It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pilot says F35 CAN'T dogfight!

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Barnalby

I was hoping that the F-35 could but what you are saying makes perfect sense. There is a lot of doors to open in ACM environment. The only other possibility is the look down-shoot down helmet cueing systems. It wouldn't require hard maneuvering...just look and shoot!


Devleope a upgrade that allows the pilot to control the missile with his eyes eliminating the ability to jam or use flares to escape it.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Nope.no,no.
I'm an artist and they aren't pointy enough.
GOTTA be pointy to look cool...


Hehe, 'ait



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

The F-35, and any other bomb truck doesn't operate alone. They have EW, and air to air escorts with them on the Strike.


Well I guess that settles that issue. Canada planned on going with just the F-35 as a stand alone Fighter, I guess someone got wise to the fact that was going to be our entire fighter air force. Good thing we bailed in time.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

The Canadian Air Force won't be operating alone, anywhere. There will be Growlers, Raptors, and other platforms that you don't see flying around with them.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

The Canadian Air Force won't be operating alone, anywhere. There will be Growlers, Raptors, and other platforms that you don't see flying around with them.


Not in Canada you won't ......we don't even have a tanker let alone a dozen so unless we rent or lease we are home bound and I like the sound of that.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Anyone going into Canada is going to have to deal with the US forces as well. Although the RCAF has two CC-150 MRTT aircraft that can refuel using the probe and drogue method. The F-35C has a larger fuel capacity, because of the larger wing, and comes with a probe, since it's a Navy aircraft. It would fit nicely with the two tankers.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

I think I said what I see as THE major problem (VTOL). It causes a lot of follow-up-problems (drag, lift, energy, extra weight, low load).

What do you think about this feature in comparison to having no second thrust-engine, extra weight which is useless in normal flight, etc?

Is it worth it?

Why? Please state scenarios in which VTOL is more important than energy etc., FROM THE VIEW of ANYBODY but the marine corps.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

The UK thinks it is. It's the only way too launch and recover from their new carriers



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: buddah6

I think I said what I see as THE major problem (VTOL). It causes a lot of follow-up-problems (drag, lift, energy, extra weight, low load).

What do you think about this feature in comparison to having no second thrust-engine, extra weight which is useless in normal flight, etc?

Is it worth it?

Why? Please state scenarios in which VTOL is more important than energy etc., FROM THE VIEW of ANYBODY but the marine corps.


I can't answer your second engine question. I don't know the design theory used by the designers so it would only be speculation.

The VTOL feature is a USMC tactical consideration. They want an aircraft that they can put close to the battle front so sortie generation is high plus there is no requirement for a large runway. It is the same consideration that the English used for their Harrier since the 1960s.

Energy consideration for a VTOL is a strange question since to be VTOL you need more thrust than weight. For the tactical /VTOL version of the F-35 it needs enough power to lift vertically the weight of the plane and all the load.
Most fighters in service today can't match the 1/1 power to weight ratio of a VTOL plane.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: buddah6

I think I said what I see as THE major problem (VTOL). It causes a lot of follow-up-problems (drag, lift, energy, extra weight, low load).

What do you think about this feature in comparison to having no second thrust-engine, extra weight which is useless in normal flight, etc?

Is it worth it?

Why? Please state scenarios in which VTOL is more important than energy etc., FROM THE VIEW of ANYBODY but the marine corps.


I can't answer your second engine question. I don't know the design theory used by the designers so it would only be speculation.

The VTOL feature is a USMC tactical consideration. They want an aircraft that they can put close to the battle front so sortie generation is high plus there is no requirement for a large runway. It is the same consideration that the English used for their Harrier since the 1960s.

Energy consideration for a VTOL is a strange question since to be VTOL you need more thrust than weight. For the tactical /VTOL version of the F-35 it needs enough power to lift vertically the weight of the plane and all the load.
Most fighters in service today can't match the 1/1 power to weight ratio of a VTOL plane.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

I'm thinking, why can't they make a ramp for the bleeder. I mean, what if they could lower engine thrust by creating a cushion of jet-air under the plane, and then bounce the deck upwards, let's say 4-6 feet, compressing the jet stream cushion, producing extra lift as a result. Or that's my initial idea anyway. I'll see if I can make a drawing later to show what I mean.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I watch a TV show called "Blog Cabin" where watchers e-mail recommendations as to the features to be included in the cabin to be built. Building an aircraft isn't that easy! It takes roughly five years to design and another five for flight testing. The F-35 was chosen in a "fly-off" as the better of the two aircraft. All new aircraft have teething problems! I would bet that no one here can name one that didn't.

