MarcellogoSure, just ignore the stealth, networking, data fusion, sensors… besides all that you mean, right?
The USS Yorktown (CV-10, not CV-5) had 4 twin 5″ guns, 4 single 5″ guns, 8 quadruple 40mm cannons, and 46 20mm cannons.
The USS Ford? Only a piddly handful of 20mm cannons. Think about that… a brand new carrier won’t have nearly the AAA firepower of a ship from 70+ years ago. This is a big scandal!
Only one that is f-35 proper is the stealth and on a certain extent sensors: networking, data fusion, all are software things that can also be implementer in others design…if some other would have been carried on instead of putting all western world eggs in one basket…and in case of USAF for the second time in a row.
MarcellogoWell my 0.02; There is just too much propoganda and assumptions with all the new aircraft. I don’t believe there is significant kinematic difference between 4th 4.5th and 5th gen aircraft. The problem is in the internet, one writes a report from his rear end. Another copies it, and another, and as a result it becomes the truth. And whats worse, if something is repeated too much by too many people, any indication to contrary is also rejected. Only undeniable hard proof will convince most (and even then, not all).
The consensus about F-22 is that its very good. All the indications to contrary (that its repeatedly defeated in BFM, its airshow turn/climb rates suck, and numeric guestimates) is merely ignored, or “disproven” by another copy of a copied report.
The consensus about F-35 is that its very bad. All the indications to contrary (numeric guesses and aerodynamic feature list) and the lack of evidence (F-35 is not tested, not in service, and not seen maneuvering in airshows) is ignored or disproven by “hot air”.And worse, F-22’s alleged performance is now used as a benchmark to trash talk F-35 further. All logic fails there.
You know not long ago (10 years), every USAF guy and their devoted forum people were claiming Su-27 can only maneuver in airshows, and its maneuverability was real bad when armed. Even 3-4 years ago people, including some in this forum, were claiming Su-27 can only make sharp turns not sustain them. Half were only to be convinced by airshow videos and flight manual data, other half just quietly disappeared. And now, all the talk about F-22 or F-35? They are all to be proven wrong like these.
Both F-15A and F-16A demonstrated 24 deg/s turn in airshows, MiG-29A demonstrated 23deg/s and Su-27S demonstrated 28deg/s; all sustained for full 360 degree circle and within a few years into service. Note that those are ABOVE their 50% fuel STR rates (as they carry minimal fuel). If they are SO good, where are Typhoon, F-22 or Rafale videos? 10-14 years into service, and not one exceeded 18-19 deg/s. Technically an F-4E with minimal airshow fuel loadout can do 18 deg/s too. My point? If we are questioning manufacturer claims, and looking proof of high maneuverability, there are WAY more questionable aircraft around than F-35.
Yes, there are a whole list of Baconian idols in such type of discussions.
F-22 was hiper Hyped if I can say so, so there is lot of people that in absolute good faith ask to quit f-35 and get back to it.
I, at the contrary , with a certain love of paradox, have from the very beginning said that the main problem of the f-35 is the f-22 or better its own operational failure.
F-35 was designed to fill up a certain role, it is perfectly capable to fill it even now but has been requested by the circumstances and above all by a twisted procurement logic and a technological hybris to cover the whole lot of them.
Problem is not the forumist, is that many of those false ideas were deliberately disseminated by LM and the DoD to “sell” their product or acquisition plans better.
Also in this, there is a strange phenomenon:when a russian high poppy say something about their own development plans everyone, even the most fanatical RUSSIAstronkist dubitate his claim, when it came to LM i.e. a private company with the sole interest of making money everyone from USA give it credit again,again and again.
Some times they were even surpassed by the zeal of their devotees.
I still remember when they made their first announcement about the LPI mode: there was a whole repeating series of stressing about its effectivenes against conventional RWR.
After several years, nothing of their own original prudence is remained in the forums and any mention of their own inherent drawbacks, the possible existence of countermeasures or simply suggesting that also the “others” can have a similar radar mode is considered an absolute heresy in many places…
MarcellogoYes, but its neither, 6+ was objective, 5.3 was the threshold, but F-35 didnt meet threshold, it is 4.6G 50% fuel 15k ft for A
I repeat myself: if a plane that made its first flight in 2006 has only marginal advantages over others that went operative in the seventies…
In this case it seems it is even inferior, it seems.
Oops, I was just forgetting…
Good independence day, young ones.
MarcellogoYes, but its neither, 6+ was objective, 5.3 was the threshold, but F-35 didnt meet threshold, it is 4.6G 50% fuel 15k ft for A
I repeat myself: if a plane that made its first flight in 2006 has only marginal advantages over others that went operative in the seventies…
In this case it seems it is even inferior, it seems.
MarcellogoInnuendo and name calling, that’s unbecoming LO.
If by smug you mean to say speaking confidently on a topic I’m not qualified to speak about, then well you decide. Nearly half of my time in uniform was as an aircrew in the 412 TW, prior to that an engineering Master’s Degree focused on flight test, flight dynamics and control system design, been a licensed pilot for 22 years and counting, and yes I’ve written my share of post flight reports, and test plans, and safety plans, and test information sheets, and test cards, even managed to get myself shot at a few times.
So perhaps I’ve erred, misread and got it wrong. Perhaps I’m just inarticulate, hobbled by my two engineering degrees or could be those pesky NDA’s that force me to keep quiet and instead focus on fundamentals like test execution/conduct…As a professional flight tester it does rankle to see test executed as written, data collected as requested and then see that misused to support some (not so) hidden agenda.
I’ve written my share of DR’s and found some really big Cat I’s so I appreciate what the writer of that report has done.
Ok, you have a great point there.
Actually, with this discussion we have started from a quite sensationalistic claim (kudos to War is boring for having found it anyway) aand we were been able to transform it in a wider discussion about modern air warfare, high AoA, BVR maneuvering, thrust control and a lot of other appealing stuff:applause:.
You, with your technical expertise, have contributed to this discussion in a great way, thank you (from a stern f-35 critic):).
Marcellogosince when did kinetic energy become unimportant for BVR ?
this is the range where dodging is doable, this is the range when you’ve got time to take evasive action,
lack of maneuverability, acceleration, and speed will diminish this ability,
making a sluggish fighter as vulnerable at long ranges as a high performer is at short ranges,
and vice versa a high performer can defeat point blank shots as easily as a porker can at long ranges.
growth potential is to a large degree determined by weight, or rather lack thereof.on head on perhaps, they can definitely be defeated in a chase,
they couldnt defeat a MiG-31 from a meter away in a chase even if F-35 somehow teleported itself right up its ar$e.
Lets also not ignore altitude, there is no such thing as a BVR missile at low altitude,
while at high altitude the piece of decelerating unpowered metal will just continue its path regardless of rudder input
It became important as an excuse to bypass criticism about F-35 not by entering into the thing itself but through negating the same existence of a problem.
It consist in making people think that aerial combat maneuvering only applies in dogfighting while there is a lot than can be achieved through it also during BVR engagements.
Even more, in BVR combats it is the whole sum of aircraft performances and not just the maneuvrability and turn radius to determine the final outcome.
Just think about speed: a noticeably faster aircraft can choose caeteris paribus between entering in a lead, pure or lag pursuit while a slower one cannot, its greater velocity add to the one of its own missiles and can be subtracted to the one of the incoming missiles if it get to perform an evasive maneuver…
MarcellogoWho said that? This is an aviation forum, not a dog barking contest. Provide elements, sourced from references or from a well built demonstration of yourself.
The last time I checked the number the “inferior” fighter had the best AoA on the market, by far, and its main user, the USAF, was seeking a trainer in large quantity with never-seen sustained G performances. Something that we haven’t heard from air forces flying the so claimed hot-rods (nor on the OP needs, nor on the potential capability of their industrial sector to build such at contracted costs and delays – I will remind you here the defunct Thales high G Trainer discarded on the ground that there was no OP needs to train Typhoon or Rafale pilots).
But I guess you’d think that the T-X is all about passing the frustration of USAF jockey’s. The true”comfort” ride of modern age’s Air forces.
Who said that? Sergei Bogdan is enough?
http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/7/2013/7/2/70/print/
This just as a reply to your plain ridicule statement about F-35 having the highest AoA on the market.
Would you like me to talk about other flight parameters:max velocity? accelleration? supercruise?
Only one I can’t reply is climb rate, seems that after about ten years from the first flight, LoMart and/or DoD has still not published it.
I guess why…
P.S. I would say nothing about T-X. LIKE I WOULD SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE C-27J AND THE AW101 FOR THE MARINE FORCE ONE BIDS.
I JUST CAN GET AN INSULT BLOODY ENOUGH to qualify those frauds. Regain calm and carry on.
MarcellogoYes, is the most important missing part in announced process of reconstruction of VVS capabilities.
A XXI century plane need XXI weaponry.
Marcellogomaneuver is important but only to a certain extent, too much maneuver is no longer necessary, just like too much speed is unnecessary, no one bother trying to make fighter fly at mach 3 any more
different times, different criteria
First thing, thank for the good reply.
Before to get into single point, let’s say that about this there is not any difference between what we are saying.
I also have said that dogfight performance is actually not so important as it was when the 4gen rolled out, same with any other single parameter, speed, acceleration climb rate and so on…
Problem with f-35 is that it is inferior in the whole lot of them when compared to almost any fighter actually in production.
DAS can search, track, target enemy’s aircraft , SAM, AA cannon at close range, they will cued the DIRCM turret on f-35 as well
Yes, I have cited just the main function of it, other were somewhat included in the “magic wand” capability of sending a missile against a chasing plane…
.
Wrong
The MAWS sensor on PAK-FA is 101KS-U, is an UV sensor, which is far inferior to DAS ( an IIR sensors )
My fault, error in denomination: Atoll refers to the optical s part of the PAK-FA avionics.
I was referring instead to the L402 ‘Himalaya’ ECM system distributed sensors that are AESA patches scattered all around the plane able to act in conjunction with main radars to detect , track and jam incoming missiles. Similar but not completely matching functions (DAS do more things) using a completely different technology and Wavelength, main matching point being however the 360° coverage of both systems.
The only reason someone would use an overshoulder shot is if he being chased and enemy is too close for him to have enough time to turn the aircraft nose, which mean the distance is like 1-2 km, at that distance it not possible for you to out accelerate, or out run an air to air missiles even with full afterburner turn on
Now, if I consider two modern fighters getting into dogfight to be nowadays a not usual evenience, such a thing seems me a total weirdness, possible only when both pilots are high on drugs.
However going so deep into single points is like looking to the trees and don’t seeing the forest.
My real target was instead the ones, and I’m not referring to us armchair air force commander, trying to sell (no word would be more truly) around the idea that actual air combat would consist only in launching BVR missiles at the greatest possible distance and so all other performances are in the very end not relevant.
In reality such an operating procedure is even less frequent than getting into dogfight and work only against big and slow targets as any supersonic fighter would have more than enough time to turn back and fly away, even if not 9G capable.
Marcellogoinferior or not depending on fuel load, an 34% fuel f-4E , or an F-16 with 50% fuel and 2 empty tank can out maneuver a 100% fuel su-27
Su-27 that is scheduled to start their normal mission with maximum the 70% of its own fuel load…
I’m quite busy a more cohomprensive response as soon as possible.
MarcellogoCountries that are buying this aircraft as a direct F16 replacement are guilty of negligence. There are far more suitable aircraft on the market which they could have in service now for less money. If there genuinely are countries who plan to use it on a first day of war basis (Israel would be one) then they are not going to have a problem using the F35 to stunning effect.
For all others, there is an element to which this aircraft is massively adding strike and ISR capability either from the STORL/STOVL perspective or as a force multiplier from small carriers or countries (Singapore/Japan/Italy/UK/Korea etc etc).
Just for truth (and for not being labelled as a MINDLESS f-35 hater) let’s say that many countries would use it for replacing specialized strike aircraft while keeping air superiority roles out of it.
In doing such they would surely end up having more fighters, not less, problem is for the ones having it as their sole warplane and for USAF that is in almost the same situation because of the F-22 operational/productive fiasco.
MarcellogoDid this thread get moved to the history section?
Maybe when someone begun to compare an airplane that made its first flight in 2006 and still has not get IOC with one that went operative in 1978?
It is more than the time that passed between the F-86 and the Viper.
MarcellogoJust two things: for what I know 9G is for f-35A version only, -B and -C being always reported at respectively 7 and 7,5 G.
Something is changed around there?
Second, it seems that according to someone, even in official circles, that having the possibility to operate in BVR allow to completely forgot about such trivial things about manoeuvrability, turn rate, agility and acceleration.
So an updated version of the Tu-128 is the goal to reach?
Same with the supposed magic wand of the 360° DAS, certainly they would be very useful early warning systems when they will come into the visible range as the similar radar based ATOLL system would be for the PAK-FA at even greater distance.
When it came to be used for launching a missile against a target at your own tail, without even change its own course…
How it would be?
Missile will be launched forward, have to accellerate until it reach a sizeable speed and after it turn back in almost a 180° turn, bypass the launching plane and going to chase a similar supersonic, 9G and high AoA capable fighter (and let’s face it: 99% not-US planes built in the last thirty years have both of these features as a default) having just done its own breakaway move and gone full afterburner? Good luck.
Dogfight can be a somewhat restricted point of view in evaluating a modern fighter i concede but the point of having the 90% of your future fleet being made of a plane that is inferior in almost any flight parameter to contemporary opponents ones not.
MarcellogoJust found this interesting article in my own language about the precise date of F-35B Operative Readiness Inspection.
Enjoy it with a decent translator.
Some spoilers: it will begin two weeks late, it would be concluded in July or more probably in August, it wouldn’t be a machine only inspection butto be cohomprensive of a exam about pilot’s own proficence in operate with it, main difficulties seems to be expected in the ALIS system…
MarcellogoWOW! Just WOW!
Sign In
