F-35A in full loadout for first time

[LeGenD]

The Russians threatened the world with nuclear war after their aircraft was lost to the Turks. It worked.

I call BS on that one.

And you forget that the Russians have withdrawn from the agreement to share the airspace since the Tomahawk attack. Most NATO flights that Russia allows are related to combat ISIS, not Assad. Russia has also allowed the Israelis to attack Hezbollah groups that are threatening them.

The cooperation was suspended on temporary basis as a matter of protest from Russia. It is most likely active again because F-22 Raptors have been good teachers: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

NATO is not seeking "regime change" in Syria; it is targeting ISIS in Syria in connection with its Operation Inherent Resolve that spans to Iraq and Afghanistan for the same purpose.

Here is another side of US-Russian relations: https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_s...-russia-and-the-us-enhance-cooperation_820390

Read and try to understand.

 

[Ultima Thule]

You concentrate on the arguments of the expert, not the news item.

Malcolm Davis is the expert in question and his concluding remarks are highlighted in red:

Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, told Business Insider that the J-20 is a "fundamentally different sort of aircraft than the F-35."

Davis's paper on the subject matter is an excellent read but not easily accessible on the web (I got access to it once). He has extensive knowledge of the design of various aircraft (J-20 notwithstanding) and he came to understand that J-20 is a fundamentally different aircraft than F-22 and F-35.

J-31 is expected to be a true multi-role combat aircraft design but it is far from finalization at present.

Do you people honestly think that China could develop an aircraft on par with F-22 Raptor just like that? Russia, with relatively superior aviation industry, has yet to produce an aircraft on the level of F-35, let alone F-22.

American aviation industry has no equal in reality.

BASHING with a intended engine WS-15 J-20 is definitely closer to F-22 rather than a F-35 and russia has fully matured aviation industry Russian is lacking $$$$ they have experience, so why you insisting your crap arguments every respected sites like Jane's defense weekly, flight global, aviation weekly said its comparable to F-22 you sick head

 

[randomradio]

I call BS on that one.


The cooperation was suspended on temporary basis as a matter of protest from Russia. It is most likely active again because F-22 Raptors have been good teachers: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

NATO is not seeking "regime change" in Syria; it is targeting ISIS in Syria in connection with its Operation Inherent Resolve that spans to Iraq and Afghanistan for the same purpose.

Here is another side of US-Russian relations: https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_s...-russia-and-the-us-enhance-cooperation_820390

Read and try to understand.

Who are you kidding? There's nothing special about the links you posted. The F-22 is threatening Su-24s, whoop-de-doo.

The Russians threatened the US with nukes, they also showed off their 10000Km nuclear torpedo at the time.

The reason NATO entered Syria was only for regime change. ISIS became a big threat much, much later. The Trump administration is also interested in regime change, nothing's changed on that front.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/09/m...e-strike-chemical-attack-aftermath/index.html

 

[UKBengali]

The problem with your argument is that you compare a technology today to something that is happening in the future. F-35 is a fighter in production today, J-20 or PAK-FA or any other 5th Gen fighter in the pipeline.

That is the same as you compare the F-22 in 1990s and a J-20 now, and you claim you can defeat a 1990 era F-22 with advance J-20 avionic and mission package. This is kind of a moot point, because you assume F-35 (in this case) will still be the same F-35 now then in 10 years time, when other country started fielding J-20 or whatever.

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. The edge, is the time frame between production, the sooner the production started, the more time I can upgrade and patch and fine tune the existing version. I don't know what the future bring, but I can be sure of one point, by the time China or Russia have been able to field reasonable amount of their Fifth Gen, F-35 will have enough time to evolve into 5.5 gen by adding 6th gen fighter technology in it, just like today 4th gen F-18 and F-15 further developed into FA-18F Superhornet and F-15E/F/G/K strike eagle.

Legacy fighter is legacy because it went past their prime, it does not mean they cannot be upgrade, in fact, EVERYTHING in the US Military inventory can be upgrade, and unless US stay the same in the 10 or 15 years with technology, then we will have a scenario, like you said, F-35 will be outgun by newer 5th Gen Aircraft, but I am pretty sure US technology is going to go forward and in a visible time frame, it will still be ahead of any nation in the world, and the gap between production time would mean the US have more time to fine tune their 5th gen then any other nation in the world, and that, in itself, is an advantage no other country can have.

I think everyone is actually missing my point on the F-35.

Kinematically the F-35 is a dog compared to F-22 and it will be so against other 5th generation fighters like J-20(once WS-15 engine is installed if not already), or the others that will come online over the next 10-15 years.
No amount of upgrades will allow the F-35 to super-cruise, dramatically increase it's top speed or supersonic manoeuvrability.

The fundamental argument is why buy F-35 right now when the current 4th generation fighters are good enough and just wait a while longer to buy a true air-dominance fighter?
As an example, the UK has ample technology to develop a real 5th generation fighter and I have no idea why the idiots in charge thought it would be a great idea to put the F-35B on the aircraft carriers. Fine if it only has to fight 4th generation but what if say in 2030, it comes up against an enemy that has 5th generation fighters that are optimised for air-superiority? F-35s would be shot down in droves and the carrier itself may even get sunk as it would have lost it's fighter cover.

It seems that every moron jumped onto the F-35 since the US was manufacturing it and so it must be good! The RAF wanted a squadron(24) of F-22s in the 1990s as they saw the inherent weakness in F-35s air-to-air capability but this was turned down by the Americans. At that time the government in charge should have launched a program in conjunction with other European countries like Netherlands, Norway etc to develop their own 5th generation fighter.

Even a 5th generation fighter that had a relatively lowly R&D budget(take whatever suitable from Eurofighter like avionics, radar and engines) would have been far better than the F-35 but alas there was no true leadership around at the time.

 

[randomradio]

I think everyone is actually missing my point on the F-35.

Kinematically the F-35 is a dog compared to F-22 and it will be so against other 5th generation fighters like J-20(once WS-15 engine is installed if not already), or the others that will come online over the next 10-15 years.
No amount of upgrades will allow the F-35 to super-cruise, dramatically increase it's top speed or supersonic manoeuvrability.

Most air forces buying the F-35 are replacing their F-16s and F/A-18s. They have no need for all the performance bells and whistles that comes at a cost they can't afford.

The fundamental argument is why buy F-35 right now when the current 4th generation fighters are good enough and just wait a while longer to buy a true air-dominance fighter?

Two reasons for that:
1. The current version of the F-35 is useless beyond 2030, even the USAF admits this. A new version is not expected until 2040. But at the same time, the current version of the F-35 should have been inducted in 2012, not 2019. So the USAF admits they effed up and are now trying to fix this through new aircraft programs.

2. The F-35 has now become too big to cancel. All that money spent has to be directed towards someplace useful now. And the F-35 is good enough for most air forces, even the USAF.

As an example, the UK has ample technology to develop a real 5th generation fighter

They can't afford a solo program.

and I have no idea why the idiots in charge thought it would be a great idea to put the F-35B on the aircraft carriers.

The UK couldn't afford CATOBAR for their carriers.

And the USN doesn't use the F-35B, only the USMC does. And it's suited for use on assault ships.

The F-35C has been facing some development problems and its flying characteristics are different from the A and B because of the larger wings.

Fine if it only has to fight 4th generation but what if say in 2030, it comes up against an enemy that has 5th generation fighters that are optimised for air-superiority? F-35s would be shot down in droves and the carrier itself may even get sunk as it would have lost it's fighter cover.

Yup, and the USAF fears that prospect. That's where the PCA comes in. It will replace the F-22 by 2028, or that's what they hope will happen.

It seems that every moron jumped onto the F-35 since the US was manufacturing it and so it must be good! The RAF wanted a squadron(24) of F-22s in the 1990s as they saw the inherent weakness in F-35s air-to-air capability but this was turned down by the Americans. At that time the government in charge should have launched a program in conjunction with other European countries like Netherlands, Norway etc to develop their own 5th generation fighter.

Most countries buy American because it's American, not necessarily because it's good.

Take the case of Korea. They launched a fighter tender, the F-35 lost the tender, Obama stepped in, the Koreans canceled the tender and bought the F-35 anyway.

 

[UKBengali]

They can't afford a solo program.

Yes they can if they made a determined effort to persuade the likes of Netherlands, Norway etc to buy into the British-led program. That would easily come to at least 300 planes. Like I have already stated even a minimal budget R&D would have produced a far better aircraft than F-35 - say use the avionics and AESA radar that was anyhow designed for Eurofighter and increase the thrust of EJ-2000 engines. The EJ-2000 has 9:1 T/W ratio and can be increased by another 30%, and so it would have made an excellent engine for a UK 5th generation air-superiority fighter.

The UK couldn't afford CATOBAR for their carriers.

That is because the idiots in charge went for a STOBAR design at the start and then changed their mind to CATOBAR. The design change would have cost 3 billion US dollars per carrier extra and so they again went back to STOBAR! In the end a 65,00 tonne STOBAR carrier has cost around 5 billion US dollars. If the carrier was designed as CATOBAR from the start then the cost would not have been any more.

 

[randomradio]

Yes they can if they made a determined effort to persuade the likes of Netherlands, Norway etc to buy into the British-led program. That would easily come to at least 300 planes. Like I have already stated even a minimal budget R&D would have produced a far better aircraft than F-35 - say use the avionics and AESA radar that was anyhow designed for Eurofighter and increase the thrust of EJ-2000 engines. The EJ-2000 has 9:1 T/W ratio and can be increased by another 30%, and so it would have made an excellent engine for a UK 5th generation air-superiority fighter.

The US gave the UK 25% of the F-35's business, that's 3000+ jets. It's more money than a single program of only 300 jets. And UK only had to contribute $2B or so for the program. A brand new program would have cost as much as 10-20B.

Netherlands, Norway etc prefer the US anyway.

That is because the idiots in charge went for a STOBAR design at the start and then changed their mind to CATOBAR. The design change would have cost 3 billion US dollars per carrier extra and so they again went back to STOBAR! In the end a 65,00 tonne STOBAR carrier has cost around 5 billion US dollars. If the carrier was designed as CATOBAR from the start then the cost would not have been any more.

I know. But then the F-35B has STOVL capabilities, which they consider is an advantage.

 

[Gomig-21]

Simply put, there is no replacement for operational testing done by an independent third party.

So without this "independent 3rd party" giving up any of its top secret data and tactics and revealing them to the USAF's F-35 operators, they would have to come up with an entirely new set of codes, parameters, signals, libraries and systems that they would only presume the USAF doesn't have access to or familiarity with them, and that they wouldn't be recognized or processed by the F-35's software....is that what you're suggesting by this independent 3rd party? If that's the case, why would you assume that the people running these tests against the F-35 are not doing that in the first place? Why presume that they're giving the F-35 all the answers to the questions on the test? To push the aircraft's success and show it's capability to the Pentagon and client buyers?
You realize the inherent danger in that?
1) It wouldn't benefit the US itself and be a huge detriment to all 3 military branches that are buying this aircraft in huge numbers.
2) It would be a huge detriment to the client members and a major liability, and an unrecoverable one.

Let me ask you a question. You were probably part of Desert Storm when you flew the F-16, I'm gonna assume you were.

I believe he was a crewman/technician for the F-111 and then the F-16, not the pilot.

The Russians have created rules for NATO to operate in Syria. And if NATO breaks that, they lose a destroyer. And if NATO escalates, they lose New York.

Oh come on! Russia would never risk anything close to that for Syria! Sorry but I have to lol you on that one.

That's how the conflict in Syria is. The F-22 is not playing a real role because the aircraft they are tasked to handle don't even carry radars.

What aircraft? They're primary role is basically Wild Weasel escort for the F-15E's to scan for Syrian ground control and SAM radars and possibly Syrian MiG-21's or Su-22's or whatever, all of which have some form of radars. Not sure what you're referring to that don't have radars.

The system engineers have already fed the F-35's library with the adversary signals. The F-35 has no capability to react to unknown signals.

How could you possibly know that? That's an incredibly presumptuous assertion on your behalf, with all due respect. You couldn't possibly know what and if or how the F-35 would react to supposed unknown signals unless you're privy to the eternal depths of the program, which I'm guessing you're not. So how could you confidently say that?

Their EW capabilities have fallen behind the Europeans and Russians as of now, at least 10 years.

Wuuuuuuuut?! 10 years behind the Europeans and Russians in EW caps? You've got to be kidding me! Please explain how you've come to that opinion, because that cannot be fact.

Most countries buy American because it's American, not necessarily because it's good.

Sorry, that's an outrageous statement. Who put the first FBW system in a fighter and revolutionized flight control systems in the F-16? Who created the first operational stealth platform in the F-117, followed by the B-2 followed by the first (and still, most potent stealth fighter in the) F-22 while the nearest competitor is at least 15 years behind? Who's air superiority platform first came out and had an undefeated combat record in the F-15? The list goes on and we can dredge back to the Wright Brothers.

Are you honestly suggesting that the people who know 6,837,439 times more than you and me and the rest of the entire, esteemed members on this forum combined simply procure American fighters for their nation's defenses simply because they're American and not necessarily for the myriad of technical and operational capabilities of these platforms? My friend, that is craaaaazy!

 

[jhungary]

I think everyone is actually missing my point on the F-35.

Kinematically the F-35 is a dog compared to F-22 and it will be so against other 5th generation fighters like J-20(once WS-15 engine is installed if not already), or the others that will come online over the next 10-15 years.
No amount of upgrades will allow the F-35 to super-cruise, dramatically increase it's top speed or supersonic manoeuvrability.

The fundamental argument is why buy F-35 right now when the current 4th generation fighters are good enough and just wait a while longer to buy a true air-dominance fighter?
As an example, the UK has ample technology to develop a real 5th generation fighter and I have no idea why the idiots in charge thought it would be a great idea to put the F-35B on the aircraft carriers. Fine if it only has to fight 4th generation but what if say in 2030, it comes up against an enemy that has 5th generation fighters that are optimised for air-superiority? F-35s would be shot down in droves and the carrier itself may even get sunk as it would have lost it's fighter cover.

It seems that every moron jumped onto the F-35 since the US was manufacturing it and so it must be good! The RAF wanted a squadron(24) of F-22s in the 1990s as they saw the inherent weakness in F-35s air-to-air capability but this was turned down by the Americans. At that time the government in charge should have launched a program in conjunction with other European countries like Netherlands, Norway etc to develop their own 5th generation fighter.

Even a 5th generation fighter that had a relatively lowly R&D budget(take whatever suitable from Eurofighter like avionics, radar and engines) would have been far better than the F-35 but alas there was no true leadership around at the time.

The question is not about how F-35 fight, the question is not about 5th Gen and 4th Gen or whether or not the other country that ordered F-35 can have enough support because US have other 5th Gen platform.

The question is Future, and from what we can see or say, is an "UNKNOWN"

F-35 is a platform you can compare to F-16, they aren't good or agile than F-22 like how F-16 is to F-15, they cannot carry out many things the F-15 can do and with F-15, they probably is going to felt prey to Su-30 or other advance flanker, so why F-16 is the most popular modern 4th generation fighter which basically outsold EVERYTHING from US to Russian Fighter?

There are a few country that operate solely F-16 without F-15, in fact, only 3 country Operate both F-15 and F-16 they are Singapore, South Korea and Israel. And only 2 more that operate other Air Superiority Fighter, those are Indonesia and Venezuela. The question is, Air superiority is only one part of air combat strategy, there are more, WAY more that you would want Multi-role Fighter than Air Superiority Fighter, and in case of Air Superiority, there are actually 3 countries that can achieve that with the inventory they have, its China, Russia and US. So, basically even if you operate F-15 or Mig-29 or Su-27 or Su-30, that does not mean you can win local or total air superiority to start with. Then Buying F-15 or Su-30 would have been a silly move.

Take Pakistan Air Force as an example. The reason why they purchase F-16 is not to fight directly to Air Superiority fighter India have, but rather, they need it to stabilise the count, which mean they need the F-16 to work on a disperse environment, can Pakistan get more advance fighter? They can, but what for? In case of an eventual war, the war aim for PAF is not to engage in air combat with India and win total air superiority over India, that's not possible from the get go. The war aim for Pakistan Air Force is to work as a Combine Air/Land Force and use their fighter in that role, they may go after local air superiority, but majority of their work would be Infantry Support role. That actually still reflected with the future acquisition planning, they wanted Chinese, and they wanted J-31 instead of J-20. That is still reflecting the same core ideology even if they were to switch from US supplier to Chinese Supplier.

Also, the early maturity of platform like F-16 would bring in more valuable experience than latest fighter, I will concede latter fighter maybe better equipped, understand the need and would be less prone to bug and glitches, but there are one thing these new fighter don't have is operational experience. If F-35 is 10 years ahead of J-20 or even J-31 in production, the F-35 would enjoy 10 years of operational experience against their peer rival. And that is actually something money cannot buy.

 

[CriticalThought]

The question is not about how F-35 fight, the question is not about 5th Gen and 4th Gen or whether or not the other country that ordered F-35 can have enough support because US have other 5th Gen platform.

The question is Future, and from what we can see or say, is an "UNKNOWN"

F-35 is a platform you can compare to F-16, they aren't good or agile than F-22 like how F-16 is to F-15, they cannot carry out many things the F-15 can do and with F-15, they probably is going to felt prey to Su-30 or other advance flanker, so why F-16 is the most popular modern 4th generation fighter which basically outsold EVERYTHING from US to Russian Fighter?

There are a few country that operate solely F-16 without F-15, in fact, only 3 country Operate both F-15 and F-16 they are Singapore, South Korea and Israel. And only 2 more that operate other Air Superiority Fighter, those are Indonesia and Venezuela. The question is, Air superiority is only one part of air combat strategy, there are more, WAY more that you would want Multi-role Fighter than Air Superiority Fighter, and in case of Air Superiority, there are actually 3 countries that can achieve that with the inventory they have, its China, Russia and US. So, basically even if you operate F-15 or Mig-29 or Su-27 or Su-30, that does not mean you can win local or total air superiority to start with. Then Buying F-15 or Su-30 would have been a silly move.

Take Pakistan Air Force as an example. The reason why they purchase F-16 is not to fight directly to Air Superiority fighter India have, but rather, they need it to stabilise the count, which mean they need the F-16 to work on a disperse environment, can Pakistan get more advance fighter? They can, but what for? In case of an eventual war, the war aim for PAF is not to engage in air combat with India and win total air superiority over India, that's not possible from the get go. The war aim for Pakistan Air Force is to work as a Combine Air/Land Force and use their fighter in that role, they may go after local air superiority, but majority of their work would be Infantry Support role. That actually still reflected with the future acquisition planning, they wanted Chinese, and they wanted J-31 instead of J-20. That is still reflecting the same core ideology even if they were to switch from US supplier to Chinese Supplier.

Also, the early maturity of platform like F-16 would bring in more valuable experience than latest fighter, I will concede latter fighter maybe better equipped, understand the need and would be less prone to bug and glitches, but there are one thing these new fighter don't have is operational experience. If F-35 is 10 years ahead of J-20 or even J-31 in production, the F-35 would enjoy 10 years of operational experience against their peer rival. And that is actually something money cannot buy.

Mate you got that very, very wrong. In case of war, PAF will grab IAF by the balls and rip them clean out. That's the plan, that's what they train for. And F-16 can win against F-15 in any scenario, hands down. If you equip it for the mission, it can easily take down the Eagle.

 

[randomradio]

What aircraft? They're primary role is basically Wild Weasel escort for the F-15E's to scan for Syrian ground control and SAM radars and possibly Syrian MiG-21's or Su-22's or whatever, all of which have some form of radars. Not sure what you're referring to that don't have radars.

SAMs? They are not being used. Even NATO F-15s and 16s are not being threatened by SAMs. Not to mention all individual major NATO powers have their own agenda. The French and Russians are cooperating on some things, the Turks and Russians are cooperating on some aspects etc. So there's a lot of politics happening there.

The Russians and Syrians are focused on using the Su-24s alone. So the air threat in Syria has been exaggerated. Basically, the Russians control the sea, and that's been a bigger threat to NATO than the air threat. I mean, Su-24s, come on.

As for the radar reference, I was talking about how the F-22s are threatening aircraft that cannot protect themselves in the first place, the Su-24 doesn't have anything worth mentioning that can fight against any dedicated air superiority fighter. Even if NATO brings the F-4 to the theater, the Su-24s can be threatened, so the talk of F-22s in Syria is just false bravado.

The presence of F-22s in Syria has a great strategic effect in other parts of the world but has very little tactical relevance in Syria. Meaning the Russians are threatened by the presence of F-22s in Alaska, but they are still doing whatever they want in Syria regardless.

How could you possibly know that? That's an incredibly presumptuous assertion on your behalf, with all due respect. You couldn't possibly know what and if or how the F-35 would react to supposed unknown signals unless you're privy to the eternal depths of the program, which I'm guessing you're not. So how could you confidently say that?

Everybody knows that. Even Gambit admits it in post 104.
When there is a need to use Soviet/Russian signals, it is to test whether the exercise members have the necessary CODE LIBRARY or not in their ECCM packages if among their adversaries is Russia or Chinese. If they do not have it, they will virtually 'die' in that simulated combat.

It is in fact a pretty well know weakness and is one of the original and valid critical points of both the F-22 and F-35. This was publicly mentioned as a weakness by DARPA's Director as well.

Wuuuuuuuut?! 10 years behind the Europeans and Russians in EW caps? You've got to be kidding me! Please explain how you've come to that opinion, because that cannot be fact.

Yes. This is because they did not create an ECM suite for either the F-22 or the F-35. All they did was create ESM suites, meaning no jamming. So while other countries focused their efforts in developing advanced ECM, the Americans fell back. In fact 10 years is being too modest, it's as good as 25 years.

The Russians and French have taken a massive lead when it comes to self protection suites.

The Americans did not develop ECM because they believed passive stealth features were enough back when the F-22 and F-35 programs began, 1985 and 1992. They didn't expect ECM to have overtaken stealth by 2010. The upcoming PCA program will have advanced ECM right from the beginning. Even the USN has put heavy emphasis on ECM for their NGAD program.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ctronic-warfare-could-ground-the-us-air-15932
During his testimony, Breedlove admitted that the Pentagon had neglected electronic warfare during the past two decades—which has allowed the Kremlin to gain an advantage. That’s especially true of the U.S. Air Force, which divested most of its electronic warfare capability because of its single-minded devotion to stealth.

Sorry, that's an outrageous statement. Who put the first FBW system in a fighter and revolutionized flight control systems in the F-16? Who created the first operational stealth platform in the F-117, followed by the B-2 followed by the first (and still, most potent stealth fighter in the) F-22 while the nearest competitor is at least 15 years behind? Who's air superiority platform first came out and had an undefeated combat record in the F-15? The list goes on and we can dredge back to the Wright Brothers.

How's any of that relevant to what most of the F-35 customers actually need? In fact, most of them don't even need the F-35, that's why they are looking again at advanced SH and F-16 options, like Canada, Belgium and Finland. All that these countries want is US backed security, which is assured only if they go for US made jets.

And let's not forget that a huge chunk of what the US makes is not available for export anyway.

If you have read the USAF's 2030 Air Superiority Report, they admit that the F-22 and F-35 will not be able to maintain air superiority in a post 2030 world. Which means they are directly referring to the Su-57 and J-20.

Are you honestly suggesting that the people who know 6,837,439 times more than you and me and the rest of the entire, esteemed members on this forum combined simply procure American fighters for their nation's defenses simply because they're American and not necessarily for the myriad of technical and operational capabilities of these platforms? My friend, that is craaaaazy!

Yes. The US has pretty strong influence in these matters.

Even if the tables were turned, if the French were offering the F-35 and the Americans were offering an advanced F-16, many of these countries would choose the F-16.

It's the same reason why PAF did not go for European aircraft, only F-16s. And the F-16s came without BVR or other advanced capabilities, but they still stuck to it. And now they have switched to Chinese jets.

Mate you got that very, very wrong. In case of war, PAF will grab IAF by the balls and rip them clean out. That's the plan, that's what they train for. And F-16 can win against F-15 in any scenario, hands down. If you equip it for the mission, it can easily take down the Eagle.

3 days. Within 3 days the air war over Pakistan will be over. And I'm being modest.

 

[CriticalThought]

It's the same reason why PAF did not go for European aircraft, only F-16s. And the F-16s came without BVR or other advanced capabilities, but they still stuck to it. And now they have switched to Chinese jets.



3 days. Within 3 days the air war over Pakistan will be over. And I'm being modest.

We didn't go after Rafale in the early 2000s because it simply hadnt reached the maturity level it boasts today. And we want to make Thunder equivalent to Gripen so no use investing in it. Also in the early 2000s EFT was mainly an air superiority fighter.

Today we are starting down the path of self reliance in 5th gen fighters. And we are collaborating with Turkey and China for 5th grn. Meanwhile a lot of Russian input is going into Thunder as well.

Air war will end over Pakistan in 3 days, because the war will have moved on to Indian airspace. Well said!

 

[jhungary]

Mate you got that very, very wrong. In case of war, PAF will grab IAF by the balls and rip them clean out. That's the plan, that's what they train for. And F-16 can win against F-15 in any scenario, hands down. If you equip it for the mission, it can easily take down the Eagle.

Well, I am not going to argue with you, if you think Pakistan Air Force have actual chance to contest air superiority with India in a total war scenario. I don't think it could, well, historically there are always chances like how Israel defeated much larger Egyptian Air Force in 6 days war using similar equipment, but then that was a well drilled surprise attack where Egypt didn't actually see it coming. I think it's hard to pull out victories like this in 2000s anymore.

But well, I respected your answer, so I am going to step out

 

[Gomig-21]

SAMs? They are not being used. Even NATO F-15s and 16s are not being threatened by SAMs. Not to mention all individual major NATO powers have their own agenda. The French and Russians are cooperating on some things, the Turks and Russians are cooperating on some aspects etc. So there's a lot of politics happening there.

The Russians and Syrians are focused on using the Su-24s alone. So the air threat in Syria has been exaggerated. Basically, the Russians control the sea, and that's been a bigger threat to NATO than the air threat. I mean, Su-24s, come on.

As for the radar reference, I was talking about how the F-22s are threatening aircraft that cannot protect themselves in the first place, the Su-24 doesn't have anything worth mentioning that can fight against any dedicated air superiority fighter. Even if NATO brings the F-4 to the theater, the Su-24s can be threatened, so the talk of F-22s in Syria is just false bravado.

The presence of F-22s in Syria has a great strategic effect in other parts of the world but has very little tactical relevance in Syria. Meaning the Russians are threatened by the presence of F-22s in Alaska, but they are still doing whatever they want in Syria regardless.

So you're basically saying that in Syria, there isn't a real threat to the F-22 in order to really evaluate its true potential in combat situations against a valid enemy, am I right? If that's the case, I agree with you there.

Everybody knows that. Even Gambit admits it in post 104.
When there is a need to use Soviet/Russian signals, it is to test whether the exercise members have the necessary CODE LIBRARY or not in their ECCM packages if among their adversaries is Russia or Chinese. If they do not have it, they will virtually 'die' in that simulated combat.

It is in fact a pretty well know weakness and is one of the original and valid critical points of both the F-22 and F-35. This was publicly mentioned as a weakness by DARPA's Director as well.

@gambit was referring to the "enemy" (as in the members in the exercise) and not the testing of the F-35 and the code library it carries in its software. He was basically referring to an exercise that would involve a group of pilots from other nations taking up simulated missions against aggressor units posing as Russian or Chinese and seeing if these other pilots in their aircraft can recognize them and defeat the threat. This is exactly what happened when India came to Red Flag with it's Su-30MKI's and IL-78 AWACS a few years ago. It is by no means, an indication that the code library that exists in the F-35 is either lacking or its software cannot pick up unknown signals and determine FoF and react in real time. None of us on forums are privy to what these very important details entail or don't, least of all news publications. So we can't simply assume they don't exist.

Yes. This is because they did not create an ECM suite for either the F-22 or the F-35. All they did was create ESM suites, meaning no jamming. So while other countries focused their efforts in developing advanced ECM, the Americans fell back. In fact 10 years is being too modest, it's as good as 25 years.

The Russians and French have taken a massive lead when it comes to self protection suites.

The Americans did not develop ECM because they believed passive stealth features were enough back when the F-22 and F-35 programs began, 1985 and 1992. They didn't expect ECM to have overtaken stealth by 2010. The upcoming PCA program will have advanced ECM right from the beginning. Even the USN has put heavy emphasis on ECM for their NGAD program.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ctronic-warfare-could-ground-the-us-air-15932
During his testimony, Breedlove admitted that the Pentagon had neglected electronic warfare during the past two decades—which has allowed the Kremlin to gain an advantage. That’s especially true of the U.S. Air Force, which divested most of its electronic warfare capability because of its single-minded devotion to stealth.

You do realize that many of these reports are used to exaggerate the need to appropriate more funds for more contracts to develop more technology and weapons? To think that the US doesn't have an advanced ECM network besides the USN's ALQ-99 jamming pods is ridiculous, or that they focused only on stealth and EMCON to a point where they fell behind the Europeans and Russians by 15-20 years is simply crazy.

Besides, let's assume this is true for a second, it would only slow down the F-35's and F-22's OFFENSIVE reactionary time. It doesn't mean they're instantly dead or irrelevant. These are the highest standards in offensive platforms to date. And BTW, I don't disagree with you on what you've said about the Rafale, just to be clear. I just don't buy your suggested ineffectiveness or weakness of the F-22 and especially the F-35.

How's any of that relevant to what most of the F-35 customers actually need? In fact, most of them don't even need the F-35, that's why they are looking again at advanced SH and F-16 options, like Canada, Belgium and Finland. All that these countries want is US backed security, which is assured only if they go for US made jets.

And let's not forget that a huge chunk of what the US makes is not available for export anyway.

If you have read the USAF's 2030 Air Superiority Report, they admit that the F-22 and F-35 will not be able to maintain air superiority in a post 2030 world. Which means they are directly referring to the Su-57 and J-20.

It's relevant because the US has led the aviation industry since its inception as per my reference to the Wright Brothers. It's led it in almost every single innovation that has been instilled in both, military and civilian aviation hence why there is much more to purchasing American equipment than just the fact that it is American or that the US is more influential. But I get your point also, there is value to being allied with the world's strongest super power and of course there is merit to that, but to discount the quality and capabilities is a bit shortsighted, to say the least.

Yes. The US has pretty strong influence in these matters.
It's the same reason why PAF did not go for European aircraft, only F-16s. And the F-16s came without BVR or other advanced capabilities, but they still stuck to it. And now they have switched to Chinese jets.

That was initially, way back when Pakistan was getting its first batch of F-16. That has since change and their F-16's are quite potent carrying the AIM-120C. And the political climate also influences their shift to the Chinese since they saw value in a joint venture with the JF-17. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't think US or EURO jets are not as good.
Why is India interested in the F-16, and making it in India? It's not just because it's American.

 

[randomradio]

So you're basically saying that in Syria, there isn't a real threat to the F-22 in order to really evaluate its true potential in combat situations against a valid enemy, am I right? If that's the case, I agree with you there.

Pretty much. The Russians have very little presence in the air and the ground. They have only 1 S-400 and S-300 battery each and whatever SAMs ships carry (they are quite old anyway). They control the water though.

And the Russians have agreed not to arm the Syrians to the teeth to the point that only the F-22 can operate in the region.

So there's no threat to the F-22.

@gambit was referring to the "enemy" (as in the members in the exercise) and not the testing of the F-35 and the code library it carries in its software. He was basically referring to an exercise that would involve a group of pilots from other nations taking up simulated missions against aggressor units posing as Russian or Chinese and seeing if these other pilots in their aircraft can recognize them and defeat the threat. This is exactly what happened when India came to Red Flag with it's Su-30MKI's and IL-78 AWACS a few years ago. It is by no means, an indication that the code library that exists in the F-35 is either lacking or its software cannot pick up unknown signals and determine FoF and react in real time. None of us on forums are privy to what these very important details entail or don't, least of all news publications. So we can't simply assume they don't exist.

Current American technology on fighters is quite backward. They can only deal with threats they have extensive knowledge on. They can't deal with unknown threats. So Gambit actually points that out. He says, "If they do not have it, they will virtually 'die' in that simulated combat."

You do realize that many of these reports are used to exaggerate the need to appropriate more funds for more contracts to develop more technology and weapons? To think that the US doesn't have an advanced ECM network besides the USN's ALQ-99 jamming pods is ridiculous, or that they focused only on stealth and EMCON to a point where they fell behind the Europeans and Russians by 15-20 years is simply crazy.

But it's the truth. Anybody who has followed the developments will attest to that. And the Americans openly accept that. The link I posted was from a Senate committee, the Generals openly admitted they did not focus on operationalizing what they developed, so they are suffering for it now.

Basically, the Americans have not fallen behind in terms of R&D, they have fallen behind in terms of transferring their R&D to operational units. They made a budget decision by relying too much on stealth. Now they are suffering for it.

The Israelis, after a lot of complaining, will get their own ECM capabilities right from the beginning on their F-35s.

Besides, let's assume this is true for a second, it would only slow down the F-35's and F-22's OFFENSIVE reactionary time. It doesn't mean they're instantly dead or irrelevant. These are the highest standards in offensive platforms to date. And BTW, I don't disagree with you on what you've said about the Rafale, just to be clear. I just don't buy your suggested ineffectiveness or weakness of the F-22 and especially the F-35.

It's like this. If you bring the F-35 to an international exercise, it's going to dominate simply because even friendly nations like France will not show off their technology. The F-35 has a very low RCS, so the only way to combat it is to use more advanced radars and EW, both of which are highly classified. Even within NATO, the sharing of technology and capability is quite limited during peacetime due to rivalries between the US, France and Sweden. You need a major war for even allies to open up to other allies.

But if the French and Americans really go at it, the F-35 is going to have to deal with an aircraft that they cannot see either. And unlike the F-35, the Rafale has been getting new upgrades constantly.

It wasn't the same case with exercises between India and France because we are buying the Rafale and know everything about it. The French were more than happy to show off their capabilities. The IAF has rated the Rafale to be 400% superior to the F-16B52 in air combat. And this is for the old version of Rafale (with PESA), not the ones we are going for.

As for how we know a lot about the B52. Well, we had the MMRCA contest where LM showed off all that they had for the F-16s, and Singapore operates their F-16s in India as well. Let's not forget the large number of exercises we have had with the USAF.

It's relevant because the US has led the aviation industry since its inception as per my reference to the Wright Brothers. It's led it in almost every single innovation that has been instilled in both, military and civilian aviation hence why there is much more to purchasing American equipment than just the fact that it is American or that the US is more influential. But I get your point also, there is value to being allied with the world's strongest super power and of course there is merit to that, but to discount the quality and capabilities is a bit shortsighted, to say the least.

Maintaining a lead is dependent on how much time and energy you spend on sustaining that lead. The problem with the Americans is they had unrealistic program goals which finally bit them in the backside. So they are now changing the way they will go about developing aircraft radically.

If the Pentagon openly says they effed up, then you can believe they effed up.

That was initially, way back when Pakistan was getting its first batch of F-16. That has since change and their F-16's are quite potent carrying the AIM-120C. And the political climate also influences their shift to the Chinese since they saw value in a joint venture with the JF-17. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't think US or EURO jets are not as good.

All they did is get older low end Aim-120s and only because the US needed the Pakistanis for the Afghan War. They didn't get it easily either. In fact, the US would have given them free F-16B52s had the PAF asked for it.

Of course, I'm not saying they believe European aircraft are bad. But they chose America due to the politics.

Why is India interested in the F-16, and making it in India? It's not just because it's
American.

The IAF is not interested in the F-16 at all.

Air Marshal Matheswaran. He is the one who started MMRCA.
http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...-potential-for-india-say-iaf-veterans/747705/
According to Air Marshal M Matheswaran (retd), former deputy chief Integrated Defence Staff, “F-16’s airframe is a third generation design that has outlived its utility. It cannot measure up to even 4th generation aircraft any more, despite all the avionics upgrades. Its components, aggregates, fuel efficiency, life cycle costs, will all be in the 3rd generation.”

But if the F-16 beats the Gripen, then it won due to its merits, not because it was American. India looks at the aircraft first, so the situation is not the same.