F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 03:10
by SpudmanWP
'Lethal' F-35A heading to Red Flag 19-1

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah -- --
Pilots and maintainers from the 388th Fighter Wing are bringing the F-35A and ‘increased lethality’ as they take a lead role in Red Flag 19-1 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, 

From Jan. 26 - Feb. 15, approximately 200 Airmen from Hill AFB, including reservists from the 419th Fighter Wing, will participate in what is known as the Air Force’s premier combat training exercise. 

The 388th FW debuted the F-35A Lightning II at Red Flag in 2017 and came away with a 20:1 kill ratio. The jet is even more capable now, pilots say.

“We have an upgraded software suite that has improved our sensor fusion. We’ve got an expanded flying envelope with more maneuverability. We have the ability to employ more weapons, including the 25-mm cannon,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th Fighter Squadron commander. “When you couple those things with the two years we’ve had to improve our tactics, we’re bringing a much more lethal F-35A to this Red Flag and ultimately to the battlefield.”



More at the JUMP

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Dis ... flag-19-1/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 03:59
by popcorn
Condolences in advance to.Red Air. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 05:49
by Corsair1963
Time to separate the men from the boys.... :wink:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 05:53
by garrya
time to rank up the kill ratio

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 06:12
by Corsair1963
garrya wrote:time to rank up the kill ratio




Wouldn't hurt sales either.... :wink:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 09:03
by charlielima223
The 388th FW debuted the F-35A Lightning II at Red Flag in 2017 and came away with a 20:1 kill ratio. The jet is even more capable now, pilots say.


Image

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 14:34
by vilters
Ok, here we go again…. What Airframe do you want to win this year? So we can re-write the ROE's.

There "games" are so predictable. What year did the A-10 have the most A2A kills?
------------------------------
2019 now : What airframe do you want to sell this year?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 19:05
by sferrin
vilters wrote:Ok, here we go again…. What Airframe do you want to win this year? So we can re-write the ROE's.

There "games" are so predictable. What year did the A-10 have the most A2A kills?
------------------------------
2019 now : What airframe do you want to sell this year?


Do you have any evidence that this is a thing?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 19:19
by SpudmanWP
What makes me laugh is that these exercises (and other LFEs like them) are the sole basis of the world's love-affair with the F-22 yet many cry "rigged" with the F-35 excels in the very same exercises. :doh:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2019, 22:24
by playloud
SpudmanWP wrote:What makes me laugh is that these exercises (and other LFEs like them) are the sole basis of the world's love-affair with the F-22 yet many cry "rigged" with the F-35 excels in the very same exercises. :doh:

My favorite is even when we get details on the F-35 record at Red Flag, it isn't believed. Meanwhile, one Typhoon pilot says "Raptor Salad" (with no details) and it is gospel that the Typhoon is a better dogfighter than the F-22.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 08:28
by zero-one
To be fair, I don't question the ROEs of these exercises.
People can spin these to however they want.

When their favorite plane looses:
We cannot conclude anything without knowing the ROEs

When a dogfight occurs:
Those were from re-spawned aircraft that were already killed twice before entering the merge

Russian fans say:
F-15s and F-16s have nowhere near the performance of (insert Flanker type here) so these kill ratios of F-22s and F-35s mean nothing.

To anyone who says this, I ask, whats the F-15's kill ratio in Redflag during the 80s and 90s? if its higher than it's actual kill ratio of 104:0 then the test are rigged to make it more difficult, If its lower then the F-15 surpassed it's own expectations.
I don't think even the most Pro-15 person expected it to perform as effectively as it did.

I once talked to a former Red-Air coordinator, he believes these exercises were rigged because of one instance he had.
He directed a pair of F-5 aggressors to intercept F-15s at BVR, when they failed to get the jump on the Eagles he knew the mission had to be aborted, the F-5 has no chance against the F-15 in a dogfight.

But his CO wanted the F-5s to continue so that they can get some wonderful BATR (bullets-at-target-range) frames from the Eagle's gun cam. He was furious and believed that the F-5s were purposely sent into a dogfight to make the F-15s look good.

I told him that he felt that way because he knew exactly what the F-15s brought to the table (he flew F-15s). Russian ground commanders don't and they may have more faith in their own pilots. In ODS, they even sent Mig-25s to eventually dogfight with F-15s.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 08:39
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:Ok, here we go again…. What Airframe do you want to win this year? So we can re-write the ROE's.

There "games" are so predictable. What year did the A-10 have the most A2A kills?
------------------------------
2019 now : What airframe do you want to sell this year?

No outcomes are predetermined. The OPFOR air and SAM threats, are as challenging as they can make them. Blue forces fly outnumbered 3:1 against foes that can keep respawning as long as they have fuel (i.e. 3 or 4x). The scenarios get progressively harder. The idea is to get training value, not marketing value. Claiming that the exercises are scripted, is bullshit.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 10:19
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:“We have an upgraded software suite that has improved our sensor fusion. We’ve got an expanded flying envelope with more maneuverability. We have the ability to employ more weapons, including the 25-mm cannon,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th Fighter Squadron commander. “When you couple those things with the two years we’ve had to improve our tactics, we’re bringing a much more lethal F-35A to this Red Flag and ultimately to the battlefield.”


Ok, those sound like very significant upgrades and differences from Red Flag 17-1. Improved sensor fusion will give better and more polished SA and likely more difficult to surprise them even with respawning. Even if that happens, expanded flying envelope and increased weapons capability (including cannon and AIM-9X) will make it far more difficult to beat them in WVR combat. Not to mention that they have had two more years to train and improve tactics along with all kinds of improvements here and there. I bet this will be something very interesting... :drool:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 10:27
by kimjongnumbaun
zero-one wrote:To be fair, I don't question the ROEs of these exercises.
People can spin these to however they want.

When their favorite plane looses:
We cannot conclude anything without knowing the ROEs

When a dogfight occurs:
Those were from re-spawned aircraft that were already killed twice before entering the merge

Russian fans say:
F-15s and F-16s have nowhere near the performance of (insert Flanker type here) so these kill ratios of F-22s and F-35s mean nothing.

To anyone who says this, I ask, whats the F-15's kill ratio in Redflag during the 80s and 90s? if its higher than it's actual kill ratio of 104:0 then the test are rigged to make it more difficult, If its lower then the F-15 surpassed it's own expectations.
I don't think even the most Pro-15 person expected it to perform as effectively as it did.

I once talked to a former Red-Air coordinator, he believes these exercises were rigged because of one instance he had.
He directed a pair of F-5 aggressors to intercept F-15s at BVR, when they failed to get the jump on the Eagles he knew the mission had to be aborted, the F-5 has no chance against the F-15 in a dogfight.

But his CO wanted the F-5s to continue so that they can get some wonderful BATR (bullets-at-target-range) frames from the Eagle's gun cam. He was furious and believed that the F-5s were purposely sent into a dogfight to make the F-15s look good.

I told him that he felt that way because he knew exactly what the F-15s brought to the table (he flew F-15s). Russian ground commanders don't and they may have more faith in their own pilots. In ODS, they even sent Mig-25s to eventually dogfight with F-15s.


I love the insight. You also have to remember that these exercises are training for the Blue Force, not Red. Red may be asked to do things that would normally not happen in order to provide Blue with training opportunities. Red gets free respawns to continue the war so it's no skin off their back. Blue gets an opportunity to hone their skills, and ultimately increase their chances of survival if that scenario happens in real life. The ultimate goal in exercises like these is to provide as much training opportunity as possible. Combat is a harsh teacher that gives the test first, and teaches the lesson after.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 12:25
by quicksilver
“You also have to remember that these exercises are training for the Blue Force, not Red. Red may be asked to do things that would normally not happen in order to provide Blue with training opportunities. Red gets free respawns to continue the war so it's no skin off their back. Blue gets an opportunity to hone their skills, and ultimately increase their chances of survival if that scenario happens in real life. The ultimate goal in exercises like these is to provide as much training opportunity as possible. Combat is a harsh teacher that gives the test first, and teaches the lesson after.” — k13

This ^.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 02:07
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Ok, here we go again…. What Airframe do you want to win this year? So we can re-write the ROE's.

There "games" are so predictable. What year did the A-10 have the most A2A kills?
------------------------------
2019 now : What airframe do you want to sell this year?



tell us more Vilters

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 13:55
by squirrelshoes
vilters wrote:What year did the A-10 have the most A2A kills?

That was 1990, when Red Team ditched the F-5s and switched to helicopters for a year.

The training proved invaluable the following year of course, when an A-10 racked up the first air-to-air gun kill in decades versus a helicopter. If not for the A-10 dominance in Red Flag that year and the iterations of dogfights against helicopters USAF might well have lost an A-10 that year to that Iraqi helicopter.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 14:05
by marsavian
TBF, the A-10 is quite a tight turner even if its speed/acceleration/altitude are limited.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 14:32
by vilters
More serious would be to give twenty F-22 to RED.
Give twenty F-35 to Blue.
And give live ammo and missiles to all. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
At least they"ll sh*t their pants and KNOW this is NOT a game anymore.
But? We would have TRUE results.
This concludes the end of dreamland…. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

ROE's are meant for safety of everybody involved.
Unfortunately, I know of NO enemy that "plays" by ROE's. They shoot to KILL, and are not scared to break a rule or 2,3,4,5....

But a RED Force with F-22 and F-16, against a BLUE Force of F-35 and F-15.

Then halfway in, you add """ Without warning or briefing""" a yellow force with some 30 Navy F-18 with a single ROE : Hard deck is 10.000 ft, all the rest is "game ON."

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 15:40
by optimist
So if flying planes are no good. What do you think about sims. Obviously the f-35 sims are no good, even though that's the only place they do their secret stuff. Do you think any of those expensive full battle space sims are worth it?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 16:04
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:TBF, the A-10 is quite a tight turner even if its speed/acceleration/altitude are limited.


A helicopter even more so. AIM-9Xs on a Cobra or Apache could give somebody a bad day.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 16:05
by sferrin
optimist wrote:So if flying planes are no good. What do you think about sims. Obviously the f-35 sims are no good, even though that's the only place they do their secret stuff. Do you think any of those expensive full battle space sims are worth it?


The results would say, "are you joking"?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 16:29
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:More serious would be to give twenty F-22 to RED.
Give twenty F-35 to Blue.
And give live ammo and missiles to all. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
At least they"ll sh*t their pants and KNOW this is NOT a game anymore.
But? We would have TRUE results.
This concludes the end of dreamland…. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

ROE's are meant for safety of everybody involved.
Unfortunately, I know of NO enemy that "plays" by ROE's. They shoot to KILL, and are not scared to break a rule or 2,3,4,5....

But a RED Force with F-22 and F-16, against a BLUE Force of F-35 and F-15.

Then halfway in, you add """ Without warning or briefing""" a yellow force with some 30 Navy F-18 with a single ROE : Hard deck is 10.000 ft, all the rest is "game ON."

You have some serious misconceptions on how exercises work. Their mission briefs are the same as they would be, in real combat. The pilots aren't told "today, you will face the following threats, coming from _____ direction/altitude. Secondly, the OPFOR doesn't go easy on the Blue Forces, in order to generate desired outcomes. The desired outcome is better trained pilots, not pilots with unrealistic expectations.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 16:49
by steve2267
vilters wrote:More serious would be to give twenty F-22 to RED.
Give twenty F-35 to Blue.
And give live ammo and missiles to all. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
At least they"ll sh*t their pants and KNOW this is NOT a game anymore.
But? We would have TRUE results.
This concludes the end of dreamland…. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:


Ummmm... soooo.... the results of the 1st Iraqi War (aka Desert Storm circa 1991) were not TRUE or REAL?

The results of the 2nd Iraqi War were not TRUE or REAL?

All those American military pilots quoted as saying "Wow! Red Flag was harder than" the mission he just flew? Yeah, they obviously have no clue what they were talking about.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 17:40
by hythelday
steve2267 wrote:
vilters wrote:More serious would be to give twenty F-22 to RED.
Give twenty F-35 to Blue.
And give live ammo and missiles to all. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
At least they"ll sh*t their pants and KNOW this is NOT a game anymore.
But? We would have TRUE results.
This concludes the end of dreamland…. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:


Ummmm... soooo.... the results of the 1st Iraqi War (aka Desert Storm circa 1991) were not TRUE or REAL?

The results of the 2nd Iraqi War were not TRUE or REAL?

All those American military pilots quoted as saying "Wow! Red Flag was harder than" the mission he just flew? Yeah, they obviously have no clue what they were talking about.


Yep, too busy selling all those A-10 and F-22 to foreign customers, as vilters said. Oh, wait...

sferrin wrote:
marsavian wrote:TBF, the A-10 is quite a tight turner even if its speed/acceleration/altitude are limited.


A helicopter even more so. AIM-9Xs on a Cobra or Apache could give somebody a bad day.


Israeli Apache shot down that Iranian drone with an AAM; don't think they released the weapon system, but I believe it was the AIM-92 Stinger.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 18:37
by kimjongnumbaun
vilters wrote:More serious would be to give twenty F-22 to RED.
Give twenty F-35 to Blue.
And give live ammo and missiles to all. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
At least they"ll sh*t their pants and KNOW this is NOT a game anymore.
But? We would have TRUE results.
This concludes the end of dreamland…. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

ROE's are meant for safety of everybody involved.
Unfortunately, I know of NO enemy that "plays" by ROE's. They shoot to KILL, and are not scared to break a rule or 2,3,4,5....

But a RED Force with F-22 and F-16, against a BLUE Force of F-35 and F-15.

Then halfway in, you add """ Without warning or briefing""" a yellow force with some 30 Navy F-18 with a single ROE : Hard deck is 10.000 ft, all the rest is "game ON."

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 04:27
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:More serious would be to give twenty F-22 to RED.
Give twenty F-35 to Blue.
And give live ammo and missiles to all. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
At least they"ll sh*t their pants and KNOW this is NOT a game anymore.
But? We would have TRUE results.
This concludes the end of dreamland…. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

ROE's are meant for safety of everybody involved.
Unfortunately, I know of NO enemy that "plays" by ROE's. They shoot to KILL, and are not scared to break a rule or 2,3,4,5....

But a RED Force with F-22 and F-16, against a BLUE Force of F-35 and F-15.

Then halfway in, you add """ Without warning or briefing""" a yellow force with some 30 Navy F-18 with a single ROE : Hard deck is 10.000 ft, all the rest is "game ON."


Whew, this post just oozes credibility doesn't it? Look I know you love to try and be edgy like your some Red Team phenom but this has got to be the most absurd thing youve ever posted, (and thats really saying something given your history.) when you were in your air force did you actually suggest stuff like this? or just think it? Did Belgians train this way? How many billions of dollars of men and machines did you go through over the years? and to what end?

Image

Whats the Belgian obsession with doing really stupid stuff with live ammo?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 01:12
by spazsinbad
'SWP' pointed to this story on another thread however I reckon it is worth repeating here due topic etc....
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25426&p=411073&hilit=flag#p411073
'Trial by Flag' for new F-35A pilots
08 Feb 2019 388th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"...“I haven’t been flying that long. There are things that stand out in my career. My first solo flight, my first F-35 flight and my first Red Flag mission. I don’t think I’ll ever forget those things,” said 1st Lt. Landon Moores, a new F-35A Lightning II pilot with the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron. Moores is one of a handful of young F-35A pilots who recently graduated their initial training and are currently deployed here as part of Red-Flag 19-1. Now they are being battle-tested. “Going from F-35 training a little over a month ago to a large force exercise with dozens of aircraft in the sky is pretty crazy,” Moores said. “For the initial part of the first mission, I was just kind of sitting there listening. I was nervous. I was excited. Then the training kicked in.”

Red Flag is the Air Force’s premier combat training exercise where units from across the Department of Defense join with allied nations in a “blue force” to combat a “red force” in a variety of challenging scenarios over three weeks. “For us, the biggest difference between this Red Flag and our first with the F-35A two years ago is that we have a lot of pilots on their first assignment,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th FS commander. “Putting them alongside more experienced wingmen is what Red Flag was designed for.” What combat training looks like has changed dramatically over the years, Morris said.

“When I was a young pilot in the F-16, I had a couple of responsibilities in the cockpit. One, don’t lose sight of my flight lead. Two, keep track of a bunch of green blips on a small screen in front of me, and correlate the blips to what someone is telling me on the radio,” Morris said. “Now, we’re flying miles apart and interpreting and sharing information the jets gather, building a threat and target picture. We’re asking way more of young wingmen, but we’re able to do that because of their training and the capabilities of the jet.”... [then a former A-10 pilot rattles on so go read it at the URL]

...The threat level is high at Red Flag. From the skill and size of the aggressor forces in the air to the complexity and diversity of the surface to air threats, there is a real sense of the ‘fog and friction’ of war. The adversary force also uses space and cyber warfare to take out or limit technology that modern warfighters rely on. Cutting through the clutter is a strength of the F-35A.

“One of the jet’s greatest assets is to see things that others can’t, take all the information it’s gathering from the sensors and present them to the pilot,” Moores said. “One of our biggest jobs is learning how to process and prioritize that. For the more experienced pilots it seems like it is second nature. … If we don’t, it’s not like we’re getting killed (in the F-35), but we could be doing more killing.”

The pilots say seeing the F-35A’s capabilities being put to use as part of a larger force has been invaluable. “When we mission plan with other units, it’s not always about kicking down the door,” said Rosenau “It may be about looking at what the enemy is presenting and ‘thinking skinny.’ With the F-35, we can think through a mission and choose how we want to attack it to make everyone more survivable.”

Source: https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/News/Artic ... 5a-pilots/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 12:26
by gc
Any news on the F-35’s performance at RF19-1? This silence is deafening! Very unusual of new fifth gen participating in RF. When the Raptor had their first few RF performance, lots of news of its crazy overmatch emerged rapidly.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 15:19
by sferrin
gc wrote:Any news on the F-35’s performance at RF19-1? This silence is deafening! Very unusual of new fifth gen participating in RF. When the Raptor had their first few RF performance, lots of news of its crazy overmatch emerged rapidly.


Obviously it's because it's getting it's a$$ kicked. :roll:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 16:07
by hythelday
sferrin wrote:
gc wrote:Any news on the F-35’s performance at RF19-1? This silence is deafening! Very unusual of new fifth gen participating in RF. When the Raptor had their first few RF performance, lots of news of its crazy overmatch emerged rapidly.


Obviously it's because it's getting it's a$$ kicked. :roll:


Yup, and every non-US participant has signed a top secret non disclosure agreement so they can't brag about dem sweet F-35 kills, just like some loon was telling in some endless F-22 vs Typhoon holywar :D

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 16:49
by SpudmanWP
Red Flag 19-1 started on the 26th of January and will continue through the 15th of February. We likely won't get any details till after it's done.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 22:52
by spazsinbad
Red Flag strengthens F-35A maintainers
12 Feb 2019 388th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"...“This is about as close as you’re going to get to a deployed environment. We’ve been able to sustain a very aggressive schedule and keep the mission-capable rate high,” said Master Sgt. Paul DeGrechie, 4th AMU production superintendent. “The F-35 was designed to be maintenance friendly, and that’s been the case here.”

Working around the clock, the Airmen have launched more than a dozen sorties a day, and so far, have maintained a higher than 90 percent mission capable rate. They have been able to fine-tune their operations and build off of lessons-learned to be more proactive with “pre-maintenance,” said Capt. Dayna Grant, 4th AMU officer in charge.

“We’ve been able to use this to gain a lot of experience for our young Airmen across the board,” Grant said. “This is preparing them for the kind of ops tempo and working environment we’d experience if we were called upon to deploy.”...

...“In this environment they don’t feel like they’re feeding the 'sortie monster.’ They are part of something bigger. They are learning and growing, gaining the trust of their supervisors and each other,” DeGreiche said. “There is a real sense of pride to see the unity that forms. They are all working together, stepping outside of their comfort zones to pitch in.”

Being at Red Flag allows the Airmen to focus entirely on the mission and they have more time to broaden their skills. Airman 1st Class Monique Fajardo, who joined the Air Force two years ago, has been able to learn and practice things that are not part of her normal job as an avionics technician.

“They’ve been showing me how to do things that crew chiefs do, prepping the jet, interacting with the pilots, marshaling a jet,” Fajardo said. “It’s been really fun.”"

Photo: "Airman 1st Class Monique Fajardo, 4th Aircraft Maintenance Unit avionics technician, launches an F-35A Lightning II at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev, Jan. 31, 2019, during Red Flag 19-1. This is the 388th Fighter Wing's second Red Flag with the F-35A, America's most advanced multi-role fighter, which brings game-changing stealth, lethality and interoperability to the modern battlefield. (U.S. Air Force photo by R. Nial Bradshaw)" https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/05/2 ... 6-0007.JPG (3.2Mb)


Source: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... intainers/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 23:24
by SpudmanWP
Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, NV, UNITED STATES
02.15.2019
Story by Micah Garbarino
388th Fighter Wing
Subscribe 4


NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. – Today, Airmen from the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron wrapped up flying operations with the F-35A Lightning II in an “exponentially more challenging” Red Flag.

The 4th FS integrated the F-35A into a large, capable “Blue Force” in diverse missions against an equally capable “Red Force.” Nearly 3,000 personnel from 39 separate units participated in the exercise, including the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, Royal Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force.

The Red Force was made up of hybrid threats, combinations of the “most advanced weapons systems out there,” meant to replicate “near-peer” enemies in a large scale conflict. The shift closely aligns with the National Defense Strategy.

“The first time I came to Red Flag in 2004, our tactics were the same as they had been since the early 1980s. Now, the threat and complexity are at a whole different level,” said Col. Joshua Wood, 388th Operations Group commander. “It’s no longer assumed that we will gain and maintain air superiority. That’s a big shift.”

Red Flag aggressors encompass the whole spectrum of an adversary force – advanced integrated air-defense systems, an adversary air force, cyber-warfare and information operations. Because of these diverse capabilities, many Red Flag missions are flown in “contested or denied” environments with active electronic attack, communications jamming, and GPS denial.

“Those situations highlight the fifth-generation capabilities of the F-35. We’re still able to operate and be successful. In a lot of cases we have a large role as an integrated quarterback,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th Fighter Squadron commander. “Our ability to continue to fuse and pass information to the entire package makes every aircraft more survivable.”

During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.’”

The young pilot then “killed” the enemy aircraft and had three more kills in the hour-long mission. {thanks to Block 3F's 4 internal AMRAAMs!}

“Even in this extremely challenging environment, the F-35 didn’t have many difficulties doing its job,” Wood said. ‘That’s a testament to the pilot’s training and the capabilities of the jet.”

One of the most valuable things about this exercise for the 4th Fighter Squadron is the experience it provided younger pilots flying combat missions as part of an integrated force. Thirteen pilots in the squadron have never flown the F-35 in Red Flag, and four of them just graduated pilot training.

“They say it’s the most realistic thing to combat,” said 1st Lt. Landon Moores, a new F-35A pilot. “It’s been pretty intense.”

Red Flag is not a “rolling campaign.” It is made up of different scenarios that increase in difficulty as the weeks go on. This allows the integrated force to learn how best to capitalize on the strengths and protect the weaknesses of each platform in very specific mission sets.

“With stealth, the F-35 can get closer to threats than many other aircraft can. Combined with the performance of the fused sensors on the F-35, we can significantly contribute to the majority of the missions,” Morris said.

The missions aren’t just 90-minute flights. They require 12-hours of intense planning the day prior, a two hour pre-brief, and then several hours of debriefing after the mission – dissecting the outcome and looking for ways to improve.

“It’s not like we just come back and high-five if we’re successful,” Morris said. “Could we have done better? Did we have all the resources we needed? Often the brief and debrief is the most valuable part of Red Flag, especially for younger pilots.”

The squadron brought 12 aircraft and more than 200 Airmen to the three-week exercise – pilots, maintainers, intelligence officers, weapons crews, and support personnel, including reservists from the 419th Fighter Wing. Maintainers didn’t lose a single sortie to a maintenance ground-abort and had spare aircraft available for every mission.

“As this aircraft matures, we continue to see it be a significant force-multiplier in a threat-dense environment,” Morris said. “Red Flag was a success for us and has made our younger pilots more lethal and more confident.”

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/310967/hil ... o-red-flag

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 00:29
by SpudmanWP
419 FW personnel complete Red Flag 19-1

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah -- Pilots, maintainers, and support personnel from the 419th Fighter Wing wrapped up intensive training operations at the Air Force’s premier combat exercise known as Red Flag 19-1 at Nellis AFB, Nevada, today.

It was the wing's second Red Flag with the F-35A, alongside its active duty counterparts in the 388th FW.

Nearly 3,000 personnel from 39 units across the globe also participated, to include other U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Royal Air Force, and Royal Australian Air Force squadrons.

The three-week exercise saw a friendly “Blue Force” take on enemy “Red Force” aggressors in a training environment that simulates realistic combat operations using air-to-air, air-to-ground, space and cyber warfare. This year, the F-35 once again, provided offensive and defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defense and close air support against enemy forces.

The F-35A is America's most advanced multi-role fighter, and offers extraordinarily advanced stealth and interoperability. The 388th and 419th Fighter Wings have been flying and maintaining the aircraft together as part of a Total Force Integration since 2007.
https://www.419fw.afrc.af.mil/News/Article/1759644/419-fw-personnel-complete-red-flag-19-1/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 01:22
by popcorn
LOL.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 01:50
by steve2267
Does Red Flag simulate or otherwise account for missile Pk < 100% ?

With just the story as penned, one could easily assume the "young pilot" was four for four with his internal AIM-120s. There is no mention of carrying Aim-9X on that early OCA mission, nor is there any mention of the "young pilot" killing those four bandits with Slammers off of other airframes. So, 4 for 4 would be Pk = 100%. Either damn good shootin', which is very possible, or the youngster was able to get deep into a good wep NEZ.

Hopefully some reporter will get up the gumption to ask some good questions... but hold my breath I do not.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 02:01
by popcorn
Good question. I'll assume for now they use the same measuring stick with the F-22s.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 02:36
by popcorn
Easy to overlook in the cited article but also impressive

The squadron brought 12 aircraft and more than 200 Airmen to the three-week exercise – pilots, maintainers, intelligence officers, weapons crews, and support personnel, including reservists from the 419th Fighter Wing. Maintainers didn’t lose a single sortie to a maintenance ground-abort and had spare aircraft available for every mission.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 03:02
by jetblast16
since 2007


?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 05:19
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:Does Red Flag simulate or otherwise account for missile Pk < 100% ?


Yes.

How would it serve the purpose of the exercise (training for real combat) to ‘game’ (i.e fake) the weapons Pk?

Really...think about it. Training for combat...life or death...not a tag line in a movie (‘no points for second best’) and they’re gonna fake the Pk’s? Really??

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 05:53
by marsavian
quicksilver wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Does Red Flag simulate or otherwise account for missile Pk < 100% ?


Yes.


By assuming it's only a kill in the NEZ ? If so how would it account for ECM or evasive maneuvering by the attacked aircraft like beaming ?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 06:00
by wrightwing
marsavian wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Does Red Flag simulate or otherwise account for missile Pk < 100% ?

Yes.

By assuming it's only a kill in the NEZ ? If so how would it account for ECM or evasive maneuvering by the attacked aircraft like beaming ?

Aircraft don't fly around with their jammers constantly radiating, nor are they maneuvering against a foe, they can't see. The reason F-35s (and F-22s) can achieve such lopsided kills, is that their opponents weren't aware of them. An AIM-120 within its NEZ, against a non-maneuvering target, and no jamming, is going to have a very high Pk. That's the key difference between 4th generation fighters and 5th generation.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 06:09
by marsavian
Once an AIM-120 goes Pitbull an attacked aircraft will be aware of it via its RWR. I suspect it's very hard to simulate the seeker head of a missile going active on a simulated launch although I suspect the terminal missile guidance of an F-35 would be excellent via its AESA and EOTS laser and even DAS for HOBS shots.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 06:28
by quicksilver
TACTS/ACMI pods were around for decades. That’s how all the participants were monitored in real-time. There was even a scene in top gun where they were debriefing in one of the TACTS facilities (‘...gutsiest move I ever saw Mav...’). The 21st century versions are far more sophisticated.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 06:57
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 08:07
by kimjongnumbaun
steve2267 wrote:Does Red Flag simulate or otherwise account for missile Pk < 100% ?



My brother flew in Top Gun. ROE was if you cannot break lock before time of impact, you are considered dead. I imagine if you're being targeted by an F-35 or F-22 with LPI and have no idea that you have shots inbound, it's generally a bad day for Red Air.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 15:05
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:Aircraft don't fly around with their jammers constantly radiating, nor are they maneuvering against a foe, they can't see. The reason F-35s (and F-22s) can achieve such lopsided kills, is that their opponents weren't aware of them. An AIM-120 within its NEZ, against a non-maneuvering target, and no jamming, is going to have a very high Pk. That's the key difference between 4th generation fighters and 5th generation.


Precisely!


marsavian wrote:Once an AIM-120 goes Pitbull an attacked aircraft will be aware of it via its RWR.


Yes indeed.
However we must take into consideration the following when an AMRAAM goes Pitbull:
- This happens when the missile is already close to the target. I've remember to have read something around 10 nautical miles. This of course assuming that the launching aircraft hasn't lost the target lock (L&S target to be more precise) which for the reasons mentioned by others, this shouldn't be the case.
This means that since the missile is already very close to the target and closing fast, the enemy aircraft's Jammers won't be effective since the AMRAAM's radar should break thru the enemy jamming, again due to the missile being to the target aircraft.
- The same applies to evasive maneuvering. If the enemy aircraft tries to execute quick/sharp turn it will lose speed/energy and the end result will be that the missile will easily catch the enemy aircraft and the aircraft will hardly be able to evade the incoming AMRAAM/missile. Or as opposed, if the enemy aircraft's pilot decides to retain energy by avoiding turning much and accelerate then it will be much easier for the missile to predict the impact point and as such kill the enemy aircraft with relative ease.

Resuming, by the time that an AMRAAM goes Pitbull - if the launching aircraft still has the enemy/target aircraft as its L&S target - the enemy pilot's reaction time will be extremely limited, if any. What I mean is that in this case when the enemy pilot is aware of the incoming AMRAAM thru its RWR, this will probably be too late.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 16:29
by knowan
I wonder if sticking a LPI AESA seeker on an AIM-120 would be worthwhile, to reduce time of RWR alerting the target of the live missile incoming?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 17:46
by botsing
ricnunes wrote:This happens when the missile is already close to the target. I've remember to have read something around 10 nautical miles.

Do we have any reliable source for a more accurate time before the AIM-120D seeker goes active?

10nm to me seems still too far out and would give the target too much time to act.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 17:56
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Does Red Flag simulate or otherwise account for missile Pk < 100% ?


Yes.

How would it serve the purpose of the exercise (training for real combat) to ‘game’ (i.e fake) the weapons Pk?

Really...think about it. Training for combat...life or death...not a tag line in a movie (‘no points for second best’) and they’re gonna fake the Pk’s? Really??


I had thought about it. Hence my question (to confirm). It seemed silly to me that there would not be some random roll of electronic dice to simulate the Pk given the launch parameters / targeting aspect etc etc. It seemed odder still, highly improbable, that a nugget with only "7 or eight flights" after graduating F-35 training would go four for four with AIM-120s when his aircraft only carries four missiles. (Or did this RF flight allow "unlimited" magazines just like the Red Air boogers can regen with impunity?) Shooting four AIM-120's would seem to suggest two or three kills. But four out of four seemed unlikely given historical AIM-120 combat performance.

OR... the reporting was lacking, and no one was asking any critical questions, OR the story was embellished a little.

kimjongnumbaun wrote:My brother flew in Top Gun. ROE was if you cannot break lock before time of impact, you are considered dead. I imagine if you're being targeted by an F-35 or F-22 with LPI and have no idea that you have shots inbound, it's generally a bad day for Red Air.


But... KJN seems to supply the missing piece to this puzzle.

Does the AIM-120 have the ability to remain in SAR mode and NOT go active? Better to remain silent and guide on the LPI returns of the F-35 or F-22. If so... how many shots can an F-35 or F-22 guide at the same time? Such a capability would require an LPI "seeker" -- the ability to pick up the LPI dar returns... But LPI is like "background noise"... so the AIM-120 would either have to be programmed (somehow) for the "guiding" aircraft, or... Hmmmm....

But AIM-120 also has command guidance, correct? F-35 locks & tracks bandit via LPI lock... command guides AIM-120 until last possible moment... when AIM-120 goes active. That makes more sense. If the F-35 were to go "active" with a traditional SAR waveform that the AIM-120 could guide on... it would reveal its position.

Is it unclass how many AIM-120's an F-35 can command guide at one time?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 18:16
by steve2267
Can the AIM-120 be command guided via an LPI waveform? If not, that would mean the signals from a command guiding aircraft would be potentially detectable... a stealth no-no.

Hmmm... I am probably asking questions that are treading on class.

I'll just call it ephing magic involving lots of maths.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 19:14
by botsing
steve2267 wrote:OR... the reporting was lacking, and no one was asking any critical questions, OR the story was embellished a little.

OR... The young pilot learned how to maximize his weapon potential and has the airplane to actually use that potential.

I agree, context is everything.


steve2267 wrote:Can the AIM-120 be command guided via an LPI waveform? If not, that would mean the signals from a command guiding aircraft would be potentially detectable... a stealth no-no.

AESA RADAR can "steer" a message beam with little side lobes, making the AIM-120D receive the message clearly well but keeping the targeted aircraft out of the loop as long as it does not cross that beam.

This aside from frequency hopping and other technologies that make for LPI.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 19:37
by steve2267
botsing wrote:
steve2267 wrote:OR... the reporting was lacking, and no one was asking any critical questions, OR the story was embellished a little.

OR... The young pilot learned how to maximize his weapon potential and has the airplane to actually use that potential.

I agree, context is everything.


A quick search of AIM-120 / AMRAAM Pk yields numbers anywhere from ~43% (a Karlo Kopp special) to as high as 80 or 90%. A median seems to be around 65% give or take. If Red Flag models or simulates Pk, then without further explanation, going four for four is extraordinary.

In the Dutch thread, [Dutch F-35A Pilots] Out of the SHADOWS May 2018 PDF, the F-35's jammed the opposing F-16's radars without their knowledge, and guided AIM-120's from the blue force Dutch Vipers against the Red Force Vipers. This Dutch account raises two questions:
  1. Did the young nugget @ RF 19-1 have the old timer loft any AIM-120's at the bandit before bugging out? If not, why not? (Of course, maybe it was an A-10 and he had no AIM-120s...)
  2. Why didn't the youngster work his Lightning EW magic wand against the bandit's dar? (Lot's of scenarios there... again... context)

Perhaps the better questions would be: Did Lightnings use any AIM-120's from 4th gen aircraft to take down Red Air? Did Lightnings use their radar's to blind any Red Air? Perhaps a juicier, unrelated (yet related) question would be: did Red Flag 19-1 Red Air use any 5th generation air assets?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 20:18
by marsavian
AIM-120 doesn't have a SARH mode. It is initially datalink guided to where its active radar can automatically take over and there is also a HOJ mode. Red Flag doesn't appear to mimic the active radar of the AIM-120 but it proxies for it by taking its simulated flight path and if it doesn't connect at the same point in space (evasive maneuvers) as the bandit or if the bandit breaks radar lock (beaming) then the bandit has survived. The fact that F-22/F-35 consistently get 100% missile pK in Red Flag is suggesting their radar/fused locks are not being broken and they are not firing missiles outside the NEZ.

Also remember that with AIM-120D the missile can tell the F-35 (at early Block 4) if its own radar lock has been broken and the F-35 can then send fresh datalink instructions. First with aircraft LPI AESA and then with EOTS/DAS/AIM-120D the AMRAAM just got more lethal irrespective of the natural Range/Sensor/ESM/ECM improvements of the base missile.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 22:16
by wrightwing
marsavian wrote:Once an AIM-120 goes Pitbull an attacked aircraft will be aware of it via its RWR. I suspect it's very hard to simulate the seeker head of a missile going active on a simulated launch although I suspect the terminal missile guidance of an F-35 would be excellent via its AESA and EOTS laser and even DAS for HOBS shots.

The AIM-120 doesn't go active until the final moments before impact (it may not go active at all, as it can be used completely passively, and HOJ.) Presumably, the seeker lock, etc.... can be simulated. All the jets in the exercises, use extra gear which not only tracks all movements in 3D, but launch envelopes, and allows for cockpit warning indicators.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 22:20
by wrightwing
botsing wrote:
ricnunes wrote:This happens when the missile is already close to the target. I've remember to have read something around 10 nautical miles.

Do we have any reliable source for a more accurate time before the AIM-120D seeker goes active?

10nm to me seems still too far out and would give the target too much time to act.

It's not 10nm. It'd be less than 10km.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 22:27
by wrightwing
steve2267 wrote:
botsing wrote:
steve2267 wrote:OR... the reporting was lacking, and no one was asking any critical questions, OR the story was embellished a little.

OR... The young pilot learned how to maximize his weapon potential and has the airplane to actually use that potential.

I agree, context is everything.


A quick search of AIM-120 / AMRAAM Pk yields numbers anywhere from ~43% (a Karlo Kopp special) to as high as 80 or 90%. A median seems to be around 65% give or take. If Red Flag models or simulates Pk, then without further explanation, going four for four is extraordinary.





Those Pk numbers are against maneuvering targets, that are possibly employing countermeasures. Non-maneuvering targets, with no countermeasures, and within the the NEZ, should be close to 100% Pk.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 22:55
by marsavian
wrightwing wrote:
marsavian wrote:Once an AIM-120 goes Pitbull an attacked aircraft will be aware of it via its RWR. I suspect it's very hard to simulate the seeker head of a missile going active on a simulated launch although I suspect the terminal missile guidance of an F-35 would be excellent via its AESA and EOTS laser and even DAS for HOBS shots.


The AIM-120 doesn't go active until the final moments before impact (it may not go active at all, as it can be used completely passively, and HOJ.) Presumably, the seeker lock, etc.... can be simulated. All the jets in the exercises, use extra gear which not only tracks all movements in 3D, but launch envelopes, and allows for cockpit warning indicators.

Presumably it can be simulated but all the first-hand accounts of 4th gen pilots being informed that they are dead completely to their surprise suggests it is currently not.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 00:16
by usnvo
wrightwing wrote:Those Pk numbers are against maneuvering targets, that are possibly employing countermeasures. Non-maneuvering targets, with no countermeasures, and within the the NEZ, should be close to 100% Pk.


While not a hard and fast number, simple reliability of the missile limits Pk to something more like 90%. Even the most reliable missile ever developed, the D-5, has not demonstrated 100% reliability.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 00:21
by usnvo
steve2267 wrote:Is it unclass how many AIM-120's an F-35 can command guide at one time?


I am not sure, but since it was publicly reported that the F-35 had successfully, simultaneously shot down two target drones, the answer would be two or more.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 00:29
by ricnunes
botsing wrote:
ricnunes wrote:This happens when the missile is already close to the target. I've remember to have read something around 10 nautical miles.

Do we have any reliable source for a more accurate time before the AIM-120D seeker goes active?

10nm to me seems still too far out and would give the target too much time to act.


Well this is something that I seem to remember to have read years ago, as such I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't apply or necessarily apply to the AIM-120D, or resuming what I read about the AMRAAM was certainly about a pre-AIM-120D variant.

As this being something that I have read years ago, it is quite possible that I could be confusing nautical miles for kilometers as wrightwing previously mentioned, which in this case would be 10km away from the target in order for the AMRAAM to go "Pitbull".

Anyway even if the range for the AMRAAM to go active was to be 10 nautical miles then this still wouldn't give much time for the enemy pilot to react, for example:
- The AMRAAM top speed is said to be Mach 4 or around 4,900km/h but lets imagine for example a situation that when the AMRAAM is nearing a target that it is flying at around 4,000km/h - at this speed the missile will travel the 10 nautical miles in around 16 seconds - and this is the missile estimated missile impact on target time - which means that the pilot reaction time will be much shorter than those 16 seconds which by itself is already too or quite short.
Now if the enemy aircraft is flying towards the general direction of the incoming missile (which often happens in such aerial combats) then the distance that the missile will have to travel will be quite shorter (talking into account the enemy aircraft speed and closing the distance gap) and as such the time for the missile impact to target as well as the enemy pilot reaction time will be even shorter.
- Now imagine if I mistaken (10) nautical miles with (10) kilometers. This means that the enemy pilot reaction time will be even much shorter than the examples above!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 01:08
by popcorn
So how does it work. The AMRAAM seeker is activated when it it sure by the INS that the target should be within a certain calculated range? Might there be an option for the F-35 to activate the seeker for more precise targeting?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 03:26
by wrightwing
usnvo wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Those Pk numbers are against maneuvering targets, that are possibly employing countermeasures. Non-maneuvering targets, with no countermeasures, and within the the NEZ, should be close to 100% Pk.


While not a hard and fast number, simple reliability of the missile limits Pk to something more like 90%. Even the most reliable missile ever developed, the D-5, has not demonstrated 100% reliability.

Even 90% reliability could allow 4 hits, though (especially against a non-maneuvering target.)

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 12:56
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:
usnvo wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Those Pk numbers are against maneuvering targets, that are possibly employing countermeasures. Non-maneuvering targets, with no countermeasures, and within the the NEZ, should be close to 100% Pk.


While not a hard and fast number, simple reliability of the missile limits Pk to something more like 90%. Even the most reliable missile ever developed, the D-5, has not demonstrated 100% reliability.


Even 90% reliability could allow 4 hits, though (especially against a non-maneuvering target.)



Yes indeed.
For example even the most precise DNA tests don't have a 100% accuracy, they also have an accuracy within the 90-ish% which is enough for giving an absolute result namely in "sensitive areas" such as criminal forensics.

Anyway, I strongly believe that those 10% failure rate in the case of missiles such as the AMRAAM are there to take into account an eventual missile failure ("mechanical" or electronics) and not so much the eventual ability of an enemy pilot/aircraft being able to evade the missile when fired on optimal conditions.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 22:36
by pron
The First Reports Of How The F-35 Strutted Its Stuff In Dogfights Against Aggressors At Red Flag Are Starting To Emerge.
https://theaviationist.com/2019/02/16/t ... to-emerge/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 00:12
by spazsinbad
What a crap article. Dredged up the past (2017) then repeated what we already know - even down to the photo. SHEESH. NO MENTION of what is 'new' about RED FLAG 19-1 just a load of old stuff then a recent story about the nuggets added.

'SWP' posted guts of newest stuff on 3rd thread page: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54962&p=411692&hilit=Garbarino#p411692

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 02:43
by charlielima223
pron wrote:The First Reports Of How The F-35 Strutted Its Stuff In Dogfights Against Aggressors At Red Flag Are Starting To Emerge.
https://theaviationist.com/2019/02/16/t ... to-emerge/


The comment section will be fun to read... in a masochistic morbid sense. Unfortunately the comment section of the Aviationist are often over run with Russian trolls and generally ignorant individuals

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 03:15
by gc
“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.'"

Wonder if the very capable 4th gen was an RAF Typhoon. It it was then this example can pretty much close the Lightning II vs Typhoon argument.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 03:25
by charlielima223
gc wrote:“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.'"

Wonder if the very capable 4th gen was an RAF Typhoon. It it was then this example can pretty much close the Lightning II vs Typhoon argument.


I think that statement better illustrates the training and thinking between a veteran pilot who has plenty of time in a 4th gen platforms compared to the training and thinking of a new 5th gen pilot as well as the amount of SA the F-35 brings to the battle space. More experienced pilots who have time in both 4th gen platforms and 5th gen platforms state along the lines of...
Coming to the --insert F-35 or F-22-- from the --insert 4th gen platform--, you bring the baggage of 4th gen experience so you naturally want to fly and fight as a 4th gen operator

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 05:28
by popcorn
Taunting aside, I'm guessing the advent of MADL and a fused COP result in less.radio chatter between 5gens as compared to legacy jets.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 06:11
by Corsair1963
QUOTE:

During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.
“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.’”
The young pilot then “killed” the enemy aircraft and had three more kills in the hour-long mission.

“Even in this extremely challenging environment, the F-35 didn’t have many difficulties doing its job,” Wood said. ‘That’s a testament to the pilot’s training and the capabilities of the jet.”
One of the most valuable things about this exercise for the 4th Fighter Squadron is the experience it provided younger pilots flying combat missions as part of an integrated force. Thirteen pilots in the squadron have never flown the F-35 in Red Flag, and four of them just graduated pilot training.
“They say it’s the most realistic thing to combat,” said 1st Lt. Landon Moores, a new F-35A pilot. “It’s been pretty intense.”

https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/News/Artic ... upS45Js9g/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 06:58
by spazsinbad
On page three this thread 'SWP' started the YOUNG STUFF; the quote in bits & pieces has been repeated here since then.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54962&p=411692&hilit=young#p411692 Original story STARTED at DVIDS? Dunno.

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/310967/hil ... o-red-flag PHOTO familiar? DO the GORILLA MASH.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 09:35
by hornetfinn
marsavian wrote:AIM-120 doesn't have a SARH mode. It is initially datalink guided to where its active radar can automatically take over and there is also a HOJ mode.


One interesting thing is that SM-6 missile uses AMRAAM seeker and it definitely does have SARH mode (along with ARH mode). It might well be that there is no SARH mode in "normal" AMRAAM seeker, although I don't think it would be that difficult to implement either. It could and would likely be done with software and might not require significant hardware modifications (although might need some). Of course the usefulness might be questionable in aircraft with relatively small radars and different engagement geometries than ships.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 13:34
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:What a crap article. Dredged up the past (2017) then repeated what we already know - even down to the photo. SHEESH. NO MENTION of what is 'new' about RED FLAG 19-1 just a load of old stuff then a recent story about the nuggets added.

'SWP' posted guts of newest stuff on 3rd thread page: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54962&p=411692&hilit=Garbarino#p411692

We will see what is released. It would be interesting to hear anything on the aussies.
https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media ... e-red-flag
“Up to six F/A-18A Classic Hornets from Number 77 Squadron, one E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft from Number 2 Squadron and one AP-3C (Electronic Warfare) Orion aircraft from Number 10 Squadron have flown over for the exercise.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 13:40
by hornetfinn
popcorn wrote:So how does it work. The AMRAAM seeker is activated when it it sure by the INS that the target should be within a certain calculated range? Might there be an option for the F-35 to activate the seeker for more precise targeting?


I think the activation distance depends on many factors and I really doubt there is any set universal distance where it goes active. I think distance and time to estimated impact point are likely factors. Target maneuvering and target tracking and update quality/estimated accuracy likely affect that also. It might well be that F-35 can provide so good targeting data that missile activation is done later than with say 4th gen fighter with MSA radar. But this is just my guess and it might also differ from AMRAAM version. Like A-version is probably much more primitive (as it was hardwired missile) even in this compared to D-model for example.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 13:48
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:
popcorn wrote:So how does it work. The AMRAAM seeker is activated when it it sure by the INS that the target should be within a certain calculated range? Might there be an option for the F-35 to activate the seeker for more precise targeting?


I think the activation distance depends on many factors and I really doubt there is any set universal distance where it goes active. I think distance and time to estimated impact point are likely factors. Target maneuvering and target tracking and update quality/estimated accuracy likely affect that also. It might well be that F-35 can provide so good targeting data that missile activation is done later than with say 4th gen fighter with MSA radar. But this is just my guess and it might also differ from AMRAAM version. Like A-version is probably much more primitive (as it was hardwired missile) even in this compared to D-model for example.


IIRC that during tests to prevent the destruction of a valuable target drone, the AMRAAM is presumably commanded to self-destruct. If the F-35 cancontrol the AMRAAM up to that point then maybe it's possible to navigate the missile. closer to the target before commanding g it to activate the radar seeker? If so, that should do wonders for kill probability.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 14:04
by optimist
The aim-120 is a bit of a black box. It's reported to have a good fire and forget range. From what I gather, like everything else, believe half of what is published and the good stuff isn't mentioned at all.

It's said the geeks who sim on home computers, that have screen scraped and got hints from x-service members in them. They have grouped every bit of data they can find. They probably have the best unclassified info. I'm not into it and I can't recommend one group over another.

Anyway given the aussies have ordered 450 of the aim-120d. I hope they are okay

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 00:55
by ruderamronbo
SpudmanWP wrote:
Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag

During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.


http://www.dvidshub.net/news/310967/hil ... o-red-flag


I'm surprised no one else has called BS on this claim. Anyone who knows anything about RF knows 6-8 Aggressors challenge each push--not 60. The only thing I can think it MIGHT be referencing is 60 all week but if true the wording definitely needs to be fixed by the PA honks at Hill..

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:02
by Corsair1963
ruderamronbo wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag

During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.


http://www.dvidshub.net/news/310967/hil ... o-red-flag


I'm surprised no one else has called BS on this claim. Anyone who knows anything about RF knows 6-8 Aggressors challenge each push--not 60. The only thing I can think it MIGHT be referencing is 60 all week but if true the wording definitely needs to be fixed by the PA honks at Hill..


It didn't say all at once and Aggressors generate after each loss. This is hardly anything new or surprising....

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:04
by popcorn
ruderamronbo wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag

During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.


http://www.dvidshub.net/news/310967/hil ... o-red-flag


I'm surprised no one else has called BS on this claim. Anyone who knows anything about RF knows 6-8 Aggressors challenge each push--not 60. The only thing I can think it MIGHT be referencing is 60 all week but if true the wording definitely needs to be fixed by the PA honks at Hill..


RF has been upgraded in terms of the threats capabilities to give 5-gen Blue Force as challenging a workout as possible so not really implausible.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:14
by ruderamronbo
During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.

RF has been upgraded in terms of the threats capabilities to give 5-gen Blue Force as challenging a workout as possible so not really implausible.

60 Aggressors and 40-50 Blue aircraft, at the same time, on the range? You're kidding right? BTW where would those 60 Aggressors come from? What units?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:20
by SpudmanWP
The best source of units at any Red Flag is here:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/flag_units.html

Image

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 02:04
by blindpilot
ruderamronbo wrote: ... BTW where would those 60 Aggressors come from? What units?

SpudmanWP wrote:The best source of units at any Red Flag is here:


So basically the 64th has 24 fighters, Draken has 34 A4/L159s - (58 of 60 if they had months to get all the birds up which they did) Still, if they only sortied 50% or even less, the regen rate would only be 1 or two regens.. very plausible. Even with a third, or a quarter of the fleets 2 or 3 regens is not extreme.

FWIW,
BP

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 09:50
by hornetfinn
ruderamronbo wrote:60 Aggressors and 40-50 Blue aircraft, at the same time, on the range? You're kidding right? BTW where would those 60 Aggressors come from? What units?


I've been involved in exercises here in Finland where 40 to 50 fighter jets have been in the air at the same time very much fighting each other. Of course that intensity was the maximum there was, but they were not isolated incidents either. I have no doubt that USAF can pretty easily put together similar amount of jets, especially with the help of companies like Draken. I don't think Red Force even needs to be dedicated Aggressors necessarily (at least not all).

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 11:13
by Corsair1963
Whole, point of Red Flag is to hold a vast and complex exercise with a large numbers of participants. In order to recreate the most likely scenarios for the real thing! (i.e. large scale vs near peer conflict)



NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, NV, UNITED STATES

02.08.2019

Story by Micah Garbarino

388th Fighter Wing  

The desert screams by below. The clouds scream by above. Both stretch on into the horizon. It’s deceptively calm in the cockpit. There’s a constant, seemingly discordant stream of chatter coming through his helmet. The digital screens in front of him, along with images projected onto his visor, provide enough information to save lives and take a few as well. In the sky ahead are more than 60 advanced enemy aircraft, flown by some of the best fighter pilots in the world. They are hunting – looking to kill him and his wingmen. He just graduated pilot training. Welcome to Red Flag.

“I haven’t been flying that long. There are things that stand out in my career. My first solo flight, my first F-35 flight and my first Red Flag mission. I don’t think I’ll ever forget those things,” said 1st Lt. Landon Moores, a new F-35A Lightning II pilot with the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron.

Moores is one of a handful of young F-35A pilots who recently graduated their initial training and are currently deployed here as part of Red-Flag 19-1. Now they are being battle-tested.

“Going from F-35 training a little over a month ago to a large force exercise with "dozens of aircraft" in the sky is pretty crazy,”


https://www.dvidshub.net/news/310624/tr ... 35a-pilots

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 13:06
by popcorn
[:what would RedForce mindset knowing they we're going to g up against the F-35?
Video Version of Maj. Flatley (USMC -ret.) Experience flying against vs. the F-35 for the first fime some years back
https://youtu.be/x2VqDgaj1M4

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 13:17
by spazsinbad
The full text of the video was posted earlier by 'Dragon029' just after a few sentences were posted by 'kimjongnumbaun':

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52884&p=367210&hilit=flatley+crushing#p367210 TEXT FROM:
An F-35 pilot explains how the stealth fighter can have a crushing psychological effect on the enemy
05 May 2017 Alex Lockie

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/psyc ... ter-2017-5

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 19:04
by SpudmanWP
Just a small Red Flag related quote from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein at a Brookings Institution event Tuesday.

Even in 2017, the F-35 reportedly dominated the competition with a 20:1 kill ratio.

A dozen F-35As from the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron, out of Hill Air Force Base, Utah, participated this year, and the aircraft were flush with the latest software updates.

“We have an upgraded software suite that has improved our sensor fusion. We’ve got an expanded flying envelope with more maneuverability," Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th Fighter Squadron commander, said in a statement.

During Red Flag, which ended Friday, Goldfein said the aircraft was "exceeding our expectations when it comes to not only being able to survive, but to prosecute targets.


https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... -red-flag/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 07:49
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:IIRC that during tests to prevent the destruction of a valuable target drone, the AMRAAM is presumably commanded to self-destruct. If the F-35 can control the AMRAAM up to that point then maybe it's possible to navigate the missile. closer to the target before commanding g it to activate the radar seeker? If so, that should do wonders for kill probability.


And that's without considering what subtle EA could do to further boost PK, and even push a pilot into making the wrong defensive choice if they were alerted late. So many nasty options emerge when they don't know you're there.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 08:08
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote:
popcorn wrote:So how does it work. The AMRAAM seeker is activated when it it sure by the INS that the target should be within a certain calculated range? Might there be an option for the F-35 to activate the seeker for more precise targeting?


I think the activation distance depends on many factors and I really doubt there is any set universal distance where it goes active. I think distance and time to estimated impact point are likely factors. Target maneuvering and target tracking and update quality/estimated accuracy likely affect that also. It might well be that F-35 can provide so good targeting data that missile activation is done later than with say 4th gen fighter with MSA radar. But this is just my guess and it might also differ from AMRAAM version. Like A-version is probably much more primitive (as it was hardwired missile) even in this compared to D-model for example.


Agree HF, that's almost certainly the case, as using lower pk options like missile going active early, or pilot using fire-and-forget tactics, become undesirable when you can support a missile (probably several simultaneously) all the way to their target(s), and there's little danger to own aircraft being killed - just don't close the radius too much.

It makes little sense to keep using AMRAAMs in conventional ways, even since F-22A appeared, and especially since F-35 went IOC. I'd say there's no pressing need to replace AMRAAM, as the D model will be able to do so much more than earlier AMRAAM versions when teamed with F-35. For instance, why even use a 180 deg HOBS shot, if no one can see your approach, or ambush-loiter tactic, or an egress? No one survives to talk about it.

So what exactly would a new missile bring, or offer? More shots?

Would more shots be needed if pk has become so much better when using 120D with F-35A - 6 high-pk BVR AAMs should be enough for a fight. And logically the 'NEZ' will become bigger when used by F-35 using stealth tactics and having the best time and space and tools (MDF) to attain the best firing angles and alts, compared with any 4th-gen platform using the very same missiles. And what does it signify to say a missile has a certain 'pk' value, if pk is different for different launch platforms, tactics and technology options used?

4 for 4 kill rate does not seem such a stretch.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 08:32
by element1loop
Consider also the tactical effects of a flight of 4 x Su35 in a formation box measuring less than 10 km on a side, while a flight a 4 x F-35A going after them can easily be in a box measuring greater than 100 km on a side, while maintaining the same local SA, and nearly ideal regional SA and continuous target cues on four oblivious Su35 ... lambs to the slaughter.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 11:14
by spazsinbad
An Australian view on RED Flag 19-1: https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... ed-flag-19

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 12:09
by popcorn
[quote="element1loop]

So what exactly would a new missile bring, or offer? More shots?

Would more shots be needed if pk has become so much better when using 120D with F-35A - 6 high-pk BVR AAMs should be enough for a fight. And logically the 'NEZ' will become bigger when used by F-35 using stealth tactics and having the best time and space and tools (MDF) to attain the best firing angles and alts, compared with any 4th-gen platform using the very same missiles. And what does it signify to say a missile has a certain 'pk' value, if pk is different for different launch platforms, tactics and technology options used?

4 for 4 kill rate does not seem such a stretch.[/quote]

SACM would be dual purpose, able to take out bandits and CMs. Next to fuel, I guess,Always Nnce to have the extra missiles.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 12:43
by hornetfinn
I think more air-to-air missiles even at the expense of range might be good to have especially if enemy has a lot of cruise missiles or drones. But I think co-operative engagement capabilities of F-35 might make larger individual weapons load less needed in real life.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 14:13
by marsavian
So what exactly would a new missile bring, or offer? More shots?


Looking ahead against much faster or stealthier targets, probably another boost stage to increase speed to hunt down hypersonic targets and a dual GaN/IR seeker to keep the pK high against much stealthier targets. The AIM-120D is more than adequate at the moment with a powerful AESA guiding it to the target but my suggestions would make it, or a future missile, more of a reliable fire and forget weapon against future threats if the F-35 is otherwise disposed in combat

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 21:52
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:I think more air-to-air missiles even at the expense of range might be good to have especially if enemy has a lot of cruise missiles or drones. But I think co-operative engagement capabilities of F-35 might make larger individual weapons load less needed in real life.

Networked SA will help ensure a challenge threats are prioritized in lieu of decoys.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 00:21
by steve2267
marsavian wrote:Looking ahead against much faster or stealthier targets, probably another boost stage to increase speed to hunt down hypersonic targets and a dual GaN/IR seeker to keep the pK high against much stealthier targets. The AIM-120D is more than adequate at the moment with a powerful AESA guiding it to the target but my suggestions would make it, or a future missile, more of a reliable fire and forget weapon against future threats if the F-35 is otherwise disposed in combat


Do you fully understand what you are asking to be able to intercept hypersonic targets? I'm not even sure I do. But I recall statements by Brian Shul and possibly other Sled drivers that to defeat inbound SAMs, they only needed to turn a few degrees or push the speed up a bit. And this was only an SR-71 ( 3.2 - 3.5 Mach ). Inbound SAMs were, if memory serves, 3+ Mach SA-2s. So to target hypersonic bandits... which will be moving somewhere in the 4-6 Mach range... you are going to need, at a minimum, probably a 5-6+ Mach missile. One, I am not sure you can really get an AMRAAM-sized AAM missile moving 5-6Mach, with any sort of range. And two, minor course deviations or maneuvers may be all that is required to defeat your inbound UBERAAM.

I will admit that a 5-6 Mach AAM with a dual-pulse motor to regain energy in the end-game may be the ticket against other aircraft at range. But targeting hypersonic bandits with AAMs may be a stretch. I think some sort of DEW -- particle beam or laser -- would be a better bet against a hypersonic bandit.

Here's a different twist: what missile do you imagine will be of use against F-35's or F-22's at 50-100nm? What!? Can't target, let alone detect, them at that range? Then what to do when the Chinese and possibly the Russians (or maybe the Franco German Spanish (FGS?)) finally develop the equivalent VLO aircraft? We might be back to WVR (maybe near BVR) combat once again. Then what? Highly agile, short range IIR missiles with tremendous speed to kill the other guy quickest might be the ticket. Sounds a bit like SACM / CUDA. OR DEW weapons. Star Wars here we come! Pew pew pew...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 14:21
by mixelflick
That's actually a great point..

If China or Russia or whoever start pumping out hundreds or thousands of stealth jets, it might be back to dogfights. Another reason to continue to develop more/superior sensors and get up rated engines in the future F-35 roadmap.'

I don't think Russia or China's first generation stealth will pose this problem. The one after the J-20 though, might...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 21:09
by Gums
Salute!

Ya got it, Mixel !!!. Steve is pointing out what many know already. At the closure rates of very fast missiles and their targets' speeds, just a tiny, but well-timed maneuver will defeat a missile.

Think about an old missile like the SA-2, one of which zoomed in front of me one day and went off right behind the flight ahead. Flew thru the cloud about 15 or 20 seconds later when all the big particles were gone. We were all st and level for a LORAN drop at 20,000 to 25,000 feet or so. Basically looked like WW2 B-17's over the Reich. The SAM came thru the undercast at the speed of stink but could not make a square corner to kill my buddies in front. The ALQ-119 doofers worked, so the SAM dude couldn't get both altitude and range/bearing/ground speed good enuf and he was using home-on-jam. From the time that thing came outta the clouds about 10,000 feet below until it passed our altitude was about 2 to 3 seconds.

Think about head-on shot of anything versus a Sled doing over 3,000 ft/sec and the missile doing 4,000 or 5,000 ft/sec. You have fuze problems and warhead kill radius and such. Of course the missle can pull dozens of gees, but laws of physics dictate huge turn radii.

Hence, a highly maneuverable close-in missile that uses IR or EO or its own radar seeker can make your day. Ask the Brits about the AIM-9L in the Falklands. Oh yeah, a cannon shell is fire and forget and cannot be decoyed. Hmmmmmmm.

So bottom line is we may still wind up close and do not wish to repeat the early Viet Nam philosophy that we only needed missiles that we could fire from 15 miles away.

Gums sends.......

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 12:22
by mixelflick
Gums (if I may), what were you flying when an SA-2 flew in front of you? I know you flew A-37's in 'Nam, but I wasn't under the impression most A-37's bombed straight and level. F-105's, maybe?

With respect to the gun, I understand what you're saying. It's good the F-35A includes an internal, though it has modest ammunition (180 rounds?) vs. previous US fighters. Now, when we get to the gun pod on the B and C... I sincerely hope it's not like the centerline pod we deployed on F-4's in Vietnam. Have read nothing but problems with that weapon.

I assume (bad, I know) it doesn't significantly degrade its stealth (or maneuverability) properties. I know there were issues too, but last I knew these were being corrected. Going forward, it'll be very interesting to see how often the B and C carry it. And if Israel gets the B, that'll be a real test.

We all know how the Israeli's love the gun, and I can't recall a time when they flew fighters without one...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 16:08
by Gums
Salute!

@Mixel Many war stories and opinions/contributions over on the original F-16.net forums, especially the "military" ones that have many posts about the Sluf, aka Corsair II, aka A-7. can also read biography on the member interviews and hall of fame section.

In poor weather 45 years ago, we dropped above the clouds or in the clouds with guidance from ground radar ( see Lima Site 85 and Skyspot) OR we flew wing on an F-4 loran bird and dropped with him. Standard was two F-4 with an A-7 four-ship on each wing. Dropped either 2 x MK-84 or 12 x MK-82, so was exactly the B-17 bomb loadout.

I flew 3 missions over Hanoi during the "twelve days of Christmas" 1972, and two were LORAN drops boring in st and level like over Berlin 30 years prior, one was visual and very exciting, heh heh.
+++++++++++++++++++++++==
But back to the thread.

One of the biggest challenges for the missiles was an effective fuze. So some even had manual commnds and a lot of the shrapnel would go forward like a shotgun blast. Then we had impact like the AIM-4 had. And finally both RF and IR/laser scanners like the later AIM-9 used for the expanding rod warhead.

So it is not hard to fathom that a good stern shot has a lot higher Pk than face shot or even a high beam shot, altho my classmate Steve had a beautiful Sparrow kill from "across the circle" that is on Youtube and other places. He tried two techniques and never cme to a conclusion I heard - shoot, look shoot again versus shoot, shoot. So one engagement he had a beautiful kill and the second Sparrow flew thru the fireball/smoking wreckage. By then, he and Bob Lodge and the missile folks had figured things out. Plus, both of those guys knew the envelope backwards and forwards and could get the required geometry.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 16:10
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:Gums (if I may), what were you flying when an SA-2 flew in front of you? I know you flew A-37's in 'Nam, but I wasn't under the impression most A-37's bombed straight and level. F-105's, maybe?


I remember Gums saying that he also flew the A-7 (Corsair II). From what I gather, that could have been his mount on that situation but of course only Gums himself can really reply to this? :wink:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 18:09
by steve2267
mixelflick wrote:With respect to the gun, I understand what you're saying. It's good the F-35A includes an internal, though it has modest ammunition (180 rounds?) vs. previous US fighters. Now, when we get to the gun pod on the B and C... I sincerely hope it's not like the centerline pod we deployed on F-4's in Vietnam. Have read nothing but problems with that weapon.

I assume (bad, I know) it doesn't significantly degrade its stealth (or maneuverability) properties. I know there were issues too, but last I knew these were being corrected. Going forward, it'll be very interesting to see how often the B and C carry it. And if Israel gets the B, that'll be a real test.


Mixel, I started the The GAU-22/A thread just to document the F-35 gun system, and address questions such as yours. Check it out if you have not already -- 8 pages of BRRRRRTTT goodness. That thread compares the F-35 with the GAU-22/A gun to other contemporary aircraft and shows the Lightning to have the highest throw weight (mass) per second, the highest rate of fire (compared to non-US aircraft), and a comparable total throw weight compared to older 4th gen aircraft. While at first glance, 180 rounds may sound modest, Dragon documented burst lengths as short as 12 rounds per burst (viewtopic.php?p=405906#p405906). We already know from test flights that the aircraft can fire 60 and 100 round bursts should the occasion warrant. Since the GAU-22/A is reverse clearing, not a single one of those 180 rounds is wasted. This burst length precision means a Lightning driver can opt for upwards of 15 shots per sortie, or hose down an area, or maximize the hit probability in an air-to-air scenario as (s)he sees fit. IMO, this is a capability unprecedented in modern aerial gunnery.

While DOT&E has harped on some gun shortcomings on the -A model, the Killer Bee and C Dragon are meeting all contractual gun requirements. As soon as LM sorts out the alignment issues on the -A, I have no doubt that the GAU-22/A will be one of the most, if not the most, capable gun systems on any aircraft flying today.

Crews has already commented that the USMC never flies the AV-8B on combat sorties without the gun system, and he did not see that changing with the Killer Bee. What the nasal radiators choose to do... I dunno. I'll hazard a guess the flying squids will make a determination on an as mission basis.

I recall comments by JohnWill or possibly others discussing the fact that the mounting system of the external gun pod on the Killer Bee and C Dragon models is NOT comparable to the manner in which the old Vulcan was mounted on the Phantoms, and, as such, the gun pod on the Lightnings should not suffer from any issues that were experienced on the F-4.

mixelflick wrote:We all know how the Israeli's love the gun, and I can't recall a time when they flew fighters without one...


You write this sentence in a manner that seems to suggest the Israeli's love the gun more than fighter pilot's from other nations. Would you care to elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you mean by it.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 02:54
by SpudmanWP
While 180 rounds may sound modest, that is compared to US fighters with 20mm Gatling cannons. Since the F-35 uses a 25mm gun, fewer rounds are required to achieve the same result. Also, consider that the F-35 carries more rounds than all current European and Russian fighters.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 03:22
by Gums
Salute!

Good points about the gun, Spud.

Back in the day when the Hawg was envisioned we liked loittsa rounds. We had slow rates but used more barrels, witness the P-47.

By the early 50's we got to the cannons like the Hun had, and rotating breeches that resembled the old Colt 45 revolvers of western lore and used the same barrel for every shot. And then somebody thot of the gatling gun and off to the races.

As we moved from very close air support and "staying time", the need for a thousand rounds diminished. For A2A we got better sights and couldn't afford to stay around spraying and praying until we got hits.

Best thing nowadays is to be able to select rounds per trigger squeeze. Better yet, to also be able to squeeze again within a second or two like the old guns did in WW2 and Korea. The GAU-8 can do this, but I don't know about the new gun- GAU-22

Gums sends...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 15:07
by mixelflick
steve2267 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:With respect to the gun, I understand what you're saying. It's good the F-35A includes an internal, though it has modest ammunition (180 rounds?) vs. previous US fighters. Now, when we get to the gun pod on the B and C... I sincerely hope it's not like the centerline pod we deployed on F-4's in Vietnam. Have read nothing but problems with that weapon.

I assume (bad, I know) it doesn't significantly degrade its stealth (or maneuverability) properties. I know there were issues too, but last I knew these were being corrected. Going forward, it'll be very interesting to see how often the B and C carry it. And if Israel gets the B, that'll be a real test.


Mixel, I started the The GAU-22/A thread just to document the F-35 gun system, and address questions such as yours. Check it out if you have not already -- 8 pages of BRRRRRTTT goodness. That thread compares the F-35 with the GAU-22/A gun to other contemporary aircraft and shows the Lightning to have the highest throw weight (mass) per second, the highest rate of fire (compared to non-US aircraft), and a comparable total throw weight compared to older 4th gen aircraft. While at first glance, 180 rounds may sound modest, Dragon documented burst lengths as short as 12 rounds per burst (viewtopic.php?p=405906#p405906). We already know from test flights that the aircraft can fire 60 and 100 round bursts should the occasion warrant. Since the GAU-22/A is reverse clearing, not a single one of those 180 rounds is wasted. This burst length precision means a Lightning driver can opt for upwards of 15 shots per sortie, or hose down an area, or maximize the hit probability in an air-to-air scenario as (s)he sees fit. IMO, this is a capability unprecedented in modern aerial gunnery.

While DOT&E has harped on some gun shortcomings on the -A model, the Killer Bee and C Dragon are meeting all contractual gun requirements. As soon as LM sorts out the alignment issues on the -A, I have no doubt that the GAU-22/A will be one of the most, if not the most, capable gun systems on any aircraft flying today.

Crews has already commented that the USMC never flies the AV-8B on combat sorties without the gun system, and he did not see that changing with the Killer Bee. What the nasal radiators choose to do... I dunno. I'll hazard a guess the flying squids will make a determination on an as mission basis.

I recall comments by JohnWill or possibly others discussing the fact that the mounting system of the external gun pod on the Killer Bee and C Dragon models is NOT comparable to the manner in which the old Vulcan was mounted on the Phantoms, and, as such, the gun pod on the Lightnings should not suffer from any issues that were experienced on the F-4.

mixelflick wrote:We all know how the Israeli's love the gun, and I can't recall a time when they flew fighters without one...


You write this sentence in a manner that seems to suggest the Israeli's love the gun more than fighter pilot's from other nations. Would you care to elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you mean by it.


First, thank you for your most informative reply re: the GAU-22/25mm. I feel I have a better understanding now of the weapon.

With respect to the Israeli's use of/love of the gun.. I can't recall where I read about such, but it went into great detail (and supporting data) as to their love affair with it. Granted, it's likely far less applicable today. The time reference of the article seemed to focus on when they were flying with the MIrage III, although If I'm not mistaken some data for F-15 gun kills was also present. It may still be relevant, as stealth on stealth fights may wind up at the merge. If that's the case, and someone comes up with better IR countermeasures that complicates HOBS shots... the gun ammo will be immune to counter-measures.

So I was greatly heartened by your AV-8B anecdote. If I read that correctly, the F-35B will be flying into combat more often that not with its gun pod. Curious to see if that extends to the F-35C, as I'm sure it depends on the mission. Cruise missile defense? Unlikely. OCA/DCA? Possibly. Although they supposedly traded the gun for more gas in the B/C... I can see that in the case of the F-35B, but the C?

19,000 plus pounds of internal fuel would seem to be... plenty!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 15:58
by blindpilot
steve2267 wrote:...

Crews has already commented that the USMC never flies the AV-8B on combat sorties without the gun system, and he did not see that changing with the Killer Bee. What the nasal radiators choose to do... I dunno...


Can't find a reference, and my old tired brain may have dreamed it after eating some spoiled mushrooms ...but I recall that ...

Without imputing what was meant by the quote, the guns on the Harrier are a bit more complicated in an aerodynamic sense. They often put them on when a high landing weight (bring back etc.) was expected because the vertical lift enhancement exceeded the gun system weight. Basically the two ridges on the fuselage side (gun and ammo pods) trapped a column of spill air near the deck/ground. That had as much of a reason that they carried the guns as needing bullets for the mission.

I don't expect that will apply to the "Bee".

FWIW MHO,
BP

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 16:59
by steve2267
blindpilot wrote:... the guns on the Harrier are a bit more complicated in an aerodynamic sense. They often put them on when a high landing weight (bring back etc.) was expected because the vertical lift enhancement exceeded the gun system weight. Basically the two ridges on the fuselage side (gun and ammo pods) trapped a column of spill air near the deck/ground. That had as much of a reason that they carried the guns as needing bullets for the mission.

I don't expect that will apply to the "Bee".


Blind, that is an excellent point.

As I recall, the Killer Bee receives a similar "lift boost" by opening the weps bay doors during VL. Leaving off the gun will net them some 900lbs of bringback or so...

Time will tell, then, to what extent the beloved Jarheads love their gunz.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 12:44
by quicksilver
Landing weight is an important consideration for anything that flies. Weight sensitivity is more acute for jets that land vertically because lift is provided almost exclusively by the propulsion system. The AE guys occasionally find useful (partial) mitigations — the so-called lift improvement devices (LIDS) on Harrier would be one example.

While descending In a vertical landing, STOVL propulsion systems actually create ‘lift’ (low pressure gradients) under the fuselage and wing of the jet as it descends into ground effect. This effect is referred to as ‘suck down.’ Consequently, it actually takes more thrust/lift to land than it does to hover. What the gun pods and/or strakes and LIDS fence do on Harrier is to capture/trap the jet efflux under the jet in a fashion that recovers some of the lift loss created by suck down effect. Additionally, the flaps (with the switch in the STOVL position) create positive recirculation of the efflux and are programmed to move with nozzle position. As suggested above, LIDS recovers about 1200# of lift during the last ~10-15’ of a VL. However, when the wind over the deck exceeds ~15 knots, this lift recovery is lost.

Gun plus ammo on Harrier II is ~1200#. Unlike the GR3/AV-8A, when the gun is not on the jet it has deep hanging fuselage strakes that perform the same LIDS functions — with a fraction of the weight penalty. Those gun pods can be a dramatic hit percentage-wise to one’s bring back and are carefully considered for mission necessity before configuration of the jet.

IIRC, F-35B weapons bay doors provide a much smaller lift recovery benefit but do function with or without the CL gun pod.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 17:13
by blindpilot
quicksilver wrote:.... Unlike the GR3/AV-8A, when the gun is not on the jet it has deep hanging fuselage strakes that perform the same LIDS functions — with a fraction of the weight penalty. ....


Thanks for the info. I did not notice this on the move from A/SeaHarrier to II's. Probably because they mostly flew with guns? So they (USMC) must indeed like their guns.

BP

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 17:52
by Gums
Salute!

Great points about the pods, and I only remembered the poor showing of the first ones we had back 40 years ago. Still not a fan of them due to many mechanical alignment thingies that can go south.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S.

@Mixel PLZ stop posting an entire previous post!!!! Most of us have read the reference, and you only need to snip a line or phrase to make a point. Some of us do not have a) unlimited bytes for download and pay by the byte ( me in Colorado cabin on a satellite), b) actually read the previous posts leading up to the re-transmit of two pages of stuff with graphics and all.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 18:12
by quicksilver
blindpilot wrote:
quicksilver wrote:.... Unlike the GR3/AV-8A, when the gun is not on the jet it has deep hanging fuselage strakes that perform the same LIDS functions — with a fraction of the weight penalty. ....


Thanks for the info. I did not notice this on the move from A/SeaHarrier to II's. Probably because they mostly flew with guns? So they (USMC) must indeed like their guns.

BP


"It depends...". VL performance balanced against mission requirements. Put a couple tanks, some missiles, an ALQ and a T-pod on the jet and you may have a really heavy jet relative to VL performance (which depends on the specific engine/BuNo combination and the OAT). If you're in the Arabian Sea and its 110F, the gun may be a 'nice to have' because you wont have much VL performance and the gun is not jettison-able. So, the most frequent trade-off is fuel because PGMs are really expensive -- even the cheap ones. Folks flying conventional stuff almost pass out when they hear the amount of fuel that Harriers recover with on occasion (sometimes as a matter of routine, and without declaring an emergency). The good news is the first pass boarding probability is about .99999.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 18:19
by steve2267
QS, your statements above regarding loss of VL when the Wind Over the Deck (WOD) is 10-15+ knots... does that mean that the boat does not (or cannot?) conduct launch and recovery operations simultaneously or interleaved? E.g. launch one, recover one, launch one, recover... Because it would seem the launching aircraft would want as much WOD as possible.

Can VL'ing in a crosswind alleviate that loss of VL? Although VL'ing on the boat with the aircraft nose aligned 90° to the boat axis would seem to be a non-starter.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 18:40
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:QS, your statements above regarding loss of VL when the Wind Over the Deck (WOD) is 10-15+ knots... does that mean that the boat does not (or cannot?) conduct launch and recovery operations simultaneously or interleaved? E.g. launch one, recover one, launch one, recover... Because it would seem the launching aircraft would want as much WOD as possible.

Can VL'ing in a crosswind alleviate that loss of VL? Although VL'ing on the boat with the aircraft nose aligned 90° to the boat axis would seem to be a non-starter.


Interleaved ops (as you describe it) are governed by circumstance and necessity. Loss of LIDS cushion is not a go/no-go factor. It just becomes something for the pilot to file away in his or her brain housing group when they're about to set state and make an approach. At higher WODs and lesser VL performance margins, one can typically expect to add lotsa power the last 10-15 feet of the VL to maintain a rate of descent that wont break the jet; "throttle in the corner" the last 10 feet is not rare when the jet is on or near its VL numbers and there's lotsa WOD going on. Also, an LSO will sometimes try to avoid recovering a jet to a spot with a jet idling immediately front of the landing spot for the same reason. If one has lotsa margin (i.e. VL performance is well in excess of the recovery weight of the jet) 'suck down' isnt much of an issue.

If the velocity is high enough, crosswinds do not alleviate the loss of LIDS effect.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 18:55
by blindpilot
quicksilver wrote:
blindpilot wrote:....
Thanks for the info. I did not notice this on the move from A/SeaHarrier to II's. Probably because they mostly flew with guns? So they (USMC) must indeed like their guns.

"It depends...". VL performance balanced against mission requirements.


Thanks. It does make one wonder how Bee ops will go without any LID cushion offset from the gun pod. I suspect the F-135 set up has considerable power available, and the Brit SRVL procedures may take us to a new framework, such that it's "not an issue." (or at least not a major issue) ??
BP

PS. Hoping my JTAC grandson gets an LHD assignment next deployment, and I can debrief him some on his subsequent leave.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 19:52
by quicksilver
Brit SRVL adds 60kts of wing lift for a 25-40kt (relative speed) rolling landing; probably not a practical alternative for routine LHD use due to width of landing area and roll stability of the ship.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 20:37
by spazsinbad
'BP' in a previous post above 'QS' said this about the F-35B in last sentence:
"...IIRC, F-35B weapons bay doors provide a much smaller lift recovery benefit but do function with or without the CL gun pod."

In previous discussions (mostly in the SRVL thread) it seems the agreement is that SRVLs will not be done upon an LHA for reasons 'QS' hints at. Yes some USMC pilots will need to know how to do them IF the SRVL becomes a thing aboard CVFs because they may have to carry them out on a CVF with QE the most likely candidate when they embark in a few years.

One example of 'no SRVLs for LHAs' in other thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=403896&hilit=roll#p403896
'QS' said: "...Ramps [ski jumps mentioned earlier by 'stevie'] do not obviate the principle challenge (as I mentioned above) which is the width of the available landing area. When combined with limits on deck motion (principally roll), the operating envelope would be very small."

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 00:15
by quicksilver
Re: the IAF and gun discussion...

“Granted, it's likely far less applicable today.”

It depends. In the case if the IAF, they are defending their homeland — literally, their cities and towns and homes and families, and so on. That raises the level of allowable risk and changes the engagement criteria to something like, ‘remain on station, engage with all weapons until they are expended (short of ramming)...’

So, if you are an IAF fighter guy you had better be good at employment of everything you have on the jet — including the gun. They are, they have been, and I’m sure they will continue to be so in the future. It is always a matter of national survival.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 01:25
by Corsair1963
Do we know if the F-35 suffered any losses at Red Flag 19-1???

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 03:41
by steve2267
I have not read anywhere, any sort of results from RF 19-1; so no, we have not heard yet.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 07:38
by wrightwing

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 09:01
by spazsinbad
Good find 'wrightwing' - thanks for that - I'll add some quotes if I may.
RAAF F-35A Lightnings will take part in their first exercise.
27 Feb 2019 Jaryd Stock

"...AIRCDRE Kitcher explained yesterday in a press conference hosted by Lockheed Martin Australia that in the recent Red Flag 19-1 exercise at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, in one sortie undertaken by Australian F/A-18 Hornets as part of the Blue force, a USAF F-35 pilot with only 150 hours since coming out of the worldwide training program located at Luke AFB, was able to warn a pilot in a F/A-18 with 3000 hours flight time that there was a Red Air aggressor closing on his position. He then give instruction on how to proceed to to escape, and the F-35 nullified the Red Air target.

This account gives an accurate description of how the F-35’s sensor suite is a game changer in situational awareness in a conflicted airspace.

During Red Flag 19-1 AIRCDRE Kitcher witnessed first hand flying with 77 Squadron the abilities of the F-35 first hand, He says: “For me it was very pleasing to witness the F-35 in a strike mission, to see an eight-ship of F-35s kick down the door against a fairly determined adversary, with support from some F-22s to hold the door open.

“The F-35s then went back to pick up the strike train which consisted of classic Hornets from 77 Squadron, Super Hornets from the US Navy, Typhoons from the Royal Air Force and supported by US Navy Growlers and USAF F-16 SEAD aircraft.

“The F-35s took that strike train deep in the training area through some significant air defences, everyone dropped their ordnance and everyone got out safely. While that was going on there were Growlers and F-16s suppressing enemy air defences and when the F-35s dropped their ordnance they were actually providing SEAD as well. The whole strike train got out safely thanks to the F-35’s efforts.”..."

Source: https://www.aeroaustraliamag.com/raaf-f ... -exercise/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 18:04
by zero-one


I took the F-22 and F-35 getting ridiculously lop sided kill ratios for granted a bit too much.
They're newer with so much more technology in them, they should win left and right.

But back in the 80s this documentary reports that instructor pilots flying T-38s and A-4s were mopping the floor with F-15s and F-14s with "Alarming regularity"

2nd thing I got was Auto Gcas isn't new, it was present in this 80s documentary.

3rd interesting thing is at around the 45 minute mark. They talk about the Biology barrier. Flying an aircraft is more of an art skill that requires Right brain activity. While managing information and tactics is a left brain activity. Problems occur when the brain can't decide who's in charge. So how does this apply to 5th gen? Do pilots use the left brain more when flying 5th gens?

By the way, heres the HMD Gen 0.
I sure wish they still made episodes like this.
Most western combat aircraft documentaries today have been dumbed down for 8 year olds

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 22:23
by SpudmanWP
Talk about a Pain Train :mrgreen:

What does Australia think of the F-35? One Air Force commander details his experience
By: Nigel Pittaway

...

{Air Commodore Mike } Kitcher also described a sortie he flew in the Red Flag 19-1 exercise held in Nevada in February, in which RAAF Hornets flew with U.S. Air Force F-35As as part of an international strike package.

“One of the key strike missions I did that day was to watch an eight-ship [formation] of F-35s kick open a door, which was a fairly hard door to open. Some F-22s came in after that to hold the door open, and the F-35s went back and picked up a strike train that consisted of [RAAF] Hornets, Super Hornets from the U.S. Navy, Typhoons from the [British] Royal Air Force and U.S. Air Force F-16s, supported by U.S. Navy [EA-18G] Growlers and U.S. Air Force F-16s,” Kitcher said.

“That was the first time I’ve been in a high-end exercise, involving a significant air threat, a significant surface-to-air threat and even a cyberthreat. You could see the way the F-35 was working with Classic Hornets, Super Hornets, Typhoons and Growlers to solve a very difficult problem. I’m confident that we’ll be doing that in Australia with our F-35s and our Super Hornets and Growlers within the next couple of years.”


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... xperience/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 21:07
by steve2267
SpudmanWP wrote:
What does Australia think of the F-35? One Air Force commander details his experience
By: Nigel Pittaway

...

“One of the key strike missions I did that day was to watch an eight-ship [formation] of F-35s kick open a door, which was a fairly hard door to open. Some F-22s came in after that to hold the door open, and the F-35s went back and picked up a strike train that consisted of [RAAF] Hornets, Super Hornets from the U.S. Navy, Typhoons from the [British] Royal Air Force and U.S. Air Force F-16s, supported by U.S. Navy [EA-18G] Growlers and U.S. Air Force F-16s,” Kitcher said.



https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... xperience/


Don't know why I didn't pick up on this before:
Some F-22s came in after that to hold the door open, and the F-35s went back


If F-22's were available... why didn't the Raptors kick down the door? What kind of door was it?

Did the F-35's accomplish something the F-22's could not? Or was this a matter of trying out some new Lightning technique or tactic?

So many unreported unknowns. So many questions unasked (or unreported).

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 21:15
by hythelday
steve2267 wrote:If F-22's were available... why didn't the Raptors kick down the door? What kind of door was it?

Did the F-35's accomplish something the F-22's could not? Or was this a matter of trying out some new Lightning technique or tactic?

So many unreported unknowns. So many questions unasked (or unreported).


DEAD. Early warning did not pick up stealthy planes. After first bombs "went off" Red Air scrambles. F-35 carry on deep strike and 4th gen lead through, F-22 fly top cover and take care of scrambled enemy fighters.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 21:18
by quicksilver
Don’t lose sight of the training element. Sometimes it boils down to what (mission capabilities) a given unit has trained to do, and what level of proficiency has been attained in those missions at the unit level, particularly in front of a Red Flag.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 02:54
by popcorn
Whatever the reason., bottom line is the F-35 did what it was designed to do.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 12:51
by hornetfinn
I think they should've done two missions. First one with F-35s and F-22s and then second one replacing them with say F-16s and F-15s and compare results. Or maybe they did just that...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 13:28
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:I think they should've done two missions. First one with F-35s and F-22s and then second one replacing them with say F-16s and F-15s and compare results. Or maybe they did just that...

I'd have liked to.see them reverse roles i.e F-22 leading the strike package and F-35s flying top cover.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 16:53
by steve2267
popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think they should've done two missions. First one with F-35s and F-22s and then second one replacing them with say F-16s and F-15s and compare results. Or maybe they did just that...

I'd have liked to.see them reverse roles i.e F-22 leading the strike package and F-35s flying top cover.


The problem there being that the F-22's would have voice-only comms with the strike package, correct? And how well is the F-22 setup for DEAD? Or is that your point?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 17:15
by quicksilver
Yeah, those morons flying those things. What do they know...

:doh:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 17:31
by Gums
What would you do?
_____________________________
Salute!

Well, it all "depends". Heh heh. The training objective and the enemy order of battle determine what you do.

I was only Red Flag mission commander one time - Blue. I was just supposed to be an old curmudgeon staff weenie attached to the 421st TFS. So the 388th TFW day came up and the boss tells me that I am gonna be the misison commander for the next frame!! After all, I was the wing Ops Plan dude and had actually flown a few combat missions ina high threat area.

"But sir!", "errrr, c'mon". "Sir, yessir!"

Our targets were primarily SEAD and followup tactical sites, and the primary Red radar site/control threat had been taken out by cruise missiles. It was small operational area, maybe something like we saw in Bosnia or even Syria/Lebanon with the IAF Bekaa Valley in 1982.

I had the standard litany of Blue assets at the time. No exact numbers.....

- AWACS back about 150 miles
- gaggle of tankers
- maybe a dozen F-4G Weasels
- a few Spark 'vaarks
- F-15's for sweep and CAP ( I did not use them for escort)
- 2 squads of Vipers - 421st and some other wing, but think they were Nellis guys

Red had some of the newer F-4's, Marine version ( F-4J with the good radar) ? F-5's.and possibly Top Gun A-4's. No Hornets at the Flag then.

So biggest threat was an SA-4 that could reach out over most of the area and would be the area coverage for Red because their main assets were degraded. Then we had a variety of SA-6 and SA-8, plus newer MANPAD's and a few of the "teen" SAM's.

Naturally, the SA-4 had to go, so leading from the front, I tasked an escorted Spark 'vaark to go in first with me and wingie being the escort and bomb trucks. Pretty sure I used another coupla 'vaarks that stayed back and basically jammed the arena's various threat radars. I let their commander plan and execute.

The Weasels were right behind us like 2 or 3 minutes.. A few Eagles came in right behind them, but not real close, and the rest came in above the strikers who were all in Vipers and about 10 minutes behind "showtime". Not close escort, but more like sweep and CAP - they knew best, so I let them.

So nugget wingie and I flew with the Spark 'vaark until about 40 or 50 miles from that SA-4 with him being the "shower of power", directing most of the electrons toward that bad boy. He turned and went back to provide area and dierected jamming while we pressed on. Thatplane could slew the power as it turned, so we rode the beam on in and were real close before the SAM spotted us. Too close. Rolled in and we dropped a dozen MK-82's to knock the site off the air. Egress went great, but got tapped about 30 miles out, turned into them and they withdrew.

So that's just one way to do it, and nowadays the Stubbies could go in unescorted but maube with standoff jamming to do the same thing. Keep a few around as Weasels and then follow the script that the Aussie outlines.

Gums recalls....

.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 20:36
by charlielima223
steve2267 wrote:
The problem there being that the F-22's would have voice-only comms with the strike package, correct? And how well is the F-22 setup for DEAD? Or is that your point?


What about the Talon HATE pod and assets tasked as Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN)

Image

Image

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 20:39
by steve2267
BACN probably solves the comms issues I asked about. Was BACN present at RF 19-1?

Still, as others have pointed out, it goes back to what units have trained and know how to do. Have F-22 Raptor units trained for the SEAD / DEAD mission? That seems to be more of the F-35's specialty, at least according to the stories I have read, and discussion around here.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 20:48
by steve2267
Hey Gums, thanks for sharing that RF story. It is stories like yours that helps makes this site so worthwhile.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 22:55
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:...Still, as others have pointed out, it goes back to what units have trained and know how to do. Have F-22 Raptor units trained for the SEAD / DEAD mission? That seems to be more of the F-35's specialty, at least according to the stories I have read, and discussion around here.


Don’t overthink this stuff. F-22s are the best at AA stuff; put them in the game when and where that superiority is most advantageous for the force and the mission. Similarly, F-35 is probably best in the SEAD/DEAD game; they also have a boat load of time on station. Exploit that superiority in those roles.

People would be awed by how good these young men and women are at this stuff. If they have chosen to use their jets circumstantially in certain ways, there are typically compelling reasons for having done so. And because it’s a classified exercise, the public isn’t going to learn much about why...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2019, 23:04
by viper21
Awesome!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 04:51
by charlielima223
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/red ... -in-years/

“The F-22s and F-35s were able to use our stealth and speed to get closer to the threats and soften them up, collect a lot of information about the battlespace, and then use the F-35’s data link in particular to communicate that picture to the rest of the strike package so that fourth generation aircraft like the F-15s and F-16s could attack those targets with their missiles and bombs,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, commander of the 4th Fighter Squadron of F-35s. “While we struggled at that mission in the first week, by the last week we broke down the biggest integrated air defense system the Aggressors could field, and allowed our strike aircraft to successfully get through to their targets. So we left Red Flag highly confident in our ability to operate in a high-threat environment against a near-peer competitor, both in terms of operating our own aircraft and in integrating them into a larger strike package. You can’t get a confidence boost like that anywhere else in the world other than actual combat.”
+++
“The F-22 and F-35 have complicated our job here at Red Flag, because their speed, stealth and sensor fusion capabilities make it difficult for our Aggressors to really challenge and push them,” said Brig. Gen. Novotny. Nellis officials are working hard to modernize the air defense systems and Aggressor Squadron capabilities at Red Flag so they can keep pace, he noted, but it’s not a fair fight. “I’m an F-15 pilot with over 3,000 hours in the air, so I’m pretty cocky about my capabilities, but I sure wouldn’t want to go to war against a high-end threat without those fifth generation aircraft flying alongside.”

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 05:09
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'charlielima223' - some more quotes from the cited article below (I'll add details because 'easier to find it later.'
Red Flag 2019: First Great Power Air War Test In Years
06 Mar 2019 James Kitfield

"...Over the years Red Flag has expanded from its original focus on combat survivability and the air-to-air mission, Novotny notes, to incorporate training in all of the Air Forces five core functions – air superiority, air-to-ground strike, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), command-and-control (C2), and personnel rescue and recovery. All of those missions are conducted against a dedicated sparring partner in the Aggressors, unrivaled experts in enemy weapons systems and tactics, and train so much in force-on-force exercises that they punch well above their weight in the air.

“A lot of our airmen have had experience deploying downrange to places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, which gives them familiarization with employing their weapons systems against a real enemy, but those operations have been conducted in a very permissive environment with uncontested air superiority and freedom of movement in all domains,” said Novotny. By contrast at Red Flag, he noted, U.S. and coalition operators confront an opponent who fights back in all domains and can replicate the most advanced weapons systems and platforms available around the world, from redundant, integrated air defense systems using fiber optics like China fields in the Pacific and Russia operates in Kaliningrad, to advanced fighters like the twin-engine Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker, which has been exported to China and India.

The latest exercise also incorporated some of the political ambiguity, Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) challenges, and proxy war protocols that Air Force pilots have encountered in Syria, where they share the battlespace with Syrian, Iranian, Turkish, Israeli and Russian forces, as well as allied and adversarial paramilitaries and non-state actors.

“On top of those ‘rules of engagement’ challenges, Blue Forces at Red Flag are contested in the air, subject to Aggressor missile strikes on their operating and logistics bases, and hit with cyberattacks on their command-and-control and space systems designed to disrupt satellite communications and GPS [Global Positioning System] targeting,” said Novotny, who notes that the 64th Aggressor Squadron is flying double the number of sorties it logged just last year. “So the Aggressors are a marquee feature at Red Flag, and their mission of knowing, teaching and replicating enemy capabilities is critical to what we do.”...

...“The debrief is where pilots find out if they really did as good as they think, commanders included, and thus it’s where most of the learning occurs at Red Flag,” said Simmons. Debriefs are never unprofessional, he said, but the conversations can get heated. “Frankly, you have a lot of pilot egos in that room, and nobody wants to stand on that stage embarrassed at becoming the `DFP’ – the Debrief Focal Point. The DFP is the main thing that went wrong on the mission, and you might spend two hours analyzing and talking about that one mistake to make sure it never happens again in actual combat. That can require speaking truth to power. So the debrief is our secret sauce, and part of the beauty of Red Flag.”... [I'll guess 'the debrief' in any air arm is a 'sight to behold'] :roll:

...(We have asked for the F-35’s kill ratio for this Red Flag and have not yet received it. The Air Force increasingly argues that the kill ratio isn’t as relevant for the F-35 as in days past because of the key role it plays in providing targeting information to fourth generation aircraft. The argument pretty much boils down to: who killed the enemy — the plane that detected it and targeted it or the plane that actually fired the weapon that killed it. We’ll take both sets of data, with the needed caveats. The Editor.)"

