Airliners.net

Was hoping one of us might've been in Paris and could remark on the fighter shows. There's quite a bit of press out there about the F-35 but it sounds pretty hyperbolic. So did anyone catch the event and was it as impressive as the journos make out? The Rafale also did a show and I know the French guys pull off some wild stunts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeqryYh_yw0

Found this on youtube. Looked a fair bit like an F-18 routine to me. Hope the stealth and the sensor fusion work really well.

I did find the Rafale youtube after I posted and yes, I do hope the stealth works because that Rafale would take any F-35 1:1 WVR with a monkey at the controls. We should buy 1000 of those things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmucwWl6K1w

shamrock15 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeqryYh_yw0

Found this on youtube. Looked a fair bit like an F-18 routine to me. Hope the stealth and the sensor fusion work really well.

The F-35 was designed to handle like a F/A-18, but with more power. And the F/A-18 is considered a very good dog fighter, albeit short on power for acceleration.

And to think that the F-35 can do these sorts of maneuvers while loaded down with fuel and weapons, when with other fighters, they can only hope to achieve such displays completely slick and on minimal fuel...

I was there Monday and Tuesday. Unimpressive and disappointing describes the F-35s display pretty well. The Dassault Falcon 8X and Rafale both did a far better display.

VSMUT wrote:

I was there Monday and Tuesday. Unimpressive and disappointing describes the F-35s display pretty well. The Dassault Falcon 8X and Rafale both did a far better display.

The F-35 fighter out displayed by a business jet :LOL

From what I can tell, I see a different story. We see an aircraft with good low speed handling, able to quickly point the nose around, and capable of high alpha maneuvering. That says to me, F/A-18 like handling. However, watch how quickly it can accelerate, especially without the afterburners. That says F-16 like acceleration.

Anyone can perform crowd wowing tricks in the air with no weapons and on minimal fuel. It's a different story trying to do the same in a war time configuration.

And this is with an aircraft with the entire flight performance envelope still yet to be unlocked; the aircraft is still restricted at 7G, and once the aircraft gets 3F, the entire flight regime opens up.

I see with the Rafale an aircraft that just excels in a speed regime that practically every combat aircraft have been designed to fly well in for a few decades now, but the low speed and vertical performance isn't nearly as convincing as the F-35. It's a different aircraft, with a different emphasis in its flight regime.

ThePointblank wrote:

Anyone can perform crowd wowing tricks in the air with no weapons and on minimal fuel. It's a different story trying to do the same in a war time configuration.

Boeing has been doing exactly that with the Super Hornet every single time I ever saw it here in Europe. Still beat the F-35s display this week.

ThePointblank wrote:

but the low speed and vertical performance isn't nearly as convincing as the F-35.

Which sounds very nice and all, but the reason why the F-35 was messing around at those low speeds in the first place was because it bled off all the speed every time it tried to change its direction, unlike the Rafale and Falcon 8X. It just has too much momentum, and removing the 7g limit won't change that. It was pretty obvious, like when a Flanker does the Cobra. And unlike the F-35, the Rafale and Falcon 8X didn't use the afterburner during the entire display.

VSMUT wrote:

Boeing has been doing exactly that with the Super Hornet every single time I ever saw it here in Europe. Still beat the F-35s display this week.

I've seen the Super Hornet display, and it is only done with a specially configured aircraft, and only in a very slick air to air configuration (re: No drop tanks!). The F-35 can do its display in an air to ground config, and carry more fuel for more range.

VSMUT wrote:

Which sounds very nice and all, but the reason why the F-35 was messing around at those low speeds in the first place was because it bled off all the speed every time it tried to change its direction, unlike the Rafale and Falcon 8X. It just has too much momentum, and removing the 7g limit won't change that. It was pretty obvious, like when a Flanker does the Cobra. And unlike the F-35, the Rafale and Falcon 8X didn't use the afterburner during the entire display.

Actually, the F-35 used the afterburner twice; once at take off, and the second time during a high rate climb in the middle of the program.

The display focused on the F-35's high AoA and instantaneous pitch capabilities. The ability of the F-35 to suddenly point its nose anywhere, for example, to face a threat is a significant tactical advantage over aircraft like the Rafale, that don't have that capability. The F-35's high AoA capabilities means that the F-35, much like the F/A-18, has an advantage that is manifested in many ways, but two of the most important ways are in the form of slow speed handling and nose authority.

Also, having high AoA capabilities means that the aircraft has a much bigger envelope in which it can achieve maximum turn rate as the pilot has no AoA limiter and does not need to worry about any nasty stalls or departures from controlled flight.

The F-35, much like the F/A-18, flies comfortably at double digit airspeeds and the pilot can literally point the nose anywhere. All fighter pilots are trained in the ability to execute a rapid energy excursion, and trade energy for nose position, and aircraft like the F/A-18 do this exceptionally well.

For example, one maneuver that the F/A-18 does well with its high AoA capabilities a maneuver called the Pirouette. It looks like a zero airspeed hammerhead reversal, and can quickly yield a positional advantage when done correctly. Not do it correctly, and the F/A-18 will bleed too much energy, which leaves the jet in a low energy position with little in the way of options.

Now, combine this with the high-off-boresight abilities of the JHMCS and AIM-9X, and you have a very lethal platform that if you are engaged in a dogfight in, can result in the enemy suddenly being surprised by a F/A-18 that has suddenly swung its nose at you with the pilot locked on and launching a missile at you. If a pilot can point his nose at you, he can threaten you. Plain and simple.

Antonov of Ukraine had its An-132 perform demonstration flight during the show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7X5wflNdwU
It is understood that the landing is performed in "Afghan way" -- an anti-MANPAD maneuver, learned during USSR's war in Afghanistan.

I read an article a few moths ago indicating that NATO airspace was being threatened by Russian SAM radar.

Can F18 or Rafael deal w this scenario?

Planeflyer wrote:

I read an article a few moths ago indicating that NATO airspace was being threatened by Russian SAM radar.

Can F18 or Rafael deal w this scenario?

I don't think Rafael has any dedicated ARMs in their portfolio, but the Spice series of glide bombs is probably up to the task. Can the F/A-18 carry it? Perhaps, given that the F-16, F-15 and Mirage 2000 are I should think so.

For dedicated anti-radar solutions, IAI or IMI would probably be a better bet.

VSMUT, but won't gen 4 f/a suffer significant losses against current Sam systems.

After all many current 4th gen ac would even survive downtown Baghdad.

Contested airspace against near peer adversaries is what the F35 was designed to deal with

I will preface this by saying I am not as well read as many on this site.
I think an argument could be made that any aircraft will suffer significant losses. I know that sometimes there are issues with statements in wikipedia, but here is the info on the S-400 system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system
I am not a russophile by any stretch, but I have to believe that during the rather protracted development of the f-35 that the mathematics and electronics for detection could outpace any advances that go into the stealth of the f-35. The mobility of the system and wise placement of sites will create substantial difficulties if it anywhere approaches the claimed capabilities. The ranges listed for detection and the range for the missiles are clearly built with a more advanced control model in mind.
This has to be paired with changes in how future conflicts will take place. The slow production time for any asset such as a 4.5-5 generation fighter means that losses will not and cannot be tolerated. The s-400 systems clearly don't cost what an f-35 does. I have no doubt that less capable versions would be exported, it is the Russian way after all. However, sneaking a couple in to a conflict to prove its capability is also within their previously established behaviour.
I would expect that an area defence specialist could rather easily set up traps for f-35's. Point defense for the radars to deal with cruise missiles and integrated communications receiving data linked information would make it very prickly and public opinion in the west will then set in. I have no doubt that there will be responses indicating that Russian style control isn't on par with the US. Very likely, but again, they have had a lot of time during the development of the f-35 to change their operations.
I don't think you would see the f-35 on the frontline of any campaign right now in the face of an advanced system like the s-400.
I think there would need to be a very good use of drones to expose AA sites and open them to counter attack. Would the mobility of an s-400 system protect it against a cruise missile strike? Fair question. Certainly any aircraft delivered attack will need to get well within the range of the missiles and it will be costly. Even the drones I think will not be able to be replaced all that quickly.

VSMUT wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

I read an article a few moths ago indicating that NATO airspace was being threatened by Russian SAM radar.

Can F18 or Rafael deal w this scenario?

I don't think Rafael has any dedicated ARMs in their portfolio, but the Spice series of glide bombs is probably up to the task. Can the F/A-18 carry it? Perhaps, given that the F-16, F-15 and Mirage 2000 are I should think so.

For dedicated anti-radar solutions, IAI or IMI would probably be a better bet.

The F/A-18 has HARM, and soon, AARGM, which adds an active radar guidance capability to hunting SAM's.

And the F-35 was noted by many F-16CJ pilots to have superior ability to geolocate threats; a single F-35 can do it quicker and more accurately than multiple F-16CJ's working together.

The Russian S-400 threat is considerably overblown; for one, there are existing ways to significantly reduce the capabilities of the system with the existing 4th generation aircraft, and with the newer 5th generation aircraft, they are even more limited. The ability to detect, track and engage a stealthy target is limited by the laws of physics; VHF, UHF, L and S bands can detect and even track a tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft, those systems don’t deliver a weapons quality track. Add in a target that is moving unpredictably and jamming, it will be like finding a needle in a haystack.

The point is any SAM system can detect 4th generation a/c at much longer ranges. The F35 was developed to enable the SAM system to be taken down. Given the AF experience in Vietnam and Iraq I think they know more than most how to do this. One exception may be Israel but then again they have purchased the F35 as opposed to say Typhoon, F18, Rafael or nay Russian or Chinese craft.

The American F-35 threat is considerably overblown; for one, there are existing ways to significantly reduce the capabilities of the system with existing air defence systems, and with the newer systems, they are even more limited. The ability to hide a stealthy target is limited by the laws of physics; VHF, UHF, L and S bands can detect and even track a tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft, and help guide other systems to deliver a weapons quality track. Add in a target that is unable to move unpredictably and has limited jamming capability, it will be like shooting sitting ducks.

Planeflyer wrote:

One exception may be Israel but then again they have purchased the F35 as opposed to say Typhoon, F18, Rafael or nay Russian or Chinese craft.

The Israeli decision to go for F-35s can hardly be attributed to any supposed qualities of the aircraft. They are more or less gifted by the US through military aid. They wouldn't have been able to use the allocated funds for non-US jets, and they already have the F-16I, so no need for Super Hornets.

ThePointblank wrote:

And the F-35 was noted by many F-16CJ pilots to have superior ability to geolocate threats; a single F-35 can do it quicker and more accurately than multiple F-16CJ's working together.

Just too bad that the F-35 has to be pretty much overhead the target in order to drop a bomb onto it, and said bomb can be shot down by the latest point-blank air-defence systems. Hardly helps smaller, non-aggressive countries either. Apart from maybe the UK, no European F-35 customer is ever going to be operating against enemy air defences.

Doesn't change the fact that the F-35 gave a really lame performance in Paris last week either.

The next time the West goes into contested airspace F35's will do the heavy lifting .

ThePointblank wrote:

And this is with an aircraft with the entire flight performance envelope still yet to be unlocked; the aircraft is still restricted at 7G, and once the aircraft gets 3F, the entire flight regime opens up.

I see with the Rafale an aircraft that just excels in a speed regime that practically every combat aircraft have been designed to fly well in for a few decades now, but the low speed and vertical performance isn't nearly as convincing as the F-35. It's a different aircraft, with a different emphasis in its flight regime.

The F35 needed constant and massive movements of control surfaces to remain on track, while the Rafale control service movements where hard to spot.

ThePointblank wrote:

From what I can tell, I see a different story. We see an aircraft with good low speed handling, able to quickly point the nose around, and capable of high alpha maneuvering. That says to me, F/A-18 like handling. However, watch how quickly it can accelerate, especially without the afterburners. That says F-16 like acceleration.

Which is a pretty hard indication that the F35 was flown very light. The F35 can´t change physics and good acceleration without burners simply means light. With just 0.9 trust/wight ratio on dry power at best there is just so much acceleration to be had and that is 10-15% below Rafale and EF values. In fairness, an F16 doesn´t have much power dry either.

best regards
Thomas

VSMUT wrote:

The American F-35 threat is considerably overblown; for one, there are existing ways to significantly reduce the capabilities of the system with existing air defence systems, and with the newer systems, they are even more limited. The ability to hide a stealthy target is limited by the laws of physics; VHF, UHF, L and S bands can detect and even track a tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft, and help guide other systems to deliver a weapons quality track. Add in a target that is unable to move unpredictably and has limited jamming capability, it will be like shooting sitting ducks.

VHF, UHF, L and S band don't deliver the resolution to provide an accurate weapons track. The current systems all use those bands for initial search, and switch over to a X band radar to provide a weapons quality track. Unless you intend on bombarding the air with themonuclear weapons, you won't be able to shoot down a moving stealth fighter with traditional SAM's.

At best, VHF, UHF, L and S band radars will only give you an idea that something is out there, not an accurate location, altitude or heading.

VSMUT wrote:

Just too bad that the F-35 has to be pretty much overhead the target in order to drop a bomb onto it, and said bomb can be shot down by the latest point-blank air-defence systems. Hardly helps smaller, non-aggressive countries either. Apart from maybe the UK, no European F-35 customer is ever going to be operating against enemy air defences.

JDAM can glide 15 miles, and SDB-II can glide for 45 miles and target a moving target.

And you are not going to be able to shoot down a bomb with a point defence system, especially in an environment where there is jamming... and one can always toss multiple SDB-II's at a SAM site and just overwhelm the point defence systems.

tommy1808 wrote:

The F35 needed constant and massive movements of control surfaces to remain on track, while the Rafale control service movements where hard to spot.

At the low speed, high alpha maneuvers, you need a lot of adjustments with the FBW system to stay in control.

And it should be noted that the F-35 remains controllable at 50 degrees AoA no matter the load, while the Rafale is limited to less than 30 degrees... less if there are external tanks or heavy stores.

tommy1808 wrote:

Which is a pretty hard indication that the F35 was flown very light. The F35 can´t change physics and good acceleration without burners simply means light. With just 0.9 trust/wight ratio on dry power at best there is just so much acceleration to be had and that is 10-15% below Rafale and EF values. In fairness, an F16 doesn´t have much power dry either.

The F-35 did it's high AoA demonstration at the very beginning of the show; normally, you want to save that towards the end because you normally would want a more lightly loaded aircraft to safely do it...

The F-16, especially the variants powered by the GE F110 engines, are among the top accelerators out there in the fighter world, clean. Only the F-22 and the F-35 will beat it. The main advantage the F-35 and the F-22 have is that their wartime configuration is the same as their air show configuration; both can fly their missions completely clean without any external fuel tanks, pylons, and weapons hanging off the exterior. Eurofighter and Rafale can't.

ThePointblank wrote:

[The F-16, especially the variants powered by the GE F110 engines, are among the top accelerators out there in the fighter world, clean. Only the F-22 and the F-35 will beat it.

so, the US builds magic engines that defy the laws of physics and outaccelerate aircraft with 20% higher T/W ratio. Got that. But only for the F35, because the F22 apparently needs much more trust than the F35 to accomplish the same feat.

The main advantage the F-35 and the F-22 have is that their wartime configuration is the same as their air show configuration; both can fly their missions completely clean without any external fuel tanks, pylons, and weapons hanging off the exterior. Eurofighter and Rafale can't.

Eurofighter doesn´t need pylons to carry the four AIM120 the F35 can haul, but the F35 needs to haul the 5000 pounds (guestimate) of weapons bay and extra Tankage around even when empty, all the way to target and all the way back. There are performance reasons after all why the idea of internal weapons bays came out of fashion. Probably why the Eurofigher, with about a generation older engines, needs about 2000 pounds less fuel for a 750nm air interdiction mission, despite 3000 liters of fuel and 6 A2A weapons hung externally and causing drag. The F22 pilot ejects about 300nm from base because of engine fuel starvation (unless carrying external tanks).

Don´t get me wrong, until DSPs get 2 or 3 more magnitudes of computing power on board on aircraft stealth will dominate the sky, but pretending you can have stealth and large internal empty spaces and still get better flight performance is just silly.

best regard
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

so, the US builds magic engines that defy the laws of physics and outaccelerate aircraft with 20% higher T/W ratio. Got that. But only for the F35, because the F22 apparently needs much more trust than the F35 to accomplish the same feat.

Drag index plays a role. Acceleration is a combination of weight, drag, and thrust. Also, with the F135, the engine is tuned for a different region of performance than the F-22's F119 engine; the F135 is tuned more for transonic performance, rather than supersonic performance.

tommy1808 wrote:

Eurofighter doesn´t need pylons to carry the four AIM120 the F35 can haul, but the F35 needs to haul the 5000 pounds (guestimate) of weapons bay and extra Tankage around even when empty, all the way to target and all the way back. There are performance reasons after all why the idea of internal weapons bays came out of fashion. Probably why the Eurofigher, with about a generation older engines, needs about 2000 pounds less fuel for a 750nm air interdiction mission, despite 3000 liters of fuel and 6 A2A weapons hung externally and causing drag. The F22 pilot ejects about 300nm from base because of engine fuel starvation (unless carrying external tanks).

The F-22's range includes time spent supercruising at high speeds. It can extend the range by flying slower.

The advantage with internal weapons bays is that the drag index of the aircraft remains the same, either armed or not. A F-35 armed with 2 1000lb JDAM's and 2 AIM-120's with enough fuel to go 600nm has the same drag index as an unarmed F-35 with minimal fuel. If you read aircraft performance documentations (such as Dash One's or NATOPS)

tommy1808 wrote:

Don´t get me wrong, until DSPs get 2 or 3 more magnitudes of computing power on board on aircraft stealth will dominate the sky, but pretending you can have stealth and large internal empty spaces and still get better flight performance is just silly.

The advantage with moving weapons internally into weapons bays is that you can optimize the aircraft's shape for just one particular configuration, without having to worry about stuff that is hanging off the aircraft.

Being able to detect, track and engage stealthy aircraft with VHF, UHF, S and L band radars is not a matter of computing power, it is a matter of physics!

If you actually read up on the performance charts of these types of radars against a small, stealthy target, you quickly realize that such radars will only detect a target at short ranges; at best, with a 0.001m2 target, you are detecting something at less than 50nm out at best; you are more likely with the current radars to actually detect something 25nm out. At those ranges, a F-35 would be almost on top of you and can drop something like a JDAM or a SDB-II against your radar and the radar won't know what hit it.

Second, these radars are HUGE. We are talking about antenna sizes the length of multiple long buses; it is a limitation imposed by the wavelength of the radar waves being used. As a result, these radar sets are not very mobile and are often the first targets in a war. Remember the first day of Gulf War I? The first target struck were the Iraqi early warning radars, which were primarily VHF radar sets. US Army AH-64's, guided by USAF Spec Ops MH-53's struck at the Iraqi radar sites, knocking them out of order, allowing coalition aircraft to stream through the opening undetected.

Third, using lower frequency bands requires a lot of power - this is very dangerous for an emitter. The more power you pump through your radar, the further away someone can pick up that radar without you detecting them. With advanced RWR or Passive radars (such as those present in LO aircraft), precise geo-location of such radar units can be known from very far away - much before entering their ‘detecting zone’.

That gives pilots and mission planners options; they can go around those radars by slipping through blind spots, or they can engage those radars from long distance with something like JASSM or JSOW to neutralize the radar and create openings in the air defence grid, or they can do what they did in Gulf War I, and have attack helicopters strike at them from very low altitude below their radar horizon.

VSMUT wrote:

The American F-35 threat is considerably overblown; for one, there are existing ways to significantly reduce the capabilities of the system with existing air defence systems, and with the newer systems, they are even more limited. The ability to hide a stealthy target is limited by the laws of physics; VHF, UHF, L and S bands can detect and even track a tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft, and help guide other systems to deliver a weapons quality track. Add in a target that is unable to move unpredictably and has limited jamming capability, it will be like shooting sitting ducks.

You need to do some more research before making claims that are clearly wrong. Take for example the below link to an article from the Journal of Computations and Modelling which I have posted on airliners.net multiple times. http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf
The Greek Air Force Officers who authored the article used the worst case RCS calculation for the F-35 , taken from Air Power Australia who we can all agree is not a friend of the F-35, and noted that even for S and L band radars the F-35 saw detection range reductions greater than 50-75%. (The calculations are found on page 19 if you want to skip the technical explanation)

The lesson from this is stealth design works across all radar bands, not just the X band as uneducated online forums and posters would have you believe. No one is claiming the F-35 is invisible, that would also be stupid but the reduction in detection across all radar bands is tactically immensely significant.

As for your other claim about jamming, the F-35 has the ALQ-239, an evolution of the F-22 jammer, which combined with it's significantly low RCS makes the jammer exceptionally effective.

Really good discussion! Very informative.

Thanks for all the posts.