Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 Fights Back
SYSOP    9/23/2008 5:39:13 AM
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
sjdoc    Solution to the problem? What problem?   9/24/2008 9:06:18 AM
If Strategypage wants to pretend to offer something more than a message board, then it needs to impose some minimal standards on its "articles."  I don't see why they pretend to have "articles" at all. They could just post a summary of a real article and a link.

In quite a few cases, I suspect that these very brief items are rough summaries of information drawn from a bunch of different sources, integrated informally and put up without much regard for their value except as entertaining extemporania. Much as I recall from the old FYEO newsletter to which I used to subscribe back when I had time for wargaming and wasn't pretty much FAFIAted.
I think of in much the same way as I consider the hospital coffee shop conversation with one of the Oncology guys.  "Hey, have you seen the results of that Phase III trial of Erbitux as adjuvent therapy in post-op head-and-neck cancer?  Big jump in survival rates, but that's no surprise. We've been using it pretty strong for the past several years and it seems to be pretty well tolerated."
GP me: "Oh?"
"Yeah. So are they going to rip up the doctors' parking lot again this year?"
"Wouldn't be surprised."
If I want to learn more about the subject of his brief clinical mention (like I'm ever going to be managing post-operative adjuvent radiation and chemotherapy any time soon?) I can look it up.  Mostly, though, it looks as if I'm going to have to be more aware of Erbitux side effects and drug interactions, 'cause I'm going to be seeing more head-and-neck cancer survivors on this stuff in my patient population, and I've got to "work around" it to treat their other medical problems.
Strategypage is like bumping into that oncologist. A brief, informal, unsourced information pop that alerts to the potential desirability of digging deeper.
Improves situational awareness, y'know?
You want more, you're already on the Internet.  Go get it for yourself.
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    F22 & F35   9/24/2008 10:11:49 AM
I thought dogfigting/air spueriority was to be the forte of the F-22, and while the F-35 was to be capable in air to air combat, this was not its sole design. My impression was the F-35 was first look, first kill. If it looked like it was going to be a large  air to air battle just call some F-22's to clean them up.
I have seen the Austrailian reporter "grand standing" about not buying the F-22's, but 1) The F-22 has not been offered to anyone,  2) It is unlikely Austrailia could afford enough them even if the F-22 were available, and 3) really, who is going beat on skippy's lads without the US taking a seriously dim view of it. Austrailia is a great ally and a good friend to the US. Invading Melboune is about the same as invading Seattle. Uncle Sam's ticked and he's coming for you...
I understand that Austrailia wants to be able to handle its own business, but this one is just silly.
Quote    Reply

colforbin       9/24/2008 10:24:23 AM
pffft, all the sources are classified, duh.
"I suppose the most famous example of this was the story that Bush (the younger) had dodged the draft,"
like when he joined the natl guard (before they became an actual combat  branch) and never actually reported for duty, and got a free pass?

Quote    Reply

Softwar       9/24/2008 11:09:53 AM

pffft, all the sources are classified, duh.



"I suppose the most famous example of this was the story that Bush (the younger) had dodged the draft,"



like when he joined the natl guard (before they became an actual combat  branch) and never actually reported for duty, and got a free pass?

Let's get your facts straight - Bush flew the F-102 - not an easy task even by today's standards.  Bush inquired about going to Vietnam under the "Palace Alert" program but was told that he did not have the flight hours (500) to qualify.  The F-102 was not very useful in Vietnam since it was designed to shoot down Russian bombers (an interceptor) and not a dogfighter.  One F-102 was lost escorting B-52s during an Arc Light mission.  The F-102s sent to Vietnam were withdrawn from service in 1968 - before Bush flew them in the Texas National Guard.
Quote    Reply

warpig       9/24/2008 1:27:47 PM
1)  Dogfighting is generally a bad idea:  A guy could get killed that way.  Dogfighting is about finding yourself defensive so now you're scrambling around trying to stay alive.  Aerial combat is about setting yourself up to be able to dive out of the technological sun, shoot the bad guy, and blow through to come back for a second pass if you need to--metaphorically speaking.
2)  In addition to the excellent observations by Softwar, If President Bush never reported for duty and was given a free pass--when/where/how did he learn to fly jets?
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/25/2008 5:56:36 AM,23599...-29277,00.html

New fighter 'not a war games loser'
September 25, 2008 03:03pm
Article from: AAP

RECENT criticism of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is based on misrepresented data, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says.

Australia is considering making its biggest-ever defence investment - $15bn - by acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft, from US manufacturer Lockheed, as replacements for its ageing Hornet and F-111 fighter jets.

Critics of the JSF say it is an inferior aircraft to Russian-made fighters being used in the region. They have used the results of a computerised war game to back up their criticism.

Mr Fitzgibbon says he is one of the few people in Canberra to have seen the full classified briefing of the war game in which JSF was supposedly found wanting.

"On the basis of that briefing, I am absolutely satisfied that the data from that exercise was misrepresented,'' he said today.

"The exercise didn't compare particular platform. It was about something entirely different which I can't speak about.''

Mr Fitzgibbon said the media reports of the JSF's vulnerability were puzzling.

"It just bewilders me how anyone could come to that conclusion based on the information provided to me.''

JSF remains in development with just two aircraft flying so far.

It has been persistently criticised as likely to be inferior to Russian built aircraft now entering service across the region.

Lockheed says the Pacific Vision war game conducted last month was a tabletop exercise designed to assess basing and force structure vulnerabilities.

It featured no air-to-air combat exercises and no assessment of different aircraft platforms, the company said.

Claims the JSF is inferior to the Russian aircraft in visual range combat appear to stem from a powerpoint presentation prepared by thinktank the Rand Corporation.

It cites publicly-available data from defence publisher Janes as indicating JSF can't turn, climb, or accelerate as fast as Russian aircraft.

Mr Fitzgibbon was unswayed.

"I remain absolutely confident that if the JSF can produce the capability they have been promising, then we will have the right aircraft for Australia,'' he said.

"The outstanding questions then, of course, are when and at what cost.''
Quote    Reply

prometheus    If I may ask a question?   9/25/2008 6:07:07 AM
Now, I'm not an expert, so please treat this as the question an amatuer would ask, I'm just looking to be a little less ignorant....
But on the subject that dogfighting is dead - well, firstly, there are rules of engagement, more often than not RoE for western forces tend to be very restrictive, didn't the F-4 pilots find that out over vietnam? Is it not that in limited wars, there will always be a political desire to actively identify the target close up?
Secondly, a lot of this 'dogfighting is dead' seems to be based on the premise that modern missiles are infallible. Yet the gun armour spiral has yet to be broken, ther ehas never been an offensive system so perfect that it kills 100% of the targets, 100% of the time. Modern defensive suites look to be very advanced, if the F-35 does not kill all the bandits with the first volley (and if it's in clean configuration, it does not pack such a huge punch anyway). Granted you can gaurentee that the F-35 gets the first shot, due to it's LO, but once that's away, you've given the other side a pretty good indication that you are there, as range between one and the other decreases, the bandit radar will eventually pick up the F-35, given that the closing speed could be mach 3 or more, surely dogfighting becomes inevitable?
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    Well then    9/25/2008 9:33:10 AM
Well then, I get on my radio and call for some Raptors who will be in the area, By the time the other craft evades my next missle (if possible), then the air superiority support should be there, and he has a whole world of hurt now other than me chcking missles at him...Flyingatry
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Ask yourself this question:   9/25/2008 11:12:50 AM
If you were going into WWIV in a fighter bomber, which aircraft would you rather be flying? SU-33 or F-35 A,B,C?
Quote    Reply

FJV    F35 would win in a dogfight   9/25/2008 1:09:16 PM
Because the stealth of the F35 means that you see the opponent before he sees you. This means you can position your plane favorably before the dogfight starts and stack the deck in your favor.  (approaching from a higher altitude, from behind, at a higher speed)
The SU 27 would most of the time start the dogfight by having to make defensive maneuvers to counter this effect.

Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT