OT: F35 getting hosed by Japanese F15s

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961
Leo,

Are you saying the F35 is a better dogfighter than the aforementioned Gen IV planes?

F-35 is on par (or even better) with F-16 with agility which, itself, if really good thing!

So... it is not a "flying brick" at all like many have doubted in past... [;)]

But... the F-35 is so much more than "dogfighting"... it is complete revolution in whole package... integration of information... stealth... maneuverability... [:)]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

https://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/f ... on-raptor/

"Raptor Salad". Well so much for the vaunted dog-fighting ability of the F22.

This is really old old news and the reason was RoE (i.e. "Rules of Engagement") that were placed in effect during the exercise...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961
Leo,

Are you saying the F35 is a better dogfighter than the aforementioned Gen IV planes?

F-35 is on par (or even better) with F-16 with agility which, itself, if really good thing!

So... it is not a "flying brick" at all like many have doubted in past... [;)]

But... the F-35 is so much more than "dogfighting"... it is complete revolution in whole package... integration of information... stealth... maneuverability... [:)]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

https://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/f ... on-raptor/

"Raptor Salad". Well so much for the vaunted dog-fighting ability of the F22.

This is really old old news and the reason was RoE (i.e. "Rules of Engagement") that were placed in effect during the exercise...


Leo "Apollo11"

No, it doesn't have the agility of GEN IV planes. The more stealthy it is the less maneuverable it is.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


No, it doesn't have the agility of GEN IV planes. The more stealthy it is the less maneuverable it is.

Are you just quoting this as if it's a zero-sum equation, as if it's some founding principle? Because that's not necessarily true.

Also, there are several aspects to maneuverability: agility and energy are the big ones I can think of.

Furthermore, maneuverability is far less important than it used to me - when you're shooting your opponent down before they can even see you, it doesn't matter how maneuverable (or not) you are.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


No, it doesn't have the agility of GEN IV planes. The more stealthy it is the less maneuverable it is.

Are you just quoting this as if it's a zero-sum equation, as if it's some founding principle? Because that's not necessarily true.

Also, there are several aspects to maneuverability: agility and energy are the big ones I can think of.

Furthermore, maneuverability is far less important than it used to me - when you're shooting your opponent down before they can even see you, it doesn't matter how maneuverable (or not) you are.

I agree, the BVR combat ability is very important. No question.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

No, it doesn't have the agility of GEN IV planes. The more stealthy it is the less maneuverable it is.

The actual F-16 and now F-35 pilots disagree... [;)]

BTW, there is nice Norwegian Flight Blog where actual pilot of F-16 and 1st Norwegian F-35 pilot describes the differences between F-16 and F-35 - highly recommended!

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/

Morten "Dolby" Hanche:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kam...fight-og-f-35/

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kam...earned-so-far/



Leo "Apollo11"

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

No, it doesn't have the agility of GEN IV planes. The more stealthy it is the less maneuverable it is.

The actual F-16 and now F-35 pilots disagree... [;)]

BTW, there is nice Norwegian Flight Blog where actual pilot of F-16 and 1st Norwegian F-35 pilot describes the differences between F-16 and F-35 - highly recommended!

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/

Morten "Dolby" Hanche:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kam...fight-og-f-35/

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kam...earned-so-far/



Leo "Apollo11"

I'm sorry, but you can't take the word of an F35 pilot on the capabilities of a F35 in this day and age. If the F35 was Meat on the Table, they wouldn't say so as they've be sitting in a desk in Fairbanks.

You know that. Why quote them?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

No, it doesn't have the agility of GEN IV planes. The more stealthy it is the less maneuverable it is.

The actual F-16 and now F-35 pilots disagree... [;)]

BTW, there is nice Norwegian Flight Blog where actual pilot of F-16 and 1st Norwegian F-35 pilot describes the differences between F-16 and F-35 - highly recommended!

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/

Morten "Dolby" Hanche:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kam...fight-og-f-35/

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kam...earned-so-far/



Leo "Apollo11"

I'm sorry, but you can't take the word of an F35 pilot on the capabilities of a F35 in this day and age. If the F35 was Meat on the Table, they wouldn't say so as they've be sitting in a desk in Fairbanks.

You know that. Why quote them?

Ah. So now we can't take the word of the pilots themselves, but we can take the word of a dated opinion piece that compares 'apples to oranges'? Magnitudes of difference between the verity of these sources. You know that. Why quote them?

[Lecivius]

I have an active dislike of Sky Kings. But I can guarantee if their lives were in a dog house, they would be screaming. They did with the O2 issue, the acceleration issue, the avionics issue, and they would be even louder here.

There is mention of the F-22 here. The Russians have a real fear of that aircraft. They would know. And while I have not come across any publication on their concerns on the F-35, the fact that the F-22 received such 'Bad press' early on for a weapons system now considered to be so powerful speaks volumes for how much credence such dated material should be viewed today.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have an active dislike of Sky Kings. But I can guarantee if their lives were in a dog house, they would be screaming. They did with the O2 issue, the acceleration issue, the avionics issue, and they would be even louder here.

There is mention of the F-22 here. The Russians have a real fear of that aircraft. They would know. And while I have not come across any publication on their concerns on the F-35, the fact that the F-22 received such 'Bad press' early on for a weapons system now considered to be so powerful speaks volumes for how much credence such dated material should be viewed today.

I beg to differ. Sky Kings know we're not going to get in any fight-that matters in our lifetimes so it behooves them to tow the company line. Towing said line means a nice, fat paycheck as a test-pilot or manager at Lockheed after they muster out.

Revolving door works just as well now as it did 30 or 40 years ago.

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961
Sky Kings know we're not going to get in any fight-that matters in our lifetimes so it behooves them to tow the company line.

As history shows, saying that with any manner of certainty is foolish. As for the F-35, I have reservations about the cost, but there are tons of waste all throughout the government, not just the military.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have an active dislike of Sky Kings. But I can guarantee if their lives were in a dog house, they would be screaming. They did with the O2 issue, the acceleration issue, the avionics issue, and they would be even louder here.

There is mention of the F-22 here. The Russians have a real fear of that aircraft. They would know. And while I have not come across any publication on their concerns on the F-35, the fact that the F-22 received such 'Bad press' early on for a weapons system now considered to be so powerful speaks volumes for how much credence such dated material should be viewed today.

I beg to differ. Sky Kings know we're not going to get in any fight-that matters in our lifetimes so it behooves them to tow the company line. Towing said line means a nice, fat paycheck as a test-pilot or manager at Lockheed after they muster out.

Revolving door works just as well now as it did 30 or 40 years ago.

You just made a great point. You don't have a single educated clue about what you are talking about. Don't bother replying, but congratulations! You just made #4 on my Green Button list, undoubtedly the best forum feature ever invented.

[Anachro]

I do believe there are valid points to be made about the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us all about, but it's a large, complicated discussion to be had with many intractable problems. I don't even know where to start.

[Lokasenna]

It's "toe the line", not "tow the line."

[Will_L]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I don't know that the difference was that stark (especially since there's been some biophysical work done lately that puts the maximum speed a human can throw a ball at a little over 100mph), but yes there's a bit of a difference because of the angles involved.
[/quote]

One study I saw read that the fastest pitch a human could throw is about 108 mph but you'd only do it once because you'd tear
the shoulder up.

[Lokasenna]

Right, the maximum is really "the hardest a human can throw without breaking something in their body" - which is about 105ish mph. Because of what our bodies are made out of.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have an active dislike of Sky Kings. But I can guarantee if their lives were in a dog house, they would be screaming. They did with the O2 issue, the acceleration issue, the avionics issue, and they would be even louder here.

There is mention of the F-22 here. The Russians have a real fear of that aircraft. They would know. And while I have not come across any publication on their concerns on the F-35, the fact that the F-22 received such 'Bad press' early on for a weapons system now considered to be so powerful speaks volumes for how much credence such dated material should be viewed today.

I beg to differ. Sky Kings know we're not going to get in any fight-that matters in our lifetimes so it behooves them to tow the company line. Towing said line means a nice, fat paycheck as a test-pilot or manager at Lockheed after they muster out.

Revolving door works just as well now as it did 30 or 40 years ago.

You just made a great point. You don't have a single educated clue about what you are talking about. Don't bother replying, but congratulations! You just made #4 on my Green Button list, undoubtedly the best forum feature ever invented.

Okay, you're incapable of refuting the thesis of the article that the F35 can't dogfight with the GEn IV so you tap out.

Whatever will I do with your inane input?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961




I beg to differ. Sky Kings know we're not going to get in any fight-that matters in our lifetimes so it behooves them to tow the company line. Towing said line means a nice, fat paycheck as a test-pilot or manager at Lockheed after they muster out.

Revolving door works just as well now as it did 30 or 40 years ago.

You just made a great point. You don't have a single educated clue about what you are talking about. Don't bother replying, but congratulations! You just made #4 on my Green Button list, undoubtedly the best forum feature ever invented.

Okay, you're incapable of refuting the thesis of the article that the F35 can't dogfight with the GEn IV so you tap out.

Whatever will I do with your inane input?

You're refusing to acknowledge that dogfighting isn't relevant in modern aerial combat.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961




I beg to differ. Sky Kings know we're not going to get in any fight-that matters in our lifetimes so it behooves them to tow the company line. Towing said line means a nice, fat paycheck as a test-pilot or manager at Lockheed after they muster out.

Revolving door works just as well now as it did 30 or 40 years ago.

You just made a great point. You don't have a single educated clue about what you are talking about. Don't bother replying, but congratulations! You just made #4 on my Green Button list, undoubtedly the best forum feature ever invented.

Okay, you're incapable of refuting the thesis of the article that the F35 can't dogfight with the GEn IV so you tap out.

Whatever will I do with your inane input?

Yeah, the original post was a link to an article that pretty much said some fighters were better dogfighters but F-35s were not designed to dogfight. We are comparing apples to oranges here and nothing much more needs to be said. No one can say with certainty whether dogfights or missile fights will decide the next air conflict, but indications from the air wars in the Persian Gulf are that avionics and missiles were more important than dogfighting per se. I don't recall any air-to-air combat that used cannons.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lecivius




You just made a great point. You don't have a single educated clue about what you are talking about. Don't bother replying, but congratulations! You just made #4 on my Green Button list, undoubtedly the best forum feature ever invented.

Okay, you're incapable of refuting the thesis of the article that the F35 can't dogfight with the GEn IV so you tap out.

Whatever will I do with your inane input?

You're refusing to acknowledge that dogfighting isn't relevant in modern aerial combat.

I think Stealth is overrated, given stealth is defeated by Long-wave radar. If you lose your stealth ability and you designed a plane primarily for stealth you have just made an inferior weapon platform.

Do you acknowledge that stealth is defeated or degraded by long-wave radar?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

I think Stealth is overrated, given stealth is defeated by Long-wave radar. If you lose your stealth ability and you designed a plane primarily for stealth you have just made an inferior weapon platform.

Do you acknowledge that stealth is defeated or degraded by long-wave radar?

Do I even need to? I just looked it up. It has serious drawbacks and is far from a sure thing - and the only time it was used successfully was way back in the 90s.

Stealth technology has come leaps and bounds since then.