Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 03 Jul 2015 11:06

This is echoing the earlier jibe ,"can't turn,climb,run,etc.,etc." made a couple of years ago posted aeons ago.But the latest AWST report indicates that the controversy hasn't died down and that it only reinforces the assessment that the JSF is NOT a dogfighter and if it loses the BVR battle may indeed be "dead meat".

http://aviationweek.com/defense/controv ... f789246ab1
Controversy Flares Over F-35 Air Combat Report
Jul 2, 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... s-jet.html

F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet
The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have defended the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after it lost a mock dogfight with an old F-16, saying report of encounter is 'misleading'

By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor
02 Jul 2015

An extraordinary defence of the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been issued by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, the lead company building the jet.

The response came after influential military blog “War is Boring” published a story claiming the new “5th generation” jet – which Britain is buying a fleet of – was unable to beat a 1970s design F-16 “4th generation” fighter in a mock dogfight.

The blog said it had seen a report from the F-35 test pilot on the exercise, explaining how his jet was too sluggish to get the older jet in his sights, and unable to manoeuvre out of the way when the F-16 targeted him.


“The defeated flier’s five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic complaints targeting the cumbersome F-35,” said War is Boring.

The F-35 is intended to replace a host of different aircraft, with the stealthy new design able to carry out a wide variety of roles, from air-to-air combat to close air support of troops on the ground.

Britain is buying the F-35B model, which can land vertically, to equip its new fleet of aircraft carriers

However, the $1 trillion (£620bn) project has suffered a host of delays, cost over-runs and technical problems. One of the most embarrassing of these came at the 2014 Farnborough air show when the F-35 was due to make its much-heralded UK debut but was grounded due to an engine fire.

Now the jet’s backers have hit back at the report, saying it does not tell the full story about the exercise, which took place in January.

The F-35 Joint Programme Office issued a statement saying that the F-35 used was one intended only to test the aircraft’s flying qualities, and not equipped with the high-tech systems front-line models will have.

"When a 4th generation fighter encounters the F-35 in a combat scenario, the 4th generation fighter dies"


F-35 Joint Programme Office
Belly up: The F-35 is a '5th generation' fighter boasting stealth technology

“[The F-35] did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, it did not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar,” the statement said.

“Third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the aeroplane at its target.”

It added that while the close-in dogfight allowed the F-35 to be tested on the edge of its handling limits, it was not the type of combat the jet was intended for and the results were “misleading”. How the report emerged in the media was also being investigated, it said.

“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” the statement said. “There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship flight of F-35s has engaged a four-ship flight of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.”

Old timer: The F-16 Fighting Falcon was introduced in 1978

While Lockheed Martin is the lead company in the massive project, which is expected to see about 3,000 of the jets sold to a variety of nations, BAE Systems is the only first-tier partner. The UK defence group makes about 15pc of each aircraft, producing the after part of the jet at its plant in Samlesbury, Lancashire.

Lockheed Martin also defended the F35’s performance in the test.

“An F-35 with its 5th generation stealth technology, full sensor suite and unsurpassed situational awareness is superior to any 4th generation aircraft flying today,” the company said.

“As many military leaders from across the globe have stated on numerous occasions and we fully endorse – when a 4th generation fighter encounters the F-35 in a combat scenario, the 4th generation fighter dies.”


PS:I wonder how it would cope with a MIG-21Bison too in a dogfight! USAF F-15s found out the merits of a Bison a long time ago.

The report is like the proverbial "curate's egg",good and bad in parts,politely called good. No doubt that F-35 has many unique attributes,but also has systemic drawbacks,when it was officially stated a long time ago that it was never meant to be a dogfighter,with about the same capabilities as an F-16. Well even that is in Q today. the magic bullet of BVR AAMs is also being questioned more and more,certainly the first to let go has the advantage,but the missile/s can also be shot down/decoyed by the target,leading to a WVR situ,especially if the enemy has greater numbers as is being predicted in combat scenarios with the Chinese.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 03 Jul 2015 13:05

Mig-21 Bison will never win a turning fight with any teens :lol: ... its just good for short high speed high/medium altitude quick fight and exit.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 03 Jul 2015 13:05

Yet again I will state that 4th generation a/c will have to kick off everything underneath its wings in order to stay in the fight with the f-35. that means limited range and limited fight time. hardly a scenario that I would want for my expeditionary force. I don't want a plane (even with my admittedly limited layman understanding of air power strategy and tactics) that has to dump, shoot and scoot at the first sign of trouble. I would really like to see a simulated scenario of an air power contest where an expeditionary air force must accomplish its objectives over hostile ground and air space. Believe me, if it was up to me I would use a layered strategy in offense dealing with numerous aspects of the enemy's defenses. If the enemy sends a 4 gen a/c up against a strategy and tactics that I think the US intends to use, then the 4th gen a/c won't be in the fight for long.........crush, crumble and chomp. they had better dump shoot and scoot if they have any hope of surviving.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 03 Jul 2015 13:06


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 04 Jul 2015 07:15

This is echoing the earlier jibe ,"can't turn,climb,run,etc.,etc." made a couple of years ago posted aeons ago.But the latest AWST report indicates that the controversy hasn't died down and that it only reinforces the assessment that the JSF is NOT a dogfighter and if it loses the BVR battle may indeed be "dead meat".


You must first separate the aspects of a dogfight and what happens when you merge or when you transition from beyond visual range to within visual range. The current scenarios were nothing more but a test of the current CLAWS and a set of maneuvers and offensive/defensive scenarios used by the designer (Lockheed) to validate and improve the CLAWS.

This is what Col. Mat Kelly has to say about the tests that David Axe and co. took to mean something that was not the intention of it int he first place...

First of all this was a DT test out of Edwards, not an OT, OPEVAL, etc. out of Eglin or Nellis or Yuma, etc. As such the focus was verification of the technical performance. This is pretty clear from the Objectives note, "The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive sick/pedal inputs." Also, later note, "various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment." So in plain English rather than running a tightly scripted test aimed at verifying a specific result, this was an unscripted attempt to see if they could break the control laws at high AoA. This was borne out by the criteria, "The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected or unpredictable aircraft responses." In other words will it depart, or is the anti spin logic too conservative.

No where in the objectives does it say dogfight/BFM an F-16 with the objective of winning said dogfight. So, the objective was to evaluate the control laws, hence the reason all of those recommendations were about the control laws. Now, a prerequisite of spins/departures typically are high AoAs, onset rates are a big part of departures so necessarily the anti-spin logic will damp them. Since, this flight regime is pretty non-linear it shouldn't be surprising that those laws require tweaking based off of actual up and away testing.


So that was the scope of these current tests..It would be some day when the operator goes to the designers and the company building the aircraft to go ahead and test it in a dogfight, and by the way we'll make your word for it, just send us the report. Thats not how it works, test-pilots are used by the OEM's throughout the process of development and at each and every stage they provide input to the entire development effort. In this case, they were flying an aircraft kitted with flight sciences equipment in support of loads testing, high AOA testing etc that the said aircraft (AF2) has been doing for many many years now.

This was not a validation of whether the F-35 "CAN or CANNOT dogfight". It was a set of pre-defined maneuvers and scenarios where the F-35 and the support F-16 would conduct validation work so that they could have the experts in the cockpit make recommendations on how to modify the CLAWS as they transition to the full SDD software build in a couple of years.

If they really wanted to test DACT they would have sent a jet out that had the full mission systems, particularly the latest GEN helmet, software and the EODAS sensors without which the F-35 cannot effectivly discharge its designed CONOPS in a close in engagement. The thing is supposed to use the 360 degrees SA tools enabled by the Gen II and Gen III helmets and the EODAS to generate a tactic advantage in an intense and dynamic dogfight, a combat scenario that usually involves multiple aircraft fighting each other in a furball. Lockheed did not do this here, and nor would they have been allowed to since those sorts of things are done by the operator not the developer.

Secondly, the F-35 has a GUN there, but the main WVR drivers for many years have been the short range IR missiles, IR sensors, 360 degree situational awareness (hence the bubble canopies of 4th generation fighters) and the ability to suppress to the best ability the spin and departure characteristics of the jets so that the pilots do not have to worry about departing when they are pushing their aircraft. A GUN fight, especially in a regime where th F-16 is the best and has been against aircraft that are arguable better than it is not the best way to test the aircraft out. The Viper pilot describes it best on his blog if you cared to read his articles on the F-35 v F-16 and F-18 v F-16 engagements and difference in flying qualities. He is in no way a fan of the F-35, or the program management, but he has enough sense to call BULL $HIT on the current conclusions being drawn by various folks that have absolutely no qualifications to interpret test-pilot reports especially those that are in support of a program development utilizing a developmental-test jet that will at no point of its life get mission systems fitted, even the ones that specifically aid the aircraft in the WVR regime like full capability EODAS.

So in a way you are being naive if you think that any modern fighter would have to rely on a GUN if the BVR engagement does not work out be it due to CONOPS, ViD requirements or whatever other reason. There is still the entire Phyton 5, Aim-9X, ASRAAM, and future iterations of these missiles to overcome. Good luck with that. Where are these weapons going? First of all what the F-35 has pioneered is the use of a Staring IR sensor in a WVR Engagement - a first of a kind concept of operation and no doubt a source of much development work. EODAS is tied to the WVR weapon, this is why it is going to take a full 3F delivery to have a WVR capability. The pilot basically flicks a switch and switches the Virtual HUD to a rear mode, and doesn't have to physically lift up, swivel around to look for bogeys unless he absolutely wants too. Much like the HOBS missile was tied to the pilot's Helmet on the F-35 it is tied to both the helmet (HMD) and the EODAS input being fed from the mission computers. So all the pilot has to do is select his targets based on his DAS inputs using the helmet. He doesn't have to be physically looking at the aircraft he is targeting. Think about the future implications of this capability in a dogfight. Now think 5 or 10 years into the future and try to put a perspective on why things like the CUDA missile are interesting especially since you can carry up to 8 of them along with 2 long range Aim-120D's and future E's and F's. Its not going to be long before Rafael, Raytheon and MBDA begin to make specific WVR weapons for the F-35 given the market size and the technology is already available inside to fundamentally change the way HOBS/LOAL missiles are utilized in an engagement. If you put all this in context you can probably make out why the F-35 has a 2X AOA requirement compared to the aircraft it is replacing and why it much like the F-18E/F, and F-22A emphasizes more the high AOA capability as opposed to Boyd's F-16 sustained turning ability where if F-16 pilots are to be believed in a purely defensive scenario (dump fuel, dump weapons) the Viper can hold 9G's at lower altitudes. The F-35 will never do that, but it was never required to. Even the F-22 is unlikely going to achieve that.

BTW you made comments in a different thread about Chinese Flankers overwhelming F-22A's. Again rather absurd, when you have to factor in the F-22A's, hundreds to thousand+ of F-35's for the USAF, USN, USMC and Pacific partners in Australia, japan and South Korea, and then factor in the fact that more than 400 (closer to 450) F-15C's and F-15E's are getting a fourth generation AESA (AN/APG-82), a modern state of the art DEWS based on electronic warfare developments for the F-22 and F-35 programs, JHMCS II (already there), and an integrated IRST and 5th to 4th LPI communications. This is before I bring in the Super Hornets that are going to be operating off of carriers and land, Growlers and the F-16's which will also be getting a DEWS (actually one just IOC'd this year) and an AESA. The Super Hornets in the Pacific have already been seen flying with the Aim-120D equipment from Japan and the Aim-9X Block II just went operational as well. The most interesting thing is going to happen in air to air weapons of the next decades. The Meteor will finally declare operational on the European Typhoons the AIm-120D has already crossed 1000 deliveries, the next version of the AMRAAM will most likely be a couple of notch upgrades and the SACM will bring to bear fruits. All in all the combat air-forces of the USAF, USN and the MC have never been stronger (currently PACOM has close to 1000 aircraft at its disposal without factoring in the allies). The physical number or quality of aircraft available to the pacific theater is not something to worry about (More than 2/3 of the PACOM fighters will be 5th generation fighters) , the ability to base them is - hence the more important program is the LRS-B and not as much the F-22 or F-35.

As far as the CANT TURN, CANT Run analogy, I again challenge you to talk specifics and mission relevent loads where the F-16 has a significant speed or speed-range (i.e. effective supersonic radius) advantage, or the F-18 for that matter. Neither do, the F-35 absolutely destroys the aircraft it is replacing when it comes to SPEED with a mission load. Its not about being able to hit Mach 1.8 instead of Mach 1.6 , its about hitting Mach 1.6 with 18500 pounds of fuel, stealth and a full internal payload. if you can't do that the MACH 2 combat rating (what the 4th generation aircraft have) is good only on PAPER and brochures. The only aircraft where the F-35 is likely to have significantly inferior SPEED capability are the F-22A and EF Typhoon (the ones that are operational anyhow), the former trades that for true multi-role capability, while the latter has the speed but neither the payload flexibility nor stealth.
Last edited by brar_w on 04 Jul 2015 15:53, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 04 Jul 2015 11:17

Aus,not the "teens" but the F-35,if we are to believe the combat report. The pilot's remarks about sluggishness,etc.,clearly indicate that the JSF in a WVR scenario may truly be "dog meat". How it is going to survive in a scenario where it is outnumbered by current 4th-gen fighters is a moot point. The turkey is coming home to roost!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 04 Jul 2015 13:22

brar_w wrote:You must first separate the aspects of a dogfight and what happens when you merge or when you transition from beyond visual range to within visual range. The current scenarios were nothing more but a test of the current CLAWS and a set of maneuvers and offensive/defensive scenarios used by the designer (Lockheed) to validate and improve the CLAWS.
<snip>


Boss you're typing out a technical response to an idealogical argument. Basically a waste of time.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 04 Jul 2015 13:24

Philip wrote:Aus,not the "teens" but the F-35,if we are to believe the combat report. The pilot's remarks about sluggishness,etc.,clearly indicate that the JSF in a WVR scenario may truly be "dog meat". How it is going to survive in a scenario where it is outnumbered by current 4th-gen fighters is a moot point. The turkey is coming home to roost!


Let me repeat what I've asked at least half a dozen time before - do you know how the EODAS and HMDS work? Your posts suggest that you don't. Perhaps some reading is called for.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 04 Jul 2015 15:31

Philip wrote:Aus,not the "teens" but the F-35,if we are to believe the combat report. The pilot's remarks about sluggishness,etc.,clearly indicate that the JSF in a WVR scenario may truly be "dog meat". How it is going to survive in a scenario where it is outnumbered by current 4th-gen fighters is a moot point. The turkey is coming home to roost!



The test pilot commented on how the current set up allowed for further alterations in the CLAWS as the software matures out on the CAT BIRD. If you want to read real comments on those that fly the F-35 day in and day out, you can search google and do so. Doc Nelson's job was not to pit the F-35 in the dogfight and see if it can win a WVR encounter with the F-16. His job/mandate was to test, validate and make recommendations for CLAW tweaking based on a small sub-set of the performance envelope as was explained by a Colonel no less in the part quoted by me. You have a Colonel explain what the tests actually set out to achieve, you also have an F-16 driver that has flown both that and the Hornet (among other aircraft) his entire life and one who has no relationship to the F-35 or its developers, and in fact doesn't even like the F-35 in the first place. Even he has come out and called BULL $HIT on the interpretations being drawn based on the lockheed martin report.

No one has ever claimed that the F35 is an F-22A in terms of turn, and burn performance. That was never the requirement. The Genesis of the F-35 was that they needed an aircraft that handled much like the F_16 and F-18 but had stealth, sensor fusion, internal_fuel Range and the ability to dodge bogeys and SAM's when kitted for those long ranges. The USAF wanted Stealth, long range sensors, and sensor fusion on an F-16 for example while the USN wanted that on the F-18. The requirements were to have performance similar in terms of quality but the JSF's requirements borrowed features from the Viper and Hornet. Even the F-22 traded some of the pure EM/Sustained turn ability for high AOA the moment they removed the limiter like the F-16. Heck, if you remove the limiter on the F-16 (as they did for the VISTA for example) and have it get close to its departure point, you aren't going to be left with any energy once you execute a 50 degree AOA maneuver for example. Thats the whole point!!! Same applies tot eh F-35 or the F-22, if you put a 25 degree AOA limiter into the software you will have surplus energy left over when you execute a turn or maneuver at the very edge of your AOA envelope. For the F-16 that is around 15-18 degrees as it begins to bleed a lot at AOA higher than 20 so they try to avoid it if possible. But if you are going to provide a snap maneuver at 50 degrees AOA or higher, and then lob a Aim-9X or Python 5 at your opponent you will have lot less energy left on you, but your opponent would also be getting ready to execute some fast energy depleting maneuvers to dodge that missile allowing you to recover. The current scenario didn't account for that since it was just a guns only engagement simulation. Thats how the Hornet fights, and why the USN has led the Aim-9X program from day-1. Simply put, in a pure dogfight, the F-18 compared to a F-16 takes the engagement down and slow, the F-16 tries to keep it fast and level, while the Eagle (F15 v F16) tries to take it vertical. Different fighters, all designed with WVR in mind but with different concepts of operations due to the overall purpose of these figures.

As far as how this aircraft performs as per the pilots that fly it with full mission systems, and without envelope specific mandates??? Here's a list -

http://nellis.8newsnow.com/news/news/36 ... nellis-afb

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... dre-start/

From the AIR International Dutch Gorillas article sourcing foreign pilots on the F-35..These pilots have flown F-16's all their life and have been trained to fly the F-35A and fly it out of Luke.

When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16.


So there goes your speed argument. Keep in mind that the decision to seek a fighter that although may not be a sustained turner as a pure F-16 without anything on it (Boyd's gun fighter) but have a high AOA envelope that is 2 times the size of the F-16 and more similar to the Hornet was most likely based on the work that was done on various fourth generation enhancement programs and looking at how the latest WVR missiles can perform. You do not need that level of sustained pfeorrmnac and the lack of high AOA ability as you will be killed. If you do not pull that AOA and let the missile "do the turning" you risk reducing its range considerably. You want the ability to do a snap turn at very high AOA and launch a missile to give it better kinematic profile and have it perform at its maximum designed range. Boyd designed the F-16 from a day only light gunfighter point of view, WVR missiles were not as good and BVR was something that was rather new and completely untested or reliable given the AMRAAM was having its developmental issues. The F-16 cannot afford to bleed a lot of energy, since it doesn't carry a lot of fuel in the first place..Its job was to be defensive and get into the WVR arena and then use its high sustained turning ability, and energy management to get behind and outgun the opponent. Boyd never had things like the Aim-9X, Python 5 and ASRAAM to design the F-16 around, nor did he have 360 degree EODAS, or HMD's...If he did he wouldnt have made the trades he did for example. Technology advances, more things come to the forefront and you take those things into considerations when forming requirements and formatting KPI's. EODAS and HMD's have fundamentally changed how WVR engagements are managed, if you choose not to account for those you will not be in a position to exploit those advances. Had the F-35's requirements and the folks at the JSF office not had the foresight to see this and had they demanded f-16 like energy management and put a hard stop at 25 degrees AOA for example, they would have had to rely on the brute motor of the Winder to get kills...any other opponent that had unlimited nose-turning abilities could have then harassed the F-35 from longer ranges by just snapping and lobbing a WVR missile of same range from farther off...

Folks around the world acknowledge the F-16 as a pure dogfitgher, a high class one at that. But if you speak to modern Viper Pilots on HOBS missile they would tell you how they have to adopt tactics to overcome the inherent advantage that fighters like the F-18, F-18E/F, Rafale and even the Flankers have..when it comes to the ability to do high AOA that is double digits degree more than the F-16's ability and lob a HOBS missile shot using the helmet. The F-16's have to account for that in their scenarios because they themselves lack this ability. No one calls a clean F-16 a bad dogfigther, in fact in the things it is really good at it is still considered the performance to best in those categories, but since it was designed air combat has evolved, HOBS missiles have proliferated and the US has a few thousand of them..HMS's are operational and the US has thousands of those as well. HMD's that completely remove the requirement of the HUD have come onboard. The simple IR MLD has evolved from the F-22 to a full blown high quality, IRST Staring SENSOR with the ability to stitch an image 360 degrees allowing pilots to control the close in engagement like never before...Put all this together and you have an impact on the requirements...If you think you can design a fighter that has no limits in AOA, and can have surplus energy left post a 50 degrees AOA maneuvers, then good luck to you...!!! If you can also design a fighter that need not do the high AOA and can with a limit of just 25 odd degrees execute HOBS shots with the same potency of high AOA fighters then also good luck to you. I don't think the US has the ability to design for these changes without having to rely on the superiority of weapons to carry the day. You cant mess around with the basic laws of science...If you are going to pull high AOA's, you will bleed energy, similarly if you aren't going to pull high AOA's you will have a reduced envelope for your missile since it post launch would have to execute a series of high AOA maneuvers reducing its range...Take your pick and remember if you design a longer ranged WVR missile your enemy can too!!

Also keep in mind that in a WVR missiles scenario you are playing and starting off with near parity. What happens when you have an Aim-9X Block II and your opponent has a latest version Python Missile?? Its tough in those scenarios to tilt the odds much from the 50:50 that they start off with. Training most likely kicks in and plays possibly the biggest role. But even with a slightly better weapon, or a slightly better HMD and things like DAS you can at best acheive a 55-45 or a 60:40 kill ratio under these circumstances when that is the quality of weapons you are talking about. Substitute late ASRAAM, IRIS-T or the late archer in that and you will get similar results. As one Hornet pilot once remarked, with the Aim-9X and JHMCS I am KING KONG in an engagement..Of course this changes when the opponent has the P5 and a similar quality HMD...You again achieve parity and get into the " MUTUAL KILL TERRITORY". Its really tough to beat those odds and amazingly tough to do so at the strategic level when you have to account for 8 on 8, or 4 on 4 engagements over a wide theater and all the mission planning factored in. As sexy as it may sound, go over the literature from the Middle eastern wars, Vietnam and Korea and you'll realize that WVR engagements are very very unlikely to be 1 on 1 scenarios....but take place in a furball with multiple aircraft and often multiple types of aircraft...This was true even in WW2.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 05 Jul 2015 16:51


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 06 Jul 2015 06:08

The whole thing shakes from side to side when the guns are fired. That's an angle uncertainty of at least 2 degrees, which at 5000 m is a miss by 174m. And the gun barrel is right by the side of the cockpit - meaning where pilot's eardrums used to be before the first time the gun is fired. I would have expected flame to come shooting out the barrel like in the movies - here it's like the famous Sergeant York test where they 'shot down' a helicopter by putting an explosive inside it and synchronizing with the sound of the SY's trigger being pulled. Sort-of like the muzzle flashes in the MGR movies, hain?

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 06 Jul 2015 08:52

^^^^

5,000 m's? :eek: with a GAU-12 Equalizer 25mm?

now that right there would be some mighty fine shootin' to hit another jet fighter almost three miles away! even with fancy schmancy radar, laser photon gunner sights and Kentucky windage, Hail Mary, full grace on a wing and prayer, gun 'em dead sights.

that kinda shootin' will get you a medal in the Marine Corps and dead drunk at the O-club....

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 06 Jul 2015 14:37


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 06 Jul 2015 14:43

Lockheed Martin ready to build 94 F-35 combat jets in $920.4 million contract


Officials of the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md. -- the organization handling F-35 procurement for all military forces -- announced a $920.4 million contract with the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics segment in Fort Worth, Texas, for long lead items involves with 94 F-35 aircraft.


The contract announced Thursday involves several different low-rate initial production versions of the F-35 for several U.S. military and foreign buyers.
This contract provides for 78 conventional takeoff and landing F-35A aircraft -- 44 for the U.S. Air Force, two for Italy, two for Turkey, eight for Australia, six for Norway, and 16 for other foreign militaries.
The contract also involves 14 vertical- and short-takeoff versions of the F-35B -- nine for the U.S. Marine Corps, three for Britain, and two for Italy. Finally, the contract involves two carrier-based F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.


MARINES ON TARGET WITH F-35 LIVE-WEAPONS RELEASE

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR, Calif. -- Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, also known as the “Green Knights,” conducted the first F-35B operational ordnance expenditures June 22 to 26.

Pilots employed the ordnance in Restricted Area 2507 in southeastern California.

A total of 14 pilots used six F-35Bs to employ both inert and high-explosive munitions. In total, 18 Guided Bomb Unit (GBU) 12s, and 12 GBU-32s were employed during the training.

According to Chief Warrant Officer 2 Matthew Beard, ordnance officer with VMFA-121, the munitions employed by the pilots were the same as those dropped by legacy Marine Corps fixed-wing aircraft, but the dimensions, installation and technology that targets and employs them were different.

“The training was hugely successful,” said Beard. “We showed that we could employ the weapons that were supposed to be employed, and that we have sound weapon employment systems at this point.”

In accordance with the guidelines set by U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, fleet F-35Bs need to demonstrate the ability to employ ordnance for the squadron to declare Initial Operating Capability (IOC).

“The ordnance employment was one of the last pieces the squadron needed for the IOC declaration,” said Maj. Brendan Walsh, operations officer and a pilot with VMFA-121. “This training validated the simulated procedures pilots have been training for, and gave us confidence in the jet's ability to perform with real weaponry.”

The squadron, based out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, will continue to employ ordnance in the future as it will become part of their normal training cycle, according to Walsh.

“This is an exciting time to be flying this aircraft,” said Walsh. “We look forward to continuing to train and exercise its capabilities for combat.”

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Jul 2015 06:26

TSJones wrote:^^^^

5,000 m's? :eek: with a GAU-12 Equalizer 25mm?

now that right there would be some mighty fine shootin' to hit another jet fighter almost three miles away! even with fancy schmancy radar, laser photon gunner sights and Kentucky windage, Hail Mary, full grace on a wing and prayer, gun 'em dead sights.

that kinda shootin' will get you a medal in the Marine Corps and dead drunk at the O-club....


Wonderful point! So the F-35 cannot dogfight, would get creamed if the Red Baron's Triplane came up with his Luger. And the guns that it has can't reach anywhere near 5000 m (visual range). So what is the point in having these $30B guns I wonder. Or the plane, other than as a very cool-looking and whine-sounding cell-phone mart. Are the guns intended to strafe the Taliban? Or do Stuka-like dives so that the bullets will accelerate due to gravity?

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3513
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby deejay » 07 Jul 2015 06:38

UlanBatori wrote:------ Or do Stuka-like dives so that the bullets will accelerate due to gravity?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I am not following the discussion so - apologies. But this is super Angrezi . Sorry . But again :rotfl:

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 07 Jul 2015 12:10

oh yeah sure, while the SU-30's gun, dog fighter par excellence, max *effective* range is 200m to 800m for air to air. Please go outside to blow your smoke. I don't wanna get COPD second hand. My children and my dog Lucky will thank you.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 07 Jul 2015 14:38

UlanBatori wrote:Wonderful point! So the F-35 cannot dogfight, would get creamed if the Red Baron's Triplane came up with his Luger. And the guns that it has can't reach anywhere near 5000 m (visual range). So what is the point in having these $30B guns I wonder. Or the plane, other than as a very cool-looking and whine-sounding cell-phone mart. Are the guns intended to strafe the Taliban? Or do Stuka-like dives so that the bullets will accelerate due to gravity?


Can you please point me in the direction of the gun that's effective at 5,000m against an aerial target?


Here's the MiG-27's 30 mm cannon, which is considered exceptionally powerful.

The new cannon, designated GSh-6-30A, had a weight of 145 kg (AO-18 = 205 kg) and rate of fire of 5,500-6,100 rounds per minute. The muzzle velocity was 850 m/s. The ammunition consisted of 300 rounds of high-explosive-incendiary (OFZ), high-explosive-incendiary tracers (OFZT), incendiary (FZ) or armour-piercing-explosive (BZ) shells in weights of up to 400 g. The effective range for aimed fire against ground targets was 1,200-1,600 m, and against aircraft was 200-600 m.
.
.
During series production at the Tula machine-building factory it proved possible to eliminate in due course most of the design defects to achieve acceptable reliability. The modified gun allowed firing bursts of up to 300 rounds. However, another serious problem appeared with the aircraft gun mounting: despite the reduced ballistics [Ed: from the use of shorter barrels] the recoil force of the GSh-6-30A was about 5,500 kg. The impact loads caused by firing were very high for the aircraft to absorb, particularly as its structure was a development of a light fighter. For ground firing tests the gun was initially mounted on a wooden testbed, but at the first trial firing of the "Shestistvolka" the testbed simply fell apart.


Link


Then there's the GSh-301 that's operational on the MiG-29 and Su-27 families and will be equipping the new PAK FA.

The GSh-301 has a rate of fire of 1,800 rounds per minute, customarily limited to 1,500 rounds per minute to reduce barrel wear. Despite that, its barrel life is quite short: 2,000 rounds. When firing a continuous burst of 100–150 rounds, the barrel is put under so much stress that it has to be replaced. The gun uses an evaporation cooling system to prevent the detonation of a high explosive round inside a heated barrel. This cooling system consists of a cylindrical water tank around the rear end of the barrel. The GSh-301 is equipped with a unique pyrotechnic mechanism to clear misfires: a small pyrotechnic cartridge is located to the left of the 30mm cartridge chamber. This pyrotechnic cartridge fires a small steel bolt through the side wall of the 30mm cartridge. The hot propellant gases following the bolt into the dud 30mm round ignite the powder charge of that round and firing continues.

The gun's maximum effective range against aerial targets is 200 to 800 m and against surface or ground targets is 1,200 to 1,800 m.
- Link

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Jul 2015 17:17

No, Brave Defenders of F-35, I don't have to point to anything there. :mrgreen: Comparison to the guns of far-cheaper 4th-Gen aircraft is not relevant. Please follow your own logic above:

1. The reports presented above say that the F-35 cannot survive dogfights against maneuverable aircraft. So the gun is certainly not effective there - it will not be able to get close enough and point the gun and fire at opposing aircraft which can maneuver better.

2. Your defense cited is that this is irrelevant because the F-35 is not intended for close-range combat, only for cellphone cooordination and BVR attacks.

3. If it can also not do any better than guns on manueverable aircraft, it cannot prevent those aircraft from approaching within dogfighting distance once the BVR missiles are expended.

4. So my question is, what is the purpose of the gun on the F-35? Seems like the weight and cost would have been better spent on BVR missiles, which seem to be the **only** effective defense on this extremely expensive and (per reports - I don't have any personal knowledge) poorly-maneuvering aircraft.

5. So I ask whether the purpose is to conduct attacks against ground targets. Again, if it has to fly close to the ground, it becomes vulnerable to ground fire, where survivability is dim. Stealth is irrelevant there.

Just a helpful suggestion: Perhaps a better way to operate this (at least the Marine version) is using the lift fan, and tilt nose down so that it can fly like a helicopter. At least, maneuverability may be better there. But with the high disc loading of the fan, it is not very efficient, so range will be limited. Which is OK because the parts crack pretty soon from all the vibrations anyway, the longer it is operated, and the noise causes ear damage to the poor pilots.

It may be possible to literally 'Blow Away The Opposition' on the ground using the exhaust from the lift fan and the noise from the engines? Just a thought - pls don't rush to add that to the already-extensive PR brochure on this.

The more I read, the better the LCA-US/F-35 combo seems. Each F-35 needs an escort of 4 or 5 maneuverable aircraft with guns to protect it while it busily makes all those cellphone calls, sends text messages etc needed for Net-Centric Warfare.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 07 Jul 2015 17:38

UlanBatori wrote:No, Brave Defenders of F-35, I don't have to point to anything there. :mrgreen: Comparison to the guns of far-cheaper 4th-Gen aircraft is not relevant. Please follow your own logic above:


Let me quote your post again -

The whole thing shakes from side to side when the guns are fired. That's an angle uncertainty of at least 2 degrees, which at 5000 m is a miss by 174m. And the gun barrel is right by the side of the cockpit - meaning where pilot's eardrums used to be before the first time the gun is fired. I would have expected flame to come shooting out the barrel like in the movies - here it's like the famous Sergeant York test where they 'shot down' a helicopter by putting an explosive inside it and synchronizing with the sound of the SY's trigger being pulled. Sort-of like the muzzle flashes in the MGR movies, hain?



So, now then what was the basis for your assumption that a gun should be able to get a kill at 5000 metres i.e. 10 times the range of every other cannon?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 07 Jul 2015 19:17

UB,you've forgotten that this "magic bullet" in the sky aka the JSF is pensioning off the heavily armoured A-10! That is why it needs a little pecker to strafe the likes of the Taliban and ISIS ,even though its designers and manufacturers are fretting at its extremely fragile structure,not armoured and vulnerable to an Afghan armed with a muzzle loader!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 07 Jul 2015 19:25

Marines Prepare for F-35B Initial Operations with New Simulation and Logistics Technologies

A squadron at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma in Arizona serves as the tip of the spear to bring the F-35B into initial operations. Now, these Marines are sharpening their combat readiness with new F-35 training and logistics systems.

Pilots with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 are the first to train with four Full Mission Simulators linked together and running the latest Block 2B aircraft software. In the simulators, pilots rehearse missions in four-ship formations and hone their tactical employment of the F-35B against challenging ground and airborne threats.

With 2.8 million acres of training ranges and ideal flying weather, MCAS Yuma supports 80 percent of the Marine Corps’ air-to-ground aviation training. Live flying combined with the advanced F-35 simulators provide pilots with the range of experience required to maximize the F-35’s first-look, first-shot advantage. The F-35 Full Mission Simulator accurately replicates all sensors and weapons to provide a realistic mission rehearsal and training environment.

Marines maintain the F-35B aboard the USS Wasp during operational testing with an ALIS Portable Maintenance Aid. ALIS enables daily operations of the F-35 fleet, including mission planning, flight scheduling, aircraft maintenance, and tracking and ordering of parts. U.S. Marine Corps photo

Additionally, Lockheed Martin delivered a deployable version of the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS. Housed within ruggedized transport cases, the equipment supports deployments on aircraft carriers and at remote operating locations. ALIS is the backbone of the F-35 fleet and turns a vast amount of data into actionable information that enables pilots, maintainers and military leaders to make proactive decisions and keep jets flying.

"As the Marine Corps supports the President's strategy to rebalance in the Pacific, we're bringing the most advanced technologies and capabilities of our force to the region with the F-35,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the Deputy Commandant for U.S. Marine Corps Aviation. “This capability enables our Corps to support regional partners during crises by empowering our forces to perform a wide range of missions across multiple domains.”

Marines at MCAS Yuma are now training with four Full Mission Simulators linked together and running the latest Block 2B aircraft software. In the simulators, pilots rehearse missions in four-ship formations and hone their tactical employment of the F-35B against challenging ground and airborne threats. The F-35 Full Mission Simulator accurately replicates all sensors and weapons to provide a realistic mission rehearsal and training environment. Lockheed Martin photo

“All the pieces of the technology puzzle are coming together to support the Marines’ F-35 mission readiness,” said Mary Ann Horter, vice president of F-35 Sustainment Support at Lockheed Martin. “The Marines at Yuma are launching the future of aviation and our focus is supporting them with the most effective training and logistics technologies.”

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 is the first operational F-35B squadron and will undergo an independent inspection in July to gauge the squadron’s combat readiness. To date, more than 40 pilots and 350 maintainers for the Marine Corps have graduated from the F-35 Training System. By July, more than 50 F-35B pilots and 400 maintenance personnel for the Marines will be mission ready.

The F-35 Lightning II, a 5th generation fighter, combines advanced low observable stealth technology with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Following the Marine Corps’ planned 2015 combat-ready Initial Operational Capability (IOC) declaration, the U.S. Air Force and Navy intend to attain service IOC in 2016 and 2018, respectively

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Jul 2015 19:28

That's an angle uncertainty of at least 2 degrees, which at 5000 m is a miss by 174m.

As everyone knows, I am too nice to cruelly point out that at 500m, it is a miss by 17.4 meters, which also misses most things other than an A380 completely. :mrgreen:
But no fear: the tests shown in the video are at point-blank range. Target destroyed - just like with the Sgt York demo.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 07 Jul 2015 19:59

The reports presented above say that the F-35 cannot survive dogfights against maneuverable aircraft. So the gun is certainly not effective there - it will not be able to get close enough and point the gun and fire at opposing aircraft which can maneuver better


Read Col. Mat Kelly's interpretation of the report -

First of all this was a DT test out of Edwards, not an OT, OPEVAL, etc. out of Eglin or Nellis or Yuma, etc. As such the focus was verification of the technical performance. This is pretty clear from the Objectives note, "The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive sick/pedal inputs." Also, later note, "various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment." So in plain English rather than running a tightly scripted test aimed at verifying a specific result, this was an unscripted attempt to see if they could break the control laws at high AoA. This was borne out by the criteria, "The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected or unpredictable aircraft responses." In other words will it depart, or is the anti spin logic too conservative.

No where in the objectives does it say dogfight/BFM an F-16 with the objective of winning said dogfight. So, the objective was to evaluate the control laws, hence the reason all of those recommendations were about the control laws. Now, a prerequisite of spins/departures typically are high AoAs, onset rates are a big part of departures so necessarily the anti-spin logic will damp them. Since, this flight regime is pretty non-linear it shouldn't be surprising that those laws require tweaking based off of actual up and away testing.


Here's C.W. Lemoine take on the matter (He is a Viper Pilot, has flown the Hornet and does not particularly like the F35):

o while this particular article may lead you to believe the two aircraft went out there mano y mano and duked it out, the reality is that we don’t know where each deficiency was found. My guess is the critiques on the pitch rates for gunning and abilities to jink happened in the canned offensive and defensive setups. But one has to remember this is a test platform and they were out to get test data, not find out who the king of the mountain is.

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?

To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things


As far as other things menitoned in the report, they are easily described if one follows what is actually happening. The AF2 does not have EODAS, does not have the latest software, has the FCS developed till 7G (2B/3i envelope) and was in the processing of validating and recomending changes to the CLAWS above that envelope (though it was cleared for full envelope). 9G capability and the final software build is not due by 2017 with the delivery of 3F. Secondly, the aircraft relies on DAS and HMD combo to provide 360 degrees SA, and not the pilot physically making effort to look all over through the bubble canopy as the F-16 did. With DAS there are no blind spots, and the physical work a pilot has to do is minimized (Try moving your neck at 9G's for more than a few seconds, as one A4 and F16 pilot commented, after a DACT at 9G on their way back to the debrief they used to take a fistful of snow from the ground and stuff it down their collars)..Lastly unlike the JHMCS and pretty much every other HMS, the WVR weapon is slaved to both the helmet and pilot as well as the EODAS sensor, so the pilot need not look at the opponent to send the Winder down range for a LOAL shot. All in all these capabilities earned their way into the F-35 WVR fighting concept after carefull validation and de-risking on the F-16 fleet that included actually flying mounted prototype DAS sensors and slaving them to the helmet. Without this the F-35 cannot discharge its WVR concept of operation, and neither could the AF2 which has most sub-systems replaced with test equipment and flight sciences kit.

The report it is in fact a validation of the fact that the F-35 in this particular regime flies more like the Hornet than the Viper, and this was what folks had been saying for quite a while now, ever since the KPP's were released so it should not be any surprising. If you are going to pit the Hornet (or the eagle) or the JSF against the viper and do so in a sustained turning gun fight at 15-20K, all three fighters will loose..However that has not stopped the Hornets from scoring consistent kills on the Viper as the Top Gun jocks will attest. You simply fight differently and to your strength. The pilot did not mention this because this was not his mandate (to evaluate eh F-35's gun fighting or dogfighting ability to the Viper), that will be done during OPEVAL. So as Col Kelly and others including a JSF-hating F-16 and F-18 pilot (read the article from the previous page) have noted, this report is not an indication that the F-35 is going to loose against the Viper in a tactical WVR engagement.

Every fighter designed post HOBS/LOAL missiles in the US has had a higher AOA component/envelope to exploit that reality as opposed to the F-16 that was designed with a very dated Sidewinder and guns only capability. To read the evolution of aircraft design and tactics go over this and the references provided -

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... ility.html

But, as they say, time marches on, and in the past 10-12 years, several significant advancements have been made in the capabilities of fighter aircraft and air-to-air weapons. Three of these advancements; the all-aspect IR missile, greatly improved weapons delivery systems, and high thrust-to-weight engines have dramatically altered the character of the air battle, especially the close-in fight. The modern air battle is characterized by (1) time compression – shorter duration maneuvering required and (2) harder maneuvering - nose position at the expense of energy vs. nose position with energy conservation…
Air combat trends have expanded to ever increasing altitudes and speeds for beyond visual range (BVR) combat and conversely have tended to a lower and sometimes slower arena for close-in, within visual range (WVR) combat. … …This changing complexion of air combat, primarily due to the all-aspect IR missile, has altered the relative significance of the various performance characteristics with which we judge relative merit.


I am sure modern 4th and even 5th generation aircraft can't fight as well as WW2 fighters in certain slow regimes, that doesnt mean they are inferior, it just means that the technology (jet engines in this case among others) and weapons have changed the things that the designers design around.

Your defense cited is that this is irrelevant because the F-35 is not intended for close-range combat, only for cellphone cooordination and BVR attacks


WVR is a lot lot more than a gun-fight..In air combat you have BVR, the transition that is now an area where later version MRAAM's (Aim-120C7 and D and Meteor) are increasingly effective, and WVR using HOBS/LOAL IR missiles, and then guns. Tactically gun-fighting is a matter of last resort and gets a smaller portion of training compared to the other two regimes of air combat.

If it can also not do any better than guns on manueverable aircraft, it cannot prevent those aircraft from approaching within dogfighting distance once the BVR missiles are expended.


WVR Missile?? Aim-9X Block II, Future Aim-9X Block III, ASRAAM, Future Python 4/5 etc Of course the fighter is just getting started, the F-16 was a simply IR and Gun fighter when it got started, there is strong indication that both AFRL, DARPA and the services are pursuing the next generation of air to air weapons in all regimes, and have to that end procured 1000+ Aim-120D's, test fired the Triple Target Terminator (T3), and have a long standing demand for a SACM - 'Hitile' weapon of which the CUDA is one industry funded choice. As the stealth-internal-weapons fleet gains a higher percentage in the total tactical fleet, these programs will get proportional investment because that would be the need of the hour.

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin “Cuda”



So my question is, what is the purpose of the gun on the F-35? Seems like the weight and cost would have been better spent on BVR missiles, which seem to be the **only** effective defense on this extremely expensive and (per reports - I don't have any personal knowledge) poorly-maneuvering aircraft.


As with most modern aircraft the gun is a matter of last resort, a feature that the developers leave in there as both them and the operators don't want to take a gamble and not provide that capability if worst comes to worst and it is required. The overall strategy is obviously to maintain a considerable advantage in the net-centric portion of warfare and keep your BVR and WVR weapons updated with the latest technology and to enjoy SA superiority to enable better tactical employment of those weapons. For the USAF it gains even higher importance since they fight in an expeditionary environment. Close quarter fighting even with IR missiles can at best get you a 60:40 advantage based on aircraft and weapons, the rest of the advantage comes from training and tactics and if you assume parity as one would for the sake of planning against a near peer the loss is unacceptable for an expeditionary force that will mostly fight with inferior numbers compared to an opponent that is closer to home.

The Marines and the Navy have gone in for a missionized gun, as opposed to an internal gun like the air-force. CBSA did a really nice summary of the gun kills over the last 50 years, and they have over the last 5 decades of conflict (not all conflict involved the US) - the gun kills have gone from 65% of all kills in the 60's to 7% of all kills in the 80's to under 4% of all kills in the 1992-2002 time period.

Image

Another factor that the missile-dodgers have to acount for is the fact that dodging a few BVR missiles, and a few WVR missiles saps the $hit out of the aircraft and pilot (See the F-16 dodging SAM's video I posted earlier) and how much fuel and energy is left over for a sustained gun battle is highly questionable. Regardless the gun is kept by most as a matter of last resort so that it can be used in case all missions are used used up or if the fuel state does not allow an aircraft to light up and exit the fight.

So I ask whether the purpose is to conduct attacks against ground targets. Again, if it has to fly close to the ground, it becomes vulnerable to ground fire, where survivability is dim. Stealth is irrelevant there.


Strafing is not going to work in any contested environment as the A-10 pilots from Gulf war will completely vouch for. I have posted what MD and others (Gums) from Back in the day have to say about what happened when A10's were sent out against a contested target and why that was quickly turned around and medium altitude bombing was sanctioned. For non-contested environments, Strafing does have some utility and analysis has shown that although the F-35 has less number of rounds its by design is more accurate. Mac on his blog did that analysis and he was one of the folks whodeveloped the A-10 tactics back in the day.

Image

he more I read, the better the LCA-US/F-35 combo seems.


How does the LCA compare in a WVR engagement to the EODAS+HMD equipped F-35? We don't know yet. Also, how will an LCA keep up and escort an F-35 that is designed around a 600+ nm un-fueled mission radius?

Each F-35 needs an escort of 4 or 5 maneuverable aircraft with guns to protect it while it busily makes all those cellphone calls, sends text messages etc needed for Net-Centric Warfare.


No one feels the need for that...Certainly not the operators.

UB,you've forgotten that this "magic bullet" in the sky aka the JSF is pensioning off the heavily armoured A-10! That is why it needs a little pecker to strafe the likes of the Taliban and ISIS ,even though its designers and manufacturers are fretting at its extremely fragile structure,not armoured and vulnerable to an Afghan armed with a muzzle loader!


Here's a neat little exercise for you. Find out what the overall combat CAS sorties flown were in both Afghanistan and Iraq by the A-10's as a percentage of the overall CAS sorties, and what percent of those sorties were conducted using the canon as opposed to dropping a PGM.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -part.html

But no fear: the tests shown in the video are at point-blank range. Target destroyed - just like with the Sgt York demo


The video is simply a milestone of the first integrated gun being fired on the CTOL, it is not a significant portion testing phase and there would be milestones and OPEVAL requirements that would need to be satisfied just like there are for certifying other capability.The video is as much a "test" as the first flight of a new type is a "test"...All fighters have to go to the range and prove the accuracy of the weapon, and prior to that they simulate the event. The F-35 will have to do so as well..They are just getting started on integrating the gun on the CTOL, the STOVL and CV have had the pod integrated but all three versions will begin their flight testing and deployment later this year as the software build is delivered. The Gun is a 3F capability, and 3F will begin trickling into the test-fleet by early next year and into the operational fleet 12-15 months after that.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Jul 2015 04:21, edited 10 times in total.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 07 Jul 2015 20:30

Philip wrote:UB,you've forgotten that this "magic bullet" in the sky aka the JSF is pensioning off the heavily armoured A-10! That is why it needs a little pecker to strafe the likes of the Taliban and ISIS ,even though its designers and manufacturers are fretting at its extremely fragile structure,not armoured and vulnerable to an Afghan armed with a muzzle loader!


that's acceptable for the usual spray and pray shots that take place. you did know that about every third round is a tracer?


these cannons aren't sniper rifles you know.....they are fired from jinking, maneuvering aircraft. kinda like using a garden hose.

Real world stuff, not ivy tower and chalk boards.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 07 Jul 2015 22:33

^ If you look at what the USAF seems to be looking into for a Taliban-Type CAS platform it aint nothing like the A-X or A-10..They are looking at a derivative of the Scorpion..because they are looking at this in 2030, 2040 and beyond when MANPADS and their capability ( and presence) will be significantly more lethal. You can keep on stuffing the titanium bathtub but it aint going to save your A$$...As others have said, this happened (the debate) a decade back, when the A-10's path to retirement was determined. The entire issue came up because a cash strapped USAF wanted to push that path forward.

The A-10 couldnt survive a HOT "contested" environment in Iraq (GW) and won't survive in the future..Low intensity conflicts and non state actors will get better weapons 20 years from now. What this means is that an ideal low intensity CAS platform needs to be cheap, have good SA, strong loiter time and be able to drop PGM's from medium altitudes outside of the MANPAD threat..The Scorpion with some mods will fit that bill. High intensity CAS is having a survivable platform, with the systems and features to overcome double DIGIT SAM"s , and highly advanced AD's provide supporting using dual use strike weapons such as SDBII. The F-35 fits that bill. In fact anything a Scorpion can do the F-35 can as well, its just that the Scoprion does it longer (More loiter) and cheaper...Other than going low and using the GUN there are very few areas where the A-10 is superior to the F-35 or F-16 apart from loiter, but it gets to the fight in a longer time..In that aspect both the A-10 and F-16/F35 are inferior to an AC-130 and/or a bomber...Pick your craft and pick your mission...

The bottom line is : CAS IS A MISSION, NOT A PLATFORM

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 07 Jul 2015 22:54

UlanBatori wrote:
That's an angle uncertainty of at least 2 degrees, which at 5000 m is a miss by 174m.

As everyone knows, I am too nice to cruelly point out that at 500m, it is a miss by 17.4 meters, which also misses most things other than an A380 completely. :mrgreen:
But no fear: the tests shown in the video are at point-blank range. Target destroyed - just like with the Sgt York demo.


Fortunately, that's NOT how the gun is supposed to work (on any fighter aircraft). Its not a sniper rifle where you aim for the enemy pilot or some vulnerable part of the jet. The 100+ bullets the gun fires in a single burst disperse into a zone where the hit probability is maximized. That's why on newer/upgraded aircraft the gun trajectory is displayed as a 'funnel'.

Image

Image

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2015 00:28

Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down.

Exactly what I was doing with the F/A-18 over Mongolia against Bogey #2 when the ground unfairly came up in the way. :((

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2015 02:53

Exactly what I was doing with the F/A-18 over Mongolia against Bogey #2 when the ground unfairly came up in the way


But you still lived to tell the tale :) , the Seats paid for themselves now didn't they?? High AOA in this context is instantaneous, you well within the departure point at 50 degrees and you arent going to be sustaining them for there is no need to do so..All you need to do is (on the Rhino) snap and send a quick 9X, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, or P5 towards your opponent..The Flanker has amazing capability here as well and is really the thing to beat in this regard..With the F-35 and EODAS you have a solution prior to the snap maneuver and you do the high AOA to maximize your energy on the missile, basically giving it range by slowing down yourself in stead of letting it execute a series of high AOA, TV maneuvers that deplete its long range performance (relative to its design)...If you have a longer WVR missile (range) you do not have to that and this is where the ASRAAM for example will be superior to the current 9x and the Block III superior still to the ASRAAM once that is developed sometime next decade...

High AOA in this context isnt like going to 110, stalling and then going through auto-recovery...As the modern EM paper shows, all-aspect HOBS IR missiles have shortened the engagment time...since you can fire them a wider envelope..Over the shoulder shots are fairly common with early block 9X, ASRAAM, and Python family (and R73, IRIS-T etc) and all you have to do is slow down snap and let the missile go...This has fundamentally changed the way the US formulates its requirements for fighters..No fighter has had the AOA limiter at the limit of the Viper since that in the US, the F/A=18A-C and E-F, F-22A, and F-35A through C are all designed around an AOA limit that is at least 2 times that of the Viper..There is a general consensus here that all aspect IR missiles and HMS/HMD's have fundamentally altered the way close range engagements occur, and based on this they are not going to keep on going back to the F-16 concept of operations. They even tested these things on the F-16 under the VISTA and air-combat results then showed that it was much more lethal despite of lacking the energy retention abilities of the classic Viper..

If I were guns only and so was my opponent the high AOA maneuver will deplete energy for sure, that is why fighters that fight best in the slow and high AOA regime such as the Hornet take the engagement to lower altitudes where they have greater thrust available to recover...However when you have a HOBS missile, you do loose some energy in a high AOA manuver but your opponent is laser focused on overcoming the missile and he is going to bleed a lot as well giving you time to either end the engagement or get into an advantageous position for a follow on..

As the pilot demonstrates in 3 different type DACT (F-15, F-16 and F-18) the Hornet wants to go lower and fight slower, the Viper wants to fight at a faster speed and level, whereas the Eagle wants to fight vertical and at higher altitudes...This is obviously not a universal thing as variants and fuel/payload states determine a lot but it is a good generalization to go by...The F-35 is probably in between the F-16 and F-18 and will gain some of its performance through engine improvements that are in the pipeline (5% thrust increase already demonstrated to the Navy)...but it will largely be in line with the Hornet philosophy as opposed to Boyd's Dog fighting light weight fighter..


Image

Image



The Russians set the trend with the HMS and Archer combo while the west (particularly the US and Israel) waited for certain technologies to be available particularly in the HMS world to come onboard. This profoundly changed the way air combat was planned for and fought in the case in arena..The US weapon schools were abuzz and everyone wanted to go to Germany to fly the Mig's and adopt lessons learnt since they had an opportunity finally to fly against (and actually fly) helmet mounted sights and high FOV missiles..SOme were impressed, others not so but all saw the potential...Fast forward to the JSF, F-16/DAS experiments and the research conducted by Westinghouse in the 90's and early 2000's (and subsequently Northrop Grumman)...This has ushered in another fundamental change in the way WVR engagements are fought...No longer is the WVR Missile seeker just slaved to the HELMET and the pilot's eye...It is now also slaved to a sensor that stares 360 degrees, all the time irrespective of what the pilot or the aircraft are doing...The pilot has a toggle switch and can place a view on his helmet...He looks to the side for example he can see the back of the aircraft (VhUD) etc etc...No longer does the pilot have to lift himself up, go round and round trying to keep his eyes on a bogey, try to ID the bogey in a dynamic dogfight (with multiple aircraft) and then decide to engage using a HOBS missile...DAS tracks threats and freinds all the time, irrespective of which direction the pilot looks at, or what the pilot is doing. It ID's and discriminates autonomously.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Jul 2015 17:21, edited 2 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Jul 2015 15:21

Wow! That is awesome. Hope the Pakistani Air Fauj is getting lots of these Python-5s. Always running away and shooting backwards!!! Gives new meaning to the term 'Afterburners'.

But I am a bit confused. The video shows these planes approaching head-on, then 'Our Side' fires each mijjile backwards. Is this what they call "Blue on Blue"? Wiped out the squadron following them, and make sure the opposition gets the blame?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2015 16:41

Wow! That is awesome. Hope the Pakistani Air Fauj is getting lots of these Python-5s.


The Pakistanis getting an Israeli weapon?? The IAF on the other hand are getting quite a few of them, for platforms like the LCA. The Derby BVR missile is also based on the proven Python 5..

What the first GIF highlights (F-18 vs QF4) is the nature of the merge..Earlier, the point was to turn as hard so that you could be on the opponent's 6 o clock, while still having favorable energy to counter the counter maneuvers... Now, you (or your opponent) have a missile that can be launched in LOAL mode, and that can turn quicker and faster than any manned aircraft. This allows the pilot to use and deploy his aircraft in a different way i.e. get one step ahead of the engagement, add, retain energy or altitude..etc...He can obviously turn to get on the 6 like he would if he had a 1980's era WVR missile, but he shouldn't be delusional in assuming that the opponent will still be using an 80's era missile and/or tactics...This can be flipped backwards into a defensive setup..If you are approaching the merge and you know your opponent has a missile that has a data link significantly longer range ( around 20-25 KM now for short range weapons) and performance than the Aim-9M, has Thrust vectoring, what would your defense be?? Would you be willing to follow in a pursuit and loose energy in a turn just to get him right in front of you?? Would you be willing to "live" with a small (a few km's at best) seperation between you or him, surrender an energy advantage and have the shortest possible time to react to a HOBS missile that just got launched at you?? Would you rather do that, or put some distance and speed between you and him to have some sort of chance to maneuver and deploy countermeasures against the incoming missile? All in all most that have studied this have tried to quantify the tactical impact of HOBS/LOAL WVR missiles and develop a path forward in their development..The ASRAAM and Python 5 (and to a lesser extent the block II -9x) have a significantly longer range now than the Aim-9's of the 70's and 80's, and the blk. II 9X and I believe the P5 have data links for longer range engagements and I guess to make sure the missile knows to target the correct aircraft. The 9X and the ASRAAM for example will be fully integrated with the JSF's EODAS, and eventually the Python family will as well.

This is where the aircraft's ability to point its nose comes in handy especially when you are deploying weapons around the edge of their envelopes and ranges..If you want an off the shoulder or a 360 degree shot you have to get closer, so its unlikely to be a first-shot in a WVR engagement..A hard pull, and a nose pointing maneuver allows you to let the missile rip without the missile having to pull energy depleting high AOA turns that reduce its all out range and with that its PK..That is what folks that have studied modern air combat refer to as the shortening nature of air combat...with these weapons you want to be the first to deploy unless you are OK with a mutual kill situation and F/A-18 v F-16 like engagements the Hornet has the advantage since the instance nose pointing capability of the Viper is software controlled to manage its energy (AOA limiter), the viper has to complete the turn, or get a lot closer and do a LOAL shot..Since the advent of hte 9X in the USAF and USN no fighter has had the strict AOA limiter in the 20-25 degree range of the viper..The Hornet, Super Hornet, Raptor and the JSF all have their limiters at a minimum of 2X of that..Sure you deplete energy, but you also send a Mach 3-4 missile down range...the opponent isnt flying straight, fast and level when he sees it and also depletes energy as he frantically tries to dodge...


The history of the evolution of the Sidewinder is nicely documented here..

http://www.donhollway.com/foxtwo/

Do note however that there has been a long standing demand for an Aim-9X Block III that increases the range by 60% from the block II, that got deferred in the FY2016 years but with the Aim-120D now operationally deployed and block II 9X being cleared for Full rate production and export it wont be long before the USN and USAF embark on another cycle of development (or perhaps new missiles) as historically there have been few if any periods where they haven't been working on improvements..

With most WVR missiles blowing past 20KM range in the coming years (MICA IR and ASRAAM already can operate in the 20+ KM domain) a sub 5 KM engagement becomes a very small aspect of air combat and there are several good reasons to trade some of that performance for performance in other areas (WVR and BVR, or strike or Cost etc etc etc)...especially when you are interested in the long term strategic implications of your choices. The best way to create a dog-fighter is still to strip the aircraft of everything i.e all the electronics, sensors...no radar etc..Large bubble canopy and nothing goes into the aircraft that doesn't have utility in a sub-5-km arena..Heck Sprey is advocating that even now as he thinks a radar is a useless addition to fighter aircraft (no kidding..)..I don't see any making fighters with those characteristics however...Also, the bet gun fighter is the one that is developed keeping in mind Boyd's basic work for the F-16A, a sustained turner that retains energy far better than the opponent...But unfortunately designers have to trade a set of design features based on the combat performance demanded in other areas such as BVR, WVR-missiles, sensors, range, payload for the strike mission etc.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jul 2015 15:15, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Jul 2015 01:52

With all this, I see no point in investing in a high-ticket vehicle where you pay heavily for maneuverability. Isn't it smarter to put up a balloon with about 3 dozen BVR all-aspect missiles? Nothing can come close... Plus a few super-high-speed, high-altitude UCAV platforms that can climb high, reach the enemy faster and launch the all-aspect mijjiles from all directions at the enemy. If one missile is coming from the front and high, and another from the rear and high, I think one's goose is cooked. Might as well eject in the 5 seconds that remain. So the highly maneuverable fighter plane becomes a complete waste of resources.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Jul 2015 01:56

Heck Sprey is advocating that even now as he thinks a radar is a useless addition to fighter aircraft (no kidding..)


May have a point since pilots don't seem to be trained to use it. How else can one explain an F-16 colliding with a Cessna?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 09 Jul 2015 02:25

UlanBatori wrote:
Heck Sprey is advocating that even now as he thinks a radar is a useless addition to fighter aircraft (no kidding..)


May have a point since pilots don't seem to be trained to use it. How else can one explain an F-16 colliding with a Cessna?


Yeah that is strong evidence that pilots don't seem to know how to use it, just as every crash is evidence in support of the fact that pilots don't know how to fly airplanes etc.. :mrgreen:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 09 Jul 2015 02:33

UlanBatori wrote:With all this, I see no point in investing in a high-ticket vehicle where you pay heavily for maneuverability. Isn't it smarter to put up a balloon with about 3 dozen BVR all-aspect missiles? Nothing can come close... Plus a few super-high-speed, high-altitude UCAV platforms that can climb high, reach the enemy faster and launch the all-aspect mijjiles from all directions at the enemy. If one missile is coming from the front and high, and another from the rear and high, I think one's goose is cooked. Might as well eject in the 5 seconds that remain. So the highly maneuverable fighter plane becomes a complete waste of resources.


As I said all aspect missiles loose range if they are launched in that mode..You will still get a lot of advantage if you actually do the turning yourself. Technically you can launch an AMRAAM behind you using some one else's radar but what will be the range and PK given how much it has to turn?? There is the CBSA paper that suggests that as sensors advance, and as IR stealth gets increasingly importance you can mount bigger missiles on mini bombers and use them for air combat. That has some merit and does warrant exploration but at the moment I doubt the capability, technology or concept is mature enough for them to explore.

The biggest argument against supercruise for example is that its cost is not worth it when you can simply up the capacity of your missile and speed of your missile. Interestingly the person who authored the CBSA study actually claims that maneuverability is not important and is a design impediment in a way....He argues this now that he works for Northrop Grumman that has been quietly working on the next generation air dominance fighter for some years now..Before that he used to work for RAND and was a critic of this very fact and claimed that the JSF's at par or in some cases inferior performance to the F-16 was a drawback...The can't turn, can't run tagline actually came from him. Perhaps he is now privy to what his current employer has been doing in the dark for some years ever since the first RFI of the NGAD were released???

All we know is that for the Air Dominance 2030 and beyond Northrop Grumman has been studying a vehicle that looks like this -

Image

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3328
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Cosmo_R » 09 Jul 2015 02:42

^^^ "It ID's and discriminates autonomously."

And hits the wedding party every time. :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 09 Jul 2015 03:06

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^ "It ID's and discriminates autonomously."

And hits the wedding party every time. :)


I guess you deserve that if you are having a wedding at 30,000 feet :rotfl:

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Jul 2015 05:03

Have you watched "Independence Day"? I think this is the future of air combat. The clear sky will be left to a battle between missiles - I mean missiles trying to shoot down missiles which are trying to hit each other's ground resources. Near the ground, though, armies of missile platforms aka SmartPhone Carrier Aircraft (SPCA) zip through the canyons hiding from and hunting each other at increasing speed. These are uninhabited because they have to pull amazing Gs. Saw some work by applied math people on how to not hit mountain sides while doing something of the sort.

IOW, the only way for an aircraft platform to survive is to be in the canyons. Anywhere else they are just dead meat. And so, unfortunately, is the F-35.

For instance, if the PakCheens were to get a whole horde of UCAVs they would command J&K, and there is not a lot that the IAF could do about that. Human-piloted vehicles with stall speeds above 160kph simply cannot get into those places. The missile-carrying UCAVs can come through there fast and unseen, make their attacks on airbases and be gone back through the canyons. Likewise, if IAF were to get a fleet of these (Ha Ha!!) India could take out the terrorist camps and the Pak airbases.

Similarly, I have a fear that the US spending all its DoD budget on a finite number of F-35s, however large that number, is setting the US up for a big surprise. I would rather invest in UCAVs like that Northrop thingie. There are limits to pilot workload that you can't overcome without changing the basic design of the human pilot. Ten hands? 50 brains, 100 pairs of eyes?

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 09 Jul 2015 08:32

Independence Day :roll:

personally I think the Star Trek Romulan cloaking device is more appropo.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8608
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Jul 2015 16:54

"Air America", maybe?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deejay, Eric Leiderman, K_Rohit, Yahoo [Bot] and 35 guests