Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you ever wondered what it would look like if a US Marine with 20 years in who flew F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and F-35s debated an old ideological loon who never served a day, and took credit for things he didn't do, here is your chance:

 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-f-35-crossfire-part-1

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ To anyone clicking TT's link, whatever you do, DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS! :bandhead2:

 

Why does anyone still hand Pierre Sprey a mike? The man has been wrong about so many things it's not even funny.

He's still firmly stuck in the 1970s! He doesn't give two hoots about how the world moved on in the past 40-50 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ChernayaAkula said:

^ To anyone clicking TT's link, whatever you do, DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS! :bandhead2:

 

Why does anyone still hand Pierre Sprey a mike? The man has been wrong about so many things it's not even funny.

He's still firmly stuck in the 1970s! He doesn't give two hoots about how the world moved on in the past 40-50 years.

 

I read them before I listened...

 

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

If you ever wondered what it would look like if a US Marine with 20 years in who flew F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and F-35s debated an old ideological loon who never served a day, and took credit for things he didn't do, here is your chance:

 

"Two experts", more like one expert and one guy who used to add up numbers on spread sheets a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Grey Ghost 531 said:

 

"Two experts", more like one expert and one guy who used to add up numbers on spread sheets a long time ago.

 

Agreed. The retired Lieutenant Colonel did a great job of keeping his cool. Both parts are interesting listening, that's for sure. 

 

"When I was designing the F-16..." "before it (the F-16) got bloated.." etc. smh

 

That the LTC had flown early model F-16 made his opinions on relative performance even more appropriate! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 8:56 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

If you ever wondered what it would look like if a US Marine with 20 years in who flew F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and F-35s debated an old ideological loon who never served a day, and took credit for things he didn't do, here is your chance:

 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-f-35-crossfire-part-1

 

Pierre Sprey.  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, GMK said:

 

Agreed. The retired Lieutenant Colonel did a great job of keeping his cool. Both parts are interesting listening, that's for sure. 

 

"When I was designing the F-16..." "before it (the F-16) got bloated.." etc. smh

 

That the LTC had flown early model F-16 made his opinions on relative performance even more appropriate! 

 

"Designing" lol

 

How he tries to have it both ways is mind blowing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Three F-35A were at the Abbotsford Airshow this year, two on the flight line and a   Dutch F-35A  on static. Had a good discussion first with one of the Dutch techs and the tech said how they love the F-35. As good as F-16 has been for the Dutch  the tech basically  says  F-35A is in another world. The scuttle but was that The Dutch may double their order of what 35 to maybe 65.

 

I then talked to one of the USAF techs and then with one of the USAF Pilots, sorry I forgot his name, he flew Mudhens prior to transitioning to F-35A. He has no regrets, the F-35A is just in another place evolutionary wise. From boarding to start up compared to yes the outstanding legacy  F-15, the F-35A is again on another evolutionary plain. They had the $400,000 helmet on display and they let the public carefully pick it up.  Even with the O2 mask  and all it was feather light, carbon fibre and all.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Super Hornets  they are great aircraft and they had a F-18F Super Hornet on display, and flying in the show, but really the F-35A is just in another world. I believe  Canada is going to choose from F-18E/F or F-35A regardless of what Prime Minister "Look at my Socks & If you kill your enemy they win." Trudeau said before.

 

Seeing the F-35 flying even if it did not do a full display but only flew for the USAF Heritage Flight (This year with a USAF F-16C, F-86 and P-51D) was cool.

Edited by Gordon Shumway
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cf18hornet said:

Here's video I took of the Dutch F-35 unrestricted climb on departure day after the Abbotsford Airshow.  My ears hurt after this for a couple days. 

 

 

 

Would it be safe to say you don't agree with the camp who says it's "underpowered"??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice video "cf18hornet"  :thumbsup:.

 

But honestly until they fix the backup beeper and rearview safety camera this aircraft is just not what was promised...

img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=7784556

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2017 at 0:21 AM, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

Would it be safe to say you don't agree with the camp who says it's "underpowered"??

 Sure can get a good feel feel for it's power by watching that video.  

