Effective use of F-35A/B/C?

[Eambar]

If you're looking for a scenario where the F-35 is well represented, I recommend Under African Skies. The F-35 is the workhorse of the scenario, used it for everything including ground strafing!

Cheers,

[Dan109]

BTW, concerning the F-35, are there any reliable sources for the dimensions of the internal bays? Concerning stealthy delivery of standoff weapons, not a lot of options. I've only seen the JSM mentioned, but being developed by Norway, I imagine they made it to fit the F-35A, and don't care about the B/C. USN/USMC need a long range standoff weapon in stealth mode, that can skim the water. JSOW is about 16 inches longer than the JSM, which currently makes the SDB-II the best standoff weapon, but it won't obviously skim.

BTW, since all of the weapons abilities are simply software (to my understanding), why wouldn't all F-35As be able to use the JSM? Or are there different physically mounts/connectors for the weapon? Wouldn't NATO partners all be able to share ordinance? Same with the JDAM-ER, the Aussies wanted it, the US cancelled their order (I'm sure Boeing is pissed). BTW, this article shows the JDAM-ER is for the Mk84, as well as the MK42. Maybe the Mk84 wont fit in an F-35A though....length is fine, maybe too fat:

http://www.deagel.com/library/RAAF-FA-18B-Hornet-equipped-with-AIR-5425-JDAM-ER-weapons_m02007031900001.aspx

Would be nice if more firepower needed than the SDB baby bombs.

[Dragon029]

Due to the complexity of the bay's shape (how the inner wall hugs the engine bay), I don't think you'll find decent dimensions for it (not to mention, weapons can't be too close to the length / width of a bay for separation clearance requirements). As for stealthy standoff weapons, JSOW will be internally carried with Block 3F, JSM (and maybe NSM?) are confirmed for internal carriage, JSOW-ER (which has a jet turbine for propulsion) will have the same dimensions as the JSOW. There's also the SOM-J by Turkey which will be carried internally.

Note too that the F-35A and F-35C have the same size weapon bay; only the B has a truncated (in length) bay.

why wouldn't all F-35As be able to use the JSM?

They will be able to - there's no difference on the F-35 airframe / software side of things. The distinction between (eg) Norwegian F-35As and USAF F-35As being able to carry JSMs in CMANO would just be down to the database editors either being lazy (not trying to be rude; it is a massive database to manage) or the editors simulating the fact that the USAF and most JSF operators don't have any plans (to my knowledge, and for now) to acquire JSMs, meaning they'd have none in inventory, wouldn't be training to employ them, etc.

The F-35C / US Navy would probably benefit greatly from being able to use the JSM, but as far as I know it's only being integrated onto the F-35A - it'd fit / work on the F-35C, but they'd need to spend the money on load and separation testing, plus the Navy could just instead use JASSMs / JASSM-ERs, etc launched from further away at targets the F-35C designates.

BTW, this article shows the JDAM-ER is for the Mk84, as well as the MK42. Maybe the Mk84 wont fit in an F-35A though....length is fine, maybe too fat:

The Mk84 with the JDAM-ER wing kit might maybe not fit, but the standard Mk84 GBU-31 does; it's the first and (as of now with Block 3i 'beta' software) only JDAM the F-35A and F-35C can employ (the F-35B has the Mk83 GBU-32 JDAM; all 3 variants can also use the Mk82 GBU-12 LG and AMRAAM today with Block 3i).

[Dan109]

Well, looks like the F-35 will need lots of database updates! cheers for the info.

[Cinnamon]

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

ORIGINAL: Schr75




It´s already in there and have been for some time[:D].
CWDB aircraft # 3105

Hmm.. I can't find it by searching for it under "YF-12"
I do mean the YF not the SR.

Must be my noobness.

Are you looking in DB3000 or CWDB? It's only in the CWDB list, so you wouldn't have it in post Cold War scenarios.

Thanks, knew it was me.

they even modeled the low fuel which requires aerial refueling.
wonder if this was included on the SR...

[Cinnamon]

So Dragon, I take you'd agree with me that the F-35 is the most impressive aircraft in the skies currently?

Granted, you could make a case the F-22 excels in other areas but doesn't have nearly the operational flexibility of the F-35?

[Cik]

Command makes it look pretty good. Command doesn't model a lot of the things that have been habitual problems for it though; maintenance overhead, low numbers, high cost (well, debatable i suppose)

it's biggest weakness is the "low" payload. but the F-16 has the same "problem" and it worked out fine.

the real trick is just having a lot of them. that will be the real test for every user, acquiring sufficient mass for them to be dangerous.

[Cinnamon]

ORIGINAL: Doggie3

If you're looking for a scenario where the F-35 is well represented, I recommend Under African Skies. The F-35 is the workhorse of the scenario, used it for everything including ground strafing!

Cheers,

Hey thanks for this!

[Cinnamon]

Thanks for reminding me!

The B-1 and B-2 and Aegis kind of make up for the lack of armament.
Being able to effectively guide weapons to target from aircraft outside the area is a real bonus

Pilots have been saying the F-35s performance fully loaded is significantly better than an F-16 with the same armament, I'll need to find the video..

[Cik]

cross-platform datalinking is cool and all but the same is possible with your HAVE QUICK UHF radio. granted it's a little faster but it's still pretty much the same as creating a steerpoint at MGRS/lat/long and then blasting it. counting always on the fact that strategic bombers are there is kind of worrisome.

like i said though, it's payload is alright just you'll need a decent amount of them. the f-16 is a perfectly effective strike aircraft despite the fact that a formation of the things can't equal a single bomber because 1. precision munitions and 2. we have thousands of them everywhere.

you solve a tank with an F-16, you solve a battalion of tanks with a package of F-16s, you solve a tank division with a squadron of F-16

F-35 has the same thing going for it, you just need a lot of them.

[Dragon029]

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

So Dragon, I take you'd agree with me that the F-35 is the most impressive aircraft in the skies currently?

Granted, you could make a case the F-22 excels in other areas but doesn't have nearly the operational flexibility of the F-35?

I would - the F-35 even has (in real life) some air-to-air advantages (in counter-stealth) over the F-22, though that's mainly just due to the F-22's upgrade program being so slow / under-funded. (Speaking of which, the F-22 in CMANO needs to be updated with an offensive EW system akin to the F-35's).

ORIGINAL: Cik

Command makes it look pretty good. Command doesn't model a lot of the things that have been habitual problems for it though; maintenance overhead, low numbers, high cost (well, debatable i suppose)

it's biggest weakness is the "low" payload. but the F-16 has the same "problem" and it worked out fine.

the real trick is just having a lot of them. that will be the real test for every user, acquiring sufficient mass for them to be dangerous.

Maintenance overhead isn't anything special on the F-35; cost-wise the A model is projected to cost only slightly more than an F-16C per hour and be about equal per year (fewer training hours are spent in the jet and more in higher-fidelity sims). In terms of sortie-rate they've been able to surge 3 sorties a day (when a supplier screwed up with some insulation material, the USAF's IOC squadron (34FS) had to take jets offline for a couple of months, while maintaining their qualification / training schedule) and more routinely do 2 a day, which is the norm for 4th gens as well.

As for numbers and payload; numbers are rising very rapidly (there's >220 F-35s flying today and there'll be about a thousand flying by 2022) and internal payload is roughly on par with external payload of the jets it replaces; you'd only maybe squeeze in an extra air-to-air missile on an F-16C or F/A-18C equipped for a >400nmi radius mission. SDB-I, SDB-II and SPEAR 3 do wonders for the F-35's payload (and in CMANO SDB-II-loaded F-35s are great for depleting SAMs and taking out S-300s, S-400s, etc). Once you load an F-35 with external weapons it easily exceeds that of its predecessors (some of the CMANO loadouts are weird about this - the external JASSM loadout for example leaves the internal heavy / bomb hardpoints empty rather than let it carry SDBs / JDAMs / LGBs or another pair of AMRAAMs).

cross-platform datalinking is cool and all but the same is possible with your HAVE QUICK UHF radio.

Things like relaying coordinates for arsenal / legacy platforms is done via Link 16 anyway (some AEGIS systems can apparently use MADL) which is similar enough to HAVE QUICK. The hope is for more platforms to become enabled with either MADL (the fancy F-35-to-F-35 data link) or something similar - those omnidirectional UHF data links aren't great for communicating enemy positions while trying to stay hidden. In the mean time it seems like specialised Global Hawk relays and pods like Talon Hate will be used to receive and maybe transmit MADL and IFDL while the military tries to work on a more universal LPI data link.

[TXTBOOK]

ORIGINAL: Dragon029
In the mean time it seems like specialised Global Hawk relays

Did someone order bacn? [:D]

Sorry, had to.

[Dan109]

Just played my first modern scerario(brass drum) after just getting full command and having had NI, playing that campaign a few times through. Wow, the navy is gonna love the F-35! I used it for AEW take downs, flying single plane missions. I then bombed fringe targets with the JDAMs on the way back (not enough time to reload for AAW specific mission). The internally only loaded F-35 has huge range advantages over the F-18, and very fuel efficient to be able to scream back to base at m1.6 (or if spotted which I never was).

However, this further proves to me that f-35 needs external fuel tanks that it can manually drop once in dangerous airspace and can get refueled on the way back. This would definitely increase the range of such deep penetration missions (and it would have been smarter if scenario editor kept the AEW behind the land radar net). I know there isn't a lot of public material discussing the need for external fuel tanks except one picture of a supposed LM design of a stealth fuel tank (no way to know if this was real or not). But Command definitely is a tool to show that such a config is viable.

Also disappointed with light load outs for external missions. If not desiring stealth, f-35 can carry more than f-18 or 16, or a-6. Don't see any load out for the f-35 carrying or than 4 a/g weapons, even more than 4 mk82s (Same goes for f-18 in that regard, max of 4 JDAMs, even 500 LBers)

The lesson learned was going up against fairly modern Sam defenses, SA-300 and 400s. Having 2 300s and one 400 in close overlap plus a few sa-2/6s, was very daunting after seeing a single earlier s-300 completely destroy a flight of 12 tomahawks. Looks like decoys is the proper a cheaper way to go, just very surprised that there are no 8 ITALD/MALD payloads on the f-18 (or an aircraft in command besides thes b-52). With carrying a max of 4, it took 3 full squadrons to alpha strike that radar net. These decoys are lighter than mk82s. It's great that decoys cost LESS than the smart munitions to be SAM bait, but I think another huge part of the concept is that many more decoys can be carried compared to normal standoff weapons....therefore it might only take a squadron to take down a radar net rather than almost a full carrier wing.

And in the alpha strike I used the f-35s as supplementary jammers, which is be a super nice flexibility the navy will have as sometimes the one squadron of ea-18s wont be enough jamming for the most modern Sam nets. Heh, half of my ITALDs survived

[Cik]

actually the best way to kill S-300+ if you have F-35 is to put a jammer behind the F-35 and then JDAM the S-400 radar.

that works..

to everyone's great surprise.

i'm sure ITALD/MALD will make it to F-35 soonish if they haven't already. personally when i need to carry decoys i always use F-16CM falcons, the maneuverability helps in case they are engaged and they can carry a decent amount of MALD/MALD-J to saturate defenses. mix in with JSOW/JASSM/off-axis tomahawk to flavor and you can overwhelm / exhaust S-300/S-400 with a little effort.

edit: woops. anyway, the limiting factor i think in stealth aircraft design is not weight, but space. you can always make an aircraft heavier (well..) but the bigger it is the easier it is to see, cutting against the main trait you are trying to engineer into the design. perhaps the tald are simply too big. they're carried internally, aren't they?

anyway personally b-52 are the best decoy carrier. nothing like the "big belly" to flood ordnance at a target.

[Dan109]

Yeah, well, I didn't want to push my luck, I pretended it was an s-500 as this was my fist encounter. I lost 1 f-18 early (my only loss of the scenario in fact), and got skiddish about trying to get the f-35 into jdam range (only had 6).

In regard to decoys, I'm just surprised there are no 8 decoy load outs in command for f-16 or 18 (think f-35 would be the last plane you would put decoys on), since the tactic of decoy swarm seems to be the best idea for s-400+.

Edit: by s-400+, I meant s-500, that sa-21a/b bad ass, which I think can detect an f-35 with standoff jamming prior to jdam range

[Dragon029]

MALDs are small enough to be carried internally, but they're not part of the Block 3F weapons load and there isn't any specific news / info on when (if ever) they'll be integrated in Block 4, 5, etc.

Something to keep in mind too is that the US is working on Universal Armament Interface (UAI) which will make weapons integration a lot easier and quicker in the future - today you have to program the jet to be aware of what a weapon's range, sensors, capabilities, target type, etc is, and then you have to do stores separation. With UAI weapons will still need to do loads / separation testing, but the software will be plug & play, like a USB devices for your computer.

[Dan109]

gtk. Sounds like a much overdue feature for 21st century technology....

[Cinnamon]

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

MALDs are small enough to be carried internally, but they're not part of the Block 3F weapons load and there isn't any specific news / info on when (if ever) they'll be integrated in Block 4, 5, etc.

Something to keep in mind too is that the US is working on Universal Armament Interface (UAI) which will make weapons integration a lot easier and quicker in the future - today you have to program the jet to be aware of what a weapon's range, sensors, capabilities, target type, etc is, and then you have to do stores separation. With UAI weapons will still need to do loads / separation testing, but the software will be plug & play, like a USB devices for your computer.

I did read on an obscure site somewhere (wish I could find it), Lockheed was trying to get a LRM for the F-35, like a smaller AIM-54, could be complete BS but if it's true, it'd be pretty damn exceptional, especially if they could put it in something the size of an AIM-120 but more efficient fuels etc.

[Dragon029]

There's at least two short / medium range missile programs in the works by the US:
SACM (Small Advanced Capabilities Missile) which is meant to have roughly the range of an AIM-120C7 (~100km) but at half the length, allowing for double the missile payload. SACM is also known as CUDA, but that's just the Lockheed proposal for the program (Raytheon is currently being funded by the USAF to do R&D).
MSDM (Miniature Self Defense Missile) which is a bit less understood, but it's meant to be small (if possible they'd like to have them deploy from things like towed decoy dispensers rather than use up weapon hardpoints) and be designed for short range interception of enemy missiles and just other aircraft.

As for long range missiles, the T3 (Triple Target Terminator) missile program went through design and testing, with test flights occurring as recently as 2015. As far as I'm aware, that's the end of the program, as it was only a tech-demo / R&D program; but that the lessons learned will go into a next-gen missile that's yet to be unveiled (in all likelihood, they're probably waiting to see what the requirements and concept of operation for the PCA (Penetrating Counter Air; the USAF's replacement for the F-22) will be, that way they can try and tailor it for a certain range vs size.

In the meantime however, the UK is integrating the Meteor onto their F-35Bs as part of either Block 4.3 or 4.4 (early 2020s). Other nations could get some or request integration with the A variant (it's just a matter of scheduling load / stores separation testing), but I'm not aware of anyone besides Britain planning for it yet. Either way, the Meteor definitely provides a long range capability; longer than the AIM-54 certainly.

[kevinkins]

MSDM (Miniature Self Defense Missile) which is a bit less understood, but it's meant to be small (if possible they'd like to have them deploy from things like towed decoy dispensers rather than use up weapon hardpoints) and be designed for short range interception of enemy missiles and just other aircraft.

Is one application the protection of the re-fueling tanker fleet? In maneuver warfare terms, tankers are considered a "critical vulnerability".

Kevin