65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 03:55
by tobiascorbett
Recently the Commander of the USAF's 57th Wing posted a rending on facebook of a new color scheme that will be worn by some of the 64th Aggressor Squadron's F-16s (Link: https://www.facebook.com/57WGCommander/ ... =3&theater).

In the background of one of the photos shows an F-35 in what looks like the color scheme of a Chinese J-31. More interestingly the rendering shows the words "65 AGRS" on the tail of the F-35. Does this mean that we could soon see F-35's being used as Red Air? and could the 65th Aggressor Squadron be reactivated to fly them?

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 06:09
by spazsinbad
LOOKS like CGI (rendering as you say) to me also: https://scontent.fsyd8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=5CBDD4C0

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 13:54
by zero-one
Well what other candidates do we have for future ARGS platforms?
first we need to guess what types of aircraft adversaries will fly in the future. Advanced Flanker and Fulcrum variants, J-20s, Su-57s.

Replicating a bandit for BVR intercepts is easy, they even use T-38s to represent that at times. Replicating it for BFM is more challenging.

According to Ret Col Chip Burke "Dog fighting is something that you would want to avoid, but at the same time, you need to be very proficient at"

In reality I don't think the F-22 and F-35 will face significant challenges in a BVR match specially against the Flanker and Fulcrum series. Replicating the Su-57 for BVR can probably be replicated by a clean SHornet with some support. Replicating the J-20 on the other hand is tougher, maybe an F-22 or F-35 can do it.

Replicating them for WVR is the challenging bit.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/usafs ... 1633886869
The F-15C, with its powerful radar, gobs of thrust, unique handling and large visual signature is the best thing the USAF has for adequately playing the role of an enemy Su-27 Flanker and its many derivatives, which are largely the most feared aerial opponent for the USAF globally.


I always wondered how this was the case? ^^
I can understand how the Eagle can probably replicate the Flanker at BVR but once you get to the Merge their strengths are totally different.

As much as I love the Eagle, its not a Flanker in a dogfight, its a stable airframe without FBW and no LERX. I always thought a stripped down Hornet would be the best Flanker mirror.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 14:57
by marsavian
Maybe they could pick up a few FBW F-15X that Boeing are currently advertising. ;)

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 18:21
by lbk000
zero-one wrote:As much as I love the Eagle, its not a Flanker in a dogfight, its a stable airframe without FBW and no LERX. I always thought a stripped down Hornet would be the best Flanker mirror.

For the purposes of training, F-15 more accurately assumes the most qualitatively significant characteristics of the Flanker's envelope.

Firstly, thrust characteristics matter a lot for how an aircraft fights. F-15 is an energetic design where you see a lot of 300s for your IAS and will accelerate up past 400kias in a hurry, which is something the Flanker likes as well but the Hornet not so much. With a Hornet, you're talking about a grovel king that will show you a lot of speeds in the 100s and 200s instead -- which is good because there's not enough juice to take you much past 300kt if not given a lot of slack (by the time a Hornet gets past 400kt the F-15 could be doing 600kt or something like that). Flanker is an aircraft that's most at home in the low 300s, so while it's better at the low end of the F-15's sweet zone, it has much more in common with it than the Hornet.

Secondly, when you're dealing with a high speed STR fight, the benefits of CCV and vortex control are generally diminished, as they are primarily devices to extract more authority at low airspeeds where there would otherwise be insufficient airflow for traditional designs.

My thoughts on the Flanker mysticism...
The Flanker design I would characterize as a very traditional STR-centric design focused on energy retention with high lift features tacked on afterwards to expand the lower end of its maneuvering band. F-16 is somewhat in the same vein. This is in contrast to the "new" school of EM-centric design which is less preoccupied about STR and energy retention and instead pursues angle generation through energy conversion (great I'm starting to retread my earlier post).
So the Flanker's "visibly modern" aerodynamic features do not actually offer it commensurately modern capabilities (i.e., high speed nosepointing threat). The Flanker's excellent energy retention actually plays against it at high speeds because it essentially puts a clamp on its maximum rate; try to pull a power slide and you'll ditch the wings. Flankers must bleed their energy down first to the low speed end before all their gimmick capabilities get unlocked.

In other words, the Flanker is either an F-15 or a Hornet, but never both at once. The predictability of its "mode switching" makes it less scary than it sounds.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 18:50
by zero-one
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2019, 21:59
by lbk000
- Flanker is not aerodynamically superior across the board.
- You're taking mock engagements out of context to shore up your argument.
- You don't seem to understand relaxed stability since you talk about it as if it automagically bestows more Ps on whatever you sprinkle it on.
- You seem to think BFM training is conducted in some freestyle manner.
- The significance of the concept of relative performance still seems lost on you.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 03:24
by wrightwing
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.


F-15s routinely beat Su-30s in exercises. At higher speeds, the Eagle outturns the Flanker, as well as having better vertical performance, and acceleration.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 05:29
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:
F-15s routinely beat Su-30s in exercises. At higher speeds, the Eagle outturns the Flanker, as well as having better vertical performance, and acceleration.


No doubt applying hard lessons learned going up against the Raptor. Learning is a 2-way street after all.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 08:29
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:- Flanker is not aerodynamically superior across the board.


Never said it was.
Let me introduce myself, I'm 0-1, I almost religiously defend American fighters against Russian and European fan boys (I'm not an American by the way) specially when it comes to BFM capabilities.

In fact here is a sample turn chart that I usually post whenever someone says the Su-27 will make short work of an F-15
As we can clearly see, the Su-27 has the advantage in most of the subsonic envelope in a sustained turn, but there is a spot in the very high subsonic where the F-15 has the advanatge as well as in the supersonic.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 08:34
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:- You're taking mock engagements out of context to shore up your argument.

The context was a simple turn rate comparison, they wanted to see if the F-15 can stay behind the Su-27 if they both initiated the same type of maneuver, pilot skill was not put into the equation.
So when we say that F-22s or F-35s have beaten this type of plane in a mock engagement are we also taking it out of context?



lbk000 wrote:- You don't seem to understand relaxed stability since you talk about it as if it automagically bestows more Ps on whatever you sprinkle it on.

Well the way I understand it is, according to Sprts at least, Stability along with Wing loading, lift loading, thrust to weight and thrust to drag ratio are some of the main factors he takes into account when comparing kinematics. So yes Sprinkling instability will give you an advantage.

So far all unstable airframes seem to be superior than their more stable counterparts, but I'm aware stability is just a factor that contributes to that, a big factor but not the only factor.

lbk000 wrote:- You seem to think BFM training is conducted in some freestyle manner.
- The significance of the concept of relative performance still seems lost on you.


I apologize if you were hurt by my last post where it seems like I was taking the Flanker's side. But its obvious from your response that you don't like the Su-27 and saying it is superior to the F-15 was offensive.

I am aware of ROE's and set ups when it comes to BFM
But I don't understand why we can't entertain the idea that the Flanker being superior to the F-15 specially at close range but at the same time we emphasize the need for 5th gen fighters like the F-22 and F-35.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 09:23
by wrightwing
No mention of the airspeeds was made. If an F-15 has to turn at the part of the envelope where a Flanker excels, then naturally the Flanker has the advantage. That's why a smart F-15 pilot won't try to turn with a Flanker at 300kts or slower. They'll use their superior vertical performance at that point. If the turn starts at 400kts or faster, it's a different story

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 11:31
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:No mention of the airspeeds was made. If an F-15 has to turn at the part of the envelope where a Flanker excels, then naturally the Flanker has the advantage. That's why a smart F-15 pilot won't try to turn with a Flanker at 300kts or slower. They'll use their superior vertical performance at that point. If the turn starts at 400kts or faster, it's a different story


This is actually the way I defend the F-15 against Flanker fans.
But going back to the Aggressor question.

If the Flanker has a substantial advantage over the Eagle on a big chunk of the Subsonic envelope (up to Mach 0.85 for STR and any speed for ITR) then wouldn't Flanker pilots try to exploit that advantage over everyone.

Just like how Hornet pilots are experts in dragging their victims down to the 300 KCAS region, wouldn't Flanker pilots be the same way.

How does the F-15 accomplish that in the aggressor role?

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 13:08
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:I always thought a stripped down Hornet would be the best Flanker mirror.


There's not even a need to strip it. A fully-fueled F/A-18A with no stores already has better T:W than an Su27 with the same. Put three 330 gal bags and 6 AAMs on the Hornet and you have just about the same T:W everywhere

F/A-18A Clean
Fuel Load lb 10,860
Empty Weight lb 23,050
Weapon Weight lb 0
Full fuel Weight lb 33,910
Under MTOW lb 17,990
Dry Thrust lb 22,000
A/B Thrust lb 35,500
Dry Thrust 100% fuel 0.649
HP: lb Ratio 100% fuel 1.047
Dry Thrust 50% fuel 0.772
HP: lb Ratio 50% fuel 1.246

Su27SM Clean
Fuel Load lb 20,724
Empty Weight lb 40,045
Weapon Weight lb 0
Full fuel Weight lb 60,769
Under MTOW lb 6,331
Dry Thrust lb 33,820
A/B Thrust lb 55,120
Dry Thrust 100% fuel 0.557
HP: lb Ratio 100% fuel 0.907
Dry Thrust 50% fuel 0.755
HP: lb Ratio 50% fuel1.237

The clean F/A-18A always had the better T:W than a clean Su27SM, And when you put 3 bags and 6 AAMs on the Hornet and Su the Hornet still comes out evenly matched.

F/A-18C (3 x 330 US Gal)
Fuel lb 18,167
Empty Weight lb 23,050
Weapon Weight lb 1,795 (4 x AIM-120C7 + 2 x AIM-9X)
Full fuel Weight lb 43,011
Under MTOW lb 8,889
Dry Thrust lb 22,550
A/B Thrust lb 35,500
Dry Thrust 100% fuel 0.524
HP: lb Ratio 100% fuel 0.825
Dry Thrust 50% fuel 0.665
HP: lb Ratio 50% fuel 1.046

Su27SM
Fuel Load lb 20,724
Empty Weight lb 40,045
Weapon Weight lb 3,094 (9A1-4071K (GSh-301) 150x30mm, 2 x R-73, 4 x R-27)
Full fuel Weight lb 63,863
Under MTOW lb 3,237
Dry Thrust lb 33,820
A/B Thrust lb 55,120
Dry Thrust 100% fuel 0.530
HP: lb Ratio 100% fuel 0.863
Dry Thrust 50% fuel 0.632
HP: lb Ratio 50% fuel 1.030

That’s a very even match already, and the Hornet has only 2,537 lb less fuel than the Su27SM, and the drag of the extra three bags on the Hornet will take away the Hornet’s slight AB T:W advantage. No weight stripping required - both jets have 4 BVR, and 2 WVR missiles.

Unfortunately the likes of Carlo Kopp (in particular) provided everyone a fairly bent perception of the relative performance potential between the Hornet and Flanker, because the Hornet was generally the better jet in almost every area, except total fuel load.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 14:26
by hornetfinn
This is old, but rather interesting article about Su-27 and comparison with Western fighters, including F-15.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... 202%29.pdf

It seems like F-15 and Su-27 are pretty closely matched in most performance metrics. I do think that F-15 is pretty good representative of non-TVC Su-27 models. Even TVC equipped ones are not that different except in slow speed close-in situations.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2019, 18:56
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
wrightwing wrote:No mention of the airspeeds was made. If an F-15 has to turn at the part of the envelope where a Flanker excels, then naturally the Flanker has the advantage. That's why a smart F-15 pilot won't try to turn with a Flanker at 300kts or slower. They'll use their superior vertical performance at that point. If the turn starts at 400kts or faster, it's a different story


This is actually the way I defend the F-15 against Flanker fans.
But going back to the Aggressor question.

If the Flanker has a substantial advantage over the Eagle on a big chunk of the Subsonic envelope (up to Mach 0.85 for STR and any speed for ITR) then wouldn't Flanker pilots try to exploit that advantage over everyone.

Just like how Hornet pilots are experts in dragging their victims down to the 300 KCAS region, wouldn't Flanker pilots be the same way.

How does the F-15 accomplish that in the aggressor role?

The Flanker doesn't have an advantage all the way to M.85, though.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 04:22
by lbk000
So here I am giving this another go.
This discussion is degenerating because nobody is cutting to the core of why zero is so fundamentally WRONG.

Zero, your mental picture of air combat training reeks of watching too much Hollywood so you think people go up there to just dick around and try pulling wild gimmick tricks like "hit the brakes and they'll fly right past".
And to do that, you need an airplane that can correctly punish Maverick, because otherwise how do you know what tricks work and what don't?
Right???

The air forces already know what techniques work, and it's not the trainee's business to reinvent the killing technique.

The F-15 is there to provide a point of reference while the trainee is drilling The Winning Thing To Do, so the whole point is that he's not going to see the part of the envelope where the Flanker does The Flanker Thing. The aggressor F-15 will in fact have the option of flying in a regime that the F-15 outperforms the Flanker in, but that's why a key aspect of Aggressor piloting is strict discipline in not exceeding the performance characteristics of their mimicked aircraft. You'll hear in documentaries Aggressor pilots commenting that they must fly under performance limitations and that's because training exercises are taking place in a regime where the Aggressor must be weak. Teaching how to kill means teaching what weakness and vulnerability look like.
atdh.png

Let me put it this way, if you are drilling marksmanship, you're there to drill shooting the target. You're not there to experience how it feels to get shot because you missed.

Rate debates ought to be a straight up banned topic. They are worse than worthless because they are a distraction and a refuge for ignorance.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 05:19
by spazsinbad
'lbk000' I'm an old 'out of state' guy but have experience in ACM from the olden daze. I rage against every post turning into a 1v1 talkfest from armchair pilots. We all have our place however we need to know it and not fantasize from movies or some computer flight simulations that do not mimic the crushing G physicality of ACM when BVR kills are fine & go home.

Meanwhile I do some reading in an attempt to keep up so this is one story that explains the mindset of USAF RED AIR.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... essors.pdf (1Mb)

Probably there is reference to this 11 page PDF in this forum somewhere but anyways I'll attach it here - if even again....

PREVIOUS POST of same PDF here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52723&p=363610&hilit=aggressor+Tirpak#p363610

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 05:20
by lbk000
I'm only really addressing ZO here. There's more to Aggressor training than the BFM aspect, but that's where we started this whole thing at so that's what I want to resolve.
He needs to overturn his idea of what the goal is and understand that being "rigged to win" makes for good training.

Beyond WVR the F-15's larger radar is also more suitable for simulate Bars/Irbis capabilities.

Edit: Sorry I guess I didn't comprehend your remark too well at first spaz.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 05:36
by spazsinbad
Yep thanks I get that however I just wanted to RAVE AGAIN! :-) Meanwhile here are some quotes from the above PDF....
USAF’s AGGRESSORS [lot more to read than just these scruffy excerpts]
April 2017 John A. Tirpak

"...the Air Force launched its own Aggressor squadron in 1972. The first of these was the 64th Aggressor Squadron (AGRS), based at Nellis AFB, Nev....

...In 1975, a second squadron was added—the 65th Aggressor Squadron, also based at Nellis—and in 1976, two more units were stood up. These were at Clark AB, Philippines (the 26th AGRS), and at RAF Alconbury, UK (the 527th AS). The latter two units did “road shows,” traveling around their respective theaters to tangle with frontline units.

Aggressors adopted Soviet-style tactics and procedures, becoming experts in how the Soviet Union and its client states (such as Iraq) used their fighters in collaboration with ground control units. They carried this impersonation to the point of adopting Soviet-style name badges and helmets, their squadron ready rooms festooned with Russian propaganda posters labeled with Cyrillic lettering.

The jets themselves were painted to mimic Soviet aircraft and those of Soviet Bloc countries, wearing schemes known as “Flogger” and, later, “Flanker.” Some schemes were generic and went by names such as “Lizard,” “Pumpkin,” and “Grape,” but others were clearly meant to suggest specific aircraft of the air arms of dozens of adversary and nonaligned countries.

Three years after the Aggressors first stood up, the Air Force—again relying on Red Baron [an old study] and subsequent studies—launched the Red Flag series of exercises, aimed at giving combat pilots experience participating in a large-scale air operation with many elements. Red Baron had concluded that once a pilot had survived 10 combat missions, his life expectancy increased sharply. Red Flag simulated those first 10 missions in a controlled environment before the pilots flew their first real-world combat mission. So effective were the Aggressors, even against vastly superior aircraft like the F-15, that for a time in the 1970s Congress dallied with the idea of buying vast numbers of inexpensive F-5Es rather than pricey F-15s. Air Force leaders patiently explained that the F-15s lost early engagements with the Aggressors because Eagle pilots were not yet proficient in DACT.

After training with the Aggressors and in Red Flag, the F-15 pilots became unbeatable, however. The F-15, in fact, was designed around lessons learned from the Red Baron study: It was a machine designed exclusively to achieve air superiority, with excellent maneuverability, speed, acceleration, radar range, and visibility for the pilot. In US and foreign service, the F-15 has racked up more than 100 dogfight victories over nearly 40 years, without any losses.

USAF’s heavily one-sided victory during the first Gulf War in 1991 validated the success of the Aggressors and Red Flag. Many pilots even reported that the reality of combat did not quite match the stress and challenge they had faced during training in Red Flag.

The 18th Aggressor Squadron and its F-16s became the resident Red Air at Eielson AFB, Alaska, while the 64th AGRS flew F-16s at Nellis.

In recent years, budget cuts and the evolution of Red Flag brought more churn to the Aggressor community. In the wake of the 2013 budgetary debacle of sequester that grounded many USAF fighter squadrons, the 65th inactivated on Sept. 26, 2015, giving up its F-15s to Air National Guard units.

At the same time, Air Combat Command was beginning to envision a new kind of Red Flag—one still having a substantial live-fly element, but heavily supplemented with virtual elements and simulation. Though F-22s and (as of January) F-35s participate in Red Flags, the true scope of what they can do must be hidden from potential opponents closely monitoring the wargames. As a result, Red Flag will move increasingly into the virtual realm.

For the moment, however, no one has forecast a time when the live-fly Aggressors will disappear, completely replaced by phantom digital aircraft on a virtual battlefield. Exposing fighter pilots to the physical experience of skilled “bad guys” in real aircraft will likely remain an Air Force priority."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... essors.pdf (1Mb)

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 06:05
by garrya
lbk000 wrote:My thoughts on the Flanker mysticism...
The Flanker design I would characterize as a very traditional STR-centric design focused on energy retention with high lift features tacked on afterwards to expand the lower end of its maneuvering band. F-16 is somewhat in the same vein. This is in contrast to the "new" school of EM-centric design which is less preoccupied about STR and energy retention and instead pursues angle generation through energy conversion (great I'm starting to retread my earlier post).
So the Flanker's "visibly modern" aerodynamic features do not actually offer it commensurately modern capabilities (i.e., high speed nosepointing threat). The Flanker's excellent energy retention actually plays against it at high speeds because it essentially puts a clamp on its maximum rate; try to pull a power slide and you'll ditch the wings. Flankers must bleed their energy down first to the low speed end before all their gimmick capabilities get unlocked.

In other words, the Flanker is either an F-15 or a Hornet, but never both at once. The predictability of its "mode switching" makes it less scary than it sounds.

Iam curious , isn't the new Pak-fa also has loads of high lift feature such as LERX, LeVcon , slat..etc
Even the F-22, F-35 has vortex generation devices

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 06:41
by lbk000
garrya wrote:Iam curious , isn't the new Pak-fa also has loads of high lift feature such as LERX, LeVcon , slat..etc
Even the F-22, F-35 has vortex generation devices

Poor word choice I admit. New designs are by no means "low lift". The contrast that exists in my mind is that new designs are not constrained to conserve their lift; they can dump it at any point to lower their energy state. The Flanker's core design intent is to be an aircraft that wins by being efficient with its energy across a wide range of airspeeds, so you can pick a better airspeed and just let math take care of the rest (in theory). So while Flanker has a bunch of outwardly modern aerodynamic features, they are "squandered" on one thing the designers were really familiar with: "lift gets us better sustained turn performance, so hoard all the lift we can". It's low speed, high AoA performance more or less settles on not falling out of the sky, in contrast to the Hornets nosepointing freedom. Not that having good STR performance is bad, but I wanted to emphasize that they didn't really exploit the possibilities.

I see a major goal of modern US designs as striving for absolute command over every aspect of flight. As Beesley pointed out regarding Flanker maneuvers, they are mostly ballistic, in contrast to the tight control exhibited by F-22 and F-35 maneuvers. I believe it is symptomatic of a core philosophical difference between Russian and US design goals, between "We need X" and "We need to control X".

I'm only talking about the old Su-27 though, the Su-35 could be an entirely new animal, I don't know anything about it.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 08:34
by spazsinbad
RED AIR FOR HIRE
Apr/May 2018 Amy McCullough

"...Budget cuts in recent years have compelled the Air Force to shrink its aggressor air capability, the in-house adversaries who serve as aerial sparring partners for frontline aircrews. After the 65th Aggressor Squadron (AGRS) — which flew F-15s — shut down in 2014, only the 64th AGRS at Nellis AFB, Nev., and the 18th AGRS at Eielson AFB, Alaska — each flying F-16s — were left.

Within months, the service was forced to pull aircraft from operational units to temporarily fill the gap left by the loss of the 65th’s F-15s, but this wasn’t a sustainable long-term approach: The fighters were needed for real-world missions elsewhere....

...The average 64th aggressor pilot flies two to three times a week. “The schedule can be fairly harrowing on personnel. In general we’ll have a day mission and then have a night mission,” said Manning. For night missions, pilots may show up to work at 4 p.m. but won’t finish debriefing until 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. “Some of the challenges I see as a commander involve making sure I give my people appropriate time off,” he noted....

...WHAT USAF WANTS
The Air Force has said it’s purposely avoiding specifying a specific platform for the job, but ideally it wants an aircraft capable of flying at Mach 1.5, with a service ceiling of 35,000 feet, and a 45 to 60 minute flight endurance. Aircraft must be equipped with fire-control radar capable of detecting, tracking, and simulating “ordnance employment against an opposing aircraft,” and have the ability to “replicate semi-active missiles out to a range of 20 [nautical miles] and active missiles out to a range of 45 [nautical miles],” according to requirements document posted online. Aircraft also must be configured to carry training and electronic attack pods provided by the government....

...USAF works closely with the Intelligence Community to accurately replicate tactics used by foreign air forces. Manning [Lt. Col. Zach Manning, 64th AGRS commander] said when he showed up at Nellis from his previous assignment at Kunsan AB, South Korea, he was a qualified F-16 pilot, yet when he started aggressor training he was “blown away, because I was not prepared for the level of expertise that was needed … in this assignment.”

He said being an aggressor has “made me a better pilot,” and that is something he will take with him to his next assignment. Capt. Justin Bellamy, an aggressor pilot with the 64th AGRS, said he and his fellow USAF pilots are the subject matter experts on how US adversaries operate in the air.

“We’re focused on teaching about our adversaries and then replicating what they do,” he said.
“Replication is only one portion of what we do. Thus far, contract Red Air has only been focused on the replication. We don’t really refer to contract Red Air as an aggressor because they don’t have that mission,” meaning the additional duties of teaching adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures....

...Draken’s Baum, a former Viper pilot, said it just makes sense to contract out at least a portion of USAF’s Red Air requirements. He noted the Air Force “literally has to bolt panels on the outside of the F-35 to let it be seen by radar” if the F-35 is to play the role of “bad guy.”

The F-35 pilots also aren’t allowed to turn on all their fifth-generation sensors, keeping them from flying the aircraft the way it was intended and the way they would fight a real battle.

“We’re not trying to come in and say the Air Force shouldn’t do any Red Air. that’s not our message at all,” he said. But, if USAF is going to “burn up hours” for adversary air, the service should “do it on our jets. They’re never going to war. Don’t do it on the brand new jets [the US] just spent billions of dollars … procuring.”

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... 0Issue.pdf (0.9Mb)

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 08:55
by lbk000
He noted the Air Force “literally has to bolt panels on the outside of the F-35 to let it be seen by radar” if the F-35 is to play the role of “bad guy.”

I probably missed a memo but that's neat. Even Luneburg lens can't blow the signature up enough.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 09:04
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:Zero, your mental picture of air combat training reeks of watching too much Hollywood so you think people go up there to just dick around and try pulling wild gimmick tricks like "hit the brakes and they'll fly right past".


I don't know what your problem is lbk000, but don't pretend like you know me. Tried to be nice but it doesn't work
You assume too much that I think A-A is all about cobras and back flips. Working for McGraw-Hill (aviation week) taught me otherwise. Lots of talks with aggressors including former F-15 aggressors.

And heres what one said. You're right about them honoring the limitations of the aircraft they are trying to replicate,
but they also have limitations of their own, Obviously they cannot replicate a Flanker 100%, the maneuverability below 0.85 mach which is superior in a Flanker is just one example. They actually try to replicate the Flanker in those parts of the envelope where it excels, to the extent of the Eagle's capabilities at least. There are also some electronic and jamming capabilities that he did not go into details.

Anyway, thats where international DACT comes in, the US conducts more joint exercises with friendly forces than any other air force, some of those forces have Flankers (India, Malaysia) but by the time they get there, they already have a good idea of the Flanker's capabilities thanks to aggressor training, DACT with actual Flankers are there to fill in the knowledge gaps.

Lastly, I don't understand why people who talk about ACM here are immediately labeled as watching too much Hollywood. Remember those F-15 guys I talk to, they absolutely love talking about it. Gums loves to talk about it so does Fulcrumflyer, Tailgate also talks about it a lot. I get along with them just fine about that topic, but some people here are so uncomfortable with it. I swear if you didnt know they were actual pilots you'd probably label them as fanboys too.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 09:05
by spazsinbad
He may mean the 'red' iron strakes bolted near where LoonyLenz are parked. These are relatively new. Some seen on test F-35s but also others IIRC. F-35Bs doing sloppie VLs had them for example... Why does ALAMY do this shite?

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/MCD0H8/dan-le ... MCD0H8.jpg

Image

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 09:09
by spazsinbad
'zero-one' I think you have misunderstood a lot when talking with pilots about ACM, but as you say this is difficult to gauge once removed in time and space and keyboard. I'll repeat - you have to have been there to know some of this stuff - just talking about it won't cut it. Pilots often talk in a shorthand way expecting listeners to follow - sometimes they do.....

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 09:45
by hornetfinn
lbk000 wrote:
He noted the Air Force “literally has to bolt panels on the outside of the F-35 to let it be seen by radar” if the F-35 is to play the role of “bad guy.”

I probably missed a memo but that's neat. Even Luneburg lens can't blow the signature up enough.


I bet he meant those Luneburg lenses (4 IIRC in F-35) as they are pretty much panels bolted on the outside of the F-35. Actually the Luneburg lenses themselves are located inside those panels (or whatever they are called) but the shape of the panel is for minimum aerodynamic impact.

I'm more intriqued with this comment:

The F-35 pilots also aren’t allowed to turn on all their fifth-generation sensors, keeping them from flying the aircraft the way it was intended and the way they would fight a real battle

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 09:55
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:


Obviously they cannot replicate a Flanker 100%, the maneuverability below 0.85 mach which is superior in a Flanker is just one example. They actually try to replicate the Flanker in those parts of the envelope where it excels, to the extent of the Eagle's capabilities at least. There are also some electronic and jamming capabilities that he did not go into details.


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.

(If the Flanker is above 60% fuel, the F-15 will have an even broader speed range, where it outmaneuvers the Flanker.)

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 13:44
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:In fact here is a sample turn chart that I usually post whenever someone says the Su-27 will make short work of an F-15. As we can clearly see, the Su-27 has the advantage in most of the subsonic envelope in a sustained turn, but there is a spot in the very high subsonic where the F-15 has the advanatge as well as in the supersonic.


That's not really going to be of much use if the Flanker outturns you in the better turning instantaneous phase where according to your graph it has a consistent advantage 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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 15:31
by zero-one
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 15:56
by mixelflick
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...

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 15:58
by mixelflick
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...

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 17:23
by zero-one
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 18:29
by marsavian
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 18:41
by zero-one
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:

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2019, 19:02
by marsavian
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 00:24
by wrightwing
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.)

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 03:55
by spazsinbad
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


Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 10:41
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 11:04
by zero-one
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

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 11:53
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 14:39
by wrightwing
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2019, 16:05
by ricnunes
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 09:52
by zero-one
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.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 14:09
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote: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.


I honestly don't know in which way they can possibly compare since:
- Some of those "anti-F22 and F-35 proponents who said that Eagle was already good enough to meet future needs" were making a future prediction. Despite on how unfeasible such prediction is/was at least there's something playing for the side of these people: No one can know the future with full certainty.
As opposed, my statement is totally the opposite which was based on past and historical evidence!

zero-one wrote: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.


No, you stop and first of all when posting such comments and in this case of quoting a serviceman which is what you're doing here could you care to post exactly what he said?
It's not the first time what you quoted that serviceman - which by the way is he a pilot or does he have any other role? his service, I assume it to be USAF, no? - you also quoted him in the F-15X thread.

Anyway, it is important to know what were Col. Fornlof's exact words since without knowing them, I obviously cannot comment them.

What I can comment is what I researched and know about the subject and everything that I read, heard and watched indicates that there's absolutely no way that the the Su-30 which was first introduced in 1996 to be as advanced as its direct counterpart of that same era which was the F-15E Strike Eagle, this again in the 1990's - And I'm already referring to the F-15E withOUT AESA.

The Su-30 when entered in service in 1996 was probably among the first Russian fighter aircraft to have cockpit displays with MFDs - you know that "thing" that the first Hornets already had at least 15 years earlier than the Su-30 and that the F-15E already had since the late 1980's??

Now if you or someone else is trying to compare the agility of the F-15E with the Su-30 that's an another matter of discussion which I don't feel going at it right now - what you compared/mentioned above in the post of yours which I quoted was technological advantage and not aerodynamic advantage.
Or, if someone is trying to compare the Su-30 with the F-15C that's IMO not a valid comparison either since the Su-30's direct counterpart would be the F-15E and not the F-15C.

zero-one wrote: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.


I'll tell you what needs to be stopped - what needs to be stopped IMO is:
- When you are proven wrong about a point you need to stop twisting words in order to try to always come on top. These arguments/discussions are a not a competition. This is a learning process - at least to me it is.
- An evidence that you're actually twisting words is on the quote above: Absolutely NO ONE said that "F-15 was more advanced than the Su-27 in EVERY way" - This is you saying that or "better yet", accusing others of saying what again no one did.
Another evidence was your posts in the "F-35 vs Typhoon" thread which ended up being locked (in part thanks to your "stubbornness", I believe). Basically everyone else, including very respected members such as Hornetfinn and Spaz proved you wrong but yet you continued to twist words and narrative in order to get some sort of a twisted "upper hand".
When proving wrong just try admitting that! I'll guarantee that you'll feel better and better yet, in the process you'll learn more.

The bottom line of all this: what I commented and disagree about your post was about the "technological advantage of the Russians in the 1990's" and for me a technological advantage is centered on sensors (Radars, EW/ECM), comms, displays (again MFDs and their pages), etc... and here the Russians were NOT more advanced - not in the 1990's, not earlier and certainly not after!
In case you wish continue this discussion by going into aerodynamics then be aware that I won't go that route.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 15:19
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote::
- When you are proven wrong

:lmao: must of missed the part when this happened. Hey lbk0000 still waiting for your reply buddy.

ricnunes wrote::

"F-35 vs Typhoon" thread which ended up being locked (in part thanks to your "stubbornness", I believe). Basically everyone else, including very respected members such as Hornetfinn and Spaz proved you wrong but yet you continued to twist words and narrative in order to get some sort of a twisted "upper hand".

Wait a minute, I was the one carrying the narrative shared by the admin which is that the F-22 is better for AA than the F-35.

I was not the one saying that the F-35 was stealthier, or some how better for AA than the F-22. Which was what most of who the admin calls "F-35 fans" kept doing. So why is this my fault.

We have some very respected members here but some of them can be wrong just like us. I remember the times when Scorpion1Alpha would publicly scold Spaz for misinformation. Thats not a knock on him. His words still have a lot of weight for me. Its just his opinions that I won't agree with at times. Same goes for everyone.


ricnunes wrote:: what I commented and disagree about your post was about the "technological advantage of the Russians in the 1990's" and for me a technological advantage is centered on sensors (Radars, EW/ECM), comms, displays (again MFDs and their pages), etc... and here the Russians were NOT more advanced - not in the 1990's, not earlier and certainly not after!
.


Well I'm agreeing to that. The context I was talking about on that post was on the EM chart which I believe the Su-27 is aerodynamically superior to the F15. And if a war happened in the 90s and somehow the Russians could afford it. The 90s would have been the only time in history where Nato planes would be at a disadvantage in WVR. The advantages we had in BVR were good but the Flanker isn't a whimp at BVR as well.
Thats all I was saying.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 20:05
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
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.


