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.
Grey Templar wrote: You're kinda underestimating how dang big the ocean is. Sure, if you are constantly tracking a ship with a satellite you can keep and eye on it if you know where it is right now. But as soon as you get a cloudy day that ship is going to disappear from your satellite photos and you're going to have an impossible task of finding it again, especially if it doesn't want to be found. And cloudy days happen all the time out on the ocean. Plus even if you do see a ship it can be tough to tell if its the same ship. Most cargo ships are going to look similar when viewed from above.
Ships carry satellite tracking systems, as well as automatic identification, radar, navigation and communication systems, all of which can be detected/tracked. Modern ships can be detected and tracked in so many ways, if you have the right equipment, the chance of losing track of one is zero. you are probably overestimating how big the ocean is, since most all traffic on it goes along established shipping lanes, and not just through the middle of nowhere. Not to mention that ships tend to travel on a set course (which in 90% of cases is a straight line), so all you would need to do to find one back is to look further down its estimated course. Besides that, there is only a limited amount of ports, therefore a limited amount of potential destinations and therefore a limited amount of courses. When watching a ship's course, its final destination usually becomes clear very easily. But this discussion is getting sidetracked. Originally we were discussing carrier groups and other naval task forces. In addition to all the things that make cargo ships so easy to track (although they obviously turn off their automatic identification system during wartime), a naval task force is a big group of big ships that are evidently not cargo ships, so they really stand out, and their potential destinations are even more limited. And being targets of special interest from foreign powers, they are going to be under close surveillance all the time.
Grey Templar wrote: Stealth is fine for an opening engagement or a hit and run attack where you are trying to covertly destroy a few key things but aren't going to have a prolonged engagement.
What the US could really use is a non-stealth fighter that is optimized for operating in a hot combat zone. Something that could be deployed in numbers, while fragile stealth aircraft operate in a support role where they can maximize their advantages. A mutually beneficial support structure. The Stealth aircraft aren't expected to dogfight where they would lose their advantages, while the conventional aircraft would be both a distraction and a hammer. So the enemy has to deal with stealth aircraft nipping their vulnerable spots while also being hit by a main force of obviously visible combat aircraft.
In many ways, having some visible aircraft also makes the stealth aircraft more stealthy. Because if you are monitoring a radar screen and see just a few tiny blips you might pay more attention to those tiny blips. But if you see several obvious blips, the tiny blips of the stealth aircraft will be more likely not to be noticed. So in many ways by only using stealth aircraft we are making it easier to detect those aircraft, because everybody knows what we use and that they should pay attention to those tiny blips.
Aye. Stealth aircraft are great for first strikes and surprise attacks. Which makes them a great fit for the US military, since 'surprise attack on poor middle eastern country' is the most common combat scenario that the US has had to deal with since the end of the Cold War, and this is likely to continue to be so for the near future, given how volatile the Middle East is and the relatively stable status of military parity between the US and its main rivals (which means that large-scale conventional conflicts remain unlikely for the time being). But yeah, in longer or repeat engagements stealth aircraft lose their advantages. In which case I suppose swarming enemy air defenses with easier, more obvious targets would be an effective way to keep the expensive stealth aircraft from being picked off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/27 23:17:11
Grey Templar wrote: You're kinda underestimating how dang big the ocean is. Sure, if you are constantly tracking a ship with a satellite you can keep and eye on it if you know where it is right now. But as soon as you get a cloudy day that ship is going to disappear from your satellite photos and you're going to have an impossible task of finding it again, especially if it doesn't want to be found. And cloudy days happen all the time out on the ocean.
Which is why the Soviets had radar satellites in orbit designed to track naval targets.... RORSATS, I think they were called.
It's not terribly hard to put a radar into orbit, after all. Powering it is a bit trickier, but doable.
Vulcan wrote: Which is why there needs to be a live-fire test on drone-rigged aircraft to find out whether the F-35 can survive the battlefield anti-air environment.
They'll never do it, of course; they'll do their live-fire test in combat and, as you say, lose a bunch of F-35s to learn the lesson.
Stealth has worked out alright for the F22, and the F22 has a larger cross section than the F35. :
Which has what to do with IR and optically aimed and guided antiair defenses?
\
Can't shoot at what you don't know is there. And how does a non-stealthy vehicle deal with those any better? F22>all
Battlefield anti-air defenses - the type fired at close support aircraft and helicopters - are mostly IR and optically guided. The Stinger and the Strela (and it's successors) are IR guided, after all, and most gunfire is optically aimed.
Yes, they'll see the F-35 when it's doing close air support. It's a big black spot in the sky, and (if you've seen the IR video kicking around the internet of the test of the F-35 hovering) you already know it's HIGHLY visible in IR. RADAR stealth does exactly diddly-squat against OPTICAL and IR GUIDANCE.
This misunderstands the whole point of long range precision weaponry. You shoot and scoot. Literally how our other high speed strike aircraft have been doing for a while now. Except this one you don't know it's coming on RADAR before hand. Literally all of this applies to *all* strike aircraft so I fail to see the issue? Also there's a reason we have countermeasures in planes to stop IR guided missiles.
Yeah I think Russia, and more importantly China, have a pretty good rough idea where out carrier groups are at all times. That's why we have layers of air and submarine defenses around them at all times, plus the capabilities of the carriers themselves.
It should also be pointed out that the F22 isn't shabby at dog-fighting or anything. Not quite as nimble as say, an Su-27 but more than nimble enough to fight them. Su-57 might be intersting but it's Russia, their big scary T14 turned out to be nothing but a fart in the wind. Doesn't matter how good a tank is if you can't build any of them.
I'm more worried about the J-20 than anything else. Despite it's shaky start, that boy is looking pretty good. Might finally kick the Pentagon into taking things a tad more seriously when it comes to dedicated air superiority fighters. Instead of shifting the funds that were to go to F22 production over to make a new bomber that nothing has appeared of (or maybe that's the pioint ).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 00:31:41
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Yeah I think Russia, and more importantly China, have a pretty good rough idea where out carrier groups are at all times. That's why we have layers of air and submarine defenses around them at all times, plus the capabilities of the carriers themselves.
It should also be pointed out that the F22 isn't shabby at dog-fighting or anything. Not quite as nimble as say, an Su-27 but more than nimble enough to fight them. Su-57 might be intersting but it's Russia, their big scary T14 turned out to be nothing but a fart in the wind. Doesn't matter how good a tank is if you can't build any of them.
I'm more worried about the J-20 than anything else. Despite it's shaky start, that boy is looking pretty good. Might finally kick the Pentagon into taking things a tad more seriously when it comes to dedicated air superiority fighters. Instead of shifting the funds that were to go to F22 production over to make a new bomber that nothing has appeared of (or maybe that's the pioint ).
Indeed, and that is why you see why US Navy ships are often very defensive in nature. Most US destroyers and frigates only mount minimal actual weapons (just enough to retaliate against attackers) and instead are loaded up very heavily with countermeasures, radars, utility and defense systems. They really have been designed with protecting aircraft carriers as their primary purpose. If you compare them to Russian destroyers and frigate you will see that a single one of those often carries more firepower than an entire US fleet, but is much lighter on countermeasures, defense and general utility systems, usually only enough to provide protection to the ship itself. They have been designed as pure ship-killers and are meant to operate alone or in small groups rather than in bigger task forces. The US and Russian navies serve very different purposes to their country. I haven't studied the Chinese navy very thoroughly, but I expect it takes a lot after the Russian one, and not just because it relies heavily on Russian technology, but also because it faces the same rival as Russia does, so they will naturally build a navy to counter the US and vice versa.
Anyway, in a F-22 vs Su-27 fight my money is on the F-22 because of its stealth capabilities, unless the Su-27 can pinpoint the F-22 (perhaps with the aid of a powerful ground radar) in which the Su's nimbleness would give it the upper hand. The F-22 is king of the skies, at least until Russia and China finish their next-gen fighter programs (which funnily enough have hit the same kind of set-backs that plagued the US program). The biggest problem that the F-22 has however is the same one you bring up for the T-14 tank. It has a ridiculous price tag and is therefore only available in smaller numbers. Speaking of the T-14, it is much more than a fart in the wind. Sure, its price means it will never replace the T-72 and T-80 based platforms as Russia's primary main battle tank (which given the massive number of tanks Russia maintains would probably be beyond the financial capabilities of even the US budget), but concentrated in smaller areas or spearheading divisions of lighter tanks it will still be pretty fearsome. And since anything short of a war with NATO doesn't require entire divisions of tanks, the T-14's small numbers don't actually hurt that much. Besides, even beyond its combat utility, the technology created in the development of the T-14 will be useful in future projects (indeed the T-14 platform already serves as the basis for several new vehicles). And finally, there is the prestige of having built the best tank in the world. Russia has always been crazy for tanks, and showing the world that it definitely is the best when it comes to tanks helps to improve the image of the Russian military and its morale, which after the disastrous fall of the Soviet Union and the all-time lows that were hit in the resulting chaos during the 1990's is very valuable as well. The biggest issue that has plagued the Russian military after the 1990's never was a lack of training or equipment, but a lack of discipline and morale. And many of Russia's actions in the past decade have been aimed primarily at restoring that morale.
Hey remember that vid I shared earlier of the F-35 making that sick turn? Check out the F-22 doing it around the 8:50 mark:
Lol I can only imagine what that has to feel like in the cockpit.
For all the criticisms of the F-35, I am still doubtful we’ll lose many in combat. I don’t see anyone keeping up with us. It’s almost as if the US is literally accelerating in advances while everyone is slowing down. Most of that is probably because the sheer costs of it, and quite frankly the lack of need.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 03:57:00
KTG17 wrote: Hey remember that vid I shared earlier of the F-35 making that sick turn? Check out the F-22 doing it around the 8:50 mark:
Lol I can only imagine what that has to feel like in the cockpit.
For all the criticisms of the F-35, I am still doubtful we’ll lose many in combat. I don’t see anyone keeping up with us. It’s almost as if the US is literally accelerating in advances while everyone is slowing down. Most of that is probably because the sheer costs of it, and quite frankly the lack of need.
That is a nice turn.
But can it do Pugachev's Cobra?
Also, other countries are anything but slowing down. Quite the contrary actually. Russia has emerged from stagnation during the 90's and early 2000's to make pretty revolutionary advancements in missile technology in the past decade, it has been the first to design and build a next-gen tank and IFV, and it is working on a next-gen fighter jet that looks very impressive (although the high price tag will really limit its deployment), while China is advancing with leaps and bounds in all areas, although they had of course a long way to catch up. The US is definitely advancing rapidly as well, but only in some areas (mostly the Air Force). In other areas (especially the Army), the US military has really stagnated. A lot of US Army equipment still dates back all the way to the 1980's for example, and the similarly the US Navy has not seen a new class of destroyer since the 1980's (not counting the floating waste of money that was the Zumwalt). European countries meanwhile, are making some pretty nifty advances of their own as well, which, due to the close cooperation, feeds back to the US and vice versa (like how the F-35 was a multinational program). Overall, the US has led technological innovation since the fall of the Soviet Union and continues to do so today. But other countries are definitely accelerating as well.
KTG17 wrote: For all the criticisms of the F-35, I am still doubtful we’ll lose many in combat.
Well yeah, of course we won't lose many in combat when the most plausible wars are bombing helpless countries with no meaningful air defense capability. I'm sure the next round of ISIS is not going to be shooting down many aircraft no matter what we bomb them with.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
That is of course, a nice stunt maneuver but completely useless in any combat situation. The amount of time it takes to gain speed again would be long enough for an opponent to fly circles around it.
Also, other countries are anything but slowing down. Quite the contrary actually. Russia has emerged from stagnation during the 90's and early 2000's to make pretty revolutionary advancements in missile technology in the past decade, it has been the first to design and build a next-gen tank and IFV, and it is working on a next-gen fighter jet that looks very impressive (although the high price tag will really limit its deployment), while China is advancing with leaps and bounds in all areas, although they had of course a long way to catch up. The US is definitely advancing rapidly as well, but only in some areas (mostly the Air Force). In other areas (especially the Army), the US military has really stagnated. A lot of US Army equipment still dates back all the way to the 1980's for example, and the similarly the US Navy has not seen a new class of destroyer since the 1980's (not counting the floating waste of money that was the Zumwalt). European countries meanwhile, are making some pretty nifty advances of their own as well, which, due to the close cooperation, feeds back to the US and vice versa (like how the F-35 was a multinational program). Overall, the US has led technological innovation since the fall of the Soviet Union and continues to do so today. But other countries are definitely accelerating as well.
The difference between the US and the rest is that it has had continuous experience using its systems while most of the others have not, and those who have used some have not used them in any global capacity. I hate some of the decisions that have been made too, but remember nothing the US does is in a void. Its all connected. So having a great missile here, or a nice tank there is besides the point, it will be one system against another.
That is of course, a nice stunt maneuver but completely useless in any combat situation. The amount of time it takes to gain speed again would be long enough for an opponent to fly circles around it.
It is a very niche dogfighting maneuver. It can be used when pursued at close range. The sudden loss of speed will cause the attacker to overshoot and place the defended in ideal position to attack. In a dogfight, speed is actually often a bad thing because you usually want to be slower than your opponent (so you can stay on their tail). That said, the F-22 is apparently the first-ever US-built craft capable of executing Pugachev's Cobra, as well as the Kulbit, another Russian dogfighting maneuver. Apparently the US Air Force has finally come to see the obvious utility of supermaneuverability in fighter jets, something which the Soviets had been implementing in their aircraft since the 80's:
Now that is some sick turns... That must be an awful lot of G-force.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 14:16:29
It is a very niche dogfighting maneuver. It can be used when pursued at close range. The sudden loss of speed will cause the attacker to overshoot and place the defended in ideal position to attack. In a dogfight, speed is actually often a bad thing because you usually want to be slower than your opponent (so you can stay on their tail). .
No, no, no. Bleeding energy in a dogfight situation is the worst possible thing you can do, especially at the speeds modern combat is fought. Not to mention pulling the nose of your aircraft up, losing sight of you opponent, and taking a huge amount of time in a combat situation to get going again. No one is going to be pulling any Pugachev maneuvers in combat unless they are looking to get shot down. Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move. Slowing down in hopes an opponent shoots over you is one thing, going to a near stop is another.
KTG17 wrote: . Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move.
And yet he just posted video of an F22 doing it...
I think the F-35 won't be a real threat to even the French if they don't get around the issue where it's either 'Stealth but too few missiles to matter' or 'Visible but enough firepower to be a legitimate threat'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 21:24:57
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
It is a very niche dogfighting maneuver. It can be used when pursued at close range. The sudden loss of speed will cause the attacker to overshoot and place the defended in ideal position to attack. In a dogfight, speed is actually often a bad thing because you usually want to be slower than your opponent (so you can stay on their tail). .
No, no, no. Bleeding energy in a dogfight situation is the worst possible thing you can do, especially at the speeds modern combat is fought. Not to mention pulling the nose of your aircraft up, losing sight of you opponent, and taking a huge amount of time in a combat situation to get going again. No one is going to be pulling any Pugachev maneuvers in combat unless they are looking to get shot down. Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move. Slowing down in hopes an opponent shoots over you is one thing, going to a near stop is another.
There is plenty of situations where bleeding energy is exactly what you want to do in a dogfight. There is definitely such a thing as too much energy in a dogfight. I may not be a fighter pilot, but I have played enough simulators to know that The high speeds at which modern dogfights are fought is exactly what makes moves like the Cobra and the Kulbit so effective. You suddenly bring your aircraft from high speed to a near stop, which means that your opponent is going to overshoot you 100% of the time, because he will be going so fast he won't be able to react until he has already overshot you (unless he has like crazy reflexes and can do a move like a high yo-yo or a kulbit in time to prevent overshooting you). And an enemy that has overshot you is a harmless enemy. Aircraft have their weapons mounted to the front, so in order to be able to target you again, the enemy aircraft will need to make a full turn, which will take a lot more time than it will take you to recover from your maneuver. And all that time is time that your enemy won't be able to do anything to you but you can freely open fire on him. Basically, if you are being attacked in a dogfight, a maneuver like the Cobra can reverse the roles of attacker and defender.
Also, every Russian 4th and 5th generation interceptor and fighter jet can do these moves. So that is planes like the Su-27, Su-35, MiG-29 etc. Apart from Russian jets, there is also a few Western jets who can do it. These include the British Harrier, and the Swedish Saab Draken, Viggen and Gripen. The US built several experimental supermaneuverable jets, but it abandoned the concept because it believed that most aerial combat was going to take place beyond visual range anyway and that dogfights were a thing of the past (the same belief led them to forego guns entirely on fighter jets for a while, until it turned out that the missiles of the day were not reliable enough). The F-22 seems to be evidence that the US Air Force top brass has finally abandoned this belief, it being the first US supermaneuverable production jet that excels at dogfighting both beyond and in visual range. And the more I look at the F-22, the more I am starting to love it. It may not be as graceful in appearance as Russian jets or the F-16, but it looks sleek and future-y and the technology in it is just so exciting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/28 22:20:22
There is plenty of situations where bleeding energy is exactly what you want to do in a dogfight. There is definitely such a thing as too much energy in a dogfight. I may not be a fighter pilot, but I have played enough simulators to know that The high speeds at which modern dogfights are fought is exactly what makes moves like the Cobra and the Kulbit so effective. You suddenly bring your aircraft from high speed to a near stop, which means that your opponent is going to overshoot you 100% of the time, because he will be going so fast he won't be able to react until he has already overshot you (unless he has like crazy reflexes and can do a move like a high yo-yo or a kulbit in time to prevent overshooting you). And an enemy that has overshot you is a harmless enemy. Aircraft have their weapons mounted to the front, so in order to be able to target you again, the enemy aircraft will need to make a full turn, which will take a lot more time than it will take you to recover from your maneuver. And all that time is time that your enemy won't be able to do anything to you but you can freely open fire on him. Basically, if you are being attacked in a dogfight, a maneuver like the Cobra can reverse the roles of attacker and defender.
Also, every Russian 4th and 5th generation interceptor and fighter jet can do these moves. So that is planes like the Su-27, Su-35, MiG-29 etc. Apart from Russian jets, there is also a few Western jets who can do it. These include the British Harrier, and the Swedish Saab Draken, Viggen and Gripen. The US built several experimental supermaneuverable jets, but it abandoned the concept because it believed that most aerial combat was going to take place beyond visual range anyway and that dogfights were a thing of the past (the same belief led them to forego guns entirely on fighter jets for a while, until it turned out that the missiles of the day were not reliable enough). The F-22 seems to be evidence that the US Air Force top brass has finally abandoned this belief, it being the first US supermaneuverable production jet that excels at dogfighting both beyond and in visual range. And the more I look at the F-22, the more I am starting to love it. It may not be as graceful in appearance as Russian jets or the F-16, but the technology in it is just so exciting.
The tech behind the F22 is absolutely amazing. It's by far my favorite modern fighter. Packed with some of the the most advanced air to air missiles around. It's only issues right now is that it's electronics are getting a bit dated (which is to say they are no longer the very best around) and, imo, we don't have enough of them. But the funds that were to go to producing them got shunted over to the B-21 program.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Also there's a reason we have countermeasures in planes to stop IR guided missiles.
True. But the A-10 has a two significant countermeasures against IR guided missiles that the F-35 does not.
#1 is the engine placement relative to the tail surfaces. From below and behind (the best aspect for using an IR guided missile) the A-10's tail surfaces block LOS to the engines, preventing an IR-guided missile from locking onto them.
#2 is, of course, being heavily armored with two engines. An A-10 can land with one engine shot out... and several have not only done so, but gone out to fight again the next day after repairs. An F-35 that loses an engine is a very expensive brick, and even if it did miraculously make it back it would have to be sent back to Northrup for repairs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Aircraft have their weapons mounted to the front, so in order to be able to target you again, the enemy aircraft will need to make a full turn, which will take a lot more time than it will take you to recover from your maneuver. And all that time is time that your enemy won't be able to do anything to you but you can freely open fire on him. Basically, if you are being attacked in a dogfight, a maneuver like the Cobra can reverse the roles of attacker and defender.
Then why did the Soviet - and later the Russian - military spend so much time, effort, and treasure developing dogfighting missiles with off-bore sighting capabilities and the helmet-mounted sights to go with them? And why are the NATO powers working so hard to copy it?
If you bring your aircraft to a near-stop in midair in a dogfight and I've got just such an off-bore capability, the only reflex that matters is how fast I can launch such a missile at my newly-stationary target....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 01:18:32
Co'tor Shas wrote: Also there's a reason we have countermeasures in planes to stop IR guided missiles.
True. But the A-10 has a two significant countermeasures against IR guided missiles that the F-35 does not.
#1 is the engine placement relative to the tail surfaces. From below and behind (the best aspect for using an IR guided missile) the A-10's tail surfaces block LOS to the engines, preventing an IR-guided missile from locking onto them.
#2 is, of course, being heavily armored with two engines. An A-10 can land with one engine shot out... and several have not only done so, but gone out to fight again the next day after repairs. An F-35 that loses an engine is a very expensive brick, and even if it did miraculously make it back it would have to be sent back to Northrup for repairs.
It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.
Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
KTG17 wrote: . Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move.
And yet he just posted video of an F22 doing it...
Sorry, meant that only modified Russian jets within the Russian air force could do it, not their production versions. At least, they couldn't. If they added that feature to everyone its a waste.
KTG17 wrote: . Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move.
And yet he just posted video of an F22 doing it...
Sorry, meant that only modified Russian jets within the Russian air force could do it, not their production versions. At least, they couldn't. If they added that feature to everyone its a waste.
Russian production jets have been able to do it since the 80's. The MiG-29 was the first Russian production jet with supermaneuverability, and since then all Russian interceptors and fighter jets have had these capabilities (with the Su series of jets having improved a lot on the MiG). So not just those sent to airshows, but all aircraft in service. It is not a special modification, it is part of their design. It is not really a waste. The cobra is just one very basic move a supermaneuverable jet can do, beyond that there is a whole lot of moves and options that are open to a supermaneuverable jet that a normal jet is just not agile enough for, giving supermaneuverable jets massive advantages in dogfights.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.
Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.
You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.
They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:50:56
Co'tor Shas wrote: It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.
Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.
You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.
No. but that only really helps when the target is below you. To either side they are exposed as any other.
They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.
So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.
And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
If altitude and smart bombs are all that matter why do you need a fighter? Load up a freighter 747 with laser guided bombs and be done with it. You only need a fighter platform if you're going to be taking it in low where AA defenses are a threat.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.
Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.
You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.
No. but that only really helps when the target is below you. To either side they are exposed as any other.
They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.
So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.
And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.
It will have to be low and slow if it wants to use it gun to strafe ground targets. Dropping bombs is all fine and good, but those are expensive and can only be used once. For close air support, sometimes a gun is what you need. And as far as I know, that is the reason why the F-35 isn't going to be replacing the A-10. The F-35 can do close air support, but it simply is not as versatile and capable in that role as the A-10 is. The A-10 is probably the best ground attack aircraft in the world.
And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.
So, strapping guns for strafing to all three versions of it indicates that it will stay high and fast? Methinks that Uncle Sam and you have wildly different ideas of the purposes this aircraft will be put to.
Edit: Nuts, Iron Cap ninja'd me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 21:25:06
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Co'tor Shas wrote: It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.
Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.
You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.
No. but that only really helps when the target is below you. To either side they are exposed as any other.
They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.
So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.
And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.
It will have to be low and slow if it wants to use it gun to strafe ground targets. Dropping bombs is all fine and good, but those are expensive and can only be used once. For close air support, sometimes a gun is what you need. And as far as I know, that is the reason why the F-35 isn't going to be replacing the A-10. The F-35 can do close air support, but it simply is not as versatile and capable in that role as the A-10 is. The A-10 is probably the best ground attack aircraft in the world.
You don't really need a gun for ground attack, the A-10 is sort of unique in that regard. The F-35 has a 25mm cannon for self defense. It's not using that to strafe ground targets.Most things will die when hit with a 1000 lb laser guided bomb. Or a JSOW if you are feeling cheeky.
What the A-10 does have is that it's cheap and useful against enemies with no applicable air defense (i.e. most of what we fight right now), which is why the A-10 will be around 'till at leas 2030 by the current plan (IIRC). Basically we'll be using them as a cheap alternative until the light attack aircraft program is able to replace it. So we have one group of air-frames dedicated to work against people with nothing more than AKs (A-10 and eventually the light attack aircraft) and one for when we are fighting someone who is an actual threat (F-35).
And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.
So, strapping guns for strafing to all three versions of it indicates that it will stay high and fast? Methinks that Uncle Sam and you have wildly different ideas of the purposes this aircraft will be put to.
Edit: Nuts, Iron Cap ninja'd me.
The 25mm cannon is for self defnse against fighters, not ground attack. 180 rounds of 25mm ain't enough to use for even one strafing run. It's literally 3 second of continuous fire at most.
Also any real proof on that top one or just the old "it's new so it's crap" syndrome? If it's that bad why is everyone and their mother trying to buy these instead of getting their hands on A-10s. Or I guess you've discovered the one problem that 10 other militaries haven't?
Edit: as far as tactics, here's some quote that took like two seconds to find.
But Wood offered what could turn out to be a preview of the test’s result — that both the F-35 and A-10 can do close air support. But they would do it differently , especially against a well-armed foe with radars and air-defense missiles.
The slow, non-stealthy A-10 flies very low — down to 100 feet — in order to avoid detection by enemy sensors. “A-10 guys don’t like radar threats,” Wood said. “We enjoy the tactics that they force, being down at 100 feet, but when you pop over that ridgeline and you’re exposed, you are just sitting there trundling towards the target thinking, ‘Don’t find me. Don’t find me. Don’t find me. Okay, good. Bombs are off. Let’s get the Hell out of here.’”
With its speed and stealth — especially compared to the A-10 — the F-35 can come in high. “I am able to locate and plot the threat relative to the target and can assess whether an attack is tactically feasible or not. If it is, I can take out the target without the threat knowing I’m there and egress without being targeted.”
"The F-35 will not do close air support mission the same way the A-10 does. It will do it very differently. The A-10 was designed to be low, and slow, and close to the targets it was engaging, relatively speaking," Frank Kendall III, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate panel Tuesday. "We will not use the F-35 in the same way as the A-10.."
"We're going to let the F-35 pilots take advantage of the systems on that aircraft ... and see how well the missions are carried out in terms of the ability to strike targets in a timely manner and accurately, and then report on that," Gilmore said.
It's quite clear that they aren't using th same tactics
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 21:43:25
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The F-35 has a 25mm cannon for self defense. It's not using that to strafe ground targets.Most things will die when hit with a 1000 lb laser guided bomb. Or a JSOW if you are feeling cheeky.
Firepower is not the only thing that matters. A gun is useful in some situations because it is less powerful, allowing air support to attack targets in close proximity to civilians or friendly units without just annihilating everything in the blast radius.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.
Try again. Quite a few came back quite severely shot up... and were flying again the next day.
And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.
Until some part of that magnificent avionics package goes down, or the datalinks to the ground forces are jammed, or until someone realizes that with only two bombs the F-35 has to REALLY make their shots count...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: If altitude and smart bombs are all that matter why do you need a fighter? Load up a freighter 747 with laser guided bombs and be done with it. You only need a fighter platform if you're going to be taking it in low where AA defenses are a threat.
Or a B-52 for that matter. If your avionics allows you to hand-place bombs from 30,000 feet, well, any avionics you can cram into an F-35 can be placed into a BUFF with room to spare, and it has a HECK of a lot better payload and loiter time.
Use the F-35 to go hunt SAM sites, which it should excel in, and let other platforms better designed for the job take care of CAS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/30 21:36:15
Not when their control surfaces fail though As you can probably imagine, flying an airplane without controls is kinda... difficult.
One way is to adjust thrust between the engines but an F-35 can't steer that way. (It's not perfect but it can work. It definitely beats falling out of the sky or being unable to turn at all.)
BTW: the reason, according to all asked, that the gun is still a thing for close support is that vaporizing your own troops in a danger close situation is a negative outcome.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/30 23:41:21
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Not when their control surfaces fail though As you can probably imagine, flying an airplane without controls is kinda... difficult.
One way is to adjust thrust between the engines but an F-35 can't steer that way. (It's not perfect but it can work. It definitely beats falling out of the sky or being unable to turn at all.)
BTW: the reason, according to all asked, that the gun is still a thing for close support is that vaporizing your own troops in a danger close situation is a negative outcome.
Not if you have reserves...
Killing your own troops is perfectly fine as long as their sacrifice allows you to take out a greater number of enemy troops as well. See? Playing all those strategy video games paid off after all. Now I only need to convince someone to put me in charge of an actual military.
).
