Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Sandboxx" channel.

  1.  @mrspaceman2764  F-35s from at least 4 different services have been engaged in combat operations since 2017.
    2
  2. Stealth/VLO technologies vs sensors is a constant game of cat and mouse. There isn’t a static VLO configuration without room for improvement, and it has been this way ever since the Germans put elongated pyramid matrix RAM on U-Boat masts in the 1940s. Stealth is becoming the baseline standard for all new fighter designs, not something that is less needed.
    2
  3. F-106 cruised at supersonic speed without burner. It could also break Mach 2 with external tanks at altitude, very slick jet. A slick F-16C big mouth with a -229 will break Mach 1 without burner, but it can't do it in a combat configuration. The main benefit of supercruise is with 4th Gen BVR metrics where you have mutual detection and awareness of each other, can start off at a higher energy state for weapons separation, then crank after launch to avoid incoming, while also reducing IR signature by not blasting reheat from side or rear aspect for the threat IRST to get a great non-radar track on you. The problem with supercruise is that aerodynamic thermal loading of the leading edge surfaces of your aircraft also presents an excellent IRST long-range detection and track that isn't subject to EW/ECM, so you can slave the radar to the IRST and filter out ECM for an improved dual-spectrum track. Supercruise is a two-edged sword that gives your BVRAAMs longer reach with reduced ToF to compress the WEZ timeline in your favor, but also increaes the detection and tracking range of the threat sensors against you, giving them an earlier separation timeline. With F-22, they've been able to use it to reposition quickly while outside of threat sensor detection envelopes, but high subsonic is really where a lot of the fight seems to have settled. F-35A dominates that space since it loves to fly at .95M, and has the most capable sensor suite of any modern "fighter".
    2
  4. It’s raw power increase in both Mil and AB, Thrust-Specific Fuel Consumption efficiency for longer range, plus bleed power for cooling and DC generation. The improved engine core Pratt & Whitney already made does that. Thrust increase is up to 47,300lb with 31,000lb in Mil without burner. That’s already a depot-level upgrade that can happen with the existing overhaul schedule.
    2
  5.  @Echo81Whiskey  GE YF120 couldn’t even hold in the aerial refueling pattern consistently due to gross increments in thrust output vs pilot throttle input. It had the most problems of all 4 types of power plants during ATF DEMVAL. USAF was interested in it and flew the YF-120 equipped jets the most to explore the problems and possible solutions, but it just represented more risk to the program, so wasn’t adopted. F119-PW-100 delivered YF-120 thrust per USAF specs, since the YF119s had less thrust. F-22A airframe grew in weight, so it needed more thrust to meet the 1.2:1 ratio.
    2
  6.  @Echo81Whiskey  When I see F-35 and "short legs" in the same sentence, I realize the person isn’t familiar with TACAIR platform combat radii. F-35A and F-35C have superior radii to any of the legacy birds, including 2-engine fighters like the F-15 and F-14. The only one with more radius was the F-111, at 80,000lbs+ MGTOW. F136 was rated to the same exact thrust as the F135, with 43,000lb max in burner. No thrust advantage.
    2
  7. That was only on a limited number of airframes with certain engines made within a certain window of time. The majority of the 890 fleet never had the problem.
    2
  8. The A-10 was conceived and built as an armed escort for Airmobile units because of Vietnam, which I’ve been forced to consider was an ill-advised concept outside of SEA. They had A-1 Skyraiders that were perfectly capable of armed escort for rotary wing formations, but the A-1 didn’t have the payload to take out the emerging self-propelled AAA platforms like the ZSU-23-4 and tanks. The A-7D had that capability, but couldn’t re-attack with visual acquisition on its first pass like the A-1 could. So they basically wanted select features from the A-1 and A-7 combined into one, purposely handicapping its power so that it would be slow, while giving it more payload to be able to bust tanks with AGM-65s, drop CBUs on light vehicles and troops in the open, 500lb bombs on emplaced gun positions and relay stations and trucks, then use the 30mm gun once other ordnance was expended. The A-10 was especially ill-suited for the European Theater of Operations with NATO, since it was a suicide mission into Soviet mobile IADS nets that were part of their armored regiments, made even more unsurvivable with the advent of SA-6 and double-digit SAMs. The A-7D was a much better for for the Fulda Gap. In ODS, the A-10 had to be grounded until strike aircraft could effect the D-SEAD mission set and clear out most of the AAA and SAMs, because they shot down or damaged so many A-10s in the first 2 weeks of the war. 20 of them were lost (7) or damaged (13) from Iraqi AAA and SAM fire from January 17 - February 27, 1991. It was still very effective once SEAD had been conducted, but the F-111F as just one example, killed more tanks than all A-10s combined in 1/4 the sorties flown by A-10s. F-111F with PAVE TACK Pod and LGBs was a brutal hunter of Iraqi tanks at night. Only 3 F-111Fs were hit by AAA, able to return safely to base each time, no losses. It was one of the most survivable platforms of the war.
    2
  9.  @absalomdraconis  The CIA moles acting on-behalf of their KGB handlers enabled the assassination of General Diem, not too long before JFK was assassinated. The North asked many years after the war, “Why did you kill Diem? He was our biggest enemy and your biggest political asset in South Vietnam.” Diem’s assassination did not have WH approval.
    2
  10. It was far more in-depth than has ever been reported in the open. YF-23 represented greater risk because windscreens kept cracking during supersonic tests. Weapons bay couldn't carry much and had no solution demonstrated for storage and ejection/separation. The flight control system had double the amount of actuators to make the wings thinner/no bulbous fairings for full power actuators. The intake geometry and boundary layer control mechanisms didn't allow it to achieve its maximum propulsive potential, along with the windscreens failing. Neither of the YF-23 PAVs went Mach 2 as a result. They could have done so if those issues were resolved, but that required more RDT&E while YF-22 PAV1 already easily broke Mach 2, and both could carry and separate weapons. Most of the comments I've seen are opposite of what happened during DEMVAL.
    2
  11. There would have been some up-front tooling costs for adjusting the production line, but those up-front costs would have been broken-even after a short time of flight operations due to reduced need for aerial refueling support, and much longer combat radius. It had better mission radius than the A-7D, which had a very impressive ~775nm radius.
    2
  12.  @Ilyak1986  F-22 can only carry 8 SDBs + 2 AIM-120s + 2 AIM-9s internally in a swing-role configuration. Same with JDAMs, only it is limited to 2x 1000lb JDAM, whereas F-35A and C carry 2x 2000lb JDAM internally. All of them are capable of high kinematic state tosses from altitude with Precision-Guided Munitions.
    2
  13. X-31 fits that bill. It would be lucky to carry 2xAAMs, and therefore would be a grape like any other 4th Gen fighter.
    2
  14.  @markallen7215  My family was on the design and early development team for specifying the post-stall maneuvering algorithms for what became the Typhoon. The European Future Combat Aircraft's primary design consideration was higher altitude interceptor with comparable separation speeds and A2A payload to the F-15, but with much lower airframe weight. It was to have superb thrust-to-weight ratio and climb rate, excellent acceleration through the full regime, and high cruise speed. Post-stall maneuvering was more of an insurance policy. In speaking with one of the engineers recently, he said he wished we had focused more on Low Observables.
    2
  15.  @pindot787  Here's an interesting study: How many A2A victories in the last 40 years were achieved by max-performing fighters WVR? Next: How many SAMs were avoided due to maneuverability? My initial inkling is that SAM avoidance is more of a factor. Next: How much more important is high subsonic and transonic performance?
    2
  16.  @xyzaero  I was referring to the video.
    2
  17. @YSKWatch  I think that's a fair assessment and the same one I made as well. From what I can see on the outside of production J-20A/B, I would not underestimate its RCS reduction performance. Frontal RCS should be quite small. No way of knowing with OSINT data since we don't know materials and structures of it.
