass judgments in this respects on F-35B.

[rundown]

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.

Both agree and disagree. Interestingly, some nations view carrier-power not as offensive but primarily defensive force. One such example is Russia--here is an excerpt from Admiral Alexin's article in Proceedings: "the role of the Soviet-Russian carrier force evolved into the mission ...to ensure the combat efficiency of air defense and anti-submarine task forces in the North and Pacific Fleets"(c) Rear Admiral Valery Aleksin, Russia Needs A Strong Navy, Proceedings, December 1997 Guess why so?? Very simple--deployment of submarines as the main strike force of the fleet. Once even the brief analysis of probable dynamics of possible (hopefully not) naval engagement between Japanese and China is made it becomes clear that against highly capable Japanese submarine force Chinese carrier (or even carriers) will have a freaking nightmarish time once the Japanese force is deployed. How this deployment may go is a separate issue.

As for "toe-to-toe" (c), the answer is simple--asymmetry. Especially when one views the financial report on the costs of deployment of even a single CBG with CVN at its heart. In fact, toe-to-toe should be avoided by all means, but here I am getting into Sun-Tzu and classic armchair admiral, which I am today, staff.

[rundown]

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.

This bird (technology) offers what many (I underscore--many, and I happened to know some of them) dreamed about for a long time--an effective patrol of the remote "ridge" of the naval task force zone of responsibility.

[chanjyj]

First Singapore drops out and now Holland is reconsidering its decision to go with the F-35. With every nation that drops out the per unit cost goes up! And so do the chances that other countries including Australia will do the same - this is not good news for the program.

I don't think it's unreasonable not to have expected it to happen. Especially for the smaller countries.
Frankly, trading the F35 for the F15SG? I'm satisfied.

[Chogy]

RCS - something to remember with the F-35... RCS changes dramatically with aspect and altitude. Depending upon the external stores, it is possible for the F-35 to have excellent stealth characteristics when the defending radar is mounted in an interceptor like a Su-30 that is at medium to high altitudes. The fuselage and wing of the F-35 will block some of the stores, and if the F-35 is in the weeds, very low, ground-based radar will have terrain curvature issues.

My point - while external stores will increase RCS, it may not be as bad as people think, and when combined with an ultra-modern ECM suite, it can present a defender with a real problem. And of course, with no external stores, it can do the F-117 mission, as well as having counter-air capability, something the F-117 lacked.

[GGTharos]

You can't just think formula when discussing RCS. The value the RCS that you are interested in varies with aspect and composition and shape of the object whose RCS is being measured. All you need is a couple of right angles to create a corner reflector which has far larger RCS than say, a flat plate. But then, a flat plate has far more RCS than the F-35 itself. There are plenty of length/width/inconvenient angles on wing pylons and adapters for various weapons. Even the weapons themselves may have such things (Actually, they often do) ... and essentially, it all adds up. So your 0.001m^2 RCS fighter suddenly has an RCS of 0.1m^2 which, while not large, is about the RCS of a small cruise missile and is detectable at respectable distances. It might not be the F-16's 2-3m^2, but it's enough. Just as an example.

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.

[rundown]

You can't just think formula when discussing RCS. .

Well, than I guess I have to forget differential equations, Newtonian Mechanics or algorithms of firing solutions, to name a few--they are all "formulas". So are, Salvo and Lanchester equations, and so are operational coefficients.

[GGTharos]

You go ahead and rummage around equations, reality has better things to do.

Equations are great and all, but they're entirely worthless if not used in the proper context. What you're suggesting is like adding up your meal calories by only looking at the broccoli. That's great, it has a caloric value too, but it's not the only thing on your plate.

Well, than I guess I have to forget differential equations, Newtonian Mechanics or algorithms of firing solutions, to name a few--they are all "formulas". So are, Salvo and Lanchester equations, and so are operational coefficients.

[rundown]

You go ahead and rummage around equations, reality has better things to do..

Sure, like the reality of years of service on actual combat ships and dealing with actual weapon systems. Other than that--agree;)

[Jimmy]

You're not the only one with real world experience. I'm probably the only the one here who has actually done radar work with stealth aircraft.

[rundown]

You're not the only one with real world experience.

Did I claim otherwise?? Don't remember doing this.

[rundown]

I'm probably the only the one here who has actually done radar work with stealth aircraft.

Than you should know Swerling Models (all 4 of them) and how RCS fluctuates.

[citanon]

Now now fellas, let's not get carried away here and talk about anything non-public. How do we know rundown isn't some Russian spy pulling out little bits of information from us with his ;) and nods? Don't let that nerdy avatar fool you. For all we know "he" could be, IRL, :