F-35 on board USS Wasp

[thewood1]

This was a full operational test of six F-35Bs going through 130 sorties and all the realistic logistics and maintenance encompassing a full operational tour. Just some F-35 porn, but also a good look into deck operations on an LHA.

https://youtu.be/zv6SRY5Zj3g

Just to point out the obvious...this isn't just some PR from a company. These are operational aircraft in a real unit on a real ship on a real cruise. Love it or hate it, the F-35 is operational and on real deployments.

[wild_Willie2]

I find it strangely relaxing that nobody on this site immediately starts yammering that "the F-35 is a piece of sh*t" as soon as something is posted about it. I always have to laugh out loud when these "experts" start arguing that upgraded F-15's, F-16's and A-10's are a much better choice then buying F-35's to replace them... Clearly, they have never tried fighting these non stealth legacy AC against the latest Russian AC designs and SAM systems in a war game

W.

[ckfinite]

I should note that the F-35B isn't actually operational at this very moment - that was OT-1, which was a few weeks. IOC will be declared (if everything goes well) in another week or so. It'll still be some time before they actually fly in combat though, probably circa 2018.

USAF is the next, with IOC planned for next year (with block 3i software), followed by the USN in 2017 with block 3f.

[Primarchx]

I don't mind the F-35, but I wish they hadn't pushed the STOVL design limitations onto the F-35A/C. The STOVL version should of been a separate design.

[ckfinite]

but I wish they hadn't pushed the STOVL design limitations onto the F-35A/C. The STOVL version should of been a separate design

They didn't really - the F-35B's limits aren't really reflected on the A/C (e.g. 1000lb bomb carriage). The STOVL's only real impact on the other two was the volume that's currently filled up by a fuel tank. The CATOBAR F-35C imposed many more issues on the other two, however, since it needed a lot more changes (larger wing, stronger undercarriage, tailhook, strengthened fuselage). It's even the most expensive of the 3.

[Yokes]

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

I find it strangely relaxing that nobody on this site immediately starts yammering that "the F-35 is a piece of sh*t" as soon as something is posted about it. I always have to laugh out loud when these "experts" start arguing that upgraded F-15's, F-16's and A-10's are a much better choice then buying F-35's to replace them... Clearly, they have never tried fighting these non stealth legacy AC against the latest Russian AC designs and SAM systems in a war game

W.

At the risk of turning this thread into a another example of irrational internet drivel... (please keep it civil folks)

I am not a fan of the F-35 for lots of reasons, but I wanted to specifically ask about people's experience with "stealth" in Command. Personally, I find it a bit ... underwhelming.

Specifically, I have a hard time going toe-to-toe against modern aircraft using F-35s and F-22s while remaining undetected. Especially when VHF radars are in use. The VHF radars get an approximate fix on me at long range, which cues the fighters with IR sensors to localize and shoot at me with IR-guided weapons. I still have an advantage, but not so much of an advantage to justify the reduced number of aircraft I can afford (due to stealth).

Stealth against older aircraft? Clubbing baby seals. But I can do that with F-15s too...

I also got the impression from various books/media that using a B-2 should allow you to waltz through enemy territory so long as you didn't play chicken with enemy fighters or buzz radars. My experience with Command has been very different. Sending a B-2 within 50 miles of a SAM radar was a great way to turn $2 billion into scrap metal.

So, anyone have similar experiences? Or am I just bad at using stealth?

(Before you ask, yes, I was using the "internal only" loadouts. I also understand the value of "sneaking around" to get flank/rear shots, but that is not always an option when you are, for example, protecting a HVA.)

Yokes

[Yokes]

ORIGINAL: ckfinite

but I wish they hadn't pushed the STOVL design limitations onto the F-35A/C. The STOVL version should of been a separate design

They didn't really - the F-35B's limits aren't really reflected on the A/C (e.g. 1000lb bomb carriage). The STOVL's only real impact on the other two was the volume that's currently filled up by a fuel tank. The CATOBAR F-35C imposed many more issues on the other two, however, since it needed a lot more changes (larger wing, stronger undercarriage, tailhook, strengthened fuselage). It's even the most expensive of the 3.

The A/C aircraft are compromised by the horrible aerodynamic design required to fit the B's lift fan behind the cockpit. It's the poor aerodynamics that result in the EM deficiency of the aircraft highlighted by the recent "F-35 versus F-16D" report recently leaked.

Primarchx is correct that the A and C models could have been decent aircraft if they had been purpose-designed for their role and not connected with the (IMHO useless) STOVL requirement from the Marines.

However, developing three unique aircraft at the same time was never going to be acceptable due to the price that would have come with it. (Oh the irony!) Plus, the Marines knew they would never get the public/congress/DOD/anyone with critical thinking skills to allow them to design/build a STOVL fighter in isolation. So they very smartly tied their (again, IMHO useless) requirement for STOVL to the very real need for the replacement of F-16s and A-10s (both in the US and abroad). DARPA played ball with their "affordable" [8|] all-in-one fighter study, and Lockheed Martin pulled off the most masterful "too big to fail/porkbarrel politics" campaign of all time, and presto: F-35 today!

This is dangerously close to becoming a rant, so I better stop now before I become one of those internet trolls I hate so much.

Yokes

[SeaQueen]

So, anyone have similar experiences? Or am I just bad at using stealth?

Yes I have, and it depends.

First off, consider the threat. SA-2s versus 5th generation stealth aircraft, or a B-2 probably shouldn't do so well. SA-20s on the other hand... even stealth aircraft probably ought to be careful. Similarly MiG-25s against 5th generation stealth aircraft probably won't do so good. On the other hand, Su-35s might be more challenging.

Furthermore, stealth aircraft work best when you still have all the supporting aircraft to provide ECM support to them. That means you need EA-6s, EA-18s, EF-111, EC-130 or similar aircraft to provide jamming support. You also probably also want support from E-2 or E-3 aircraft to provide them with an early warning.

Even with all that, stealth has it's limitations. As you've noticed, it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of detection. Typically, it just reduces the range at which you're detected. If you have a good estimate of how far away they can see you, then that indeed opens up the possibility of simply flying around the threat SAMs.

As the shoot down of the F-117 in Croatia demonstrated, though, stealth is not magic shield that protects you from everything. It definitely helps, but if you use it crudely, it won't help that much.

[Primarchx]

Stealth a/c work best using passive and off-board active sensors + electronic warfare support. Use off-axis approaches to minimize detection vulnerability and launch your weapons in a way that limits launch detection. Don't get closer than you have to (there's a reason AIM-9X hasn't been fully fitted to the Raptor fleet yet...). Stealth doesn't remove the critical need for SEAD, it should just make it easier.

[Cheechako]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Stealth a/c work best using passive and off-board active sensors + electronic warfare support. Use off-axis approaches to minimize detection vulnerability and launch your weapons in a way that limits launch detection. Don't get closer than you have to (there's a reason AIM-9X hasn't been fully fitted to the Raptor fleet yet...). Stealth doesn't remove the critical need for SEAD, it should just make it easier.

Yup, I use the same general setup. I try to fly around high end SAMs or make a point to neutralize them first. Stealth isn't an I win button... you still have to use tactics and support aircraft to make your stealth aircraft effective.

[cf_dallas]

Really good article on Foxtrot Alpha a couple months ago talking about what the Marines would have to do to make the F-35B worth the huge cost (financial, aerodynamic and otherwise) of the STOVL requirement.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/7-thin ... 1560672069

[thewood1]

A lot of this comes back to realizing stealth isn't single thing that was suddenly invented as a "cloak of invisibility". It is really about making the radar system/operator see something different than they are looking for. Go from someone looking at the readout saying, "enemy aircraft at 12:00 high"...to someone saying, "Hey, what was that? Is it a flock of birds". Or it might be something that makes a missiles' tracking system see something below the threshold of a lock.

The F-35 is not supposed or going to be invisible to all radars. It is supposed to make it a little harder. It will be very mission-dependent and enemy dependent on how successful it can do that.

[Randomizer]

Using CMANO to model the F-35 in combat

[mikeCK]

I think many are concentrating too much on the stealth features of the F-35. One of its biggest advantages is not the stealth but is own detection systems. It can see you long before you see it...which means generally, the f-35 decides whether to fight and if it wants to fight, obtain an advantageous position. The new helmet visor displays the location of all enemy radars and aircraft in a full 360 degree bubble around the aircraft. The pilot can "look through" the bottom of his plane and see any aircraft or objects highlighted with their speed, altitude, direction, etc. The trick is to not just fly as close as you can get to radar....the plane shows the different radar emissions and assists in plotting a course through the weakest parts. All of this info and targets displayed for the pilot need not be detected by his radar either...it is networked with all of the other planes in the sky. So the F-35 sees you long before you see it, dictates the engagement and knows where everything in the area is at all times even if it hasn't been detected by that plane

