wrightwingYes, i have thought about that, but i prefered to overlook that as quite futile scenario. With 10 external AAMs, it is “goodbye stealth” and at this point, it’s everybody’s game. Even the F4 may actually shoot at BVR an F35 with 10 external AAMs.
The important isn’t to just say “my aircrafts can carry 10 missiles, so i can fight with 10 enemies”. It’s important to see if you will get alive out of it. Otherwise it’s pure theory. In theory, a Su-34 can carry 12 A-A missiles, thus fighting against 12 F35s at 35 mln $ per unit…
Even with external AAMs, the F-35 is still stealthier than the Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen/Super Hornet/Su-35.
wrightwingThe MV-22 has been used but how has it been used and where?
Iraq and Afghanistan as for where, and inserting/extracting forces quickly, etc…. being the how.
wrightwingThis is why i can’t wait for the countries that will get both EF and F35 to finally come out with some internal evaluations and see where the marketing PR stops and reality begins.
How is the F35 able to simultaneously fight at least 8 enemy planes?
Assuming 100% kill rate for the 6 AMRAAMs shot one against each opponent, how is it going to kill the at least 2 more enemy aircrafts? With 2 additional AIM-9X with again 100% kill rate? In that case i have my doubts about its ability to maintain stealth long enough to come into AIM-9X range without taking enemy shots. With guns? Somehow i don’t believe that 1 F-35 with guns will shoot down 2 enemy aircrafts that will probably be carrying missiles. Unless the enemy aircrafts are F4s and even then it will have to really be quick before the 2nd one come at its 6 o’clock.
If we take the “at least” literally and start thinking about… 10 aircrafts, i must really strain my imagination to imagine how this will happen.
The F-35 can carry 10 external AAMs in addition to those internally carried.
So in theory, it could fire 2 missiles at 7 to 8 targets. Or depending on the number of JDRADM carried internally(perhaps 8 or more), 1ea at 8 targets, with internal only.
wrightwingPrograms that are fast in their development have become truly successes, examples are the F-15, F-16, programs that went into the long road have become mediocre or failures, like the F-22, F-4 (yes, cry me a river), and now it seems the F-35 is following the same fate…seems, because nothing is said yet.
The F-4 and F-22 are mediocre/failures? Now you’re talking out of you hindquarters.
wrightwingLOL. Problem of the Marines is not their toys, their problem is mission grab and the burning desire to become a full spectrum force. (And the disconnect between the political leadership and the armed forces – but that is not a Marines only issue).
The best thing that could possibly happen to the Corps is a cut to 50.000 men max, and a focus on forcible entry from the sea, with a lot of soul searching what this really means with 50% of the world’s population living in cities and major stretches of possible ops areas being built up. Afghanistan is NOT the statisitically typical war of years to come!
Reducing the USMC to 50,000 would be a terrible idea, especially if there wasn’t a significant increase in the size of the Army to offset(which would mean there’s no net savings). You’d lose flexibilty, increase OPTEMPO/wear and tear on the smaller number of personnel and equipment, and reduce the number of simultaneous missions that could be conducted. The USMC was vital in Iraq, in keeping the Army OPTEMPO managable, as it will prove in Afghanistan as well.
wrightwingHow much money would the USA save a year by eliminating the Corps all together???? The Army does the same training as the Marine Corps so it seems redundant to pay for both.
There is some overlap, but it’s not accurate to say the the Army does the same training.
wrightwingYou do realize that BAe US might as well be a different company from BAe UK, first of all. Secondly, you hear the ALR compared more with the Rivet Joint, than any other fighter equipment, if that gives you an idea of their impressions of it.
wrightwingYou provide me a source that says a clean F-16 can outperform a Typhoon with 6 A/A missiles and a drop tank. You’re the one that claimed it couldn’t, first. :rolleyes:
But like I say, Typhoon was designed for WVR fights at, and above supersonic speeds – i.e. with weapons and drop tanks – where as the F-16, was not! It’s a known fact that doesn’t need a source. Common sense.
And @netta, you missed the point.
I think the point being made is that it’s not common sense, requiring no source. The fact that an armed Typhoon will have agility advantages vs an armed F-16, does not necessarily mean that these same advantages exist(or if they do, are far more negligible), vs an unarmed F-16(especially with the 32.5k thrust motor.)
wrightwingAt least it might add weight to the “me too” crowd’s assertions of parity. The fact of the matter is that you get what you pay for, and no one else has spent the same amount of R&D $$$$, on ESM(AESA, sensor fusion, RCS reduction, etc…).
wrightwingThat’s an interesting interpretation of events to stay polite.
wrightwingWithout further explanation what exactly those figures mean (lowest peak at certain angle? peak at direct head-on angle? integral of peaks from head-on hemisphere?) the numbers are not credible. And I don’t give damn about who the source is.
You’re not going to see what the RCS figures are from every angle on any open source site, so it’s not even a realistic expectation. Suffice it to say, the figures quoted are for a head on aspect, which based upon the EOB, will be the most often viewed angle on ingress.
Trolls like you usually grasp at straws like this just to distract attention from the original question which they are unable to answer.
So disagreement with your specious claims = troll?:rolleyes:
I am not asking for links, simple explanation will do. 😎 If you can’t respond simply and logically, then simply restrain from posting and return to you LockMart prospects. Thanks.
You’re the one dismissing things out of hand, which have been well publicized. I’m not going to do your homework. The onus is on you to back up your critiques, which have no basis in anything other than your opinion.
wrightwingThe extremely slow progress in expanding the flight envelope of the F-35 is very suspicious. Looks like this bird just doesn’t want to fly fast, nomatterwhat.
“The jet handles well, and she just wants to fly fast. It has a monster engine. It looks like an aircraft that’s built around an engine.”
It’s awfully curious how the folks that actually know what they’re talking about, disagree with you. You’ve made up your mind, and there’s likely no evidence that will convince you to change your position, no matter how it flies in the face of the evidence.
Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up.”
wrightwingI don’t see that this contradicts the information I posted though. There are 30 plus antennas across the F-22’s airframe that are used for various functions, but of that number 19 are used by the ALR-94.
There is a world of difference between detecting a high powered surveillance radar and detecting a small fire control radar at that range though, and without more specific details there no way of knowing if the performance stated for DASS or Spectra is achieved against equivalent systems.
Isn’t it curious that neither the makers of DASS or SPECTRA have claimed parity/superiority with regards to the ALR-94, especially in light of the claims about the effectiveness of the ALR-94
In some systems the two functions overlap, but the basic purpose of both types in an air combat environment is to provide detection from a range which allows the missile to be successfully countered, that was the point I was trying to make.
Countering a missile doesn’t necessarily require detecting that the missile from launch either.
The point of the matter is that the sooner you are aware of an incoming missile, the higher the likelihood that you might be able to effectively counter it. If your MLDs don’t detect the launch, then the missile will be pretty close by the time the MAWs alert you. This gives you much less time to take the necessary avoidance measures/ECM/chaff/flares/etc….
I remember seeing a slide in an EADS presentation which showed tracks generated by PIRATE in B-Scope and PPI display formats where both range and the vector of the target tracks is displayed. All targets were shown as approaching and the furthest target’s range was shown as being just under 60 NM.
What was the target, and what were the circumstances though? Not all targets will be detected at the same range, and depending on climactic conditions, even the same target may not be detected at the same ranges..
In any event, in a head on engagement, an AIM-120D might very well already be enroute.
From the footage I’ve seen it takes around three seconds for the weapons bay door to open and the launcher to extend. As I said before if an adversary is unaware of the F-22’s presence then I agree that this delay makes very little difference, and if an adversary is already defensive then I suspect both AIM-9’s would be extended into the airstream ready to launch immediately prior to entering the merge, and would stay that way until fired.
The weapons doors have a fast and slow mode. If the F-22 is within WVR, and not concerned about its RCS, then it’d have the doors open already for the -9M, so that it could fire as soon as it had a good tone.
wrightwingEven more BS.. But that was not the point of my response.
Not according to the USAF, but obviously they’re not a credible source. :rolleyes:
The point was that you were hoping that no one would catch you giving a figure, an entire order of magnitude higher, in order to support your premise.
Two questions here..
– what do you mean by “less complicated”? In what way less complicated?
– got any solid backup to this or have you just pulled it out of thin air?
Have you done any reading on the F-35 at all? I’m not going to go back and find every link corroborating this, if you haven’t even bothered to look for yourself, before making assertions.
wrightwingLOL. The bird has been in limited series already and they still haven’t got over M1.3 clean with AB.
Guess why? 🙂
That’s because there are test points that must be met, as the envelope opens, just like some months back when the F-35 had only flown M1.05.
Sign In
