F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Bleipriester]

The post is for Hunt, not for you.

 

[DrainBamage]

Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes.

That is an opinion piece from 2015 that you linked to, not news. He isn't a pilot, he isn't military, he was making assumptions about how the planes would behave and perform before any actual information on it performing against other aircraft. What happened when F-35s started showing up in exercises in 2016? Domination, including against the F-15Es they use to simulate Flankers.

One thing you didn't link to from same journalist Dave Majumdar, was his evolving opinions in 2017 after USAF let him fly with aggressor squadron.

“It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)

Flying back to Langley, the experience was an eye-opener. I have been covering the Raptor and the F-35 since beginning of both programs. It is one thing to intellectually grasp the power of stealth, but seeing it in action makes one a believer—our flight had no idea, no warning from the AWACS or GCI that we were about to be hit until it was all over. It’s nearly impossible to fight an enemy you can’t see. While the Raptor would be the most formidable fighter in the world due to its raw performance even without stealth, it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors. “If the pilots of both could carry a 9mm and open the canopy inflight, they would have 15 more kills per sortie,” the senior Air Force official told me. “It's like fighting Mr. Invisible.”

Even that moron is starting to figure it out, but we still have you in here linking to articles from years ago before F-35 was actually flying against aggressors.

 

[Bleipriester]

Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes.

That is an opinion piece from 2015 that you linked to, not news. He isn't a pilot, he isn't military, he was making assumptions about how the planes would behave and perform before any actual information on it performing against other aircraft. What happened when F-35s started showing up in exercises in 2016? Domination, including against the F-15Es they use to simulate Flankers.

One thing you didn't link to from same journalist Dave Majumdar, was his evolving opinions in 2017 after USAF let him fly with aggressor squadron.

“It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)

Flying back to Langley, the experience was an eye-opener. I have been covering the Raptor and the F-35 since beginning of both programs. It is one thing to intellectually grasp the power of stealth, but seeing it in action makes one a believer—our flight had no idea, no warning from the AWACS or GCI that we were about to be hit until it was all over. It’s nearly impossible to fight an enemy you can’t see. While the Raptor would be the most formidable fighter in the world due to its raw performance even without stealth, it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors. “If the pilots of both could carry a 9mm and open the canopy inflight, they would have 15 more kills per sortie,” the senior Air Force official told me. “It's like fighting Mr. Invisible.”

Even that moron is starting to figure it out, but we still have you in here linking to articles from years ago before F-35 was actually flying against aggressors.

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Dave Majumdar's experience as a pilot? Zero. Dave Majumdar's experience in the military? Zero. Dude writes clickbait articles for naive idiots like BleePusser, and doesn't bother rationalizing how much F-35 has dominated other aircraft in exercises because he knows the low-information types like BleatRooster will just lap it up without bothering to apply an ounce of critical thinking.

SU-35, is an upgraded SU-30, which is an upgraded SU-27. It's basically a late 70s era design with additional bells and whistles.

I did a little research on what is the use of Thrust Vectoring and why it never went onto the F-15 and 16. During the X-29 and F-16XL it was found that thrust vectoring could only be more effective at lower speeds. Lower than either of the 15 and 16 operated at. The most used military use of speed for combat was right around 450kts and faster. If thrust vectoring was to be used at that speed, the Gs involved would exceed what the pilot and airframe could sustain. You can go off center with a rudder kick at that speed for a few seconds but not sustain it without thrust vectoring without changing your direction of flight by much. Hence, the reason the production F-16s were never produced although it was just a modification had they wished to do it.

This is why the F-22 only uses thrust vectoring on the vertical plane. It kicks the tail up or down which changes the nose position. If the F-22 is in it's combat speed, the thrust vectoring will have little affect to help it turn but it can help to kick the nose up or down changed the turn rate slightly. But that's about it.

For the most part, Thrust Vectoring is impressive at a air show where the speeds are kept slow. But in combat, thrust vectoring has little affect otherwise.

 

[DrainBamage]

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes.

That is an opinion piece from 2015 that you linked to, not news. He isn't a pilot, he isn't military, he was making assumptions about how the planes would behave and perform before any actual information on it performing against other aircraft. What happened when F-35s started showing up in exercises in 2016? Domination, including against the F-15Es they use to simulate Flankers.

One thing you didn't link to from same journalist Dave Majumdar, was his evolving opinions in 2017 after USAF let him fly with aggressor squadron.

“It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)

Flying back to Langley, the experience was an eye-opener. I have been covering the Raptor and the F-35 since beginning of both programs. It is one thing to intellectually grasp the power of stealth, but seeing it in action makes one a believer—our flight had no idea, no warning from the AWACS or GCI that we were about to be hit until it was all over. It’s nearly impossible to fight an enemy you can’t see. While the Raptor would be the most formidable fighter in the world due to its raw performance even without stealth, it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors. “If the pilots of both could carry a 9mm and open the canopy inflight, they would have 15 more kills per sortie,” the senior Air Force official told me. “It's like fighting Mr. Invisible.”

Even that moron is starting to figure it out, but we still have you in here linking to articles from years ago before F-35 was actually flying against aggressors.

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

And F-15s, F-16s and more. They simulate what our pilots would encounter against a real enemy air force in both ground and air. And if need be, they have a tarmac full of Mig-29s they can play with.

There are only a handful of Jet Fighters that will go into the history books as great. While the chapter on what you see today is still being written, the last completed chapters includes:

The F-5E which can turn inside even a F-16 and is hard to pick up on radar due to it's size. There are quite a few still in service around the world. The T-38 Talon that is used in Red Flag could also be called a F-5 since there is almost no difference. It's still being upgraded and modified and will be for at least a decade. Iran seems to really like it. Their newest ideas are from the F-5.

The Mig-17 which has given more modern AC fits in battle. This little motor scooter can still fight against the Gen 4 fighters like it's done all along.

The F-104 got quite a raw deal in the history books due to the Germans wanting it to do everything. The other nations fell madly in love with their versions. The Germans used a different version. They used a F-104G which was highly modified as a bomber. Plus, their pilot training and ground support was more than a little abysmal. The Italians loved the little rocket ship so much that they had it in their inventory into the 21st century. The F-104A variant could also manuever as well as any 4th gen including the F-15 and SU-27. Something that went from the middle 50s went on to stay in production for over 30 years is something special. Pilots say that a F-104A, even today, could give the modern Fighters in service fits.

The F-15 gets the nod for 4th gen. It's combat record says it all. And it's still in service and being upgraded as we speak to keep it around for at least another

The longevity of those 4 may never be reached again. Considering 3 of the 4 are still in service throughout the world says volumes.

Those three's shoes are some pretty big shoes to fill. And in the 4th gen, only the F-15 fills that role. In the 5th gen, it's the F-22. The chapter on the 4th gen has already been written. The 5th gen has yet to be finished but it's getting pretty close to being finished.

 

[DrainBamage]

Iran seems to really like it. Their newest ideas are from the F-5.

Hah that's a great point. How many times has BluePeeter pointed to Iran's homegrown F-5 knockoff as evidence of their great technical prowess, now when it's being used to represent MIG-29s in the air he's suddenly discounting the validity of the exercise. Linking to Dave Majumdar's older stuff when it was just guesswork, but now that Dave Majumdar has actually flown in exercises with 5th gens and changed his mind let's all start discounting Dave Majumdar.

He's trying so hard to make facts fit his retard worldview he twists himself into contradictory logic knots.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Iran seems to really like it. Their newest ideas are from the F-5.

Hah that's a great point. How many times has BluePeeter pointed to Iran's homegrown F-5 knockoff as evidence of their great technical prowess, now when it's being used to represent MIG-29s in the air he's suddenly discounting the validity of the exercise. Linking to Dave Majumdar's older stuff when it was just guesswork, but now that Dave Majumdar has actually flown in exercises with 5th gens and changed his mind let's all start discounting Dave Majumdar.

He's trying so hard to make facts fit his retard worldview he twists himself into contradictory logic knots.

HE's trying to spread Dis information. Nothing more. It's a thing only the Russians are doing right now. If even a small part of the feces he throws at a wall sticks he figures it was worth it. How dare you to bring your feces scraper to the game and clean up his wall all the time. The nerve you must have

 

[sakinago]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future.

We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost.

Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future.

We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost.

Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.

The F-35 was never intended to replace the F-22. It is to replace the ground attack birds of all shapes and sizes.

The IR, past about 35 miles, is worthless. While it sounds promising, there is just too much heat loss over a greater distance. If you are able to pick up the F-35, you can reasonably sure that a package is almost delivered to your doorstep.

The F-35 has already surpassed the F-18 in performance. And it's already at least equal to the F-16. IT was never intended to be able to surpass the F-22 in performance and nothing else out there can as well. The F-35 is for contested airspace where the Gen 4 fighters would all parish pretty quickly. It is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15.

 

[sakinago]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future.

We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost.

Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.

The F-35 was never intended to replace the F-22. It is to replace the ground attack birds of all shapes and sizes.

The IR, past about 35 miles, is worthless. While it sounds promising, there is just too much heat loss over a greater distance. If you are able to pick up the F-35, you can reasonably sure that a package is almost delivered to your doorstep.

The F-35 has already surpassed the F-18 in performance. And it's already at least equal to the F-16. IT was never intended to be able to surpass the F-22 in performance and nothing else out there can as well. The F-35 is for contested airspace where the Gen 4 fighters would all parish pretty quickly. It is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15.

Again it’s only a matter of time before infrared gets beefed up enough to be a decent counter to stealth. I don’t think it’s going to make stealth inert within 5 years, but it will cause plenty trouble for stealth, and in 10 years it could make it basically inert. We’re already working on satellite with these sensors, angling them at the sky and just slightly away from the surface, so there’s less background interference. Same kind of tech picking up red shift from distance stars with enough accuracy to determine the types of planets, and locations of the planets...10s of 100s of light years away. I’m fine with f35 replacing Harriers and even some carrier launch JSF, but planning ahead suggests that we shouldn’t be stopping the f22 program, and instead be expanding it. The price is too high for the f35, for a plane that’s kind of a one trick pony with stealth, compared to gen 4s. I don’t want our eggs in one basket. I thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to create a carrier launch f22 JSFs, and at the very least add a couple hundred more f22s, and cut back on a couple hundred f35s. I much more confortable with paying a little more for a plane that’s gonna be much more survivable if and when infrared starts eating away at stealth. It’s just a better long term investment. Not saying cut the f35, I’m saying reduce it, add more f22s, and get a JSF version of it. If we’re gonna spend 85 million, spend some more for better survivalbility and protect the investment. Or put back in the 2nd engine for at least half the f35s, even though it’s gonna up the price, beef the planes up a little. We don’t need all to be beefed up, but beef up enough.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future.

We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost.

Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.

The F-35 was never intended to replace the F-22. It is to replace the ground attack birds of all shapes and sizes.

The IR, past about 35 miles, is worthless. While it sounds promising, there is just too much heat loss over a greater distance. If you are able to pick up the F-35, you can reasonably sure that a package is almost delivered to your doorstep.

The F-35 has already surpassed the F-18 in performance. And it's already at least equal to the F-16. IT was never intended to be able to surpass the F-22 in performance and nothing else out there can as well. The F-35 is for contested airspace where the Gen 4 fighters would all parish pretty quickly. It is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15.

Again it’s only a matter of time before infrared gets beefed up enough to be a decent counter to stealth. I don’t think it’s going to make stealth inert within 5 years, but it will cause plenty trouble for stealth, and in 10 years it could make it basically inert. We’re already working on satellite with these sensors, angling them at the sky and just slightly away from the surface, so there’s less background interference. Same kind of tech picking up red shift from distance stars with enough accuracy to determine the types of planets, and locations of the planets...10s of 100s of light years away. I’m fine with f35 replacing Harriers and even some carrier launch JSF, but planning ahead suggests that we shouldn’t be stopping the f22 program, and instead be expanding it. The price is too high for the f35, for a plane that’s kind of a one trick pony with stealth, compared to gen 4s. I don’t want our eggs in one basket. I thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to create a carrier launch f22 JSFs, and at the very least add a couple hundred more f22s, and cut back on a couple hundred f35s. I much more confortable with paying a little more for a plane that’s gonna be much more survivable if and when infrared starts eating away at stealth. It’s just a better long term investment. Not saying cut the f35, I’m saying reduce it, add more f22s, and get a JSF version of it. If we’re gonna spend 85 million, spend some more for better survivalbility and protect the investment. Or put back in the 2nd engine for at least half the f35s, even though it’s gonna up the price, beef the planes up a little. We don’t need all to be beefed up, but beef up enough.

On most of your post I agree. I won't go into what I disagree with. In think both of us know how we differ.

The last batch of F-22s went for 143mil each. The first batch went for around 240mil. The price did come down dramatically. I agree, we should have produced more. But the cost is scary.

The problem the Navy and Marines have is range. We dramatically need the B and the C. This is the first time that carrier based birds rival the land based ones in performance and range. Plus, the F-35B has already shown that it can work in tandem with the ships to increase the range of the ship based systems. The C should be even better with it's added fuel range.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar

What that means is, if you slow down enough to utilize your thrust vectoring with you SU-35 then some dude in an F-15 will rock your world.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar

What that means is, if you slow down enough to utilize your thrust vectoring with you SU-35 then some dude in an F-15 will rock your world.

no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar

What that means is, if you slow down enough to utilize your thrust vectoring with you SU-35 then some dude in an F-15 will rock your world.

no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....

Service Ceiling

F-35 50K
F-18 50K
F-16 50K
Mig-29/35 59K
SU-27/30/35 62K
F-15C and E 65K
F-22 65K
Rafale 50K

Now, what was your point again? Lightweight fighters are almost all around 50K service ceiling but can go higher if need be. The F-15 can almost make it to Outer Space if need be.

The F-35 will be loaded with 6 missiles and a few small diameter bombs with lots of gas and maintain 1.6 mach. Meanwhile, you load out the SU series with 4 missiles, two drop tanks you are not not able to even reach Mach 1.4. The exceptions to the rules are the F-22 and the F-15 which can get at least Mach 1.8 with 6 Missiles and the F-15 can carry external fuel. Plus, if you load your SUs out with extra gas and full missile payloads, you might be able to reach 50k but not by much.

If the F-35 sees you are you a target. Yes, if you see the F-35 it's also a target. But want to bet who sees whom first?

 

[Bleipriester]

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

 

[Bleipriester]

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

 

[sakinago]

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.

The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.

They also have no idea where the F-35s are either. Your article was a good one and factual. But you read in things that just aren't there. The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area. Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35. If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost. Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it. Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35. And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.

I wouldn’t say it replaces the f15 f22, those are more air to air fighters, fighters in the purest sense. It more replaces the f16, more of a strike plane that if fighters are scrambled against it, it can defend itself. My issue with it is, I’m not ok that it relies on stealth to cover up the rest of its performance. And that we prematurely stopped the f22, that can only be launched from an airfield, which adds an extra logistical hitch if we want the f22 to be flying top cap above the f35s probably launching from a carrier. As long as stealth works, sure it’s ok...but the counter to stealth is on its way. And if you throw up a bunch cheaper 4th gens with updated sensors against the f35, even if the 35 takes out a few of the other gen 4s before it goes down, you’re still loosing a 85 million dollar plane. Or if SAM sites get some upgraded sensors, and it only works 1 times out of 8, that’s probably a financial trade an enemy would make every time.

Either beef up the f35 with the extra engine, spend the money as long as it means it’s got a better ability to fight and run in a tight spot. It doesn’t have to be just as good as the f22, just give the plane some more survivability and longevity into future warfare. Or just use the F22 platform and pivot that to a carrier launch to make it much easier to cover up for the f35 without having to coordinate launching that from a base hours before to meet up with an f35 off of a carrier. Or better yet come up with JSF version of the F22, reduce the order and save the f35s as they are now for once the skies are completely clear, and as the new harrier for the marines. If/when these infrared sensors get beefed up enough to be able to better counter stealth, you might as well just send f16s out instead, that’s gonna be much cheaper.

We’ve made the mistake of relying on new tech too heavily and have paid the price for it before. Take Nam for example, A2A missiles were a huge jump in tech. And even though the F4 was a superior plane, our pilots relied on missiles too much over tacticts, and got into trouble, and we were loosing against lower grade planes. The typhoon with infrared sensors gave the f22 some trouble not too long ago. I’ll still take the f22 over the typhoon anyday, but the f22 isn’t invincible, and the f35 is even less invincible.

All I’m saying is cover up those damn vents on the Death Star. Spend the extra 10 mil or whatever it takes. We’re spending a lot of money here, go the extra mile and make sure we do our best to make sure these planes are still in service and worth it 30 years from now. I don’t have a problem with spending money when it comes to ensuring air superiority, that makes the rest of war become a lot cheaper. But don’t play rock, paper, scissors with the f35 throwing out paper every time. Have it be throwing 2 options every time.