the point is the f22 is the real deal while the f35 is sloppy seconds.
how the fek can australia adequately defend new zealand if it's not given all the best stuff?
The point is the F-22 is not a dual role strike fighter. The point is the RAAF said its not suitable cause you cant attack land/sea targets with it, they said they dont need it, that they dont want it, and that they cant afford it. Another point is we aint selling it and have said from the beginning we aint.
Insert Quote
the point is the f22 is the real deal while the f35 is sloppy seconds.
how the fek can australia adequately defend new zealand if it's not given all the best stuff?
Thanks for making that point. That the US is going to entrust the defense of our zillion $$ super carriers to a sloppy 2nds airplane.
You must work for Janes defense or somthing like that. You, you, you, you, you, military aviation expert you.
i would venture a guess, that by the time that the 35 s in full active service, there will be someone that has figured out a way to "see" it comming, and target it.
didn't that happen to the 117 on a couple occasions?
So are you just guessing or actually "venturing"? Were all waiting to hear what you base that statement on.
No it didnt happen to F-117s. The one F-117 that was shot down in Serbia had nothing to do with the failure of stealth. And nothing is truly invisible anyways. You can always see the thing with your eyes, which is why we often fly at night. And if your close enough you can track its IR signature. What stealth gives you is one heck of a big edge against other aircraft without it. Or those with a higher RCS. The fact is the airplane that is aware of the enemy long before the enemy is aware of him has a big edge.
Most of all in the strike mode. Future wars will be won or lost based on the success of opening night strikes. Saddam basically lost Gulf-1 on the opening night when we delivered fatal blows to his air defense system that the Iraqis could never recover from.
numbers win wars, not technology
Your kidding Cap right?
Point I was poorly making is that Australia probably still would need a dedicated Air Superiority fighter. Even in conflicts with a variety of stealth assets, non-stealth assets still provided perfectly viable air superiority. Low RCS is great, and it does change the game, but it's not a complete substitute for raw aerodynamic performance. Plus, in those conflicts I listed, I can't find a BVR shot even being taken. That's when stealth & LPI radar can be king. All the shots I've read about have been WVR. Once you're that close, stealth isn't all that helpful.
What conflicts? Vietnam? The technology wasnt there at the time.
I believe all the Kills in Gulf-1 with the AIM-7 were BVR. And most of the AIM-9 kills were made near the outside of the missiles envelope. There was no gunnery used against Iraqi aircraft and the closest thing to a dogfight was an F-15 stick who rode an Iraqi MIG into the ground as a lawn dart. The reason F-14s never fired the Pheonix missiles , in the few incidents they were involved in, was due to limitations in "Rules of engagement" placed upon the Tomcat pilots. But the truth is its only fairly recently that BVR missilry has reached a high level of dependability.
