SharpeXB Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 "The makers of one of the most expensive weapons programs in history went on the defensive today, saying a recent report on the F-35 fighter jet’s failures in old-school dogfighting against a decades-old, much cheaper legacy fighter “does not tell the whole story.” http://abcnews.go.com/US/military-dont-worry-expensive-fighter-jet-dogfight/story?id=32152912
6./ZG26_Emil Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I know it's kind boggling but then I suppose it will be fine for bombing third world countries which seems to be all we need right now 3
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) It's just the media with its "Pentagon's $1 trillion boondoggle" agenda. It wasn't a straight up and up fight of a warfighting F-35 with a F-16. It was a testing seeing how the control laws (of a test mule (AF-02 which is limited to 7G compared to 9G of F-35A and 7.5G of B & C) loaded with instrumentation and what not) would respond at high AoA, with the F-16 providing a dynamic backdrop. And one of the things found out if you read the report is that the anti-stall logic kicks in too early, especially in what they called the blended region. http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/ Edited July 8, 2015 by RoflSeal
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw F-35 in dogfight is hopeless... F-35 is good with nothing it is a turkey... Aeroplane built from dumb idea! Edited July 8, 2015 by tomcatqw
Y-29.Silky Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I know it's kind boggling but then I suppose it will be fine for bombing third world countries which seems to be all we need right now They are actually trying to replace the A-10 with this piece of shit. It's all money driven. Just imagine if they put all the money on this broken aircraft into something that's already in the air - the F-22.
SOLIDKREATE Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Bureaucracy at it's finest! MURICA! The A-10 should be improved to the A-10D 'Super Thunderbolt', not scrapped. Give it a 37mm gun this time with HMCIS as found in the F-16 and stealth coating. Then make a Carrier based version and Call it the 'Seabolt'. The F-35 will be our country's testament to FAILURE. Edited July 8, 2015 by 6./ZG1=SPEKTRE76
Lusekofte Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 To be fair, the test was withing parameters set. It was not tested at its fupotential. This is just media hysteria
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) They are actually trying to replace the A-10 with this piece of shit. It's all money driven. Just imagine if they put all the money on this broken aircraft into something that's already in the air - the F-22. The Air Force has never like the A-10 (well, more accurately ever since OIF really) Thing is though the F-35 is going to replace the F-16, F/A-18 and AV-8B. The A-10 will need replacing since the air frames are getting old (soon I bet we will reach the point where they are falling apart like the AV-8B of the Marines). There is no program to replace the A-10 probably since most CAS missions are done by F-16 nowadays in Afghanistan. In a war vs a decent military power with modern SAMs and MANPADS, slow and low flying A-10 is dead meat IMO. I love the A-10, especially in DCS, but in a modern SAM enviroment, it's days are over. F-22 is not designed to be a Multi-role jet like the F-35. F-22 was designed to replace the F-15C in air-superiority role but production was canned at like 189. And anyway, unit cost of the F-35 is cheaper by like $30-40m depending on the model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw F-35 in dogfight is hopeless... F-35 is good with nothing it is a turkey... Aeroplane built from dumb idea! Yes, because Pierre Sprey, the guy who says the F-15 is loaded with a bunch of junk that is useless in combat, is credible. That bunch of junk has given a kill ratio of 104:0. The guy just speaks nonsense and still lives in the 70s where you needed to send a whole air wing to take out a bridge. Edited July 9, 2015 by RoflSeal
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 The A-10 will need replacing since the air frames are getting old (soon I bet we will reach the point where they are falling apart ...)Most sturdy plane is falling apart ? What a nonsense. If plane mileage is over, then new unit is built with newer technologies available or is overhauled. Your way of thinking most aeroplanes should fell from the sky like leaves. Yes, because Pierre Sprey, the guy who says the F-15 is loaded with a bunch of junk that is useless in combat, is credible...The guy just speaks nonsense and still lives in the 70s where you needed to send a whole air wing to take out a bridge. Man who amongst others builded A10 and F 16 , with all his experience and knowledge does not know what is talking about??? And no respect to works of others with quite achievements and for older people is shocking... ...That bunch of junk has given a kill ratio of 104:0If you are so smart and knows most answer to everything - how could you forget about that - machines are not most important...in combat? You should know that most important is the man - pilot with excellent training who doesn't make stupid decision wins. What would you choose? better plane and bad pilot or excellent pilot with not so good plane? Beside those kill ratio means nothing, how it would be if they have to fight against russian pilots against theirs fighters. Perhaps they would win but not to nil.
