I think people are misunderstanding what I am saying, or what my overall point is.

BVR missiles, even when ineffective, are not completely useless. They force the other guy onto the defensive earlier in the fight*.

Hence why everyone has them. But, not everyone uses them in the same way.
Russian doctrine involves ripple firing of BVR missiles, so the first reduces the evading fighter’s energy state, the 2nd hopefully take advantage of that and makes the kill. The IR weaponry typically comprise a significant proportion of a Russian load-out. Certainly, the Soviets would load all but 1 or 2 with IR WVR missiles and the 1 or 2 SAH AAMs were used to try and dictate the circumstances of the dogfight.
Israel has a high focus on WVR, perhaps a result of them probably being the most experience air force in the world in terms of relevant combat action against capable opponents.

*But they in themselves will never finish the fight. The stats show that. So it is extremely foolhardy to focus your entire doctrine, even worse, design the strengths and limitations of your equipment around the idea… when the idea is only going to be the initial stages of an engagement.

Your source for these claims being…? Can you point to an official listing of the combat results from these campaigns that supports your beliefs?

No. No official listing.

Which of course means the claim is rubbish eh? :rolleyes:

BTW, by modern standards, Vietnam is ancient history – it was a time when I was chasing miniskirted dolly-birds while the USAF and USN were chasing MiGs and trying to down them using fairly primitive missiles based on vacuum-tube technology.

Indeed, yet the missile companies that made the performance promises in ~1960 are the same ones that failed to deliver a little over 10 years ago.

And your campaign listing leaves out Israel’s engagements with the Syrian AF circa 1980…

Mostly WVR – but I believe that was due to political considerations so didn’t include it.

Have you ever tried to think through this theory of yours?

Yip. The question is ludicrously simple; how did they fare in combat conditions?

Vietnam – failure.

Gulf I – many kills were made by AIM-7, but most were WVR. No statistics for shots:kills available either.

Allied Force – failure. A dismal failure at that, of the much vaunted AMRAAM against aircraft that had broken key systems like RWR and radar.

Gulf II – no opposition of note.

Yet we are continually told that BVR works and that all operational concepts should revolve around this philosophy. Sorry, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and so far, its tasted of puke.

Two things stand out to me.

– The Ecuadorian government offered the Swedish investigators the opportunity to interview Assange in the embassy, they refused.
– The Ecuadorian government asked for guarantees from the Swedish, US and UK governments that Assange would not be extradited to the US, these guarantees were refused.

On this basis, why would the have any reason not to believe his human rights are in danger? :confused:

Forgive me for being new here, are you the one who was proposing shooting missiles at operational aircraft with pilots on board as part of a test program a little while ago?

That was several weeks before you registered the latest username. 😉

Yep – and I stand by it.

If people are willing to sign up to defend their country – then their country needs to know if their weapons are effective before they go to war.

Besides, the danger is significantly exaggerated. The actual results would show abysmal failure of the BVR missiles to function as promised.

On the subject of the F-35’s original requirements I don’t think the two of us can have a reasonable discussion.

No, not if you are who I suspect you are.

Yes, there were compromises made to accommodate the needs of all the intended operators. (There always are.) This simple fact has been blown way out of proportion by some. The F-35 was intended to replace several jack-of-all-trades aircraft. That is what it will do.

Now, it was you who said:

As I said before, it is perfectly valid to debate the specifics of decisions, but simply accusing a dozen highly professional forces of being some combination of:

Incompetent
Lying
Confused by marketing/powerpoint

or

Forced by political pressure to purchase an aircraft they don’t want

Don’t run away now that you have been confronted by a logical argument that indicates, yes indeed, for various reasons they can make a fundamentally incorrect decision.

For me, the double decker configuration doesn’t work well because you can’t carry any cargo when you have a full load of passengers (when all the people check bags you run out of volume in the holds).

Really?

Have you ever actually checked out the relative cargo volumes for the 747-8i and the 380-800? (and compared both to the large twins?) Or are your preconceived notions so convincing you don’t have to bother?

747-8i —- 0.346 m3/pax (467 pax)
380-800 — 0.335 m3/pax (525 pax)

777-300ER — 0.592 m3/pax (365 pax)
330-200 — 0.537 m3/pax (253 pax)

404LogicNotFound

The fuselage is so stubby that the underfloor holds aren’t long enough to accomodate cargo.

Now… your starting to pass into the land of the silly.

Everyone and their dog knows the -800 is the short version, the wing is designed for an oft talked about -900 and a seldom talked about -1000.

BTW, 380-800 has a greater cargo volume than the 747-8i. It can take 38 LD3 whereas 747-8i can take 36 LD3.

Yes, professionals make mistakes. Nobody ever suggested that they didn’t.

I guess we might as well assign equal weight to the opinions of informed professionals who have years if not decades of experience in their fields as we do messageboard posters and media critics huh?

Lets be frank, the gulf in knowledge and experience between the two groups is vast and no amount of googling will allow an internet critic to approach even an entry level of competence by the standards of a professional.

You assume no one around here is a professional themselves.

I know for certain that assumption is incorrect.

As I said before, it is perfectly valid to debate the specifics of decisions, but simply accusing a dozen highly professional forces of being some combination of:

Incompetent
Lying
Confused by marketing/powerpoint

or

Forced by political pressure to purchase an aircraft they don’t want

because they made a decision that doesn’t fit well into your simplistic nationalist worldview is childish.

These forces absolutely, unquestionably, know vastly more than you do and they are making the best decisions they can based on the information they have.

No.

Lets take the F-35 for example.

No-one of a technically sound background would volunteer the idea of combining the CTOL/CATOBAR requirements with the STOVL requirements.

That combination was primarily driven by three groups:
– the idiots in congress who thought 1 program would be cheaper and ‘good enough’.
– the idiots in the pentagon who didn’t have either the balls or sense to argue with congress otherwise and want shiny new aircraft more than they wanted the best possible aircraft.
– the Lockheed Martin board who correctly recognised that 2.5 branches of the US military would be deeply tied to the combined requirements JSF and that the program would become almost un-cancellable as a result. Having the most technically complex solution would also aid in fattening profit margins. Therefore, they happily provided additional ‘information’ that would guide the two former groups down the ‘joint’ track.

Now, you can choose to believe whatever you want, but you ask most other aerospace engineers of suitable experience and they will tell you much the same. The A and C variants of JSF are hideously compromised by the B. Including B with A and C happened for the reasons I bulleted above.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_08_16_2012_p0-486738.xml&p=5

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_09_2012_p0-456228.xml

OK, its a naval program.

But, it is (yet) another reason why Lockheed and the US military’s word isn’t worth sh!t when it comes to accurately portraying the actual capabilities of its in-development equipment.