What's new

F-35 racked up a 28:1 kill ratio at recent Red Flag exercises

Hogwash. It would have been incompetence of the highest order if USAF took the enemy lightly. But the fact if the matter is that enemy was incompetent. One of them even got tricked into running his own jet into the ground

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_12.html

Some of them bailed out without a shot being fired. Some of them were trying to escape to Iran. Hold on a second. Which other airforce you like to call competent? USAF! Oops...

Yep, you won. Like you won in Afghanistan. Silly child.
You do not know when to stop because right now you are being childish and have no argument.

That guy @gambit is a veteran of the Gulf War (1991) and he know what happened in it. Any person with a functioning brain can understand his explanation of why Iraqi Air Force failed - doctrinal issues.

Secondly, Americans had a very good strategy - disrupt and destroy Iraqi radar installations and communications network early on, and then deliver killing blows to Iraqi forces in all fronts.
 
You do not know when to stop because right now you are being childish and have no argument.

That guy @gambit is a veteran of the Gulf War (1991) and he know what happened in it. Any person with a functioning brain can understand his explanation of why Iraqi Air Force failed - doctrinal issues.

Any person with a functioning brain realizes he is not the only person who served. There are accounts from F-15 pilots deriding the Iraqis, talking about how they didn't know what hit them. Doctrinal issues is a very expansive term. What is your definition of competency? Ability to fly the aircraft?
 
I am not looking for a citation count.
Anyone who criticizes the F-35 the way you and others have -- do look for citation count. :enjoy:

What is your definition of competency? Ability to fly the aircraft?
For starter -- yes.

When the Soviets and the Chinese sold fighters to Iraq, do you think they did nothing else? No, they TRAINED Iraqi pilots and even send them to the Soviet Union or China for additional education. That is what we do for our allies, including the Saudis. So yes, at the individual level, Iraqi pilots are competent enough to take off, do BFM, obeys flight discipline, and land.
 
Any person with a functioning brain realizes he is not the only person who served. There are accounts from F-15 pilots deriding the Iraqis, talking about how they didn't know what hit them. Doctrinal issues is a very expansive term. What is your definition of competency? Ability to fly the aircraft?
Thanks in part to experiences in Vietnam War and subsequent reforms in training programs and leaps in weaponry and technologies, Americans were much better prepared for a conventional war with another country by 1990 and adopted a very good strategy for the Persian Gulf War (1991) - to disrupt and destroy Iraqi radar installations and communications network early on, and then proceed to deliver killing blows to Iraqi forces in all fronts.

Iraqi Air Force did put up a fight but losses were mounting, and engagements were becoming pointless as Iraqi radar installations and communications network fell apart and pilots were left to their own devices.

Gulf-war-1991-air-losses.png


Even the very best of the equipment of Iraqi Air Force at the time such as Mirage F1, MiG-29 and MiG-25 were unable to make much difference in aerial engagements because American showcased accurate BVR engagement capabilities in this war with aid of powerful AWACS systems (a first in a war). Iraqi Air Force also lost numerous Jets on the surface to precision strikes from above (another first in a war).
 
Last edited:
There are accounts from F-15 pilots deriding the Iraqis, talking about how they didn't know what hit them.
Am not going to dispute what they saw, but here is where you seriously failed your forum handle.

I said on this forum for yrs that US airpower in Desert Storm revolutionized air warfare, and most, including you, do not take that seriously. US airpower revolutionized air warfare the way Boyd revolutionized air combat and the way the airplane revolutionized warfare in general.

Shock and awe was not confined to the Iraqi Army but to the TOTALITY of the Iraqi military. The first target was sight, as in border radar stations. The second target was communication, as in severing radio and other hard links. The third target was power, as in rendering power generation erratic. As far as the Iraqi Air Force goes, the goal was to destroy its assets WHILE THOSE ASSETS WERE ON THE GROUND. In other words, we do not want to engage the Iraqi Air Force in the air. The romanticism of the fighter pilot is over. It is now the era of the killer first, the pilot second. Or to put it another way, becoming a fighter pilot is not the end but a step to becoming a killer who happens to use an aircraft instead of a rifle or an artillery piece or a tank.

Do you think the sniper cares if his target is an average soldier, or better skilled, or even elite? No, he does not. If the sniper can kill his target at 800 meters, he will. That is what US airpower have evolved into. We want to -- and will -- kill you BEFORE you have any chance to do your job, whatever it is. What was implicit in the past is explicit today in doctrines and training in the USAF.

So by the time a few Iraqi Air Force units managed to launch a few fighters, they were already at severe tactical disadvantages. The pilots have no support and when they launched, they were uncertain if they would even have base to return to. Then while in flight, their RWR lit up from multiple directions indicating each pilot were targeted by multiple hostiles. What do you think was going to happen?

Tactical intelligence of Iraqi air bases had strong hints that allied pilots would not meet much of the Iraqi Air Force so early into the air campaign, we gradually increased the allocation of our fighters into strike sorties against the Iraqi Army.
 
Am not going to dispute what they saw, but here is where you seriously failed your forum handle.

I said on this forum for yrs that US airpower in Desert Storm revolutionized air warfare, and most, including you, do not take that seriously. US airpower revolutionized air warfare the way Boyd revolutionized air combat and the way the airplane revolutionized warfare in general.

Shock and awe was not confined to the Iraqi Army but to the TOTALITY of the Iraqi military. The first target was sight, as in border radar stations. The second target was communication, as in severing radio and other hard links. The third target was power, as in rendering power generation erratic. As far as the Iraqi Air Force goes, the goal was to destroy its assets WHILE THOSE ASSETS WERE ON THE GROUND. In other words, we do not want to engage the Iraqi Air Force in the air. The romanticism of the fighter pilot is over. It is now the era of the killer first, the pilot second. Or to put it another way, becoming a fighter pilot is not the end but a step to becoming a killer who happens to use an aircraft instead of a rifle or an artillery piece or a tank.

Do you think the sniper cares if his target is an average soldier, or better skilled, or even elite? No, he does not. If the sniper can kill his target at 800 meters, he will. That is what US airpower have evolved into. We want to -- and will -- kill you BEFORE you have any chance to do your job, whatever it is. What was implicit in the past is explicit today in doctrines and training in the USAF.

So by the time a few Iraqi Air Force units managed to launch a few fighters, they were already at severe tactical disadvantages. The pilots have no support and when they launched, they were uncertain if they would even have base to return to. Then while in flight, their RWR lit up from multiple directions indicating each pilot were targeted by multiple hostiles. What do you think was going to happen?

Tactical intelligence of Iraqi air bases had strong hints that allied pilots would not meet much of the Iraqi Air Force so early into the air campaign, we gradually increased the allocation of our fighters into strike sorties against the Iraqi Army.

True. They did revolutionize air combat. But in doing so, they revealed the weakness in claims made by US aircraft manufacturers and even DOD itself. And this is relevant to our present discussion. Tall claims have been previously made by US arms manufacturers. Claims that have been proven wrong in battle, and the findings available as US government studies. And so, I take their claims today with a grain of salt.

Consider 'Operation Dessert Storm - Evaluation of the Air Campaign'
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gao/nsiad97134/letter.htm

Many of DOD's and manufacturers' postwar claims about weapon system
performance--particularly the F-117, TLAM, and laser-guided
bombs--were overstated, misleading, inconsistent with the best
available data, or unverifiable.

Aircraft and pilot losses were historically low, partly owing to the
use of medium- to high-altitude munition delivery tactics that
nonetheless both reduced the accuracy of guided and unguided
munitions and hindered target identification and acquisition, because
of clouds, dust, smoke, and high humidity. Air power was inhibited
by the limited ability of aircraft sensors to identify and acquire
targets, the failure to gather intelligence on critical targets, and
the inability to collect and disseminate BDA in a timely manner.
Similarly, the contributions of guided weaponry incorporating
advanced technologies and their delivery platforms were limited
because the cooperative operating conditions they require were not
consistently encountered.

DOD did not prominently emphasize a variety of systems as factors in
the success of the air campaign. The important contributions of
stealth and laser-guided bombs were emphasized as was the need for
more and better BDA; less attention was paid to the significant
contributions of less-sophisticated systems and the performance of
critical tasks such as the identification and acquisition of targets.
For example, more than is generally understood, the air campaign was
aided by relatively older and less technologically advanced weapon
systems and combat support aircraft, such as unguided bombs, the
B-52, the A-10, refueling tankers, and electronic jammer aircraft.
There was no apparent link between the cost of aircraft and
munitions, whether high or low, and their performance in Desert
Storm.

After our analysis of the air campaign, we performed a review of the
actions taken by DOD to address the lessons learned from our
findings. While we found that several lessons were being addressed
by DOD, we also found that others have not been. The lessons that
have not been fully or appropriately addressed are the subject of
three recommendations at the conclusion of this letter.

SOME DOD AND CONTRACTOR
CLAIMS OVERSTATED
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1.5

As requested, we analyzed numerous Desert Storm performance claims
and found from the available data that DOD, individual military
services, and manufacturers apparently overstated the Desert Storm
performance of certain aircraft and weapon systems that used advanced
technologies. We found justification in several instances for the
congressional concern that some contractor claims may have been
overstated. For example, some key claims concerning the F-117, the
TLAM, and LGBs, among other advanced systems, were either misleading,
inconsistent with available data, or unverifiable because of the
absence of data.

F-117s. DOD's title V report stated that 80 percent of the bombs
dropped by F-117s hit their target--an accuracy rate characterized by
its primary contractor, Lockheed, as "unprecedented." However, in
Desert Storm, (1) approximately one-third of the reported F-117 hits
either lacked corroborating support or were in conflict with other
available data; (2) the probability of bomb release for a scheduled
F-117 mission was only 75 percent; and (3) for these reasons and
because of uncertainty in the data, the probability of a target's
being hit from a planned F-117 strike in Desert Storm ranged between
41 and 60 percent.\18 Similarly, (1) F-117s were not the only
aircraft tasked to targets in and around Baghdad where the defenses
were characterized as especially intense, (2) F-117s were neither as
effective on the first night of the war as claimed nor solely
responsible for the collapse of the Iraqi IADS in the initial hours
of the campaign, (3) F-117s did not achieve surprise every night of
the campaign, and (4) F-117s occasionally benefited from jammer
support aircraft. (Analyses of F-117 bomb hit data are presented in
app. III; the ability of F-117 stealth fighters to achieve tactical
surprise is discussed in app. II.)

TLAMs. While TLAMs possess an important characteristic distinct from
any aircraft in that they risk no pilot in attacking a target, they
can be compared to aircraft on measures such as accuracy and
survivability. Their accuracy was less than has been implied. The
DOD title V report stated that the "launching system success rate was
98 percent." However, this claim is misleading because it implies
accuracy that was not realized in Desert Storm. Data compiled by the
Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) and DIA in a joint study revealed
that only [DELETED] percent of the TLAMs arrived over their intended
target area, and only [DELETED] percent actually hit or damaged the
intended aimpoint.\19

From [DELETED] TLAMs were apparently lost to defenses or to system
navigation flaws. Thus, the TLAMs experienced an en route loss rate
as high as [DELETED] percent.\20 (See app. III for a more detailed
analysis of TLAM performance.)

LGBs. The manufacturer of the most advanced LGB guidance system
(Paveway III) claimed that it has a "one target, one bomb"
capability. DOD officials adopted the phraseology to demonstrate the
value of advanced technology in Desert Storm. We sampled Paveway III
LGB targets and found that the "one target, one bomb" claim could not
be validated, as no fewer than two LGBs were dropped on each target.
Six or more were dropped on 20 percent of the targets, eight or more
were dropped on 15 percent of the targets, and the overall average
dropped was four LGBs per target. And larger numbers of Paveway III
and other LGB types were dropped on other targets. Moreover, as
noted earlier, an average of approximately 11 tons of guided
munitions--most of them LGBs--were used against targets that DIA's
phase III BDA messages showed were successfully attacked. This
notwithstanding, the number of LGBs required for point targets was
clearly less than the number of unguided munitions needed in this and
previous wars, especially from medium and high altitudes. (See app.
III for our analysis of the "one target, one bomb" claim.)

Table 1 shows some of the discrepancies between the claims and
characterizations of manufacturers to the Congress and the public
about the actual and expected performance of weapon systems in combat
and what the data from Desert Storm support. (App. III contains
additional examples of discrepancies between manufacturers' claims
and our assessment of weapon system performance in Desert Storm.)

Table 1

Manufacturers' Statements About Product
Performance Compared to Our Findings

Manufacturer Their statement Our finding
---------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------
General Dynamics "No matter what the [F-16] The F-16's delivery of guided
mission, air-to-air, air- munitions, such as Maverick, was
to-ground. No matter what impaired and sometimes made
the weather, day or night." impossible by clouds, haze,
humidity, smoke, and dust. Only
less accurate unguided munitions
could be employed in adverse
weather using radar.

Grumman "A-6s . . . [were] The A-6E FLIR's ability to
detecting, identifying, detect and identify targets was
tracking, and destroying limited by clouds, haze,
targets in any weather, day humidity, smoke, and dust; the
or night." laser designator's ability to
track targets was similarly
limited.\a Only less accurate
unguided munitions could be
employed in adverse weather
using radar.

Lockheed "During the first night, 30 On the first night, 21 of the 37
F-117s struck 37 high-value targets to which F-117s were
targets, inflicting damage tasked were reported hit; of
that collapsed Saddam these, the F-117s missed
Hussein's air defense system 40 percent of their air defense
and all but eliminated targets. BDA on 11 of the F-117
Iraq's ability to wage strategic air defense targets
coordinated war." confirmed only 2 complete kills.
Numerous aircraft, other than
the F-117, were involved in
suppressing the Iraqi IADS,
which did not show a marked
falloff in aircraft kills until
day five.

Martin Marietta Aircraft with LANTIRN\ can The LANTIRN can be employed
"locate and attack targets below clouds and weather;
at night and under other however, its ability to find and
conditions of poor designate targets through
visibility using low-level, clouds, haze, smoke, dust, and
high speed tactics."\b humidity ranged from limited to
no capability at all.

McDonnell TLAMs "can be launched . . . The TLAM's weather limitation
Douglas in any weather." occurs not so much at the launch
point but in the target area
where the optical [DELETED].

Northrop The ALQ-135 "proved itself [DELETED]
by jamming enemy threat
radars"; and was able "to
function in virtually any
hostile environment."

Texas "TI Paveway III: one target, Of a selected sample of 20
Instruments one bomb." targets attacked by F-117s and
F-111Fs with GBU-24s and GBU-
27s, no single aimpoint was
struck by only 1 LGB--the
average was 4, the maximum 10.
 
If you consider Iraqis as competent than what level do you think PLAAF and Russians are? @gambit

on technology they are lot more advanced. their air force is 10x larger than Iraqi air force. The geography is much more spread out

Any person with a functioning brain realizes he is not the only person who served. There are accounts from F-15 pilots deriding the Iraqis, talking about how they didn't know what hit them. Doctrinal issues is a very expansive term. What is your definition of competency? Ability to fly the aircraft?

iraqi air force is competent one if they had to fight Iran. they are not trained or equipped to fight the USAF. Saddam did not care about it. they were hit by a larger technically advanced foe from all sides. the f-15 pilots are right in a narrow sense that iraqis did not know what hit them.
 
True. They did revolutionize air combat.
Good. That is all military academies worldwide are concerned about.

A revolution is about a radical change from establishment. It is not gradual or incremental. It is abrupt, a typical 'shock to the system', a forced perspective, and in this case, irrevocable, at least for US. The rest of your argument is petty nit-picking about the degrees of some components of that revolution.

That is like criticizing Boyd because we did not have the propulsion technology to match what he proposed in his 'energy management' theory when you yourself have no Boyd equivalent. :lol:

You can take that grain of salt or however many grains you want. It matters not to me and many others, especially when we were there to execute the revolution and you were not. We made our point in military aviation. You -- today -- are essentially insignificant. Nothing personal.
 
Thanks in part to experiences in Vietnam War and subsequent reforms in training programs and leaps in weaponry and technologies, Americans were much better prepared for a conventional war with another country by 1990 and adopted a very good strategy for the Persian Gulf War (1991) - to disrupt and destroy Iraqi radar installations and communications network early on, and then proceed to deliver killing blows to Iraqi forces in all fronts.

Iraqi Air Force did put up a fight but losses were mounting, and engagements were becoming pointless as Iraqi radar installations and communications network fell apart and pilots were left to their own devices.

Gulf-war-1991-air-losses.png


Even the very best of the equipment of Iraqi Air Force at the time such as Mirage F1, MiG-29 and MiG-25 were unable to make much difference in aerial engagements because American showcased accurate BVR engagement capabilities in this war with aid of powerful AWACS systems (a first in a war). Iraqi Air Force also lost numerous Jets on the surface to precision strikes from above (another first in a war).

DIdn't the Israeli F-16s shoot down 80+ Syrian combat aircraft using AWACS ?
 
So, basically, the lesson here is to kill the base (land or sea) from which the F-35's and F-22's take off because they are not being taken out once airborne; take away their home and destroy them while on the ground. However, the strike must remain a surprise until almost the point of impact.........so, Not easy now, is it?
 
Good. That is all military academies worldwide are concerned about.

A revolution is about a radical change from establishment. It is not gradual or incremental. It is abrupt, a typical 'shock to the system', a forced perspective, and in this case, irrevocable, at least for US. The rest of your argument is petty nit-picking about the degrees of some components of that revolution.

That is like criticizing Boyd because we did not have the propulsion technology to match what he proposed in his 'energy management' theory when you yourself have no Boyd equivalent. :lol:

You can take that grain of salt or however many grains you want. It matters not to me and many others, especially when we were there to execute the revolution and you were not. We made our point in military aviation. You -- today -- are essentially insignificant. Nothing personal.

Viva la revolución!!!! American generals are calling the F-35 useless and aussies are talking about helping them reinstate the F-22 production line. Thank God I was not part of this dumb revolution :D

‘Useless’ Joint Strike Fighter jets set to be purchased by Australia (msn.com)

When I was arguing on this in 2019, it had been two years since the Aussie government knew for a fact that the F-35 was useless. You used your professional prestige, your relevant experience, and your title on the forum to propagate a lie and you were supported throughout by @LeGenD. This should be an eye opener for the rest of the forum how you are peddling propaganda to create a false image of American superiority. You use people's lack of knowledge as a weakness to exploit and create illusions of American power. Shame on you.
 
...how you are peddling propaganda to create a false image of American superiority. You use people's lack of knowledge as a weakness to exploit and create illusions of American power. Shame on you.
Nothing 'false' about that image. We ARE superior. But you do not have to take my word on it. Just somehow convince your country to take on US on the battlefields.

As for what I post on this forum, I informed people of military issues far better than you will ever can. I gave keywords for people to verify what I say, unlike most who simply assert.
 
Nothing 'false' about that image. We ARE superior. But you do not have to take my word on it. Just somehow convince your country to take on US on the battlefields.

As for what I post on this forum, I informed people of military issues far better than you will ever can. I gave keywords for people to verify what I say, unlike most who simply assert.
Loooo yet you ran from Afghanistan. 1.5 trillion spent and not a hospital road or school to show for it. Those you call rag heads whooped you. Vietnam was a great victory. Korea another victory. Iraq another victory.
Israel runs your every establishment. Humiliates your presidents and you cannot even say boo. In the words of Ariel Sharon ' we the Jews run America and the Americans know it's
You live on borrowed money...so much debt that you can never repay it.

Superior my a55
 
Loooo yet you ran from Afghanistan. 1.5 trillion spent and not a hospital road or school to show for it. Those you call rag heads whooped you. Vietnam was a great victory. Korea another victory. Iraq another victory.
Israel runs your every establishment. Humiliates your presidents and you cannot even say boo. In the words of Ariel Sharon ' we the Jews run America and the Americans know it's
You live on borrowed money...so much debt that you can never repay it.

Superior my a55
The USA, unfortunately, is run by the “Families”….
 
The writers noted that the F-35 is doing well in deployments and has racked up “a 28:1 kill ratio at recent Red Flag exercises in Nevada.” More than 380 F-35s are now flying with all three US services—the Navy recently having declared initial operational capability—and in 17 locations worldwide, the letter noted.

http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/May 2019/Retired-Generals-Press-Congress-to-Fund-More-F-35s-Discourage-Legacy-Buy.aspx
Last time I checked, F-35 only has 4 hardpoints. How can it kill more planes than it has missiles?
 

Back
Top Bottom