F-35 in reality

If anyone is interested there is some information from some Dutch pilots posted on here regarding how they have been using it recently.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54012&sid=d89ed8dabdc82b0831ebe4fefa55e16b

Slide is not wrong.

Differences are: in Rafale, Typhoon, SH, etc sensor will determine track, share it, system will task other sensor where too look to help refine track + uses tracks from datalinks. System then decide what is real track. Big advantage over legacy systems lowering pilot workload.

No, that's not how it works on Rafale, that's what LM pretends.

There were French publication about it, I don't have at hand.

Rafale collect the data from all the sensors. When there are multiple sensors on the same track, it can use multiple sensors to build one track.

For instance: if radar off (for discretion) range from L16 or Spectra and angular position form FSO (IRST).

So the system doesn't choose one track among multiple tracks, it does use multiple sensors/ sources to build one.

Once a track is in range, no matter what the sensor (even external), it can engage.

So the F-35 weapon system can do some cool things, but it isn't always the only one nor the first to do so...

So the system doesn't choose one track among multiple tracks, it does use multiple sensors/ sources to build one.

 

Once a track is in range, no matter what the sensor (even external), it can engage.

 

So the F-35 weapon system can do some cool things, but it isn't always the only one nor the first to do so...

Yes, this is what I ment by REFINE part of my post. Sorry not to be clear. Just trying to show you the difference in capabilities.

Yes, this is what I ment by REFINE part of my post. Sorry not to be clear. Just trying to show you the difference in capabilities.

About the data fusion, no, I don't see any difference in what you're describing.

But I can see how LM tries to "downplay" the concurrence. :music_whistling:

About the data fusion, no, I don't see any difference in what you're describing.

But I can see how LM tries to "downplay" the concurrence. :music_whistling:

Read whole article:

https://sldinfo.com/2015/10/shaping-a-new-combat-capability-for-21st-century-operations-the-coming-of-the-f-35b-to-the-new-british-carrier/

And think hard why Typhoon pilot, said for example this:

The F-35 should give us the confidence to allow the pilot to make more decisions than ever before, but we have to get the commanders intent and this breadth of tasking rather than directive tasking framed in the right way.

The airplane has the ability to do things without the pilot asking it to do it.

 

Automatically conducting, particularly, ISR whilst it’s conducting an OCA mission or an attack mission in a very different way than platforms have done business in the past.

 

This is something that other operators are working in the package alongside F-35 need to understand.

 

That the F-35 operator won’t be going through sequential thought process.

 

He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space.

 

I think there is another step change and difference in the way in which the information is displayed to the pilot which is important and is extremely intuitive.

There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon.

 

So very, very quickly, I knew a great deal about the entity being targeted – sensor fusion at work.

 

I think it’s a very different way of displaying information that any other fast jet has done before.

 

Knowing what my wingman is seeing and my wingman knowing what I am seeing, and my ability to communicate what I want to have achieved by my formation, by my package, which all may be by the air wing that’s air-borne at the time.

 

This airplane changes the game in a way which we can conduct that sort of business.

So even if you dont see diference in sensor fusion levels... you should at last see diference in situational awareness and ability to share it.

Read whole article:

https://sldinfo.com/2015/10/shaping-a-new-combat-capability-for-21st-century-operations-the-coming-of-the-f-35b-to-the-new-british-carrier/

 

And think hard why Typhoon pilot, said for example this:

 

So even if you dont see diference in sensor fusion levels... you should at last see diference in situational awareness and ability to share it.

Ok, I'll give you that, I know better the Rafale than the Typhoon. Maybe I over estimated the Typhoon.:D

In General I agree that the European nation at sleep, MBB had already stealth prototype for aerodynamic Test end of the 60‘s that use similar approach on Stealth technology as the F117.

On the other hand, the doctrine of European country’s , special Germany at the time was defending, there Stealth was not top priority.

Anyway, before buying the F35, I would suggest to upgrade Typhoon and Rafale and related ground systems to improve SA and get focused on 6th generation technology, btw. What are the definition for 6th Generation fighter ?

Just to conclude this thread:

"Since the first flight of AA-1 in 2006, the developmental flight test program has operated for more than 11 years mishap-free, conducting more than 9,200 sorties, accumulating over 17,000 flight hours, and executing more than 65,000 test points to verify the design, durability, software, sensors, weapons capability and performance for all three F-35 variants.

With stealth technology, advanced sensors, weapons capacity and range, the F-35 is the most lethal, survivable and connected fighter aircraft ever built. More than a fighter jet, the F-35’s ability to collect, analyze and share data is a powerful force multiplier that enhances all airborne, surface and ground-based assets in the battlespace and enables men and women in uniform to execute their mission and return home safe."

That is F-35 in reality.

EDIT: This says Vice Adm. Mat Winter, F-35 joint program executive officer @ Lockheed Martin.

It is indeed amazingly safe to fly!

Just to conclude this thread:

 

"Since the first flight of AA-1 in 2006, the developmental flight test program has operated for more than 11 years mishap-free, conducting more than 9,200 sorties, accumulating over 17,000 flight hours, and executing more than 65,000 test points to verify the design, durability, software, sensors, weapons capability and performance for all three F-35 variants.

 

With stealth technology, advanced sensors, weapons capacity and range, the F-35 is the most lethal, survivable and connected fighter aircraft ever built. More than a fighter jet, the F-35’s ability to collect, analyze and share data is a powerful force multiplier that enhances all airborne, surface and ground-based assets in the battlespace and enables men and women in uniform to execute their mission and return home safe."

 

That is F-35 in reality.

 

EDIT: This says Vice Adm. Mat Winter, F-35 joint program executive officer @ Lockheed Martin.

No mishape in test, but at least one in operational squadron:

https://theaviationist.com/2015/06/06/f-35-engine-fire-images/

OK one class A mishap. Compare this to the database of F-16 mishaps: http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/ Or the infamous but oh so beautiful Starfighter: http://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-accidents/

One must say LM improved its game a lot since Starfighter and F-16 !

Rafale and Typhoon are also quite safe but had their share of accidents already. And of course Hornet/Super Hornet have a long list of incidents but just like F-16 also a very large number of flight hours.

OK one class A mishap. Compare this to the database of F-16 mishaps: http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/ Or the infamous but oh so beautiful Starfighter: http://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-accidents/

 

One must say LM improved its game a lot since Starfighter and F-16 !

 

Rafale and Typhoon are also quite safe but had their share of accidents already. And of course Hornet/Super Hornet have a long list of incidents but just like F-16 also a very large number of flight hours.

F-16 - F/A-18: almost 40 years of service

Rafale: 16 years of service, starting with French Navy in 2001.

Super Hornet: 19 years of service.

:music_whistling:

OK one class A mishap. Compare this to the database of F-16 mishaps: http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/ Or the infamous but oh so beautiful Starfighter: http://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-accidents/

 

One must say LM improved its game a lot since Starfighter and F-16 !

 

Rafale and Typhoon are also quite safe but had their share of accidents already. And of course Hornet/Super Hornet have a long list of incidents but just like F-16 also a very large number of flight hours.

To be fair, F-16 class A accidents often have to do with GLOCs. The new system in place for the autopilot to take control, roll wings level, and pull up has been a life saver in numerous instances already, which is amazing. Really healthy people (lower blood pressure) can GLOC at 4-5 Gs if they aren't straining correctly, even with the new G-suit that F-16/F-22/F-35 pilots have.

F-16 - F/A-18: almost 40 years of service

Rafale: 16 years of service, starting with French Navy in 2001.

Super Hornet: 19 years of service.

:music_whistling:

Sorry but a simple rule of 3 gives me still the F-35 with the least mishaps per whatever year/number of flight hours/fleet size, no?.

:doh:

Sorry but a simple rule of 3 gives me still the F-35 with the least mishaps per whatever year/number of flight hours/fleet size, no?.

Like it was something linear :music_whistling:

Maybe it will be safer than previous generation.

But it's too soon to tell. It's unfair to compare the shiny new toy who achieved nothing in operation so far to 40 years old designs with often 30 years old beaten airframes.

Plus F-16 and Hornet weren't plan ed to serve that long. Often they were extended.

Sometimes mishaps come from pilot error due to high operational tempo. Something the F-35 isn't really involved in yet.

The only thing I for one know for sure: The constant ownage of F15F's of the F35 and also the F22 at RED FLAG speaks far more than all the Lockheed Martin boasting of anything but real results.

If you look at the standoff maximum effective range of the HARM missile,the A10C is still very effective at CAS.If the enemy makes more S400 Sams,make more HARMS.With a good F16/F18 joint effort of the air force and navy,anything is possible.Also the S400 only have 4 missiles at once at disposal,BIG EXPENSIVE SOVIET missiles,with highly exagerated capabilities.The time between launch is about 13 seconds,the maximum range is 13km vertically launched,maximum speed is mach 4,5.A warthog can fly above 13km altitude to throw a laser guide JDAM as well.Make a Maverick missile with a greater fuel capacity as well.The only thing necessary is AIR COVER,AIR SUPREMACY.Have HARMS clear the way,you have warthogs finishing the job.THe F35 is simply waste of expenditure,and it is failing miserably.

the maximum range is 13km

wut

A warthog can fly above 13km altitude to throw a laser guide JDAM as well.

wow

:megalol::megalol::doh:

yeah dude just like fly a warthog up to 42000ft lmao

The only thing I for one know for sure: The constant ownage of F15F's of the F35 and also the F22 at RED FLAG speaks far more than all the Lockheed Martin boasting of anything but real results.

There is no such thing as F-15F

Secondly, F-15 didn't constantly "own" F-35 at Red flag

on the contrary:

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag

If you look at the standoff maximum effective range of the HARM missile,the A10C is still very effective at CAS.If the enemy makes more S400 Sams,make more HARMS.With a good F16/F18 joint effort of the air force and navy,anything is possible.Also the S400 only have 4 missiles at once at disposal,BIG EXPENSIVE SOVIET missiles,with highly exagerated capabilities.The time between launch is about 13 seconds,the maximum range is 13km,maxiumum speed is mach 4,5.A warthog can fly above 13km altitude to throw a laser guide JDAM as well.Make a Maverick missile with a greater fuel capacity as well.The only thing necessary is AIR COVER,AIR SUPREMACY.Have HARMS clear the way,you have warthogs finishing the job.THe F35 is simply waste of expenditure,and it is failing miserably.

A-10 is terrible, terrible in CAS against a competent adversary, if enemy armor formation have any sort of air defense like SA-15, Pantsir-S1 or 2K22 Tunguska or ZSU-23-4 then the GAU-8 is useless for all intend and purpose.

S-300/400 also out range HARM by a significant margin, current HARMs can reach 100-150 km whereas 48N6E2 can reach 190 km, 9M83ME can reach 200 km, 40N6 can reach 400 km. Furthermore, S-300/400 can have 4 missiles per TEL, and one battery have several TEL

Furthermore, F-35 benefit far more from support asset than A-10 can ever hope to

The only thing I for one know for sure: The constant ownage of F15F's of the F35 and also the F22 at RED FLAG speaks far more than all the Lockheed Martin boasting of anything but real results.

What's an F-15F?

You must have some access to some super seeeeekrit stuff!

If you look at the standoff maximum effective range of the HARM missile,the A10C is still very effective at CAS.If the enemy makes more S400 Sams,make more HARMS.With a good F16/F18 joint effort of the air force and navy,anything is possible.Also the S400 only have 4 missiles at once at disposal,BIG EXPENSIVE SOVIET missiles,with highly exagerated capabilities.The time between launch is about 13 seconds,the maximum range is 13km,maxiumum speed is mach 4,5.A warthog can fly above 13km altitude to throw a laser guide JDAM as well.Make a Maverick missile with a greater fuel capacity as well.The only thing necessary is AIR COVER,AIR SUPREMACY.Have HARMS clear the way,you have warthogs finishing the job.THe F35 is simply waste of expenditure,and it is failing miserably.

Wow...

Imagine spending this much time to write all of this...and still be wrong.

The S400, even with it's absolute least capable missile, still can reach up to 60,000 feet..with more advanced versions up to 100,000 feet...

Wow...

 

Imagine spending this much time to write all of this...and still be wrong.

 

The S400, even with it's absolute least capable missile, still can reach up to 60,000 feet..with more advanced versions up to 100,000 feet...

Well I think Racefuel has a fuel drinking habit.As in GASOLINE!

There is no such thing as F-15F

Secondly, F-15 didn't constantly "own" F-35 at Red flag

on the contrary:

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag

${1}

 

 

A-10 is terrible, terrible in CAS against a competent adversary, if enemy armor formation have any sort of air defense like SA-15, Pantsir-S1 or 2K22 Tunguska or ZSU-23-4 then the GAU-8 is useless for all intend and purpose.

S-300/400 also out range HARM by a significant margin, current HARMs can reach 100-150 km whereas 48N6E2 can reach 190 km, 9M83ME can reach 200 km, 40N6 can reach 400 km. Furthermore, S-300/400 can have 4 missiles per TEL, and one battery have several TEL

 

Furthermore, F-35 benefit far more from support asset than A-10 can ever hope to

 

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/electronic-countermeasure-ecm/

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=j7hdXhgwws4C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=jamming+and+RCS&source=bl&ots=NKhoq5yHkh&sig=jFNIbx28PCJjFQ5Ovz5lZCczaNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpwIf1j9LbAhWEppQKHZIfDmoQ6AEIZTAG#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't know where you get you intel from,but the thing is that in your opinion nothing is safe anymore!Because in case you forgot...how high is the earth stratosphere? Because you sure as hell must be good at dodging in outer space,when you have sam missiles like that.13Km.Maximum.Or you are indeed a Lockheed Fartin Politbureau operative.Ever heard of a ground radar ,being able to pick up and lock enemy jets from that range,anyone else on this thread? because I sure as hell haven't.If you know something of RADAR and of Jets maneuvring and SAMS not,you must understand one basic thing! GROUND RADAR LOCKING and AIR-TO-AIR RADAR LOCKING IS VERY DIFFERENT.BECAUSE A SAM IS STATIONARY and JETS aren't.The maximum locking you get from a stationary object remains 13 km.That is 39000 feet.I would want a real Pilot's advice on this,because some people just don't understand anything of air-to air combat in comparison to ground-to air combat.Maybe I am that something,but I only have MY sources,NOT YOURS.

What is this 13km bs you keep talking about? Only IR seekers have trouble getting that high. The SA-2 from 60-70+ years ago shot down a U2 flying over 60,000ft. The Buk can reach a similar altitude. The S-300/400/500 can go much higher and reach out several hundred kilometers depending on which missile is used, the larger ones are multistage rockets.

Ground radar most definitely can detect targets at much higher than 13km o.O I thought at first it was a typo and you meant 130km, but then you said 36,000ft. You're either trolling, or so dreadfully ignorant of the topic that you don't even realise how ridiculous you sound

What is this 13km bs you keep talking about? Only IR seekers have trouble getting that high. The SA-2 from 60-70+ years ago shot down a U2 flying over 60,000ft. The Buk can reach a similar altitude. The S-300/400/500 can go much higher and reach out several hundred kilometers depending on which missile is used, the larger ones are multistage rockets.

 

Ground radar most definitely can detect targets at much higher than 13km o.O I thought at first it was a typo and you meant 130km, but then you said 36,000ft. You're either trolling, or so dreadfully ignorant of the topic that you don't even realise how ridiculous you sound

So you are a pilot indeed.Because with what you are stating….put a S400 missile on the Wings of a B52 it would fly several 100's of kilometres?If you would fix an AIM54 Phoenix to a SAM installation how high do you think it would fly all things considered? Same for a HARM MIssile.

The U2 that got shot fell out of the sky,as the pilot was a traitor yet again.I don't think you know your history and also I do think your signature stinks like exaggeration.

By the way ,you do know that missiles on aircraft get launched at higher speeds and higher altitudes than SAMs.But you know what ,as I am not a lockheed martin operative,steve kennets,I can only add that you are a real pilot,and I am an aircraft enthousiast and used-to be sim pilot.But anyway I never got shot down in DCS by SAM,flying the F15C.

Badly modeled? Maybe,but hey you have all the dispensation and all the sources.At lockheed martin.I think that a Phoenix missile launched from the ground,vertical would reach a max of a whole lot less than A-A, kilometer ,but that would yet again ,be an estimate.Keep in mind that when the ego succumbs the self,you are in deed in danger of becoming ignorant.

Good luck with your Modeling career and with your security dispensation.