F-35A in full loadout for first time

[CriticalThought]

This: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1

The J-20 is a constantly evolving platform. It would be wrong to box it into one role. The concept of AWACS killer isn't new. Why would China spend all that effort in creating such a jet?

 

[neem456]

China with J-20 once they have the 5th generation WS-15 engine ready.

I can see others like Turkey and South Korea with the next 10-15 years also.

Do you understand what could happen in 15 years of long duration ?
US could have a prototype of 6th generation already flying. So dont know what your point is exactly ?

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree as no amount of fancy avionics can compensate for the massive disadvantage built into the F-35 airframe.

Wow a internet bangladeshi has recognised the so called disadvantage built into f-35 and all the scientists of lockheed cannot.

Good, when are you manufacturing your own f-22 for your airforce then ?

 

[gambit]

@F-22Raptor @AMDR @gambit

Care to comment on this?

Yes...Did you know that the original F-16, as intended by Sprey and his friends, was supposed to have NO radar ? The F-15 was to escort the F-16 to the WVR fight and back off.

It is actually very rare that innovations lasts longer than the generations they came from. Most innovations came from temporary needs to solve problems that were somehow constrained at their times. The advent of 'stealth' and its proven effectiveness, in both peace time exercises and combat experiences, pretty much put Sprey on the shelf. Time to move on.

 

[CriticalThought]

Yes...Did you know that the original F-16, as intended by Sprey and his friends, was supposed to have NO radar ? The F-15 was to escort the F-16 to the WVR fight and back off.

It is actually very rare that innovations lasts longer than the generations they came from. Most innovations came from temporary needs to solve problems that were somehow constrained at their times. The advent of 'stealth' and its proven effectiveness, in both peace time exercises and combat experiences, pretty much put Sprey on the shelf. Time to move on.

The most serious allegation he's raised is LM is sabotaging realistic operational testing. There is no independent verification available of the claims being made. What's your take on this?

Secondly, can you point me to official sources that state the envisaged role for F-35?

 

[gambit]

The J-20 is a constantly evolving platform.

So are the B-2 and F-22/35.

When I was reassigned to the F-16 back in '87, I read up on the jet as much as possible. Of course, being active duty, I had access to information the public did not, and still do not, have. I read everything from theory to actual maintenance docs, and on the latter, I mean I read down to which panel to open to access such-and-such component.

What I did was not rare.

For example...When I was on the F-111 and stationed at RAF Upper Heyford...

http://www.raf-upper-heyford.org/misc/Guestbook Archive - 2007.pdf

I worked with many of course but here are some of the names...Tom Rosch, Willie Williams, Mike Gradian, Chief Coleman, Capt Diane Swaggert, Lt Col. Ousley, Lt Col. Doe, Col. Barry, Bohart, Webber, Cook, gosh the list goes on.

There was a story about colonel Ousley ( name highlighted ) that he actually put his shoulders to an engine change when the troops needed a hand. The colonel did not make the guys wait for an extra man. It was late at night and everyone wanted to get the job done. They needed an extra man to move the engine so the colonel, still in his 'blues' uniform, got down to his knees and helped. He did not care that hydraulic fluid ran down his person. The guys loved Ousley before and that night further cemented his reputation as an officer who was not afraid to get dirty to get the job done. Of course, no one was going to be stupid enough to challenge the CO about his dirty uniform.

Anyway...What I learned about the F-16 from reading the docs to talking with as much specialists as possible, from Air Force to General Dynamics tech reps, was that the F-16 changed aviation the same way the Wright Flyer did. No hyperbole there. The F-16 was the next Wright Flyer. The move towards modularity in design was irreversible and profound. And this progress is currently manifested in the B-2 and F-22/35. In fact, we can see that evolution in the B-52 with that platform being constantly explored. Now the USAF is talking about the B-52 as a massive EM weapons platform, capable of blanking out an area the size of France or England.

You are talking as if somehow ONLY the Chinese is capable of making an aircraft 'evolving' when we have been doing it for decades.

 

[CriticalThought]

So are the B-2 and F-22/35.

When I was reassigned to the F-16 back in '87, I read up on the jet as much as possible. Of course, being active duty, I had access to information the public did not, and still do not, have. I read everything from theory to actual maintenance docs, and on the latter, I mean I read down to which panel to open to access such-and-such component.

