Kaktus29

tnx for the answer Maior.. yeah, thats what i thought about radar searching a ship that has its radar off.. you get a signal that there is a ship on the other side, nothing more than that.. and than the nervous feeling what if this ship is an enemy and they have data from a sub that spotted us and are right now launching massive ASM attack? .. what to do what to do.. blow it up and say "oops" if it turns out to be a pleasure cruise ship )) .. can't imagine the tourist on the pleasure cruise walking the deck and having their captain go : and here on the right we have splendid islands with great natural habitat and on the left we can see a massive anti-ship cruise missile attack heading towards our ship.. may you kiss your lives goodbye,we're going collateral in 3,2,1.. i knew about CV getting supplies but thought its more of a fuel and maybe some food packages etc.. like most ships get(apart from CV-nuclear powered that don't need fuel), but how do you re-supply the bombs, missiles etc.. in high seas is beyond me, so far no documentary showed this if this indeed happens-re-supply of bombs for instance on the carrier by some other supply ship.. somehow i don't see the resupply ship hauling a 2000JDAM with the use of those cables stretched from one ship to the other.. the space is huge, but is it really so huge, .. i mean we have 5000 people crammed, 70-80 planes, fuel for planes-that must take huge space, spare-parts for planes, other equipment, plus whatever left for ordnance for the planes.. you mentioned the chinese potential strategy of depleting the ships that would have problems re-loading resupplying in time for the second-third wave that would be coming, while carrier groups of the west calculating on better SA and performance like that..i would agree .. but something that worries me is the use of satellite's and huge range of land-based aviation that can easily outnumber the carrier group wings.. its easier to launch a coordinated 200 planes to attack a CV known location that it is for CV to attack a ship-especially if that ship is in the umbrella of land-based aviation.. The russian strategy during the cold war was fused with surface ships acting as cruisers that would launch the attack, subs that would act as detection net coupled with satellite coverage and marine based long-range aviation that would be used for detection plus ordering the final blow by Tu-22 firing the cruise missiles as well.. its all about the range of course, do you have enough range to do this and that.. back in 1960-90 the navy of usa had fighter/bombers that had a combat radius of what? ..am about 300 miles?..maybe 500 miles at best, F-14 was good in its role but the F-18 had especially bad range.. while soviet missiles could be fired form 400 miles away.. coupled with coast long-range aviation that can cover 3000 miles and one can cover the eastern part of atlantic from Archangelsk .. but all this depends on one very important thing. who detects who when.. i would prefer a much smaller presence on the sea's..i think big naval task force's are a thing of the past.. a much smaller ships with certain ships like "carriers of drones" that would fire those sea-faring-drones which would have VLO and be the dimensions like 10m*3m*1.4m .. armed with sensors, passive and active.. but mostly passive.. than send them to "fish".. when they get some info, data, they relay it.. and then you launch a massive "false" attack with cruise missiles that have no warhead to deplete the defenders.. and after 2,3,5th attack send the real one and sink the whole task force.. i think the chinese are doing and hoping for drone relay station, stealth drone that would snoop "passive" signals from 80.000 feet and relay it back and guide the cruise missile attack.. but, what we all can agree here is.. we really don't know too much about naval engagements.. not enough info.. about air combat we have allot, .but here, much more sensitive area..to both sides.. also, do you know how do subs communicate, ..i mean, how does a US subs patrolling lets say south atlantic know they are listening to US sub patrolling the same area? .. do they have the signal coded into the computer to get it this is our sub, and if they do, is there any way to communicate with them.. lets say you want to say, hei, we need to turn back or something.. how do you do that? use morse code with pings? )) and alert the whole ocean of your presence.. or open the hatched and use sign language?.. all in all, i see why DCS is avoiding doing naval ops.. its a nightmare.. even with ship info there is not allot data for tactics, strategy etc..

Can somebody with knowledge say more about the naval operations and how they operate.. i never understood how can combat ships without air recon know what is the ship they see on the radar? .. is the radar so precise they can distinguish an enemy combat ship from a commercial ship? .. we all know about the BVR problems and IFF, but here it becomes even more dangerous if you "miss" the target and not destroy it in the right time or god forbid fire a ASM attack on a fishing boat.. if you are blessed with aircraft carrier than of course your chances increase somewhat of getting the right target, ..but if have only surface ships armed with radar and other sensors can they really detect and target the "enemy" and only him without the chance of hitting commercial shipping.. and would it in case of war all commercial shipping be stopped or would it continue.. in a major air war all civilian planes are grounded and obviously don't fly, but commercial shipping i don't know.. and if civilian ships continue this would create so many radar signal and the need to check each and every one of them before you find the enemy.. and satellites .. how much help does a navy get from a satellite.. i don't mean navigation but in searching of enemy fleets?.. i guess making naval ops for DCS is for right reasons very complex since there is so many systems involved that make it a totally new experience than the Air simulations right now that DCS is creating.. How much sustainability does the Aircraft carrier have? (i mean how much ammo for planes, fuel, bombs etc? without the need to refuel, re-arm the airwings back in port or do they do it can they do it in the open seas ? ) .. can the CV sustain their air ops for 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 1 months, before they deplete their bombs, rockets, etc.. (under assumption there is high intensity combat where planes are flying 24/7 using bombs, missiles etc..).. is this information available or confidential..

love the Su-34.. great range, but also great comfort for the crew that will be in the plane for 5-8 hours at a time.. great for sub hunting i guess, long hours, huge coastline-if you are Russia at least-, .. and some fighting capabilities just in case.. a real bomber/fighter Su-34 is.. i read once about a "backfire" missile that Russia designed ..can't find the clip or the articles any more.. the goal was using the "tail" of sukhois as a radar that would pick up the fighters chasing it.. since the fighters chasing you must be really really close to get to a good PK it means the escaping plane has the advantage to kill the attacker--if only you have a missile that will "backfire" .. the radar is already there, and i know the missile was also, maybe they went all "hush-hush" on this one.. anyway, the video i saw was a missile fired as the Su-27 was going obviously forward, and missile used a "booster of some sorts on the front to make a short stop, and then release the booster, ignite the engine(that was also on the "front of the missile" and go in the position "six" of the Su-27.. thus making short work of anybody who is trying to lick you from behind.. the good thing about this would be obvious, the attacking plane would be going head-on towards the missile while the defending one is escaping the attacker and forcing the attacker to approach every close to him in order to fire his weapon that will always have a diminished range due to the Su-27 running away..

i guess the benefit of doing a WW2 era fighter or bomber is DCS can do it correctly with ALL info needed, to the last bolt.. while when it comes to new machines-EF, Rafal, Grippen, etc.. its all clouded and secret and just not possible to do a proper AFM and avionics suit for those planes.. the farther back in history you go better modelled and realistic flying.. i would enjoy a good civilian plane, maybe russian, maybe usa-boeing etc..

i remember doing a La-7 Lavochkin project in high school for technical seminar... really awesome plane.. i'm for it why not, Il-2 on the other hand is also iconic and very important in the A2G role .. but since DCS is doing the german fighter, and american fighter was already made, i guess it would be nice to get some day a russian fighter from 2WW..

i feel like Cartman in that south park episode where he can't wait for the was it x-box?-to come out.. and he goes and freezes himself in the mountain with snow so he wouldn't wait for the console to come out.. about dcs:submarine.. i guess it would be fun, but, also dangerous.. i always felt the subs are one bullet rifle.. you fire, you get detected and then you die.. there is no system to protect you after the enemy launches torpedo attacks on your sub, even if you avoid one hit, the enemy still knows you are there, and you cannot outrun a helicopter or airplane.. and have no SAM protection as well like ships do.. as a recon i guess the subs are great..to relay data to HQ and help coordinate a massive air-launched ASM attacks.. but firing torpedos is so loud, enemy detects you, unless they develop "stealth" launches from the tubes the subs are quite limited.. i read russians-probably americans as well, are developing just that.. silent launches from the tubes..

i guess F-14A is better since it would be modelled more correctly since its more obsolete than the D version.. i prefer as close to reality than less and more "new" version of the plane..

oh yeah, the first sturmovik of russia..Il-2 .. this would be amazing.. bombs, rockets, guns, even some rudimentary kmgu il-2 carried if i remember correctly.. then all that is left is some 2WW tanks to blow up))

@ethereal.. you say F-15, F-16, etc can do all the above "shoot at a target without the target being aware etc" .. no, they can't.. they can if you take the enemy's EW, and he doesn't have AWACS.. under such conditions did the so called BVR happen in iraq.. you speak of this jousting issues.. i don't see any jousting in same gen fighter duking it out with or without awacs support .. to say f-16 going at a mig-29 would end with f-16 shooting the mig-29 without him knowing he was painted, fired upon, locked on etc.. is delirious .. unless we are talking about badly serviced mig-29 that is obviously falling apart in mid air before amraam even touches him.. If your BVR works, you don't need awacs, you put f-15 with radar searching stuff, and su-27 with infra hugging terrain or flying high with radar searching.. no awacs.. and the likelyhood of all this ending up in 1 plane being clueless of being painted, locked on, and fired upon is ZERO(actually Su has the advantage because he at least has some passive system to use to track while f-15 doesn't).. BVR doesn't work because you need to overwhelm the opponent with many other shit.. like AWACS, jamming of supporting planes etc. . while the enemy doesn't have access to this either in quality or numbers.. ergo this is not BVR anymore its simple overpowering position.. thats like talking a Boxer is more capable of putting down a Kung-fu master.. well, if the boxer is 28 years of age in peak condition and is 7 foot tall, weighing at 200 pounds..and the kung-fu master is 82 years old man, standing at 5 foot tall weighing 115 pounds.. guess what the boxer is going to kill him.. and here you are arguing its because boxing works))) no it doesn't.. put the SAME age and weight on the other side of kung-fu master and the boxer will die in 5 seconds.. but you mistakenly equate overpowering the enemy equals BVR works)) this is what the guy in the study painfully and logically explains .. and this is why BVR doesn't work and never will.. F-22 sneaking upon you and knocking you off is not BVR.. i would say its more of a stealth WVR almost.. but that works only if the enemy flies a 4 gen fighter.. you say today's 4 gen can do BVR no problem.. really? against F-22? ..woww.. thats something new.. no?they can't? ohhh so i was right when i said BVR works only if you are dealing with a generation LESS fighter than yours.. again that is not BVR, its called overpowering your enemy by quality or numbers.. while BVR concept was about totally different idea.. about a way how to fight..not tactical and strategical concepts of overpowering someone.. BVR is a tactic not strategy.. yet it cannot be employed unless you have strategic advantage-numbers, or quality, preferably both is needed to do so called BVR)) about that missile salvo of cruise missiles in naval excercise.. so you know it afterall?) .. you speak as if its easy to find a naval fleet and sink it with inferior navy.. the blue did not employ highly sophisticated ships or boats like the blue did..yet, with BLIND tactics he found the ships, directed the coordinates to anti-ship missiles and send them to the bottom of the ocean ONLY to be resurrected because people in pentagon are like our GG here who does not like outcomes that do not fit his views-which is:we know what we are talking about, everybody else doesn't.. our way is smart, your way is stupid, to prove to you we are right we are resurrecting the ships and giving you restraints so we can PROVE that our doctrines are better )) this was a mockery of the naval exercise ..the most expansive so far.. i write this because you lovingly wrote how experts do exercises and thus they know what they are talking about.. enuff about that now.. this "myth" has been debunked already..

a see the thread wandering away from the main title.. the question was very simple.. patriot downing KH-58U .. and in quick succession and 100% .. while S-300 not even close to this excellent performance.. if this is true.. we have a problem.. simple as that.. UNLESS some arguing here want to say patriot is sooo advanced it can take 100% all incoming ARMs but S-300 at best 1 or 2.. ?? so, what is the truth, game wise.. is S-300 worthless and Patriot a killer? ..if so why?..

@PLAAF ..that would be great of course.. don't think our comps are there yet with cpu power but maybe in the future we could have the whole world boxed in our comp simulation.. just read one article arguing we all could be living in a simulation, very detailed one but still simulation-our universe that is.. the thesis is, our ancestors or whoever created this simulation wanted an answer to their most important question-why are we here--- something that i think our civilization will do as soon as we get better computational power.. we are already doing many simulations today, soon (20-100 years) i can imagine a super-computer powerful enough to simulate parts of the universe as they evolve during billions of years.. scary thought though, those characters in simulation if they become "aware" like we are, can suffer yet be a prisoner to it..

also the airfield has to be "yours" ..if you are flying Su you need the airfield to be RED..otherwise BLUE..if its neutral nothing is gonna happen ..

@etherealN about bias.. read millennium war games back in 2002 or something.. how the RED demolished the blue using asymmetric warfare and what did the generals do, resurrect the sunk ships of the blue and started again with certain "adjustments and direct orders to the RED to obey" in order to get the results you speak of-those that affirm the bias that this and that works but other doesn't)) so far, data, real data shows 1vs1 fighting with same radar, RWR, will dodge the missiles and will close to WVR .. which is proven by US massive spending in 5gen fighters for this reason.. imagine if US stayed with F-15.. imagine your BVR now? .. that's why i say F-22 proves BVR is dead.. F-22 is neccessary to make BVR possible.. meaning, the enemy must not be AWARE you are targeting him, painting him, firing a missile at him, and of course killing him.. if the enemy IS aware how can you have the BVR?.. you can't..simple as that..

@weta43 .. yeah, i agree with most of what you wrote.. it's hard for BVR fans to accept the fact that unless you have 1 generation advantage against the enemy there is no BVR whatsoever.. thats why they avoided the what happens if 2 F-22 fight against eachother.. will it end in BVR or WVR? .. answer is simple WVR .. sooner or later the 5gen will be the norm.. now you will say but US will have 6 gen. by then.. you see, that doesn't change the debate we are having here, which is BVR debate.. if you have 2 equal planes with equal sensors there is no way in hell you can finish the plane in BVR fight.. that is what i'm saying, that is what the study confirms, and that is why US goes with overwhelming numbers, AWACS support, Jamming stations, tomahawk attacks and number of other elements in play to win in a so-called "BVR fight" between a F-15 vs. Mig-29 ))) people don't want to understand what BVR is about, its about finishing off the opponent of EQUAL tech level.. if you are starting from superior level, you don't even need BVR, as i said, F-22 today can kill you off with Aim-9.. so what is this BVR talk ?.. once another 5 gen is in the air, F-22 will have problems getting into a BVR shot of 14-20nm .. so what is this BVR talk we are hearing.. even today, most BVR shots are 13-15 nm at best.. unless you are facing with a drone that will not move for the next 3 minutes, than you can wipe it out with R-33 for instance at a distance of 200km.. but sadly not many drones out there..uppss i mispoke, usa has them alot so maybe there is some BVR potential there for the enemy to employ))

@GG ... you don't understand what this study was trying to say or what i'm trying to say .. BVR doesn't work.. the reason F-22 was created was to MAKE IT work.. but that is under assumption F-22 will have no equal and therefore make the BVR shot possible.. the STUDY if you read it, clearly documents that BVR ideology was intended as a way to battle an enemy that is EQUAL to you and STILL provide a win situation before you go into WVR battle.. that is why i say F-22 is evidence BVR doesn't work.. if it did, F-22 would have fancy missiles that can destroy a target at 200 km, and F-22 would press buttons from safety etc.. BVR right?.. the fact that stealth was incorporated was to actually get close enough to inferior enemy to actually be in a position to fire a BVR shot.. but imagine 2 F-22 fighting against each other.. now tell me GG.. can you see this ending in BVR or will it end in WVR? .. you see, with equal weapon tech and plane tech you end up in WVR.. BVR does not work.. all the cases where BVR supposedly worked was such overwhelming odds no BVR missiles were needed, in fact most kills were by IR missiles.. But i'm not saying BVR doesn't work IF (that is very important IF) you have yourself F-22 fighting a Mig-29 .. but again, the study does not cover such situation because that doesn't belong in BVR study but in overwhelming power study that has nothing to do about BVR.. BVR as a tactic has failed.. the battle field is now in the datalinks, stealth, early detection, etc.. if you are superior you will win ,if not you die.. but if you are EQUAL there is no BVR..that is what the study was all about.. and it documents this very well. All this long range missiles developed by US, Russia, China, EU are not proof of success of BVR, but HOPE your informational, stealth, EW and other systems are much more superior to the enemy.. otherwise all this hi-tech missile junk will fail and all will degenerate into WVR fights.. of course, from practical point of view.. the possibility of level playing field are minute, so in that case we can say BVR "works"..which isn't really BVR but overwhelming superiority of one side against the other.. big difference when arguing that BVR works..

