Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

F-35 Lightning II : News & Discussions

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picard, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Such as looking at advantages and disadvantages of different technologies, capabilities and approaches taken. You are just looking at advantages or disadvantages. A perfect example is the radar/IRST discussion. You are looking at the two specific advantages that IRST sensors enjoy over radars, but you intentionally ignore the advantages that radars offer over IRSTs. You claim to be aware of the limitations of IRSTs and I in fact trust you on that, even if it is just because I have told you so several dozen times already. But even with that awareness your arguments are solely centred around these two specific advantages of IRST sensors and everything else is being intentionally blanked out. Why? Because these factual limitations of IRSTs and disadvantages relative to radars would errode your argument to a significant extend. And that's just one of countless examples.

    No by ignoring several relevant factors and centering your arguments around a very narrow subset of specific attributes only, even as you are aware of the fact that they aren't even remotely the sole factors and often enough not the most important ones either. See the IRST/radar examples cited above.

    And how do you determine what is useful and what isn't? You claim radars and radar guided missiles are "unproven" and "doesn't work", but claim at the same time that IRSTs and A2A-ARMs are "the solution". The radar tech exists since ages and has evolved considerably and was actually used in combat. IRSTs and A2A-ARMs exists since a long time too and have been evolving, but neither has ever been used in combat and thus neither of these technologies are combat proven at all, while radars and radar guided missiles are, albeit with a not so stellar statistical record for the latter in particular. You yet assert that IRSTs and A2A-ARMs are going to work better. These arguments that you have repeated countless times are solely based on the assumption that it works, when there is no actual proof that they actually do! I want to stress that I don't say they won't work, but whether they work as well or even better remains yet to be validated and thus confirmed in real combat operations.

    Doesn't change the fact that you hate both the F-22 and F-35 and that you talk about all negative aspects of these programmes and aircraft itself only, while you rarely if ever loose a bad word about the other aircraft in these discussions. You either deny obvious advantages of the F-22 and F-35 and try to talk them away with all kind of fake arguments.

    You have explained why you think that stealth is useless. But these explainations are largely centered around some pretty generic assumptions and oversimplified comparisons of factors that must not be seen in isolation, as well as false assertions. Wrt sortie rate you are once again coming up with generic assumptions in the first place and little factual data to bolster your claims, especially wrt the F-35. You make claims like the F-35 will have longer maintenance down times and lower sortie generation rates because it is stealthy and complex. Ignoring implications that many modern technologies have on maintainability, such as more durable components with longer life times and better MTBF values, automatic self diagnostic systems and onboard life monitoring systems which reduce the maintenance burden considerably etc. In the end you don't really know whether the F-35 will require more maintenance, what its availability is going to be or its sortie generation rate. You assume it to be worse and maybe it turns out to be worse in comparison to predecessors and possible competitors but that's not a proven fact at all and in fact a little bit too premature to conclude yet. Doesn't stop you from repeating these arguments over and over again, without giving consideration to everything that may threaten your rather fixed view of how the world (should) look like.

    Maybe but you try to maintain this position at all cost, irrespective of whether you make a fool out of yourself by constant denial and/or ignorance of facts. Every time I have taken the wind out of your sails threads have stalled and died rather quickly. But that's no problem for you, just launch a new thread with a different title and maybe a new article/link in the opening post and start over again, repeating the same old tired arguements, despite being aware of the weak to non existent base they are built on. You claim to know, but despite this awareness you choose to ignore for the sake of maintaining your present position.
     
  2. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    3,023
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Wrong. There are advantages and disadvantages for every sensor, but not all are equally important. Warning your opponent of your presence far before he could have detected you otherwise is a very large tactical disadvantage. IRST does not do that, and unlike optical sensors, it works at night too.

    IRST may not be proven in a war, but it is either IRST or MkI eyeball, as one of first things radar has proven is that it is excellent for warning the enemy of your presence and directiom. And I have never claimed that radar itself is unproven technology; as for missiles, neither radar guided missiles or anti-radiation missiles are proven to work, but anti-radiation missiles bring far smaller tactical disadvantages to the side using them.

    Radars yes, radar-guided missiles do exist for quite some time, but have never proven themselves reliable, except when not needed.

    Agreed. But war experience since WW2 on has proven that side able to see the enemy at long distance while remaining passive has the advantage.

    I am asserting that they will be far more useful assuming they work, and there is no reason to suspect that IRST will not work, whereas anti-radiation missiles already exist, albeit ones of A2A variety have never been deployed outside exercises.

    No technology works as well in war as it does in tests; but passive sensors have simpler detection process (receive -> process) as opposed to active ones (send -> receive -> process), and can thus be assumed to be more reliable, as well as harder to counter. Additionally, there are tactical advantages in staying passive.

    If you have read my posts carefully, you would have noticed it is not exactly true. I don't like J-20 either, and I'm not happy with many aspects of F-15 and Su-27 variants. I talk more about F-22 and F35 though, for several reasons:
    1) F-22 is only operational stealth aircraft, and thus has a lot of data avaliable; F-35 is also close to being inducted to service (it already is in LRIP), whereas J-20 and PAK FA are, AFAIK, not yet in production. Furthermore, Russians and Chinese are tad bit more secretive than Americans, making data on F-22 and F-35 easier to find.
    2) Croatia is a member of NATO. Thus, state of US armed forces is quite relevant to us.
    3) F-35 is going to be exported to many members of NATO, making it even more relevant. However, F-22 and F-35 programmes have many similarities, so F-22 programme can be used to predict and analyze F-35 one.
    4) Many people don't understand that technology is not everything in war. F-22 is very technology-heavy, and F-35 even more so.

    If I have compared them isolated, it does not mean I have not considered what they mean together.

    Assumptions are based on hard facts. More complexity > more maintenance.

    That is true for many modern aircraft, which means that stealth F-35 is still at disadvantage. And you can reduce impact of complexity only so much.

    Noone does. All Lockheed Martin's estimates are based on comparing it to the F-16. However, F-35 is based on F-22 - albeit more complex - and thus it makes more sense to base estimates on avaliable F-22 data.

    As I have said before, impact of F-35s complexity and size can be reduced only so much.


    Facts being?

    This thread was about F-35 exports, irrespective of where it ended up, so I don't see your point...
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
    samsonight likes this.
  3. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    And what exactly was wrong?

    It's not like aircraft such as the F-22 or F-35 have been designed to solely rely on active sensors only or the other way round that all other aircraft have been designed with no active sensors in mind. The use of sensors is always a question of tactical considerations. If you can use the radar on top of other sensors and data sources you have one more sensor option to use at your disposal. And the assumption that a contemporary RWR will always detect a radar before the radar detects its carrier is as false and foolish as the assumption that LPI makes radar transmissions invisible. And the ability to detect targets at night doesn't equal all weather capability either. This later part (IRST peformance at night) is yet another good example how you try to somehow talk away something.

    And how many aircraft has been shot down because they were betraying there position with a radar in real combat? Of course there is a risk that this may happen, even more so today than in the past, likewise you are equally at risk of being targeted and even attacked by the active radar opponent while yourself just know that something must be out there in that direction. And ARMs have a number of tactical disadvantages, if your foe doesn't radiate the missile is useless and if the foe ceases radiation a fired ARM will fail in any case. An active missile also offers a passive option and that's far more flexible than being passive only.

    When not needed? So shooting down enemies in combat at distances where IR missiles are mostly ineffective is not needed? Well of course you could close in to give your opponent a fair fight, but trust me any pilot will choose option one and only resorts to option two if option one either fails or is not applicable for whatever reason.

    And how many passive parties have ultimately succeeded in real air battles? Where is that historical evidence which proves your assertion?

    I have no doubt that IRSTs work either, but I doubt they are good enough to replace radars yet, if ever. A better alternative in certain tactical situations, certainly yes, but always the better choice? No! A2AARMs are not even confirmed to have ever made it to production stage.

    The "sent" part is the easiest of all. The receiving and processing parts are more critical and at times of AESA technology that "reliability" claim is rather questionable at best. And harder to counter is only partially true, you don't jam the transmissions of a radar but confuse the receiver.



    If you have read my posts carefully, you would have noticed it is not exactly true. I don't like J-20 either, and I'm not happy with many aspects of F-15 and Su-27 variants. I talk more about F-22 and F35 though, for several reasons:
    1) F-22 is only operational stealth aircraft, and thus has a lot of data avaliable; F-35 is also close to being inducted to service (it already is in LRIP), whereas J-20 and PAK FA are, AFAIK, not yet in production. Furthermore, Russians and Chinese are tad bit more secretive than Americans, making data on F-22 and F-35 easier to find.
    2) Croatia is a member of NATO. Thus, state of US armed forces is quite relevant to us.
    3) F-35 is going to be exported to many members of NATO, making it even more relevant. However, F-22 and F-35 programmes have many similarities, so F-22 programme can be used to predict and analyze F-35 one.
    4) Many people don't understand that technology is not everything in war. F-22 is very technology-heavy, and F-35 even more so.



    If I have compared them isolated, it does not mean I have not considered what they mean together.



    Assumptions are based on hard facts. More complexity > more maintenance.



    That is true for many modern aircraft, which means that stealth F-35 is still at disadvantage. And you can reduce impact of complexity only so much.



    Noone does. All Lockheed Martin's estimates are based on comparing it to the F-16. However, F-35 is based on F-22 - albeit more complex - and thus it makes more sense to base estimates on avaliable F-22 data.



    As I have said before, impact of F-35s complexity and size can be reduced only so much.




    Facts being?



    This thread was about F-35 exports, irrespective of where it ended up, so I don't see your point...[/QUOTE]
     
  4. Vritra

    Vritra Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    908
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Mistral-class AAH/LHD is one of the types on offer for IN's requirements for 4 such vessels. LPDs are also seen as a requirement in the future, most probably indigenous production designed with foreign consultancy.

    But you are right as far as fixed-wing aircraft go: only transport, attack, AEW and utility rotary wings are planned for LPD and LHD ships. MiG-29K and N-LCA will operate from Vikramaditya and Vikrant, while Vishaal will launch heavier AEW and winner of the N-MRCA tender. There's only niche the F-35 can fill here is VTOL fixed-wing, for which there is no need.
     
  5. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Well even if we do get a Mistral class or similar ships
    i believe we wont operate any fighter from it,

    helicopters be it attack or transport
    will be the extent of air support it will have.
     
  6. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    3,023
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Entire point of your statement.

    F-22 has no IRST and I have found no plans for it to be fitted... F-35 has IRST but it is ground attack aircraft, not a fighter.

    So does your enemy, while staying completely passive.

    Nothing is flawless, but yes, as a rule, RWR made with same technology as radar will detect radar in question.

    I didn't try to talk away from anything, point is, if you use radar yourself, your opponent does not need it.

    What was the last time one side wasn't hopelessly outclassed in everything, including numbers?

    That knowledge is enough, and enemy radar provides enough info for targeting, either by ARMs or BVR IR missiles, while solving that pesky IFF issue too...

    If foe doesn't radiate, ARMs have already done their part.

    "Passive" option on active missile usually involves launch platform using its own radar. As for ARM, I have suggested IR seeker, with AR one being used only to get it close enough to the target for IR one to take over. True, that can be achieved via uplink from launch platform too, without need for multiple seekers...

    "When not needed", as in, "we outnumber enemy, have better crews and more agile aircraft". If you do a research on US theories, you'll notice that radar-guided missiles have been lauded as a way of establishing a superiority against qualitatively comparable (as far as crews are concerned) and numerically superior opponent (for aircraft designed around BVR combat are always more expensive than ones designed around either WVR combat or a "balanced approach"; YF-16 vs Typhoon vs F-22).

    It was useful, yes, but it was not needed for a lopsided victory.

    And "whatever reason" is almost guaranteed against better armed and more numerous opponents than what United States have faced in last 20 years, and once that happens, numbers start to matter even more than usual. And stealth fighters are expensive, and maintenance-intensive, greatly reducing number that can be fielded at any single time.

    It was a naval combat, but check battles around Kula and Vella-Lavella. And "Battle of Tasafaronga", to see why training is more important than technology.

    In WW2, greater industrial capacity and numbers US were able to field decided a war with Japan. US Marines didn't completely replace Spriengfield with Garand until 1944. Both M1 Garand and Gewehr 43 were very complex rifles, but United States could produce M1 in large enough numbers; and while complex, it was cheaper to produce than German MG-43, for example. Gewehr 43 was also produced in large number, but not nearly as large enough.

    Well, radar will probably remain better alternative for shooting down heavy bombers...

    It is actually "send-reflect-receive-process", which makes it two parts that can be influenced by the enemy, as opposed to one for IRST - and that one cannot really be influenced in any major way due to nature of IRST.
     
    samsonight likes this.
  7. Skull and Bones

    Skull and Bones Doctor Death Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    Country Flag:
    India
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    In my view, if i have to go in a combat zone, i'll feel much safer inside a F-22 than any other fighter out there.
     
    2 people like this.
  8. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Just don't attack anyone or get too close to them.
     
    samsonight likes this.
  9. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    3,023
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Unless you decide to engage someone or enemy has VHF radars... as I have said about F-22: equip it with IRST and use it for scouting. IRST-equipped non-VLO aircraft are for air superiority.
     
    samsonight likes this.
  10. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Here are the differences, can a F35 takeoff vertically and fly away like a harrier. No, its too heavy.

    Can an F35 carry weapons and fuel (not full amount) like a Harrier and takeoff vertically. No, still too heavy.

    Can a F35 use its VTOL system to aid in maneuvering like the Harrier. No, too complex.


    Only thing F35 has is stealth and supersonic speed which is not good either way and F35 has more range due to being a flying fuel bomb that cant perform. If the Harrier had two engines it would outperform the F35, maybe in stealth also, damn I wish they had made a new Harrier.
     
    samsonight likes this.
  11. Skull and Bones

    Skull and Bones Doctor Death Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    Country Flag:
    India
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Obviously, but airborne platforms can't have HVF radars, and it's resolution is too poor to guide a missile, it short it can detect it, but can't engage it. And range of IRST will barely cross 60 km under normal atmospheric conditions.

    Advantage: F-22 :mrgreen:

    Even Harriers with full weapons load and fuel cant do Vertical take off.
     
  12. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    3,023
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Yeah, F-22 will have advantage in dying. It has to either rely on its radar or on offboard sensors as it doesn't have IRST. As soon as it turns radar on, it will get shot, uplinks can be jammed, and even without any of that, BVR missiles don't get above 10% Pk.

    And 60 kilometers is more than enough.
     
    samsonight likes this.
  13. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    I cant see the 4th page, everytime i click for the 4th page I am sent beck to the 3rd. Thats fjuuuuu :fuu: .......strating
     
  14. Skull and Bones

    Skull and Bones Doctor Death Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    Country Flag:
    India
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Back in the gulf war, BVR has 27% strike rate, must be above 60% now. And recently MBDA claimed 100% success rate for their Meteor.

    And Jamming AESA isn't someone's everyday job, and next to impossible for any airborne target because it lacks the back-end processing.. specially the radar of F-22s caliber.
     
  15. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Not on a full load but they can takeoff vertically with missiles and fuel for short range.

    Check it out:



    ^^^^^ VTOL, F35 is a STOVL aka Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing.

    EDIT: The F35 cant takeoff from LPDs :facepalm:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014
    samsonight likes this.

Share This Page