take your pills boy, a short range AAM and helmet mounted sight isnt game changing, everyone got it already

Everybody but two of the premier air superiority fighters in the world. And yes, the combination is game changing. That is why air forces are placing so much emphasis on extending engagement ranges. Investment in technologies and systems like: agile beam AESA, Meteor, AN/ASQ-239, Pirate IRST, are intended to extend identification and lethality specifically to avoid the WVR arena.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/11/danish-government-likely-recommend-buying-f-35s/84249050/

The Danish Ministry of Defence can recommend Denmark purchase 27 F-35s at a price of 20 billion Danish Kroner, or about $3 billion as much as they like and I’m sure LM would be pleased to follow their recommendation. What does the Danish Ministry of Defence recommend is paid for all the extras needed to be able to actually use them?

Really depends on the structure of the procurement deal doesn’t it? If this is a direct commercial sale, then the 3 billion would cover the purchase of the aircraft with some extra engines, etc. I would expect to see a follow on contract for training, sustainment and support.

Walt Disney.

Now could we go back to Dave?

YES! People start threads for your hypothetical US V Russia war scenarios, it will draw off the kooks on both sides into a easily avoidable thread of trash and leave the aviation discussion threads open.

But anyway, this is not about each nation’s achievements, I simply find an idea of openly discussing a potential destruction of some Russian city as.. let’s say.. insensitive.. I don’t think that our American members would feel comfortable reading posts of a bunch of mentally-not-completely-stable Russians discussing how to wipe out Miami.. It’s good that people like Jessmo don’t have any decision rights, I hope it remains so..

This whole discussion is a mess of hypotheticals. Some resident “mentally not too stable” Russian posters are busy over on the Ukraine thread. Maybe we can merge topics.

Same pilot from aviationist article in a long piece, excerpt of which have been posted before (this was over a year ago, so the flight envelope has expanded since):
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/04/20/moderne-luftkamp-the-right-stuff-top-gun-eller-noe-helt-annet/

With the F-35, we get more of all this, compared to what we are used to today. To discover how much more there was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 manages, without using afterburner. The speed in ‘cruises’ is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. In F-16 I have to use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 “cruiser” both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime.
In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 fails

I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.

In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots.

That youtube video I posted on previous page about the Dutch pilots has some of the first footage of the F-35 in maneuvers:
https://fightersweep.com/5161/split-second-dutch-f-35/

Interesting video of the Dutch pilots training at Edwards with some low level flying (in Dutch):
https://fightersweep.com/5161/split-second-dutch-f-35/

The Norwegian PR guy over at F-16.net translated the article about two Norwegian pilots at Luke (Hopsalot posted the excerpt on previous page):

Together with the Americans we have operated our own airplanes for almost four months, and we are well on our way with the build up here at Luke. This job is unlike anything we have done previously.

The American air force has just recently begun to develop tactics and procedures for exploiting the characteristics and capacities of the airplane. A lot of the work is being done at Luke and within the squadron we are apart of. Norway and the RNoAF are participating from the start, and we have full access into the fundamental discussions. It means we can influence the development of the weapon system – we are in other words in the middle of the sweet spot.

The Norwegian officers at Luke are integrated with an American squadron. Therefore we learn daily from those who know best the F-35, and who already have years of knowledge and experience with 5th. generation airplanes. This will provide us with the best possible starting point when we begin to operate the F-35 in Norway from 2017. The F-35 today has over 50.000 flight hours, and the Norwegian airplanes have been over 150 hours in the air since we received them in December last year.

The F-16 has been a fantastic combat aircraft for the RNoAF for the last 35 years. The introduction of the F-35 will over night represent at least as big a leap in technology and capacity as we have had with the F-16 during its entire lifetime. This provides opportunities, but also challenges. If we are to exploit the capacity that the F-35 is, it will be necessary to change the way we operate, think and organize, something I think will be far more difficult than the introduction of the aircraft itself. It is not the F-35 that will have to adjust to Norwegian practices, it is we who will need to adjust to the F-35. The jets will act also as a force multiplier for the army and navy. The aircraft’s characteristics and ability to cooperate will give the Norwegian politicians more alternatives to act with respect to the use of military force in the future.

We who fly the F-35 daily, can establish the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range and, can carry a significantly higher payload and provides the pilot with a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16. But we are still in the development phase of the F-35 program. It is therefore natural that the aircraft has some basic problems, even if critics often use such as “proof” that the airplane will never be able to meet the specifications.

From an operational standpoint the challenges are about getting complex systems to work together. The unique thing about the F-35 program is that we have chosen to operate the aircraft before it is fully developed. On one side this means that some systems are still immature, on the other side we get to take part in a test process which is much more comprehensive than what has been done before. Here at Luke we experience that problems are corrected continuously, and that the aircraft’s maneuvering envelope is expanding. I therefore operate a completely different machine today than I did just two months ago.

When the final status is made up in 2025, I am therefore convinced that Norway and the RNoAF will have a weapons system which is even more capable than the government expected when they approved the acquisition in 2008.

You can lol as much as you want, if you are the genius that performce SEAD/DEAD missions with JDAM’s then you are already a dead horse. If the SAM launches, F-35 will certainly not know where its location is, launchers, command posts, radars, decoys, emitters, EW plattforms are all seperated plattforms, one can launch and you will not see it untill it is in WVR. The plane will get a RWR warning, but doubtful if it can react to it, the missile will be guided while the radar can switch off and another one keeps information up. That is very common since quite some time.

Yes, its that easy [said with heavy sarcasm]. We now have some 50 years of SAM systems in action to research. While IADS operating with surface to air missiles, AAA, in conjunction with surveillance and targeting radar certainly have caused attrition in offensive air operations, not once have they been decisive. The problem is twofold: 1. As the system becomes degraded with the loss of command and control centers, surveillance radars, the launchers and targeting radars become targets themselves. 2. In order to avoid becoming targets of SEAD/DEAD sorties, the search radars and launchers need to reposition often.
Both lead to a breakdown in the kill chain. Decentralize the IAD system and it becomes difficult to control and coordinate. Centralized IADS are susceptible to decapitation. One command and control is lost, the individual launchers and targeting/tracking systems have to weigh risk of emitting for protracted periods vs brief exposure.

Molnya, how is that search for any evidence of the six AH-64 shot down over Serbia going? I do believe we’ve gained another JSR level emeritus poster.