Nigel Foster60 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 That had to be one exercise I would not have missed! Nigel ( nearly 10 pages and the Police have still not turned up!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Many aircraft, like the Tornado F.3 for instance, only really deliver their full potential at the end of their careers, however that has a lot to do with not enough money being spent on the important stuff (like comms & chaff and flares) until an operational requirement comes up. It'll be interesting to see how the JSF does once in service (I'm still refusing to call it a Lightning), the Tornado has been huge value for money and JSF has some pretty big boots to fill. The F3 is an interesting case. As noted previously, it was built to requirements focused on intercepting then-Soviet bombers but found itself having to contend with more agile fighters when the Su-27 became operational (not unlike the Defiant of WWII vintage). Adapting an airframe that had been optimized for low-level strike/attack into an air superiority fighter was never going to work, and I think even the F3's most ardent supporters would agree that it wasn't a good ACM platform. However, data integration and intelligent tactics can ameliorate combat manoeuvre deficiencies. It should also be noted that the F3's replacement is actually the Typhoon, although with a front-line force comprising 2 multi-role platforms, making role distinctions seems rather moot. Edited December 2, 2015 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirfixAndy Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 F3 didn't need to be good at ACM ......nothing would get anywhere near it to need ACM due to its excellent radar/AMRAAM combination. As the USAF F15 found out to its cost during a few exercises. I'm sure in ten years time we will look on threads like this and laugh because we have a great aircraft (tried saying that without smirking / LOL ) Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathasatail Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Evening all, I'm just going to state my opinions on the whole F-35 issue. So, here's how I see it: While the harrier retirement may not have been the best of decisions without a decent replacement it's done. So the F-35, I believe it is a capable aircraft which has a strike (air to ground and air to air), stealth and V/STOL capability. I shall explain my thoughts on these three points: Regarding its ability to act as a naval strike aircraft, I believe that the lightning (II) will be a very able aircraft from which various munitions can be used in order to "project power" from both RAF and Naval air bases (including aircraft carriers). Its internal weapons bay allows for a rather large payload (as well as the pylons that are planned) and combined with its quite sophisticated radar I am sure that it can be a threat to naval, land and air targets. Talking of air-to-air combat, the article a few months ago saying the f-35 "couldn't compete with the f-16 in a dogfight", well the F-35 with its "arguable" stealth capability allows for and is intended for a beyond visual range capability-reducing the requirement for agility. While there are debates over its stealth capability, the stealth ability is not entirely crucial for RAF and FAA aircraft-although its addition will I am sure be helpful. Now to the V/STOL capability, this is where I both support, yet have difficulty with. The ability to operate from aircraft carriers with such a capability allows for greater flexbility but I would have strongly supported the QE-Class carriers being conventional aircraft carriers with arresting gear (allowing for multiple aircraft to land on the carriers without the ability to VTOL); perhaps allowing Typhoons to be operated from carriers too? But nevertheless we're stuck with it. However, when it comes to the F35 being less safe because it "only has one engine and no arresting gear on the carrier or itself (f35b)", well the Harrier seemed to be rather capable and many may have been lost due to its inability to land conventionally on aircraft carriers or due to engine failure, but it still proved to be a reliable and a damn good strike and carrier-defence aircraft (as proven during 1982). So in conclusion, while I and many others have criticisms of the f35 and the carriers-its intuitive controls, its capable weaponry, radar and other systems, and its VSTOL ability will give the RAF and FAA a very effective military aircraft which I am sure shall serve them for many years to come. Sam (Now, how long will it be before the ETPS get one and paint it in Raspberry Ripple colours?!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 F3 didn't need to be good at ACM ......nothing would get anywhere near it to need ACM due to its excellent radar/AMRAAM combination. As the USAF F15 found out to its cost during a few exercises. I'm sure in ten years time we will look on threads like this and laugh because we have a great aircraft (tried saying that without smirking / LOL ) Andy Hmmm...but the USAF aircraft also had AMRAAMs to the range issue was pretty much the same. However, there's nothing funnier than watching an F-15 driver return from a mission having just been shot down by an F3. Talk about grumpy! Entirely agree with your last statement. It's a truism of military aviation that the new aircraft is never as good as the one(s) it's replacing so, in 20 years time, we'll all be saying what a great aircraft the F-35 was. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (Now, how long will it be before the ETPS get one and paint it in Raspberry Ripple colours?!) http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234969642-epts-x-35b/?hl=devilfish#entry1774229 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Talking of air-to-air combat, the article a few months ago saying the f-35 "couldn't compete with the f-16 in a dogfight", well the F-35 with its "arguable" stealth capability allows for and is intended for a beyond visual range capability-reducing the requirement for agility. While there are debates over its stealth capability, the stealth ability is not entirely crucial for RAF and FAA aircraft-although its addition will I am sure be helpful. The "can't compete with the F-16" article was complete hokum. The actual purpose of the sortie was to evaluate the F-35's high angle-of-attack performance and, apparently, it passed with flying colours. The event was never meant to be a combat evaluation, and the F-35 was flying without sensor operating. In short, it was a classic piece of mis-reporting by the media in an attempt to stoke up (yet again) negativity about the F-35 programme. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathasatail Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The "can't compete with the F-16" article was complete hokum. The actual purpose of the sortie was to evaluate the F-35's high angle-of-attack performance and, apparently, it passed with flying colours. The event was never meant to be a combat evaluation, and the F-35 was flying without sensor operating. In short, it was a classic piece of mis-reporting by the media in an attempt to stoke up (yet again) negativity about the F-35 programme. Ah yes, apologies. I didn't want to say outright that it was false without checking my facts, I had heard some debate about how "true" it was. In that case it's set to be a great fighter aircraft http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234969642-epts-x-35b/?hl=devilfish#entry1774229 Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! I should really get hold of the Kitty Hawk kit and try one for myself, thanks for the link! Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 If I may quote Andy, knowing you are not using it in a comparative context... F3 didn't need to be good at ACM ......nothing would get anywhere near it to need ACM due to its excellent radar/AMRAAM combination. So, that's a valid argument for the F3, but sadly not for the infinitely more capable F-35 in the BVR arena?It's strange how these arguments work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think from all the comment and performance numbers I have seen the F35B is not going to be a swing role aircraft in the true sense. It is a ground strike aircraft that can carry air to air missiles. Its only,possibly very short lived advantage in air to air is its visability on radar. As I understand it the aircraft cannot even have the VIFF capability of the Harrier. As a fighter, interceptor or dogfighter its not good. Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think from all the comment and performance numbers I have seen the F35B is not going to be a swing role aircraft in the true sense. It is a ground strike aircraft that can carry air to air missiles. Its only,possibly very short lived advantage in air to air is its visability on radar. As I understand it the aircraft cannot even have the VIFF capability of the Harrier. As a fighter, interceptor or dogfighter its not good. Nigel The low visibility to enemy radars, a decent radar, sensor fusion allowing the pilot to have a complete understanding of every threat in the area... sounds like quite a few tricks to help achieve a kill or 2... Regarding viffing, I see that this is a myth that never seems to die. Viffing looks good at airshows, can save a pilot when used as a last ditch manouver, but I've yet to find a single pilot that will decide that his/her best way of winning a dogfight is to rapidly bleed off all the aircraft energy. Viffing is not a standard dogfighting manouver, may save the day in a 1 vs. 1 encounter but in a more dynamic situation will mean being a nice easy target for the enemy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight_Flyer Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I have heard the same about Viffing particularly it was not used at all during the engagements between Harriers and enemy planes in the Falklands conflict. There was also I seem to recall discussion that VTOL wasn't that useful rather the ability to have very short take-off runs when loaded with ordnance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think from all the comment and performance numbers I have seen the F35B is not going to be a swing role aircraft in the true sense. It is a ground strike aircraft that can carry air to air missiles. Its only,possibly very short lived advantage in air to air is its visability on radar. As I understand it the aircraft cannot even have the VIFF capability of the Harrier. As a fighter, interceptor or dogfighter its not good. Nigel I'd really like to understand the basis for your comments, Nigel, particularly the last one. Upon what basis are you making the assessment that it's not good as a figher, interceptor or dogfighter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 It's the Sea Harrier arguments again. Wasn't supersonic, short of range, can't carry much. Come the Falklands War and it was proved that none of these things really mattered, only that we didn't have enough of the blighters. If the reports of the size of order actually come true, then at least we will have a few more aircraft at sea than we used ot have, and much, much more capable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 My thoughts are based on the folowing ideas; As a fighter interceptor traditionally they carry around 8 missiles and have an endurance beyond that of the F35B, I am not totally sure about the radar but I do not believe it is in the same class as the Typhoon's radar for the fighter mission. In addition I do not think it has an infa red or any other means of detection other than the radar. In terms of being a dogfighter the F35B does not have a built in gun, the number of missiles again may be an issue. Weight may also be an issue, certainly in relation to the thrust generated. I am not sure it is the most maneuverable aircraft, nor is it built to be. View from the cockpit may be another issue. Those were my thoughts, if I am wrong I am happy to hear others thoughts and am open to changing my mind if challenged by those ideas. Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 The F-35B will have a streamlined gun pod for the 25mm gatling gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Hi Shar2, I knew it could take external pods, is the gun pod within the 'stealth'? I am not sure but we may have met in the presence of the great Rolland at Aviation Bookshop in TW some years ago? How's it all going? Nigel (Exiled to the north) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 But does it NEED to be a dogfighter when it has a sensor package that can detect threat beyond visual range and armaments that can deal with those threats at the same distance? Are we expecting it to fight the Battle of Britain or to deal with a modern-day aerial battlefield? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Hi Kallisti, No it does not need to be a dogfighter, if you look back on this page of this thread, I said it was nether a dogfighter or interceptor. I was asked to clarify which I hope I have. Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) As a fighter interceptor traditionally they carry around 8 missiles and have an endurance beyond that of the F35B, The F-35B can carry the same number of AAMs as the F/A-18 in addition to the external gun. That's way more than any variant of Harrier could ever carry. As to the range question, here's a comment from an F-35 pilot who formerly flew CF-18s. For comparison, combat radius of the AV-8B is 300 miles, the F/A-18 is 449 miles and the F-35B is 469 miles. Seems pretty good to me compared to the aircraft the B variant is replacing. I am not totally sure about the radar but I do not believe it is in the same class as the Typhoon's radar for the fighter mission. In addition I do not think it has an infa red or any other means of detection other than the radar. Current Typhoon radar is mechanically scanned whereas F-35 has an electronically scanned array which immediately puts advantage in the F-35's court. The following from Wikipedia (yeah...I know) "Announced on 22 June 2010: The radar met and exceeded its performance objectives successfully tracking long-range targets as part of the first mission systems test flights of the F-35 Lightning II BF-4 aircraft. The AN/APG-81 team won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers." Haven't seen performance metrics as they're likely classified but I'm not sure what else you can base your assessment of the radar system as it seems to me that the F-35 radar will be very effective. In addition to the radar, the F-35 has the EOTS sensor which provides both FLIR targeting and IRST functionality in one system. View from the cockpit may be another issue. The airframe has six IR sensors that are linked into the pilot's helmet, allowing the pilot to "look through" the airframe at targets that would be hidden from the MkI eyeball. I am not sure it is the most maneuverable aircraft, nor is it built to be. G limit is comparable to the F/A-18 and the USMC pilots who've flown both rate the F-35 as the far better platform. Edited December 3, 2015 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I stand corrected, well thats how we increase the font of human knowledge. Good old fashioned debate. Thank you gentlemen. Can I just ask one question with regard to your information, the range you quote is 469 miles for the F35B. Is it at all possible that is the number for the F35A? Cheers Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Nope - F-35A combat radius is 613 miles (and, for reference, F-35C is 610). EDIT: All figures above (in both posts) are nm not statute miles. Edited December 3, 2015 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Neu- Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Nope - F-35A combat radius is 613 miles (and, for reference, F-35C is 610). Remember that's with carry 4400lbs of internal ordnance: two 2000lbs bombs and two AAMs... a very heavy loadout that isn't often carried. Most fighter today carry two 1000lbs or 500s and call it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Hi Shar2, I knew it could take external pods, is the gun pod within the 'stealth'? I am not sure but we may have met in the presence of the great Rolland at Aviation Bookshop in TW some years ago? How's it all going? Nigel (Exiled to the north) Yes the pod is stealthy. As to meeting at the Aviation Bookshop, I very much doubt it, as the only time I've been to TW was to see The Hamsters in concert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I have heard the same about Viffing particularly it was not used at all during the engagements between Harriers and enemy planes in the Falklands conflict. There was also I seem to recall discussion that VTOL wasn't that useful rather the ability to have very short take-off runs when loaded with ordnance. Viffing bleeds off energy rapidly. An aircraft in a low energy state in a dogfight is a sitting duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts