Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Real Engineering"
channel.
-
37
-
@dontworry2379 If I say something on this subject, it's coming from 5 decades in the field, to include institutional knowledge specific to the F-4 and the aircraft that superceded it, while it continued to serve in NATO and Pacific allied air forces for decades.
The main reasons we divested of the F-4 in favor of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 was because a single man crew could do the job with 1970s-forward avionics without needing a RIO, and we moved on to turbofan engines, more advanced avionics, and more fuel fraction.
F-4 had turbojets, which don't do well in the low speed, lower altitude regime, but love to be up high and fast (as it was designed for carrierborne BARCAP against Soviet bombers).
While designing the F-4's stores carrying layout, they built it around 4 semi-recessed stations for radar-guided missiles, and 2 hardpoints on the wings for 2 more.
Those hard points got AIM-9 pylons attached to them on each side, giving it a pretty slick 8x AAM A2A load-out even with EFTs on stations 1 & 9.
Additionally, it could still carry MERs or TERs on stations 2, 5, & 8 loaded with bombs without sacrificing any AAMs. It could carry 9-12 500lb bombs in addition to 8x AAMs, which gave it superior self-escort capability to the F-105D.
It really set the bar high for what we expected as a baseline during the design and requirements for F/X and TFX, as well as LWF and what became the F/A-18.
F-14, F-16, and F/A-18 failed to match the payload mix of the F-4. Only the F-15 and later Super Hornet could do it in US 4th Gen fighters.
It also set the bar in payload for the Typhoon and Rafale. It was a very capable platform in this regard, lending itself well to the Wild Weasel mission set with the F-4G in USAF before being replaced by F-16C Block 50/52 with CCIP to HARM Targeting System capability.
17
-
15
-
8
-
5
-
@natthaphonhongcharoen There's a huge difference between cruising at 285kts down in radar-guided AAA envelope and transonic/ supersonic speeds at altitude dodging SAMs. There's a reason General Horner grounded A-10s in Desert Storm.
It's just not a survivable platform, especially in today's battlespace filled with AAA, MANPADS, UAVs, multirole fighters, interceptors, modern double digit SAMs, and COTs-rigged SAMs with advanced FLIR guidance units towed by Toyotas.
Look at the aircraf lost list over Syria since 2013. Anything low and slow has littered the area like confetti, including some of our drones.
Houthi rebels in Yemen have even shot down fast Saudi fighters at altitude, including the F-15S.
An A-10 in CENTCOM might be relevant if they stick to CAS in Afghanistan, but in the Syrian-Iraq border region and anywhere even close to Iran, they're extremely vulnerable.
5
-
4
-
4
-
@preciousroihomeshoppingnet7908 If we accept the premise that you need extended loiter time, then the F-16 certainly doesn't have the legs but can get to an emergency TIC way faster than a Warthog can. It can drop SDBs, JDAMs, and GBUs, as well as strafe with a far superior aiming system with the Fire Control Computer-driven LCOS, reducing chances of fratricide.
A Mudhen can get there faster too, carry a ridiculous amount of ordnance, and has a lot of legs with CFTs and EFTs, plus a 2 man crew to task manage the CAS.
F-35A can see what's in the area from over the horizon in extreme detail, arrive on station faster than any of the others, and starts off with 18,400lb of internal fuel vs the Viper's 7000lb internal plus EFTs that take up its strongest hard points.
I wouldn't put the Viper and F-35 in the same boat when looking at loiter time.
Former Mudhen and Grey Eagle drivers say the F-35A has more legs, so loiter time is not a weakness with the F-35A.
USMC F-35B is comparable to a Hornet, with an almost double combat radius over the AV-8B.
With JSF, they are able to do things it would normally take 4-6 other aerial platforms to do, including ESM aircraft that don't get mentioned a lot.
F-35 is going to surprise a lot of people in a new generation of CAS I think, based on initial feedback from JTACs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Also, the initial developmental F-35A flight control law tests that were often cited by people claiming the F-35 is not capable against a 2-tank family model Viper has long been put to rest as the flight envelope was opened up. Just like with the Raptor, they didn't open full maneuvering capes out of the gate with the test program. Block 3F F-35As have been hurting Vipers for many years now in BFM, with senior Viper drivers who converted to F-35A saying that they have far more nose-pointing authority in the F-35 vs the F-16 since the F-35 isn't anywhere near as AOA-limited as the Viper.
Viper drivers who thought they would treat the F-35 like a Hornet and fight a radius fight vs a rate fight then had to learn the hard way that the F-35 retains energy more like a Viper, and recovers airspeed better than a Viper. F-35 pilots learned to fight the F-35 in its strengths vs the Viper's weaknesses, and most BFM exchanges result in F-35s being dominant, not that an F-35 would ever let a 4th Gen within visual range of it anyway. Once you combat-configure the Viper with 2 EFTs, centerline ECM pod, HARM or LITENING Pod, bombs, and missiles, it has no aero or T/W advantages over an F-35 (that is carrying the same amount of bombs and missiles, with far more fuel than the Viper can carry).
The Dutch F-35A pilots said when they came to Red Flag or trained against Nellis-based aggressor squadrons, they did BVR set-ups, then did BFM against aggressor Vipers who thought they could show up to the fight with 2 wing tanks. After the first day, the Viper drivers were surprised at the results, and showed up the next day only with centerline 300 gal EFTs, still had a hard time with the F-35A. 3rd day, they showed up slick with ACMI only to re-gain whatever pride was left.
After the sorties, the F-35 pilots wouldn't return until much later for de-brief. Viper drivers asked what was going on with the time delay for RTB, and the Dutch said, "Let's go ahead and de-brief and it will all make sense." During the de-brief, which takes hours, they detailed how they flew every which way they wanted VLO approaches on the Vipers and killed them repeatedly, then went through all the agreed BFM set-ups with each other where F-35s were dominant, then explained how they flew out to the various test ranges to deliver live 2000lb JDAMs on-TGT after their BFM games. The Viper pilots were awe-struck that they had been fighting F-35s with full internal A2G weapons the whole time, let alone 2 x 2000lb JDAMs.
It sent home the message that F-35 fuel fraction and internal weapons storage is a significant factor in its performance capes, and they realized the Viper they were flying is basically obsolete in comparison. Meanwhile, people with no familiarity with the actual capabilities of the F-35 talk about what a piece of garbage it is, how much more maneuverable the F-16 is, and how their pet Flanker/Typhoon/Rafale/Viper would smoke the F-35 because they read the "leaked" pilot report of the test article F-35 from years ago.
3
-
It's best to understand the JSF program as 3 separate airframes that share a common avionics and engine core, not airframes that were compromised because of a common airframe design as much as has been hyped. Nobody has done a cost-benefit analysis in the media sector of all the airframes it would take using older technology to attempt to cover some of the capabilities of the JSF fleet, including all the ancillary systems that cost multiples of millions per unit in addition to the aircraft, when said systems are integrated into the F-35 seamlessly from the start. Then when you realize that F-35As are currently rolling off the production line at costs that are similar to, or less than legacy airframes with nowhere near the capabilities, the cost analysis really favors the F-35 considerably.
Examples with 4th Gen fighters include:
* External ECM pods necessary for operating in high IADS threat environments
* External Electro-Optical Detection/Targeting/Laser Spot Tracking Pods
* Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems
* Certain Countermeasures Systems that require additional external profile
So the base price for a Super Hornet or later Block F-16 is one thing, whereas all the necessary ancillary combat systems that get bolted-on (taking up opportunity costs for weapons stations in the process) are millions of dollars in addition to that base price. Further, since the upgrading of these pods/external mounts often includes complete pod body replacement, the scaled costs run away from you quickly when looking at fleet sizes.
With the F-35, all of these systems and more are integrated into the physical airframe and subsystems of the F-35 internally, with software-leveraged upgrades that can maximize the life cycle of the hardware components. When the hardware needs to be replaced, you don't have to manufacture a new external case for them, and scale those costs across the fleet, which saves billions in comparison. Also, since the 3 services and multiple coalition partners share the common avionics and engine cores, your upgrade costs go down because of purchasing volume.
Then look at lethality and survivability. If it takes you 4 legacy aircraft with attrition to execute limited mission profiles vs 1 JSF to execute expanded mission profiles, the pay-off in pilots' lives saved and destructive campaigns compressed in time is unprecedented. Right now, the air threats know that everything is done on our terms because we hold all the cards in SA, so instead of having more frequent skirmishes with opportunistic regional powers (or F-14 RIOs who can't discriminate between new Flogger pilots doing their 2nd check ride and a nose-hot interceptor looking for solutions), we're experiencing far less actual aerial conflict as a result.
This helps with regional stability, as much as pilots would love to be told, "Eradicate any threat air with extreme prejudice until all their fighters and aircraft are totally destroyed!"
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@natthaphonhongcharoen The was is an insurance policy for fighters that hasn't been used against another fighter since 1979 in Arab-Israeli border disputes.
It was probably the wrong move to put it on the F-4E, reducing its turn rate and radome size.
US Navy chose to leave the gun off the F-4J/N and secretly implemented Helmet-mounted VTAS with the AIM-9G, which pilots didn't like due to the added weight on the helmet.
Guns and dumb bombs are major technological advancements that have been surpassed by better systems.
