- 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
re: Test Pilot Shares His Thoughts on the F-35 Fighter
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:29 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:29 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.
Sigh. How many times is it going to have to be brought up that the F-35 is not an air superiority aircraft? Also, the entire point of the F-25, or F-22 is to attack a bogey before they even know it's there... even though the F-22 could take any aircraft in a dogfight, it and the F-35 shouldn't have to.
1
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:39 pm to meeple
quote:
Sigh. How many times is it going to have to be brought up that the F-35 is not an air superiority aircraft? Also, the entire point of the F-25, or F-22 is to attack a bogey before they even know it's there... even though the F-22 could take any aircraft in a dogfight, it and the F-35 shouldn't have to.
Other nations are rapidly closing the stealth gap. That advantage could be negated within 10 years.
Here's one other way Stealth advantages can be negated in the future Passive radar
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:43 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
In the film, Tom Cruise, performs this manouvre
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:44 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
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
According to one of the test pilots I talked to the other day (because I had to write a capes brief), their time on station is actually really good. The F-35A model, anyway. They don't have the big stupid SVTOL fan, so they just use the space for extra fuel.
So...yeah, AC-130s are better for *certain types* of CAS. They don't really have much capability vs armor, though...which is obviously where the A-10 shines.
Also, they're hellishly expensive. The proper funding/support thing is an issue. That said, I'd rather have more of them and more F-22s than the F-35.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:51 pm to Tic44
Tower, this is Ghost Rider requesting a flyby.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:52 pm to TigerDeacon
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:07 pm to TigerDeacon
quote:
Tower, this is Ghost Rider requesting a flyby.
Negative ghost rider...the pattern is full
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:10 pm to BRgetthenet
quote:
Yeah, but he probably went below the hard deck and broke a major rule of engagement.
Hard deck my arse, we nailed that son of a bitch.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:10 pm to jbgleason
quote:we will probably never see any air battles like we saw in ww2 with hundreds of planes on both sides going at it. but the need for air supremacy will always be there so yes, we do need to continue to develop air superiority fighters whether or not we actually need tens of thousands of them like we did in ww2
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 3:12 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
I LOVE the A-10 but there will come a day where it will take a back seat to other platforms
Until that day I will take the A-10 for CAS over anything else we currently have available.
When providing CAS I want someone close and not miles away. The A-10 is intimately close and more involved in the situation than someone miles away.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:13 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:this was our line of thinking in vietnam and it led to us losing our kill ratio of like 6 to 1 in korea to like 2 to 1 in nam. we learned that fighters will still need to be able to maneuver and engage other fighters in direct confrontations
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 post was edited on 3/1/16 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:18 pm to Menji
quote:i would agree with this. the f-22 is a killing machine and is one hell of a fighter
That said, I'd rather have more of them and more F-22s than the F-35.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:42 pm to Tiny Rick
quote:
The plaque for the alternates is down in the lady's room.
HAHA
You kill me. You really do.
Keating is spelled with an e and an a boys.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:46 pm to Darth_Vader
Don't care what the F-35 does, it won't bring Goose back.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:52 pm to soccerfüt
RIP Goose
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:53 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
That was a hell of a thing when Goose died.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 3:55 pm to John Keating
Posted on 3/1/16 at 4:01 pm to WestCoastAg
Did the F-35 replace the F-22? If so, why? Isn't the F-22 somewhat new as well? They look pretty similar.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 4:08 pm to hg
Both are designed to be stealth aircraft. However, the F-22 is an air superiority fighter; it is the replacement for the F-15. The F-35 is a strike fighter, meaning it is multirole with an emphasis on striking ground targets; it is the replacement for the F-16.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 4:12 pm to hg
quote:
Did the F-35 replace the F-22?
No.
The F-22 is primarily designed for Air-to-Air engagements, while the F-35 is supposed to be more multirole.
The problem is that given the current state of tech, multirole just means that it's not very good at any of them. Or at least, not as good as projected adversaries and certainly not good enough to justify the price.
Basically, The F-22 is designed to one thing really well, and it does. It happens to do some other stuff pretty well too, but didn't sacrifice any of its primary capability to get there.
The F-35 is a mess of compromises (thanks USMC) and competing contractor/political priorities, and does everything at about a 5/10 with maybe a 7 or 8/10 possible in some areas once it becomes fully functional.
Plus, there's no Goose.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 4:14 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News