Let us look at this idea closer. Below is simple chart that I made up. Since I made it up, some may consider it of no value. Maybe akin to the lack of value put forward by marketing people that make up any story to sell a combat aircraft.
The assumptions I use are the following.
1.Comparisons vary. Note that the SU-35 can carry a wide variety of missiles. For this I gave the SU-35 only 4 R-77 radar-homing air-to-air missiles; it can carry more. I also gave it 4 R-73Ms for a total of 8 missiles. The R-73M is a high-off-bore-sight (HOBS) infra-red imaging missile. The closest U.S. analogue to the R-77 is the AIM-120 used by the U.S. F-22, existing legacy aircraft and maybe someday, the F-35.
The comparison assumes that the F-35 will be in its low observable strike configuration. This would be two internal air-to-ground weapons and two air-to-air AIM-120s. Since no weapons have been cleared on the F-35 we don't know what it will end up with. Clearing weapons from those canted bomber doors will not be trivial or high-manoeuvre envelope like the F-22.
2. HOBS infra-red imaging missiles are deadly. The world market now has HOBS missiles that are more lethal than the R-73M. All of these missiles have the ability to reject decoy flares. I give them a much higher probability of kill (PK) than any other missile.
3. PK for the radar missiles are low. In real live combat vs. poor threats, the U.S. AIM-120 PK is around 50 percent. The SU-35 counters this with cross-eye jamming from the wing tips. The SU-35 will also have the performance to reduce the no-escape-zone (NEZ) of enemy missiles before and after they have been fired. Half of 50 percent and then half of that again for the AIM-120 PK.
The nose-on low observability of the F-35 should be good enough to reduce the R-77 down to a poor PK. The distinction of nose-on aspect is important. That is the location of the F-35's low observable strength. The low-observable qualities of the F-35 are matched to be effective against the frequency band of this kind of threat.
4. Both aircraft will be detected. The SU does not have enough low observable quality. The F-35 will not be able to be stealthy against the infra-red-search and track (IRST) and L-band sensors of the big SU.
5. The F-35 does not have the ability to pick its fight once both aircraft are within reach. The SU-35 has the performance to decide when and how it wants to engage the F-35. This concept has not changed since the P-38 and Corsair appeared in the Pacific theater of WWII.
6. The fight assumes that the SU-35 will make it to within-visual-range (WVR) combat. The SU-35 will have a significant agility and performance advantage over the F-35.
7. Both aircraft are networked. Also, network nodes can be geo-located and jammed if support resources exist.
8. Guns are not included in this comparison. Also consider that for some events, the B model and C model F-35 may have left their deck that day without a gun.
From this we can see that HOBS are deadly and that radar missiles can be made ineffective. While the F-35 may carry a lot of external missiles someday, this defeats its reason to exist. Legacy aircraft can do the same. The U.K. (if they ever see their F-35s) will field theirs for internal carry of the AIM-132; a good HOBS missile. I wouldn't depend on the MOD. They are on fiscal death-watch.
In any event, the gross assumptions by the marketing pukes that the F-35 will be lethal in air-to-air combat are just that; marketing.
This goes back to the argument of the F-22; which because of its performance, and stealth quality, is the only aircraft with a chance of being survivable against, yes, "next-generation" threats.
I think it is fair to say that when some people opine that the real limitation to the F-35 is cost and sustainment, they fail to address that what is being marketed is a death-trap against threats the aircraft is likely to see over its alleged service life.
13 comments:
This is the type of quantitative analysis that is revealing. Not just throw away lines of 'simulations have bene conducted'. Of course, the limitations for us are lack of classified information, knowledge of tactics and the assumptions we have to therefore make.
To throw a few points out there, I think this post identifies a few key areas where we could use some more information.
To begin, detection. How stealthy is the F-35? How stealthy is the SU? How stealthy are they to each others AEW systems? I would argue that the F-35 is probably stealthier than people give it credit for, but that's my opinion of course. Stealth is of course a sliding scale. To me, the point where you are 'not stealthy' is where you can be launched on by your opponent outside of your own max range. 'very stealthy' would be you're not going to be detected until you've timed out your missiles.
Good discussion!
Rex
Following on from this point, is how effective is the Flankers IRST? How effectie is it against a forward hemisphere afterburning and non-afterburning target? Does it suffer from look-down issues over an IR clutter enviroment? Can it be used to cue weapons? Is it suseptible to flares? As an aside point, the F-35 also has EOTS, which may/may not have similar limitations. Again, the relevant question are 'at what range compared to weapon engagement timelines does the IRST detect the F-35?'.
