FBWBut the F-35 doesn’t seem to be flying better than previous generations of fighters on any side. I believe the plane must maintain some flight characteristics that make it competitive throughout its envelope, but it definitely seems to not take its lineage a step further as much as its predecessors did.
No it doesn’t, but that was not the design goal. From the very start, the requirements were written to match (not exceed) the previous generation analogues, namely the F-16 and F/A-18. The exception to this would be that the F-35 exceeds the performance of those previous generation when employed on it’s primary mission, strike. An F-16, loaded with targeting pods, EFT, JDAM is restricted in flight performance and routing (higher vulnerability to anti-access weapons).
The drivers of cost associated with even a 10% improvement in, for example, transonic acceleration would have a cascade effect. The aircraft would have to be longer, likely narrower, which would impact placement of fuel tanks (range), weapons carried, which would require a larger aircraft. As with all designs there has to be a balance of cost and capability, and if there isn’t a demonstrable impact that faster acceleration would greatly improve survivability or mission effectiveness, than it isn’t worth the costs.
As it is, the F-35 is a balance. Using transonic acceleration as an example again, it does not meet or exceed that of the F-16 with two AMRAAMs as was the design goal. But it does match that of an F-16 with a DI of 50 (or so, I forget the exact comparable DI). Would it have been worth a redesign of a longer, heavier, aircraft that would have had a cascade effect on cost and other performance parameters in order to exceed the acceleration of a lightly loaded block 50? Would that make the F-35 any more effective in it’s mission?
FBWPS. Just let me give you a hint: What would be the impact if Russia were to deploy S500 and Bastion on Cuba? and Russia retorics would be to safe Guard against an some South American country who has long range missile, and according to Russian intelligent they have NC capability(see US reference on Iran)..
This is the core of the problem. US expansion and sticking their nose where in Russia’s back yard.
This post is case and point of what I am referring to, Msphere.
Haavarla, you didn’t support the argument at all. I asked for specific details to support the idea that the Ground based interceptors posed a threat to Russian deterrence. You responded with Geopolitical babble laced with bias reflecting your own views. As for Cuba, again the only use of such a deployment would be to defend Cuba (it would have zero use defending Russia from ICBM). And I’ve no doubt that the US would protest it. But that doesn’t make it a cogent reason. I would expect rational, thinking people to reject such tripe. Again, regurgitating the rhetoric flying back and forth between Russia and the US is exacerbating the deterioration of relations (not to mention the level of discourse on this forum lately).
As far as the US expansion, the argument would have merit if we were talking about an airfield housing US strike aircraft based in Poland, or a Baltic state. The reason for the radar and missile installation in Poland had nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with the trajectory of a missile launched from Iran as I demonstrated to Msphere at the top of this page.
FBWI think you got sidetracked by the Kaliningrad side argument.
The root of the original question- In 2007, Russia opposed the installation of 10 Ground Based Interceptors in Poland arguing that they were a threat to Russia. People have been repeating this argument and using it as an example of US encroachment on Russia’s borders ever since.
My argument is simple. The premise was rhetoric, the interceptors were useless against Russian ICBM aimed at the US. Even IF they could have intercepted an ICBM over Norway (which they couldn’t as range and speed were insufficient) 10 interceptors (even assuming a 100% success rate) would be insignificant to pose a threat to the hundreds of missiles that make up Russia’s deterrence.
In other words, the US installation in Poland was aimed at protecting the US from missiles launched from the Middle east.
So, why do you wonder Russians are protesting vehemently?
Not at all, as I said, the US would do the same if Russia based ABM in Cuba in spite of the obvious fact that they wouldn’t be of any use against US ICBM.
This is not an “Evil US or Evil Russia” type argument. I find it disappointing that people regurgitate the rhetoric without thinking for themselves. It is one of the reasons that US-Russia relationship is deteriorating.
FBWHow is that equivalent? Poland is in Russia now? I know what to get you for your birthday Msphere, a map.
Now if you said, “Russia basing ABM missiles in Cuba”, that would be equivalent. And I’ve no doubt the US would protest vehemently. But it wouldn’t impact deterrence at all. Again, for me the issue is people repeating the rhetoric as if it were fact.
FBW. The Infrastructure are already in place, in Poland, close to Russian borders. Its only a matter of time before next Gen interceptor missiles will emerge.
And right there is the problem.
Is it? Presumably then your buying into the idea that 10 interceptors that aren’t within range of the trajectories Russian ICBM would follow en route to targets in the US upsets Russian nuclear deterrence.
Please elaborate with specific arguements, not leaving out how the S-400 systems (to be augmented with S-500 with ABM capability) based in Kaliningrad differ.
FBWIsrael is still working on drop tanks for F-35, and gripen E still out-ranges F-35 by a wide margin,
weight increase is going to have a significant impact on expected agility, range difference if any is insignificant
Aren’t you done embarrassing yourself enough for one day? please, it’s not like you had a shred of credibility, but even JSR takes a break in between absurd posts.
FBWnone the less, norway requested info on F-35 range with drop tanks, and somehow L.M could respond,
F-35 range with drop tanks is ~760 nm radius IIRC
Shocking, Obligatory doesn’t know what he is taking about:
Norway presentation was a surveillance mission with full internal weapons at altitudes from 5k to 25k feet for a combat radius of 728nmi (with proposed DT)-as hops already pointed out.
https://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—p…
The 760nmi combat radius on an AtA mission with a minute of combat time was released long after DT were dropped for the F-35 for the time being.
Since the Norway presentation the combat radius on the USAF mission profile was adjusted from 584nmi to 625nmi according to the latest SAR reports.
Edit- DOT&E report, not SAR.
FBWOh, no, so there won’t be any “my dear hopsalot, sorry but what you have written in your response #4497 is nonsense, first hand accounts do not constitute evidence”? I’m crushed… :dev2:
It’s evidence if the person is credible. What it isn’t is empirical data. I believe that is why they allow specialists to be called at criminal trials as “expert witnesses” no?
FBWits not a matter of opinion, its a matter of T/D & T/W, cum off it fanboi, smell the coffee
Ah, so your admitting that your wingloading comparison was flawed as is the entire premise of your arguement. Unless, of course, it suits you to qualify your statement with Cd/Cl comparisons. So, Obligatory please give us the Cd, Cl (at subsonic/supersonic speeds), and thrust of respective engines (at various speeds and altitudes) for both the Typhoon and F-35, or shut up until you actually know what you are talking about.
FBWWhat he was saying politely, is that the pilot being quoted isn’t a clueless idiot and that his opinion needs to be weighted accordingly relative to yours.
Exactly, and thank you. Grammar and IPhones don’t mix well for me.
FBWMsphere, your confusing an opinion with empirical data. The pilot is giving his professional opinion, your entitled to disagree and give your own.
Generally people weight opinions on their relative merits, and the stature of the person giving the opinion. So, the relative merits of his are based on his experience as a pilot, so what are yours? In other words, his opinion isn’t fact. It is based on his experience. Another pilot may disagree.
If said pilot was quoted as “The F-35 has a higher roll rate of blah, than the Typhoon” assuming you had the roll rate for both aircraft that would be data that would support or nullify his statement.
FBWi have read first hand accounts by F-35 jockeys that
1] F-35 out perform EF with A2A load
2] F-35 flies precisely as F-22…its gibberish and constitute trash data
Ah yes, truly you are fit to judge what is gibberish, as the forum member who once said “The F-35 isnt a fighter, it is a marginally supersonic F-117 replacement”……comedy gold. Thanks for all the laughs Obligatory.
FBWEF 311 kg/m^2
Rafale 326 kg/m^2
Gripen 336 kg/m^2
F-15 358 kg/m^2
Su-27 371 kg/m^2
F-22 375 kg/m^2
F-4 phantom 383 kg/m^2
F-16C Block30 430 kg/m^2
F-35 446 kg/m^2
MiG-31 665 kg/m^2Boeing 747 727 kg/m^2
(Lower=better)
Lower equals better right? So, you are asserting that the F-106 has a better sustained turn performance than the F-22, or F-15 at altitude. Further, the turn performance at altitude are comparable for the F-22 and F-4.
Considering your post, are we in agreement that these are your assertions?
FBWTooCool, two points I think you’ve missed from that article.
He doesn’t say that WVR combat won’t happen, he states that it does not look like the dogfights of old. There is no reason to have to maneuver to the enemies “six” anymore. And that HMD/HMS paired with all aspect high off-boresight missiles make it an iffy proposition (assuming equal situational awareness). Something I’ve been saying since I’ve been on here.
The doctrine, weapons, and aircraft developed for the USAF have reflected this since ACEVAL/AIMVAL. It is not a given that stand off kills will always be possible, but there seems to be a congnitive disconnect with some that automatically assume that WVR combat will devolve into a traditional “dogfight”. Something that may not have ever been true. Eric Hartmann once stated that the majority of aircraft he shot down never saw him. Situational awareness counts more than ever considering today’s technology.
FBWhttp://www.businessinsider.com/f35-pilot-f-35-can-excel-dogfighting-2017-1
Interesting piece:
There is some idea that when we talk about dogfighting it’s one airplane’s ability to get another airplane’s 6 and shoot it with a gun … That hasn’t happened with American planes in maybe 40 years,” Berke said
But planes don’t fight like that anymore, and comparing different planes’ statistics on paper and trying to calculate or simulate which plane can get behind the other is “kind of an arcane way of looking at it,” Berke said.
Berke said dogfighting would teach pilots “great skill sets” but conflict within visual range “doesn’t always mean a turning fight within 100 feet of the other guy maneuvering for each other’s 6 o’clock.” Berke also made an important distinction that conflicts within visual range do not always become dogfights.
You could not see a guy who’s a mile away, or you could see a guy at 15 miles if you got lucky,” Berke said, adding that with today’s all-aspect weapons systems, a plane can “be effective in a visual fight from offensive, defensive, and neutral positions.”
“We need to stop judging a fighter’s ability based on wing loading and Gs,” Berke said of analysts who prize specifications on paper over pilots’ insights.
Many have been expounding these points repeatedly on this forum. Here is a Marine pilot reiterating these points again. I’m sure the usual suspects will ignore, discredit with comments like: “Paid L-M shill” or “PR Memo”, and fire up that VHS of Maverick angling on Jester’s 6 secure in their logic.
“Missiles don’t work, it’ll end up in a guns only dogfight”
“Look at the F-4 in Vietnam! making the same mistake”
“Sustain turn rate, John Boyd, Pierre Sprey”
“Because wingloading… Wait the F-4 and F-22 have similar wingloading?”
Sign In
