Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

@haavarla: do you have a link to a reliable report stating the aircrew survived ejection? I can't find one.

The Syrians claim a jet shot down at very low altitude by guns. The Turks haven't divulged whether gun or missile.

This incident is yet another argument for why Lo flight, at any speed, belongs in the history books.

F-16.net Sponsor

It was on our National NRK news, but i don't know if it originated from some other news press.. Most likely originated an Turkey news site.

My bet is an ZSU-23mm variant that downed that RF-4E Phantom.

I've seen contradicting reports on the pilots -- some sorces saying that they survived, other's saying that there is a massive SAR effort ongoing.

count_to_10 wrote:

Quote:

The 38's are far more fondly remembered, and had better performance than their normal adversaries. I find the names interesting though none the less... Kinda feel like starting a thread on it.

Anyways, time to get back On Topic

Where would we start that thread?
(The Flying Tigers were famously P-40s...)

Oh, very good point. Best fighter pilot soldiers of fortune the world has ever seen. Cool

And maybe "What's the best name for a 6th gen Raptor replacement?" in Modern Military Aircraft?

arkadyrenko wrote:

Strictly speaking, if the talk about maneuvering is almost irrelevant is true, then a F-35 that turns tail will be put into a very disadvantageous position. But, this is a truism, if the other guy's behind you and has a shot at you, you're in trouble.

If the other guy is behind you(and travelling in the same direction), then yes, that's not a good position. If they fly past you, and have to turn before taking a shot, then that's a slightly different situation. That's the point of the 360 deg coverage. The F-35 can maintain airspeed(or increase airspeed), while the other plane has to do a 180 degree turn, before resuming pursuit(and engaging again). Then his weapons are in a tail chase, while the F-35's are in a head on aspect.

Quote:

Final question: I've heard about the AIM-9X being able to do 'over the shoulder' shots. If that can't be carried on the internal missile racks, does the F-35 loose its DAS advantage?

The -120C7/D have HOBS capabilities too, and can be guided via DAS/datalink.

redbird87 wrote:

Now we've gotten into a good discussion. Very good points by all and a good synopsis bigjku. I very well "knew turn and burn" was an over simplification, but I did have legitimate concerns about the internal weapons capacity of the aircraft (and still do). I assumed that if F-35s were the lone type of strike aircraft in a fight, they would come in phases or "layers", such that when the lead birds are out of Class V, the next layer of stealth configured birds would over-watch them. Frankly, that makes more sense than the F-35 loaded to the gills with external missiles over-watching. Clearly if F-22s or even F-15/F-18 are in the equation in an OCA or over-watch role, the entire scenario changes. But for $162 million per unit (the DoDs current figure, not mine) a set of F-35s should be able to go it alone.

During the initial "day 1" scenarios, no F-35s would be carrying externals, assuming we're talking about a near peer threat. This would be the period where C2, IADS, airbases, etc... are targetted, to create large gaps in coverage.

Quote:

In combat, every situation is different and has been mentioned, quantity has a quality all it own. If Taiwan buys the F-35 for example, it's not inconceivable that the Chinese will attempt to "flood the zone" in a daylight fight with F-5 / F-16A quality aircraft. Frankly, this is more a plausible approach for them to employ to achieve air dominance than something like the J-20 getting it done alone on the high-tech side. Of course the Taiwanese would have some of 3rd and 4th generation aircraft of their own, but no F-22s or even F-15s. Again, without writing paragraphs, I know this is a simplification. The viability of Taiwan's airfields post ballistic attack, the proximately and survivability of our carrier groups, land-based support from Japan are all huge factors here.

China is not going to be able to sortie every one of its tactical aircraft simultaneously, so scenarios of hundreds of aircraft to deal with aren't realistic.

redbird87 wrote:

Yeah, but what happens to both the IR signature and Radar signature when that 40K lb roman candle is lit and moving away from the enemy?

You mean as opposed to the Su/Mig/Teen series/EF/Rafale/etc... roman candles(when using afterburners)?

Quote:

They are now talking about production of this plane continuing through 2027 and it being in the inventory until 2065 (both ridiculous sounding time frames to me). Does anyone really think Mach 1.62 is going to evade 5th gen missiles in 2020 even?

No other fighter is going to avoid a missile using speed either, in the context that you're using. Nobody is going to be flying around at Mach 2+, while the F-35 is "only" flying Mach 1.6+.

Quote:

Clearly, more internal weapons are needed, so the plane could do what it's designed to do well - bore in towards the enemy undetected and destroy them.

The plan is for 6. Just how many internally carried missiles do you think a fighter should carry?

Quote:

The plan is for 6. Just how many internally carried missiles do you think a fighter should carry?

I think this is key that is often overlooked. If you run a F-35 flight out of missiles you likely have just lost the better part of a whole squadron of aircraft depending on how they are equipped. The run them out of missiles concept seems horribly expensive. Unless something time sensitive is going on most pilots would be content to take their kills and return to base for more ammunition leaving the enemy to chase their shadows.

bigjku wrote:

Quote:

The plan is for 6. Just how many internally carried missiles do you think a fighter should carry?

I think this is key that is often overlooked. If you run a F-35 flight out of missiles you likely have just lost the better part of a whole squadron of aircraft depending on how they are equipped. The run them out of missiles concept seems horribly expensive. Unless something time sensitive is going on most pilots would be content to take their kills and return to base for more ammunition leaving the enemy to chase their shadows.

It's also based upon the flawed assumption that the enemy will know the whereabouts of each F-35, at the same point the F-35 pilots detect their foes, and that there'll be mass 1 v 1 battles. Or failing to account for the fact that the F-35 will enjoy significant advantages in the contempt of engagement realm(meaning it will get to decide if it wants to engage, and when/where). Meanwhile, the enemy will be experiencing a great deal of confusion, trying to figure out where their attackers are killing them from, and what defensive strategies they need to use. They also fail to note that battles are won/lost at the systems level, not platform. We enjoy overwhelming superiority in this regard, which it why network centric warfare is the future, where the sensor and shooter aren't one in the same necessarily. Everyone in the network knows what everyone else knows, allowing far greater speed in battle management, and the decision making process.

bigjku wrote:

I think this is key that is often overlooked. If you run a F-35 flight out of missiles you likely have just lost the better part of a whole squadron of aircraft depending on how they are equipped. The run them out of missiles concept seems horribly expensive. Unless something time sensitive is going on most pilots would be content to take their kills and return to base for more ammunition leaving the enemy to chase their shadows.

Running out of missiles doesn't negate their ability to contribute with regards to battlespace management. Their sensors and electronic counter measures are invaluable as support assets.

madrat wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I think this is key that is often overlooked. If you run a F-35 flight out of missiles you likely have just lost the better part of a whole squadron of aircraft depending on how they are equipped. The run them out of missiles concept seems horribly expensive. Unless something time sensitive is going on most pilots would be content to take their kills and return to base for more ammunition leaving the enemy to chase their shadows.

Running out of missiles doesn't negate their ability to contribute with regards to battlespace management. Their sensors and electronic counter measures are invaluable as support assets.

Yes, and there will still be a substantial number of -teens that could contribute their missile loads to the fight and benefiting from the continued presence of the 5Gen platforms in battle management mode. No need for the mythical B-1R missile sled.

firstimpulse wrote:

And maybe "What's the best name for a 6th gen Raptor replacement?" in Modern Military Aircraft?

Probably a good 15-20 years too early for that..

popcorn wrote:

madrat wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I think this is key that is often overlooked. If you run a F-35 flight out of missiles you likely have just lost the better part of a whole squadron of aircraft depending on how they are equipped. The run them out of missiles concept seems horribly expensive. Unless something time sensitive is going on most pilots would be content to take their kills and return to base for more ammunition leaving the enemy to chase their shadows.

Running out of missiles doesn't negate their ability to contribute with regards to battlespace management. Their sensors and electronic counter measures are invaluable as support assets.

Yes, and there will still be a substantial number of -teens that could contribute their missile loads to the fight and benefiting from the continued presence of the 5Gen platforms in battle management mode. No need for the mythical B-1R missile sled.

I hate it when I do that! "Big Thumbs!" Laughing

popcorn wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

And maybe "What's the best name for a 6th gen Raptor replacement?" in Modern Military Aircraft?

Probably a good 15-20 years too early for that..

It's never too early for wild, baseless speculation!

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35 semi-stealth to stealth transition in Air to Air fight?