Even rear quadrant IR missiles are obsolete for fighters, other than shooting down non-maneuvering targets like bombers and drones.
Once we introduced the AIM-9L Sidewinder on the teen fighters and Harrier, visual range engagements became a face-shooting affair that the Argentines had the unfortunate place in history of learning the hard way, even flying much superior dedicated fighter-interceptors against the British Harriers.
Israelis used a lot of AIM-9s and Python-3s, in addition to AIM-7F radar-guided missiles in 1982 over Bekaa Valley to shoot down 84 Syrian MiGs and Sukhois.
The era of the all-aspect AAM was solidified at that point, while radar-guided missiles got better and better.
AIM-7M was used for most of the F-15C's 34 kills in Desert Storm.
As of late, the F-16C with AIM-120 has been doing most of the Air-to-air shoot downs, mainly in Turkish Air Force service over the past 7 years. They shot down 3 Su-24s in March of this year, all with AIM-120C7 AMRAAMs. They shot down a Russian Su-24M in 2015 as well, and also shot down a Syrian MiG-23 in March of 2014 with an AIM-9.
Use of the gun on the F-22 & F-35 will be extremely rare, if ever. USMC and Navy chose to leave it as an optional pod system if they want it in rare circumstances.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jakob Heinrich F-35A large order just broke $71 million per aircraft, and can do CAS better than the A-10C will ever be able to. I've called in A-10As for CAS, as well as Vipers, and know how bad it sucks to wait for a 285kt slow poke airframe to get to you, vs a fast-mover. F-15Es do CAS much better if you have Troops In Contact that need help NOW, not waiting for 15-45 minutes for them to get to you. An F-35A can get to you within 3-7 minutes over the same distances, depending on whether he needs to take off, or divert from an ISR or other mission profile pattern.
JTACS who have worked with everything else and are now working with F-35s on live CAS missions say the amount of SA the F-35 gives them about things around them before they even get there is mind-blowing. They are also able to put precision munitions on enemy TGTs in the area from over the horizon, at night, through bad weather faster than a Strike Eagle or B-1B can, with far superior sensor data about the TGT and the area, while minimizing collateral damage and blue-on-blue.
Everything everyone said about the F-35 not being able to do CAS like an A-10 was true, but in ways they didn't realize. It smokes the A-10C at CAS without even needing to get down into the weeds within MANPADS or AAA range.
A-10C re-wing is a very costly program, with recent awards to Boeing August 23rd to the tune of $999 million, after they got a $1.1 billion re-wing contract in 2007. The original manufacturer of the A-10, Fairchild, hasn't been a company in decades.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sorenchristensen2149 Each service had their own planned replacement programs for the inevitable retirement of F-117As, F-16Cs, A-10As, F/A-18s, and AV-8Bs.
The UK became interested in what the USMC was going to replace its Harriers with if you look at ASTOVL.
USAF was looking at CALF replacement for F-16 and VLO replacement for F-117A.
USN invested huge money into the subsonic A-12 & got nothing.
Pentagon looked at what all the services were doing, noticed that there was a ton of overlap, asked if 3 airframe variants with common internal systems could be pursued more affordably.
Services responded positively to that, because parts streams and assembly lines could be streamlined.
It really was a joint USAF, Royal Air Forces/Navy, USMC, USN program for 3 significantly different variants.
Imagine the costs for 3 different programs using different engines, radars, cockpits, flight control systems, ECS, E&E, materials, bulkheads, VLO shaping and RAM RDT&E, ejection systems, Electro-Optical sensors, weapons racks, etc.
The JSF program gets criticized for its strengths as weaknesses in the minds of those who never realized how complicated things were with the Century Series mixed with teen fighters, Harrier, and A-10.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanlagrossemoule Yes, much of its capabilities come from lists of complaints from fighter weapons school instructors and senior fighter pilots who asked, "Why don't we integrate these draggy pods into the airframe? While we're at it, why don't we design an airframe that carries the actual amount of gas we need and then some more for good measure?"
If you look at the AFTI F-16 already in the early-mid 1980s, they integrated 2 FLIR/Laser Spot Tracker/Designator Pods into the leading edge wing roots.
JSF initially was going to be the combination of integrated incremental developmental technologies in propulsion, airframe, avionics, sensirs, computing power, and stealth.
Because the leaps in each of those areas was pushed so far out of the norm by the ATF program, the design and manufacturing infrastructure lifted everything to a higher level than I think anyone anticipated.
The bar has been set so high, that the strategic and geopolitical implications are that no other nation will be able to compete with the US in aerospace defense.
If you look at the 10 largest defense-spending nations, all of them are either already US customers, JSF partners, Russia, India, and China.
China can't sell to India, so any potential customers for Chinese 5th gen attempts will not be able to afford many of them, if at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1