The F-35 issue has been on the minds of Western military leaders for years. Initially as a potential increase in the combat power of their Air Force. With the problems plaguing the program not yet fully addressed and the cost until the completion of the development of the full operational capability (FOC) version, Block 4, not yet fully measurable, the promotion campaign in allied countries is in full swing . With the primary goal of covering part of the huge costs of the program. Described by the Americans themselves as the most expensive weapons system ever developed.
All Air Forces of European countries to date, such as those of Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Finland maintain small (less than 70 fighter aircraft) air forces, with the exception of Poland, while at the same time they have received significant rewards for the supply of the F-35. Norway and the Netherlands participated in the program as partners, Poland and Finland will receive critical weapons along with the aircraft, Belgium maintains NATO headquarters in its capital, which translates into thousands of jobs and goes saying.
For now we will only look at the operational advantages and disadvantages of the American 5th generation fighter, as we can distinguish them from the available data. And first we will address the aerial battle.
The “policing” of the FIR of a country
The F-35 Lightning II is not suitable for meeting the day-to-day policing needs of a country’s FIR. First of all because the cost per flight hour is (at present…) significantly higher than that of the F-16, F-15, F-18, Grippen, Eurofighter, Mirage-2000 etc.
Without being more or less flexible in closed jams. Many US -mainly- sources report and confirm that after the initial engagements of F-16 with F-35 in the framework of Red Flag exercises in 2015 and 2016, the limiters of the flight control system of the latter have been “teased”, following the instructions of the pilots, in order to give greater freedom of movement at high inclines and high dynamic loads (G), but also at large angles of attack (AoA).
But they also mention something else. That the F-35 was not designed for this purpose and is ideal for over-the-top (BVR) engagements. Be that as it may, even if we accept that the flexibility of Lightning II is sufficient, in this role the fighter loses what it’s supposed to pay a country to buy. The regular advantage offered by the features of low visibility. That is, the stealth characteristics.
Air-to-air, medium-long range distances (BVR)
A field that at least in the race that will be held in the air, will have as dominant feature the engagements beyond the optical horizon (BVR) and the predominance of the force that will remain for the longest time in the air and at the same time will have a better and more complete picture regular situation.
The role of flying tankers in this process, and much more of Airborne Early Warning & Control System (AWACS), will be catalytic.
The first factor that needs to be taken into account in order to get to the heart of the matter is radius and autonomy, in addition to the fact that the inclusion of the F-35 in service in a PA will indeed provide a regular advantage in terms of low visibility ( VLO – Very Low observable).
What do we mean by that?
That the large fuel capacity internally is one of the biggest advantages of the F-35 as a fighter and the same goes for the VLO features. Which are lost, however, if a weapons cargo has to be transported externally. The internal fuel capacity of the F-35A according to the manufacturer’s data is 18,480 pounds (8,382 kg). In the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) F-35B, which also has the largest empty weight compared to the other two basic versions, the maximum internally loaded fuel drops to 14,003 pounds (6,351 kg). Finally and always based on the manufacturer’s data, the fuel capacity of the aircraft carrier F-35C amounts to 20,085 pounds (9,110 kg)!
To understand how big this number is or even the 8,382 kg of the F-35A, we note that the internal fuel capacity of the Rafale C reaches 4,700 kg (10,300 lbs) based on manufacturer data. The corresponding figure of the Eurofighter is five tons (11,020 pounds) and the F / A-18E is 6,531 kg (14,398 pounds). We do not even mention the single-engine F-16 because the internal fuel capacity is only 3,175 kg (7000 pounds). What does all this mean in practice? That with internal fuel only, to maintain VLO characteristics, the F-35A that an Air Force is interested in has the largest combat radius and autonomy compared to any other fighter.
But is the radius of battle and autonomy enough?
The answer is no, because they also need weapons. A huge compromise has been made here in terms of the carrying capacity of the weapons in the two armatures of the fighter. While initially the manufacturer promised internal capacity of four AIM-9 Sidewinder and eight AMRAAM AIM-120 in air-to-air configuration, eventually the capacity has been reduced to just four AIM-120.
This choice was obviously made for reasons of maintaining the internal fuel capacity in the maximum possible quantity. We write “obviously” because a look at the display of the layout of the internal fuel tanks in the F-35A and -C, reveals that the manufacturer’s priority was this. That is, the large radius combined with VLO characteristics, to the detriment of the internal carrying capacity of weapons. To date, there is no reliable information on the development of external fuel tanks for all three versions of the F – 35.
At the request of the US Navy (USN), Lockheed Martin announced in early 2019 that it had begun developing the sidekick mechanism (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-sidekick-invention-lets-f-35-carry -six-missiles-instead-four-79781), which will allow the transfer of another AIM-120D internally to each armature hatch. The mechanism will be attached to the inner door of each hatch, which will not change shape. It will be structurally reinforced, however, as will its propulsion mechanisms, in order to withstand the extra weight of 152 kg of the rocket and the aerodynamic loads that it will cause during its movement.
The sidekick mechanism has been included in the – ook few – modifications / improvements of the Block 4 configuration, which will also be the one with full operational capabilities of the fighter. Available from 2025-2026 onwards. Currently under VLO configuration, the F-35 Block 3 in production can carry up to four AIM-120Ds in air-to-air configuration. Insufficient number for today’s data. In contrast to the beast mode configuration, as shown in the relevant illustration, the load of air-to-air missiles amounts to 14 long-range AIM-120D missiles and two AIM-9X.
The AIM-120D AMRAAM long-range air-to-air weapon is not currently certified in the F-35A (https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/raytheon-looks-at-integrating-amraam -er-in-f-35a-internal-carriage / 143866.article), as well as in any other version of the fighter. The AIM-260 JATM (Joint Advanced Tactical Missile) is still under development, while smaller BVR missile development programs are underway to increase the number of missiles carried in armature hatches in the future.
All the above reasons obviously pushed the British in the decision to integrate METEOR in their own F-35B in 2019 (https://www.mbda-systems.com/2019/03/18/work-starts-integrating-next-generation- meteor-and-spear-onto-uk-f-35-fleet /). The cost of integrating the weapon has been reported (https://eurasiantimes.com/another-turbulence-hits-f-35-fighter-jet-program-as-the-uk-flags-missile-integration-issues/) that will rise to 41 41 million, although this figure cannot be confirmed as the program is already experiencing serious delays (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35b-fitted-with-meteor-missile-middle- of-this-decade /) according to the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The latter has also released higher estimated costs for other F-35B certifications (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/how-much-does-it-cost-to-add-weapons-to-the- f-35 /). Specifically mentioned: For the certification of ASRAAM cost of 47 million pounds, for the certification of Paveway IV cost 103 million and for SPEAR Cap 3 cost of 170 million. Total, including the cost of integrating METEOR, 361 million pounds!
This money is additional to what has been spent so far by Britain as Partner Level 1, in the context of the development of the F-35, but also to what has been spent on the purchase of the 48 F-35B! In terms of the weapons themselves, AMRAAM Pk (Probability of Kill), for all its previous -D versions, has been identified at 46% of its total shots. Note that this percentage has been recorded against targets that did not maneuver to avoid the missile and did not have RWR or countermeasure systems to deceive it.
It is claimed that the –D version provides a radius of 50% greater than the C-7. 180 kilometers (100 nautical miles!) Is the number that has been made public. Most analysts argue that in most cases the actual Pk number of 50% in terms of radius is below 100 km. That’s why AMRAAM is still called “the Achilles heel of the US military.”
Although the radius of the European METEOR, albeit estimated, has never been made public, its manufacturer insists not on this fact, but on the significantly higher Pk, due to the triple NEZ (No Escape Zone). Which arises mainly from the propulsion system of the rocket (variable -throttable- thrust tube). Be that as it may, both weapons will be available in the F-35 Block 4, ensuring excellent BVR capabilities, provided that at least six missiles are transported inland in order to maintain the low visibility (VLO) advantage.
