Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
At the risk of Godwinning the thread, I can't help but think of reading the seemingly well thought comments of the Jews in Germany stating nothing could possibly happen to them because of one reason or another.
The rest, as they say, is history.

If you're going to go back to WWII for an analogy, why would you then use a civilian population assuming political protection as your analogy to assumptions about military doctrine? Wouldn't it make more sense to use, say, the French high command just knowing that another war in Europe would be another attritional grind?

chaos0xomega wrote:
As I mentioned before, I know one or two who had that distinction, and their opinions weren't quite the same (though I do know of one former Tomcat driver that absolutely loved it).

Okay. You don't mind if I stick with my personal experience and that of my peers, right?

I never said that it (F-14A) COULDN'T be a competent dogfighter, just that it was, when first delivered, pretty much a hunk of junk (and useless at anything other than intercepting a Soviet bomber).

I disagree.

I still can find nothing beyond the one instance of the EA-18G scoring a kill against the Raptor. Since I know that F-15s have managed the feat on several occasions, I'm not going to call into question the legitimacy of the claim, but I will say that circumstance matters, and I will also point out that the F-22s kill ratio in simulated air combat indicates that while its possible, its also improbable.

Why would you expect to be able to find such information? Can you readily pull up your neighbor's 1v1 pick-up basketball game record online?

Actually it was during the Ethiopian-Eritrean War, February 1999, Ethiopian Su-27 gunned down an Eritrean MiG-29 after the MiG successfully dodged the Sukhois missiles.... allegedly, apparently there is some dispute as to the exact events although there is (evidently) photographic evidence of the shoot-down. Also, I find it odd that you would state that gun-fighting is done with, yet harp the F-18 gun kills on F-22s, clearly gun kills aren't a thing of a past in this age of missiles and stealth technology, especially since the Navy (via TOPGUN) and the Air Force (via Weapons School) still put a lot of effort into training pilots to dogfight.

I'm "harping" on gun kills as a method of pointing out that aircraft lacking in acceleration and top-end power can still use the advantages they do have to wind up winning a given fight. That doesn't mean guns are still terribly relevant in air-to-air combat; most simulated gun kills occur in gun-only fights. We teach aerial gunfighting still for the same reason we teach dead reckoning; you might need to know how to do it someday, though chances are you won't. The prevalence of HOBS cuing and shooting has made a lot of the doctrines of the past if not obsolete, then at least less relevant. When I don't need to get my nose on you to kill you in a knife fight anymore, it doesn't matter if you're more maneuverable.

That makes one of us. My dislike of the F-35 is so intense that the mere risk that I might potentially end up in the cockpit of one is enough to make me want to be a grunt, which leads me to my present situation.... I have to say, I'm actually pretty surprised to see you supporting a single-engine high maintenance airframe for carrier operations.

Well, what can I say? I know what I'm talking about.

I know nothing about the military but didn't the manoeverabilty ( i know nothing of spelling either ) of the Zero plane used by the japanese have a lot to do with it's success - granted i do realise that todays air war is completely different.

Bullockist wrote:
I know nothing about the military but didn't the manoeverabilty ( i know nothing of spelling either ) of the Zero plane used by the japanese have a lot to do with it's success - granted i do realise that todays air war is completely different.

It did have a lot to do with its initial success, yes. Then the Navy figured out how to fight it in a manner that played to the strength of Wildcats/Corsairs/Hellcats/et. al. and not to the strength of the Zero.

And there you have aerial combat in a nutshell.

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
As I mentioned before, I know one or two who had that distinction, and their opinions weren't quite the same (though I do know of one former Tomcat driver that absolutely loved it).

Okay. You don't mind if I stick with my personal experience and that of my peers, right?

Sure.

I never said that it (F-14A) COULDN'T be a competent dogfighter, just that it was, when first delivered, pretty much a hunk of junk (and useless at anything other than intercepting a Soviet bomber).

I disagree.

You're entitled to your opinion (just as I am), even if its wrong

Why would you expect to be able to find such information? Can you readily pull up your neighbor's 1v1 pick-up basketball game record online?

Well, given the big deal that was made about that Growler kill, it seemed logical to me that there would be more news stories about such events occurring.

I'm "harping" on gun kills as a method of pointing out that aircraft lacking in acceleration and top-end power can still use the advantages they do have to wind up winning a given fight. That doesn't mean guns are still terribly relevant in air-to-air combat; most simulated gun kills occur in gun-only fights. We teach aerial gunfighting still for the same reason we teach dead reckoning; you might need to know how to do it someday, though chances are you won't. The prevalence of HOBS cuing and shooting has made a lot of the doctrines of the past if not obsolete, then at least less relevant. When I don't need to get my nose on you to kill you in a knife fight anymore, it doesn't matter if you're more maneuverable.

(AFAIK, the USAF doesn't teach dead reckoning as of a couple years ago)
I disagree on your assertion that being more maneuverable is irrelevant. Dodging a missile is as much a function of maneuverability (at least for the Russians, who as I understand it rely more on maneuverability than they do on defensive systems) as it is a function of countermeasures. As a former pilot, you should know that in the process of evading said missile you can put yourself in a position of disadvantage where your maneuverability, ability to accelerate and top-end power all become major factors as to whether or not you come home in one piece or not.

Well, what can I say? I know what I'm talking about.

That doesn't make you right. Some casual searches through various news sources will turn up about as many current/former pilots declaring it to be a hunk of junk as it will current/former pilots that think its a great airframe and head and shoulders above any possible competition, so clearly there are plenty of people who 'know what they are talking about' out there who can, will, and do disagree with you.

Add politics to the capabilities of combatants in SE Asia and 5th generation VS 4th gen arguments are moot.

If push came to shove I bet a lot of countries that may be affected by China would probably tell the US thanks but no thanks.

Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.

I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.

Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.

I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.

Well, I highly doubt Vietnam (terrified of China, several millenia bad blood between the two, including a war only a few decades ago), Japan (terrified of China, they know all too well that the Chinese remember their history), South Korea (enemy of North Korea, which is, despite recite events, solidly a Chinese ally), the Phillipines (long time staunch US allies who no doubt recognize that the US sent billions of dollars and a fleet to their aid after the recent storm, meanwhile China sent millions and as I understand it a single medical ship), and Australia ("51st State"), perhaps some of the other smaller states in the region might though....

Also, I can't stop staring at Gianna...

Australia ("51st State")???

o.O

 Mr. Burning wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.

I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.

Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.

I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.

I'd like to know what you base that opinion on, cause it seems extremely flimsy. We have military facilities in Japan, South Korea currently, and to call them "paper allies" is just extremely ignorant of how strong our ties are with those nations. We've had bases in the past in the Phillipines, and frequently have military flights in and out of that nation, and we're considered much more then "paper" allies with our ever present aid. We are currently building a military base in Australia, and have spent the last 12 years fighting wars alongside them. We routinely train with India and Indonesia, helping their forces prepare for conflicts, and again both nations have been supportive with our efforts in Afghanistan. The only nation you listed that might balk is Vietnam, but as Chaos pointed out, they hate China more then us. China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, and hostilities lasted between the two nations until 1990. That is just another of a long line of attempts by China to absorb that country.

 whembly wrote:
Australia ("51st State")???

o.O

It's a term used by some to describe the close relationship between the two countries, also applied to Canada and the UK.... I wish it was the 51st+ state though...

 djones520 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.

I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.

Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.

I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.

I'd like to know what you base that opinion on, cause it seems extremely flimsy. We have military facilities in Japan, South Korea currently, and to call them "paper allies" is just extremely ignorant of how strong our ties are with those nations. We've had bases in the past in the Phillipines, and frequently have military flights in and out of that nation, and we're considered much more then "paper" allies with our ever present aid. We are currently building a military base in Australia, and have spent the last 12 years fighting wars alongside them. We routinely train with India and Indonesia, helping their forces prepare for conflicts, and again both nations have been supportive with our efforts in Afghanistan. The only nation you listed that might balk is Vietnam, but as Chaos pointed out, they hate China more then us. China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, and hostilities lasted between the two nations until 1990. That is just another of a long line of attempts by China to absorb that country.

I'm not sure the promise of US intervention is something that makes ASEAN members sleep soundly when having nightmares of growing Chinese power and inlfuence.

The stark fact remains that American muscle would not be able to totally stop a determined China from getting what it wants. SE Asia realize this.

Again, based on what facts?

There is little the US military can do to stop China economically, but if it comes down to a shooting scenario... explain how the worlds strongest military cannot stop them.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.

I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.

Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.

I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.

I'd like to know what you base that opinion on, cause it seems extremely flimsy. We have military facilities in Japan, South Korea currently, and to call them "paper allies" is just extremely ignorant of how strong our ties are with those nations. We've had bases in the past in the Phillipines, and frequently have military flights in and out of that nation, and we're considered much more then "paper" allies with our ever present aid. We are currently building a military base in Australia, and have spent the last 12 years fighting wars alongside them. We routinely train with India and Indonesia, helping their forces prepare for conflicts, and again both nations have been supportive with our efforts in Afghanistan. The only nation you listed that might balk is Vietnam, but as Chaos pointed out, they hate China more then us. China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, and hostilities lasted between the two nations until 1990. That is just another of a long line of attempts by China to absorb that country.

I'm not sure the promise of US intervention is something that makes ASEAN members sleep soundly when having nightmares of growing Chinese power and inlfuence.

The stark fact remains that American muscle would not be able to totally stop a determined China from getting what it wants. SE Asia realize this.

American muscle on its own? Maybe, maybe not. American + Japanese + South Korean (+ Australian + Singaporian)? Yes, most definitely.

China has apparently already come to some initial conclusions that it must pursue their territorial ambitions in such a way so as not to come into direct confrontation with the US, otherwise what is to stop China from enforcing its sovereignty over the East and South China Sea?

Seriously, what can Japan, Taiwan, Viet Nam, the Philippines, or any other western Pacific Rim nation do on their own or together to stop China? If the answer is nothing, then why are they not rolling over for China? It strongly suggests that they are counting on some kind of outside influence or counter to Chinese power. Maybe France!?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, given the big deal that was made about that Growler kill, it seemed logical to me that there would be more news stories about such events occurring.

No. It wasn't a "big deal" when Rafales got kills on them, either. There's nothing invincible.

(AFAIK, the USAF doesn't teach dead reckoning as of a couple years ago)
I disagree on your assertion that being more maneuverable is irrelevant. Dodging a missile is as much a function of maneuverability (at least for the Russians, who as I understand it rely more on maneuverability than they do on defensive systems) as it is a function of countermeasures. As a former pilot, you should know that in the process of evading said missile you can put yourself in a position of disadvantage where your maneuverability, ability to accelerate and top-end power all become major factors as to whether or not you come home in one piece or not.

What in the everloving feth are you talking about? You're applying movie "missile evasion" principals to real life. That's not how defending works.

Especially not against modern missiles. Unless you're at the extreme end of a given slammer's range, and thus it's burned out, it's going to have far more energy to work with than you, no matter what you're flying. Without going into specifics that could wind up with me having uncomfortable conversations with angry federal employees, with an AN/APG-79 and an AIM-120C I have a very good chance of hitting you before you even know a missile's been fired. Again, unless I'm shooting at you at maximum range and you have lightning reflexes, there's not a maneuver in the book - or out of it, for that matter - that will defeat that shot.

Everything - absolutely everything - loses energy when it maneuvers. The most effective course of action once the missile's in the air is dumping chaff (or flares if appropriate, I suppose, though with modern IR seekers being what they are these days, it's almost not worth it; against older IR tech, sure) and breaking. Not continuing to break, mind you, but just breaking. Getting the missile on the 3/9 line and hoping for the best. If it doesn't go for the physical countermeasures, you can try fancy stuff that's just going to slow you down (again, no matter what you're flying), but air-to-air missiles are not anywhere near as easy to visually acquire as SAMs, and without visual acquisition, maneuvering's basically akin to trying to parkour around an unfamiliar living room in the dark. There's a chance you'll hit the magic sequence, but it's extremely low.

Best practice against a potential BVR aggressor? Get him defensive before the missile's got a chance to get off the rail. Once the missile goes, unless it's old technology, your chances of survival go way down. Chaff? AMRAAMs don't care about it anymore. Jamming? Might work, depending on the platform, but a lot of the stuff F-15s/16s (to use as examples) have access to won't do the trick, and the nifty home-on-jamming features of modern AMRAAMs mean it'll probably help it more than anything. Maneuvering? Again, it's got the energy state advantage unless you're at the extreme end of its kill zone - and maneuvering's dependent on knowing you were shot at.

That doesn't make you right. Some casual searches through various news sources will turn up about as many current/former pilots declaring it to be a hunk of junk as it will current/former pilots that think its a great airframe and head and shoulders above any possible competition, so clearly there are plenty of people who 'know what they are talking about' out there who can, will, and do disagree with you.

Not really, no. About the only guys trashing it work for Boeing. Everyone else who's taken more than a cursory glance at the plane and has flown something more nimble than a 737 likes what they see.

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, given the big deal that was made about that Growler kill, it seemed logical to me that there would be more news stories about such events occurring.

No. It wasn't a "big deal" when Rafales got kills on them, either. There's nothing invincible.

https://www.google.com/search?q=growler+f-22&oq=growler+f-22&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l5.1794j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=growler+kills+f-22

Considering how many people are talking about the growler kill, and how nobody is talking about the F-15s, Rafales, etc. etc. etc. I would say it was made into a big deal.

What in the everloving feth are you talking about? You're applying movie "missile evasion" principals to real life. That's not how defending works.

So what you're saying is that you were taught to fly in a straight line when someone had a lock? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't SOP for defending against a missile an initial hard breaking turn while punching flares/chaff/other countermeasures with additional maneuvers/countermeasures as needed to break the lock? Pretty sure thats an 'evasive maneuver' which is intended to defeat the seeker (by disrupting its tracking/introducing radar 'jitter', altering the aspect, shielding your exhaust, etc. etc. etc. and giving it something else to home in on), in this case your maneuverability would factor in based on the angle of the missile relative to the aircraft as well as the distance between, as missiles generally cannot out-turn a fighter, allowing you to get out of line of sight (for lack of a better term) of the seeker, etc. with some relative angles being more advantageous for the missile than others.

Not really, no. About the only guys trashing it work for Boeing. Everyone else who's taken more than a cursory glance at the plane and has flown something more nimble than a 737 likes what they see.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/
http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Also of note (besides commentary from pilots) is commentary by Sprey, Wheeler, and Christie, who if you don't know are extremely knowledgeable about air combat in general, as well as aircraft performance. Also, IIRC the helmet display referenced in the article was axed by budget cuts, though I'm not 100% on that.

Also also, worth noting that at present the Air Force is facing a serious pilot shortage, which, while a factor of many issues, but also in part the result (at least according to two current pilot friends of mine) of veteran F-16 pilots who aren't too enthused about the prospect of having their planes replaced with F-35s.

For the most part, the positive reviews I've been seeing are coming from test pilots for the F-35B who said it was a dream to fly compared to the Harrier (or in at least one instance have never flown a VTOL before, and thus most of the review was gushing about how surprisingly easy it was to take off in such a manner). There is one set of reviews I've read that makes it seem like an amazing aircraft relative to F-18s (specifically CF-18s), but it was written by a LockMart test pilot, so just as you are critical of reviews coming from "Boeing people" i'm critical of reviews coming from Lockheed Martin employees.

And for what its worth, Senator McCain (former Navy F-4 pilot) is definitely not a fan.

chaos0xomega wrote:
https://www.google.com/search?q=growler+f-22&oq=growler+f-22&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l5.1794j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=growler+kills+f-22

Considering how many people are talking about the growler kill, and how nobody is talking about the F-15s, Rafales, etc. etc. etc. I would say it was made into a big deal.

Probably because, as I said, most people don't know about them. Stuff gets mock-killed all the time. Unless you were there or know guys who were, you're never going to hear about it.

So what you're saying is that you were taught to fly in a straight line when someone had a lock? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't SOP for defending against a missile an initial hard breaking turn while punching flares/chaff/other countermeasures with additional maneuvers/countermeasures as needed to break the lock? Pretty sure thats an 'evasive maneuver' which is intended to defeat the seeker (by disrupting its tracking/introducing radar 'jitter', altering the aspect, shielding your exhaust, etc. etc. etc. and giving it something else to home in on), in this case your maneuverability would factor in based on the angle of the missile relative to the aircraft as well as the distance between, as missiles generally cannot out-turn a fighter, allowing you to get out of line of sight (for lack of a better term) of the seeker, etc. with some relative angles being more advantageous for the missile than others.

See the updated post.

And no, "maneuverability" doesn't factor into it. Every fighter worth that appellation can perform a ninety-degree bank. Said bank is absolutely useless without countermeasures, though. Even that's going to become a thing of the past once stuff like CUDA's more common.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/
http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Oh, I've read it. I also know what's in context and what isn't. Aft visibility from the F-35 sucks. Doesn't matter with EOTAS. The helmet had lag. Been fixed. Only about 10% of the code to run the thing's been pushed. Knowing what the remaining 90%'s going to do is a lot more helpful.

Test pilots report on issues with the plane. That's their job. Taking those reports and concluding, "They say the don't like it!" is entirely incorrect.

Also of note (besides commentary from pilots) is commentary by Sprey, Wheeler, and Christie, who if you don't know are extremely knowledgeable about air combat in general, as well as aircraft performance. Also, IIRC the helmet display referenced in the article was axed by budget cuts, though I'm not 100% on that.

There is no "commentary from pilots" inside the program. Sprey's articles are pretty hilarious for their nostalgia and myth-perpetuation, but not much else. Guys who were around designing in the '60s and who haven't done anything since aren't the most credible on 5th gen aircraft.

And given how crucial the helmet is to the aircraft's operation, it's not going anywhere.

Also also, worth noting that at present the Air Force is facing a serious pilot shortage, which, while a factor of many issues, but also in part the result (at least according to two current pilot friends of mine) of veteran F-16 pilots who aren't too enthused about the prospect of having their planes replaced with F-35s.

Sure. I'd imagine one of your RIO buddies told you that.

Let's pretend for a second that you actually got that information from somebody, though. Know what you saw in ready rooms in 2004? T-shirts with slogans such as, "I'm a Tomcat guy, and you're a homo!" Care to guess how many of those guys said, "feth it, I'm done with the fighter pilot thing. If I have to transition to the Rhino, I quit."

VFA-101's happy with the F-35. I know the 33d is happy with it as well.

For the most part, the positive reviews I've been seeing are coming from test pilots for the F-35B who said it was a dream to fly compared to the Harrier (or in at least one instance have never flown a VTOL before, and thus most of the review was gushing about how surprisingly easy it was to take off in such a manner). There is one set of reviews I've read that makes it seem like an amazing aircraft relative to F-18s (specifically CF-18s), but it was written by a LockMart test pilot, so just as you are critical of reviews coming from "Boeing people" i'm critical of reviews coming from Lockheed Martin employees.

Don't sell yourself short. You know a lot of pilots, remember? I have no doubt you were roommates with at least three guys currently flying the A for the Air Force. You don't need to rely on Lockheed Martin reviews. And just on the off chance you somehow don't know anybody in the nascent F-35 community despite your wide range of contacts, there are published commentaries from the guys flying it down at Eglin out there.

And for what its worth, Senator McCain (former Navy F-4 pilot) is definitely not a fan.

McCain did not fly F-4s. He was an attack puke guy, and not a terribly good one. Flew A-4s. And he's critical of the acquisition process, not the plane.

See, this is why there's little point to this discussion. The constant mix of second- or third-hand knowledge, out of context or inaccurate, into this weird faux-authoritative sludge just doesn't provide anything useful.

 djones520 wrote:
Again, based on what facts?

There is little the US military can do to stop China economically, but if it comes down to a shooting scenario... explain how the worlds strongest military cannot stop them.

Its a very real consideration that potential allies could become neutral if any conflict were to arise in that part of the world. A neutral observer may decide that its best if red or blue do not violate their sovereign territory.

Strong allies would not want a heavy escalation. Certainly SK would be begrudging partners if the US got involved in the area but there will be political crisis if Japan is supported during a small territorial dispute. I don't think the average SK citizen would want bombs falling on their heads if it sees Japanese property being seized. Politics would hamstring the US involvement out of SK regardless of what security arrangements appear to be in place. and vice versa.

The point being that the worlds strongest military could well be hamstrung even before it fights against one of its toughest opponents since the end of ww2.

See the updated post.

And no, "maneuverability" doesn't factor into it. Every fighter worth that appellation can perform a ninety-degree bank. Said bank is absolutely useless without countermeasures, though. Even that's going to become a thing of the past once stuff like CUDA's more common.

Fair enough, regarding missile combat, you're using American missiles as an example, is this true of Russian/other aggressor states tech as well?

Test pilots report on issues with the plane. That's their job. Taking those reports and concluding, "They say the don't like it!" is entirely incorrect.

When the commentary is "“Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.” "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” “There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely” etc. I'm not sure how else you can interpret those reports. Those reports are telling you that the aircraft is in some way, shape, or form deficient.

There is no "commentary from pilots" inside the program. Sprey's articles are pretty hilarious for their nostalgia and myth-perpetuation, but not much else. Guys who were around designing in the '60s and who haven't done anything since aren't the most credible on 5th gen aircraft.

From an engineering standpoint, I'm going to have to disagree with you, aerodynamics and physics are pretty precise sciences that don't really care about the difference between 2nd generation and 5th generation fighter aircraft. Guns were declared outmoded at several times in the past due to advances in missile technology, etc. yet experience has shown us that thus far this has not been the case. The argument that 5th generation air warfare will finally be the end to the gunfight is ironic given that 5th generation aircraft are defined, amongst other qualities, by stealth technology which is supposed to make them more difficult (ideally impossible) to defeat with a missile system, meaning that the most effective way to actually score a kill on one would be to use a gun (unless theres some sort of other offensive system that I'm not aware of).

And given how crucial the helmet is to the aircraft's operation, it's not going anywhere.

I looked it up, they scrapped the alternative helmet option in October, my mistake.

Sure. I'd imagine one of your RIO buddies told you that.

Let's pretend for a second that you actually got that information from somebody, though. Know what you saw in ready rooms in 2004? T-shirts with slogans such as, "I'm a Tomcat guy, and you're a homo!" Care to guess how many of those guys said, "feth it, I'm done with the fighter pilot thing. If I have to transition to the Rhino, I quit."

VFA-101's happy with the F-35. I know the 33d is happy with it as well.

I get that you're trying to take a jab at me with the RIO bit, but I'm going to say it anyway: The AF never had RIO's.

As for the F-14 to F-18 transition, that I can't really speak of, but I'm sure it happened, because it's happened in the past. I know of F-100 pilots who refused to transition to the F-105/F-4, and I know of pilots who refused to fly the F-104 in general due to safety concerns (similarly, a year or two ago a handful of AF pilots refused to fly the F-22 due to its safety issues). Regardless, the fact of the matter is the Air Force does actually have a current shortage of (fighter) pilots which they are expecting will get severely worse in the next decade, to the point that they are offering $250k incentive packages to veteran pilots who agree to stick around. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Don't sell yourself short. You know a lot of pilots, remember? I have no doubt you were roommates with at least three guys currently flying the A for the Air Force. You don't need to rely on Lockheed Martin reviews. And just on the off chance you somehow don't know anybody in the nascent F-35 community despite your wide range of contacts, there are published commentaries from the guys flying it down at Eglin out there.

Hardy har har. No, I know nobody in the F-35 community... well, I do know an engineer out at Edwards working on the program with a test/eval squadron, but obviously she can't really talk about her work.

McCain did not fly F-4s. He was an attack puke, and not a terribly good one.

"Fighter pilots make movies, attack pilots make history." Wasn't he sitting in the cockpit of an F-4 on the Forrestal during the fire incident?

See, this is why there's little point to this discussion. The constant mix of second- or third-hand knowledge, out of context or inaccurate, into this weird faux-authoritative sludge just doesn't provide anything useful.

Then, stop posting? I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-35 is an overpriced, underpowered, unnecessary piece of gold-plated hardware. I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-14A was an overweight, underpowered, overrated hangar queen. I'm entitled to those opinions, "even if it's wrong" on the basis that you disagree with me and profess personal experience that makes you more knowledgeable, because, again, there are others out there with just as much experience (if not moreso) that share my opinion, as well as people out there that share yours. My thoughts on the F-35 are simple:

F-35A - Inferior air-to-air combatant relative to the F-16 its going to replace. Inferior close air support platform relative to the A-10 its going to replace. Better multirole capabilities than either of the two, but (in my opinion) not worth the loss of A-10s and is too expensive due to unnecessary levels of capability from what most of the aircraft procured are going to likely end up doing (low-intensity conflicts/COIN ops, air alert/defense with the ANG).

F-35B - Well... its better than the Harrier, but I question whether or not a super-expensive, high-maintenance, ultra-sophisticated stealth platform with (what I consider) an inadequate payload can fill the Corps need for a workhorse CAS platform. Then again, I question whether or not the Corps really needed a true replacement for the Harrier to begin with, given that the Harrier was never really 100% necessary to begin with.

F-35C - It's comparable (if not marginally better) performance-wise to an F/A-18 Hornet, so there's that at least, but from what I've heard the stealth coatings don't respond well to a salty maritime environment and its really maintenance intensive. For the price we're paying for this thing, I would want it to have more than just comparable performance to an F/A-18.

A-4 Skyhawk I believe, Chaos.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Fair enough, regarding missile combat, you're using American missiles as an example, is this true of Russian/other aggressor states tech as well?

Yep.

When the commentary is "“Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.” "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” “There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely” etc. I'm not sure how else you can interpret those reports. Those reports are telling you that the aircraft is in some way, shape, or form deficient.

And what's missing from those reports is context. Aft visibility without EOTAS - what was being reported on - is bad. Aft visibility with EOTAS? Irrelevant. Performing critical tasks with the overwhelming majority of the computer code missing? Horrible. Performing critical tasks once everything's actually in and running? Entirely different story.

From an engineering standpoint, I'm going to have to disagree with you, aerodynamics and physics are pretty precise sciences that don't really care about the difference between 2nd generation and 5th generation fighter aircraft. Guns were declared outmoded at several times in the past due to advances in missile technology, etc. yet experience has shown us that thus far this has not been the case. The argument that 5th generation air warfare will finally be the end to the gunfight is ironic given that 5th generation aircraft are defined, amongst other qualities, by stealth technology which is supposed to make them more difficult (ideally impossible) to defeat with a missile system, meaning that the most effective way to actually score a kill on one would be to use a gun (unless theres some sort of other offensive system that I'm not aware of).

We haven't gotten an aerial gun kill in decades. We've got a massive lead in AESA technology. The F-22, despite its supermaneuverability hype, is designed to sit back undetected and lob AMRAAMs. The F-35 can dogfight in the traditional sense, but that's not how it's designed to fight. Rather than winning from the merge, it's going to ignore the merge entirely and just shoot an AIM-9X over the shoulder - if it ever even gets to the merge without killing its adversary, which is unlikely, given its significant advantages.

What we know from experience is that being able to kill the other guy from miles away without him ever knowing you were there is far, far more useful than being able to win a World War II-style dogfight. Given the prevalence of HOBS cuing, the current reality of that old dogfight scenario is that everybody dies. When I have HOBS heater capability and you have HOBS heater capability, we're going to kill each other. Hundreds upon hundreds of scenarios run have shown us this. When I have HOBS capability and you don't, I win. It doesn't matter if you could eventually out-maneuver to a guns snapshot, you'll be dead before it happens.

Then, stop posting? I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-35 is an overpriced, underpowered, unnecessary piece of gold-plated hardware. I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-14A was an overweight, underpowered, overrated hangar queen. I'm entitled to those opinions, "even if it's wrong" on the basis that you disagree with me and profess personal experience that makes you more knowledgeable, because, again, there are others out there with just as much experience (if not moreso) that share my opinion, as well as people out there that share yours. My thoughts on the F-35 are simple:

And this is what I keep telling you. There aren't. You can point to a lot of guys who have nothing to do with the program, who have no insider information, and are simply making judgment calls using outmoded air combat theory and publicly available information saying, "The F-35 sucks." But that's pretty much it.

F-35A - Inferior air-to-air combatant relative to the F-16 its going to replace.

