Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 vs F-111 throw weight
Aussiegunner    2/13/2004 5:13:11 AM
A lot has been said about the reduced throw weight of the F-35, compared to the Royal Australian Airforce's F-111's that it will replace. Commentators concentrate on the 600nm range(1000nm for the F-111) and the 2 x 2000lb bomb internal load(4 x 2000lb externally for the F-111), in some instances to frame the F-35 as inadequate and that the F-111 should be kept around. I tend to think the argument is simplistic and refute it on the following counts. 1. The SDB means the F-35 can carry at least 12 bombs with the penetration capability of a 2000lb'er internally. This means that for most hard targets, the F-35's can carry at least 3 times as many weapons as a pig typically carries today. Given the primacy of the anti-airfield mission for the RAAF, having a flight of F-35's drop enough bombs to destroy an entire airfield and its complement of aircraft is a pretty impressive capability. 2. It can use stand-off munitions, like the JASSM cruise missiles, prior to entering enemy airspace to engage with SDB's or JDAM. Sure, the JASSM's make the airframe non-stealthy, but once fired the F-35 assumes stealth configuration. The JASSM might be fired at enemy air defences, with the proposed LOCASS submunitions attacking air defence sites. The same flight of F-35's that attacks the enemy airfield might just have taken out 20 or more SAM sites on way in, thus clearing the way. 3. Comparisons in the penetration role of the F-111 to the F-35 are misleading. The F-111 simply will not survive in this role, post-2010, without extensive modification and use of force multipliers. It lacks stealth and nothing can change that in a big way. The F-35 is the only tactical aircraft available to Australia that can carry a 4000lb warload internally with a stealthy profile. Furthermore, the F-35 has a number of survivability features and sensors that the F-111 doesn't in its present form. The twin AMRAAM bays, and the radar necessary to guide them, are formost amongst these. Now it seems that from around 2015, these will contain dual-use AAM/ARM's as well. This means that the F-35 flight we are talking about can do its own defensive SEAD and contribute to its own self-defence against aircraft, in a way no F-111 can. 4. The shorter range of the F-35 can be addressed by drop tanks, released on entry into a heavily defended environment. With two JASSM, two AMRAAM and 12 JASSM in our theoretical flight occupies just under 10000lb of a 17000lb warload, leaving the remaining 7000lb for fuel. This adds almost 50% to the F-35's 15000lb fuel load. I know that the weight and drag issues mean that this will not increase the range by the full 50%, but lets say it does by 33%, to 800nm, to be conservative. Its not 1000nm, but it is getting there. Note though that the F-111 is more likely to have to use burners, and use them for longer, than the F-35 as it relys on speed to survive. This will bring the range of the F-35 closer to the F-111. Also, the F-35 has an in-flight refueling capability that the F-111 never had in Australian service, so in effect the F-35 force will be able to strike even further in many instances. 5. A lot has been made of the "loitering bombardment" capability of the F-111, using 4 PGM's of up to 2000lb to attack time critical tactical and CAS targets. With 2 x internal bombs, 2 x fuel tanks and 2 x 2000lb'ers on the wings, the F-35 can do the same thing in a safer manner. Not only will it have onboard AAM's and SEAD weapons, but if enemy fighters try to engage it can drop its remaining external stores, go stealthy and shoot them down, then continue to engage ground targets with internal bombs. The F-111 would have to drop all of its stores and run, effectively ruling it out of further action against ground targets, which constitutes a "win" to the enemy. 6. Even in the anti-ship role, stealth will help the F-35 win. The F-111 relies on saturating the target with 4 Harpoon missiles, whereas the F-35 can launch a pair of Harpoon, drop tanks, make a stealthy approach then engage with internal weapons like JDAM or JSOW derivatives. It could also fire dual-role missiles to suppress a ships defences so they can't defend against oncoming weapons. Given that the F-35's can keep up with the Harpoon's after launch, this approach could be co-ordinated so that the duel-role missiles arrive just before the anti-ship weapons, for maximum effect. So, while the F-35's cannot match the F-111 in raw range and warload data, it will be able to carry between the same and 3 times the practical warload(ie, warload the force can get to the target, without getting shot down) of today's F-111 force and will match it when external tanks and in-flight refueling are used. The F-lll cannot match the F-35 on survivability, even with considerable upgrades and investment in force multipliers, so its bigger raw warload is really irrelevant, even if bomb racks to exploit this exploit this was found. An F-111 with in-f
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aus    F-35 vs F-111 throw weight   2/13/2004 6:17:39 AM
You are referring to another one of Carlo Kopps little tomes? ;) This one has been absolutely pasted in "The Basement".
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight   2/13/2004 6:40:42 AM
Hey AG, I know we've been 'round and 'round with this but I'd like to get feedback on a few points, "1. The SDB means the F-35 can carry at least 12 bombs with the penetration capability of a 2000lb'er internally. " AFAIK, BRU-61/A is the only SDB rack under development, and it's a four-pointer. That would mean 8 SDBs per F-35 internally. Apparently, there was a desire to have a 6-point rack, but it has not materialized at this point. Have you seen something to contradict this? "2. It can use stand-off munitions, like the JASSM cruise missiles, prior to entering enemy airspace to engage with SDB's or JDAM. Sure, the JASSM's make the airframe non-stealthy, but once fired the F-35 assumes stealth configuration." I don't think this is exactly true. After dropping external stores, I believe the racks remain on the aircraft. This will significantly impact its RCS. It is not exactly fair to compare an F-35 with miniature weapons to an F-111 with todays weapons. An F-111 could undoubtably be modified to carry large numbers of SDBs. "Therefore, keeping the F-111's around any longer than necessary seems a waste of money in my book, because the F-35 with the planned tankers will out-perform it in most instances" If they aren't proving to be maintenance nightmares (a big 'if'), then I can't see how buying a new aircraft is going to be less expensive than keeping something you already own. Of course, keeping old aircraft can be a risky proposition, as the spares, know-how and international support dries up.
 
Quote    Reply

JJFS    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight   2/13/2004 11:10:47 AM
"6. Even in the anti-ship role, stealth will help the F-35 win. The F-111 relies on saturating the target with 4 Harpoon missiles, whereas the F-35 can launch a pair of Harpoon, drop tanks, make a stealthy approach then engage with internal weapons like JDAM or JSOW derivatives." F-35s won't be able to carry harpoons internally?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight - B.Smitty   2/13/2004 12:27:52 PM
"The SDB means the F-35 can carry at least 12 bombs with the penetration capability of a 2000lb'er internally. " Like I have said, I have seen a site that quoted 12 SDB's, but can't find it. In any case, I am happy to speculate that the F-35 will eventually have racks to make full use if its internal bays. It is common sense really, just like a duel role AAM/ARM was when I speculated on that. I was shouted down on this forum when I suggested that, but whaddaya know, the USAF had the same idea! It is ok to think outside the square on basic engineering issues on occasions, you know;-) "It is not exactly fair to compare an F-35 with miniature weapons to an F-111 with todays weapons. An F-111 could undoubtably be modified to carry large numbers of SDBs." I realise that the F-111 could be modified to carry large numbers of SDB's. The reason that I compare it to todays warload, is because todays warload is considered more than adequate for the tasks it is expected to do. This means that when people try to run the F-35 down on the basis of an inadequate warload, they are ignoring the fact that in practical terms, the F-35's warload is more than adequate for us. "I don't think this is exactly true. After dropping external stores, I believe the racks remain on the aircraft. This will significantly impact its RCS." If that were true, it would be another problem that could be fixed. More common sense. "If they aren't proving to be maintenance nightmares (a big 'if'), then I can't see how buying a new aircraft is going to be less expensive than keeping something you already own." Whats the point in keeping them? They would need millions in upgrades and force muliltipliers and would still severely at risk of being shot down. Also, they can't be used as fighters, use a load of fuel, involve huge maintainance costs, we have to bear the cost of any RND by ourselves and you have to pay 2 crew instead of one.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight - gf0012-aus   2/13/2004 12:29:58 PM
Yup, I am and I saw the "Basement's" response.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight - JJFS    2/13/2004 12:32:05 PM
I should clarify the post by saying that the Harpoons would go on the outer external pylons, the fuel tanks on the inner external ones and the JDAM/JSOW in the internal bay, with the dual role missiles.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight - B.Smitty   2/13/2004 7:18:18 PM
"Like I have said, I have seen a site that quoted 12 SDB's, but can't find it. In any case, I am happy to speculate that the F-35 will eventually have racks to make full use if its internal bays." I don't mind the speculation, as long as it's clearly defined as such. Saying "at least 12" implies that this is a certainty, which it is not. Apparently, the contractors bidding on the SMER were trying for a 6-round rack, but the Boeing 4-round rack won. Of course that doesn't mean a 6-rounder won't be introduced in the future, but the budget hawks may decide that the 4-rounder is "good enough". "I realise that the F-111 could be modified to carry large numbers of SDB's. The reason that I compare it to todays warload, is because todays warload is considered more than adequate for the tasks it is expected to do." Well, still, configuring an F-111 with SDBs would let you fly fewer aircraft to hit the same number of targets. So, essentially, adding SDB/SMER to the equation improves both aircraft. "If that were true, it would be another problem that could be fixed. More common sense. " Could be, but again, I haven't seen anything to indicate anyone's working on this, have you? Are you willing to buy in to this program with hopes that the US will fund these efforts in the future? Or is Austrailia going to foot the bill? The US has enough trouble funding the programs that have been announced! "Whats the point in keeping them? They would need millions in upgrades and force muliltipliers and would still severely at risk of being shot down. Also, they can't be used as fighters, use a load of fuel, involve huge maintainance costs, we have to bear the cost of any RND by ourselves and you have to pay 2 crew instead of one." I'm not arguing that you should keep them. I'm just pointing out that keeping & upgrading existing aircraft may be a less expensive option - not necessarily the "best" one.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight - gf0012-aus   2/13/2004 7:18:55 PM
"Yup, I am and I saw the "Basement's" response." Can anyone point me to this?
 
Quote    Reply

JJFS    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight - B.Smitty   2/13/2004 10:12:39 PM
"I don't think this is exactly true. After dropping external stores, I believe the racks remain on the aircraft. This will significantly impact its RCS." "If that were true, it would be another problem that could be fixed. More common sense. " The external carriage racks on the F-22 are discarded after use. It should no doubt be the same with the F-35.
 
Quote    Reply

JJFS    RE:F-35 vs F-111 throw weight - JJFS    2/13/2004 10:13:34 PM
I know that's the configuration you had in mind, but is the F-35 capable of carrying the harpoon internally?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics