F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
the link doesn't work

what exactly is to be explained, in a couple of sentences?
if that Russia can use nukes in case of massive destruction inside Russia with conventional weapons - as I know Russian military dictrine stipulates that it will use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened. A sudden preventive nuclear first strike is not considered, you have to really work hard to piss Russians off in their own territory. And if you start war to exterminate Russia and reach considerable success in it no strike of hers, including nuclear one can be callel preventive :)

i. e. in any case it cannot be apllied to situation in Ukraine. Unless US and NATO get involved and shift warfare to Russian territory

p. s. But personally I would welcome extension of use of nuclear weapons to any threats to our territory.

Let's say if US using some Estonia aifields bombs our cities with 100 bombers for a period of 1 week - there is no way to retaliate with equial damage to American cities but with nuclear weapons. It is fair, don't you think? :)
 
Last edited:

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).

At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
As always, you Russian Agents paint the wrong picture. You want the US Citizen to believe that you are invincible and we are doomed. But you painted a bad picture. One right out of a Russian Movie. Here is why.

There might be 10 F-35As but they aren't there as escorts. They are there as jammers and data links. The best you can hope for is to get a sweep on them at less than 20 miles and a lock on them at about 12 miles. And it's going to be hard to hang onto any locks on anything by your SU-35s. And your R-77Ms require a lock. Your R-37M is much more useful and the F-35 defeats them by staying relatively cold since they aren't going to be going very fast (somewhere below the bomber speed, back with the AWACs and Tankers). While they are carrying Aim120Ds and Aim9X missiles, their primary job will be to screw with your SU-35s and direct missiles into not only the SU-35s but the A-100, and all your Bombers which stand out like a sore thumb. What's going to be doing the firing? The up to one hundred Canadian F-18s, US F-22s and F-15C/E/EX.

After spending 8 years in SAC, I am aware what it takes to bag a buff. You are going to have to throw a whole lot of hardware before you get through. And if you believe you are going to be firing at 300 to 400 km, you don't know how radar and lockons work. And you are going to have to wade through a lot of F22/15/18 fighters to get into range. And if you are in range of anything by the Navy, the SM-2s are some really nasty things that are even better at taking out a fighter or a bomber than the fighters are (you think the Mig31 and the F14 has strong radar, check out the radar for the SM2).

You just attacked the best equipped and trained Air Force (and Navy) on the Planet and you didn't bring your lunch. Yes, Ivan, over the Cap, the Americans own the skies.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
yes, Silver Cat, you made a mistake being Russian! Captain America will deal with you with his magic shield and we're the best of the best of the best :)

I presume the conventional war will be closer to Russian borders, so one should also add S-300, 350 and 400 to the fight ...
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
yes, Silver Cat, you made a mistake being Russian! Captain America will deal with you with his magic shield and we're the best of the best of the best :)

I presume the conventional war will be closer to Russian borders, so one should also add S-300, 350 and 400 to the fight ...
There you go again, moving the fight trying to stack the deck. The fight is probably going to be somewhere in northern Canada or close to True North. And you forgot about the few hundred heavy and light Nuke loaded bombers coming in from the East and the West with Fighter Escorts. Primary target for the Fighters will be; F-22/15 other fighters, F-35 your Radar Sites which we already know will be chopped up pretty bad even with high losses of F-35s. So you stopped the over the top. So would we in that case but you didn't stop the east west attack which you can't do to the US. And let's not forget about the second barrage from the Nuclear Launch Subs.

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.

and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any :lol:

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory? :) with further full nuclear exchange.. :)
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.

and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any :lol:

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory? :) with further full nuclear exchange.. :)
You assume that the US will be the agressor. To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia. And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground. The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.

and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any :lol:

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory? :) with further full nuclear exchange.. :)
You assume that the US will be the agressor. To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia. And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground. The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.

If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight... :)
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,058
Reaction score
21,281
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
China directed their "Big Guy" in the Whilte House to curtail production so that is an indication it is a kick ass fighter.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.
Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.
No. We are talking about the third day of the WWIII, and it means that those Buffs, Bears, Flankers and Lightnings are leftovers survived nuclear exchanges of the first two days.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
1,121
Reaction score
1,159
Points
1,918
Location
Arizona
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
Really? How does a radar homing missile lock on to a stealth aircraft at long range? Not to mention, just how does the Su-35 know where the F-35 is? One other problem the Su has, it has to radiate to locate the target, then the R37m is a active seeker, which means it’s much weaker radar has to manage to lock
Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.

and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any :lol:

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory? :) with further full nuclear exchange.. :)
You assume that the US will be the agressor. To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia. And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground. The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.

If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight... :)
I'm not sure that any objective person can call what happened during the revolution an invasion. The actual, legal Russian government INVITED allied forces in to support the White Russian troops against the Communists who were in revolt against the legal government of Russia. The Communists then went on to invade the Baltics, Poland and other countries killing multiple millions of both Soviet citizens, but innocent Finns, Poles and others. After the Germans turned on your people, the Communists then invaded and conquered Eastern Europe and killed even ore innocent people, When the Hungarians tried to throw off the Soviet yoke in 1956 your people slaughtered them both military and civilian.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
Really? How does a radar homing missile lock on to a stealth aircraft at long range? Not to mention, just how does the Su-35 know where the F-35 is? One other problem the Su has, it has to radiate to locate the target, then the R37m is a active seeker, which means it’s much weaker radar has to manage to lock
It's civilised, "European" duel. So, both duelist get information from their cornermen. Then, R-37 is a missile for big and slow targets, like AWACS, bombers, tankers and so on. They have R-77 (and its modifications) with increased range and improved seeker (INS+radar+IR) for fighters (and "stealth" fighters) too.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
I'm not sure that any objective person can call what happened during the revolution an invasion. The actual, legal Russian government INVITED allied forces in to support the White Russian troops against the Communists who were in revolt against the legal government of Russia. The Communists then went on to invade the Baltics, Poland and other countries killing multiple millions of both Soviet citizens, but innocent Finns, Poles and others. After the Germans turned on your people, the Communists then invaded and conquered Eastern Europe and killed even ore innocent people, When the Hungarians tried to throw off the Soviet yoke in 1956 your people slaughtered them both military and civilian.
Really? I mean, the US Fake Media often say, that Russia "invaded" Crimea and Donbass after Ukrainian "Revolution of Dignity", "invaded" Baltic states, or as you said, "invaded" Hungary (from the Soviet point of view, the legal Hungarian government of Janos Kadar invited them to keep the order and prevent counter-revolution mutiny). And yes, it was Europe (united by Hitler) who invaded the USSR and supported Japan.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
39,519
Reaction score
6,704
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
No engine YOU can build will. But my engines did. Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today? If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.




No, they won't. Not for a year. And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock". It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming. I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years. Hell, decades now. I also crew a Reno Air Race plane. Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.


When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI. I'm in the 200mph club. Have been for decades.

It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything. And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
I built stock engines. The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer. In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up. In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially. And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s. My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks. Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.

And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII. There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi. And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic. I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service. I have 5 years of doing that. So don't give me your crap.







Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins. He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.

You sound like Daryl. You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.

And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans. And "Stock" means stock. No mods of any kind.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
I can see that you failed the test. The requirements were

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

There are only a few examples of that. One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16. That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line. It was topped out at over 500 mph. The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500. But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H. The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight. But the war ended before it could be completed. It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube. My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock. I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower. As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp. All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies. The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed. Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name. There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine. But those were primarily normal aspirated.

Had enough yet? There is more but not for in here. Now, back to the F-35.
You cannot patent a name, dumbass. It's called a trademark.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
39,519
Reaction score
6,704
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
In regards to dogfighting it is worth noting during the Vietnam War, B-52s shot down at least two, possibly three Mig-21s with their tail guns.
They never did keep good records of bombers shooting down fighters especially during WWII. Some bomber crews claimed that they shot down more enemy fighters than the friendlies fighters did.
The word is "friendly's"
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,447
Reaction score
25,133
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
No engine YOU can build will. But my engines did. Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today? If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.




