https://theaviationist.com/?p=39090?p=39090
>“The F-35 recently deployed from Hill to Mountain Home where crews, maintenance and support personnel conducted a number of missions. During that deployment, crews attained a 100 percent sortie generation rate with 88 of 88 planned sorties and a 94 percent hit rate with 15 of 16 bombs on target.
>The fourth column shows something interesting: during the exercise, the F-35s were challenged by some F-15Es and suffered no losses.
>Even though the graphic does not say whether the F-35s did shoot back at the F-15Es some analysts (noticing also the “pew pew pew” in the chart….) have suggested the JSFs achieved stunning 8:0 kill rate against the Strike Eagle.
Can we drop the forced F-35 is bad meme yet?
>noticing also the “pew pew pew” in the chart…
now that's some quality investigative reporting
>>30422890
PEW means Passive Environment Wave
actually i'm joking i have no idea why they would do that
Wow. A bomber from the previous generation failed to shoot down a fighter from the next generation.
>>30423006
>F-15E
>Bomber
>F-15E with both AESA and Sniper
>Not better than the vast majority of F-15Cs.
>>30423006
>Implying the Strike Eagle doesn't have superior avionics to the C
>Implying anything about it inhibits its BVR capabilities
>>30423006
The F-15 was never a bomber aircraft. It was the best air superiority platform in existence until the F-22 was rolled out.
>>30423027
so it's the F-15C that's "outdated" now?
Are there any advantages of F-15Cs vs strike eagles?
>>30423047
Are you dumb or stupid?
>>30422665
ALL THAT MONEY spent for 15/16 hits with missiles that could be launched from any other fucking platform.
>>30423061
Be nice.
>>30423047
Several small advantages give the F-15C has received the newest sensor/avionics upgrades. The big one, however, is the fact that F-15C pilots train in nothing but AI, DCA, CAP and other general air superiority missions. F-15E pilots have to split time training for A2A and A2G operations, probably with a heavier emphasis on the A2G side of things. The meatsack sitting in the seat matters a lot more than the near hardware parity when comparing the C and E.
>>30422665
>>30423110
Really? Posting bullshit from June 2014? Shit that has all long since been addressed or been blown way out of proportion/misrepresented? Just how desperate are you?
>>30423047
Cs are lighter overall due to structural changes and the CFTs, they also have better turning performance than the Es. Strike Eagles have digital flight control in comparison to the C's Hydro-mechanical flight system, add in the Strike Eagle's better avionics and you're set.
Right now it mostly comes down to the radars, the C fleet is still getting upgraded whereas the E fleet all have their snazzy AESA ready.
So,
Strike Eagle > C without AESA
Strike Eagle ~ C with AESA, with the C getting the minor advantage.
This anon (>>30423101) brings up a good point about pilot training none the less.
>>30423065
>>30423110
>large headrest impedes rear visibility
THEY CAN SEE THROUGH THE FUCKING PLANE. Jesus. I've seen some shitty hatchet jobs, but this one takes the cake. He can't even claim he didn't know about the HMD, he bitches about it in #10.
>>30423151
>and the CFT
Those can be removed to gain some of that weight back, but usually arent. F-15Cs usually have to carry bags anyway, and the CFT is more efficient aerodynamically.
>>30423110
>6
I read the craziest fucking thing from a Norwegian F-35 pilot, they learned that- and this is shocking, get ready for this- that they could get just as much visibility by leaning forward and THEN looking.
Man, thank god they solved that giant problem!
>>30423110
All of this has been fixed long ago or was false to start with. Read the actual DOD progress reports. Fuck off kgb nobody likes you.
>>30423190
>I read the craziest fucking thing from a Norwegian F-35 pilot, they learned that- and this is shocking, get ready for this- that they could get just as much visibility by leaning forward and THEN looking.
Or just use the HMD and EODAS combined with remote sensors, which would give them several times the range/resolution as their own eyes, look directly through any portion of the aircraft in the way and of course auto-search and identify possible targets.
>>30422890
It's not really journalism, it's just a PR image created by Air Combat Command.
>>30424880
Who was the fucking public affairs officer who oversaw that graph? It'd be totally fine without the pew pew pew or the Air Force song.
> Starscream, you have failed me for the last time. Again.
>>30423154
The complaints about the position of the headrest ignores the normal slightly nose up position the F-35 flies in.
>>30423172
>>30423151
the only times you see a Strike Eagle without CFTs are maintainance and when it's going to depot (so more maintainance). a Strike Eagle without CFTs and equal pilotage would probably destroy a C model. with CFTs, gas, bombs, etc. the Strike Eagle stands no chance.
also the Strike Eagle in US useage is still hydro-mechanical with a semi-FBW flight control enhancement.
>>30426158
also GBU-12s are fun. they're so much simpler than basically any other guided bomb save perhaps a bomb-on-coordinate medium altitude JDAM.
>>30426158
>a Strike Eagle without CFTs and equal pilotage would probably destroy a C model. with CFTs, gas, bombs, etc. the Strike Eagle stands no chance.
Assuming equal fuel and armament loads, though, the F-15C would have to be carrying fuel bags, which means the F-15E would still probably come out on top assuming pilots of equal skill. If you load the F-15E for A2G with the token two AAMs, and the -C in standard A2A, the F-15C will facerape it WVR.
>>30423151
>This anon (>>30423101) brings up a good point about pilot training none the less.
No he doesn't. The F-35 pilots are also multirole pilots with multirole training. Pointing out that they're being compared to other multirole pilots is literally the stupidest possible point he could make.
>>30426276
The comparison was F-15C pilots vs F-15E pilots, not F-15E pilots vs F-35 pilots.
>>30426276
>No he doesn't. The F-35 pilots are also multirole pilots with multirole training. Pointing out that they're being compared to other multirole pilots is literally the stupidest possible point he could make.
Go back and read the post again, dumbass.
>>30422665
>pew pew pew
Really, chairforce?
>>30422665
I bet Pierre Sprey and William Lind are having heart attacks right now
>>30426252
all internal fuels, no bags, no CFTs, 4x4 loadout with 120Ds and 9Xs (the latter of which isn't even certified on the Strike Eagle, but let's just say it is) with -220 motors on the C and -229s on the E, and the AESA radars.
the E is the same plane but with a better thrust/weight ratio and a strengthened airframe at that point. it would slay a C model.
but that would never happen. the loadout is unrealistic, as is the configuration.
and yeah, every Strike Eagle aircrew says that the point of the Strike Eagle WVR is to bravely run away and find somebody else to shoot the Flanker or get far enough away to shoot BVR
>>30423110
>clutch plates touch
well I would hope so
>>30426315
pew pew
>>30426333
No argument here.
>>30425843
Keep in mind that likely more than half the people that will see that chart are no-guns
>>30426333
>but that would never happen. the loadout is unrealistic, as is the configuration.
Even then though, an empty F-15E with CFTs only weighs 3000lb more than an empty F-15C. Meanwhile, -229 engines produce >5000lbf more thrust per engine than -220s.
That equates to a greater T:W than the C model, so long as the fuel and weapons loads are equal. Wing loading will be ever-so-slightly higher (perhaps by 5%), but that's only going to matter if the pilots aren't well trained and are at low altitude.
>>30427464
yeah but a CFT carries ~5k# of gas.
each.
>>30427515
Hence why I said it's an advantage if the F-15E and F-15C have the same or similar weapons and fuel loads. It's certainly going to be safer for the F-15E to dump fuel than the F-15C.
>>30422665
>simulated deployment
F-22 also got shot down in simulated exercise. So choose one, and only one, anon:
>simulated deployment is legit, and F-22 was actually shit
>simulated deployment is shit and so is their ROE, so it proves nothing. F-35 is still bad
>>30427538
at the same time i'm pretty sure a C model needs to dump down less than a Strike Eagle.
>>30427744
or option c: the F-15E isn't exactly an air-to-air monster and this result could have been predicted way long ago
or option d: the rules of this exercise and the one with the F-22 "kills" (including the french faggot who kept fighting after a knock-it-off) are different.
>>30427751
?
I'm saying that an F-15E has a longer range / endurance than the C. That means it can dump (eg for some range) 50% of its fuel, dogfight and have enough fuel to get home, where as an F-15C wouldn't have enough fuel to get home.
In addition, the E has a greater dry thrust to weight, so the more fuel that they both dump, the more in-favour of the F-15E it becomes.
>>30427744
The only time an F-22 has been shot down during exercises was either when it was forced BFM (short range artificial dogfights) or in one case, where an F-22 killed an F-15, then went back to its respawn point and came back; the F-22 thought he was dead / not in the fight, so he didn't engage, and then was 'shot down' by the F-15.
>>30427769
>Pure air supremacy fighter with over 100 real kills and zero losses to enemy air, slightly modified to carry bombs and more fuel when required and also given an AESA radar + 10,000lbf more thrust.
>Not an air-to-air monster
f35 is shit
can strike eagles pull as much G as a F-15C?
>>30427873
F-15E != F-15C
it's way more than "slightly" modified.
>>30427919
Based on what, your gut feeling, or idiots like Sprey and Axe?
>How to kill yourself in one meal
>Worth it
>>30427950
In modern Air to Air it doesn't matter. Raw performance number games are outdated. Whoever has better sensors and data wins now.
>>30427950
strike eagle is a 9G jet. good luck getting to 9 Gs though. i've only gotten there once... briefly in an air-to-air configured jet at low fuel state.
>>30427958
Nevertheless, it's only ~5% heavier, has engines that are 23% more powerful, has an AESA radar and still carries the same air-to-air armament.
>>30428005
it's a lot heavier than 5% in day-to-day.
>>30428018
So? Why can't you fly an F-15E with the same fuel and weapons load as an F-15C?
>>30427981
Yeah but... Vietnam/ F4s leads to F16, and why F22 over F23.
>>30427919
Looks like midwest BBQ.
FUCKING
DISGUSTING
>>30428061
The F-16 was a result of the F-15 being expensive and problematic, and was fuelled heavily by politics / influencers in the Fighter Mafia. The YF-23 was slightly faster than the YF-22, but that was about it. Some have said its stealth was better, but that hasn't been confirmed and you could see the YF-23's engine face from a downward and outward angle. The YF-23 also had a smaller internal weapons load and was less manoeuvrable.
>>30423110
>2014
>>30422665
the F15E is outdated garbage.
>>30422665
Wow, so the f35 has finally hit the assembly line and it totally ready for action?
>>30429121
Mind your words, heathen.
>>30422890
One more thing missing from that diagram:
>Length of career for any F-15E pilots gunning down the F-35: zero.
This thing is loaded with politics on all fronts.
>>30423154
Has the headrest problems been fixed?
>>30430627
>Can literally see through the plane with EODAS
>Implying direct rear visibility matters
I was under the impression that all USAF F-15Cs had been upgraded with AESA. Is this not the case?
>>30430602
You forgot your tinfoil.
>>30429258
>yfw there are already more F-35's than Su-35's
>>30431064
18 had been retrofit as of 2013.
>>30431251
>By a factor of 4
>>30430707
>Overlooking the issue
Nice try.
>>30430985
>Another attempted dodge
Reading comprehension is pretty bad today.
>>30432464
>>Overlooking the issue
What issue? It's literally an "issue" manufactured by Pierre Sprey and sold to journalists who are either writing straight hatchet pieces and don't give a fuck about accuracy, or are too stupid to research and understand what the HMD+EODAS systems do.
Even then the "issue" is STILL blown way out of proportion as the pilots can see rearward just fine - in fact, better than several famous US fighters like the F-4 or F-8.
Keep in mind the f15 drivers at Mountain Home are quite competent. They have flown against just about everything at one point or another. They have hosted a variety of nations including India, Germany, and Taiwan. And have absolutely wrecked shit when they fly against them in exercises. Those pilots fly just about as much air to air training as air to ground. That has to speak something about how good the f35 is in air to air.
>>30432687
>That has to speak something about how good the f35 is in air to air.
It's not unexpected. The F-22 is a BVR monster against F-15/F-16s not because it's performance is that much better (thought it is in a great many areas), but because it always sees them before they can see it. It is not surprising that the F-35 would display similar characteristics, especially considering how much better its passive sensors are than the F-22.
>>30423006
>the last generation bomber versus the new generation bomber.
OK retard
>>30433093
>Calling them bombers
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>30431226
>You forgot your tinfoil.
I am a tax payer. I pay for this farce. Please enlighten me how tinfoil will help me avoid this enormous waste of money.
>>30432524
>the pilots can see rearward just fine
The whole seeing through the airplane thing is based on a synthetic viewport angular slaved to the helmet. This makes it possible to see while maintaining spatial awareness. To see backwards you would have to rely on the helmet since the real space view backwards is blocked.
The problem here is that the headrest prevents the pilot from turning fully around.
The comment from the Norwegian pilot related to this. He could somewhat overcome this by leaning forward and then turning around. This is all well when flying level but not so good while pulling many g's trying to dodge missiles or get in position behind an enemy fighter.
Thus the question about the headrest.
F-15 on the other hand has a bubble that is well raised above the hull and has room to turn around and a good optical path backwards.
>>30433155
Technically A-series is "Tactical Bombers", and the F-22 was originally designated FA-22, and the F-35 could've been the FEAR-35.
>>30433193
Muh multi-role tho
Also
>FEAR-35
That sounds badass
>>30433181
>This is all well when flying level but not so good while pulling many g's trying to dodge missiles or get in position behind an enemy fighter.
If the F-35 is in this position and not intentionally playing bait for an F-22 or another F-35, the pilot has repeatedly and severely fucked up.
>>30432524
https://vimeo.com/124614167
Watch this video. According to the pilot being interviewed, the F-35 has far less rearward visibility than the F-16. The helmet improves the situation, but it doesn't really fix the problem because the "X-Ray Vision" feature really just isn't as good as seeing something with your own eyeballs. He does say that the helmet is very user friendly and that the "X-Ray" feature works well, but it isn't terribly useful in practice.
>>30433181
>The problem here is that the headrest prevents the pilot from turning fully around.
The headrest only provides a little more lateral support to account for the heavier helmet. It makes it slightly more difficult to turn around in that you have to lean forward slightly to clear it. That's it. And it's a moot point anyway, as you have to lean a little forward to make the human body look at 5 oclock from a seated position anyway. Go ahead, look at 5 O'clock right now in your computer seat. Feel how the turn forces your shoulder into the seat and your body outward.
>F-15 on the other hand has a bubble that is well raised above the hull and has room to turn around and a good optical path backwards.
This has nothing to do with the actual headrest, and F-35 HMD+EODAS capabilities mean that the F-35 pilot can see far, far better than even an F-16 or F-15 pilot. The can literally look directly "through" their own headrest if necessary. There is no other aircraft on the planet that has visibility as good as an F-35. None. End of story.
>>30432524
https://vimeo.com/124614167
Watch this video. According to the pilot being interviewed, the F-35 has far less rearward visibility than the F-16. The helmet improves the situation, but it doesn't really fix the problem because the "X-Ray Vision" feature really just isn't as good as seeing something with your own eyeballs. He does say that the helmet is very user friendly and that the "X-Ray" feature works well, but it isn't terribly useful in practice.
All of this is a symptom of the fact that the F-35 was intended as a strike aircraft first and a fighter second. The F-22 (which was designed as a fighter first and a strike aircraft second) has a bubble canopy that allows the pilot to look behind himself easily without any technological aids.
>>30433259
>This has nothing to do with the actual headrest, and F-35 HMD+EODAS capabilities mean that the F-35 pilot can see far, far better than even an F-16 or F-15 pilot. The can literally look directly "through" their own headrest if necessary. There is no other aircraft on the planet that has visibility as good as an F-35. None. End of story.
Plus they'll see the marks on their 360 panoramic strip and the tag ring in the corner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5VuCsQJy8Y
>>30433294
>EODAS can locate, ID, and tag objects from beyond human visual range
>Hurr, muh mk1 eyeball!
REDPILL ME ON THIS FIGHTER
Can it shoot down Russkie and Chink aircraft? Shouldn't that be good enough? How many niggers can it kill with one bomb?
>>30433324
Watch the video. The pilot himself says that even though all the technology is nice, it still isn't as good as being able to see stuff with your own eyes.
>>30433369
Soooo, he's still stuck in the 4th Gen mindset. Why's the video stranded on Vimeo and not on youtube again?
>>30433254
>https://vimeo.com/124614167
From over a year ago. With either a Gen-1 or early Gen-2. Working on 2 gen-old DAS system software. He specifically says, "it's only for general awareness", which should tell you they hadn't even integrated IR-missile seeker acquisition into it yet.
Here's a more recent one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TstL3__3-pY
That's what a gen 3 helmet looks like.
>it doesn't really fix the problem because the "X-Ray Vision" feature really just isn't as good as seeing something with your own eyeballs
Even the DAS optics have better range and resolution than human eyes, and it builds IR and remote sensor uptake INTO the picture you're seeing. They literally see airborne contacts as much as 7 times further out than you can pick it out with your eyeball, even (degraded a little) through cloud cover.
Furthermore, the HMD gives precise bearing markers and customizable symbology and persistent instrument readings no matter where you're looking.
>He does say that the helmet is very user friendly and that the "X-Ray" feature works well, but it isn't terribly useful in practice.
Using data from that far back in the development process is essentially worthless for forming an informed opinion on current capabilities. Take some time to read up on the current state of things.
>>30433382
It's also worth noting that the pilot in the video is holding an older version of the helmet. Not the final version.
>>30423190
>leaning forward in a sustained 5 G turn
kek
>>30433294
>According to the pilot being interviewed, the F-35 has far less rearward visibility than the F-16.
Right after he makes a point of saying he doesn't use the HMD-EODAS systems to look behind him. He's clearly an older pilot trained for different aircraft. I bet if you talked to him now after a few hundred more hours in the F-35 with the upgraded systems as development rolls along, it'd be a very different conversation.
>The helmet improves the situation, but it doesn't really fix the problem because the "X-Ray Vision" feature really just isn't as good as seeing something with your own eyeballs. He does say that the helmet is very user friendly and that the "X-Ray" feature works well, but it isn't terribly useful in practice.
Nope. He specifically mentions that EODAS is not useful for targeting precision munitions on ground targets from high altitude. He then says, "there are other sensors for that", like radar or the purpose built EOTS in the nose of the aircraft. He then goes on to mention that it's only a gen 2 and that gen 3 cameras/integration will be even better. He also mentions that he's "old school" as if his ingrained training affects his primary impulses.
>All of this is a symptom of the fact that the F-35 was intended as a strike aircraft first and a fighter second. The F-22 (which was designed as a fighter first and a strike aircraft second) has a bubble canopy that allows the pilot to look behind himself easily without any technological aids.
And the F-22 doesn't have anywhere near the sensor fusion or targeting efficiency that an F-35 has for A2G ops. Comparing the two directly for A2A as if they were both purpose built to do that and that alone is stupid. We need a strike fighter. That's what the F-35 is designed to do first and foremost. Never the less, it possesses very potent features and characteristics for A2A missions.
>>30422665
>Can we drop the forced F-35 is bad meme yet?
its not a meme, it's garbage. overpriced garbage at that
>>30433254
>>30433294
Watch this video. It's clearly the more recent and better representation of the system.
>>30433539
Forgot the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5VuCsQJy8Y
>>30433503
I didn't realize that all pilots were genetic freaks with ball bearing spines, allowing them to look directly behind them while seated without leaning forward to some degree.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lYkC2SJ.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>30433528
>>30433528
>its not a meme, it's garbage. overpriced garbage at that
>MY OPINION IS CORRECT NO MATTER WHAT THE OVERWHELMING DATA COMING IN FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY FLY IT SAYS
4 chan, everyone.
>>30423006
This post exemplifies how little the general public knows about military aircraft. The F-117 was a fighter too, right?
>>30433214
Many NATO countries are buying F-35. None are allowed to buy F-22. F-35 was supposed to be sufficiently multi role to defend their own home countries before F-22's could show up.
Thus there is a need for mastering basic combat maneuver and use that cannon.
>>30433652
>Thus there is a need for mastering basic combat maneuver and use that cannon.
Not really, because that's the entire fucking point of the Stealth+Sensors, and even a pilot who has flown F-16, F/A-18, F-22, and F-35 says straight up that if you hew to the old Energy/Maneuver paradigm you are old, you are outdated, and you will lose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0
>>30433652
>use that cannon.
Do you know how many actual guns kills there have been worldwide since the end of Vietnam? Off the top of my head I can count them without taking my shoes off.
>Off the top of my head I can count them without taking my shoes off.
What did he mean by this?
>>30433709
>What did he mean by this?
Self-deprecating joke about needing his toes to count to 20.
>>30433562
Something really weird going on there.
In the video of the F-16 there is a huge distortion surrounding the aircraft. There is a distortion that relates to the horizon too.
Then, at 00:38 we supposedly see EODAS Footage and there is zero distortion and the image is knife sharp.
Also the rear hemisphere is not shown.
Also movement is very smooth, the pilot must have superhuman muscle control.
Unless of course this is a simulation.
>>30433796
>In the video of the F-16 there is a huge distortion surrounding the aircraft.
That's a heat bloom artifact from the IR part of the image composite, and only noticeable because the aircraft is so close.
>There is a distortion that relates to the horizon too.
Those are called clouds, anon, and the same haziness happens to your own visual perception when looking at a cloud cover horizon, except more.
>Then, at 00:38 we supposedly see EODAS Footage and there is zero distortion and the image is knife sharp.
You're looking at distant objects (heat bloom less noticable), and the horizon is not cloud deck, though there is still distant haze-induced dropoff. Just like in regular vision.
>Also movement is very smooth, the pilot must have superhuman muscle control.
They're using video taken from in-flight DAS sensors and controlling the portions of it displayed in post. If they actually displayed the pilot take with all the normal human jerkiness and quick head movements, 80% of the people watching it would be disoriented, nauseous, and learn nothing of note about the system from the experience.
>>30433503
>Being able to turn your head to 5 o'clock while pulling substantial G's even if you dont have a headrest.
Anon...
>>30433796
>I ONLY TRUST DATA THAT CONFIRMS MY PRECONCEIVED BIAS
>NOTHING ELSE CAN BE TRUE OR HAVE A REASONABLE EXPLAINATION
>>30433878
>When MY preconceived ideas are offended I must scream in all caps and make sure not to use any reasoning.
OK. Thanks for playing.
>>30433858
Please look at 00:23 and onwards as it passes the horizon, at highest resolution.
>>30434457
>Please look at 00:23 and onwards as it passes the horizon, at highest resolution.
Are you unaware of the fact that it's a composite image made from several different cameras? When it's that close, or between two different cameras, one camera may be obscured from the horizon by the object while the other is obscured. Hence, the horizon appears as a shading "through" the object.
Do you generally let random anons from 4chan do all your basic analysis and thinking for you? Use your head, man. Or, conversely, stop trying to nitpick an obviously genuine source apart with ridiculous quibbles that only reveal your overall lack of understanding when it comes to the subject material.
>>30432687
mmm. not quite. the F-15E is capable air to air, but it's at the bottom of the Air Force's capability list in the WVR arena. it's not terrible BVR given its big radar and two motors, but the bombs carriage limits do limit you somewhat in that regard.
>>30433503
you're not going to be able to look backwards in a break turn anyway. i only know of one pilot who breaks with his nugget anywhere but on the headrest looking forward. you can reacquire the tally after the G's bleed off especially since you know where to look.
