Matrix Games Forums

Bring Back the Phantom! The real Mig killer.

Long time Phantom Phan.

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

The US and Japan still can't find a missing F-35, and its 'secrets' may be in danger

"The US and Japan have been conducting a tireless, around-the-clock search for a missing F-35 for a week, but so far, they have yet to recover the downed fighter or its pilot. A life is on the line, and the "secrets" of the most expensive weapon in the world are lost somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.

A Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter flown by 41-year-old Maj. Akinori Hosomi disappeared from radar last Tuesday, April 9. No distress signal was sent out as the aircraft vanished roughly 85 miles east of Misawa Air Base. "

The lie they are propagating is the Japanese pilot lost spatial orientation thus causing the crash.

Gotta love how they blame a dead man for their failure. Dead men tell no tales, eh?

Stolen?

Chances are that aircraft had at least one wingman with it who could offer some account of the circumstances. Secondly, who knows what sort of telemetry there is between these cutting edge aircraft and satellites or ground stations. Like the US forces, the Japanese probably also appreciate the value of real time info from every major asset in the field.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

It is interesting that the critic Rusty presents blames the USAF for fatal flaws in the program. The USAF was also first in complaining about having to buy F-35s and they wanted to get some more F-22s instead. We never did need one airframe that could do everything. Instead we perhaps have one airframe that can do nothing, well.

Just a guess, but before the F-35 program is fulfilled there will be more drones doing fighter and attack missions than manned aircraft do. AI is getting sophisticated enough and fast enough to make nearly independent decisions. Legal issues are what keep it chained to the central human control, but in a shooting war the legal tether will be removed immediately.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961





The lie they are propagating is the Japanese pilot lost spatial orientation thus causing the crash.

Gotta love how they blame a dead man for their failure. Dead men tell no tales, eh?

Stolen?

Chances are that aircraft had at least one wingman with it who could offer some account of the circumstances. Secondly, who knows what sort of telemetry there is between these cutting edge aircraft and satellites or ground stations. Like the US forces, the Japanese probably also appreciate the value of real time info from every major asset in the field.

Let's examine the black-box from the F35 they found. Oh, wait, it was destroyed in the crash.

Isn't that convenient.

This article does not even mention the F-35's latest whoops, that being the "stealth" coating on the airframe, tends to "burn off" during sustained supersonic flight.
Thus is the pilot wants to remain stealthy, the can not fly supersonic for more than two minutes at a time!

This plane reminds me so much of Robert McNamara's TFX, the F-111.
Another not so brilliant "one plane to do everything for both the Navy and the Air Force" kind of thing.
The F-35 attempts to do everything for the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines!

A now retired friend who was stationed at Eglin AFB, where they test this kind of stuff, was involved with simulated dog fights against the F-35 about 4 years ago.
Even the "old" F-16 was better in the traditional Dog Fight, and the F-15 and F-22 could run rings around it.
And, the F-35 is intended to replace all three!

ORIGINAL: Gregg

This article does not even mention the F-35's latest whoops, that being the "stealth" coating on the airframe, tends to "burn off" during sustained supersonic flight.
Thus is the pilot wants to remain stealthy, the can not fly supersonic for more than two minutes at a time!

This plane reminds me so much of Robert McNamara's TFX, the F-111.
Another not so brilliant "one plane to do everything for both the Navy and the Air Force" kind of thing.
The F-35 attempts to do everything for the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines!

A now retired friend who was stationed at Eglin AFB, where they test this kind of stuff, was involved with simulated dog fights against the F-35 about 4 years ago.
Even the "old" F-16 was better in the traditional Dog Fight, and the F-15 and F-22 could run rings around it.
And, the F-35 is intended to replace all three!

This ground has been covered before. The F-35 was never designed to be the fastest or most agile, it was designed for stealth and superior avionics to target enemies before they were even aware of its presence. Like every recent successful major weapon system it will have its teething issues and eventually get to a fully operational state. Only then in the crucible of combat will we find out how good or bad it is.
And I recall exactly the same gnashing of teeth over the F-117 Stealth Fighter when it came out - until Desert Storm proved it could take down air defences ahead of the main air strikes. Ditto on the B-2.

