Exercise Northern Lightning Overview [F-35As + others]

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 09:29

sferrin wrote:
popcorn wrote:It's getting tougher to justify a Raptor re-start if the F-35 starts racking up massive "kill" tallies in LFEs.


Probably isn't F-22 kills it's getting. :wink:

Probably not many, but it seemingly kills previous gens just as easy as the raptor.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 09:38

popcorn wrote:“We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw (the F-35A).”


This seems like a very easy article for David Axe to write: "F-35 cheating in air exercises by respawn camping."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 11:11

botsing wrote:
sferrin wrote:
popcorn wrote:It's getting tougher to justify a Raptor re-start if the F-35 starts racking up massive "kill" tallies in LFEs.


Probably isn't F-22 kills it's getting. :wink:

Probably not many, but it seemingly kills previous gens just as easy as the raptor.

Just getting started. ain't seen nothing yet...
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5411
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 13:31

vanshilar wrote:
popcorn wrote:“We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw (the F-35A).”


This seems like a very easy article for David Axe to write: "F-35 cheating in air exercises by respawn camping."



Probably writing it up as we speak.

(Not Axe but close enough:)

"EDITOR’S NOTE: The US Air Force’s claims of the F-35’s supernatural powers are becoming less credible with each new instance.
Scoring “27 kills in a single sortie” is impossible because the F-35 cannot carry more than four AIM-120 Amraam missiles internally, while adding two AIM-9X on wing pylons destroys its “stealth,” and makes it clearly visible to enemy radar.
Contrary to what is claimed above, the F-35’s sensors do not yet have “the ability to process and share information with other players in the battle space” because of technical faults.
But, even if they did, the F-35 could not transmit sensor data to previous-generation aircraft because its Multifunction Advanced Data Link is not fully operational, and in any case is not compatible with datalinks used by legacy aircraft. "


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 80%9D.html

What a whiny little turd.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 14:28

sferrin wrote:"EDITOR’S NOTE: The US Air Force’s claims of the F-35’s supernatural powers are becoming less credible with each new instance.
Scoring “27 kills in a single sortie” is impossible because the F-35 cannot carry more than four AIM-120 Amraam missiles internally, while adding two AIM-9X on wing pylons destroys its “stealth,” and makes it clearly visible to enemy radar.
Contrary to what is claimed above, the F-35’s sensors do not yet have “the ability to process and share information with other players in the battle space” because of technical faults.
But, even if they did, the F-35 could not transmit sensor data to previous-generation aircraft because its Multifunction Advanced Data Link is not fully operational, and in any case is not compatible with datalinks used by legacy aircraft. "


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 80%9D.html

What a whiny little turd.


Who is this 'editor'?

Every time I see one of their articles it's like they begrudgingly report and then note at the end what they publish above is a lie.
It's a moronic way of doing 'churnalism'.

Also....
the F-35 could not transmit sensor data to previous-generation aircraft because its Multifunction Advanced Data Link is not fully operational, and in any case is not compatible with datalinks used by legacy aircraft. "

Someone tell me this is 100% bunk?
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 15:34

MADL works fine, but what he may be referencing is or was the sensor fusion issue (talked about during Block 2B development) where any more than 2 jets fusing their sensors caused ghost (the same target would be detected but thought by the computers to be a second target). I don't know if that was fixed with Block 3i, but the concerns were being brought up in early/mid 2015.

As for as legacy compatibility goes, the F-35 can and does use Link 16 (there's been a few articles in the past where they've talked about F-35s improving the situational awareness of F-16s, etc - you can't do that if you have no comms). MADL isn't compatible with legacy jets, but that has nothing to do with the F-35; it's not a new iPhone or Samsung Galaxy's fault that a 10 year old phone can't use 4G.
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 625
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 16:43

bojack_horseman wrote:
sferrin wrote:"EDITOR’S NOTE: The US Air Force’s claims of the F-35’s supernatural powers



Why do all of these people have to add a rhethorical exaggeration that implies the other part is exaggerating?

Not sure if it's funny or tragic.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post31 Aug 2016, 17:55

bojack_horseman wrote:Someone tell me this is 100% bunk?

Yes it's bunk...

The F-35 can use Link-16 and if stealth is an issue, an F-35 that is not in the AO can do it.

And no, a sidewinder on the wing will not "destroy" it's stealth.

One of his (and many other F-35 haters) problems is that once an issue is found with the F-35, it is a permanent problem. Nothing ever gets fixed, regardless of how it's being used today or what reports are released.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post01 Sep 2016, 01:36

I sent the editor an email and got a response; the italics black text is from the article, the dark blue text is my email to him and the quote boxes are his itemised replies:

"Scoring “27 kills in a single sortie” is impossible because the F-35 cannot carry more than four AIM-120 Amraam missiles internally"

While I don't know for certain how this kill count was accrued, there are two obvious answers that don't require the USAF to call on supernatural powers; either an F-35 was allowed to rearm (like how jets are allowed to respawn), or there were multiple F-35s in that sortie (there were a total of fourteen F-35As at Northern Lightning), or it was a mix of those two answers (eg, maybe it was two F-35As that were allowed to rearm).

- If one or two F-35s were allowed to rearm, it is not a "single sortie."
- If there were "multiple" F-35s, it may be a single mission, but not a single sortie.
In either case, the USAF statement is both wrong and misleading.


"while adding two AIM-9X on wing pylons destroys its “stealth,” and makes it clearly visible to enemy radar."

While obviously the F-35 isn't going to remain a VLO platform with two external AIM-9X's, an F-35 with just those two outer hardpoints is still going to have a significant detection / RCS advantage over any 4th gen adversaries, especially from frontal sectors.

I said underwing missiles make the F-35 "clearly visible to enemy radar," which is a statement of fact.
I made no claims about whether "the F-35 has an RCS advantage or not over 4th gen adversaries."


"Contrary to what is claimed above, the F-35’s sensors do not yet have “the ability to process and share information with other players in the battle space” because of technical faults."

Where have you heard this? F-35s have been able to perform multi-ship sensor fusion between two aircraft fairly successfully; the technical faults have mainly been an issue when you try to fuse 3 or 4 F-35s together, with data not correlating properly and having some targets appearing as multiple targets.

The USAF story claims that the F-35 can "process and share information with other players in the battle space."
This is only true between two F-35s, as an F-35 cannot today fully transmit tactical data to 4th-gen aircraft.


"But, even if they did, the F-35 could not transmit sensor data to previous-generation aircraft because its Multifunction Advanced Data Link is not fully operational, and in any case is not compatible with datalinks used by legacy aircraft."

I think you're a bit confused; MADL works fine between F-35s (the sensor fusing issue is an issue with the mission computers rather than the data link). Furthermore, the F-35 has been able to use Link 16 for some time now. The Dutch have talked about it and its ability to improve the SA and combat capability of F-16s here: http://airheadsfly.com/2015/08/25/dutch ... tegration/

"In fact, Rockwell was awarded a contract in November 2015 to “help resolve the 5th to 4th generation communications gap.”"

Just to be clear; the reason for pursuing a bridge for this comms gap is to preserve the stealth of the F-22 and F-35 while communicating with legacy fighters. Using Link 16, like using their radar, doesn't mean instant death for an F-22 or F-35, but there are scenarios where it would be a major interoperability or survivability concern. Link 16 is also just incredibly slow for when it comes to things like sharing imagery or video, so having a high bandwidth system like IFDL or MADL would be a major benefit.

The "Dutch have talked about it," and have had some success in some exercises, but the US Air Force statement mentions what is a hypothetical future capability as it existed today as an operational capability. That is wrong.
You have a point here: I should have stated more clearly that the Rockwell contract is intended to "improve the sharing of mission-critical data," which exists in a limited volume, as you rightly noted: "Link 16 is also just incredibly slow for when it comes to things like sharing imagery or video"

We spend quite a bit of time fact-checking claims made by the F-35 enterprise, and rarely find them accurate, as some recent examples show:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lders.html

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 80%9D.html

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ssing.html

Today's Editor's Note may not be in the same category, but it is in the same spirit.

Thank you for your interest in Defense-Aerospace.com, and kind regards,
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1222
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post01 Sep 2016, 03:17

Dragon029 wrote:I sent the editor an email and got a response; ...

We spend quite a bit of time fact-checking claims made by the F-35 enterprise, and rarely find them accurate, as some recent examples show:

.. 1bn-cash-advance-goes-to-lockheed-stockholders.html

... marines-declared-f_35-ioc-despite-deficiencies-that-%E2%80%9Cpreclude-mission-readiness%E2%80%9D.html

... the-real-story-of-the-f_35%E2%80%99s-transatlantic-crossing.html

Today's Editor's Note may not be in the same category, but it is in the same spirit.

Thank you for your interest in Defense-Aerospace.com, and kind regards,


The asserted "inaccuracies" are deeply confused in the apple and oranges realm. I'll pick the last one, and just mention that I have crossed the pond, more than once, with chicks in tow, including through Lajes Field. The editor wouldn''t know which end of the box lunch to open... more importantly, who to ask how. I'm not surprised he got strange answers from the wall. I can see however, how the Program Office has just blown this guy off, based on the answers you received. I might address the questions in a face to face, but I wouldn't waste words on a blog/email where every editor's comment is framed against a false narrative. There is no profit in it.

When trying to press a narrative as he does, the rabbit hole that you go down discovering the lack of basic knowledge on the side subjects gets tedious. "I'm sorry, I didn't know you were clueless about that side subject, let me take you back to 101, and get you up to speed," .... is not something busy program managers are going to do.

Nor will I in a forum like these. Face to face you can dig through the clutter, but not here.

MHO
BP
Offline

yeswepromise

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2014, 03:32

Unread post01 Sep 2016, 03:40

Werent there around 12-14 F-35s that made the trip?
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post01 Sep 2016, 03:53

Fourteen:
The 14 F-35As constitute the largest number of F-35s on one deployment to date.


https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _26_16.pdf
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Sep 2016, 04:43

Same article here with photos - 1 repro belo: http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Dis ... -legacy-ai
PHOTO: "An F-35A Lightning II and an FA-18 Super Hornet fly in formation over Volk Field, Wis., during Northern Lightning on Aug. 23, 2016. Northern Lightning is a tactical-level, joint training exercise that emphasizes fifth- and fourth-generation assets engaged in a contested, degraded environment. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Stormy Archer)" http://media.defense.gov/2016/Aug/30/20 ... 74-547.JPG
Attachments
F-35A+ShornetNorthernLightningAug2016.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mike5560

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2016, 06:03

Unread post01 Sep 2016, 06:16

Axe is either unable to read between the lines or he plays dumb to fit an agenda. I'm "guessing" with a good level of confidence that with the 27 kills, the exercise planners simulated multiple waves of F-35s as both cost savings and maximizing training with the available jets. Maybe the AF should just send a/c to RTB once killed or run out of simulated missiles. That would only make the cost effectiveness to training value to very inefficient.
BTW, a sortie is one takeoff/ landing for one aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post01 Sep 2016, 06:35

The F-35 is downright tiny compared to the Sbug. That can't be right. That photo must be fake. :shock:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests