(03-21-2013 06:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  2. Dash speed is important, but is not the most important criterion in a dogfight. Pilot competence and maneuverability are both more important in a dogfight scenario. What you really want in a dogfight is to get into position behind the other guy.

Try that when the aircraft you're trying to get behind can exceed your speed by 600 mph.

(03-20-2013 04:26 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Well, that and it's a piece of sh*t.

Its the "Son of F-111B."

Problem is DoD was buying before the design was final with all the bugs worked out.

This. I think the push to do the deal was stupid. Deal heat. Getting excited over the possibility, even when it's far from reality.

This started under Clinton (yeah, he made a lot of mistakes re: US capabilities). But then designs were accepted under Bush. Uh-uh. The designs sucked, as Owl said the commonality destroyed the value of any of the individual capabilities.

Ok, let me rephrase that, the designs were outstanding, but in the end, the physics meant that the compromises, the trade-offs, needed for commonality meant that most of the value was removed from what was left.

Oh, and Boeing was talking bankruptcy if they didn't win competition.

So now the US is stuck w/a multi-billion dollar fiasco, and no-one willing to cut bait and accept the sunk costs as losses.

Another article on LCS waiting, I'll see if it's worth posting too.

Don't get me started on the Little Crappy Ship.

(03-21-2013 07:24 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 06:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  2. Dash speed is important, but is not the most important criterion in a dogfight. Pilot competence and maneuverability are both more important in a dogfight scenario. What you really want in a dogfight is to get into position behind the other guy.

Try that when the aircraft you're trying to get behind can exceed your speed by 600 mph.

If you can turn inside him, you can still do it. Tight turning radius offsets speed advantage in a true dogfight.

Now, to your point, most engagements aren't WWII-style "dogfights" and there are any number of situations where dash speed matters a lot. So I'm not arguing that it doesn't, I'm just pointing out that it's only one of several characteristics that matter. Heck in my day the Vigilante had a speed advantage over just about everything, but it wasn't worth a damn in a dogfight, and even if you'd mounted it with the proper weapons it still wouldn't have been, becuase it had a turning radius about the size of Rhode Island.

As a novice, let me ask you x fighter jocks a probable stupid question to you. Why have they never designed a missile or some self defense system to counter an adversary from getting in your 6? They could tag the system to not fire on friendly aircraft. Back ward firing missile or gun for instance.

(03-21-2013 04:41 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  As a novice, let me ask you x fighter jocks a probable stupid question to you. Why have they never designed a missile or some self defense system to counter an adversary from getting in your 6? They could tag the system to not fire on friendly aircraft. Back ward firing missile or gun for instance.

New model of the Sidewinder can do an "over the shoulder" missle shot

That is good news at least.

(03-21-2013 03:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 07:24 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 06:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  2. Dash speed is important, but is not the most important criterion in a dogfight. Pilot competence and maneuverability are both more important in a dogfight scenario. What you really want in a dogfight is to get into position behind the other guy.

Try that when the aircraft you're trying to get behind can exceed your speed by 600 mph.

If you can turn inside him, you can still do it. Tight turning radius offsets speed advantage in a true dogfight.

Now, to your point, most engagements aren't WWII-style "dogfights" and there are any number of situations where dash speed matters a lot. So I'm not arguing that it doesn't, I'm just pointing out that it's only one of several characteristics that matter. Heck in my day the Vigilante had a speed advantage over just about everything, but it wasn't worth a damn in a dogfight, and even if you'd mounted it with the proper weapons it still wouldn't have been, becuase it had a turning radius about the size of Rhode Island.

Owl, always respected your opinion as senior officer, but Russia's 5th generation fighters employ thrust-vectoring technology as well. So, we can't out run'em, and we can't out turn them. We get behind them, they take off, only to turn back and fire a missile up our ass, or in this case, down our throat. The 22 should have never been canceled and the 35 is NO replacement for the air-superiority Super Hornet. It's an amalgamated piece of sh*t.

I can see the 35 replacing the aging A-6s, if they still fly them, and any electronics warfare aircraft. As an air superiority aircraft? We're f'ed. The super hornet is aged technology and needs a replacement. The AF did. They replaced the 15E with the 22, but dumb*** cancelled it. The 35 could have replaced the 16, which isn't an air superiority aircraft.

Sounds like we need to have something new being drawn up regardless. 22 would still be too old to mass produce now.

(03-21-2013 10:11 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Sounds like we need to have something new being drawn up regardless. 22 would still be too old to mass produce now.

The last F-22 came off the Lock-Mart line in Marietta in December 2012. The production infrastructure is still there, intact. They only built 195 aircraft.

Lock-Mart wins either way. They build both the F-22 and the F-35. I think they'd prefer to build more F-22's since they have that technology down pat.

(03-21-2013 07:30 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Owl, always respected your opinion as senior officer, but Russia's 5th generation fighters employ thrust-vectoring technology as well. So, we can't out run'em, and we can't out turn them. We get behind them, they take off, only to turn back and fire a missile up our ass, or in this case, down our throat. The 22 should have never been canceled and the 35 is NO replacement for the air-superiority Super Hornet. It's an amalgamated piece of sh*t.

Not really disagreeing with any of that, except if history is any indication, Russia's thrust-vectoring technology won't work as well in real life as it does in theory. Otherwise, you're right about the 22 and the 35. It's the F-111 all over--trying to make one aircraft fit multiple incompatible needs, plus buying a theoretical concept and expecting the ramp up to reality to go better than it possibly can. It's another aircraft designed by bean counters instead of pilots.

We needed to keep the 22 production going. And we needed a vastly different airplane from the F-35. Or better, two or three vastly different airplanes. The navy airplane would probably be better something like the Su-27/33/37/50 or MiG-29K, or maybe a somewhat bigger and more capable adaptation of the Harrier. Then you would have a stealth aircraft and third, a more conventional plane with a heavy-duty weapons capability.

This thread is very depressing.

Although some of the information here is correct and the F35 has some serious growing panes the F35 is all about the helmet. The new sensor package the F35 has allows the Pilot to "see" through any part of the aircraft in 20/20 vision. The sensors emanate from the plane in all directions and constantly compensate to make sure there are no holes. The plane can actually detect a plane on its 6 and can fire a middle over its shoulder without even changing direction.

I am not saying the plane is perfect and doesn't have problems but it is not as bad as people are saying and remember every new fighter plane developed in the last 40 years was theist expensive weapons program of its time.

Look! Up in the sky! It's a fighter! It's a bomber! It's an attack! Damn, we don't know what the hell it is.

If that's supposed to go into service as the Navy's new fighter, sucks to be a Navy pilot and I'm sure that super duper helmet's optics will NEVER malfunction. Give me human ability over computers any day when it comes to subjects like this.

(03-22-2013 07:22 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Although some of the information here is correct and the F35 has some serious growing panes the F35 is all about the helmet. The new sensor package the F35 has allows the Pilot to "see" through any part of the aircraft in 20/20 vision. The sensors emanate from the plane in all directions and constantly compensate to make sure there are no holes. The plane can actually detect a plane on its 6 and can fire a middle over its shoulder without even changing direction.
I am not saying the plane is perfect and doesn't have problems but it is not as bad as people are saying and remember every new fighter plane developed in the last 40 years was theist expensive weapons program of its time.

The helmet is pretty neat technology. Particularly if and when they ever get it to work.

But the problem with the helmet is that it is applying untested technology to overcome some basic design flaws. What if we had the helmet and the over-the-shoulder missile and all the other neat technological gimmicks on an airframe that didn't have the inherent flaws? Then we'd have something.

(03-22-2013 07:31 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Look! Up in the sky! It's a fighter! It's a bomber! It's an attack! Damn, we don't know what the hell it is.

If that's supposed to go into service as the Navy's new fighter, sucks to be a Navy pilot and I'm sure that super duper helmet's optics will NEVER malfunction. Give me human ability over computers any day when it comes to subjects like this.

Exactly.

We need three aircraft--a stealth version (could be the 22), an attack/bomber version (could be the 35 if we got rid of the incompatible tradeoffs) and a naval version (could be something like Sukhoi-27/33/37/50, or MiG-29K, or upgraded Harrier concept, or something new). By trying to combine all three in one airplane to "save money" per Les Aspin, we end up with something that doesn't do any of the jobs as well as three purpose-built aircraft would have, and the costs of resolving the conflicts means we end up spending more to develop one than we would have to develop three.

We did do some things right. We sent out specs, got back proposed designs, selected finalists, funded the production of prototypes (with a strict lid on costs), and had a fly-off. The two things I would have done differently are 1) three different specs for three different aircraft instead of one compromise, and 2) everybody who builds a prototype is guaranteed a subcontract instead of winner-take-all.

(03-22-2013 07:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:22 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Although some of the information here is correct and the F35 has some serious growing panes the F35 is all about the helmet. The new sensor package the F35 has allows the Pilot to "see" through any part of the aircraft in 20/20 vision. The sensors emanate from the plane in all directions and constantly compensate to make sure there are no holes. The plane can actually detect a plane on its 6 and can fire a middle over its shoulder without even changing direction.
I am not saying the plane is perfect and doesn't have problems but it is not as bad as people are saying and remember every new fighter plane developed in the last 40 years was theist expensive weapons program of its time.

The helmet is pretty neat technology. Particularly if and when they ever get it to work.

But the problem with the helmet is that it is applying untested technology to overcome some basic design flaws. What if we had the helmet and the over-the-shoulder missile and all the other neat technological gimmicks on an airframe that didn't have the inherent flaws? Then we'd have something.

The Apache had a first generation "look and shoot" helmet--and it took 5 years to get the bugs out.

The F-35 helmet has basically a HUD on the inside of the visor, along with the 360 degree vision projection. Problem I see is that the headrest prevents the aviator from looking over his shoulder thus asking it difficult to activate the helmet tracking

(03-22-2013 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:31 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Look! Up in the sky! It's a fighter! It's a bomber! It's an attack! Damn, we don't know what the hell it is.

If that's supposed to go into service as the Navy's new fighter, sucks to be a Navy pilot and I'm sure that super duper helmet's optics will NEVER malfunction. Give me human ability over computers any day when it comes to subjects like this.

everybody who builds a prototype is guaranteed a subcontract instead of winner-take-all.

You would have thought the government would have learned this with the F16 Engines. With more than 1 maker, you get competition and with that competition you ultimately get lower costs.

Now, all they will be left with is trying to beat the lone maker into lower costs. Each exclusive maker knows they are the only game in town. Try lowering costs that way.......

(03-22-2013 10:33 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:31 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Look! Up in the sky! It's a fighter! It's a bomber! It's an attack! Damn, we don't know what the hell it is.

If that's supposed to go into service as the Navy's new fighter, sucks to be a Navy pilot and I'm sure that super duper helmet's optics will NEVER malfunction. Give me human ability over computers any day when it comes to subjects like this.

everybody who builds a prototype is guaranteed a subcontract instead of winner-take-all.

You would have thought the government would have learned this with the F16 Engines. With more than 1 maker, you get competition and with that competition you ultimately get lower costs.

Now, all they will be left with is trying to beat the lone maker into lower costs. Each exclusive maker knows they are the only game in town. Try lowering costs that way.......

That's been going on for years, ever since Bantam and Willys were competing to make the small utility truck for the Army during WWII. Willys got the contract, and they gave Bantam the contract to build the trailers.