65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

F-35 unit & base selection, delivery, activation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Feb 2019, 15:31

wrightwing wrote:Again with the M.85. A Flanker's corner speed is below 400kts. An Eagle doesn't have to be at above 500 to 550kts to start turning better. It'll reach parity or start turning better between 350 to 400kts.


marsavian wrote:athough the Russian graph suggests instantaneous performance is better in the high subsonic for the F-15 and only gets worse in the lower subsonic.


Would you good folks have any graphs for that please.
I'd love to believe it, (gives me more ammunition against Flanker fans) but I'll need some sorta evidence.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3005
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post05 Feb 2019, 15:56

I'd be all for F-35 aggressors, but I guess it depends on how far your simulations go.

Meaning, the USAF seems to deliberately hold back certain airframes to more accurately mimic an enemy's capabilities. For me, I would want to (if anything) over-estimate their capabilities. You know, like how many pilots said Red Flag was so much more difficult than real combat? And we've all seen the results of real combat..

So I'm unsure where the disconnect is. Perhaps there's something about air combat where you need to precisely mimic an enemy's capability, vs. being even better. It may be that being even better "throws" the simulation and results in blue force executing maneuvers that wouldn't really help them in the real world.

I still see KFIR's, A-4's etc. as archaic airframes NOT representative of the threat. Still, I trust these folks who's profession is teaching air combat. I'm sure they know something that I and others don't. We need to move beyond Flankers though, as simulating the J-20 (particularly its signature) is going to be a whole new ball game...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3005
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post05 Feb 2019, 15:58

zero-one wrote:Thank you very much lbk000.
I hope you don't mind if I have some questions related to your excellent post.

You may already be familiar with this video where Flanker recount beating F-15s quite easily in a defensive BFM set up.


The way he describes it, the F-15 is unable to maintain E in a climbing turn and after 1 and a half turns finds itself in front of the Flanker's HUD.

This was similar to a story a former Viper pilot told me. they perform a defensive BFM set up where the Eagle starts off behind the Viper, after 1 and a half turns the Viper is behind the Eagle and the assumes the offensive role.

It seems that the Eagle is really at a disadvantage against unstable, high T/W ratio designs.
So I'm skeptical as to how it can replicate an aerodynamically superior platform.


I was always skeptical of these results...

So the Ruskies visit and.... you show them the full up capabilities of the F-15? I suspect they really didn't, and sent them home over-confident. That's what I would have done...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Feb 2019, 17:23

mixelflick wrote:
I was always skeptical of these results...

So the Ruskies visit and.... you show them the full up capabilities of the F-15? I suspect they really didn't, and sent them home over-confident. That's what I would have done...


Nobody showed anything substantial, just the raw capabilities of both planes.
If you noticed it was a defensive set up where the F-15 was placed behind the Su-27. And a at a certain air speed (likely where the Flanker has the advantage), both were ordered to turn. No tactics or fancy strategies, they just wanted to see who can perform that basic maneuver better.
The Su-27 ended up behind the F-15 after 1 and a half turns. I have no problem with this for 2 reasons.

1. I've long accepted the fact that the Su-27 airframe is aerodynamically superior to the F-15 in most parts of the envelope at least. It should be, it was designed about 10 years after the F-15 was. they are literally not from the same era. It benefits from advancements like Relaxed static stability, Vortex lifting surfaces and probably better body lifting properties.

The fact that F-15 is still superior at very high subsonic to supersonic is a testament to the Eagle's greatness, not bad for a design 10 years older. Remember this is the plane that the F-22 was designed for. They wouldn't of kicked off the ATF program if the F-15 owns the Su-27 already. And thats not just me talking, F-15 pilots I've spoken to have mad respect for the Flanker.

https://hushkit.net/2017/09/13/cold-war ... veals-all/
If I did merge with a ‘Flanker’, I’d fly good BFM (basic fighter manoeuvres). Our pilots are better trained than theirs, and that should give us the advantage in a dogfight … but if there’s one thing I’ve learned about dogfighting it’s that it’s a great equaliser, and only one of you is coming out alive. I have a lot of respect for the Su-27, from all I’ve heard about it.


2. An F-16 pilot I talked to said they did the exact same exercise with the Eagle with the same results. They placed the Viper 10,000 feet in front the eagle. Then they turned. after 1 and a half turns they were now behind. So when lbk said that I think sprinkling instability dust on an airplane makes it better. Well Frankly, yes, I mean maybe not better in all parts of the envelope, but as one of the main factors that Sprts looks at when making his calculations I would say that yes, instability makes it easier for the airframe to be more agile.


P.S. Let be honest, we have some bias towards American fighters, I know I do. And one reason why it was hard for me to accept that the Su-27 was superior to the F-15 was because I don't like the idea that Russia's 4th gen was better than America's 4th gen.

But then it hit me. If a war broke out in the 1980s American 4th gens wouldn't be facing Russia's 4th gens, they would be facing 3rd gen Mig-23s and Mig-21s. It would have been a massacre in the skies over Europe. Today if a war broke out, Russia's 4th and 4.5 gens will go up against 5th gens, another massacre.

So comparing aircraft by generation is pointless because they will likely not meet at the front lines anyway
I prefer comparing Aircraft by era not by generation. The only era when The Russians seem to have a slight technological upper hand at least in front line air superiority fighters was in the 90s when they had some 300+ Flankers and the Raptor has yet to be produced. But that was also the time when Russia had no money to operate them in war.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post05 Feb 2019, 18:29

zero-one wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Again with the M.85. A Flanker's corner speed is below 400kts. An Eagle doesn't have to be at above 500 to 550kts to start turning better. It'll reach parity or start turning better between 350 to 400kts.


marsavian wrote:athough the Russian graph suggests instantaneous performance is better in the high subsonic for the F-15 and only gets worse in the lower subsonic.


Would you good folks have any graphs for that please.
I'd love to believe it, (gives me more ammunition against Flanker fans) but I'll need some sorta evidence.


lbk000 already showed it to you but here it is again without the annotations. It shows two pairs of instantaneous turn rate, one at 200m height and other at 3000m height, solid line for the Su-27, dotted line for F-15 and speed in km/hr.

Image

If F-15 keeps its speed high it don't need fear any other aircraft, turning around Mach 0.8-0.9 and lots of vertical loops.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Feb 2019, 18:41

marsavian wrote:
lbk000 already showed it to you but here it is again without the annotations. It shows two pairs of instantaneous turn rate, one at 200m height and other at 3000m height, solid line for the Su-27, dotted line for F-15 and speed in km/hr.


O yes that one. I'm looking at the parts he encircles. I'm assuming that they are sustained turn rates and that the speed indicator below refers to knots.

So on the encircled parts it shows that the Su-27 having superiority at anything below 700 knots (Mach 1). this was the high subsonic where most air combat traditionally occurred.

I can't help but imagine that if the F-15 and Su-27 were to meet in the skies over Europe, would they still meet at those speeds? Eagle jocks know that they have the advantage in supersonic speeds. So if they did meet and if dogfights occurred we may have seen an era where the norm was at supersonic speeds. :drool:
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post05 Feb 2019, 19:02

No, the speed chart is in km/hr as I said and as indicated by the bottom right hand corner annotation, multiply by 0.54 to get knots. Su-27 starts turning better below 400 knots.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3088
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Feb 2019, 00:24

marsavian wrote:No, the speed chart is in km/hr as I said and as indicated by the bottom right hand corner annotation, multiply by 0.54 to get knots. Su-27 starts turning better below 400 knots.

And even that's contingent upon the Flanker being below 60% fuel. Above that weight, the Flanker has unremarkable turn performance (STR/ITR/G limit.)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22494
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Feb 2019, 03:55

Finding 58th FS/33rd Wing is difficult however this post is about 'aggressor training & the F-35' so article is plonked here.

DRAKEN blurb: https://www.prweb.com/releases/draken_i ... 081530.htm [this forum is wonky agin]

GORILLA POSE DEMO PIC in no longer available PDF: http://www.eglindispatch.com/pdf/2012/03-09-2012.pdf (4.5Mb)
Contracted aggressors provide new opportunities
05 Feb 2019 SrA Cassidy Woody, 33rd Fighter Wing

"EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- Instructor pilots and students from the 58th Fighter Squadron integrated with a civilian contracted aggressor squadron to conduct air defense training Jan. 24, 2018, at Eglin Air Force Base. This marks the first time the 58th FS has looked outside of Air Force units to find adversary support for training requirements.

“Having contract adversaries here provides us the capability to increase the capacity for student training,” said Lt. Col. Jon Snyder, 58th FS commander. “It provides us additional adversary capability that we can’t necessarily replicate.” Currently, instructor pilots are taught to fly both offensive/defensive “blue air” and aggressor “red air” missions for any training within the 58th FS, which takes them away from training students. “It is a requirement that we have adversaries to support our training,” said Snyder. “If we have to support all our missions in-house, that means less student sorties we can fly.”

Previously, students and instructors have practiced air-to-air tactics against other F-35 pilots or a different Air Force squadron. “It provides us a different aircraft to fly against, and that’s important for us to test our system knowledge as well as our own tactics against [an aircraft] that isn’t an F-35,” said Snyder.

The 58th FS produced 68 F-35A Lightning II pilots and 13 instructor pilots in 2018 but leadership is looking to increase that number and build up the fleet.

“The Nomads of the 33rd Fighter Wing are extraordinarily good at what we do: training and developing the future of the F-35 community,” said Col. Paul Moga, 33rd FW commander. “As we continue our efforts to expand and transform training in order to graduate more and graduate faster, we welcome opportunities such as this that make us even better. Steel sharpens steel.”

Finding alternatives, like civilian contractors, increases the mission capacity for the 58th FS to provide more student missions and graduate new pilots faster. “I’ve flown both fifth generation aircraft and I think this is absolutely the right way to go to support adversary training for this aircraft,” said Snyder. “It provides a better and more realistic adversary replication for our pilots as well as a cheaper price point to fly against. I think if we can continue down this path, it’ll definitely make us stronger as an Air Force.”

Photo: "Curtis “RB” Weddle, a Draken International pilot, and Scott Hauber, a Draken International employee, signal each other with the hand sign of the 58th Fighter Squadron while taxiing down the flightline on Jan. 24th, 2019 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Some L-159 Honeybadger’s come equipped with the ALQ-188 Electronic Attack training Pod which enhances training for the F-35A Lightning II pilots. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Senior Airman Cassidy Woody)" https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/04/2 ... 3-0026.JPG (1.8Mb)


Source: https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/Article/17 ... rtunities/


[for the GORILLA hand sign] F35 Taxi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqwMIpKgx-Q

Attachments
190124-F-UX503-0026edFORUM.jpg
GORILLAmagilla58FShandSignF-35A.jpg
GorillaPose58thFSeglinAFBtif.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2684
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Feb 2019, 10:41

zero-one wrote:So comparing aircraft by generation is pointless because they will likely not meet at the front lines anyway
I prefer comparing Aircraft by era not by generation. The only era when The Russians seem to have a slight technological upper hand at least in front line air superiority fighters was in the 90s when they had some 300+ Flankers and the Raptor has yet to be produced. But that was also the time when Russia had no money to operate them in war.


Actually they didn't have technological upper hand with Su-27 even then in many areas. Su-27 is definitely very good 4th gen design aerodynamically and carries a lot of fuel internally. R-73 was also very good missile then and coupled with HMS would have been very dangerous in close-in fight.

But Su-27 had substantially poorer avionics in many areas, although it definitely also had some good points. N001 radar was not nearly as good as AN/APG-63 and AN/APG-70 were at the time and was substantially worse than what the Soviets wanted. It was basically an enlarged and updated MiG-23 radar after all. CNI systems were also less capable than in F-15C AFAIK. Computing capacity and speed in Su-27 during 1990s were pretty much equivalent to what F-15A had in early 1970s. This must have presented some serious limitations in comparison to F-15C and F-15E. These limitations very likely include things like ECCM, multiple target tracking capability, track quality and better target discrimination capability.

Another big thing for F-15C during 1990s was that it had AMRAAM for BVR whereas Russian jets only had a handful (in whole Russia) of R-77s and just used R-27s. This would've been pretty big differene between the two jets. I'd take even AIM-7M/P over R-27 variants.

So I think during 1990s F-15C would've had the upper hand in SA (even without AWACS) and BVR engagements. Thus they would've pretty likely had the upper hand overall. I think Su-27 would've presented some pretty nasty surprises though.

I still think that F-15 can mimic Su-27 pretty well during most likely parts of air-to-air engagements. In Close-in WVR fights F-15 might not have exactly similar strengths and weaknesses but still close enough in many respects.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post06 Feb 2019, 11:04

hornetfinn wrote:
Actually they didn't have technological upper hand with Su-27 even then in many areas..


well yes, but like the F-15 pilot above put it, the Su-27 earned their respect. an F-22 pilot wouldn't be as respectful in my opinion.