The famous P-51 was a dog when it was first introduced into service. At the end of WW2, it was considered one of the best prop-driven fighters following a continuous development program. Many of the improvements came from recommendations from pilots who flew it. At this point the F-35 is not operational with few pilots flying them.

I remember reading a interview from a test pilot from Cessna. He said, the test pilots test airplanes to unbelieveable standards. However, it is the 10 hour student pilot who will find the problems in an airplane. The F-35 hasn't reached this point yet.

I'm not a aviation historian so maybe some here on ATS can elaborate.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

Foxtrotalpha has a write up on this.




The F-35 Joint Program Office is passively admitting the report is valid (I mean, it is written by one of their own test pilots, for goodness sake) while at the same time saying that it doesn’t tell the whole story. They then say that the F-35 is going to be good at an entirely different aspect of the air-to-air combat mission, the beyond-visual-range one. Basically, they are admitting that their fighter is not much of a fighter at all, and then quickly changing the subject by saying that it will be a good interceptor instead.

That’s like responding to an SUV review stating the vehicle’s blind spots, deep overhangs, and poor turning radius make it hard to parallel park by saying the SUV’s unrelated features X, Y and Z make it easy to park at the mall. That may be true, but what does that have to do with parallel parking?

Nothing.

I don’t doubt that the F-35, with its fantastic planned avionics suite, sensor fusion, and low observability, will be a capable interceptor once the whole concept is mature and working properly, especially when multiple F-35s work as a team while using tailored tactics to confuse, surprise, avoid, or overwhelm enemy aircraft formations. But for 20 years of development and well over $100,000,000 per jet (and even more when you include research and development costs), the F-35 better be a decent beyond-visual-range missile chucker. It is quite literally, the least the Pentagon can ask from the F-35 program.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580


FoxtrotAlpha isn't immune to biased reporting. It's pretty obvious Tyler doesn't like the F-35 in his initial article and his online responses.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

I guess.

however it is what it is.

It's a multirole plane. It's never going to be the greatest at something it wasn't specifically designed to do.

And it's not even fully ready yet.

I'll reserve my opinion until it's fully ready.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

So do you think that the second test article is going to be the same as a later production aircraft?



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I wonder if it can loiter like an Apache behind trees and loose off a salvo of missiles at range..?



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


I don't know. It's all assumptions right now because they are still testing and working on the aircraft .

I do think that once they have ironed out all the bugs with the plane it will be fine. But that might take years still.

Like I said. I'll reserve my opinion until the plane is out of testing phase. now we watch and wait.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Oh and take a look.

www.gao.gov...



F-35 Joint Strike Fighter:
Observations on Program Progress
GAO-15-429T: Published: Apr 14, 2015. Publicly Released: Apr 14, 2015.




The F - 35 program will have to compete for funding with many other large, high - priority defense programs, including a new bomber, tanker, submarine, and aircraft carrier, as well as other government priorities external to DOD ’ s b udget.


Interesting.
edit on 14-7-2015 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Apparently the Chinese already have a functioning copy of the F-35— the Shenyang J-31. It looks slightly bigger than the JSF and doesn't appear to have any vertical capability.


Shenyang J-31, (or "FC-31 fifth Generation Multi-Purpose Medium Fighter") also known as "Gyrfalcon" (鹘鹰), or "Falcon Hawk" by some military enthusiasts, is a twin-engine, mid-size fifth-generation jet fighter currently under development by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. The fighter has also been referred to as "F-60" or "J-21 Snowy Owl" (雪鸮) in some media reports.
en.wikipedia.org...

And


The reported theft by Chinese hackers of blueprints for the US’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter amounted to 50 terabytes of classified information, documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have revealed.
rt.com...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join