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.

 

Do Pilots Prefer the F-35A in Dogfights?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Which is WHY I support new aircraft. I know the work involved in keeping old aircraft flying and how well they handle modern threats. There's a reason the B-52 is a missile truck until after the defenses have been whittled down.




posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


What I AM advocating is keeping proven technology flying.

The US is keeping proven technology flying. It will take decades for the F-35 to replace legacy fighters, those legacy fighters will receive upgrades during this time.


Aircrews, pilots and ground crews are not screaming for new technology...they're screaming for spare parts, maintenance and new (replacement) aircraft. To say otherwise would be an un-truth.

Let's get something straight here.

You are not Air Crew. You are not Ground Crew. You are not a Pilot. I've dealt with this before, last time I was told ""every pilot if having a choice would choose the F15k over the F35, every day of the week." The OP shows that even in air-to-air fighting, which the F-35 is not optimized for, they would rather fly the F-35 than the F-15K in almost every single scenario.

So, let the Air Crew, Ground Crew, and Pilots speak for themselves and stop projecting your beliefs on them.
edit on 5/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

By no means did I mean for this conversation to degenerate into the -135 platform, because it's not about that. And now, you're you're just arguing with me for the sake of being disagreeable. I only mentioned it for the sake of putting context to how long a venerable and capable platform like the -135 / 707 can be an asset. Yes, it needs to be replaced, but not like the F-16 and 18's do. It's TWENTY years older than they are...at best! C'mon!

Lipstick on a 20 year old F-15 with 10,000 hours is just that, lipstick on a pig. However, produce a new one and you have a serious force to contend with. The F-35 is no match for an F-15! She's the king of the sky! An F-22 might be a different matter, but not the F-35! The F-15 can out turn, out run and generally run an F-35 into the dirt. You know this.






edit on 8/5/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

You have no idea what I am. How many hours do you have?

All due respect (sorta)

You stop projecting BS propaganda, about things you aren't qualified to discuss!


edit on 8/5/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm not arguing to argue, I'm arguing because you're wrong. The -135 has done wonders and I love the thing to death. But that age is now becoming a problem. As is the age of the fighters. We're asking more and more of aircraft that are getting older and older. Again, even if we built brand new versions, that's at best a short term solution that will cost more than replacing them.

You're talking about two very different aircraft designed for very different missions. The F-15 was built around a radar with the mission being to kill anything else that flew. But no matter how good it is at that mission, time is catching up to it. Other aircraft are reaching the same capabilities of the Eagle. It can't rule the skies forever.

There's only so much upgrading you can do with a new Eagle airframe. The power and cooling requirements are close to their limits as it is now. You can build new aircraft, but the cost of completely changing the guts is going to be high, as well as the engineering time and work involved.


edit on 8/5/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/5/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


We can execute the mission.

Without the F-35, the US will be unable to execute its mission in the medium-term.

The actual mission of the US Military is public domain:


Reflecting the requirements of this updated defense strategy, the U.S. Armed Forces will be capable of simultaneously defending the homeland; conducting sustained, distributed counterterrorist operations; and in multiple regions, deterring aggression and assuring allies through forward presence and engagement. If deterrence fails at any given time, U.S. forces will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale multi-phased campaign, and denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – a second aggressor in another region.

(snip)

Rebalancing for a broad spectrum of conflict. Future conflicts could range from hybrid contingencies against proxy groups using asymmetric approaches, to a high-end conflict against a state power armed with WMD or technologically advanced anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities.

(snip)

The Asia-Pacific region is increasingly central to global commerce, politics, and security. Defense spending in this region continues to rise. As nations in the region continue to develop their military and security capabilities, there is greater risk that tensions over long-standing sovereignty disputes or claims to natural resources will spur disruptive competition or erupt into conflict, reversing the trends of rising regional peace, stability, and prosperity. In particular, the rapid pace and comprehensive scope of China’s military modernization continues, combined with a relative lack of transparency and openness from China’s leaders regarding both military capabilities and intentions.

archive.defense.gov...



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, you know what; I really like you, and I really respect you, and your insight.

I will acquiesce. I really don't have any major axe to grind with the F-35 specifically, or new technology in general.

I am upset by government waste, and I believe the F-35 program is an example of colossal government waste, mismanagement and it's a shame it's so far behind schedule. If this was the worst example, then I guess I'd have to go spin off into the stratosphere...but it's not. It's just another example, sadly.

I am very pro-military (as I would hope is evident), but I'm also trying to be practical. No, to your point, I am not in government procurement, (so you can rest easy), but I do believe in economy of scale.

I won't push the point on the F-35 any further. If you really believe in this aircraft, and all it is alleged to do, then let's just hope it really does all that. I just don't believe in it, and its cause, and the people who are marketing it, and all the crooked politicians who will rip off the military delivering it. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel.

Just being honest! All due respect.



edit on 8/5/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
BTW...I am not wrong.



Oh, and C0bzz can KMA!!

ETA...Oh, and I just happen to work for one of the biggest government engineering firms on Earth! Whoa is me.

So "balance" is not lost on me.


edit on 8/5/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


You have no idea what I am. How many hours do you have?

It doesn't matter who I am, since I don't want to reveal things about myself. Unless you are prepared to state who you are, then as far as I am concerned you could be anyone. Therefore it is up to our arguments and sources we cite. Everything I state can be easily confirmed by multiple credible sources, which I have cited.

You have made basic errors like the date of F-117 shoot-down, failing to account for inflation, to failing to understand the mission of the US military. You have also cited the head of Air Combat Command on the F-35, even though something else he has stated is:


"I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35 because I truly believe the only way we will make it through the next decade is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s. I am fighting to the end, to the death, to keep the F-35 program on track."



You stop projecting BS propaganda,

If you disagree with any points I make, then feel free to prove them wrong. By the way, the report by Denmark is not "propaganda".


about things you aren't qualified to discuss!

Cute.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

Bye bye!






posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


ETA...Oh, and I just happen to work for one of the biggest government engineering firms on Earth! Whoa is me.

I am an engineer with some relevant experience, with no current or previous relation to the F-35 or its competitors.

EDIT (again):
However, the main thing I do is try to listen to the arguments and decisions of the decision makers. Then I see if their arguments and reasoning can be successfully countered by learning as much about the issue as possible. Since defence works using a top-down approach, that means I try to understand every issue from the very top, highest level, starting with the goals of the military, the geopolitical environment, and the technological environment, then going down to what the F-35 aims to do and how. I think the F-35 was way too risky, far too optimistic, and prior to 2012 it had been severely mismanaged. Post-2012 it's been going Okay. I have this view because Gen. Bogdan in particular seems to explain the issues and fixes for the F-35 extremely well, pilots are starting to rave about the capabilities it brings, the cost estimates have stabilized, it has reached IOC, it has been mostly keeping to its revised post-2012 schedule, and foreign nations are starting to buy the aircraft.

Obviously care should be taken to avoid repeating the problems of the F-35 in future programs. However now it's 2016, I honestly think that if the program were to end, the US and its allies would be unable to achieve their respective missions within a decade. Literally everything I read seems to support this and it scares the crap out of me. Gen. Hostage basically said the same thing.
edit on 6/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

no relation to the F-35 program either. Defense yes, but F-35 no.

...for the record.

ETA...you edited your post. Fair enough. Just no one else can see what I responded to, but okay.

edit on 8/5/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I thought this was amusing. Start at 2:58.




posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Zaphod58

. The F-35 is no match for an F-15! She's the king of the sky! An F-22 might be a different matter, but not the F-35! The F-15 can out turn, out run and generally run an F-35 into the dirt. You know this.


And a F-35 can out-bamboozle, target, and trick the F-15 into a trap without the F-15 driver knowing how the opponent did it.

A B-58 and B-1A can easily outrun a B-2. Which is more militarily effective?
edit on 7-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: cosmania


Why make the F35? It was designed to be a jack of all trades, master of none. It's a Fighter/Attack aircraft so it has the ability to execute many of the same missions as the F15, 16, 18, 22 and the A-10. It wasn't designed to do all as well as all of those. In that sense, it's a lot like the A-4. Can drop bombs, can do A/A, heck can even do CAS, CSAR/RMC, etc.

The A-4 isn't really the best example to use. The F-35 is the modern day F-16. Let me take you to an alternative reality, set in approximately 1979.

The only 4th generation aircraft in-service is the F-15A, however it has been out of production for several years after less than 200 were built, and for numerous reasons it's difficult to restart production. The F-14, F/A-18, Mirage 2000, and Panavia Tornado do not exist. However the F-16 does (and is subject to the same criticisms as the F-35, although perhaps it's not as far behind schedule - this is actually true). A naval F-16 variant also exists. Now that the F-16 has reached IOC but is yet to deliver its full (Block 30) capabilities, even so is raved about by the pilots who fly it, do you:

i. Cancel the F-16, instead upgrade the F-4 Phantom, and leave NATO high and dry without a standard fighter aircraft. Instead they can have the Mirage F1, Saab 37 Viggen, and F-104 Starfighter.
ii. Mass produce the F-16

I choose the latter.

Replace "F-15A" with "F-22A". Replace the word "F-16" with "F-35". Replace the word "F-4 Phantom" with F-15 Eagle. Block 30 with Block 3F. NATO with key-allies. This is the world we live in. Actually it's worse because this doesn't include USMC. And the Royal Navy would then have two supercarriers they cannot use until substantially modified.

This isn't an "average, disposable aircraft" - it's far more advanced and capable than anything else, except for the F-22. So yes it is a jack of all trades, master of none. But there are no other 5th generation that are "masters", except the F-22. I wish there was.

Aside: It's also extremely poor planning that it has come to this.
edit on 8/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

F-35 is the master at detection, targeting and computer linkage. Of course these technologies progress faster than airframes and one should consider the lifecycle of any craft shorter on avionics than airframe. Perhaps the compromises on the A and C versions for the lift fan was a poor idea but the computers seem like the business. Perhaps the VSTOL version should have been designed separately but using the same operating system & sensors as the other.
edit on 8-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Lets get real here. If you were a pilot and were alerted to the launch of a Russian S400, 100 miles out, which aircraft would you prefer to be flying? A10, F16, F35...etc.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

Good points. What I meant, was that the F-35 is being used for 3 services, with variations. The A-4 was used that way, for multiple services. You're right, the F-16 gets all modded up too, the CJs, the new blocks going to foreign countries, it has proven versatile and flexible.

We're in a tough spot, with the delays, but the capabilities of this system are what the pilots certainly want. I was disappointed that there was no vectoring nozzle option on the F-35. I wish it could supercruise. From a Navy standpoint, I wish it had a second motor. (Launching single engine off the deck at night should be considered an emergency situation). The bomb/missile capacity is small. Not sure how they can make it a good EA platform, if at all.

I wish our procurement was more savvy, more adventurous, more accountable. The cost overruns are frustrating, but I think this platform will be the workhorse of the future.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cosmania

ETA...never mind...wrong post.

edit on 8/8/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join