No, they won't. Not for a year. And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock". It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming. I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years. Hell, decades now. I also crew a Reno Air Race plane. Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.


When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI. I'm in the 200mph club. Have been for decades.

It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything. And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
I built stock engines. The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer. In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up. In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially. And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s. My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks. Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.

And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII. There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi. And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic. I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service. I have 5 years of doing that. So don't give me your crap.







Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins. He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.

You sound like Daryl. You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.

And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans. And "Stock" means stock. No mods of any kind.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
I can see that you failed the test. The requirements were

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

There are only a few examples of that. One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16. That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line. It was topped out at over 500 mph. The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500. But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H. The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight. But the war ended before it could be completed. It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube. My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock. I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower. As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp. All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies. The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed. Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name. There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine. But those were primarily normal aspirated.

Had enough yet? There is more but not for in here. Now, back to the F-35.




No, I passed your test. You have a lot of proposed engines there. The V-16 that you talk about has one example left. Thus it is a non entity. I only deal in PRODUCTION engines. There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine. You had your requirements. I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares. After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere. Kind of like your arguments.

Here are some that I work on. Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
You failed. Get used to it. Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.




I passed. The J5 meets your criteria. You did a little internet search for your two of a kind aircraft engines, and i STILL know more about them than you do. Now, post up some pics of your work. I did. Now, put up, or shut up.
It's not about you no matter how much you believe it is. It's about is the F-35 good or not and what's it's future.



No, it's not, but you made a claim. Produce pictures to support your claim or slink off like the good little sock puppet you are.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.

and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any :lol:

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory? :) with further full nuclear exchange.. :)
You assume that the US will be the agressor. To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia. And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground. The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.

If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight... :)
Back to the F-35. Sleep well that the US isn't going to fire the first shot. But remember, the first shots have already been fired by Russia and was met with extreme power where the Russians thought they were being attacked by a swarm of angry hornets. And then the lying and back pedaling of the Russian Government disclaiming the attack. And it hasn't happened again. One wonders what would have happened if that attack would have been successful and not been met with such force. Would Syria have become another Ukraine?
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
Really? How does a radar homing missile lock on to a stealth aircraft at long range? Not to mention, just how does the Su-35 know where the F-35 is? One other problem the Su has, it has to radiate to locate the target, then the R37m is a active seeker, which means it’s much weaker radar has to manage to lock
Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.

and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any :lol:

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory? :) with further full nuclear exchange.. :)
You assume that the US will be the agressor. To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia. And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground. The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.

If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight... :)
I'm not sure that any objective person can call what happened during the revolution an invasion. The actual, legal Russian government INVITED allied forces in to support the White Russian troops against the Communists who were in revolt against the legal government of Russia. The Communists then went on to invade the Baltics, Poland and other countries killing multiple millions of both Soviet citizens, but innocent Finns, Poles and others. After the Germans turned on your people, the Communists then invaded and conquered Eastern Europe and killed even ore innocent people, When the Hungarians tried to throw off the Soviet yoke in 1956 your people slaughtered them both military and civilian.
if Tsarist government was legitimate then reverse recognition of independency of Poland, Finland, Baltic states etc. since all them were a part of Russian Empire.

It was not Hungarian people but Hungarian WWII Nazis who were revolting in 1956, the same people fighting Soviets, you should not forget that Hungary was a Nazi country and an ally of Hitler just 11 years prior to revolt. So, Hungary had to be reliberated of Nazis again.

And it was not Bolsheviks, who recognized independence if Finland, but Finland which invaded Soviet Russia trying to annex Karelia region. 1st Soviet-Finnish war was started by Finland.
And USSR did not "invade and conquer" Eastern Europe, but cleanced Eastern European Nazi allies and colonies of Nazism after they killed 29 mln of Russians, and stayed to prevent return of Nazism, which was quite real as Hungarian rebellion demonstrared.
 
Last edited:

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.
Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top