F-35A to Red Flag

Production milestones, roll-outs, test flights, service introduction and other milestones.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1968
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post26 Feb 2017, 23:47

zero-one wrote:The F-22 is not invisible to an Aim-9X it is simply harder to detect. It takes the Aim-9X longer to achieve a lock on an F-22 than it does to an QF-4. Thats not really too hard to believe

Dwell time of infrared system on fighter is only fraction of a second, so if there is any different it wont really has any noticeable effect on lock time.And to be honest, i dont think F-22 on AB is that much colder than F-4, especially at WVR where its side is exposed

zero-one wrote:Well like we said, difficulty is not just with numbers, they could have been facing fewer opponents in RF 17-1 but with more ground support and stricter ROEs which ultimately made it more difficult.

But it is 1 vs 8 still, it up to you if you want to believe it, but the ratio is too much for me.

zero-one wrote:So? It does that mean that an F-22 isn't allowed to continue without its wingman? If only 2 F-22 were ready on a base at a given time, then you came under attack and suddenly the wingman gets FOD in the engine and can't take off, can you say, hey I ain't going up there without a wing man.

I dont think any base only have 2 aircraft. Furthermore, exercise with only 1 aircraft against 8 makes little sense as many pilots need training.

zero-one wrote:See, we're trying really hard to make stuff up just to convince ourselves that it isn't an Aim-9X.

From my point of view, it isn't.
zero-one wrote:he article explicitly said that the Raptor was WVR with the pilot visually seeing the [expletive] thing. Which weapon system would he be using at that point? The best WVR weapon or some other less effective weapons system for that type of fight.

But what is the visual range mentioned here ? 5 km or 10 km or more ? , If it isn't very close range AIM-120 can be more useful too due to its better kinematic

zero-one wrote:The article was also about the F-22 performing well against Aim-9X

Not things about AIM-9X here http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Features/Dis ... -flag.aspx

zero-one wrote:Now unless you can find a counter article to the Fightersweep story. One that specifically denies the use of Aim-9x and HOBS, then the article remains credible no matter what you think is unbelievable.

Like i said , this is just like the argument about God. The believers argue that there is no evidence to prove that God isn't exist. The non believers argue that there is no evidence to prove that God exist ..vice versa. This is similar. If you want believe that article is credible then that is up to you. But others have the right to be skeptical





zero-one wrote:Look at the Aim-9X test footage again, see how long the pilot needed to stare at the target before firing. Remember this is a QF-4 he was trying to lock on to.

There are others factors involved, aircraft may simply be trying to get into specific position for the test. Remember the goal isn't only to destroy the QF-4 but also to test AIM-9X at various angle

zero-one wrote:Remember the F-22 was made IR stealthy, do we really think it will only be marginally colder than an F-15?

It can be cooler, but not to the point IR seeker would have trouble to lock on. If that was the case MANPADS and their cheap seekers would be useless

zero-one wrote:If you can find a credible article that disproves the story at fightersweep then fine, but until then, made up excuses trying to defend the Aim-9X doesn't really do much.

I seen the IR footage of F-22, I read various analysis of F-22 kinematic performer, i seen the key performer metrics. Those are enough for me. If you want to believe the article that is up to you.
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post27 Feb 2017, 01:25

eloise, zero one....none of us actually know how well an aim9x seeker can track a raptor.

Stop writing legit pages about a subject that neither of you can prove, and has nothing to do with the f-35's recent performance at red flag, please find a new thread to argue in :)
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1968
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post27 Feb 2017, 01:37

les_paul59 wrote:eloise, zero one....none of us actually know how well an aim9x seeker can track a raptor.

Stop writing legit pages about a subject that neither of you can prove, and has nothing to do with the f-35's recent performance at red flag, please find a new thread to argue in :)

Ok, i stop, it going in circles anyway
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post27 Feb 2017, 08:24

Given that RF is about "going in war TOMORROW" and not "in the future".

So the USAF has basically 0 reason to simulate a realistic 5th gen aggressor team as there are none right now.

What is really puzzling me tho, how this guy keep babbling about the war on terrorism as if Mohammed has the capability to take flight in a 5th gen fighter.
Dunno where have i been these last few years but i swear the terrorists do not operate a VLO Pak-goat firing new gen of advanced medium range anti air camels with their raghead mounted displays.

The point of this RF was to test some early strats for the turkeys and see if they can deliver some punches in a very complicated and advanced scenario where the latest 4.5gen tech and AAs are simulated.

Oh boy if it delivers... with 100% (almost).more misson availability too!
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2406
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post27 Feb 2017, 13:34

eloise wrote:Ok, i stop, it going in circles anyway


Okay, my final say on the subject is this, the F-22 like the F-35 was made to be stealthy in 3 different aspects
-Radar
-Infrared
-Electronic emissions

and for years we have the USAF has bragged about it. We have no problems believing that they were able to achieve stealth on the 2 of them, but suddenly we have all kinds of problems when the Raptor proves that it is also IR stealthy?

The USAF has been bragging about the F-22's stealth on all 3 aspects for years, they've spent billions on it, thats why the nozzles are flat and not round, thats why the dry thrust is so great it can push the 30 ton airplane near mach 2 without afterburner.

I would be pretty surprised if both the F-22 and F-35 wouln't show any decreased susceptibility to advanced IR systems.

Are you saying that they flattened the nozzle among other things but there still wouldn't be any reasonable advantage over an F-4 against the Aim-9 or even against MANPADS?

Okay, be skeptical if you want, but It doesn't make much sense to me
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4342
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Feb 2017, 13:49

It's obvious they designed the F-22 with all 3. You don't spend billions on just 1 or 2 if the 3rd one is going to get you. That's just common sense.

As for 5th gen vs. 5th gen, that too should be obvious - they've already done it and will continue to do it. By the time PAK FA, J-20 etc are fielded in any significant numbers, you can bet the USAF will have a game plan to take down their LO airframes. And it wouldn't surprise me if the missiles doing that come from a 4th gen platform somewhere far away...
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 892
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post27 Feb 2017, 16:18

zero-one wrote:Okay, my final say on the subject is this

Your final say should be in another new thread, with this "final say" post of yours you just kicked it off in this thread again. :doh:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

saberrider

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 460
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 10:38

Unread post27 Feb 2017, 22:12

SpudmanWP wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Obviously they don't fire live missiles at RedFlag at each other. Even unarmed missiles would be a danger.

I was under the impression that they do drop live ordinance on some targets. Is that incorrect?


Drop live ordinance on a controlled range where there is not a human anywhere near.. Yes.

Launch a missile (armed or not) that is designed to hit a moving target at a human pilot in a $100million plane... HELLZ NO :devil:
There is on You tube a documentary and in the range is a horse walking around and F18s fire with cannon.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25655
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Mar 2017, 07:21

1 Mb Eleven page PDF of entire article: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... essors.pdf
USAF's Aggressors
April 2017 John A. Tirpak

"...Three years after the Aggressors first stood up, the Air Force—again relying on Red Baron 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....

...Red Flag Goes North
Together, the F-15s and F-16s form the core of opposition forces in Red Flag wargames. In 2006, Red Flag was franchised, and the regular Cope Thunder exercise held in Alaska was renamed Red Flag-Alaska. 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 ... ssors.aspx
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post01 Mar 2017, 12:26

les_paul59 wrote:I know we were all enjoying vilters critique of red flag, but at least he wants the 35 to be tested against a worthy opponent like the raptor. The gripen fan boys over at bestfighter4canada response to the f35's success was "wow they only beat us legacy jets, why not test them with real jets like the euro-canards"


The majority of posters there are clueless. Mostly Gripen fanboys who think it's the equivalent of the F-22. I try to fix stupid there but it's mostly fruitless.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post01 Mar 2017, 14:46

les_paul59 wrote:I know we were all enjoying vilters critique of red flag, but at least he wants the 35 to be tested against a worthy opponent like the raptor. The gripen fan boys over at bestfighter4canada response to the f35's success was "wow they only beat us legacy jets, why not test them with real jets like the euro-canards"


Huh......what!!?? A Gripen is now a real jet!!??......you mean like a real hopped up F5E :mrgreen: . Gee whiz, I can predict the kill to loss ratio of the F35 (only running Block 3i software.....to give the Gripen a slim chance :devil: ) against that hopped up F5E aka Gripen......40:1 (and I am half serious about this)...with the F35 knocking off Gripens left, right and centre like a crazed Viking. That should brighten up the day of those Gripen fanboys :mrgreen: . Frankly, the Gripen wasn't particularly stellar when they participated in past Red Flags. And how is that Gripen NG going? Has the first proper prototype flown yet? Is SAAB still distracting us with videos of random Scandinavian models!?
Offline

sdkf251

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 11:02

Unread post01 Mar 2017, 15:09

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:I know we were all enjoying vilters critique of red flag, but at least he wants the 35 to be tested against a worthy opponent like the raptor. The gripen fan boys over at bestfighter4canada response to the f35's success was "wow they only beat us legacy jets, why not test them with real jets like the euro-canards"


The majority of posters there are clueless. Mostly Gripen fanboys who think it's the equivalent of the F-22. I try to fix stupid there but it's mostly fruitless.


Well, if a Pharmaceutical firm creates a vaccine to cure "stupid", the company would be one of the richest in the word! :D Bwa! Ha! Ha! Ha!!!!!!! (Sorry could not resist...)

But seriously, why does any rational person think the Gripen is something that can match the F-22 or F-35. The plane was suppose to be a low cost aircraft with performance as close to teen series aircraft. (Well not sure if that is still true though)
If the F-22 and F-35 is sweeping the floor with the comparable aircraft of the Gripen, how can it do any better?
Do they have the secret to Wonder Woman's invisible plane or something and placed it on the Gripen? :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post01 Mar 2017, 15:32

kimjongnumbaun wrote: The majority of posters there are clueless. Mostly Gripen fanboys who think it's the equivalent of the F-22. I try to fix stupid there but it's mostly fruitless.


Victims of SAAB's marketing department, no doubt. For the feeble-minded, what the Gripen lacks from a technical standpoint is often obfuscated by the plethora of flashy Swedish propaganda.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Mar 2017, 15:51

vilters wrote:Why did they not field a F-35 led force against a F-22 led force?

Here is the political answer : They will not because they can not afford it.
Why? => You would have to declare a winner and a looser.

Nobody in the Military or in the industry can afford to write in black on white that a F-22 led force lost the battle against a F-35 led force. => You can not call your own prime air superiority fighter a "looser".

Same goes the other way:

Nobody in the Military or in the industry can afford to write in black on white that a F-35 led force lost the battle against a F-22 led force. => You can not try to sell a loosing aircraft to the Military, to the Industry or to all International partners.
Nobody buys a looser.

That is why they are so scared to field F-22 and F-35 led forces against each other.

They would have to declare a winner and a looser. => Politically? => Nobody can not afford that.


Nope
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Mar 2017, 15:52

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
The majority of posters there are clueless. Mostly Gripen fanboys who think it's the equivalent of the F-22. I try to fix stupid there but it's mostly fruitless.


Gripen isn't even the best eurocanard, let alone a match to 5th gen fighters
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 milestones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests