F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

So you're baiting @Jura you have the answer you feel is right regardless of any other inputs. Why big him then?
My point is you have taken it to a point of trolling in this one.

You know and I know there is no way a single fighter can down 80 aircraft in a single sortie short of a nuclear air to air missile (don't balk they are real things fortunately not common as far as I know retired).
the USAF HAS NEVER CLAIMED SUCH!!

The Kill ratios claimed are not single sorties but over days of operations.
Are not single ship but multiple flights, squadrons and even wings.
Are read as Victories to Losses. And even then averaging out. The numbers as fractions. It's an improper fraction yes but that's what you want for air combat to take out more of the other guy than he takes of you.

Fifth gen fighters are networking machines not just Low Observable, something their critics often miss. So yeah its not like flying a F16 just like how flying an F16 is nothing like flying an F4 or flying an F4 is nothing like flying a F109. That's the freaken point!
F35 more than F22 is a sensor machine. It's not just the radar and maybe an IRST you have all axis OR cameras built into the hull. You are getting data on radar and that from your wingmen expanding your coverage.
No it's not super maneuverable no it's not loaded down with a huge bomb load.
When you have fifth gen participant in war games like this its not about one on one, it's how they plug into the overall force. So they dont have to go it alone they can task out kills to reduce there signature and retain more of there weapons load.

That means passing off the kill to other fifth gens, UCAVS (when they become available), Air defence systems, Fourth gens and more.
There is no voice hand offs it's data passing.

 

[Jura The idiot]

So you're baiting @Jura you have the answer you feel is right regardless of any other inputs. Why big him then?
My point is you have taken it to a point of trolling in this one.

You know and I know there is no way a single fighter can down 80 aircraft in a single sortie short of a nuclear air to air missile (don't balk they are real things fortunately not common as far as I know retired).
the USAF HAS NEVER CLAIMED SUCH!!

The Kill ratios claimed are not single sorties but over days of operations.
Are not single ship but multiple flights, squadrons and even wings.
Are read as Victories to Losses. And even then averaging out. The numbers as fractions. It's an improper fraction yes but that's what you want for air combat to take out more of the other guy than he takes of you.

Fifth gen fighters are networking machines not just Low Observable, something their critics often miss. So yeah its not like flying a F16 just like how flying an F16 is nothing like flying an F4 or flying an F4 is nothing like flying a F109. That's the freaken point!
F35 more than F22 is a sensor machine. It's not just the radar and maybe an IRST you have all axis OR cameras built into the hull. You are getting data on radar and that from your wingmen expanding your coverage.
No it's not super maneuverable no it's not loaded down with a huge bomb load.
When you have fifth gen participant in war games like this its not about one on one, it's how they plug into the overall force. So they dont have to go it alone they can task out kills to reduce there signature and retain more of there weapons load.

That means passing off the kill to other fifth gens, UCAVS (when they become available), Air defence systems, Fourth gens and more.
There is no voice hand offs it's data passing.

two questions to you:

first, have you read
Let’s Talk About Those F-35 Kill Ratio Reports From Red Flag

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

February 8, 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?

and second,
how did F-35s fare in the subsequent Red Flag exercises I mean in 2018?
(googlefu pretty much failed me now)

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Yes I have. Infact if you read what I posted I pretty much make the same point Tyler did. IE the numbers are a ratio and that ratio doesn't mean that F35 was firing the missiles.

Red Flag changes up the mix an mission sometimes its low threat but lots of ground targets sometimes lots of air to air. That particular one where they released the kill ratio was 17-3 The third of the year. But it's click bait really.

 

[Brumby]

@Jura
You have made a number of posts which essentially shared a common theme and so rather than responding individually I would just sum it in up one post.

I understand you are generally sceptical with official communications because they sound like commercials to you. I do not intend to contest such a point of view because I don't work for them and you are clearly entitled to the prism you apply in seeing the world. Having said that, there are two specific areas you touched upon that warrant a reply. First up, are the F-35 capabilities over rated or as you say I am drinking too much of the cool aid. Secondly how believable are those kill ratios generated in Reg Flags.

I will first comment on the latter but before that I take the following view as guidance in dealing with any subject i.e. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt". There are Flag Red kill ratios published as you alluded but the kill ratios seem rather questionable. The way I see it is at face value they are impressive but I cannot make any further determination beyond that. I don't know how Red Flags are run; what scenarios are used; what are the ROE's; how are kills determined etc. In essence I know next to nothing. In my opinion, I cannot make a determination based on nothing. What I know from history is generally in real combat conditions versus training exercises, those kind of statistics are usually marked down in reality. How significant is highly questionable because no technological era and scenarios are ever similar and tactics evolved based off learning. So to your question if they say they can achieve a kill ratio of 80 to 1 would I believe it. Firstly you are creating a hypothetical that has not actualised and asking me to comment on a future state that may or may not happen. The point is garbage in garbage out. If I wish to criticise the Red Flag results my angle of attack is not the results but how realistic are the conditions in which those results are generated. If you don't know then you have very little to go on besides being sceptical and that as I said, is entirely your prerogative.

I will now get to the main point and that is whether I am drinking too much of a cool aid. There is another principle I adopt in life and that is if I am interested in defending an idea I would update myself with all the knowledge I can get on it and I would test my belief against any opposition to my belief. In essence, I take the view that if I cannot defend an idea then the foundation of my belief is simply unsound. Therefore my foundation on the F-35 is not because of the cool aid I am being fed but are based on an accumulation of many things as I tracked the F-35 progress and development. The F-35 is based on the principle that in the entire history or air conflict the primary determinant of success is situation awareness. It is on this idea that it is my belief the sensor fusion combined with VLO will bring to a fight that is unmatched by any other airplane out there presently and in the pipeline. It can go into a fight with a comparative advantage. How big of an advantage is now demonstrated in Red Flags and in the testimony of the pilots who are giving a first hand account of its capabilities. In other words, the Red Flags and first hand accounts are just confirmation that the idea behind the airframe is delivering what it was designed to do. Everybody are making claims. The US, the Chinese, the Russians and the Europeans. How do you filter so that one can apply some reasonable assessment. Take for example the capabilities of avionics and sensors. I know as a fact that the F-35 adopts the IEEE1394b data bus architecture which is very necessary if you are going to have highly capable sensors as voluminous data are distributed between the avionics, sensors and the protection systems. The IEEE1394b has a transfer rate of more than 6 GB/sec. In contrast I see on the J-10 thread claims regarding the capabilities of the sensors in the J-10 but I know that the Chinese is still adopting ARINC429 data bus in their J-10 which can only generate a transfer rate of 100 kbt/sec. It is difficult to reconcile a claim against known technology when the two don't stack up. Another example is the SU-35 which I believe has adopted only a MIL1553B data bus architecture. These are basically 2 to 3 generations behind the US adoption.

There are two conflicting world views as I see it. Those who still hang on to the belief that outcomes of air conflict are based on the romanticised idea of dog fights where maneuverability and thrust vectoring are important. I take a world view of helmet cueing, HOBS and LOAL will trump a traditional approach. More importantly I subscribe to the first look, first shot and first kill idea where the F-35 with its sensors will be better able to position itself for that. Just take another example for perspective and it is simply physics and radar equation. The F-35 with its VLO will be able to do more effective jamming at 16 times the capability of a 4th generation using identical power simply because with its VLO it can get closer to the intended target without being detected. The F-35 will be a transformative agent in tactics, in ISR and in execution. It is not just one platform but will have a multiplier effect.

 

[Gloire_bb]

More importantly I subscribe to the first look, first shot and first kill idea where the F-35 with its sensors will be better able to position itself for that. Just take another example for perspective and it is simply physics and radar equation.

(1)For something built around these ideas, f-35s' design language clearly sugests strong emphasis on a maneuvering dogfight capability, not on BVR qualities.

Fighter built around BVR combat is just going to look substantially different.

(2)Radar equation works so flawlessly in a single band world, with a single radar, always turned on. Current f-35 may have inherent ew capability, but it won't make a proper supression out of it, nor it would remove ELINT/EW support requirements for its missions

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

For something built around these ideas, f-35s' design language clearly sugests strong emphasis on a maneuvering dogfight capability, not on BVR qualities

Subjective. Since the 4the generation a premium is placed on having the ability to turn and bank of need be. BVR is there but so is some degree of turn and burn just not the the point of F22

Fighter built around BVR combat is just going to look substantially different.

It's not all one or the other in the modern era.

(2)Radar equation works so flawlessly in a single band world, with a single radar, always turned on. Current f-35 may have inherent ew capability, but it won't make a proper supression out of it, nor it would remove ELINT/EW support requirements for its missions

It can be supported in this by being part of a flight two scanning two jamming. It can also be supported by having other SEAD and DEAD support. The Normally spoken of scheme is a two phase war some times called "days" but more modes of operations.
(Day one or) Phase one breaking down the door and eliminating air defences (day two ) phase two less restricted operations as air defences are broken. Day one ops are more restricted with tight stealth requirements on F35 load out. By phase two you can start getting to bombing and more traditional missions with less restricted load outs.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Subjective. Since the 4the generation a premium is placed on having the ability to turn and bank of need be. BVR is there but so is some degree of turn and burn just not the the point of F22
It's not all one or the other in the modern era.

I'd dare to claim what the difference in approaches between F-22 and F-35 is even greater in BVR, than in the WVR.
It clearly isn't one or another, but if you really expect something to be prevalent - it always shows. Ironically, F-35 multirole airframe design sacrifices BVR aspects of air combat more than WVR combat, including actual maneuvering capability and ability to get behind someone.
And it wasn't some sort of "it ended up like this", but a calculated choice from the day 1.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Well again what was it replacing? F16C is the most nimble of America's 4th gens used often as an aggressor for stimulating Russian Flankers Flanders and Fulcroms by the Air force and Navy.
F/A18C-D No slouches either.
And AV-8B+
As such yeah a degree of air to air close fighting was in the mix.
It was supposed to be partnered close with Raptor that would take more of the Air Superiority mission.

 

[Brumby]

(1)For something built around these ideas, f-35s' design language clearly sugests strong emphasis on a maneuvering dogfight capability, not on BVR qualities.

Fighter built around BVR combat is just going to look substantially different.

While there may be a number of design specs hurdle the F-35 had to meet it is nevertheless separate to and from an underlying design philosophy of a situational aware centric design by way of its sensors and VLO profile. This remain its core capability and consequently its comparative strength against any other design out there. A first look, first shot and first kill design philosophy is simply the ability to go in for the kill before the other side is able to detect your presence. Whether it is BVR or WVR is secondary.

You are asserting that the F-35 design is build around WVR and not BVR but have not provided any substantiation. You will need to offer substance and not just an opinion.

(2)Radar equation works so flawlessly in a single band world, with a single radar, always turned on. Current f-35 may have inherent ew capability, but it won't make a proper supression out of it, nor it would remove ELINT/EW support requirements for its missions

On the ELINT support I agree that the F-35 will need all that plus SIGINT, HUMINT, COMINT as it requires data to build its threat library. No one and certainly not me has said that the F-35 doesn't need support in data collection even though based on its sensors it is a highly capable ISR asset. As to EW support, the jury is out on this one simply because we do not have access to sensitive information. While Boeing in attempting to market its Growler has said that the F-35 is not all band capable and that it cannot provide EW support in egress, LM has remained silent. The AN/ASQ 239 is multi spectral all aspect protection. It is built from the ALR-94 that performed so well with the F-22, a capability that speaks for itself.. The F-35 community has said they don't want and don't need the Growler as its EW capability is sufficient to do the job. The F-35 EW's capability is probably its most guarded sensitive information. Lastly, the F-35 itself has all aspect IR suppression

I don't know how you come to a conclusion that the F-35 cannot execute suppression without support. You will need to educate me on this one. It is probably the only one that can execute suppression without support.

 

[gelgoog]

@Jura
...
I will now get to the main point and that is whether I am drinking too much of a cool aid. There is another principle I adopt in life and that is if I am interested in defending an idea I would update myself with all the knowledge I can get on it and I would test my belief against any opposition to my belief. In essence, I take the view that if I cannot defend an idea then the foundation of my belief is simply unsound. Therefore my foundation on the F-35 is not because of the cool aid I am being fed but are based on an accumulation of many things as I tracked the F-35 progress and development. The F-35 is based on the principle that in the entire history or air conflict the primary determinant of success is situation awareness. It is on this idea that it is my belief the sensor fusion combined with VLO will bring to a fight that is unmatched by any other airplane out there presently and in the pipeline. It can go into a fight with a comparative advantage. How big of an advantage is now demonstrated in Red Flags and in the testimony of the pilots who are giving a first hand account of its capabilities. In other words, the Red Flags and first hand accounts are just confirmation that the idea behind the airframe is delivering what it was designed to do. Everybody are making claims. The US, the Chinese, the Russians and the Europeans. How do you filter so that one can apply some reasonable assessment. Take for example the capabilities of avionics and sensors. I know as a fact that the F-35 adopts the IEEE1394b data bus architecture which is very necessary if you are going to have highly capable sensors as voluminous data are distributed between the avionics, sensors and the protection systems. The IEEE1394b has a transfer rate of more than 6 GB/sec. In contrast I see on the J-10 thread claims regarding the capabilities of the sensors in the J-10 but I know that the Chinese is still adopting ARINC429 data bus in their J-10 which can only generate a transfer rate of 100 kbt/sec. It is difficult to reconcile a claim against known technology when the two don't stack up. Another example is the SU-35 which I believe has adopted only a MIL1553B data bus architecture. These are basically 2 to 3 generations behind the US adoption.

There are two conflicting world views as I see it. Those who still hang on to the belief that outcomes of air conflict are based on the romanticised idea of dog fights where maneuverability and thrust vectoring are important. I take a world view of helmet cueing, HOBS and LOAL will trump a traditional approach. More importantly I subscribe to the first look, first shot and first kill idea where the F-35 with its sensors will be better able to position itself for that. Just take another example for perspective and it is simply physics and radar equation. The F-35 with its VLO will be able to do more effective jamming at 16 times the capability of a 4th generation using identical power simply because with its VLO it can get closer to the intended target without being detected. The F-35 will be a transformative agent in tactics, in ISR and in execution. It is not just one platform but will have a multiplier effect.

Well, the Su-57 uses fiber optics to transfer data. You can purchase fiber optics 10G Ethernet, or faster, in the wide open consumer market.
So I would say the databus is not a main concern. I sincerely would not be surprised if the J-20 had a fiber optics architecture.
Also a lot of the technology used in the F-35's EOTS is very similar to autonomous car technology. For example multiple cameras, sensor fusion, and target detection and recognition. So quite a lot of this technology can be leveraged from the consumer electronics side of things. Even things like VR helmets.
It was really leading edge when it came. Now it is less so.

Also just adding more data to the feed to process does not necessarily lead to improved combat performance. We have had magnifying optics on rifles for decades already. Yet you still see rifles come out in the market with iron sights. Why? Because sometimes making things more complex does not improve effectiveness in most scenarios. Also people who use VR helmets typically have serious motion sickness issues. It remains to be seen how that will be an issue with the F-35.

On something like the J-10 or F-16 what it means is the data processing must take place in the modules themselves. Yes this means there is less chance to cross-reference sensor information. But it does not necessarily mean you will have that much more degraded combat performance. Also, not all the USAF is made up of F-35s.