What I did was not rare.

For example...When I was on the F-111 and stationed at RAF Upper Heyford...

http://www.raf-upper-heyford.org/misc/Guestbook Archive - 2007.pdf

There was a story about colonel Ousley ( name highlighted ) that he actually put his shoulders to an engine change when the troops needed a hand. The colonel did not make the guys wait for an extra man. It was late at night and everyone wanted to get the job done. They needed an extra man to move the engine so the colonel, still in his 'blues' uniform, got down to his knees and helped. He did not care that hydraulic fluid ran down his person. The guys loved Ousley before and that night further cemented his reputation as an officer who was not afraid to get dirty to get the job done. Of course, no one was going to be stupid enough to challenge the CO about his dirty uniform.

Anyway...What I learned about the F-16 from reading the docs to talking with as much specialists as possible, from Air Force to General Dynamics tech reps, was that the F-16 changed aviation the same way the Wright Flyer did. No hyperbole there. The F-16 was the next Wright Flyer. The move towards modularity in design was irreversible and profound. And this progress is currently manifested in the B-2 and F-22/35. In fact, we can see that evolution in the B-52 with that platform being constantly explored. Now the USAF is talking about the B-52 as a massive EM weapons platform, capable of blanking out an area the size of France or England.

You are talking as if somehow ONLY the Chinese is capable of making an aircraft 'evolving' when we have been doing it for decades.

Thanks for the very detailed tidbits. Loved every bit of it!!! My intention was not to belittle anyone else, just to counter the poster's perception that J-20 is merely a glorified AWACS killer.

I remember watching an aviation documentary back in the 1990s. In the section on VTOL flight, it basically conveyed the message that a VTOL jet is considered an impossibility by some people. So when I first saw the F-35 performing VTOL, it looked like alien technology. It is an absolute marvel of engineering. And I know that with time all the other alien like technologies WILL mature. But I am still interested in listening to another opinion on the allegations about LM sabotaging OT. And the official word on the role of various F-35 models.

 

[gambit]

The most serious allegation he's raised is LM is sabotaging realistic operational testing. There is no independent verification available of the claims being made. What's your take on this?

Baseless and colonel Berke successfully explained why.

I have never been involved in an airshow prep, but I fully understand the prep themselves. To say that to prep an aircraft for an airshow is equivalent to 'sabotaging' its claimed performance is a scurrilous charge.

When a combat jet is presented to prospective buyers, there are two presentations: base and combat configured.

The base configuration is exactly that: plain and no weapons in and out of sight.

The Thunderbirds F-16s are flown in the base configuration as like the day that General Dynamics presented the jet.

The combat configured jet is when the jet is loaded with the estimated weapons loadout for its intended use. So for the F-15A as an air superiority fighter, its combat config will be all missiles and full fuel, perhaps even with external tanks for extended patrol. Further, there are two contexts of 'extended': range and duration.

Extended range means you want to present an offensive capability for as far as possible. It is intended to deter opposition air from trying to establish airspace control.

Extended duration is often shorter range and for when you need to protect ground assets from opposition air.

Presenting a combat aircraft in ALL of its configurations are much more time and resource consuming and a PUBLIC airshow is not the venue for that.

So is Sprey going to charge that the Thunderbirds routinely 'sabotage' the F-16 regarding its realistic combat capabilities ?

Secondly, can you point me to official sources that state the envisaged role for F-35?

I can tell you that right now: multi-role.

But as the F-22 over Syria have proven that the F-22 can serve as nothing more than an eye-in-the-sky and be overwhelmingly good at it, there is no telling what the F-35 can do once the entirety of US air forces explored its capabilities according to each service's unique needs.

 

[CriticalThought]

Baseless and colonel Berke successfully explained why.

I have never been involved in an airshow prep, but I fully understand the prep themselves. To say that to prep an aircraft for an airshow is equivalent to 'sabotaging' its claimed performance is a scurrilous charge.

When a combat jet is presented to prospective buyers, there are two presentations: base and combat configured.

The base configuration is exactly that: plain and no weapons in and out of sight.

The Thunderbirds F-16s are flown in the base configuration as like the day that General Dynamics presented the jet.

The combat configured jet is when the jet is loaded with the estimated weapons loadout for its intended use. So for the F-15A as an air superiority fighter, its combat config will be all missiles and full fuel, perhaps even with external tanks for extended patrol. Further, there are two contexts of 'extended': range and duration.

Extended range means you want to present an offensive capability for as far as possible. It is intended to deter opposition air from trying to establish airspace control.

Extended duration is often shorter range and for when you need to protect ground assets from opposition air.

Presenting a combat aircraft in ALL of its configurations are much more time and resource consuming and a PUBLIC airshow is not the venue for that.

So is Sprey going to charge that the Thunderbirds routinely 'sabotage' the F-16 regarding its realistic combat capabilities ?


I can tell you that right now: multi-role.

But as the F-22 over Syria have proven that the F-22 can serve as nothing more than an eye-in-the-sky and be overwhelmingly good at it, there is no telling what the F-35 can do once the entirety of US air forces explored its capabilities according to each service's unique needs.

But what about the allegation that independent testing of the aircraft in realistic scenarios using actual Russian radars and jets. What little has been performed shows the aircraft is prone to displaying ghost targets. The only counter Berke had was "it performed very well in Red Flag". Well Red Flag is almost all US jets, whose radar and system capabilities they know like the back of their hands. It is also not an independent test because the same airforce leaders who are backing F-35 were involved in planning and executing Red Flag.

 

[randomradio]

US is currently developing 6th Generation Aircraft, and most technology the US will be use in 6th Gen Aircraft will be retrospectively put into F-35 to magnify it power.

They don't like using the term 6th gen, especially considering they want the F-22 replacement to use existing technologies in order to get it operational by 2028.

 

[jhungary]

They don't like using the term 6th gen, especially considering they want the F-22 replacement to use existing technologies in order to get it operational by 2028.

Well, unless you have some sort of clearance to know this inside knowledge, I am going to have to passs on what you said.

And yes, I do have that TS/SCI Clearance.

 

[YoungTurk01]

Is question is why you have stealth fighter, if you don't have stealth tanker.

 

[gambit]

But what about the allegation that independent testing of the aircraft in realistic scenarios using actual Russian radars and jets.

Not a valid criticism.

To start off, Nellis have the 507th Air Defense Aggressor Squad...

http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Article/284637/one-of-a-kind-squadron-trains-airmen-from-ground-up/

The 507th uses Soviet/Russian equipment to provide real time radar threats training to guest and host units, meaning a unit can come to Nellis, or the 507th can go to a unit's home base. There are many reports that when -- not if -- unleashed, the 507th 'killed' all attackers. That does not mean such will happen in real life, but what it means is that an un-trained and unfamiliar unit will face an EM threat that they may not be able to recover against. Once a unit is trained and familiar, that is a different, and classified, story.

But to get technical about it...

This is the foundation of ALL pulsed radar systems...

From that, we can create much more complex pulse characteristics like this...

Pulse complexity depends on the level of computer and software sophistication.

Currently, there are no credible technical sources that says X country is able to create radar pulse characteristics that the US cannot replicate. We have SIGINT flights for this reason. You better believe it that we know %99.999 of what the Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and North Korea has.

What little has been performed shows the aircraft is prone to displaying ghost targets.

This is a loaded statement. The word 'prone' is interpretative.

Ghost targets can come from many sources, including one's own hardware design, of course. But ghost targets can also come from environmental factors such as weather or from aircraft maneuvers that affect the relationship between aircraft and target.

The Doppler component is one such external factor. No radar is immune to that. If the conditions are Goldilocks, meaning 'just right', even for a second, the radar will momentarily lose track and/or lock. This is real physics. Not 'Iranian physics' or 'Chinese physics' as it is well known in this forum that those two groups love to distort the laws of nature to suit their arguments.

What is also real physics is that if another radar at a different location is looking at the same target, that other radar WILL NOT see ghosts. The angular and Doppler differences are -- different.

So if you have two F-35s, one pilot is not going to say: 'Hey Maverick, this is Iceman, can you check coords X, Y, and Z ?'

No, Maverick and Iceman will be informed by their F-35s of the calculated location of that target as compensated by each jet without prompting by the pilots. In the old days, as in when I was on the F-111 and F-16, we cannot even communicate by voice to each other to have this kind of verification. Today, the F-22/35 can do autonomous cross checking as soon as they know of each other's presence. Now you add in AWACS and/or ground radars that can do the same thing.

No other air force can do this at this time and probably not for the next 20 yrs.

The only counter Berke had was "it performed very well in Red Flag". Well Red Flag is almost all US jets, whose radar and system capabilities they know like the back of their hands. It is also not an independent test because the same airforce leaders who are backing F-35 were involved in planning and executing Red Flag.

Go find Pakistani pilots who have been to Red Flag and see if they take that criticism seriously.

The core of Sprey's venom against the F-35 is that the entire program is corrupt, from top to bottom. No one is honest. Anyone who speaks positively of the jet is either a dupe or in the pay of Lockheed. I put it at the same absurdity as 9/11 is an 'inside job'.

 

[Ultima Thule]

This: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1

from Australian news paper good for your health
http://www.popsci.com/planes-zhuhai...uch-more-from-new-bombers-to-marsupial-drones
https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/...y-unveiled-and-ready-to-enter-active-service/
J-20 is comparable to F-22 not F-111, Su-34, Su-24 type jets but a air superiority jet

 

[randomradio]

Well, unless you have some sort of clearance to know this inside knowledge, I am going to have to passs on what you said.

And yes, I do have that TS/SCI Clearance.

You don't need a clearance for that. They have publicly acknowledged it. Including to a Senate committee.

The new PCA is expected to have technologies that have a high technology readiness state so that they can get it in numbers and integrated by 2035. So stuff they are developing for the F-35 and the F-22's MLU, you can expect it to be used in a new plane.

Here's a declassified report.
http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/airpower/Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan.pdf

This is an extremely important point the report makes:
The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities.

If you dumb it down, you get, "The F-22 and F-35 cannot maintain air superiority after 2030".

The report goes on to say that current development methods are no longer suitable because if you take 20-30 years to develop an aircraft, you are gonna get overtaken by the adversaries.

------------
Read this article in full, it's interesting. I'll just post some snippets.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...sixth_gen-fighters:-the-view-from-russia.html
Brigadier General Alexus Grynkewich, a participant in the Air Superiority 2030 Program, has told the Defense News weekly in an interview: "We need to have something by the late 2020s."

"I think a realistic timeline is somewhere around 2028 with key investments in some key technology areas," he said. In such a case, in the general’s opinion, the USAF will manage to gain an initial operational capability of a penetrating counter-air capability.

"I guess the realistic time for the developing of the sixth-generation fighter is in the neighborhood of 2028 if investments are made into key areas of the technologies required," he said.
-----------

So IOC by 2028. You can't call it sixth gen.

And finally, the USAF doesn't like the term at all.
---------
"By the way, the Air Force is trying to flush the words "sixth generation fighter" from its lexicon. Even the service’s initial terminology for an F-35 follow on - Next Generation Air Dominance - is being eschewed in favor of the label "Penetrating Counter Air."

“You start to have an argument over what does 'sixth gen' mean. Does it have laser beams, is it hypersonic? What is it? What does it look like? That’s not a useful conversation," Grynkewich said.
----------

 

[randomradio]

Currently, there are no credible technical sources that says X country is able to create radar pulse characteristics that the US cannot replicate. We have SIGINT flights for this reason. You better believe it that we know %99.999 of what the Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and North Korea has.

Some countries have developed the ability to replicate radar pulses of brand new never-seen-before signals on the fly, without human intervention.

No, Maverick and Iceman will be informed by their F-35s of the calculated location of that target as compensated by each jet without prompting by the pilots. In the old days, as in when I was on the F-111 and F-16, we cannot even communicate by voice to each other to have this kind of verification. Today, the F-22/35 can do autonomous cross checking as soon as they know of each other's presence. Now you add in AWACS and/or ground radars that can do the same thing.

No other air force can do this at this time and probably not for the next 20 yrs.

Been in operation on the Rafale since the last 15 years. Whereas it is yet to be ready on the F-35 because Block 3F development is yet to be over.