F-35 to intercept the Tu-160 or SR-71

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2728
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Dec 2019, 01:30

lbk000 wrote:What if there's some dude who has a shack near Engles who can just phone in takeoffs.


It wouldn't be the first time and neither the last time that something like would happen :wink:


(007 soundtrack running in the background) :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1295
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post07 Dec 2019, 03:10

ricnunes wrote:
lbk000 wrote:What if there's some dude who has a shack near Engles who can just phone in takeoffs.


It wouldn't be the first time and neither the last time that something like would happen :wink:


(007 soundtrack running in the background) :mrgreen:


For our Q sorties out of Thailand supporting Blackbirds, we minimized any telegraphing (flight plan filing etc.) and just got in and took off quickly, for exactly these reasons. That created a dicey conflict once, when our tower guy didn't get in place in time, and we dodged firetrucks down the runway, trying to avoid the hijacking response.

But yes, aircrews do recognize the reality of the guy on the phone, and minimize those risks as best as one can.

FWIW,
BP
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2389
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post07 Dec 2019, 16:25

Salute!

So true, Blind
So exciting war story follows
One day when on 5 minute alert at Grand Forks, we scrambled on a very snowy day. We normally did not "practice" if we had something less than 500 and 1 Additionally, just before the horn went off some words were heard on the PA from our command post. I didn't catch them all, but my RIO did.
Hit the ladder, reached over when crawling in and hit the start switches, then seated myself and hooked up. The crew chief had already gotten the pneumatic/electric power cart going going before we got there from upstairs, and the doors on the shelter were already opening as our J-57's were firing up. I knew this was not a practice when I had trouble seeing the end of the runway from our "christmas tree alert shack/taxiway" configuration.
First words from Skip were, "did you hear them say 'the light, the light' ?" I was not quite a raw nugget by then but didn't get it.
"What light?"
"The BMEWS light!!"
Gasp! This was real and we had to get off the ground quickly, and across the end of the runway I could see some BUFF's were cranking their motors.
I got out of the shelter first, so it was first come, first served at the runway. Heh heh. And trying to sound calm and professional I told tower that Lima Lima 54 was number one for takeoff and taking the runway ( we had personal callsigns in those days using squadron, then pilot protocol. The 18th was Lima Lima. I was 54)
Tower said to hold, but I told them we were going. If you see the south end of the runway there, it was well within rifle or mortar range of a major highway, and we had often talked about enemy opposition from there if the balloon went up. Additionally, the bad guys could be on the radio because it was not a secure link like our GCI stations. So I balked, but tower repeated their "request" and then said the command post had asked them to hold us.
Skip said we should authenticate with our own command post, and I said go for it. We got a good authentication to abort and to get back to the alert pad.
Whew!
Turns out we had a major scramble across the northern tier. Not sure if any nuke-loaded BUFF's got off, but heard that at least a 106 had. Our "15 minute" nuke birds were behind us because they had the hangar doors locked and the "key keeper" had to unlock them before starting the motors.
Best version I heard was BMEWS had activated because of an unusual combination of signals due to the moon and basic geometry.

Scary days, folks.

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

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1295
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post07 Dec 2019, 18:49

Gums wrote:Salute!

...
"What light?"
"The BMEWS light!!" .. Best version I heard was BMEWS had activated because of an unusual combination of signals due to the moon and basic geometry.

Scary days, folks.

Gums recalls....


I can confirm that is true (at least it happened in those days, can't speak to your exact day). My rated sup assignment was Chief Missile Warning Branch, Systems Integration Directorate in Cheyenne Mountain. They had not anticipated that the moon would trip the radar.

FWIW, for more than one or two tests, I had to jump up on and over the consoles to hit the cut-off switch before the alert went out, when I knew it was of false origin. I like to think I avoided WW III at least once with that response :shock: :-D :-D . But even so we usually got word out pretty quick if there was low confidence in the alert.

As to the Thai take-off ... sometimes you have to take a breath, and assess the risks. I figured the 14 yr old Thai kid driving the truck had to support a family of 50, and probably wasn't actually going to pull the truck in front of a 300,000 lb aircraft going 100+ mph. Turned out I had figured correctly. Just didn't want to give a clue that there was a Habu headed that way, any sooner than we had to.

There really are guys on the phone at the end of the runway.

Those were the days.
BP
Offline

rnvalencia

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2014, 12:06

Unread post08 Dec 2019, 15:09

https://www.polygraph.info/a/fake-f-35- ... 91721.html
F-35 ‘Epic Failure’ Intercepting Russian Bomber Tu-160 an Epic Fake
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 201
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post10 Dec 2019, 05:28

rnvalencia wrote:https://www.polygraph.info/a/fake-f-35-failure-intercepting-russian-tu-160/30291721.html
F-35 ‘Epic Failure’ Intercepting Russian Bomber Tu-160 an Epic Fake


Even if it was true (which was clearly not the case as Japanese aircraft would intercept any TU-160 over the Sea of Japan and, given that the Japanese have not declared their F-35s operational yet, it is extremely unlikely they would intercept any aircraft), it actually proves the exact opposite of what the writer (whoever it was) thinks it does.

So lets look at faux incident.

TU-160 is cruising along
F-35s are spotted closing. Per the article the TU-160 pilot saw the F-35s and given the F-35s would communicate with the TU-160 when they intercepted, that is likely.
TU-160 lights the afterburner and leaves the F-35s in the dust, laughing all the way.

OK, even if it happened that way, in wartime the TU-160 would already be dead!

Wouldn't the stealthy F-35s attack the TU-160 before, or in the very worst case shortly after, they reached visual range. And with DAS/EOTS, the F-35s would easily find and identify the TU-160 at long range. well before they are counter detected by the TU-160. So unless the TU-160 is flying around at supersonic speeds the whole time (which really kills their range and makes them an easy target), the F-35 will have no problems intercepting a TU-160. Even at supersonic speeds, the F-35 could still intercept a TU-160, it just couldn't follow it around. But in wartime, you don't need to follow them around!

The bottom line is that the F-35, well actually any fighter aircraft, can easily intercept a faster, supersonic aircraft. They just have to get in front of them and, since threat aircraft don't fly random courses since they are actually going somewhere to do something, the defensive aircraft start out in roughly the right place.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2728
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Dec 2019, 17:00

Putting things into another perspective I find a bit comical everytime I see/read someone saying/posting that a F-35 won't be able to intercept a Mach 2+ aircraft and one of the reasons for this is:
- Most of these same people don't seem to doubt that a longer range SAM can intercept these same Mach 2+ aircraft. So here's some "flash news": If the F-35 cannot intercept a certain Mach 2+ aircraft than sure as hell that no SAM system can intercept it either since longer ranged SAM launchers are traveling at a speed of 0 (ZERO) knots or Km/h and "flying" (note the quotes) at 0 (ZERO) meters/feet (AGL) when firing their missiles (this even if the SAM missiles have technically a longer range than an AMRAAM for example) so and as such, why bother developing SAMs at all, right??
IMO, the above "instantly kills" any theory that the F-35 cannot intercept a Mach 2+ or more aircraft!
Last edited by ricnunes on 11 Dec 2019, 11:53, edited 1 time in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

notkent

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2019, 18:06

Unread post10 Dec 2019, 17:34

In football plenty of super speedy ball carriers get taken down all the time by lumbering linemen.

Most times the Tu-160 will be flying towards the allied air bases just like the defense line up in between the other side and their goal.

Plus F-35s have the added advantage of not having to close to touching distance of their target and can fire AMRAAM's with at starting speed of around Mach 4
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests