Boagrius

Apologies for going back a ways. Also I'm new here, hiya. 

A minor corrective point:
> The F35 used in the test was AF-2, which was using Block 2B software

As a flight sciences aircraft, AF-02 doesn't have mission systems and is on a special block of very limited software known internally as 0.5 from which it will never substantially move up. The more relevant numbers would be whatever its Vehicle Systems software was, IIRC in those days it was something like version 30 point something (now they're on version 40+). So I guess you could say it had the 2B vehicle systems software, but saying it had 2B as a whole would be a little incorrect.

Spot on otherwise.

latest K-rumors
model AS21

These questions are dependent on the exact user's configuration. Australia for example ordered much more capable radars for NASAMS compared to what is used in Norway.
 
For the German military, IRIS-T SLM is a part of the TLVS program (improved MEADS) that is currently dieing a slow and painful death. As part of TLVS, the IRIS-T SLM would be networked with the long range radars (both the MFCR and SR developed for the MEADS program) while also having its own medium-range radar and being networked with lower tiers of air-defence sensors (i.e. the ongoing NNBs program).
 
Germany has not selected an exact radar solution for the medium range yet, but options include Hensoldt's TRML-4D, Thales' Ground Master 200 Multi Mission Compact Ground, SAAB's Giraffe 4A, Selex' Kronos 3D and the CEAFAR Ground Based Multi-Mission Radar from the Australian company CEA Technologies. Some people expect Thales' offer to be picked up, as the Ground Master 200 has already been purchased by the Netherlands (Germany's main partner for air-defence).
 
All of these systems are more capable than the standard AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel F1 of NASAMS - both in range and resolution, though they tend to be also significantly larger. Australia has selected a scaled-down, short-range version of the CEAFAR for its NASAMS (both mounted on Hawkei and mounted on a trailer). I am fairly sure that Sky Sabre uses a mast-mounted Giraffe X1 radar. The Falcon air-defence system (IRIS-T SLM + Lockheed-Martin controll center + SAAB radar) uses a Giraffe A4 radar as offered by SAAB to Germany. No idea what radar Egypt uses with IRIS-T SLM.
 
As far as I can say, being able to easily integrate further sensors (directly or via networking) and being able to spread multiple launchers over a greater distance (while using only a single TOC) is not a stand-out feature of NASAMS, but a normal feature common to medium/long range air defence systems. E.g. each IRIS-T SLM launcher unit can be positioned up to 20 kilometers away from the TOC. I haven't seen any exact figures for NASAMS, but as Kongsberg's official website speaks of "several kilometers" (rather than something like "dozens of kilometers"), I don't think it offers a significantly larger maximum distance between launchers and TOC than similar solutions.
 
 
Agreed. Ballistic missile defence is only possible within a limited scope. However IRIS-T SLM can defeat some types of older ballistic missiles and cruise missiles (even those with reduced radar signature), against which CAMM(-ER) and AMRAAM are pretty useless.
 
 
AMRAAM-ER is not identical with ESSM Block II though and ESSM Block II is not integrated into NASAMS. AMRAAM-ER uses a modified ESSM Block I missile body with the less capable and cheaper seeker from AMRAAM as well as the warhead and datalink antennas. ESSM Block II is a seeker, warhead and datalink upgrade only, so it directly moves in the opposite direction of AMRAAM-ER. Given the different requirements and natures of the datalink (i.e. ESSM Block II being integrated in AEGIS), an unmodified missile is probably incompatible with NASAMS.
 
As per Raytheon, the AMRAAM-ER uses a reworked rocket motor. I have found no reference that the AMRAAM-ER still has the TVC, though I supposed it wouldn't make much sense to remove it. However one should differentiate between a TVC as used on AMRAAM-ER/ESSM Block 1 & 2 and real thrust-vectoring.
 

While the TVC improves performance, the problem with ESSM Block I and II is the fact, that it the jet vanes are located within the missile's tail section rather than sitting directly at the exhaust. For optimal performance, the jet vanes would sit at the exhaust.
 
I am also unsure whether AMRAAM-ER will be available with the high mobility launcher, given the fact that its 75% heavier and 12 inches longer.
 

From Eielson AFB readiness exercise
 

 

And thus the Seafucker 9000 was born.

