Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The F35 is a total hunk of shit. It was supposed to be a vertical takeoff jet,Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
bullshit-----you people said the A7 can beat the F15/etc --no you are babbleing even MORE bullshit = you lost--like the A7...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverablesuccessful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????game over in these links--sorry..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous positionhahhahah..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versaThe only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrsYou also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.
Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.
In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1
I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders
It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH
When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate
'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''
''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''
Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.www.airforcemag.com
Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
Whose fighter was better?news.yahoo.com
.
The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?www.historynet.com
The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.
The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap. The A-7 pilots were not. the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots. The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun. And until the F-4 pilots did, they weren't faring any better than the Slufs. And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either. It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what I said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability
And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15. You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end. They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR. Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
\
The joint strike fighter was designed to be vertical takeoff and the F35 can do such, without weapons or a full fuel load.The F35 is a total hunk of shit. It was supposed to be a vertical takeoff jet,Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Vertical takeoff is little more than a parlor trick. It is virtually never used operationally. What is used is SHORT TAKEOFF and VERTICAL LANDING. Taking off from a ski jump to maximize your payload. Now once a mission is over, your fuel is burned off and munitions expended, you can return and land vertically as your aircraft is now tons lighter.
bullshit-----you people said the A7 can beat the F15/etc --no you are babbleing even MORE bullshit = you lost--like the A7...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverablesuccessful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????game over in these links--sorry..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous positionhahhahah..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versaThe only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrsYou also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.
Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.
In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1
I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders
It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH
When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate
'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''
''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''
Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
Whose fighter was better?
.The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.
The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap. The A-7 pilots were not. the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots. The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun. And until the F-4 pilots did, they weren't faring any better than the Slufs. And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either. It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what I said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability
And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15. You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end. They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR. Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
\
WW2 vs F15--HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
what you said is all there ..I'll go back and quote it
bullshit-----you people said the A7 can beat the F15/etc --no you are babbleing even MORE bullshit = you lost--like the A7...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverablesuccessful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????game over in these links--sorry..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous positionhahhahah..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versaThe only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrsYou also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.
Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.
In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1
I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders
It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH
When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate
'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''
''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''
Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
Whose fighter was better?
.The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.
The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap. The A-7 pilots were not. the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots. The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun. And until the F-4 pilots did, they weren't faring any better than the Slufs. And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either. It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what I said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability
And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15. You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end. They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR. Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
\
WW2 vs F15--HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
what you said is all there ..I'll go back and quote it
If you allow the Modern Fighter to have the luxury of BVR, he will win the fight 100% of the time against a WWII, or any Attack Jet Fighter ever made. Once something like a modern Sidewinder gets a lockon, it's a done deal. Radar is just as deadly. But there are ways to keep the Modern Fighter from getting his BVR situation and force him into a dog fight where he is weak. You use the terrain whether it be mountains, hills, valleys, buildings, forests or even sand dunes. If the modern fighter wants to fight under those conditions, he is going to be the disadvantaged and will have to slow down and still take a mile or more to make a full turn. Meanwhile the WWII and the Attack Fighter can do that turn in, in some cases, in less than 100 feet. The Attack Jet will be doing about Mach .95 or may be as slow as Mach .75 in the A-10s case. The WWII Fighter won't be much slower.
The bad news for the Modern Fighter, it will take him time to spool up. Meaning, when he hits the gas, he is going to accelerate much slower than the WWII Bird. For just a few seconds, the WWII bird will be able to out accelerate the Modern Fighter and close the gap. And when the Modern Fighter is trying to turn, the WWII fighter can lazily turn inside the Modern Fighter without decreasing his speed. That means, if it's a P-51, he may be running at almost 450 mph (the optimal dogfighting speed of a F-18) and turn inside even a F-22. Now, let's replace the P-51 with a modern A-10 at 275 knots and we will get the same results. We can put an A-7 and get the same results as well.
The use of Radar Missiles couldn't used due to the mission was to take out the Choppers and Choppers are almost invulnerable from Radar Missiles. Not enough Radar Cross Section. And due to the hot desert, the heat seekers are worthless. It's guns only. In that situation, the Modern Fighter can be defeated almost every time by a WW2 Front Lined Fighter or a modern Attack.
Here is a whole series of WW2 Warbird against the most Modern Fighters on a one on one
Before you laugh at these people, these are industries best made up of many fighter pilots and enthusiasts and the game is about as close to real as you can get without smelling Jet Fuel.
Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation. In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history. Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now. Top gun is fake, or you are still stuck in vietnamActually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation. In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
History says otherwise.
Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history. Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now.Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation. In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
History says otherwise.
You are still stuck in the past. Shit even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously. So there goes the f35 and the mother ship to the bottom in the first hour of a modern conflict. Unless we only target third world nations like vietnam or somaliaGet over it kid the next war can not be won in history. Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now.Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation. In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
History says otherwise.
Missiles launched at that range at aircraft are largely ineffective. And I'm not "kid". I'm 53 years old.
Some missiles are launched from 200 miles away, but from this distance they can hit only large, slow and non-maneuverable targets in very good conditions. Normal modern fighters can avoid incoming missiles. Or (speaking, for example, about China) even previous generation fighters can be too numerous.Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history. Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now. Top gun is fake, or you are still stuck in vietnamActually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation. In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
History says otherwise.
Lol
Actually we launch those missiles too and they are expected to work. Shit the pilot is actually optional now I assume you all knowSome missiles are launched from 200 miles away, but from this distance they can hit only large, slow and non-maneuverable targets in very good conditions. Normal modern fighters can avoid incoming missiles. Or (speaking, for example, about China) even previous generation fighters can be too numerous.Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history. Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now. Top gun is fake, or you are still stuck in vietnamActually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation. In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
History says otherwise.
Lol
even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
Kid the missiles can be launched from the mainland. Remember the carrier has to get into jet range to operate. Hypersonic missiles have no such restriction. Carriers would all be sunk inside of an hour of threatening a real adversary.Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
www.popularmechanics.com
Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.Because we have basically the same stuff. The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan. The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously. Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
Carve it in stone
Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time. The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
They wouldn't even have to be shot down. If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
1.7 miles per second. No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth? They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality. Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
Then why is china building them?