 

Interestingly enough, Combat Aircraft, which typically just runs fluff pieces on the F-35, did an article about it's routine at the Paris Airshow and it's maneuverability in general.   Multiple viewpoints expressed (which is also a bit unique for this magazine).  They quoted someone who stated that in it's early stages, where it was restricted to 3G, the F-35 was the equivalent to an F-15C in maneuverability.   I find that to be just a bit hard to believe.    Another pilot stated that presently, while still restricted to 7G, the jet can typically outmaneuver an F-16 (I'm paraphrasing a bit since I tossed the mag after reading it a few weeks back). Obviously pilot skill is a huge variable.  

 

From a different standpoint, the author seemed a bit cynical about the "Hollywood hype" surrounding the Paris demo, "Beast Mode" and all (nice name btw, kudos to LM's PR dept).   Said it wasn't anything that a decent 4th (and in some cases, 3rd) gen fighter couldn't replicate.  I found that surprising since AWS&T, which typically isn't in the JSF fan boy camp, ran a feature article about the Paris demo, gushing praise on the jet for it's stellar performance.  

 

No real point to this post, just interesting that at this stage of the program, there is still such divided opinion on the jet's ability to maneuver.   Seems like by now, the issue should be settled.   Instead, you ask 4 "experts", you will probably get 4 very different answers.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

 

No real point to this post, just interesting that at this stage of the program, there is still such divided opinion on the jet's ability to maneuver.   Seems like by now, the issue should be settled.   Instead, you ask 4 "experts", you will probably get 4 very different answers.  
 

 

Well said there. But not just what comes to the sole issue of maneuverability.

 

I've been following this thread with great interest but the praise this aircraft receives from certain parties and, on the other hand, the various stories telling the opposite I've heard just... Well, I'm just not convinced. Hopefully our own local review (i.e. the Finnish AF) would reveal something cogent, not just the usual marketing bollocks we seem to be hearing a lot.

 

Sorry, I've got nothing personal against this aircraft, I just want to know more. Then again, I'm not in a position where I could get neutral and non-biased information. Please keep in mind that very few of us here are.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

No real point to this post, just interesting that at this stage of the program, there is still such divided opinion on the jet's ability to maneuver.   Seems like by now, the issue should be settled.   Instead, you ask 4 "experts", you will probably get 4 very different answers.  
 

 

 

Why would it ever be "Settled"?? Start a(nother) thread about the F-14s maneuverability and see what everyone "settles" on. What do you think the consensus is or do you get 4 different answers? 

 


 

Quote

 

I've been following this thread with great interest but the praise this aircraft receives from certain parties and, on the other hand, the various stories telling the opposite I've heard just... Well, I'm just not convinced. Hopefully our own local review (i.e. the Finnish AF) would reveal something cogent, not just the usual marketing bollocks we seem to be hearing a lot.


 

 

 

As far as I can tell "Marketing bullocks" for most people is anything remotely positive. That's just my experience with public perception. 

 

As it does more, the reputation spreads. Public was not impressed with the Super Hornet, or F-22, or V-22 until they started to get out there more. Now they're all combat proven. Before they were combat proven they were involved in exercises that gave people a chance to see it first hand. Word spreads etc etc. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

Why would it ever be "Settled"?? Start a(nother) thread about the F-14s maneuverability and see what everyone "settles" on. What do you think the consensus is or do you get 4 different answers? 

 

Should be pretty straightforward.   Most people can find concensus on modern jets.  Example, by most accounts, the SH is a bit limited on top end speed, has mediocre acceleration but maneuvers well slow and at high AOA.  I'm condensing things but the details are out there.     Most folks would be able to find similar concensus on the rest of today's tactical jets.  However, the F-35 seems to be the exception.  Even with the pilots themselves.  

 

Is this a jet that will kick Flanker *ss low and slow in Beast Mode or is it a heavy, somewhat sluggish attack aircraft?   Or (I'm guessing), somewhere in between?   

 

To Janman's comments, Id love to see an independent, unaligned air force evaluate this jet in detail and post the results. 

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Should be pretty straightforward.   Most people can find concensus on modern jets.  Example, by most accounts, the SH is a bit limited on top end speed, has mediocre acceleration but maneuvers well slow and at high AOA.  I'm condensing things but the details are out there.     Most folks would be able to find similar concensus on the rest of today's tactical jets.  However, the F-35 seems to be the exception.  Even with the pilots themselves.  

 

Is this a jet that will kick Flanker *ss low and slow in Beast Mode or is it a heavy, somewhat sluggish attack aircraft?   Or (I'm guessing), somewhere in between?   

 

You might be confused as a lot of the bad press is coming from not pilots. In fact a lot of the complaining started before AA-1 had flown a single flight.

 

There are dozens of interviews and even long descriptions from F-35 pilots. There is a general consensus. Basically F-18 guys say it reminds them of an F-18 and F-16 guys say it's like an F-16. One pilot said it's like an F-18 but with 4 engines. There are youtube interviews, magazines, online sites...Lots of examples. Basically an F-16 with a hornets AOA ability.

 

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

 

That's one example.

 

 

The  confusion is from the people dogpiling on. Most of whom don't know what they are talking about. And that's just the ignorant variation. There is also the deliberately against F-35 because they have an agenda, money to made, or are being paid outright.

 

 

38 minutes ago, 11bee said:

To Janman's comments, Id love to see an independent, unaligned air force evaluate this jet in detail and post the results. 

 

Like say Korea or Japan? What counts "as unaligned?" Denmark posted the results. Every eval canada has ever done has come up F-35, to the point they have to slip a gag order on anyone who knew the truth. KPMG Canada did an independent review of the F-35 cost. 

 

It's been said before and I'll say it again everyone has evaluated this aircraft to insane degree and it's the most scrutinized defense program in the world. 

 

Its amazing to me that everytime the F-35 wins and the evaluations are posted it's treated like a fluke and the next evaluation will finally tell the "truth" people dismiss evidence as fast as it can be presented.

 

Lastly and this goes for janman and yourself. There is a plethora of stuff that the F-35 does that doesn't make the papers. Your going to be Inhibited beyond classified stuff, as a lot of reporters don't have the resources, or patience, or desire, or time to cover it or the military just isn't the regular beat or they don't write positive things about weapon systems at all.

 

So you have people flying it and doing amazing things and a public that doesn't know about any of it. And then the public has to make judgements on a fraction of information that's then split further. Confusion is inherent but I don't feel like it's hard to find evidence with not much googling. So the truth isn't being spoon fed but one can find it

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit OT - The F-35's helmet mounted vision system is apparently migrating to armored vehicles.   Not sure how I feel about this being used on tanks / tracks.  Israels originally were strong proponents of having their tank commanders fight with their heads out of the hatches.   Said you needed to hear and see what was going on around you to fight effectively (and they suffered a high number of TC causalities as a result). Plus, armored vehicles in the heat of combat tend to get covered with stuff called "mud" and "dust", not to mention shrapnel and small arms fire.  Not sure how they plan on protecting all those cameras.   Be interesting to see the details on this system.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2017/07/06/israel-to-enter-era-of-closed-hatch-combat-see-through-tanks/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

A bit OT - The F-35's helmet mounted vision system is apparently migrating to armored vehicles.   Not sure how I feel about this being used on tanks / tracks.  Israels originally were strong proponents of having their tank commanders fight with their heads out of the hatches.   Said you needed to hear and see what was going on around you to fight effectively (and they suffered a high number of TC causalities as a result). Plus, armored vehicles in the heat of combat tend to get covered with stuff called "mud" and "dust", not to mention shrapnel and small arms fire.  Not sure how they plan on protecting all those cameras.   Be interesting to see the details on this system.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2017/07/06/israel-to-enter-era-of-closed-hatch-combat-see-through-tanks/

 

 

 

Probably the same way we get by with thermal sights and other optics that aren't old school periscopes. 

 

Could really change things on future tank designs. Driver can see as well as the TC... 

 

Look up the navy's use of fancy camera on subs rather than periscope. No periscope means no need to have the bridge in a certain spot on the sub. Can put it anywhere now

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...