![F-35-close-up[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mh9UVDF.jpg "F-35-close-up[1].jpg")
http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/tabid/6431/Article/775444/nellis-afb-to-host-red-flag-16-3-july-1129-2016.aspx
It's possible they won't be participating in an air-to-air combat role (perhaps only providing CAS or only in an observer type role), but this is (AFAIK) the first time they've come to Red Flag.
>>30118969
Time to warm up the shitpost machine about CAS and F-35s.
It will be interesting to see how Red a Flag works out
>>30118969
Can't fucking wait.
>>30118969
>F-35 gets defeated in a 1 vs 100 dogfight
>Headline next day reads: F-35 defeated!!!!!
>Congressional inquiries intensify
>Pierre Sprey appears on TV saying "It's a turkey"
>F-35 project is cancelled
>China invades the US and takes over the world
>>30118969
I'm excited to see how it pans out. I highly doubt we'll hear much, good or bad.
>>30119170
I don't think we'll be told much, and there is the possibility that they won't say anything at all (especially considering that they haven't really publicised this announcement, it's almost like a leak), but I do think we'll be told some of how it went. We were told how it performed at Green Flag for example.
>>30119227
>We were told how it performed at Green Flag for example
Not much at all, really.
>>30119341
I'd imagine that's mainly because while the DoD is happy to say that they used X of their jets to defeat Y of their other jets, they don't like saying that they used X of their jets to defeat the simulated system Z of Russia or China. The Scenarios that the Danes used in their evaluation were considered classified, but when they were leaked it turned out to be S-300s and Su-30s.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag
>>30119123
>>30119170
>>30119227
>>30119341
I have a feeling it'll be placed in not necessarily rigged tests per say, but tests that don't allow it to use its tech to the utmost advantage. Kind of like how the navy does war games against with antiquated diesel-electric subs and the subs win. people shout from the rooftops that the USN is inferior but don't take into consideration that for those games the USN can't use active sonars, AWS aircraft and the battle box is only 100 square miles, meaning the sonars on the ship hear for of their allies propellers because they're so clumped together. Just my 2 cents.
>>30119482
Even there it just says "it did fine".
>>30119489
Perhaps; we'll have to keep in mind (vatniks certainly won't if there's even a hint of it not dominating) that the Green Knights are still running 2B software, so they don't have things like 4-ship sensor fusion or as advanced EW (or more than 2 AMRAAMs internal storage, though perhaps they'll simulate around that).
Red Flag is relatively long though, with events ranging from massive battles with multiple objectives to 1v1 BFM practice though. The US also picks and chooses who gets to fight with who; ie, some types of jets have never fought against F-22s, despite F-22s being at every Red Flag. They might potentially not allow the F-35Bs to fight with any of the foreigners for example.
>>30119567
Probably should have linked this one:
https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/
>Although the JSF has sporadically taken part in past Green Flag drills in the past, this was the very first time the F-35 had the primary exercise role of CAS providers: the pricey stealth multi-role planes penetrated a “contested and degraded battlespace”
>According to the Air Force, the F-35s did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,” a comment that seems to suggest that F-35 is already as capable as the an A-10 or an F-16 in the CAS role, at least in the type of support with Troops in Contact required during a Green Flag exercise.
>when help from the air was called upon, F-35 pilots from the 31st TES communicated and used their systems with precision. They created strategic effects that left troops on the ground largely unaware and unconcerned of what airframe they might be using — seamless integration at its finest,”
>not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.
>>30119678
>Probably should have linked this one:
I read that one. There wasn't much information in there. It's just "they performed at least at the level expected of other aircraft, and none got shot down". That's not much of anything at all.
>>30119678
tru fax my dude
>>30119678
>They might potentially not allow the F-35Bs to fight with any of the foreigners for example.
This is highly likely. If they do fight foreigners, which I highly doubt for another year or two at minimum, it'll be people who already have guys in the program- IE the Brits.
>>30119697
What more were you hoping to hear? That they killed X amount of Y targets with Z weapons? They're stating that the two F-35s became the primary CAS providers, integrated exceptionally well with ground forces and were far more survivable than its predecessors.
>F-35B against Su-30MKI
>Su-30MKI BARS on training mode
>HAHA Confirmed that Su-30MKI cannot see F-35!
Is like they're too happy they shot down an F-22 with Luneberg lens on.
>>30119751
Here is literally what they said, translated
>this was the very first time the F-35 had the primary exercise role of CAS providers
F-35s had the role of CAS. They weren't the only ones doing it, but their purpose was mostly CAS.
>penetrated a “contested and degraded battlespace”
It worked in a normal environment for the exercise.
>the F-35s did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,”
They didn't fail at their task, and were at least adequate.
>when help from the air was called upon, F-35 pilots from the 31st TES communicated and used their systems with precision.
They flew normally
>They created strategic effects that left troops on the ground largely unaware and unconcerned of what airframe they might be using — seamless integration at its finest,”
There was no significant difference in how you'd call it in as you would anything else.
>not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills... A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.
F-35s survived where several aircraft were shot down, however given it was only a two-ship, that's far from a big enough sample size to determine whether that was on the merits of the craft. After all, some of them survived as well.
It says essentially nothing, mate. It's all meaningless platitudes, mostly. All we can tell is that they don't suck.
>>30119000
>shitpost machine about CAS and F-35s.
What really gets my goat is that Low and slow like the A-10 is great for the era BEFORE ELECTRO OPTICAL TARGETING PODS.
if you only have the mk 1 eyeball being able to get great situtational awareness.
But when you have a targeting pod you can see the same while being high up enough to laugh at the piddly AAA the sand niggers have.
>>30119854
>>the F-35s did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,”
>They didn't fail at their task, and were at least adequate.
As adequate as an A-10, minus the vulnerability
>>30120303
>As adequate as an A-10
>At CAS
I want you to think about what you just admitted
>>30120398
That it's good at CAS? The A-10 is also great at CAS; the only concern people have with it is that it's more expensive than drones for easy wars and not stealthy / EW-enabled enough to fight in hard wars.
>>30120459
>not EW-enabled enough
This doesnt make sense, since when have we ever had a combat aircraft with EW capabilities
>>30120459
>and not stealthy / EW-enabled enough to fight in hard wars.
That's not the reason why it can't fight in them. According to the USAF, it's thrust that it lacks. It goes in slow, pops up, is in view of SHORAD for an eternity and gets shot to shit, and doesn't have the energy to defeat missiles of any sort in any situation.
>>30120487
Since the F-35.
>>30120501
See this is what we call a semi-reasonable argument
>>30120506
Then they can eat it up and enjoy it or go back to sticking a Raven on every flight
their choice
>>30120501
>According to the USAF, it's thrust that it lacks. It goes in slow, pops up, is in view of SHORAD for an eternity and gets shot to shit, and doesn't have the energy to defeat missiles of any sort in any situation.
Right, so let's give that SHORAD a nice hot afterburner to lock onto to fix the problem. That sounds like a good plan.
>>30120544
At that range, it's not going to matter. All aspect missiles, hombre.
>>30120487
Since for ages; F-16s, 18s and 15s sometimes carry defensive jamming pods. Most jets can also use their radar as a jammer, with AESA radars being quite good at it.
>>30120544
As >>30120570 says, all aspect missiles make this not matter in the slightest, and have for the past 30 years. Instead, you want to minimize exposure, so they don't get a chance to shoot at you at all, and if they do, you'll be terrain masking in a moment anyways, so hopefully the missile is defeated because there's a solid wall of earth between it and you. It's far better than getting killed because you were exposed for too long because you weren't booking it. It's called "one pass, haul ass" for a reason.
>>30120594
Jamming pods yes, and I'm aware the Raptor has EW capabilities but dont those burn out the radar?
The F-35 is built to be able to do all that shit without pods or fucking its radar up, combine that with growlers and you should be looking at a motherfucker. or more accurately, not looking at it.
>>30120487
The Prowler was introduced in 1971 Anon...
>>30120672
He's talking about a strike craft, anon.
Also
>not counting the EKA-3
>>30119000
I dont know man. Here is how CAS goes now. "I need CAS"
ok. drop GBU 2s. done.
"I need CAS"
ok. Drop any precision ordinance you want. done.
"it will be there in 45 seconds or less."
"K, fag. C U Soon"
Because we use complicated text messenger systems.
>>30120624
They don't burn out the radar; theoretically they could, but that's the same for anything; most devices aren't designed for an extended 100% duty cycle. The F-35 is the same.
>>30120398
You should take up your own suggestion, including what CAS means.
>>30119854
>It says essentially nothing, mate
>It says nothing that supports my view so I will try my hardest to dismiss it
>>30121234
I have no case to make, I'm a pro-F-35 guy. I'm just saying that it doesn't say anything useful about the aircraft.
>>30118969
Please don't suck.
>>30120624
They can damage enemy radar if the beam is focused.
The radar on fighters is more powerful than the radar you can mount on SPAAGs and TELARs. You can heavily jam or fry the radar on those with a good AESA.
>>30119123
>tfw it's 100 f35s
>>30122553
SPAAGs yes, TELARs I find that difficult to believe.
>>30122553
>>The radar on fighters is more powerful than the radar you can mount on SPAAGs and TELARs
that sound kind of backward. a ground based spaag doesn't have the same strict size and weight requirement as a fighter.
>no foreign nations
That looks like an incoming PR event.
Like when they claimed that the F-22 had a kill ratio of 1: six billions against the F-15. Which for some reason never translated into similiar results against foreign nations.
>>30122635
A lot of that had to do with the choice to heavily classify and obfuscate the full abilities of the F-22 when it was made non-export. Exactly how good, or bad, it is became a state secret.
>>30122635
In every Red Flag the F-22's dominated. The only time other jets have done okay against the Raptor has been in artificial BFM scenarios.
>>30122800
I love how you pulled shit out of your ass.
>>30122834
When has an F-22 ever been defeated in BVR combat / not in a close-in BFM training?
>>30122943
Never, because the F-22 is not allowed to do that.
So your first claim that the F-22 dominated BVR battles is bullshit in the first place.
>>30122943
To be fair, there are no actual records of how the F-22 performs in these events. All we have is rumors that it murders everything in sight, even with handicaps in place to prevent the pilot from using the plane to its fullest potential.
>>30123041
>Never, because the F-22 is not allowed to do that.
Yes it is.
F-22 has at the very least practiced in BVR with the Bongs, that I know of.
>>30123052
F-22 was cleared for the test fights against the RAFs Typhoons and are allowed to do it against US craft.
The only real restriction comes with other militaries, particularly the French after they spent nearly an entire Red Flag just gathering sensor data on the latest PAC-2 radar and the S-300 there instead of actually supporting their allies in the exercises.
>>30122587
They also don't generate anywhere near the power of a jet turbine.
>>30122635
>Which for some reason never translated into similiar results against foreign nations.
It can't possibly be because the US and NATO haven't actually had to do any anti-air work since 2003.
>>30123041
>Never, because the F-22 is not allowed to do that.
Are you kidding? It does heaps of BVR training.
>>30123044
Northern Edge 2006 it achieved 241 kills for 2 losses, with at least one of those losses being from the F-22 pilot thinking a plane was still 'dead' after it 'respawned'.
>>30123044
I hear that it's basically like fighting an alien starfighter
Don't believe the bad Boeing man, he wants ALL the defense contracts.
>>30123257
Yeah, I have family in the air national guard who works with live fighter training.
They say they have a lot of problems giving F-22 pilots good fighter on fighter training because the fights are so pathetically one sided it's not a useful training tool.
The raptors just sortie, kill opfor planes until they bingo fuel and go home.
>>30125297
>I drank the kool-aid
>>30125802
>I'm a faggot
>>30125802
>first hand accounts from people with hands on experience.
>kool-aid
And I suppose you were actually there? I've seen the recordings. Raptors fly in, everything in front of them pings KIA one by one, reset board for next round.
>>30126112
>I've seen the recordings
Loose lips sink ships
>>30126134
These people don't say anything that would jeopardize anyone.
>>30126134
Not that anon, but I think it's just known fact at this point. The RAM coatings and all the other stuff is almost as good as giving Special Forces guys Predator Tier camo. It's not perfect, but it's so good, it doesn't matter. Personally? I'm just eager to see how pic related does. Also, nobody likes clowns.
Now, we have one that will see them to hell.
>>30120544
About that pic. Is that too supposed to be stealthy and invisible on thermal IR?
>>30126367
It doesn't really matter, because typically if you're using IR to hunt for it the F-35 already has you dead to rights.
>>30118969
>don't ever talk to me or my wingman again
>>30126424
OK, so just how does the F-35 get that satellite "dead to rights"?
Also dodged the question.
>>30126367
No aircraft is stealthy to IR if you have a direct view of the engines.
>>30120745
BUT WHAT ABOUT GUN RUNS? SHITTY F-35 25MM WITH 3 SECOND BURST OF AMMO IS SHIT!!!!
>>30118969
>>30126740
What satellite do you think is going to be tracking aircraft with an IR camera.
>>30126772
Literally the only reason anyone thinks gun runs are worthwhile is because the US doesn't use cluster munitions, and gun runs have looser ROE
>>30126931
Im kinda curious about that as well...
>>30126947
>the US doesn't use cluster munitions when collateral damage is a concern
>>30126931
There are some US satellites that have the capability to detect afterburners, supposedly. Take a look at a system called SBIRS, Space Based Infra Red Sensor. Used to detect missile launches. Supposedly saw the Buk that took down the airliner in Ukraine.
>>30126978
Just as a note, I'm not that guy, just another anon who remembers hearing about it once. I will say that it's not likely to see something without the afterburner on, and it probably wouldn't be tactically relevant.
>>30120501
>2016
>thinking you need to go low and slow to CAS
Laughing Lancer.tiff
This thread has been relatively tame compared to most F35 threads. Let's keep it that way, yeah?
It's weird that the B model is the first to go to a Red Flag, why not the A?
>>30127019
>low and slow
Definitely not. However, in a contested airspace against an opponent with some semblance of an IADS, you aren't going to be going in high. You're going to be going in fast and low, giving their IADS the least amount of time to shoot at you as possible, colloquially known as "one pass, haul ass". The A-10 can't go fast, and thus it gets hit and either dies or is rendered useless for weeks or months.
>>30127074
>in a contested airspace against an opponent with some semblance of an IADS, you aren't going to be going in high
Debatable going by real life examples.
>>30126978
>There are some US satellites that have the capability to detect afterburners, supposedly.
IR satellites with real time updates have been talked about for more than 20 years.
IR transparency in atmosphere is better than in the visible light window and contrast between ground temperature and an afterburner is pretty good.
So there are good reasons to hear how the F-35 is going to put that satellite in the cross hairs and do something about it. Because his stealth cover is blown.
>>30127108
Bullshit. The real life examples have planes going in low until the airspace is freed up.
>>30127196
>The real life examples have planes going in low until the airspace is freed up.
Nope. You have them going in at medium altitudes with heavy ECM and Wild Weasel support until the airspace is freed up.
Low and slow (or even low and fast) is suicidally dangerous against anyone with an air defense network. Because if they can afford to have a bunch of radar-guided SAMs and the infrastructure that supports it, then they sure as shit are going to have a bunch of MANPADS and AAA distributed around targets as well.
>>30127152
Like I said, afterburners only. Otherwise, you think we'd lose so many jet airliners? Given the limited use of afterburners, and the amount of levels this information would have to pass through to become tactically useful, they have essentially no bearing on the F-35's usage.
>>30127317
>Nope. You have them going in at medium altitudes with heavy ECM and Wild Weasel support until the airspace is freed up.
Bullshit. If you're talking about massive strike packages, then yes, this happens on the approach, but remember this- for the ingress approach, they go in low and fast. Why? So they don't get killed. Yes, there are MANPADS and AAA, but they are far less deadly than anything else, and need to be cued onto the target. You go in low and fast under their radar so they don't even know you're there until right before you strike, and then you get out before they retaliate too much. Once again, look up how these things are actually performed.
>>30119489
USN usually does that so they can get for more funding as well.
>>30127152
SBIRS is primarily designed to detect ICBM launches, because you know, rockets tend to create a fuckton of heat that's easy to see. There's no indication that there's any current SBIRS system that can discriminate the heat signature of an individual afterburner that never leaves Earth's atmosphere.
>>30127152
Assuming there is even a satellite capable of this, it doesn't change the fact that they still actually have to get a radar lock on the F-35 to have a chance at shooting it down.
>>30127062
Besides the Marines shoving the B ahead, it's the model that everyone criticizes and watches the closest, mostly because most people think it's the only model of the F-35.
>>30127062
>It's weird that the B model is the first to go to a Red Flag, why not the A?
The A hasn't gone into IOC yet. The B was pushed forward first because it's the Marines that need it the most.
>>30127395
>MANPADS and AAA, but they are far less deadly than anything else
Nope. In Desert Storm, Coalition strike aircraft almost universally used medium-level approaches for missions, even on the first night of the war. The only major exception were Saudi and RAF Tornados, which tried the low-level approach for their strikes on airfields. The Tornadoes ended up suffering some of the highest loss rates of any aircraft of the war because of it, and they were consistently suffering unacceptably high losses to AAA until they switched to the medium-level profile everyone else was flying.
Low-level approaches have never been safe, just less dangerous than higher altitudes. However, with the advent of ECM and SEAD practices around the end of Vietnam, the threat from SAMs has been vastly diminished, while the threat from AAA hasn't.
I'd seriously recommend reading Every Man a Tiger by Tom Clancy/Chuck Horner. It's got a lot of input from Horner - the commander of Coalition Air Forces in the Gulf War - talking about experiences from Vietnam and how modern technology's changed things since then. One of the biggest points he makes is that low-level flight isn't a good idea.
>>30127483
>Every Man a Tiger by Tom Clancy/Chuck Horner
I've really been intending to get around to Clancy's nonfiction works at some point or the other, I'll have to pick it up. Of course, my POV tends to be from Wild Weasel aircraft, who definitely do go a bit lower than most, for pretty good reasons.
>>30127562
Horner himself was a Wild Weasel pilot in Vietnam, IIRC, and he made a point to talk about how terrible low-level approaches were even back in Vietnam. For Wild Weasels even, medium-level approaches are what you want because you're trying to bait enemy radars to light you up so you can hit them with HARMs.
>>30127650
You also gotta bait AAA and drop cluster munitions on them, at that point. From what I've read, cluster bombs are the preferred weapon for actually silencing the site.
>>30127196
>>30127074
Not with stealth aircraft. One of the big problems with flying low is that you no longer have the ability to detect pop-up threats, or threats that were previous beyond your LOS, until you're within their detection and engagement range.
By flying high, you are a bit more exposed, but you can see where the threats are and manoeuvre around them.
>>30129397
That's the advantage of stealth aircraft, but we're not talking about those here.
>>30120487
The B-52 was built with EW in mind as a defensive measure.