    2
  18.  @Gunni1972  Look up the LOAN nozzle and IR signature reduction on JSF. They employed decades of research from previous programs when they tackled the IR VLO on JSF. There are so many complimentary systems and layers working together, that it's an entire discipline deserving its own lengthy study from an engineering perspective. F-35s have the largest fighter engine with the most available thrust, but have a smaller IR signature than a T-38 or F-5. Short-range IR missiles are obsolete even in the 4th gen. We have moved to dual focal plane array IIR/UV seekers long ago. In the more advanced nations, the "short range" multimode FPA seeker missiles are BVR-capable as well. AIM-9X Block II+ and ASRAAM Block 6 have increased range outside of the traditional WVR weapons employment envelope. I've done a lengthy mathematical study of all the 4.5 Gen and Su-57 IRST detection and tracking ranges on various types of airborne targets, from supersonic bombers down to subsonic VLO fighters in the different weather and altitude bands. Short story is you will not have IRST detection of a subsonic VLO fighter until right on the edge of WVR, which is many minutes too late. You especially will not have PID. If they go supersonic, you will get a hit in the sensor envelope much earlier, but they've been tracking you from 300-400km out already. This is the baseline for any discussion about JSF stealth in the IR spectrum.
    2
  19. It buys the existing 4th Gen fighters some time while handing over the HARM-based D-SEAD mission profile to JSF and maybe F-22A for a while. You go to war with what you have, not what you wish you have, so the US and upper tier allies are very proactive about fielding new weapons systems in large enough quantities.
    2
  20.  @slindeman1  Performance of separation aircraft does matter though. They should be able to accelerate quickly into No Escape Zone parameters vs threat fighters while remaining undetected, be able to rapidly change altitude, and rapidly evade or maneuver around threat fighter sensor envelopes. Bombers can do none of these things, and also make huge juicy targets if they go close to the IADS network. US strategic bomber tactics for the B-52 have relied on stand-off cruise missiles as a result since the late 1960s. What you can use bombers for is deploying decoy missiles, decoy jammers, and drones.
    2
  21.  @michaelrozelle92  AARGM-ER fits inside F-35 & F-22 for D-SEAD. F-15EX is too vulnerable for D-SEAD because of its huge RCS and IR signature. Even back in the 1980s, I wondered if they would integrate the HARM on the F-15E, and they never did. They did do HARM integration on F-16CJ/CM, F/A-18, EA-6B, Tornado ECR, Super Hornet, and EA-18G.
    2
  22. There are 11 RF sensors currently for the EW suite, one of which is also a highly-capable jammer/multifunction array AESA. Maybe they meant 5 types of sensors since there are multiples of some located on the wing leading edges, trailing edges, and horizontal stabilizer edges.
    2
  23.  @christopherthomsen5809  Some did. Draken would be sick with a composite skin, CF bulkheads, a DFLCS, and F414 motor in it. Drop the empty weight, increase strength, and substantially increase T/W for a hot rod with departure-resistant FLCS. It's too late now, but it's a very interesting and forward-thinking design.
    2
  24. DAS doesn’t operate in Long Wave IR spectrum, but short wave. EOTS has longer range IR detection and tracking capability, fused with DAS. GaN TRMs provide up to 20% more electron mobility, so the assumption that detection and tracking ranges will double is dubious, though performance is noticeably increased at lower power output levels.
    2
  25.  @user-os6ch5pt7w  Processing power behind an AESA primarily determines beam steering speed and multi-functionality, as well as the various PID features in NCTR parameters. The first F-35 Block 2 set had 638 NCTR parameters. Processing power also helps tremendously with jamming due to how fast various waveforms can be generated. The main detection/tracking limitations for the older Mech-Scanned Array APG-65 & APG-73 were antenna size, power, and scan rate. Once Block II Super Bug came online with APG-79, it was a game-changer. TRM density in US AESAs compensates for antenna size.
    2
  26.  @JC130676  Northrop had problems with cracking windscreens, supersonic boundary layer management with the intakes, and weapons bay storage/ejector racks never resolved. It represented a lot of cost risks that would need to be addressed with the proposed F-23A. It had longer fineness ratio, which would have increased with the longer F-23A design. That would have had more restrictions on g limits, which were already limited on the YF-23.
    2
  27. I doubt F-15EX will ever go feet-wet to be honest. F-35s start out as offensive EW platforms with their own TGT sets on the ground and in the air with an elastic, opportunistic kill web. This is accompanied with decoy missiles, cruise missiles, decoy/jammer missiles, UAVs, F-22s flying high cover and carrying JDAMs or SDBs of their own, with whatever 4th Gen fighters there are that can flow in the wake of JSF EW opening the door and executing D-SEAD. D-SEAD is already a JSF mission-focus with all 3 services, even USMC. At a minimum, they need to do it for the low-end fight already since there are so many mobile IADS platforms in maritime and littoral environments. USAF main platforms for D-SEAD since retirement of the F-4G have been the F-16CJ upgraded to CCIP F-16CM with full HARM employment capability. JSF already does it better with SDBs, but AARGM-ER gives it even more stand-off and higher pk against ground Radar platforms. The MEZ is increasingly-less approachable by legacy fighters due to sensor and SAM performance increases.
    2
  28.  @koori3085  If you're talking about YF-23 risks, I listed them above. It was a radically-beautiful design, but represented a series of risks that didn't exist with the F-22.
    2
  29.  @timtrewyn2042  ATF program was very insular then, as was F-22A once they started building the initial production Raptors and sending them to Edwards in the late 1990s. I was long-gone then, but my family was still at ED then.
    2
  30. He makes so many mistakes though. The history of stealth is one of them. Pyotr Ufimtsev wasn't even in school when the Germans developed stealth for their U-Boat masts during WWII. The US took assessmemt of German stealth programs at the end of the war, and began implementing them first on the Lockheed P-80 out of Wright Patterson, then the U-2. Neither airframe was suitable for VLO technologies, so they initiated development of a new spyplane that would cruise at over Mach 3. It was called the A-12, beginning in 1957, and going operational in 1963. The YF-12A and SR-71A were developed from it.
    2
  31. Pilots said it handles like an F-4 without burner. That was from guys who had flown the F-4E and F-4G prior to going into the F-117A. There’s an excellent interview with one of them on The Fighter Pilot Podcast.
    2
  32. F-15 upgrades were anything but cheap, I can tell you that. We were on the F-15 CTF at Edwards and the avionics work alone was substantial.
    2
  33.  @michaelmixon2479  Not survivable against modern IADS.
    2
  34.  @michaelmixon2479  In the 1980s already, DoD came to the conclusion that all of the future TACAIR fighters needed to be Stealth airframes with Very Low Observables due to proliferation of Soviet SAMs and IADS networks. The Aviation Week & Space Technology issue that showcased the MiG-29s flying in Finland on the cover (first Western appearance) had the article about moving forward with US Military fighter designs all needing to be VLO.
    2
  35.  @jeremyhess7977  Every single teen series pilot who has converted to F-35s, including former Hornet drivers, says they would absolutely take the F-35 into combat over anything else. I just spoke with some senior USMC legacy Hornet drivers who were all TOPGUN and MAWTS instructors in the Hornet before going over to F-35B. They love the F-35B and specifically said if they could deploy it in Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be able to achieve a single tactical objective, would lose any air asset that got near them, would decimate their armor columns, and erase any sea assets at their pleasure.
    2
  36.  @brilobox2  Over 900 F-35s have been divered so far. It has been in FRP for years. Precious few fighter designs have hit more than 800 units over the past 40 years.
    2
  37. How many has the MiG-31 shot down?
    2
  38.  @luigimrlgaming9484  The F-16 has excellent combat radius and surprisingly-good glide ratio. The problem for it and any 4th Gen design is external stores and parasitic drag with weight. The F-16 will execute an impressive mission radius when configured, but the F-35A does much better. A good example of how good the F-16’s radius is becomes apparent when you compare it to the MiG-29. F-16 has 3x the mission radius of a MiG-29.
    2
  39.  @luigimrlgaming9484  You mean until it can strike targets in China with long-range stand-off weapons, it doesn’t go far enough. It can already do that, at least both the A and C versions with certain VLO cruise missiles.
    2
  40.  @luigimrlgaming9484  Initial targeting never comes from the weapons delivery aircraft, but from other ISR platforms, which historically fed into an intel planning center, who then would disseminate to the operational elements, where the ATO was generated. JSF and other platforms can receive real-time targeting updates from ISR, and distribute while updating to each other without even being within sensor range of the TGT areas. They can be EMCON and still have better SA than any other strike platforms in history. In fact, they don’t need to have their own sensors providing targeting data when they launch stand-off weapons. I’m genuinely not trying to be rude, but I can tell this isn’t an area you’re familiar with, so I would recommend many years of studying before commenting on this subject, unless you want to ask questions.
    2
  41. YF-23 represented more risk because they never really worked out the weapons bay, the inlets had problems with boundary layer separation and management that still needed to be fixed before it could go Mach 2, so it only reached Mach 1.82, and they cracked several windscreens during supersonic tests. Meanwhile, YF-22 had already demonstrated Mach 2.2, weapons separation from belly and cheek weapons stations, used simpler splitter plate boundary layer management, no canopy problems, and exceeded the maneuverability of the MiG-29 easily across the flight envelope.
    2
  42.  @Nightsight971  I’m seeing a continual trend even among proponents of the F-35 who don’t seem to know the facts about the common myths being repeated. There’s a great book written by each subsystem lead engineer and test pilots that explains the inner workings of the design to a level that should not have been published, but I guess they figured nobody would read an 871 page book anyway.
    2
  43. ​ @xyzaero F-16 started out pretty affordable. Each Block became significantly-more expensive as they added capabilities. Late Block Vipers are pretty pricey, and none of the common online sources I've seen people quote for prices are accurate.
    2
  44.  @wedgeantilles8575  F-16 was envisioned as a pure daytime, lower altitude band, visual range lightweight fighter that retained its energy better than any other fighter in that regime. USAF immediately had different ideas for an easily-maintained multirole light fighter, which they proceeded to use primarily as a bomb truck that could self-escort and swing into A2A against anything F-15s hadn't splashed already. NATO MSIP partners saw it as a great interceptor to replace their F-104Gs and F-5s, with multirole capabilities on top of that. Over the years, it evolved its various mission sets with better weapons, all-weather/night capabilities with Block 40, and proved itself to be the most successful single engine fighter in history.
    2
  45. Less at subsonic speeds, much lower Thrust-to-Weight ratio due to increased weight.
    1
  46. F-35s have no less than 11 RF sensors as part of the EW suite as well visible on open source, probably more. AESA, 3 per Leading Edge Flap, 1 per trailing edge wingtip, 1 per trailing edge horizontal stabs.
    1
  47. There is a tiny window of time where Putin has to invade before Finland’s F-35A Block 4 orders start delivering and get into operational status with the Finnish Air Force. Once Finland has enough of its order, any Russian invasion will be curb-stomped with blistering losses to their force structure in the Saint Petersburg Military District and any additional forces allocated for the invasion of Finland. The problem is that Russia has intelligence based on what it wants to see regarding Finland, not what the reality is. They don’t even understand or accept the events of the Winter War and Continuation War history, but instead have created their own version of the Russo-Finnish wars from 1939-1944 that have very little relationship to reality. Either way, they see Finland as belonging to them, created by the Czar in 1809. Due to Finland’s tiny population, they assume it’s just a pushover to take, far less of a challenge than Ukraine. What they don’t understand is the Karelian Isthmus and how it channelizes any ground combat elements into a kill zone. There are no basing footprints from which to stage and successfully invade north of there, because there’s nothing but forest and lakes along most of the border, uninhabited on both sides. Putin appears to be leaning on NATO members like Turkey and Hungary to delay Finland’s accession to NATO, in preparation for the invasion so that Article 5 can’t be implemented.
    1
  48. Their fighters have such huge RCSs and IR signatures that F-35 already had 635 different parameters for PID in a NCTR environment 10 years ago. The passive sensor ability to detect, track, PID, and provide weapons-cueing is unprecedented in JSF.
    1
  49. F-35 CNI/CIP brain has 4 different boards with card-upgradeable architecture.
    1
  50. Now you’re left trying to figure out why all 3 F-35 variants have dramatically lower MMHPFH than even the F-16. F-16 had the lowest mx hours of any fighter in USAF inventory until F-35A came along. F-16 is 11-14hrs depending on year, not including ECM, FLIR, HTS pods, TD pylons. F-35A is 3.5hrs to 4.4hrs F-35B is 6.1-8hrs F-35C is 6.7hrs F/A-18E/F is 14-21hrs F-14A/B/D was 40-60hrs
    1