Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
MarkW

F-35 news roundup

Recommended Posts

A lack of a gun is all it takes to make it operationally ineffective?

Bad news for the Growler

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, effectively, not operationally useful till 2017 at least

:bandhead2:/>

If you go by this logic, then the Eurofighter still isn't operationally useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, effectively, not operationally useful till 2017 at least

:bandhead2:/>/>

By that logic, these were never useful either.

A-6As_VMAAW-242_1975.jpeg

F-4S_VMFA-312_Pensacola_1986.JPEG

Edited by Trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so unfair. To take a shot at the Eurofighter the F-35 is caught in collateral damage. What do?!

Oh wait, the F-35 has an AESA that not only works but rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go by this logic, then the Eurofighter still isn't operationally useful.

That would explain why it fared poorly against the IAF recently :)

Last month, Indian Air Force's Su30-MKI fighter jets duelled with the British Royal Air Force's Typhoon FGR4s during the two-week training exercise called Indradhanush 2015.

The aim of the exercise, that started on July 21, was to enhance mutual operational understanding between the two air forces and provide ample opportunity for exchange of ideas relating to concept of operations in a dynamic warfare environment.

However, controversy erupted as the Indian jets flew back to India from the RAF base of Coningsby.

In an interview to news channel NDTV, IAF Commander for the exercise, Group Captain Ashu Srivastav claimed that his contingent scored a 12-0 victory against the RAF fighters in a series of aerial dogfight scenarios.

The media report said: 'The first week of the exercises pitted the Su-30, which NATO calls the Flanker, in a series of aerial dogfight scenarios. First, there were 1 v 1 encounters, where a single jet of each type engaged each other in Within Visual Range combat, firing simulated missiles to a range of two miles.'

An IAF Su30-MKI taking off from the RAF base of Coningsby. Photograph: Royal Air Force

'The exercises progressed to 2 v 2 engagements with two Eurofighters taking on two Su-30s and 2 v 1 exercises where two Sukhois took on a single Typhoon and vice versa. Notably, in the exercise where a lone Su-30 was engaged by two Typhoons, the IAF jet emerged the victor ‘shooting’ down both ‘enemy’ jets

First the Indians sweep the skies of all those USAF F-15's, now the do the same to the Typhoon.

Fear the Sukhoi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see a three-way fight:

Indian Flankers vs. Jolly Rogers Tomcats vs A-10s.

Internet, kiss your @$$ goodbye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would explain why it fared poorly against the IAF recently :)/>

Last month, Indian Air Force's Su30-MKI fighter jets duelled with the British Royal Air Force's Typhoon FGR4s during the two-week training exercise called Indradhanush 2015.

The aim of the exercise, that started on July 21, was to enhance mutual operational understanding between the two air forces and provide ample opportunity for exchange of ideas relating to concept of operations in a dynamic warfare environment.

However, controversy erupted as the Indian jets flew back to India from the RAF base of Coningsby.

In an interview to news channel NDTV, IAF Commander for the exercise, Group Captain Ashu Srivastav claimed that his contingent scored a 12-0 victory against the RAF fighters in a series of aerial dogfight scenarios.

The media report said: 'The first week of the exercises pitted the Su-30, which NATO calls the Flanker, in a series of aerial dogfight scenarios. First, there were 1 v 1 encounters, where a single jet of each type engaged each other in Within Visual Range combat, firing simulated missiles to a range of two miles.'

An IAF Su30-MKI taking off from the RAF base of Coningsby. Photograph: Royal Air Force

'The exercises progressed to 2 v 2 engagements with two Eurofighters taking on two Su-30s and 2 v 1 exercises where two Sukhois took on a single Typhoon and vice versa. Notably, in the exercise where a lone Su-30 was engaged by two Typhoons, the IAF jet emerged the victor ‘shooting’ down both ‘enemy’ jets

First the Indians sweep the skies of all those USAF F-15's, now the do the same to the Typhoon.

Fear the Sukhoi!

Waiting for the David Axe report about how typhoon designed to beat Flankers, can't dogfight even with numerical advantage and late model FGR4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my personal opinion here...

When the USAF F-15s where "bitten" in India, shortly afterwards the Indians were invited to the Red Flag. It was a different story there due to the experienced aggressors and the knowledge of the week points of the Flankers. My second point is that maaaany years ago I had the privilege to watch at an airshow in England the "dogfight" between a Spitfire and a Tornado...the Spitfire was doing "circles" around the Tornado...does that means we should upgrade the Spitfires? I think we must not confuse what a "good" airplane means and what is a "weapon system". The Hole package" is that counts...F-35 way of thinking!!!

Finally we must not forget that the Russians , finally, managed to have something more than adequate in the air, we have to respect that the Su-27/30/35 family is a formidable "weapon" and in the wright hands it can do a lot of damage. The F-22, or rather the "design requirements" of the F-22 were to "beat" something along the lines of the Flanker...stealth, ECMs, SA and radar are "combined" advantages against it...and even though I am a great fan(?)...supporter(?) of the F-22 and F-35, I have to admit that the Flankers are not to be taken "lightly"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see a three-way fight:

Indian Flankers vs. Jolly Rogers Tomcats vs A-10s.

Internet, kiss your @$$ goodbye.

moan..... awesome concept... simply awesome

A fanboiz wettest dream.

The winner takes on the F-35.

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my personal opinion here...

When the USAF F-15s where "bitten" in India, shortly afterwards the Indians were invited to the Red Flag. It was a different story there due to the experienced aggressors and the knowledge of the week points of the Flankers. My second point is that maaaany years ago I had the privilege to watch at an airshow in England the "dogfight" between a Spitfire and a Tornado...the Spitfire was doing "circles" around the Tornado...does that means we should upgrade the Spitfires? I think we must not confuse what a "good" airplane means and what is a "weapon system". The Hole package" is that counts...F-35 way of thinking!!!

Finally we must not forget that the Russians , finally, managed to have something more than adequate in the air, we have to respect that the Su-27/30/35 family is a formidable "weapon" and in the wright hands it can do a lot of damage. The F-22, or rather the "design requirements" of the F-22 were to "beat" something along the lines of the Flanker...stealth, ECMs, SA and radar are "combined" advantages against it...and even though I am a great fan(?)...supporter(?) of the F-22 and F-35, I have to admit that the Flankers are not to be taken "lightly"...

Oh its firmly tongue in cheek, don't worry. Thousands of F-15s have been "killed" in training all over the world, not once in real combat.

Good training means "dying."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I know that it's a bit old and a little out of context, but I found this power point analyzing a2a warfare development since WWII.

http://www.slideshare.net/Picard578/stevenson-f-22-brief

Wow that is terrible. I've seen better garbage behind a Burger King. Starts with flawed premises, moves on to flawed analysis, and tips it with flawed conclusions. Perfect trifecta.

Thanks for the giggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that is terrible. I've seen better garbage behind a Burger King. Starts with flawed premises, moves on to flawed analysis, and tips it with flawed conclusions. Perfect trifecta.

Thanks for the giggle.

Strauss = POGO

Hosted by

Picard, is an eastern European with an Axe against the US and a gripen boner. He has his own little blog

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that is terrible. I've seen better garbage behind a Burger King. Starts with flawed premises, moves on to flawed analysis, and tips it with flawed conclusions. Perfect trifecta.

Thanks for the giggle.

I just looked at it again and it has some problems. It actually has an ounce of truth on several things, but I didn't catch the overall theme at first since I was on the phone with someone when I found it. But it seems to highlight one side of the argument about developing new combat aircraft. There are a lot of people who think we should just make more F-16s and don't really understand what the F-22 and -35 bring to the table. This guy is terribly biased, but damn he makes a nice power point with pretty pictures and cool looking graphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think that comparison is a bit hyperbole? I mean the Titanic only really had one flaw...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe I wasn't going to add anything, but the only flaw with the Titanic was the people. So no, the Titanic is a ... putting it lightly here.... inexact comparison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New news article:

The $1 Trillion Question for the F-35: Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-dollar1-trillion-question-for-the-f-35-is-the-us-buying-an-inferior-plane/ar-BBlIfvu

And some basic context of the study's organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Network

http://nsnetwork.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New news article:

The $1 Trillion Question for the F-35: Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-dollar1-trillion-question-for-the-f-35-is-the-us-buying-an-inferior-plane/ar-BBlIfvu

Agree or disagree with this guy's conclusions (and I think some of them are valid), his conclusion that the US should move on an alternative is a bit much. What exactly would that alternative look like? Also, given the snail's pace that the process moves at, I'm guessing it would be 25-30 years before his "alternative" would be fielded. What is the plan in the interim? There is no money for upgrading the existing force, so do we just shut things down and hope we don't get into a war with a tech-savy adversary until 2045 or so?

I guess there is always this:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/air-force-bomber-black-budget-military/2015/08/11/id/669495/

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the article, I'm just going to leave this here...

The authors would like to thank Chris Strong and Graham Clark for their numerous research

and editorial contributions. Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.) provided important guidance in

conceptualizing of the project early on. John Bradhsaw’s patience and input was greatly

appreciated. We would especially like to thank David Axe, Winslow Wheeler, Mandy

Smithberger, Pierre Sprey, Larry Korb, Kate Blakeley, and Bill Hartung for reviewing drafts of

the paper and providing valuable feedback that immensely benefited this work. Of course, the

final product is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views

of those who were kind enough to supply their assistance.

Yeah, so...same trope, different platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the article, I'm just going to leave this here...

Yeah, so...same trope, different platform.

Yikes, I completely missed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question... the answer seems to have surprisingly little to do with the military though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe I wasn't going to add anything, but the only flaw with the Titanic was the people. So no, the Titanic is a ... putting it lightly here.... inexact comparison

No, water in the damaged compartments began to spill over into others because the compartments were watertight only horizontally and the walls extended only a few feet above waterline.

Additionally, in 2007, findings of a more recent findings of the new research project, suggested that the Titanic broke in half when its stern had reached an angle of just 10 degrees - a scenario that could have occurred in heavy seas during any severe storm, never mind in the aftermath of hitting an iceberg. The team also found parts of the rearmost of the vessel's two "expansion joints" - fitted near the bow and the stern - which were supposed to allow the hull to flex in heavy seas. Analysis, however, suggests that they were poorly designed and may have contributed to the ship breaking up at the shallow 10 degree angle. Roger Long, a naval architect who worked on the project, said: "The design of the expansion joints in the ship was so unimaginably crude."

Another critical safety lapse that contributed to the loss of so many lives was the number of lifeboats carried on Titanic. Those 16 boats, along with four Engelhardt “collapsibles,” could accommodate 1,178 people. Titanic when full could carry 2,435 passengers, and a crew of approximately 900 brought her capacity to more than 3,300 people. As a result, even if the lifeboats were loaded to full capacity during an emergency evacuation, there were available seats for only one-third of those on board.

So, thanks to those flaws, we had to listen to this for all of 1997:

pirok.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...