F-35s hone dog fighting skills at Top Gun for 1st time

As radar and other sensors improve, obviously the F-35 will have to increasingly rely on standoff weapons, jamming from other assets, and perhaps other aircraft (i.e. UCAVs, 6th gen fighters, LRS-B). Just like the F-16 doesn't fight today like the F-16 did in the early 1980s, neither will the F-35 in 2040 fight like the F-35 in 2020.

Advanced EOTS is planned for Block 4, upgraded engines are likely, so is DIRCM, it's also possible better stealthy coatings will be developed.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

200 km is a bit much for an AMRAAM against a fighter.

a reply to: TheChrome

. A single SU-24 knocked out the entire Aegis capabilities of the USS Donald Ross.

... according to Russian Propaganda, the story doesn't appear to make much sense.

If Russia did make this story up, it would seem they are scared of missile defense and really do not want their neighbors to get their hands on AEGIS.

a reply to: grey580

Glad to hear this, as being an Aussie - we are waiting for our order of F35's to arrive.

We currently have FA/18 Super Hornets as our main strike weapon and have sent Senior Pilots to the US for their take.

Our boys gave them a glowing report ...

Hawk lead in fighters are the only other fast thing to come out of Williamtown AFB (near where I live).

Looking forward to seeing the JSF in action !
Moreso now !!

originally posted by: C0bzz
As radar and other sensors improve, obviously the F-35 will have to increasingly rely on standoff weapons, jamming from other assets, and perhaps other aircraft (i.e. UCAVs, 6th gen fighters, LRS-B). Just like the F-16 doesn't fight today like the F-16 did in the early 1980s, neither will the F-35 in 2040 fight like the F-35 in 2020.

Advanced EOTS is planned for Block 4, upgraded engines are likely, so is DIRCM, it's also possible better stealthy coatings will be developed.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

200 km is a bit much for an AMRAAM against a fighter.

a reply to: TheChrome


... according to Russian Propaganda.

I'm always aware of propaganda, and the topic is the dog fighting skills of the F-35 so I don't want to get too far away from that. Electronic warfare is a real threat though for new technologies including the F-35.

breakingdefense.com...

I guess my point is, it better have dog fighting skills if the rest of the technology is crapped out.

a reply to: TheChrome

- The F-35 has an enormous amount of sensors on-board and the best sensor fusion of any aircraft. This makes it less reliant on outside information compared to other aircraft.
- AESA Radar is difficult to detect and jam, although not impossible. The same is true for DAS and EOTS (i.e. DIRCM). The F-35 also has a F-35 only datalink known as MADL which is supposed to be extremely directional and therefore difficult to detect and jam.
- Less jamming is required to support stealth aircraft, because there's less return signal to "mask". Obviously this won't work against frequencies that the F-35 is not optimized for (on the other hand, these frequencies have disadvantages of their own and radar employing them can't fit in fighter aircraft, which makes other fighter aircraft flying against the F-35 more dependent on external information and susceptible to jamming).
- Detecting a stealthy aircraft requires greater radar power than a non-stealthy aircraft, therefore other aircraft become easier to detect because they have to emit more.
- It can be difficult to jam the F-35 if you don't know its location.

It seems to me like the new technology in the F-35 makes it less, not more, susceptible to electronic warfare, and it makes whomever it is flying against more susceptible to electronic warfare.

Lets look at history..The F35 replaces the F15 which in itself is no dogfighter but from Wiki.....

It is among the most successful modern fighters, with over 100 victories and no losses in aerial combat.

a reply to: Blackfinger

The F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It was designed with the manta "not a pound for air to ground". Only after Israel started doing funny business the F-15E came into existence, which is a bomb truck and can't dogfight at all. F-15C and D's though...

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Caughtlurking

All been covered in the missile range section mentioned above. Max range for AAMs is for head to head at high altitude. Low altitude rear shot is much less.

USAF says max effective range for AMRAAM is 20-30nm.

maximum range of between 20 to 30 nautical miles

www.airforce-technology.com...

That might be block one. the newer LONG RANGE AMRAAM had a printed range of 90 something nautical miles. its th e repalcement fo r the pheonix missile.

• AIM-120D (C-8): >180 km >97 nmi. If youre going to post ranges be totally honest.
The info you linked is not the block d.

a reply to: yuppa

That's right 20-30nm is for AIM-120C.
AIM-120D is supposed to have +50% range 30-45nm.
With all due respect you're just not going to hit anything at absolute maximum range the real engagement range will be less than half of that.
They've been talking about ranges in this sim and these guys know a heap about it analyzing charts and info they can get hold of.
forums.eagle.ru...

Interesting analysis article here of real world air to air missile performance.

Charts show average engagement range for MRM is only 30km and multiple shots were required for a kill.

elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au...

Real world performance of air to air missiles is always much less than the advertised on paper specs.
Analyzing the real combat performance of air to air missiles is a bit more complicated than looking at the maximum stated range on wikipedia, which frankly I think is not remotely accurate.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: yuppa

That's right 20-30nm is for AIM-120C.
AIM-120D is supposed to have +50% range 30-45nm.
With all due respect you're just not going to hit anything at absolute maximum range the real engagement range will be less than half of that.
They've been talking about ranges in this sim and these guys know a heap about it analyzing charts and info they can get hold of.
forums.eagle.ru...

Sims arent real life testing though are they? Charts that are nto complete will never be accurate enough to judge th ecapabilities. Zaphod ha s said these newer missiles are scary. he wasnt just talking about the russians i think. Also depending on your guidance you can hit things at max range. over half the time. you ar ebeing contrary. Also I know what I read th erange is 97 NM not30-45.

a reply to: yuppa

Actually that company that does DCS World the sim which I have also make classified sims for the Russian air force.

No you can't hit anything at max range because the missile loses too much speed and when the seeker goes active at about 15km from target it alerts the targets RWR and they just turn, the missile has no energy left to follow and has no chance to hit. If you never play sims you won't know about the basic mechanics of how it works.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: yuppa

Actually that company that does DCS World the sim which I have also make classified sims for the Russian air force.

No you can't hit anything at max range because the missile loses too much speed and when the seeker goes active at about 15km from target it alerts the targets RWR and they just turn, the missile has no energy left to follow and has no chance to hit. If you never play sims you won't know about the basic mechanics of how it works.

Oh they do testing for russian missiles? Well then ill consider it liek RT then. Depends on th emissile and guidance. if it can intersect a flight path using its new passive guidance they wouldn tknow they were even locked onto. Still sinc e the f-35 in a active ECM environment will be within a range the missile can hunt down its target and still be BVR to th eother aircraft before they know its there its a moot argument. And ive played sims before. they are good approximations but not accurate enough.

a reply to: yuppa

Testing for Russian missiles? RT? what are you talking about.

The missile has to have enough energy to intercept the target once the target is alerted to the missiles presence, either by RWR MAWS or visual cue. There is no one answer fits all. That's why the probability of kill changes depending on many factors. Evasive turns, chaff and ECM further reduce the Pk. If the target does nothing and doesn't know the missile is there Pk goes up, but that's a big if.
The 30km average engagement range mentioned above from a military insider report is accurate IMO and in the ball park. No where near 97nm.

a reply to: JimTSpock

Good sim. They also make an A-10C simulation for USAF.

a reply to: JimTSpock

That blog is really good, he really knows his stuff.

AIM-120C

Performance
Max Range: 48,000 meter

www.deagel.com...

AIM-120D

Performance
Max Range: 72,000 meter

www.deagel.com...

Effective range and no escape zone range will be considerably less. This is in line with the 20-30nm range above and the 30km average engagement range figures. Which means a realistic engagement range for the D model would be around 45km which I think is quite impressive.
SARH and ARH missiles will show up on RWR. AESA LPI missiles may show on more advanced RWRs but with less warning. IR missiles won't show at all on RWR.
MAWS works I believe by detecting the IR energy from rocket motor launch and the missile body as it heats up at high mach.
And then there is visual cues which pilots can see smoke trails, rocket motor flash and even the missile itself but obviously not always and less likely to see from side or behind. So trying to get a sneak shot completely undetected is complex and not guaranteed. And some twin engine fighters have been shown to need 2 hits to down them.

Ok ok.. i see wher ei go tmy wires crossed but i see something Jim i smissing too. Currently the missile gets 3-45 nm. thats the C apparently. AFTER D comes out it is going to have a 50 percent range increase THEREFORE it can get up to th erange Ive said before. WIki was counting its eggs before it was hatched apparently.

Aim-120 link

Its al on that page.

a reply to: Aarsvin

And it could be argued that philosophically, at least, the F-22 was really just a stealth-ified F-15 with thrust vectoring and a low POI radar suite (the same way that the Flanker was an "F-15ski", and the F-15 was an attempt to copy what we thought the Mig-25 was based off of photos, when it looked like an F-4 killer and before we learned that IRL it was a stainless steel XB-70 killer that turned like a 747... ). Otherwise, their flight performance and maneuverability are startlingly similar.

In that sense, the F-35 shouldn't be thought of as a dogfighter, but instead as an attempt to roll the capabilities of an F-111 and an EF-111 into a single airframe that's smaller and sucks a little bit less at WVR A2A combat. Presumably the A2A role will be filled by the F-22.

The vicious cycle of surging acquisition costs leading to lowered numbers leading to even higher acquisition costs which have dogged both of these very different but equally capable programs and left the USAF with much lower numbers of aircraft then when we had the A-10/F-16/F-15 spread is another argument entirely.

But so long as the Russian military keeps acting like a Keystone Kops version of their Soviet forebears and keep having trouble keeping even their rusting menagerie of flying tractors airworthy, I guess the point is moot. For now.

We'll just have to cross our fingers and hope that China's re-armament stays slow and deliberate, and that their economy stays stable enough that they don't feel the need to go bullying their neighbors to placate their populace...

a reply to: yuppa

Or the DOD could drop their "not invented here" hangups and ditch their glorified Estes rockets in favor of buying Meteors like every sensible air force is doing.

a reply to: yuppa

Thanks I haven't seen that one before. It says 48-72km which strangely is exactly the same as deagle.com. I think that might include the D aswell as it says Price/Unit Cost: AIM-120D: $1.098 million and (IOC): AIM-120D

Anyway it isn't really that important and the C will do fine with the F-22 or F-35 because it is very difficult to hit them with a radar guided missile. Next gen IR medium range missiles being developed could be more dangerous for stealth though.

Something like an Su-35 with more advanced and capable IRST with new medium range IR missiles could actually be a serious threat to F-22 and F-35. And that's just my own speculation of what could happen in a few years.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: yuppa

Thanks I haven't seen that one before. It says 48-72km which strangely is exactly the same as deagle.com. I think that might include the D aswell as it says Price/Unit Cost: AIM-120D: $1.098 million and (IOC): AIM-120D

Anyway it isn't really that important and the C will do fine with the F-22 or F-35 because it is very difficult to hit them with a radar guided missile. Next gen IR medium range missiles being developed could be more dangerous for stealth though.

Something like an Su-35 with more advanced and capable IRST with new medium range IR missiles could actually be a serious threat to F-22 and F-35. And that's just my own speculation of what could happen in a few years.

YEah it didnt list the D's range yet but says they estimate th e range to be 50 percent increase higher than the current C models. Thats what I was trying to convey earlier but Wiki isnt reliable enough. Like i said read carefully its on that page about the 50 percent increase. Which might put it in the long range territory if it meets the pheonix's range but just not effective but id guess 40 percentile past 60 nm.