USMC & USAF Pilots on Capabilities of F-35 Lightning II

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 23:32

Those are Vietnam era ROE and have not been used since then.

There are plenty of examples from GW1 & GW2 where the ID was provided by the AWACS and the fighter was cleared to fire a BVR missile.

What about night engagements?

Plenty of history of those to put your ROE theory to shame.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 733
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 00:35

Agreed SpudmanWP, GW1 showed that the USA had solved the IFF issue that plagued them so much in Vietnam:

"Coalition ROE allowed combat pilots to engage any aircraft declared hostile by an E-3 crew without the need for further identification. But if the target was not declared hostile by an AWACS, then two independent sources were required, and only the F-15Cs with both NCTR and the AN/APX-76 IFF interrogator could meet the ROE on their own. This greatly increased the tactical freedom of action and confidence of coalition pilots."

The F-35 with sensor fusion is an excellent IFF interrogator for BVR warfare.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7504
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 01:00

In the networked battlespace, the likelihood is to get the heck of a lot more than 2 independent sources. :D
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 04:11

F-35's don't need "independent" sources as they have more ways to ID a target than 3x F-22s.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 04:20

SWP IIRC one of our RAAFie CHAPPies said there were over 600 criteria looked out but anyways here is an old description of what the TSD Tactical Situation Display looks like (I can never remember the details because I ain't gonna fly it).
FLIGHT TEST: F-35 Simulator - Virtual fighter
31 Jul 2007 Mike Gerzanics

"...Integrated avionics
The F-35's avionics are highly integrated, and for weapons targeting and employment the system must have a point of interest. A cursor designates the system's point of interest and is controlled by the slew switch/cursor control on the throttle. The cursor navigates within the active portal, indicated by a yellow corner hash mark. The portal of interest (PoI) can be the HMD, DAS, radar, EOTS or tactical situation display (TSD). Changing PoIs is primarily accomplished using the data management switch on the sidestick. The cursor's shape changes as function of the PoI and target type (airborne or surface).

The large display area is a palette on which a detailed picture of the tactical situation can be presented. Fused data from the active and passive sensors, as well as datalink information, is used to present the tactical situation in real time. Typically a pilot will use half the display (10 x 7in) for the TSD. The display scale can be tailored to the situation, with ranges from 18.5km (10nm) to 1,185km available. Own ship position, as well as that of other formation members, is in blue. Ground and airborne points/targets are colour-coded: green friendly, yellow undetermined and red hostile.

Target depictions are graphically coded to indicate where the information came from. For airborne targets, shown as a lollypop, the circle is either hollow, half filled or full. Hollow indicates on-board data alone filled indicates only off-board sensors half filled means both on- and off-board sensors are seeing the target. The stick of the lollypop is at first a velocity vector. When the sensors get a lock, the stick increases in length, approaching but not touching the targeted aircraft. The stick extends to touch the targeted aircraft when the fused sensors determine the F-35 has a launch solution on its target. Geographic boxes/lines can be displayed to show areas such as missile engagement and no-fly zones.

Shoot list
To give me a better feel for the F-35's capabilities, Skaff set up two scenarios, one air-to-air and the other air-to-surface. For the air-to-air engagement, my four-ship formation of F-35s targeted four Red aircraft. Using the cursor I locked on to all four aircraft to develop a shoot list. When locked to a target, an expanded data block is presented on the TSD. This identifies the aircraft type, as determined by the numerous sensors, with system confidence level for the determination. Also presented are target range, closure velocity, aspect angle and which sensors are seeing the target.

The targets now all had upright red triangles over them, with numbers corresponding to their priority in the shoot list. On the lower left-hand corner of the TSD was a relative height scale, which showed the altitude of my aircraft and the four targets on a vertical bar. The red lollypop symbols advanced towards my formation, our presence undetected.

At maximum engagement range, as indicated in the HMD, I launched a generic radar-guided missile at the first aircraft in my shoot list. Using the tactical management switch on the sidestick I stepped through the shoot list to engage the fourth target, leaving numbers two and three for my wingmen. I launched the second missile at number four, and the flight of both missiles was tracked and presented on both the HMD and TSD. Time to impact was also presented, a neat feature. All four Red aircraft destroyed, the exercise was terminated to set up the air-to-surface scenario...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-215810/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 04:41

spazsinbad wrote:SWP IIRC one of our RAAFie CHAPPies said there were over 600 criteria looked out


That's what I was referring too but I'm too tired to look it up. It was from an Australian Preliminary session where they said something like ~"4th gen = a few dozen or so, the F-22 has 200 and the F-35 has 3x what the F-22 had...."
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 05:07

Yep - that's the one - I've just been gargling it without luck. Have found the damn thing a few times now but I've not put that reference in my 4.4Gb PDF so it becomes impossible to find on this computer. When reference found it goes into that PDF for damn sure.... :doh: I'll keep looking....
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7504
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 06:07

Yup, Air Marshal Geoff Brown's testimony before Parliamentary sub-Committee if memory serves.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 06:24

SpudmanWP wrote:F-35's don't need "independent" sources as they have more ways to ID a target than 3x F-22s.

"Independent" in that scenario was 2 systems on the same jet; the F-35 would have met the requirement several times over.

spazsinbad wrote:Yep - that's the one - I've just been gargling it without luck. Have found the damn thing a few times now but I've not put that reference in my 4.4Gb PDF so it becomes impossible to find on this computer. When reference found it goes into that PDF for damn sure.... :doh: I'll keep looking....

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 8e/0000%22

AVM Osley states it on PDF page 66 (document page 62).
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 06:27

All the hearings:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... arings.htm

Day 3, 16th of March, 2012
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 8e/0000%22


Top of page 62

Air Vice Marshal Osley: And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that
it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft,
such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are
in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is
and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good
access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to
identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will
play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7504
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 06:46

Memory defect confirmed.. Osley not Brown. :D
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7504
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 07:49

The Chip at it again.
http://www.businessinsider.com/f35-pilo ... -35-2017-1

F-35 pilot: It's 'preposterous' to think an upgraded F-18 could do the F-35's job
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 08:50

Thanks youse guys for Osley - after my Brownie searching I had to go lie down and here I am again with the solution already posted. Dontcha just luv the internetgenies! :mrgreen: Tah agin. 8) Now this stuff goes into that 4.4Gb PDF online....
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post08 Jan 2017, 03:02

popcorn wrote:Chip Berke on the F-35... nothing we haven't heard before.
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/ ... ntage-1091

DamnRight. This exact same artickle was posted 30 Aug 2016 and youse can go here to see it posted just after that date on this forum with same URL - they just changed the date - worse than SLDinfo regurgitation - I'm DISGUSTIPATED!

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=28922&p=352137&hilit=Berke#p352137

BTW look at my 4.4Gb PDF page now - Brownie take that! Youse knew it was OSLEY all along - am I rite.
Attachments
F-35uses650parametersOSLEYidentifyTargets.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2470
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post08 Jan 2017, 16:44

A friend keeps ragging on the F-35 as not being as agile or fast as the F-16. I told him even assuming the agility/speed argument is true, I'd take the F-35. He then asked me why? I gave him this analogy..

One boxer is faster and more agile than the other. However, he has to fight with a paper bag over his head and is deaf, blind and mute. The other boxer has all his senses and a bow and arrow.

Which would you rather be?

At that point, he got it.. :mrgreen:
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 21 guests