The USAF’s F-35A Just Saw Combat for the First Time

Popular Mechanics ^ | 05/01/2019 | Kyle Mizokami

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yep cannot be beat for stealth, speed, maneuverability and avionics

[NELSON111]

Yeah. Not that hard to understand.

[Tallguy]

Using stealth aircraft as interceptors is probably not a good idea. Their strength in A2A is the Beyond-Visual-Range shot. You’re never going to get permission to do that short of a declared war. Also, taking an F-22 into an ACM environment with a SU-35 is rolling the dice. This is why the USAF is going to buy the F-15X. They don’t need stealth for “showing the flag” and warning off Russian planes sniffing around our airspace.

Get enough new F-15 airframes and you can group your F-22’s for offensive action and focus their training instead of having them chase away Russian Tu-95 Bears.

[Doogle]

We did it back in 69....camera on nose of bomb followed return signal of target

[ProtectOurFreedom]

"...radar reflectors bolted on atop and below their fuselages."

That sent me looking and I found a Business Insider article from May 2017 that said this this:

The notches, which are called Luneberg reflectors, serve a purpose. The reflectors increase the F-35's radar signature several hundred times over so that a plane that would normally be nearly impossible for civilian air traffic controllers to spot would give off a big, safe blip.

In addition to helping friendly nations spot the stealth jet, the markers on the F-35 may serve another, more military purpose.

In October 2015, days after Russia began its air campaign to bolster Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces, national security writer Dave Majumdar wrote in War Is Boring that Russia may have been using its anti-air systems to gather intelligence on the F-22, another US stealth aircraft operating in Syria.

"While it appears the Russians are following their standard doctrine with regard to the deployment/employment of their ground and air assets, it's certainly not out of the question to use their newer air-to-air assets as a form of 'operational testing' in the real-world environment," one senior US Air Force intelligence official told Majumdar at the time. "In a sense, we're doing the same thing with our F-22s."

Russia operates the same ground and air assets in Syria as it does in eastern Europe, near Estonia, where the F-35 recently appeared wearing the radar reflectors.

With the reflectors throwing off and exaggerating the radar cross section of the F-35, the US could be preventing Russia from testing its defenses against the US's newest weapons system.

Interesting..."de-stealth" the plane to prevent the Russkies from reverse-engineering our stealth capabilities and features. Why would we have to do that if President Trump is a Russian Agent? Wouldn't he have given them the designs already? (/s in case you didn't get it)

It's amazing that those tiny protuberances increase the radar visibility HUNDREDS of times.

Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed" tells of the original development of stealth on the A-12, the SR-71 and the F-117. They learned that the smallest hiccup on the surface (like a single rivet protruding too high) of the aircraft was a huge radar reflector.

[Bulwyf]

I see what you are saying, and to some extent I can agree.

I still would compare more to a live fire exercise in theatre. No one is shooting back nor has the ability to. You’re right though, it’s great to have that capability.

[nuconvert]

F-35’s will be in airshows for the first time this year

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGLaLc-fhUU

[trebb]

You trying to say President Trump is like Clinton and Obama?

Perhaps my tagline relates to you....

[schurmann]

“That refueling style seems difficult to pull off. The old basket style makes more sense to me...” [Vision, post 23]

The probe-and-drogue system (flexible hose, basket on end, probe from receiver goes into it) was invented by the British. American aeronautical engineers developed it further, but were unable to increase the fuel-flow rate sufficiently to meet requirements for bombers.

In the late 1940s, Boeing designers and engineers invented the flying-boom system in the image in Post 6: fuel flow rate is much higher.

Probe-and-drogue aerial refueling systems were retained by USN and the special ops: works easier with helicopters.

Air Force KC-135s can have drogue/hose kits attached to their flying boom when required. The KC-10 has both flying-boom and probe/drogue systems installed.

Achieving and maintaining contact between tanker & receiver is not terribly difficult for trained receiver pilots. B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, RC-135s, C-17s, and other large receiver aircraft do it on training sorties every day.

It’s even easier for the pilots of smaller, more-maneuverable aircraft like fighters. Don’t let the fighter pilots tell you how difficult that part of their job is.

[thoughtomator]

Don’t project your mental problems onto me.

[NorthMountain]

Different guidance package, same concept.

[Vision]

It seems incredible that two planes moving fast and bouncing around can achieve and maintain a small, ridged connection. The probe-and-drogue seems more forgiving and realistic. Thanks much for the information.

[Chode]

making it nothing more than a dog and pony show...

[Taxman]

I’m of a mixed mind about using the F-35 to drop a smart bomb on a known terrorist cave. Why risk the loss of our most secret airplane?

There are plenty of airplanes in the inventory that would be a better vehicle, I think.

HST, the planners must have had their reasons.

[Ozark Tom]

Imagine a shuttlecock on the end of a fuel hose deployed from a tanker aircraft. Traditionally, smaller aircraft had a forward mounted refuel probe, which the feathers guided to a valve in the center of the drogue.

[Doogle]

We used to get the fins really going with just a flashlight...

[PIF]

feathers?
Goose, duck, eagle, crow, chicken?

[schurmann]

“It seems incredible that two planes moving fast and bouncing around can achieve and maintain a small, ridged connection. The probe-and-drogue seems more forgiving and realistic...” [Vision, post 53]

Haven’t seen numbers lately, but neither system nor procedure is entirely free of risk.

Most refuelings between large aircraft take place above 20,000 ft, where turbulence is typically less. Refueling at night, or in weather, can get exciting.

Some ten years back, a vid popped up online, of an MH-53 attempting to refuel behind a KC-130 (equipped with probe/drogue). Receiver pilot had difficulty steadying down, and as time wound onward, he got more skittish & nervous. Oscillations ultimately grew so large & violent that a loop of the hose was tossed up into the rotor disk, where the spinning blades severed it.

Last mid-air between a tanker & a big bomber (that I know of) occurred in spring 1992; a B-1 bumped into a KC-135. Turned out the crews were deliberately flying inside safe-separation distance to afford the tanker’s nav a last-minute position update from the B-1’s dual INS. Minor damage, fortunately; no injuries.

Air refueling can be very taxing on pilot stamina. The less time the aircraft remain in contact, the less overall risk. Since probe/drogue fuel transfer rates are so much slower than flying-boom, tanker & receiver would have to stay close, longer, to transfer the same amount of fuel.

[schurmann]

“...incredible that two planes moving fast and bouncing around can achieve and maintain a small, ridged connection...” [Vision, post 53]

The flying boom is not rigid; gimbal fittings where it attaches to the tanker, and where the boom’s lower end fits into the receiver’s receptacle, allow motion left, right, up, and down. The lower segment of the boom telescopes inside the upper, outer segment; movement permitted is about 10 ft.

What actually transpires:

The receiver approaches the tanker until “contact” position is reached, and holds there.

The boom operator aboard the tanker then uses the winglets (two tilted fins on either side in the illustration) to “fly” the boom into place; then he extends the lower segment to make contact. Only then can fuel be transferred. The pilots hold the machines straight & level while the boom operator does the rest.

Panels of colored lamps on the undersurface tell the receiver which way to move: up, down, left/right, in or out. They are controlled by the boom operator, so refueling can take place even in the absence of radio contact.

If the receiver exceeds a limit in any direction, the lower end of the boom automatically breaks contact, after which the boom operator lifts it clear of the receiver.

Crews frequently practice emergency separation procedures. The receiver aircraft reduces power; in the B-52, the landing gear is also lowered. The most important aspect of training is to overcome a pilot’s reflexes - to descend, a pilot learns early to push forward on the control column. With the tanker & receiver in contact position, this would cause a mid-air collision, because the receiver would pivot about its center of gravity, causing the nose to aim down and the to rise.