- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Test Pilot Shares His Thoughts on the F-35 Fighter
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:28 pm
quote:
A test pilot putting the Air Force's most sophisticated fighter jet through its paces has revealed that it can perform an 'impossible manoeuvre' made famous in the film Top Gun.
Major Morten 'Dolby' Hanche, who is the first Norwegian to fly the F-35, says the jet can 'slow down quicker than you can emergency brake your car'.
This means that when a pilot being chased by an enemy jet applies the air brake, the jet following them would overshoot and could be shot down.
In the film, Tom Cruise, performs this manouvre in an F-14 and shoots down a Russian MiG. However, in reality, the F-14 could not have done this as it couldn't slow down fast enough.
Major Hanche revealed that the F-35 is capable of the incredible tactic in a new blog.
He also defended the $100m aircraft after a report found it was not as good at dog-fighting as the F-16 which is 40 years old.
LINK
***DISCLAIMER***
I'm not here to attack or defend the F-35, I just thought it interesting to read the perspective of an experienced pilot who's actually flown this controversial fighter.
14
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:30 pm to Darth_Vader
With 15+ years and billions of dollars before getting it off the ground, I'd hope it's better than an f-14 
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:30 pm to Darth_Vader
Yeah, but he probably went below the hard deck and broke a major rule of engagement.
frick that guy.
frick that guy.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:31 pm to Darth_Vader
I have no doubt the plane can kick arse in an air to air confrontation. The question is who's arse needs kicking?
Are we really expecting some sort of WWII style massive air battles? Or will future war, if it happens, be all about long-range massive missile exchanges and current style insurgencies with zero need for air to air capability?
Are we really expecting some sort of WWII style massive air battles? Or will future war, if it happens, be all about long-range massive missile exchanges and current style insurgencies with zero need for air to air capability?
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:32 pm to Darth_Vader
With the amount of computers that thing has on it, it should be able to the Top Gun move and fix a McDonald's order correctly at the same time.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:32 pm to Darth_Vader
I thought the theory was that air to air combat (dog fights) would be obsolete with the advent of these high performance fighters? Aren't the systems on these supposed to be so advanced that direct confrontations will be unnecessary?
Oh and it aint got shite on the A10 for ground support
Oh and it aint got shite on the A10 for ground support
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:33 pm to Darth_Vader
Oh, well never mind then. Totally worth the boondoggle.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:36 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Are we really expecting some sort of WWII style massive air battles? Or will future war, if it happens, be all about long-range massive missile exchanges and current style insurgencies with zero need for air to air capability?
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:45 pm to Darth_Vader
At certain angles, the 35 is a nice looking plane. At other angles, its uglier than shite.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:47 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
I thought the theory was that air to air combat (dog fights) would be obsolete with the advent of these high performance fighters? Aren't the systems on these supposed to be so advanced that direct confrontations will be unnecessary
This line of thought has been around since the early 60's. It's why the F4 Phantom did not have any guns on it when it was first put into service and US pilots at that time were not taught dogfighting techniques. Hard lessons in the sky above Vietnam showed the folly in this new style of fighter to fighter combat. And while technology has advanced far beyond what it was 50 years ago, I don't think we will ever get to the point that fighters will not need to be able to maneuver, close in, and engage other fighters with direct fire.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:55 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
I thought the theory was that air to air combat (dog fights) would be obsolete with the advent of these high performance fighters? Aren't the systems on these supposed to be so advanced that direct confrontations will be unnecessary?
direct confrontations will certainly happen in future wars among first world nations.
My prediction is drones and lasers will push the dogfighter out to pasture. Drones will not have the same g-force limitations as human piloted aircraft. Lasers will mean opponents will not have to "line up for a shot"...simply point and shoot.
Prepare for the F35 to be functionally obsolete in air to air combat by 2025
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:58 pm to Darth_Vader
Overpriced POS or not, that is a badass photo.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:03 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Drones will not have the same g-force limitations as human piloted aircraft
My problem with this line of thought is latency. Even the US government can't overcome the laws of physics. If a drone is being piloted by a human across the globe, the induced latency is going to be a problem when millisecond reactions can make a difference between success and failure.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:08 pm to Darth_Vader
Was that photo taken in an inverted negative G dive?
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:11 pm to Tigeralum2008
The utility of manned fighter aircraft will become a function of the marginal cost of pilot safety. At some point the cost for adequate pilot safety will exceed the performance benefits of manned aircraft. When that occurs the transition will be made to unmanned aircraft.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:18 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
He also defended the $100m aircraft after a report found it was not as good at dog-fighting as the F-16 which is 40 years old.
The plaque for the alternates is down in the lady's room.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:39 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
direct confrontations will certainly happen in future wars among first world nations.
My prediction is drones and lasers will push the dogfighter out to pasture. Drones will not have the same g-force limitations as human piloted aircraft. Lasers will mean opponents will not have to "line up for a shot"...simply point and shoot.
Prepare for the F35 to be functionally obsolete in air to air combat by 2025
I don't care about air to air fighting because the likely hood of the US squaring off against a nation with compariable aircraft is slim to none, but what I do worry about is its close air support capabilities. The info that has come out has not been friendly, but it is suppose to go up against the A-10 in 2018 so we'll find out then.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:24 pm to WavinWilly
quote:
My problem with this line of thought is latency. Even the US government can't overcome the laws of physics. If a drone is being piloted by a human across the globe, the induced latency is going to be a problem when millisecond reactions can make a difference between success and failure.
So, two things about this. Good point about latency, btw. Plus, it's not just the g-force limitations that hinder manned aircraft. All the extra equipment required to accommodate human physiological factors (oxygen systems, ejection seats, etc) weigh the aircraft down so much that one without the extra size/weight could easily outmaneuver the manned one. The fighter pilot mafia that runs the Air Force will probably keep them manned until we get our butts handed to us early in a real war, though.
But anyway:
1) They could just be programmed to be near-autonomous and react in certain ways instantly to enemy maneuvers. Perhaps there could be an override process with a man in the loop, but there's no reason they couldn't be programmed to do what enemies in 90's video games could do better than manned aircraft. Plus, then they'd be *actual* drones and we could stop mis-using the term!
2) There's no reason that they couldn't be controlled via line-of-sight means, thus eliminating functional latency. That's how they're landed and launched now. You could have a ground station on land or water if threats permitted, or even air/space based control stations to mitigate threats.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:27 pm to WeeWee
quote:
I don't care about air to air fighting because the likely hood of the US squaring off against a nation with compariable aircraft is slim to none, but what I do worry about is its close air support capabilities. The info that has come out has not been friendly, but it is suppose to go up against the A-10 in 2018 so we'll find out then.
I agree the F-35 cannot conceivably match the A-10 in close air support. It's time on target is too short
But we have other assets that if given proper funding/support can replace the Warthog
I LOVE the A-10 but there will come a day where it will take a back seat to other platforms
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:29 pm to BRgetthenet
hard deck my arse...he nailed that son of a bitch
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News