What is up with the F-35? Part II

[GGTharos]

Yes, it is, but this was not the case in DS. There were strike packages ahead and behind the fighters, there were other fighters operating in the area, and the airspace was confined enough that someone could 'wander in' during slightly extended maneuvering. Air to air combat is very dynamic because it does not happen in isolation.

The way I understood it, it's not a matter of one side coming from one direction and the other side coming in from the opposite direction.

[GGTharos]

There were several long-range kills during GWI and OIF, primarily by F-15's, but that was only AFTER the bogie was determined to be a hostile. Especially after the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, the ROE was tightened up, and visual ID was required before being engaged, although I'm sure there were some exceptions to the rule.

I don't see what sort of tightening up on the ROE they could have done. ROE was followed AFAIK, the ball may have been dropped by the AWACS, Army and Air Force weren't communicating, and those F-15's VID'd the helis as Hinds before attacking them. IIRC they passed inside 2000' for the VID.

[Jimmy]

It doesn't get much tighter than "VID required."

The AWACS side of the problem is that some of the crew knew there were helicopters operating somewhere in that area...they had previously been tracked but faded (probably due to terrain) and in accordance with SOP the tracks were dropped at a certain point. When the F-15s made contact, and these random dots appeared, it didn't click in anyone's head that "hey these might be those friendly helos" for whatever reason. What should've happened is that the surveillance section and a controller (if there was a controller responsible for them, it's likely there was not because AWACS generally doesn't own low airspace control in this type of environment) should have reported to the Senior Director and Mission Crew Commander that the friendlies had faded. There were some Desert Storm vets on that crew, and from what I heard it was a completely different feeling aboard the jet that day when the helos were splashed. In DS, it was smiles all around...with this everyone just had a pit in their stomach even before they realized what had happened.

That incident literally rewrote the book on mission crew training. We also don't just drop tracks like that anymore. But the Army is still horrible about squawking correctly.

[GGTharos]

It doesn't get much tighter than "VID required."

You may have to ask them nicely if they really want a fight first? :D

The AWACS side of the problem is that some of the crew knew there were helicopters operating somewhere in that area...they had previously been tracked but faded (probably due to terrain) and in accordance with SOP the tracks were dropped at a certain point. When the F-15s made contact, and these random dots appeared, it didn't click in anyone's head that "hey these might be those friendly helos" for whatever reason. What should've happened is that the surveillance section and a controller (if there was a controller responsible for them, it's likely there was not because AWACS generally doesn't own low airspace control in this type of environment) should have reported to the Senior Director and Mission Crew Commander that the friendlies had faded. There were some Desert Storm vets on that crew, and from what I heard it was a completely different feeling aboard the jet that day when the helos were splashed. In DS, it was smiles all around...with this everyone just had a pit in their stomach even before they realized what had happened.

That incident literally rewrote the book on mission crew training. We also don't just drop tracks like that anymore. But the Army is still horrible about squawking correctly.

That is what I heard, thanks for the insight - pretty much what I expected, but I did not know the details with respect to what was done about it later.

[Zinja]

Now this tells me some of the ACMs were pretty close range.

To the credit of military planners it seems they are already anticipating this .....F-22 Raptor Pilots Are Getting High-Tech Helmets. Its good to see that complacency has not set itself in the Pentagon if this article is anything to go by.

[Chogy]

To the credit of military planners it seems they are already anticipating this .....F-22 Raptor Pilots Are Getting High-Tech Helmets. Its good to see that complacency has not set itself in the Pentagon if this article is anything to go by.

It is HOBS more than anything, and of course the reliability and lethality of the weapon itself, that has eliminated or reduced the need to ever anchor in a turning fight. And GGTharos' descriptions and explanations of the ID process were superb. Modern systems and data exchange has revolutionized this process, allowing ID sharing across all friendlies in the area.

VID is much more difficult than it sounds, and any system that augments or replaces it is welcomed. Consider the F-16 and the number of countries that operate it... now, a pilot not only needs to ID the jet, he must ID the national roundels and markings in many cases.

One of the problems with traditional IFF is the fact that one must interrogate (actively transmit) in order to get a response from the target, and this act alone can alert the target that "someone is out there." Passive ID methods are becoming important, and this is another place where AWACS and similar shine. Let the high-powered system that is well-protected and behind the battle area do much of the ID grunt work, and share the info via data link to fighters who are operating in a stealthed (EMCON) mode.

[Zinja]

It is HOBS more than anything, ....

Thats what the Raptor has been lacking all along. Maybe the exercises with the Tiffy might have something to do with it. Maybe the pentagon is realising that close in knife fights are no longer that far-fetched in the foreseeable future. Either way, im glad they are getting those HOBS.

[GGTharos]

They don't need exercises with the Tiffy. Those were staged guns only exercises where both opponents knew where the other was before the merge. It was 'fair' and pure BFM, nothing to do with HOBS weapons or stealth. More to the point, the Tiffy is pretty irrelevant in figuring out whether the JHMCS is needed when they can test against F-15's and F-16's for this. No one ever assumed that WVR combat was a thing of the past - that's why the Raptor carries sidewinders and a gun.

They planned HOBS weapons for the Raptor from the start, they just had to stagger the budget.

Thats what the Raptor has been lacking all along. Maybe the exercises with the Tiffy might have something to do with it. Maybe the pentagon is realising that close in knife fights are no longer that far-fetched in the foreseeable future. Either way, im glad they are getting those HOBS.

[Stitch]

They don't need exercises with the Tiffy. Those were staged guns only exercises where both opponents knew where the other was before the merge. It was 'fair' and pure BFM, nothing to do with HOBS weapons or stealth. More to the point, the Tiffy is pretty irrelevant in figuring out whether the JHMCS is needed when they can test against F-15's and F-16's for this. No one ever assumed that WVR combat was a thing of the past - that's why the Raptor carries sidewinders and a gun.

They planned HOBS weapons for the Raptor from the start, they just had to stagger the budget.

More to the point, why did they plan TV into the airframe from the start? If WVR wasn't such a big deal, TV would've been the first thing to go; TV is only useful in a knife fight, not BVR.

[GGTharos]

TV is useful in reducing drag during high altitude, high-speed cruise.

More to the point, why did they plan TV into the airframe from the start? If WVR wasn't such a big deal, TV would've been the first thing to go; TV is only useful in a knife fight, not BVR.

[Stitch]

TV is useful in reducing drag during high altitude, high-speed cruise.

Are the aerodynamics of a TV nozzle better than a "normal" round nozzle? That actually kinda makes sense . . . you're not constrained to make the airframe work with a round nozzle, rather, the other way around.

[GGTharos]

That question has a complex answer if you want the long answer, the short answer is 'it depends'. I don't know how familiar you are with aerodynamics and the boat-tail effect on drag, but basically both shapes can be used to reduce drag easily. The reason the Raptor has TVC specifically is not close quarters maneuvering, although it is useful there obviously (the why and how, and why TVC is NOT the end-all-be-all of the dogfight, is another discussion) - one of the main reasons is to use TVC to maintain attitude during basically straight and level flight, thus reducing the deflection of all those huge and thus draggy aerodynamic surfaces. You can do this with round nozzles also ... and I don't know how much more efficient it makes things in terms of fuel usage, but every bit helps. Top speed is based on thrust versus drag more than it is on other things.

Are the aerodynamics of a TV nozzle better than a "normal" round nozzle? That actually kinda makes sense . . . you're not constrained to make the airframe work with a round nozzle, rather, the other way around.

[Zinja]

They don't need exercises with the Tiffy. Those were staged guns only exercises where both opponents knew where the other was before the merge. It was 'fair' and pure BFM, nothing to do with HOBS weapons or stealth.

Scripted as those exercises were, there is always something to learn or else they wouldn't be worthwhile exercises.

More to the point, the Tiffy is pretty irrelevant in figuring out whether the JHMCS is needed when they can test against F-15's and F-16's for this.

The Tiffy as a 4.5 gen fighter brings something to the battlefield that the F-15 cannot, especially in close quarter combat. Perhaps more importantly, there is a higher chance of the raptor meeting the Tiffy as an enemy in the future than the F-15 since the US has no control over who lays their hands on the Tiffys. As such it would be of greater importance to the US to take note of the Tiffy's capabilities than say that of the F-15, therefore i don't think it would far fetched for the US to learn lessons from the Tiffy.

They planned HOBS weapons for the Raptor from the start, they just had to stagger the budget.

I may be wrong here but as far as i understand the planned upgrades for the F-22 up to incremental 3.3 have no helmet mounted sight. If im right in this then this announcement would be a new one and can you imagine why? No one is ignorant of the well publicised exercises of the Germany Tiffys against the F-22s.

[Chogy]

Once again, we venture into the common internet realm of "Airframe X kicked fighter Y's ass at exercise Z" and drawing presumptuous conclusions from them.

I honestly don't even know "what happened" vs. Typhoons, and I don't particularly care, because such exercises are not arranged to decide who is king of the hill... they are crafted to provide training for both sides. The only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from them is that the pilots, all of them, are now slightly more proficient than they were before the exercise.

The Raptor operates differently from other fighters. The traditional 40nm head-on BVR engagement of search, sort, shoot, maneuver, is probably not how it would operate in major combat.

Thrust vectoring - the F-22 was designed in an era where agility was rated much higher in the hierarchy of desirable attributes than it probably is today. It's certainly nice to have, but comes at a price in weight and complexity. Like the gun - I've always thought the gun was superfluous to the Raptor and would better be replaced with additional fuel or armaments, but the argument to retain it is valid. Keep in mind, we've never had a U.S. F-15 or F-16 gun kill in combat since these platforms were deployed... we've been dragging around a couple tons of gun and ammo the whole time. Useful on occasion for ground attack, but no longer that meaningful air to air.

There are more combat regimes than BVR and WVR - I hate the latter term. A better way to look at it is this:

> ~ 10 nm; BVR. Spotting a fighter with the eyeball outside 10nm is almost impossible without the assistance of an active radar and TD box.

10nm to ~2nm - This is where much of the action takes place, and where point and shoot weapons shine. High speed, straight lines, little hooks, shoot and get out. It was this regime where most of the GW kills took place.

< 2nm - Once you are inside the enemy's turning circle, the game changes dramatically. This is where a traditional turning fight can take place, a matured and prolonged engagement that is exceptionally dangerous for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread. A fighter like the F-22 or F-35 gives up all its natural advantages if it chooses to anchor. You may be Richtofen reincarnated, but that will not save you from the enemy's mutual support, when the fangs pop out and you decide to turn. He also has all-aspect (and lethal) IR missiles that can be launched in seconds; and all the thrust vectoring in the world won't save you from a 30G missile.

[YellowFever]

It was a little funny last year when the story broke out about how the Tiffie pilots (I think they were German Tiffies) were gloating because they "ate Raptor salad" for lunch.

I thought it was something like Cope India, where the pilots involved in the excercise were relatively silent but the peripherials started boasting about how the Americans werw taught a lesson.

I took all that with a grain of salt but imagine my surprise when pictures started appearing on the net of German tiffies with little silhouettes of Raptors painted below the cockpit.