Next I think we need to consider a comparison of BVR Weapons. In this case, R-77 vs. AIM-120. What's the RMax of each? What's the Rne of each? What's the A-Pole of each? Will the tiny radar seeker in each be able to find the target despite its stealthy characteristics?
The big questionon missiles is A-Pole's. How to A-Pole's compare to a potential kinematic abort range? Ie. either jet achieve A-Pole while remaining outside a range that they know they can turn cold and kinematically defeat the missile that has been launched against them? A-Pole may also include considertions such as offboard targeting. My argument here would be in support of the AIM-120, a mature missile that has been mass-produced. AA-12 has been passed over by many buyers and has not enjoyed the funds to be developed/tested like the AIM-120.
It would also be cool if we knew the jam characteristics of the datalinks. Legacy Link-16 at least is frequency hopping so I don't know how easily another fighter could jam it.... The F-35 will of course have it's own more mature datalink. The network nodes could be geo-located, but being the jet's they're moving pretty quick.
The ability of an F-35 to withdraw from the fight based on its performance. F-35 with internal stores is a pretty non-draggy configuration. A SU with lots of externals will have a huge drag index. Further the F-35 carries loads of internal fuel. What this means to me is that an F-35 WILL have the option to at range, turn cold and sprint. Now the SU with its draggy config may be able to accelerate to a few 0.1mach higher than the F-35 but that would be considered by padding the abort range. An overtake of 0.2-3 mach will take a LONG time to run down a jet in afterburner, all the while the SU is being dragged from his own territory and toward more defences (other fighters/SAMs). A smart F-35 driver at this stage would have launched on the SU before turning cold, so if the SU doesn't honour that and give it away, he'll blow up.
Into the WVR arena, we're saying the F-35 isn't carrying any heaters. I wonder how much having external AIM-9x's on the outboard stations will increase RCS and drag? They're pretty small...
The assumption was made that the SU has significant agility over the F-35. I haven't seen anything to support this. The F-35 loadout out is low-drag, it's 9g capable and it has a big motor. I'm betting it's rate is pretty good. It's radius will depend a lot on its flight control software and ability to be controlled under high AoA. The F-35 EOTS is spherical coverage, I wonder if it could cue a LOAL AIM-9X? SU looks pretty at airshows with min fuel and no weapons.
Rex
One more point! I would argue that if you wouldn't want to send out a 4-aircraft self-escort-strike of F-35's with 2-AMRAAMS apiece against a known CAP of 4-Flankers with rockets up the Kazoo.
If the 4-ship of strikers came up unawares against a defence like that, they should turn and run!
In order to roll the flankers, a smart person would send a forward escort of 4 more F-35's with 4x2 loadout. The strikers would then be able to clena up any leakers with their own 2 AMRAAMs.
Rex
So far what we see from the F-35 is a falling roll that looks like a pregnant whale. 9G? Maybe. Depending on limits put on the design considering they are still figuring out fatigue. And it has the wing loading of an F-105.
And while airshows are airshows, they do show performance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJPDiRNpMmI&feature=player_detailpage#t=193s
Physical size (your external AIM-9x) comment) doesn't have much to do with RCS. Shaping has more of an influence.
The AMRAAM (or any radar missile) has to get through either L.O. or jamming. Good luck with that.
Once the F-35 fires off its 2 AMRAAMs, it doesn't have much.
And, they still have to clear weapons with this aircraft.
F-35 and fuel? Yes. Also consider F-35 and weight.
su-3x family has huge tail section storage.
It can carry a lot of different options. flare, radar, and of course much bigger tow decoy.
so even discounting future much more capable computer/radar/jamming. The sheer carrying ability is nothing to laugh at.
Imagine F-18G that can also carry enough big weapons.
And pak-fa has even bigger nose and tail storage volume.
incidentally,
on thing that I keep asking in my mind and wonder if anybody has the answer...
suppose it's 2v1 or 3v2 dog fight with F-35 outnumbered. The general theory is that speed and BVR will kill.
But what happen if the russian is using one fighter for highspeed while the other wingman do the really slow dance and point his nose every which way. The window of opportunity for accurate weapon pointing is beyond comprehension.
This is not something that traditional dog fight-chase strategy can solve.
I for one think from now on, everybody should use 5th generation strictly because a fighter has a.more than 1 thrust to weight ratio. b.TVC c.enclosed weapon/low radar return. (bla bla nifty electronic/cockpit ain;t it.)
F-35 is as gen 5 as F-15 silent eagle or coated Su-35.
Doesn't matter what your platform in an 'outnumbered dogfight'. Unless you have HOBS and they don't, you're screwed.
The trick is not getting into that situation. As long as pilots maintain SA, there's no reason to be forced to a merge.
Rex
I imagine that the F-35 pilots would limit their use of afterburner at close range. The F-135 afterburner also has a 50% setting.
The Su-35 certainly has a large IR signature with its 2 engines and no LOAN exhaust.
With proper tactics the F-35 will have first detection and engagement opportunity.
What's more a long range shot has a much better pk if the launch aircraft can guide its missiles during its entire flight, which should be the case with a stealthy a/c because it's far less likely to be subject to counter attack. In the same situation an F-15/16/18 would be forced to break the lock and a lot of missiles would be lost.
This being said I'm all for an IR AMRAAM and double shots, one IR and one RF per Su per pass. The 2 types of seekers would increase the cumulative pk to perhaps 50-75% IF the F-35 is able to guide them until impact.
With 6 internal AMRAAM-D2s with a range of about 130-140km - 3 IR, 3 RF - and with double shots, the F-35 should be able to have a pretty good exchange ratio.
Unfortunately there is no IR AMRAAM...
With proper tactics the F-35 will have first detection and engagement opportunity."
unlikely. The element of surprise will not be there.
1. the aircraft carrier will be detected. (we are not talking about dog fight over Arizona or some european airbase here. But serious air war. Satellite watching, UAV circling, early warning fly continuously, ship patrol. eg. pacific)
So all F-35 launchpad point will be known and calculated up to minute.
2. The number of F-35 launched will also be known. Or at least can be guess from launch pad capacity.
3. F-35 has no range and fairly "chatty" plane. So again, one can guess from tankers position and electronic chat volume where and when the combat target is.
.... so that's what? half the problem solved? you know roughly number of planes, time, direction, and probable targets...
enter Su-35 escorted with J-20. All are long range with more weapons ...
Did I mention Su-30 can launch brahmo class anti ship missile. (or super long range anti tanker/early warning missiles) depending how you see it. we are talking about 200-300nm weapon range here. Where are you going to park your refueling tanker? Japan's air space while having a war in Korea or taiwan?
...right. I am not sure how that suppose to go. So what if F-35 is completely invisible all the way up to somebody's nose... The other guy still win. The F-35 won't have enough fuel to fly back.
The "Six-Shooter" F-35 (internal A-A missile carry of 6) is just a study and some cute graphics on a PowerPoint slide. They have to get the basics figured out first. Like clearing weapons.
And there is that single-point of failure thing with the AMRAAM.
I doubt the SU-35 will be a compliant target.
I am not a fan of the F-35 and rather would like to see resumption of production of an upgraded F-22 which may come with a new Republican President, but think that when the f-35 is fielded in greater numbers if this ever happens which may be around 2018 it may have a chance in the air-to-air role if the internalization of 6 AAMRams takes place which according to one blogger is part of a block 5 upgrade. Also, if the JDRAM is fielded at that time, it may have a much better missile at its disposal. Also, by that time the Israeli F-35s may have there own advanced AAMs integrated. Where the F-35 will fall short is its range and its short weapon bay which will result in lower range missiles compared to the J-20 and Pakfa. It seems to me that in the 21st century missile technology will much more determine the outcome of an air-to-air engagement than the actual platform which could mean that in 2025 an Awacs plane equipped with next generation long-range JDRAMs would be as lethal to the PAKFA as the PAKFA to the AWACS plane. At the end it may more important to acquire large number of advanced AAMS than spending billions of dollars on the next 6th generation stealth fighter.
missiles is fairly dumb. consider this, suppose I fly a UAV that has air frame smaller exact replica of SU-31. Except it's nothing but hollow fiber glass with small cruise missile engine.
Now suppose I use this UAV as sacrificial vehicles and load it up with 4-5 anti missiles weapons.
Then what? You gonna shoot a$200K decoy UAV using a 2-3 $100K missiles. How many missiles you have left while a heavy fighter still on your tail?
The first good use of smarter long range high agility UAV capable of flying in formation is for decoy in large air battle.
Missiles will be too dumb to know the difference. 4-5 of them will chase a single decoy UAV.
^^ A MALI/ MALD
Post a Comment