JSF no dog fighter

[FlyNavy]

Oldie is using the Shiny Lever a little... ;D I've read (that is all it is) many reports about the efficacy of the two seater Hornet F model (is that the "efffin" model?) where the two seaters are able to swap roles (as required) to carry out either one - as required. By this it is meant front seater does ACM BVR whilst RIO does AirTaGround and change and change about. The crews swear by this. RAAF exchange pilots on the F model think it is better than... (I can't bring myself to say it). ;D

The JSF (as we see from the beaut videos) will bring a lot of automation to pilot brainspace (DAC) and probably do a lot of defensive stuff automatically as required. No room for second brainiac. Which brings to mind: I wonder if a two seat JSF is on the drawing board somewhere (maybe with two engines for the armadas)?

Keep in mind the 'effin' Super Dog can be changed into a GROWLER G model in three days with all the right gear on hand. Growlers are GO.

[FlyNavy]

Have read 'online' "Sea Stories" about USN carrier cabins with drinkies available - but hey are they true? ;D I don't want to go there.

[FlyNavy]

worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/2008/11/advanced-jsow-progress.html

Good for SupaDoggies and JSFs. Might be useful for RNZAF Orions also (according to 'Chunder')? "During the recent captive flight tests the weapon demonstrated the seeker's capability to track moving maritime targets, were conducted by attaching the seeker to the outside of a Raytheon-owned Convair aircraft, which then flew through the same mission profiles the JSOW-C1 might experience during an operation. The tests subjected the seeker to the same stressors -- wind, vibration, and altitude -- the JSOW-C1 would face during an operational mission.

"These tests are the first step in the JSOW-C1 hardware integration process," said Commander Andrew "Chunder" Kessler, JSOW deputy program manager for NAVAIR's (Naval Air Systems Command) Precision Strike Weapons program. "The fact that C1 hardware and software technology is mature enough to even conduct these flights at this point in the JSOW program is an indication of how high the performance bar has been set. The NAVAIR-Raytheon team plans to maintain these high standards into the development test program that commences later this year."

[FlyNavy]

www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html

Two 'laff a minute' Red Flag 'after party' briefings on this page. [Both 10 min 10Mb .FLVs]

USAF pilot describes IAF Su-30MKI performance at Red Flag-08 By Stephen Trimble on November 5, 2008

"An unnamed US Air Force officer, who is obviously a Nellis F-15 pilot, lectures an audience with incredible details about the Indian Air Force Su-30MKI performance at Red Flag 2008.

Both videos were posted yesterday on YouTube by an anonymous contributor, who identifies himself only as an Australian (God bless 'em!).

If you have any interest in tactical aircraft at all, you must watch these two videos. Learn details about the Cope India fiasco, problems with Russian fighter jet engines, how the F-15 can defeat the Su-30MKI's vectored thrust, and why the Indians apparently won't be asking for more 1 v 1 dogfights with the USAF."

Extra chunks here: www.neptunuslex.com/2008/08/23/well-hello-there/
&
www.neptunuslex.com/2008/11/05/cowboys-and-indians/

[FlyNavy]

USAF Pilot Critiques Red Flag Action Nov 5, 2008 David A. Fulghum and Graham Warwick

www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/RED11058.xml&headline=USAF%20Pilot%20Critiques%20Red%20Flag%20Action

Indian pilots flying Su-30MKIs are extremely professional, but they're still learning how to best
fight with their new aircraft.
That opinion comes from an unidentified, senior F-15 pilot taped while briefing senior retired U.S. Air
Force officers about the most recent Red Flag exercise. The video was made available online at
YouTube.com.

The French pilots flying the new Dassault Rafale appeared to be there to collect electronic
intelligence on the Indian aircraft, contends the USAF pilot, who wears an Air Force Weapons School graduate patch.

The French were originally going to bring the older Mirage 2000-5 until they discovered
the Indians were bringing their new Su-30MKIs, the pilot says. They then switched and
brought their Rafales with more sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment.
Once at Red Flag, "90 percent of the time they followed the Indians so when they took a
shot or got shot" they would take a quick shot of their own and then leave," he said.
"They never came to any merges," which starts the dogfighting portion of any air-to-air
combat. He asserts that French pilots followed the same procedure during Desert Storm
and Peace Keeping exercises. When U.S. aircrews were flying operations, the French
would fly local sorties while "sucking up all the trons" to see how U.S. electronics, like
radars, worked, according to the pilot.

He praised the Indians as extremely professional and said they had no training rule
violations. However, they "killed a lot of friendlies" because they were tied to a Russianmade
data link system that didn't allow them to see the picture of the battlefield
available to everyone else. The lack of combat identification of the other aircraft caused
confusion.

But the U.S. apparently isn't ignorant of the Su-30MKI's radar either.
The Su-30 electronically scanned radar is not as accurate as the U.S.-built active
electronically scanned radar carried by the F-22 and some F-15s. Also, "it paints less,
sees less" and is not as discriminating.

He praised the F-22 as the next great dogfighter. But he faulted the fact that it carries
too few missiles and contends that the on-board cannon could be a life-saver,
particularly against aircraft like the MiG-21 Bison flown by the Indians. It has a small
radar cross section, as well as an Israeli-made F-16 radar and jammer. The latter makes
them "almost invisible to legacy F-15C and F-16 radars" until the aerial merge or until it
fires one of its Archer, active radar missiles, the U.S. pilot says.

Against the much larger RCS Su-30MKI, the F-16s and F-15s won consistently during
the first three days of air-to-air combat, he continues. However, that was the result of
trying to immediately go into a post-stall, thrust-vectored turn when attacked. The turn
then creates massive drag and the aircraft starts sinking and losing altitude. "It starts
dropping so fast you don't have to go vertical [first]. The low-speed tail slide allowed the
U.S. aircraft to dive from above and "get one chance to come down to shoot," the pilot
says. "You go to guns and drill his brains out." The Su-30 is jamming your missiles
so...you go to guns and drill his brains out."

U.S. pilots conclude that the Su-30MKI is "not [an F-22] Raptor," he further says. "That
was good for us to find out." But when the Indian pilots really learn to fight their new
aircraft - "they were too anxious to go to the post-stall maneuver," he says-- the USAF
pilot predicts that they would regularly defeat the F-16C Block 50 and the F-15C with
conventional radar.

A final weakness in the Su-30MKI was its engine's vulnerability to foreign object damage
which required them to space takeoffs a minute apart and slowed mission launches."

[Leyland P75]

I take it he's referring to BVR guns?

[FlyNavy]

Yep. They're the kind that FOD the Su engines. ;D

[FlyNavy]

Young Warns JSF Cuts Could Split Test Program Nov 5, 2008 By Amy Butler and Guy Norris

www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-110508.xml&headline=Young%20Warns%20JSF%20Cuts%20Could%20Split%20Test%20Program

Pentagon acquisition chief John Young says the congressional cut to Joint Strike Fighter funding
in fiscal 2009 will cause problems executing the test schedule for the program.
Congress cut advance procurement funding for the first three U.S. Navy F-35C carrier variants,
which were to have been procured in FY ’10. The aircraft are planned for operational testing.
“Those planes are critical,” Young told a group of reporters at the Pentagon Oct. 30.

“If we are not able to buy those airplanes we
would potentially have to set up two separate operational tests,” Young says. “That
would guarantee a schedule slip and a more costly dual operational test program.”
Congress provided funding for 14 Joint Strike Fighters in the FY ’09 budget, a mix of
conventional U.S Air Force F-35As and U.S. Marine Corps short takeoff vertical landing
F-35Bs, but deferred two aircraft. Lawmakers also provided advance procurement
money for 27 F-35s.

Though the JSF flight-test program is still in its early stages, the acquisition chief says
it is so far showing promise. “The truth is the initial Joint Strike Fighter development
planes have flown almost flawlessly,” he says. “They have generated almost all of the
sorties [planned] and they have returned mission capable after every mission.”
Many skeptics say the multinational Lockheed Martin F-35 program is bound to
encounter snags in flight-testing, especially if it follows the path taken by the F-22.
But the F-35 program has taken a different approach, Young says.

For example, there are fuel system and hydraulic mockups as well as avionics
hardware-in-the-loop labs being used in the test effort that were not part of the F-22
program, he says. “All these things...should yield the ability to get through the test
program successfully,” Young says.

The F-35 integrated test force to be based at Edwards Air Force Base in California,
Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland, and at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth,
Texas, is already preparing to execute flight-test plans modified after earlier budget
cuts. These axed two mission-system test aircraft, forcing increased use of a specially
modified Boeing 737-300 as a surrogate F-35.

The CATbird (Cooperative Avionics Test Bed) “will act as a subsonic fourth aircraft” on
mission-system tests, says Fred Madenwald, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 flight-test director
at Edwards.

He says the first three JSFs to be based at Edwards, a trio of conventional takeoff and
landing (CTOL) F-35As (AF-1, 2 and 3), are due to arrive between November 2009
and January 2010.

AF-1 and -2 will initially undertake loads and flutter tests in 2010 before graduating to
maneuver and weapons work. “AF-3 will be the first mission-system aircraft to work
here, and after the first block [of tests] we will bring [STOVL mission-system aircraft]
BF-4 and -5 to Edwards from Patuxent River,” says Madenwald. They will work with
AF-3 and the CATbird.

The CATBird incorporates the F-35’s power, cooling and cabling infrastructure as well
as its sensors and processors. The aircraft’s planned use for mission-system testing at
Edwards underlines its increased importance in JSF development following the flighttest
program cost cuts. The fourth CTOL test aircraft, AF-4, will be used for high angleof-
attack engine work in 2010, Madenwald adds.

[FlyNavy]

[FlyNavy]

More NightClubbing with Baby Seals (see above)

Of Wargames, JSF and Baby Seals (III)

steeljawscribe.com/2008/11/05/of-wargames-jsf-and-baby-seals-iii

"So we’ve been dragging our feet on this series for one of a number of reasons (some minor, some of import, one of which we hope to be able to announce in the near future) and have fallen behind. Next on the schedule was the BVR discussion (Beyond Visual Range) and it was while doing some research for that topic that we stumbled across the following videos."

Videos referred to are those above by F-15 RedFlagGuy:

www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html
OR (the two)
au.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIr2ak2IM0&e (part 1)
&
au.youtube.com/watch?v=eBEfUUoUC4k&e (part 2)
____________________________________

Someone got ants in their pants! Both videos have been removed from Utubby now.

[oldnavy]

Do you think the bloke wants to get more than 180 Raptors? Whilst that is a good plan I suggest he teaches the Eagle and Viper pilots to flick their radars out of auto-lock and do some serious scanning against the Bison. Jamming pods don't make you small, they usually emit. Modern radar should pick that up right away...

[FlyNavy]

Radio broadcast explanation about RedFlagIndianSioux:

iagblog.podomatic.com/entry/2008-11-05T15_41_04-08_00

[FlyNavy]

www.neptunuslex.com/2008/11/05/cowboys-and-indians/#comment-274409

"F-35A has a gun; B and C do not." News to me - I'll investigate, meanwhile...

www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

"The Air Force's CTOL model is the only version carrying an internal gun. The GAU-12 25-mm cannon is mounted above the engine inlet on the left side of the plane, as shown in the diagram below."
&
"The Navy and Marines, meanwhile, have both opted for a specialized external gun pod on their CV and STOVL variants. The same GAU-12 cannon is carried, but in a special tear-drop pod that can be mounted on a dedicated centerline pylon between the aft portion of the weapons bays. The pod is unique in that it employs stealth characteristics and should allow the aircraft to maintain low observability. Other advantages of the gun pod include room for a larger ammunition supply and the ability to remove the pod on missions where a gun is not necessary."


&
"Airborne guns are fun. And their dumb bullets never seek chaff or flares. They always go where pointed, regardless. They can’t be jammed. They are versatile. They don’t seek the sun. They fly through smoke and clouds. They are cheap. They can be recovered unspent without restriction. They can put fear into the enemy even when fired out of parameters and normal envelopes. They are a ‘multiplier’. And occasionally, even in modern airborne weapon systems and beyond visual range engagements, guns still come in handy in some instances.

So ask the downed aircrew in enemy territory whether they would like to see a gun-equipped or a ‘gunless’ aircraft flying above them, while waiting for a SAR rescue.

As the bad guys close in on the downed crew, there is nothing more wonderful than a wingman-with-a-gun firing a short burst of 20mm between you and the encroaching bad guys… and doing it again if necessary.

Fire the gun; save a crew. Gotta love the gun!"
& a reply:
"I had an odd idea while watching this, which is the gun is pretty much the perfect dumb kinetic weapon but, for all the advantages of you can’t jam it or distract it, the biggest problem is aiming it.

So we off-load the whole aiming problem to a missile and some radar or infrared seeker, the idea being it’s better to fire and forget and hope than to train and depend upon the original fire-and-forget belt-fed weapon system.

Then it struck me. We already have this airplane that can fly itself off an aircraft carrier. What if, instead of slaving a radar to fly a missile into a target, we slaved the aircraft’s radar to piloting the aircraft for a missile shot or gun shot, and once the pilot had positioned the aircraft properly he could drop horizontal and take his 7G blackout limit out of the picture?

By lying flat, like the astronauts?

The whole airplane becomes a radar-guided weapon system, with multiple payloads, and the pilot is just there to get it behind the target. Once slaved to the targeting radar, the pilot goes into a flat position hands off the controls and the electronics select heet-seeker, radar-homing, or guns depending upon target and distance and signature.

Once out of the hunt, either for loss of target or other reasons, hydraulics boost the chair back into upright position and Our Aviator resumes control of the aircraft.

You know, it’s not that far-fetched… The limitation on the airframe is still the fraility of the pilot in a turn. Eliminate that, but retain his strategic ability to guide the fight, you’ve opened up a whole lotta envelope to play within.

Or maybe, like a few other things I’ve done, it merely seems like a good idea at the time."

[FlyNavy]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

"The F-35 includes a GAU-22/A four-barrel 25 mm cannon. The Cannon will be mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A and fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B and F-35C."

[yak2]

As an interested non-expert, I'm getting confused. Wasn't the argument for the JSF that the days of dogfighting were gone......BVR combat was the way to go etc. So why is Colonel Ramjet banging on in the vid to a room full of testosterone charged jocks about how easy it is to knockout those lumbering SU30's? And I don't buy his argument on FOD suseptibility of Russian engines. Maybe the Indians SOP is because they operate off poor quality airfields ( a good capability perhaps) and because the engines are returned to the manufacturer for overhaul in Russia (logistical issues). Commonsense over spectacle. If the curry hit the fan, they would probably not be quite so conservative. To me, the only credible report was the Froggie's behavior ;D Best military flying display I have seen was the SU 27 at Avalon. Awesome precision and at low level. A friend was a guest in the US Navy's chalet where the word was that the USAF F16 display pilot had been ordered not to try and match the Russians. Time for my cocoa

[FlyNavy]

More grist for da hogs: (word is to check out the comments below the article)
www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a79a4663c-d83d-4f4e-9db1-bc38c230e6d4

To get some 'answer' to yak2 (from pure guess work because a lot of the lecture is either unintelligible [or unintelligent?]). Whatever.

Certainly the JSF has to live up to the claims of superior technology to defeat BVR threat before that threat defeats it. Only time will tell. The F-15 pilot was telling the room that the inexperienced Indian pilots were not flying their aircraft properly but he warned that they would wise up soon enough. This is the beauty of DACT, it is too easy to fly against your own aircraft or similar and think that problems are solved but fly against dissimilars and the can of worms wriggles into view.

Probably a good point about the FOD issue that yak2 makes. Yet in a real shooting match it makes no sense to NOT get your aircraft safely airborne so that restriction due to FOD may still apply. As you can see a lot of guesswork and assumption goes into all of this.

Doing precision aerobatics in front of the chap who is knocking you down is probably not worthwhile? ;D

[FlyNavy]

Comment (funny) from NepLex website story: "It was a good video that I was really surprised to see on YouTube. I was disturbed by the enthusiasm of the speaker for using the F-22 in gunfights. If our half-billion airplanes are going for guns against ten thousand dollar Mig-21s then we are in really serious trouble. That video suggests to me that some adult supervisor should remove the guns from the F-22."

www.neptunuslex.com/2008/11/05/cowboys-and-indians/#comment-274689

& "I’m surprised that the USAF didn’t take that dude out behind the hangar and give him a lead injection in the back of the noggin’ for talking about F-22 Capability/Limitations."

[Leyland P75]

Good and funny point about going to guns in an F-22.

Would I be correct in saying that guns kill is the most "glamourous" way of scoring a kill - whites of the eyes and all that?

Just on Flanker FOD issue, I'm no engineer, but the way they hang the intakes low under the fuselage makes it certainly look like such damage would happen, particularly on makeshift or unprepared strips.....

[FlyNavy]

peter75, hang around here long enough and hear/see 'fighter pilot' talk - especially from USAF :-) - you will realise there is a lot of BSBB. "BullshiteBafflesBrains". Say something silly in your debrief but go with that thought and make a joke out of it. Talk up your own skills and talk down everyone else's; and damn them with faint praise just to make yourself look good. :-)

Yea though I walk through the valley of death I fear no evil because I am the biggest mofo in da valley. :-)

Yep I reckon those sue hoover intakes pick up every bit of FOD available. Everyday on USN carriers and often even ashore, along the deck/flightline squadron personnel will do a 'FOD walk' to pick up the minutest bit before flyops commence. Keeps everyone focussed on that problem also.

Certainly 'tradition' would have it that the guns kill is the one kill. One sees the aircraft go down (most likely) which may not happen in BVR engagements. Having been out of that business for a very long time and being a bit ancient the struggle to shoot down someone from 100 yards astern is not that appealing. It is hard work with muchos Gs to crush the life out of anyone before a result can be claimed. Of course the ideal way is the sneak attack out of the sun at 1 G charging up the tail pipe in front, guns blazing. Too easy but safe. Then zoom to a high perch to look for da wingman and hope he has been asleep. ;D

[oldnavy]

Several excellent points being made in this thread. The Red Falg videos brought to our attention by FlyNavy have certainly re-invigorated debate!

Internal gun loaded F35As are good. Conformal gun packs for Bs and Cs will work as well. NB: Harrier and Hawk guns have been external bolt ons for several decades. It is not a new concept at all.

yak2's point about non dog fighting F35s is well made as are the points made by several about FOD. It is a problem for all jets, and the SHAR force definitely had some fairly stringent anti-FOD procedures, as do most USAF types (despite what vid mate says). On the Russian aircraft though, the Mig 29 goes to the extreme of closing the main intakes completely when the aircraft is on the ground. It has large over intake doors for use when taxying. Other than long lead times on engine replacements, (no mention of the very short life of the Russian engine...a major drawback), simple measures to avoid FOD ingestion are a cheap way of minimising expensive damage.

If I must, I am happy to apologise for being a JSF protagonist. My enthusiasm is most closely related to the issue of expense. Not everyone can afford the big expensive stuff and within a few years absolutely everyone will be wanting JSF because it will be the latest "must have" with the newest and most advanced systems. Talking about Su30s and similar is frivolous because there just aren't that many out there and nobody really wants them if they can have/afford western stuff. For example, there are literally thousands of F16s in the world versus no where near as many Su27 or derivatives. It doesn't matter how good the Sukhois are against such an overwhelming number. They definitely cannot defeat the hundreds of F16s in Nato let alone all the F16s, F18s, F15s, Gripens, Typhoons, Mirages etc in the Western Alliance built to date.

Do you remember the line in "The Untouchables" movie where Sean Connery says, "Just like an "Effing" Spick to bring a knife to a gunfight!" as he chases the Italian thug out of his house (only to get shot by another Italian waiting outside with a machine gun?)

The message is plain and simple, don't get close to the enemy if you don't have to.

Fighter Pilot truism...1v1 combat is the sport of kings. It is excellent fun where you can pit your skills against another individual, and the thrill you get when you win is close to one of the biggest you will ever experience. The snag is, of course, that if it's for real then you and your aircraft better be better than the bad guy or you'll be dead!

However, 1v1 is primarily a training tool used to hone skills and teach close in tactics along with basic fighter manoeuvring. In many air arms it is even taught by QFIs or equivalent rather than combat instructors because it is more about aircraft handling than tactics. Doesn't alter the truism though and all pilots like to finish up a training engagement with a good old 1v1 slog despite the fact that an actual 1v1 fight is nearly never used for real and this has been the case since about 1917!

Fighter Pilot first and most important lesson...it is the enemy you can't see/don't see who will kill you. This is learned as soon as you start to fly multi aircraft tactics. It also applies to many missile systems. The message is that if you can see a threat, or know with surety where it is, you can usually defend yourself against it either by avoiding it or knowing how to fight it.

Put more simply, in terms of multi aircraft tactics...if you are going to go in, make sure you go in mob handed. It is always better to be in a fight with loads of mates on your side than to find yourself alone amonsgt baddies. With numbers on your side, you are more likely to have a better picture and to get someone into a firing position quickly.

The aim with all modern equipment is to give the good guys the best possible picture and the ability to engage the enemy without the risk of being engaged themselves. As with Sean Connery's gunfight, if you can shoot and kill a bandit at great range, it is ludicrous to close for a knife fight.

Remember the aim of such types as the F15C and the F22 is Air Dominance, so they do not pitch up expecting a series of 1 on 1 gunfights. They will certainly arrive in the battle space with numbers on their side, along with all the electronic gadgetary they have (which is strangely not dealt with in the vids).

Before "switching to guns" (as that great Kiwi music video says) a modern fighter will have had several BVR and WVR missile opportunities. Maybe I am a little out of date, but I believe the methodology should be to engage with active radar missiles, support the missiles until they go active and with a minimum of closure (NB: the F22 can do this while heading away!), if the bandit keeps on coming use a shorter range heat seeker (over the shoulder if necessary) and if the bandit is still coming, continue the run out and re-group for a re-engagement at a safe range. Never turn back into a fight unless you can complete the manoeuvre without risk.

NB: all missiles and gunshots these days are all aspect. So a pitch back into the fight will usually be fatal. Even with a gun you don't have to be pushing depleted uranium up the bad guy's jet pipe because your predictor sight gave you a perfect deflection shot on the forward quarter pass (at a ridiculously long range) just after you evaded bad guy's heat seeker!

Vid mate playing up the effect of jamming and decoys denies the existence of counter counter meansures. Even old aeroplanes have systems to overcome jamming and decoys! The little quip about not being able to detect a Bison means vid man isn't working hard enough. If the Su30 pilots will get better when they know how to fly their jets, then the F15C/F22 pilots better learn what they have to do to beat the small RCS jammer equipped stuff. Their kit will certainly manage.

NB: even old radars can pick up jamming with enough accuracy to improve your picture and even old radar missiles can home on it. Not metioning new capability, even some of the older heat seekers are able to disregard heat sources other than the designated target.

The messages from the vid are clear. "Please may I have some more F22s?" and about the F35 question avoidance manoeuvre, "I fly F15s and want to fly F22s. Somebody else will be flying F35 and I reckon I am better than them."

The lecturer is a good and well motivated junior officer, and probably a great fighter pilot. Before he goes much higher he will either learn to be more discrete in his presentations or, more usually with such mouths, he will be a great airline pilot.