"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

[GGTharos]

Su-34 has a rearward facing radar. So watch that R-77 even if you are on Su-34 six.

 

Makes me wonder if anything sitting behind the '34 will also be sitting inside some doppler blind speeds ...

 

F-35 does not have rear facing radar and is very vulnerable to attack from behind.

 

It has 360 optical coverage capable of detecting aircraft and missiles - a more advanced version of the MiG-35OLS.

[A.S]

Stealth. Stealth what.... maybe to much StarWars Stealth

Thrustvectoring Cobra..Cobra what.....(someone please find me a source when that maneuver was used in combat scenario)

Technical details read from sources put up partially as PR or propaganda.....

 

There is no point in arguing in what is better ...."BETTER" alone needs a defintion here....where Better...in what Better.......etc etc....

 

Nothing is rely-able if not proven in service, combat or test records...

 

So, instead of fictiv arguing bout TV-Program Jets...it would be cool to get some links from flight records or similar.

 

stuff like this is interesting to read:

 

The 57th Adversary Tactics Group undertook some interesting tactics not contained in the overall [scripted] intelligence scenario. These involved surprise threats, generally Red Air [enemy] fighters, entering the air battle unexpectedly. White Force [exercise control] staff would confirm that the threat was Red and Blue Air [the “good guys”] had to react. The tactic worked. An F-16C pilot assigned to the 64th Aggressor Squadron gained the first-ever F-22 kill in Red Flag. [94th commander] Lt. Col. Dirk Smith told AFM: “At least half of the 94th FS crews had less than 50 hours in the F-22 and no matter how magical the F-22, any pilot can make a mistake. The beauty of Red Flag is that we were able to go out and practice our tactics in a challenging scenario, make a mistake, learn a lesson, and be that much better prepared for actual combat.”

 

2/14/2007 - NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (ACCNS) -- The F-22A Raptor is flying in its first Red Flag exercise that started here Feb. 3, showcasing its stealth, super cruise and other advantages absent in legacy fighters.

 

Within the exercise, pilots from the 94th Fighter Squadron, Langley AFB, Va., are flying F-22s against Red Flag aggressors, with pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force of Australia, and the Royal Air Force of England. This is the first time the F-22 has flown with coalition forces.

 

The 94th FS deployed 14 Raptors and 197 personnel to play in the Red Flag exercise, which ends Feb. 16. Including the F-22s, more than 200 aircraft are participating. Among the foreign aircraft involved are the RAF's GR-4 and RAAF's F-111C. In addition, the F-22s are flying with the B-2 Spirit and F-117 Nighthawk, the aircraft that pioneered stealth. Other typical aircraft at Red Flag are the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and more.

 

 

If you talk bout aeronautical warfare everything comes down to performance including the whole weapons and info-structure of modern battlefields. Observations, defensives, countering or disturbing technics...alternative solutions. What i want to say is very simple....a very low RCS doesnt make a jet invisible....there are enough other sources to spot and knock it out.

 

So if we want to compare abilities very specific we would require very detailed informations...and i really doubt that we will find them so easy.

All just fan-boy speculation gents......therefore ..what we can do is to find news and post bout missions, testflights and such records.

[Kuky]

I saw somewhere while back that Cobra can be used to confuse the radar and make the aircraft drop of the radar scope for a short time... I guess enough for them to change heading and beam/notch... if this can work like this I don't know but I did see representation of this tactics somewhere... anywho, I doubt they would be designing the aircraft so it can do this and not have any purpose for it.

[A.S]

I saw somewhere while back that Cobra can be used to confuse the radar and make the aircraft drop of the radar scope for a short time... I guess enough for them to change heading and beam/notch... if this can work like this I don't know but I did see representation of this tactics somewhere... anywho, I doubt they would be designing the aircraft so it can do this and not have any purpose for it.

 

i found a good read..

 

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/spr88/siuru.html

 

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-pugachev.html

Edited October 2, 2008 by A.S

[Pilotasso]

I saw somewhere while back that Cobra can be used to confuse the radar and make the aircraft drop of the radar scope for a short time... I guess enough for them to change heading and beam/notch... if this can work like this I don't know but I did see representation of this tactics somewhere... anywho, I doubt they would be designing the aircraft so it can do this and not have any purpose for it.

 

Todays radars wont drop lock for that. Even if momentainly the target doesnt produce doppler shift compared to the ground clutter it will remain on the tageting computer memory untill it is forced to accelerate and reapear as an actual target rather than a virtual blip, or else it drops out of the sky.

[Teknetinium]

GG Im not trying to prove that one thing is better then other,just trying to point out that Su-34 has more roles then F-35, as SEAD,tacktical nuke,sub detecting, longer range, more lift, designed for longer missions, if u like.,That make it the most advanced Multi-role aircraft u know.

 

 

Im not trying to bring in something I dont have prove of ;)

[hitman]

I wouldnt call it "most advanced", I would call it "more capable" or more "mission adaptable". If you want more advanced, put a MAD detector on an F-22 so it can hunt subs. It wouldnt be too hard to put B-61 Silver Bullets in the F-22 either. They aint that big...

 

Edited October 2, 2008 by hitman

[Pilotasso]

Tek, you may want to us to understand you point of view, but understand this: Su-34 is not 2 F-16's glued side by side!

 

Its an AG striker. Thats all theres to it.

[tflash]

I'm a little suprised about the mythical proportions that F-35 is taking. Those who will benefit from it are in the first place those who operate truly limited aircraft like Harrier and Hornet. Both these aircraft have ridiculous range and way to limited combat persistence.

 

The big problem in Afghanistan today is that there is no true air dominance at all, contrary to the rethoric. OK, fighters operate unopposed, but they crucially lack persistence in the air, hot-and-high performance, payload and range. WHEN you get air support it's OK, but the air coverage is way to small compared to the abundance of Talib fighters. Talibs are everywhere, Harrier and Hornet are nowhere, heading to base, tanking somewhere high in the sky or bingo homeward bound. The much vaunted STOVL Harrier is taking off from ... exactly the same base as F-16's. Only when it finally is in the air half of its fuel is gone. With the same amount of fuel Reaper is airborne for 16 hours.

 

Predator and MQ-9 Reaper are easily outperforming these obsolete jets.

 

F-35 is supposed to alleviate these problems by having much, much better persistence than Harrier and Hornet. If you fly Harrier than F-35 must be godlike. But I wonder if other forces really need F-35. There are certainly better strike aircraft (F-15E?), there are UAV's, there are stealthy stand-off missiles like Storm Shadow, there are cheaper do-it-alls like Gripen ...

[GGTharos]

Barring the long time comfort, the F-35 does everything else ... their action radius is very similar (F-35's is slightly less).

 

As for sub detection, if we're talking picking up the periscope on radar, the F-35 would have no problems with that - if it's MAD, then ok ;)

 

When it comes to nuclear strike, I'm sure that even if you could load a B-61 into it, the preferred aircraft of delivery would be a B-2, B-1, or cruise missile launched from a B-52. MAYBE an F-22.

 

Also, the most multi-role aircraft I know would be the F-18E :D

 

Any US Aircraft with an AESA (and probably any Russian aircraft with the same) radar is also capable of very complex and powerful jamming - that's another one to add to the list. And again, these guys are link-16 terminals, which changes things significantly - esp. if they have SATCOM (I know F-22 does, I don't know about the 35).

 

GG Im not trying to prove that one thing is better then other,just trying to point out that Su-34 has more roles then F-35, as SEAD,tacktical nuke,sub detecting, longer range, more lift, designed for longer missions, if u like.,That make it the most advanced Multi-role aircraft u know.

 

 

Im not trying to bring in something I dont have prove of ;)

[GGTharos]

This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin :P

 

The F-35's purpose isn't to fight the Taliban. It is meant to penetate heavily defended lines of battle and blow things up.

 

If ALL you're going to do is burn holes in the sky and drop bombs from high altitude, then by all means, convert a 707 and drop guided munitions from it from altitudes that taliban can't reach.

 

But when you enter the sort of fight the F-35 was MEANT to prosecute, there'll be no legacy fighter than can do the fighter as well.

 

You just framed it in the wrong problem. You don't build fighters to fight the current threat - you build them to fight the BEST future threat you can imagine - including your own fighters.

 

F-35 is supposed to alleviate these problems by having much, much better persistence than Harrier and Hornet. If you fly Harrier than F-35 must be godlike. But I wonder if other forces really need F-35. There are certainly better strike aircraft (F-15E?), there are UAV's, there are stealthy stand-off missiles like Storm Shadow, there are cheaper do-it-alls like Gripen ...

[hitman]

I'm a little suprised about the mythical proportions that F-35 is taking. Those who will benefit from it are in the first place those who operate truly limited aircraft like Harrier and Hornet. Both these aircraft have ridiculous range and way to limited combat persistence.

 

The big problem in Afghanistan today is that there is no true air dominance at all, contrary to the rethoric. OK, fighters operate unopposed, but they crucially lack persistence in the air, hot-and-high performance, payload and range. WHEN you get air support it's OK, but the air coverage is way to small compared to the abundance of Talib fighters. Talibs are everywhere, Harrier and Hornet are nowhere, heading to base, tanking somewhere high in the sky or bingo homeward bound. The much vaunted STOVL Harrier is taking off from ... exactly the same base as F-16's. Only when it finally is in the air half of its fuel is gone. With the same amount of fuel Reaper is airborne for 16 hours.

 

Predator and MQ-9 Reaper are easily outperforming these obsolete jets.

 

F-35 is supposed to alleviate these problems by having much, much better persistence than Harrier and Hornet. If you fly Harrier than F-35 must be godlike. But I wonder if other forces really need F-35. There are certainly better strike aircraft (F-15E?), there are UAV's, there are stealthy stand-off missiles like Storm Shadow, there are cheaper do-it-alls like Gripen ...

 

You forget...the F-18 has a support role in Afghanistan, and thats all the Navy/Marine Corps designed it for. Theres a bigger, badder aircraft in that theater that brings complete pwnage to the taliban, and it comes in the form of the carpet bombing monster B-1B. The UAV's only carry a small and very limited payload, if they carry anything at all. The company that operates these things continuously recruit at my college, and they bring back some good information on what they do out in the field. Its not that they are outperforming them, its that these aircraft only do very limited ops, which is recon first, forward observervation second, surgical strike last. They cant turn the tide of battle by repelling forces like the F-18 or Harrier can. Thats where the B-1B comes into play.

[tflash]

This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin :P

 

The F-35's purpose isn't to fight the Taliban. It is meant to penetate heavily defended lines of battle and blow things up.

 

 

That is what LM is hyping NOW that a lot of questions arise. The Dutch government only very recently ADDED this line to their requirement, to be able to pick the "right contender".

 

I'm not saying F-35 is meant to fight Taliban, I mean it is designed primarily to succeed Hornet and Harrier (which is the case for Navy + Marines + RAF/RN). It was not a USAF priority at all.

 

I think it will easily be better than Hornet & Harrier, but I firmly believe F-35A is not the best choice USAF could have made.

[Pilotasso]

I'm a little suprised about the mythical proportions that F-35 is taking. Those who will benefit from it are in the first place those who operate truly limited aircraft like Harrier and Hornet. Both these aircraft have ridiculous range and way to limited combat persistence.

 

F-35 is not taking mythical proportions. Infact it has been bashed to hell rather unfairly since poeple were only told the general outlines of the planes capabilities. airshow fans and military industry lobies are saying it will be clubbed like a baby seals even though there are no released specs avaiable to the public.

 

Since when F-18 was limited? compared to the F-14? F-15?

When it was put into service, it was a state of the art multirole aircraft and it did all its jobs better than any eastern block types. Infact there were many attempts to produce an F-18 like aircraft for 20 years.

 

The big problem in Afghanistan today is that there is no true air dominance at all, contrary to the rethoric. OK, fighters operate unopposed, but they crucially lack persistence in the air, hot-and-high performance, payload and range. WHEN you get air support it's OK, but the air coverage is way to small compared to the abundance of Talib fighters. Talibs are everywhere, Harrier and Hornet are nowhere, heading to base, tanking somewhere high in the sky or bingo homeward bound. The much vaunted STOVL Harrier is taking off from ... exactly the same base as F-16's. Only when it finally is in the air half of its fuel is gone. With the same amount of fuel Reaper is airborne for 16 hours.

 

Predator and MQ-9 Reaper are easily outperforming these obsolete jets.

 

F-35 is supposed to alleviate these problems by having much, much better persistence than Harrier and Hornet. If you fly Harrier than F-35 must be godlike. But I wonder if other forces really need F-35. There are certainly better strike aircraft (F-15E?), there are UAV's, there are stealthy stand-off missiles like Storm Shadow, there are cheaper do-it-alls like Gripen ...

 

You are talking about a very specifi scenario. A reaper or Predator UAVs would fall out of the sky like flies in any high intensity conflict. Your vision of airpower aplication is a bit skewed.

[GGTharos]

tflash, What else could they have done though? It's a good replacement for the F-16 without having to engineer a whole new aircraft. No one was sold on the FB-22 for example ;)

[Pilotasso]

An FB-22 would be overkill for current likeliness of high intensity conflicts. So would its price tag.

[hitman]

tflash, What else could they have done though? It's a good replacement for the F-16 without having to engineer a whole new aircraft. No one was sold on the FB-22 for example ;)

I heard somewhere that the navy is trying to acquire FB-23's.

[tflash]

I agree this all comes into play, I always wondered though why acquiring more Strike Eagles wasn't considered? Not that it is for exactly the same roles, but adding more of them to the mix could have been one way to bridge to the future? And isn't the F-22 not already capable of striking highly defended area's fist night of conflict?

[RedTiger]

This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin :P

 

The F-35's purpose isn't to fight the Taliban. It is meant to penetate heavily defended lines of battle and blow things up.

 

But thats what its going to end up doing, right? Fighting Taliban? Isn't that always the way it is? The F-15 gets designed to counter high and fast interceptors and future 4th generation Soviet aircraft in WWIII and it ends up fighting under-matched Iraqi and Serbian MiGs in very limited conflicts.

 

You design your kit to take on the biggest and bestest stuff the civilized world can imagine just in case but find that the anyone who is civilized doesn't want to fight and die any more than you do, no matter how much they rattle that rusty sabre. So you end up fighting a crazy colony of fire ants in an obscure part of the world with your shiny new Starship Enterprise.

 

So who's designing the "5th gen" version of the A-10? The one that can snipe a single Taliban individually from long range, loiter around for hours, and has near total IR stealth? :pilotfly:

[nscode]

You are talking about a very specifi scenario. A reaper or Predator UAVs would fall out of the sky like flies in any high intensity conflict. Your vision of airpower aplication is a bit skewed.

 

Even more than they do in low intensity ones :)

[GGTharos]

So you end up fighting a crazy colony of fire ants in an obscure part of the world with your shiny new Starship Enterprise.

 

I'd be guilty of genocide and war crimes then :D (Which is why you don't see taliban areas getting nuked)

 

So who's designing the "5th gen" version of the A-10? The one that can snipe a single Taliban individually from long range, loiter around for hours, and has near total IR stealth? :pilotfly:

 

Oh if you'd only seen the IR-invisible M1's ...

[Teknetinium]

Any US Aircraft with an AESA (and probably any Russian aircraft with the same) radar is also capable of very complex and powerful jamming - that's another one to add to the list. And again, these guys are link-16 terminals, which changes things significantly - esp. if they have SATCOM (I know F-22 does, I don't know about the 35).

 

http://russianforces.org/space/navigation/glonass.shtml

http://russianforces.org/blog/space/

Edited October 2, 2008 by Teknetinium

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

So, F-35 can not fight against modern fighters because it does not carry enough AA missiles. F-35 does not come even close to Su-24 when it comes SEAD.

 

So F-35 bets all its money on stealth?

[Kuky]

Todays radars wont drop lock for that. Even if momentainly the target doesnt produce doppler shift compared to the ground clutter it will remain on the tageting computer memory untill it is forced to accelerate and reapear as an actual target rather than a virtual blip, or else it drops out of the sky.

 

Like I said, I don't know if this is true or not but at the same time unless this has been tried already and it has been seen that doing a Cobra doesn't drop lock I am not rulling this option out. Something remaining in memory does not mean target doesn't drop of the radar.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

All just fan-boy speculation gents......

Of course it is a fan-boy speculation! But that’s why it is fun! And somewhat educational. These combat airplanes are technological marvels …