It's obviously not as ideal as using F-22, F-35A, or even F-35C, but I don't really see the issue with it. You're never going to have a perfect exercise where the enemy aircraft are simulated perfectly, and it's entirely possible that the exercise commanders decided it was more important for squadrons with other 5th gen aircraft like the F-35A to serve in BLUFOR and get some experience against other stealth aircraft. Not to mention this is the first time Red Flag has used 5th generation aircraft in the aggressor role (based on the article I read), so it's entirely possible the REDFOR composition improves in the coming years. Plus it gives the REDFOR USMC F-35B crews experience against more capable aircraft was well.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I think the main complaint is that “J-35” can’t take down a slow unmaneuverable refueler plane at 100KM when we have confirmed real world combat record of PL-15 doing double that range against top of the line 4.5th gen fighter.
Might also be peak power consumption, not mean which is a more realistic metric.
The media is pretty notorious for poor documentation of military exercises and skirmishes so I don't put too much stock into a lot of what was said. It's a big exercise with over 150 aircraft and the UK brought 12 Typhoons and and air tanker, so it's no surprise a UK media outlet focused on a notable engagement involving the RAF compliment. We can't really draw too much about the exercise outside of a few basic pieces of information given in the article. In terms of importance of simulating different aspects of aircraft, I think it's pretty likely the people in charge of Red Flag decided that simulating the J-35's stealth is the most important aspect. It would obviously be better and more realistic if it was supersonic, but giving air crews and pilots any experience against multiple 5th generation aircraft on REDFOR is still valuable experience. If given the choice between simulating the J-35 with an imperfect non supersonic stealth aircraft and not simulating it at all because you don't have access to an asset which ticks all of the J-35 boxes, you'll obviously settle for the imperfect aircraft.
The most plausible explanation I can think of is that this was just a "shock training" exercise, simply to let the British, especially the tanker aircraft, experience what it means to be targeted by well trained fifth-gen fighters. The distance was scaled down proportionally to reduce flight and engagement time; otherwise, a 50-mile warning line would be a joke.
Have you considered the possibility that it is just choreographed so that BlueFor always comes out on top, kinda like how pre-reform PLA exercises went? I mean their annual flight hours is already close to 90s PLAAF level and with Mango as their commander in chief, who knows what else is possible…
We also don't have access to the debrief or many of the actual events. We know the tanker has a 50km bubble (should almost certainly be bigger), they had some form of air cover, and that an F-35 got within that bubble but was shot down. Beyond that there's no real information and we don't know what the OPFOR F-35 was doing beforehand or its loadout. Could be dumb planning where it wasn't allowed to use long range missiles, or it could have easily used up its long range missile already and was ordered to intercept with Aim-9X. I said it already but the media are really bad at documenting military exercises and this is just 1 engagement that took place during an 11 day exercise. I would be wary of drawing large conclusions from the article.
The only conclusion I'm taking from the article is that based on the tanker buffer/danger zone, NATO haven't properly adjusted training to the actual threat posed by Chinese missiles, particularly as it relates to strategic assets. I'd be pretty interested to read an interview with the RAAF compliment and their use of the E7.
82KW is maximum electricity generated by EPS (Electrical Power System), it is shared by all electrical/electronical systems.
According to this LM paper, the initial EPS during development was already 80KW. Unless the operational F-35 reduced power demand there isn't much increase. Or put in another way the initial F-35 has no room left, not even 2KW.
Sorry, that might have been my mistake. I believe the Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) improvement will allow the aircraft to use more electrical power without stressing the engine (if I understand it correctly).
Seems like the most sensible thing this administration has done. Restricting stock buyback and dividend, force MIC to reinvest in factories, and also admitting themselves that the administration is a terrible customer, constantly asking for changes, and moving the goal post. Didn't expect Pete Kegseth have a sober sensible moment, must be a post-hangover clarity or something.
They must have taken his drinks away after the DOD gave CBP an energy based weapon for border guarding activities, and then have the CBP use said weapon against a balloon without notifying the FAA (and potentially NORTHCOM and the Pentagon if journalist Michael Weiss is to be believed), which caused the whole no fly zone curfuffle this morning.