• US Pentagon pissed over F-35 costs, lashes out at Lockheed and contractors.
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE]and this [QUOTE="Morcam"]He just gave multiple reasons why dogfighting is obsolete. What reasons do you have for believing otherwise?[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] You want me to cite sources for asking that guy to cite sources?????????
[QUOTE=Morcam;39762805]You want me to cite sources for asking that guy to cite sources?????????[/QUOTE] You're dodging it. Cite your claims.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39762817]You're dodging it. Cite your claims.[/QUOTE] What in the hell are you on about? What do you want me to cite? Would you like me to cite myself asking him to cite himself?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39749444]I wonder why the Canadian government seems like it is still going to buy these jets, the public at large is no longer interested in owning something that costs this much and fails this hard.[/QUOTE] There are no jets. They claim to hide them underground, but it's highly unlikely that they exist. The "jets" are just a reason for Canada to pay off money to the US so that they can remain allies without issues.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39762833]What in the hell are you on about? What do you want me to cite? Would you like me to cite myself asking him to cite himself?[/QUOTE] Cite these claims of yours, [QUOTE]They are supermaneuverable because they are generation 5 fighter jets. Thrust vectoring serves more purposes than flying around your opponent in a dogfight.[/QUOTE] and [QUOTE]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 further, you argued against somebody else using somebody elses uncited claims. [QUOTE]He just gave multiple reasons why dogfighting is obsolete.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermaneuverability[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft[/URL] [QUOTE=laserguided;39762975]And further, you argued against somebody else using somebody elses uncited claims.[/QUOTE] I wasn't arguing against him. His statement, [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] contains no information. He lists no reasons. I asked for some. I have nothing to cite. In the statement he quotes, there's some reasoning listed. That's not my post. It's not my job to cite his content, but he actually has content.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39763059][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermaneuverability[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft[/URL] I wasn't arguing against him. His statement, contains no information. He lists no reasons. I asked for some. I have nothing to cite. In the statement he quotes, there's some reasoning listed.[/QUOTE] Okay you pasted wikipedia pages and I can't find the section that contains the information you posted. Quote it.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763104]Okay you pasted wikipedia pages and I can't find the section that contains the information you posted. Quote it.[/QUOTE] It's obviously implied by the Wikipedia article on supermaneuverability, but I'm assuming you're deliberately being dense. Supermaneuverability is useful for close-range engagements, dodging enemy missiles, and short take off and landing. [URL]http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/spr88/siuru.html[/URL] - Says it explicitly Given the F-35's rumored radar cross section (golf ball), we can see from this graph [URL]http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Irbis-BARS.png[/URL] that the F-35 can evade the lock-on of a russian missile by staying outside of a 25nm radius. Given that the range of a AIM 120-D is (classified, but using best estimates) 75nm, we can see that this range (25-75) is the ideal engagement range for that fighter. Moving closer would be catastrophic, as any gen 4 - 4.5 jet would be carrying a vastly larger weapons payload. There have not been any actual engagements of F-22's or F-35's in the real world. There are obviously no sources for that. Given that the F-22's went 144-0 in Northern Edge a few years ago, it's safe to say they are effective without being detected.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39763402]It's obviously implied by the Wikipedia article on supermaneuverability, but I'm assuming you're deliberately being dense. Supermaneuverability is useful for close-range engagements, dodging enemy missiles, and short take off and landing. [URL]http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/spr88/siuru.html[/URL] - Says it explicitly Given the F-35's rumored radar cross section (golf ball), we can see from this graph [URL]http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Irbis-BARS.png[/URL] that the F-35 can evade the lock-on of a russian missile by staying outside of a 25nm radius. Given that the range of a AIM 120-D is (classified, but using best estimates) 75nm, we can see that this range (25-75) is the ideal engagement range for that fighter. Moving closer would be catastrophic, as any gen 4 - 4.5 jet would be carrying a vastly larger weapons payload. There have not been any actual engagements of F-22's or F-35's in the real world. There are obviously no sources for that. Given that the F-22's went 144-0 in Northern Edge a few years ago, it's safe to say they are effective without being detected.[/QUOTE] Okay, throw in a enemy stealth multi-role fighter (that isn't a F-35) into the equation or future passive radars and what advantage do you think the F-35 has? I'm well aware what advantages supremaneuverability has, all I wanted was information to back up your points. If the enemy has a stealth fighter, the advantage of the F-35 is nulled and if it can't get away from the stealth fighter because of its inherent design features then it cannot win.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763461]Okay, throw in a enemy stealth multi-role fighter (that isn't a F-35) into the equation or future passive radars and what advantage do you think the F-35 has? I'm well aware what advantages supremaneuverability has, all I wanted was information to back up your points.[/QUOTE] Why would I be afraid of an enemy stealth multi-role fighter? The only one that will be ready in the next decade is the PAK FA, which is going to be outnumbered 100-to-one, and will barely be an even match. And passive radars? We've had "passive radars" for decades now. If the only savior for enemy aircraft is to hope that the F-35 turns on its radar and scans for them, I'd say we're in a good position.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39763554]Why would I be afraid of an enemy stealth multi-role fighter? The only one that will be ready in the next decade is the PAK FA, which is going to be outnumbered 100-to-one, and will barely be an even match. And passive radars? We've had "passive radars" for decades now. If the only savior for enemy aircraft is to hope that the F-35 turns on its radar and scans for them, I'd say we're in a good position.[/QUOTE] So you're saying a fighter built for 40 years should only be able to be compete with the enemy for 10 or so years? And by the way, 3D passive radars are a big threat to stealth fighter aircraft. Detection, location and identification of enemy aircraft is sure to come, and [URL="http://www.cassidian.com/en_US/web/guest/Passive%20%20radar%20from%20CASSIDIAN%20remains%20invisible"]its already being worked on[/URL] by several companies both in the east and west.
[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] As long as we fight wars in the seas we will have ramming. It is in no way obsolete, and to think that way is to jeopardize the life-expectancy of your sailors. You can make these claims all day if you have nothing to back them up. A [url=http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf]2008 US Military air combat briefing relating to China[/url] highlights the increasing prevalence of BVR combat. A few highlights: -Pre-Vietnam estimates of kill probability (Pk) on the AIM-7 were 0.7, that is, 70%. Actual numbers in combat, however, were closer to 0.08, or 8%. Combat record of AIM-120s, though? Pk of 0.59- 17 engagements, 10 kills. And modern AIM-120s are better still, able to pull up to 30G maneuvers and consistently hit targets from 80 miles away. -From 1991 to 2008, 20 out of 61 air-to-air kills were made BVR. Even of the remaining WVR kills, only a small fraction were 'dogfight', with most consisting of strafing runs on helicopters or transports, or surprise attacks with AIM-9s against enemies who did not see them coming. -Since the development of the AMRAAM, the proportion of kills conducted BVR has increased by a factor of [b]43[/b]. More importantly are other factors that have changed drastically since the Gulf War. AWACS is becoming more prevalent, allowing detection from longer range, and datalinks are becoming more common. An F-22 doesn't need to be able to detect a plane from 50 miles out, it just needs to link with an on-station radar to detect the plane and use the datalink to perform a launch. Modern AMRAAM variants are much more effective in their terminal active-radar homing phase. AIM-9X missiles now have LOAL capability, and can lock and track a target in any direction, even directly behind the firing craft, and can hit targets up to 22 miles away- that's a short-ranged infrared-seeking missile, and it's capable of BVR. [i]Even with[/i] restrictive ROE that requires visual confirmation, like in Vietnam, Sniper/Litening pods allow visual identification of targets from BVR, giving plenty of opportunity for a Sidewinder or AMRAAM shot. These units are standard on 5th gen. fighters. Combined with modern battlespace management, it's no longer a case of needing to fly within a mile to ID the plane. One AWACS plane detects, another identifies, the data is linked to the rest of the flight and all four craft now have missile lock on a positively identified bandit from twenty miles out. GG, bandit. Combat beyond visual range is becoming more the norm, but even within visual range, most engagements are not 'dogfights'. A Sidewinder kill from three miles away can involve no maneuver at all from the firing craft. Traditional maneuvering combat will certainly happen, but it's becoming rarer and rarer with every passing year and the F-35 not being amazing at it is not a serious disadvantage. In any case, given the F-35s stealth capabilities and focus on BVR capabilities, it's not much of a disadvantage at all. The pilots have ample resources to engage from well outside 'dogfighting' range, and when no country has a stealth fighter that could come anywhere close without being detected the F-35 always has the capability to engage at distance. I don't know why this is even an issue. This isn't Top Gun, modern fighter aircraft are defined more by their cruise speed and radar than their armament and maneuverability. The F-35 isn't as helpless in a dogfight as something like an A-10, but it's still not designed to fight that kind of battle to begin with.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763604]So you're saying a fighter built for 40 years should only be able to be compete with the enemy for 10 or so years? And by the way, 3D passive radars are a big threat to stealth fighter aircraft. Detection, location and identification of enemy aircraft is sure to come, and its already being worked on.[/QUOTE] The F-35's will not lose in a war scenario in the next 40 years, and in 40 years, they will still be ten years ahead of the rest of the world's competing designs. Obviously, they cost far more than they should, but that's not to say they don't get the job done. Any scenario where radar advances to the point where the F-35 can be detected outside of its current safe-zone will occur on both sides of the conflict. At that point, the F-35 will [I]absolutely not be engaging in dogfights.[/I] You've created a conflicting scenario for yourself. You want everything to be invisible, so dogfights can happen, but you just said they can't.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763604]So you're saying a fighter built for 40 years should only be able to be compete with the enemy for 10 or so years? [/QUOTE] The difference between an F-16A Block 1 and an F-16V is enormous. The airframe and basic capabilities are fine, but the electronics, fire control, radar, and avionics are all continually updated to match current needs. You can't expect a current-model F-35 to take on everything to be built in the next forty years. And yes, it should only be expected to compete with the enemy (which enemy? I think the only 'modern' air force that currently presents even a hint of a threat is China) for the next ten years. By then there'll be a new variant designed to meet new requirements.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39763700]As long as we fight wars in the seas we will have ramming. It is in no way obsolete, and to think that way is to jeopardize the life-expectancy of your sailors. You can make these claims all day if you have nothing to back them up. A [url=http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf]2008 US Military air combat briefing relating to China[/url] highlights the increasing prevalence of BVR combat. A few highlights: -Pre-Vietnam estimates of kill probability (Pk) on the AIM-7 were 0.7, that is, 70%. Actual numbers in combat, however, were closer to 0.08, or 8%. Combat record of AIM-120s, though? Pk of 0.59- 17 engagements, 10 kills. And modern AIM-120s are better still, able to pull up to 30G maneuvers and consistently hit targets from 80 miles away. -From 1991 to 2008, 20 out of 61 air-to-air kills were made BVR. Even of the remaining WVR kills, only a small fraction were 'dogfight', with most consisting of strafing runs on helicopters or transports, or surprise attacks with AIM-9s against enemies who did not see them coming. -Since the development of the AMRAAM, the proportion of kills conducted BVR has increased by a factor of [b]43[/b]. More importantly are other factors that have changed drastically since the Gulf War. AWACS is becoming more prevalent, allowing detection from longer range, and datalinks are becoming more common. An F-22 doesn't need to be able to detect a plane from 50 miles out, it just needs to link with an on-station radar to detect the plane and use the datalink to perform a launch. Modern AMRAAM variants are much more effective in their terminal active-radar homing phase. AIM-9X missiles now have LOAL capability, and can lock and track a target in any direction, even directly behind the firing craft, and can hit targets up to 22 miles away- that's a short-ranged infrared-seeking missile, and it's capable of BVR. [i]Even with[/i] restrictive ROE that requires visual confirmation, like in Vietnam, Sniper/Litening pods allow visual identification of targets from BVR, giving plenty of opportunity for a Sidewinder or AMRAAM shot. These units are standard on 5th gen. fighters. Combined with modern battlespace management, it's no longer a case of needing to fly within a mile to ID the plane. One AWACS plane detects, another identifies, the data is linked to the rest of the flight and all four craft now have missile lock on a positively identified bandit from twenty miles out. GG, bandit. Combat beyond visual range is becoming more the norm, but even within visual range, most engagements are not 'dogfights'. A Sidewinder kill from three miles away can involve no maneuver at all from the firing craft. Traditional maneuvering combat will certainly happen, but it's becoming rarer and rarer with every passing year and the F-35 not being amazing at it is not a serious disadvantage. In any case, given the F-35s stealth capabilities and focus on BVR capabilities, it's not much of a disadvantage at all. The pilots have ample resources to engage from well outside 'dogfighting' range, and when no country has a stealth fighter that could come anywhere close without being detected the F-35 always has the capability to engage at distance. I don't know why this is even an issue. This isn't Top Gun, modern fighter aircraft are defined more by their cruise speed and radar than their armament and maneuverability. The F-35 isn't as helpless in a dogfight as something like an A-10, but it's still not designed to fight that kind of battle to begin with.[/QUOTE] Okay and what if the enemy aircraft can engage at a distance? China's aerospace programmes are progressing fast. They are lagging behind in engines, but the Russians are making loads a money off of China's engine demand. Its not hard to imagine the next big war being fought with radars off. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;39763753]The difference between an F-16A Block 1 and an F-16V is enormous. The airframe and basic capabilities are fine, but the electronics, fire control, radar, and avionics are all continually updated to match current needs. You can't expect a current-model F-35 to take on everything to be built in the next forty years. And yes, it should only be expected to compete with the enemy (which enemy? I think the only 'modern' air force that currently presents even a hint of a threat is China) for the next ten years. By then there'll be a new variant designed to meet new requirements.[/QUOTE] F-35 won't be fixed until its able to perform at the same level as other stealth fighters, they would need a completely redesign of the aircraft to give it any sort of advantage. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;39763719]The F-35's will not lose in a war scenario in the next 40 years, and in 40 years, they will still be ten years ahead of the rest of the world's competing designs. Obviously, they cost far more than they should, but that's not to say they don't get the job done. Any scenario where radar advances to the point where the F-35 can be detected outside of its current safe-zone will occur on both sides of the conflict. At that point, the F-35 will [I]absolutely not be engaging in dogfights.[/I] You've created a conflicting scenario for yourself. You want everything to be invisible, so dogfights can happen, but you just said they can't.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're saying.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763764]F-35 won't be fixed until its able to perform at the same level as other stealth fighters, they would need a completely redesign of the aircraft to give it any sort of advantage.[/QUOTE] And what statistics are you basing this on? Last I checked, it was pretty much all classified. Or, in the case of most of the world's stealth fighter programs, non-existent. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39763764]I don't know what you're saying.[/QUOTE] You just said that "3d passive radars" are going to make stealth impossible. How is that going to make dogfights possible?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39763812] [B]You just said that "3d passive radars" are going to make stealth impossible. How is that going to make dogfights possible?[/B][/QUOTE] Where did I say this?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763837]Where did I say this?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] And by the way, 3D passive radars are a big threat to stealth fighter aircraft. [B]Detection, location and identification of enemy aircraft is sure to come[/B], and its already being worked on by several companies both in the east and west. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Morcam;39763844][/QUOTE] That is completely different from what you said.
In any case, even if dogfights are possible, nobody [i]wants[/i] to get into a dogfight. With modern missiles, if you get seen are you probably going to die. We've reached the point where flares and chaff can't distract the current generation of missiles, and they're reliable, accurate, and maneuverable enough that a lock is almost certainly a kill at short range. This is not an environment anybody wants to fight in at all. [QUOTE=laserguided;39763764]Okay and what if the enemy aircraft can engage at a distance? China's aerospace programmes are progressing fast. They are lagging behind in engines, but the Russians are making loads a money off of China's engine demand. Its not hard to imagine the next big war being fought with radars off.[/QUOTE] The F-35 is designed to fight at BVR. If the enemy wants to engage at a distance, good for them, because that's exactly what we want. I'll put US stealth and detection technology ahead of anything the Chinese can cook up. With LOAL and semi/active homing like on the AMRAAM, the target won't even know they're under attack until it's too late. In this role the F-35 has met expectations. [QUOTE=laserguided;39763764]F-35 won't be fixed until its able to perform at the same level as other stealth fighters, they would need a completely redesign of the aircraft to give it any sort of advantage.[/QUOTE] What other stealth fighters outperform the F-35 currently?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763847]That is completely different from what you said.[/QUOTE] Really? So if we can detect, locate, and identify enemy stealth aircraft, how exactly are they going to be stealthy? Black paint? Magic markers?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39763860]Really? So if we can detect, locate, and identify enemy stealth aircraft, how exactly are they going to be stealthy? Black paint? Magic markers?[/QUOTE] So you are saying that 3D passive radars essentially render stealth useless unless the aircraft does not emit signals. This is an agreement? [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;39763849] The F-35 is designed to fight at BVR. If the enemy wants to engage at a distance, good for them, because that's exactly what we want. I'll put US stealth and detection technology ahead of anything the Chinese can cook up. With LOAL and semi/active homing like on the AMRAAM, the target won't even know they're under attack until it's too late. In this role the F-35 has met expectations. What other stealth fighters outperform the F-35 currently?[/QUOTE] Every stealth fighter except the F-35 and the F-117 can out perform the F-35. The F-35 cannot supercruise, it cannot maneuver as much as the other aircraft and definitely cannot carry as much fuel. It also does not possess 2D or 3D thrust vectoring unless you count its ability to VTOL. And the AMRAAM can certainly be detected by IRST and radar, can be out turned by as little as 2G if you trust experts estimates.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39763959]So you are saying that 3D passive radars essentially render stealth useless unless the aircraft does not emit signals. This is an agreement?[/QUOTE] Not at all. AESA is designed to be undetectable, and we also have dedicated radar stations, AWACS, and every other aircraft in the sky. New long-band radar is just as much of a threat as passive radar is. Like I said, passive radar has been a threat for decades, and we've worked just fine at avoiding it and still detecting enemy aircraft. If you want to play the sensors game, the F-35 has decidedly the most advanced sensors suite in the world.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39764020]Not at all. AESA is designed to be undetectable, and we also have dedicated radar stations, AWACS, and every other aircraft in the sky. New long-band radar is just as much of a threat as passive radar is. Like I said, passive radar has been a threat for decades, and we've worked just fine at avoiding it and still detecting enemy aircraft. If you want to play the sensors game, the F-35 has decidedly the most advanced sensors suite in the world.[/QUOTE] 3D passive radar being able to detect and identify aircraft is only a new development. They don't need to detect the aircrafts radar emitions, they can simply detect the aircrafts radio signals etc. Also, as for sensor superiority can you give me citations on how the radar/irst etc are superior to all other systems?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39764057]3D passive radar being able to detect and identify aircraft is only a new development. They don't need to detect the aircrafts radar emitions, they can simply detect the aircrafts radio signals etc. Also, as for sensor superiority can you give me citations on how the radar/irst etc are superior to all other systems?