Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Complete and utter nonsense. The F35 program hasn't been cleared for it's full flight envelope yet. Stealth and thrust vectoring alone would do in any F16. If you can't see it you can't shoot it.
Not really surprised. F-16 (and F-15 and F-18) to FLY, no trade-offs for low radar detectability. Whenever you try to design a plane with two disparate goals, you are going to have to compromise. Since CURRENTLY most air to air battles are beyond visual range, if your radar detectability is low you detect the other aircraft and launch your missiles before the enemy even knows you are there. So in THAT scenario, assuming your missiles are good, the F-35 wins. Once the other aircraft sees you (and if he/she can keep an eye on you) all your stealth capabilities are worthless
IOW, if you get into a dogfight with a non-stealth decent aircraft, you are probably SOL.
The real question is, how good is your stealth capability? Technology may have a hard time keeping stealthability beyond detectability.
https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/09/greenert-questions-stealth-future/22949703/
Got any opinions, Hornet?
Yep, currently. But I recall that the same idea was the reason they didn't put a gun in the F-4. Later, after actual combat, they changed their mind. At least they have a gun in the F-35:Since CURRENTLY most air to air battles are beyond visual range, if your radar detectability is low you detect the other aircraft and launch your missiles before the enemy even knows you are there.
It's a boondoggle and vastly overpriced for what it's supposed to do. We are getting soaked by Military wants far exceeding the technology to produce. Too many roles are expected and the plane just plain doesn't measure up. We need to stop the bleeding now, the F35 can't do as well as ANY of the planes it's to meant replace. The "need" for constant "upgraded" aircraft is artificial. They STILL can't come up with a better bomber than a B52....
It's a boondoggle and vastly overpriced for what it's supposed to do. We are getting soaked by Military wants far exceeding the technology to produce. Too many roles are expected and the plane just plain doesn't measure up. We need to stop the bleeding now, the F35 can't do as well as ANY of the planes it's to meant replace. The "need" for constant "upgraded" aircraft is artificial. They STILL can't come up with a better bomber than a B52....
Complete and utter nonsense. The F35 program hasn't been cleared for it's full flight envelope yet. Stealth and thrust vectoring alone would do in any F16. If you can't see it you can't shoot it.
That is exactly my beef about relying on one primary feature that can potentially be defeated by a technological surprise. That's one of the reasons why we originally created our nuclear forces triad as insurance against that. The F-35 is going to need to suffice for how many decades? If and when it no longer has a stealth advantage, it's back to what it basically is, a phenomenally expensive multi-role jack of all trades but master of none.As far as stealth, it is the old game of technology, haw long will it be stealthy, 5 years-10 years? Also what about rules of engagement? When you have to visually ID the aircraft you are going to shoot down. Then stealth is dramatically decreased or gone totally if the enemy gets a Tally Ho.
And if this pans out, you may have also helped to defeat what you're buying. :wink:Wow, so glad the UK flogged the US Marines all our Harriers and bought into this POS![]()
And about the need to even have a VTOL capability in the F-35 which has led to a lot of complexity in the program:Wow, so glad the UK flogged the US Marines all our Harriers and bought into this POS![]()
Hey BABAR, Yea I got an opinion ,sort of. It's going to piss of just about everybody whether your pro or con. I'll do it in several posts , since I responded earlier in a lengthy post and--as usual with this forum--- it was lost in space. First let's talk about stealth for a minute. Stealth, in and of itself is part of a total package that also includes tactics, environment,mission profile and so on---so it does not stand alone. Any plane can be detected, stealth just gives you a chance to get a little closer to your enemy--you are not invisible !! In the cluttered environment of the battle area a stealthy craft is at it's best! Detection is always possible but a dedicated system to pick up stealthy aircraft would be astronomically expensive to field and maintain in a non combat zone let alone a combat area. Add to that it's likely to be stationary--that makes it's elements targets-- cut the head off the snake and it's dead----OK, time out --another post coming in a minute or so---just plying it safe !!!---HNot really surprised. F-16 (and F-15 and F-18) to FLY, no trade-offs for low radar detectability. Whenever you try to design a plane with two disparate goals, you are going to have to compromise. Since CURRENTLY most air to air battles are beyond visual range, if your radar detectability is low you detect the other aircraft and launch your missiles before the enemy even knows you are there. So in THAT scenario, assuming your missiles are good, the F-35 wins. Once the other aircraft sees you (and if he/she can keep an eye on you) all your stealth capabilities are worthless
IOW, if you get into a dogfight with a non-stealth decent aircraft, you are probably SOL.
The real question is, how good is your stealth capability? Technology may have a hard time keeping stealthability beyond detectability.
https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/09/greenert-questions-stealth-future/22949703/
Got any opinions, Hornet?
What I'm not clear on is... who exactly do we plan of fighting that makes these capabilities needed compared to older aircraft?
Name a single complex weapons system in the last 40+ years that WAS NOT over budget or time, or did not having so called teething problems.
Enter your email address to join: