Joint Strike Failure. Just So Failed. The 21st Century F-111 (or even F2A) just less capable. The Flanker will pwn that thing.
They need to cancel it and restart the F-22 line.
Still cool you get to see it. I saw the demonstrator in London.
Total waste of taxpayer money
Joint Strike Failure. Just So Failed. The 21st Century F-111 (or even F2A) just less capable. The Flanker will pwn that thing.
They need to cancel it and restart the F-22 line.
Still cool you get to see it. I saw the demonstrator in London.
Always amazes me how many people just trash something that they probably dont know anything about. Yes, they fixed the carrier tail hook and it will start carrier testing later this year. Things are looking good for the program. All testing is going good here. Yes there are hic-ups, but what program didnt. My plane is flying great. We are hitting many test points, and the ones we miss, we are going back, making sure we get it right, then fly it again. The F-35 is twice as loud as an F-16, and I would compare it to a F-22 taking off noise wise. How is it a waste of taxpayer money? Do you have proof? How did it fail? Proof? Just curious how people make these claims, but no proof to back it up. Apparently we are doing something right, Turkey just secured a order of 100. Japan has bought 50. South Korea just placed an order. From what I have seen, the flanker will never know the F-35 is there till its too late. This plane has a lot of amazing things going on with it, its a shame the general public only knows little of it....
BTW, if your curious about how I may know this. I am a Crew Chief on the F-35 at Edwards AFB, AF-03 is my bird.
Always amazes me how many people just trash something that they probably dont know anything about. Yes, they fixed the carrier tail hook and it will start carrier testing later this year. Things are looking good for the program. All testing is going good here. Yes there are hic-ups, but what program didnt. My plane is flying great. We are hitting many test points, and the ones we miss, we are going back, making sure we get it right, then fly it again. The F-35 is twice as loud as an F-16, and I would compare it to a F-22 taking off noise wise. How is it a waste of taxpayer money? Do you have proof? How did it fail? Proof? Just curious how people make these claims, but no proof to back it up. Apparently we are doing something right, Turkey just secured a order of 100. Japan has bought 50. South Korea just placed an order. From what I have seen, the flanker will never know the F-35 is there till its too late. This plane has a lot of amazing things going on with it, its a shame the general public only knows little of it....
BTW, if your curious about how I may know this. I am a Crew Chief on the F-35 at Edwards AFB, AF-03 is my bird.
I probably know more about it than you. Don't buy the LockMart hype. The airplane is over budget, hugely behind schedule, and cannot survive emerging threats. The Super Hornet brings far more to the fight than the Joint Strike Failure.
The thing is garbage.
The avionics don't work.
The helmet doesn't work.
Compromises to cram the lift fan into the design for the Marines wrecked it.
Bulkhead failures.
Hundreds of hours in depot post-delivery to fix screw ups.
Massive electrical problems due to insufficient cooling.
Not enough ordnance to fight its way into a target.
Can't go high enough to get any range.
Awful kinematics.
Creates persistent vortex trails that can be detected from hundreds of miles.
I could go on for a week.
Without someone to pave the way this thing is dead meat.
The flanker won't get close enough to see it. Ain't gonna be any dogfights in the world of BVRAAM. He who targets first and last wins.
The Flanker will extend away from the puny AMRAAM shot and then run the JSF down and kill it.
The stealth on the JSF is not stealthy at all. Only front aspect and only one band. The Flanker can out persist, out maneuver, out gun, outrun, and has a longer pole length. JSF is garbage.
Ok, I'll bite. How do you know more than an active wing crew chief?
Sources please...
A wing loading of 107 pounds per square foot seems a little high.
Crew Chiefs don't know much about airplanes other than how to fix them, as a rule. I work with them every day. I have friends on the inside of this program who know everything that is going on, too. It was never meant to be an F-22.
Oh, and I can do basic math. The numbers for the JSF PROVE it is not up to the task. If it were then physics has been re-written.
The Flanker will extend away from the puny AMRAAM shot and then run the JSF down and kill it.
Your sources are your friends who work in the F35 program who have told you the operational limitations of the next gen fighter aircraft? A program that probably has 1500 secret/top secret / crypto compartments?
Ok I believe you
Do your own research like I did. Not my job to do it for you.
Bill Sweetman, CDR Salamander, and Eric Palmer have aggregated a lot of material. Start there.
I have friends on the inside of this program who know everything that is going on, too.
My only problem with this, from tests it showed the JSF was within 10 miles before it even was detected, a normal amraam would be fired at 15 miles or closer, a flanker with full afters on will not run away.
Flankers only real threat is fact it can fire 25+ miles away, but on a target it cannot see won't make a difference.
Actually that is what you said.
What tests?
You mean the LM PowerPoint slide?
The airplane is only forward quarter stealth in one radar band. It is easily seen from all other angles, generates lots of heat and persistent vapor trails, and can't fly high enough to hit a Flanker at 15 miles.
I have no clue about the powerpoint or its stealth properties, honestly I rarely read into anything anymore - I just happened to read the article from Janes Defense weekly which gave some promising info from tests done on it. Thats why I inquired about its landing capabilities on carriers - last time it was published
it said the Aircraft was unable to land on the carriers and the entire bellybutton end would have to be redone in order for it to work, something about it being to close to the landing gears.
It did mention its stealth capabilities, but I don't recall what was said.
Are you going to go and see it? If I was in your shoes and nearby, I would want to see it fly, and most of all hear what it sounds like with that single engine.
I didn't know you were from AZ, most of my family comes from Scottsdale, and the ones that didn't move up to Canada right around the time I was born moved up into Happy Jack.
They fly OVER my house every day. I may go and sit at the end of the runway as they take off too.
The Flanker will extend away from the puny AMRAAM shot and then run the JSF down and kill it.
I thought you were banned :old:
So remember our discussion and it will not happen again :old:
AMRAAM 3060mph, SU30 1470mph, extend away?
I am pretty dim but something going twice as fast usually arrives first. :headscratch:
Its about how far the missile is shot from. It is fast, but if the Flanker detects the firing (the F-35 has to open ports and breaks up its frontal stealth) early then the Flanker can use its high Agility to turn and extend. The missile following it then has to tail chase the con and its possible for the Flanker to leave the range of the missile fired. It also gives the Flanker a chance to deploy the counter.
AMRAAM 3060mph, SU30 1470mph, extend away?
I am pretty dim but something going twice as fast usually arrives first. :headscratch:
I understand all the countermeasures arguments, but was merely questioning the Flankers ability to extend away from the missile with a range of 180km
Then you don't understand missile pole length and probability of kill.
To overly simplify, think of jousting:
If you are shooting down on someone all things being equal, like the Flanker can, you have a longer pole length than the guy shooting upwards, like the Joint Strike Failure.
Speed at launch also affects missile range.
The Flanker can shoot from a greater distance and has the ability to foil the F-35's AMRAAM shot. Slammer has become like the Sparrow so its PK is low and the JSF doesn't carry very many. Also it may have left the ship without a gun. So now a Flanker with far more agility, kinematics, speed, range, and firepower is at a distinct advantage.
The JSF is a disaster.
Always amazes me how many people just trash something that they probably dont know anything about. Yes, they fixed the carrier tail hook and it will start carrier testing later this year. Things are looking good for the program. All testing is going good here. Yes there are hic-ups, but what program didnt. My plane is flying great. We are hitting many test points, and the ones we miss, we are going back, making sure we get it right, then fly it again. The F-35 is twice as loud as an F-16, and I would compare it to a F-22 taking off noise wise. How is it a waste of taxpayer money? Do you have proof? How did it fail? Proof? Just curious how people make these claims, but no proof to back it up. Apparently we are doing something right, Turkey just secured a order of 100. Japan has bought 50. South Korea just placed an order. From what I have seen, the flanker will never know the F-35 is there till its too late. This plane has a lot of amazing things going on with it, its a shame the general public only knows little of it....
BTW, if your curious about how I may know this. I am a Crew Chief on the F-35 at Edwards AFB, AF-03 is my bird.
Truth is F-35 is less flying bucket than the X-32 was but still is a flying bucket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
Oh Pierre Sprey...the guy hated the 15 and what the 16 became. It's tough to take a guy seriously that poo poo'd on the 15 when it had a 100:1 kill ratio. He's more like a disgruntled employee or food critic that only likes Italian food, lol
I probably know more about it than you. Don't buy the LockMart hype. The airplane is over budget, hugely behind schedule, and cannot survive emerging threats. The Super Hornet brings far more to the fight than the Joint Strike Failure.
The thing is garbage.
The avionics don't work.
The helmet doesn't work.
Compromises to cram the lift fan into the design for the Marines wrecked it.
Bulkhead failures.
Hundreds of hours in depot post-delivery to fix screw ups.
Massive electrical problems due to insufficient cooling.
Not enough ordnance to fight its way into a target.
Can't go high enough to get any range.
Awful kinematics.
Creates persistent vortex trails that can be detected from hundreds of miles.
I could go on for a week.
Without someone to pave the way this thing is dead meat.
Kill ratio of American Fighter vs Russian designs through the Israeli conflicts and gulf Wars is...well...undefeated.
You see, in the real world the F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.
As for payload the F-35A can carry a total of 18,000 lbs on four internal and six external hardpoints. The F-16 can carry up to 17,000 lbs on nine external hardpoints.
The opinions voiced against the F-35 and AMRAAM in this thread are completely ridiculous. Listen to the people in the know, like Beau here. Treat the rest like the ignorant tin foil hat conspiracy theorists they are.
Those made experts by Carlo Kopp keep popping up in these F35 threads. I think they pretty much cut and paste from Air Power Australia.
A small % of it might actually make sense were it backed up by someone who has actually flown military fighters. Kopp himself has all of an hour or two in the back seat of an F18 trainer to back up his expertise. The guy even said the Aussies would be better off buying Russian fighters. :rofl They can join Algeria, Angola, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uganda, Venezualia, and Vietnam in flying the new Russian super fighter.
I get my info from people I know. Friends. Colleagues. Experts. Several of the guys I know were fighter weapons instructors. F-22, F-16, F-15, and F-18. A few worked in the Pentagon as well so the insight into the puzzle palace is mind boggling.
Danny, in a foot race a Flanker cannot outrun a missile. But it can defeat it. Countermeasures, forcing overshoots, running it out of gas.
F-22 flies very high. It is shooting downhill. JSF flies very low. It is shooting uphill. The Flanker will shoot downhill and there will be a lot more of them to boot.
The JSF was designed around requirements that changed dramatically during development. It was supposed to fly in behind a wave of Raptors. It is now being sold as a super jet that can fight its way in and out all by itself.
IT DOES NOT HAVE THE STEALTH, CEILING, RANGE, OR FIREPOWER, NOT TO MENTION AGILITY, to win future conflicts. It simply is not the answer to a Pacific pivot.
Forgive me for being pedantic, but all this I know, what I was questioning was your statement that a Flanker could extend from the AMRAAM, which it quite obviously cannot.
Sure it can use countermeasures and other defensive tactics but one of them would not be outrunning the weapon
A small % of it might actually make sense were it backed up by someone who has actually flown military fighters. Kopp himself has all of an hour or two in the back seat of an F18 trainer to back up his expertise. The guy even said the Aussies would be better off buying Russian fighters. ROFL! They can join Algeria, Angola, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uganda, Venezualia, and Vietnam in flying the new Russian super fighter.
All fighters can extend from a missile. Some better than others.
A missile's range is finite. Also variable. The Su can fire at a longer range then offset and run the Slammer out of gas. That's an extension. You keep the enemy outside his effective missile envelope and shoot at him. He will evade or die. Then once he is out of missiles, which the JSF will be, you run him down and kill him.
A Mach 4 missile has to travel further to catch an offsetting Mach 2 target than it does a Mach 1.2 target. And a missile fired at Mach 2 and high altitude has more range than one fired at Mach 1.2 and low altitude.
A Flanker only has to make the missile travel further. He doesn't have to outrun it, just outpersist it.
just asking...Is there any evidence the Flanker can shoot anything down? It looks like a nice, last generation fighter. Weapons systems and stealth make aircraft lethal now. How will the Flanker know that a mach 4+ low observable a2a missile is headed straight for it, launched from a F-35, Over The Horizon, based on firing coordinates it received from satellites that tracked the Flanker from wheels up?
just asking...Is there any evidence the Flanker can shoot anything down? It looks like a nice, last generation fighter. Weapons systems and stealth make aircraft lethal now. How will the Flanker know that a mach 4+ low observable a2a missile is headed straight for it, launched from a F-35, Over The Horizon, based on firing coordinates it received from satellites that tracked the Flanker from wheels up?They way stand-off missile fights are fought is by entering launch envelope (i.e. near max range), fire, and turn back. The max range assumes that the target is till flying towards you, thus either it turns away and fly till out of the missile range, or continue and risk a hit. If both sides use similar missiles and fight a careful stand-off fight, they can fire all their missiles without any kills. Real life is not so symmetrical, engagements are not per-arranged 2v2 or 4v4, and there are other considerations to the mission than may require risking losing a plane (e.g. to chase away the enemy stand off fighters to clear the way).
Good point. I've posted links in other threads here recently to articles from well respected defense sites that Russia has been hanging out India, China, and other Flanker owners to DRY. Right now over 1/2 of India's fighters are sitting useless. This is current as of last week. Engine parts and servicing, as well as avionics being the issue. Kinda hard to fly and fight when you can't even get off the runway.
Also, talking about out maneuvering a2a missiles is far easier said than done in today's world. Beaming semi active radar guided missiles and Top Gun break turns - it just doesn't happen. Even at 500 kts, or near corner velocity for modern fighters, the relative speeds of incoming missiles, and how fast they can reach them - the whole "break and turn" maneuver looks like you're almost sitting still relative to their velocity. I'm not saying maneuvering can't make missiles miss, it is possible under certain circumstances, just that it is much, much harder with today's seeker technology as well as the increase in velocity/energy of the modern missiles.
They way stand-off missile fights are fought is by entering launch envelope (i.e. near max range), fire, and turn back. The max range assumes that the target is till flying towards you, thus either it turns away and fly till out of the missile range, or continue and risk a hit. If both sides use similar missiles and fight a careful stand-off fight, they can fire all their missiles without any kills. Real life is not so symmetrical, engagements are not per-arranged 2v2 or 4v4, and there are other considerations to the mission than may require risking losing a plane (e.g. to chase away the enemy stand off fighters to clear the way).
Now what happens when both sides have radar stealth, or use massive EW, or you have chaos and saturation of targets? launch ranges get a lot shorter, and closing into a dogfight becomes a lot more possible. It's IR-missiles and cannons time.
I've read much written by Sprey, watched half a dozen interviews. I don't recall him ever going after the F-15, or upgrades to the F-16. Can you post links?
I think the idea that everything will degrade to a dog fight with cannons is overstated. When formations of Flankers, begin to see random planes exploding around them, all of this, "the Russians out number us" stuff will evaporate like it did in the gulf and Iraq war.Of course not everything will get to a dogfight. Even when it does, entering the dogfight after a BVR phase can put you in a much better position to dogfight. How the air war will look like will depend greatly on the theater of operations and the situation. The vast empty Iraqi desert is almost the ideal situation for stand-off BVR engagements. Not every place in the world is like that. Stealth is always an advantage, but not necessarily a decisive one. Depends on the situation.
Modern fighters are flying missile platforms. Non-stealth planes that think they can outfly the USA's Satalite/Stealth/missile air-to-air systems are littering the battle fields of the middle east in large numbers. :saluteFighting the Russians or the Chinese will be a lot different than fighting the Iraqies. A war is not a 2vs2 training engagement. In a war you fight a system - control, support, force multipliers, ground EW, etc make a big impact and against a super-power it will be very different. Do not under-estimate your enemies. Different environments too, see comment above.
EXACTLY! And the JSF has no persistence, energy, few missiles (none internally that are WVR) and may have left a gun behind.
Air combat vs Russian Mig29 went down exactly as I described it in the Iraq war. That was from an non-low observable F-15.
there is no proof the tech gap is closed. Our missile have been proven to hit targets. No such claim can be made by the Russians.
I think the idea that everything will degrade to a dog fight with cannons is overstated. T-60 and T-72s in great numbers were going to outnumber and crush the the overwhelmed, high tech Abrams Tanks if I recall.
Except in actual tank battles it didn't go down like the computer sims. Why? Because the Iraqis learned very quickly that when 5 Russian tanks engage an Abrams, 4 Iraqis died. As your friends are exploding around you, and the communication chain is filled with panic and confusion, the 5th guys doesn't fight as effectively as the model suggest he will. In Iraq, he jumped from his tank and ran for fox hole.
When formations of Flankers, begin to see random planes exploding around them, all of this, "the Russians out number us" stuff will evaporate like it did in the gulf and Iraq war.
Modern fighters are flying missile platforms. Non-stealth planes that think they can outfly the USA's Satalite/Stealth/missile air-to-air systems are littering the battle fields of the middle east in large numbers. :salute
Complete and utter bull exhaust. It has more internal fuel than an F-15C. More internal fuel than an F-16 can carry total with drop tanks. With external drop tanks the F-35's range will only be rivaled by the F-22 and Su-27 family. The F-35 has better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16 on the same fuel load. Internally it can carry only four missiles true, but that is in a stealth role. With external hardpoints it can carry 14 A2A missiles, and there is a future block upgrade planned to expand the internal capacity to six missiles. In a bomb-truck configuration it can carry more ord than an F-16, and if it gets into trouble it can jettison the external pylons and become stealthy with the push of a button. Both the British ASRAAM and the European IRIS-T dogfight missiles can be used on the F-35. We've got IRIS-T missiles for our F-35s. I'm sure a future update to the AIM-9X can give it lock-on after launch capability.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d_hWwqPcwkg/UY0elL2GyRI/AAAAAAAACLo/t4C0htKJrk0/s1600/F35+payload+data+2012.bmp)
The F-35 has full aspect stealth except straight aft because they didn't design it with an exhaust radar diffuser. An enemy radar needs to be able to see the turbine blades of the engine to get a radar return, and those are buried deep in there. There's only a very narrow cone of vulnerability.
(http://www.topnews.in/files/F-35-strike-fighter.jpg)
Here's an IRIS-T on one of our F-16s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T
(http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/News/Special%20Features/tdpu_fs_140705/spotterdag_fs_140705_05_jld.jpg)
Look I know nothing of the JSF, but your common response is "I know FRIENDS!!!" butt here are no links or information to say otherwise. I have my doubts of the F-35, only what I heave read online, unfortunately without proof I can't say nay or yay.
A ground crewman says one thing, you say another thing - but you are neither a ground crewman or a pilot -
(Why are you attributing to me a quote that I did not write?)
Actually, I am a pilot and have been for nearly 30 years. I am an ATP/MEII with seven type ratings and almost 10,000 hours--about 7,500 in jets--including piston and jet fighters/attack/trainers, airliners, and intercontinental business jets.
No time in the F-35, of course.
I don't feel like giving you the data and not because of anything personal toward you. :salute It takes away from my time doing other things I actually enjoy (and other people have already done it). Look for it the way I did starting with the sources I gave. I really don't care about winning the argument. Time will prove what I have said correct. (And it isn't me. I have nothing to do with any of it. I didn't design the plane. I don't fly it. I simply know how to read data and have people I respect who are light years smarter than anyone here on this topic, myself included.)
Which branch of service did you fly?
The moment any of the thousands of people from the nine partner nations that are directly involved with the F-35 voice their displeasure with the aircraft, I'll take notice. So far they have nothing but praise for it. Norwegian pilots, British pilots, American pilots have all voiced their admiration for the F-35's capabilities. Anyone else are just talking out of their arses, regardless of how many airliners they have flown or if they fly a desk at the Pentagon.
You're a conspiracy nut. Norwegian pilots do not depend on it for their livelihood. British pilots do not depend on it for their livelihood. USAF pilots do not depend on it for their livelihood. They all praise it.
Actually, I am a pilot and have been for nearly 30 years. I am an ATP/MEII with seven type ratings and almost 10,000 hours--about 7,500 in jets--including piston and jet fighters/attack/trainers, airliners, and intercontinental business jets.
I do not get that personal. Sorry. :salute
If so, your words are not living up to your accomplishments.
And now that I think about it...you and your father never owned a B-17, did you...?
- oldman
It has more internal fuel than an F-15C. More internal fuel than an F-16 can carry total with drop tanks. With external drop tanks the F-35's range will only be rivaled by the F-22 and Su-27 family.
| Dry Thrust | 17,155 lbf |
| Wet Thrust | 28,600 lbf |
| Internal (D model) | 5,700 lb |
| CFT | 6,000 lb |
| drop-tanks 2x600,1x300 gal | 10,000 lb |
| Fuel internal+CFT | 11,700 lb |
| Fuel internal+CFT/Dry Thrust CFT | 0.68 (lb/lbf) |
| Fuel internal+CFT+DT | 22,700 lb |
| Fuel internal+CFT+DT/Dry Thrust CFT/DT | 1.32 |
| Dry Thrust | 28,000 lbf |
| Wet Thrust | 43,000 lbf |
| Internal (A) | 18,250 lb |
| Internal Fuel/Dry Thrust | 0.65 (lb/lbf) |
Internally it can carry only four missiles true, but that is in a stealth role.
I do not get that personal. Sorry. :salute
So in clean configuration with CFT F-16D Block 52 takes relatively more fuel than F-35! With DT even more... and this is two seat version - single seat F-16 takes even more fuel.
Not only that... it carries 4 BVR missiles only - F-35's weapons bay does not built to carry IR missiles that are launched from rails...
If you tall something at least don't manipulate the facts.
Fighting the Iraqis or North Koreans is a far cry from the Soviets or the Chinese.
They'll do to us what they did to the Germans. Keep all the important stuff so deep within their territory you'll never get there. And since JSF can't even do standoff munitions it will be worth even less.
We live in a corporate world where corporations have learned the value of "pawning" public opinion. Thus corporations have entire subdivisions committed to doing so as well as owning many news outlets they lean on to alter and control the public mind set. We arent as "free" as we think we are and its far easier to do then you can imagine.
I mean look at Boeing now and there campaign to keep the F-18 Growler line up and running. Imagine the $$$ they are spending to demonize and belittle the F35 in order to win over the voters, and those we vote for, to buy more Growlers. To do so they are trying to convince us in future wars "stealth" will become irrelevant and successful attack profiles will return to standard "pre-stealth" configurations which needed a heavy EW component to achieve its objectives. Even tho there is no real data to support this it has many people listening. Maybe even some of the policy makers Boeing already doesnt "own" in some way. Again? Where is the data?
Silly comments like this is why I believe your full of horse feathers and have never worn a uniform and have probably never even flown, except a window seat to Cancun Mexico. What kind of "stuff" would they hide deep in their territory that would have some kind of impact on a conflict? This isnt 1943 and we arent interested in area bombing their industrial areas. They will be hit with thousands of precision munitions on the opening days and if they have it they had better use it and use it quickly. Other-wise their Navy's will be in shambles, sea lanes in our control, air space dominated by our air forces, air defenses severely reduced, and their ability to maneuver troops and armor significantly impacted. Game over, we arent just going to war with F35's. So much for your "stuff in the rear" theory.
Also fighting the Russians and Chinese will not be all that much different from the Iraqi's. Some but not much. China has no experience with modern war, as in "None". The Russians have some good units but are over all second rate. Both vastly over rate their capabilities.
Yup, Rich, we live in a corporate world (not that that is necessarily a bad thing). What aircraft does Boeing make and support with spares and upgrades? F-15, F-16, F-18, AV-8, A-10. All these aircraft are being replaced by Lockheed Martin's F-22 and F-35.
Problem, the F-22 is out of production. I think the Air force stopped building after the first 8 prototypes and 200 models were built, plus spare parts. Not saying they can't restart production, but it ended a few years ago I thought?
It would need its external pylons to carry 18k ord. Internally it can carry 4,000 lbs of bombs + two A2A missiles. Still, that's not bad for a stealth configuration; it's the same as the F-117 + two missiles. The drop tanks is not just for ferry purposes, but can extend the F-35's range in situations where it needs to fly a while to reach the enemy, or loiter for extended periods of time. Once the enemy is located it's a matter of pushing a button and instant stealth with full internal fuel.
I'm unsure of the status of the F-15 now that the F-22 is in service. Will the remaining F-15 units convert to F-35s at some point?
Stealth is only a factor for so long, if we look at the Gulf war, Two A2A missiles and Two bombs is more then enough for knocking out the Radars, once Stealth isn't needed 10 pylons is more then enough to do the job otherwise.
From what Janes was pushing out the other day, It looks like F-35s will replace the F-15s and F-16s in service by 2021. I'm guessing those aircrafts will go to national guard units or reserves.
There is no real time frame from what I read, but the airforce did put a timeline of 2021.
Lol. Understood.
If so, your words are not living up to your accomplishments.
And now that I think about it...you and your father never owned a B-17, did you...?
- oldman
From what Janes was pushing out the other day, It looks like F-35s will replace the F-15s and F-16s in service by 2021. I'm guessing those aircrafts will go to national guard units or reserves.
There is no real time frame from what I read, but the airforce did put a timeline of 2021.
So basically every Boeing made/supported combat jet is being replaced by the F-22 and F-35.
I think your full of BS.
I don't own any warbirds. I do fly them for other people sometimes, but I am no millionaire.
Irrelevant in any event.
As are your arguments against the F-35 since you don't back them up with anything.
What about un-manned acft, think the manned fighter days are numbered ??? I work an unmanned acft every day and the stuff coming down the pipe is pretty impressive.
The data is out there. Res ipsa loquitur.
Hilarious thread on so many levels. :)
Hilarious thread. :)
You know we Norwegians have a fitting word: "tragikomisk" ;)
You know we Norwegians have a fitting word: "tragikomisk" ;)
The Super Power of Europe/Scandanavia. /sarcasm
Heh, one of the funny aspects I find is the fact that had Norway chosen differently, currently, you would be saying that the F-35 is the worst choice possible. :D
Yeah I though that was the basic level of your arguments. You are now rendered completely irrelevant. Congratulations! :aok
No, actually I wouldn't.
The Super Power of Europe/Scandanavia. /sarcasm
I did not mention conformal fuel tanks! Very few F-16 operators have them!
I already posted two IR dogfight missiles that the F-35 can carry internally! The British ASRAAM and the European IRIS-T. Pay attention!
Actually not far from the truth. I would rate western Europe, the Euro-Union, a "Super Power" on many levels.
Several of the countries have deliverable nuclear weapons/platforms as good as America has. They build as good, or better, modern weapons as America does. Far better then any other Industrial base. Including, arguably, the best short and medium range ATA missiles. The best tanks. The best short range defense missiles. Some of the best surface naval platforms, including carriers. THE best 4.5 gen fighter and fighter bomber. A Scandinavian country, Sweden, builds an incredibly sophisticated fighter for the money. I believe Norway build the penguin sea defense missiles that protects USN ships. Some of the top submarine talent in the world commands both nuclear and diesel boats in west Euro navy's. Probably the best medium airlift aircraft is built by the Euro consortium and on all levels of science they are either world class or world beaters.
Yes I would say the Euro-Union IS a Super power. One that unfortunately never agrees at one time, most of the time. But its no strecth to believe they could protect themselves from any realistic enemy alone without Yank help.
Only every operator of Block 50/52 and above:
Export aircraft for Greece, Chile, Israel, Poland, Turkey, Singapore, Morocco, Egypt and the UAE all plumbed for carriage of two CFTs mounted on top of the aircraft near the wing root. Each is capable of holding 450 US gallons (1,703.4 L)
Does not look like few...
It was recently that Israeli F-16I Sufa celebrated 10 years of service (and there are about ~100 of them in IAF only)
Additionally if you take a look, 3 drop tanks contain more fuel than 2 CFTs... so it works in either way :) + There are no drop tanks for F-35 even designed.
So... still the fact remains the fact... F-35 range isn't close to one of F-16.
How many of these missiles are operated by USAF/USN/Marines? (Rhetorical question) on the serious note - any of these missiles were tested... even AMRAAM isn't cleared - currently. Also fir IRIS-T and ASRAAM - please show me sources that state explicitly on a use withing weapon bay - because so far all these missiles are rail lunched.
Actually not far from the truth. I would rate western Europe, the Euro-Union, a "Super Power" on many levels.
Several of the countries have deliverable nuclear weapons/platforms as good as America has. They build as good, or better, modern weapons as America does. Far better then any other Industrial base. Including, arguably, the best short and medium range ATA missiles. The best tanks. The best short range defense missiles. Some of the best surface naval platforms, including carriers. THE best 4.5 gen fighter and fighter bomber. A Scandinavian country, Sweden, builds an incredibly sophisticated fighter for the money. I believe Norway build the penguin sea defense missiles that protects USN ships. Some of the top submarine talent in the world commands both nuclear and diesel boats in west Euro navy's. Probably the best medium airlift aircraft is built by the Euro consortium and on all levels of science they are either world class or world beaters.
Yes I would say the Euro-Union IS a Super power. One that unfortunately never agrees at one time, most of the time. But its no strecth to believe they could protect themselves from any realistic enemy alone without Yank help.
Only every operator of Block 50/52 and above:
Export aircraft for Greece, Chile, Israel, Poland, Turkey, Singapore, Morocco, Egypt and the UAE all plumbed for carriage of two CFTs mounted on top of the aircraft near the wing root. Each is capable of holding 450 US gallons (1,703.4 L)
Additionally if you take a look, 3 drop tanks contain more fuel than 2 CFTs... so it works in either way :) + There are no drop tanks for F-35 even designed.
So... still the fact remains the fact... F-35 range isn't close to one of F-16.
How many of these missiles are operated by USAF/USN/Marines?
any of these missiles were tested... even AMRAAM isn't cleared - currently. Also fir IRIS-T and ASRAAM - please show me sources that state explicitly on a use withing weapon bay - because so far all these missiles are rail lunched.
Bull. Most of these F-16 fleets are Block 30+ with a handful of Block 50+. The Hellenic air force for example has 30 Block 52 out of a force of 279 aircraft.
Only with CFT's AND three drop tanks will the F-16 carry more fuel the the F-35 does internally
In addition drop tank for the F-35 is in development.
You're right about that, The F-35 has much greater range than the F-16.
As many as they want to buy.
Only the AMRAAM has been test fired as of now. The IRIS-T missile for the F-35 is still in development along with its SAM and even submarine(!) launched versions (Type 212 German). The current missile already has data link and is lock-on after launch capable (it can even be fired at targets directly aft), so it's just a matter of developing the drop-launcher.
Well said, Bozon. However, I do not think it is a good plane. It is hyped beyond belief. We are going to regret adopting it.
It flies low. It flies slow. It will be detectable at long range. Has poor radar.
What's not to like?
Lol, the AN/APG-81 is such a poor radar it won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers, and has met and exceeded all its performance objectives successfully.
You're so full of it I can smell you through the internet.
Seriously... see:
Quote: 32 C/D Block 30, 39 C/D Block 50, 56 C/D Block 52+, 30 C/D Block 52M - i.e. about 50% are capable of carrying CFT.
And has the engine that consumes HALF of the F-35's engine fuel...
Exactly how?... F-35 with non-existing drop tanks against F-16B?
Wow... you have seriously hadn't read about selling any weapon to US.
Exactly... you are telling use what we would see in future Not what we have today - even in test plans...
Also small note, the time required for non-rail launched missile to drop is about 1 second... which is quite significant delay for close dogfight. There is the reason why close range missiles are launched from rails and the reason F-22 has rails for AIM-9...
Don't let the facts confuse you :rofl
Wow. It won an award. So did the Buffalo. Ask the Marines how that worked out.
As the Finns.
Soviets "second tier" compared to the Japanese? Lol!
The Japanese were "first tier"?Yes, very highly trained. The Finns would not have seen the success they did against the Soviets had they been facing the IJN pilots of 1942. The IJN pilots in 1942 probably had the highest average skill level of any air force in the world. Due to the inadequacies of the Japanese training program that was shortly not true, but when the USMC faced them at Midway it still was.
The Japanese were "first tier"?
Yes, very highly trained. The Finns would not have seen the success they did against the Soviets had they been facing the IJN pilots of 1942. The IJN pilots in 1942 probably had the highest average skill level of any air force in the world. Due to the inadequacies of the Japanese training program that was shortly not true, but when the USMC faced them at Midway it still was.
And, once we developed appropriate ACM to counter their maneuverability, they began to lose their most successful, experienced pilots. And that caused their training program to be toilet fodder.
Pilot quality yes, but not aircraft technology. The best 1942 Japanese fighters are rather a poor match to their European contemporaries.
Pilot quality yes, but not aircraft technology. The best 1942 Japanese fighters are rather a poor match to their European contemporaries.The A6M2 is handily superior to the F2A3. Put it in the hands of a numerically superior, better trained force and the outcome is predictable.
Soviets "second tier" compared to the Japanese? Lol!
Which brings us around to my original question.
Clearly the Japanese were not "first tier" compared to Germany and Britain, and later in the war, America. As such the Brewster's service in Finnish service is relevant. That the Marine pilots were greenhorns is not the fault of the plane, now is it.
Japan produced the Ki-43 and Zero in 1940, both were better then the euro counterparts, problem was lack of research and development - let alone any advance research.
Soviet Yak-7 entered service in 1942.The Finns weren't often facing Yak-7s in their B-239s. Those were usually deployed against the Germans.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=132&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Safe to say the Japanese were not "first rate" by any measure. True their pilots were well trained, but they were tactically naive, something the Americans learned to exploit. Doesn't matter how well you're trained if you're trained to be an 18th century Samurai in a 20th century war.
The Finns weren't often facing Yak-7s in their B-239s. Those were usually deployed against the Germans.
A squadron of Yaks vs a squadron of Zekes. Would depend on the players. Yaks can leave the fight at any time if cought in a bad spot, but also force the Zekes to fight from a disadvantage. Same as the Americans did in the real war. Give the Zekes to some furballers (Samurai) and the Yaks to a dedicated B&Z squad... Best the Zekes can hope for is a draw as the Yaks leave to fight another day.There was an AvA setup that used to be run that had the Japanese facing the USAAF over New Guinea, P-38Gs, P-40Es and P-47D-11s against Ki-61s and A6M5bs (subbing for A6M3s). The A6M5b cleaned up in there every time even though the P-38 and P-47 could, as you note, leave whenever they chose. When the A6M3 was added the results were a lot more balanced.
It's not the planes fault if the pilot does not fly it right. Why are we even considering AH players?Speed is an advantage, but it is not a simplistic "You have a faster plane, you win" metric like you are presenting.
The I-16 entered service in 1934.
No I do not consider it a better plane than the Zeke. Just one type of fighter he shot down. Also "better than the Japanese fighters" is not my argument. My argument is that the Soviets were not "second tier" compared to the Japanese... The other enemy the Brewster faced.The Soviets were second tier compared to the Japanese because they lacked an effective peacetime pilot training system, something that first tier nations such as the UK, Germany, the USA and Japan all had. Japanese naval fighters were also fully competitive with the vast majority of western naval fighters in 1942, and sometimes superior. Would you want to face A6M2s flying a Skua, Roc or Barracuda?
Soviet Yak-7 entered service in 1942.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=132&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Safe to say the Japanese were not "first rate" by any measure. True their pilots were well trained, but they were tactically naive, something the Americans learned to exploit. Doesn't matter how well you're trained if you're trained to be an 18th century Samurai in a 20th century war.
Samurai was their heart and fighting spirit. Samurai is not a style of fighting...it's a philosophical way of life. It's tenets are timeless and we should be lucky enough to ever know that kind of commitment to anything in our lives, much less living our lives that way.
That's all good and fine, but it doesn't win wars.
Not sure how the Finns were facing Yak-7's, most of the reports I seen they were facing Polikarpov I-153 and I-16s. There were Mig-1 and Yak-1's generally, it wasn't until 1944 that the Finnish faced some of the better Russian fighters.
Not taking anything away from the Finns, but they generally did fly pretty decent aircraft, the B-239 wasn't all that bad - most of the Finns flew 109G2s and 109G6's which were pretty good aircraft.
Also take note, the Finnish only mostly flew interception missions, they could pick the battle and retreat as they wanted, unlike the russians.
Exactly. I-16s were their primary foe. Once they started facing real airplanes they got their butts kicked and withdrew the Buffalo from front-line service.
Exactly. I-16s were their primary foe. Once they started facing real airplanes they got their butts kicked and withdrew the Buffalo from front-line service.
Safe to say the Japanese were not "first rate" by any measure. True their pilots were well trained, but they were tactically naive, something the Americans learned to exploit. Doesn't matter how well you're trained if you're trained to be an 18th century Samurai in a 20th century war.
Scholz, old friend, you're barking up the wrong tree here. The 1939-42 Japanese pilots took on pilots from Russia, China, England, the US, Holland, Australia and probably some others I can't think of, and handily beat them all. They were superb pilots in superb equipment. As someone mentioned, their glory lasted only through the end of 1942, and after that most of them were gone.
- oldman
Did this conversation not just take a major diversion?No. we are just getting the the point:
No. we are just getting the the point:
Should the Japanese replace their zeros with the F35?
It is saddening that Butcher offers a well thought out analogy to a sub-potion of this discussion and people can only offer mindless responses.
Yet another reason this community has declined so much.
It is saddening that Butcher offers a well thought out analogy to a sub-potion of this discussion and people can only offer mindless responses.
Yet another reason this community has declined so much.
This is not correct
Vraciu, if I was a fighter pilot, and I flew warbirds for other people and I was so well connected with the flying community I would be very proud of that. I certainly would have no problem identifying myself to other enthusiasts.
I'm sure you know where I'm coming from. We have seen many many posers come and go over the years who had fantastic stories that ended up being nothing but lies from professional liars who knew how to use google.
You have invested a lot of time and energy making sure your opinions were known here. Why not give them some credibility by telling us who you are?
Sir, :salute
The Finns weren't often facing Yak-7s in their B-239s.
Actually Finns were facing Yak-7s.
In the summer of '44 war weary Brewsters were facing big numbers of P-39s, La-5s, and Yak-9s flown by pilots whose training had significantly picked up from the early war and still performed. This fact gets 'conveniently' forgotten by those who like to belittle performance of LLv24 and LLv26 on this thread and others.
Once they started facing real airplanes they got their butts kicked and withdrew the Buffalo from front-line service.
Complete and utter nonsense.
Actually having some knowledge about what you are talking about tends to help.
Wasn't most of the Finns flying 109G2s and 109G6s by 1944? According to the pilots themselves the Brewster was phased out in 1943.
It is in their own official history on the subject, grasshopper. By mid- to late 1943 they were severely outclassed and were withdrawn in favor of other planes. A few fought as late as 1944 but they were nowhere near as successful as before.
A source?
It's simply nonsense.
Okay then.... Whatever you say. :rolleyes:
So you don't have any source and made the statement up then? Figures.
Scholz, old friend, you're barking up the wrong tree here. The 1939-42 Japanese pilots took on pilots from Russia, China, England, the US, Holland, Australia and probably some others I can't think of, and handily beat them all. They were superb pilots in superb equipment. As someone mentioned, their glory lasted only through the end of 1942, and after that most of them were gone.
- oldman
I have plenty of sources. Try a yahoo search for starters. I also have books on my shelf including two histories on the Buffalo. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Yes most were 109 by summer of '44. Brewsters fought from Summer of '41 on and were still flown against the Germans in the fall of '44 while 109s weren't. Brewsters flown by the LLv26 shot down plenty of late war Soviet fighters with very few losses (for Finns of course, every single loss was of course significant) while being badly out numbered and having planes that any allied nation would have struck off charge a long time ago for being war weary.
I have plenty of sources. Try a yahoo search for starters. I also have books on my shelf including two histories on the Buffalo. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Once they started facing real airplanes they got their butts kicked and withdrew the Buffalo from front-line service.
Some sources say 17 victories for four losses as a second-line fighter. The 17 number is likely an overclaim if Russian records are to be believed.
There is no denying the success the Finns had with the airplane overall. But keep it in the proper perspective.
It is not me who is having trouble with facts and perspective.
As far overclaiming, just for the sake of the argument I'll say Vraciu didn't shoot a single plane down. :D Sources? What sources!? Do your own research! :devil
See my point?
You make no point other than your inability/unwillingness to use a search engine.
How come the Russians were never able to destroy the Fins on the ground? airfields out of range?
During the summer of '44 Brewsters scored 17 kills while losing 2* aircraft in combat themselves (source: LeR 3 by Keskinen & Stenman).
Actually I did make point. You just failed to grasp it.
A random sample of kills by LLv26's Brewsters:
17.06.44, 16.45-17.45, P-39
17.06.44, 17.20-17.25, Pe-2
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, La-5
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, Pe-2
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, Pe-2
18.06.44, 10.50-11.30, La-5
14.07.44, 15.15-16.50, Yak-9
14.07.44, 16.00-16.30, Yak-9
15.07.44, 11.35-12.55, LaGG-3
16.07.44, 13.10, La-5
16.07.44, 13.17, La-5
27.08.44, 09.30-11.15, P-40
...this is the reason why it is getting a bit tiring to hear that "Brewsters only faced I-153s and I-16s".
*Wanted to correct myself. The actual number is four instead of two. The error was caused by the list of loss reports which ended to 20th of July '44. I double checked the number from Jukka Raunio's book but he had made the same error. Jaakko Hyvönen has written an excellent book which lists all the FiAF losses where an aircraft was completely lost or cases where someone had parachuted. It mentions the other two Brewster losses on 29th and 30th of July. So four is the correct total for LLv26's Brewster losses in combat. Doesn't change the fact that an exchange ratio of little over four is hardly "getting one's butt kicked".
A random sample of kills by LLv26's Brewsters:Unless you used dice to select kills off of the total list those aren't random. They have the look of being cherry picked to make your point.
17.06.44, 16.45-17.45, P-39
17.06.44, 17.20-17.25, Pe-2
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, La-5
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, Pe-2
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, Pe-2
18.06.44, 10.50-11.30, La-5
14.07.44, 15.15-16.50, Yak-9
14.07.44, 16.00-16.30, Yak-9
15.07.44, 11.35-12.55, LaGG-3
16.07.44, 13.10, La-5
16.07.44, 13.17, La-5
27.08.44, 09.30-11.15, P-40
The LaGG3 was a wooden plane held together with lacquer. I'm fairly certain it wasn't a front line fighter as its nickname was "guaranteed varnish coffin"
See Rule #4
Vracui, how old are you? That can't be a "classified" or "too personal" of a question.
Something is wrong with this vraciu guy.
I probably know more about it than you. Don't buy the LockMart hype. The airplane is over budget, hugely behind schedule, and cannot survive emerging threats. The Super Hornet brings far more to the fight than the Joint Strike Failure.
The thing is garbage.Proof, besides being in your own world.
The avionics don't work. Avionics work just fine, and each new update we are expanding them
The helmet doesn't work.helmet works great. Got a good view in it, especially awesome with DAS on.
Compromises to cram the lift fan into the design for the Marines wrecked it. Though I'm not a fan of the lift fan concept, I worked BF-17 for a while. Lift fan works like a champ.
Bulkhead failures.none out here at edwards, and our planes have some of the highest hours on them.
Hundreds of hours in depot post-delivery to fix screw ups.no planes in depot, as we do all our own mods/upgrades, most are easy fixes.
Massive electrical problems due to insufficient cooling.no problem here with our planes, or from what I have seen through the many reports I have access too.
Not enough ordnance to fight its way into a target. this plane is not designed to go in guns blazing. It carries a decent load to get the job done.
Can't go high enough to get any range.can't comment as that's classified, but it's higher than you think.
Awful kinematics.
Creates persistent vortex trails that can be detected from hundreds of miles.so does the F-15, but don't see you complaining about that
I could go on for a week.I'm waiting
Without someone to pave the way this thing is dead meat.
Yeah, he's right on stuff and the mob doesn't like it. Can't have that going on 'round heeyah.You couldn't have possibly answered that any more wrong.
Being a crew chief, I have access to more things than you think. I know the numbers, and seen on video what this is capable of. Again what you know, is only speculation, as your clearly not even close.
To add... With your account being created and you having an idea of this board being ran with mob like tactics just hints to the fact that you are a shade lol. Well played. Where's the scorpion image?
I already corrected you. See, you can do research after all.
Now go find the overclaims.
Only four of the victories in your list can be considered against first line airplanes. That's hardly a resounding success for four losses.
Unless you used dice to select kills off of the total list those aren't random. They have the look of being cherry picked to make your point.
I wrote nothing of the sort. Please quote me. :salute
You didn't correct anything. You looked wikipedia as you really don't know anything about the subject to begin with. I corrected myself. Your initial claim which said Brewster was removed from combat tells everybody that you're entirely clueless regarding topic at hand.
You keep claiming Finns overclaimed with out a source.
Can you post your sources? I want to read them.
I'm not sure what you guys are arguing Karnak and Changeup? Clearly the Brewster was in service as late as 1944. Clearly it successfully engaged advanced Soviet aircraft (no doubt because of tactical reasons and pilot skill). Clearly Vraciu here is full of "you know what".
You were wrong. I called you out on it. And you still whine that I don't know anything. :aok
Once they started facing real airplanes they got their butts kicked and withdrew the Buffalo from front-line service.
You don't and here's the proof:
...anyone with half a clue wouldn't be saying the above considering the performance and service history of the Brewster in Finnish Air Force.
Regarding your comment, basically the complete opposite is true.
During the summer of '44 Brewsters scored 17 kills while losing 2 aircraft in combat themselves (source: LeR 3 by Keskinen & Stenman).
(MUNCH)
The book in the shelf won't do much if you don't/can't read it or can't comprehend what you are reading.
Some sources say 17 victories for four losses as a second-line fighter.
significantly outnumbered most of the time while flying planes that started to be worn out.
The fact that I posted one wrong number which I then corrected (and explained why it got there) doesn't make your drivel any more true, Vraciu.
My personal conclusion is that sometime, somewhere someone didn't pull out in time.
I don't think so, old friend. As Yamamoto said he would run wild for six months to a year. This was only made possible by the total inadequacies of the allied units in the Pacific at the time. America really didn't have a first rate fighter at this time. P-39, P-40, F2F, F4F... The most modern fighter America had in service were the earliest versions of the P-38, the E model. However, it was much worse for the British Commonwealth...
Fighting a life and death struggle with Germany in Europe and North Africa had the British stretched to the limits. They had stripped their Far-East colonies of men and machines to fight the Germans. What was left was a ragtag force of antiquated bi-planes and imported second rate machines. The most modern aircraft fielded by the British in South-East Asia was probably the Bristol Blenheim.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Vickers%20Vildebeest.jpg)
The British fought gallantly however, and perhaps most gallant were the aircrew of No. 36 and 100 squadrons, who were fated to have to fight the Japanese with obsolete Vickers Vildebeests that dated their ancestry back to 1928. No. 36 was the first to go into action attacking a Japanese cruiser on December 8, the first day of the war (Singapore is on the other side of the International Date Line).
I'm glad you're not my secretary!
:salute
A bit more about the plane types Brewsters shot down for those who have genuine interest regarding the subject:
This list should cover all kills claimed by LLv24 and LLv26 (those are the only squadrons that operated the type):http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm)
As Brewsters scored a total of 476 kills I don't feel like going through the whole list but some quick and dirty approx. figures (using browser's search function) here:
Rough numbers of types shot down:
88 I-153/I-15bis
53 MiGs
50 I-16s
47 Yak-series (added Spitfires here as they were usually misidentified Yaks)
44 Hurricanes
43 LaGG-3s
34 La-5s
25 Pe-2s
5 P-40s
I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions based on that list. But as can be seen that should debunk the "Brewsters only shot down I-15s and I-16s-myth".
A bit more about the plane types Brewsters shot down for those who have genuine interest regarding the subject:
This list should cover all kills claimed by LLv24 and LLv26 (those are the only squadrons that operated the type):http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm)
Rough numbers of types shot down:
88 I-153/I-15bis
53 MiGs
50 I-16s
47 Yak-series (added Spitfires here as they were usually misidentified Yaks)
44 Hurricanes
43 LaGG-3s
34 La-5s
25 Pe-2s
5 P-40s
I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions based on that list. But as can be seen that should debunk the "Brewsters only shot down I-15s and I-16s-myth".
Back on topic please.
Vraciu was explaining how a 30 year old Russia fighter, with the radar cross section of the Crimea is going to establish air supremacy because the F-35 is going to enter service.
Please continue explaining that fantasy....
Here's the kicker, in 2016 Russia is phasing out its Mig-29s and Su-27s for the Sukhoi PAK FA. The Flanker and Mig-29 have really no chance against the JSF in a 4 on 4 dogfight, however this new Russian fighter already has over 600 hours of flight testing and suppose to be in pre-production.
Question will be how is the JSF going to fair against the first 5th generation Russian fighter.
Here's the kicker, in 2016 Russia is phasing out its Mig-29s and Su-27s for the Sukhoi PAK FA. The Flanker and Mig-29 have really no chance against the JSF in a 4 on 4 dogfight, however this new Russian fighter already has over 600 hours of flight testing and suppose to be in pre-production.
Question will be how is the JSF going to fair against the first 5th generation Russian fighter.
That's a proper question. An perhaps, the answer lies in how stealthy the PAK really is, and how good the weapon systems are.
But I still think you have to look at fighter as a component in a global air combat system that includes satellites, ground and ship based radars, cruise missiles, central command centers etc. The F-35 is an integrated piece of a larger system. looking at a plane vs plane only scenario is yesterthink in my opinion. :salute
Ok. Well played Vraciu. You simply have to be trolling and I admit you have done well, it is the only explanation. There is no way anyone could be that obtuse.
Well played :aok
Ok. Well played Vraciu. You simply have to be trolling and I admit you have done well, it is the only explanation. There is no way anyone could be that obtuse.
Well played :aok
You guys think this airplane can take on the SU-27/SU-30/PAK-FA when it can't even match the F-16? LOL.
As I told our Crew Chief friend, call me when the airplane is cleared for IMC.
The stupid thing can't even fly cross country without an emergency abort. They come out of production and immediately go to depot for modifications. The bulkheads are cracking. The avionics don't work. It is a decade behind schedule. The thing is a boondoggle. A one-size-fits-none airplane that is incapable of being anything valuable due to all the compromises made to accommodate so many differing requirements.
The Marines screwed everyone on this one with their idol worship of VTOL (something this airplane can't do either and actually have a payload).
Played poorly I think. He has made a fool out of himself not just with his silly, non educated generalizations but he also claimed falsely to be a military pilot. Or at least a Pilot who has been in a military. I call people like that a "Liar" personally and I cant imagine why anyone would even bother responding to this guy.
All I have written here is true, only the facts have been changed to protect my argument :old:
Always amazes me how many people just trash something that they probably dont know anything about. Yes, they fixed the carrier tail hook and it will start carrier testing later this year. Things are looking good for the program. All testing is going good here. Yes there are hic-ups, but what program didnt. My plane is flying great. We are hitting many test points, and the ones we miss, we are going back, making sure we get it right, then fly it again. The F-35 is twice as loud as an F-16, and I would compare it to a F-22 taking off noise wise. How is it a waste of taxpayer money? Do you have proof? How did it fail? Proof? Just curious how people make these claims, but no proof to back it up. Apparently we are doing something right, Turkey just secured a order of 100. Japan has bought 50. South Korea just placed an order. From what I have seen, the flanker will never know the F-35 is there till its too late. This plane has a lot of amazing things going on with it, its a shame the general public only knows little of it....Gotta love edwards. Was out in the desert when an f117 flew over d. Devilish sound.
BTW, if your curious about how I may know this. I am a Crew Chief on the F-35 at Edwards AFB, AF-03 is my bird.
Integrated with what? Fewer than 100 combat coded F-22s? F-16s that are questionably survivable? F-15s that are falling apart?
The JSF won't even have the F-16s performance. It will be closer to the Super Hornet, which happens to have greater capability in terms of weapons and decoys. The SH isn't survivable either.
Our air power roadmap is a giant fail.
Integrated with what? Is that your question? Ok let me explain...If such a system is actually active and reliable then the justification on the price tags of the F-22 and F-35 are even harder to justify. We'd be better served by cheap, plentiful platforms each with large payloads.
The battle is taking place in a giant virtual map of the sky in a giant defense department computer. When a Russian jet goes wheels up, it's speed alt, formation heading etc, are tracked by dozens of satelites, radars, etc, all feeding data into the virtual map. Planes are vectored to bandits and are set up in firing positions and download coordinated to fire upon before the bandit is even the planes sensor range. the F-35, as with the F-22, and probably hundreds of missile carrying stealth drones will be firing at, and killing targets they never made contact with. the fired missile will head to a location and go active to find the bandit and kill it, with little to know warning for the bandit. It may even be possible to get updated information on the way to the target.
It's very good odds that a flanker will never even see an American plane in combat, let alone kill one.
The performance of the plane is the last line of defense for modern combat aircraft, not the first. I do not believe the Russians have demonstrated anything like that kind of capability in their fighter aircraft or air defense systems in general. In their long history of those planes fighting American hardware, their equipment, from planes, to radar networks, have been prey hundreds of times more often than they have been predators.
It would be one thing to say the new PAK has all that capability, but it's not very credible to say the Su-27 possesses powers it hasn't been able to demonstrate in 30 years of service. :salute
If such a system is actually active and reliable then the justification on the price tags of the F-22 and F-35 are even harder to justify. We'd be better served by cheap, plentiful platforms each with large payloads.
If such a system is actually active and reliable then the justification on the price tags of the F-22 and F-35 are even harder to justify. We'd be better served by cheap, plentiful platforms each with large payloads.
Exactly. Along with range and performance.
A less stealthy/non-stealthy F-22 is the way to go. Or a SM-TV F-15 platform.
All this gee whiz technology has been promising to save us for decades. It never pans out quite as expected. It will definitely not work when we have an Air Force of fewer than 100 F-22s and a gaggle of mistake jets with helmet jitter and overheated radar slugging it out at low altitude with no fuel, no gun, and only four missiles with a low PK.
Sounds like a plan for success to me.
It should be contracted to the highest bidder?I didn't say that. When you bid low you have to buy cheaper parts (as the bidder). It allows for maximum profit.
Or the US should replace the F-35 with samurai swords... :uhoh
It exactly pans out as expected. What gulf/Iraq war were you watching? :rofl
They are active for us. Not the Enemy.
Stealth technology for us means the enemy has to fly out there and see us visually. He'll be dead before that, because he has none.
Vraciu do you know that the government has planes that we do not know about as civilians? :noid
Screw external drop tanks, mount samurai swords on the wings... cut the foe... it's not WW1 dog fighting, its WW3 cock fighting!
Yep. Apparently I am spraying chemtrails all over the place. Not sure where the equipment is on my plane though... :noid
Military or Civilian or Private?
Maneuver warfare worked out. But precision munitions were overrated--again. You buy too much PR.
We will have less than 100 stealth aircraft. The enemy will have many more. And our stealth will be degraded over time. It doesn't work forever. It especially doesn't work when it (RAM) wears down, which it does, particularly in a humid and corrosive environment like the Pacific. Stealth fighters are of little use when in maintenance.
The Iraqi air defense system, including it's aircraft were distroyed in the first 48 hours. A few Iraqi planes escaped to Iran. They shot down nothing.
That's probably too personal...
:lol
We are supposedly buying F35's but how they will be of greater use than the Harrier is beyond me :old:
The biggest question I have regarding these aircraft (RAFALE, F22, F35, Eurofighter Typhoon etc) is that the requirement for a stealthy air superiority fighter is speculative at best.
Whilst I am sure that the powers that be (and possibly Vraciu) know more than the rest of us, I struggle to find a potential enemy right now that has any legitimate air force whatsoever.
The UK have scrapped Harrier, and Tornado, which were two prime IDS and Ground Attack/Close Support platforms, and introduced the Typhoon :headscratch:
We are supposedly buying F35's but how they will be of greater use than the Harrier is beyond me :old:
There are 187 F-22s, plus 2400 expected F-35s to be purchased through 2035. [Base on the 2005 GAO eprot] don't know if that's still the correct number.
The enemy has NO stealth aircraft. When they do, they will be produced in much smaller numbers as well because of cost.
And if you think China, being funded with our reckless debt policies, cannot afford all the PAK-FAs it wants then you are smoking some powerful stuff.
I am sure China will reverse engineer it eventually.
Military or Civilian or Private?
That is not entirely accurate... The Iraqi air force did shoot down and/or severely damage a number of coalition aircraft. The Iraqis lost 23-44 aircraft in air-air combat varying on report. The coalition lost 4-5 destroyed and 4 damaged. So the coalition enjoyed a K/D of between 5:1 and 10:1.
On the first night of the war, two F/A-18's from the carrier USS Saratoga were flying outside of Baghdad when two Iraqi MiG-25PDs interceptors from the 96th Squadron engaged them. In the beyond-visual-range (BVR) kill, one of the Iraqi MiGs piloted by lieutenant colonel Zuhair Dawood, fired an R-40 missile. The missile impacted Scott Speicher's jet head on when he was travelling Mach 0.92. The impact sent the aircraft spiraling downwards and most people believe Speicher died on the impact of the missile.
An Iraqi MiG-23 fired a R-24T missile at a F-111 on a bombing run and scored a hit, although the bomber made it safely back to base. Another similar incident occurred with the same Iraqi interceptor several minutes later, this F-111 also made it back to base despite the severe damage to the aircraft.
An Iraqi MiG-29 struck an F-111 aircraft with a R60 missile, though the sturdy F-111 stayed airworthy. Several minutes later the same pilot fired a R27 missile at a B-52G on a bombing run, severely damaging it.
It has been claimed by some sources that a Tornado (ZA467) crewed by Squadron Leader Gary Lennox and Squadron Leader Adrian Weeks was shot down on 19 January by a R-60MK missile fired from an Iraqi MiG-29 piloted by Jameel Sayhood, however this aircraft is officially recorded as having crashed on 22 January on a mission to Ar Rutbah.
In what was the last aerial victory for the Iraqi Air Force before Operation Iraqi Freedom, an Iraqi MiG-25 destroyed an American UAV RQ-1 Predator after the drone opened fire on the Iraqi aircraft with a Stinger missile.
I think my point was: lets buy something else before we get rid of the thing wea lready has that does the same job.
F35 is damned sexy though :old:
Maneuver Warfare. It is standard Marine doctrine for combat. You know, that thing Pierre Sprey's buddy John Boyd invented. The guy who saved the F-15 from becoming a "Five-Percent-Better-F-111".
John Boyd invented maneuver warfare doctrine? Who knew?! I always thought it was von Clausewitz...
If we're being fair about MW, it's been around since the dawn of time. It's changed operationally as the face of war changed.
Terrorists at-large are immune to MW. Now, if you can get them into one country for a BBQ, have at it.
Unconventional warfare will rule the battles of the future.
Hardly. The problem is that Boyd misunderstood Clausewitz; much of the Patterns of Conflict that talk about Clausewitz refer to the bogeyman that Liddell-Hart set up of a "Mahdi of Mass" that led to the World War I killing fields. Moreover, it is a fair criticism that Boyd's ideas, like those of BHL, are too optimistic about the chances of avoiding direct and bloody confrontations. This is perhaps the crux of the disagreement between the two. Clausewitz does not think it is practical to undermine the enemy from within to the extent that Boyd does. Clausewitz outlined a General Theory of war that Boyd's more detailed insights about human morale, competition, and sources of power can fit into.
Boyd didn't invent; he refined.
Unconventional warfare has ruled battles for centuries. (Not all battles, of course.) Nothing really new there.
You ignored the primary statement and I forgot one word
All
No, I didn't--it required no comment--and no, it won't be "all" because: "That which has been is that which shall be." There is no "end of history" no matter how much we want that to be so.
The ratios may fluctuate, but...
So your predicting a another world war?
So you're ruling one out? (Or even a large regional conflict, say, China vs Russia?)
(You're missing a couple things. Here you go: ----> ' e )
I am ruling them out, yes. None of the primary powers will find use in risking so much for so little. There are far too many non-state players with agendas that are easily manipulated by super-powers and when those manipulations go awry, you'll end up with country skirmishes, dictatorial replacements, government changes and ruling class upheavals. World wars have simply outlived their usefulness.
Additionally, NATO is fairly punkish but still wields the forum to create many alliances that, if caught early enough, will stop invasions of land, sea or airspace. One big guy at a bar ends up starting a fight with the entire bar? Not likely and even though he may land the first few punches, the rest of the bar will respond because in this particular case, the patrons are all off-duty cops.
China vs Russia would never be defined as a large regional war, lol but you did make a funny.
Just trying to adapt to your flawed terminology (or flawed theory, whichever). But modern day naval officers tend to have a god complex. No shock there. :rolleyes:
The "funny" is the suggestion NATO is anything other than a paper tiger held aloft with rapidly dwindling American power. They could barely handle Libya. Actually, they couldn't.... Will be interesting when the dragon flexes...
Should be plenty of Joint Strike Failures guarding the sea lanes for the ensuing hundred years--from the bottom of the ocean.
Your choice to believe Russian hype over American hype is comical.
Vlad Putin Scored 6 goals in an exhibition hockey game against ex-NHL players! He's better than Gretzky. But Gretzky was just American/Canadian hype anyway. :rofl
Putin is no wussy like the guy we have in charge. That said, it is only natural for China to eventually want more territory. Russia is declining rapidly in population and her economy is a shambles. It opens up some interesting and scary possibilities...
Just trying to adapt to your flawed terminology (or flawed theory, whichever). But modern day naval officers tend to have a god complex. No shock there. :rolleyes:
The "funny" is the suggestion NATO is anything other than a paper tiger held aloft with rapidly dwindling American power. They could barely handle Libya. Actually, they couldn't.... Will be interesting when the dragon flexes...
Should be plenty of Joint Strike Failures guarding the sea lanes for the ensuing hundred years--from the bottom of the ocean.
Putin is no wussy like the guy we have in charge. That said, it is only natural for China to eventually want more territory. Russia is declining rapidly in population and her economy is a shambles. It opens up some interesting and scary possibilities...
Putin has found a way to perpetuate his own rule. I believe that makes him a dictator. Dictators are only as strong as the environment they create for their people. As soon as the environment changes (oil prices fall because they always do sooner or later, human rights violations like gay persecution etc) so will Putin. The Russian people have nasty, rebellious history of deposing dictators. Treat them well and keep them safe and you rule 1000 years in Russia. Cause them pain and they'll eat you and your children.
Putin isn't a strong leader...he's a bully with his shirt off
Edit: it's easy to see why you think he's tough
Ahhh, another post about it being someone else's fault. Anyone's but yours, right? Regional war was your terminology and pretending like you know me is a pedestrian method of deflection.
I understand your situational evasiveness, I really do. But Ad hominem over opinions about future wars, be them regional or world inclusive, is beneath someone that has claimed to have a grasp on their own opinions and the ability to defend those opinions. You clearly don't.
Shirt off. Hmmm. Projecting some of your fantasies? I bet you won the Biscuit Game, right sailor? :rolleyes:
How do you define "regional"? Or "conventional"? If a China vs USSR conflict doesn't devolve into conventional war then just what is it to be called? Do share with us your vast knowledge, LCDR.
I mentioned shirt off because he fancies media photo opportunities with his shirt off, hubris on....usually with dangerous animals, albeit dead. I was actually making fun of him.
Yet again, you chose to attack me personally, lol. Surely you can do better than biscuits and god complexes. Did you Google that too?
Sure you were. That's why you poked me with a stick in the process. Very classy for an "officer". LOL
I neither poked nor prodded. I simply pointed out your misinformation. That's what officers and NCOs do when necessary. As a pilot with 1000s of hours of military fighter time and clearly an officer yourself, certainly you wouldn't argue that...right?
What are you smoking? Implying I like Putin at all, nevermind the reason you falsely stated, is in no way related to misinformation--other than being the source of it yourself.
Grow the f up.
You said he was tough, I gave you my opinion. You said Russia vs china would be a regional war, I corrected you (misinformation). You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I laughed at your weak mockery of Naval officers (misinformation) and the complexes you've diagnosed them with and reminded you of things you should already know.
You need thicker skin which is surprising with all your flight hours in high performance aircraft. I would think you'd already have it.
You are an annoyance at best. My skin doesn't even know you exist.
And wrong repeatedly, to boot. Gawd help us with men like you at the helm.
China vs Russia is a regional war in your terminology. It will also be fully conventional at some point, thereby rendering your prognostication wrong. The same thinking that said fighters don't need guns. You know, stupidity.
Let me guess, you were the guy that came up with the idea of canted pylons on the Super Hornet, weren't you? Bravo Zulu.
When he isn't fighting monsters, he's logging thousands of hours in every plane known to Pokemon and flies the F-35 for the CIA.
(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/164/a/e/pokemon__pilot_pikachu_by_sketchfighter316-d3iuo8z.jpg)
ack-ack
When he isn't fighting monsters, he's logging thousands of hours in every plane known to Pokemon and flies the F-35 for the CIA.
(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/164/a/e/pokemon__pilot_pikachu_by_sketchfighter316-d3iuo8z.jpg)
ack-ack
When he isn't fighting monsters, he's logging thousands of hours in every plane known to Pokemon and flies the F-35 for the CIA.
(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/164/a/e/pokemon__pilot_pikachu_by_sketchfighter316-d3iuo8z.jpg)
ack-ack