Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War S

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 379
Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

by bumtish » 06 Jun 2014, 14:25

yay!

Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts

[...]

“But in the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door,” Hostage says.

But stealth is not invisibility, especially for fighters that must have tails for maneuverability (rather than the B-2 stealth bomber’s tailless “flying wing” design). Both F-22s and F-35s will be spotted at range by low frequency radar. The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.

[...]

The F-35, critics say, can be spotted by low frequency radar (as can almost any aircraft, no matter how stealthy) and isn’t as good at dogfighting as is the F-22. But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft. The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat. The F-35 and the F-16 are the mainstay of the air fleet, designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks.


much, much more at source

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen- ... ar-starts/


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 850
Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
Location: Australia

by mk82 » 06 Jun 2014, 15:26

Go USAF :P! Looks like it is pretty clear that the USAF (at least General Mike Hostage) doesn't believe that the EA 18G is absolutely necessary to penetrate an advanced IADS (still helps though.....but still...Boeing....eat your heart out! :P). Wow....is that an USAF general indicating the stealth of the F35 is better than the F22!!?? I wonder if the journalist made a mistake :P?


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 723
Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
Location: Everywhere like such as...

by zerion » 06 Jun 2014, 19:19

mk82 wrote:Go USAF :P! Looks like it is pretty clear that the USAF (at least General Mike Hostage) doesn't believe that the EA 18G is absolutely necessary to penetrate an advanced IADS (still helps though.....but still...Boeing....eat your heart out! :P). Wow....is that an USAF general indicating the stealth of the F35 is better than the F22!!?? I wonder if the journalist made a mistake :P?


I wondered that myself. It's easy to make a mistake, but harder to make two. He says the F-35 is stealthier in two separate quotes. That's harder to get wrong than a typo.


The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 886
Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

by hb_pencil » 06 Jun 2014, 19:48

I think Hostage is just stating knowledge from his classified briefings on the F-35's capabilities. That's one of the things about the whole F-35 needs a growler argument, was that it was likely made by people who didn't or have an different agenda (i.e. get more boeing contracts,)

People who actually have real insight into the F-35's capabilities knew the aircraft does not really require EA-18G support. In some ways, that jamming can be detrimental to combat operations. You wouldn't want an transmitting EA-18G near a group of F-35s that are trying to remain undetected (what's the point of being stealthy, when one of the aircraft is radiating so much energy?). Traditional standoff jamming may also become a possible emission source for passive radar systems in the future.

Pulling back a bit; I think this is a bit of a climb down by Hostage. His earlier comments about the F-22 and F-35 were very badly put, and its caused a lot of grief for other partner nations governments trying to sell the aircraft to its reluctant publics. You saw it so very clearly in that recent Australian senate meeting. Someone must have politely pulled him aside and explained how his comments were not helpful at the least, because this line of responses by Hostage is much different than his previous statements on this manner.


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 379
Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

by bumtish » 06 Jun 2014, 20:00

hb_pencil wrote:Pulling back a bit; I think this is a bit of a climb down by Hostage. His earlier comments about the F-22 and F-35 were very badly put, and its caused a lot of grief for other partner nations governments trying to sell the aircraft to its reluctant publics. You saw it so very clearly in that recent Australian senate meeting. Someone must have politely pulled him aside and explained how his comments were not helpful at the least, because this line of responses by Hostage is much different than his previous statements on this manner.


I concur with this with the exception that it is a climb down. When I read the original statement of Gen Hostage, it was obvious to me that it was in the context of getting funding for critical Raptor upgrades and that what is expressed in the article series has been his views on things all the way. When I read the pieces I think it is quite obvious that he is indirectly adressing his statements. The need to clarify is in my opinion driven, as you say, by the grief it has caused by the way he put his statements..


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

by Gums » 06 Jun 2014, 20:27

Salute all!

I can't seem to get the whole interview.

From what I see from previous post seems O.K., but not as great "tactically" from the perspective of this old attack dude.

Being a dinosaur, here's my view:

- The standoff ECM birds are neat if the enema knows or suspsects you gonna attack from task force y, or land base z. Been there and have the tee shirt from actual combat and Red Flag.

