FalconDudeWell hell everyone tries to build the best aircraft. But most of the things people criticise about the F-35 are things that would require making it less stealthy to fix. E.g. wing loading. Bigger wings, mean bigger optical/IR signature. T/W. More thrust means more heat. Slow. More speed requires more thrust and lower BPR, plus intake ramp(s).
Nevertheless, the only evidence available points the opposite way to the outcome you suggested. The Iraqi pilots had just fought a 10 year war, so of them must have been experienced in air combat. Last time Russians had fought in air-air combat was probably Vietnam I guess.
Well what are the better realistic alternatives right now?
Again, what are the better realistic alternatives?
Well this is all well and good but you don’t suggest an alternative and have failed to articulate why the F-35 could be a failure.
Well it’s still better to have it than not have it.
At a given range I would imagine they can. Against a less stealthy aircraft, the range would be greater.
And if the answer is that you don’t have an F-35, then you’re truly screwed.
Probably the second but you’ve not really made a consistent point here. The F-35 has been designed to have a low a radar, IR and EM signature as possible together with the best radar, IRST and jamming IEWS possible. Others will try and do the same, of course they will. Will they succeed? Maybe, maybe not, but what’s the alternative? Continue building 4th gen? I don’t see that this conversation is going anywhere.
No, not stop building 5th gen, simply recognise when things have gotten out of hand and make the brave decision to cancel a programme that clearly overshot its mark by a lot!
As your own words suggest, one doesn’t need the F-35, one needs the technologies that define the capabilities that this plane was meant to bring affordably.
Dedication to a plane is not support to a doctrine or a principle.
FalconDudeWell what are you basing criticism of the F-35 if not an assumption, or worse than an assumption really, assumptions based on collection of lies.
MiG-29 – never did in Desert Storm, or Operation Allied force.
Well, actually I think you have misunderstood.
The criticism on the F-35 is based on the fact that it seems the designers have put all their eggs into one basket and assumed that noone else would be able to ever make something that can beat this planes strengths.
That is why I gave you the example, to show you that it is arrogant to assume that you’ve got a hand that others can’t beat.
And no, the MiG-29s shot down, were never russian planes flown with experienced pliots armed at a reasonable level. But that is besides the point.
On one hand you have a school of thought here that says “buy and believe this very expensive product because noone will ever see it coming and nothing else matters”
On the other hand you’ve got some people reading this as a very dangerous thing to do.
We are not Russians, or Chinese necessarily; The Russians as they have always done, have looked at the threat out there and designed something that they think could provide them a solution to the problem.
just like they did with their tanks, their ships, their guns, their bombs, their missiles. They are unaffected by what we say in this forum or anyone’s opinion about the F-35.
We are the ones who are debating if this is a safe and sane strategy.
If you believe LM’s rhetoric and hence you have something that is that good, it is then very dangerous to think that noone else won’t get it. What if they do?
I have asked many times in this forum and no one has ever provided a reasonable answer; so I am asking you too..
can and F-35 track, lock and engage another F-35 ?
If the answer is no, you have a problem,
if the answer is yes, you have an even bigger problem..
which one do you think describes best the current situation?
FalconDudei think the disadvantages of UAV is that they are not fully autonomous yet , and still required command from control center ( or mother ship ,,etc whatever ), thus what they may try to do is to either jam the data link or find the command center and destroy it
I am not denying that, however the horizon for this to happen approaches very quickly. Perhaps quicker than the F-35 et all joining air forces around the world.
FalconDudepersonally i think flight of neuron , X-47 with AA missiles and IRST are extremely dangerous to any fighter ,similar to F-35 .It very unlikely that they will be detected from BVR by radar , especially in clutter , jamming environment . They are also very hard to spot by IR system due to their low speed and low thrust turbofan engine .
Exactly my point mate, not only that, they can act as area deniers since you can use them as active aerial mines if you catch my drift.
FalconDudeOkay, I’ll play along, suppose it can. What do you do? Build a non-stealth aircraft and turn a fair fight into a certain loss?
I think the F-35 will have the edge on technology based on history. Plus, consider this, optically/IR, which of these do you think is easiest to spot? J-20 is bigger still.
But that is just it, isn’t it? This is an assumption and nothing more. As an example, if you took that stance in the 80’s and went out looking for a fight with the MiG-29, you’d be handed your a$$ in every engagement.
Technologically you may still think the MiG-29 is inferior to the F-16 and the F-15, and it may have been, but it would still hand you your a$$ in a fight.
It is hubris to assume that just because someone else isn’t matching what you are doing, they are having inferior results to you.
In the example I gave you, you dismissed it all too quickly without thinking for a moment, that a flight of neurons (or similar) have extremely low RCS, no emissions, since they have no radar or active sensors and extremely low IR signatures..
if you accept that the F-35 systems can pick these things up, then you are accepting indirectly that there is a chance the F-35 will be picked up.
Something that neither you nor LM is currently considering as a likely possibility.
FalconDudeSure it does. Detect via ESM, combiine with EOTS, focus radar search. F-35 is smaller than PAK-FA/J-20 and lower thrust, which means lower IR signature. Also has passive targeting capabilities. UK ASRAAM also makes a nice IIR BVR weapon too.
You can’t win the stealth game by not competing. What sort of numbers are you expecting the PAK-FA/J-20 in anyway I’ll be surprised to see 100 of either much before 2028-2030.
Although I disagree, could you please explain/ elaborate on why you think this can’t be done by the other side too? Aren’t you overconfident?
FalconDudeSuperior sensor fusion, ASQ-239 in conjunction with EOTS and using them to focus radar search.
Now another thought experiment, how would a super-manoeuvrable unstealthy aircraft like a Rafale or Typhoon, fair against the same T-50s or J-20s? Getting rid of the stealth and making a more manoeuvrable fighter doesn’t solve the problem, it just makes it worse.
With all due respect, this does not provide any solution to the thought experiment.
FalconDude………….
I have followed all these discussions for so long.
Let’s try a thought experiment.
Let’s normalise the Stealth ability of the F-35 to 1 (with the F-22 being at 0.95) satisfying those who suggest it is even stealthier than the Raptor.
Let’s also assume that the competitors are not as good (again satisfying everyone who thinks so) so the T-50 and J-20 (and 31) are not as good.
Experiment question:
How will the F-35 (a 1 VLO agent) track, lock and engage a 0.8 VLO opponent (consider .8 whichever one of the other two you want)?
the F-35 funboys have often brought up the fact that it is also the SA that tips the balance along with the VLO of the plane. Fine !
What if the enemy is VLO too but has absolutely no ability to compile a SA? The Opponent is just a bunch of Neurons or similar which are also at VLO level 1?
How on earth are you gonna track, lock and engage those?
Let’s ponder about the implications of that for a moment, shall we?
FalconDudeJust you.
Thank god! It would look weird if they made them bigger. Spoil the plane’s looks a bit.
FalconDudeConformal launch bays enlarged or is it me?
FalconDudeR-33/R-37M -> “bigger” planes with R-37M stepping into being able to take out fighters too.
R-77-1/R-73 -> self defense against fightersSeems to me it is pretty clear. And i am sure R-77-1 would make your day bad whether you are KC-135 or F-16.
Yes, I guess you are right. Not sure what I was thinking…
FalconDudeR-77-1 Max range is 110km, so why not..?
That missile manuvere much better vs R-33S.
perhaps even more than 110km at maximum speed from the 31 but
as berkut said, the main mission of the 31 is big plane (and cruise missile) killer. Granted for cruise missiles you can use them, but for bigger planes, that missile wouldn’t be enough for a kill would it?
FalconDudeJust a general notice… I have seen a picture of MiG-31BM with AKU-170 pylons, and apparently there are R-77-1’s that are delivered already…
itishappening.gif
Does a 31 need these missiles?
FalconDudeNo iam not , even simple public available simulation( game ) like Falcon 4.0 , Lockon can simulating RWR , missiles thrust , kinematic to a certain degree , you have to be pretty delusional to believe a Military power with budget of billions USD cant simulate these things in their simulation
QED
FalconDudei dont think the USAF would be stupid enough to not simulate RWR and Jamming in their exercise,
and a VLO airframe cant be retrofitted.
1. you are wrong.
2. How would you even begin simulating “realistic” RWR?
Sign In