[/QUOTE] That doesn't matter. The aircraft can go silent if they must, and still receive telemetry from any other aircraft in the sky by just listening in. The F-35 will also undergo multiple sensor upgrades, just like every aircraft in existence today, which will keep it that 10 years ahead of any others in the world. Almost any specs about the F-35's sensors are classified. They are, however, the successors to the F-22, which, seeing as it is the only fifth-gen fighter in the world, and it is designed for Air-to-Air combat, it is safe to say the F-35's are currently the best in the world. There's also no hard data on "passive 3D radar" detecting a F-22 or F-35, remember?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39764221]That doesn't matter. The aircraft can go silent if they must, and still receive telemetry from any other aircraft in the sky by just listening in. The F-35 will also undergo multiple sensor upgrades, just like every aircraft in existence today, which will keep it that 10 years ahead of any others in the world. Almost any specs about the F-35's sensors are classified. They are, however, the successors to the F-22, which, seeing as it is the only fifth-gen fighter in the world, and it is designed for Air-to-Air combat, it is safe to say the F-35's are currently the best in the world. There's also no hard data on "passive 3D radar" detecting a F-22 or F-35, remember?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Cassidian, the defence and security division of EADS, has developed what is known as "passive radar" that can locate even difficult-to-detect flying objects such as stealth aircraft and that itself is practically undetectable. In contrast to conventional radar, passive radar doesn't emit any radiation, but instead analyses radiation reflections from other emitters, such as radio and television stations, to detect objects. "The principle of passive radar has been known for a long time," says Elmar Compans, Head of Sensors & Electronic Warfare at Cassidian. "However, we have now integrated the latest capabilities of digital receiver and signal processing technology to significantly enhance range and detection accuracy by monitoring various emitters at the same time." With its passive radar, Cassidian is focussing on the requirements of civil and military airspace control which until now could not or not sufficiently be met using active emitting radar. In civil application, passive radar makes cost-effective air traffic control possible without any additional emissions and without making demands on transmission frequencies in short supply. In military applications, the system enables large-area surveillance using networked receivers, while offering the decisive operational advantage that passive radar cannot be located by hostile forces. The particular characteristics of the omnipresent radio signals used for operation enable detection of even objects that are difficult to detect, such as stealth aircraft or stealth ships. A further advantage of the new technology is its increased detection capacity in areas of radar shadow such as mountainous terrain and its capability to locate extremely slow and low flying objects. A demonstration system has already been delivered to the German Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement (BWB). Cassidian's passive radar can be used for mobile deployment in a vehicle of the size of a commercial van and thus can be moved very quickly and with little logistical effort. After successful testing, including at Stuttgart Airport, the plan is to set up a production prototype system and to carry out evaluation programmes by both Cassidian and the customer by the end of the year.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.cassidian.com/en_US/web/guest/Passive%20%20radar%20from%20CASSIDIAN%20remains%20invisible"]Source, EADS.[/URL] As for the 'only 5th generation fighter in the world', the F-35 does not meet the fifth generation standard unless you modify that standard to fit the F-35's specifications. It cannot supercruise and is not supermaneuverable. Infact, its less maneuverable then any other 4.5gen/5gen aircraft. The T-50 is currently the only operational competitor, but that won't be for long if you count China's F-60/J20 programmes. US radar's aren't better than Russian radar, as for DAS, that is essentially sensor integrated equipment. Sensor integration is nothing new, and no doubt the T-50 also has sensor integration, but focused on air-to-air if you count its AESA radar and X-ban radar.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39764303][URL="http://www.cassidian.com/en_US/web/guest/Passive radar from CASSIDIAN remains invisible"]Source, EADS.[/URL] As for the 'only 5th generation fighter in the world', the F-35 does not meet the fifth generation standard unless you modify that standard to fit the F-35's specifications. It cannot supercruise and is not supermaneuverable. Infact, its less maneuverable then any other 4.5gen/5gen aircraft. The T-50 is currently the only operational competitor, but that won't be for long if you count China's F-60/J20 programmes. US radar's aren't better than Russian radar, as for DAS, that is essentially sensor integrated equipment. Sensor integration is nothing new, and no doubt the T-50 also has sensor integration, but to a higher standard if you count its AESA radar and X-ban radar.[/QUOTE] I saw your source the first time. I'm still not impressed. Railguns, fusion reactors, and death rays are under development too. Background radar radiation is scattered enough that it would be tremendously difficult to actually acquire a lock on an aircraft with it. But hey, if it is possible, then [I]everyone can see each other and dogfights will never happen.[/I] The F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 for 150 miles without using afterburners. It's not designed to supercruise, and it's not supermanuverable, but it doesn't need to. Not a dogfighter, remember? If supercruise and supermaneuverability made an aircraft fifth gen, then the Eurofighter and Rafale would be 5th gen. I also didn't even say the F-35 was fifth gen, I said the F-22 was, and the F-35 uses the F-22's sensor suite, but upgraded. And there's still no data to suggest that Russia possesses superior radar of any sort. Even if they are on-par, your point is invalid.
Yeah, laserguided, I'm not seeing your argument here. Any advances in technology that render the F-35's stealth less effective can just as easily be applied against the enemy and make detection from longer ranges easier, aiding in its BVR capability. If anything, effective stealth technology on both sides would reduce engagement range and increase the likelihood of WVR. It's still not dogfighting, but it's closer.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39764520]I saw your source the first time. I'm still not impressed. Railguns, fusion reactors, and death rays are under development too. Background radar radiation is scattered enough that it would be tremendously difficult to actually acquire a lock on an aircraft with it. But hey, if it is possible, then [I]everyone can see each other and dogfights will never happen.[/I] The F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 for 150 miles without using afterburners. It's not designed to supercruise, and it's not supermanuverable, but it doesn't need to. Not a dogfighter, remember? If supercruise and supermaneuverability made an aircraft fifth gen, then the Eurofighter and Rafale would be 5th gen. I also didn't even say the F-35 was fifth gen, I said the F-22 was, and [B]the F-35 uses the F-22's sensor suite, but upgraded.[/B][/QUOTE] The eurofighter and rafale are not fifth gen because they do not possess a VLO airframe. 3D passive radar is a game changer. If the enemy doesn't know you can see him, then you have the upperhand. So they might send in stealth fighters in for the kill. The F-35 has less missiles than the competitor and is slower. It also doesn't seem to be able to maneuver that well so its also more vulnerable to long range missiles than the competitor. If the enemy has a speed, maneuverability, range and armament advantage I can't see it ending well for the F-35. They shouldn't be using the F-35 as a all service aircraft lol. It is a bad idea. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;39764593]Yeah, laserguided, I'm not seeing your argument here. Any advances in technology that render the F-35's stealth less effective can just as easily be applied against the enemy and make detection from longer ranges easier, aiding in its BVR capability. If anything, effective stealth technology on both sides would reduce engagement range and increase the likelihood of WVR. It's still not dogfighting, but it's closer.[/QUOTE] That is my argument, I'm glad we came to an agreement.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39764623]The eurofighter and rafale are not fifth gen because they do not possess a VLO airframe. 3D passive radar is a game changer. If the enemy doesn't know you can see him, then you have the upperhand. So they might send in stealth fighters in for the kill. The F-35 has less missiles than the competitor and is slower. It also doesn't seem to be able to maneuver that well so its also more vulnerable to long range missiles than the competitor. If the enemy has a speed, maneuverability, range and armament advantage I can't see it ending well for the F-35. They shouldn't be using the F-35 as a all service aircraft lol. It is a bad idea. [/QUOTE] I'm not even sure what to say anymore. You can also tell that F-35's are in your area with a pair of binoculars. Exploding buildings are also a sure sign. Your only recourse seems to be "Passive 3D Radar" that hasn't even been shown to work against stealth aircraft.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.