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.

 

UK news F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Even if we don't, which I hope we do, I have faith in the UK's ability to field there own indigenous designed 6th or at the least 5.5 gen jet.
Hell, tech is so fluidic across the pond that half the kit in our 6th gen could be UK derived and vice versa.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 727Sky

I wondered when someone would quote this ass.


There are several quotes from Australia and Canada for anyone who wants to look. Everything from the price tag to the airforce having to lower the specifications of the aircraft's capabilities (such as acceleration) are all brought up in the following video.. It has been an over budget typical 'make one aircraft try and do everything' boondoggle according to many in the industry who are not part of the P.R. campaign.
youtu.be...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Pierre Sprey is an arrogant one trick pony. I wouldn't trust him to tell me the sky is blue. His entire repertoire is "Buy an F-16, it will do everything". He thinks that since he was in on the Viper design, he's some genius that can build an unbeatable air force, just by buying more F-16s.

That's almost funny. Going by what the head of Dassault, who makes their own fighter designs, and other manufacturers, is laughable.

edit on 7/3/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/3/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: sammamishman
a reply to: crazyewok

Even if we don't, which I hope we do, I have faith in the UK's ability to field there own indigenous designed 6th or at the least 5.5 gen jet.
Hell, tech is so fluidic across the pond that half the kit in our 6th gen could be UK derived and vice versa.



I'm pretty sure you are right with that. The UK and US have shared lots over the years, so I dont see why that would stop just now. Not that I am privy to any sharing, of course
edit on 3-7-2015 by nelloh62 because: must learn to spell check !



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
This argument has been around for at least 80 years. It started with the Hurricane vs ME -109, the Mustang vs ME-262, then the F-86 vs the MiG-15, the F-4 vs the MiG-21, the F-16 vs the MiG-29, the F-15 vs Su-27 now the F-35 vs ? The truth is that Russia can't field a serious air threat to anyone.

I have read here that the Mig or the Sukhoi can defeat the F-22 or F-35. The truth is that the Russian and Chinese AF has a dismal operational availability rate for any of it's aircraft. The more advanced the aircraft is, the lower the availability rate. This means that if they have super advanced planes that can kill any of our planes they can only do it for weeks or months. By simple mechanical attrition the air supremacy will move to our favor when they can no longer fly. This issue is more than just plane X verses plane Z. It is a organizational issue! Is the RAF, RAAF or USAF better than the Russian or Chinese AF?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 727Sky

Pierre Sprey is an arrogant one trick pony. I wouldn't trust him to tell me the sky is blue. His entire repertoire is "Buy an F-16, it will do everything". He thinks that since he was in on the Viper design, he's some genius that can build an unbeatable air force, just by buying more F-16s.

That's almost funny. Going by what the head of Dassault, who makes their own fighter designs, and other manufacturers, is laughable.


Obviously you did not watch the video I posted for there are many in the government of both countries who are saying the same thing as your one trick pony is saying. Sprey also said a close air support aircraft that does not have a gun like the A-10 is a joke but what does he know he worked on the design team for both and like you said must be a one trick (humm make that two) trick pony (s) because he does not tow the corporate line or the bill of goods trying to be sold on the F-35's capabilities.

The F-35 does not have the range or the ability to stay on station for CAS according to many in the industry, yet that is exactly what the Marines needed. Many say it has almost no protection from AAA or small arms fire so I would assume all close air support won't really be all that close... Drop their two bombs and RTB for the bar while the grunts on the ground die... I for one do not believe the Marines will put up with that crap for long...

I guess we will have to wait and see if the program is successful ... It does have some really neat G whiz electronics and helmet for the pilot if they ever get the bugs worked out... Maybe the aircraft will never have to face a foe in a turn and burn environment but do it's killing from afar as the designers say it will do.. I know you hate hearing this but that is what they told the guys in Viet Nam but they must have forgotten to tell the Mig 17s and 21s to be afraid of the missile only F-4s. The Thud was another fighter bomber that could not turn... Fast but could not turn as was easy prey for the Migs... Yep old history and let us hope it never repeats due to stupidity...

I hope for the future survival of our aircrews this aircraft is not the POS that many (not just a few) are saying it is. Australia has some very unique requirements for a fighter bomber and I for one think it is more than proper for them and the Canadians both to question the reliability and actual performance of a very expensive aircraft that will be in their inventory for a long time into the future. IMO with China and Russia flexing their military might this is not the time for business as usual and this otta work kind of thinking. Maybe the F-35 is the best we can do.. But if some of our buds pull out of buying the aircraft I wonder if the program will end up (after tons of money) being just another foot note in how to not manage a fighter program..

Maybe being overseas I hear more disparaging remakes about the bird than someone in the military or stateside..?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The amount of chatter and outrage the F-35 is creating tells me that it is exactly the threat people (competitors and enemies) were worried about. I hope the detractors convince themselves of the weaknesses and inabilities and sleep better. It will help to be well rested.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: TrueBrit

True, but I keep seeing these reports on how the F-35 is a terrible dog fighter.

Im not denying the F-35 has its uses and roles it will excel in that no other plan can.

But some of the air to air combat reports seem mediocre.


The f- 35 was never designed to be in a dogfight . Just like Truebrit said it's designed to blow the other aircraft up before they even know it's around .


One other thing you left out when you brought up the US is airfleet of F 22's and F-16s . If needed will be right there with you and you damn well know it . Only time we haven't had your back was the Falklands because we knew you could handle it. If you guys would've got your ass kicked down there we would have come to the rescue again .



The age of the dog fight is over as of World War II. The P 40 was slow couldn't turn as fast as a zero and couldn't climb as fast. It was a vastly inferior fighter versus the Japanese zero . Claire Lee Chennault made up for all of that with one word tatics.


That's one word every neophyte military analysis should keep in mind .
edit on 3-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

That trend is reversing. The more mature the technology gets the more it reverses. The B-2 was lucky to hit 70% for a month, while the F-22 is over 80% most of the time.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

You've never bothered to read anything by Pierre Sprey have you, except that he thinks the F-35 is a total POS, have you. When the F-22 was coming out, it was "The F-22 and stealth is a joke. Buy more F-16s." When the Typhoon was under development, it was "All anyone needs is more F-16s and to update them." That's his standard line, Stealth sucks, buy F-16s. But since he agrees with you that the F-35 is a POS then it's ok, right?

What "two bombs". It's only two bombs if they're carrying larger weapons. The internal bays have a total load of 2500 pounds, and can carry more than just two bombs if they mount a rack in place. They will carry 8 SDB IIs (and yes, while they don't fit now, it's a matter of moving a line and a bracket to fit all 8). That will be done well before the required deadline for CAS FOC.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buddah6

That trend is reversing. The more mature the technology gets the more it reverses. The B-2 was lucky to hit 70% for a month, while the F-22 is over 80% most of the time.[/quote

My point was that Russian and Chinese designs are advanced but made in small numbers and are not well maintained as would western aircraft.

I was thinking about aircraft like the Blackjack bomber. The Russians ordered 600 but due to austere finances they got 16. The plane is expensive to fly so crews train very little. The aircraft has a minimally trained crew and only 16 bombers doesn't make it a valid threat. The same can be said about several advanced fighter types.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

The T-50 was just cut to one squadron for the first buy.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

If people are so ignorant that they can't understand the F35 won't be dogfighting, then they don't deserve to fly it.

Seriously, look at what technology has given us over the last 20 years. We went from the stone age, to having super computers in our pockets.

I choose future high technology vs old school dog fighting maneuverability any day.

Have fun living in the past.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse


The f- 35 was never designed to be in a dogfight . Just like Truebrit said it's designed to blow the other aircraft up before they even know it's around .

Which is fine if like the USA you have a varied and diverse fleet to back you up.

originally posted by: Greathouse
One other thing you left out when you brought up the US is airfleet of F 22's and F-16s . If needed will be right there with you and you damn well know it . Only time we haven't had your back was the Falklands because we knew you could handle it. If you guys would've got your ass kicked down there we would have come to the rescue again .

True and US friendship is great. But I would prefer it if the UK could handle its own defense if push came to shove. Im sure you would hate it if the USA was reliant on the UK for some vital defense role.

Allies are great but one needs to be independent.



originally posted by: Greathouse

The age of the dog fight is over as of World War II. The P 40 was slow couldn't turn as faster zero and couldn't climb as fast. It was a vastly inferior fighter versus the Japanese zero . Claire Lee Chennault made up for all of that with one word tatics.

Well not entirely.

The F-4 got pretty mauled up in Vietnam cause it couldn't dog fight well.



edit on 3-7-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: crazyewok

If people are so ignorant that they can't understand the F35 won't be dogfighting, then they don't deserve to fly it.

Seriously, look at what technology has given us over the last 20 years. We went from the stone age, to having super computers in our pockets.

I choose future high technology vs old school dog fighting maneuverability any day.

Have fun living in the past.


You clearly have missed my point.

I'm not disputing that the F-35 is a great aircraft and will be superb at its roles.

And thats the whole thing dog fighting is NOT one of those roles and fare do. And if your the USA GREAT! You have a fleet of F-22 to back you up that ARE good at dog fighting!

The RAF doesn't. It will be relying solely on the F-35 and a aging fleet of 4.5 gen fighters.


Im not saying the UK does not need F-35s, what im saying is they should not put all there egg's in one basket (IE one design).



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The two biggest problems with the F-4 in Vietnam were the lack of a gun, and reliance on early generation missiles that as often just fell off the aircraft as actually fired. And when they did fire, they had as much chance of locking on everything BUT the opposing aircraft. It's hard to get a kill in a dogfight when you have no useful weapons.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I can see your points. But believe me if things really started to heat up the equipment gates would be open to Britain. Just like lend lease during World War II if we had it you would have it.

And the same goes for you guys for us if you had something we needed you would kindly handed over with a smile . The first two things that come to mind currently are the meteor air to air missile and spearfish torpedo .


I assume you made a typo and meant the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam . Even after the 20 mm cannon was added to the F4 during Vietnam. The Mig 21 was still a superior dogfighter , so the US had different tactics than straight up dogfights .




edit on 3-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I didn't miss your point. I just think you are making a big deal out of something that isn't. The UK basically has the entire US army at it's back if anything were to really go down anyways.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: crazyewok

I didn't miss your point. I just think you are making a big deal out of something that isn't. The UK basically has the entire US army at it's back if anything were to really go down anyways.


Counting on your friends to pull all the weight is not a good thing to do....



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: crazyewok

I can see your points. But believe me if things really started to heat up the equipment gates would be open to Britain. Just like lend lease during World War II if we had it you would have it.

And the same goes for you guys for us if you had something we needed you would kindly handed over with a smile .


I assume you made a typo and meant the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam . Even after the 20 mm cannon was added to the F4 during Vietnam. The Mig 21 was still a superior dogfighter , so the US had different tactics than straight up dogfights .





Duh stupid me yeah F-4.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join