F-35 Dogfight Criticisms laid to rest? - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2018, 07:09 AM
Robot's Avatar
Robot Robot is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,026
Thanks: 28,364
Thanked 14,327 Times in 5,279 Posts
Default F-35 Dogfight Criticisms laid to rest?



Advertise Here

Hmmmm, are they?

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/...to-rest/?ob-dc
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-26-2018, 07:18 AM
Robot's Avatar
Robot Robot is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,026
Thanks: 28,364
Thanked 14,327 Times in 5,279 Posts
Default

I find pedal turn ability fascinating in a fixed wing aircraft
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-26-2018, 07:39 AM
ManyFeathers's Avatar
ManyFeathers ManyFeathers is offline
Why do you ask? 2 Dogs!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,981
Thanks: 20,875
Thanked 41,385 Times in 9,783 Posts
Default

Nature of the beast

Most all of our fighter jets and even spacecraft have had issues

We learn from them
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ManyFeathers For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2018, 10:03 AM
Ozarks Tom Ozarks Tom is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 162
Thanks: 714
Thanked 434 Times in 128 Posts
Default

The link reads like a press release from Lockheed-Martin. I noticed they didn't mention that after it's comparatively short flight time it take two days maintenance before it can fly again.

It's a grossly overpriced and under performing white elephant that should have been cancelled years ago.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-26-2018, 06:24 PM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,154
Thanks: 2,855
Thanked 19,036 Times in 6,487 Posts
Default

Within visual range, it's 90% pilot and 10% aircraft anyway. As master fighter pilots such as Yeager and Boyd have conclusively proven.

When the US acquired its' first Mig 15, it was mock-combat tested against our F-86. Yeager flew both planes, and regardless which plane he was in, he always came out on top. Even in the MIG, which had notorious instability problems, and usually couldn't recover from a spin.

BTW read the development history of the B-29. The airplane that prevented the invasion of Japan. Ir was still being debugged when the war ended.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2018, 07:13 PM
hawk55732's Avatar
hawk55732 hawk55732 is offline
The Hawks Nest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13,156
Thanks: 12,571
Thanked 22,829 Times in 8,214 Posts
Default

Just in case people didnt notice, the article is from June of 2017.
__________________
Father, husband, son, Marine.

"A terrorist is only as strong as the fear he creates."

"Things you own end up owning you"
- Tyler Durban
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to hawk55732 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2018, 07:21 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,370
Thanks: 1,815
Thanked 24,956 Times in 6,098 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
When the US acquired its' first Mig 15, it was mock-combat tested against our F-86. Yeager flew both planes, and regardless which plane he was in, he always came out on top. Even in the MIG, which had notorious instability problems, and usually couldn't recover from a spin.
The MiG-15 - which traces its roots to the Focke-Wulf Ta183.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2018, 10:49 PM
rmaples rmaples is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 701
Thanks: 106
Thanked 979 Times in 407 Posts
Default

All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with that big fan spinning behind my head. Last one-for-all solution was the F111, which resulted in the Navy paying for the F14 and the Air Force paying for the F15 all of which were obsolete in terms of fighting the hot version of the Cold War. Lockheed has a reputation for building expensive, complicated aircraft that are seldom mass produced.
The F104 was a space-age pig that we had to pay the Germans to fly. The YF12 was the mass produced strategic fighter version of the SR71, which was rendered obsolete by spy satellites before it was built.
If not for the C130 Lockheed would have gone out of business by the end of the Korean War.
The F35 was supposed to replace the F16 as our budget export fighter, but now it costs more than the F22.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rmaples For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2018, 10:54 PM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,154
Thanks: 2,855
Thanked 19,036 Times in 6,487 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmaples View Post
All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with that big fan spinning behind my head. Last one-for-all solution was the F111, which resulted in the Navy paying for the F14, both of which were obsolete before they came on line.
Do I have to remind the assembled multitude again that only the Marine version has the fan? It gets the glamor photos, but it's actually a small minority of the planes that will be built.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2018, 11:22 PM
Revelation Revelation is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 1,243
Thanks: 37,316
Thanked 2,982 Times in 784 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmaples View Post
All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with that big fan spinning behind my head. Last one-for-all solution was the F111, which resulted in the Navy paying for the F14 and the Air Force paying for the F15 all of which were obsolete in terms of fighting the hot version of the Cold War. Lockheed has a reputation for building expensive, complicated aircraft that are seldom mass produced.
The F104 was a space-age pig that we had to pay the Germans to fly. The YF12 was the mass produced strategic fighter version of the SR71, which was rendered obsolete by spy satellites before it was built.
If not for the C130 Lockheed would have gone out of business by the end of the Korean War.
The F35 was supposed to replace the F16 as our budget export fighter, but now it costs more than the F22.
F-111 had its merits; the reason the Navy moved away from it was the weight of the aircraft - had it been lighter the F-14 would most likely never have seen the light of day. The F-111 was in service for years in the USAF and performed quite well.

Satellites did not render the SR-71 obsolete. The cost of operation rendered the SR-71 obsolete. The SR-71 flew long after the introduction of spy satellites and the U-2 still flies to this day.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16 - both domestically and internationally with trusted allies. The F-35 costs far less than an F-22. Most people think of the initial price when they think about the F-35; its cost has dropped dramatically. The F-35 now costs just under $85 million per plane.

If you wanted to buy a F-16 Block 70 (latest version) with all of the bells and whistles, that still falls far short of the F-35 capabilities, you are going to spend $60-$100 million if under FMS. If the buyer chooses not to participate in the FMS program you will spend $40-50 million per aircraft.

So, yes, the F-35 is an outstanding value for what you are getting.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Revelation For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2018, 11:51 PM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is offline
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 14,322
Thanks: 17,779
Thanked 34,973 Times in 9,788 Posts
Default

Like a number of weapon programs, the F-35 was over sold. While it will do many things very well, it can not bust tanks with cannon fire like the A-10, it still does not meet the deep strike mission requirement of the Navy, and it is far more complicated to fly than the F-16.

I believe the Marine version will be an excellent replacement for the AV-8 Harrier.
The Navy version is better and far more survivalble than the F-18.
The F-35 is light years ahead of current strike aircraft used by our Allies.

I believe it is a good addition to our current mix of aircraft, but IMO the US still needs to develop a modern replacement of the A-10 Warthog.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2018, 12:04 AM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,154
Thanks: 2,855
Thanked 19,036 Times in 6,487 Posts
Default

Or just build more 'Hogs. It's a very simple airframe.

Full disclosure: I'm very partial to the A-10; I worked on the program at Farmingdale. Put the job into a modern facility with less corruption, and you'd get a better-made airplane for less $$. We KNOW it does the job. Boeing is already tooled up to make wings.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2018, 03:19 AM
rmaples rmaples is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 701
Thanks: 106
Thanked 979 Times in 407 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revelation View Post
F-111 had its merits; the reason the Navy moved away from it was the weight of the aircraft - had it been lighter the F-14 would most likely never have seen the light of day. The F-111 was in service for years in the USAF and performed quite well.

Satellites did not render the SR-71 obsolete. The cost of operation rendered the SR-71 obsolete. The SR-71 flew long after the introduction of spy satellites and the U-2 still flies to this day.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16 - both domestically and internationally with trusted allies. The F-35 costs far less than an F-22. Most people think of the initial price when they think about the F-35; its cost has dropped dramatically. The F-35 now costs just under $85 million per plane.

If you wanted to buy a F-16 Block 70 (latest version) with all of the bells and whistles, that still falls far short of the F-35 capabilities, you are going to spend $60-$100 million if under FMS. If the buyer chooses not to participate in the FMS program you will spend $40-50 million per aircraft.

So, yes, the F-35 is an outstanding value for what you are getting.
--I'm not pushing the F-14. To determine the need for an aircraft just determine how many times it fulfilled its primary mission. How many times did the F-14 shoot down an aircraft or missile that was attacking the fleet? It was an unnecessary weapon system same as the F-35. Saying that he F111 could have replaced the F-14 if it had been lighter is like saying "if it had been a fighter instead of a bomber, with a better radar and better missiles, had landing gear suitable for a flight deck" is like saying that if it had been a different airplane it could have replaced the F-14. Neither aircraft was necessary or worth what they cost.

Advances in Soviet missile technology rendered the SR-71 obsolete. Can't believe that it's cheaper to deploy a satellite than it is to operate an SR-71. The aircraft was obsolete before it was deployed, same as the F-14. The US needed a way to snoop on Russia and the Warsaw Pact. Satellites can and the SR-71 can't. U2s still fly, but not over Russia or any other country with comparable air defense systems.

There's no way to know how much it will cost to deploy the F-35 until it is deployed. It had better be lots cheaper considering that it has half as many engines and half the capabilities of the F-22. The main consideration is: how much better will the F-35 be than its predecessors and how much does the improvement cost?

The Russians, the US, China and all other major players discovered that for strategic purposes the missile is much cheaper and more survivable system than a manned delivery vehicle could ever be, which is why the B-70 was scrapped.
In the last few decades the same argument is being applied to tactical purposes. I'm not arguing against the F-35 in favor of the F-22, I'm arguing against any major expenditure on manned vehicles in favor of unmanned vehicles. It's all a question of bang for the buck. The primary limitation to all manned air weapon systems is the aircrew.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to rmaples For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2018, 08:59 AM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,370
Thanks: 1,815
Thanked 24,956 Times in 6,098 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revelation View Post
F-111 had its merits; the reason the Navy moved away from it was the weight of the aircraft - had it been lighter the F-14 would most likely never have seen the light of day. The F-111 was in service for years in the USAF and performed quite well.
A good friend of mine was a 111 driver. It wasn't a good fighter. It was a decent light bomber. But as a fighter it was not.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2018, 10:54 AM
tAKticool's Avatar
tAKticool tAKticool is offline
Tactical Sommelier
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nature Coast
Age: 38
Posts: 958
Thanks: 318
Thanked 1,371 Times in 426 Posts
Default

^^ Nor is the F35 a "dog fighter" -- many of the military brass discussing the F35 have consistently explained that the Joint STRIKE Fighter was never designed to be the front line air combat platform ... specifically, "If you find yourself in a dogfight, you screwed up big time."..... The F35 is akin to the Red October SSBN- "designed to approach targets with stealth and destroy them with little or no warning" -- the F35 was designed to be able to flame the bad guys without them seeing you. If you have suddenly got into a close in dog fight, you screwed up.



Now as for ME, I think the F35 is a front program for money for something much more advanced, like on Stargate SG1. Space battle cruisers, son.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to tAKticool For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2018, 12:10 PM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,154
Thanks: 2,855
Thanked 19,036 Times in 6,487 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ_HighCountry View Post
A good friend of mine was a 111 driver. It wasn't a good fighter. It was a decent light bomber. But as a fighter it was not.
It was F-111s that carried Reagan's "message to Khadafy", wasn't it?
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2018, 02:58 PM
tAKticool's Avatar
tAKticool tAKticool is offline
Tactical Sommelier
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nature Coast
Age: 38
Posts: 958
Thanks: 318
Thanked 1,371 Times in 426 Posts
Default

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...f-the-cold-war


Outstanding F-111 Aardvark article... highly worth the read.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to tAKticool For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2018, 05:43 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,370
Thanks: 1,815
Thanked 24,956 Times in 6,098 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
It was F-111s that carried Reagan's "message to Khadafy", wasn't it?
Yes it was. But as a bomber. Not a fighter.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 11:51 AM
danthe727man danthe727man is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 298
Thanks: 0
Thanked 284 Times in 136 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozarks Tom View Post
The link reads like a press release from Lockheed-Martin. I noticed they didn't mention that after it's comparatively short flight time it take two days maintenance before it can fly again.

It's a grossly overpriced and under performing white elephant that should have been cancelled years ago.
One one hand I agree with you. The F16 and F18 are still awesome aircraft and avionics are always upgradeable. They are battle proven and still better than what other hostile nations are operating. These platforms are a cheaper way to go.

On the other hand I think the U.S. still needs to be developing next generation aircraft. Although I think the F-35 program is a boondoggle. I don't know how in this day and age we can spend hundreds of billions on something like the F-35 and get a subpar operating aircraft.

I mean we don't light off nukes undergound anymore because we have computers so powerful that they can perfectly simulate a nuclear blast for planning and design purposes.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to danthe727man For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2018, 02:30 PM
rustednail rustednail is online now
AimSmallMissSmall
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 917
Thanks: 1,548
Thanked 1,756 Times in 565 Posts
Default

speaking of the F-111.....how many are aware of the 300 second clock???
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net