The crucial advantage of the F-35 in long-range air combat
Here’s the crucial advantage of the F-35 in long-distance air combat. That conventional fighters, even if they carry weapons of the METEOR or AIM-120D class, will not be able to locate and trap it, or when they have done so it will be too late, because they will have been detected first by the F-35 which will have already fired weapons at them;
And we move on to the passive detection and trapping sensors. This is equipment that is now standardized in modern fighter jets, including infrared (IR) sensors and day cameras (TV) of high sensitivity and sharpness that can detect targets in the air and on the ground from long distances, eliminating the need for detection and targeting through electromagnetic radiation (radar).
Although all 4.5 generation fighters now have such systems integrated, the F-35 adopted full perimeter (360 degree) coverage via the AN / AAQ-37 DAS (Distributed Aperture System). Not just the anterior hemisphere. The DAS includes six high-sensitivity, high-definition infrared cameras around the aircraft, through which ballistic missiles (a large heat source) can be detected even at distances of 1000+ kilometers!
In the same way, long-range aircraft can be detected (as heat sources…), trapped and weapons fired at. Completely passive. Part of the DAS is the EOTS (Electro Optical Targeting System) located at the bottom of the muzzle and used for ground targeting, as well as the projection system on the helmet Generation III F-35 OLED Helmet Display Unit (HDU), which combines indications HUD, night vision binoculars (NVG) function and targeting system such as JHMCS.
The advantages of the F-35 in air combat include:
- Low visibility (VLO) design features that limit its detection and trapping distances from air defense radar and adversary radar. Providing in this way the advantage “I see first, I throw first”, compared to conventional fighter design.
- The large amount of internally transported fuel that allows a large battle radius, or long stays in the air in surveillance, patrol and cover missions of friendly forces. Provides greater operational flexibility, reducing the need to utilize flying tankers.
- The advanced set of electro-optical sensors with combined use of DAS, EOTS and HDU (Gen III), ensures perimeter (360 degree) passive targeting of air and ground over long distances, which provides the ability to use the F-35 as an ISR platform that can feeds with absolute adequacy with targeting elements and real-time image, friendly platforms in the air, land and sea surface.
- The very high carrying capacity in air-to-air weapon load (comparable to that of the F-15X) in non stealth (beast mode) configuration. Namely 14 AIM-120 and two AIM-9.
The Disadvantages of the F-35 in the air are the following:
- Cost, performance and flight characteristics limitations in short-range air combat.
- Extremely limited carrying capacity in weapons load, in VLO (stealth) configuration.
- This production version (Block 3) does not include advanced long-range BVR missiles, such as the AIM-120D and the European METEOR. Which means that if an Air Force chooses to procure now, it will incur significant upgrade costs to Block 4 in the future, with all the upgrades it will include.
- The lowest kinematic performance (acceleration, ascent, maximum cruising speed, Supercruise weakness(https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/37twlx/busting_the_f35_can_supercruise_myth/) in relation to not only F-15ΕΧ, but also with the Eurofighter, Rafale, F-16, F/A-18E, in turn reduce the “envelope” of air-to-air missile launch. directed towards a goal.
- Ιnability to fly at supersonic speeds for extended periods of time (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s- supersonic-flights /). Looking at the post we quote, it is found that many American officials downplay this fact, pointing out that the F-35 does not need to fly supersonic for long periods of time anyway because this condition removes its advantages! Without specifying whether ultrasonic cruising time restrictions apply to the USAF F-35A version, the Program Management Office (JPO) limited itself to simply indicating the avoidance of ultrasonic speeding or ultrasonic cruising to a specific speed limit and for a specific time for the F-35B and -C versions! Pointing out at the same time that the cost of repairing this problem is simply too high and therefore unprofitable.
Of course the ability of a fighter to develop rapidly and maintain for as long as necessary, supersonic cruising speeds, regardless of the increase in fuel consumption and thermal trace, in many cases determines the outcome of a confrontation in the air δηλαδή That is, its crew must has the ability, if it deems necessary, to fly quickly to “prevent” an enemy formation and to come to favorable firing parameters, or to be able to move away from an area as quickly as possible, in order to avoid a serious danger;
- Lack of possibility to utilize external fuel tanks to further increase the battle radius in non stealth (beast mode) configuration.
This analysis is the first part and follows the second part with the financial dimension of the program.
