4 F-35Bs take out 9 attackers

[uclass]

Dunford Mulls F-35B IOC Decision; 4 Bs Take Out 9 Attackers
By COLIN CLARK
on July 27, 2015 at 6:34 PM

Marines perform first F-35B vertical take-off, landing at Eglin

WASHINGTON: During the Marine’s recent operational readiness test of the F-35B, four of the Marine aircraft went up against nine enemy aircraft.

“It went very poorly for the bad guys,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told me this afternoon. Davis provided few details, saying they were classified, He did say that the F-35s faced a threat that “we have never put an F-16 or a Harrier against.” The F-35Bs, he said, did a “great job.”

I asked Davis about the recent news that the F-35A did not fare that well in dogfight conditions against an F-16. “I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35.”

In a clear message to A-10 advocates, Davis said the F-35B performed extremely well at Close Air Support missions using Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and laster-guided GBU-12s. The aircraft does need a cannon, he conceded, for some missions. The gun is currently undergoing its first tests mounted on an aircraft but it won’t be deployed on the plane until 2017 when the Block 3F software is installed. But Davis was unequivocal in his enthusiasm for the aircraft. “No airplane in the world will be able to touch this jet at Close Air Support,” he told reporters.

Davis said he had made his recommendation about the F-35B’s Initial Operating Capabilitity to Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford: “He’s got all the paperwork now and he’s going through it.” Breaking D readers will remember that Dunford has been nominated to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has been a bit busy recently dealing with nomination hearings and such.

Davis said early models of the F-35B are currently maintaining a 60 percent to 65 percent mission readiness rate, something he expects to rise substantially as more newer planes come to the line. He noted a training squadron with newer planes was “getting 70 to 75 percent rates the other day.” The overall goal is 80 percent later in the program.

The Marines plan to buy 353 F-35Bs and Davis said he has heard absolutely nothing to convince him that number should be cut. It seems pretty certain he has recommended to Dunford that IOC be approved, but, as he put it, that’s the commandant’s decision.

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunf ... attackers/

[spazsinbad]

'SpudmanWP' earlier posted the same article here: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27602&p=296908&hilit=guys#p296908

[mk82]

David Axe should eat at least 9 crows with a nice jet fuel gravy. He truly looks like a retarded chicken little squawking " ZOMG....the F35 can't dogfight....ZOMG....the F35 can't dogfight (and this is not even correct/true)" when in real life those nine adversary aircraft would become smoking craters in the ground had they fought for "real" against the F35Bs (and the F35Bs are achieving killer results with "only" Block 2B software). The only dogfight those adversary aircraft engaged in was against the "ground"

On a more serious note, it would be interesting to see the actual ROE and set up for that 9 v 4 simulated air combat engagement.

[Dragon029]

On a related note;

1. Any idea why there were 9 specifically?

2. Would the adversary aircraft (likely) have been anything other than USMC F/A-18s (Simulated 4.5 gen Sukhois? USN Super Hornets? USAF fighters for some reason?)

[XanderCrews]

On a related note;

1. Any idea why there were 9 specifically?

2. Would the adversary aircraft (likely) have been anything other than USMC F/A-18s (Simulated 4.5 gen Sukhois? USN Super Hornets? USAF fighters for some reason?)

It could be a number of aircraft, could be the aggressor F-5s that operate out of Yuma

[uclass]

On a related note;

1. Any idea why there were 9 specifically?

2. Would the adversary aircraft (likely) have been anything other than USMC F/A-18s (Simulated 4.5 gen Sukhois? USN Super Hornets? USAF fighters for some reason?)

Unknown but it's an operational readiness test, so they likely simulated a realistic high level threat and the fact they've never put an F-16 or Harrier up against such a threat is also telling.

My guess is that they used 4 F-35s with 4 AMRAAMs and the combat Pk of the AMRAAM as a rule of thumb for Pk. But that's mere speculation on my part.

[nht]

Heh...no article on FA yet. Should be amusing to read.

[sferrin]

Heh...no article on FA yet. Should be amusing to read.

No doubt regaling us with tales of "paid shills" and "scripted events".

[nht]

There's not much a F-16 hasn't faced.

I wonder if they put the F-35s against a RQ-180 spotting for a 4th gen aggressor force. That is reported to have a radar and should be just as stealthy if not more than a F-35.

[XanderCrews]

No doubt regaling us with tales of "paid shills" and "scripted events".

Naturally.

[sferrin]

BS is already spinning it. "Davis's statement means the cube root of eff-all. ".

[spazsinbad]

Yeah I saw that and laughed. Would be nice to know more though. Where are the intrepid aviation reporters?

[XanderCrews]

BS is already spinning it. "Davis's statement means the cube root of eff-all. ".

Denial is a powerful thing. I'm sure Bill has tons of evidence to prove his case and isn't just bitterly slinging mud.
Tons of evidence. Tons.

Where is he spinning this?

[sferrin]

Where is he spinning this?

Secret Projects

[spazsinbad]

Go here : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg255483