Also the F-117 stealth fighter was not a fighter in that it was NOT designed to attack enemy aircraft. It should be considered more of a light bomber which would be used to attack well defended targets. The F-35 is trying to do the same job AND take out enemy aircraft. The right tool for the job is important to have.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Gregg

This article does not even mention the F-35's latest whoops, that being the "stealth" coating on the airframe, tends to "burn off" during sustained supersonic flight.
Thus is the pilot wants to remain stealthy, the can not fly supersonic for more than two minutes at a time!

This plane reminds me so much of Robert McNamara's TFX, the F-111.
Another not so brilliant "one plane to do everything for both the Navy and the Air Force" kind of thing.
The F-35 attempts to do everything for the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines!

A now retired friend who was stationed at Eglin AFB, where they test this kind of stuff, was involved with simulated dog fights against the F-35 about 4 years ago.
Even the "old" F-16 was better in the traditional Dog Fight, and the F-15 and F-22 could run rings around it.
And, the F-35 is intended to replace all three!

This ground has been covered before. The F-35 was never designed to be the fastest or most agile, it was designed for stealth and superior avionics to target enemies before they were even aware of its presence. Like every recent successful major weapon system it will have its teething issues and eventually get to a fully operational state. Only then in the crucible of combat will we find out how good or bad it is.
And I recall exactly the same gnashing of teeth over the F-117 Stealth Fighter when it came out - until Desert Storm proved it could take down air defences ahead of the main air strikes. Ditto on the B-2.

+1. Well said.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Gregg

This article does not even mention the F-35's latest whoops, that being the "stealth" coating on the airframe, tends to "burn off" during sustained supersonic flight.
Thus is the pilot wants to remain stealthy, the can not fly supersonic for more than two minutes at a time!

This plane reminds me so much of Robert McNamara's TFX, the F-111.
Another not so brilliant "one plane to do everything for both the Navy and the Air Force" kind of thing.
The F-35 attempts to do everything for the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines!

A now retired friend who was stationed at Eglin AFB, where they test this kind of stuff, was involved with simulated dog fights against the F-35 about 4 years ago.
Even the "old" F-16 was better in the traditional Dog Fight, and the F-15 and F-22 could run rings around it.
And, the F-35 is intended to replace all three!

This ground has been covered before. The F-35 was never designed to be the fastest or most agile, it was designed for stealth and superior avionics to target enemies before they were even aware of its presence. Like every recent successful major weapon system it will have its teething issues and eventually get to a fully operational state. Only then in the crucible of combat will we find out how good or bad it is.
And I recall exactly the same gnashing of teeth over the F-117 Stealth Fighter when it came out - until Desert Storm proved it could take down air defences ahead of the main air strikes. Ditto on the B-2.

Though the Bf-110 was supposed to be the super fighter of the Luftwaffe. In 1940 the top fighter pilots were slotted into Bf-110 units. As a day fighter against single engine interceptors they proved to be a major disappointment. They did do well against heavy bombers with no fighter escort and as night fighters, but they were originally intended to be bomber escorts.

The Sgt York anti-aircraft system was touted as the big next gen AA vehicle for the US Army, it failed miserably.

Sometimes the problems get worked out and sometimes they don't. Time will tell.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Gregg

This article does not even mention the F-35's latest whoops, that being the "stealth" coating on the airframe, tends to "burn off" during sustained supersonic flight.
Thus is the pilot wants to remain stealthy, the can not fly supersonic for more than two minutes at a time!

This plane reminds me so much of Robert McNamara's TFX, the F-111.
Another not so brilliant "one plane to do everything for both the Navy and the Air Force" kind of thing.
The F-35 attempts to do everything for the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines!

A now retired friend who was stationed at Eglin AFB, where they test this kind of stuff, was involved with simulated dog fights against the F-35 about 4 years ago.
Even the "old" F-16 was better in the traditional Dog Fight, and the F-15 and F-22 could run rings around it.
And, the F-35 is intended to replace all three!

This ground has been covered before. The F-35 was never designed to be the fastest or most agile, it was designed for stealth and superior avionics to target enemies before they were even aware of its presence. Like every recent successful major weapon system it will have its teething issues and eventually get to a fully operational state. Only then in the crucible of combat will we find out how good or bad it is.
And I recall exactly the same gnashing of teeth over the F-117 Stealth Fighter when it came out - until Desert Storm proved it could take down air defences ahead of the main air strikes. Ditto on the B-2.

Though the Bf-110 was supposed to be the super fighter of the Luftwaffe. In 1940 the top fighter pilots were slotted into Bf-110 units. As a day fighter against single engine interceptors they proved to be a major disappointment. They did do well against heavy bombers with no fighter escort and as night fighters, but they were originally intended to be bomber escorts.

The Sgt York anti-aircraft system was touted as the big next gen AA vehicle for the US Army, it failed miserably.

Sometimes the problems get worked out and sometimes they don't. Time will tell.

Exactly what I meant with the "crucible of combat" comment.
Overall, I was just saying "The pundits who complain about things not being perfect don't really know how useful the weapons system will be either."

My only concern with our (Western) development of new weapons is that the military and government experts and budget authorities have gotten too close to the industrial system to maintain their "military and government" objectivity. Sometimes choices are made based on the jobs and investment the manufacturer promises rather than expected effectiveness of the weapon system.

I get the pressures on governments to do things like "create jobs" but once they show that they are determined not to let a big strategic industry fail, that industry can jack up prices without real justification. I think WWII was a special war because patriotism was part of the drive to develop the best weapons, moreso than the profit motive. People bought bonds with modest rates of return because they believed in the war effort and their country.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



This ground has been covered before. The F-35 was never designed to be the fastest or most agile, it was designed for stealth and superior avionics to target enemies before they were even aware of its presence. Like every recent successful major weapon system it will have its teething issues and eventually get to a fully operational state. Only then in the crucible of combat will we find out how good or bad it is.
And I recall exactly the same gnashing of teeth over the F-117 Stealth Fighter when it came out - until Desert Storm proved it could take down air defences ahead of the main air strikes. Ditto on the B-2.

Though the Bf-110 was supposed to be the super fighter of the Luftwaffe. In 1940 the top fighter pilots were slotted into Bf-110 units. As a day fighter against single engine interceptors they proved to be a major disappointment. They did do well against heavy bombers with no fighter escort and as night fighters, but they were originally intended to be bomber escorts.

The Sgt York anti-aircraft system was touted as the big next gen AA vehicle for the US Army, it failed miserably.

Sometimes the problems get worked out and sometimes they don't. Time will tell.

Exactly what I meant with the "crucible of combat" comment.
Overall, I was just saying "The pundits who complain about things not being perfect don't really know how useful the weapons system will be either."

My only concern with our (Western) development of new weapons is that the military and government experts and budget authorities have gotten too close to the industrial system to maintain their "military and government" objectivity. Sometimes choices are made based on the jobs and investment the manufacturer promises rather than expected effectiveness of the weapon system.

I get the pressures on governments to do things like "create jobs" but once they show that they are determined not to let a big strategic industry fail, that industry can jack up prices without real justification. I think WWII was a special war because patriotism was part of the drive to develop the best weapons, moreso than the profit motive. People bought bonds with modest rates of return because they believed in the war effort and their country.

It gets even more complicated when you throw the political machinations of running a multi-national alliance with disparate governments. Each with disparate attitudes about their role in the alliance and how much (if any) they should be paying from their own pocket to provide men and material for the cause. Sprinkle that with a wee bit of nationalism / international political disagreement and it's a wonder that anyone agrees on any common weapons systems.

Before he passed, my father reiterated his concern about why we-the United States of America-should be footing a significant part of the bill for the defense of the world's 3rd, 4th and 12th largest economies. Why we should be forking out three times the %GDP of some other NATO countries, including our neighbors to the North. I still don't have an answer for why this makes sense for an alliance.

To me, it harkens back to George Washington's admonitions to 'Beware entangling alliances'. Particularly those that have outlived their usefulness.

So, if you want to discard the profit motive-as ignoble as that may be for the arms industry-then we need to really wonder what we're doing supporting a common arms market at all. What exactly do you purport to replace the "Military Industrial Complex" with and still maintain readiness and financial commitment to defense?

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

It gets even more complicated when you throw the political machinations of running a multi-national alliance with disparate governments. Each with disparate attitudes about their role in the alliance and how much (if any) they should be paying from their own pocket to provide men and material for the cause. Sprinkle that with a wee bit of nationalism / international political disagreement and it's a wonder that anyone agrees on any common weapons systems.

Before he passed, my father reiterated his concern about why we-the United States of America-should be footing a significant part of the bill for the defense of the world's 3rd, 4th and 12th largest economies. Why we should be forking out three times the %GDP of some other NATO countries, including our neighbors to the North. I still don't have an answer for why this makes sense for an alliance.

To me, it harkens back to George Washington's admonitions to 'Beware entangling alliances'. Particularly those that have outlived their usefulness.

So, if you want to discard the profit motive-as ignoble as that may be for the arms industry-then we need to really wonder what we're doing supporting a common arms market at all. What exactly do you purport to replace the "Military Industrial Complex" with and still maintain readiness and financial commitment to defense?

First, the issue of disproportionate spending on military contributions to international defense has a simple answer - other countries do not have as much money available to contribute at the same level as the US. Example: Canada has roughly one tenth the population of the US and a greater land mass, with arguably more challenging terrain and weather. We cannot produce as much from agriculture because of a colder climate and shorter growing season, so we pay more for food than Americans. We pay more to heat our homes. And if we a highway going roughly 4000 miles from coast to coast, we have far fewer people to pay for its construction and upkeep. So our "disposable income" after paying for necessities (including health care) is a lesser percentage than the US has available.

The other thing about contributing to alliances is that the US gets better security for less money by helping fund military force fielded by countries that are close to the area being defended. The alternative is greater deployment of US troops and equipment, which brings its own problems.

I am not advocating for the dismantling of the military-industrial system entirely. I am suggesting that the prime criteria for purchasing or developing new weapon systems should be military utility rather than political/economic considerations. Promises made by vendors of how effective their system will be should be tested in realistic ways and financial penalties applied if the system does not work as advertised. Right now we seem to reward duds by giving the companies more money to "fix" the issues.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

It gets even more complicated when you throw the political machinations of running a multi-national alliance with disparate governments. Each with disparate attitudes about their role in the alliance and how much (if any) they should be paying from their own pocket to provide men and material for the cause. Sprinkle that with a wee bit of nationalism / international political disagreement and it's a wonder that anyone agrees on any common weapons systems.

Before he passed, my father reiterated his concern about why we-the United States of America-should be footing a significant part of the bill for the defense of the world's 3rd, 4th and 12th largest economies. Why we should be forking out three times the %GDP of some other NATO countries, including our neighbors to the North. I still don't have an answer for why this makes sense for an alliance.

To me, it harkens back to George Washington's admonitions to 'Beware entangling alliances'. Particularly those that have outlived their usefulness.

So, if you want to discard the profit motive-as ignoble as that may be for the arms industry-then we need to really wonder what we're doing supporting a common arms market at all. What exactly do you purport to replace the "Military Industrial Complex" with and still maintain readiness and financial commitment to defense?

First, the issue of disproportionate spending on military contributions to international defense has a simple answer - other countries do not have as much money available to contribute at the same level as the US. Example: Canada has roughly one tenth the population of the US and a greater land mass, with arguably more challenging terrain and weather. We cannot produce as much from agriculture because of a colder climate and shorter growing season, so we pay more for food than Americans. We pay more to heat our homes. And if we a highway going roughly 4000 miles from coast to coast, we have far fewer people to pay for its construction and upkeep. So our "disposable income" after paying for necessities (including health care) is a lesser percentage than the US has available.

Which is why NATO has a %GDP requirement for its members-smaller GDPs in nominal terms should not have to provide as much defense spending in nominal terms as countries with larger GDPs. The excuse for why first world economies (e.g., Canada, Germany, France) cannot spend a minimum of 2% of their available GDP on defense (we spend circa 3.9%) is threadbare. So Canadians spend more on their food and therefore have less to spend on defense-and cannot meet the 2% threshhold? That may be the case (that food is more expensive), but we all have our national crosses to bear. Per capita expenses for healthcare in this country are significantly higher than yours, as is higher education.

Yet we still find a way to do what needs be done to support the alliance-three times %GDP than the Germans, and about 2.5x what the Canadians do. The contributions are manifestly unequal and increasingly one sided. And the logic behind central European allies thumbing their noses-decades on end-to military preparedness are transparently self-serving, short-sighted and regrettable.

I am not advocating for the dismantling of the military-industrial system entirely. I am suggesting that the prime criteria for purchasing or developing new weapon systems should be military utility rather than political/economic considerations. Promises made by vendors of how effective their system will be should be tested in realistic ways and financial penalties applied if the system does not work as advertised. Right now we seem to reward duds by giving the companies more money to "fix" the issues.

The MIC is imperfect and expensive. But cutting-edge readiness and 'kit' is never cheap. We learned the hard way in 1940 about the butcher's bill borne by a lack of readiness. I'm all ears for our (mostly) European allies alternative suggestions about ways to reduce the cost, increase their financial commitment and prioritize military readiness, production and research. But I've not heard a cogent argument for anything but the status quo, as imperfect as it is.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I am not advocating for the dismantling of the military-industrial system entirely. I am suggesting that the prime criteria for purchasing or developing new weapon systems should be military utility rather than political/economic considerations. Promises made by vendors of how effective their system will be should be tested in realistic ways and financial penalties applied if the system does not work as advertised. Right now we seem to reward duds by giving the companies more money to "fix" the issues.

Leaping to conclusions about the suitability of a weapons platform, particularly one decades in the making apriori is no fix. I've seen this same hand-wringing and pearl clutching before and during the roll-out of the M-16, Bradley, F-22, F-35, the Gerald Ford class of CVN, the Virginia class of SSN, the LCS program and just about every other big ticket item. The problem seems heightened more recently by the poor quality of professional journalism and follow-through and by media trolls that delight in fomenting fear and doubt in some countries in particular.

All of the above weapons systems had teething problems. All of them. But they got worked out through the same system that you decry.

So, if you're concerned about the teething problems and expense of development, fine. Buy those items that are tried and true-tested and verified after decades of work. Will the Canadians be buying F-16s, F-15s or F-18E/Fs to fill their airforce's need to replace those venerable CF-188s? But we don't have the luxury of waiting 40 years between fighter replacement generations. Being cutting edge and having advanced capabilities augurs against the logic of accepting ye olde tech and kit.

That is why the F-15X is going to be built, it is an improvement on an existing weapons platform that is showing its age.

Also the cost of weapons systems and the problems associated with them go up significantly when bring something totally new instead of slowing tweaking things here and there.

Canada has a long, cross political party lines history of totally screwed military acquisitions. It is run by politicians instead of professionals. In the result decisions take forever and things cost far more than they should. I'm going to guess that this whine is common to most NATO allies!

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I am not advocating for the dismantling of the military-industrial system entirely. I am suggesting that the prime criteria for purchasing or developing new weapon systems should be military utility rather than political/economic considerations. Promises made by vendors of how effective their system will be should be tested in realistic ways and financial penalties applied if the system does not work as advertised. Right now we seem to reward duds by giving the companies more money to "fix" the issues.

Leaping to conclusions about the suitability of a weapons platform, particularly one decades in the making apriori is no fix. I've seen this same hand-wringing and pearl clutching before and during the roll-out of the M-16, Bradley, F-22, F-35, the Gerald Ford class of CVN, the Virginia class of SSN, the LCS program and just about every other big ticket item. The problem seems heightened more recently by the poor quality of professional journalism and follow-through and by media trolls that delight in fomenting fear and doubt in some countries in particular.

All of the above weapons systems had teething problems. All of them. But they got worked out through the same system that you decry.

So, if you're concerned about the teething problems and expense of development, fine. Buy those items that are tried and true-tested and verified after decades of work. Will the Canadians be buying F-16s, F-15s or F-18E/Fs to fill their airforce's need to replace those venerable CF-188s? But we don't have the luxury of waiting 40 years between fighter replacement generations. Being cutting edge and having advanced capabilities augurs against the logic of accepting ye olde tech and kit.

M-16/M4 "teething problems"? Teething problems eventually are worked out, such as with the disastrous GPS/Navigation system on the F22 which almost resulted in a squadron of Raptors ditching in the Pacific upon first deployment.

With the M16 and M4 it's "design flaws". 40 years after entering service the jamming of the rifle got many in the 507th killed int the Battle of Nasiriyah, 2003.

That was the battle Pvt. Jessica lynch "won" the Silver Star for nothing other than getting captured (she never fired her weapon only being knocked out as a passenger in a Humvee that crashed).

US Army Intel found every American weapon had jammed. M2, M16, M4, M249. All of them recovered from the dead and wounded were jammed.

The only reason the M16 and M4 continues to remain in the US military is politics and an inability of the Pentagon to admit the weapon system (M16) was a mistake. Eugene Stonner should have been horsewhipped for that design.

Even today the M4 jams when dirty in Iraq and Afghanistan. They never could fix that system as the design was inherently unfixable.

US Army Intel found every American weapon had jammed. M2, M16, M4, M249. All of them recovered from the dead and wounded were jammed.

Poor cleaning and other preventive general maintenance that was not done was probably the problem with the weapons jamming. I know that for the M2 that if you don't have the headspace and timing done correctly that it will not fire properly - maybe one round at a time, if that.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

US Army Intel found every American weapon had jammed. M2, M16, M4, M249. All of them recovered from the dead and wounded were jammed.

Poor cleaning and other preventive general maintenance that was not done was probably the problem with the weapons jamming. I know that for the M2 that if you don't have the headspace and timing done correctly that it will not fire properly - maybe one round at a time, if that.

They cleaned their weapons once a day at a minimum. Russian weaponry doesn't need that level of attention. Then again, Russian weapons were designed by combatants, not corporations hell-bent on profits.

They cleaned their weapons once a day at a minimum.

How do you know that?

To what depth of cleaning did they do? You can make something look clean but it won't necessarily be clean. Those people were Rear Echelon soldiers and not combat troops.

What level of training and experience did they have? Those people were Rear Echelon soldiers and not combat troops so they did not train with their weapons that much. Probably just familiarization training and qualification training whether done on an annual basis or sooner. The probably did not train on combat maneuvers.

Russian weaponry doesn't need that level of attention. Then again, Russian weapons were designed by combatants, not corporations hell-bent on profits.

How do you know how much attention that a Russian weapon needs? Who cares who designs it? I would rather have something that works rather than something that does not. Too many Soviet-era weapons which are now Russian did not have the detail that the American weapons have. Too few spare parts also mean that they were idle and waiting for repairs. I actually saw how a Sagger missile "destroyed" a target by flying over it and igniting the fuel poured on top. I would much rather fire the TOW missile that I did not have to try and steer onto the target while also keeping the crosshairs on the target. With the TOW, all I had to do was to keep the crosshairs on the target. Getting feedback from the end user is important and that is one reason why improvements happened, sometimes before deploying the weapon and sometimes later.

*edited for spelling again! [:@]