The answer is simple.

The most significant factor in which aircraft is the best here is what the pilot had for breakfast. Was it eggs and bacon? Maybe a sausage too? Or cold meats and some cheese, yum.How strong was his coffee? errr, tea for me!

I think my answer is as good as anyone’s argument here. :very_drunk:

You missed the point. The British had made similar simulations with typical USAF tactics to devolpe own ones to counter that in that very exercise. But the gains from that are time limited as well because a counter of that can be done in short notice by corrected simulations too. All tactical surprises are short lived depending on the level of training to counter that. Well trained forces with enough freedom of action are fast in recovery from that.

What you write is my point. After a few days USAF were able to counter the majority of the RAF tactics used and new weaknesses had to be sought. The biggest flaw was actually how USAF squadrons operate, i.e little self reliance and constant direction, opposed to the RAF model of a very fluid, independent environment, a lot more control is given to each jet crew.

But this is it. A sim cannot take account of this unknown, it can be modified after the event has happened only, i.e initial input data turned out to be ok, yet real life was a different story. That is what is wrong with sims, they only can form a narrow argument with a lot of assumptions. Airforces operating circa 30 jets, or at least making decisions on such small numbers, I believe can not afford to be overly reliant on the sims, too much risk. The F-35 for them has to be unbeatable or at least possess a very high performance differential otherwise it will always be susceptible. Its a risky business relying on such a small number of jets in a very uncertain environment.

You can argue airforces would operate as one, they will, but good luck making a viable sim for that. I’m not completely disregarding sims, they are useful when used, designed intelligently with accepting the weaknesses and unknowns they cannot model.

My my, you don’t take well to being corrected do you?

Here is what you said:

:applause:

Yes, thats what I said. You can quote and then completely fail to grasp a point. I won’t further reply to you, I think I get dumber each time.

, you clearly don’t… but to make this easy let me just say “sources please.” :highly_amused:

Glad you asked imbecile. Apart from my own experience. Family member is a pretty good source, ex F-3 25 Sqn many years frontline, soon typhoon current. You probs won’t count this though, he doesn’t work for LM. Its surprising what really goes on compared to what you read off the net.

applause:

What a genuine idiot.

Doesn’t sound like you guys need me. Your doing just fine without me……….

noooooooooooo…………………………..oooooooooooo

I have already explained how you generate a worst-case solution by assuming that the threat embodies the best of current technology. The best-case solution (= the lowest-performing simulated threat) can be obtained by assuming that the threat nation had made no significant progress in the relevant technologies, and basing the model on the technology that the threat nation has used in its previous combat aircraft.

So even before your aircraft-design team has finished its reverse engineering task, you have already narrowed the field to the best and worst that the ‘bad guys’ are likely to have achieved.

Mercurius I agree with your sim intro, however you must recognise bias is possibly present in a product being advertised and sold and that a lot of random error is not modelled.

Why would a simulation be allowed to predict failure for the F-35 etc..? It won’t. It is only as good as the parameter inputs and it seems very illogical for defence staff to present a case that depicts losses to western AC against a threat.

It is not my place to comment in detailed results, I have no idea on the sim data, the F-35 could, of course, actually represent a credible solution. There always remains error and bias though. Sims should be taken a a guide, not gospel.

Additionally AtG sims are much more easier to model, a dynamic AtA engagement is far, far from this. A real life example;

Red Flag exercises involving large strike packages defended by F-15 escorts against defending RAF Tornado F3’s (Early 2000’s). A simulation would generally show the F-15s turning the F-3’s inside out most of the time. However, for the first few days (before RAF tactics were understood) the F-3’s consistently handed F-15 pilots their own arses by a variety of means. Here a sim result would be caught pants down, tactics employed by the RAF were not predicted, therefore not modelled and F-15 crews were very surprised. And that was in a relatively controlled environment.

I question how a AtA threat of a LO high Mach T-50 is modelled as with the total support package. I think sims of AtG have a lot more credibility to them, I do not think anyone here doubts the AtG potential of the F-35.

Sukhoi is still unable to built something like the F-35 and is restricted to something like a dated F-22A. The days of kinematics are surpassed by the avionics since the 90s at least. All the less informed ones are limited to raw numbers. In the meanwhile the F-35 is close to the F-22A in bulding cost and none get the idea to built that for the F-35A at least. Stupid people or just better informed ones?!

Sens, I agree with most you say. However having superior avionics alone would not allow the F-22 to be what is is. Its ability to cruise at nearly twice the F-35’s, and get there ALOT quicker gives a significant platform to utilise the stealth. BVR missile shots, manoeuvring into multiple altitude and speed profiles to opaque where the shots are coming from, increased missile kinematics and additional performance to defend against possible incoming shots makes it a very very hard target to find and hit, BAR the stealth alone.

The ability to efficiently (SC) move into multiple positions in space, at high speed, for a duration gives much more authority to the engagement and control of the zone and ability to react to a threat.

Being the guy that has to react in a platform that simply cannot do this must rely on his systems 100% for the advantage. Are the F-35’s REALLY that dominant? 100% of the time? In airforces that will only field <40 jets.

If the F-35 dominates anything anyways, guess all the -22’s can be put into storage in the next few years.:stupid:

Additional question, how easily can a BVR AMRAAM shot be ‘seen’ from an F-35? IR or other passive or otherwise?

You seem to be having a problem carrying on a civil discussion here.

Perhaps you should take some time, relax, visit your library and do some reading, and return in a better mood and with some data.

..

Strawman…. I didn’t make any assertion at all, you did. You claimed that the F-35A could pull 9Gs with “a small load.” Seeing as you don’t have a source I will accept that you have withdrawn your assertion.

Noooo! :highly_amused: Those questions you should ask to yourself to develop common sense. Thats why I came to the conclusion. Confident 9g (w.r.t alt/vel) with AtA load. Sceptical with AtG. Rocket science it is not.

math

That ain’t mathematics my friend.