Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 297

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    It would be too dangerous for a fourth-generation aircraft like an F-16 to get that close, Watkins said.
    I wonder how 4.5 gen a/c like Rafale with weapons like AASM would have done in such a scenario... we may never know.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    I wonder how 4.5 gen a/c like Rafale with weapons like AASM would have done in such a scenario... we may never know.
    Guess we'll find out the next time the French send the Rafale to Red Flag.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,942
    13 aircraft for 2 weeks and 110 sorties... Is it usual number or fairly low?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,288
    Lockheed credits Trump's involvement in deal for 90 F-35 jets

    “President Trump’s personal involvement in the F-35 program accelerated the negotiations and sharpened our focus on driving down the price,” the company {Lockheed} said in a statement. “The agreement was reached in a matter of weeks and represents significant savings over previous contracts.”

    ...

    The latest “contract is a good and fair deal for the taxpayers, the U.S. government, allies and industry," Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 program executive officer, said in a statement. “We continue to work with Industry to drive costs out of the program.”
    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/31...-next-90-f-35s
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    13 aircraft for 2 weeks and 110 sorties... Is it usual number or fairly low?
    It's hard to say. One of the pilots in the interview session mentioned that the F-35's were used initially in the scenario for SEAD, then 4th gens (typhoons and F-15's) took over after the advanced threats were all removed. 3/4 of the Typhoons were available for 2 sorties a day each.

    Couple take-aways from the interview.

    - Against the most advanced SAM systems they were training against, 4th generation fighters had no way to attack them outside of using cruise missiles (assume S-400 or advanced S-300), but F-35s did with internal weapons.
    - Against SAM systems where 4th generation fighters would have had to use HARMs (~90 miles range), the F-35 was able to drop 2000lb MK-84 bombs on the targets
    - In an environment where 3 Advanced SAM systems existed (assumed S-400), and the force of Typhoons, F-22's, F-15's, F-35s were flying against much higher numbers of enemy aircraft (assume 108 (4.5 x 24) Su-35, Su-30), the F-35 flying with SEAD loadout achieved a 15:1 air to air ratio and lost 2 aircraft total to air and land threats over the course of the scenario.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 4th February 2017 at 13:20.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,405
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Guess we'll find out the next time the French send the Rafale to Red Flag.
    Well guess again.
    Why would we learn anything that happen at RF's?
    Its a need to know thing. Pretty clear. We didn't hear squat about the last time IAF was at RF.
    Guess the air staff over at Nellis learned it the hard way back in 2008
    Last edited by haavarla; 4th February 2017 at 05:25.
    Thanks

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,405
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    It's hard to say. One of the pilots in the interview session mentioned that the F-35's were used initially in the scenario for SEAD, then 4th gens (typhoons and F-15's) took over after the advanced threats were all removed. 3/4 of the Typhoons were available for 2 sorties a day each.

    Couple take-aways from the interview.

    - Against the most advanced SAM systems they were training against, 4th generation fighters had no way to attack them outside of using cruise missiles (assume S-400 or advanced S-300), but F-35s did with internal weapons.
    - Against SAM systems where 4th generation fighters would have had to use HARMs (~90 miles range), the F-35 was able to drop 2000lb MK-84 bombs on the targets
    - In an environment where 3 Advanced SAM systems existed (assumed S-400), and the force of Typhoons, F-22's, F-15's, F-35s were flying against much higher numbers of enemy aircraft (assume 72 (3 x 24) Su-35, Su-30), the F-35 flying with SEAD loadout achieved a 15:1 air to air ratio and lost 2 aircraft total to air and land threats over the course of the scenario.
    Which interview??
    Thanks

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,288
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Well guess again.
    Why would we learn anything that happen at RF's?
    I meant "we" as in the guys running the place, not "we" Joe Q. Public.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,895
    you guys happy about Trump now?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Red Flag 2017 30 minute debrief (sorry about the Audio.. )




    Details of Red Flag 17-1


    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...ghest-test-yet
    Clap, clap, clap.
    At long last its delivering, good, very good.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,942
    On Nellis AFB site http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/tabid/...-exercise.aspx

    However it is noticeable that agressors were F15C and F16C. Dunno which radar they have.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    10,880
    I think what's more important is the integrated threat i.e. what surface to air threats they are simulating coupled with the red-air threat. Red-Flag isn't an evaluation of one platform in a vacuum but an integrated fight and fitting a new capability into that integrated joint forces.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Mkt harborough leicster,uk
    Posts
    39
    Still think the unit cost is far to high, bring back the harriers I say instead of wasting good money on an aircraft that can't even carry an external war load, not mention the fact that it carries dead weight in the S/TOVL version. What a mess its totally been the wrong aircraft for the time. This is why political people should not be allowed to make decisions on our behalf.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    I think what's more important is the integrated threat i.e. what surface to air threats they are simulating coupled with the red-air threat. Red-Flag isn't an evaluation of one platform in a vacuum but an integrated fight and fitting a new capability into that integrated joint forces.
    You right on this, Red Flag is a good test just for this as it allow all the components to acquire more competence, for the rest time will tell.
    And given the numbers and the delivery dates involved, we are talking about a long, long time there.
    So, I'll say that with the 2017 we can begin talking about a real plane operational path, not just about about the development of a project.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    On Nellis AFB site http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/tabid/...-exercise.aspx

    However it is noticeable that agressors were F15C and F16C. Dunno which radar they have.
    More important is the difference of their own radar cross section: are the ones of aggressors the same of when they entered service i.e. ages ago or some improvements were applied?
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 4th February 2017 at 21:36.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Clap, clap, clap.
    At long last its delivering, good, very good.
    It did very well considering that they were carrying dummy warloads and are still limited by the Block 3i CLAWS & Software.

    Red Flags starting in 2019 should see the appearance of Block 3F jets.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,018
    Given that block 3F is going to be delayed, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to try to do a release now with what's available. 4 AMRAAMs and internal SDBs would be the most important if possible.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Given that block 3F is going to be delayed
    That is yet to be determined. Gilmore claimed it would be but he has so far been wrong on most of the date claims he has made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to try to do a release now with what's available. 4 AMRAAMs and internal SDBs would be the most important if possible.
    The jet is capable of 4 AIM-120 now. SDB would be nice but not necessary, the JDAM is more than capable for missions the F-35 will conduct, such as SEAD conducted at Red Flag.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    That is yet to be determined. Gilmore claimed it would be but he has so far been wrong on most of the date claims he has made.
    It's getting more and more sure that there will be a delay of 6 months or so.

    The jet is capable of 4 AIM-120 now. SDB would be nice but not necessary, the JDAM is more than capable for missions the F-35 will conduct, such as SEAD conducted at Red Flag.
    Block 3I is limited to 2 AMRAAMs. SDB would give 8 shots intead of 2 in stealth mode, very useful for SEAD and other penetration missions.

    I think to be able to launch the AMRAAM from the a2g station they need a different adapter with an ejector. Not sure if they have started to work on that. But 4 AMRAAMs with an ability to maintain mach 1.2 with minimum afterburner would be a nice capability for the next 2 years if it's possible. Mach 1.6/9Gs is not needed as much now, since the F-35 can dominate in BVR thanks to its stealth.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    6,971
    JDAM for SEAD ? what a lousy SAM battery
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    JDAM for SEAD ? what a lousy SAM battery
    With the recently mentioned 0.000028m RCS, even the s-400's gravestone radar only has a 30km range against the f-35's frontal aspect. Coulda been anything else within the Russian inventory.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    6,971
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    With the recently mentioned 0.000028m RCS, even the s-400's gravestone radar only has a 30km range against the f-35's frontal aspect. Coulda been anything else within the Russian inventory.
    firstly you know where you can shove the "mentioned 0.000028m RCS"
    secondly any point defense built the past 40 years makes minced meat out of a few scant JDAM,
    Even.Higher.Speed.A.R.M. and/or swarming is researched for a good reason
    Last edited by obligatory; 5th February 2017 at 12:49.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    JDAM for SEAD ? what a lousy SAM battery
    Methinks they got help from the growlers or the threat was not representative.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Methinks they got help from the growlers or the threat was not representative.
    Based on the intent and purpose of RF, it more likely that the simulated threat was more sophisticated that what the F-35 will face in the majority of potential combat theaters.

    No Growlers at RF 17-1.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Based on the intent and purpose of RF, it more likely that the simulated threat was more sophisticated that what the F-35 will face in the majority of potential combat theaters.

    No Growlers at RF 17-1.
    Yes there were Growlers at RF 17-1:



    I have a very hard time believing an F-35 can get within JDAM range of a top notch russian radar without jamming support at least.

    This exercise was conducted just before Trump took office. It may well be that it was set up to make the F-35 look better.

    Overall still I think it did well overall though.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,307
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    firstly you know where you can shove the "mentioned 0.000028m RCS"
    It is always a pleasure to read such a well-considered and detailed response.



    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    any point defense built the past 40 years makes minced meat out of a few scant JDAM
    How many point-defence systems built in the part 40 years do you have detailed information on (or even hands-on experience with) in order to be so sure?
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Yes there were Growlers at RF 17-1:
    Yeah there were, overlooked the non-USAF participating units.

    Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Yeah there were, overlooked the non-USAF participating units.

    Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.
    Maybe really the first generation S-300, and even at that.

    Apart from this, I think the idea of prioritizing the JDAM and GBU-12 for the IOC instead of the SDB1 and laser SDB1 was stupid. Other planes like bombers can go after large buildings and bridges with 1 ton JDAMs, while the SDB/LSDB give the F-35 8 bombs in stealth mode against radars, TELs, rocket launchers, tanks, aircraft shelters, and non armored targets for CAS and all that at long range.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,263
    I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
    F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it's limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
    It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
    Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
    It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.

    Let's add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple...

    This not to trash the F-35 at all, just this damned habits of persons having an humanistic background like me to critically examine any given text and their retorical figures...
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017 at 17:00.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    6,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    It is always a pleasure to read such a well-considered and detailed response.
    first comes a dope smoking engineer and think its perfectly scientific to state measurements in how it compares to an apple or penile head, then next thing you know the village idiot translate the size of a generic penile head into,
    wait for it, no less than 6 decimal accuracy ?! and take it from there.

    then in the next breath the RCS is so terribly top secret so it is unthinkable to fly without drop tanks or a luneburg lens
    to keep the stated down to 6 decimal accuracy RCS top secret,
    are you even listening to yourself ?

    as for a pantsir plinking down glide bombs, yes, if they can nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter,
    or grenade shells, they better be able to plink down glide bombs
    Last edited by obligatory; 5th February 2017 at 17:52.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 16 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 15 guests)

  1. obligatory

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES