F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[raven111]

Google 'picard578 bias' and you'll see he's got serious issues with the F-35. If someone handed me a report and I knew they already had a bias against what they were reporting on I wouldn't trust their objectivity one bit.

Ah but do you apply the same criteria to pro-F-35 biased reports too ?

But everyone knows those can't possibly be biased. They're just true.

[bobp]

Eddie wrote
"He's a Rafale fanboy, as evidenced by reading his Rafale 'analysis' and his anything vs Rafale articles. I'd also question what it is he does or has done for a career that qualifies him to be an authority on aerodynamics, ECM, radar and weapons.
He seems to speak about things such as Rafale's SPECTRA vs Typhoon's Praetorian with generic quotes. "Difference being that Rafale has more precise RWRs, while Typhoon has towed decoy". There's not many people, if any, in the world that would know the exact capabilities of both systems.

Just want to point out that there is a big difference between a RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) and a towed decoy. The former is a passive device that scans the Radar Spectrum and if a signal is detected obtain a bearing from which it is being transmitted. The latter is towed behind the Typhoon and transmits a RF signal to decoy a radar seeking missile away from the aircraft. Because it transmits it is therefore an active device. So it appears to me that's all this guy is a fanboy. By the way I do not claim to be an expert but I do have a back ground in ground based radar.

[seaspear]

The Super Hornet block 11 uses a towed decoy an/ale 55 plus an internal an/alq-214 for ew ,There is an amusing presentation on utube of a flight instructor from the red flag meetings discussing Rafale pilots and how during the Gulf crisis would patrol over Bagdad instead of where the action was, with radars off and monitor the U.S.A.F radars picking up information

[-Eddie-]

Google 'picard578 bias' and you'll see he's got serious issues with the F-35. If someone handed me a report and I knew they already had a bias against what they were reporting on I wouldn't trust their objectivity one bit.

Ah but do you apply the same criteria to pro-F-35 biased reports too ?

Of course. I'm very much on the fence wrt the F-35. Over on MP.net I always found the F-35 defenders to be as tedious as the F-35 detractors. Fanboys gonna fanboy.

Thanks for the airshow explanation. It'd be a very poor performance for the F-35 programme if it couldn't make Farnborough for a second go, especially in the year HMS QE will start sea trials.

Just want to point out that there is a big difference between a RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) and a towed decoy. The former is a passive device that scans the Radar Spectrum and if a signal is detected obtain a bearing from which it is being transmitted. The latter is towed behind the Typhoon and transmits a RF signal to decoy a radar seeking missile away from the aircraft. Because it transmits it is therefore an active device. So it appears to me that's all this guy is a fanboy. By the way I do not claim to be an expert but I do have a back ground in ground based radar.

Yeah it's one of those things that just flags someone up. I don't claim to know anything about all that stuff but then again I don't go around writing reports on the capabilities of systems.

[Jdam]

Nice shot of the F-35 from twitter

[xav]

Amazing shot

[Cooper]

F 35 showing its air superiority over a worthy opponent...

[marktigger]

nice footage on armed forces news of the gau 12 firing pity the gau12 won't be useable to block 3f aircraft in 2019

[Tony Williams]

nice footage on armed forces news of the gau 12 firing pity the gau12 won't be useable to block 3f aircraft in 2019

It's the GAU-22/A - a four-barrel gun which has replaced the five-barrel GAU-12/U used in the AV-8B.

[Ron5]

Not quite sure why a gun when the narrative is that it never needs to get near enough to anything. I wonder if the RN will use their gun much.

[Tony Williams]

Not quite sure why a gun when the narrative is that it never needs to get near enough to anything. I wonder if the RN will use their gun much.

The gun is only integral in the A model - in the B and C it's in an external gunpod and is an optional extra. No doubt the beancounters will argue that it isn't needed, but I still recall the problems the Harriers had in Sierra Leone when they had nothing with which to engage targets in close proximity to civvies.

[jonas]

Not quite sure why a gun when the narrative is that it never needs to get near enough to anything. I wonder if the RN will use their gun much.

CAS, thats why it's called a joint strike fighter, and given the way the RN plans to use the QE/POW they will need the gun integrated. So yes they will be using it.

[-Eddie-]

Voyager will be going over to NAS Patuxent River, USA early next year to start refuelling trials with a Lockheed Martin F-35B.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ry-414852/ Last paragraph.

[Tony Williams]

CAS, thats why it's called a joint strike fighter, and given the way the RN plans to use the QE/POW they will need the gun integrated. So yes they will be using it.

I have to say that I shudder at the thought of putting a $100+ million aircraft within small-arms range of the enemy, although I'm not aware of any of the current generation of fighters being damaged as a result of strafing in Afghanistan.

There is an alternative now available: there are several laser-guided versions of the old 70mm rocket. They can hit within one metre of the aiming point from a distance of several kilometres, which is both safer and more accurate than gunfire.

[marktigger]

The level of protection and the flexibility of weapons loads is where the United states will struggle to get the F35 to replace the A10 the F16 has already failed. Not so big an issue for the UK except they start saying its a Tornado replacement not a harrier replacement.

[marktigger]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-414232/


all well and good they said that about the early Phantoms then the politicians brought in Rules of Engagement that negated the advantages.

[Gabriele]

The level of protection and the flexibility of weapons loads is where the United states will struggle to get the F35 to replace the A10 the F16 has already failed. Not so big an issue for the UK except they start saying its a Tornado replacement not a harrier replacement.

The UK has fired 3000 rounds from the Tornado's guns in all the years in Afghanistan. It is a ridiculously low number. I remember reading that the ammunition load was tipically cut back from 180 to 130 to save weight, in fact. Most of the time, the gun was no factor at all.
And the weight of the A-10 in CAS provision in the US has been falling down steadily over the last decade, with the other platforms flying the vast majority of the CAS missions. The "failed" F-16 provided much of that, actually.

[Tony Williams]

Low-level CAS is rarely done now. Sensor pods and PGMs allow any suitably equipped combat plane, as well as drones, to hit targets with great precision from altitude. That still won't meet every need for the support of troops on the ground, but it deals with most of them.

[raven111]

The problem is that historical precedent has taught us that the moment you eliminate a fighter's gun is the moment you discover that you actually still need it after all.

[marktigger]

look at the pictures of the A10's that came home post SAM strikes could an F16 have survived...... Afghanistan has been fairly benign when it has come to GBAD yes small arms fire can happen anywhere but the bigger stuff? Its not always going to be like that and we need to be planning ahead. Drones may not be the answer again in a more active Air defence zone and with an enemy with Electronic Warfare capability.

[RetroSicotte]

The problem is that historical precedent has taught us that the moment you eliminate a fighter's gun is the moment you discover that you actually still need it after all.

Aside from that we aren't eliminating the gun...when are you referring to?

Not Vietnam, which is a massive urban myth oft repeated again and again. Improved training swung it, not adding guns. The US Navy Phantoms without guns got far more success with missiles alone than the Air Force ones with guns did. Again, down to training.

[Gabriele]

look at the pictures of the A10's that came home post SAM strikes could an F16 have survived...... Afghanistan has been fairly benign when it has come to GBAD yes small arms fire can happen anywhere but the bigger stuff? Its not always going to be like that and we need to be planning ahead. Drones may not be the answer again in a more active Air defence zone and with an enemy with Electronic Warfare capability.

Some F-16 and other aircrafts survived some pretty horrible damage as well. And several A-10s were downed. I don't see the A-10 armour playing a significant role against a near peer enemy. The SAMs and enemy fighters will wipe it out of the sky as soon as the escorts and SEAD packets leave a gap of any kind and the enemy gets to the A-10.

[downsizer]

I remember reading that the ammunition load was tipically cut back from 180 to 130 to save weight, in fact.

Wrong. Nothing to do with weight. Something entirely different was the limfac.

[downsizer]

Low-level CAS is rarely done now.

Not strictly true, depends on the environment.

Shows of force and presence were regularly carried out in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Granted you won't do that in State on State warfare, but it does happen.

[downsizer]

although I'm not aware of any of the current generation of fighters being damaged as a result of strafing in Afghanistan.

Happened. A fair few times.

B1s, and GR4s, and Harriers took bullets that I'm aware of.