F-35 Weapon Systems

[Nilsen]

All the planes you mentioned are faster than the F35 and they can turn

That beeing said id rather see we get the F15 Silent Eagle with all the latest radars and upgrades. They have the two engines that i feel is needed over the north sea. Atleast the F35 is cheap so that helps abit and it should do well against the russian fleet if they ever decide to do something stupid.

Stealth? Yeah its good for now but thats just until detection technologies gets better and that is just a matter of a few years.

The low price of the F35 and its excellent sensors is what makes me give it a thumbs up.

[Die Hard]

Arming your air force to fight the Russians is ... unrealistic. No matter what aircraft you buy you can't hope to stand against an air force 100 times larger than your own, even if your aircraft are somewhat more advanced. Arming your air force for international NATO operations on the other hand is realistic, and even if the bad guys we're fighting now are nothing but mountain goat herders with AK's, tomorrow it might be Iranians or North Koreans or who knows what, and you might want a piece of that action. Your pilots will most likely never have to fire an air-2-air missile in anger, USAF/USN will do the prep-work as usual. However you might have a SAM or two fired at you, and then this DAS system seems like a good thing to have.

[Kazaa]

DAS does look fantastic!

[Nilsen]

Arming your air force to fight the Russians is ... unrealistic. No matter what aircraft you buy you can't hope to stand against an air force 100 times larger than your own, even if your aircraft are somewhat more advanced. Arming your air force for international NATO operations on the other hand is realistic, and even if the bad guys we're fighting now are nothing but mountain goat herders with AK's, tomorrow it might be Iranians or North Koreans or who knows what, and you might want a piece of that action. Your pilots will most likely never have to fire an air-2-air missile in anger, USAF/USN will do the prep-work as usual. However you might have a SAM or two fired at you, and then this DAS system seems like a good thing to have.

No way we have a chanse against the russians so even trying is futile. That is why what we really need is something fast enough to intercept them in peacetime (as we do several times a month) to show them we can. In a war with russia the airforce would be disabled in 30 mins to an hour MAX whatever aircraft we have. All they have to do is hit the airfields. This has been known for over 50 years.

[CAP1]

Ooooh, yay! Now we can run from the fight instead of outmaneuvering our opponent and still win the fight. Something tells me ACM training will soon be regarded as, "unnecessary."

it's not running. it's extending

[Die Hard]

No way we have a chanse against the russians so even trying is futile. That is why what we really need is something fast enough to intercept them in peacetime (as we do several times a month) to show them we can. In a war with russia the airforce would be disabled in 30 mins to an hour MAX whatever aircraft we have. All they have to do is hit the airfields. This has been known for over 50 years.

And do you have problems with intercepting Russian bombers now? The F-16 cannot super cruise so all your intercepts now are subsonic. On afterburner the F-16's endurance is measured in minutes. How can the F-35 do worse?

[Nilsen]

And do you have problems with intercepting Russian bombers now? The F-16 cannot super cruise so all your intercepts now are subsonic. On afterburner the F-16's endurance is measured in minutes. How can the F-35 do worse?

Not a problem in peacetime to intercept if they let us, and it wont be a problem with the F35 in peacetime either. That is why i say thumbs up for the F35 due to its low cost and good sensors. In war time atleast the eurofighter/F15 or JAS would have a better chanse at intercepting them due to higher speeds

F35 is a good cheap peacetime bomber and an excellent surveilance aircraft that would prolly get some kills in war too if they are up when the attack comes. When they go to land for more missiles or fuel they will be in trouble just as any other plane because the airfield(s) would be full of holes.

In a war over here our aircraft would not be our best line of defence whatever plane we would have. Most of the war plans we had during the cold war were and i suspect are made with the assumption that our airforce is all gone.

[Rich46yo]

We made that Mistake in VietNam...

Been awhile since 'nam and 1'ST Gen ATA missilery eh?

Here http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml scratch you itch on that page and study the ATA kills made by US aircraft during Gulf-1, "which was a generation ago missile-wise". All those kills by the AIM-7, the Sparrow AMRAMM. A missile that required the launch aircraft to keep its radar on and fly straight and level. Current generation AMRAMM dont require either.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-120.htm

To compare these Vietnam era aircraft, missiles, avionics, with todays latest Gen. is just crazy. Look at it this way. Vietnam era we sent men to the Moon with computers about as powerful as a cheap day planners you'd buy for $10 at a K-mart. Compare that to the latest game puters anyone with a credit card can buy nowadays. Heck my puter has more RAM in its video card then all the RAM of every NASA puter that went to the moon. Let alone the ability to process faster.

And thats the real secret of the F-35/5'th Gen aircraft and avionics, "besides stealth". They have the sensors on board, and the processing power, to acquire and move information at an incredible speed/Network and give the pilot the upper hand in the battle. Its an entirely new ball game.

America has the most advanced military aviation industry in the world by far. We could just have easily built a fighter that dances and tail walks at air shows. But we didn't! Why?

[Die Hard]

In war time atleast the eurofighter/F15 or JAS would have a better chanse at intercepting them due to higher speeds

That is wrong on many levels:

1. There is no difference between peacetime intercepts and wartime intercepts up to the point when the shooting starts.

2. None of the fighters you mentioned are faster than the F-35 with an A2A war load. The F-35 carries its A2A missiles internally and can fly at its maximum speed. All the other fighters you mentioned lose speed for every missile they carry.

3. The Russian bombers cannot super cruise, so they are subsonic too for most of their flight. The Backfire would be lucky to even detect the interceptors before coming under fire, and the F-35's stealth is a great asset in that regard.

Top speed is pretty irrelevant for bomber intercepts. Maximum cruise speed however is critical, and with no draggy external load and large internal fuel capacity the F-35 outclass all other fighters except the F-22.

[CAP1]

Arming your air force to fight the Russians is ... unrealistic. No matter what aircraft you buy you can't hope to stand against an air force 100 times larger than your own, even if your aircraft are somewhat more advanced. Arming your air force for international NATO operations on the other hand is realistic, and even if the bad guys we're fighting now are nothing but mountain goat herders with AK's, tomorrow it might be Iranians or North Koreans or who knows what, and you might want a piece of that action. Your pilots will most likely never have to fire an air-2-air missile in anger, USAF/USN will do the prep-work as usual. However you might have a SAM or two fired at you, and then this DAS system seems like a good thing to have.

i've said this before and got blasted for it......technology doesn't win wars, numbers do.

[Rich46yo]

i've said this before and got blasted for it......technology doesn't win wars, numbers do.

I guess the Israelis didnt hear you.

Or the Chinese, who are spending a fortune switching from numbers to High Tech.

Saddams army was far larger then ours in either war but got slaughtered wholesale. Night vision, smart bombs, networkcentricty, AWACs, GPS, drone aircraft, cruise missiles, advanced gunnery on MBTs. My gosh all this high tech was just useless. If only we had numbers.

Should the Russians ever get drunk enough to attack NATO they will have far more numbers. However they will be so outclassed everywhere else the war would be exciting but short for them.

Im not blasting you for this

technology doesn't win wars, numbers do.

I'm laughing.

[CAP1]

I guess the Israelis didnt hear you.

Or the Chinese, who are spending a fortune switching from numbers to High Tech.

Saddams army was far larger then ours in either war but got slaughtered wholesale. Night vision, smart bombs, networkcentricty, AWACs, GPS, drone aircraft, cruise missiles, advanced gunnery on MBTs. My gosh all this high tech was just useless. If only we had numbers.

Should the Russians ever get drunk enough to attack NATO they will have far more numbers. However they will be so outclassed everywhere else the war would be exciting but short for them.

Im not blasting you for this  I'm laughing.

heh....still blasting....


soooo.....you're saying that iraq had a bigger army than we did? 

[BMathis]

Been awhile since 'nam and 1'ST Gen ATA missilery eh?

To compare these Vietnam era aircraft, missiles, avionics, with todays latest Gen. is just crazy. Look at it this way. Vietnam era we sent men to the Moon with computers about as powerful as a cheap day planners you'd buy for $10 at a K-mart.

America has the most advanced military aviation industry in the world by far. We could just have easily built a fighter that dances and tail walks at air shows. But we didn't! Why?

Yes Rich, I understand why we don't build like the Russians or Europeans. I wasn't bashing where we are putting our money.  I was simply pointing out that once missiles became the primary means of attack (After WW2/Korea), ACM went out the window...

DAS does look fantastic!

Yea it does. Looking through the Floor of the AC is incredible.

And do you have problems with intercepting Russian bombers now? The F-16 cannot super cruise so all your intercepts now are subsonic. On afterburner the F-16's endurance is measured in minutes. How can the F-35 do worse?

I believe the F-22 has Supersonic Cruise.

[indy007]

ACM did not go out the window. People thought ACM went out of window, but the geometry of a missile shot dictates moving to a position to gain a high PK firing solution, or you miss.

Missiles are not death-sticks. Use it right, or miss horribly. The technology helps, but it doesn't change the fact you still have to put yourself in the proper position to make reliable kill shots.

and stealth != invisibility. It simply cuts your detection range drastically. F-35 and F-22 have that massive advantage over everything else, and it really is massive. You up an entire wing of Su-30MKK, and you're still pretty boned. AWACS sees you, makes a radio call, and fighters you can't see coming are now between you and your base. If you don't keep running straight from them, you eat missiles.

[Ack-Ack]

heh....still blasting....


soooo.....you're saying that iraq had a bigger army than we did? 

1st Gulf War they sure did.  They were the 4th largest Army at the time and we could only match their numbers through the coalition forces we organized.


ack-ack