It's the information that is made available to the pilot combined with the advanced radar and stealth that make the F-35 so good. In addition, with the new off-bore sight technologies, traditional energy maintenance in a turning fight becomes less important as it isn't necessary to maintain your nose pointed at the enemy. In an F-35, I can see you, orient myself, launch an attack and -in short spurts- super cruise to another location without you detecting anything but my incoming missiles

Don't look at it like a generation 4+ aircraft with stealth. That's like suggesting an iPhone is worse than a 2005 phone because it's bigger and there are no buttons. It's entirely different technology

[ckfinite]

The A/C aircraft are compromised by the horrible aerodynamic design required to fit the B's lift fan behind the cockpit.

I'm interested - how does adding a few cubic meters of volume to the front of the fuselage drive the entire aerodynamic design of the aircraft? The aircraft was always going to be about the same width and length (see following diagram), due to the size and volume of the internal stores and the need for serpentine intakes. How, exactly, did the lift fan's volume compromise performance?



If anything, the CATOBAR requirement was actually the nasty one, too. This was the LM CALF (JSF predecessor, STOVL and conventional takeoff) proposal:



And here's the progression of designs:



The F-35C's CATOBAR requirement was harder to fill than the STOVL's, driving a more conventional design. I think that this was because the F-35C is so much more radically different than either of the other two.



This is caused by a lot of things, including a much stronger fuselage, a larger wing, the totally different undercarriage, and the tailhook.

It's the poor aerodynamics that result in the EM deficiency of the aircraft highlighted by the recent "F-35 versus F-16D" report recently leaked

Have you actually read the report that Axe selectively quoted from? The pilot was addressing the effects of some absolutely brand new control law changes, not trying to dogfight. Specifically, he found that in high AoA positions, positions only made possible by control law changes made weeks before, a lot of energy was bled off. Furthermore, another complaint Axe highlighted was insufficient yaw control - control that, if you read the actual report, was available but inaccessible thanks to the control laws. These changes culminated in other BFM testing, where the F-35 performed much better. The F-35's flight control software needed evolution, and tests like that inform the software development.

This was essentially telling the pilot "go out and test the software," in a plane that isn't really representative of the final product (AF-2 is limited to just 5G, for just one example). It didn't have much bearing on the F-35's overall performance at all.

[charlee22009]

Please, please read AirPower Australia's work on the F-35. It's fantastic and goes into more detail about the LO realities, according to aspect and wavelength, than you would probably find in any other declassified text.

I'm not 100% sure on what is really 'correct' (how could I be) but AP Aus's work is better than I've read anywhere else... my 2 cents.

[ckfinite]

APA is quite bad. Kopp, the author of most of the material, is hopelessly biased against the F-35 for a complex set of reasons (mostly, it appears that he tried to sell the RAAF on an F-111 upgrade instead). As a result of this, he tries to denigrate the F-35's capabilities in every possible way.

Let's look at one example, his RCS article on it. He estimates the RCS based entirely on eyeballing it and derives a number totally at odds with everything released about it - a act made worse by the high quality computer modelling he did for the PAK-FA.

If you have an article of his that you think is particularly good, please link it.

[thewood1]

Yeah, be very careful with the APA site. His credibility has taken a beating. At tis point he is almost shrill. If you look at what he has said historically about other aircraft, you can see the pattern.

[cf_dallas]

ORIGINAL: ckfinite

APA is quite bad. Kopp, the author of most of the material, is hopelessly biased against the F-35 for a complex set of reasons (mostly, it appears that he tried to sell the RAAF on an F-111 upgrade instead). As a result of this, he tries to denigrate the F-35's capabilities in every possible way.

Yeah, Kopp and David Axe are both in the same boat for me. I like all their non F35 articles, but anything related to F35 is selectively researched at best and comes off as shouting "I told you so."

I thought Kopp's conflict of interest was that he has an ownership stale in the company that sell Hornet spares/support to the RAAF? Either way, giant grain of salt.

[charlee22009]

Thank you. I did not know that about apa. I thought that rcs article was reliable first time I read it.

Is there another open source for detailed information about the f-35? Not general but very detailed?
Thanks for the heads up.