When it comes to avionics/sensors/systems, the F-15 had always maintained an edge over the Flanker. Where parity/superiority occurred, was in certain parts of the flight envelope, and prior to JHMCS/AIM-9X. US jets were at a WVR disadvantage, when they had AIM-9L/M vs Fulcrum/Flankers with HMS/R-73. They still had a BVR advantage, with AIM-120 vs R-27/77, though.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 20:53
by spazsinbad
Above 'zero-one' said: "...I remember the times when Scorpion1Alpha would publicly scold Spaz for misinformation...." Now that is an interesting claim for me to investigate/remember however 'nothing found' here - please elaborate.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 22:01
by zero-one
spazsinbad wrote:Above 'zero-one' said: "...I remember the times when Scorpion1Alpha would publicly scold Spaz for misinformation...." Now that is an interesting claim for me to investigate/remember however 'nothing found' here - please elaborate.

That was a long time ago buddy.
All I'm saying is that we're all human and make mistakes. I'm certainly guilty. Like he said, we all learn, shrug it off and move on.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 22:07
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:When it comes to avionics/sensors/systems, the F-15 had always maintained an edge over the Flanker. Where parity/superiority occurred, was in certain parts of the flight envelope, and prior to JHMCS/AIM-9X. US jets were at a WVR disadvantage, when they had AIM-9L/M vs Fulcrum/Flankers with HMS/R-73. They still had a BVR advantage, with AIM-120 vs R-27/77, though.


Thank you. This is what I should have said in the first place. This never happened in any era before. In the 50s the F-86 was hands down better than the Mig-15, in the 60s the F-4 was better in BVR and in WVR once they learned how to use it, so was the F-8, 70 and 80s the teen series was better than anything the Soviets had. But then in the 90s the Su-27 was arguably better BVR than the Low end teen series fighters and better in WVR in most cases than the high end fighters.
The 00s restored all the advantages in NATOs favor with their F-22/35 and Eurocanards

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2019, 22:46
by spazsinbad
zero-one wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Above 'zero-one' said: "...I remember the times when Scorpion1Alpha would publicly scold Spaz for misinformation...." Now that is an interesting claim for me to investigate/remember however 'nothing found' here - please elaborate.

That was a long time ago buddy. All I'm saying is that we're all human and make mistakes. I'm certainly guilty. Like he [Scorpion1Alpha?] said, we all learn, shrug it off and move on.

Hang on. You like to quote people without any reference to what they may have said - other than your memory - which may be faulty n'est-ce pas. You like to tell us you remember the bold part though. So where is the MISINFORMATION?

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 00:58
by sinusoiddelta
mixelflick wrote:
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...


For what it’s worth I found the article below, written by an eagle driver, regarding the Su-27 ‘beating’ the F-15 at Langley. He tells quite a different story:
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/f15vssu27sm_1.htm
Twice in the last month there have been threads on HyperScale’s Discussion Group talking about Flankers fighting Eagles in Summer 1992 and having their lunch.

I was surprised, first of all, that I had never heard about this before. I flew Eagles in the 94FS at Langley, which was the squadron that went to Russia then hosted them when they visited the U.S. With my usual impeccable sense of timing I managed to leave the squadron shortly before all this happened, but I still personally knew, and had flown with, 90% of the pilots assigned to the squadron at the time and 100% of the pilots that flew in these exchange visits. Somehow in the 10 years that have passed they had failed to mention to me in numerous conversations about this very subject that any DACT occurred - I don't think so! In addition to still flying for the Air Force Reserve I work as an F-15 sim instructor at Langley; which means I'm current on the latest F-15 programs and performance. Surely there would be some record (classified or unclassified) of this apocryphal event and the lessons learned if the Eagle had been beaten so badly. There isn't. Period. Dot.

After reading the last thread I decided to check it out.

Rather than relying on hearsay, I contacted three pilots with whom I was stationed at Langley. These pilots flew in Flanker backseats, gave Russian pilots Eagle rides and flew Eagles in formation with the SU-27's and are still flying the F-15. I passed on the Air Forces Monthly "story" as quoted and, after they had stopped laughing hysterically, they told me was this: the amount of DACT that took place between Eagles and Flankers in Summer 1992 was...NONE, nada, zip, zero, nyet, a big doughnut.

DACT was not just frowned upon or discouraged; it was forbidden, for two main reasons.

Nobody wanted the political heat/fallout that would result if one of the jets went out of control and crashed or, worse, if they had a mid-air in the hard manoeuvring that DACT implies.

Second, despite recent warm feelings toward the Russians nobody was going to allow anything remotely classified to be passed on, so the F-15s were flown radar, TEWS, PACS panel, ICS off. When all your weapons systems are turned off it becomes pointless to fly DACT, unless you're planning to recreate WWI, WWII, and Korea by fighting guns only. In which case give me an A-10 that can turn up it's own a$$ and has a big gun.

What actually did occur (and probably formed the loose basis for this "dramatic story") was that, in addition to single ship backseat rides, the F-15's and SU-27's went out and flew tactical formation with each other (line abreast 1 to 2 miles apart with 2000 to 3000 feet vertical spacing). During 90 degree turns in this formation one aircraft turns first and passes 3000 to 4000 feet through the 6 'o clock of the second jet to go, at which point that second jet starts its turn in order to roll out line abreast but with both jets pointed 90 degrees off the formation's original heading.

During one of these turns the Flanker, rather than continuing to the expected heading, stopped at the Eagles dead six for 3000 feet. After several seconds of wondering what the Hell the SU-27 pilot was doing the F-15 pilot spent 20 seconds trying to shake him and was unable, and then stopped, which proves? Basically nothing.

In the fighter community nobody starts 3000 foot perch setups at the defender's dead six, because staying behind somebody after that kind of start is on a par with clubbing baby seals in its level of difficulty. Instead the offender actually moves to the defender's 4 or 8 'o clock for 3000 feet before starting the fight. Even then in this more difficult setup the offender still stays in an offensive position 95% of the time. The 5% he doesn't is usually a result of him grossly porking up his BFM. It should be emphasized this was a single event, unplanned, unexpected, and half-heartedly done and not some series of "mock dogfights”.

As Paul Harvey says "that's the rest of the story" straight from participants in the event not some second, third, or fourth hand magazine article or internet rumor which just repeats what somebody else wrote.

In the future if you want to argue the merits of the two aircraft please spare us the repetition of this non-event as proof and stick to comparing them based on their airframe/weapons performance as published.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 17:53
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote: :lmao: must of missed the part when this happened. Hey lbk0000 still waiting for your reply buddy.


As there were also other posts which I would like to have replied to. But in case you haven't notice "buddy", that thread was locked in the meanwhile and BTW, in good part due to your "efforts"!
So if you miss a reply from my part in that thread than you have only yourself to "thank"/blame to :roll:

Anyway and for logical reasons (logical to me, at least) I won't continue a discussion which happened in another thread which was locked, this in this or another thread...

zero-one wrote:In the 50s the F-86 was hands down better than the Mig-15,


Since when??
The only F-86 variant that was considered to be better than Mig-15 such as the improved Mig-15Bis variant was the F-86F.
The previous variant - the F-86E - approached the performance of the Mig-15s but was still generally inferior while the F-86A (the first Sabre to see combat over Korea) was clearly inferior to the Mig-15.

While this is wikipedia (and it's worth for what it is) but you can read the following in the F-86 Sabre entry:
Early variants of the F-86 could not outturn, but they could out dive the MiG-15, although the MiG-15 was superior to the early F-86 models in ceiling, acceleration, rate of climb and zoom. With the introduction of the F-86F in 1953, the two aircraft were more closely matched, with many combat-experienced pilots claiming a marginal superiority for the F-86F.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre

zero-one wrote:in the 60s the F-4 was better in BVR and in WVR once they learned how to use it, so was the F-8, 70 and 80s the teen series was better than anything the Soviets had.


Here, I agree with you.

zero-one wrote:But then in the 90s the Su-27 was arguably better BVR than the Low end teen series fighters and better in WVR in most cases than the high end fighters.
The 00s restored all the advantages in NATOs favor with their F-22/35 and Eurocanards


As others already told you, the advantage of the Su-27 and by extension the Mig-29 in WVR compared to NATO fighter aircraft was due to the Helmet Sight/R-73 "combo".
As such, if the Helmet Sight was removed from the Su-27 and Mig-29 (while the R-73 missiles could even stay) they would lose their WVR edge.
So what actually restored the NATO edge in WVR was Helmet Display/Cueing Systems such as the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) together with missiles such as the AIM-9X and ASRAAM in which both systems were far more advanced than their Russian counterpart.
Aircraft like the F-22/35 and Eurocanards only increased the edge that NATO already had even in terms of WVR air-to-air combat.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 17:27
by mixelflick
And with hundreds and eventually thousands of F-35's rolling off the line, that edge gets even greater. Although we'd all like to have more F-22's, the F-35 will have to do. I'm convinced it'll be very effective air to air, although not AS effective as the F-22.

We are fortunate LM designed as much "oomph", maneuverability, stealth and SA into it as they did. The more you learn about it, the more you realize what a tremendous engineering accomplishment it really is..

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 00:49
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote:
As others already told you, the advantage of the Su-27 and by extension the Mig-29 in WVR compared to NATO fighter aircraft was due to the Helmet Sight/R-73 "combo".


It wasn't just that, unlike previous generation of fighters the Su-27/Mig-29 had parts of the envelope where they were actually at an advantage. So yes, that, coupled with the R-73/helmet combo gave Russian fighters an advantage against the American fighters for the first time.

ricnunes wrote:

As such, if the Helmet Sight was removed from the Su-27 and Mig-29 (while the R-73 missiles could even stay) they would lose their WVR edge.


If you're implying that the helmet/missile combo was their only advantage, does that mean Mig-23-98 and the Su-27 are in the same league?

ricnunes wrote:
Aircraft like the F-22/35 and Eurocanards only increased the edge that NATO already had even in terms of WVR air-to-air combat.

I agree with that. The F-22 doesn't have the helmet yet though but there are reports here from various members saying that Raptor pilots have said to them in their faces that the F-22 is hands down better in WVR, no question.

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 14:44
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
As others already told you, the advantage of the Su-27 and by extension the Mig-29 in WVR compared to NATO fighter aircraft was due to the Helmet Sight/R-73 "combo".


It wasn't just that, unlike previous generation of fighters the Su-27/Mig-29 had parts of the envelope where they were actually at an advantage. So yes, that, coupled with the R-73/helmet combo gave Russian fighters an advantage against the American fighters for the first time.


Yes, of course that the Su-27/Mig-29 had parts of the envelope where they were actually at the advantage against their USAF counterparts, the F-15/F-16. High AoA maneuvering is a very good example. Actually in this part the only US Aircraft that matched and surpassed the Su-27/Mig-29 was the F/A-18 Hornet, this during that era.
So when I read some posters saying that the F/A-18 (namely the F/A-18C with the more powerful engine) is perhaps the most underrated fighter aircraft in the history of modern fighter aircraft, I fully agree with this!

However even when comparing the F-15/F-16 with the Su-27/Mig-29 there are also other parts of the envelope that the US fighters are in advantage, namely in terms of energy maneuvering. Together with this, the US aircraft (F-15/F-16 and the F/A-18 as well) had the technological advantage in terms of better Radars, RWR and EW defensive suites and cockpit displays.
And lets not minimize the later (cockpit displays) since this drastically reduces the pilot workload which makes him/her much more effective even during WVR combat/dogfight, this compared with the cockpit displays of the Su-27/Mig-29 which vast majority was composed by analog instruments/displays.

For example,
the F-16C Block 32 cockpit:
Image

F-15C cockpit:
Image


Now, lets compare with the Su-27 cockpit of the same era:
Image

And the Mig-29 cockpit also of the same era:
Image


Note that even the F-15C cockpit being quite more "retro" compared to the F-16C cockpit and as such somehow more dependent on analog instruments/displays it still had a single MFD (on lower left part of the front/main panel) while the Su-27 and Mig-29 of that era didn't have any.
This makes the US aircraft far more combat effective due to the reasons that I mentioned above and all of this is all about technological advantage.

As such, what would have made a really big diference in potential WVR air-to-air combat in favor of the Soviet/Russian aircraft during that era was indeed Helmet Sight/R-73 "combo", this much more than any advantage that the Su-27/Mig-29 might or could have in some parts of the envelope.


zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:

As such, if the Helmet Sight was removed from the Su-27 and Mig-29 (while the R-73 missiles could even stay) they would lose their WVR edge.


If you're implying that the helmet/missile combo was their only advantage, does that mean Mig-23-98 and the Su-27 are in the same league?


NO, obviously no and I never said such thing!
Resuming, while the Su-27/Mig-29 have indeed parts of the envelope where they are actually at the advantage over the F-15/F-16, the truth is that the F-15/F-16 also have the advantage on other parts of the envelope.
Now in a Su-27 versus Mig-23-98 there are no parts of the envelope that I can remember of where the Mig-23 could have an advantage over the Su-27. So i'ts a completely different comparison here.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 16:32
by mixelflick
And just because the F-22 and 35 are here, it isn't a moot point (F-15 and 16 hold important advantages). We will be operating a mixed 4th and 5th gen fleet for decades to come.

The important think is that the F-35 has restored the quantitative and qualitative advantage. Tremendously so. Prior to this our F-22's were head and shoulders above any Russian counterpart(s). But they were small in number, alarmingly so. We now have hundreds and soon thousands of F-35's.

And the advantage they convey over foreign (especially Russian) jets isn't just a little bit... it's a whole lotta' bit. Much greater than the F-14, 15, 16 and 19 conveyed vs. their Mig-21, 23, 25 and even 29 counterparts. Big Sukhoi's with their big radar signature are in for a long day, penultimate Flanker (SU-35) or not.

I would not want to be stalked by Panthers. Has to be unnerving, to say the least!

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 16:56
by juretrn
An observation to ricnunes' post:
Funny how to this day Russians don't make any fighters with integrated EW/ECM...
Just pods.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 19:33
by marsavian
Big Sukhoi's with their big radar signature are in for a long day, penultimate Flanker (SU-35) or not.


Irbis-E powerful though it is will also be like a lighthouse to RWRs and will undo any RCS benefits they achieved. The Su-35 is a brute force approach, they really do need a working Su-57 to have a serious chance.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 16:05
by mixelflick
marsavian wrote:
Big Sukhoi's with their big radar signature are in for a long day, penultimate Flanker (SU-35) or not.


Irbis-E powerful though it is will also be like a lighthouse to RWRs and will undo any RCS benefits they achieved. The Su-35 is a brute force approach, they really do need a working Su-57 to have a serious chance.


Yes, that radar is going to look like a flashlight in a dark room. What of the SU-35's passive detection systems though?

Is it fair to say they have the edge over the Eagle in that realm??

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 16:42
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:
Yes, that radar is going to look like a flashlight in a dark room. What of the SU-35's passive detection systems though?

Is it fair to say they have the edge over the Eagle in that realm??

I would think not. EPAWWS should be superior to Khibiny in every way. Legion/ATFLIR should be superior to OLS-35 in every way except maybe packaging.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 00:30
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
marsavian wrote:
Big Sukhoi's with their big radar signature are in for a long day, penultimate Flanker (SU-35) or not.


Irbis-E powerful though it is will also be like a lighthouse to RWRs and will undo any RCS benefits they achieved. The Su-35 is a brute force approach, they really do need a working Su-57 to have a serious chance.


Yes, that radar is going to look like a flashlight in a dark room. What of the SU-35's passive detection systems though?

Is it fair to say they have the edge over the Eagle in that realm??

No. The APG-63(v)3 and APG-82 are far superior to the Irbis, either in active or passive detection.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2019, 01:57
by spazsinbad
Preparations Underway at Nellis for F-35 Aggressors
05 Jun 2019 Amy McCullough​

"​Nellis AFB, Nev., already is busy planning for the reactivation of the 65th Aggressor Squadron, even though it’s not slated to start receiving F-35 strike fighters until early 2022. “For the Adversary Tactics Group, this is a really big deal for us. Our mission set is to know, teach, and replicate the threat in air, space, and cyberspace. From my vantage point, we’re really good at knowing and teaching the threat, but we have some challenges in the replication area,” Col. Travolis Simmons, commander of the 57th ATG, told Air Force Magazine recently. “The F-35 is really going to assist in addressing some of those challenges.”...

...The unit, which will include 194 military personnel and 37 contract personnel, will require an additional 60,000 square feet of facilities and 300,000 square feet of ramp space, said Simmons. The exact military construction ask is still being worked out, but Simmons said the service will need to build one new hangar and more sunshades.

Between the 64th Aggressor Squadron’s F-16s, Draken International’s fleet of contracted Red Air, and visiting aircraft that fly in for large-scale exercises such as Red Flag, real estate already is at a premium at Nellis, but Simmons said the service doesn’t expect to have to increase the ramp space. “Obviously, at Nellis we’re working through that right now, where that space is going to be,” he said, noting the military construction projects likely will be funded in the service’s Fiscal 2021 budget.

Draken is on contract to fly about 5,600 hours of adversary air at Nellis per year, but the service is hoping to eventually increase that number to 7,500 hours under a follow-on competition. It’s not yet clear how many hours the 65th AGRS will fly, or how that will compare to the 64th AGRS already at Nellis or the contract air. Simmons said that will largely depend on the training need and what maintainers are able to support.

Although the F-35s coming to Nellis are some of the oldest in the Air Force, the addition of fifth generation aggressors will allow the service to replicate the full spectrum of potential adversaries. “Obviously, with the stealth capability that the F-35 is going to bring to the fight, I don’t have a way to replicate that right now,” Simmons said. “It’s going to be a huge increase into what we’re actually able to provide as far as a real threat representative asset for blue to train against.”

...When the service first announced that F-35s would be playing aggressors at Nellis, aviation enthusiasts quickly began sharing a photo of a black F-35, painted in the camouflage scheme of a Su-57, flying alongside an F-16C from the 64th Aggressor Squadron. When asked if it’s even possible to paint the F-35 without damaging its low observability stealth coating, Simmons said that’s something the Air Force is still looking in to. “No decision has been made on whether or not we’ll paint the F-35s in an aggressor scheme, but more to follow,” he said, noting the service is currently discussing the idea with F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin and “our experts” to “figure out what we’re capable of doing without impacting the overall capability of the airplane.”"

Graphic:
F35_F16_Nellis(1).jpg
Source: airforcemag.com

"A black F-35, painted in the camouflage scheme of a Russian Su-57, flies with an F-16C from the 64th Aggressor Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nev., in this artist illustration. The Air Force has not determined if the F-35s that will be assigned to the 65th Aggressor Squadron will have an aggressor paint scheme. Photo illustration from 57th Wing Commander Gen. Robert Novotny's Facebook page."


Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... ssors.aspx

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 03:46
by weasel1962
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... -training/

The Air Force is reactivating the 65th Aggressor Squadron and moving 11 F-35A Lightning IIs to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, as part of a larger initiative to improve training for fifth generation fighter aircraft.


Looks like J-20s, rather than Sukhois, are the new standard.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 06:08
by optimist
take the Russian stuff to a Russia thread please.

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 06:42
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1843434/air-force-to-reactivate-aggressor-squadron-for-f-35-training/

The Air Force is reactivating the 65th Aggressor Squadron and moving 11 F-35A Lightning IIs to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, as part of a larger initiative to improve training for fifth generation fighter aircraft.


Looks like J-20s, rather than Sukhois, are the new standard.



With the failure of the SU-57 and no additional 5th Generation Fighters on the horizon for Russia. I would assume that China will pretty much take over the Non-Western Fighter Market. With four options....two 4th Gen (JF-17 and J-10C) and two 5th Gen (J-20 and J-31).


So, hardly surprising the 65th will lean towards the latter two. :wink:

Re: 65th Aggressor Squadron F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 06:50
by Corsair1963
The F-35 is about to become the Air Force's ultimate enemy!

QUOTE:

The aircraft is uniquely suited to replicate a wide range of threats with unprecedented high fidelity. I have talked with sources about this in the past and they have noted that the F-35's software alone should be able to be manipulated to replicate the sensor, sensor fusion, electronic warfare and communications capabilities of adversary threats.

In other words, applications could be designed to limit various aspects of the F-35's capabilities—and enhance others synthetically via data-link—to better mirror that of the aircraft it is masquerading as. In addition, it can be equipped with bolt-on radar reflectors that may be able to be manipulated to better replicate certain radar signatures of enemy aircraft, including those that aren't even stealthy at all.

https://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-f3 ... BPkvU52Fg8