"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

[Esac_mirmidon]

" F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

 

This statement is about as informative as a Ginsu knife infomercial. "

 

This makes me laugh a lot ¡¡¡¡ Ginsu knives are very dangerous ¡¡¡

[Pilotasso]

You can cut a fighters wing with it. :D

[Esac_mirmidon]

Great Pilotasso ¡¡¡ LOL ¡¡

[GGTharos]

In fact when the F-15 was first made the wingtip was perpendicular to the airframe. This caused excessive buffet, and when they finally realized what it was, the correction happened as follows ....

 

In front of a bunch of USAF top officials and McAir hotshots, a structural engineer walks in, draws a line across the wingtip, takes a saw to it, removes part of the wingtip, and then has a carpenter plug it. Was the saw made by Ginsu? There's this rumor ... (which i just started now in this thread ;) )

[nscode]

The "real" reports are classified usually, ever wondered why ? :)

 

Partially because they resemble this one:

:)

[Guest LaRata40]

" F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

 

This statement is about as informative as a Ginsu knife infomercial. "

 

This makes me laugh a lot ¡¡¡¡ Ginsu knives are very dangerous ¡¡¡

 

Only in Computer Simulator ... :)

 

The F-35, still are NOT ready for real combat. The F-35 will be ready about 2016 ... :huh:

 

By now the F-35, are not a mach for the actual combat planes :smartass:

[Esac_mirmidon]

I´ve only taked the quoted text from here http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab1c3536a-8d96-481f-aef5-d6428ec6f9ca.

 

Nothing else.

[Wilde]

why do so many Western and European users of this board support the Russian air force as if their life depended on it. I cant help but view you as band wagon/fad jumpers

 

Maybe you're just taking it as that. To me most of the "supporters" you mention seem to be just skeptical about the American airborne warfare doctrine. Imho there's a point to be asking questions, because as of now the stealth-based approach has only been used against countries that would have lost hands down kick your ass to a conventional doctrine too.

 

America has been promoting their stealth stuff for about 20 years now. Any potential future opponent would have been retarded not to think about technologies to counter the stealth stuff. And of course they would have been retarded to advertise it too.

 

Obviously i don't have any hard facts. But i don't think Russian and Chinese engineers are retarded. ;)

[GGTharos]

It's not a matter of mental retardation ... it's a matter of financial and resource retardation ;)

 

The USAF is still a couple decades ahead in technology ... catching up with that is not necessarily easy.

[RedTiger]

Maybe you're just taking it as that. To me most of the "supporters" you mention seem to be just skeptical about the American airborne warfare doctrine. Imho there's a point to be asking questions, because as of now the stealth-based approach has only been used against countries that would have lost hands down kick your ass to a conventional doctrine too.

 

America has been promoting their stealth stuff for about 20 years now. Any potential future opponent would have been retarded not to think about technologies to counter the stealth stuff. And of course they would have been retarded to advertise it too.

 

Obviously i don't have any hard facts. But i don't think Russian and Chinese engineers are retarded. ;)

 

You have a point but OTOH, you have to wonder if some people really understand the definition of "total and complete economic collapse". Not just a depression or a recession, like the entire system just falls apart and ceases to function. If two super powers compete technologically and then one suddenly throws in the towel economically while the other one just pretends the competition doesn't end and continues R&D, it can make you skeptical about the towel-thrower. Cold War era NATO vs. Cold War era Warsaw is very debatable. The farther you get from that however, the harder it becomes to debate, IMO.

 

If Russia suddenly one day just unveiled a plane that had 100% of the capability of something like the Eurofighter or Raptor or a missile that could directly compete with the Aim-120D or Meteor, I wouldn't be surprised one bit. One can accomplish a lot in the woodshed or garage with enough ingenuity and money. ;) The kicker here is whether or not they can produce them in any great number.

 

EvilBivol-1 does a good job of explaining some of that here:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=29396

Edited September 26, 2008 by RedTiger

[Wilde]

The USAF is still a couple decades ahead in technology ...

 

Like how much?

 

 

It depends on POV - on which doctrine you think is more effective imho. Either you think this stealth thing actually works against countries which have a reasonable amount of SAM sites, combat planes and so on or you don't.

 

My point was, that so far the glorified image of just this kind of doctrine has never been used against an opponent, that could mount any significant amount of defense. That is why i can understand why some people aren't as convinced as you are, because frankly, the superiority you are mentioning is basically superiority, that was created in articles, opinions, budgets and simulations.

 

Like you, you neither now every detail of both doctrines nor do you therefor know which one is "better" but still you tell the folks how America is "a couple of decades ahead". Sorry, but that's not really convincing.

 

As for me i'd wish we'll never find out. But if it happens some day i doubt it would like you are implying in this thread. Sadly though no-one would care about flight-sim accuracy anymore. :(

[GGTharos]

Fair enough.

 

I got nothing to convince you with using public sources. :)

Edited September 26, 2008 by GGTharos

[hitman]

1 more post until GG retires.

 

I want to remind everyone here that its very quite possible that the Air Force recovered some alien materials from Roswell back in the 50's (or whenever it crashed) and advanced our stealth technologies beyond everyones imagination. If you want to put everything on the table, just understand that there ARE programs over top secret security clearances that are advancing technologies faster than you think. We (USA) hit mach 6.7 in manned flight back in the 60's in atmospheric flight and produced the first stealth aircraft (SR-71), if that rings a bell.

 

Down to the nitty gritty, dont act like the F-35 is the cheese wiz on your Ritz crackers, or the Su-35/37/47 are the next best thing hazardous to your health since Rice Crispies Treats. There is probably (most likely) something out there that can and will smack the living crap out of everything known to civilian...and its probably stamped "Made in USA".

[RedTiger]

1 more post until GG retires.

 

I want to remind everyone here that its very quite possible that the Air Force recovered some alien materials from Roswell back in the 50's (or whenever it crashed) and advanced our stealth technologies beyond everyones imagination. If you want to put everything on the table, just understand that there ARE programs over top secret security clearances that are advancing technologies faster than you think. We (USA) hit mach 6.7 in manned flight back in the 60's in atmospheric flight and produced the first stealth aircraft (SR-71), if that rings a bell.

 

Down to the nitty gritty, dont act like the F-35 is the cheese wiz on your Ritz crackers, or the Su-35/37/47 are the next best thing hazardous to your health since Rice Crispies Treats. There is probably (most likely) something out there that can and will smack the living crap out of everything known to civilian...and its probably stamped "Made in USA".

 

And "Design inspired by Alpha Centari". :D

 

Roswell was '47 btw. And as far as what is publicly shared (if you want to get particular), the SR-71 wasn't stealth. I once read something to the effect that it should have had a RCS the size of a barn, but instead only had one the size of the barn door. :) IIRC it was even tracked by civilian air traffic controllers on at least one occasion.

Edited September 26, 2008 by RedTiger

[hitman]

And "Design inspired by Alpha Centari". :D

 

Roswell was '47 btw. And as far as what is publicly shared (if you want to get particular), the SR-71 wasn't stealth. I once read something to the effect that it should have had a RCS the size of a barn, but instead only had one the size of the barn door. :) IIRC it was even tracked by civilian air traffic controllers on at least one occasion.

That was an example of early stealth, and if you want to get technical, stealth only applied back in the day as low visibility. It flew above contrail level, well above decent radar coverage, and was so fast that even if you did manage to see it, you still couldnt see it because it would be gone by then.

 

I stole this from a post in the 159th forum...its a good read. :smilewink:

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/3551024/

[GGTharos]

If I recall correctly the SR-71 was confirmed to have a perfectly working jammer against SAMs - for the most part, any missile launched at the SR-71 was either out-ranged or jammed into stupidity.

[tflash]

We are not fanboys of any kind. The JSF is an aircraft built to certain specifications. These were clearly different from e.g. the specs to which Typhoon and F-22 have been built.

 

Now that JSF is proposed to a large set of possible customers as a one-fits-all solution, we, the sceptics, have a series of doubts. The F-16 was a lightweight air defense fighter, initially even without BVR capabilities. It happened to have a superior bombing precision and stunning growth potential to become a true multi-role strike and SEAD aircraft that in the same time scored many A2A kills.

 

We all hope F-35 will be the better F-16. But even though it already has one of the most powerful engines ever to be put in a fighter, it has - on paper at least - not very convincing performance. It clearly is heavier than F-16 and has limited armament in clean config. The way it is designed, it is not clear what its high altitude performance will look like.

 

I'm sorry but it really, really makes me think more of the highly controversial and very debatable Harrier that truly excels in payload/range/maintainabilty limitations than of the highly succesful F-16. It seems not only to bring stealth, but also overweight, oversophistication, budget overruns and maintenance issues.

 

In the best of worlds sceptics are always proven wrong. Let's wait and see in which world we will wake up one day.

[mvsgas]

I think the reason the F-35 is having such a hard publicity problems ( in my mind or with me anyway) is because every time I hear:"Joint Strike Fighter" I think of the F-111 and all the problems it had when it first started. To many compromises to please the Navy and the Air Force at the same time, and all the other problems that it had. Keeping in mind that once the F-111 came on line, it was an amazing aircraft, with huge bombing payload/range and speed, but it had many problems like overcomplicated wing swing mechanism, pilots had restricted vision to the right, etc. Also to many aircraft with the "35" designation, F-35, SU-35, Mig-35 :D I am confuse easily if to many close/similar designation appear.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It's not a matter of mental retardation ... it's a matter of financial and resource retardation ;)

 

Yes, funding was a problem for Russian military. But, that problem is being addressed. This year alone, Russian military budget is increased 30%. And this is over increases during previous few years.

 

What is really remarkable with Sukhoi and several other Russian military equipment manufacturers/organization is the fact that they never stopped designing and manufacturing new airplanes and technologies. Therefore, scientific and manufacturing capabilities are well preserved.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP. ;)

[Teknetinium]

It's fun comparing JSF to some fictional flanker, isn't it?

It's also fun to ignore those rather frightening AESA capabilities ... ;)

It's fun to ignore radar physics also (rear detection at 240km or whatever it was - heh ... )

It's fun to ignore even more radar physics (optimistic detection ranges, especially for missiles)

 

there is models whit rear/radar detection for su-30, we dont know if it gets in to production but its already there.

 

The question is if F-35 is fitted enough white weapons and fuel to fight su-30 not technology, No externals if u want advantage of su-30. so for a Australia whit that big aria to cover those questions acquire

Edited September 29, 2008 by Teknetinium

[hitman]

 

We all hope F-35 will be the better F-16. But even though it already has one of the most powerful engines ever to be put in a fighter, it has - on paper at least - not very convincing performance. It clearly is heavier than F-16 and has limited armament in clean config. The way it is designed, it is not clear what its high altitude performance will look like.

 

I'm sorry but it really, really makes me think more of the highly controversial and very debatable Harrier that truly excels in payload/range/maintainabilty limitations than of the highly succesful F-16. It seems not only to bring stealth, but also overweight, oversophistication, budget overruns and maintenance issues.

The Harrier (one of my favorites) cant possibly outdo the F-16 in anything...perhaps gun fighting, but thats iffy too. Its ability to only carry 4 weapons and 2 AIM-9's at the same time make it a poor choice for protection. Even then, the exhaust pipes put it at risk for manpads in a bad way.

 

I saw an F-16 and an F/A-18E perform at an airshow about 2 months ago. That F-16 didnt have anything on that Hornet, and the hornet is much larger than that F-16. If the JSF has thrust vectoring with a very powerful engine like that, and theoretically on par with the F-22 in maneuvering, that JSF would dominate anything its weight class and possibly much more. But we'll never know until we see it at air shows (and even then just hints).

[Teknetinium]

You make not 1 question but several of them. ;) FYI, because you might have missed it, I work at aircraft maintenance industry and have a brother as an f-16 pilot. Therefore I have lots of sources for info. The Ka-32 story for example. I had them here next to me.

 

About the Alamos even the ED staff confessed they had info that they are all stored from many years. From there you can acess a certain risk of having missiles come off the rail as dud's. They are OLD by all standards.

 

I do not understimate russian hardware, in another thread I talked about info I got from the R-73 that I think is a better WVR missile than the AIM-9L/M (though not because of the range as often is mentioned). Im going to save you the details of that as the discussion didnt go far.

 

About Eurofighter, they are proliferating on every country that belongs to the consortion in case you didnt notice and in greater numbers than the hand full of "MLU" russian Su-27SM.

So is the F-22 wich I believe has already passed the 100 number.

 

the basic Su-27S/P verions are by now very old planes comparable to the F-15A armed with sparrows back in 1980's.

 

As for the Su-MKI is a great plane, I wont kid myself there, but I recall you of its main missile, the alamo. I also have serious doubts about the durability of their arframe lives with the TVC engines (they would still be almost as good without them).

 

Stelth makes the aircraft difficult to detect, but it was never meant to be invisible anyway, further more what can you do after you realize your being fired upon without have previously known there was someone else in the sky? Thats its purpose, first shot first kill is a fundamental law in air combat. There will be no TVC or IRST thats going to compensate for that.

 

the Rafale pilot would have to be utterly incompetent to let himelf be shot by Mig-21. usualy mig operators fly an average of 30 hours pe year, in the west thats 10 times more than that. Your more likely to find 1000 dollars on the floor than seeing a Mig-21 shoot down a Rafale. It could happen but only after the mig have tried (and failed?) many times.

 

u are missing something pilotasso by talking about Russia again, U know and so do there rest That Russia dont have the money to buy the technology, But it doesn't mean that they dont have it for sell!!!!!

The latest technology is connected to space and it seams that Russia still have money to be there.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Teknetinium

[Groove]

Yes, funding was a problem for Russian military

 

You mean "is" and not "was", right ?

[Pilotasso]

u are missing something pilotasso by talking about Russia again, U know and so do there rest That Russia dont have the money to buy the technology, But it doesn't mean that they dont have it for sell!!!!!

The latest technology is connected to space and it seams that Russia still have money to be there.

 

I dont think Im missing much, Im talking about hard facts and existing hardware. Russia has for sail and sold several planes that are better than their own, so whats your point for telling me this?

 

Im am not concerned what russia could have this or that if it doesnt get past paper and then blown over proportions by airshow fans.

 

Cheers.

[nscode]

You mean "is" and not "was", right ?

 

He means what he says, and he's right, too.