Jump to content
 
Sign in to follow this  
Jedi2155

Videos

Recommended Posts

im assuming people complain in regards of regular 9 mil just dont have stopping power but its cheap ?

 

now my question how expensive is this vs .45 or something ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He brings up a few important points on the technical issues with the F-35 in terms of Wing Loading, but he also goes at great length about historical issues of the F35 that I've understood for a long time especially taking in consideration the horrible performance of the USAF during the Vietnam war (our super advanced fighters were constantly getting shot down by Mig-15's because they couldn't turn worth a damn and had no built in guns). The F-35 feels like the Phantom II to me again personally. Amazing features and looks hot damn sexy but in actual combat....give me a dog fighter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy sounds a bit off to me. First of all the last time we engaged in actual air to air combat was vietnam. Thats around 40 years ago. IF we somehow had to engage into an air to air fight, we have more aircraft (fighters and bombers) than every other country in the world. By sheer attrition we would win. But let's put that behind us as well. The over the horizon missiles work pretty well if you can identify the targets. So if you have aircraft in one area, but not another, you can clearly fire missiles at the target with no issue. Also I've heard that most aircraft pilots believe that any real "dogfights" that would occur today would be much closer to jousting, where both aircraft would fly at high speed towards one another and then turn to make another pass, rather than slow down to a more classic dogfight.

 

The F-35 has problems sure, but I wouldn't sit here and say the entire aircraft is crap because it "can't turn."

 

Kuhla's comment about coin aircraft or the mention of A-10s as close support, make far more sense than worrying about dogfighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By sheer attrition we would win.

 

That shouldn't be a way to win a fight. That's a Soviet/Russian strategy. Especially with expensive aircraft. Of course we would win any way regardless of the doggedness of the F35, but the question was why bother with such a crappy design? BTW the stealth on this aircraft isn't very good either. Most of the time RCS refers only to the frontal area (not all-aspects).

 

First of all the last time we engaged in actual air to air combat was vietnam.

I guess you don't follow the aerial combat issues from the last 2 Iraq Wars.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War#9_September_1999

 

SAM heaven.

 

I doubt a F-35 could maneuver to avoid these.

 

Also I've heard that most aircraft pilots believe that any real "dogfights" that would occur today would be much closer to jousting, where both aircraft would fly at high speed towards one another and then turn to make another pass, rather than slow down to a more classic dogfight.

 

This would be a classic interceptor/interdiction mission. What if you were on a patrol mission or the type of the war was to defend borders? There are plenty of tactics that would force a superior aircraft into a dog fight scenario. A common one used by the N. Vietnamese was the merry-go-round (not sure of the exact name) but it is used by a squadron of fighters flying in a circle where if you tried to engaged one, the wingman would quickly engage you as you chased him.

 

Regardless, that was just one tactic, but essentially air-air combat always boils down to energy management since at long range, you'll rarely hit another fighter (just turn around and the missile can't reach you).

 

 

*edit*

 

Also watching this now:

 

http://youtu.be/qQAWBts5eYs

 

I should also probably mention I've been playing flight sims since I was 7. Spent a lot of time in the F-18 simulator with BVR combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you don't follow the aerial combat issues from the last 2 Iraq Wars.

http://en.wikipedia...._September_1999

The most recent air to air combat mentioned on that page was in 2002 and that was a drone being shot down. The last dogfight was in 1999, several missiles fired and nothing happened.

Three of those engagements were US forces shooting down bombers.

 

If you want to talk about air action including surface to air attacks, then yes we've obviously been shot at by everything from small arms fire to SAMs.

 

I'm not sitting here defending the F-35, I am merely suggesting that dogfighting is very rare, and hasn't really happened with any frequency since the 70s.

 

EDIT

You can also skim over this page here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_air-to-air_combat_losses

We've lost a grand total of 5 aircraft since Vietnam (271 lost).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the history channel video and you'll understand what I mean the ludicrousness of basing your designs almost entirely on BVR capabilities. There were at least 4 engagements and 2 of which were sets of matched gen 4 fighters. My argument is that, Gen 5 designs typically include high stealth and/or high maneuverability.

 

Essentially I can sum up as this:

 

PAK-FA = High Stealth + Medium Maneuverability

Su-47 = High Maneuverability + Low Stealth

Mig 1.44 / 1.27 = Medium Stealth + Medium Maneurverability

F-22 = High Stealth + Medium Maneuverability

F-35 = Medium Stealth + Low Maneuverability

Typhoon = High Maneuverability + Low Stealth

 

I didn't realize how bad the F-35 was until he mentioned the F-35 had the wing loading equivalent to a F-105 Thunderchief. Sure it is capable of handling high G forces (say 9-10g) but that is highly dependent on speed rather than turning radius.

The F-35 should have really had a medium level of maneuverability say the wing loading of a A-7 Corsair or F-16. A F-15 is considered have high maneuverability btw with very low wing load and they've pulled 12+ g's in combat.

 

Last thing to mention, that I should remind is that medium to long distance engagement ranges, its relatively easy to defeat a missile (rocket motors burn for only a few seconds then they are essentially free fall for most the remaining trip) as all you have to do is use up their kinetic energy killing its speed thus reducing the amount of maneuvering energy required to out fly the missile. Its those last few moments that really matter and having a high wing loading is just really bad against this.

 

Here's a simple analysis on the basics of modern air-air missile combat. (5:22 mark)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...