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/red ... -in-years/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 07:20
by popcorn
I wonder how Boeing will spin the F-35's domination at this RF as a justification for the F-15X?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 08:30
by zero-one
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/red ... -in-years/
The argument pretty much boils down to: who killed the enemy — the plane that detected it and targeted it or the plane that actually fired the weapon that killed it.


I think it should still be credited to the one who took the shot.
Because if you simply detected it and directed a fighter towards it. then thats pretty much what AEWACs has been doing for years.

But if you tell me that you were the one who actually locked on, and the other guy simply squeezed the trigger to shoot, then thats a different story.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 08:49
by botsing
As I understood it, Red Flag is not to make it easy but to make it hard: it should be a place where personnel is trained for actual combat versus a near pear.

With this I would expect the red force to increase the pressure with each new exercise, learn from past mistakes and incorporate new tools to give the best learning experience to the blue force.

In that regards kill ratios are of course interesting but it will never give a trend compared to previous Red Flags. For example: it might be that a lower kill ratio for this Red Flag might be more impressive than previous ones due to a much harder pressing red force.

I hope people keep that notion in mind before they freak out on any result.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 09:56
by quicksilver
popcorn wrote:I wonder how Boeing will spin the F-35's domination at this RF as a justification for the F-15X?


“Hi-lo mix...5th Gen fighters are so good that they make everyone else better. (Therefore, you only need to sprinkle some around the force...)”

That is the spin, and unfortunately the service has played the tune for them. Why? Because they DO make the existing force better (actually, not better, just viable, but that’s just today; what happens in 2025, or 2030 and beyond)? Have a RF with F-22s and F-35s in the Red Force and see how 4th Gen does (because that’s where the threat is going and is going to be in 2030).

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 13:58
by popcorn
quicksilver wrote:
popcorn wrote:I wonder how Boeing will spin the F-35's domination at this RF as a justification for the F-15X?


“Hi-lo mix...5th Gen fighters are so good that they make everyone else better. (Therefore, you only need to sprinkle some around the force...)”

That is the spin, and unfortunately the service has played the tune for them. Why? Because they DO make the existing force better (actually, not better, just viable, but that’s just today; what happens in 2025, or 2030 and beyond)? Have a RF with F-22s and F-35s in the Red Force and see how 4th Gen does (because that’s where the threat is going and is going to be in 2030).

Sure, that's the argument they'll use but it makes no sense if you're choosing between.two jets which are in the same price range but one is simply so superior. Crazy.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 14:45
by mixelflick
I hope I'm understanding this correctly...

If an F-35 detects, tracks and hands the target off to an F-15C that's one step. If the F-15C then shoots an AMRAAM and kills the target, that's another.

In that event, I'd give half a point each to reflect the kill. Kill therefore = "1", but .5 is assigned to each. To me, that's fair. The F-15C may have never detected or tracked the target, therefore it would have never been able to kill it. F-35 gets a half point given it detected, tracked and handed the target off to the F-15C. Maybe it was out of missiles. Maybe it was too far away. Maybe the pilot had better things to do (like prosecute another target). But the fact remains - each was part of the kill chain.

In the new kill chain, that's how I'd assign a kill.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 15:28
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Or a new way of counting? Native:Shared:Loss?

Say F-35s got 45 kills, all while on AG missions, and only suffer 3 losses. Traditionally that is 45:3 or 15:1.
Say F-22s got 90 kills, all while on AA missions, and suffer a single loss. Traditionally that is 90:1
Say F-15Cs got 60 kills, all while on AA missions, and suffered 6 losses. Traditionally that is 60:6 or 10:1

Now, Let's say of the F-15s 60 kills, it only actually prosecuted 30 without targeting info sent from F-35s.

If they "share" the point by halves, the F-15C drops to 45:6 or 7.5:1 and the F-35 goes to 60:3 or 20:1.
If they change the way kills are counted then it becomes 45:30:3 and 30:30:6.
This provides direct measurement of how the force at large multiplied the F-15s effectiveness, and how the F-35 was able to take advantage of AA platforms missile capacity when it only had two native missiles per sortie.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 15:28
by quicksilver
popcorn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
popcorn wrote:I wonder how Boeing will spin the F-35's domination at this RF as a justification for the F-15X?


“Hi-lo mix...5th Gen fighters are so good that they make everyone else better. (Therefore, you only need to sprinkle some around the force...)”

That is the spin, and unfortunately the service has played the tune for them. Why? Because they DO make the existing force better (actually, not better, just viable, but that’s just today; what happens in 2025, or 2030 and beyond)? Have a RF with F-22s and F-35s in the Red Force and see how 4th Gen does (because that’s where the threat is going and is going to be in 2030).

Sure, that's the argument they'll use but it makes no sense if you're choosing between.two jets which are in the same price range but one is simply so superior. Crazy.


You wondered...I answered. If you already had your answer, why ask?

It’s not about what makes sense. As we’ve all observed on the F-15X thread (and discussed at length), it’s political, and therefore prone to spin.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 17:02
by SpudmanWP
mixelflick wrote:In the new kill chain, that's how I'd assign a kill.

Throw in mid-course guidance updates from a third aircraft for some more fun trying to assign the kill.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 21:32
by optimist
You could even add the guidance of an OTH SM-6 from offshore. USN wins :twisted:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 22:51
by SpudmanWP
Containerized NASAMS (With AMRAAM-ER) scattered throughout the area that can be called up as needed?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 23:29
by vilters
Red Flag is killed from the moment they put the pen to the paper to write the ROE's.

Terrorist groups HAVE no ROE's. They shoot to KILL from the back of old and rusty Toyota trucks.
None could be found in Red Flag, so what's the purpose anyway?

What can be learned if you don't adapt the settings to "modern" terrorist scenario's ?

End of game.

Oh, and I almost forgot.
Terrorists don't brief, don't debrief.
They pop up from under the dust, shoot, and crowl back under the dust.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 23:38
by SpudmanWP
Red Flag (like all LFE) RoEs mainly deal with safety of flight issues and not some preconceived outcome.

For that matter "every" exercise has some sort of RoE, so according to your logic, we should never train at all.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 23:42
by vilters
We should train, and very hard too. But to "modern" terrorists tactics.

And those "modern" terrorists tactics don't include aircraft. They don't have any.

And if you think about Russia and China?
They sh*t their pants thinking about engaging USA or NATO.
Best you can do is send them some rolls of toilet paper.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 23:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
they mess their pants because of how we train.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 23:50
by SpudmanWP
vilters wrote:We should train, and very hard too. But to "modern" terrorists tactics.


Red Flag and most LFEs are not designed for terrorist operations because, well, that have crap for equipment.

That are plenty of exercises that the DoD does (like Urban Combat training) that are geared towards terrorist ops with the appropriate RoEs.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 23:51
by vilters
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:they mess their pants because of how we train.


And their tech is some 30-50 years behind.

About 10 years for aerodynamics, 20 years for engines and avionix, 30 years for materials.

Ans when we talk about RCS, they think it is the diameter of the radar disk. LOL.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 00:01
by vilters
Problem with things like Red Flag is that we are training to an obsolete concept about an eventual future war.

How many times do we read here? => Aircraft A versus aircraft B? Or what in WVR?

Hell, it is Systems A versus Systems B, and if a flight of aircraft does its Job properly, one will never end up in WVR anyway.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 00:03
by blindpilot
SpudmanWP wrote:
vilters wrote:We should train, and very hard too. But to "modern" terrorists tactics.


Red Flag and most LFEs are not designed for terrorist operations because, well, that have crap for equipment.

That are plenty of exercises that the DoD does (like Urban Combat training) that are geared towards terrorist ops with the appropriate RoEs.


I worked on early R&D contracts at Ft Polk, developing an Urban Warfare "town." with live fire exercises etc. That's what I know about training against "modern terrorists tactics." ie. I helped build the exercise environments. (ex: we built a robotic pickup truck that troops could shoot live ammo at. ...vilters probably can't drive a pickup, based on what I've read :roll: )

I choose to believe Vilters is clueless. The only other option is that he is a troll plain and simple. On the subjects where I am a SME, his comments are worthless. I'll let Gums and RF folks speak to RF specifics.

But. Vilters hasn't the foggiest idea what "training for terrorists tactics" is. His comments are at best worthless.

MHO,
BP
Contractor Program Manager for Ft. Polk's first MOUT target systems.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 00:32
by castlebravo
vilters wrote:Red Flag is killed from the moment they put the pen to the paper to write the ROE's.

Terrorist groups HAVE no ROE's. They shoot to KILL from the back of old and rusty Toyota trucks.
None could be found in Red Flag, so what's the purpose anyway?

What can be learned if you don't adapt the settings to "modern" terrorist scenario's ?

End of game.

Oh, and I almost forgot.
Terrorists don't brief, don't debrief.
They pop up from under the dust, shoot, and crowl back under the dust.


I'm no fighter pilot, but I bet the guys who have been sent on combat deployment over the past 18 years have put a in lot more training time for COIN/CAS than they have spent participating in these big Red Flag type exercises. You just don't hear about it because it is routine day to day training carried out with just a handful of aircraft at once vs the big news-worthy Flag-type multi-national exercises involving hundreds of people.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 00:55
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:Red Flag is killed from the moment they put the pen to the paper to write the ROE's.

Terrorist groups HAVE no ROE's. They shoot to KILL from the back of old and rusty Toyota trucks.
None could be found in Red Flag, so what's the purpose anyway?

What can be learned if you don't adapt the settings to "modern" terrorist scenario's ?

End of game.

Oh, and I almost forgot.
Terrorists don't brief, don't debrief.
They pop up from under the dust, shoot, and crowl back under the dust.

All of that is irrelevant. ROEs in Red Flag aren't based upon some preconceptions, in the efforts to achieve an outcome. The Blue Force doesn't have its hands tied. The ROEs are (altitude and proximity rules.) Our forces aren't being trained to fight enemies, that have ROEs. They're being trained to operate in very dynamic and challenging situations, that have many possible outcomes.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 00:59
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:We should train, and very hard too. But to "modern" terrorists tactics.

And those "modern" terrorists tactics don't include aircraft. They don't have any.

And if you think about Russia and China?
They sh*t their pants thinking about engaging USA or NATO.
Best you can do is send them some rolls of toilet paper.

It's not an either or situation. We train for full spectrum warfare. Air, sea, and land, against threats ranging from Toyota's to S-400s, submarines, carriers, ballistic missiles, etc.....

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 01:04
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:Problem with things like Red Flag is that we are training to an obsolete concept about an eventual future war.

How many times do we read here? => Aircraft A versus aircraft B? Or what in WVR?

Hell, it is Systems A versus Systems B, and if a flight of aircraft does its Job properly, one will never end up in WVR anyway.

Red Flag isn't a platform vs platform exercise. It is a system vs system exercise. Future warfare includes near peer threats, with significant advanced aircraft, missiles, integrated air defenses, electronic and cyberwarfare capabilities.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 01:30
by optimist
blindpilot wrote:vilters probably can't drive a pickup, based on what I've read :roll: )

I choose to believe Vilters is clueless. The only other option is that he is a troll plain and simple. On the subjects where I am a SME, his comments are worthless. I'll let Gums and RF folks speak to RF specifics.

But. Vilters hasn't the foggiest idea what "training for terrorists tactics" is. His comments are at best worthless.

MHO,
BP
Contractor Program Manager for Ft. Polk's first MOUT target systems.

That works for me, no one can be that clueless on basic conops.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 03:57
by wrightwing
optimist wrote:

That works for me, no one can be that clueless on basic conops.

You'd be surprised. I was debating a guy who believed that the purpose of Red Flag was to make F-35s look good, and that specific ROE were scripted, to achieve that outcome. Of course none of the pilots would be the wiser, as they all own LM stock.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 04:04
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:
blindpilot wrote:vilters probably can't drive a pickup, based on what I've read :roll: )

I choose to believe Vilters is clueless. The only other option is that he is a troll plain and simple. On the subjects where I am a SME, his comments are worthless. I'll let Gums and RF folks speak to RF specifics.

But. Vilters hasn't the foggiest idea what "training for terrorists tactics" is. His comments are at best worthless.

MHO,
BP
Contractor Program Manager for Ft. Polk's first MOUT target systems.

That works for me, no one can be that clueless on basic conops.



Vilters has been posting stuff like this for YEARS. He's supposedly former Belgian F-16 guy. I've wondered about this for a good long while though.

This isn't even the craziest thing he's said. Remember he was suggesting that Red Flag should be Live fire with Red Blue and a 3rd force he called "yellow" not even a few weeks ago...



Anyway:


vilters wrote:Red Flag is killed from the moment they put the pen to the paper to write the ROE's.


No. Red Flag is still considered the top of the pyramid and has been for decades which is why nations will fly from all over the globe just to play in it for a few weeks.

Terrorist groups HAVE no ROE's


Yes they do, Religious and political extremists are obsessed with rules.

. They shoot to KILL


Terrorist groups are actually pretty well known for their hostage taking. they also don't always use guns :wink:

from the back of old and rusty Toyota trucks.


LOL no

None could be found in Red Flag, so what's the purpose anyway?


Fort Irwin in California is what handles the ground side combat exercise stuff akin to red flag. but of course bases all over the globe practice anti/counter terror and ground fighting constantly all over the globe.

Image


You can practice counter terrorism and anti terror operations with pretty small groups of people in far more places than say a massive mulit-national air war with hundreds of aircraft that operates over thousands of square miles and costs millions of dollars.

In fact this entire post really has no point here. This is a thread about an aircraft exercise, in an aircraft subforum, in a website about aircraft. Better throw some derp about terrorism out there!

"Whats the point of red flag when North Korea has Submarines?" for example is equally misplaced.

If you want to start a thread on another sub forum about what you think modern terrorists do, you're welcome to. no reason for you to clutter up yet another thread.

What can be learned if you don't adapt the settings to "modern" terrorist scenario's ?


Conventional aerial combat and warfighting?

Terrorists don't brief, don't debrief.


Yes they do. They have the same need to coordinate and go over plans and then employ lessons learned like any other force.

They pop up from under the dust


Some of them actually live in cities, even in civilized places like Europe dude.

shoot, and crowl back under the dust.


yet another silly stereotype.

vilters wrote:We should train, and very hard too. But to "modern" terrorists tactics.


What do you think we've been up to the last 17 years?

And those "modern" terrorists tactics don't include aircraft. They don't have any.


That's amazing. you've pointed out the irrelevance of your own post in this very forum.

Anyway this is the consequence of the modern internet. Go to a wine forum. Where people drink wine, post about wine, and talk about wine... and someone will come in and start bellowing about Beer :roll: no one in real life except the most autistic would walk into a conversation people were enjoying themselves and their subject, and start to go off on some tangent that had nothing to do with the subject at hand and worse, their interruption is not only irrelevant but ignorant to boot. This is the internet. Where people dedicated to talking about "A, B, and C" are rudely berated for not also talking about "X, Y, and Z" when its obviously impossible to include everything, everywhere, at all times.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 04:13
by Gums
Salute!

Short few comments, then hit the rack. I m tired tonight.

- How in the hell do you set up a scenario for Red Flag or any other exercise involving cosmic jets, surface-to-air threats, possible jamming of radios and GPS and such that involves suicide bombers? I guess RF-19-4 will have suicide bombers driving their Ford F-150's over next to the mass briefing theater and go bomb!! Huh?
BEAM ME UP!!!

- The useless sacrifice my generation of grunts and fighter pilots made had nothing to do with the technology of the PNAF IAD and Migs. Ditto for tactics and such. The ground forces had a tough time, but neither side had suicide bombers that surrendered then pulled the plug. I do not recall any side cutting the heads off of prisoners, do you?

The conflict now underway will not be solved with technology or air-to-air tactics or cosmic small diameter bombs and super situtational awareness that the F-35 can provide.

We are facing a societal and religious conflict that does not hinge upon petroleum reserves or natural resources or access to the seas or the number of bombers, subs, tanks or well-trained infantry units, And Red Flag and other training exercises cannot duplicate the acual scenario.

Gonna be interesting and bloody these next few decades, ya think?

Gums opines....

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 04:22
by XanderCrews
wrightwing wrote:
optimist wrote:

That works for me, no one can be that clueless on basic conops.

You'd be surprised. I was debating a guy who believed that the purpose of Red Flag was to make F-35s look good, and that specific ROE were scripted, to achieve that outcome. Of course none of the pilots would be the wiser, as they all own LM stock.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0k92RSxYq0

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 04:41
by SpudmanWP
wrightwing wrote:they all own LM stock.
Even F-15, F-18 (C/D adn SH), EA-18, B-1, B-2, B-52, Typhoon, E-3, E-7, E-8, & RC-135 pilots?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 05:10
by wrightwing
SpudmanWP wrote:
wrightwing wrote:they all own LM stock.
Even F-15, F-18 (C/D adn SH), EA-18, B-1, B-2, B-52, Typhoon, E-3, E-7, E-8, & RC-135 pilots?

I wouldn't be surprised if he believed that. He inoculated himself to reason.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 08:37
by element1loop
wrightwing wrote:
optimist wrote:
That works for me, no one can be that clueless on basic conops.

You'd be surprised. I was debating a guy who believed that the purpose of Red Flag was to make F-35s look good, and that specific ROE were scripted, to achieve that outcome. Of course none of the pilots would be the wiser, as they all own LM stock.


I've spoken to some of those same dopes. Nevertheless there's an increasing number of people living on planet fake-'critic' who are beginning to realize the F-35 is an actual stealth fighter. With the F-117A you could 'see' the 'stealth', but with the F-35 you can't (It's not even black! :doh: ). This seems to be the comprehension problem that most people have, they can't grasp that it will actually fight in entirely new ways. it's beyond them to think that way. Even those who have a fair idea about fighter aircraft still see everything through a 4th-gen cognitive pass when they read about F-35s (as many experienced fighter pilots still do ...). So to them it's just another multirole fighter and nothing too different or special, a waste of money ... etc. And then you get the twits who just say the 'evidence' of something really significant is only scripted LM baloney as terrorists in dirt don't use scripts ... makes sense.

They don't use J20, S400s or fly OCA either.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 08:55
by element1loop
XanderCrews wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
optimist wrote:That works for me, no one can be that clueless on basic conops.

You'd be surprised. I was debating a guy who believed that the purpose of Red Flag was to make F-35s look good, and that specific ROE were scripted, to achieve that outcome. Of course none of the pilots would be the wiser, as they all own LM stock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0k92RSxYq0


https://youtu.be/9OiRk56pNEk

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 10:58
by hornetfinn
spazsinbad wrote:During Red Flag 19-1 AIRCDRE Kitcher witnessed first hand flying with 77 Squadron the abilities of the F-35 first hand, He says: “For me it was very pleasing to witness the F-35 in a strike mission, to see an eight-ship of F-35s kick down the door against a fairly determined adversary, with support from some F-22s to hold the door open.

“The F-35s then went back to pick up the strike train which consisted of classic Hornets from 77 Squadron, Super Hornets from the US Navy, Typhoons from the Royal Air Force and supported by US Navy Growlers and USAF F-16 SEAD aircraft.

“The F-35s took that strike train deep in the training area through some significant air defences, everyone dropped their ordnance and everyone got out safely. While that was going on there were Growlers and F-16s suppressing enemy air defences and when the F-35s dropped their ordnance they were actually providing SEAD as well. The whole strike train got out safely thanks to the F-35’s efforts.”..."

Source: https://www.aeroaustraliamag.com/raaf-f ... -exercise/


I really wonder how these kinds of reports affect currently ongoing fighter procurement programs? That F-35 first went to kick down the door, then went back to shepherd aircraft like Super Hornets, Growlers and Eurofighter Typhoons through air defences sounds great for F-35 and not so much for the rest. Of course this is what F-35 was designed for and excels at, but this really illustrates the difference between advanced 4th and 5th gen aircraft.

I'd really like to know what kind of door they are talking about... :D

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 14:54
by gc
Some S-400 door?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 15:08
by spazsinbad
:D 8) Classic :roll: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 15:11
by popcorn
In reality, I'd guess that the IADS would have been softened up.a bit with stand-off volleys comprised of various ALCMs and decoys. The 5-gen package would find the door already battered quite a bit.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 15:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
popcorn wrote:In reality, I'd guess that the IADS would have been softened up.a bit with stand-off volleys comprised of various ALCMs and decoys. The 5-gen package would find the door already battered quite a bit.

You would be wrong then.

From RF17-1

The F-35 has particularly excelled in missions where the enemy can launch advanced surface-to-air missiles. Previously, in scenarios with those weapons, blue forces, or friendlies, would put all their energy into taking them out with standoff weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles.
This year, Red Flag participants have encountered three or four different advanced surface-to-air-missiles in one scenario. In those situations, cyber, space and signals intelligence assets like the Rivet Joint partner with the F-35 to fuse together targeting information. Then, the F-22 uses its standoff weapons to bring down aggressors while the F-35’s stealth capabilities allow it to slip undetected within range of the missile system, where it drops munitions.
“I flew a mission the other day where our four-ship formation of F-35As destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once,” said Maj. James Schmidt, a former A-10 pilot. “It’s pretty cool to come back from a mission where we flew right over threats knowing they could never see us.” After taking out the ground threats, the multirole F-35A is able to “pitch back into the fight” with air-to-air missiles, taking out aircraft that don’t even know they’re there, Schmidt said....

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 17:22
by vilters
See? Exactly as predicted. => Red Flag became the same as most politicians.

Both completely lost contact with what is going on in the real world.

Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have an Air Force?
Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have multiple advanced surface to air missile systems?

You guys train hard, pull "G's", suffer, plan, brief and debrief, but all for the wrong scenarios.

Enemy aircraft won't get you, neither will enemy surface to air missiles, because they don't have any.

But that rusty Toyota truck will kill you when you'r on final and clear to land. (With a potato gun if they have to)

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 18:39
by ricnunes
vilters wrote:Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have an Air Force?
Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have multiple advanced surface to air missile systems?

You guys train hard, pull "G's", suffer, plan, brief and debrief, but all for the wrong scenarios.

Enemy aircraft won't get you, neither will enemy surface to air missiles, because they don't have any.

But that rusty Toyota truck will kill you when you'r on final and clear to land. (With a potato gun if they have to)


With all due respect but if the military/politicians have "lost contact with what is going on in the real world" then sure as hell that you lost contact with "history and how it trends to repeat itself".

Again (and I say again, because I believe that I already told you this in the past) just because the current enemy is an IS/Taliban style of guerrilla which wages a guerrilla or insurgency kind of war doesn't mean that the future enemies in future conflicts/wars will be of this same nature or type.
And IMO this happens only and only because of a single reason:
- The enemy forces aren't equipped with advanced equipment, yet! As such the enemy is currently "forced" to resort to guerrilla tactics.
However the proliferation of modern weapon systems such as modern air defense systems such as the S-400 (among others) or aircraft like the J-20 and/or, who knows the Su-57 (among others) are set to change such "balance".

So it's not a matter if conventional warfare will return but instead it is a matter of when!
All of this because, independently of the fact that unconventional/guerrilla type of forces often put a very hard challenge to modern, well equipped and well trained conventional armies they have a critical drawback - They (unconventional/guerrilla) cannot win (or expected to win) against conventional forces/armies on "open terrain" which means that their ability to conquer and hold terrain permanently is very limited at best, this not to mention useless for this. And the same also applies to for example, the proper defense of a country/terrain against external threats.
Or if an force/country/whatever wants to conquer and hold terrain or even impose its will (for whichever reasons) towards someone else then both sides will need conventional forces which ultimately will lead to conventional warfare in the future.
And as such, the need for having well equipped and above all well trained air forces (this is what exercises like RF allows to).
History proved itself several times that proper (equipped and trained) air power was/is/will be a requirement to win past, present and future conventional wars/conflicts (while also being useful as well against unconventional/guerrilla forces).

Your line of reasoning kinda reminds my the stance of the US Forces and politicians before Korea and also before Vietnam which was that wars would be fought with long range bombers and nuclear weapons but then again both Korea and Vietnam wars proved this idea/concept to be wrong just like yours is regarding the theory that future war will be exclusively based on counter-insurgency operations against IS/Taliban style of enemies.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 18:42
by ricnunes
gc wrote:Some S-400 door?


LOL! Perhaps the Turks would consider those S-400s instead in order to be able to receive their F-35's :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 18:53
by magitsu
That's the kind of door they are talking about in the metaphor: don't let the door hit you on the way out. :D

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 20:36
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:See? Exactly as predicted. => Red Flag became the same as most politicians.

Both completely lost contact with what is going on in the real world.

Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have an Air Force?
Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have multiple advanced surface to air missile systems?

You guys train hard, pull "G's", suffer, plan, brief and debrief, but all for the wrong scenarios.

Enemy aircraft won't get you, neither will enemy surface to air missiles, because they don't have any.

But that rusty Toyota truck will kill you when you'r on final and clear to land. (With a potato gun if they have to)


Terror groups aren't the only military threat, that need to be trained against. Ground units are the ones that have deal with the terror threat, and they not only train at their home bases, using lessons learned from fighting the last 18 years, but at JRTC, NTC, etc.... I'm not sure why this concept seems to so difficult to grasp.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 20:48
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:See? Exactly as predicted. => Red Flag became the same as most politicians.

Both completely lost contact with what is going on in the real world.


Vilters, if you go back to Kosovo in 1999, or even Further back to Desert Fox, and even Further back to 1991 and then the NFZs, US Airpower has been in constant war for nearly 30 years.

If anything Red Flag is even more realistic than it was in the 80s, as we've never really stopped fighting. in the 80s the only guys who had dropped bombs were the vietnam bubbas and the occasion exceptions here and there (Libya, Beirut) . And rarer still was someone who had actually used a cannon in anger.

Now its hard to find guys who havn't been there done that on mulitple deployments. One of my friends ha a guy in his squadron who's dropped bombs in 4 countries. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

Your assertion is a complete fabrication And its never been more demonstrably proven to be false.

/color]
[color=#FF8000]Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have an Air Force?
Does IS or any other terrorist group for that matter have multiple advanced surface to air missile systems?

You guys train hard, pull "G's", suffer, plan, brief and debrief, but all for the wrong scenarios.

Enemy aircraft won't get you, neither will enemy surface to air missiles, because they don't have any.

But that rusty Toyota truck will kill you when you'r on final and clear to land. (With a potato gun if they have to)


Image

Take it to another thread, it doesn't belong here.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 21:31
by optimist
XanderCrews wrote:autism.

Just an interesting bit, A RAAF person in the psychology side of things. Told me that the good fighter pilots were on the aspergers spectrum (aspergers, now called autism) It was then obvious when also said, that the good air controllers were OCD.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 21:45
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:autism.

Just an interesting bit, A RAAF person in the psychology side of things. Told me that the good fighter pilots were on the aspergers spectrum (aspergers, now called autism) It was then obvious when also said, that the good air controllers were OCD. So it seems you may be right. If the unlikely possibility of him being a f-16 pilot is true.



He never claimed to be a pilot. And hes not. I'm not even sure he served. If he did it was a long long time ago and hes projecting his lack of knowledge onto others.

Hes terrible with Details as well. For example we lost 46 aircraft in 6 years in Iraq to grond fire and SAMs some of them fairly high profile (like the SAS C-130 lost to a SAM) so ....

He's either willfully ignorant (it took 5 seconds to find the above online) or hes a troll.


Either way his rants have no place in here.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 21:51
by optimist
XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:autism.

Just an interesting bit, A RAAF person in the psychology side of things. Told me that the good fighter pilots were on the aspergers spectrum (aspergers, now called autism) It was then obvious when also said, that the good air controllers were OCD. So it seems you may be right. If the unlikely possibility of him being a f-16 pilot is true.



He never claimed to be a pilot. And hes not. I'm not even sure he served. If he did it was a long long time ago and hes projecting his lack of knowledge onto others.

Hes terrible with Details as well. For example we lost 46 aircraft in 6 years in Iraq to grond fire and SAMs some of them fairly high profile (like the SAS C-130 lost to a SAM) so ....

He's either willfully ignorant (it took 5 seconds to find the above online) or hes a troll.


Either way his rants have no place in here.

I thought someone posted that he said he was a pilot. no matter. I edited as you were posting, I felt it took away from my main point about the RAAF. As I posted earlier, I think he's trolling.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 22:04
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:I thought someone posted that he said he was a pilot. no matter. I edited as you were posting, I felt it took away from my main point about the RAAF. As I posted earlier, I think he's trolling.



Hes always been good for a laugh. Fast on assertions and slow on reality. I just wish he could occasionally keep to the topic. Hes been really obsessed with terrorists the last couple years as you can see

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 22:12
by spazsinbad
optimist wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:autism.

Just an interesting bit, A RAAF person in the psychology side of things. Told me that the good fighter pilots were on the aspergers spectrum (aspergers, now called autism) It was then obvious when also said, that the good air controllers were OCD.

This story may have been told by me earlier in this forum - so apologies. RAN FAA fighter pilots have a sense of humour (as explained by another RN FAA Sea Vixen? pilot also earlier perhaps here). It is always good to be described by others 'not in the know'. An example: It is 1970, we are in our tiny crewroom probably reveling in the fact that it is now carpeted and not just concrete. The water heater has steamed up the space whilst cigarette smoke is thick. VC-724 squadron pilots are bouncing off each other with bon mots and the walls at the same time - adrenaline at work. My OFS with the most senior rank being an LCDR who will be next CO of VF-805 tells us an RAN psychologist will be visiting so we should answer 'PORK' to any questions, including our own. I don't get it; however it turns out to be HILARIOUS in context so we have a WAIL/ WHALE of a time just saying PORK whilst the psychologist is just BAFFLED. He retreats soon after never to be seen again.

As LUCK often has a habit when opening my file system I get this: via e-mail of course...
"I had to take a psych test to fly F-8s, and those results were finally released through my Freedom of Information Act request:
"Summary of test results for Nelson, Richard J.L., LTJG USN:
1. Inclined to take excessive risks, even where none exist.

2. Appears to be chronically narcissistic, and has high opinion of himself---for no apparent reason. One instructor's comment: "Thinks he is God's gift to Naval Aviation."

3. Frequently displays lack of respect and deference to authority figures.

4. Believes that any landing approach he can walk away from is a good one.

5. Has a false and unsupported feeling of superiority, especially after consumption of alcohol.

6. Apparently has political ambitions, and states that he aspires to be the Mayor of Olongapo.

7. Not well suited for any other career path, after F-8 squadron assignment; does not get along well with superiors, Black Shoes, Submariners, and shows only grudging respect for U.S. Marines---especially those who are Naval Aviators.

8. Overly aggressive---states he wants to have a full ordnance load, even while flying in CONUS on training missions. He once zoomed to 50,000 ft. and fired a Sidewinder at the sun, to see if he could hit it.

9. Resists complying with established Naval protocols and etiquette---once left a calling card in the tray at an admiral's home that said: 'Hot Dog Nelson----have parachute, will travel.'

10. After receiving a poor Fitness Report, instead of promising to correct his deficiencies, pointed out to his CO several misspelled words in the report.

11. Fails to use proper decorum in wardroom or officers' mess. Instead of politely asking the senior officer at a table if he could be seated there, he grabbed a spoon and simulated a ship's bell on the Commander's water glass, saying, "Fighter pilot---arriving!"

12. When invited to join a senior officer's family for breakfast, he replied, "I've already had a Fighter Pilot's Breakfast---a puke, two aspirin, and a cigarette. Thanks anyway."

13. When the interviewer inquired what he usually wore to bed, he replied, "Nothing but my G-suit and flight boots. You never know when you have to launch."

14. When asked what approach speed should be used in the F-8E, he replied, "Whatever is necessary."

15. According to his statements, he thinks night refueling is asking the O'Club bartender for another round.

BOARD CONCLUSION:
​"​This man is expendable, but highly qualified for a fleet F-8 squadron."

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 01:05
by vilters
Nobody is scared of the F-35, because nobody with 2 or more braincells will take them on in the air.
Can not beat them in the air? Get them when they least expect it.

With the right tools, they'll get them while on the ground or in the circuit, just like the USA did with the ME-262 in WW2.

Yes, history has the nasty habit of repeating itself. But WW2 might be too long ago for many of you.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 01:07
by spazsinbad
The SEA VIXEN RN FAA Pilot 'sense of humour' Story....
Personal Testimony of Sea Vixen Operations by: Lt. (P) Jonathon Whaley. RN. 1965/1973

“Am I qualified to write a "Pilots Perspective" on the Sea Vixen? Well as probably the only pilot left that still flies a jet fighter http://www.heritageaviation.com and who flew Sea Vixens operationally for two tours, one as Air Warfare Instructor (AWI), I stake my claim.

I'm allowing myself (or I hope the Ed. will) a paragraph of "Soap Box" One of the primary requirements for acceptance in to the Royal Navy and in particular as Naval Aircrew, is to have a sense of humour. The source of "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined" the Senior Service. If your sense of humour was slightly warped, then a) you were a survivor by nature and b) destined for great things.

The Fleet Air Arm, at the time I joined in 1965, were losing about 1½ aircrew a year per squadron. That's three killed out of 28 Pilots and Observers. You gotta have a sense of humour just to want to join! Circa 1971 "SOPs" were tightened up and "job's worth" criteria added to restrict the antics of aircrew such that losses were dramatically reduced. In 1969 when we lost a couple of Vixens flying in to the sea at night, the papers never mentioned it. To day, such rare accidents are front page news. I'm not saying today's restrictions in flight ops are wrong in any way, just that I was lucky enough to fly (and survive) in the last few years....”

Source: http://www.seavixen.org/aircrew-testimo ... han-whaley

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 01:10
by vilters
Some say that ISLAM is a brainwashing religion, but sometimes you guys are so far from reality, I wonder what I am doing here.

You guys simply can not think outside of 20 year old doctrine boxes. Just like you guys are still in the cold war? ? ? ?

Or IRAK?

Well, you guys might be right too as one of the next candidates for an all out Air 2 Air war might be Turkeyclown.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 01:43
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Nobody is scared of the F-35, because nobody with 2 or more braincells will take them on in the air.
Can not beat them in the air? Get them when they least expect it.

With the right tools, they'll get them while on the ground or in the circuit, just like the USA did with the ME-262 in WW2.

Yes, history has the nasty habit of repeating itself. But WW2 might be too long ago for many of you.


The only thing worse than your posts is your attitude. :roll:

vilters wrote:Some say that ISLAM is a brainwashing religion, but


Oh do go on.

sometimes you guys are so far from reality, I wonder what I am doing here.


An ACTUAL VILTERS QUOTE FROM EARLIER IN THIS VERY THREAD:

vilters wrote:More serious would be to give twenty F-22 to RED.
Give twenty F-35 to Blue.
And give live ammo and missiles to all. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
At least they"ll sh*t their pants and KNOW this is NOT a game anymore.
But? We would have TRUE results.
This concludes the end of dreamland…. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
[/color]

But a RED Force with F-22 and F-16, against a BLUE Force of F-35 and F-15.

Then halfway in, you add """ Without warning or briefing""" a yellow force with some 30 Navy F-18 with a single ROE : Hard deck is 10.000 ft, all the rest is "game ON."




You guys simply can not think outside of 20 year old doctrine boxes. Just like you guys are still in the cold war? ? ? ?


What kind of war do you think we have been fighting since 2001 Vilters?

Or IRAK?


Have you been in Coma since 2003?

Well, you guys might be right too as one of the next candidates for an all out Air 2 Air war might be Turkeyclown.


K

The Bottom line Vilters, and this has been said in many threads where you go on your little uber human terrorist rants, is that aircraft really just aren't the way you deal with terrorists anyway. Just like Submarines aren't. And even though Terrorists don't have boats, the US still has a Navy. A Rather large one that has its own uses. The entire 650 billion dollar a year US military is not 100 percent dedicated to anti terror, and with good reason.

How is it that the US has been in a real life shooting war against actual terrorists for over 18 years now, yet we are also locked in a 20 years old non terrorist doctrine??

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 02:04
by ricnunes
vilters wrote:With the right tools, they'll get them while on the ground or in the circuit, just like the USA did with the ME-262 in WW2.


And why did the allies used that tactic against the German Me262's in WWII, rather successfully?? (BTW, it wasn't only the USA that employed such tactic, the British also used it a lot)
Answer: Because the allies already managed to establish air superiority against the Germans, this even prior to the Me262 entering in service.

vilters wrote:Yes, history has the nasty habit of repeating itself. But WW2 might be too long ago for many of you.


Yes, history has indeed the nasty habit of repeating itself as well as your apparent lack of details regarding your analogies. Here I must agree with XanderCrews.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 02:58
by wrightwing
XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:I thought someone posted that he said he was a pilot. no matter. I edited as you were posting, I felt it took away from my main point about the RAAF. As I posted earlier, I think he's trolling.



Hes always been good for a laugh. Fast on assertions and slow on reality. I just wish he could occasionally keep to the topic. Hes been really obsessed with terrorists the last couple years as you can see

And training with live ordnance. Talk about a premier training exercise. We're going to be shooting live SAMs and AAMs at each other.....

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 03:01
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:Nobody is scared of the F-35, because nobody with 2 or more braincells will take them on in the air.
Can not beat them in the air? Get them when they least expect it.

With the right tools, they'll get them while on the ground or in the circuit, just like the USA did with the ME-262 in WW2.

Yes, history has the nasty habit of repeating itself. But WW2 might be too long ago for many of you.

Just like enemies have managed to do against our teen series jets, right? You've got a dumb answer for everything, yet you're unwilling to listen to better informed individuals, and possibly learn.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 04:02
by optimist
The truth is, the main stuff is done in very expensive battle sims, like Brawler, Thunder, Suppressor, SeaFan and PacWar . They add man in the loop for a bit more fun. The red flag training exercise is just that, a training exercise.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/do ... 70/0000%22
Gary Liberson, who is on his right, has 22 years of experience as an operations analyst and research engineer
with McDonnell Douglas, the RAND Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. He has extensive
experience with combat analysis, methodologies and analysis techniques. He is considered an expert in Brawler,
Thunder, Suppressor, SeaFan and PacWar constructive simulation tools. His areas of expertise include combat
aircraft systems and tactics as well as advanced threat analysis.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 04:41
by XanderCrews
wrightwing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:I thought someone posted that he said he was a pilot. no matter. I edited as you were posting, I felt it took away from my main point about the RAAF. As I posted earlier, I think he's trolling.



Hes always been good for a laugh. Fast on assertions and slow on reality. I just wish he could occasionally keep to the topic. Hes been really obsessed with terrorists the last couple years as you can see

And training with live ordnance. Talk about a premier training exercise. We're going to be shooting live SAMs and AAMs at each other.....


Lose dozens and dozens of aircraft and men in a free for all live fire bukakke party, that'll show those terrorists who's boss!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 04:51
by squirrelshoes
vilters wrote:Nobody is scared of the F-35, because nobody with 2 or more braincells will take them on in the air.

Do you realize you're basically saying nobody is scared of F-35 because they are scared of the F-35?


vilters wrote:But WW2 might be too long ago for many of you.

WW2 was exactly the same time ago for all of us.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 04:56
by SpudmanWP
vilters wrote:Yes, history has the nasty habit of repeating itself. But WW2 might be too long ago for many of you.
It's funny that you bring up history.

Germany had much better tech in the ME-262 but instead of using it as designed, they let a politician get in the way of the military's plan for it which delayed its introduction for a long time.

hmmm, Where have I seen that recently????

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 05:03
by popcorn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
popcorn wrote:In reality, I'd guess that the IADS would have been softened up.a bit with stand-off volleys comprised of various ALCMs and decoys. The 5-gen package would find the door already battered quite a bit.

You would be wrong then.

From RF17-1

The F-35 has particularly excelled in missions where the enemy can launch advanced surface-to-air missiles. Previously, in scenarios with those weapons, blue forces, or friendlies, would put all their energy into taking them out with standoff weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles.
This year, Red Flag participants have encountered three or four different advanced surface-to-air-missiles in one scenario. In those situations, cyber, space and signals intelligence assets like the Rivet Joint partner with the F-35 to fuse together targeting information. Then, the F-22 uses its standoff weapons to bring down aggressors while the F-35’s stealth capabilities allow it to slip undetected within range of the missile system, where it drops munitions.
“I flew a mission the other day where our four-ship formation of F-35As destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once,” said Maj. James Schmidt, a former A-10 pilot. “It’s pretty cool to come back from a mission where we flew right over threats knowing they could never see us.” After taking out the ground threats, the multirole F-35A is able to “pitch back into the fight” with air-to-air missiles, taking out aircraft that don’t even know they’re there, Schmidt said....



So is the AF abandoning it's tactic of softening up targets with long-range cruise .missiles before sending in stike packages due to 5gen a/c? Where's the harm in sending in a couple dozen of JASSM-ERs to have the way?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 05:50
by SpudmanWP
We train for many different situations. Sometimes cruise missiles are just not available.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 09:57
by wrightwing
There's not a lot of training value, if the biggest threats are all taken out with notional cruise missiles.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 10:34
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:There's not a lot of training value, if the biggest threats are all taken out with notional cruise missiles.

My originall point was there may be real world scenarios where an initial strike by CMs followed closely by a 5-gen enabled strike package may apply. That's all.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 06:20
by optimist
SpudmanWP wrote:We train for many different situations. Sometimes cruise missiles are just not available.

Not only that, but they also train, turning off or degrading offboard and onboard assets/data/sensors, on the platforms themselves. To stress the system. Tie one hand behind your back, then go and fight. I don't know if this happens at red flag towards the end, as they ramp up more red force.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 15:14
by Gums
Salute!

Even a blind squirrel will find an acorn now and then, heh heh. Love ya Popcorn and Optimist, 'cause you train for every possibility you can with the training area and technology availble.

wrightwing wrote:
There's not a lot of training value, if the biggest threats are all taken out with notional cruise missiles


To which Pop and Opt responded.

My originall point was there may be real world scenarios where an initial strike by CMs followed closely by a 5-gen enabled strike package may apply. That's all.


Not only that, but they also train, turning off or degrading offboard and onboard assets/data/sensors, on the platforms themselves. To stress the system


I would have loved to have a Red Flag down in the southeast U.S., as I always thot the A2G aspects out in the desert were too easy for we mudbeaters. 'course, right after I retired we had the Storm and turned out we had practiced in a good place. And getting back to the comments...

The RF that I referenced back a page or two ago was what Optimist and Pop alluded to. Our cruise doofers and other "assets" ( like stealth 117's did later) had taken out the IAD command posts and big acquisition radars. We simply do not have enough of, nor can we afford, all the cosmic long-range precision weapons to take out every pissant SAM site or enemy MLRS-type battery.

So for the mission I commanded, the Reds had to use their best SAM aquisition radars and besides theiir own mission, try to coordinte with other SAM sites. Therefore, SEAD by our air assets was the only way to go. OTOH, our Israeli Viper students who had flown in Yom Kippur said the sure thing was to taxi a tank up to a SAM-6 site and blow it away!!! Still laughing. But they said the first few days were shocking due to the SA-6 capability and mobility.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 18:09
by knowan
SpudmanWP wrote:Germany had much better tech in the ME-262 but instead of using it as designed, they let a politician get in the way of the military's plan for it which delayed its introduction for a long time.


That's actually a myth.

https://www.kaiserslauternamerican.com/ ... he-me-262/
In terms of performance, the most outstanding operational fighter of the Second World War was the twin jet German Me-262 “Schwalbe” (Swallow). It was the fastest fighter of the war, carried a very heavy armament of four 30mm cannons and, for the first time, effective air-to-air rockets, and when it attacked Allied bomber formations it was devastating.

The Me-262 first flew in July 1942, nine months before any remotely comparable Allied jet fighter, and test flights continued the next nine months, hampered by problems with its Jumo 004 jet engines. However, by April 22, 1943, the aircraft was ready to be flown by the German commander of the fighter force, Adolf Galland, who proclaimed it a “war winner” that would make German air space invulnerable to Allied bombers.

Galland pushed to have it produced as rapidly as possible and provided to the Luftwaffe’s fighter force, but when it was shown to Hitler a few months later he proclaimed it the “blitz bomber,” a high speed ground attack aircraft that would be able to counter the Allied invasion of France.

From this point on, Galland asserts in his seminal book about the World War II Luftwaffe, “The First and the Last,” the Me-262 was diverted from what should have been its war winning role as an air-to-air fighter to bomber duties. Only after a long period of argument was it finally returned to the fighter role. But by then it was too late, even though more than 1,400 Me-262s were produced, because the Allies had too great a numerical superiority for the Schwalbe to have a major impact.

Albert Speer, the German minister of armaments at the time, also claimed that Hitler stopped production of the fighter and wanted it converted to a bomber.
This appears a wonderful and elegant argument, full of irony — the evil German dictator making the decision that prevented the deployment of a potentially war changing aircraft.

The problem is that this is not true. The truth is the Me-262 could never have been deployed in large numbers before late 1944 because of severe problems with the Jumo 004 engine.

The prototype Galland flew was powered by the first model of the Jumo 004, the Jumo 004A. This engine had been constructed with the highest quality materials available — notably nickel, cobalt and molybdenum — and as a result functioned reasonably well.

Unfortunately, it was impossible to produce the Jumo 004A in large quantity because Germany did not have enough of these raw materials, and the production version, the Jumo 004B, was built with inferior materials.

All of the “hot section” components were changed to aluminum-coated steel, and the turbine blades were also produced from different materials than those used in the Jumo 004A. The engine was easier to mass produce, but it was much less reliable and it required a complete overhaul every 10 hours. It also required delicate throttle movements in flight — difficult in combat.

The result of the engine problems was that the Me-262 did not begin to arrive in useful operation strength until October 1944 when Hitler’s order to use it as a bomber had been rescinded.

By then, the Allied air forces had a huge numerical superiority and caused so much chaos with the German production and transportation facilities that only about 200 Me-262s were ever operational at any one time.

The Me-262s maximum daily sortie rate — rarely achieved — was about 60 per day. While its presence had a huge psychological impact on Allied airmen, combat records show it only shot down about 150 Allied aircraft for the loss of about 100 Me-262s in air combat.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 01:26
by smsgtmac
knowan wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Germany had much better tech in the ME-262 but instead of using it as designed, they let a politician get in the way of the military's plan for it which delayed its introduction for a long time.


That's actually a myth.

https://www.kaiserslauternamerican.com/ ... he-me-262/ ....


No, That is something Marshall Michel asserts is a myth. I'd say there's plenty of evidence even within Michell's own narrative that tends to subvert his argument that I won't go into due to it taking too long. The "Unbearable Assymetry of B.S." is not only a problem in Science but in other fields, especially where "coulda, shoulda, woulda" infects the discussion and discipline. I've got some of his stuff and have cited him, but Michel is tough to read and still be objective sometimes: that fighter-pilot heart bleeds through his writing. Led an interesting life after the AF too. Love his bibliographies and the exhaustive research he does to build them, but I know enough to not translate his every assertion as gospel without cross-referencing other sources.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 01:43
by weasel1962
I'm amazed how we can get from red flag to ME-262s.

Just to highlight that 19-1 ended last month. It should be currently 19-2 now. Understand the Norwegians brought their F-35s too.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 05:18
by popcorn
smsgtmac wrote:
knowan wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Germany had much better tech in the ME-262 but instead of using it as designed, they let a politician get in the way of the military's plan for it which delayed its introduction for a long time.


That's actually a myth.

https://www.kaiserslauternamerican.com/ ... he-me-262/ ....


No, That is something Marshall Michel asserts is a myth. I'd say there's plenty of evidence even within Michell's own narrative that tends to subvert his argument that I won't go into due to it taking too long. The "Unbearable Assymetry of B.S." is not only a problem in Science but in other fields, especially where "coulda, shoulda, woulda" infects the discussion and discipline. I've got some of his stuff and have cited him, but Michel is tough to read and still be objective sometimes: that fighter-pilot heart bleeds through his writing. Led an interesting life after the AF too. Love his bibliographies and the exhaustive research he does to build them, but I know enough to not translate his every assertion as gospel without cross-referencing other sources.


Deleted

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 08:06
by knowan
smsgtmac wrote:
knowan wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Germany had much better tech in the ME-262 but instead of using it as designed, they let a politician get in the way of the military's plan for it which delayed its introduction for a long time.


That's actually a myth.

https://www.kaiserslauternamerican.com/ ... he-me-262/ ....


No, That is something Marshall Michel asserts is a myth. I'd say there's plenty of evidence even within Michell's own narrative that tends to subvert his argument that I won't go into due to it taking too long. The "Unbearable Assymetry of B.S." is not only a problem in Science but in other fields, especially where "coulda, shoulda, woulda" infects the discussion and discipline. I've got some of his stuff and have cited him, but Michel is tough to read and still be objective sometimes: that fighter-pilot heart bleeds through his writing. Led an interesting life after the AF too. Love his bibliographies and the exhaustive research he does to build them, but I know enough to not translate his every assertion as gospel without cross-referencing other sources.


It is corroborated by Alfred Price in works, I'm not 100% sure what book of it was, but he claims Hitler delayed the Me 262 by only a few weeks at most.


This article appears to use work from Alfred Price: https://www.historynet.com/harbinger-new-era.htm
Although Hitler’s fixation on using the Me-262 as a fighter-bomber is popularly blamed for holding up its development, the real delaying factor was the engine.

As the article says, Hitler's initial order for the 262 to be built and deployed as a fighter-bomber were ignored until May 27, 1944, but a few days later fighter version testing was allowed again.


EDIT: it was this book: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Year-Luftwa ... 1853674400
It has become part of the accepted wisdom about the Luftwaffe that Hitler's decision was instrumental in preventing the large-scale deployment of the Me 262 in the fighter force. In fact his edict was not the main reason, or even a major reason, for the failure to deploy the fighter in the hoped-for numbers. Not until August 1944 was the average running life of the 004 jet engine raised to 25hr; that was still a very low figure, but it meant that the design could be frozen and mass production could begin. In September Hitler rescinded his order that all new Me 262s be delivered as fighter-bombers. By then more than a hundred fighter airframes were sitting around without engines, and as soon as 004s became available these aircraft were completed and delivered to the Luftwaffe. In fact Hitler's order delayed the introduction of the Me 262 into service in the fighter role by only about three weeks. For the real reason for the failure to deploy the fighter in large numbers, we must look elsewhere.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 08:47
by weasel1962
This might help (with bibliography). Both highlighted factors (bomber+engine) made a difference.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1018705.pdf

According to Generalleutnant Adolf Galland of the Luftwaffe, the delivery date of the Me-262 was delayed when Adolf Hitler ordered that the plane be redesignedinto a ‘blitz-bomber’ in 1943. From Galland’s viewpoint, the Me-262 could have been in operation one year earlier and therefore drastically altered the operation of US daylight bombers over Germany.8 Other historians point to different factors, stating that, “The key element in the late deployment of the Me-262 was the protracted development period of the jet engines.”9 The fact that the Jumo-004B-1 powerplant configuration was not frozen for production until June of 1944 severely impacted Me-262 development.10 Its airframe was mostly complete in 1941, just like the P-47, but the Me-262’s engine was not in production like the R-2800. Initial testing of the airframe with prototype engines was not done until 1942 and the airframe still retained a piston engine and propeller mounted in the nose for safety concerns.11 The protracted development and cost of the Me-262 was a major reason that only 1,100 were produced – less than 10 percent of the P-47 total.12 In these limited numbers, it was never able to make a decisive contribution to the German war effort. Compared to the fielding of the P-47, the major problems for producing operational Me-262’s were two-fold. First, concurrent engine development delayed adequate flight testing of the airframe and the start of production. Second, shifting requirements directed by non-technical persons in higher command forced a fighter to be modified into a multi-role fighter-bomber.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 16:29
by zero-one
Hope this is not too out of topic, but I often hear that the German's had more advanced tech back in WW2, allies predominantly just won through numbers.

But I find this to be a myth. The allies had many breakthrough technologies that the Nazis could only dream of:

B-29 heavy bombers
Essex class carriers
Radar
the Atom bomb

The Nazis were never close to matching those items
and on the technologies where Germany had the edge like the jet propulsion, ballistic missiles, the allies were not far behind.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 16:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:The Nazis were never close to matching those items
and on the technologies where Germany had the edge like the jet propulsion, ballistic missiles, the allies were not far behind.

The Germans also had better tanks.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 16:52
by f-16adf
The Germans like the Western allies were rather ignorant of the benefits of sloped armor.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 17:22
by vilters
If he had not opened the East front, we'd all be speaking/writing German.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 21:42
by knowan
Probably not a good idea to start a discussion about the merits of WW2 German technology here. My apologies for throwing the thread off topic.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 08:00
by zero-one
vilters wrote:If he had not opened the East front, we'd all be speaking/writing German.


Are we really to believe that the Germans would defeat the western allies after loosing the Battle of Britain and with the US entering the war?

I think the War would have dragged on a bit longer but once 3 or 4 atom bombs start falling in the fatherland on a weekly basis, I have no doubt Hitler would have killed himself just as fast. Maybe he would have been killed by the bombs themselves

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 09:52
by kimjongnumbaun
The Germans had some technology that was superior to the Allies, and vice versa.

Germans had rocket and jet technology, the MG42, and enigma. The allies had strategic bombers, the atom bomb, aircraft carriers, better infantry rifles, radar, Bombe, and Delilah. Technology wise, the Allies were probably superior.

The tank issue is a bit more in depth than Tiger > Sherman.

The German doctrine was similar to US tank doctrine today. Tanks were used as a cavalry unit for deep penetration and tank against tank engagements. The US used tanks (sherman) for infantry support, and anti-tank operations were conducted by tank destroyers like the wolverine. I'll also point out that the wolverine had a ground speed greater than the turret traverse rate of the tiger and panther, and wolverines were highly successful in destroying both german tank models.

We can get into a really deep conversation about the WWII tank battles. But to be succinct about it, US tanks had a 1:3 exchange ratio when on the offensive in Europe through the dense hedge rows and defended terrain. The Germans suffered that same 1:3 ratio when on the offensive during the battle of the bulge with their panthers and tigers. It's not a coincidence that common military tactics require a 3:1 manpower imbalance when attacking a fortified position.

Wittmann learned the hard way when his entire tiger tank platoon was eliminated by a sherman firefly. See first, shoot first, and insert F-35 reference.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 10:10
by spazsinbad
Geez RED FLAG is boring. Let's start some discussion about WWII that is really relevant to RED FLAG 2019 & in the future.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 10:32
by count_to_10
vilters wrote:If he had not opened the East front, we'd all be speaking/writing German.

If Hittler hadn’t opened the eastern front, Stalin would have. Who knows what would have happened then.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 10:50
by weasel1962
The dark horses were the Italians. If they were just 20% more effective, the Iraqi oil fields would have been Axis, Allied sinkings would have increased due to the number of submarine, most importantly, the Italians could have opened up a 2nd front to Russia from its soft under-belly. Then we'd all be either speaking German or Japanese.

Alternate (imagined) history (based on certain actual events)
June 1940, the Italians accept the offer of a Panzer division for North Africa.
Sep 1940, the Italian corp outnumbering the British 10-1 spearheaded by the panzer division captures cairo, closing the Suez.
Jun-Dec 1940, massive sinking by Italian submarines whose torpedoes are more effective than German render Britain in famine risk.
Dec 1940, Palestine and Iraqi uprisings drive the British from the middle east, followed by a swift German panzer follow thru. Syria joins Vichy France.
Mar 1941, because the Germans never needed to intervene in Greece, the Germans launch barbarossa 3 months earlier.
With German at its doorstep, Turkey joins the Axis alliances and combines with German forces to take Baku.
June 1941, Russia has to divert its eastern divisions to handle the German attacks from the South.
Sep-Dec 1941, Moscow falls. Stalin sues for peace.
Dec 1941. Japan strikes at Pearl Harbor.

I am grateful for Italian incompetence.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 11:52
by spazsinbad
Resuming normal programming…. We'll JUMP OFF with VIETNAM!? At least we leave WWII behind eh.
The Vietnam War was Then and The Future is Now: General Goldfein’s “Face Shot” to the Russians and Chinese
27 Feb 2019 Edward Timperlake

"USAF Chief of Staff General David Goldfein reflecting on the success of the F-35 at a recent USAF “Red Flag” exercise gave both the Peoples Liberation ArmyAir Force and the Russian’s what we as fighter pilots call a “face shot.” Red flag is a brilliant exercise in which many combat aircraft flying from Nellis AFB engage to simulate real combat scenarios within a well-designed and instrumented extremely stressful air combat environment. A “Face Shot” is slamming a missile right into the face, head on, of your enemy.

The U.S. Air Force put the F-35 up against “the most advanced weapons systems out there” during the recent Red Flag air combat exercise, and the fight-generation stealth fighters apparently dominated — so much so that even the rookie pilots were crushing it. The F-35A is “exceeding our expectations when it comes to not only being able to survive, but to prosecute targets,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein said Tuesday, according to Air Force Times.

A lasting phrase used by President Obama’s is actually appropriate in this situation the Russian are getting all “wee-wee’d up"... [never heard that before - must be a 'RAGIN'' Phrase?]… [then lots of one sentence paragraphs for youse]

Source: https://defense.info/re-shaping-defense ... d-chinese/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 12:38
by brucealrighty
Spazsinbad wrote:(via Staff General David Goldfein) the fight-generation stealth fighters apparently dominated — so much so that even the rookie pilots were crushing it.


Just to throw a bit of complexity into the mix is this (contrary to the above) statement from RAAF Air Commodore Michael Kitcher "As I described yesterday what I was very pleased to see was in the couple of missions that I flew that admittedly weren’t, you know its not all roses here, and there were some red flag missions whereby the blue side was completely and utterly, not obliterated, but certainly where the red side had a good day. It wasn’t as if the blue side had complete sway during all of the exercise. The red side did create significant problems….."

It's one paragraph in the middle of a very positive piece about the F-35 that can be found around the 15:00 minute mark of the "Avalon Airshow Special" via ASPI. He also goes on to talk about how well the F-35 "kicked down the doors and escorted the strike package" so my takeaway from it is that the red side is really pushing to create problems for blue, but those in the know are very happy with the F-35 response to the challenge.

https://soundcloud.com/user-415599049

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 12:51
by hornetfinn
spazsinbad wrote:Geez RED FLAG is boring. Let's start some discussion about WWII that is really relevant to RED FLAG 2019 & in the future.


I think they should bring Me-262 and 8.8 cm Flak 41 guns to Red Flag next... That will surely throw off the F-35 fusion engine... :D

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 13:36
by zero-one
Sorry bout that, right now we have so few information about RF 19-1 besides F-35s kicked butt that everyones pretty much just passing time. Wouldn't be surprised if Roman Gladiators would be thrown to the mix.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 13:38
by zero-one
hornetfinn wrote:I think they should bring Me-262 and 8.8 cm Flak 41 guns to Red Flag next... That will surely throw off the F-35 fusion engine... :D


Me-262....hmmmmmmm
Curious, what happens when the F-35's threat library doesn't recognize the contact?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 14:15
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think they should bring Me-262 and 8.8 cm Flak 41 guns to Red Flag next... That will surely throw off the F-35 fusion engine... :D


Me-262....hmmmmmmm
Curious, what happens when the F-35's threat library doesn't recognize the contact?


Generally speaking sensor and data fusion systems tend to go for more general recognition levels when they can't get precise data. So it might well be that the contact is shown as "small jet aircraft" or something like that as I doubt Me-262 is programmed into the threat library... :D Since Me-262 doesn't have radar (except some prototypes) or other modern systems, it might not be able to tell it's a "fighter aircraft". Even if it had that Neptun radar, F-35 would likely not be able to see it due to very low frequency used in those sets. It would be interesting to know what results EOTS imagery of Me-262 would produce in fusion engine...

I'm sure such situations occur a lot in complex environments (like Red Flag) where there is not very detailed info about targets. For example some SAM engagement radar might first be shown as just generic ground radar and then when more detailed info is collected, more precise recognizion is shown for the system. In the end it might be shown as some very spesific radar type.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 14:38
by spazsinbad
Was there NOT a story about 'RED FLAG' simulated radars NOT being realistic threats for the F-35? Upgrades needed - no?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 15:02
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:Was there NOT a story about 'RED FLAG' simulated radars NOT being realistic threats for the F-35? Upgrades needed - no?

Yes, the f-35 didn't see them as a threat and ignored them. AKA The pilot yelling kill it and the f-35 saying kill what, there's nothing there but a microwave oven.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 15:31
by aussiebloke
spazsinbad wrote:Was there NOT a story about 'RED FLAG' simulated radars NOT being realistic threats for the F-35? Upgrades needed - no?


Upgrades are underway:

The Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) began accepting Radar Signal Emulators in late CY16 to support the DOT&E-initiated Electronic Warfare Infrastructure Improvement Program (EWIIP). As of October 10, 2018, 9 of 16 emulators had been accepted on the NTTR and had been used to conduct integration testing with the F-35 and other range test assets.- The RSEs will be used to provide operationally realistic threat laydowns for use in F-35 IOT&E.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY ... f35jsf.pdf

Completed system development and initiated production for the Radar Signal Emulators to provide open-loop, transmit-onlysystems that will accurately emit waveforms of threat radar systems operating in the C and S radio frequency (RF) bands.Delivered 8 of 16 Radar Signal Emulators at the Nellis AFB Test and Training Range, NV and initiated site acceptance testing.Continued production of the remaining 9 Radar Signal Emulators.

https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2 ... B_2019.pdf

The Air Force Warfare Center is developing a strategic plan to guide investment in capabilities toallow the NTTR to more accurately replicate current threat environments of our new defense posture.The Air Force is supporting these efforts through collaboration with the DoDand the Department of the Navy to develop and field the Advanced Radar Threat System version 1 (ARTS1) and Advanced Radar Threat System version 2 (ARTS2). These systems provide a more realistic training environment because they will close the gap between our current and required threat simulation capabilities.-This development effort (also known as the Electronic Warfare Infrastructure Improvement Program (EWIIP)) uses a significant portion of the approximately $550 million effort to develop and field 25 open air range threat simulators representative of advanced threat systems in the Western Pacific Region.

http://www.nttrleis.com/documents/revie ... an2014.pdf

Lockheed Martin will build the ARTS-V2 to provide threat-representative radar tracking and reaction such as acquiring, tracking, and engaging several aircraft simultaneously with representative receiver, processor, and electronic counter-countermeasures.
The system will emulate advanced anti-aircraft missile radiated power, threat signals, antenna patterns, operational modes, and threat tactics, and can send real-time radar data to the Digital Integrated Air Defense System (DIADS)-controlled threat environment at the Range Control Center (RCC). ARTS-V2 will provide multi-spectral threat representation.
The ARTS-V2 is part of the overall Advanced Radar Threat System (ARTS) project to develop and field high-fidelity threat phased array radar for live, virtual, constructive aircrew training for anti-access and area-denial environments.
ARTS will provide the advanced capabilities necessary to train aircrews in the employment of F-35 aircraft against foreign fielded live double-digit surface-to-air missile threat systems. The program consists of the strategic long-range ARTS-V1 and the tactical short-range ARTS-V2 systems. The solicitation for the ARTS-V1 system was released in January.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... siles.html

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 21:09
by steve2267
There was a photo and short news blurb hereabouts a little while back... something about the US taking delivery, from the Uktraine, if memory serves, of an advanced S-300 radar or some such...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 21:46
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the PDFs 'aussiebloke'. Yes I vaguely recall the S-300 story. Didn't the DIRE STRAITS sing about 'microwave ovens & colour TVs'? :roll: MONEY FOR NOTHING: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_for_Nothing_(song) 8)

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 21:51
by steve2267
Israeli and US Military Specialists Visit Ukraine to Get Acquainted with Russian-Made S-300 Missile Systems
(Source: UA Wire; published Oct 11, 2018)

A joint US-Israeli delegation secretly visited Ukraine to acquaint themselves with several specimens of important weaponry, including an S-300 anti-air defense system, Vietnamese news portal Soha News reports.

According to the article, Ukrainian specialists explained to delegation members the tactical and technical characteristics of the S-300 in Ukraine’s possession, and suggested that American and Israeli fighter jets be sent to Ukraine in order to test the system’s capabilities.

Responding to the threat of Russian anti-air defense systems in Syria, the US dispatched 18 fourth-generation F-15C Eagle fighters to Ukraine, and Israel sent several pilots, who were able to test the S-300’s capabilities using the American aircraft.

The article also notes that Ukraine previously sent the US a 36D6M1-1 mobile radar station, the technology of which is used in the S-300. The Ukrainian specialists are confident that the characteristics of the surface-to-air missile systems in Ukraine’s possession do not differ significantly from those of the modified S-300PMU2 system which Russia sent to Syria.

The analysis of the S-300’s capabilities in conjunction with Ukraine has reportedly convinced the Israeli military leaders that the Syrian S-300s will not pose a threat to Israel’s fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters.

Soha News emphasizes that Moscow is greatly displeased at Kyiv’s actions, which weaken Damascus’s military capabilities. On the other hand, it is not hard to understand any initiatives by Ukraine against Russia, since Ukraine considers Russia its archenemy.

American F-15C Eagles first arrived in Ukraine on October 6. Kyiv and Washington both state that the planes will be used in the Clear Sky 2018 international military exercise. Eight NATO member-states and Ukraine will take part in the drills.

Israeli Regional Cooperation Minister Tzachi Hanegbi said that the capabilities of the S-300 have long been taken into account in Israel’s strategic planning.

Russia recently sent four S-300 systems to Syria. The decision was prompted by an incident in which a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft was shot down by friendly Syrian fire from an S-200 system. The Syrian anti-air defense systems were trying to shoot down an attacking Israeli F-16 Fighting Falcon. Russia believes that the S-300 will improve the Syrian government’s defense.

The three-coordinate centimeter band 36D6M1-1 radar station is designed to detect, identify and escort airborne targets at intermediate and low altitudes under conditions of intensive active and passive jamming by the enemy. The radar is produced by the Ukrainian scientific and production complex “Iskra”. The latest upgrade to the station, which was sent to the US in December 2017, enables it to detect stealth targets. The shipment of the radar to the US was opposed by the Innovative Technologies Company, which, according to Ukraine, represents Russian interests.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/196736/israel_us-team-visits-ukraine-for-data-on-russian_made-s_300-sam.html


U.S. Army receives 3D mobile air-defense radar system from Ukraine
Sep 2, 2018

According to the ImportGenius website that tracks the import/export activity at shipping docks, the U.S. Army Contracting Command received the 3D mobile air-defense radar system from Ukraine.

The notice by the ImportGenius said that the U.S. Army Contracting Command center in Orlando has received 3D mobile air-defense radar system, called the 36D6M1-1, from Ukraine through SFTC “Progress”.

The 36D6M1-1is a mobile 3D airspace surveillance radar system that was developed by the SE “Scientific and Production Complex “Iskra” and is designed to be used as a part of modern automated Air Defense systems, Anti-Aircraft Missile Complexes and to detect low flying air targets under active and passive jamming as well as to provide Air Traffic Control both for military and civil purpose.

However, it is expected that the Ukrainian-made 3D mobile air-defense radar system could be used for technologies analysis and operational OPFOR training.

< ...more at the jump...>


https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-army-receives-3d-mobile-air-defense-radar-system-from-ukraine.html


One other link found for the curious: https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/09/03/573055/US-Tin-shield-3d-radar-ukraine

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 08:14
by optimist
I think you will find that there is a joint US/AU site being rolled out in northern australia. That is like the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), only EW on a larger scale.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 09:42
by hornetfinn
Very interesting steve2267, thank you for the info.

Here is the Ukrainian Iskra company webpage which has nice info about their products along with interesting videos. It gives interesting view to potential threat systems in Red Flags and also in actual combat scenarios.

https://iskra.zp.ua/index.php?option=co ... 08&lang=en

36D6M video:


Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 09:45
by spazsinbad
optimist wrote:I think you will find that there is a joint US/AU site being rolled out in northern australia. That is like the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), only EW on a larger scale.

Yes. There is info about this on the Oz pages (somewhere): [one page PDF of article attached]
GROWLER DOWN UNDER
Nov 2015 Brad Elward

"...In addition to the Growlers, the RAAF is creating a Mobile Threat Training Emitter System (MTTES) at Amberley and at the expansive Delamere Air Weapons Range (DELAWR) in Australia’s Northern Territory to support electronic warfare training. Both ranges will utilize a combination of radio frequency (RF) emissions to simulate radars and communications systems that can then be targeted for electronic attack and suppression of enemy air defense training. Australia plans to model the DELAWR range on the US Navy’s electronic warfare range at NAS Fallon, Nevada. Two additional enhanced simulators are being installed at Amberley, which will enable crews to simulate either the Growler
or Super Hornet mission...." viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=304183&hilit=Delamere#p304183

Source: Combat Aircraft Monthly Nov 2015

"...The December 2014 approval of MTTES will provide the ability for in-country EA-18G aircrew training through establishment of EW training range capabilities in the Amberley Western Training Area and at Delamere in the Northern Territory. Establishment of these ranges will ensure EA-18G aircrew can train effectively without needing frequent deployments to use United States electronic combat ranges for skills development. The Delamere range in particular will provide opportunities for other ADF units and visiting forces for high-end EW training...." + MOAR
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=391253&hilit=Delamere#p391253

YEEHAH for a billion woids: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52723&p=361957&hilit=Delamere#p361957
&
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=29165&p=319252&hilit=Delamere#p319252

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 15:00
by Gums
Salute!

Remember, folks, our weasels and EC-xxx dudes routinely try to get brand "X" systems to come up and take a look.

That's why they wouldn't let us use the new radar modes in the 106 and 101 at certain times of day - bad guy satellites overhead. We had that hydraulically tuned maggie and it was approaching the spread spectrum stuff we now have, but used analog and mechanical stuff. AsI recalled earlier, we had buffs at Grand Forks and we could both practice together on training flights. The Buff EWO's told us that when we went to "Fast Min" it looked like static. "Fast Max" looked like background noise. Hell, "Normal" mode spread out the freq about 1 Mhz, The "fast" tuning actually went from one end of our tuning and started back before the next pulse. So it looked like random noise and not a coherent emitter signal. And this was in the mid 60's, fellows. Along with our IRSTS that we coulod use to slave the radar.

BTW, a few years back the Stubbie folks here complained about their threat library not showing up simulators. However, they didn't mind it screening out Channel 7 News Doppler Weather Radar, fishing boat radars, and police radar guns, heh heh. I can just see it now on my display coming off RWY 01, "FHP cruiser at 85/I-10 intersection, engage?" "no, R2D2, let him live". LOL

Gums sends...

.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 23:30
by count_to_10
Gums wrote:Salute!

Remember, folks, our weasels and EC-xxx dudes routinely try to get brand "X" systems to come up and take a look.

That's why they wouldn't let us use the new radar modes in the 106 and 101 at certain times of day - bad guy satellites overhead. We had that hydraulically tuned maggie and it was approaching the spread spectrum stuff we now have, but used analog and mechanical stuff. AsI recalled earlier, we had buffs at Grand Forks and we could both practice together on training flights. The Buff EWO's told us that when we went to "Fast Min" it looked like static. "Fast Max" looked like background noise. Hell, "Normal" mode spread out the freq about 1 Mhz, The "fast" tuning actually went from one end of our tuning and started back before the next pulse. So it looked like random noise and not a coherent emitter signal. And this was in the mid 60's, fellows. Along with our IRSTS that we coulod use to slave the radar.

BTW, a few years back the Stubbie folks here complained about their threat library not showing up simulators. However, they didn't mind it screening out Channel 7 News Doppler Weather Radar, fishing boat radars, and police radar guns, heh heh. I can just see it now on my display coming off RWY 01, "FHP cruiser at 85/I-10 intersection, engage?" "no, R2D2, let him live". LOL

Gums sends...

.

You know, all of that “ignore to civilian stuff” is probably really handy once you start talking urban warfare.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 15:35
by Gums
Salute!

You got it, Count.

Not only that, but when the Earth was still cooling our original speed "gate" for the Viper radar had to be raised. This showeed itself worst when the jets went to Europe and flew over the Autobahn. a zillion targets showed up when looking down!! Our problemin Utah was I-84 and speedo folks. But only those zooming along ten or fifteen MPH over the limit. So they had to raise the "ignore" speed. Helos were still not a problem due to the spinning rotors, but I guess zeppelins with cloth envelopes, eagle feather control surfaces and balsa frames might be trouble.

So look for funny things in next RF besides the chariots

Gums sends...

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 01:53
by firebase99
Gums wrote:Salute!

You got it, Count.

Not only that, but when the Earth was still cooling our original speed "gate" for the Viper radar had to be raised. This showeed itself worst when the jets went to Europe and flew over the Autobahn. a zillion targets showed up when looking down!! Our problemin Utah was I-84 and speedo folks. But only those zooming along ten or fifteen MPH over the limit. So they had to raise the "ignore" speed. Helos were still not a problem due to the spinning rotors, but I guess zeppelins with cloth envelopes, eagle feather control surfaces and balsa frames might be trouble.

So look for funny things in next RF besides the chariots

Gums sends...


Ive read reports in the 80's and 90's Eagles locking up Porsches and Das Benze! zipping along on the Autobahn. Vaguely recall they it filtered to 90MPH and up.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 07:23
by old_rn
firebase99 wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

You got it, Count.

Not only that, but when the Earth was still cooling our original speed "gate" for the Viper radar had to be raised. This showeed itself worst when the jets went to Europe and flew over the Autobahn. a zillion targets showed up when looking down!! Our problemin Utah was I-84 and speedo folks. But only those zooming along ten or fifteen MPH over the limit. So they had to raise the "ignore" speed. Helos were still not a problem due to the spinning rotors, but I guess zeppelins with cloth envelopes, eagle feather control surfaces and balsa frames might be trouble.

So look for funny things in next RF besides the chariots

Gums sends...


Ive read reports in the 80's and 90's Eagles locking up Porsches and Das Benze! zipping along on the Autobahn. Vaguely recall they it filtered to 90MPH and up.


Reminds me that one of the (many) problems with the Nimrod AEW was that it tried to track every moving car in UK - overwhelmed the 1970s computer power!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 11:55
by hythelday
I think Mike "Dozer" Shower also told that he picked up someone doing their best Lightning McQueen impersonation on a highway while looking for Fulcrums over Bosnia.

So perhaps An-2 Colt and other "bush" props are the real stealth aircraft, especially in IR and acoustic department. :D I have read some speculations that supposedly South Koreans infil their SOF into best Korea using Colts at very low altitude.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 22:31
by SpudmanWP
old_rn wrote:Reminds me that one of the (many) problems with the Nimrod AEW was that it tried to track every moving car in UK - overwhelmed the 1970s computer power!

Thankfully the F-35 was designed to track over 100 items now and the expected 25x increase in computing power in Block4 (TR3) should insulate it even further from those kinds of issues.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 22:29
by spazsinbad
Don't often visit SLDinfo these days so here is an OLDie but Goldie... LONG article best read at SOURCE - with paras even.
The F-35 and the Next Gen Battlespace
26 Feb 2019 SLDinfo

"The recent news from Red Flag 2019-1 with regard to how the F-35 is teaming with other elements of an air combat force to deliver air superiority is hardly a surprise to readers of Second Line of Defense who have travelled with us over the more than a decade to get to the point where we have reached. And where we are is only a foundation for where airpower will next evolve.

The “future is now” with regard to dealing with peer competitors like China and Russia and the F-35 is a key element of shaping evolving combat capability to prevail in a contested environment....

...The acceleration of information flows for 5th generation systems such as the F-35, is about more than just radios and data links – communication with other platforms and sensors in the physical battlespace is but one aspect. The most decisive effects are the result of a sophisticated interaction between people and the platform which is changing the way we think about and comprehend the emerging operational environment....

FUTURE READY
...Even now, critics and lobbyists still default to comparisons with the F-22 Raptor, and describe the F-35 in terms of “troubled” or “controversial”, rather than transformational and now, combat proven. They ignore the F-35’s debut at the world’s most complex large-scale training event – Red Flag – where it reportedly achieved an unprecedented twenty-to-one kill ratio.

Yet to measure the F-35 simply in terms of platform performance misses the point entirely. One of the key reasons the JSF program has survived the global financial crisis, sequestration, highly-paid lobbyists, and others with a colourful variety of pecuniary interests is that it promotes the new approach to warfare needed to succeed in the information age, and delivers capability which can be measured directly in terms of its contribution to joint operations….

DISTRIBUTING LETHALITY
...The F-35’s key contribution to a joint force is its prolific ability to share information and to profoundly accelerate the combat decision-making processes, especially targeting. Targeting is the golden thread which integrates the effort to combine the intelligence, political, legal, environmental, technological, conceptual and moral factors into the way western democracies plan and execute engagements. It enables a sophisticated, rules-based, human interaction with warfare, and accelerates the decision-making process to compensate for those adversaries who do not play by our rules. It allows us to do the ‘right’ thing, even in the ‘fog of war’....

PROJECTING FUTURE STATUS
...the F-35 has become the first modern tactical fighter jet to fly without the need for a HUD, because its helmet mounted display (HMD) provides the pilot with unrivalled levels of SA fed by 360-degree coverage from multiple fused sensors, even allowing the pilot to visualise the battlespace beneath his or her feet through the aircraft’s floor.

This is a technological advancement driven by decades of experience which has proven time and again that an information deficit and a lack of SA hands the initiative and advantage to the adversary whom, more often than not, arrives as an unwelcome surprise.

UNSEEN ATTACKERS
One of the best open-source analyses of SA in the context of air combat was written by Barry D. Watts, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), in his paper ‘Clausewitzian Friction and Future War’. Watts’ observations draw upon data collected from operational experience and, more convincingly, are scientifically derived from operational evaluations of weapons systems such as the AMRAAM dating back to 1981.

Watts observed that, “Air combat experience going at least back to World War II suggests that surprise in the form of the unseen attacker has been pivotal in three-quarters or more of the kills…if some 80 per cent of the losses have resulted from aircrews being unaware that they were under attack until they either were hit or did not have time to react effectively, then a relative deficit of situation awareness has been the root-cause of the majority of losses in actual air-to-air combat.”...

THE EDGE OF CHAOS
...As mentioned earlier, the F-35 has extended this [SA] advantage to a 20-1 kill-ratio providing further evidence during complex training events that enhanced SA, information advantage, and success go hand-in-hand. However, cognitive performance during actual air combat engagements introduces additional human factors difficult to replicate in training....

...Solving this problem through the targeting function has been a key design feature of the F-35, providing a universal benefit to the joint force and a means of managing the catastrophic risks associated with fratricide by easing the cognitive overload associated with combat engagements and, in particular, air combat within visual range of an adversary or proximity to friendly forces...." [A TONNE OF TEXT NOT excerpted here so best read at source]

Source: https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/the-f-35-an ... ttlespace/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 22:41
by quicksilver
Deleted as I posted it in the wrong thread. :doh:

SWP has it covered in F-15X.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 06:06
by spazsinbad
F-35 Pilot Interviews with the last one from RED FLAG 1/2019 - Complete article in nine page PDF attached below.
THE F-35 FACES ITS MOST CRITICAL TEST WHAT PILOTS SAY ABOUT THE WORLD’S MOST ADVANCED FIGHTER.
April/May 2019 INTERVIEWS BY LINDA SHINER

"...LIEUTENANT COLONEL YOSEF MORRIS | USAF 4TH SQUADRON;
COMMANDER, 388TH FIGHTER WING, HILL AIR FORCE BASE

In 2012, Morris transitioned to the F-35 from the F-16. He was part of the initial cadre that stood up the first F-35 squadron at Edwards Air Force Base, and he led the 4th Fighter Squadron in 2017 and 2019 Red Flag exercises.

In the two years since [the 388th’s] last Red Flag exercise, the airplane itself has had some pretty significant advancements. A couple of months before the 2017 Red Flag, the Air Force declared that the squadron was what we call “initial operational capable.” So the jet still had some operating limitations— altitude, airspeed, Gs, things like that. The software on the aircraft, though very capable, still had some limitations in terms of some of the systems and some of the weapons it could control. Fast forward two years, and we’re operating with what’s referred to as full warfighting capability software. It’s a more advanced F-35 than it was two years ago.

[In the mission to suppress enemy air defenses,] we’re trying to prevent surface-to-air missiles from targeting other aircraft that are trying to get to different objectives. The F-35 has some really good sensors that can help us locate those threats. That’s a very satisfying mission to be able to target something that’s trying to shoot at you, especially when [you’re] helping out some other assets to get to a target and keeping them safe.

The jet is sort of like a big antenna. It is receiving emissions from things that are radiating. And sometimes the [F-35’s] radar is actively trying to get information on, for example, an adversary aircraft. We can mission-plan the sensors, depending on the type of mission.

And in a large-force environment like Red Flag, where there might be as many as 60 or 70 aircraft on the Blue side and 10 or 20 adversary aircraft, lots of things on the ground—that’s a lot of information to interpret. Reading the first sortie on the first day, I certainly felt overwhelmed with the amount of information. And the next sortie I flew, I could manage some of my sensors differently to give me just the information I needed for that particular mission. Figuring out how to declutter your display to match the scenario is one of the main skills we learn here that we can’t simulate in day-to-day training, because you don’t get to train with the rest of the Department of Defense on a daily basis."

Source: AIR & SPACE Magazine April/May 2019 Vol.34 No.1

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 07:34
by Corsair1963
Impressive as always.......... 8)

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 22:19
by loke
F-35 has been on Red Flag twice earlier. But until now, there have only been US pilots in the latest aircraft. This year's Red Flag participated for the first time F-35 with pilots from partner nations, including Norway. The exercise was completed last weekend.
Tesli does not detail how many Norwegian pilots have participated, but says that these are the most experienced F-35 pilots - all of the Norwegian instructors at the Luke airbase in Arizona, where Norway has seven training aircraft.

At the exercise, Norwegian pilots have flown American aircraft for practical and logistical reasons, in order to stay with only US ALIS ("Autonomic Logistics Information System". It is not decided yet, but it is up to the Air Force to deploy with their own aircraft and ground crew on Red Flag once before they must be fully operational (FOC) in 2025.


Google translated from: https://www.tu.no/artikler/norske-flyge ... lse/461237

So no Norwegian F-35 at Red Flag, but Norwegian pilots... and that's the most important thing at this stage.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 23:05
by krorvik
tu.no is a very good source for accurate information :)

From same source, on 228 disbandment:

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... r%2F461350

Interestingly, a lone F-16 taking off from the depot at Kjeller buzzed by as I read that article yesterday.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 04:58
by doge
Red Flag 19-2 from Italy. (Language Italy, Used Google translation.)
http://www.reportdifesa.it/aeronautica- ... -velivolo/
Aeronautica Militare, exercise "Red Flag 19-2": Italian F-35 pilots fly for the first time with the Americans and the Norwegians. Comments excited about the performance of the aircraft
BY EDITORIAL STAFF PUBLISHED MARCH 27, 2019
Washington. The “Red Flag 19-2” exercise was concluded in the Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) in Nevada, which for the first time saw the participation of a multinational group, the 62nd Fighter Squadron (FS) of the Luke Air Base which has among its ranks F-35 pilots not only from the US, but also from Italy and Norway. Three instructors from the Italian Air Force participated in the two weeks of advanced training.

In addition to the F-35As, the United States redeployed F-15C, F-15E, E-3 AWACS, an E-8 Joint Star and a USF MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft, in addition to the EF-18G Growler of the US Navy.

Saudi Arabia fielded the brand new F-15SE fighters, Singapore the F-15SA, Belgium and the Netherlands the F-16A MLU, the United Arab Emirates a Squadron of F-16E Block 60.

The in-flight refueling function was performed by a Dutch KDC-10 and a Colombian KC-767, while the CSAR (Combat Search And Rescue) cell was guaranteed by two HH-60s, two A-10s and a USAF HC-130J. The number of aircraft in flight at the same time (in the so-called "packages") has exceeded 60 units.

The integration between very different platforms was the main theme of the exercise. In fact "only by integrating the capabilities of the fourth and fifth generation aircraft can the results obtainable by both be maximized", declared one of the Italian instructors, Major Emanuele A ..

Multiple roles covered by the F-35 aircraft during the exercise, the formations of the 62nd FS carried out, for example, many Air Superiority missions in the role SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) with the task of escorting the coalition aircraft, protecting them from ground-to-air SAM (Surface to Air Missile) threats.

At the same time, together with dedicated "friendly" planes, such as the F-15Cs (called the air-to-air "escort" in jargon), they defended the coalition from "enemy" aircraft, reducing the risk of losses and creating superior conditions. necessary to allow the others to complete their respective operational missions.

Furthermore, some DCA (Defensive Counter Air) missions were successfully carried out, during which our pilots, in addition to the tasks of this specific type, operated as Battle Manager, transmitting tactical information to the other aircraft assets.

The F-35s, in formation from four aircraft, acted as force enabler, achieving significant results in neutralizing the threats, with an average of around seven SAM systems and five "suppressed" Red Air assets for each mission, managing to be the the only asset to fly 100% of the planned missions: the five deployed assets allowed two missions to be carried out each day by four aircraft.

At the end of the Red Flag the enthusiasm among the pilots and the specialists of the 62nd FS was very intense.

“Being at the controls of an F-35, a fifth-generation aircraft, has always been a dream of mine. I imagined that the machine had unique capabilities in combat and I had the confirmation from the first flight [...] but participating in Red Flag, one of the best exercises in the world, confirmed it to me beyond all expectations ", he declared immediately after the landing from the last mission Major Alessandro P.

For the pilots the results obtained, in these two weeks, are almost unbelievable: the statistics do not need comments.

The weapon system was the most effective in neutralizing SAMs and absolutely essential in the immediate transmission of all the specific information for the success of the mission.

"We knew we had an operating advantage, due to the 5th generation technology, but we didn't expect such a high rate of success - highlights the Major Emanuele A - in the 16 OCA missions (Offensive Counter Air) flown, against zero losses among the F-35s, we have neutralized more than 100 SAM systems ".

"I was impressed by the skills demonstrated by the F-35 in a complex and realistic environment such as the Red Flag where there are real professionals who simulate the Red Air, or the enemy air forces," added Major Giuseppe A. at the end of the exercise -. During our missions we were among the first to enter the area of ​​operations, far beyond the enemy lines, and the last to leave it, thanks both to the great persistence and to the peculiar Low-Observability characteristics of our 5th generation aircraft. We were able to identify, transmit and neutralize terrestrial and air threats very quickly, protecting the coalition's assets in highly risky circumstances: the superior capabilities of the F-35 were often decisive ”.

"In the beginning - he added or - not everyone had understood how to integrate because we had never seen each other operate. During the exercise, however, we reached a high level of interoperability that allowed us, as a coalition, to tackle missions with a very high level of threat and complexity where the F-35 was certainly indispensable to achieve its objectives ”.

To confirm the mature cooperation between the partners, the Major General, Peter Gersten of the USAF, commander of the Air Warfare Center (the Command that deals with developing the doctrine of future use of the weapon systems of the USAF and on which it also depends the Weapon School, or rather the Top Gun of the USAF), flew a Red Flag mission, with a F-35 of the 62nd FS, in a formation composed of two Italian pilots and a Norwegian pilot.

"It was an honor to fly with the Italian F-35 team of instructors during the Red Flag - he declared at the end -. Our network of alliances and partnerships is the backbone of global security, and exercises like the Red Flag help strengthen these relationships. Likewise, the F-35 program was designed to integrate strategic and allied partners so that we can better train ourselves to be ready to operate in real-world scenarios. It is essential that the technological tools we have available can be integrated to complete the mission we are called upon to perform in the best way, in the end it is the aviators of our nations that work together and make a real difference. I am proud to have taken part in the mission and to personally observe the professionalism of this extraordinary team ".

It was "a further note of pride for the Air Force and for Italy - underlined Colonel Igor Bruni, commander of the Military Representation - that, regardless of the undeniable leading role played by the F-35 in the Red FLag 19-2, our instructors have distinguished themselves during these two weeks, receiving personally, or as a member of the F-35 training, the recognition of Top Performer of the Mission , yet another demonstration of quality and competence " .

The Italian pilots of the 62nd FS are assigned to the branch of the Italian Military Representation of Eglin (Florida), an inter-force reality, reporting directly to the JSF Program Directorate of the General Secretariat of Defense, which is in charge of managing the training of all Italian military personnel (sailors, technicians and maintenance personnel), both of the Air Force and of the Navy, designated to operate on the national F-35 aircraft, in the "A" versions with conventional take-off and "B" with short take-off and vertical landing.

0 loss in 16 OCA missions, Neutralized more than 100 SAM !! :shock: wow 8) Awesome! :drool:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 06:47
by Corsair1963
Yet, the critics know better........ :roll:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 18:49
by swiss
doge wrote:In addition to the F-35As, the United States redeployed F-15C, F-15E, E-3 AWACS, an E-8 Joint Star and a USF MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft, in addition to the EF-18G Growler of the US Navy.

Saudi Arabia fielded the brand new F-15SE fighters, Singapore the F-15SA, Belgium and the Netherlands the F-16A MLU, the United Arab Emirates a Squadron of F-16E Block 60.


Impressive. The crème de la crème of the US 4 gen Fighters where there. :shock:


doge wrote:"We knew we had an operating advantage, due to the 5th generation technology, but we didn't expect such a high rate of success - highlights the Major Emanuele A - in the 16 OCA missions (Offensive Counter Air) flown, against zero losses among the F-35s, we have neutralized more than 100 SAM systems ".


Awesome indeed. Would be interesting what kind of SAM we are talking about.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 18:58
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I find that odd, I don't think OCA is a SAM killing mission. That would be SEAD/DEAD.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 19:34
by fbw
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I find that odd, I don't think OCA is a SAM killing mission. That would be SEAD/DEAD.


SEAD/DEAD is part of OCA mission framework. OCA is a pretty broad set.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 19:35
by fbw
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I find that odd, I don't think OCA is a SAM killing mission. That would be SEAD/DEAD.


SEAD/DEAD is part of OCA mission framework. OCA is a pretty broad set.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 19:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I guess based on the name I figured it was more Fighter Sweep and Escort. Clearing the skies of enemy fighters ahead of an offensive push. If I pull back on scope and ask "what is the purpose of those two missions?" the answer would be "To make sure the friendly strike aircraft do not get shot down." I see how SEAD/DEAD would also be a mission that fits that answer.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 19:42
by fbw

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 19:43
by ricnunes
swiss wrote:
doge wrote:"We knew we had an operating advantage, due to the 5th generation technology, but we didn't expect such a high rate of success - highlights the Major Emanuele A - in the 16 OCA missions (Offensive Counter Air) flown, against zero losses among the F-35s, we have neutralized more than 100 SAM systems ".


Awesome indeed. Would be interesting what kind of SAM we are talking about.


Yes, indeed.
However I would bet some serious money that some/many (or even most) of those SAMs would be variants of the Patriot.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 20:06
by fbw
ricnunes wrote:
swiss wrote:
doge wrote:"We knew we had an operating advantage, due to the 5th generation technology, but we didn't expect such a high rate of success - highlights the Major Emanuele A - in the 16 OCA missions (Offensive Counter Air) flown, against zero losses among the F-35s, we have neutralized more than 100 SAM systems ".


Awesome indeed. Would be interesting what kind of SAM we are talking about.


Yes, indeed.
However I would bet some serious money that some/many (or even most) of those SAMs would be variants of the Patriot.


Probably JTE, they were developed for the purpose of simulating a variety of threats, and respond to countermeasures. Added to that the mini-mutes and all the other threat simulators they’ve been adding.

The USAF started investing in upgrades to combat training ranges to provide a more challenging environment since the addition of the F-35 and F-22.

This is from 2011 budget-

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 04735f.pdf

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 20:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
fbw wrote:https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/Annex_3-01/3-01-D08-AIR-Framework.pdf

Awesome, thank you!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 20:36
by fbw
The new ARTS series (Advanced radar threat system) should start coming online starting circa 2020 with the ARTS-V2

ARTS-V1 is PESA
ARTS-V2 is a short/medium range SAM threat emitter (L-band + EO/IR sensor)
ARTS-V3 is a longer ranger high power SAM radar emitter
ARTS-V4 is mobile tactical threat emitter

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 35F_85.pdf

Edit more recent budget-
https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 35F_88.pdf

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 21:50
by swiss
ricnunes wrote:
swiss wrote:
doge wrote:"We knew we had an operating advantage, due to the 5th generation technology, but we didn't expect such a high rate of success - highlights the Major Emanuele A - in the 16 OCA missions (Offensive Counter Air) flown, against zero losses among the F-35s, we have neutralized more than 100 SAM systems ".


Awesome indeed. Would be interesting what kind of SAM we are talking about.


Yes, indeed.
However I would bet some serious money that some/many (or even most) of those SAMs would be variants of the Patriot.


That would be very likely.

@FBW: Thanks for your links. I wasn't also aware that SEAD is a part of OCA. I assume JTE can also simulate high end treats like S-300/400?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 00:06
by ricnunes
fbw wrote:Probably JTE, they were developed for the purpose of simulating a variety of threats, and respond to countermeasures. Added to that the mini-mutes and all the other threat simulators they’ve been adding.

The USAF started investing in upgrades to combat training ranges to provide a more challenging environment since the addition of the F-35 and F-22.

This is from 2011 budget-

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 04735f.pdf


Thanks for the info and link fbw :thumb:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 02:35
by aussiebloke
swiss wrote: I assume JTE can also simulate high end treats like S-300/400?


The JTE simulates SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-13 and AAA threat signals which interact with the aircraft Radar Warning Receiver and Electronic Countermeasure system to provide realistic Electronic Warfare training environments for pilots and crewmembers.
Page 3 of https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... b_2016.pdf

No mention of SA-10; SA-12; SA-20 or SA-21 (aka S-400). However the ARTS series mentioned by fbw should simulate these more advanced missile systems:

The ARTS-V2 is to be a ruggedized mobile system designed to emulate radar-guided surface-to-air missile threats like the Russian-made SA-10, SA-12, and SA-20, which are built to strike at everything from low-flying drones and stealth cruise missiles to high-altitude reconnaissance airplanes and distant sensor platforms.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... siles.html

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 12:40
by hornetfinn
fbw wrote:The new ARTS series (Advanced radar threat system) should start coming online starting circa 2020 with the ARTS-V2

ARTS-V1 is PESA
ARTS-V2 is a short/medium range SAM threat emitter (L-band + EO/IR sensor)
ARTS-V3 is a longer ranger high power SAM radar emitter
ARTS-V4 is mobile tactical threat emitter


Thank you for the info fbw, very interesting! While USAF has all kinds of threat radar systems (including some of the very latest ones) these are likely more economical and will have more room for future improvements to keep up with threat systems. Of course buying these is also much easier than trying to acquire the real threat systems.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 22:00
by loke
aussiebloke wrote:
The JTE simulates SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-13 and AAA threat signals which interact with the aircraft Radar Warning Receiver and Electronic Countermeasure system to provide realistic Electronic Warfare training environments for pilots and crewmembers.
Page 3 of https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... b_2016.pdf

No mention of SA-10; SA-12; SA-20 or SA-21 (aka S-400). However the ARTS series mentioned by fbw should simulate these more advanced missile systems:

The ARTS-V2 is to be a ruggedized mobile system designed to emulate radar-guided surface-to-air missile threats like the Russian-made SA-10, SA-12, and SA-20, which are built to strike at everything from low-flying drones and stealth cruise missiles to high-altitude reconnaissance airplanes and distant sensor platforms.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... siles.html

So ARTS-V2 is not yet available? Does this mean that currently Red Flag is limited to SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-13 and AAA?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 03:32
by aussiebloke
loke wrote:So ARTS-V2 is not yet available? Does this mean that currently Red Flag is limited to SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-13 and AAA?


”ARTS-V2: FY20 funding procures one ARTS-V2 threat simulator system (which includes the radar cross section shell).”
Page 3 of https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf

“The mainstream belief is that the Tolicha Peak facility houses numerous radar systems to support RED FLAG operations, given its proximity to two mock airfields. A more detailed examination provides an alternative, that of foreign SAM system exploitation and testing. Elements of S-125 (SA-3 GOA), S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON), and S-300PS (SA-10B GRUMBLE) SAM systems can be found on the grounds of Tolicha Peak.......
The most interesting facility found at Tolicha Peak is the S-300P launch site. It would appear that a nearly complete collection of radars is present, as well as two TELs and a 40V6 mast assembly. The 40V6 is used to mount either the 5N63S (FLAP LID) engagement radar or the 76N6 (CLAM SHELL) low altitude detection radar on a 23.8 meter mast to provide better performance in areas with varied terrain or vegetation.” http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/us- ... sites.html

Foreign material exploitation or Red Flag or both?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 07:12
by wrightwing
loke wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
The JTE simulates SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-13 and AAA threat signals which interact with the aircraft Radar Warning Receiver and Electronic Countermeasure system to provide realistic Electronic Warfare training environments for pilots and crewmembers.
Page 3 of https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... b_2016.pdf

No mention of SA-10; SA-12; SA-20 or SA-21 (aka S-400). However the ARTS series mentioned by fbw should simulate these more advanced missile systems:

The ARTS-V2 is to be a ruggedized mobile system designed to emulate radar-guided surface-to-air missile threats like the Russian-made SA-10, SA-12, and SA-20, which are built to strike at everything from low-flying drones and stealth cruise missiles to high-altitude reconnaissance airplanes and distant sensor platforms.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... siles.html

So ARTS-V2 is not yet available? Does this mean that currently Red Flag is limited to SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-13 and AAA?

S-300, Tor, Pantsyr, are among the threat systems.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 12:57
by mixelflick
This 16-0 air to air record is significant for another reason: There were no F-22's partaking in this exercise...

If you'll recall, the 15-1 (or 20-1) results prior involved F-22's. There was a lot of speculation as to what extent the F-22's "helped" the F-35's. There was none of that here. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Very strong statement indeed :)

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 16:28
by hythelday
mixelflick wrote:This 16-0 air to air record


16 successful OCA missions is not 16 air to air wins, it could be anything from all of them to none at all.

mixelflick wrote:If you'll recall, the 15-1 (or 20-1) results prior involved F-22's. There was a lot of speculation as to what extent the F-22's "helped" the F-35's.


All those speculations (as I recall from The Aviationist) were dumb to begin with, because F-22 and F-35 can't communicate in a secure fashion anyway. One can speculate that this time F-35 were aided by friendly 4th gens too, eith as much authority.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2019, 21:04
by swiss
aussiebloke wrote:“The mainstream belief is that the Tolicha Peak facility houses numerous radar systems to support RED FLAG operations, given its proximity to two mock airfields. A more detailed examination provides an alternative, that of foreign SAM system exploitation and testing. Elements of S-125 (SA-3 GOA), S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON), and S-300PS (SA-10B GRUMBLE) SAM systems can be found on the grounds of Tolicha Peak.......
The most interesting facility found at Tolicha Peak is the S-300P launch site. It would appear that a nearly complete collection of radars is present, as well as two TELs and a 40V6 mast assembly. The 40V6 is used to mount either the 5N63S (FLAP LID) engagement radar or the 76N6 (CLAM SHELL) low altitude detection radar on a 23.8 meter mast to provide better performance in areas with varied terrain or vegetation.” http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/us- ... sites.html

Foreign material exploitation or Red Flag or both?


wrightwing wrote:S-300, Tor, Pantsyr, are among the threat systems.


If the 16-0 results was against this Systems, the result it's even more impressive. And confirms the Danish evaluation. Which the F-35 scored very good in S/DEAD. And with weapons like the AARGM-ER, which the f-35 can carry in its weapons bay, i would say the potential for improvement is still high.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 09:28
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:
wrightwing wrote:S-300, Tor, Pantsyr, are among the threat systems.


If the 16-0 results was against this Systems, the result it's even more impressive. And confirms the Danish evaluation. Which the F-35 scored very good in S/DEAD. And with weapons like the AARGM-ER, which the f-35 can carry in its weapons bay, i would say the potential for improvement is still high.


I'd like to add that F-35 also allows pretty scary S/DEAD capabilities even without any weapons of their own. F-35 will have very good SA about the threat SAM and radar systems in the area and can get close to them to gather very accurate targeting info. They can then send the data to other assets which have suitable weapons available. These could be other F-35s, F-22s, Growlers, Super Hornets, F-16s, EF Typhoons, MLRS/ATACMS/PRSM or pretty much anything. Even if the radar system is shut off, F-35 can still target it using multiple sensors. Same is true if the radar system is mobile and is packed up and driven away. F-35 still has pretty good chance in following it driving away and targeting it for many kinds of weapons. I think F-35 will make the life of enemy SAM and radar operators very tough.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 13:14
by mixelflick
The F-35 can track/target a SAM system that isn't radiating, per se?

This is the first I've heard of that capability. Can other aircraft do that and if so, how long has it been going on?? I admit I'm not up on such things, so this was a new one on me..

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 13:38
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:The F-35 can track/target a SAM system that isn't radiating, per se?

This is the first I've heard of that capability. Can other aircraft do that and if so, how long has it been going on?? I admit I'm not up on such things, so this was a new one on me..


I was referring to using EOTS and AN/APG-81 to track those targets after they are detected and located from their radar signals. Naturally in F-35 that would automatically be done by the sensor fusion engine. Both of those sensors would definitely be capable of tracking SAM system pretty far away even though F-35 can also get quite close to it without being detected. SAM systems and radars are pretty large and easily recognizable objects in the battlefield. They also have to be in pretty visible locations to be able to do their job.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 13:52
by gc
mixelflick wrote:The F-35 can track/target a SAM system that isn't radiating, per se?

This is the first I've heard of that capability. Can other aircraft do that and if so, how long has it been going on?? I admit I'm not up on such things, so this was a new one on me..


During the 2nd gulf war, Wild Weasels had to drop below the clouds into the range of AAA and IR Manpads, visually ID these launch sites after getting shot at, point the aircraft towards the SAM site to mark it electronically for datalinking to other Wild Weasels who will destroy them using WCMD CEMs. Thats how DEAD is done with with legacy platforns. SEAD using HARMS is simply not enough and have no decisive impact on the adversary. With the F-35, launch points can be detected with DAS, sites be ID and marked with high-res SAR through the clouds and targeting info be datalinked out to any shooters in the area. Network SAMs launchers can now be destroyed even without any organic sensors radiating once they shoot. And there are plenty of MALDs to trigger the shooting.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 20:34
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:I'd like to add that F-35 also allows pretty scary S/DEAD capabilities even without any weapons of their own. F-35 will have very good SA about the threat SAM and radar systems in the area and can get close to them to gather very accurate targeting info. They can then send the data to other assets which have suitable weapons available. These could be other F-35s, F-22s, Growlers, Super Hornets, F-16s, EF Typhoons, MLRS/ATACMS/PRSM or pretty much anything. Even if the radar system is shut off, F-35 can still target it using multiple sensors. Same is true if the radar system is mobile and is packed up and driven away. F-35 still has pretty good chance in following it driving away and targeting it for many kinds of weapons. I think F-35 will make the life of enemy SAM and radar operators very tough.


I can imagine it. I think especially see based weapons are predestined for this job.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 12:29
by mk82
spazsinbad wrote:Good find 'wrightwing' - thanks for that - I'll add some quotes if I may.
RAAF F-35A Lightnings will take part in their first exercise.
27 Feb 2019 Jaryd Stock

"...AIRCDRE Kitcher explained yesterday in a press conference hosted by Lockheed Martin Australia that in the recent Red Flag 19-1 exercise at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, in one sortie undertaken by Australian F/A-18 Hornets as part of the Blue force, a USAF F-35 pilot with only 150 hours since coming out of the worldwide training program located at Luke AFB, was able to warn a pilot in a F/A-18 with 3000 hours flight time that there was a Red Air aggressor closing on his position. He then give instruction on how to proceed to to escape, and the F-35 nullified the Red Air target.

This account gives an accurate description of how the F-35’s sensor suite is a game changer in situational awareness in a conflicted airspace.

During Red Flag 19-1 AIRCDRE Kitcher witnessed first hand flying with 77 Squadron the abilities of the F-35 first hand, He says: “For me it was very pleasing to witness the F-35 in a strike mission, to see an eight-ship of F-35s kick down the door against a fairly determined adversary, with support from some F-22s to hold the door open.

“The F-35s then went back to pick up the strike train which consisted of classic Hornets from 77 Squadron, Super Hornets from the US Navy, Typhoons from the Royal Air Force and supported by US Navy Growlers and USAF F-16 SEAD aircraft.

“The F-35s took that strike train deep in the training area through some significant air defences, everyone dropped their ordnance and everyone got out safely. While that was going on there were Growlers and F-16s suppressing enemy air defences and when the F-35s dropped their ordnance they were actually providing SEAD as well. The whole strike train got out safely thanks to the F-35’s efforts.”..."

Source: https://www.aeroaustraliamag.com/raaf-f ... -exercise/


The F35 is truly a renaissance aircraft. It does everything well!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 13:30
by mixelflick
From The Aviationist..

In 2002, everybody came in into fight, moving from BVR (Beyond Visual Range) and eventually to WVR (Within Visual Range) for a big merge; today, the adversaries roughly know where the stealth fighter *could* be, but they don’t know exactly where they are, how they will approach the target or maneuver to engage the enemy.

Now, this business about "the adversaries roughly know where the stealth fighter "could" be.. Is this to imply those who oversee the exercise (or whoever) is telling the Red force where the F-35 "generally" is? Or does it mean enemy Red Air fighters, SAM's etc can determine that themselves?? If anyone has any insight, I'd like to know..

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 13:54
by spazsinbad
The 'mixelflick' quote above is from here: https://theaviationist.com/2017/05/31/r ... ture-wars/

Red Flag Memories: Combat Pilot Explains How RF Has Evolved And Why The F-35 Is A Real Game Changer In Future Wars 31 May 2017 Alessandro "Gonzo" Olivares

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 17:32
by spazsinbad
I don't see this old article anywhere however photo here: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27445&p=415687&hilit=boxing#p415687
62nd Fighter Squadron brings its partner nation cohesion to the fight at Red Flag
27 Mar 2019 LM PR

"The “Spikes” of the 62nd Fighter Squadron returned from a successful trip to Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., March 22, 2019. Their success could be measured by the fact that they have a training mission at Luke Air Force Base that had to continue while they were gone. They took five F-35A Lighting IIs with no student sorties lost at Luke. Or it could be measured with the 110 surface-to-air missiles they eliminated. Or perhaps the 87 total sorties supporting 18 large force missions with a perfect turn pattern.

“This was the first time the F-35 was the dedicated SEAD [Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses] asset,” said Lt. Col. Pete Lee, 62nd FS commander. “We had a job and it was to protect other people and the F-35 is very good at that. We have the legs to protect the entire strike train and we covered the whole time.”

While the stats read well, Lee also said the real story is that of the team’s integration and cohesion, which means much more to the 62nd FS and the F-35 program as a whole. This was the first time the Italian and Norwegian F-35 instructor pilots from the 62nd FS were included in the exercise….

...“At first, no one quite knew what to do with us, but after the second week, our coalition partners saw that we could protect them and we earned their trust,” said Lee. “Which was the purpose of Red Flag 19-2. Trust is the cornerstone and we were there building it.”

The team’s cohesion went beyond that of the Spikes when Maj. Gen. Peter Gersten, U.S. Air Force Warfare Center commander, flew a mission in one of their F-35s with a Norwegian lead and two Italian instructor pilots....

...The other takeaways from the exercise came in many forms and Lee added that while they taught the participating units about the integration of the F-35 in a strike package, his team learned a lot from the others as well.

“We are a learning organization and Red Flag was the classroom,” said Lee. “The instructor pilots that we brought back are fired up about teaching what they learned and what matters is how we spread that knowledge.”"

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/62nd-fi ... ight-at-re

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 08:00
by zero-one
Question, can RF exercises replicate advanced SAM threats like the S-400?
I often hear Russian fans unimpressed by F-22 and F-35s scoring mass kills in RF.

Their reasoning is that an F-15 or F-16 is a world apart from a Flanker.
I can counter by saying that the US actually has Flankers in their inventory, so its much easier for them to estimate the much vaunted super maneuverability of the later variants which use the exact same wing and aerodynamic profile as the latest ones. Avionics is much easier to replicate as the Russians are known to be behind in that department.

But what about SAMs, the S-400 is considered the top of its class in land bassed SAMs, albeit Its western counterpart should be the Aegis system. Thats a more fair comparison.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 08:28
by kimjongnumbaun
zero-one wrote:Question, can RF exercises replicate advanced SAM threats like the S-400?
I often hear Russian fans unimpressed by F-22 and F-35s scoring mass kills in RF.

Their reasoning is that an F-15 or F-16 is a world apart from a Flanker.
I can counter by saying that the US actually has Flankers in their inventory, so its much easier for them to estimate the much vaunted super maneuverability of the later variants which use the exact same wing and aerodynamic profile as the latest ones. Avionics is much easier to replicate as the Russians are known to be behind in that department.

But what about SAMs, the S-400 is considered the top of its class in land bassed SAMs, albeit Its western counterpart should be the Aegis system. Thats a more fair comparison.


The US possesses S-300 systems at our ranges. The F-35 has also blown up S-300 sites in Syria.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 09:12
by hornetfinn
And S-400 is just an upgraded S-300, not really a totally new system. It uses the same missiles and radars or their upgraded variants. So it's not really that huge improvement in capability over S-300PMU variants. Especially when it comes to RF exercises where many things can be and are simulated.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 10:03
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:Question, can RF exercises replicate advanced SAM threats like the S-400?
I often hear Russian fans unimpressed by F-22 and F-35s scoring mass kills in RF.


Replicating any kind of ground based threat system is pretty easy nowadays with LVC. It doesn't matter if there are actual physical systems or not. Actually LVC systems allow better realism than using real world systems as real missiles aren't fired in any case and there are many restrictions in using the systems in exercises as they would be used in real war. For example real S-400 batteries take a lot of manpower and support to operate. That would be difficult to realize even in large exercises like RF.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 10:18
by zero-one
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
The F-35 has also blown up S-300 sites in Syria.

Would you happen to have a link for this. Tried to look for it. Couldn't find a news article.

hornetfinn wrote:Replicating any kind of ground based threat system is pretty easy nowadays with LVC.


I'm not very famillar with LVC, would you have a link for this that can get me up to speed?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 10:28
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 13:41
by hythelday
zero-one wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
The F-35 has also blown up S-300 sites in Syria.

Would you happen to have a link for this. Tried to look for it. Couldn't find a news article.


Didn't happen.

Israel has released videos of SA-22s being destroyed (at least three, probably more) captured by Delilah on-board sensor.

Israel did conduct multiple strikes after Russians deployed S-400 and after Syrians received S-300PMU from Russia, including as recently as 13th of March. However, there are still doubts whether Syrian SA-20 is operational or not (see the Israel thread, viewtopic.php?f=58&t=29374&p=410845#p410845). No parts of SA-20 system were confirmed to be destroyed as of now.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 14:22
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:And S-400 is just an upgraded S-300, not really a totally new system. It uses the same missiles and radars or their upgraded variants. So it's not really that huge improvement in capability over S-300PMU variants. Especially when it comes to RF exercises where many things can be and are simulated.


I assume the biggest differenz between S-300 and S-400 are the 40N6 missile, with allegedly 380 km Range. But it isn't sure, if she is finally in service know.

Image

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 14:41
by hythelday
swiss wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:And S-400 is just an upgraded S-300, not really a totally new system. It uses the same missiles and radars or their upgraded variants. So it's not really that huge improvement in capability over S-300PMU variants. Especially when it comes to RF exercises where many things can be and are simulated.


I assume the biggest differenz between S-300 and S-400 are the 40N6 missile, with allegedly 380 km Range


The biggest difference is that S-400 is build in Russia, whilst S-300 was a system built in Soviet Union, with many sub-components coming from all over the place, most notably Ukraine. That's why Ukraine can maintain and produce various new/upgraded subsystems for their SA-10s.

The 400 km missile is a nice bonus.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 19:51
by ricnunes
swiss wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:And S-400 is just an upgraded S-300, not really a totally new system. It uses the same missiles and radars or their upgraded variants. So it's not really that huge improvement in capability over S-300PMU variants. Especially when it comes to RF exercises where many things can be and are simulated.


I assume the biggest differenz between S-300 and S-400 are the 40N6 missile, with allegedly 380 km Range. But it isn't sure, if she is finally in service know.


That's also the impression that I have regarding the S-300 and S-400 systems.

More to the "mix":
Image

From what I gather from the wiki entry about both systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

and by looking to the image above, the 5V55 missiles are only used in the S-300 while the other two series, the 48N6 and 9M96 are used on both S-300 and S-400. So I would say that this together with the fact that both systems are basically and externally identical is one more indication that the S-400 is in fact a S-300 upgrade.

I also gather that (like swiss mentioned) the 40N6 should be exclusive to the S-400.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 20:03
by zero-one
S-400 sure is an impressive piece of kit. But I see a lot of people comparing it to the Patriot. However I think this is wrong, I personally think the S-400's American equivalent should be the Aegis defense shield.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 20:51
by swiss
hythelday wrote:The biggest difference is that S-400 is build in Russia, whilst S-300 was a system built in Soviet Union, with many sub-components coming from all over the place, most notably Ukraine. That's why Ukraine can maintain and produce various new/upgraded subsystems for their SA-10s.

The 400 km missile is a nice bonus.


Thank you for your Info.

I was thinking more from a technical point of view.

ricnunes wrote:So I would say that this together with the fact that both systems are basically and externally identical is one more indication that the S-400 is in fact a S-300 upgrade.

I also gather that (like swiss mentioned) the 40N6 should be exclusive to the S-400.


Yes it seems very likely.

zero-one wrote:S-400 sure is an impressive piece of kit. But I see a lot of people comparing it to the Patriot. However I think this is wrong, I personally think the S-400's American equivalent should be the Aegis defense shield.

Absolutely.

On paper it seems the case. But I would be careful with technical information from Russia about their weapon systems. Some Ranges are only available under spezial conditions, or there are weapons they never reach ioc.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 14:25
by mixelflick
So if we're being honest here, American doesn't really have a land based, road mobile system like the S-400/500. Why is that? I know we have THAAD/AEGIS but Patriot doesn't really compare.

I would have thought we would have built on Patriots success, or at least perception of success during Gulf War I. Having something equivalent to S-300/400/500 would decimate the Russian air force, who have virtually no stealth aircraft. They'd be sitting ducks for every NATO country that bought such a system..

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 15:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Doesn't it? It has a 117ft^2 GaN AESA main radar with fielding beginning in 2017. I imagine the detection capabilities completely eclipse those of S-400, though they are not publicly stated. It does lack a VLRM, true, but that seems to be the only thing it gives up to the S-400.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 15:17
by gc
mixelflick wrote:So if we're being honest here, American doesn't really have a land based, road mobile system like the S-400/500. Why is that? I know we have THAAD/AEGIS but Patriot doesn't really compare.

I would have thought we would have built on Patriots success, or at least perception of success during Gulf War I. Having something equivalent to S-300/400/500 would decimate the Russian air force, who have virtually no stealth aircraft. They'd be sitting ducks for every NATO country that bought such a system..


These ultra long range SAMs from Russia claims engagement ranges that occurs only under ideal conditions that hardly exist in operation settings, such as engaging a slow big bomber flying at high altitudes directly at the SAM battery without adequate EW protection. Modern 4.5gen fighters with reduced RCS, advanced ECM and expendible countermeasures, utilising terrain masking can greatly reduce the engagement distances of S-400s. What the S-400 lacks is an elevated sensor which can generate weapons quality track and an advanced datalink to share such engagement data. And once its radar is taken out, the entire system becomes useless. And don’t bother with the fantasy that Pantsirs can take down saturating cruise missile attacks against the S-400’s radar.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 17:26
by steve2267
Isn't MEADS the Patriot follow-on that the US is developing with Germany?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 17:53
by aussiebloke
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:[Patriot] has a 117ft^2 GaN AESA main radar with fielding beginning in 2017.


It looks to me like the Patriot radar AESA upgrade was postponed.

A likely reason for postponement mentioned in this 2015 article:
The Patriot will also get a new radar, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) with greater range and sharper discrimination. Industry could deliver this “lower tier AESA” today, Shyu said, and the planned program start is 2017, but budget cuts may slow that down.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/arm ... eidi-shyu/

The search for a better radar for Patriot does however continue:
Taking years to decide, the service finally moved forward on a competition to replace the radar last year and chose four companies to come up with design concepts for the capability — Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Technovative Applications. Earlier this month [October 2018], Raytheon and Lockheed were chosen to continue technology development under that program.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/1 ... et-button/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 17:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Thanks for the update.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 19:17
by sferrin
steve2267 wrote:Isn't MEADS the Patriot follow-on that the US is developing with Germany?


Yes and no. MEADS is it's own system but it uses the PAC-3 MSE missile from the Patriot system.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 21:48
by charlielima223
Since we're talking about SAMs, I thought this would be an interesting article for this topic...

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/bac ... -exercise/

The US and Israel have completed a unique joint missile defense exercise seen as crucial to defending the Jewish state against Iran. Not only did the US deploy its high-end THAAD system to Israel for the first time, but the two nations integrated the American weapon into the Israeli missile defense network and tested the combined US-Israeli defense in multiple scenarios.
The [THAAD] system was integrated as an equivalent of the Israeli Arrow,” said the Israeli missile defense commander, Brig Gen. Ran Kochav.

Arrow (Hetz in Hebrew) is the mid-altitude interceptor in Israel’s layered missile defense. Built by IAI and Boeing, with key components built in Mississippi, Arrow works together with the famous Iron Dome — built by Rafael to operate at low altitude, primarily against unguided rockets, of which it’s intercepted hundreds since 2014 — and the very-high-altitude David’s Sling, built by Rafael and Raytheon. By plugging THAAD into the system in Arrow’s mid-altitude role, the American operators were able to train alongside Iron Dome and David’s Sling as well.
+++
Arrow-3 in Alaska

This summer, it’ll be the Americans’ turn to play host, with the Israelis bringing the upgraded Arrow-3 to the Kodiak range in Alaska for a test against live targets simulating the performance of the most advanced Iranian ballistic missiles. The wide open spaces of Alaska allow a much fuller test of Arrow’s capabilities than the relatively narrow territory of Israel.

The Alaska test had been originally planned for 2018, but it was postponed to allow further work on the Arrow-3 upgrade. While Arrow-2, the variant currently in service, uses a proximity fuse to detonate near the incoming warhead, Arrow-3 is designed as a hit-to-kill interceptor, with a kill vehicle detaching from the missile body to hit the target directly and destroy it by force of impact instead of an explosion. Hit-to-kill technology is considered a more reliable way to defeat an incoming missile than shrapnel. Some of the explosive-warhead Patriots used in the 1991 Gulf War, for example, didn’t really destroy incoming Iraqi Scuds so much as scatter them over the landscape in potentially lethal pieces. But scoring a direct hit on a small target at supersonic speeds requires highly precise sensors and an extremely agile interceptor. To achieve that, Arrow-3 will not only be more maneuverable than Arrow-2 but much smaller, lighter, and capable of intercepting the target outside the atmosphere in space.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 23:14
by ricnunes
gc wrote:These ultra long range SAMs from Russia claims engagement ranges that occurs only under ideal conditions that hardly exist in operation settings, such as engaging a slow big bomber flying at high altitudes directly at the SAM battery without adequate EW protection. Modern 4.5gen fighters with reduced RCS, advanced ECM and expendible countermeasures, utilising terrain masking can greatly reduce the engagement distances of S-400s.


Independently if you're right or not or if the operational/effective range of those very long range missiles (the 40N6) is close to 400km or quite less than that one thing seems clear to IMO:
- The range of these missiles (40N6) should be much higher than current/other missiles used by S-300/400 and this is for the most part due to the fact that the 40N6 missile has an Active-Radar seeker which grants S-400 systems a longer effective engagement range.

So I have little doubts that 40N6 missiles will make the S-400 a much deadly threat against 4.5 gen fighter aircraft and having Active-Radar seekers should enable these systems the ability to engage non-line-of-sight targets (which should limit terrain masking tactics).

Now of course the "million dollar question" is like swiss mentioned:
- Is the 40N6 missile already in full operational service or not?


gc wrote:What the S-400 lacks is an elevated sensor which can generate weapons quality track and an advanced datalink to share such engagement data. And once its radar is taken out, the entire system becomes useless. And don’t bother with the fantasy that Pantsirs can take down saturating cruise missile attacks against the S-400’s radar.


Well from what I know the S-400 can and does receive datalink targets from systems such and specially like the Nebo-M VHF AESA radar system which allows long range target detection.

Now what I don't know is if the Nebo-M can generate tracks with sufficient precision/accuracy to guide an Active-Radar guided missiles (such as the 40N6) to its target?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 23:54
by falcon.16
hornetfinn wrote:
zero-one wrote:Question, can RF exercises replicate advanced SAM threats like the S-400?
I often hear Russian fans unimpressed by F-22 and F-35s scoring mass kills in RF.


Replicating any kind of ground based threat system is pretty easy nowadays with LVC. It doesn't matter if there are actual physical systems or not. Actually LVC systems allow better realism than using real world systems as real missiles aren't fired in any case and there are many restrictions in using the systems in exercises as they would be used in real war. For example real S-400 batteries take a lot of manpower and support to operate. That would be difficult to realize even in large exercises like RF.



Sorry Hornetfinn, what does mean LVC?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 00:48
by zerion
Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 03:43
by hythelday
swiss wrote:
hythelday wrote:The biggest difference is that S-400 is build in Russia, whilst S-300 was a system built in Soviet Union, with many sub-components coming from all over the place, most notably Ukraine. That's why Ukraine can maintain and produce various new/upgraded subsystems for their SA-10s.

The 400 km missile is a nice bonus.


Thank you for your Info.

I was thinking more from a technical point of view.


Dang, you made me look. Thanks - I am now a little more knowledgeable myself. I never really dug into the precise differences of the systems, always regarding them as upgrades.

Before reading further, one needs to understand that both in Soviet Union and in modern Russia, two distinct branches of the armed forces existed: The Army Air Defence, a sub-branch of the Land Forces, and The State Air Defence Forces, as a separate service. Of course, they existed under different names at a times, but you get the idea. It is also important to know that in addition to Air Force and Naval Aviation Soviet Union also had Air Defence Air Force (Aviatsija PVO). They used various interceptors, notably Foxbat and Foxhound, but also unique types such as Su-15 Flagon and Yak-25 Flashlight.

The "State AD" missile systems and interceptors are now part of VKS, while Army maintains their own mobile SAMs.

Now, "State AD" missile systems were more concerned with ballistic missiles, strategic bombers or high flying spy planes. They employed all soviet static and/or relocatable (not self propelled, but still mobile) SAMs: S-25 Berkut (SA-1 Guild), S-75 Dvina/Desna/Volkhov/Volga (SA-2 Guideline), S-125 Neva/Pechora (SA-3 Goa), S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna (SA-5 Gammon)

The "Army AD" were of course more interested in self propelled systems, they demanded their systems should be able to keep up with the armor divisions pushing into Western Europe, be amphibious (at least some) and have good performance against low flying targets.

That is why they had in the 1960-70s:
2K11 Krug (SA-4 Ganef) - a sort of "strategic" defence
2K12 Kub, 2K12E Kvadrat, E for Eksport (SA-6 Gainful) - division level protection
9K31 Strela-1 (SA-9 Gaskin) - battalion level IR SAM
2A6 Shilka - battalion level AAA.

In the 1970s they have designed newer systems to replace aging:
9K37 Buk (SA-11 Gadfly) as an evolution of 2K12 Kub (SA-6 Gainful). The later systems could rival and probably exceed SA-4 performance.
9K35 Strela-10 (SA-13 Gopher), as an upgrade to Strela-1. SA-13 used 9M37 missile, slightly better than the previous 9M31. I also think it could launch more.
An entirely new system was 9K33 Osa (SA-8 Gecko), which is a division level radar guided SHORAD, with command guidance 9M33 missile.

In the 1980s they have designed the following:
2K22 Tunguska (SA-19 Grison) - a combined AAA/ command guidance missile SHORAD system. It uses 30mm guns and 9M311 two-stage missile. According to what I read on the russian side of the Internet, Tunguska was approved for production 1) because it is superior to Shilka as a AAA system in every regard 2) even though it has inferior missile range performance to Osa, it was still approved supposedly because Osa system had too slow of a reaction time to defeat "pop-up" helicopter threats, apparently Tunguska is a faster system. Tunguska can be considered battalion level ADS.
9K330 Tor (SA-15 Gauntlent) - division level radar guided SHORAD. It is important to understand that Tor is not a Tunguska replacement, it's a higher level system. Very interesting system, it's a mobile VLS.
Last, but not the least, the S-300 family.

S-300 was developed for several services at once, and was meant to replace several systems at once too.
S-300 consists of S-300V, S-300P and S-300F.
The "F" was meant for the navy, and probably means "Flotskaya" (Fleet's version), it arms such fabulous ships as Slava and Kirov cruisers, also all but the first Stereguschy corvettes. I will not write about navy version further.
The "P" was meant for the State AD. It could mean "PVO" (Air Defence) or Perehvatchik (Interceptor), I don't really know.
The "V" was meant for the Army AD. It probably means "Vojskovaja" (The Troop's version).
Interestingly enough, it looks like for the S-300 the targets of interest reversed - State AD was looking for a system that was versatile enough to hit fighters and low fliers, while Army AD was looking for theater ballistic missile defence. According to the russian sources, plans for initial maximum unification across three systems yielded only modest results, with many subsystems, including radars and missiles, were different.

The first of the S-300 to become active was the S-300PT, T for transportable, because it wasn't self-propelled but rather carried on a flat bed, accepted into service in 1975 (some say 1978) and the TEL looked like this:
Image

Self-propelled variant, called S-300PS (S for "Samohodnyi" - self-propelled), as we love and know it, was accepted into service in 1982. Later S-300PT was brought to S-300PS standard, becoming S-300PT-1. Is it confusing enough yet?

S-300P Guidance is provided by the 5N63S command post, which has 30N6 FLAP LID I/J band search and track radar (on the right) and can be linked with 5N66 CLAM SHELL low flier I band search and track radar. Also known in export variant as 76N6 (on the left in the picture):
Image

Note that both radars can be raised 25 or 39 meters high using special mast (40V6M/40V6MD). As far as I understand both radars can be used to engage targets, becasue 1) they are accurate enough for 5V55K command guidance missile 2) 5V55R uses track-via-missile mode without target illumination radar. The command post can also be linked with 64N6 TOMBSTONE S band early warning radar:
Image

And 36D6 TIN SHIELD E band early warning radar, which can also be raised on a mast:
Image

The 5V55 missiles are single stage, solid propellant. Range <100 km.

This system was later (1993) developed into S-300PM (export PMU1). It has a "new C&C system" 83M6 although I am not sure which radars exactly got upgraded, because it still uses 30N6. The new system also uses 48N6 and 48N6E missile, single stage, solid fuel, up to 150 km against certain targets. It is reported to be able to use 5V55 missiles also.

The S-300PMU2 was presented just 4 years later, in 1997. The main difference was an improved 48N6E2 missile, with range up to 200 km and certain improvements against TBM type of targets. This system also introduces 96L6E CHEESE BOARD radar, which apparently is a replacement for CLAM SHELL and TIN SHIELD and can be used with older systems too, not sure about the other way around )but probably yes). Seems like PMU2 can only use 48N6 family of missiles.

Up next is S-300V. As I said it was a system for the Land Forces, so the first major difference is that it is mostly mounted on a tracked chassis derived from the T-80. That should give you the idea how Soviet Army planned to operate this system.

The baseline S-300V is quite different from the S-300P. It used different radars and different missiles for different targets. The radars are 9S15M Obzor-3/BILL BOARD:
Image

BILL BOARD is F band search and track radar. The primary purpose of this radar is to track what the Russians call "aerodynamic" targets, meaning aircraft and cruise missiles/glide weapons.

The other radar is 9S19 Imbir/HIGH SCREEN:
Image

HIGH SCREEN is I/J band search and track radar, designed primarily to pick up ballistic missiles.

There is also a 9S32/GRILL PAN radar. I may not have understood how it fits into the system exactly, but from what I gather it is used to track individual targets, then sends 3D coordinates of the targets to the illuminator mounted on the TEL which in turn illuminates the target for the missile.
Image

The missiles were 9M83 and 9M82. Both missiles are two stage, solid fuel, INS + semi-active in the terminal phase missiles. 9M83 had a smaller booster and was meant to engage "aerodynamic" targets, 9M82 was larger, meant to defeat IRBMs, Russian sources consistently mention Pershing missiles. From what I can tell, the current version for export is S-300VM (aka Antei-2500) and domestic S-300V4. They are largely the same, but upgraded to be able to destroy targets 200 km and up to 400 km respectively.

The illuminator is mounted in the front part of the TEL. One illuminator can guide two missiles, apparently (although I suspect that only towards the same target). 9M83s are smaller (4 tubes), 9M82s are larger (2 tubes)Image

From what I gather the S-400 is further upgrade path of the S-300PM system, with more missiles and more universal radars.

It consists of 91N6 BIG BIRD S band surveillance radar (upgrade of 64N6 TOMBSTONE), 96L6 CHEESE BOARD (right) and multiple 92N6 GRAVE STONE I/J band engagement radars(left):
Image



S-400 is compatible with older 48N6 missiles, and has a family of 9M96 missiles, which are INS+datalink+ ARH in the final phase missiles, short range up to 120 km. Supposedly they can be quad-packed into one launch tube, but I have not seen them shoot it like that. Of course, it also has the 400 km 40N6 active homer.

In conclusion, S-300P and S-300V were quite different systems, but they were designed to solve similar tasks. S-400 is "ultimate S-300P", with modern radars and active homing missiles.

It is also worth noting that those systems come with a variety of C&C systems of their own, capable of connecting multiple systems of the same and different kind, as well as auxiliary volume search radars. That's why it's called Integrated ADS. Soviets have been doing it since the 70s at least, so I expect their systems to be quite resilient.

US also has purchased S-300P(?) from Belarus and S-300V directly from Russia. There were news recently of Ukranians delivering their most recent upgrade of TIN SHIELD to the US. I am sure other systems, such as Nebo, are physically persent, as well as ELINT and TECHINT from S-300/400 in foreign service, including 3 NATO countries.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 09:36
by knowan
Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed

In comparison, the SM-6 is a 1500 kg missile with a range somewhere between 240 to 460 km and only Mach 3.5 speed. The SM-6 is essentially a SM-2ER Block IV with a new guidance section; both missiles are two-stage, with a Mk 72 booster attached to the primary Mk 104 boost-sustain motor.

The 5V55 and 48N6 missiles are single stage; they don't appear to have boosters (40N6 is unknown), and given their high speed it seems likely their rocket motors are boost only.

The lower speed sustained velocity of the SM-2ER/SM-6 is more energy efficient than a high velocity boost and coast of the Russian missiles, which combined with the efficiency gains from being 2-stage missiles, it is likely the SM-2ER/6 have a greater effective range than the 5V55 and 48N6, but too little is known about the 40N6 to make any conclusion.

I also question if the 40N6 could possibly hope to engage a manoeuvring target at those velocities; the g-forces would be so high the manoeuvrability of the missile must be rather low.
It is likely the 40N6's ability to engage targets at shorter range is fairly limited as a result, which is probably one of the reasons Russia developed the 9M96 missiles.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 11:20
by falcon.16
zerion wrote:Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021


Thanks. :thumb:

I am going to read it.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 11:36
by spazsinbad
There is always MORE: search.php?keywords=Live%2BVirtual%2BConstructive&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=65&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

Using ADVANCED SEARCH (top of page) with the search text string Live+Virtual+Constructive then search the F-35 sub forum with ALL AVAILABLE text one will get the URL above with some 112 hits on eight pages.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 11:53
by falcon.16
hythelday wrote:
swiss wrote:
hythelday wrote:The biggest difference is that S-400 is build in Russia, whilst S-300 was a system built in Soviet Union, with many sub-components coming from all over the place, most notably Ukraine. That's why Ukraine can maintain and produce various new/upgraded subsystems for their SA-10s.

The 400 km missile is a nice bonus.


Thank you for your Info.

I was thinking more from a technical point of view.


Dang, you made me look. Thanks - I am now a little more knowledgeable myself. I never really dug into the precise differences of the systems, always regarding them as upgrades.

Before reading further, one needs to understand that both in Soviet Union and in modern Russia, two distinct branches of the armed forces existed: The Army Air Defence, a sub-branch of the Land Forces, and The State Air Defence Forces, as a separate service. Of course, they existed under different names at a times, but you get the idea. It is also important to know that in addition to Air Force and Naval Aviation Soviet Union also had Air Defence Air Force (Aviatsija PVO). They used various interceptors, notably Foxbat and Foxhound, but also unique types such as Su-15 Flagon and Yak-25 Flashlight.

(...)


Amazing resume!!

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 11:55
by falcon.16
knowan wrote:Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed

In comparison, the SM-6 is a 1500 kg missile with a range somewhere between 240 to 460 km and only Mach 3.5 speed. The SM-6 is essentially a SM-2ER Block IV with a new guidance section; both missiles are two-stage, with a Mk 72 booster attached to the primary Mk 104 boost-sustain motor.

The 5V55 and 48N6 missiles are single stage; they don't appear to have boosters (40N6 is unknown), and given their high speed it seems likely their rocket motors are boost only.

The lower speed sustained velocity of the SM-2ER/SM-6 is more energy efficient than a high velocity boost and coast of the Russian missiles, which combined with the efficiency gains from being 2-stage missiles, it is likely the SM-2ER/6 have a greater effective range than the 5V55 and 48N6, but too little is known about the 40N6 to make any conclusion.

I also question if the 40N6 could possibly hope to engage a manoeuvring target at those velocities; the g-forces would be so high the manoeuvrability of the missile must be rather low.
It is likely the 40N6's ability to engage targets at shorter range is fairly limited as a result, which is probably one of the reasons Russia developed the 9M96 missiles.


But, this range of the 40N6 around 380 kms, i do not think is taking Mach 12 speed in all range....

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 14:44
by knowan
falcon.16 wrote:But, this range of the 40N6 around 380 kms, i do not think is taking Mach 12 speed in all range....


The 40N6 would probably be dropping to Mach 1 by 380 km.

Mach 12 is very likely the peak speed, achieved when the rocket motor cuts out. After rocket burnout the missile coasts on available kinetic energy.
Mach 3.5 is likely the peak speed of the SM-2ER/SM-6 too, but that speed would be achieved when the boost segment of the second-stage is expended, and the sustain segment then maintains that speed for a cruise flight until burnout.

The SM-2ER/SM-6 would have longer flight times, but beyond a certain point they would likely have more available energy than the 48N6 missile and possibly the 40N6 too.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 15:12
by sferrin
knowan wrote:Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed


What's your source for these speeds and ranges?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 16:24
by ricnunes
@hythelday,

Excellent and very informative post about the S-300/400 systems (and their families/sub-variants). Thanks for sharing it :thumb:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 17:33
by sferrin
hythelday wrote:S-400 is compatible with older 48N6 missiles, and has a family of 9M96 missiles, which are INS+datalink+ ARH in the final phase missiles, short range up to 120 km. Supposedly they can be quad-packed into one launch tube, but I have not seen them shoot it like that.




image_big_7604.jpg


Also used in the S-350 system:

1920px-Air_Defence_System_'Vityaz'_(english_'Knight').JPG

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 20:05
by botsing
hythelday wrote:Dang, you made me look. Thanks - I am now a little more knowledgeable myself. I never really dug into the precise differences of the systems, always regarding them as upgrades.

Thank you for the awesome resume!

:applause:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 22:04
by swiss
hythelday wrote:
Dang, you made me look. Thanks - I am now a little more knowledgeable myself. I never really dug into the precise differences of the systems, always regarding them as upgrades.



You are welcome. :wink:

Awesome work indeed. :thumb: I really appreciate it.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 22:34
by hythelday
Here's a nice video showcasing how S-400 is supposed to work. S-300 systems work pretty much the same way:


By the way, it seems that the original S-300P did not have the TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD early warning radar; it was later added for the PM/PMU-1 and later models. That would be the biggest difference amongst the systems. The FLAP LID could control 4 TELs

With the PM/PMU-1 upgrade they have increased the number of TELs controllable by a single FLAP LID up to 12, with the capability to engage 6 targets at once, guiding a maximum of two missiles per target. They have also added the aformentioned TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD, which could control control up to 6 FLAP LID/GRAVE STONE radar. This entire contraption could be plugged into a larger IADS using "Baikal" or "Senezh" family of automated C&С systems.

Maximum effect is achieved by that whole system. It is true that early warning TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD along with the 5N63S (older) and 55K6 (newer) C&С system is the critical link, however FLAP LID/GRAVE STONE is capable of independent search, track and fire control, with diminished effectiveness of course.

It is also important to note that that even the modern S-400 can engage a limited number of targets, 6 per every GRAVE STONE:
Image

I guess this is the reason why Pantsir exists, to protect S-400 from massed attacks. BTW Pantsir is only operated by the Russian VKS, they army threw their lot behind Tor/Tunguska combo.

The S-350 Vityaz is a short-to-medium system, that is planned to employ only aformentioned 9M96 family of missiles as well as short range 9M100. 9M100 is INS+datalink+ IR terminal phase seeker missile, range up to 15 km. S-350 also employs 50N6 radar, which according to the paper specs can engage more targets at once. I guess this is an indication that Russians realized that massed attacks by small munitions a la SDB is a big threat.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 01:30
by falcon.16
hythelday wrote:Here's a nice video showcasing how S-400 is supposed to work. S-300 systems work pretty much the same way:


By the way, it seems that the original S-300P did not have the TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD early warning radar; it was later added for the PM/PMU-1 and later models. That would be the biggest difference amongst the systems. The FLAP LID could control 4 TELs

With the PM/PMU-1 upgrade they have increased the number of TELs controllable by a single FLAP LID up to 12, with the capability to engage 6 targets at once, guiding a maximum of two missiles per target. They have also added the aformentioned TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD, which could control control up to 6 FLAP LID/GRAVE STONE radar. This entire contraption could be plugged into a larger IADS using "Baikal" or "Senezh" family of automated C&С systems.

Maximum effect is achieved by that whole system. It is true that early warning TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD along with the 5N63S (older) and 55K6 (newer) C&С system is the critical link, however FLAP LID/GRAVE STONE is capable of independent search, track and fire control, with diminished effectiveness of course.
(...)



How can do it? automatically? because if Comand and control asset is destroyed, i thought all system will be off at least other comand and control asset get the works if it works inside a network as an IADS.

But if a S400 system works alone, really is it possible Grave stone can work automatically without intervention of the comand and control asset?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 12:44
by mixelflick
How on earth did we fall so far behind in Surface to AIr Missiles?

Does the US not prioritize SAM defense, or is it something else? We have... the Patriot. Far inferior at least on paper, and not many of them compared to the Russians/Chinese.

I would have thought after DS1 and all the hoopla around the Patriot, we would have taken that ball and ran with it. Yes, yes I understand most Patriots missed. But still... one well placed SCUD warhead was enough to decimate our troops toward the end of the war.

How did we abdicate our responsibility for building a world class air defense network???

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 12:48
by hythelday
I am sorry for repeated off-topic, but it seems that nobody minds reading about Grumbles, so here I go again.

falcon.16 wrote:How can do it? automatically? because if Comand and control asset is destroyed, i thought all system will be off at least other comand and control asset get the works if it works inside a network as an IADS.

But if a S400 system works alone, really is it possible Grave stone can work automatically without intervention of the comand and control asset?



I will use older S-300P as an example, but I think S-400 operates in the similar fashion.

S-300/400 are meant to be used as a system, with entire "anti-air missile division/brigade" working together, but individual missile batteries can work independently too. The basic "cell" - дивизион (I guess battery in english) of the S-300 system is "Command Post" 5N63S with launchers:

Image

The F2K Battle Control Cockpit (КБУ - кабина боевого управления) is local C&C that links the FLAP LID and launchers. Through this unit additional radars and other technical means can be plugged into the system. The radio link connects the higher level C&C assets, the 5K56, which is missile brigade(division?) level asset:

Image

Here's this C&C along with TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD:

Image

According to the sources, the higher level C&C could be positioned up to 20 km away from the battery. If positioned further, special radio link vehicles are supplied to the battery.

Before the PM (PMU-1) upgrade the inside of the 5N63S looked like this inside:

Image

PM1 supposedly automated a lot of tasks done by the human operators.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 15:10
by steve2267
Are those huge, hulking ground machines stealth? Are their radio emissions / comms stealth / LPI?

If they are not, then they would seem to be the 21st century equivalent to fixed fortifications such as the Maginot Line in the early 20th century.

As such, all I see is a bunch of targets.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 17:41
by hythelday
mixelflick wrote:How on earth did we fall so far behind in Surface to AIr Missiles?

Does the US not prioritize SAM defense, or is it something else? We have... the Patriot. Far inferior at least on paper, and not many of them compared to the Russians/Chinese.

I would have thought after DS1 and all the hoopla around the Patriot, we would have taken that ball and ran with it. Yes, yes I understand most Patriots missed. But still... one well placed SCUD warhead was enough to decimate our troops toward the end of the war.

How did we abdicate our responsibility for building a world class air defense network???



US has Air Force. Russian SAM craze is driven by the requirement to be able to counter that.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 22:32
by falcon.16
hythelday wrote:I am sorry for repeated off-topic, but it seems that nobody minds reading about Grumbles, so here I go again.

falcon.16 wrote:How can do it? automatically? because if Comand and control asset is destroyed, i thought all system will be off at least other comand and control asset get the works if it works inside a network as an IADS.

But if a S400 system works alone, really is it possible Grave stone can work automatically without intervention of the comand and control asset?



I will use older S-300P as an example, but I think S-400 operates in the similar fashion.

S-300/400 are meant to be used as a system, with entire "anti-air missile division/brigade" working together, but individual missile batteries can work independently too. The basic "cell" - дивизион (I guess battery in english) of the S-300 system is "Command Post" 5N63S with launchers:

Image

The F2K Battle Control Cockpit (КБУ - кабина боевого управления) is local C&C that links the FLAP LID and launchers. Through this unit additional radars and other technical means can be plugged into the system. The radio link connects the higher level C&C assets, the 5K56, which is missile brigade(division?) level asset:

Image

Here's this C&C along with TOMBSTONE/BIG BIRD:

Image

According to the sources, the higher level C&C could be positioned up to 20 km away from the battery. If positioned further, special radio link vehicles are supplied to the battery.

Before the PM (PMU-1) upgrade the inside of the 5N63S looked like this inside:

Image

PM1 supposedly automated a lot of tasks done by the human operators.


Ok thanks, in this picture i can see too.

Image

Each radar have some inependent room, and i guess for its independent control..

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 00:51
by count_to_10
hythelday wrote:
mixelflick wrote:How on earth did we fall so far behind in Surface to AIr Missiles?

Does the US not prioritize SAM defense, or is it something else? We have... the Patriot. Far inferior at least on paper, and not many of them compared to the Russians/Chinese.

I would have thought after DS1 and all the hoopla around the Patriot, we would have taken that ball and ran with it. Yes, yes I understand most Patriots missed. But still... one well placed SCUD warhead was enough to decimate our troops toward the end of the war.

How did we abdicate our responsibility for building a world class air defense network???



US has Air Force. Russian SAM craze is driven by the requirement to be able to counter that.

For the US, SAMs have a high endurance air-breathing first stage.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 02:20
by knowan
sferrin wrote:
knowan wrote:Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed


What's your source for these speeds and ranges?


I just looked at Wikipedia, but the figures appear to be roughly consistent with other sources.

Eg, Deagle says Mach 5.5 / 90km, Mach 6 / 150km and Mach 12 / 400km:
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 74002.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 94001.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 90001.aspx

This document says Mach 5.83 / 47-75km for 5V55 and Mach 6.12 / 150-250 km for 48N6 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a625224.pdf


count_to_10 wrote:For the US, SAMs have a high endurance air-breathing first stage.


To the best of my knowledge, all current US built SAMs are entirely rocket propelled. The only US built air breathing SAMs I'm aware of are the CIM-10 Bomarc (retired 1972) and RIM-8 Talos (retired 1980).

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 06:54
by Dragon029
knowan wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:For the US, SAMs have a high endurance air-breathing first stage.

To the best of my knowledge, all current US built SAMs are entirely rocket propelled. The only US built air breathing SAMs I'm aware of are the CIM-10 Bomarc (retired 1972) and RIM-8 Talos (retired 1980).

He's talking about air-to-air missiles mounted on fighter aircraft; which do technically take off from the surface. The US also has maritime systems like the SM-6, SM-3, etc directed via AEGIS, SPY-_ radars, CEC airborne assets, etc which in some cases outrange and outclass Russian's best SAMs (eg: the SM-3 Block IIA for ballistic missile threats).

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 08:13
by skyward
knowan wrote:
sferrin wrote:
knowan wrote:Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed


What's your source for these speeds and ranges?


I just looked at Wikipedia, but the figures appear to be roughly consistent with other sources.

Eg, Deagle says Mach 5.5 / 90km, Mach 6 / 150km and Mach 12 / 400km:
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 74002.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 94001.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 90001.aspx

This document says Mach 5.83 / 47-75km for 5V55 and Mach 6.12 / 150-250 km for 48N6 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a625224.pdf


The Western missiles are not similar sized to the Russian. They are smaller for the same range.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 11:50
by knowan
skyward wrote:The Western missiles are not similar sized to the Russian. They are smaller for the same range.


The SM-2ER/SM-6 is similar in size to the 5V55 missiles with considerably greater range, despite substantially lower velocity.

The SM-6 Block IB is in development; it will use a 21" inch motor to replace the old 13.5" diameter Mk 104 motor.
The 21" motor is likely the same as that used by the SM-3 Block IIA, and it will give a large increase to effective range; such a missile will likely out-range the 40N6.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 14:41
by sferrin
knowan wrote:
skyward wrote:The Western missiles are not similar sized to the Russian. They are smaller for the same range.


The SM-2ER/SM-6 is similar in size to the 5V55 missiles with considerably greater range, despite substantially lower velocity.

The SM-6 Block IB is in development; it will use a 21" inch motor to replace the old 13.5" diameter Mk 104 motor.
The 21" motor is likely the same as that used by the SM-3 Block IIA, and it will give a large increase to effective range; such a missile will likely out-range the 40N6.


SM-6 itself probably out ranges 40N6.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 15:34
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:How on earth did we fall so far behind in Surface to AIr Missiles?

Does the US not prioritize SAM defense, or is it something else? We have... the Patriot. Far inferior at least on paper, and not many of them compared to the Russians/Chinese.


I believe that you basically answered your first question with your second question.

Yes, I would say that the fact that the US doesn't seem to invest so much on (land-based) SAM systems is because they have priorities in somewhere else, namely is having a superior and bigger fleet of fighter and other combat aircraft.
And we all know that for example the USAF alone would "smack" all the Russian Air Arms combined (and I'm not even mentioned the USN and USMC here). Despite the US being the world's richest and lead superpower having such extremely and very capable air forces extreme amounts of money and if the US decided to develop a similarly vast array of land based air defense systems this would likely come at the cost of combat aircraft namely I would say, for the USAF.

Moreover and independently of how impressive Air Defense Systems such as the S-400 are the fact is that Land Based Air Defense Systems will never be as effective an fighter/interceptor aircraft, and history as proven this time after time.
Since the Russians aren't able to develop fighter/combat aircraft as advanced as their US counterparts (and they really know it) they must compensate with that they are really good at which is Air Defense Systems and Rocketry.

So I would also say that the Patriots will be more than good enough or more precisely excellent at their intended roles which are to intercept incoming enemy ballistic missiles and intercept any enemy odd aircraft that was "lucky enough" to penetrate a "wall" composed by the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.

Moreover, another proof that the US doesn't seem to invest much on land based air defense systems being because of priorities is like Dragon mentioned: The US has the world's top Naval Air Defense Systems (AEGIS coupled with SM-2/3/6). So it's definitely not a matter of being capable of developing such systems or not.


mixelflick wrote:How did we abdicate our responsibility for building a world class air defense network???


No, you didn't.
Advanced fighter aircraft (such as the F-35 and F-22) are also part of an air defense network. Actually I cannot conceive "a world class air defense network" without having advanced fighter aircraft (again such as the F-35 or F-22).

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 15:40
by marsavian
Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 15:50
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:Are those huge, hulking ground machines stealth? Are their radio emissions / comms stealth / LPI?


Well, I would say that there are techniques/tactics which could help concealing such systems such as camouflage, using terrain masking or otherwise hiding such systems in other places such as inside cities.
Yes, such tactics can fortunately be defeated (they have been on the past) but nonetheless they definitely make the life much harder for attacking aircraft.

I don't think that even the Russians expect those systems to completely avoid enemy strike aircraft to be able to strike/hit their assigned targets (although they will never admit this!).
IMO, the best that these systems could expect to do would be to cause significant casualties among incoming enemy aircraft and of course destroying significant numbers of incoming cruise missiles and other weapons (or resuming: Attrition).

steve2267 wrote:If they are not, then they would seem to be the 21st century equivalent to fixed fortifications such as the Maginot Line in the early 20th century.


I definitely don't see them like that! For starters and as opposed to the "Maginot Line" those systems are actually mobile and quite so.
Even the monster of a radar system below (the Nebo-M EW Radar) can be "disassembled" and "hit the road" in 15 minutes and vice-versa (assembled and put to work in 15 minutes), so imagine those other much more compact and thus more mobile systems previously mentioned?
Image

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 15:52
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.


Yes, I fully agree.
Basically the US Land based SAM systems are meant to defend US military bases and ground forces deployed abroad.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 19:47
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:How on earth did we fall so far behind in Surface to AIr Missiles?

Does the US not prioritize SAM defense, or is it something else? We have... the Patriot. Far inferior at least on paper, and not many of them compared to the Russians/Chinese.

I would have thought after DS1 and all the hoopla around the Patriot, we would have taken that ball and ran with it. Yes, yes I understand most Patriots missed. But still... one well placed SCUD warhead was enough to decimate our troops toward the end of the war.

How did we abdicate our responsibility for building a world class air defense network???



Define fallen behind. No SAMs are more combat tested/proven than the Patriot GEM-T and MSE variants. As for quantity/types, that reflects a difference in doctrine between the US and Russia.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 20:35
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.


Yes, I fully agree.
Basically the US Land based SAM systems are meant to defend US military bases and ground forces deployed abroad.


Yep. Just look at when the US was convinced hoards of Russian bombers would be coming over the pole. 134 batteries of Nike Hercules (with over 2 THOUSAND nukes produced just for the Nike force), several Bomarc sites, a branch of the USAF, the Air Defense Command, dedicated to defending US airspace with nuclear-armed F-89s, F-101s, F-102s, and F-106s. As the perceived threat went away so did Continental defense.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 23:00
by viper12
SAM systems were not forgotten in the U.S. during the Cold War. For example, there was literally a SAM site in L.A. : https://mrca.ca.gov/parks/park-listing/ ... tain-park/

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 23:15
by sferrin
viper12 wrote:SAM systems were not forgotten in the U.S. during the Cold War. For example, there was literally a SAM site in L.A. : https://mrca.ca.gov/parks/park-listing/ ... tain-park/


"All CONUS Hercules batteries, with the exception of the ones in Florida and Alaska, were deactivated by April 1974. The remaining units were deactivated during the spring of 1979."


"In April 1972, the last Bomarc B in U.S. Air Force service was retired at McGuire and the 46th ADMS inactivated [6] and the base was deactivated."

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 05:11
by knowan
sferrin wrote:
knowan wrote:
skyward wrote:The Western missiles are not similar sized to the Russian. They are smaller for the same range.


The SM-2ER/SM-6 is similar in size to the 5V55 missiles with considerably greater range, despite substantially lower velocity.

The SM-6 Block IB is in development; it will use a 21" inch motor to replace the old 13.5" diameter Mk 104 motor.
The 21" motor is likely the same as that used by the SM-3 Block IIA, and it will give a large increase to effective range; such a missile will likely out-range the 40N6.


SM-6 itself probably out ranges 40N6.


It is certainly possible, but without better data I'm not entirely confident. SM-6 Block IB will almost certainly outrange the 40N6 however; the difference between SM-3 Block IA/IB and Block IIA is more than two and a half times the interception range; the same 21" motor on the SM-6 will likely throw it beyond 600 km.



ricnunes wrote:Advanced fighter aircraft (such as the F-35 and F-22) are also part of an air defense network. Actually I cannot conceive "a world class air defense network" without having advanced fighter aircraft (again such as the F-35 or F-22).


Just look at Syria vs Israel to see how poorly an advanced SAM system does without advanced fighter aircraft. Israel hasn't even conducted a widespread DEAD campaign, yet is able to conduct strikes with minimal losses.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:48
by hornetfinn
With SAM systems most of the performance parameters are not necessarily readily apparent. Range, altitude and missile speed are fairly easy but can also be a bit misleading as there are multiple ways to define those parameters. They are also very small part of the overall system performances and many of those performance figures are not available in public. Things like real world radar performance (like target detection and tracking performance, EW resistance, LPI features etc), missile seeker performance, missile data link performance, network connectivity etc. There are so many things to consider that it's not very easy to compare systems from public information at all.

One example is that longer range is easily achieved by using bigger missile but they have their own drawbacks. Longer ranged S-300/400 missiles are much bigger than Patriot missiles and would be more difficult to transport and need bigger launch vehicles (or have less missiles in each). Patriot system is far more airmobile while S-300/400 might have better tactical mobility depending on exact system. There are Patriot systems installed directly on top of all-terrain trucks for example.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 18:40
by kimjongnumbaun
ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.


Yes, I fully agree.
Basically the US Land based SAM systems are meant to defend US military bases and ground forces deployed abroad.



It’s a difference in doctrine. The soviets knew they had inferior aircraft and aircrews. They knew they couldn’t win an air war, especially in OCA. Their SAM systems are designed to compliment their Air Force because they knew we would use penetrating attacks like we did in Vietnam. It played to their strengths to fight on their turf, which is also why their doctrine focuses on GCI. That’s also why the majority of their fighters are for air superiority or intercept. They have actually very few planes capable of providing decent interdiction.

The US knew we had better planes and better pilots. We would always be on the offensive in enemy airspace. That’s why we use the AWACS. Because we knew we’d have air dominance, we focused the majority of our money developing fighters and not ground based platforms. We are much more reliant on our Air Force securing the air space.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 23:42
by wrightwing
knowan wrote:




It is certainly possible, but without better data I'm not entirely confident. SM-6 Block IB will almost certainly outrange the 40N6 however; the difference between SM-3 Block IA/IB and Block IIA is more than two and a half times the interception range; the same 21" motor on the SM-6 will likely throw it beyond 600 km.



The current SM-6 has a ~500km range as is, which outranges any S-400 missile. That advantage will only increase, with the larger motor.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 01:22
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:
knowan wrote:




It is certainly possible, but without better data I'm not entirely confident. SM-6 Block IB will almost certainly outrange the 40N6 however; the difference between SM-3 Block IA/IB and Block IIA is more than two and a half times the interception range; the same 21" motor on the SM-6 will likely throw it beyond 600 km.



The current SM-6 has a ~500km range as is, which outranges any S-400 missile. That advantage will only increase, with the larger motor.


I've never heard 500 km. That said, one of the first SM-3 shots had a dummy 3rd stage and the booster/2nd-stage combo chucked that sucker a LONG ways. They were reading off the altitude and at 65 miles UP it was still climbing at multiple Mach. Keep in mind that was just the vertical component.

Jump to about 9:20 here:

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 02:32
by SpudmanWP
The added benefit to the SM-6 is that it can benefit from endgame updates via assets in the area (F-35, F-18, etc).

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 14:01
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:The added benefit to the SM-6 is that it can benefit from endgame updates via assets in the area (F-35, F-18, etc).


Apparently that's the only way the 40N6 can achieve it's maximum range as well. Without somebody out front telling it where the target is it's basically just another 48N6.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 16:56
by SpudmanWP
Can the 40N6 even datalink to other assets?

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 17:56
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Can the 40N6 even datalink to other assets?


IIRC SOC (Jane's analyst for Russian SAMs) said, on at least the first flight, a forward asset cued the missile at the end. I'll see if I can track it down.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 08:04
by doge
28:1!! :shock:
http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2 ... y-Buy.aspx
Retired Generals Press Congress to Fund More F-35s, Discourage “Legacy” Buy
5/1/2019—JOHN A. TIRPAK
​Congress should boost funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and ignore a Pentagon initiative to buy new “legacy” F-15EXs, according to a letter to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations committees from 128 retired general and flag officers, including four former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The letter and signatories were organized by Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-35. A handful of former general officers, at least one of whom works as a consultant for Boeing, have recently penned op-ed articles supporting the F-15EX plan.

The April 30 letter asks that Congress “increase the procurement rate” of the F-35 in the fiscal 2020 defense budget, saying the fifth-generation fighter “ensures air advantage over emerging peer adversaries through cutting-edge technologies.” The general officers pushed for an increase of 24 F-35s in the Air Force and Marine Corps versus the numbers proposed in the 2020 budget request. Specifically, they want 60 F-35As for the USAF (12 more than requested) and 22 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps (12 more than requested), while continuing with the requested 20 F-35Cs for the Navy, for a total of 102 aircraft.

“This increase will reestablish the original F-35 production rates that in the past years have been tamped by sequestration-era budget caps resulting from the Budget Control Act,” the signatories wrote. “The US must start buying the F-35s in larger quantities to reach the minimum 50 percent of fifth generation fighters in the timeframe required to meet the emerging global threat.”

The writers noted that the F-35 is doing well in deployments and has racked up “a 28:1 kill ratio at recent Red Flag exercises in Nevada.” More than 380 F-35s are now flying with all three US services—the Navy recently having declared initial operational capability—and in 17 locations worldwide, the letter noted.

The F-35 is “our nation’s only fifth generation stealth aircraft in production,” and the writers urged Congress to increase the buy rate “to keep the F-35 ahead of our adversaries.”

As for the surprise addition of new F-15EXs in the 2020 Air Force budget request, the signers did not mention it by name, but said the DOD’s proposal to buy “a legacy, fourth-generation aircraft that has limited survivability in a high-end fight today and is equipped with decades-old technology” won’t work. “The fourth-generation airframe is simply unable to win against near-peer threats, which are the biggest concern” of the National Defense Strategy. Such aircraft have “little operational relevance in a near-peer conflict.”

Former Air Force Chiefs of Staff signing the letter included Gens. Merrill McPeak, Michael Ryan, John Jumper, and T. Michael Moseley. Former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Thomas Hayward and former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos also signed. Of the 128 signers, 60 were former USAF general officers, including 17 that wore four stars. Twenty-five of the 128 were four-star flag officers from all services. By service, 60 were former USAF, 51 former Marine Corps, and 17 former Navy.

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 14:50
by Gums
Salute!

I am glad some folks are speaking out concerning going cheap now and then paying big bucks later.

I know many of the folks - students, cohorts that I flew flew and some from professional correspondence. I was very surprised at some missing names, notably Ron Fogleman. He was really upset when the Clinton administration choked off on the F-22 buy. OTOH, he saved the C-17 program before he became CSAF.

Gums sends...