F-35 Dogfight Criticisms laid to rest? - Page 2 - 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 02-19-2018, 10:43 AM
mauser6863 mauser6863 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,155
Thanks: 3,001
Thanked 6,170 Times in 1,604 Posts
Default



Advertise Here



I really think what needs to happen is that the U.S. Navy (The 2nd largest air force in the world), needs to have a new air dominance fighter program based on the engines and avionics of the F22, but with a purpose built airframe for carrier operations. The same plane can be purchased by the Airforce to bolster the only 187 remaining F-22 fighters.

The High-Low strategy of buying F-15's and lower cost F-16's was pretty good doctrine in the 1970's. In addition, the F-16 was a very popular plane for our allied partners to purchase from us.

Today, we have 10 Aircraft Carrier, all with limited deck space. The High-Low mix really doesn't make sense here like it does on a big Air Force base. You want the most capable planes in those precious spots. The "Low Cost" F-35 might be better than a Super Hornet, maybe not, but what is needed is a F-14 replacement for fleet defense and ground attack.

In addition, the U.S. Marine Corps likes to fly fixed wing planes off of their landing ships, since the advent of the Harrier aircraft. Really there is no need to do this, as Marine Squadrons frequently fly F-18's from real Carriers. Any real combat deployments are going to be in conjunction with a Carrier Battle Group. Besides the very few fixed wing aircraft simply can't provide adequate support to a real landing action, too few planes and no AEW capability.



The Marines and their budgets would be better served by a new (like the old) A-10 dedicated attack aircraft with high loiter times, large ordnance capacity and low maintenance requirements. Once airbases are obtained, the A-10, like the Marines KC-130's can provide additional sustainable support to Marines on the ground. Not every plane needs to be carrier capable.

When one considers training, spare parts and savings from unit production costs, the Navy and the Airforce would be better served by a Air Dominance/ Ground Support High-Low mix, with the new Navy aircraft in the Air Dominance Role and newly built A-10's taking the ground attack role.



The F-35 isn't going to be cancelled, but the buy amount can be reduced and the Airforce can use it to replace older F-16A fighters. Foreign orders would not be impacted by a reduced buy, as long as the price stayed the same. The conventional Air Force version is the best of the bunch.

The Navy and Marines, should simply skip this plane.

“‘Fast moving aircraft are not designed to support ground troops,’ said Army Sgt. First Class Frank Antenori. ‘As much as the Air Force and Navy would like to think that, fighter aircraft that travel at speeds can’t slow down to identify the targets.’ Antenori made this statement after witnessing a friendly fire incident, in which bombs dropped from one of USAFs fast movers killed 16 Kurds and injured 45. He also said that “With fast movers, I never had any success,”, and that senior decision makers often become so enamored with technology that they fail to see what troops on the ground really require. While A-10s never missed, F-18s needed two or three bombing runs to get them on target, he said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hick Industries View Post
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 4 Users Say Thank You to mauser6863 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-19-2018, 04:11 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

Mauser I like and agree with about all you posted and thank you for it.

I also think the Navy screwed up big time.

The Navy would have been way better in the short, medium, and long term if they had a fleet of F/A-22 Navy Raptors to replace the F-14s for Combat Air Patrol, Interceptor, and highest value Attack/bomber role, and F/A-18 "Super" Hornets (assuming there was a happy medium to be had in the 3-sided triangle of Costs, Capabilities, and Volume [lots of them to fill up squadrons] ) ... and F-35Bs for USMC Aviation on "Big Deck Amphibs".


The biggest problem the F-35 program has had is the fact that it tries to pretend there are "3 versions of the F-35" ... which is BS. The F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C are all different birds, totally.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tAKticool For This Useful Post:
Old 02-19-2018, 07:17 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is online now
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 27,829
Thanks: 30,720
Thanked 66,609 Times in 20,414 Posts
Default

I just read an article last week that said about half the F-35 fleet is out of service for repairs. I hate this flying white elephant.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Justme11 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2018, 10:48 PM
Brettboat's Avatar
Brettboat Brettboat is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,760
Thanks: 215
Thanked 943 Times in 562 Posts
Default

The F35 is a great example of an aircraft that can do anything, and not do any of it well. In a dog fight an SU27 can go head to head with it running 1990s era avionics... Awesome right?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Brettboat For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2018, 10:55 PM
hawk55732's Avatar
hawk55732 hawk55732 is offline
The Hawks Nest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13,109
Thanks: 12,503
Thanked 22,665 Times in 8,179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brettboat View Post
The F35 is a great example of an aircraft that can do anything, and not do any of it well. In a dog fight an SU27 can go head to head with it running 1990s era avionics... Awesome right?
And when did this happen?
__________________
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
Old 02-23-2018, 01:05 AM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,033
Thanks: 2,824
Thanked 18,788 Times in 6,398 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brettboat View Post
The F35 is a great example of an aircraft that can do anything, and not do any of it well. In a dog fight an SU27 can go head to head with it running 1990s era avionics... Awesome right?
The old dictum still applies: No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.

In 1940 we fielded an airplane designed to a specification for a short range high altitude interceptor, the P-38, which soon became the longest-ranging escort fighter of the war, and whose combat maneuverability at low altitude proved superior even to the British Spitfire.

The famous P-47 Thunderbolt was ordered as a high altitude escort fighter, but it proved to be the best single engine ground attack fighter of the war.

Meanwhile the P-51, which was ordered by the British as a low-to-middle altitude fighter to complement the high altitude Spitfire, became the grand master of high altitude bomber escorts.

You don't know what you've got until the elephants start coming at you.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 02-23-2018, 06:02 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 7,059
Thanks: 1,762
Thanked 23,358 Times in 5,803 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
Meanwhile the P-51, which was ordered by the British as a low-to-middle altitude fighter to complement the high altitude Spitfire, became the grand master of high altitude bomber escorts.
It also took an engine change to make that happen. Allison-equipped Mustangs had poor performance. The Merlin fixed all that.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 02-23-2018, 07:13 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is online now
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 27,829
Thanks: 30,720
Thanked 66,609 Times in 20,414 Posts
Default



See that little brimstone? Thats the Close air support weapon. Dropped from 35,000 feet. Close.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-24-2018, 10:32 AM
PatrioticAmerican's Avatar
PatrioticAmerican PatrioticAmerican is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Age: 59
Posts: 1,179
Thanks: 2,172
Thanked 2,684 Times in 785 Posts
Default

"SR71, which was rendered obsolete by spy satellites before it was built."


Not even close to the truth.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PatrioticAmerican For This Useful Post:
Old 02-24-2018, 05:10 PM
Armed in Alpharetta's Avatar
Armed in Alpharetta Armed in Alpharetta is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 668
Thanks: 957
Thanked 917 Times in 358 Posts
Default

Entertaining thread. I've been shooting video of these planes for years now and I can attest to their viability. Shot the first flight, first vertical landing, and spent two carrier duties shooting ops.
They can shoot ground targets - look up gun tests on youtube. They are expensive, but they have capabilities that are way beyond what is flying now.

Merica.

AA
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-24-2018, 08:44 PM
rmaples rmaples is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 701
Thanks: 106
Thanked 979 Times in 407 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrioticAmerican View Post
"SR71, which was rendered obsolete by spy satellites before it was built."


Not even close to the truth.
Taken out of context. The SR71 was designed to replace the U2 with its primary mission being gathering intelligence about RUSSIAN and Warsaw Pact strategic bomber and missile capability, but Russian AA capabilities improved so quickly that it never fulfilled it's primary purpose; spy satellites supplanted it.
Remember that the primary limitation to all high-performance aircraft is the requirement that they provide life support and safety to those large bags of Jello that operate them. Get rid of the Jello and you get rid of many of the limitations. Missiles and spy satellites don't have the Jello.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-24-2018, 08:59 PM
rmaples rmaples is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 701
Thanks: 106
Thanked 979 Times in 407 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
The old dictum still applies: No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.

In 1940 we fielded an airplane designed to a specification for a short range high altitude interceptor, the P-38, which soon became the longest-ranging escort fighter of the war, and whose combat maneuverability at low altitude proved superior even to the British Spitfire.

The famous P-47 Thunderbolt was ordered as a high altitude escort fighter, but it proved to be the best single engine ground attack fighter of the war.

Meanwhile the P-51, which was ordered by the British as a low-to-middle altitude fighter to complement the high altitude Spitfire, became the grand master of high altitude bomber escorts.

You don't know what you've got until the elephants start coming at you.
An escort fighter wasn't designed early in the war because B17s and B24 weren't supposed to need escorts. Bad planning all the way around. The P38 got drafted as an escort because it was the only plane that could carry enough gas to make most of the trips; and it wasn't a great success because it had one of those Lockheed traits that prevented it from being able to dive with the German planes because it couldn't pull out of a fast dive. If a plane can't pull out of a dive it has to operate low. Like the P47 it failed at its primary design purpose.
Pundits say that the F35 is needed for strikes because it is more precise than a cruise missile. As long as it isn't flying strikes against advanced AA it will be fine, flood the airspace with capable air defense systems and it becomes a standoff weapon, much like the cruise missile but a whole lot more expensive.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-24-2018, 10:33 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is online now
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 27,829
Thanks: 30,720
Thanked 66,609 Times in 20,414 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed in Alpharetta View Post
Entertaining thread. I've been shooting video of these planes for years now and I can attest to their viability. Shot the first flight, first vertical landing, and spent two carrier duties shooting ops.
They can shoot ground targets - look up gun tests on youtube. They are expensive, but they have capabilities that are way beyond what is flying now.

Merica.

AA
181 rounds of 25 mm at 3000 rounds/min = just shy of 4 seconds of firing time. for the internal gun

The external gun pod (which impacts the stealth characteristics) has 220 rounds adding a second of trigger time.

About one sixth the capacity of the A-10 and a weaker round.

A-10 30 mm round


F-35 25 mm round.


Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2018, 12:05 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,484
Thanks: 481
Thanked 4,029 Times in 1,613 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmaples View Post
An escort fighter wasn't designed early in the war because B17s and B24 weren't supposed to need escorts. Bad planning all the way around. The P38 got drafted as an escort because it was the only plane that could carry enough gas to make most of the trips; and it wasn't a great success because it had one of those Lockheed traits that prevented it from being able to dive with the German planes because it couldn't pull out of a fast dive. If a plane can't pull out of a dive it has to operate low. Like the P47 it failed at its primary design purpose.
Pundits say that the F35 is needed for strikes because it is more precise than a cruise missile. As long as it isn't flying strikes against advanced AA it will be fine, flood the airspace with capable air defense systems and it becomes a standoff weapon, much like the cruise missile but a whole lot more expensive.
When used in the A2A role, I'm betting the F-35 will be used for stand-off air superiority. It's nowhere near the dogfighter the F-16 is, but the radar on it is phenomenal... can see an object the size of a large 1 cubic meter cardboard box at 100+ miles, and can dump AMRAAM missiles into the zone from 100 miles out then let an AWACS controller direct them until their internal seekers can take over. I was messing around with this capability in the sim Command:Modern Air/Naval Operations and it's pretty cool. The Russians of course claim they have or are developing a way to hijack the missiles datalink and make it turn around and attack the plane that fired it. But then the Russians claim to have an answer to everything.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 03-12-2018, 02:46 PM
teenahlake teenahlake is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 607
Thanks: 5
Thanked 589 Times in 281 Posts
Default

Which means nothing unless the ROE allows these kinds of shots. Shoot down many civilian airliners lately?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to teenahlake For This Useful Post:
Old 03-12-2018, 03:06 PM
hawk55732's Avatar
hawk55732 hawk55732 is offline
The Hawks Nest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13,109
Thanks: 12,503
Thanked 22,665 Times in 8,179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teenahlake View Post
Which means nothing unless the ROE allows these kinds of shots. Shoot down many civilian airliners lately?
What exactly means nothing.
__________________
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
Old 03-12-2018, 04:01 PM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,033
Thanks: 2,824
Thanked 18,788 Times in 6,398 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WImountainMan View Post
When used in the A2A role, I'm betting the F-35 will be used for stand-off air superiority. It's nowhere near the dogfighter the F-16 is, but the radar on it is phenomenal... can see an object the size of a large 1 cubic meter cardboard box at 100+ miles, and can dump AMRAAM missiles into the zone from 100 miles out then let an AWACS controller direct them until their internal seekers can take over. I was messing around with this capability in the sim Command:Modern Air/Naval Operations and it's pretty cool. The Russians of course claim they have or are developing a way to hijack the missiles datalink and make it turn around and attack the plane that fired it. But then the Russians claim to have an answer to everything.
Read an interesting article on the Aviationist web site last night. Written by a Norwegian pilot who has flown F-16s for a couple of thousand hours and is now flying the F-35 in mock combat against F-16s as a trainer. HIS experience shows that there are certain strong points to the F-35 that enable him to out-turn the F-16 every time. Namely that the F-35 is quicker to roll and pitch, because of the speed with which the control surfaces move, and that the F-35 is more controllable at very high angles of attack. Which harkens me back to the old P-38, which could safely be thrown into a high speed stall, "slamming on the brakes" as Robin Olds put it, forcing an opponent behind him to either over-run him, or to stall his own plane, which the single-engine German fighters could not do without being flipped into a spin by the propeller torque. This Norwegian pilot uses the same tactic and the same terminology, and goes on to say that, having brought the plane to a near halt, the F-35 accelerates much faster than the F-16. I saw myself an example of this when I watched the maiden flight of the first production B-model when I was working at L-M in the winter of 2006/7. As he lifted off, two F-16 chase planes formated on him, and seconds later both had to go to burner to keep up as he climbed out. This Norwegian guy gripes a little that the visibility to the rear isn't as good as the F-16, but he has learned to overcome that. I liked his description of how the F-35 "howls" as it accelerates from low speed. I've heard that. It does it on takeoff, and it's eerie. The Lockheed guys told me that a whole new hearing protection headgear had to be invented for the ground personnel.

It'll take me some time to paw through my history to find the link. I didn't bookmark it. I'll post it tonight when I find it. It does rather forcefully debunk the idea that the F-35 can't dogfight. He says that it's a pretty good dogfighter, for a bomber.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 03-12-2018, 05:14 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,484
Thanks: 481
Thanked 4,029 Times in 1,613 Posts
Default F-35 Dogfight Criticisms laid to rest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
Read an interesting article on the Aviationist web site last night. Written by a Norwegian pilot who has flown F-16s for a couple of thousand hours and is now flying the F-35 in mock combat against F-16s as a trainer. HIS experience shows that there are certain strong points to the F-35 that enable him to out-turn the F-16 every time. Namely that the F-35 is quicker to roll and pitch, because of the speed with which the control surfaces move, and that the F-35 is more controllable at very high angles of attack. Which harkens me back to the old P-38, which could safely be thrown into a high speed stall, "slamming on the brakes" as Robin Olds put it, forcing an opponent behind him to either over-run him, or to stall his own plane, which the single-engine German fighters could not do without being flipped into a spin by the propeller torque. This Norwegian pilot uses the same tactic and the same terminology, and goes on to say that, having brought the plane to a near halt, the F-35 accelerates much faster than the F-16. I saw myself an example of this when I watched the maiden flight of the first production B-model when I was working at L-M in the winter of 2006/7. As he lifted off, two F-16 chase planes formated on him, and seconds later both had to go to burner to keep up as he climbed out. This Norwegian guy gripes a little that the visibility to the rear isn't as good as the F-16, but he has learned to overcome that. I liked his description of how the F-35 "howls" as it accelerates from low speed. I've heard that. It does it on takeoff, and it's eerie. The Lockheed guys told me that a whole new hearing protection headgear had to be invented for the ground personnel.

It'll take me some time to paw through my history to find the link. I didn't bookmark it. I'll post it tonight when I find it. It does rather forcefully debunk the idea that the F-35 can't dogfight. He says that it's a pretty good dogfighter, for a bomber.


Well I think they are replacing the WI ANG’s F-16s with F-35s so maybe I have to swing down to Madison one of these days and see what the howl is all about.
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-12-2018, 06:20 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is online now
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 27,829
Thanks: 30,720
Thanked 66,609 Times in 20,414 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk55732 View Post
What exactly means nothing.
I took his meaning to be "beyond visual range missile shots are rarely authorized".

Visual ID of target being thought necessary to avoid shooting down innocents.
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-12-2018, 06:23 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is online now
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 27,829
Thanks: 30,720
Thanked 66,609 Times in 20,414 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WImountainMan View Post
When used in the A2A role, I'm betting the F-35 will be used for stand-off air superiority. It's nowhere near the dogfighter the F-16 is, but the radar on it is phenomenal... can see an object the size of a large 1 cubic meter cardboard box at 100+ miles, and can dump AMRAAM missiles into the zone from 100 miles out then let an AWACS controller direct them until their internal seekers can take over. I was messing around with this capability in the sim Command:Modern Air/Naval Operations and it's pretty cool. The Russians of course claim they have or are developing a way to hijack the missiles datalink and make it turn around and attack the plane that fired it. But then the Russians claim to have an answer to everything.
The radar is a good thing I guess, but they can't turn it on without spoiling their stealth operating mode.

Similarly, the weapons loadout is severely limited if stealth mode is maintained.
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 10:06 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