Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight New stealth fighter is dead meat in an a

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Destroyer of illusions, Jul 16, 2015.

  1. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's 2015 not 2005.

    It's Obama's PC Navy not G.W. Bush's Navy and especially not Ronald Reagan's 600 ship navy.

    Today the Obama administration has problems just keeping TWO Carrier Strike Groups at sea on station in just two Navy Area's of Responsibility (AOR) of the Navy's five AOR's that every President from Truman to G.W. Bush was able to do with a Carrier Battle Group (not the smaller Carrier Strike Group we see today) in all five AOR's, 24/7.

    Remember Benghazi on 9-11-2011 ? No CSG in the 6th Fleet AOR, no ARG in the 6th Fleet AOR and only two destroyers that weren't used to save four Americans lives. Every President before Obama always had a CBG and a ARG in the 6th Fleet AOR from 1946 to 2009.

    You may remember back in 2005 or 2006 when the chi-coms were rattling their sabers and conducting naval maneuvers in the Sraits of Tiwan when the chi-coms believed that they could sink two American CBG's.

    While two CBG's were in the 5th Fleet AOR (Persian Gulf) conducting combat flight operations over Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush put six more CBG's to sea, four of those CBG's were in the 7th Fleet AOR off of Tiwan. Eight CBG's at sea and on station in navy AOR's. The Bush administration could have put a another two CBG's to sea in another 60 days with a total of ten CBG's on station.



    Can't be done today with Obama's politically correct Navy. Three is the max that Obama has ever been able to put to sea and they weren't CBG's but CSG's.

    When Obama entered the White House money was already getting tight and 13% of the navy's ships couldn't put to sea and fight. Today it's 47% of the navy's ships can't put to sea and fight.

    Obama has done significant damage to our military and it's the way he wanted it, a PC military where the mission is no longer killing people and breaking things but a miliary of diversity, buggery, drag queens and 18 year old girls serving in the infantry.

    A couple of months ago the Navy reported to Congress, knowing that Obama will be gone by 2017 and if there's a CnC who's not incompetent in the White House in 2017, it will not be until 2020 before the navy can even "surge" three CSG into combat.

    Right now 1/2 of the Marine Corps combat forces aren't capable of being deployed into combat. The Army is worse off, only five of the Army's 33 combat brigades are capable of being deployed.
     
    Dayton3 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What's the rail gun going to be used for ? :roflol: Not capable of air burst or used on area targets, unable to hit reverse slopes and unable to provide multi gun salvos and at $25,000 per projectile, it's not the smart way to fight a war.

    Are you a subscriber to "Populat Mechanics" magazine ? :roll:
     
  3. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well I don't see a reason for the Rail Run if you have an FEL but a Rail Gun is a devestating weapon none the less.

    It can penetrate any ships armor and can be used for any number of targets.

    They probably intend to use it until a complete wordwide FEL Over the Horizon Satellite Targeting System is fully deployed.

    A Rail Gun can also be used with Computer Targeting to destroy incoming Cruise Missiles as well as a precision weapon capable of destroying anything from Extreme Long Distance Land Targets to being able to penetrate deep into a ship where an enemies ships engines are located thus rendering the ship dead in the water without killing that ships entire crew.

    AboveAlpha
     
  4. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    After spending half a day reading through your posts & links above I get the feeling carbon nanotube based shields/coatings with broad spectrum frequency absorption will be developed to deal with FEL laser hits on ships, aircraft & large vehicles such as tanks. ( With the energy being turned back into electricity or dissipated). The rail gun could end up being much more useful.

    None of the information I have searched through this afternoon explains how an "EM Light Spectrum Scrambler" will hide the infrared signature of exhaust gases that the aircraft has moved away from?

    Freddy.
     
  5. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's a rail gun designed for long distance. Rail guns can be designed for shorter distances & fire the same shells as a traditional battle ship at the same trajectories. The difference is that instead of loading a bag of powder behind the shell the shell comes housed in a disposable shuttle, instead of a barrage rapid fire should be possible & instead of a powder room there is an additional power plant room.The rail gun armed ship should have the advantage of being safer for the crew (not as likely to do an HMS Hood) & fire shells inland a bit further.
     
  6. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    As I posted before....I probably should not have mentioned the EM-Light Scrambler....as it is not made available anywhere I look on the Internet thus as far as anyone should be concern it does not exists.

    Let's just keep it like that for now as I enjoy posting here.

    AboveAlpha
     
  7. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Aircraft can't be "vulnerable" to IR, IR is not a weapon.



    Nope, it only means I do not feel myself obligated to make reading it easier for you because you havn't politely asked for this.


    Yeah, I am also glad you finally stopped to put words into my mouth.

    Isn't that obvious? I wanted to say that exhaust cooling is completely pointless. Cooling the exaust won't prevent missiles locking onto the plane's surfaces, which are heated by friction with air.

    Yep, I doubt they are affected by exhaust cooling, since modern IR-guided missiles are perfectly well capable of locking on plane's surfaces.
    Well, it might halp against ancient variants of, say, R-60, but getting a stealth palne into dogfight with a plane, armed with those missiles will likely mean that your pilots are unproffesional or that your stealth aircraft is a complete faluire.


    Ah, imaginary "insults" again. Your probably should improve your manners first if you are so soft-skinned.


    So how does that disproves my point here?


    Such as?

    I would place my bet on higher supercruise speed. Flat nozzles will remove full 3D trust vectoring and consequently lower the agility of the aircraft.
     
  8. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If you had read any of the links I posted you would know that for the time being as in RIGHT NOW.....the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines reign supreme with their current weapons systems.

    The USAF started flying a Stealth Fighter/Attack aircraft with SUPERCRUISE and EXHAUST COOLING as well as the F/A-22 has an IR-Light Reduction System and the USAF began flying the F/A-22 Raptor back in 1996!!!!

    The Raptor was designed in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

    We are talking about an USAF Stealth Fighter/Attack Aircraft that was designed about 24 to 26 years ago and start flying about 20 years ago!!!

    From the USAF perspective the F-22 Raptor is OLD!!!

    Russia still does not have flying combat ready wings of a Gen 5 Fighter/Attack Stealth Aircraft as of yet in 2015 and probably won't have a wing battle ready until 2018 or 2019.

    By the time Russia get's it's first Battle Ready Air Combat Wing of T-55's flying....the USAF will have already started flying multiple wings of Gen. 7 Stealth Robotic Autonomous Drones.

    And a Pilot would STILL chose an F-15C Improved Eagle over a Su-35!!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  9. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you are saying F-22 is a backward junk? Okay.

    So what? Thare are plenty of AA missile systems as well as 4-th generation fighters, which should be perfectly well capable of shoting down F-22 or it's junk-brother F-35.
    There is no "T-55" aircraft in existance, expert. T-50 is a production codename for a prototype.
    Also "generation" is nothin but a marketing manuever. You can call it "generation 7", "generation 97" or anything, it won't say anything about it's capabilities.

    If he is a fanboy or a drug addict, perhaps.



    And, by the way, you were threatining(lol) me with this. Dated 3rd August.
    So....where are the links for those posts? Of course you can avoid answering it if you consider yourself a chikenhawk.
     
  10. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are the one calling other members names.

    You figure it out!

    The USAF has designated it's Remote Piloted Stealth Fighter/Attack Drones Gen 6.

    Gen 7 has no ground based Pilot as it is Robotic and self autonomous.

    The U.S. Navy began taking off and landing Gen 7 Robotic Stealth Fighter/Attack Drones on Nimitz Carriers in 2014.

    AboveAlpha
     
  11. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48

    You havn't answered a single question asked in the discussion you yourself initiated. You deserve to be ignored. Starting from this moment.
     
  12. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Oh!! PLEASE!!!

    DON'T MAKE PROMISES YOU CAN'T KEEP!!!!

    As I know....and as every other member who has had to deal with you on this forum....you are without a doubt the biggest.....GO PUTIN!! RUSSIAN AND SOVIET WEAPONS SYSTEMS ARE THE BEST!!!....member we have on this forum.

    Now I know you have specifically labeled me as a U.S. MILITARY FANBOY.....and I will admit there is a certain amount of PRIDE that might seep into my posts when I post about U.S. Military Weapons Systems Capabilities as most U.S. Weapon's Systems are the best in the world....but at least I give other Nation's Military Weapons Systems their due if they are good.

    As an example I have time and again praised the Soviet T-34 Tank which with it's sloped armor was the very best Tank in WWII.

    I have also praised many times both the Soviet and Russian Space Program as the Soviet's were able to put in orbit the World's First Satellite as well put the first man in Space by 23 days as Yuri Gagarin beat out NASA and Allan Sheppard who was the 2nd man in space.....although now that more information is coming out about the X-15 Program it is possible that neither of these two men were the first two men in space....but that is another issue for another day.

    Soviet made SAM's were an exceptional development specifically the variety that shot down Garry Powers and his U-2....and the Soviet SS-20 Saber (NATO DESIGNATION) which the Soviet's called the RSD-10 Pioneer which although stated to be a Mobile Intermediate Range Missile had a range of 3,400 miles and with 3 MIRVed 150 Kiloton Warheads...well with that range the SS-20 depending upon where it was deployed could have been labeled STRATEGIC INTERCONTINENTAL.....was quite a development for the CCCP.

    Point is....I GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE!!!

    You do not.

    The fact that you just posted..."So what? Thare are plenty of AA missile systems as well as 4-th generation fighters, which should be perfectly well capable of shoting down F-22 or it's junk-brother F-35."....end quote KGB...

    .....shows me and other members how little RESPECT you show or give to currently....THE TWO MOST LETHAL FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT ON THE PLANET!!

    As I have stated before.....if you or I or anyone else was to ask ANY PILOT including Russian Pilots....if they had to chose one and only one Fighter Aircraft to fly into aerial combat against a ratio of 10-1 with the aircraft the Pilot was chosing as being the 1 or ONE against the other 10 or TEN.....what aircraft would they chose?

    EVERY SINGLE EXISTING FIGHTER PILOT ON PLANET EARTH IS GOING TO SAY....the F-22 Raptor.

    If the same question was asked except the F-22 Raptor was not available to select nor could the F-22 be one of the Ten.....every Fighter Pilot on the Planet would then say.....the F-35 and then they would ask if they would be equipped with the CUDA HYPERSONIC MISSILE SYSTEM?

    The F-22 and F-35 are near impossible to shoot down with a SAM and if both are operating in the method they were designed to operate there currently is only ONE aircraft that could destroy an F-22 or F-35 and that is either the new Gen 6 Stealth Fighter/Attack Drone or the Newer Gen. 7 Stealth Self Autonomous Fighter/Attack Drone which does not have a Human Pilot on the ground flying it.

    The T-50 is still in development as it has a large Parachute CONE right between it's engine exhausts are and the as another Russian Member pointed out by the time the T-50 is battle ready it might be designated the T-52, 53, 54 or 55.

    The T-50 is not ready for combat...not even close and it will be years before a varient is ready.

    The T-50 design does not have anywhere near the same Thrust Vectoring or Weight to Thrust ratio as a Raptor and is not close to being as Stealthy.

    I will not go into the IR-Light Signature which is tiny for a Raptor and for good reasons....reasons the T-50 does not posses.

    Russia is 2 Decades Late and still Technology Short as far as the T-50 is concerned.

    And I am not saying this because the T-50 is made by Russia....I am saying it BECAUSE IT IS A FACT!!!

    By the time Russia has an active wing of combat ready T-50 whatever 52, 53, 54 or 55 Gen 5 Fighters.....the U.S. will have already moved on to High Scale Production of the Gen 7 Robotic Drones.

    Again....I say this not because I have some deep seated hatred toward Russian Equipment....I say it because it is a FACT!

    Now....calling another member a DRUG ADDICT is CROSSING THE LINE!!

    I will not forget that.

    And you will not either.

    AboveAlpha
     
  13. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes they can, they can be 'vulnerable to detection' by sensors, which of course is a survivability problem due to the associated targetting data and weapon systems LOL.

    The point of signature reduction is to reduce the range and aspects of detection, and the more you do the more survivable the aircraft will be.
     
  14. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "Vulnerable to IR" and "vulnerable to detection in IR by heatseekers" are two different wording, which bear different meanings. I insist on the use of the latter.
    Yeah, right, the thing is modern IRST and, supposengly, heatseekers are perfectly well capable of detecting planes even from their frontal hemisphere at maximum range of infra-red homing missiles use. Consequently any measures to lower exhaust signature are just a waste of weight or thrust, which are lowering overall perfomance without contributing to stealth.
     
  15. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The former is not incorrect, its just a different context. The fact is something is vulnerable if it is vulnerable, no matter the context.


    In ideal conditions yes sure, add clouds, other heat sources nearby, dirt on the sensor etc etc - a low signature increases the odds over a high signature, therefore its very relevant to survival. But I do understand the Russian design approach is less about survivability (I mean who cares about the pilot really hey?) and more about peak performance in one or two design areas (at the expense of the others) to hedge against advantages by foes in other areas.
     
  16. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    BOTH....the F-22 and F-35 have an EXTREMELY LOW IR-Light Signature!!!

    Now....let's say Russia was trying to shoot down incoming F-22 Raptors or F-35 Lightning II's.

    And at the same time let's say that the U.S. was trying to shoot down F-22's and F-35's that were say.....STOLEN and were flying in over the poles towards North America after being in air refueled.

    And an F-22 and F-35 were also flying into Russia after taking off from an Air Base in Poland.

    The F-22 Raptor is equipped with four internal bays. Two small side bays are designed for the short-range AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missile while the two center bays were each sized around three medium-range AIM-120C AMRAAM missiles. The F-35, being a much smaller aircraft, has only two center bays.

    Now the F-36 has 6 external pylons to allow the F-35 to carry additional ordinance but in this scenario both the F-22 and F-35 are carrying all weapons internally to reduce Radar return.

    The F-22 is carrying in addition to it's Air to Air Missiles....two GBU-32 JDAM, a 1000 lbs GPS-guided bomb.

    The F-35 is carrying in addition to it's Air to Air Missiles...either one GBU-31 JDAM, a 2000 lbs GPS-guided bomb.

    The F-35 has a 25 mm cannon carried internally as this F-35 is a USAF CTOL varient.

    The F-22 Raptor has a Vulcan 20 mm cannon carried internally.

    Now a single F-22 along with a single F-35 head towards North America over the Arctic Pole and an F-22 and F-35head toward Russia from Poland and the two groups of 2 aircraft are both fully armed but neither group has it's F-35 carrying any external weapons.

    Continued......

    AboveAlpha
     
  17. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    According to this logic you are vulnerable to daylight.


    Riiiight, unfortunately this "low signature" thing comes at a price of lower airframe perfomance, which is, actually, a serious problem considereng that
    in case of op-force aircraft happens to be in rear hemisphere of your aircraft it is logical to suggest that your aircraft was already detected, with or without "exhaust cooling". In this case slow and unagile flying coffin of a plane, called F-35, would be toast. But, hey, who cares about that, you surely would be able to recruit more pilots by feeding them "invincible and invulnerable" stories in the American way.
     
  18. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your timeframes are not equivilant, but skin cancer kills a lot of people, what's your point besides semantics?

    LOL. It's not very logical to suggest that actually... as an aircraft can be heading away from the FEBAR but still within its own airspace, never having been detected or otherwise.

    But I'll assume you mean for short range missiles; well the F35 you trash talk has all aspect detection and engagement so I think its safe to say 1. the F35 knows your there and is manouvering hard to get you off its six, 2. the F35 has already fired at you with its own AAM, 3. the F35 is deploying flares and other countermeasures (EW?). So your hypothetical flying coffin scenario is a bit unrealistic, as if you've gotten into a short range position on someones tail undetected, then it really wont matter what they are flying will it.... ?

    But with the F35 it's job is not air supremacy or offensive counter air so much, so its a furphy to use it as an example 'really'. The importance of what is being discussed is more for those platforms who will be operating deep. The USAF needs its own platforms to 'prepare the battlefield' hence the B2, F22 mix. The F35 fits into the USAF orbat next to them, and for the other services they have cruise missiles to do the job to allow the F35's to do theirs. You'd have to have a better understanding of warfare to see the bigger picture perhaps...
    :hippie:
    Otherwise the more signature reduction the better, but in something like the F35 there are other design limitations more fundamental. This should not be the case for the frontline Russian fighter designs that should put survivability up there almost above performance, as its weapons that do most of the work - the real trick is putting oneself in the right position to use them!
     
  19. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Isn't that obvious? Aircraft are not "vulnerable" to IR.


    Sucks to be in your airforce. Commiting strikes without clearing the air from the op-force aircraft. Bad idea from the start.
    Besides, how does not being detected by the radar, which, for a moment, has a longer detection range, than any IRST, and having a chance of being detected by IRST work for you at the same time?

    I bet any other fighter on F-35 tail will have an advantage in both detecting and engaging. A logical conclusion if you know how this "all aspect detection and engagement works".

    Taking into account it's horrible, for a (lol) 5-th generation fighter, aerodynamics and T/W ratio I suppose F-35 would fail in this.

    Nope, only if it had detected and locked on the aircraft on it's tail. It is not a given.
    By the way, do you know how does the range of engagement depend of speed and vector? Do you know that the solid fuel missile's engin works for mere seconds? Do you know that it is going to require a lot of energy for the missile to make a U-turn?

    Uh, most of fighters have that. Harly and edge over any figher currently in service.

    You are saying like I am arguing with that. The whole point is that any "exhaust cooling" is nothing but a waste of resouces, taking into account that on the ranges it might have been effective the aircraft will be detected with classy radars and it is close to uselesson the distances below 30 km.

    These are precisely it's job, the goal of F-35 was to replace all remaining F-15, F-16, F/A-18, which are, guess what, fighters in their primary role.
    You can't really fill that gap with only 200 F-22.

    So, according to you, in order to properly function F-35 requires both F-22 to clear airspace and cruise missiles to clear the land of AA threats. In other words you've just said that the "job" of F-35 can be done by way more simple and cheap platforms.
    Do you undertand that you effectively called F-35 a piece of useless junk with that?

    Where are those F-117 now?
     
  20. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The USAF has placed all F-117's into storage as they have been replaced by the F-22's and F-35's.

    F-35's are the second...#2...most lethal and capable manned piloted Fighter/Attack Aircraft in the WORLD behind only the F-22 Raptor which is without a doubt the worlds most lethal and capable Fighter/Attack Human Piloted Aircraft in the world.

    As I have stated several times if you asked every single living Fighter Pilot which Fighter/Attack or just Fighter Aircraft they would chose to be flying up against 10 Typhoon Eurofighters or fly against...10 Russian Su-35's or fly against 10 USAF F-15C Improved Eagles...EVERY SINGLE PILOT ALIVE WHO WAS GIVEN THIS CHOICE WOULD CHOSE TO BE FLYING A USAF F-22 RAPTOR!!!


    If the same question was asked and the F-22 could not be a choice EVERY SINGLE LIVING PILOT WOULD CHOSE AN F-35 IF THE CHOICE OF AN F-22 RAPTOR WAS NOT ALLOWED if these pilots had to fly in aerial combat against either 10 Typhoons, 10 Su-35's or 10 USAF F-15C Improved Eagles!!!

    And here is the kicker!!!

    Not only would every single pilot ALIVE chose the F-22 Raptor to go up against 10 other Aircraft of which these 10 aircraft could be all one type or a mix such as 4 F-15C's, 3 Su-35's and 3 Typhoon Eurofighters......the result would be the same as ONE F-22 RAPTOR would destroy all 10 of the other aircraft and they could be all 10 of the same or 10 total in a mix!!

    Now as I stated....if the same question was asked of every single living Fighter Pilot....and if they had to chose from a list of Fighter Jet's and this list did not have the F-22 Raptor on it....but it had every single other existing Fighter and Fighter/Attack Aircraft on that list.....and they could ONLY CHOSE ONE....to use as their aircraft to fight 10 other either all the same or a mix of F-15C's, Su-35's and Typhoon Eurofighters.....EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER PILOT ALIVE WOULD THEN CHOSE TO PICK THE F-35 LIGHTNING II to fighter 10 other Fighter Jets in aerial combat.

    First they would chose an F-22 Raptor....if the Rator was not made available their next choice would be an F-35 Lightning II.

    And every single fighter pilot ALIVE would chose this way every single time!!!

    So if I were you I would stop calling the F-35 a piece of junk! LOL!!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  21. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Their design is, therefore they are. Your just being semantic and demanding others to adhere to your point of view, but the reality an aircraft has a measure of vulnerability to IR detection by IR sensors, therefore it is vulnerable. Its existence is not at stake, but its detection. The usage of the word is accurate, so you'll just have to suck it up and understand that people might use different contexts sometimes.

    Your comment has no relevance to mine. Try again.

    It was your scenario, don't blame me if it doesnt actually make sense. I was just highliting parts of why your scenario was wrong... so pointing out the deficiencies in my points is actually pointing out the sillyness of your scenario to begin with!!

    But it does maneuver very well, If your referring to the OP well that's not really relevant to war... as a clean F16 can outmaneuver and out accelerate almost anything except perhaps a couple of airframes in the modern dedicated air supremacy fighter category. It's just not a relevant comparison, otherwise the F35 maneuvers in excess of what is required for ACM.

    Depends how it does it, but again, its your silly scenario.

    Your just being argumentative and not constructive in the slightest. Learn to debate. Your point was IR reduction in the rear quadrant and survivability in a stupid hypothetical scenario, well flares tend to impact IR and so exhaust shielding would increase the effectiveness of signature reduction. But of course your point was to switch from attacking IR reduction around exhausts to bagging the F35's lack of exhaust IR reduction with a stupid scenario so its no wonder your really not making much sense in this debate.


    That is your original point and I've already addressed this earlier AFAIK, are you trying to run the discussion in circles? Just because you provide one scenario doesnt mean the other factors suddenly become irrelevant or redundant.

    Offensive counter air and defensive counter air are different beasts. One is about deep penetration and the other is not. The multirole category works in concert with other types, always has.

    Lol, I do but you dont. Basically to answer you, No, I did not. I said different services achieve the offensive counter air differently depending on the employment of those forces. The USN/USMC are fleet focused and do not require the same depth or duration of air supremacy if operating alone. The USAF operates in support in a more persistant environment and so uses platforms to achieve and maintain that control in depth and duration. The F35 is the workhorse multirole platform.

    Replaced by better aircraft/weapons. No-one is saying signature reduction is everything... are they.
     
  22. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    KGB is just being a disengenuous poster as the F-35 is designed to fight in a certain manner and when it fights like it was designed to fight...the ONLY manned aircraft that would be capable of taking out an F-35 is an F-22.

    As I stated...if any Pilot in the WORLD had a choice of any aircraft to fly against 10 other aircraft and they were not allowed to chose the F-22 and the other 10 aircraft they had to go into aerial combat with were 10 Su-35's or 10 F-15C's or 10 Typhoons....the pilots will chose the F-35 as long as the F-22 was not made available to them.

    AboveAlpha
     
  23. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Alpha the F-35 may be a multirole fighter but it is prioratized for the strike fighter role, one F-35 taking on 10 up to date fourth generation airframes sounds a lot like guilding the lilly. With that term aerial combat are you referring to "within visual range"?

    Freddy.
     
  24. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The Soviets developed the best ejection seat in the world & I can guarantee you that after watching the Pak Fa/T-50 threads on Key Publishing forums/Modern Military Aviation since 2010 that the Russians are taking signiture reduction very seriously.
     
  25. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If the composit materials on the outside of the airframe can handle the increased temperatures from much higher speeds you could be right but it is more likely several versions of the Pak Fa/T-50 will be built & flatish nozzels have a potential political advantage with shoring up public support in India for the FGFA especially if it helps to make up India's work share on the project. Realy don't think it will end up being one or the other but both.
     

Share This Page