>Boagrius
On the prior page of this thread (page 26) I referenced EOS's Mopoke.  EOS-Mopoke-Full-Spectrum-CUAS-Capabilities-Web.pdf (eos-aus.com)
Mopoke-CUAS-Brochure-AUS-SIGNED-OFF.pdf (eos-aus.com)

Each of EOS, Hanwha, Rheinmetall and presumably Elbit would have decent vehicle mounted solutions for close in anti air applications.
 
Russia's pantsir would be the global base reference, The Hanwha Biho is probably the western base reference https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/eng/mobile/products/antiaircraft-artillery-biho.do
 
 
and biho 2 would be a hard to beat next gen unit.
 
 
 
 

On the topic of the dreaded Mk30-2, this popped up:
 
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1339154663741001734


 
Am guessing it will get pitched to Army as a VSHORAD solution if it hasn't already. If the gun isn't seen as a problem it looks decent.
 
 

On the topic of the dreaded Mk30-2, this popped up:
 
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1339154663741001734


 
Am guessing it will get pitched to Army as a VSHORAD solution if it hasn't already. If the gun isn't seen as a problem it looks decent.
 
 

Further weight discussion page 19
 

So I'm going to go ahead and be "that guy" here and say that I find VR is actually a heap of fun in DCS. Unfortunately the footage doesn't lend itself to recording as well as the more stable Track-IR stuff but the DCS + HP Reverb combo is excellent. 
 
 

A good overview from a current F35A driver
 
 

M2A3 Bradleys in NE Syria, as per CENTCOM.

If it's going to be used as unmanned, it will be commanded by someone sitting in the command post. IMHO we are very far from an UGV being able to command itself except or some very simple tasks such as drive along a given road. 

BTR-82A that suffered damage during IED blast in Syria was quickly put back into work, received it's own name - Nesokrushimiy ("Indestructible") 
 

The sale to Croatia of ex-Israeli F-16s collapsed as the US government would not allow the resale of the aircraft following modifications by the Israelis.
 
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-blocking-israeli-sale-of-used-f-16s-to-croatia-report/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-croatia-israel-military-idUSKCN1P42MN
 
Oh and it appears that a USMC F-35B has midaired with a KC-130J over southern California. F-35 pilot ejected, KC-130 belly landed in a field, everyone is mostly fine except for the F-35B. https://news.usni.org/2020/09/29/marine-f-35b-crashes-after-collision-with-kc-130-over-california-all-aircrew-recovered-safely

Perhaps to contribute some personal experience, and place the F-35 in context with other US platforms from your POGO link. (Who, I should add, are an organization with the dubious mandate of finding problems and complaining about them, they're an institutional chicken little.) 

The F-15C fleet is currently limited to ~7g's for the simple reason that the airframes are literally falling apart if the pilots pull higher g's. The F-18E fleet still has OBOGs issues, meaning the airplane will occasionally decide that today is not the pilot's day, and give them the warm comforting blanket of Oxygen Deprivation. (Leading to at least one fatal crash in the past few years, and doubtless contributing to others.)  F-22s are a massive pile of software jank flying in close formation, with neither the budget nor the expertise to overhaul their badly dated avionics. Vipers have their own host of technical issues related to being old fighters that haven't gotten as much love as they should. I can go on for any platform basically ad nausea. 

The point is to say that all military fighters have issues like this, some of them long lasting and incredibly severe. The reason you're hearing about the F-35's issues is that it is a very expensive program with a lot of detractors, and not because it has more teething issues than can be expected from a rapidly maturing gen 5. 

This gets back to the earlier statement wrt POGO - their institutional mandate (to be as charitable as possible) prevents them from placing these issues into context and producing an overall measurement of the effectiveness of a platform. If all you ever do is rattle off flaws and to-dos, any piece of military equipment is going to look like junk. If you actually want to speak meaningfully on the subject, you've got to weigh those inevitable downsides against the very real and very potent capabilities that F-35 brings to the fight.

I suppose you must be charmed enough to have never encountered such personalities at the top of any organizational hierarchies. Or Miltwitter.
 
More than a few of us have been published with proper bylines, covering subject matter more relevant to today than a 62 year old tank. We have been there and done that, the difference is that for the most part we weren't so certain of our own intellectual superiority just because we got published someplace for the first time.

You're an idiot.
Hey, it worked! I do feel better about your idiocy.
 
Well, I actually thought you'd be sensible enough to cut and run. Apparently I'm cursed to overestimate people on the internet.

You are welcome to leave at any time.

^ Utter nonsense. You clearly didn't read/comprehend what I posted properly...  again.

- The Navy budget link directly covers the Sidekick weapon bay mod that will give all F35A's and Cs from Lot 15 onwards the capacity to carry 6 AIM120/260 internally. This is not controversial.
 
- The pilot being interviewed is necessarily general in his feedback since the data on the specific aerodynamic capabilities of the F35 (eg its EM diagrams) is heavily classified and will remain so for decades to come. I will take his word (and that of numerous other relevant members of the operational community) over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.


 
- Your unsupported assertion that the F35 has suffered “various other high profile failures to beat legacy fighters in BFM” is a myth. I suspect it stems from a misleading 2015 blog article by David Axe on a developmental control law test conducted with an F16. In short, it was not a dogfight but Axe tried to spin it as one anyway.
 
- The Su-30MKM never scored a kill in the three engagements depicted in the video I posted. It used TVC to briefly reverse a losing position into a neutral merge* (the pilot/narrator clearly says this at 12:42) only to be gunned again later on. You are literally making things up now.

*The Flanker's nose was pointed too low for a head-on gun shot, which would have been a no-go for both aircraft anyway.  
 
- The US aircraft was a legacy Hornet, not a Super Hornet. Once again you are clearly not examining/comprehending information properly.
 
- The link about the F22 was never supposed to relate to BFM, but to highlight the decisive advantage its VLO features have been providing it for over a decade – precisely as I claimed. This is yet more of you failing to adequately read or comprehend the information being presented.
 
EDIT: Have now added additional quotes, as if there was any doubt about the advantage VLO provides(!).

At this point I have to question whether you are even able to competently engage with what I am posting. It certainly doesn’t seem like it. I think I will leave you to do your own "research" as I can't see any point in persevering here.

^ Utter nonsense. You clearly didn't read/comprehend what I posted properly...  again.

- The Navy budget link directly covers the Sidekick weapon bay mod that will give all F35A's and Cs from Lot 15 onwards the capacity to carry 6 AIM120/260 internally. This is not controversial.
 
- The pilot being interviewed is necessarily general in his feedback since the data on the specific aerodynamic capabilities of the F35 (eg its EM diagrams) is heavily classified and will remain so for decades to come. I will take his word (and that of numerous other relevant members of the operational community) over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.


 
- Your unsupported assertion that the F35 has suffered “various other high profile failures to beat legacy fighters in BFM” is a myth. I suspect it stems from a misleading 2015 blog article by David Axe on a developmental control law test conducted with an F16. In short, it was not a dogfight but Axe tried to spin it as one anyway.
 
- The Su-30MKM never scored a kill in the three engagements depicted in the video I posted. It used TVC to briefly reverse a losing position into a neutral merge* (the pilot/narrator clearly says this at 12:42) only to be gunned again later on. You are literally making things up now.

*The Flanker's nose was pointed too low for a head-on gun shot, which would have been a no-go for both aircraft anyway.  
 
- The US aircraft was a legacy Hornet, not a Super Hornet. Once again you are clearly not examining/comprehending information properly.
 
- The link about the F22 was never supposed to relate to BFM, but to highlight the decisive advantage its VLO features have been providing it for over a decade – precisely as I claimed. This is yet more of you failing to adequately read or comprehend the information being presented.
 
EDIT: Have now added additional quotes, as if there was any doubt about the advantage VLO provides(!).

At this point I have to question whether you are even able to competently engage with what I am posting. It certainly doesn’t seem like it. I think I will leave you to do your own "research" as I can't see any point in persevering here.

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them out and I will be happy to correct them.

At any rate, the issues with APA's Zero One Comparison Table or "ZOCT" are severe and numerous. Here are some of the more egregious ones based on open source information:
 
The Air Power Australia "ZOCT" is wrong about the F35’s radar.
 
- Greater radar aperture is advantageous if all else is equal, but it is not in this case. For example,  the ZOCT does not differentiate between the PESA technology in the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and the AESA technology used in the F35’s APG-81. The table does not adequately account for T/R module or LPI/LPD performance, electronic attack or passive detection functionality, radar sub-modes, ECCM and so on. The ZOCT fundamentally ignores the comparative technological sophistication of each radar, with no analysis of their actual capabilities.

- The ZOCT also incorrectly portrays the APG-81 as having the least capable, “medium power aperture". Generally speaking, a larger radar array on an AESA allows for a greater number of track/receive (T/R) modules, which enhances the radar’s detection capability. The ZOCT table is likely linked to APA’s false claim that the APG-81 only has ~1200 T/R modules.

- In reality, the APG-81 has over 1600 T/R modules, which is higher than their (also incorrect) figure of 1500 for the F22’s APG-77. Note that they classify the APG-77 as a “high power aperture” at only 1500 modules, so - using APA's own reasoning - the APG-81 would qualify as a "high power aperture" as well.

- It is also worth noting that the updated T/R modules fitted to the Raptor’s radar in the APG-77(v)1 upgrade were GaA T/R modules derived from the F-35’s own APG-81 (and not the other way around). Objectively speaking, both radars are world leading in their own right and are generally regarded as offering similar performance overall. You can get a reasonable sense of their dimensional similarity below:
             

 
The relevance of side-looking AESA arrays is debatable for a jet with AN/AAQ-37, AN/ASQ-239 and MADL

Much like thrust vectoring, the importance of side-looking AESA arrays to the F35 is debatable, and AFAIK (contrary to how the ZOCT portrays the issue), there are currently no solid plans to install them in any of the aircraft in the table aside from the Su57. It should be noted that, due to size and space constraints, these “cheek” arrays potentially force the main radar array further forward into the nose-cone, limiting the volume it can occupy.

When dealing with LO opponents, it may well be more effective to retain a single larger and more powerful forward-facing array (to maximise detection range vs low RCS targets) while using 360 degree passive sensors and/or offboard donors (via datalink) to deal with contacts outside of the radar’s field of view. The presence or absence of side-facing radar arrays is arguably more a matter of CONOPS than an outright advantage in every case.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about supersonic weapons delivery

“Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air to air missiles, is a feature of all F35s”.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s future engine growth

The potential for growth in the F35’s powerplant is far from limited. As a matter of fact, research into variable bypass engine technology has made the F35 a prime candidate for early implementation.

Pratt and Whitney have already proposed F135 Growth Options 1 and 2, with the latter introducing variable bypass technology that has the potential to decrease fuel burn by up to 20% and increase thrust by up to 15%. This would improve the jet's thrust to weight ratio from 1.07 at 50% fuel and a full weapons load to over 1.2. A completely new powerplant derived from technology found in the GE XA100 and/or PW XA101 variable bypass engines is another distinct possibility that is being actively explored. 
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s combat ceiling

It is not less than 45,000ft as the table claims, but greater than 50,000ft.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s RF stealth features

- The ZOCT’s description of the F35’s stealth features as “partial” is based on the disingenuous claim that its stealth shaping works best from the forward aspect, and is less effective in the beam and aft sectors. What APA neglects to acknowledge is that this is true for ALL the stealth aircraft in the table.

- In reality, both the F22 and F35 are all-aspect VLO designs, optimised to defeat the shorter wavelength fire control radars that are typically used to guide anti-aircraft missiles. Their actual radar cross-section values are of course extremely classified, but those few individuals that DO know what they are have long described them as being very comparable between the two aircraft.

- It is important to note that the ZOCT also completely neglects the vital importance of stealthy sensors and emissions control (EMCON) for stealth aircraft. Compared to the other aircraft in the table, the F35 has extremely sophisticated EMCON and passive sensing capabilities (LPI/LPD radar modes, MADL datalink, passive IR based MAWS, AN/ASQ-239, long range EOTS IRST) that are not adequately accounted for.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s non-RF stealth features

The F35’s non-RF stealth features are at least as sophisticated as those found on any of the other aircraft in the table and probably superior to most, if not all (with rough parity perhaps, to the F22). They include:

- The use of divertless supersonic inlets with serpentine inlet ducts to block the line of sight to the engine’s hot interior from the forward hemisphere.

- The use of fuselage air “scoops” to mix cooler outside air with the engine exhaust so as to rapidly cool it and in turn reduce the IR signature of the engine plume
 
- The use of onboard fuel as a coolant alongside IR suppressant coatings (p4) to reduce the IR signature of the airframe itself

- Recessed positioning of the nozzle so that the jet’s tailfins block a direct line of sight to it in all but the aft-most sector.
 
- The use of a serrated nozzle derived from the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) program to further reduce the signature of the engine and assist with mixing cool air with the exhaust plume (p4). Note that this fundamental design approach has been subsequently replicated in new nozzles proposed for the J20, J31, Su-57 and Su-75. 
 


 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal fuel.

The amount of fuel the F35 carries is irrelevant on its own. Being able to fly further for longer is certainly advantageous though. Hence, the relevant stat here is range, and the range of the F35 is comparable to that of the F22 that APA endorses. Again, this will only improve with planned enhancements to the F35’s powerplant.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal hard point stations

New F35s will have 6 internal hard points with the Sidekick weapons bay modification, not 4 as the ZOCT claims.
 
The ZOCT over-emphasises arbitrary aerodynamic features 

It is true, for example, that the F35 does not feature super cruise or thrust vectoring, but neither feature is a requirement for its specified mission set. The general consensus is that the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16. Unlike either of those aircraft, however, the F35’s ability to carry all of its weapons, EW gear and sensors internally means that it maintains its aerodynamic performance at full combat loads. Current indications are that this kinematic profile is extremely capable.
 
Due to its flawed binary design, the ZOCT gives equal weighting to features that are not "equal".

Compare, for example, TVC to VLO. APA have long claimed that non-TVC teen series fighters like F16 and F/A18 variants (along with the F35) ought to be an easy meal for a late-model TVC equipped Flanker, especially in the low speed BFM domain where TVC should be most useful. After years of DACT conducted with Flankers of this type, though, the advantage provided by TVC may not be nearly as decisive as APA would have us believe: 

Legacy Hornet Beats TVC Su-30MKM 3-0 in BFM

In reality, BFM is a highly nuanced, complex artform that favours the pilot who is most effective at playing to the strengths of their own aircraft. TVC may be useful here, but it does not appear to be a panacea - pilot training, experience and skill seem to be the real differentiators. Now compare this to the well documented effect that VLO has on a tactical aircraft’s lethality and survivability and it becomes clear that the weightings allocated to each category in the ZOCT are deeply flawed:

""I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

“We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw the F-35A.”

"Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there. Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle. It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage. I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there. It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air. People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit."  Retired US Marine Corps Maj. Dan Flatley
 
The ZOCT is missing important data

APA have also omitted a plethora of features that are just as (if not more) important than many of those listed in the ZOCT. For example

- Multi-spectral sensors - this refers to having RF sensors PLUS infra-red, EO and laser range finding. This is a feature that the F35 has and the F22, for example, does not.

- Spherical FLIR and missile cueing - AN/AAQ-37 provides the F35 with a permanent passive missile lock on every aircraft around it within visual range (and possibly further). This means the F35 can fire on an enemy aircraft regardless of where the F35’s nose is pointed or where the bandit is coming from - even if it is behind the F35. No other aircraft in the table (aside, possibly, for the J20 with its DAS clone) has an equivalent system.

- Sensor fusion - this refers to the capacity of the aircraft’s onboard computers to collect, assimilate, analyse and present data from the aircraft’s sensors to the pilot in a way that streamlines their workload and enhances their decision making. This data can also be shared via;

- An LPI, jam resistant, high throughput datalink - (eg. MADL on the F35 or the older IFDL on the F22) which, when combined with sensor fusion, allows for;

- Cooperative Engagement - the high quality of the F35’s sensor fused targeting data combined with the capacity of the MADL datalink allows it to share targeting information with other platforms (eg. Aegis vessels, Army/USMC MLRS units or other F35s) and subsequently use it to fire on desired targets without relying on their own onboard sensors.

- Cooperative EW - eg. cooperative jamming where members of a flight of aircraft can alternate/coordinate jamming emissions to enhance jamming effects and prevent hostile assets from pinpointing the source of the jamming.

- RF threat triangulation and geo-location (p6) - eg. networking the passive ESM equipment on multiple members of a flight of aircraft to passively triangulate and geolocate threat emitters like SAM sites, ISR assets and fighter aircraft.

- Cooperative IRST - eg. using a passive FLIR like EOTS cooperatively in conjunction with MADL provides another method of triangulating the location and range of hostile assets/aircraft without emitting any RF signals.
 
Suffice it to say that the F35’s unique combination of features is extremely potent:
 
 

I must admit to being a little hurt that my posts didn't rate more highly with Calicifer. I honestly thought they were masterpieces (replete with high quality links/sources) compared to what you'd get from most other fora. *Sigh* back to the drawing board I guess... 

I must admit to being a little hurt that my posts didn't rate more highly with Calicifer. I honestly thought they were masterpieces (replete with high quality links/sources) compared to what you'd get from most other fora. *Sigh* back to the drawing board I guess...