F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46858773]you're trying too hard buddy[/QUOTE] at least I read the thread before I post ;)

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46858773]you're trying too hard buddy[/QUOTE] If he read and knows more than us, he read and knows more than US. Simply as that. And nobody has been countering his points, only calling him names and the absence of combat tours...which is like we couldn't talk about the Rhodesian War here because no one was there. Pure bullshit.

by the same token you can't talk about any war if you weren't there which seems a bit weird

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46858142]I'm going to agree with you for the most part, but I'd say the F-35's radar cross section isn't going to be big enough to be targeted by most of the radar systems in use today. You'll have some of the cutting edge ones like the S-400 that could probably get a solid lock no problem, but most air defense world-wide is using 70's technology because the 1970's was saturated with shit developed for the Vietnam War. Soviets wanted to rush as much as they could into that conflict so it could be field tested, and we (the United States specifically) did the same for the same reasons. You'll have some systems that were developed and fielded during the 80's based on all that was learned from the Yom Kippur War, a lot actually, but mostly it's still going to be 70's tech just with upgrades. Hell, the MIM-104 Patriot is [i]still in use[/i] despite being developed during the late 70's and fielded in 1981? or something like that, and only until very recently has efforts been made to replace it rather than continue upgrading it. Meanwhile the Buk system (same missile that shot down that airliner over Ukraine) has like a million different variants and configurations, it's basically the AK of the SAM world.[/QUOTE] There are dangers to underestimating old technology... An F-117 was shot down by the S-125, which is 1960s technology, and during the Gulf War the Royal Navy rather gleefully reported multiple instances of picking up the F-117 at ranges of up 40 miles (using a 1978 radar design). Now, the F-117 may be an older generation of stealth aircraft with a stealth coating rather than full construction from radar absorbent composites, but its entire shape is dedicated to minimizing radar cross-section even at the expense of aerodynamics. Meanwhile the F-35 has a stealthy profile from the front, but the sides/belly/rear are made up of numerous compound curves and are the complete opposite of a stealth shape. Which leads me to believe the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-117 outside of headon, and can probably be picked up by the majority of currently fielded SAM systems as soon as it turns away from the attack run (in contrast to the F-22 and even the X-35 prototype which have good/better shapes to go with the radar absorbent materials).

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46858861]There are dangers to underestimating old technology... An F-117 was shot down by the S-125, which is 1960s technology, and during the Gulf War the Royal Navy rather gleefully reported multiple instances of picking up the F-117 at ranges of up 40 miles (using a 1978 radar design). Now, the F-117 may be an older generation of stealth aircraft with a stealth coating rather than full construction from radar absorbent composites, but its entire shape is dedicated to minimizing radar cross-section even at the expense of aerodynamics. Meanwhile the F-35 has a stealthy profile from the front, but the sides/belly/rear are made up of numerous compound curves and are the complete opposite of a stealth shape. Which leads me to believe the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-117 outside of headon, and can probably be picked up by the majority of currently fielded SAM systems as soon as it turns away from the attack run (in contrast to the F-22 and even the X-35 prototype which have good/better shapes to go with the radar absorbent materials).[/QUOTE] Something's telling me that we're not in a position to be comparing the stealth characteristics of the F-117 and the F-35...

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46858861]There are dangers to underestimating old technology... An F-117 was shot down by the S-125, which is 1960s technology, and during the Gulf War the Royal Navy rather gleefully reported multiple instances of picking up the F-117 at ranges of up 40 miles (using a 1978 radar design). Now, the F-117 may be an older generation of stealth aircraft with a stealth coating rather than full construction from radar absorbent composites, but its entire shape is dedicated to minimizing radar cross-section even at the expense of aerodynamics. Meanwhile the F-35 has a stealthy profile from the front, but the sides/belly/rear are made up of numerous compound curves and are the complete opposite of a stealth shape. Which leads me to believe the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-117 outside of headon, and can probably be picked up by the majority of currently fielded SAM systems as soon as it turns away from the attack run (in contrast to the F-22 and even the X-35 prototype which have good/better shapes to go with the radar absorbent materials).[/QUOTE] The F-117 was shot down because we were flying them like retards. We kept flying them on the exact flight path, at the exact time every single day, and the only way they managed to shoot it down was by sheer luck and spewing missiles when its bomb bay opened, thus making it visible on radar. The plane performed fine. It was the enemy's ability to predict where exactly it would be at what time, based on our extremely predictable flight path, that resulted in the destruction of the aircraft.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46858861]An F-117 was shot down by the S-125, which is 1960s technology, and during the Gulf War the Royal Navy rather gleefully reported multiple instances of picking up the F-117 at ranges of up 40 miles (using a 1978 radar design).[/QUOTE] People really need to stop citing that serbian incident. That SAM commander was one badass dude with a really souped up radar set and really good intel from the locals who were able to watch the airbase so he was able to get a rough window of time to shoot a plane down. It's really not typical of your average SAM threat.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46858873]Something's telling me that we're not in a position to be comparing the stealth characteristics of the F-117 and the F-35...[/QUOTE] All we can do is make reasonable guesses. The head of Air Combat Command (Mike Hostage) on the other hand is the sort of person who can make accurate evaluations supported by hard data, and he's saying the same thing as me. Which is that the F-35 can't turn and run during an attack run, and that can only only mean turning away makes it visible.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;46850144][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11319455/F-35-stealth-jet-will-not-be-able-to-fire-its-guns-until-2019.html[/url][/QUOTE] software glitch? LOL easy fix slave the the stick trigger to the guns firing mechanism both of which are mechanical so fucking easy i could have fix that myself fuck you need software to pull a trigger for the software is only needed for aiming and firing solutions, you should not need that for the actual trigger pull

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46858720]seems trotskygrad is the armchair airplane king and he obv knows more about classified military equipment than anyone else on the internet[/QUOTE] He knows more than you so stop talking [editline]4th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=AlexConnor;46859002]All we can do is make reasonable guesses. The head of Air Combat Command (Mike Hostage) on the other hand is the sort of person who can make accurate evaluations supported by hard data, and he's saying the same thing as me. Which is that the F-35 can't turn and run during an attack run, and that can only only mean turning away makes it visible.[/QUOTE] Or that the F-35 can't outrun dedicated air superiority/interceptor craft? You're jumping mountains with those conclusions [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=trotskygrad;46858894]People really need to stop citing that serbian incident. That SAM commander was one badass dude with a really souped up radar set and really good intel from the locals who were able to watch the airbase so he was able to get a rough window of time to shoot a plane down. It's really not typical of your average SAM threat.[/QUOTE] Anders is right It wasn't a souped up radar by any means. They switched the a low freq wavelength, which would normally pick up a ton of crap, but they knew exactly where to look because we didn't change flight paths Here's the precious Mike Hostage on the matter: [quote]“We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”[/quote] [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] to a* fp sucks ass and edit isn't working correctly

[QUOTE=Jund;46859336] Anders is right It wasn't a souped up radar by any means. They switched the a low freq wavelength, which would normally pick up a ton of crap, but they knew exactly where to look because we didn't change flight paths [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx[/url] "Zoltan studied all the information he could get on American stealth technology, and the F-117. There was a lot of unclassified data, and speculation, out there. He developed some ideas on how to beat stealth, based on the fact that the technology didn't make the F-117 invisible to radar, just very to get, and keep, a good idea of exactly where the aircraft was. Zoltan figured out how to tweak his radars to get a better lock on stealth type targets. This has not been discussed openly." wiki says that actual modifications might have been a "marketing trick" but it's clear this guy was way more motivated and dedicated than any regular sam commander.

[QUOTE=Jund;46859336]Or that the F-35 can't outrun dedicated air superiority/interceptor craft? You're jumping mountains with those conclusions[/QUOTE] The inability to run is mentioned specifically in the context of attacking air defenses sites, along with the comments to the effect that its takes 8 F-35 to do the job 2 F-22 could do because F-35s need to be covering each other in order to turn and run... [QUOTE=Jund;46859336]Here's the precious Mike Hostage on the matter: [QUOTE]“We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Which is all true, but he's not mentioning that the total effective Serbian air defenses comprised one 1961 vintage SAM Battery. And you shouldn't really be losing aircraft to that, let alone the latest stealth aircraft (plus an F-16 and a few near misses on other F-117s)

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;46859439][url]http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx[/url] "Zoltan studied all the information he could get on American stealth technology, and the F-117. There was a lot of unclassified data, and speculation, out there. He developed some ideas on how to beat stealth, based on the fact that the technology didn't make the F-117 invisible to radar, just very to get, and keep, a good idea of exactly where the aircraft was. Zoltan figured out how to tweak his radars to get a better lock on stealth type targets. This has not been discussed openly." wiki says that actual modifications might have been a "marketing trick" but it's clear this guy was way more motivated and dedicated than any regular sam commander.[/QUOTE] I'm sure most SAM commanders would be inclined towards "yeah let's find a way to get them to stop fucking killing us" tbh [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=AlexConnor;46859486]The inability to run is mentioned specifically in the context of attacking air defenses sites, along with the comments to the effect that its takes 8 F-35 to do the job 2 F-22 could do because F-35s need to be covering each other in order to turn and run...[/quote] Or he's talking about outrunning interceptors But I suppose you can cover other F-35s by taking a SAM in the face instead of them [quote]Which is all true, but he's not mentioning that the total effective Serbian air defenses comprised one 1961 vintage SAM Battery. And you shouldn't really be losing aircraft to that, let alone the latest stealth aircraft (plus an F-16 and a few near misses on other F-117s)[/QUOTE] Um okay I can kill a soldier with a musket if the shot lands in the right place, doesn't mean that our anti-musket technology isn't up to par

[QUOTE=Jund;46859526]I'm sure most SAM commanders would be inclined towards "yeah let's find a way to get them to stop fucking killing us" tbh [/QUOTE] not really. He went way above and beyond an average SAM commander, going to some lengths to acquire a training system, cutting personnel who couldn't handle the stress, even grabbing old MiG-21 radar sets as HARM decoys.

[quote]"The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,”[/quote] Specifically in the context of having F-35's perform air superiority against flying SAM sites [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=trotskygrad;46859569]not really. He went way above and beyond an average SAM commander, going to some lengths to acquire a training system, cutting personnel who couldn't handle the stress, even grabbing old MiG-21 radar sets as HARM decoys.[/QUOTE] Yeah he was a good SAM commander, doesn't change the fact that if we didn't think we were untouchable we wouldn't have lost a Nighthawk in the first place, and no amount of research or training would have done anything It's not like he brought it down by smashing it out of the air with his massive iron balls

[QUOTE=Sableye;46850343]how can you make fighter plane that no shoot bullets! also when the airforce realised the f-4 needed to shoot bullets they made it shoot bullets in like 6 months[/QUOTE] The P-51 Mustang went from being commissioned to be designed, and first flight in 149 days (commissioned April 24, 1940, flew Oct 26, 1940). [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46858659]Does it really matter, at this point? We'll probably never see another gun-range dogfight again.[/QUOTE] They thought that in the 1960s, too.

[QUOTE=darunner;46859969]The P-51 Mustang went from being commissioned to be designed, and first flight in 149 days (commissioned April 24, 1940, flew Oct 26, 1940). [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] They thought that in the 1960s, too.[/QUOTE] If one more person makes the comparison to the F4 Phantom's lack of a gun, I'm going to pull my hair out. The original Sidewinder couldn't hit the broadside of a bus. You see, we have advanced beyond the incredibly simple original Sidewinder. Such things tend to happen in 40+ years. Missiles are what modern air battles are fought with, not guns.

[QUOTE=Anders118;46860037]If one more person makes the comparison to the F4 Phantom's lack of a gun, I'm going to pull my hair out. The original Sidewinder couldn't hit the broadside of a bus. You see, we have advanced beyond the incredibly simple original Sidewinder. Such things tend to happen in 40+ years. Missiles are what modern air battles are fought with, not guns.[/QUOTE] Well, that's debatable really We haven't been in a conflict where both sides had proper ECM, IRCM, and stealth, and we were never in a position where we couldn't immediately turn and leave once we ran out of missiles