Pilot says F35 CAN'T dogfight!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Could it be that, due to classifications of technologies grown in the more darker zones, the dilemma is the following:

You can´t tell everyone what it´s cabable of, it would guarantee financing a huge number but you simply can´t tell the people in congress or whoever decides. So they relied on what the plane is officialy cabable of to get the financing and ended up in the current situation.

Hypothetically of course.

a reply to: verschickter

That's playing a huge role in the current debate. There's a lot of amazing things the F-35 can do that are classified.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Even more amazing than what I posted?

a reply to: verschickter

Less Oh my god, and more Holy crap we really need that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Now you got me confused ^^
As of now, I suppose what I quoted from the book is not fiction (see sentence above the quotes).
And when I read your last comment it seems to me this is the end of the ladder. It´s amazing enough.
I know you can not tell us anything even if you knew.

Offtopic
I have a particular question regarding aircraft accidents, because I want to trace one back I witnessed some years ago.
Would you mind if I send you an U2U?

a reply to: verschickter

The tech on the F-35 is amazing, but it's less Sci Fi, and more a logical progression of Technology.

For example, the EODAS system. As far back as the F-14 they mounted a television camera to help with long range target identification. The EODAS is a logical progression of that to look all around the aircraft to help with identification and targeting.

Sure, feel free to message me.

a reply to: Zaphod58
That AESA radar beam sounds not off-worldy I just have a problem with the target being behind rebar concrete. That would act as a farady cage if earthed and also the server casings are also shielded. Of course that situation is fiction ^^

You seem to be a walking book full of interessting knowledge, you always surprise with some tidbit of information one would not find in that shape.

I U2U´ed you

So what was the Canadian government thinking when they proposed replacing our F-18 with a plane that was designed for the same role.

Ok, so the F35 can cantrol a fight from a distance....
... what if it can't? What if the Russians DO manage to bust through and the US - as usual - takes hours to respond. Wont we be wishing we had some CF-18 at that point?

I am glad the deal fell through. Classified or not, it seems like the F35 marketing is based on hoodwinking more than providing solutions.

I got an Idea, how about global super powers stop spying and lying and grow the f#$k up and stop letting money and power hungry corporations rope them into wasting our money.

a reply to: verschickter

Even the B-52 is looking at AESA radar upgrades. It's just a lot more flexible than a mechanical radar, with fewer points of failure and better resolution.

a reply to: Zaphod58
So they also get EW capabilities? Or are my two quotes technical incorrect and it falls into the 75/25 rule?

If you dont mind there is another U2U about that A-10 I saw.

a reply to: verschickter

All aircraft that are part of a strike or fighter package have at least a limited EW setup. Not as good as a dedicated platform such as the Growler, but good enough for self defense purposes. The F-35 falls between the two on the EW front.

I might not be able to answer for awhile. I'm about to drive out of my cell network. If I don't answer I will as soon as I'm back in network tonight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In that scenario there was also a F-18/G present jamming/spoofing the onsite radar systems
I will now stop asking intimidating questions. And take your time with the A-10 thing, I´m glad you can help me out a little bit. It took 20years for me to get active on that so take your time, no hassle please. Have a safe ride!

a reply to: verschickter

There's always some kind of dedicated jamming platform in the package or nearby, when it's a large group.

Some of the new platforms are where it gets really interesting.

a reply to: Zaphod58

As of replacing the word jamming with the word hacking, although not in classical meaning ?

a reply to: verschickter

Not really. It's still technically jamming and spoofing. It just gets away from the hammer approach, and into the scalpel approach.

a reply to: Zaphod58

From what I read -I still try to figure out if it´s possible-
It reads like they can "ride packets" on that AESA beam into IADS.

I hope that´s untrue and I did not spill any beans. But then, I read this in a book that was probably overlooked before release.

a reply to: verschickter

There's a lot out there if you look in the right places. People dropping things in speeches and interviews. There's even a thread about it somewhere.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Enough said
Let´s say it´s also not that bad if it´s so underestimated.
As long as my government get´s along with yours and not into a war.

a reply to: MALBOSIA
It's probably good that most people don't know how many programs are sold on only ideas and concepts.
In my 26 years at Lockmart personally witnessed two programs that were sold that way and not only to
our government to allies also. We had very good lobbys, and salesmen, Thus 26 years of good steady work,
and a nice retirement.

a reply to: justdust
Can you give some more informations?
Do you mean they sell concepts that are known to be problematic or unsure to have success in future?
If you post something like that it would be nice to back it up with a little example.