F-35A in full loadout for first time

[randomradio]

That was a software and hardware upgrade. You can't say it's not worth mentioning because it shows upgradability besides MUL's which you say is something that is easily done on any other aircraft except the F-22 and F-35. A "critical" hardware upgrade would essentially be more or less the same degree of difficulty in any aircraft, but the F-35 was designed to receive significant upgrades whenever they're needed.

I am referring to high end upgrades, radar, EW suite, engine etc.

Not "can't" but "doesn't need to." What you're implying is that in order for the F-35 to meet the standards of a great (or even the best fighter), it has to immediately penetrate air space in order to be effective. That's old school tech tactics. Who in their right mind wouldn't prefer to take on SEAD from a distance to neutralize it first, then penetrate enemy airspace to take out targets? Heck with all these new innovations in PGM's and cruise missiles, taking out targets won't even require penetration. This is the ultimate tactic. The same applies to air targets. You always want to fight them at a safe distance and that's the whole shtick on this aircraft.

The point of the F-35 is to take out SAMs by penetrating the air defence bubble. Or even entirely avoid it. It wasn't created for stand off offensive missions.

It compliments the F-35's ECM suite & caps but more importantly it proves that the US is hardly lagging behind to Europe & Russia by 15 years.

Oh yes it is. The NGJ doesn't complement the F-35's ECM suite because it doesn't have one. All it has is EA using the radar. It is going to be equipped with an external cyberpod as well.

I don't think it has a problem with altitude, as a matter of fact I think it surpasses the Rafale in altitude. But in speed and acceleration, again, it's designed to win the fight from a distance and if/when it finds itself WVR, it still has some advantage. If I'm not mistaken, it has an equal or shorter minimum radius turn than the Rafale. While Rafale has some advantages, I think the same can be said about the F-35.

All performance advantages are with Rafale. Rafale actually competes with the F-22 in most performance related parameters.

As for altitude, you are confusing altitude and service ceiling. They are not exactly the same. All jets have their own "sweet spot" when it comes to altitude. The F-35's is medium altitude, that's between 4000-9000m. The F-22 operates at much higher altitude while Rafale was designed to operate optimally at all altitudes.

As for service ceiling, nobody operates at that altitude because it's inefficient.

You do realize that the F-35 has the AN/ASQ-239 ECM right?

It's not ECM.

And why is its radar useless?

I was making a general statement. If the enemy's ECM is so effective that your radar becomes useless, then that gives you pretty much the same effect as a stealth aircraft.

The point of stealth is to break the kill chain. ECM has become more effective in this role.

It doesn't make sense, TBH. So it's own ECM suite and escort jamming instantly makes it a dead duck? I think they're severely underestimating its ability to react to any of those unknown threat signals and that it's too reliant strictly on its threat library.

The statements were made by DARPA's Director. That's an extremely high position in the US military setup. So you can take it as Gospel.

If you're saying that the F-35 is only capable against 4th generation platforms and that it will be swallowed whole against other 5th gen aircraft, well, where are these 5th gen aircraft? The F-35 is already here.

The F-35 is not yet here. All they have are LRIPs that have not yet become fully operational. It should happen next year. While it's true that the F-35 will be fully operational first, but that doesn't mean anything if the competing aircraft have significantly higher specs.

The F-35 shows overwhelming superiority against 4th gen jets, but it will most likely be on par with some 4.5th gen jets. That's not good news for the F-35.[/quote]

Sure. Tell that to Israel. The threat our countries faced required us to 'forward defend', using the air force. Hence our dinky country got so many.

I don't know which country you are referring to. Anyway, the small air forces don't need to do OCA (air to air). OCAs missions were dependent on the F-15s from the US.

Forward Defense is a doctrine, not a role. The F-16s were not designed for deep CAP for OCA missions. Neither are the F-35s, but they are replacing the F-15s there.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion (you didn't even bring up Saudi Arabia earlier and ROKAF F-15K Slam Eagle - which you did bring up - likewise is an E variant)

You at first didn't even mention Singapore. And it bought F15 rather than F35 (so there goes the replacement theory: who not buy F-35 to being with then?)

Neither of these countries require OCA. They are not invading another country. The same with all the small European countries that operate the F/A-18 and F-16. The bigger countries have the Typhoon. The same for S Korea as well.

I brought up countries that have a requirement for OCA. That's Japan, Israel and Turkey.

Turkey did not buy the F-15 because they didn't need to at the time. Now their strategic calculus has changed. They need the ability to operate independently.

 

[Penguin]

It's not ECM.

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system

I don't know which country you are referring to. Anyway, the small air forces don't need to do OCA (air to air). OCAs missions were dependent on the F-15s from the US.

The Netherlands, obviously.
Small air forces don't need to do air to air? Don not be rediculous!
Just one example from recent history:
F-16 Fighting Falcon News
How Dutch F-16AMs shot down a Mig-29
April 21, 1999 (by Lieven Dewitte) - Four F-16AMs of the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNlAF) were among the first NATO aircraft to enter Serbian airspace on the night of 24 March. Within minutes, the Dutch had achieved their first air-to-air victory since World War II, shooting down a Serbian MiG-29.

The engagement also marked the combat debut for the F-16AM, the most advanced F-16 in operational service [note: at that time].
In an interview with Jane's Defence Weekly, Lt Col Jon Abma, RNlAF, commanding officer of the Belgian-Netherlands Deployed Air Task Force (DATF) described the events that happened during the first moments of Operation Allied Force.
"At 19.30hr local time four F-16AMs took off from here for a fighter escort mission to protect one of the first NATO strike packages. After an in-flight refuelling over the Adriatic Sea, the flight crossed over Albania into Serbia. Upon entering Serbian airspace, they were informed by AWACS that three MiG-29 aircraft had taken off from an air base near Belgrade," Col Abma said.
That base is understood to have been Batajnica, home of the Yugoslav Air Force's only MiG-29 unit, the 127th Fighter Aviation Squadron 'Knights'. Col Abma said: "The four F-16AMs headed out toward the threat, working to detect the MiGs on their own radars. Subsequently, one of the MiGs was picked up by all four F-16s. When within range, our flight leader fired one AMRAAM against the MiG. It was an instant hit, after a flight of 30 seconds."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article607.html

Forward Defense is a doctrine, not a role.

I know what it is. In those days:

Starting in the early 1970s the Air Force took its first steps at looking at a conventional war in Europe. In late 1975, RAND Corporation completed a study that examined the merits of additional manned aircraft, remotely piloted vehicles, and stand-off munitions for improving air-ground capability in NATO. A follow-up two-day workshop at RAND studied what vulnerabilities the Warsaw Pact might have to NATO airpower, which was followed by a series of additional studies that clearly demonstrated their reliance on the continued movement of supplies. Air planners were beginning to look for ways to best employ these new weapons at the same time Starry was working on the extended battlefield concepts.
Starry emphasized the close coordination between the Army and Air Force to produce an integrated attack plan that would use the land forces in a counter-blitz while air power, artillery and special operation forces stopped the movement of the reserves toward the front line. The result would stretch out the Warsaw Pact's advance in time, allowing the smaller NATO forces to continually attrit the enemy all along the battlefield while the reinforcements arrived piecemeal. The result was a single AirLand Battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle
Air power used offensively.

The F-16s were not designed for deep CAP for OCA missions. Neither are the F-35s, but they are replacing the F-15s there.

Suddenly you keep mentioning OCA, but that's in deviation from the previous.
Designed as an air superiority day fighter, the F16 evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft.
The fifth-generation F-35 combat aircraft is designed to perform ground attack and air superiority missions.
No one claims it to specialize in OCA and it is neither being developed nor specifically being offered for such missions.
No matter how many time your repeat that claim, it is unsubstantiated.
I've shown - well documented - what countries like Japan, South Korea and Turkey are developing and why.
Japan is developing F-3 to replace F15J, side by side procuring F-35A to replace F-4 Phantoms.
South Korea is developing KFX to replace remaining F-5Es and F-4 Phantoms, to supplement and then replace F16s. It got F/A-50s and F-15Ks to replace F-5As. ROKAF's limited intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities increased the risk of instability on the Korean Peninsula and suggested the purchase of American systems such as the F-35 Lightning II to close this gap. (not OCA per se!)
Turkey never had any type of F-15. TFX is being developed as F-16 replacement and will work together with the F-35A also. It will be an all-weather aerial superiority fighter jet.

Neither of these countries require OCA. They are not invading another country. The same with all the small European countries that operate the F/A-18 and F-16. The bigger countries have the Typhoon. The same for S Korea as well.

I brought up countries that have a requirement for OCA. That's Japan, Israel and Turkey.

Turkey did not buy the F-15 because they didn't need to at the time. Now their strategic calculus has changed. They need the ability to operate independently.

Yadayadayada

 

[Gomig-21]

I am referring to high end upgrades, radar, EW suite, engine etc.

Why would they ever need to upgrade the F-135? That engine is there to stay for a loooong time, and by the time they ever need a new engine, they could probably do the entire overhaul in the USS Gerald Ford's lower maintenance deck! That's how advanced, ergonomically designed for complete overhauls and interchangeability technology the US offers and works with and how good and well equipped and trained the US forces are. I'm not sure where you're coming from with all this discrediting, my friend.

I think we've already proven that not only does the F-35 have a EW/ECM suite, and it's quite capable of upgrades and not only critical ones, but you also neglected to take into account the blocks that will be churning out. Once there are new hardware and software upgrades ready to be installed, they'll go into the new blocks and then operational ones will be upgraded as needed (& if needed). There's nothing in these procedures the US can't handle. And the radar? There won't be a need to do anything to the AN/APG-81 AESA, They actually need to upgrade the F-22's APG-77 to the 81 that's in the F-35! And talk about critical software and hardware upgrades; you realize that the F-22 you folks keep touting needs quite a bit improvement to meet up with the F-35's avionics? That speaks a lot.

The point of the F-35 is to take out SAMs by penetrating the air defence bubble. Or even entirely avoid it. It wasn't created for stand off offensive missions.

Random, that's the F-35's whole shtick. It's fighting from a distance before the enemy sees it. I'm sure you've heard that repeated a gazillion times. Penetrating or interdiction missions is not automatic SOP for the USAF or USN or the only tactic available for the F-35. Mission planning for the US is not like that of say France with the Rafale using SPECTRA where French pilots have huge cajones and just fly right in @ mach 1.2 and back out. The French are nuts with their Rafales, and believe me, I love that jet as my old Egypt is getting 24 of them and possibly 36. But the F-35 will perform almost all its missions at standoff, particularly A2A. Navy & USMC jets will also be complimented with AEW&C and even Growlers with the new NGJ. It will defeat air threats from BVR using its stealth and 'first kill' advantage while escorted with dedicated ECM platforms and then use its stealth to get within range of its PGM (Paveways or whatever) and take out threatening SAMs. And let's not assume that the other platforms won't be used with it since the F-35 is not replacing everything. So far, the only SAM that might threaten the F-35 is the S-500 which isn't available yet. I don't think it's feasible to assume the jet's shaping & stealth features or radar or ECM can easily be defeated by the best SAMs out there.

Oh yes it is. The NGJ doesn't complement the F-35's ECM suite because it doesn't have one. All it has is EA using the radar. It is going to be equipped with an external cyberpod as well.

I explained the NGJ will compliment the F-35 in the navy and marine corps, possibly even with the F-35A. Why do you keep saying it doesn't have an ECM suite?

All performance advantages are with Rafale. Rafale actually competes with the F-22 in most performance related parameters.

As for altitude, you are confusing altitude and service ceiling. They are not exactly the same. All jets have their own "sweet spot" when it comes to altitude. The F-35's is medium altitude, that's between 4000-9000m. The F-22 operates at much higher altitude while Rafale was designed to operate optimally at all altitudes.

I'll give you performance is better with the Rafale but not at all altitudes. That's just a sweeping statement. There's always limitation the higher the altitude. And I wasn't talking about service ceiling, I was referring to performing at altitude given the F-35's thrust to weight ratio and it's clean planform. Carrying a pair of AIM-120's and a pair of AIM-9x's internally is advantageous vs carrying a pair of MICA IRs on wingtip rails and EM's on pylons, possibly even 3 windbags.

The F-35 would never engage another fighter in a disadvantaged position, especially in altitude. Why should it? It's chances are much greater in defeating an A2A threat at a distance and if need be, avoid it. Those comparisons don't hold much weight because they're presumptive that the conditions will not always be the same, or will be forced to be a certain way all the time. Tactics will always vary.

It's not ECM.

Sure it is. Did you check @Penguin 's link? This is most likely what @jhungary was referring to with it being a BAE systems development for the F-35. I'm not sure why he couldn't mention it, it's not like it's OPSEC or anything like that. Available info.

I was making a general statement. If the enemy's ECM is so effective that your radar becomes useless, then that gives you pretty much the same effect as a stealth aircraft.

The point of stealth is to break the kill chain. ECM has become more effective in this role.

So we're essentially comparing the F-35 with its AN/APG-81 and AN/ASQ 239 against the Rafale with its RB-E2 and SPECTRA and you're saying the difference makes the F-35's radar useless because of opposing ECMs from other aircraft and ground & SAM radars will effectively negate those systems in the F-35 and not in the Rafale? Impossible, sorry.

The statements were made by DARPA's Director. That's an extremely high position in the US military setup. So you can take it as Gospel.

A lot of people say things, even highly appointed individuals but they still need to be checked against available facts. Their motives might also be for other purposes, such as appropriating increased funding. BTW, US officials are notorious for pointing out the enemy as a big threat and undermining their own systems. This has been going on for decades.

The F-35 is not yet here. All they have are LRIPs that have not yet become fully operational. It should happen next year. While it's true that the F-35 will be fully operational first, but that doesn't mean anything if the competing aircraft have significantly higher specs.

The F-35 shows overwhelming superiority against 4th gen jets, but it will most likely be on par with some 4.5th gen jets. That's not good news for the F-35.

I think no matter what, the F-35's reputation has taken a heavy hit and the program needed a major adjustment, but underestimating the aircraft and its future potential while at the same time promoting its competitors that aren't even operational is a big mistake. The Rafale is certainly competitive in many aspects, but you can't say it's better all around and will only get better while the F-35 isn't and won't.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Why would they ever need to upgrade the F-135? That engine is there to stay for a loooong time, and by the time they ever need a new engine, they could probably do the entire overhaul in the USS Gerald Ford's lower maintenance deck! That's how advanced, ergonomically designed for complete overhauls and interchangeability technology the US offers and works with and how good and well equipped and trained the US forces are. I'm not sure where you're coming from with all this discrediting, my friend.

I think we've already proven that not only does the F-35 have a EW/ECM suite, and it's quite capable of upgrades and not only critical ones, but you also neglected to take into account the blocks that will be churning out. Once there are new hardware and software upgrades ready to be installed, they'll go into the new blocks and then operational ones will be upgraded as needed (& if needed). There's nothing in these procedures the US can't handle. And the radar? There won't be a need to do anything to the AN/APG-81 AESA, They actually need to upgrade the F-22's APG-77 to the 81 that's in the F-35! And talk about critical software and hardware upgrades; you realize that the F-22 you folks keep touting needs quite a bit improvement to meet up with the F-35's avionics? That speaks a lot.



Random, that's the F-35's whole shtick. It's fighting from a distance before the enemy sees it. I'm sure you've heard that repeated a gazillion times. Penetrating or interdiction missions is not automatic SOP for the USAF or USN or the only tactic available for the F-35. Mission planning for the US is not like that of say France with the Rafale using SPECTRA where French pilots have huge cajones and just fly right in @ mach 1.2 and back out. The French are nuts with their Rafales, and believe me, I love that jet as my old Egypt is getting 24 of them and possibly 36. But the F-35 will perform almost all its missions at standoff, particularly A2A. Navy & USMC jets will also be complimented with AEW&C and even Growlers with the new NGJ. It will defeat air threats from BVR using its stealth and 'first kill' advantage while escorted with dedicated ECM platforms and then use its stealth to get within range of its PGM (Paveways or whatever) and take out threatening SAMs. And let's not assume that the other platforms won't be used with it since the F-35 is not replacing everything. So far, the only SAM that might threaten the F-35 is the S-500 which isn't available yet. I don't think it's feasible to assume the jet's shaping & stealth features or radar or ECM can easily be defeated by the best SAMs out there.



I explained the NGJ will compliment the F-35 in the navy and marine corps, possibly even with the F-35A. Why do you keep saying it doesn't have an ECM suite?



I'll give you performance is better with the Rafale but not at all altitudes. That's just a sweeping statement. There's always limitation the higher the altitude. And I wasn't talking about service ceiling, I was referring to performing at altitude given the F-35's thrust to weight ratio and it's clean planform. Carrying a pair of AIM-120's and a pair of AIM-9x's internally is advantageous vs carrying a pair of MICA IRs on wingtip rails and EM's on pylons, possibly even 3 windbags.

The F-35 would never engage another fighter in a disadvantaged position, especially in altitude. Why should it? It's chances are much greater in defeating an A2A threat at a distance and if need be, avoid it. Those comparisons don't hold much weight because they're presumptive that the conditions will not always be the same, or will be forced to be a certain way all the time. Tactics will always vary.



Sure it is. Did you check @Penguin 's link? This is most likely what @jhungary was referring to with it being a BAE systems development for the F-35. I'm not sure why he couldn't mention it, it's not like it's OPSEC or anything like that. Available info.



So we're essentially comparing the F-35 with its AN/APG-81 and AN/ASQ 239 against the Rafale with its RB-E2 and SPECTRA and you're saying the difference makes the F-35's radar useless because of opposing ECMs from other aircraft and ground & SAM radars will effectively negate those systems in the F-35 and not in the Rafale? Impossible, sorry.



A lot of people say things, even highly appointed individuals but they still need to be checked against available facts. Their motives might also be for other purposes, such as appropriating increased funding. BTW, US officials are notorious for pointing out the enemy as a big threat and undermining their own systems. This has been going on for decades.



I think no matter what, the F-35's reputation has taken a heavy hit and the program needed a major adjustment, but underestimating the aircraft and its future potential while at the same time promoting its competitors that aren't even operational is a big mistake. The Rafale is certainly competitive in many aspects, but you can't say it's better all around and will only get better while the F-35 isn't and won't.

Here is Lt. Gen Davis talking about the F-35's EW capability:

The Marines are deploying the F-35 at the same time, which is a core capability for the USMC in delivering non-kinetic effects throughout the distributed force as well.

“The F-35 is part of our electronic warfare strategy for the United States Marine Corps. Indeed, it is a key part of our strategy.”

He then described an exercise involving the F-35.

“We were doing a drill, and the F-35 does a great job at a lot of things.

“It does a very good job in terms of electronic warfare as well.

“Bottom line, I was out there, I saw four ship of F-35s, and the scenario was a double digit SAM threat, it was 1,000 foot overcast, we had four Bs out there, we had a forward air controller on the ground, and these guys had launched off the ship and they were overhead, and they were going to go take out ground vehicles and suppress and shutdown the SAM.

“We brought in all of our senior one and two star generals. In short period of time, the F-35s got rid of the SAMs.

“They were operating more like a pack of dogs than ever seen in 36 years of flying strike airplanes including being the CO of the Weapons School.

“It was a work of art.

http://www.sldinfo.com/lt-general-r...-distributed-electronic-warfare-capabilities/

 

[CriticalThought]

Here is Lt. Gen Davis talking about the F-35's EW capability:

The Marines are deploying the F-35 at the same time, which is a core capability for the USMC in delivering non-kinetic effects throughout the distributed force as well.

“The F-35 is part of our electronic warfare strategy for the United States Marine Corps. Indeed, it is a key part of our strategy.”

He then described an exercise involving the F-35.

“We were doing a drill, and the F-35 does a great job at a lot of things.

“It does a very good job in terms of electronic warfare as well.

“Bottom line, I was out there, I saw four ship of F-35s, and the scenario was a double digit SAM threat, it was 1,000 foot overcast, we had four Bs out there, we had a forward air controller on the ground, and these guys had launched off the ship and they were overhead, and they were going to go take out ground vehicles and suppress and shutdown the SAM.

“We brought in all of our senior one and two star generals. In short period of time, the F-35s got rid of the SAMs.

“They were operating more like a pack of dogs than ever seen in 36 years of flying strike airplanes including being the CO of the Weapons School.

“It was a work of art.

http://www.sldinfo.com/lt-general-r...-distributed-electronic-warfare-capabilities/

Is there any technical article available on how F-35 achieves this magic?

 

[F-22Raptor]

Is there any technical article available on how F-35 achieves this magic?

Basically, the F-35's secret sauce comes down to its avionics, sensor fusion, and EW capabilities. F-35's can sense over huge distances, and with today's precision weaponry, if it can see you it can kill you. US military leaders have also hinted that the F-35's EW suite contains cognitive EW capabilities. You see, in years past if you sensed a new signal in the environment it could take months to develop a countermeasure. Now with cognitive EW, you sense and develop a countermeasure in near real time. It's also thought F-35's can deploy malware to infect air defense networks. Of course, these capabilities are highly classified, so it's unlikely we'll get much info on this anytime soon.

 

[Penguin]

Basically, the F-35's secret sauce comes down to its avionics, sensor fusion, and EW capabilities. F-35's can sense over huge distances, and with today's precision weaponry, if it can see you it can kill you. US military leaders have also hinted that the F-35's EW suite contains cognitive EW capabilities. You see, in years past if you sensed a new signal in the environment it could take months to develop a countermeasure. Now with cognitive EW, you sense and develop a countermeasure in near real time. It's also thought F-35's can deploy malware to infect air defense networks. Of course, these capabilities are highly classified, so it's unlikely we'll get much info on this anytime soon.

PLUS:

See http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-as-...ne”-positioning-the-fleet-for-“tron”-warfare/

 

[F-22Raptor]

PLUS:

See http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-as-a-“flying-sensor-fusion-engine”-positioning-the-fleet-for-“tron”-warfare/

This to...

The F-35's capability to guide an SM-6 to a ship or aircraft, and pass information to ships is huge.

 

[jhungary]

Sure it is. Did you check @Penguin 's link? This is most likely what @jhungary was referring to with it being a BAE systems development for the F-35. I'm not sure why he couldn't mention it, it's not like it's OPSEC or anything like that. Available info.

lol, that is a dissimilation method called what people called "Plausible Deniability"

It wasn't that I couldn't mention it, rather I wouldn't as this is not my secret...And I have a very basic knowledge on these type of information as I wasn't in the Air Force, so I don't want to talk about it as I don't know what can I tell people and what can't I.

 

[randomradio]

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system


The Netherlands, obviously.
Small air forces don't need to do air to air? Don not be rediculous!
Just one example from recent history:
F-16 Fighting Falcon News
How Dutch F-16AMs shot down a Mig-29
April 21, 1999 (by Lieven Dewitte) - Four F-16AMs of the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNlAF) were among the first NATO aircraft to enter Serbian airspace on the night of 24 March. Within minutes, the Dutch had achieved their first air-to-air victory since World War II, shooting down a Serbian MiG-29.

The engagement also marked the combat debut for the F-16AM, the most advanced F-16 in operational service [note: at that time].
In an interview with Jane's Defence Weekly, Lt Col Jon Abma, RNlAF, commanding officer of the Belgian-Netherlands Deployed Air Task Force (DATF) described the events that happened during the first moments of Operation Allied Force.
"At 19.30hr local time four F-16AMs took off from here for a fighter escort mission to protect one of the first NATO strike packages. After an in-flight refuelling over the Adriatic Sea, the flight crossed over Albania into Serbia. Upon entering Serbian airspace, they were informed by AWACS that three MiG-29 aircraft had taken off from an air base near Belgrade," Col Abma said.
That base is understood to have been Batajnica, home of the Yugoslav Air Force's only MiG-29 unit, the 127th Fighter Aviation Squadron 'Knights'. Col Abma said: "The four F-16AMs headed out toward the threat, working to detect the MiGs on their own radars. Subsequently, one of the MiGs was picked up by all four F-16s. When within range, our flight leader fired one AMRAAM against the MiG. It was an instant hit, after a flight of 30 seconds."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article607.html



I know what it is. In those days:

Starting in the early 1970s the Air Force took its first steps at looking at a conventional war in Europe. In late 1975, RAND Corporation completed a study that examined the merits of additional manned aircraft, remotely piloted vehicles, and stand-off munitions for improving air-ground capability in NATO. A follow-up two-day workshop at RAND studied what vulnerabilities the Warsaw Pact might have to NATO airpower, which was followed by a series of additional studies that clearly demonstrated their reliance on the continued movement of supplies. Air planners were beginning to look for ways to best employ these new weapons at the same time Starry was working on the extended battlefield concepts.
Starry emphasized the close coordination between the Army and Air Force to produce an integrated attack plan that would use the land forces in a counter-blitz while air power, artillery and special operation forces stopped the movement of the reserves toward the front line. The result would stretch out the Warsaw Pact's advance in time, allowing the smaller NATO forces to continually attrit the enemy all along the battlefield while the reinforcements arrived piecemeal. The result was a single AirLand Battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle
Air power used offensively.


Suddenly you keep mentioning OCA, but that's in deviation from the previous.
Designed as an air superiority day fighter, the F16 evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft.
The fifth-generation F-35 combat aircraft is designed to perform ground attack and air superiority missions.
No one claims it to specialize in OCA and it is neither being developed nor specifically being offered for such missions.
No matter how many time your repeat that claim, it is unsubstantiated.
I've shown - well documented - what countries like Japan, South Korea and Turkey are developing and why.
Japan is developing F-3 to replace F15J, side by side procuring F-35A to replace F-4 Phantoms.
South Korea is developing KFX to replace remaining F-5Es and F-4 Phantoms, to supplement and then replace F16s. It got F/A-50s and F-15Ks to replace F-5As. ROKAF's limited intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities increased the risk of instability on the Korean Peninsula and suggested the purchase of American systems such as the F-35 Lightning II to close this gap. (not OCA per se!)
Turkey never had any type of F-15. TFX is being developed as F-16 replacement and will work together with the F-35A also. It will be an all-weather aerial superiority fighter jet.



Yadayadayada

Just because the F-16 was designed for air to air doesn't mean it can perform the same role as the F-15C did. And the F-35 isn't even designed for air to air.

In OCA missions you need to perform fighter sweeps followed by the destruction of enemy air bases and missile installations. The fighter sweeps are conducted by the F-15C, not F-16s. Air to air is simply a very broad field. You divide it further based on aircraft capability. Basically, the F-15C can perform all the air to air roles the F-16C can, but the F-16C cannot perform all the air to air roles the F-15C can perform.

I think you have become confused between replacing old aircraft versus replacement on a role specific basis. Once India gets the FGFA after 2025, the Su-30MKI will be replaced, never mind the fact that the MKI is not due for retirement until the 2040s.

So the Japanese F-35s may be replacing the F-4 on a squadron basis, but they are also replacing the F-15 on a role basis. So the F-15C in Japan will be downgraded, and then the F-35 will be downgraded once the F-3 comes into the picture. The Japanese F-35s will be used as F-15s for the time being.

It's the same with Israel. The F-35 are replacing the F-15s.

Why would they ever need to upgrade the F-135? That engine is there to stay for a loooong time,

Because right now it's a bus when it comes to maneuverability. Air superiority aircraft require performance.

and by the time they ever need a new engine, they could probably do the entire overhaul in the USS Gerald Ford's lower maintenance deck! That's how advanced, ergonomically designed for complete overhauls and interchangeability technology the US offers and works with and how good and well equipped and trained the US forces are. I'm not sure where you're coming from with all this discrediting, my friend.

All militaries work this way. The Russians switched from using the Flanker to the Mig in their carrier.

I think we've already proven that not only does the F-35 have a EW/ECM suite, and it's quite capable of upgrades and not only critical ones, but you also neglected to take into account the blocks that will be churning out. Once there are new hardware and software upgrades ready to be installed, they'll go into the new blocks and then operational ones will be upgraded as needed (& if needed). There's nothing in these procedures the US can't handle. And the radar? There won't be a need to do anything to the AN/APG-81 AESA, They actually need to upgrade the F-22's APG-77 to the 81 that's in the F-35! And talk about critical software and hardware upgrades; you realize that the F-22 you folks keep touting needs quite a bit improvement to meet up with the F-35's avionics? That speaks a lot.

Until something changes, I would prefer going by what Boeing said.

Random, that's the F-35's whole shtick. It's fighting from a distance before the enemy sees it. I'm sure you've heard that repeated a gazillion times. Penetrating or interdiction missions is not automatic SOP for the USAF or USN or the only tactic available for the F-35. Mission planning for the US is not like that of say France with the Rafale using SPECTRA where French pilots have huge cajones and just fly right in @ mach 1.2 and back out. The French are nuts with their Rafales, and believe me, I love that jet as my old Egypt is getting 24 of them and possibly 36. But the F-35 will perform almost all its missions at standoff, particularly A2A. Navy & USMC jets will also be complimented with AEW&C and even Growlers with the new NGJ. It will defeat air threats from BVR using its stealth and 'first kill' advantage while escorted with dedicated ECM platforms and then use its stealth to get within range of its PGM (Paveways or whatever) and take out threatening SAMs. And let's not assume that the other platforms won't be used with it since the F-35 is not replacing everything. So far, the only SAM that might threaten the F-35 is the S-500 which isn't available yet. I don't think it's feasible to assume the jet's shaping & stealth features or radar or ECM can easily be defeated by the best SAMs out there.

The fact that stand off doesn't work all the time is the reason why stealth was made. Stealth aircraft were made for penetration, not stand off.

Why do you keep saying it doesn't have an ECM suite?

Only because Boeing said so.

I'll give you performance is better with the Rafale but not at all altitudes. That's just a sweeping statement. There's always limitation the higher the altitude. And I wasn't talking about service ceiling, I was referring to performing at altitude given the F-35's thrust to weight ratio and it's clean planform. Carrying a pair of AIM-120's and a pair of AIM-9x's internally is advantageous vs carrying a pair of MICA IRs on wingtip rails and EM's on pylons, possibly even 3 windbags.

Rafale is inferior to the F-22 at high altitudes. Rafale was made for low and medium altitudes when carrying bombs while it is capable of very good performance at high altitude as well. Not as good as the F-22, but way better than the F-35.

The F-35 would never engage another fighter in a disadvantaged position, especially in altitude. Why should it? It's chances are much greater in defeating an A2A threat at a distance and if need be, avoid it. Those comparisons don't hold much weight because they're presumptive that the conditions will not always be the same, or will be forced to be a certain way all the time. Tactics will always vary.

The point is the F-35 has a disadvantageous position. Air superiority aircraft that were design for air superiority don't have a disadvantageous position. A strike aircraft pretending to be air superiority is not going to survive against another air superiority jet.

So we're essentially comparing the F-35 with its AN/APG-81 and AN/ASQ 239 against the Rafale with its RB-E2 and SPECTRA and you're saying the difference makes the F-35's radar useless because of opposing ECMs from other aircraft and ground & SAM radars will effectively negate those systems in the F-35 and not in the Rafale? Impossible, sorry.

Why is it impossible?

You are simply going by LM's propaganda, aren't you?

The F-35 was supposed to be ready 5 years ago, it should have been at Block 5 today and right now a deep upgrade should have been in the planning stages, not pushed back by a decade.

 

[Gomig-21]

Once India gets the FGFA after 2025, the Su-30MKI will be replaced, never mind the fact that the MKI is not due for retirement until the 2040s.

Wuuuuuuuuutttt?!?! Why on earth would they ever retire the magnificent Su-30MKI 15 years ahead of its due date? That's absolutely nuts and I hope you're wrong with that, even if the IAF said it because it makes absolutely no sense. First of all, by 2025, there would hardly be enough FGFA's in the IAF to retire the current fleet of 230 MKI's.....PLUS the 50 that are on order ATM! Even if they're phasing the replacement, it doesn't make any sense. Do you have a source for that?

Because right now it's a bus when it comes to maneuverability. Air superiority aircraft require performance.

It doesn't need super maneuverability. It only needs enough to allow its other functions to take over. Its distributed aperture system connected to the 6 cameras on board allows the pilot to look right through the aircraft at his enemy. So while an Su-30 is doing the Super Cobra followed by the Kulbit and then the flat spin to try and turn the tables on the F-35 in a dogfight, the pilot is watching all this in high definition on his visor sipping a coffee coolatta admiring all that beautiful and impressive dancing in the air and.....BANG, AIM-9x right up one of the Flanker's nozzles.

And BTW, the majority of dogfights are decided at the merge. Ask any pilot who's trained or even fought in dogfights and they'll tell you that. There used to be an F-15C pilot on another forum and he used to be on this one as well, @Chogy who flew the F-15C in Germany during the 80's. Would always talk about the importance of being in a "good spot at the merge" to get the advantage from the start. In the right order: pilot skills, tactics, technology then aircraft performance. Would you agree?

Until something changes, I would prefer going by what Boeing said.

LM's competitor? You don't think they might feel the need to over-criticize THE aircraft that will essentially monopolize the fighter industry in not just the US, but for export and have the potential to shut down its F/A-18 assembly line?

The fact that stand off doesn't work all the time is the reason why stealth was made. Stealth aircraft were made for penetration, not stand off.

Standoff is primarily why you need stealth. Radar works at very long distances, so stealth is invaluable more so at greater distances. The further away you're picked up on radar the more time to react to the threat from ADS.

What the French did in Libya and especially in Syria with SPECTRA on their Rafales is really incredible, but even you have to admit it's much riskier. Safer and layered standoff tactics using the advantage of stealth have much higher probability of success with much lower risk.

I think the more unknowns at this point is what standoff weapons the F-35 would use. A2A is covered but A2G is still a mystery. They might have to direct things like JSOW and Tomahawks from other platforms until they get something that fits in the weapons bay. I'm opening the door for you here.

We know the Rafale excels at standoff with the SCALP EG and MBDA Apache.

Only because Boeing said so.

But not Lockheed Martin? BTW, are you convinced now that the F-35 does have an ECM suite or not?

You are simply going by LM's propaganda, aren't you?

Why not? Why is Boeing more reliable? lol. BTW, Random, it's a great liability for LM not to be upfront and to overstate the F-35's capabilities. People often think that just because the maker is touting the effectiveness of their product that they're lying or going overboard to market it and are not taking into account that it's a very dangerous thing to do. So they tend not to do the opposite, necessarily, or downplay their product but when they know they have something that's promising and effective, they sail with it and milk it all the way to the bank. They won't be lying about something that doesn't exist since that would come back and bite them in the behind, big time.

 

[randomradio]

Wuuuuuuuuutttt?!?! Why on earth would they ever retire the magnificent Su-30MKI 15 years ahead of its due date? That's absolutely nuts and I hope you're wrong with that, even if the IAF said it because it makes absolutely no sense. First of all, by 2025, there would hardly be enough FGFA's in the IAF to retire the current fleet of 230 MKI's.....PLUS the 50 that are on order ATM! Even if they're phasing the replacement, it doesn't make any sense. Do you have a source for that?

You misunderstood. MKI will be retired after the 2040s, but FGFA will take over the MKI's role after 2025. So FGFA is replacing the MKI by taking over its duties while the MKI becomes second rung, it will play a supporting role. Similarly, the F-22s replaced the F-15s.

It doesn't need super maneuverability. It only needs enough to allow its other functions to take over. Its distributed aperture system connected to the 6 cameras on board allows the pilot to look right through the aircraft at his enemy. So while an Su-30 is doing the Super Cobra followed by the Kulbit and then the flat spin to try and turn the tables on the F-35 in a dogfight, the pilot is watching all this in high definition on his visor sipping a coffee coolatta admiring all that beautiful and impressive dancing in the air and.....BANG, AIM-9x right up one of the Flanker's nozzles.

Supermaneuverability is something else.

For air superiority aircraft, what matters is speed, acceleration, climb, altitude and other performance based qualities. It's because of performance that you only need 2 F-22s instead of 8 F-35s for SEAD even though the F-35 has superior electronics and stealth. In fact, the difference in air to air combat will be even higher.

LM's competitor? You don't think they might feel the need to over-criticize THE aircraft that will essentially monopolize the fighter industry in not just the US, but for export and have the potential to shut down its F/A-18 assembly line?

They may be LM's competitor, but they were advertising an aircraft that LM does not directly compete in. Boeing was advertising for the Growler which is not available for export.

I don't know if the USN will be fooled by Boeing's marketing strategy anyway. I'm pretty sure it is useless because anybody working in the USN's procurement unit will know whether the F-35 has a full spectrum EA suite or not.

Think about it logically. If Sony proclaims you can't play games on Microsoft's Xbox, wouldn't you find that sort of advertising dumb? As a customer, you already know everything you need to know, it's all been verified. The same applies to Boeing's attempts at belittling the F-35's capabilities. They won't be fooling anyone.

I had always believed the F-35 had a full spectrum EA suite until Boeing said it does not have one. That's why I have my doubts.

The subject of Electronic Warfare is so vast that you can put any marketing spin on it. For example, releasing chaffs and flares is also under EW. So if they say the Barracuda has self-protection capability where it can jam radar signals, they could very well be talking about expendable active radar decoys used with chaff, like the BriteCloud.

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/britecloud

If LM or BAE decided to be very specific with their advertisement, then it will become more believable.

Most of the F-35's EA capability is offboard. Like the new cyberpod.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-programme-begins-developing-cyber-attack-capability

You wouldn't need a pod for cyber attacks if you had full spectrum transmission capability in the first place.

My belief is the current gen F-35 doesn't have full spectrum EA, but it may become part of the aircraft after MLUs in the future to keep it relevant. So, in order to keep the development costs cheap, they decided to only use full spectrum receivers. With just this, you can claim to have full spectrum EW. However, there is a pretty big difference between full spectrum EW and full spectrum EA.

Standoff is primarily why you need stealth. Radar works at very long distances, so stealth is invaluable more so at greater distances. The further away you're picked up on radar the more time to react to the threat from ADS.

Standoff is not what the F-35 was made for. In fact the USN says their new F/A-XX will be created for standoff roles in order to complement the F-35's lack of a standoff capability.

What the French did in Libya and especially in Syria with SPECTRA on their Rafales is really incredible, but even you have to admit it's much riskier. Safer and layered standoff tactics using the advantage of stealth have much higher probability of success with much lower risk.

The Rafales penetrated Libyan airspace without SEAD in order to quickly support the rebel army. 4 Rafales moved in and destroyed a bunch of tanks and other vehicles to prevent them from overrunning a rebel position. It was possible that French special forces were involved, which made it worth taking the risk. If the mission was 'danger close' then that couldn't be done at standoff ranges. NATO led SEAD/DEAD started 6 hours after Rafales began operations in Libya.

Not to mention standoff weaponry is expensive and does not guarantee success. Pretty much every single NATO standoff weapon can be brought down by air superiority aircraft. If you bring in air based and ground based laser defence systems, then most peer airspaces will be impenetrable for most standoff weapons.