US Pentagon pissed over F-35 costs, lashes out at Lockheed and contractors.
147 replies, posted
Yes, F-16s have beaten F-22s in WVR dogfights. Zulus also beat Brits in hand-to-hand combat, but that doesn't make a spear a better weapon than a rifle. What this is ignoring is that a more likely engagement scenario involves the F-16 getting splattered by an AMRAAM by an F-22 it couldn't detect, fifty miles out. If you can see it, you can kill it. The F-22 is designed not to be seen.
As for the F-35 in dogfights, it's a multirole fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It's not meant to be taking on F-22s one-on-one, it's meant to destroy ground and naval targets which in the modern world are much more the norm, with an air-to-air capability if needed.
The F-35 isn't a bad plane, it's just turning out to be way more expensive than it has any right to be.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39755091]Yes, F-16s have beaten F-22s in WVR dogfights. Zulus also beat Brits in hand-to-hand combat, but that doesn't make a spear a better weapon than a rifle. What this is ignoring is that a more likely engagement scenario involves the F-16 getting splattered by an AMRAAM by an F-22 it couldn't detect, fifty miles out. If you can see it, you can kill it. The F-22 is designed not to be seen.
As for the F-35 in dogfights, it's a multirole fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It's not meant to be taking on F-22s one-on-one, it's meant to destroy ground and naval targets which in the modern world are much more the norm, with an air-to-air capability if needed.
The F-35 isn't a bad plane, it's just turning out to be way more expensive than it has any right to be.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the issue is, they're replacing all the legacy fighters except the F-22 with F-35's. Now the USAF is stuck with a fighter that can't compete in a dogfight scenario.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754729]Here is a Growler with a F-22 simulated kill decal.
[t]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/ea18g_f22kill.jpg[/t]
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
No its true, because I presented evidence and you denied it because you let your ego get attached to your post.[/QUOTE]
Bud, they aren't invulnerable.
They are, however, ridiculously difficult to take out. Hence why they placed the decal for a simulated kill. Do you see any other decals from simulated kills? Or any kill markers at all?
The only reason it is up there is because it is rare for the F-22 to lose. You are arguing against your own point.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39755231]Bud, they aren't invulnerable.
They are, however, ridiculously difficult to take out. Hence why they placed the decal for a simulated kill. Do you see any other decals from simulated kills? Or any kill markers at all?
The only reason it is up there is because it is rare for the F-22 to lose. You are arguing against your own point.[/QUOTE]
I used the F-22 as an example of stealth fighters getting into dogfights with unstealthy aircraft and he wanted a source. Now you're arguing against me why? And you disagree with the F-35 not being able to dogfight, I'm confused and I wan't a source on the F-35 being able to compete in a dogfight scenario.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39755256]I used the F-22 as an example of stealth fighters getting into dogfights with unstealthy aircraft and he wanted a source. Now you're arguing against me why? And you disagree with the F-35 not being able to dogfight, I'm confused and I wan't a source and the F-35 being able to compete in a dogfight scenario.[/QUOTE]
The simulated combat scenarios intentionally place aircraft in dogfight range. The point is to train everyone.
In reality neither a growler or an F-22 are likely to ever dogfight another aircraft.
The F-35 is the same. The F-35 is so unlikely to enter a dogfight that they dumped the cannon from the B and C variant.
Yeah? F-35 stealthy? Oh look future technological advancements create new alternative methods of detection and then suddenly F-35 is a vulnerable. Or even more likely, Oh look stealth aircraft! F-35 is fucked because it is outmatched since it wasn't designed with winning a stealth-stealth battle even though they're replacing a good margin of their air force with the F-35. I don't care about this dumb F-22 argument anymore. The F-35 is a bad fucking choice, and I'm sick and tired of my government being ignorant fucks and wasting billions that could be spent on better things on jets made for a stupid idea.
[QUOTE=Jund;39753872]My points are that
-complaining about the F-35's dogfighting capabilities is useless, if you're in a war with Russia, China or the US well then GOOD LUCK cause you'll need more than a cheaper aircraft
[/QUOTE]
Fuck. If the US is going to war against China, I bet they'll be worrying more of the economy than what aircraft you have.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754729]Here is a Growler with a F-22 simulated kill decal.
[t]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/ea18g_f22kill.jpg[/t]
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
No its true, because I presented evidence and you denied it because you let your ego get attached to your post.[/QUOTE]
God damn, dude. Imagine being that Growler pilot.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39755150]Yeah but the issue is, they're replacing all the legacy fighters except the F-22 with F-35's. Now the USAF is stuck with a fighter that can't compete in a dogfight scenario.[/QUOTE]
They don't need to; that's the whole point of air superiority. The F22 isn't designed to go head to head in a dogfight. It's designed to eliminate threats from miles away without ever being seen. The F-35 is designed to do so but to a lesser extent. It sacrifices some of the stealth for more expanded capabilities. Is it possible that they might have to engage in a dogfight? Theoretically yes, but the chance is so small that they'd rather sacrifice that capability in exchange for other things.
If you start designing aircraft to do everything, then you'll end up with something worthless. Jack of all trades, master of none.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;39755597]They don't need to; that's the whole point of air superiority. The F22 isn't designed to go head to head in a dogfight. It's designed to eliminate threats from miles away without ever being seen. The F-35 is designed to do so but to a lesser extent. It sacrifices some of the stealth for more expanded capabilities. Is it possible that they might have to engage in a dogfight? Theoretically yes, but the chance is so small that they'd rather sacrifice that capability in exchange for other things.
If you start designing aircraft to do everything, then you'll end up with something worthless. Jack of all trades, master of none.[/QUOTE]
America's stealth monopoly is diminishing, world powers are developing their own stealth aircraft. I'm just saying, its not future proof yet its $400bn and they want to keep it for as long as possible. Its just bad planning in my opinion. They would be in a better situation if they just designed a cheaper F-22.
2 BIG threats to the F-35's doctrine, stealth aircraft and passive radars.
[QUOTE=Apache249;39755561]God damn, dude. Imagine being that Growler pilot.[/QUOTE]
It is a ultimate trophy I'd bet. Lucky bastard.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39755324][b]The simulated combat scenarios intentionally place aircraft in dogfight range. The point is to train everyone. [/b]
In reality neither a growler or an F-22 are likely to ever dogfight another aircraft.
The F-35 is the same. The F-35 is so unlikely to enter a dogfight that they dumped the cannon from the B and C variant.[/QUOTE]
[sp]I can't believe I'm letting myself get involved in one of these threads.[/sp]
Thank you for pointing that out. WVR dogfights happen at Red Flag because that's something they specifically train for at Red Flag.
Also, on the story of the Super Hornet taking out the F-22, it's worth noting that the gun "kill" picture happened [i]after[/i] the dogfight exercise was over. Meaning, nobody was engaging and the pilot thought it would be really cool to have a picture of a gun kill on an F-22.
The EA-18G kill on the other hand, according to the posted articles (which is also the first time I've heard it) sounds legitimate.
The thing with those people who love to point out the three or so times an F-22 has been shot down, is that they ignore the mountains of kills the F-22 score on opposing planes. Even when horribly outnumbered, F-22s score kills on other jets with ease. There are many reports from pilots of F-16s, F-15s, and F/A-18s that the F-22 is notoriously difficult to shoot down because of the difficulty in spotting it, its agility, and getting a solid lock even once within visual range.
On the F-35, although there is no arguing that the program is a complete mess, the F-35 itself is an incredible piece of kit. Many people who argue that the F-35 is a bad plane simply don't know what they're talking about or don't understand the implications of many of the things the plane does. On top of that, when people talk about how bad the plane is they tend to pick and choose specific and highly unlikely scenarios in which [i]any[/i] plane would be at a severe disadvantage. In fact, in those scenarios, I guarantee you that every pilot would prefer to be in an F-35 over any other 4th or 4.5th generation jet.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39755376]Yeah? F-35 stealthy? Oh look future technological advancements create new alternative methods of detection and then suddenly F-35 is a vulnerable. Or even more likely, Oh look stealth aircraft! F-35 is fucked because it is outmatched since it wasn't designed with winning a stealth-stealth battle even though they're replacing a good margin of their air force with the F-35. I don't care about this dumb F-22 argument anymore. The F-35 is a bad fucking choice, and I'm sick and tired of my government being ignorant fucks and wasting billions that could be spent on better things on jets made for a stupid idea.[/QUOTE]
Oh look someone invented a missile with half spherical boresight capability and a no escape envelope far greater than gun range.
Dogfighting is now no longer possible.
Seriously. Everyone keeps pointing out that dog fights simply don't happen any more and you just aren't getting it. It was amusing for the first eight threads this discussion has shown up in, but it is just ridiculous at this point. Dog fights don't happen because it isn't something either side wants and thereby attempts to avoid at all costs through aircraft design.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39755150]Yeah but the issue is, they're replacing all the legacy fighters except the F-22 with F-35's. Now the USAF is stuck with a fighter that can't compete in a dogfight scenario.[/QUOTE]
So they can't compete in a completely obsolete capacity. What's being lost here?
This isn't like Vietnam where the technology was insufficient and restrictive ROE forced WVR engagements with mediocre missiles. Modern guided weaponry can lock from nearly any aspect and hit targets from dozens of miles away.
Trying to dogfight with a modern jet would be like trying to cross the T with a nuclear carrier. It's antiquated and no longer relevant.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753429]Yeah and if the enemy has a stealth aircraft or complex ECM/AWACS he will have the upper advantage. Its a stupid plane for a stupid idea, they tried to make the F-35 a one size fits all. As far as I've heard F-22's get into dogfights with F-16's in Red Flag.
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
That's kind of the point of not having a airplane that performs like shit and costs $100mn.[/QUOTE]
But no one else has true stealth aircraft or complex ECM/AWACS. That's the point. And no, they don't get into dogfights unless they are told to dogfight. In the last Red Flag, the F-22's were something like 116-0.
I would agree that it was absurd to make the F-35 a one-size-fits-all aircraft like it is today. It has both made the aircraft incredibly expensive doing things it doesn't need to do and added additional development time for no real reason. I'm not sure I'd say that has gimped its abilities, though.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39757243] I would agree that it was absurd to make the F-35 a one-size-fits-all aircraft like it is today. It has both made the aircraft incredibly expensive doing things it doesn't need to do and added additional development time for no real reason. I'm not sure I'd say that has gimped its abilities, though.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the main reasons I have against the whole JSF program, it's a stupid idea to replace all of our combat aircraft with a single jet.
Actually thinking about isn't the whole concept behind the JSF similar to the one behind the Main Battle Tank, where your military uses only type of tank and that's it?
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;39757301]This is one of the main reasons I have against the whole JSF program, it's a stupid idea to replace all of our combat aircraft with a single jet.
Actually thinking about isn't the whole concept behind the JSF similar to the one behind the Main Battle Tank, where your military uses only type of tank and that's it?[/QUOTE]
Most armies have only 1 type of main battle tank. There are older generations, sometimes, but generally not completely different models. There are plenty of other armored vehicles, though.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39756089]Oh look someone invented a missile with half spherical boresight capability and a no escape envelope far greater than gun range.
[B]Dogfighting is now no longer possible. [/B]
Seriously. Everyone keeps pointing out that dog fights simply don't happen any more and you just aren't getting it. It was amusing for the first eight threads this discussion has shown up in, but it is just ridiculous at this point. Dog fights don't happen because it isn't something either side wants and thereby attempts to avoid at all costs through aircraft design.[/QUOTE]
[citation needed] Also, ECM and missile avoidance because the last time I checked there hasn't been a major war between competent powers recently.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39756382]So they can't compete in a completely obsolete capacity. What's being lost here?
This isn't like Vietnam where the technology was insufficient and restrictive ROE forced WVR engagements with mediocre missiles. Modern guided weaponry can lock from nearly any aspect and hit targets from dozens of miles away.
Trying to dogfight with a modern jet would be like trying to cross the T with a nuclear carrier. It's antiquated and no longer relevant.[/QUOTE]
As long as we fight wars in the skies we will have dogfighting. It is in no way obsolete, and to think that way is to jeopardize the life-expectancy of your pilots.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39759605]As long as we fight wars in the skies we will have dogfighting. It is in no way obsolete, and to think that way is to jeopardize the life-expectancy of your pilots.[/QUOTE]
He just gave multiple reasons why dogfighting is obsolete. What reasons do you have for believing otherwise?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39760633]He just gave multiple reasons why dogfighting is obsolete. What reasons do you have for believing otherwise?[/QUOTE]
On what is his reasoning based? [citation needed]. They wouldn't be building supermaneuverable stealth fighters for no reason.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39760733]On what is his reasoning based? [citation needed]. They wouldn't be building supermaneuverable stealth fighters for no reason.[/QUOTE]
We would just have large "missile trucks" like the B1R as seen in that extravagant episode "Future Dogfights."
[QUOTE=laserguided;39760733]On what is his reasoning based? [citation needed]. They wouldn't be building supermaneuverable stealth fighters for no reason.[/QUOTE]
They are supermaneuverable because they are generation 5 fighter jets. Thrust vectoring serves more purposes than flying around your opponent in a dogfight.
More importantly, they are stealth fighters. You know, the kind that fly up 25-75 miles away, drop a couple A2A missiles, and run away. Ideally, that isn't even necessary, but they can perform that role if they are required to.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39762443]They are supermaneuverable because they are generation 5 fighter jets. Thrust vectoring serves more purposes than flying around your opponent in a dogfight.
More importantly, they are stealth fighters. You know, the kind that fly up 25-75 miles away, drop a couple A2A missiles, and run away. Ideally, that isn't even necessary, but they can perform that role if they are required to.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a source?
The Pentagon's statements are just posturing. Our military exists primarily to funnel taxpayer money to Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, and the other defense contractors. We haven't used our military to legitimately defend our homeland since WW2, just to perpetuate expensive overseas wars that enrich a select few companies. They always knew the F-35 was just another massive money sink.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39762485]Do you have a source?[/QUOTE]
For what? What I just said were the basic concepts of supermaneuverability and stealth aircraft.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39762649]For what? What I just said were the basic concepts of supermaneuverability and stealth aircraft.[/QUOTE]
Okay and how is your information credible? Source on that?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39762726]Okay and how is your information credible? Source on that?[/QUOTE]
Source on what? Do you want me to link you to the dictionary? Maybe Wikipedia?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39762764]Source on what? Do you want me to link you to the dictionary? Maybe Wikipedia?[/QUOTE]
You still haven't cited the information. Thats all I'm asking for.
both this
[QUOTE=Morcam;39762443]They are supermaneuverable because they are generation 5 fighter jets. Thrust vectoring serves more purposes than flying around your opponent in a dogfight.
More importantly, they are stealth fighters. You know, the kind that fly up 25-75 miles away, drop a couple A2A missiles, and run away. Ideally, that isn't even necessary, but they can perform that role if they are required to.[/QUOTE]
and this
[QUOTE=Morcam;39760633]He just gave multiple reasons why dogfighting is obsolete. What reasons do you have for believing otherwise?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.