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Most sturdy plane is falling apart ? What a nonsense. If plane mileage is over, then new unit is built with newer technologies available or is overhauled. Your way of thinking most aeroplanes should fell from the sky like leaves. Man who amongst others builded A10 and F 16 , with all his experience and knowledge does not know what is talking about??? And no respect to works of others with quite achievements and for older people is shocking... If you are so smart and knows most answer to everything - how could you forget about that - machines are not most important...in combat? You should know that most important is the man - pilot with excellent training who doesn't make stupid decision wins. What would you choose? better plane and bad pilot or excellent pilot with not so good plane? Beside those kill ratio means nothing, how it would be if they have to fight against russian pilots against theirs fighters. Perhaps they would win but not to nil. Well the A-10 is getting their wings replaced. And you can't simply build a new one, factories are closed and Fairchild is defunct, unless you want to spend a lot of extra money (which nobody is willing to do). And as I have said, is the A-10 appropriate in a modern SAM environment? He didn't build the F-16. He was part of the Fighter Mafia that put down proposals for the Lightweight fighter program. General Dynamics designed and built the thing. Thankfully the rest of the Fighter mafia weren't stupid, and ignore Sprey's idea that the F-16 should have no radar and no ability to carry bombs. The F-16A that the USAF got had a radar and a very good bomb guidance system for the time. The F-16 was a multirole fighter from the very beginning. In Sprey's mind, the moment you go multi-role. You have a turkey. The F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, Grippen, Rafale are not turkeys by any regard. Pierre Sprey is stuck in the 70s as I have said. He says you can only spot a tank from a few hundred meters away. With modern EOTS you can spot an infantryman 90km away. The guy is simply out of touch with reality. Pierre Sprey is as much responsible for the F-16's success nowadays, as a background extra is in helping a movie win an Oscar. But you should also know that an important part of the F-15s "junk" is its very powerful radar. That radar allows it to see targets before they see it. One of the important parts of air combat is seeing the target first. Edited July 9, 2015 by RoflSeal
6./ZG26_Emil Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 They are actually trying to replace the A-10 with this piece of shit. It's all money driven. Just imagine if they put all the money on this broken aircraft into something that's already in the air - the F-22. I can't see how a fast aircraft like the F-35 can provide CAS in the way the A-10 has done over the years, if they take the A-10 away then surely that roll then falls squarely on to the Apache's shoulders and I imagine they're more at risk of ground fire in a modern SAM environment. The F-22 is a pure bred fighter so probably can't do some of the roles the F-35 is designed for but I don't understand why they stopped building them if they are so good. The F-35 is a bomber in my mind, sure it will be able to shoot down older aircraft flown by lesser trained pilots from 3rd world countries (that have no AWACs or ECM) but in a real war against a high tech enemy I can't see how it would perform as well as some of the top fighters out there. Thankfully that's probably never going to happen.
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) I can't see how a fast aircraft like the F-35 can provide CAS in the way the A-10 has done over the years, if they take the A-10 away then surely that roll then falls squarely on to the Apache's shoulders and I imagine they're more at risk of ground fire in a modern SAM environment. The F-22 is a pure bred fighter so probably can't do some of the roles the F-35 is designed for but I don't understand why they stopped building them if they are so good. The F-35 is a bomber in my mind, sure it will be able to shoot down older aircraft flown by lesser trained pilots from 3rd world countries (that have no AWACs or ECM) but in a real war against a high tech enemy I can't see how it would perform as well as some of the top fighters out there. Thankfully that's probably never going to happen. F-16 does more CAS then the A-10 currently in Afghanistan. If the F-16, F/A-18 can do it, I don't see why the F-35 can't do it. A-10 was built in a time where you needed to use the Mark-1 eyeball to spot targets, and you needed to run in close to drop on targets accurately. Now with targetting pods like AN/AAQ-33 Sniper, you can acquire and ID targets while being 50,000ft in the air. Edited July 9, 2015 by RoflSeal
6./ZG26_Custard Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Do modern Jets fighters really need to "dogfight" in the purest sense? I remember the F-4 was originally built without cannon as the creed seemed to be at that time ATA missiles all the way. Of course the experiences in southeast Asia with the MiG-17 soon had them fitting cannon pods. It's seems BVR is the order of the day again. For the record though, personally I think the F-35 is a pile of cack and a complete waste of money.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 F-16 does more CAS then the A-10 currently in Afghanistan. If the F-16, F/A-18 can do it, I don't see why the F-35 can't do it. A-10 was built in a time where you needed to use the Mark-1 eyeball to spot targets, and you needed to run in close to drop on targets accurately. Now with targetting pods like AN/AAQ-33 Sniper, you can acquire and ID targets while being 50,000ft in the air. I don't disagree but when ground troops are in the *** is the F-35 going to be able to do close in strafing attacks effectively like the A-10 could when it's dropped it's last bomb? Do modern Jets fighters really need to "dogfight" in the purest sense? I remember the F-4 was originally built without cannon as the creed seemed to be at that time ATA missiles all the way. Of course the experiences in southeast Asia with the MiG-17 soon had them fitting cannon pods. It's seems BVR is the order of the day again. For the record though, personally I think the F-35 is a pile of cack and a complete waste of money. If you have two modern air powers, both using ECM, stealth etc it's going to push the engagements closer again surely.
6./ZG26_Custard Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 If you have two modern air powers, both using ECM, stealth etc it's going to push the engagements closer again surely. Either that or they will have trouble finding each other
Lusekofte Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Dogfighting was not a tactic anyone preferred, the outcome and is very uncertain . The situation awareness limited. Every fighter pilot I read about was keen on getting the advantage and then attack. But best would be they never knew they came. With todays modern A to A and A to ground missiles the need for stealth and being away from the target are essential. But unfortunately for the F-35 the research for low frequent radar is on going. This type of radar can spot these stealth planes much better, and if this happened , the idea of F-35 is wasted
coconut Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 The F-22 is a pure bred fighter so probably can't do some of the roles the F-35 is designed for but I don't understand why they stopped building them if they are so good I read it was a cost question. The F-35 is supposed to be cheaper to produce: $35M vs $120 M, according to this random google hit. No idea if the linked page is still actual today.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) With todays modern A to A and A to ground missiles the need for stealth and being away from the target are essential. But unfortunately for the F-35 the research for low frequent radar is on going. This type of radar can spot these stealth planes much better, and if this happened , the idea of F-35 is wasted It certainly ups the game but are we to believe that an F-22 cannot detect an F-35 (or visa versa) for example? I imagine that they are undetectable (or harder to detect) for older radar systems but what about when you have both airforce's with aircraft that are LO and are equipt with AESA and IRST and the rest of the modern goodies? Like I said if it's harder to detect them and both sides are flying LO then surely the engagement range gets smaller? Edited July 9, 2015 by JG5_Emil
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I read it was a cost question. The F-35 is supposed to be cheaper to produce: $35M vs $120 M, according to this random google hit. No idea if the linked page is still actual today. I really wonder where they get $35m from when Lockheed say LRIP 7 cost of F-35A is $98m
6./ZG26_Emil Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 F-35A: $98 million F-35B: $104 million F-35C: $116 million
SharpeXB Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 And just think. Instead of buying just one plane, for that money they could have 18,000 Fokker Dr.I Triplanes! Talk about air superiority! Sure they suck and they're slow but there's 18,000 of them! 2
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 And just think. Instead of buying just one plane, for that money they could have 18,000 Fokker Dr.I Triplanes! Talk about air superiority! Sure they suck and they're slow but there's 18,000 of them! It would be Pierre Sprey's idea of an ultimate fighter after all.
Ace_Pilto Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 In Australia our "leaders" think it will be smart to replace the F/A-18F Hornet with this aircraft. (Keep in mind we have no tanker force which is why we have a naval fighter as our front-line aircraft) So we'll end up buying an unproven aircraft with 2/3rds the range that costs twice as much (F/A-18F is roughly $60mil) and loses it's only combat advantage (stealth, which is overrated anyway as was proven in Bosnia) when we will inevitably have to operate it with external fuel storage. This doesn't even begin to factor in all the extra maintenance, training and infrastructure costs that are part of replacing a front-line fighter, the total cost will be ridiculous considering we have perfectly adequate aircraft in service that we only bring out of mothballs for airshows and oil wars against smelly tribsemen. I'd rather they bought twice as many more Super Hornets personally, fitted them with Harpoon missiles and AMRAAMS and stationed them all along the North Coast where they could prevent any hostile force from coming within 100 miles of our shores. But then we also spend a large amount of money on our submarines as well, I'm not sure how they're going to be deployed to fight "terrorists" in Afghanistan but I'm assured that they are very good subs.
TheBlackPenguin Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 In Australia our "leaders" think it will be smart to replace the F/A-18F Hornet with this aircraft. (Keep in mind we have no tanker force which is why we have a naval fighter as our front-line aircraft) <snipped> A330 MRTT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
Spacesheep Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Rafale, VS F22 dogfight... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOswfrc7Xtg I think this one (rafale) is still one of the most efficient dogfighter in service today.. 1
Ace_Pilto Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 A330 MRTT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT 4 aircraft doesn't exactly constitute a "force" buddy.
coconut Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Rafale, VS F22 dogfight... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOswfrc7Xtg I think this one (rafale) is still one of the most efficient dogfighter in service today.. Wow, that was some seriously heavy breathing. Must have been painful. I was also surprised how much the dogfight resembles a WWII dogfight.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 In Australia our "leaders" think it will be smart to replace the F/A-18F Hornet with this aircraft. (Keep in mind we have no tanker force which is why we have a naval fighter as our front-line aircraft) So we'll end up buying an unproven aircraft with 2/3rds the range that costs twice as much (F/A-18F is roughly $60mil) and loses it's only combat advantage (stealth, which is overrated anyway as was proven in Bosnia) when we will inevitably have to operate it with external fuel storage. This doesn't even begin to factor in all the extra maintenance, training and infrastructure costs that are part of replacing a front-line fighter, the total cost will be ridiculous considering we have perfectly adequate aircraft in service that we only bring out of mothballs for airshows and oil wars against smelly tribsemen. I'd rather they bought twice as many more Super Hornets personally, fitted them with Harpoon missiles and AMRAAMS and stationed them all along the North Coast where they could prevent any hostile force from coming within 100 miles of our shores. But then we also spend a large amount of money on our submarines as well, I'm not sure how they're going to be deployed to fight "terrorists" in Afghanistan but I'm assured that they are very good subs. Not to mention the fact most pilots prefer to have two engines if flying over the sea
Spacesheep Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Wow, that was some seriously heavy breathing. Must have been painful. I was also surprised how much the dogfight resembles a WWII dogfight. Yep, was impressed too. that's great to let you know how much painful High G's manoeuver are and why it is much eas to understand why they are much more less practiced in RL than what we are all doing smoothly and repeatedly on PC's while grinking some fresh bevrages.... This was an exercise purely oreintated to recreate close range aircombat and so yes, it is sure that you can find a lot of similitudes with WWII dogfighting... But in a real war war situation, I'm not sure we would see a lot of these kind of encounter.... Anyway, I would just say about the Rafale that it combine both versatility , pretty honorable performances, maintenance and servicability also interresting... making it (to me) one of the top 3 fighter in service today
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now