This is phenomenally untrue. I mean, just massively, massively untrue. The F-16 is the F-35's closest analogue in terms of aerodynamic performance, with the important distinction that the F-35's a lot better when it's actually loaded up for war. The F-16 looks great clean. Its clean performance is considerably different from its performance with a combat load. The F-35's isn't. And when it comes to air-to-air, hands down, the F-35's massively better. It'll spot the F-16 long, long, long before the F-16 spots it. It's far more capable of the sort of proactive EW that prevents the F-16 from getting a clean shot, and it can easily defeat the F-16's defenses. The F-35's capable of achieving air-to-air parity with the F-22 - and if the F-22's upgrade path remains shut down due to sequestration, then guess what, the F-35's going to come out ahead of even it - so the suggestion that the Viper's in the same league just doesn't have a basis in reality.

Inferior close air support platform relative to the A-10 its going to replace.

The only significant advantage the A-10 has is loiter time. It has significant disadvantages, including its inability to operate in anything resembling remotely hostile airspace.

F-35B - Well... its better than the Harrier, but I question whether or not a super-expensive, high-maintenance, ultra-sophisticated stealth platform with (what I consider) an inadequate payload can fill the Corps need for a workhorse CAS platform. Then again, I question whether or not the Corps really needed a true replacement for the Harrier to begin with, given that the Harrier was never really 100% necessary to begin with.

The Harrier was quite necessary to the Marine Corps' doctrine regarding air power and its integration into MAGTFs.

F-35C - It's comparable (if not marginally better) performance-wise to an F/A-18 Hornet, so there's that at least, but from what I've heard the stealth coatings don't respond well to a salty maritime environment and its really maintenance intensive. For the price we're paying for this thing, I would want it to have more than just comparable performance to an F/A-18.

Again, no. The F-35C smokes a Hornet, legacy or Super, all day long. We're once again back to comparing the Hornet's air show config against an F-35 loaded for bear, and the F-35 still wins out. In addition, you're significantly undervaluing the ability to see the Hornet - and shoot the Hornet down - before the Hornet even knows the F-35's there. VLO isn't a fad. The ability to passively spot you before you have even a remote chance of spotting me isn't a minor thing. The ability to shut down your offense with a significant percentage that I don't think I can disclose of the Growler's electronic warfare capability isn't something to be taken lightly.

Modern air combat isn't who can pull off Pugachev's Cobra. It's who sees who first. It's who shoots first. It's who can get missiles off the rails at the at targets abeam or even abaft of the aircraft.

 Seaward wrote:
And what's missing from those reports is context. Aft visibility without EOTAS - what was being reported on - is bad. Aft visibility with EOTAS? Irrelevant. Performing critical tasks with the overwhelming majority of the computer code missing? Horrible. Performing critical tasks once everything's actually in and running? Entirely different story.

Alright, fair enough.

We haven't gotten an aerial gun kill in decades.

A-10 pilot recorded a gun-kill on an Iraqi helo during the Gulf War (I actually had the honor of meeting the pilot in question, really cool dude)

Rather than winning from the merge, it's going to ignore the merge entirely and just shoot an AIM-9X over the shoulder - if it ever even gets to the merge without killing its adversary, which is unlikely, given its significant advantages.

I'm not convinced. History has shown that defensive systems have evolved to keep pace with offensive systems pretty handily. Besides that, as I understand it, the F-15 is currently capable of doing that same over-the-shoulder trick (or at least thats what the Eagle drivers down at Langley led me to believe), was it really necessary to spend billions (trillions?) on the F-35 then?

What we know from experience is that being able to kill the other guy from miles away without him ever knowing you were there is far, far more useful than being able to win a World War II-style dogfight. Given the prevalence of HOBS cuing, the current reality of that old dogfight scenario is that everybody dies. When I have HOBS heater capability and you have HOBS heater capability, we're going to kill each other. Hundreds upon hundreds of scenarios run have shown us this. When I have HOBS capability and you don't, I win. It doesn't matter if you could eventually out-maneuver to a guns snapshot, you'll be dead before it happens.

I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% with you either. The idea that "no one will ever know you were there" sounds good, but I'm not convinced that stealth-tech is sufficiently future proof to give us that advantage past the end of this decade. The technology to track an F-22 and an F-35 already exists, we know this because LockMart (amongst others no doubt) developed just that type of radar system.

This is phenomenally untrue. I mean, just massively, massively untrue. The F-16 is the F-35's closest analogue in terms of aerodynamic performance, with the important distinction that the F-35's a lot better when it's actually loaded up for war. The F-16 looks great clean. Its clean performance is considerably different from its performance with a combat load. The F-35's isn't. And when it comes to air-to-air, hands down, the F-35's massively better. It'll spot the F-16 long, long, long before the F-16 spots it. It's far more capable of the sort of proactive EW that prevents the F-16 from getting a clean shot, and it can easily defeat the F-16's defenses. The F-35's capable of achieving air-to-air parity with the F-22 - and if the F-22's upgrade path remains shut down due to sequestration, then guess what, the F-35's going to come out ahead of even it - so the suggestion that the Viper's in the same league just doesn't have a basis in reality.

Okay, you win this round, I didn't consider the virtues of the F-35 under a combat load relative to the F-16 under a combat load.

The only significant advantage the A-10 has is loiter time. It has significant disadvantages, including its inability to operate in anything resembling remotely hostile airspace.

The A-10 can take a hell of a lot more incoming fire than an F-35 can. It also IS a workhorse that can generate sorties at a much higher rate than the F-35 can. It can also "go slow", which as it turns out, has made it a great bird for escorting CSAR helo's (much like the Skyraiders back in Vietnam). Those qualities ALSO give the A-10 a significant advantage over the F-16 and the F-35 (let alone the added benefit of having a sexy, sexy, tank-busting minigun with a plane strapped to it) the idea that the F-35 can effectively fill the role of the A-10 is along the same vein of thinking that comes down from Air Force brass every time they try to get rid of the thing.

The Harrier was quite necessary to the Marine Corps' doctrine regarding air power and its integration into MAGTFs.

Since the Harrier entered service, was there ever a time that the Marines operated without the support of Navy or Air Force air assets (or Marine assets off of a Carrier for that matter)? I understand the concept of a MAGTF and the spot that the Harrier is supposed to fill in it, but in the present reality of a joint environment where they can call on assets from someone else (or from a Marine F/A-18 off of a 'proper' carrier if they are really so picky about having Marines support Marines), is it really necessary? Besides that, the idea of using the Harrier from a forward-deployed austere airfield 'in the mud' is something which never, to my knowledge, actually materialized, and couldn't actually be done, since the Harriers engines were evidently super-finicky and didn't much like all the FOD that would get kicked into the engines during a take-off.

Again, no. The F-35C smokes a Hornet, legacy or Super, all day long. We're once again back to comparing the Hornet's air show config against an F-35 loaded for bear, and the F-35 still wins out. In addition, you're significantly undervaluing the ability to see the Hornet - and shoot the Hornet down - before the Hornet even knows the F-35's there. VLO isn't a fad. The ability to passively spot you before you have even a remote chance of spotting me isn't a minor thing. The ability to shut down your offense with a significant percentage that I don't think I can disclose of the Growler's electronic warfare capability isn't something to be taken lightly.

But with the presence of a Growler, which as I understand it basically puts up a nice little bubble of broad-spectrum electronic 'feth you' to anything that might threaten another aircraft, was the F-35's VLO/stealth capability really necessary?

I also want to point out, in reference to the A/C version (because its truly irrelevant to the B), when you say "loaded for bear" unless I've been mislead, using the external racks in any which way, shape, or form, completely neutralizes any benefit that might be derived from all that lovely stealth capability, meaning you're relying solely on the internal bays, which offer an extremely limited air-to-air payload.

 whembly wrote:
Australia ("51st State")???

o.O

I had a similar reaction whembly , although due to my anger my forehead almost made contact with the back of my monitor. 51st state? feth me being taken for granted like that statement implies is why Australia REALLY needs to have a strong look at it's foreign policy.

Bullockist wrote:
I know nothing about the military but didn't the manoeverabilty ( i know nothing of spelling either ) of the Zero plane used by the japanese have a lot to do with it's success - granted i do realise that todays air war is completely different.

It was originally an important feature, but the bigger factor is the US starting the war with planes that were pretty modest. The US rapidly developed new planes and then set about upgrading those planes massively over the course of the war, while the Japanese were never able to develop a modern replacement for the Zero, nor was the plane able to be upgraded anywhere near as well.

The decisive elements of air combat change pretty rapidly over the course of the war as well. While in the early stages of the war maneuverability was a key factor in winning dogfights, by the mid and later stages of the war armour and armament became decisive factors as well, and the Zero couldn't match American aircraft in those elements.

The other element was trained pilots. The Japanese were running out and the US was growing their pool.

Bullockist wrote:
I had a similar reaction whembly , although due to my anger my forehead almost made contact with the back of my monitor. 51st state? feth me being taken for granted like that statement implies is why Australia REALLY needs to have a strong look at it's foreign policy.

It's a tough issue, to be honest. On the one hand, the idea that our unquestioning support for US actions gets us pretty much zero recognition among the general US population. I mean, just read dakka "oh us poor Americans go it alone in all these conflicts" is practically a mantra.

On the other hand, we actually can't go it alone. Our choices are either to aid the US or to simply not deploy troops overseas. Because we've basically got a handful of glorified rifle companies. And then there's intelligence - the working relationship between Australia and the US on matters of intelligence is extremely close - we simply can't afford to launch our own satellites and so we either find a way to access their's or we do without.

For people in the know though Aussie support is quite popular and appreciated. I haven't worked with any of your lads directly, but they have a good rep and I hear nice things about your SAS as well*. For me, I'm more then happy to ruck up with any commonwealth troops. Particularly the guys from Canada's Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, my colleagues in the Royal Marines, and those crazy Ghurkas. Man those fethers can fight!

*Nice being, they're in a similar league to the British variant and nothing else. Nothing. Else.

I love working with the Aussies. We have an RAAF member in my unit, and his accent just makes my heart melt.