​​​​​​Well that’s the idea of this thread that already been around for so many years. It’s only ‘just about news’ thread. There are many other threads in this forum to talk and debate oppinion. However most of people that came to this thread is only looking for news.

This not flawed approach if it can make this thread only for News..

If you want the thread to only be about news that is fine but at least everyone could agree we don’t want to come here and read old news. This thread has 350 pages… So almost certainly most old news articles have already been posted. If you want to go back and read old stuff go ahead but let’s keep the thread then to current news. Only new stories that haven’t been posted here yet makes sense.

Then put rebuttal from other sources to contradict the news. Don’t shoot the messenger.

That is a flawed approach. All it takes is the person posting to actually read the article and note it was republished from old material, it isn’t hard…

I assume both of you realise that skywave propogation only works for certain periods of a day… It is not a 24/7 radar and therefore has significant tactical limitations.

well, “poorly written” as he may have misheard 36 for 3 to 6, what did he hear to get 24 and then 20? 2 to 4 and 2 to 0? You speak about “biases”, but don’t question your own bias, obviously.

Time to use some common sense TooCool. Do you honestly think the US, which has literally thousands of fighter aircraft that can have their engines changed in less than 6 hours, would accept a fighter jet that required 36 hours to change the engine?

or do you imply that defense aerospace is a site dedicated to bashing the F-35 (among probably others?

Take any article from Defence Aerospace on the F-35 and you can see the inaccuracies and false statements. Don’t worry though, he is similar although less aggressive with the Eurofighter. Anything that is a threat to the Rafale gets the treatment.

As an example, the following was released the same day,

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/198815/f_35s-now-flying-in-arabian-gulf.html

ARABIAN GULF — A U.S. Marine Corps F-35B from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), takes off from the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2), on Jan. 3, 2019.

The Essex is the flagship for the Essex Amphibious Ready Group and, with the embarked 13th MEU, is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations in support of naval operations to ensure maritime stability and security in the Central Region, connecting the Mediterranean and the Pacific through the western Indian Ocean and three strategic choke points.

[I](EDITOR’S NOTE: Since the first announcement of the F-35’s first combat mission in Afghanistan on Sept. 28, the US Navy has gone strangely silent on the F-35 aircraft based aboard the amphibious ship USS Essex.
From time to time, news items are posted indirectly providing some information. In the item above, for example, reveals that the ship is now operating in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf, whereas it was previously steaming in the Arabian Sea.
No further news on what its F-35Bs are doing, however, but there have been no reports of any combat missions since Sept. 28 – over three months ago.)

[/I]

The top is the USMC press release, the lower is Briganti’s words. He clearly suggests that because no additional news on F-35 strikes on Afghanistan have been released that something must be wrong. Is that an accurate suggestion, is it even warranted?

In case you wanted to know, the US does not release every single combat mission flown over Afghanistan.

That’s correct. The details are classified, but the public record shows that both our U.S. Marine Corps flying the F-35B and our Israeli Air Force teammates flying the F-35A have reported using their F-35s in combat with positive results.

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20181228_Washington_Examiner_QnA_with_PEO.pdf

The absence of more F-35 combat missions being publicly announced (as indicated above because they are classified…), after the first was done, is certainly not evidence of no further missions being conducted and Briganti’s suggestion is simply bad and sensationalist journalism and no better than National Interest or War is Boring.

But my questions is still the same: Has any other platform demonstrated simultaneous A2A kills?

It has been done before operationally with the AIM-120,

While on a sortie over Bosnia on March 26th, 1999 during Operation Allied Force, Captain Jeffrey C. J. Hwang identified two aircraft in violation of Bosnian airspace and NATO peace-keeping directives. After spotting the aircraft on radar, Hwang and his wingman, Captain J. “Boomer” McMurray, turned deeper into Bosnian airspace and assumed a position of disadvantage both to determine the intent of the other pilots and to avoid a confrontation along the border. But the Serbian aircraft continued to close in on the F-15Cs and NATO forces on the ground. The F-15 pilot’s training then took over as he maneuvered to take a shot at the rapidly approaching aircraft. Both Hwang (flying a Lakenheath AFB (LN) F-15C S/N 86-0156) and his wingman (flying a Lakenheath AFB (LN) F-15C S/N 84-0014) fired AIM-120 missiles. Later investigation revealed only Hwang’s two missiles had reached and destroyed the targets – two MiG-29s from the Serbian Air Force (one piloted by Major Slobodon Peric, who ejected safely; the other piloted by Captain First Class Radosavljevic, who was killed in action as a result).

Captain Hwang became the first pilot in combat aviation history to single-handedly and simultaneously destroy two enemy aircraft during a single intercept using radar-guided missiles. In recognition to his achievement, he was awarded the Mackay Trophy on September 14th, 2001 in Washington, D.C. The aircraft flying as Hwang’s wingman during the shootdown (84-0014) later scored a kill during Operation Desert Storm. On March 20th, 1991, Captain John T. Donesky was credited with one Iraqi SU-22 kill with the same F-15 involved in this recording.

http://spotter-ssol.blogspot.com/2012/06/kosovo-mig-kills.html

Agree Scooter, there is only a single source of questionable reliability and we won’t know more until, as BIO keeps saying, the budget proposals are actually released a few months from now.

So, what kind of striking power we can expect from F-35B based on Izumo ?.

Japan has already expressed interest in the JSM so I’d expect that to be the ASCM of choice. I’d also expect SDB II for ground targets as well as the Japanese modified Meteor being developed with the UK. The jet will likely have a combat radius of approximately 500nm with a standard USMC take off profile but I’d expect the Japanese to fit the Izumo with a ski jump to reduce the take off distance. Be interesting to see if they adopt the SRVL to improve the bring back.