oh the road-airports)) i heard the requirement for building the highway system in usa was specified by the air force the have on every 50 miles at least 2 miles of totally straight road surface to be used as airstrip .. i think all nations do this, it makes you think, were they building the highways for civilian purposes or military ones?)) i know it works for both, but still. the same can be said for nuke energy, .. the reason why we use today's nuke plants is the side-effect of making nukes, usa sold the idea of nuke energy so they could have that excess capacity to make nukes, same with USSR.. even though its more dangerous method than what was it now.. Thorium nuke energy.. china is developing it now, usa have been developing in the 50's but abandoned it because they couldn't be used to make nukes.. but yeah, planes using highways as airstrips is useful, but the plane must be one rugged thing.. i can't see the F-35 or any of the high-tech planes doing this..very hard to maintain it with no hanger and extra special care that it requires ..and all that extra stuff can be noticed very quickly thus negating the air-strip -highway advantage of being not-seen by the enemy..

do you think its realistically behaving.. i mean, how does a MiG-31 with superior speed and altitude actually engage in combat..is there any info? ..most likely he will not wait until 20 nm before launching his 70nm missile as i have witnessed many times before as hornet kills him by firing the aim120 before mig-31 launches anything.. also, mig-31 never uses his speed and altitude to his advantage.. dragging his ass at 1000km/h and flying at 8000 m .. what gives?.. it would be nice to model the Mig-31 with full suit of his capabilities ,not to fly since that means even more work for DCS, but at least for an asset for the Red team to use with his data-link capability and guiding the missiles of Su-27 ahead of him .. i wonder at what speed is it safe to launch a weapon, i heard somewhere there are some limitations here.. like if you go mach 3 with pylons on it might be dangerous for plane, missile to do this.. but if not, than my god, mach 3+missile speed mach 4=S-300 launched in mid-air with superior altitude .. wow... but when can we see anything of that kind on DCS?.. right now Mig-31 acts as if its Mig-21..

this is funny)) haha.. in the first day he knocked the blue out) .. i can imagine the anger from the commanders and shame of loosing to red team so fast.. of course, i said the same thing in this forum many times.. when superior enemy is about to strike, you do not turn all your radars and sam's like a christmas tree in order to be destroyed by enemy SEAD..you wait for better moment.. but we have many generals here that said this is stupid.. what you need to do they told me is light the radars up so that blue team can wipe you out you see)) lol.. its called bias.. this whole 250 million experiment was there to justify existing doctrines not show big wholes in this strategy that blue employs today.. now we know why US is not so eager to employ the military option on Iran.. with such small space for the ships to move in the Persian Gulf ..i think there is no denying how messy and how many ships blue would loose.. but alas, i'm sure i will be rebuffed and assured it is not so.. like this millennum challenge was "changed" to properly show the superiority of Blue)) lol

i don't understand ..the 2030 limit.. yes, the new Su-35, and Su-30 will of course last till 2030 easily.. that doesn't mean T-50 will come online in 2030.. the way i see it, Russians understand that 5th gen. planes are very exotic planes, not really to be used all the time, but more of a "tip of a sword" planes ..and not the fleet of planes you need to do most of the job -after the tip of the sword does the job.. i think USA thinks the same way.. of course having more money means they can easily print those 2400+ F-35 when they get available to do the lion share of combat in the battlefield.. Russia is moving to a more cheaper version where its seems it will be more like 30-70% ratio of stealth vs. non-stealth planes fleet.. the 30% with the help of 70% non stealth accomplishes the main mission of air-superiority or at least doing the main damage in the first phase, then if successful-and you have to be successful-you continue with cheaper planes since there is no enemy in the air anymore.. F-22 are the same thing.. the workload of this planes will be 3-5 days non-stop presence in the enemy airspace.. after that, they can go back to hangar..its over for them.. air dominance achieved...enemy planes destroyed.. after that you can control the airspace with drones and F-16 .. so, thining strategically is it really important to have 100% 5gen. fighter fleet? ..of course not.. i think of 5gen. fighter like a scalpel.. you don't need many scalpels to cut, one is usually more then enough for operating on the patient..but you do need lots of blood tranfusion, clamps, stitching etc.. now, to go back to when can we speculate T-50 comes online? i think it can come before 2018 easily.. but it will not be 100% complete..meaning some modifications will follow like in many Russian planes in the past.. but one benefit is, the planes accomodate any new modification easily.. Mig-27 saw many modifications, same airframe, and easily to do this.. the way F-35 is made its hard to do those changes that are if the memo leaks are true constructional engineering problems.. something you can't just change like that.. if you get it right from the start with the airframe i think this is the lion's share of work.. of course then the engine is the second most important thing.. right now, as far as i know russians are using the Su-35 engines..tunning them up and making them stronger..but still a new engine they are developing and yes you are right it could be a long time before that comes online-maybe 10 years.. but this one they use now with small modifications can make him supercruise..the question is how much..if its 1.2 its not really that much.. everybody is gunning for the 1.6 which gives the best ratio of speed vs. tear and duress of the airframe.. faster it wears the plane too much, slower and you loose that speed advantage .. In the end of the day, this planes are build for one thing.. offence or defence.. .. in russia's case defence .. if russia doesn't convince US that it has a plane of value it puts itself in a risky position where some kind of invasion could happen against them-like the one we are seeing in syria today.. this planes are the harbinger of security.. nobody is questioning US supremacy, .. i don't see mexico getting ready to invade US.. but Russia on the other hand much more dangerous situation.. some historians are saying that bad army state of the USSR before the Hitler invasion was one of the most important aspects of hitler deciding to attack.. weakness attracts agression..its natural.. a lion does not hunt an elephant for a reason-because it can very well die in the process.. Russia is in peculiar position since they have to make sure US understands that Russian planes are capable.. when one doesn't understand this, it evokes aggression .. this has nothing about US being bad its just natural law.. when the pilgrims came to US they killed the native americans for one simple reason.. pilgrims were armed with guns, the natives with a bow.. it doesn't take a genius to figure out how long before the gun people start using ... well, the guns they own against the inferior race.. so, i'm not saying Russian planes offer better this or that.. but are formidable enough to lets all of us hope for the love of life and god to prevent a tragic miscalculation from the superior weapons and nations in the west..

it would seem you do not understand history.. after USSR collapse Russia was struggling to find the money to buy bread for citizens, army didn't get any money, tanks going into chechnya went unarmed, soldiers unpaid, helicopters flying with no spare equipments..and no research done whatsoever.. Su-34 frozen for 12 years, submarine project frozen for 12 years.etcetc.. to imply secretly russia was building T-50 all along is absurd.. the fact Russia managed to put the T-50 project into the air is nothing short of a miracle.. the chinese i understand because at the moment they are loaded and can afford 20-50 billion dollars worth of projects..not so much for Russia.. but still much better than in the 1990's when times were the darkest.. what i meant was, compared with F-35 yes, T-50 seems light years ahead) for instance the helmet mounted system works fine and that is from the 80's.. while F-35 is yet to get it right, while F-22 doesn't even have it AFAIK

F-35 project has been dragging for decades now, T-50 just recenlty started and the plane is up and flying ... i would say russian simplistic and engineering approach will make it very hard to match the F-35 cock-up-ness .. if funds are provided T-50 will be finished in 2-5 years.. which will mean the whole project took 6-9 years max.. but if you want to believe russians have problems with flying planes in dark clouds ..be my guest.. :))

actually now after reading all of the memo leaked i must say it could hold water.. meaning,it could be more or less an accurate statements of how things are as of now.. this total mess is to be understood, it only makes sense.. they are building the F-35 project backwards since early 2000's.. the plan was to build it faster, so the idea was to build it and then afterwards just add to the plane whatever was needed and no problem.. reality is, this is the worst kind of approach to build things.. because it leaves you no room for any drastic change in the airframe, and other very hard to change elements in the machine.. Lets take the tail hook for instance, ..they discovered a problem that the tail hook couldn't grab the cable's on the simulated carrier deck-for it was to close to the landing gear..so, changing the tail hook to accommodate this is easy yes?it ended up a nightmarish affair.. after changing the tail hook to be longer it changes the angle at which the grabbing of wire occurs thusly putting more stress on the airframe on those parts that were not intended.. now they need to reinforce those parts and reduce weight elsewhere to remain same weight overall.. by doing this you come into problems with other systems like fuel cells, electrical wiring.. after you change those you have to change etc etc.. so you see, its just chaos .. you can't build anything like this.. its like lets build the 2 floor first and then we will build the 1st floor next.. you can't reverse logic and gravity ..but with F-35 they did.. now they are researching this plane backwards.. so far the plane has been limited to gentle stick movements, not flying in bad weather,avoiding dark clouds, +5.5G, and 40.000 feet altitude and speed limited to 1.2 mach max., .. basically F-4 can knock this thing out in dogfight if a mock up would be arranged.. Radar has glitches, helmet mounted system is making more confusion and dizziness than clarity for pilots.. and the whole project is playing catch up..since just as they install something in, new technology comes along and they have to put new plans to make room for this or that thing to be replaced and in doing so complicating the whole engineering effort even more.. this really is a cock-up of epic proportions.. what a waste of resources.. 500 BilBils and still going strong..

i have a feeling this F-35 trashing leak memo's are an effort of the military to put the screws on lockheed for dragging their feet and shamelessly pocketing billions of dollars of money for the taxpayers. ... it could be a propaganda show to put pressure on them as if to tell them -look lockheed, your product sucks, unless you do this and that and fast etc..and with your own money because of delays etc, we will be forced from the public to do this and that" .. its a cheap ploy to put pressure on lockheed from the enraged public who will read how below-par capabilities this plane is.. i doubt its soo terrible as the memo describes.. yes, it has many problems, and most likely it is still 6 years away from any combat role, but they are trashing it too much at this point..it could backfire on popular anger from the voters .. on one hand if they rush things this plane will really be below-par other 5gen planes meaning it will be a strategic failure considering the billions spent into this..but on the other hand, if they give lockheed free hands this thing could drag ad-infinitum until usa declares bankruptcy and beyond)lol.. its a pickle to say for sure.. but this pentagon memo is not a real description of the plane.. but if it IS real description, than my god this ugly plane(lets face it, it is ugly) really is a disaster in the making..or should i say ending..

@angel.. t-55 does not fire missiles.. and if by some miracle it does then yes, abrams has no protection against that..

i don't see the problem, if a tank is armed with a anti-tank missile and can fire and kill you off at 5-6 km away then its just superior system..there is nothing you can do.. it does show the big problem of propaganda in reality when all western media trashes russian tanks yet its the russian tank that are the most developed with most important systems-active protection originated in a russian tank,missile fired from a tank barrel same there, auto-loader implemented in USSR and proven in battle .. and all this elements are copied at the time i write this by western nations today.. from active protection to autoloaders.. sadly most people think abrams is superior because the tank was involved in trashing obsolete soviet tanks with the most rudimentary equipment in iraq during the desert storm.. i can already smell a GG rant coming now to correct me and tell me why abrams is indeed superior and will hit a T-90 before T-90 destroys him from 5 miles away.. )lol