Israel becomes first country in the world to use F-35 stealth fighter in combat [tr]

Reuters ^ | May 22, 2018 | Staff

[C19fan]

Israel has become the first country to have used the U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighter jets in combat, the Israeli air force chief said on Tuesday.

Major-General Amikam Norkin said Israel is operating the fighter planes 'all over the Middle East' and have used them in attacks on two different fronts - believed to be Syria and Lebanon.

Maj. Gen. Norkin claimed that the planes had come under fire in Syria, but had been able to avoid '100 ground to air missiles'.

[SJSAMPLE]

Just like the F-16 and F-15. Israel has long been our fighter testing agency.

[bmwcyle]

Many think the F-35 is not a good aircraft. You have been lied to again. Image a fighter when you put the helmet on and can see 180 degrees without the obstruction of the aircraft. What is your advantage?

[huldah1776]

oohrah, IAF! Can’t wait to see some video.

[blackdog]

Did you mean 360 degrees?

[bmwcyle]

If you look to the other side.

[bmwcyle]

The limit is the pilot. We don’t use owls.

[DiogenesLamp]

Many think the F-35 is not a good aircraft. You have been lied to again. Image a fighter when you put the helmet on and can see 180 degrees without the obstruction of the aircraft. What is your advantage?

I would think that technology could be added to any airframe. I'm expecting something more than that from the F-35. It had better be bringing a quantitative edge that is unique to it.

[publius911]

Just like the F-16 and F-15. Israel has long been our fighter testing agency.

Those guys are a hoot.
I bet they stuck cannons on the front of that thing, too!

[taildragger]

"You have been lied to again"

Yes it is probably better than we realize. However I look at all the underside undulations in the fuselage and wing area and how that may effect it as a bit of a lifting body, and in formation flights with WWII aircraft and Ariel Refueling it is at High Alpha spewing wing tip vortices and all I can come back to is man, it needs more wing area...

[Phlyer]

It had better be bringing a quantitative edge that is unique to it.

Is surviving hundreds of SAMs quantitative enough?

The F-35 has three major advantages over previous fighters. It has low signature, which is pass-fail in a high-threat environment (those with normal signatures just die). And, as has been done repeatedly since 1945, the Russians (Soviets) are equipping proxy nations with very high-tech weaponry.

It also has "Sensor Fusion", and while that can be retrofitted, avionics are the single biggest cost in any modern fighter - much more so than the cost of the airframe. Sensor fusion is incredibly effective - perhaps more so even than reducing observables. However, if you did retrofit the avionics, an F-15/16/18 would cost essentially as much as an F-35. Both of those capabilities (low observables, sensor fusion) are derived from those developed for the F-22, which also has the breakthrough technology of supercruise.

And the F-35 has incredible range (for a fighter). An F-35 on internal fuel can fly farther than an F-15/16 with external tanks. Of great importance, that allows the F-35 to fly missions to places where the threat would preclude aerial refueling and your options would be a heavy bomber (which most nations don't have) or IRBMs (which look like a nuclear attack and could cause more problems than they solve).

The only non-retrofittable factor is the low signature, and perhaps it would have been better to give up on the range or use less-capable avionics to keep the cost down. There were lots of trade studies on that, and the militaries of many nations weighed in on it. They made their decision, and the only counter arguments are in favor of aircraft that don't exist (e.g. an F-15 with notional F-35 avionics, and 'pixie dust' to reduce the signature.)

[outofsalt]

An Air Force General used to say the A-10 was designed around the nose cannon. The F-15 around the radar and the F-16 around the ejection seat.

[bmwcyle]

If it did not work, Israel would not buy it.

[publius911]

Hey, what does a Disney character have to do with this, anyway?

[DiogenesLamp]

Is surviving hundreds of SAMs quantitative enough?

It is if it is a characteristic that is linked to this specific aircraft. I'm thinking some of this is also the manner in which the Israelis have employed it, and other aircraft might have been able to do as much if used to their ultimate capability. The question is, was this the consequence of the F-35's specific characteristics?

The F-35 has three major advantages over previous fighters. It has low signature, which is pass-fail in a high-threat environment (those with normal signatures just die). And, as has been done repeatedly since 1945, the Russians (Soviets) are equipping proxy nations with very high-tech weaponry.

It also has "Sensor Fusion", and while that can be retrofitted, avionics are the single biggest cost in any modern fighter - much more so than the cost of the airframe. Sensor fusion is incredibly effective - perhaps more so even than reducing observables. However, if you did retrofit the avionics, an F-15/16/18 would cost essentially as much as an F-35. Both of those capabilities (low observables, sensor fusion) are derived from those developed for the F-22, which also has the breakthrough technology of supercruise.

And the F-35 has incredible range (for a fighter). An F-35 on internal fuel can fly farther than an F-15/16 with external tanks. Of great importance, that allows the F-35 to fly missions to places where the threat would preclude aerial refueling and your options would be a heavy bomber (which most nations don't have) or IRBMs (which look like a nuclear attack and could cause more problems than they solve).

The only non-retrofittable factor is the low signature, and perhaps it would have been better to give up on the range or use less-capable avionics to keep the cost down. There were lots of trade studies on that, and the militaries of many nations weighed in on it. They made their decision, and the only counter arguments are in favor of aircraft that don't exist (e.g. an F-15 with notional F-35 avionics, and 'pixie dust' to reduce the signature.)

Now this is more like it! But is it worth the extra cost?

My vision of future aerial combat employees unmanned fighters. Better range, better payload, smaller signature, can employ moves that would kill a human, cheaper, faster and more deadly.

I think manned fighters are going the way of caissons.

[Delta 21]

Im sure they didnt buy them just to look pretty on the tarmac.

GO GET ‘EM !

[PreciousLiberty]

“I would think that technology could be added to any airframe.”

Possibly, although integrating all-aspect imaging IR sensors isn’t trivial. It’s much harder with a stealthy platform.

“I’m expecting something more than that from the F-35. It had better be bringing a quantitative edge that is unique to it.”

It’s more than a quantitative edge, it’s a qualitative edge. The combination of reduced pilot workload, better situational awareness, advanced sensor fusion, advanced networking, world-leading radar, VR helmet, and stealth combined together far outmatch any other strike fighter today.

Stealth alone is a game changing capability - and the US and it’s allies are the only ones with operational stealth aircraft.

[Phlyer]

Better range, better payload, smaller signature, can employ moves that would kill a human, cheaper, faster and more deadly.

See "Gottlos" by Colin Kapp. Unmanned aircraft will not work in a high-threat jamming environment. Even relatively unmaneuverable (hence, low bandwidth required for maneuver commands) UAVs like Predator and Global Hawk are absolutely saturating satellite links, and it will just get worse.

I think of it this way: If our adversaries had the potential for a lagging, bandwidth-limited control loop for UAVs, or manned fighters, which would I prefer to go up against? I'd rather fight the UAVs - no contest. And if you think that AIs/Autonomy will provide an unmanned aircraft with the same capability as a human-in-the-loop then you haven't tried to work the problem. Perhaps "in the year 2525, if mankind still survives."

There is one caveat to that: Line of sight from an aerial platform. In essence, an air-to-air missile is a line-of-sight UAV, and they work well. If your notional "unmanned fighter" is within line of sight of a 'mother ship' (which becomes, of course, a priority target), then future narrow-beam control links (e.g. lasers) might - repeat, might be able to beat jamming. Probably not. After all, you can jam a laser beam with a cloud of smoke, but perhaps something could be invented.

Of course, the mother ship wouldn't last long . . .

[SJSAMPLE]

The F-35A has a 25mm cannon built-in. Those are the models that Israel bought, but I don’t know if the cannons were installed.

[taildragger]

Lol! between an aging keyboard with worn off letters and an aging typist, my spealing hasn't been the best lately :-) lol!.