pfcemI REALLY hate it when people complain about a particular system not being what it was never intended to be.
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a C-130 (or smaller airlifter).
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a C-5 (or larger airlifter).
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a pallet hauler.
I will however agree with the basic premis that more C-17s is not the best solution to our airlift problems.
pfcemI REALLY hate it when people complain about a particular system not being what it was never intended to be.
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a C-130 (or smaller airlifter).
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a C-5 (or larger airlifter).
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a pallet hauler.
I will however agree with the basic premis that more C-17s is not the best solution to our airlift problems.
pfcemThe anticipated opponent of the F-22 had been the MiG 1.42/1.44 or MFI. Both may have had entered service at a similar time-scale. The main tactical fighter built in masses had been the MiG-29 variants. The Su-27 variants were seen as a yardstick for the Eurocanards or the successor of the F-16. 😉
No, the anticipated opponent of the F-22 was (& still is) anything Russia or any other potential adversary could field during the 1st quarter/third of the 21st century.
The MiG 1.42/1.44 or MFI was never anything more than a technology demonstrator.
pfcemThe anticipated opponent of the F-22 had been the MiG 1.42/1.44 or MFI. Both may have had entered service at a similar time-scale. The main tactical fighter built in masses had been the MiG-29 variants. The Su-27 variants were seen as a yardstick for the Eurocanards or the successor of the F-16. 😉
No, the anticipated opponent of the F-22 was (& still is) anything Russia or any other potential adversary could field during the 1st quarter/third of the 21st century.
The MiG 1.42/1.44 or MFI was never anything more than a technology demonstrator.
pfcemAnd btw, directing the blast like you just read in that Swedish crappy sites is most likely crap.
To have a deflector mounted inside that top and make that rotate and stop at the right angle in a timely manner is wishful thinking, there is a 50-50 it will direct the blast away from the target.
Its known as selectively aimable warhead (SAW).
You can start to understand it here…
http://www.patentsurf.net/3,949,674
***
The maximum speed of the F-15 is over Mach 2,3, not 0,9. These claims are made to show an artificial ‘advantage’ that does not really exist.
It surely can engage the afterburner long enough to accelerate to M2.0 and make a shot, doesn’t it? 🙂
Mach 0.9 is the typical speed of the F-15 (& pretty much everything else) at the point of MOST BVR missile launch.
It takes a comparatively long time to accelerate from typical cruising speed of Mach 0.9 to >Mach 1.5…
***
The real problem is that the F-22 had lost its intended opponent and the related theater of operations in the 90s.
No it didn’t. Evolved Flankers exist, have been exported & continue to be developed & a 5th Generation Russian (& Chinese) fighter is in developement.
In the meanwhile the USAF had realized that and has come to the conclusion, that the F-35 and its A2A performance is more than enough. Non serious does claim, that the high subsonic F-35 will suffer from a lack of kinematic support for the “poor” AIM-120D. 😀
The USAF has come to no such conclusion.
***
Nobody said it needs to have 6 AMRAAMs loaded. One/two are enough. You are just putting the worst case conditions just to make the 22 look better at all cost.
This nonsense has started after F-22 came out. Suddenly, everybody started to claim that there is no way in hell a fighter could be useful without firing its missiles at over Mach 2. Strangely enough, nobody ever missed that before.. 😉 At the times Eagle, Tomcat and Foxhound were the kings, you are claimed agility being on top, now it’s suddenly something different.
I have doubts that even Raptors spend too much time roaring at supersonic speeds. It’s simply unpractical even for CAP. You need to change direction every few minutes if you don’t wanna fly within the prescribed zone (Siberia and Alaska might be the only exception)
I realize that reality is something foreign to you but…
The INTENT of the F-22 is to be CRUISING at >Mach 1.5 @ >50,000 when the engagement begins vs the typical Mach 0.9 @ 35,000-40,000 for other fighters.
pfcemAnd btw, directing the blast like you just read in that Swedish crappy sites is most likely crap.
To have a deflector mounted inside that top and make that rotate and stop at the right angle in a timely manner is wishful thinking, there is a 50-50 it will direct the blast away from the target.
Its known as selectively aimable warhead (SAW).
You can start to understand it here…
http://www.patentsurf.net/3,949,674
***
The maximum speed of the F-15 is over Mach 2,3, not 0,9. These claims are made to show an artificial ‘advantage’ that does not really exist.
It surely can engage the afterburner long enough to accelerate to M2.0 and make a shot, doesn’t it? 🙂
Mach 0.9 is the typical speed of the F-15 (& pretty much everything else) at the point of MOST BVR missile launch.
It takes a comparatively long time to accelerate from typical cruising speed of Mach 0.9 to >Mach 1.5…
***
The real problem is that the F-22 had lost its intended opponent and the related theater of operations in the 90s.
No it didn’t. Evolved Flankers exist, have been exported & continue to be developed & a 5th Generation Russian (& Chinese) fighter is in developement.
In the meanwhile the USAF had realized that and has come to the conclusion, that the F-35 and its A2A performance is more than enough. Non serious does claim, that the high subsonic F-35 will suffer from a lack of kinematic support for the “poor” AIM-120D. 😀
The USAF has come to no such conclusion.
***
Nobody said it needs to have 6 AMRAAMs loaded. One/two are enough. You are just putting the worst case conditions just to make the 22 look better at all cost.
This nonsense has started after F-22 came out. Suddenly, everybody started to claim that there is no way in hell a fighter could be useful without firing its missiles at over Mach 2. Strangely enough, nobody ever missed that before.. 😉 At the times Eagle, Tomcat and Foxhound were the kings, you are claimed agility being on top, now it’s suddenly something different.
I have doubts that even Raptors spend too much time roaring at supersonic speeds. It’s simply unpractical even for CAP. You need to change direction every few minutes if you don’t wanna fly within the prescribed zone (Siberia and Alaska might be the only exception)
I realize that reality is something foreign to you but…
The INTENT of the F-22 is to be CRUISING at >Mach 1.5 @ >50,000 when the engagement begins vs the typical Mach 0.9 @ 35,000-40,000 for other fighters.
pfcemAnd now we come to the core of the problem. We don’t know which radar Israel has in mind but you already KNOW it can’t be superior to APG-81. You don’t GUESS it, you already KNOW it.. So, how come if you don’t even know its name?
Quite the opposite, YOU don’t know jack about the APG-81 OR any other radar Israel may be considering for its F-35 BUT are assuming that since Israel wants their OWN (specifically tailored to them) radar that it must be better.
I have no doubt (given its prior experience doing so) that Israel is capable to developing & producing a VERY capable radar & one that (all things considered – NOT just the pure capability of the radar) would be better FOR ISRAEL’s F-35s but one TRULY superior to the APG-81 in reguards to anything OTHER THAN the specific needs/desires of Israel IS a stretch.
Learn to read properly. I have never stated I knew the Israeli radar would be superior. I stated I THOUGHT it would be superior otherwise Israelis would not ask for its integration. It was presented as a GUESS and it was pretty logical (and still is)
YOU should learn to read properly. Israel IS NOT claiming they can build a better F-35 (or APG-81), just that that want one SPECIFICALLY tailored for Israel & the best/surest way to do that is with Israeli systems.
That means you want to say that an inferior radar operating at different frequencies might turn out qualitatively superior to a superior radar operating at usual frequencies? And that the difference is so great that it’s worth the expense and risk of operating an inferior design? Is that what you want to say here?
YES! For Israel it OBVIOUSLY is.
Again, NOBODY is saying Israel is not capable of developing & poducing a VERY capable radar…
pfcemPure speculation, just like those of mine. Don’t even try to pretend you got a clue what they really meant.
No, YOU are the one speculating. I am simply expressing the reasons why Israel wants its F-35s to be DIFFERENT than those of its potential enemies. It is NOT because they believe they can build a better F-35…just one more SPECIFICALLY tailored for Israel.
You repeat much but say a little.
That is because boneheads like you simple don’t get it.
The really interesting question is: are those DIFFERENT ISRAEL-SPECIFIC systems inferior or superior to those ORIGINAL systems?
SPECIFICALLY tailored for Israel makes them better for Israel requardless if they are actually inferior or superior to those ORIGINAL systems.
You put great emphasis to you post but say almost nothing, just empty guesswork. So, my question is: what exactly is there so unique about ISRAEL so that they are the only country on Earth that actually require a system so much DIFFERENT to everyone else? And what exactly is this *DIFFERENT*?
You don’t understand Israel’s unique position in the world?
Different meaning not the same. I already explained the danger of having the SAME.
Cheap empty claim. Don’t present your personal opinion combined with wishful thinking as truth.
No, historical. The US DOD has openly stated so. Not djcross’s response.
Another cheap empty claim. Don’t present your personal opinion combined with wishful thinking as truth.
I see you don’t understand ECMs either.
This is another OPINION of yours, not a FACT. Even today a lion share of AMRAAM kills was achieved in WVR..
No, it is a fact. Modern AAMs & avionics do not require a pilot to point & hold the noise of his/her aircraft at the aircraft he/she intends to shoot.
pfcemHave you read it at all?
Yes I have. Appearantly either you haven’t or are PURPOSELY ignoring parts of it…
1.They are clearly saying about ‘qualitative superiority’ over potential enemy F-35s.. – their own words.. Don’t know what exactly that means in your corner of the world but where I live it means ‘being better’
‘Qualitative superiority’ meaning tailored SPECIFICALLY to Israel, easier for Israel to modify & MORE DIFFICULT for its potential adversaries to counter…
2. While I lack any closer information on the matter, I can safely assume that Israeli hardware is AT LEAST ON PAR with the avionics used on the original F-35, otherwise they would not bother install it at all. Now, with the tiny budget available compared to the one of the USA, even developing a suite on par with the F-35 lets much to think about how effectively the money was spent. Remember, they are not talking about few small boxes, they actually want to replace the whole APG-81…
You (or even Israel) assuming that does not make it true.
Of course, unless you want to claim that Israel strives hard to get the possibility to install inferior hardware on their aircraft just to be different 🙂
No, Israel strives hard to get hardware tailored SPECIFICALLY for Israel & DIFFERERENT from its potential adversaries.
***
So, uh, they’re putting worse systems in there to confuse people?
No, just putting ISRAEL-SPECIFIC systems in there that are DIFFERENT that the system of its potential adversaries & easier FOR ISRAEL to modify.
If they think they need something different, they’re not going to go for something worse, or they’ll be putting themselves at a clear disadvantage (or does an enemy ECM/ECCM system suddenly stop working when it encounters an inferior design? Having homogenous systems works both ways…). Even if enemies don’t know what to expect at least they would be confident in having more options than less-advanced replacements if that’s what they actually were. Therefore they must think they can produce avionics which are at the very least as good as those currently installed. Which isn’t bad going really.
NO, Israel thinks it can produce avionics which are DIFFERENT from those of its potential adversaries (thus DENYING said adversaries specific knowledge of said avionics) & that are MORE tailored SPECIFICALLY to Israel.
***
Yeah, it’s really good for Israel but it puts the F-35 into a perspective quite different from those claimed by our local JSF-fanclub. First it looked like the bird might not smash you down with its flying abilities but at least leaves you with your mouth open when it comes to its avionics suite. Now it looks like even ELTA 2052 (at least I am not aware of any more advanced Israeli radar) will easily be able to mess with the APG-81.
Hmm, and from Israel, China is never too far away.. 🙂
MORE intellectual dishonesty I see.
The TRUTH is that the F-35’s flying abilities are better than its detractors would have you believe & are in fact quite good. ADD to that its other attributes, & it is a VERY CREDIBLE WVR fighter.
And some future system built from the experience from the ELTA 2052 may be better FOR ISRAEL since said system would be UNIQUE to Israel, tailored specifically to ISRAEL’s needs & easier FOR ISRAEL modify. NOT necessarily superior to the APG-81 in capability…
***
I think no one suggests that the ECDs will match the F-35s BVR performance, though not everyone apart of the JSF fanboys/supporters would bet his a$$ on the F-35 being able to safely penetrate well into an enemies NEZ envelope.
The whole point of the F-22 & F-35 stealth is to be ABLE to avoid an enemies NEZ envelope!
It remains yet to be seen how stealthy the F-35 will be in reality and how well sensors will perform in the future.
The F-35’s stealth has already been THOROUGHLY tested & verified to exceed requirements.
ECM is another factor which has to be considered and in certain circumstances the F-35 might find itself quicker into a WVR engagment than some here aren’t even willed to think off.
The F-35’s stealth & superior avionice give it a SIGNIFICANT ECM advantage.
The assertion is that the F-35 with F-16 like performance is not going to outperform a high performance fighter like the Eurofighter or Rafale. The F-35s requirement was for at least matching the performance of its predecessors the Typhoon’s or Rafale’s (and the F-22’s BTW) requirements were to exceed the performance of their predecessors by a fair margin!
Aerobatic agility is NOT the be-all-that-is all in fighter capability/effectiviness even IN WVR! The days of HAVING to point & hold the nose of your aircraft at the enemy have been gone for some time now.
***
I basically agree but LM can’t handle the sensors other nations will develope over the years and stealth is nothing which can be easily adjusted to counter threat A today and threat B tomorrow.
Stealth is not so easily countered either…
All fine, but the F-16 is no longer the benchmark in dogfight performance and agility. I don’t doubt that the overall combination will provide a respectable WVR capability. What I doubt are claims of superiority in THIS area over other types which can truely be considered as highly agile fighters.
Dogfight performance & agility is NOT the be-all-that-is all in fighter capability/effectiviness even IN WVR! The days of HAVING to point & hold the nose of your aircraft at the enemy have been gone for some time now.
***
Yep, certainly right about that, especialy when you say; Yet nobody seems to tire of it. Not much must not go on some peoples lives….Some people just live in fantasy land….
Just been thinking there, I wonder what British, Canadian, American etc troops on the ground in Iraq & Afghanistan getting shot to sh*t everyday of the week would think and say if they came on here and read these threads about which aeroplane is better in air to air? I’m sure as hell they’d be wondering: “Why the hell bother about that pointless fantasy cr*p, its not air superiority we want, its frikin close air support, so get those fancy expensive Typhoons, F-35’s, F-22’s & what not, strap some big frikin bombs to the wings and send’em to get us out the sh*t!!! Don’t give a flying ******* about “Stealth”, “Supercruise” and all that cr*p, just send them!!! PRONTO!!!!”..
I’d think it’d be something like that…
But hey, thats the REAL world,
Now back to fantasy land…
:rolleyes:
I certianly HOPE that they are more knowledgeable about reality than you are.
That is that CAS doesn’t happen UNLESS you have air superiority & that if it is the enemy that has air superiority it will be the enemy that benefits from CAS.
pfcemhttp://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-trying-to-get-israel-to-leave-joint.html
An interesting article about F-35 posted by Tango III. The article reports about Israel asking to install own systems in their future F-35s, the reason being [let me quote]
‘Israel fears that the jets will be sold to other countries in the region – like Saudi Arabia – and if our own technology is installed it will allow Israel to maintain a qualitative superiority even if the jets are sold to our enemies’
We are being taught by the pro-F-35 crowd that the aircraft will feature the most advanced avionics suite ever installed in a combat aircraft (sensor fusion, ECM etc. etc.) Now, suddenly, Israelis claim that they actually need to install their own systems because they are qualitatively superior to those of the F-35… 🙂
Now, if that is true, that blows a freaking big hole into the theories that everyone wanting to get close to the capability of the F-35 needs 40bil R&D budget (of which avionics would eat up a great portion). In fact, a tiny country of 7mil with yearly defense budget of $12bil can obviously afford to effectively counter the ‘world leading designer with decades of experience and blah blah’ in terms of avionics..
Could you at least TRY to be intellectually honest.
Israel has SPECIFIC needs & wants to modify its F-35s to those needs as it has done with its F-15s & F-16s. If Israel’s F-35s are IDENTICAL to those of potential enemies then said enemies know the EXACT capabilities & systems of the Israeli F-35s – that makes things like EW & ECM/ECCMs (which is more of a factor in fighter capability/effectiveness that pure flight performance) MUCH easier. By installing Israeli-specific systems (not necessarily better – although being tailored to Israel’s needs makes them better FOR ISRAEL even if they are otherwise not superior, just different) allows Israel to maintain THAT edge.
Note that Israel is NOT claiming IT can design & build anything as good or better than the F-35. They are simply saying that their F-35s NEED to be different that those of its potential enemies…
pfcemYou don’t know them either, but unlike you I’m not uncritically swalloing that stuff, but think about it and raise questions.
I never claimed to know the details. I HAVE shown how the details COULD in fact be quite different yet still be ‘similar’ vs the SIGNIFICANTLY better F-35 results.
Agreed on that to a certain degree, the “much longer around” argument isn’t really true however and while people might feel keen to know “everything” about the Eurofighter there are still a lot of areas, where they don’t know much or anything at all. Surprisingly those people who argue about the F-22 mean to “know” it however.
Fine. Information IS available on the 4th generation types, information on the F-22 & F-35 is only known to very few people & if they want to keep their security clearance they ain’t telling anybody else who hasn’t been cleared to see it.
The point is that in both studies it is just said that the aircraft are inferior or equal at best. This is indeed a similarity! Though the details are unknown.
Again, 1.25 to 0.75 (WHICH IS QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT) is ‘similar’ vs 3:1 or 6:1.
Or the purpose of the publicated results. Because while one study was more mentioned to outline that the F-35 doesn’t make the F-22 obsolete, the other study aimed at “proving” the F-35 right to be vastly superior to anything out there, spare the F-22 which wasn’t even mentioned here.
No, BOTH studies are/were aimed at determining (though VERY COMPLEX computer simulation) just how good the F-35 is.
And you know the details to say that for sure? I doubt so!
You don’t need the details for that, the SUMMARIZED results are already DIFFERENT enough to recognize it.
As far as I recall an USAF study using manned simulators, but it’s quite some time ago.
Sure would like to know what tudy you are referring to though.
I’m not, but it is indeed hopeless for you to convince me by the lack of proper arguments. You claim I don’t know the details, but neither does you. Yet you give the impression of “knowing” what the details are, but except for denial you haven’t (and supposley can’t) come up with any specific details. As said I’m not uncritically swallowing that stuff, especially as it comes from the manufacturer/intended customer who want to make a point. You take it as gospel truth, fine. I raise questions as I think about what is reported. Fact is except for your own assumptions, you can not answer any question in a way which someone could take for granted.
I am not the one claiming that the results are ‘too similar’…
pfcemWell I agree that 1:1 or less doesn’t mean all are equal.
And yet the BIG issue you have is the apparent similarity of the results EVEN THOUGH YOU DON”T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RESULTS.
On what grounds?
Historical fact.
RIGHT NOW, today, Eurofighter is more than happy to provide the necessary model data & has been ACTIVELY marketing it for quite some time. The F-22 OTOH…only a comparatively small number of people have even seen (much less studied) the still VERY MUCH CLASSIFIED data on it.
Similar is not same. Fact is the results of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 against advanced MiG-29/Su-27 variants (probably MiG-29SMT/Su-30MK like) are ~similar to the results of the Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, Su-30MKI and F/A-18E/F against a near future threat (Su-35 being most likely). That might well indicate that the scenarios weren’t that much different.
It indicates not such thing. ESPECIALLY since you don’t know how ‘similar’/UNSIMILAR the results actually are.
And the SIGNIFICANT disparity of the F-35 in the two studies DOES show quite a lot of difference!
Interestingly the F-35 achieves just about half the exchange ratio against the less capable/sophisticated threat. And that is where I start to wonder and question credibility of the study.
ONCE AGAIN – DIFFERENT STUDIES, DIFFERENT PARAMETERS, DIFFERNET RESULTS.
I well remember another USAF study after Cope India or so where they said the Su-30MKI would virtually win EVERY BVR encounter against the F-15, to convince the right people to buy more Raptors.
What study was that?
Which shows the clear bias again and makes you wonder if that wasn’t just another half hearted effort to hype/sell the own product.
To cut it short, it looks like another LM/USAF propaganda story made up for one purpose: marketing.
You are hopeless.
pfcem[B]”YOU WANT THE TRUTH?! YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!”[/B]
Good God the ignorance of some people is truly sad.
The F-35 costs partner nations $58.7 million (2008 dollars) flyaway!
Take a WILD GUESS how much the 1st F-22s cost vs what the latest ones cost. OR the F/A-18E/F OR any other US aircraft for that matter.
***
The only laughable naivety I have seen in this thread is of the ones implying that US stuff will forever be superior to anything, even of much later design, just because Americans once made Tacit Blue.
Now you are making things up…………:eek:
That is the standard response for such people since they don’t have anything to counter your comments, they counter comments you did not make.
***
F-35 is entering service with a more advanced engine than F100, unfortunately, in the air, the thing is still a lemon.
LOL.
It is better in the air than the F-16 &/or F/A-18.
pfcemIrrelevant data. Where are the USA’s 12 F-35s they were supposed to get last year according to that chart? Hiding?
LOL, wake me up when Dutch and Brits fly their first F-35… Oh, wait, according to you mighty table it’s due for this year.. 😀
I supposed you did not bother to notice that said schedule is PROCUREMENT (~2 years prior to delivery) – thus you are looking at the 2014-2016 time frame when pretty much all partner nations are SCHEDULED to receive their initial deliveries.
***
What near term? I have clearly said that JSF’s competitors will have arrived a decade later. If you don’t bother to read what I write, don’t bother to answer.
Near term meaning next ~5 years (i.e. ‘threat’ being Su-35 &/or other advanced Flanker derivatives). The ‘competitors’ to the F-35 TODAY & in the near term (which is what matters at the moment) are F-16, F/A-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Fulcrum…
What the WHOLE WORLD is suppose to put off fighter procurement for the next DECADE just to see what the threat beyond 2020 is?
No, I have logically connected the claims together to show what a load of nonsense and misinformation they represent.
LOL
Th only ‘logic’ was a PURPOSEFUL intent to misread/misrepresent what has been said.
It does not require a brain surgeon to see how little idea (next to zero) you all have about how good or bad the F-35 really is. You just pick all possible marketing gigs (90% of the F-22, marble size RCS and similar nonsense without any closer context) and repeat them to death until you start to really believe it.
Don’t confuse me with others. I KNOW there is comparatively little that is publicly known about the F-35 (& FOR GOOD REASON) but what IS known (as opposed to made up by its detractors) indicates that it IS meeting or exceeding its goals which INCLUDE being as good or better in flight performance to the F-16 & F/A-18.
***
I’m simply sceptical about the similar results of so much different types.
The problem is that you haven’t seen enough detail as to what the results were, just a ‘summary’ of it to know just how “similar” they were.
Rafale or Typhoon that much longer “around” than the F-22?
Yes they have.
For the F-35 yes.
No, different results all away around. Similar DOES NOT = same.
You have to take into account, that those types being involved were different! From the two different sources it doesn’t really matter if it is a F-15, F-16, F/A-18E/F, Gripen, Rafale or Eurofighter they are all quite similar. Sounds unlogical to me.
No, just so inferior to the F-35 that the DETIALED difference between them was felt unnecessary to report.
I think I have explained that often enough.
No you have not.
***
Not necessarily, but the question was concerned in relation to the supposed threat aircraft not XY against the F-35.
No, the QUESTION is what can JSF partner nations possibly obtain in the next 5-10 years that would be even as good as the F-35 at dealing with current AND future threats.
pfcemIf you ordered F-35 as an export customer today, what would be the first possible delivery date?
http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/7836/f35deliveryscheduleev0.gif
If you ordered a Typhoon, Rafale, F/A-18, Flanker, Fulcrum, et cetera today, what would be the first possible delivery date? 😉
It depends on what your enemy is. As a fighter, F-35 is only superior to legacy fighters, it certainly does not look that good against incoming future threats.
Good God! You don’t even know how good the “future threats” are. At least in the ‘near term’, as the simulation which started this thread indicates, the F-35 is the only thing that DOES look good. And no matter how good the more distant term threats are, the F-35 looks BETTER than any 4th generation ‘competator’.
***
I have already analyzed Beesley’s speech in depth on this forum and clearly pointed out at logical contradictions in his own words compared to other ‘trustwothy’ claims about F-22 and F-35. I won’t do that here again, those who want will search for it.
Actually, all you have done is shown how if you break up his comments, take them out of context & PURPOSELY misreadmisrepresent them that you can make it SOUND so…
Sign In