So I'll agree that the F-15 still had advantages, some of them major advantages, but at the same time the Su-27 was a real upgrade over the Mig-23s that would be forced to fight (get mauled) by the F-15
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2684
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Feb 2019, 11:53

It's good that spazsinbad posted that picture of Carlos Condit who was and still is, but not nearly like he used to be) pretty damn good MMA fighter. MMA fighters (or boxers or other full contact fighters) definitely don't have anybody to replicate exactly what their next opponent is like. They however can train very effectively by training with multiple people using different styles and having different body compositions. If facing a great boxer with good wrestling skills, the training partners don't need to be good in both boxing and wrestling. Those skills can be trained very well with people that are great in one art.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3088
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Feb 2019, 14:39

hornetfinn wrote:It's good that spazsinbad posted that picture of Carlos Condit who was and still is, but not nearly like he used to be) pretty damn good MMA fighter. MMA fighters (or boxers or other full contact fighters) definitely don't have anybody to replicate exactly what their next opponent is like. They however can train very effectively by training with multiple people using different styles and having different body compositions. If facing a great boxer with good wrestling skills, the training partners don't need to be good in both boxing and wrestling. Those skills can be trained very well with people that are great in one art.

It's also important to note that while aggressors at Red Flag mimic threat tactics and capabilities, there's lots of other DACT/ACM training, that's no holds barred. Our 4th generation jets get to practice against F-22s and F-35s, as well as against Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, Fulcrums, and Flankers. The increasing use of simulators will also allow more complex scenarios/threats, in addition to live training.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 Feb 2019, 16:05

hornetfinn wrote:
zero-one wrote:So comparing aircraft by generation is pointless because they will likely not meet at the front lines anyway
I prefer comparing Aircraft by era not by generation. The only era when The Russians seem to have a slight technological upper hand at least in front line air superiority fighters was in the 90s when they had some 300+ Flankers and the Raptor has yet to be produced. But that was also the time when Russia had no money to operate them in war.


Actually they didn't have technological upper hand with Su-27 even then in many areas. Su-27 is definitely very good 4th gen design aerodynamically and carries a lot of fuel internally. R-73 was also very good missile then and coupled with HMS would have been very dangerous in close-in fight.

But Su-27 had substantially poorer avionics in many areas, although it definitely also had some good points. N001 radar was not nearly as good as AN/APG-63 and AN/APG-70 were at the time and was substantially worse than what the Soviets wanted. It was basically an enlarged and updated MiG-23 radar after all...


You're absolutely right hornetfinn.

Like you said the N001 was based on the Mig-23 radar. Or to be more precise, the Mig-29 radar - the N019 - was based on the Mig-23 radar while the Su-27 radar - the N001 - was basically an upscaled (namely with a bigger antenna) of the Mig-29 radar, the N019.
And then we all know how "good" that Mig-29 radar was even back then (sarcasm).

Besides and if I'm not mistaken, I remember to have read somewhere that according the the Soviet doctrine during the late 80's/early 90's the only fighter aircraft that could or would operate without Ground Radar (GCI) or AWACS support - or resuming only with its own radar/sensors - was the Mig-31.

So there's a snowball chance in hell that the Soviets/Russians had any technological upper hand in front line air superiority fighters like zero-one claims.
Specially if we start coming up with multi-mode radars such as the APG-70 (F-15E), APG-73 (F/A-18C), APG-68 (F-16C and F-16A MLU), etc... together with much more advanced Electronic Warfare suits/ECMs, etc... and also cockpit displays with actual MFDs (Multi-Function Displays) which was something completely "Alien" to the Soviets/Russians during that era and etc, etc and etc... it's not hard to figure out that it was exactly the opposite - the technological upper hand was basically all on the US/NATO side.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 09:52

ricnunes wrote:.

So there's a snowball chance in hell that the Soviets/Russians had any technological upper hand in front line air superiority fighters like zero-one claims.
.


This kind of statement reminds me of anti-F22 and F-35 proponents who said that Eagle was already good enough to meet future needs.

No just stop. Col. Fornlof himself said that the Su-30 is alreadly a bit better than what our 4th gens had. He was already refering to F-15s with AESA.
Which is why we need to have 5th gen.

And if you're gona quote me, remember how I said that the F-15 held some.advantages over the Flanker series as well.

If you watch the Russian documentary there is a part there where he says that in the past the past with the Mig-17s and 19s they're strategy was to outnumber Nato aircraft 8 to 1. They knew they had no chance 1 on 1. Then with the Mig-23 this was reduced to 4 to 1. Finally the Flanker and Fulcrum gave them the ability to engage 1 on 1.

So this talk that the F-15 was more advanced than the Su-27 in EVERY way needs to stop. I'll repeat it again. The F-15 has key advantages in SOME AREAS.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Units

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests