I was on vacation on Friday and somehow missed the announcement of the press conference that the JSF program office called to further publicize the Wheeler-Sprey attacks on the program and the Australian reports that JSFs had been "clubbed like baby seals" in a Pacific wargame. Moreover, apparently, government program manager Maj Gen Charles Davis accused program critics of having "agendas".
Whatever can he mean by that?
The office is clearly worried that the reports are gaining traction around its customers, particularly since we now know what the Dutch expression neergeknuppeld als zeehondjes means.
The release which accompanied the stealth teleconference touted the JSF's capabilities, leading with the claim that "USAF analyses show the ... F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market."
This statement is about as informative as a Ginsu knife infomercial. Moreover, it's made just as Graham Warwick reports (subscription) that Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch, stated last week: “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.”
There is surely a universe where these two statements are compatible, but we don't live there.
One analyst suggests to DTI that what the JSF office's claim most likely means is that the F-35 has demonstrated a 4:1 advantage over adversaries in a simulation such as TAC BRAWLER.
The next question here is what data was put in. If it's assumed:
- that the F-35 can close to a range where AMRAAM has a kill probability (Pk) above 0.75, without being detected
- that jamming, maneuvering and RCS reduction don't reduce that Pk
- that the adversaries use line-abreast tactics so that they all get a shot at the same time
... then four F-35s will take out three out of four Su-35s or Typhoons (assuming these to be the top end threats or competitors) every time. You then hope that the survivor will turn and run, rather than counting eight missile shots and proceeding to avenge his buddies at the expense of the now-unarmed F-35s.
My guess would be that the model assumes all the points above, and also does not allow for any serious tactics (like operating in a widely spaced box, as Gripens do, switching radar transmissions from one aircraft to another).
It also does not allow for situations where JSF is outnumbered: if the threats are anywhere close to 2:1, it's bad news if you only have two missiles. This is most likely the situation that gives Maj Koch nightmares.
The problem, as an analyst points out, is that air-to-air missile Pks are never 1.0 and are usually lower in combat than in tests; the more AAMs you have, the less that matters, which is why the F-22 and Typhoon pack eight missiles each.
Another key claim: "In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. ...More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability."
Reading the above carefully, it appears that what is being compared here is the F-35A (not the B, which has much less fuel) with a Typhoon or Su-35 carrying bombs, AAMs and a targeting pod. In that case, you may show an advantage in top speed (because most fighters aren't cleared supersonic with external A-G weapons) and subsonic acceleration. But do not forget that we started talking air-to-air and now it's air-to-surface: Su-35 or Typhoon, with AAMs and tanks punched, are more likely to outrun and out-accelerate JSF.
But perhaps the most remarkable statement from the release is attributed to Tom Burbage: "Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access - all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."
Jeebus on a Vespa... I have been writing about LO technology for 28 years and I have never heard anyone make a claim like this. Stealth means that you are hard to detect, harder to track and harder still to engage, but it doesn't make you invisible, particularly after large explosions have alerted the adversary to your presence.
If the F-35 can really do all that, why did the USAF spend billions on supercruise, rear-aspect stealth and supermaneuverability (the reason for 2D vectoring nozzles) for the F-22? And does this mean that the all-aspect/wideband LO tech on the B-2 and X-47B UCAS is superfluous?
L2
yes, when mainstream media repeat blatant LIES it is worrying
> Moreover, apparently, government program manager Maj
> Gen Charles Davis accused program critics of having
> "agendas".
>
> Whatever can he mean by that?
people who have a vested interest in seeing it lose (the F-111 Australia loons, the Gripen people, the EF consortium, etc)
> This statement is about as informative as a Ginsu knife infomercial
not at all
the article was claiming USAF analyses showed the F-35 was 'clubbed like a baby seal'
this refutes that claim, as USAF analyses ACTUALLY showed it 400% more effective
you can argue about what '400% more effective' means, but the point is clear, both statements cannot be true, thus the 'club like baby seals' statement was a LIE
> I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.
> which is why the F-22 and Typhoon pack eight missiles each.
> But do not forget that we started talking air-to-air and now it's air-to-surface: Su-35 or Typhoon, with AAMs and tanks punched, are more likely to outrun and out-accelerate JSF
come on Bill, at least PRETEND to be intellectually honest here
the JSF carries 2 AAM in A-G configuration, yet you're comparing it against opponents in pure A-A configuration
the JSF in A-A configuration carries 4 missiles NOW and will most likely carry 6 in the future
not to mention, if it is decided missile carriage is more important than stealth, it can carry 10 now and possibly 12+ in the future
and of course you left out the most important point in the article "The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms."
in other words, that entire 'baby seals' article is BUNK
> If it's assumed:
> - that the F-35 can close to a range where
> AMRAAM has a kill probability (Pk) above 0.75
>
>... then four F-35s will take out three out of
>four Su-35s . . . every time
4 F-35 * 2 missiles each = 8 missiles
8 missiles * 0.75 PK = 6 kills
you made the mistake of saying that since there is a 0.75PK that only 75% of the targets were destroyed
but since you're launching TWO missiles at each target, the PK increases to 93.75%
alternatively, if you were only launching 1 missile per target, you could go after 8 different planes and .75PK results in 6 kills out of the 8
"I had the opportunity yesterday to fly the F-35 for the first time with the INTERDICTION COMBAT load of 2-GBU 31 (2000# bombs) and 2 AIM -120 missiles. In current fighters there is an expectation of performance degradation when carrying 5000# of ordinance but the internal carriage made any degradation hard to discern.
The acceleration in MAX AB takeoff was very quick and interestingly there is an increase in the acceleration rate above 120 KCAS. The takeoff roll was very near to the 3500 prediction. Once airborne I came out of AB relatively soon after lift off and continued to climb and accelerate in MIL power in a 10 deg to 15 deg climb attitude. There was plenty of performance. The climb out with full internal weapons carriage was particularly impressive to me.
The climb rate seemed to be only slightly hindered by the stores carriage with climb angles near 15 deg in MIL power while in a 30 deg bank turn back over the field. Very pleasant to see clean fighter climb rates and angles while carrying a combat load. The chase aircraft still required brief inputs into AB to keep up with me. This is especially impressive because the 325 KCAS climb speed is well below the optimum climb speed profile for the aircraft.
We only did a brief handling qualities test point on this mission but the handling qualities with this combat loading were indistinguishable from the aircraft with no stores.
Landing occurred with 4500# of fuel and was easily stopped inside of an 8000 ft. runway length with brake temperatures cool enough to taxi straight back to the hangar."
Note that 8000 ft. refers to the runway length, not the stopping distance. Chase was an F-16 with "most powerful engine" and no weapon stores. Take off fuel was 13000 pounds.
Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo
JSF is supposed to carry four internal missiles at some point but the timing of this capability is uncertain. Yes, it can carry four today, but at the expense of its stealth.
And the point of the A-G/A-A comparison was that you can talk about higher performance for JSF in its standard A-G configuration, but that doesn't mean it outperforms other aircraft when configured for air-to-air.
Energo: Should have been impressive! He was under his standard TOW by a margin equivalent to a Chevy Suburban. And an 8000-foot landing roll is excellent - for a Boeing 747. And read Graham's post too.
there is 0 doubt that it will carry 4 internally, so any comparison with 2 is just dishonest
the 6 internal is more speculative at this point though still very likely
> And the point of the A-G/A-A comparison was that you can
> talk about higher performance for JSF in its standard
> A-G configuration, but that doesn't mean it outperforms
> other aircraft when configured for air-to-air
and the point is if you're comparing A-A you have to start with 4 missiles (internally) for the F-35, not 2
> Please lay off my math.
your math was wrong
if you're going to assume 3 out of 4, then you're assuming 1 missile shot each, which means they will NOT be defenseless at that point because they will still have a missile each
all 4 fire 1 missile, 3 planes go down, 1 bogey left with 4 missiles still available
> Energo: Should have been impressive! He was under his standard TOW by a margin equivalent to a Chevy Suburban.
it was relative to his chase planes . . . they weren't fully loaded either . . .
Recognize your point about the math - but note that with one missile per target you don't have a guaranteed kill against any of them. Also, since writing this I have been reminded of the actual combat Pk of AMRAAM to date, and it's not 0.75.