F-15E Strike Eagles unable to shoot down the F-35s in 8 dogfights during simulated deployment

[Just reading posts]

The U.S. Air Force F-35A fleet continues to work to declare the Lightning II IOC (initial operational capability) scheduled in the August – December timeframe. Among the activities carried out in the past weeks, a simulated deployment provided important feedbacks about the goal of demonstrating the F-35’s ability to “penetrate areas with developed air defenses, provide close air support to ground troops and be readily deployable to conflict theaters.” Seven F-35s deployed from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, to carry out a series of operational tests which involved local-based 4th Generation F-15E Strike Eagles belonging to the 366th Fighter Wing.

In a Q&A posted on the USAF website, Col. David Chace, the F-35 systems management office chief and lead for F-35 operational requirements at ACC, provided some insights about the activities carried out during the second simulated deployment to Mountain Home (the first was in February this year): “The F-35 recently deployed from Hill to Mountain Home where crews, maintenance and support personnel conducted a number of missions. During that deployment, crews attained a 100 percent sortie generation rate with 88 of 88 planned sorties and a 94 percent hit rate with 15 of 16 bombs on target These numbers provide a positive indication of where we are when it comes to stability and component performance.”

“Feedback from the events at Mountain Home will feed into the overall evaluation of F-35 capabilities. The second evaluation will take place in the operational test environment with F-35 mission sets the Air Force intends to execute after IOC. All reports will be delivered in July and feed into the overall F-35 capabilities report. The ultimate goal is to provide a needed capability to the warfighter to execute the mission. It is not calendar-based or event-based.” “The feedback from unit operators in place today has been very positive for the F-35, not just concerning performance but the ability the aircraft has with other platforms. In particular at Hill, integration with the F-15E (Strike Eagle) has gone very well. We’ve also been demonstrating the ability to put bombs on target. All of that information will be provided to us in the formal IOC readiness assessments.”

The following interesting chart accompanies the Q&A. It shows some stats about the deployment.



The fourth column shows something interesting: during the exercise, the F-35s were challenged by some F-15Es and suffered no losses. Even though the graphic does not say whether the F-35s did shoot back at the F-15Es some analysts (noticing also the “pew pew pew” in the chart….) have suggested the JSFs achieved stunning 8:0 kill rate against the Strike Eagle.

However, the “zero losses” may simply mean that the F-35s were able to complete their assigned strikes without being shot down by the aggressors of the Red Air: considered that the F-15Es were probably equipped with the AN/APG-82 AESA radar and the Sniper ATP (Advanced Targeting Pod), the fact that the Strike Eagles performing DCA (Defensive Counter Air) were not able to “find” and/or “engage” the almost-IOC F-35s can be considered a huge achievement for the pricey, troubled 5th generation multirole combat plane.

Complete articled at: https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/

[hobbit709]

1. Of course in simulations is the only way the F-35 performs to specs.

[Just reading posts]

2. Well, it's not as if it's seen any action yet, so how could it be otherwise?

[hobbit709]

3. It doesn't even fly according to specs.

[Else You Are Mad]

5. Exactly. nt.

[brush]

6. Nailed it.

What a waste of money. How many millions does each plane cost?

It's supposed to replace the F-15 and the A-10, planes with completely different missions.

Not possible.

[Else You Are Mad]

7. I bet the MIC lobbyists...

...gave a good presentation to key Congressional leaders over an expensive dinner to get the contract approved...

[Just reading posts]

10. $100 million per plane, roughly.

[Else You Are Mad]

4. Most of those in the military...

Do not want the F-35s that Congress forced upon them. It is an inferior jet compared to what the military currently uses.

But, the military industrial complex needs to keep making billions in profits, so this sub-par jet has been shoved upon the military against their objections.

[Just reading posts]

8. Well, as per Wikipedia it goes into full productin in a couple of years.

And will be in service through 2070. Give or take a decade.

[Else You Are Mad]

11. Well, yes, but...

There are still WW2 era planes and designs were used well into the 80s and through to today. But planned longevity does not equate to being a sufficient or even adequate jet. It is sub-par compared to the current fighter jets that our military currently uses.

[Just reading posts]

13. Not saying that deployment equals a good weapons platform, just pointing out that we appear to be

stuck with it, for good or ill.

[Else You Are Mad]

14. Ahh ok.

Sorry about that, I read your comment wrong. I am going to go on the side of ill for this one.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Just curious... did you fly fighters, Close Air Support, or some other military aircraft?

Last edited Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's are two very interesting articles about the capabilities of the F-35.

https://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/

[Ford_Prefect]

9. As if!

They are still at least 2 years away from actual combat function. The bomb runs were with simulated weapons rather than actual ordinance loads which would have erased their stealth ability. The A-10 is still far better at close in support, carries twice the load, and can stay on site far longer. Old School Low speed ground radar would have seen the F-35s en-route and alerted responding aircraft and anti-aircraft sites. One thing the stealth planes cannot avoid better is old school Flack and ground fire. You need a very tough plane to ride that out, not the f-35.

They are still peddling a pig that barely flies in a straight line in clear weather. Don't try flying one in the rain.

[Else You Are Mad]

12. Bingo.

But, don't let those facts get in the way of the military industrial complex making profits.

[Ford_Prefect]

16. The old joke goes that a Cub Scout with a sling shot could knock one down.

The truth is disturbingly close to that. I suspect an A-4 or an F-5 with a good pilot could do it, certainly any of the more recent MiG or Sukhoi offerings can, to say nothing of Chinese eqivalents.

I would not want to be in one opposite an F-4 or an A-10 on a rainy day.

Their entire superiority rests on stand-off weapons it cannot yet control sufficiently or reliably. Direct confrontation is certainly out of the question since the plane cannot get out of its own way. If it has to deal with more than 2 adversaries at the same time it is gonna be toast.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. why, exactly, did they 'retire' the warthog?

please refresh my memory

love that baby, but here are my ''favorites'':





black widow!


night lighting!


rockets red glare!!!

[Ford_Prefect]

19. It's the old story that the Air Force feels it shouldn't be in the close ground support role.

They go through this dance every other decade or so. In this case "Some One" thought the planes were outdated and should be got rid of...until the Army realized ISIS, Yemen and other recent, relatively low tech war scenarios required exactly this kind of plane. The Air Force seems to be more concerned, as it was during the cold war, with high tech, high speed aircraft.

Regardless of your views about warfare as such the cost is radically much less expensive per hour to fly the A-10, or a plane like it, to do that job than an F-35 or F-15, or helicopters, to do the same work. It is a role that of necessity existed in every conflict we have engaged in since WWI. No matter how many machines are involved in so-called modern warfare at some point you still must have troops on the ground and they will need close support from the air to encounter and help remove opposing forces, their armor and artillery in the field.

It also now seems that A-10s may be an attractive naval patrol aircraft for deterrence in places like the South China Sea. The Philippine Government recently made an attractive offer for all the soon-to-be-retired A-10 aircraft, until Congress decreed they may not be sold, presumably to help defend against Chinese encroachment in the Spratly Islands area.

I have no doubt that AFRICOM may need them soon as well. Drones cannot fly close support or carry the same loads for the same duration.

[Oneironaut]

17. None of the F35s were shot down. They asphyxiated their pilots and crashed before it could happen.

Mission successful!