True Flyboy but it was just an example, the Tornado is not a stealth AC. Does a stealth AC operate an IFF system I would have thought it gives you awayto your enemies and your friends. If your enemy knows how the IFF system operates then surely they can "impersonate" you until close to visual range? My original post was a reply to beaupower, in my opinion the UK and US fleets mus know EXACTLY how each other operate and preferably all use the same systems, no criticism of the F35 jut a point on how it is used.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
True Flyboy but it was just an example, the Tornado is not a stealth AC. Does a stealth AC operate an IFF system I would have thought it gives you awayto your enemies and your friends. If your enemy knows how the IFF system operates then surely they can "impersonate" you until close to visual range? My original post was a reply to beaupower, in my opinion the UK and US fleets mus know EXACTLY how each other operate and preferably all use the same systems, no criticism of the F35 jut a point on how it is used.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Any modern combat aircraft has a transponder that "should" identify themselves to friends and not to enemies and when two nations operate in a join mission this is a given. I know no other friendly fire within coalition or NATO forces incident due to inoperative or uncoordinated IFF procedures
Like I said FB, if a radar signal prompts an aircraft to say "here I am and I am an F35 from HMS Elizabeth" then it is not stealth, I am sure both sides put a lot into breaking IFF systems.
Not a big point FB, I was just responding to BPower, I know many countries are buying the F35, it is essential that they can work together within NATO in my opinion, that means a universal system of operation.
Back in 1994 two Blackhawks from my unit (obviously before my time) where shot down by Friendly Fire from 2 F-15's over Northern Iraq. A contributing factor was the transponder or lack of function.
1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From what I understand, an IFF transponder only responds to a discreet code, so if you don't transmit that code with the interrogation, the transponder won't reply.
Nope. You squawk a friendly IFF code that designates you as a friendly aircraft.
The codes are kept secrect and only known by friendly forces. The codes also change frequently.
For instance when I was in Iraq we would load the transponder codes every day before takeoff.
buffnut453
Captain
I returned from a 4-month det to Turkey just a week before the shootdown incident. Tragic loss of life, including a couple of people who were just on "ride-alongs", as well as 2 Brits who were ground liaison and heading back to their area of ops after some R&R.
At my old airfield in Germany, they have a memorial with all the names of everyone who was killed.
I have a pic of it somewhere, but I think it is on my external that is not working well.
Interestingly, the Wiki site says the monument was moved to Fort Rucker when Giebelstadt Army Airfield in Germany closed in 2006. That is not true. The unit from Giebelstadt moved to Ansbach, Germany and the monument moved to Ansbach as well. It is right next to the base HQ and the ATC Tower.
Edit: It appears there are two monuments. One in Fort Rucker, and a copy of it in Ansbach.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - you're 100% correct on that, I remembered when that happened, quite a tragedy
I believe it is one of the worst crashes involving the Blackhawk and Army Aviation.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Only if your enemy can pick up the signal
And that they have and multi force operations is a big part of the F-35 "teaming" with other countries for the development, construction and deployment.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This is a great article about the F-35 and one of it's most vocal critics. Although I disagree with the writer of this piece as far as the F-35's limitations, he shoots down most of the BS being said about the F-35. Since we're posting "dated" material about the F-35's issues, I figured this should be shown as well...
"Some metrics are available regarding the F-35's raw performance and by and large most everyone agrees that the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16 with a comparable stores load-out, and in many ways the F-35A actually exceeds the F-16's nimbleness under real world operational circumstances. Most sources, including the test pilot corps flying the F-35 to the extremes of its envelope today, say that the aircraft most closely matches the F/A-18 Hornet in performance, which is no slouch."
A bad bomber?!?
"You simply do not need a massive bomb load like we once did when dumb gravity bombs were our primary form of aerial destruction, and as munitions continue to shrink and the amount of targets that a single F-35 can hit on a single sortie will be outstanding. Even the F-35's SDB carrying capabilities is already enticing, as is the F-22's. Also, the F-35 can carry many more thousands of pounds of munitions and fuel tanks if it does so like Mr. Sprey's F-16 does, and just slings them under its wings, so there is really no value to Mr. Sprey's "ridiculous payload" argument at all."
And finally...
"Apparently Mr. Sprey tuned out the last 25 years of air combat activities including Desert Storm, Allied Force, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Neptune Spear and Operation Odyssey Dawn, or he just chose not to accept the fact low-observable aircraft performed brilliantly during all those operations and most likely many more that we do not know about.
During Operation Allied Force, a single F-117 was lost due to multiple circumstances, yet this single and uniquely isolated event is in no way some sort of perfect invalidation of low observable technologies. The fact that Sprey would use this example almost singularly for his argument against stealth capabilities is troubling as it is either a sign of a lack of understanding of the technology and its history or it is clear evidence that he is willing to dumb down a very complex issue in order to act as if his views are undebatable and everyone who believes otherwise is silly or a is a scam artist. Even with an aircraft that has a very low radar cross-section and a fantastic mission plan that is tailored to its particular low-observable strengths and the enemy's air defense weaknesses, it does not mean that the aircraft will be inherently invisible to enemy radar and other sensors. What it does mean is that the stealth aircraft may only be detectable at much shorter ranges and from a limited number of angles, and just because the jet may be detected momentarily by the enemy, that does not mean that it can be successfully engaged.
So although stealth aircraft are not invisible, they can work far closer to many enemy sensor sites and anti-aircraft emplacements than traditional non-stealthy aircraft can. Thus allowing them to exploit areas where the enemy's sensor systems have enough reduced detection range that their "threat rings" do not overlap, which could allow the stealthy aircraft in question to safely fly though these gaps. This is precisely why building a very clear and up-to-date picture of the enemy's electronic order of battle is very important for successful stealth operations."
and in the end...
"But many of Mr. Sprey's views are built around very generous and convenient assumptions that just don't hold up. In the end he is an aerospace and defense extremist, and a colorful one at that, but he needs a new bag of tricks to woo over a well informed crowd as the decades old ones he keeps using just aren't believable or even historically accurate anymore."
Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half Brilliant And Half Bullshit
"Some metrics are available regarding the F-35's raw performance and by and large most everyone agrees that the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16 with a comparable stores load-out, and in many ways the F-35A actually exceeds the F-16's nimbleness under real world operational circumstances. Most sources, including the test pilot corps flying the F-35 to the extremes of its envelope today, say that the aircraft most closely matches the F/A-18 Hornet in performance, which is no slouch."
A bad bomber?!?
"You simply do not need a massive bomb load like we once did when dumb gravity bombs were our primary form of aerial destruction, and as munitions continue to shrink and the amount of targets that a single F-35 can hit on a single sortie will be outstanding. Even the F-35's SDB carrying capabilities is already enticing, as is the F-22's. Also, the F-35 can carry many more thousands of pounds of munitions and fuel tanks if it does so like Mr. Sprey's F-16 does, and just slings them under its wings, so there is really no value to Mr. Sprey's "ridiculous payload" argument at all."
And finally...
"Apparently Mr. Sprey tuned out the last 25 years of air combat activities including Desert Storm, Allied Force, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Neptune Spear and Operation Odyssey Dawn, or he just chose not to accept the fact low-observable aircraft performed brilliantly during all those operations and most likely many more that we do not know about.
During Operation Allied Force, a single F-117 was lost due to multiple circumstances, yet this single and uniquely isolated event is in no way some sort of perfect invalidation of low observable technologies. The fact that Sprey would use this example almost singularly for his argument against stealth capabilities is troubling as it is either a sign of a lack of understanding of the technology and its history or it is clear evidence that he is willing to dumb down a very complex issue in order to act as if his views are undebatable and everyone who believes otherwise is silly or a is a scam artist. Even with an aircraft that has a very low radar cross-section and a fantastic mission plan that is tailored to its particular low-observable strengths and the enemy's air defense weaknesses, it does not mean that the aircraft will be inherently invisible to enemy radar and other sensors. What it does mean is that the stealth aircraft may only be detectable at much shorter ranges and from a limited number of angles, and just because the jet may be detected momentarily by the enemy, that does not mean that it can be successfully engaged.
So although stealth aircraft are not invisible, they can work far closer to many enemy sensor sites and anti-aircraft emplacements than traditional non-stealthy aircraft can. Thus allowing them to exploit areas where the enemy's sensor systems have enough reduced detection range that their "threat rings" do not overlap, which could allow the stealthy aircraft in question to safely fly though these gaps. This is precisely why building a very clear and up-to-date picture of the enemy's electronic order of battle is very important for successful stealth operations."
and in the end...
"But many of Mr. Sprey's views are built around very generous and convenient assumptions that just don't hold up. In the end he is an aerospace and defense extremist, and a colorful one at that, but he needs a new bag of tricks to woo over a well informed crowd as the decades old ones he keeps using just aren't believable or even historically accurate anymore."
Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half Brilliant And Half Bullshit
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Any combat aircraft has a chance of being a goner going into defended airspace. Its part of the risk. Stealth aircraft just have the capability to get them more time to get in and out, plus closer and a lot easier than say a F-16 or Tornado. The F-35 primary role is air to ground, it carries the Air to air missle incase it needs to defend itself.
Not true. The F-35 along with other stealth aircraft will fly around the threats using stealth to penetrate deep into the target area. You dont need a dump truck to take out targets, one or two smart bombs are now a days more than capable of doing what a dump truck full of dumb bombs can do.
As for IFF, the F-35 has IFF, Link 16, and the MADL antennas. These 3 things alone provides the necessary information to friendly forces to prevent a possible blue on blue incident. It would be almost impossible for an adversary to get the correct frequency, plus like a few others have said, they change everyday.
buffnut453
Captain
Good stuff FB. I recall participating in Cope Thunder more years ago than I care to remember. My unit was flying Tornado GR1s in a hostile threat environment. The threat radars all had cameras fitted so, during debrief, the validity of kill claims could be verified. We went in at (very) low level and although the threat radars were able to acquire us, they didn't have enough time to engage before we disappeared over ridgelines etc.
The key lesson I drew from that experience was that every second counts in air combat. Being able to "see" a target does not mean you have sufficient time to engage. If the F-35's stealth capabilities gain our pilots that few extra seconds of time, it can mean the difference between mission success or mission failure. That's what it's all about - completing a successful mission (to paraphrase the end of 633 Sqn!).
The key lesson I drew from that experience was that every second counts in air combat. Being able to "see" a target does not mean you have sufficient time to engage. If the F-35's stealth capabilities gain our pilots that few extra seconds of time, it can mean the difference between mission success or mission failure. That's what it's all about - completing a successful mission (to paraphrase the end of 633 Sqn!).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks Buff and great info Beau!
buffnut453
Captain
In fairness, I think he meant a dump truck full of stand-off guided missiles not dumb bombs, the objective being to stand-off outside the threat environment and just launch smart missiles to take our key targets. Of course, that's fine providing the target can be readily acquired, identified, validated and tracked with stand-off ISR assets. If it can't, then you're back to the old human-in-the-loop decision-action cycle to determine what and when to engage...and that means getting closer to the target and, hence, into the threat environment which means your dump truck is now useless and you need something more capable that has better survivability (ie F-35).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If you go by the current numbers pumped by Wiki, only the F-15E could carry more ordnance than the F-35. What's been missed in the F-35 argument is that the F-35A (and probably the B C) with an internal bomb load and no hard points had the maneuverability of an F/A-18 and arguably the same as an F-16. For a design that was a "compromise" because of the V/STOL requirement, plus a top speed of Mach 1.6 I'd say that pretty damned good.
"Can't Turn, Can't Climb, Can't Run" 100% BS!!! And we haven't even scratched the surface on what some of the avionics can do!!!!
Could you imagine the flak the USAF would have received if the public knew about the F-117A's development and issues it had?!?!? The F-117A, just by it's looks alone would have never been built!!!!
"Can't Turn, Can't Climb, Can't Run" 100% BS!!! And we haven't even scratched the surface on what some of the avionics can do!!!!
Could you imagine the flak the USAF would have received if the public knew about the F-117A's development and issues it had?!?!? The F-117A, just by it's looks alone would have never been built!!!!
syscom3
Pacific Historian
There is no single way to blind the S400 short of an EMP. The S400 is very effective. And that's why the Russians have been asked not to sell it to Syria or Iran. Would it be 100% effective? Probably not. But if it makes the attrition rate on the attacker so severe that its unsustainable, it has accomplished its task.
If your aircraft isnt planning on going into hostile airspace, you can lessen up on on its avionics and increase the size of the bomb bay. And if it can stay outside the AA missile range, then so much the better. Just carry stand off weapons and let them do the job.
With the money being sunk into this program, we could have developed plenty of low cost drones to do the dangerous work. Its not that hard to make one that can handle far more G's than a manned plane, which will come in handy to avoid AA missiles. Especially if the drone is planned for one way missions.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The S-400 (an upgrade to the S-300) started to be developed in the early 1990s and deployed around 2000, so I guess it's outdated as well???
They are now developing the S500. And everyone knows that electronic systems get upgrades from time to time.