- If the intent is to "surprise" the enema, then fly the Growlers, but keep them way back at a reasonable distance. They can escort the high RCS strikers later.

- Can't believe RCS on the Stubbie is less than the Raptor. Really doesn't matter. Anything you can do to reduce the enema's ability to detect you, sort you amongst the attacking force, assigning specific attackers to specific SAM sites and interceptor planes and the beat goes on.

I am waiting for the USN's comments.

Gums opines...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 06 Jun 2014, 20:36

'Gums' and all - it is confusing to say the least about two similar articles. ON THIS FORUM PAGE much earlier was the original Break De Fence Post and then below it is THE POST about GROWLERS NOT NEEDED that no one can see (neither can I) on Break De Fence I presume? So GO HERE - SCROLL DOWN - HIT THE LINK:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=25605
OR
HIT THIS LINK: http://www.4-traders.com/THE-BOEING-COM ... -18555448/


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7720
Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

by popcorn » 06 Jun 2014, 23:38

Deleted
Last edited by popcorn on 06 Jun 2014, 23:45, edited 3 times in total.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7720
Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

by popcorn » 06 Jun 2014, 23:43

spazsinbad wrote:'Gums' and all - it is confusing to say the least about two similar articles. ON THIS FORUM PAGE much earlier was the original Break De Fence Post and then below it is THE POST about GROWLERS NOT NEEDED that no one can see (neither can I) on Break De Fence I presume? So GO HERE - SCROLL DOWN - HIT THE LINK:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=25605
OR
HIT THIS LINK: http://www.4-traders.com/THE-BOEING-COM ... -18555448/

Yeah, plus Freedberg's article is referenced.



http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen- ... ar-starts/

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/a-go ... -the-f-35/
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

by arcturus » 06 Jun 2014, 23:48

Several of my favorite F-35 critics/trolls gathered in one place. The amount of stupidity found in one blog post along with its comment section, frankly, should be criminal.

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/ ... -poor.html


User avatar
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 28 Feb 2013, 22:43

by mangler-muldoon » 07 Jun 2014, 00:59

@arcturus

Yeah the article series as whole vigorously supports the F-35 and highlights its capabilities but trolls will be trolls :) Though the critique on kinematic performance to an extent justified by some metrics, the F-35 is not the F-22. However, the extent of poor kinematic performance claimed by Solomon and many other F-35 critics claim is unsubstantiated.


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 658
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
Location: Brisbane, Australia

by gtx » 07 Jun 2014, 02:03

Those idiots posting at SNAFU and ELP (I.e. Solomon, Eric Palmer, Don Bacon etc) have totally lost their grasp on reality (though it is questionable if they ever really had it). It used to be funny to watch them and even tease them but it's actually reached the point where it is embarrassing to watch. I think my cat shows more intelligence when it chases a laser pointer dot... :doh:


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 559
Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

by cola » 07 Jun 2014, 02:21

Gums wrote:- Can't believe RCS on the Stubbie is less than the Raptor.

+1
In all honesty he said 'can have' better RCS, which can mean all sortsa things from where the F22 isn't 'polished' properly, to him looking F35's best aspect vs F22's worst aspect...but in the end
Really doesn't matter.


What bugs me much more is...
Hostage labels as “old think” those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare. ”We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”
Cheers, Cola


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

by XanderCrews » 07 Jun 2014, 04:20

cola wrote:
What bugs me much more is...
Hostage labels as “old think” those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare. ”We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”


Why does that bother you? Is it untrue?
Choose Crews


Banned
 
Posts: 2848
Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
Location: New Jersey

by zero-one » 07 Jun 2014, 04:48

Curious though

The General claims that the F-35 is at least as maneuverable as an F-16, probably more.

And CAN beat the F-22 in Stealth

Now we know that the F-35 probably has better S.A. Than the Raptor due to sensors that can see beyon the electromagnetic spectrum.

so to conclude
-can have better Stealth
-more than adequate maneuverability
-more S.A.

Then why does he still say that it takes 8 F-35s to accomplish the same task as 2 F-22s

the F-22 has
-better speed
-better maneuverability
-larger A-A payload


Are those factors really a force multiplier by a factor of 4??


Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests