http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-russia-china-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-can-dogfight-15675
Is this real life?
>>29492765
Based.
>>29492765
I don't see any other F35 threads except that autosaging Finland one. For the love of /k/ube, please keep all F35 discussion aka shitposting here until this thread drops off. Self policing is the best policy. We can do this.
>>29492765
I'm tired of F-35 wild ride. I just want to get off.
Biggest mistake of the 20th century was to destroy tooling necessary to produce new F-22
>>29493071
>Biggest mistake of the 20th century was to destroy tooling necessary to produce new F-22
But they didn't do that. It's all in storage.
>>29493071
It's not destroyed, it's in long term storage. Problem is getting all that tooling back into place and in working order is prohibitively expensive.
>>29492765
He's definitely phrasing it so it's all the pilot's opinion and as if he himself wasn't wrong or intentionally misleading/straight up lying about what the report said.
>>29492765
Axe does this sometimes to appear impartial and snag clicks; all this article is is just a reposting of the Norwegian Mod blog. No Axe analysis or lengthy opinion.
>>29492765
>>29493153
Agreed. There's some careful phrasing, it doesn't match what the previous pilots to do a similar test reported at all, and it's not consistent with the manufacturers own specs.
Things that make you go hmm.
>>29492765
or is this just fantasy
>>29493274
Pretty much all of the pilots have said the F-35 has good subsonic acceleration (your chart is for trans/supersonic; dogfights take place far slower); the test pilot's report was primarily critical of energy retention during maneuvers and of it's pitch rate. The former is like complaining that a car loses speed while drifting (he had only had "exposure" to flying an aircraft capable of high alpha) and the latter is was identified as a software limited.
>>29493126
>>29493153
Thanks gents. I had wrong info before
there hasn't been much news about the f35 the past couple of weeks
kinda disappointing
>>29493423
And more critical of how the version of software it was running was both locked down and babying the control inputs compared to what the plane could do than any real concern over energy loss.
>>29493628
There were some hearings something like a fortnight ago; also they began testing the JSOW from it. Some news today as well that Alaska is confirmed to receive F-35s in 2020.
>>29493423
Dogfights do take place far slower, but your apologetics seems a bit facile. You seem to be implicitly accepting the criticism that the F-35 is not, in fact, capable of maneuvering at high delta.
>>29493761
That's not how I remember it reading, not at all.
And to both of you, if this is an issue with the software alone then you're going to need to explain how a plane with 21% higher wing loading and 37% less thrust per pound can avoid being significantly less maneuverable, at any speed. It's just not logical.
a lemon is a lemon is a lime
>>29494075
then you didn't understand the point of the test.
>>29494075
Hi Boyd!
Numbers aren't everything here. The F-16 is 70's technology and was built with a lot of that era's lack of knowledge of aerodynamics. I can assure you that far smarter people than you ran a lot more work on this than your questionably sourced chart there.
>>29494082
>>29494075
Why would it not be capable of maneuvering at high speed?
For your second point; because energy maneuvering is not the only way to fight. If you can sustain a quick turn, but your opponent can instantaneously turn faster and in a shorter radius, they have the opportunity to kill you before you can complete that turn.
Your chart numbers are also unrealistic; no jet dogfights with 100% fuel. If you compare them with the fuel required to do a mission a specified distance, things even out more. Also, a few of your numbers are outright off; the F-35's empty weight is about 150kg lighter than that (not that significant, but still), maximum engine thrust for the F-35 is about 1400kg below what it should be and neither of the wing area figures account for tail surfaces or surfaces forward of the wing trapezoid.
>>29494198
>70's technology
>Millennials think the laws of physics have changed in the past 50 years.
>>29494314
>but your opponent can instantaneously turn
You too? I swear the laws of physics have not changed. No airplane can instantaneously turn. Never.
>>29494333
>Idiots think our understanding of aerodynamics and fighter design hasn't changed in 40 years
>>29494369
Still waiting to hear about the wonderful new understanding of aerodynamics that allows the F-35 to 'instantaneously turn.'
>>29494333
Not just instantaneously turn, but pull high alpha; something the F-16 can't do.
>>29494403
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA
>>29494314
that's still energy management fighting. you should strive for a two circle fight, the other guy should strive for a one circle.
>>29494333
You do realize that aircraft with high alpha tend to fight to translate their instantaneous turn rate into maximum number or shots, right? This is how Hornet and Super-bugs fight. They maneuver more aggressively and burn more energy, but they usually have more opportunities for weapons lock and release than a pure sustained rate fighter. Obviously, they lose more EM in the process, but that EM is spent on firing solutions, and less on overall positioning. No one is implying that the laws of physics suddenly go out the window for 5th- gen fighters, only that a different tactics are used given the aircraft's EM disposition.
>>29494473
Tack on helmet-mounted cueing systems and HOBS missiles and the lethality of a high-alpha system shoots through the roof, too.
>>29494501
yeah, he said what i said but with more words.
exploiting your superior low-speed maneuverability and pointability by taking the fight one circle and bleeding off all your knots to force your opponent to bleed off all their knots to prevent a 3-9 overshoot is still EM fighting.
>>29494428
>>29494473
Good replies both of you. Thank you.
So you're talking about maintaining maneuverability in a stall and using that for "instantaneous" turns and supermaneuvers. The F-35 is good at that? Ok, good to know.
There are good reasons that sort of capability is even less likely to be used in combat than traditional maneuverability though, aren't there? As a surprise maneuver this sort of thing can be of value but you kill your delta and make yourself very vulnerable in the process. And the F-35 with less thrust than traditional fighters would be made even more vulnerable, since it will take much longer to regain speed after, wouldn't it?
>>29493579
IIRC it only the F-14 that happened with, to deny the possibility of more parts for Iran.
>>29494561
only if they gleam the cube
>Talking about dogfighting in a fucking stealth plane
?????????????????
>>29494587
i don't have the F-35's EM diagrams. they're probably classified or at least FOUO. but no, that's not what they're talking about. the basic theory of EM is that you can trade your airspeed in for the ability to have a small turn radius, or over an amount of time (i.e. not "instantaneously) point your nose in a new direction. however, it is very difficult to regain that energy once you spend it. your charts will tell you what your best instantaneous and sustained turn performances are, and how they stack up to your opponent determine where you or they have advantages.
>>29494681
>or instantaneously (i.e. not over a period of time) point your nose in a new direction.
sorry, fixed that.
>>29494681
Yeah there is still is no such thing as an instantaneous turn. You're talking about killing your speed in a stall and getting a relatively quick (NOT instantaneous) turn of the nose out of it. I got that just fine. My post stands.
>>29494816
Instantaneous Turn Rate, get that shit through your face. It is the airspeed at which an aircraft can turn fastest, but lose airspeed. No one in their right mind will call it an instantaneous turn.
>>29494816
>no such thing as an instantaneous turn
nigga wat
A sustained turn is how quickly in deg/s you can turn without losing airspeed.
An instantaneous turn is how quickly in deg/s you can turn if you demand 100% pitch from your controls.
Yes it doesn't mean moving your nose faster than the speed of light, but these are not new terms or things invented on /k/; they've been around for decades and are in NASA, etc charts.
>>29494816
"instantaneous" is better understood as "not energy-sustaining/seriously energy depleting." obviously life isn't a video game and you can't bring your nose around 30 degrees in a second.
>>29495044
>obviously life isn't a video game and you can't bring your nose around 30 degrees in a second.
(technically that's not an unrealistic instantaneous turn rate; in a millisecond or instant though is another matter)
>>29495044
That's actually about where Raptor is.
>>29495282
raptor is made of magic and the normal rules of reality don't apply.
>>29495282
According to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KBmv6HBltM (or maybe the second one) the F-22 actually has a *sustained* (god damn) turn rate of 28deg/s
>David Axe wrote a pro-F-35 article
>National Interest published a pro-F-35 article
Interesting...
>>29495282
>>29496051
National Interest = alt for War is Boring (larger readership because it's not just about war stuff)
>>29496157
Ah.
>>29494587
>And the F-35 with less thrust than traditional fighters would be made even more vulnerable
The F-35 accelerates faster than the F-16 according to pilots who fly both.
>>29495282
Jesus FUCK, that's a turn.
>>29493126
Not only is it expensive, but the while the F-22 is a capable plane, and is more capable than the F-35 once all is said and done, it is still built with tooling and concepts from an older generation.
For the amount of money the US would invest in restarting the line, and procuring a new block of F-22s, we could have a superior clean sheet design with some very modern elements like self healing composites (nearly unlimited air frame life, no more metal fatigue). More organic wings and aircraft shaping based off of all the aeroelasticity study done in the 1990s-2000s, and probably some form of mission adaptable wing.
tl/dr: F22 and F35 will carry the western world world until the next gen which will likely be a drone.
>>29496691
And yet the laws of physics, combined with the figures published by the manufacturer, rule this out as flatly impossible.
Plus only one such pilot has said anything like that so far as I know, and he was actually very careful with his words, you should parse them carefully. Others have disagreed.
>>29496965
You don't need all that bullshit.
>>29496965
>and is more capable than the F-35 once all is said and done
IN AIR TO AIR ALONE. And with its more limited sensors that's kind of iffy too. The F-22 can barely do ground targeting, and only via radar scanning, while the F-35 has multiple targeting options.
Or the fact that it can only carry 1000lbs JDAMs internally? Or that it maxes on just a pair of 2k bombs on pylons?
The F-22 is a great Air Superiority fighter. It's kinda crappy as a multi-role.
>>29497014
>And yet the laws of physics, combined with the figures published by the manufacturer, rule this out as flatly impossible.
The proper quote was that a combat loaded F-35 out-accelerates a combat loaded F-16C (others have said it's comparable to an F-16C with two drop tanks).
Remember too that an F-35 with 50% fuel still has a longer combat radius than an F-16 with full internal fuel.
>>29496965
>like self healing composites
oh wow, sounds just like how they were gonna build highways 9 lanes wide and shut down one lane a week so the so-called "self healing asphalt" (which costs 3x per foot) would repair it self around chitcago.
>>29497056
The nicest things about the F-22: computer and sensor are reliable, plane is still stealthy even with functional loadouts, air to air abilities unmatched by any other plane ever made.
The nicest things about the F-35: more advanced computer and radar (but subject to random 2 minute reboots and assorted other bugginess) and better options to attack ground targets (at least once the next revision is complete, scheduled for 2022.)
>>29497144
2 AMRAAMS and 8 65nmi range 10m target bombs that can do airburst, impact, or 10ft penetration modes is a pretty damn good loadout for a stealth multirole.
>>29497185
You may be impressed. I don't think it's ready for the role until it can load out with HARMs. Which as I said is supposed to happen in 2022.
>>29497222
SDB should be sufficient in the meanwhile; the HOJ / anti-rad sensors can be supplanted by the F-35's Barracuda - won't be ideal, but here's just hoping we don't have WW3 in the next 5 years (also note that Block 4 occurs in 4 increments, the first of which is due for late 2019; they haven't said which increment will feature the new HARM).
>>29497264
As to timeline, sounds right, starting in 2019 finishing 2022, at some point in there HARM will become available. Seems fair to use the later date as to when it will be reliable. Seems more than fair actually given the track record regarding timelines and what I know of the computer system, but close enough.
But SDBs are in no way shape or form any kind of substitute for HARMs I just don't even get you mentioning them in this context.
The closest thing they can carry now are JSTORs which are again... definitely no substitute for HARMS.
I'm hoping we don't have WW3 soon, or ever, frankly. More of the prepare for war so we can have peace school than the prepare for war so we can blow lots of people up school. Violence should be a last resort. But when you have to do it you have to do it right. And I believe in looking the facts in the face not just believing that whatever says made in the USA is always going to be the best no matter what.
>>29497361
JSTOR? the academic database?
JSOW and SDB are long-range glide weapons which are probably LO. they're not going to be useful for hitting emitters based on home-on, but you can likely hit a site from standoff distance.
>>29497144
>>29497409
Lol yeah JSOWS teach me to believe autocorrect lol.
>>29497435
Something like that, but the F-22 has a real computer system as far above the Apple crap as the Apple crap is above Windows.
>>29497361
Minor note, but it's starting 2019 with the release of Block 4.1 and finishing in 2023 with the release of Block 4.4; 2022 is a fair rough estimate though.
SDBs have a range similar to that of a JSOW and both have a range similar (but less than) that of a HARM. HARM has the advantage in being able to perform terminal targeting and guidance, but depending on the range and threat, an F-35 can use it's sensors to geolocate an enemy radar, feed those coordinates to an SDB and send it on its way. If the target moves it'll miss (unless the SDB can receive coordinate adjustments enroute, but I don't think so). It'll also be more likely to miss the target overall than a HARM, but an airbursting SDB will still disrupt the radar's operations or achieve a mission kill against them.
>>29497505
>Apple crap is above Windows
>>29497506
>Minor note, but it's starting 2019 with the release of Block 4.1 and finishing in 2023 with the release of Block 4.4; 2022 is a fair rough estimate though.
Alright didn't really feel like finding all my sources again and doublechecking every figure but I knew I was close from memory.
Anyhow SDBs and JSOWs are both great against undefended or low-tech targets but those can be taken out with Cessnas if need be in many cases. I hope you take my point.
>>29497538
how do you propose that a target would defend itself against a SDB or JSOW?
>>29497553
A functioning S-400 system including close air defenses would greatly reduce the utility of those loadouts.
Wasn't the whole point to avoid dogfighting alltogether?
>>29497655
While true l, an SDB is far smaller than the cruise missiles things like Pantsir-1 are designed to kill, and if dropped from closer range end up in a very fast dive attack. SDB-II could even identify and hit a moving target autonomous.
That being said ARMs are a prerequisite for SEAD and DEAD for a reason.
>>29497655
If you simultaneously ripple launch SDBs from two F-35s you'll exceed a Pantsir's maximum target tracking capability (let alone how many it can successfully engage in a short interval).
>>29498426
Or hell, if the networked combat stuff works out, the F-35s don't even have to fire anything. They just dance right outside the IADS range and paint targets for arsenal planes to unload waves of SDBs or JSOWs.
>>29496965
What is going on with the F-22 and F-35 use of their radar for electronic warfare?
>>29498500
AESA radars are good at broadcasting a lot of energy in a narrow beam; like PESAs they can also jam enemies and do other things at the same time by rapidly swapping between tasks.
Depending on the threat and scenario they can also uniquely do things like deception jamming in multiple directions simultaneously (rather than just quickly swapping between tasks, which can interfere with timing-sensitive jamming patterns). The side effect though is that they lose antenna gain / broadcast power, although if you're stealthy and can get closer to your enemy's radar that can be less of an issue.
The 2 big disadvantages of the F-22 and F-35 (and other jets that use their AESAs for jamming) is that AESAs can only work in a 120 degree FOV, with their signals getting weaker towards the edge. Fighter AESAs also only operate in the X band.
>>29495282
holy fuck that is some wesley snipes tier black magic shit. that turn doesn't make any sense, the more i look, the more i feel like the fuselage should detach itself from the wings.
>>29497435
>this faggot is still sucking steve job's ded cock
>>29498473
Did you ever hear of Pantsir and Tunguska? Intercepting drones, Taurus, Storm Shadow, JSOW and HARM is their primary design purpose. Each of the S-300/400 batteries comes with networked short-to-mid range systems to provide dense AD killzone for enemy munitions and aircrafts. Not even mentioning how S-300/400 missile itself have greater range and speed than anything in F-35 payload.
Thread after thread Americans lay bare their poor comprehension of modern AA as much as the lack of means to feasibly counter it.
>>29498893
Except it's easy to overwhelm even a Pantsir / Tunguska; their computer systems can't even monitor more than 12 targets. A SEAD flight of F-35s can carry 32 SDBs.
And just like how air-to-air missiles don't have a 100% pK, neither do the missile and cannons of those AD systems.
The difference however is that whereas an F-35 can move around, skirting in and out of the max detection or engagement range of the S-400's missiles, the S-400 itself is stuck in one place. They can pack up and move if they want, but that takes half an hour or so and leaves a gap in air defences.
I'm not saying that the F-35s would be able to storm through an IADS, but what I am saying is that there's no way those IADS can protect (eg) a nation's capital for any significant amount of time.
>>29499156
>their computer systems can't even monitor more than 12 targets
What you probably meant to say is their engagement rate 12 targets per minute. And they can be deployed autonomously right now. Whereas F-35 can't carry its trump card SDB until at least next decade.
>F-35 can move around, skirting in and out of the max detection or engagement range of the S-400's missiles
Now do the maths and compare operational range of SDB and S-400. The missiles have a speed of Mach 6 and their approach is basically invisible until terminal stage illumination through pencil beam of the Gravestone radar. Digitally controled long band search radars support SAMs in searching for targets, basically while invisible in the electromagnetic spectrum.
If F-35 pilots are being briefed that their only practical combat application would be a one-way kamikaze mission into the teeth of enemy SAM's then it's okay I guess. The rest is just a question of how many aircrafts and trained people USAF is willing to lose taking cold comfort that maybe 1 out of 10 will survive long enough to bomb enemy bridge or flight control tower.
>>29499284
12 targets per minute isn't great for you if they're arriving simultaneously.
>Whereas F-35 can't carry its trump card SDB until at least next decade.
It can carry it as of next year. It won't carry the SDB II until the early 2020s, but that's not needed if the enemy isn't moving.
>Now do the maths and compare operational range of SDB and S-400.
The SDB is one weapon; other weapons like the JSM have roughly the same range as the S-400's 40N6.
>Digitally controled long band search radars support SAMs in searching for targets, basically while invisible in the electromagnetic spectrum.
You're telling me that something broadcasting tens or hundreds of kilowatts is invisible? The F-35's AN/ASQ-239 is designed specifically to detect and triangulate long band emissions.
All of these systems also ignore efforts like the Gremlin program, upgraded MALDs / MALD-Js, EW systems like the NGJ, etc.
>>29494075
F-16's have a tiny gas tanks. Unless they are doing airshows, all F-16's fly with at least 2 bags, which adds 3.5 tons to the weight of the plane.
This brings the weight of the F-16 to 15-ish tons, bringing the T/W to 0.9, and wing loading to 537 kg/m^2.
Those numbers are about equal to F-35.
Also the F-135 delivers more thrust than your table states, it's 43k lbf, which is 19.5 kgf. The number you have is for the STOVL version of the engine, which loses power to the lift fan system even when it's not engaged due to additional weight and complexity.
>>29499284
Detecting incoming missiles is what the DAS is for.
A 2 ton 40N6 is giving off heat like a flare, both from the rocket motor and from air friction.
If the pilot knows the missile is coming, it's a pretty simple matter to deploy countermeasures and evade. A transonic fighter pulling 7ish G's will easily out turn a two ton missile moving at mach 5.
>>29493423
You guys can explain every single detail on what amounts to poor performance. Your excuses are boundless.
Sorry to shit up this thread (unlike every Russian one which are beacons of moderate discussion) but if the thing is a turd, say so. God damn.
"It is slower and has less acceleration than older jets according to that chart." Was it that hard?
The real argument is given the amount of money stolen from taxpayers to pay for it, some of us feel we should have something at least middle to upper-of-the-pack. Of course we have to weigh the doctrine in place or imagined for the jet but slow is slow no matter how you look at it.
>>29499707
And your opinion on the F-35's advanced stealth, radar, IRST, DAS, EW, ESM, HMDS, etc?
>>29499707
It absolutely doesn't accelerate slower if combat loaded.
Not that the title said "50% fuel", which definitely means 50% internal fuel.
See that F-16 rocket? Under that chart condition it has about 1.5 tons of fuel at that state. Engaging in combat and using afterburners with only 1.5 tons of fuel is basically suicidal; even if you beat the enemy, you now have to ditch somewhere because your plane just ran out of gas.
F-16's always fly with at least 2 drop tanks, the only planes on that chart who do not need drop tanks are F-22, F-35, and the Russian jets.
Pilots have said that F-35 accelerates faster than F-16 with two tanks, because drop tanks absolutely murder a plane's performance. F-35 doesn't need them because it carries almost 9 tons of fuel internally.
>>29499284
>Now do the maths and compare operational range of SDB and S-400.
Reminder that stealth massively reduces the effective range of IADS radars.
>>29492765
>can slow down faster
>high angle of attack
sitting fucking duck.
>>29499707
>It is slower and has less acceleration than older jets according to that chart.
Does the chart take combat loads into consideration?
If an F-16 and an F-35 are both carrying two AIM-120 + two 2000 lb bombs then the F-35 is going to be the faster plane.
>>29499497
>12 targets per minute isn't great for you if they're arriving simultaneously.
Soooo in some not too distant future F-35 will get ahold of PGM swarms to overwhelm current enemy IADS...
>The SDB is one weapon; other weapons like the JSM have roughly the same range as the S-400's 40N6
...except F-35 still won't get close enough to those IADS without missiles that have 'roughly' 100km lesser range than current 40n6. Missiles that won't be available until at least 2025 when enemies they're intended for already have operational battalions of S-500s with even greater missile range. Additionally to greater number of modernized S-300s and S-400s. Just let that sink in.
>You're telling me that something broadcasting tens or hundreds of kilowatts is invisible?
UHF/VHF are very hard to intercept via ESM and ELINT. And they're virtually unjammable. The engagement radar is a solid state electronically steered array (PESA) and utilizes a pencil beam to target and engage multiple air-targets in milliseconds. Due to the narrow beam, EW planes cant really begin to intercept the emissions and jam it until a beam has already been focused on the aircraft - which means that a missile is already underway. Other aircrafts and stand-off EW planes cant just jam, since they cannot even get a hold of the gravestone radar's emissions.
>>29500131
>Still assuming the effective advertised ranges of those systems are what's effective against Stealth
>>29499889
Reminder that Nebo-M massively reduces stealth as decisive factor securing air superiority.
>>29500176
And why would the actual ranges be any different? S-series is intended for export purposes on the open market, so Almaz-Antey has to be accountable to foreign buyers testing their product. Lockheed on the other hand holds corporate monopoly on 5th gen jets production in western world. They're accountable to no one. USAF doesn't acquire this dysfunctional shitheap of a plane because it wants to. But simply because it has no other alternatives.
>>29497014
>the laws of physics
>the figures published by the manufacture
Which you have displayed a poor grasp of.
>>29500275
>Object 4-6 orders of magnitude smaller on radar than the 4th Gen jets the range us based on
Is this really that hard to comprehend?
>>29500275
Reminder that low-band radar's resolution is too low to provide anything but "I think something might be up there"
>>29497144
>computer and sensor are reliable
Yeah like that time a flight of F-22s flew across the date line and almost crashed due to a software bug.
Oh how their avionics can be downloaded onto a laptop because they're not encrypted.
You're a nigger.
>>29500000
Check'd
Also you don't know how modern air combat works.
>>29498365
Did you read the article?
>>29499284
>Now do the maths and compare operational range of SDB and S-400
Not important. There's a little something known as terrain masking. The SDB carrying F-35s can easily make it into range while being undetected. Not because of stealth, but because radars can't see through the ground.
DAS is your missile warning, and damn good at that.
> basically while invisible in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Horseshit. Complete and utter horseshit.
>>29497505
>the F-22 has a real computer system as far above the Apple crap as the Apple crap is above Windows.
So the F22 is dogshit?
>>29499284
>The missiles have a speed of Mach 6 and their approach is basically invisible until terminal stage illumination through pencil beam of the Gravestone radar.
You're telling me a giant ass 40n6 missile with zero radar and infrared stealth is invisible to 21st century AESA radar and infrared detection like the SPECTRUM and DAS? Nevermind the fact that the US Airforce will be engaging air decoys and equally electronic countermeasures to create a huge clusterfuck in the sky. I don't know how far the rabbit hole goes but Russian IADS isn't going to be sleeping their way through another superpower.
>had a summer job at edwards AFB
>talked to lots of cool people
>f22 pilots, f35 pilots , NASA engineers, Lockheed engineers
>I always asked them what they thought of chinas j 20 and PAK FA
>They always laughed
>>29500972
>runway looks like Kabul International 2002....
>>29500987
Edwards has like 100 run ways. That picture was actually taken on a runway that the aero club uses near South base.
>>29501009
Also these are all decommissioned and just sit behind southbase.
>>29500519
being slow is now an advantage?
>>29500000
quints of truth.
>>29501009
>>29501017
>that crusader in the back
Watch me get arrested for public masturbation at the airport!
>>29501336
Not being designed for pointless speed is out, and good fucking riddance.
>>29501356
There were lots of planes parked there. Wish I took more photos. I also saw a b2 at south base but didn't take pictures for obvious reasons
>>29501336
You know that retarded move in Top Gun where he "puts on the breaks"? That's actually feasible now. Forcing overshoots abound. Combine that with high nose authority even at low airspeeds, and a near impossibility to go into flat spins unaided (they actually completely waived the airspeed floor for maneuvering), and you'll get shots on the other guy that no other aircraft could even dream of.
>>29501692
that's exactly what the other pilot called a "distinct energy disadvantage". being controllable alone isn't enough.
Has David Ace ever fired a weapon?
>>29501795
I don't think you understand. If you start in a lower energy state to start with, the guy is probably going to stay on your tail. So imagine the following scenario. Let's say both planes start in an equivalent energy state, one behind the other. Obviously the first plane is doing his utmost to avoid the second and hopefully turn tides. Now let's assume our intrepid F-35 does a turn to the right, which prompts his trailer to copy the maneuver, adjusting for a bit of lead. The F-35 can now "put on the brakes" (probably with a barrel roll), force the overshoot, and go from defensive to offensive in just a second or two.
>>29501831
Axe has zero military experience, and has the same amount of expertise as, well, record producer Pierre Sprey.
>>29501896
>Let's say both planes start in an equivalent energy state
why would they when one has a clear energy advanatage?
>>29502023
Do you even know what you're saying?
>>29501896
So it has lowish top speed and poor acceleration, but good brakes. OK.
>>29495282
Are we SURE that the F-22 wasn't made from a damn UFO? At this point it just needs a shield generator and a hyperdrive and we have ourselves a plane that will beat the shit out of X-Wings and Cylon Raiders.
>>29502301
Optimum top speed. Fighters rarely go past 1.6 anyways, so why bother wasting resources to make it faster?
And a 50% TW rating of 1.07 isn't sluggish, either, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this from other than your ass.
>>29502301
It has all the top speed you'd need. And it says in there that it has good acceleration.
>>29501549
> but didn't take pictures for obvious reasons
Why would they care? Everybody knows what the B-2 looks like.
>Talking about a stealth fifth gen plane dogfighting a non-stealth plane
kinda missing the fucking point innit
>>29502301
>poor acceleration
Based on what?
All the test pilot excerpts I've read have praised the F-35's acceleration.
>The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16. High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance. Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”
http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/26/dutch-lightning-testers/
>>29500462
Your a troll....
Should Canada stay with the f-35 program and purchase them? If not, what should they do?
Personally I suggest this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLLWH56uULY
>>29504074
>bourdeau
fuck off quebec scum
What we need in canada is for quebec to secede
>>29504265
>Talking about politics instead of the actual aircraft
>>29504301
>Talking about a joke idea that only a liberal could take seriously
>claims that a modern avro arrow would have double the range of an F-35
>>29504343
Well, hold up now, it is entirely possible that this larger air frame could support a larger fuel fraction.
The thing that concerns me, is that its BVR compliment looks to be external only, despite having internal bays.
>>29504359
I don't see why that couldn't change though.
>>29504359
Who do you think would produce a fucking modern fighter plane here?
F-35 is a plane now
A hypothetical avro arrow is only a CGI drawing, with no design, no plans, no place to build it, no knowhow, etc
>>29504392
Its not like we cant wait. Not only would it create industry and jobs and shit if it ended up actually being good we could sell em too.
>>29504412
No, you cannot wait. Your Hornets are worn out and can't wait 20+ years for you to develop what was an inferior third gen jet that only has appeal due to a combination of misplaced national pride and nostalgia.
>>29504412
But you can't wait; your Hornets will be unusable in less than a decade. By the time you have your competition and place orders, you'll have like ~4 years to get your jets.
>>29501896
Why does the F-35 start with an enemy behind him? Also, in the offensive or neutral (more likely), the point is that the F-35 can (for a couple of seconds) turn harder than the enemy and get a gun kill.
It's like you have 2 cars driving around the same circle with guns mounted on their hoods. The F-16 car needs to get behind the F-35 car to shoot it, but the F-16 car can drive faster.
The F-35 car doesn't need to get behind the F-16 car (not as much), because it can drift and point it's nose across the circle. It also has the ability to (if it wants to) whip its tail around at the expense of stopping.
>>29504567
> only has appeal due to a combination of misplaced national pride and nostalgia.
you didn't watch the video did you?
>>29504576
>Why does the F-35 start with an enemy behind him?
Because it's an illustrative statement designed to sway the opinion of someone who doesn't think that the ability to quickly brake is useful. So I showed a situation where, on the defensive, the braking was extremely useful. If you weren't a daft cunt, you'd understand that.
>>29504642
i didn't need to. the F-4 flew the same year and was faster. a giant delta wing isn't useful as anything but a high fast flyer for defensive counter air.
in addition, actually watching it now...
FUCKING TUBOJET ENGINES WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU SERIOUS.
there is nothing "5th generation" about the design, and a CGI mockup is useless. given Canada's aerospace industry, it's about 30 years from developing a modern, competitive, indigenous jet fighter. there simply is no knowledge base.
case in point about CGI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp7mM2TP_1A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJY0LgWjv7Y
>>29504731
>a giant delta wing isn't useful as anything but a high fast flyer for defensive counter air.
Literally what the government of Canada is asking for.
>>29504576
>It's like you have 2 cars driving around the same circle with guns mounted on their hoods. The F-16 car needs to get behind the F-35 car to shoot it, but the F-16 car can drive faster.
>The F-35 car doesn't need to get behind the F-16 car (not as much), because it can drift and point it's nose across the circle. It also has the ability to (if it wants to) whip its tail around at the expense of stopping.
Which is a very risky move. If the other driver is smart he'll steer straight and hit the gas, leaving you stalled out and pointing the wrong direction. He can still pull a high-energy turn and line you up before you've recovered momentum enough to evade.
I'm sure it would work like a dream as long as you catch the opponent by surprise and you've already taken care of his wingman/squadron mates ahead of time so there is no second bogie to take advantage, but there are obvious tactics to counter it.
>>29504766
might as well ask the Russians to sell you the MiG-31. it's about as useful.
>>29504767
that's not how BFM works. if you try to separate from a slow 1 circle fight by unloading and extending while a jet with better low-speed maneuverability is pointing at you, you're going to eat a missile since you gave up the 3-9 advantage. better to transition to a 2 circle fight and exploit your rate advantage.
and no matter what, he who shows up with a friend first wins (as long as everybody shoots with good shot deconfliction)
>>29504767
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ
Add this to a high-alpha fighter with insane nose point capabilities like the F-35 and the kind of drawn-out fights an energy fighter wins in stop happening.
>>29504825
>and no matter what, he who shows up with a friend first wins (as long as everybody shoots with good shot deconfliction)
This is indeed the first rule of any fight.
>>29504767
>He can still pull a high-energy turn and line you up before you've recovered momentum enough to evade.
Not when he is dead.
>>29504766
>Literally what the government of Canada is asking for.
Which is why Canada picked the F-18.
>>29504074
>Should Canada stay with the f-35 program and purchase them?
The F-35 gets you the most out of your dollars.
>>29504825
>you're going to eat a missile since you gave up the 3-9 advantage.
If the F-35 has any missiles left you wouldn't be in a dogfight (helmet cueing 'n' all).
>>29504074
Yes, we should stay with the F-35. It does exactly what we need, and then some, plus we've already invested a bunch of money into the F-35's development. No other 4.5 has better value for the money than the F-35, save maybe the Super Bug, but the F-35 has a stronger avonics set, and better internal fuel load, making them better suited for Arctic patrols.
>>29505057
if I can beat you with an -9M, i can beat you with an -9X
>>29504074
>that video
>>29505088
Yeah, I don't get why Canadians are so enamored with the Gripen when it has terrible F-16 tier range. How do they expect it to effectively patrol all that Arctic tundra?
Eating lunch with a USAF Brig Gen F-35 pilot on Thursday.
What should I ask him?
>>29505153
repeatedly thank him for his service, then coin check him.
>>29505057
Daily reminder that the AIM-9X is external only.
>>29505153
>What should I ask him?
In a fight between a horse-sized hawk and a horse-sized dragonfly, who would win?
>>29505178
it's lock on after launch capable, so no.
>>29504825
>that's not how BFM works. if you try to separate from a slow 1 circle fight by unloading and extending while a jet with better low-speed maneuverability is pointing at you, you're going to eat a missile since you gave up the 3-9 advantage. better to transition to a 2 circle fight and exploit your rate advantage.
OK I was just following the analogy I don't claim to be a fighter pilot.
Whether it's my analogy or your apparently more expert tactic, though, you see what I am saying. Military history has always been cyclical and this is just that normal cyclical change. New capabilities very rarely obsolete old ones completely, and it doesn't appear you actually believe that this one advantage negates everything else either. New capabilities tend to be very effective the first few times they are used and then they fade a little and become elements in a bigger picture and the picture zooms out and then oh! the next big thing.
But even to this day that guy flying the F-35 goes out with a knife as part of his kit. A knife.
Knives are 2.5 million years old, and every fighter still carries one, even the guys piloting the very latest and greatest airplane.
I do thank you fags for pointing me in an interesting direction for research though.
The Gripen that I know you all love to diss actually turns out to be fairly good at this sort of stuff too. Much better than the F-16 you like to compare the F-35 to in this regard.
>>29505178
Daily reminder that the AMRAAM (while not as agile as the AIM-9X) also does HOBS and LOAL.
>>29505218
He's talking about carriage; the F-35 isn't planned to have the AIM-9X carried internally (although the UK is making the ASRAAM, which is similar in performance, internal).
>>29505218
Be that as it may, there is nothing saying that it is going to be internal, and plenty of things saying that it'll be external. So what's it going to be- Are you going to believe what they've stated, or are you going to create a fantasy world? Your choice, but don't start spreading misinformation in here.
>>29505225
the whole tl;dr is "fight to your strengths. force your opponent to play your game rather than vice versa."
>>29505234
>>29505248
oh. that's fair.
>>29505234
>Daily reminder that the AMRAAM (while not as agile as the AIM-9X) also does HOBS and LOAL.
But nothing implies that it has that 360 degree capability like the AIM-9X, so pointing the nose somewhere towards the general direction will still be needed.
>>29505272
the WEZ for the AIM-9X isn't exactly a sphere centered around the launch aircraft. i'm sure you know this, but i'm explaining for everyone else. it's always going to be better to point the missile in the right direction.
excited to fly with the -9X in a few months.
>>29505153
Ask him how the pipeline for their selection is looking, and what the odds are for a new pilot.
FMF Corpsman, VBSS or Riverines
>>29505225
That .gif is not how thrust vectoring would affect the bottom aircraft, assuming it has a T:W ratio of modern fighters.
Its AOA would be increasing, pointing upward, but it would be losing altitude, not gaining it.
>>29505298
Just to expand upon that point for others, it's just basic physics. When you release the missile, it's already moving at a certain velocity. Thus, its maximum potential energy is found in a straight line in front of it, decreasing as the angle from that point increases. After all, the missile has to turn, which burns energy. And if you have to turn all the way around, you then have to work against the velocity you started at. Thus, shooting right behind you is, while possible, probably something you'd want to avoid when possible.
>>29505349
>assuming it has a T:W ratio of modern fighters.
Many have a clean T:W ratio of over 1, meaning it could increase.
>>29505306
they just dropped the first F-35 out of UPT at CB, and this year's FAIP drop is supposed to have some.
>>29505349
could be a top-down view. they'd still likely be losing altitude, but at a reduced rate.
>>29505356
you are absolutely correct. still, it's something that falls under "better to have and not need than need and not have."
once again, just explaining that to the non-fighter types here.
>>29505372
why bother to compare clean?
>>29505372
>clean
Are we discussing airshows or combat scenarios?
>>29505356
If it's possible for the plane to turn 180 fast and fire, then it would be even more possible for the missile
Perhaps they need bigger wings?
>>29505434
it's more efficient for the missile, who has a limited amount of rocket motor burn time, to be pointed in the right direction in the first place. it can work, but you can hit people further out/faster if you point the right direction first.
and the -9X has smaller wings than the previous heaters. i'd guess that's because they got rid of the rollerons since they have a new seeker that doesn't need to avoid rolling the same way the old ones did.
>>29505139
But anon, f-35 is made by greedy American hetero-capitalists, not enlightened swedes sho are of liberal persuasion, we want budget cuts due to poor economy and the gripen says "cheaper" on the window sticker....
>>29505434
It's possible for the missile, but still not great. There's such a thing as velocity. Seeing as the plane is flying a certain speed, when launched, the missile has that same speed. That's half of where the concept of lofting comes from.
>>29505372
Even with a T:W ratio over 1, you could still easily be losing altitude, because a lot of the thrust is not being used to push you upwards/forward.
>clean
Kill yourself
>>29505386
If its a top down view, and they're banking, even the F-22 falls like a fucking brick doing that.
>>29505415
We're actually discussing what I think would be called close combat aerobatics, which is something that used to happen a lot last century but is generally considered a pretty special case in modern warfare. The conventional wisdom is that you would only be doing this sort of maneuver after both planes have used up their missiles, so clean seems fair, no?
>>29505903
>The conventional wisdom is that you would only be doing this sort of maneuver after both planes have used up their missiles
God no
>>29505903
BFM is a better name. it's a useful foundational skill. and no, there are scenarios where you would be doing this with missiles on board both aircraft.
>>29505921
It's a possibility. Disengaging would be preferable, but isn't always an option. There's a reason they train it.
>>29505925
>BFM
Moreso ACM.
>>29505944
separating by unloading and running immediately after a merge that develops to a one circle fight is tactically unsound to say the least
>>29505950
ACM is WVR 2vX to me, whereas BFM is offensive or defensive or high aspect 1v1.
>>29505944
Chances of it occuring are extremely low, and its questionable how or why you would be in that situation to begin with.
Conventional engagement would be slinging BVR munitions then going defensive. If you're out of those, fuck off. getting into an IR missile fight is a roll of the fucking dice, and you don't take that chance over disengaging and burning away.
>>29505650
>>29505486
Well thats why we need air breathing missiles which would have double or more of the range
>>29505486
>and the -9X has smaller wings than the previous heaters. i'd guess that's because they got rid of the rollerons since they have a new seeker that doesn't need to avoid rolling the same way the old ones did.
It uses thrust vectoring as its primary directional control now.
>>29505971
>separating by unloading and running immediately after a merge that develops to a one circle fight is tactically unsound to say the least
Oh no, I'm just saying that you should probably disengage from a fight when you're out of missiles. When you're that stuck in you don't have much of a choice.
>>29506003
I mostly agree with you. I will say that two stealth planes are more likely to get into a WVR fight, and even otherwise there are occasions where you get stuck in. It needs to be trained.
>>29506060
Even legacy aircraft can detect 5th gens waaaaaay before WVR, let alone the merge.
>>29506074
What, both radars on? Gotta follow EMCON, bud.
>>29506074
With what, hopes and dreams? IRST sure as fuck ain't doing it, and without a luneburg it isn't happening. Hell, though eurocanard "kills" at gun range could barely keep track and lock long enough for more than a burst or two.
Those must be some great shrooms you're on.
>>29505306
Like >>29505386 said, they started assigning them. I'm a UPT student flying T-38s and hoping to get one so I guess that's why they have me going to lunch with the guy.
>>29506135
Absolutely, 100% delusional if you think aircraft are going to have problems locking onto an aircraft at gun ranges.
"Stealth aircraft are invisible to everything, forever" levels of koolaid.
>>29506111
IRST is capable of doing so before the merge assuming you're pointing in the right direction.
Not that some 5th gen is ever going to be wanting to fly into the merge, where it loses most of its advantage.
>>29506177
what do you do for a rudder hard over?
VN, CB, XL, EN?
>>29506199
Let's assume that both sensors are pointing in the correction, which isn't necessarily likely. That being said, not too long before the merge. And merging is just another thing you can do. And if both parties notice each other, you might not have much of a choice.
>>29506199
>Absolutely, 100% delusional if you think aircraft are going to have problems locking onto an aircraft at gun ranges.
It's not a delusion, it's what fucking happened in the training exercises you twat.
>>29505153
Ask him if the F-35 is really as fun to fly as it's made out to be.
>>29506234
Kinda depends. Possibly nothing.Possibly eject. If you have that and the rudder doesn't break off then it's an ejection scenario. If you have that and it does break off, you could land it fairly easily (I mean, who uses rudder in the 38 outside of TP stalls anyway?), which has been done.
Also, not going to narrow myself down enough to say where I am lol
>>29506255
That could just be a programming thing, needing to be updated to track stealth planes
>>29506255
No it isn't.
>>29506315
Look up that video where a Rafale "shoots down" an F-22 during a red flag event. The Rafale's radar gunsight is just barely getting a fix on the F-22.
>>29506284
how about a low altitude loss of thrust?
>>29506341
>>29506294
>>29506315
uh.. lost track, what's everybody arguing for/against?
>>29506341
I know what video you're talking about, and that isn't what's happening.
Please though, feel free to believe that stealth is magic.
It's hilarious
>>29506361
>uh.. lost track, what's everybody arguing for/against?
Arguing against a "stealth is a meme" idiot.
>>29506361
You ask me some fairly obscure very unlikely EP that I answer and you don't expect me to know the boldface.
THROTTLE(S) - MAX
SPEED BRAKE - CONFIRM CLOSED
Why you quizzin me?
>>29506361
That F-22's are apparently untrackable by modern western fighter radars.
>>29506386
'Stealth is a meme' =/= 'Stealth doesn't allow you to be sub-1nmi and not be detected by radar you fucking mouthbreather.
>>29506403
>Why you quizzin me?
Probably making sure you're the real deal.
>>29506383
>>29506386
ok fair enough. i don't doubt that at close ranges you can get a lock on a stealth aircraft, but the range is really close.
>>29506403
helping you study for the EP of the day tomorrow.
only ride I hooked at IFF was a no-step for EP because i didn't study enough (i think it was a misdiagnosed gen failure no cross). in my defense game 7 of the world series was on and my team won.
>>29506416
>'Stealth is a meme' =/= 'Stealth doesn't allow you to be sub-1nmi and not be detected by radar you fucking mouthbreather.
And yet they have to equip luneburg lenses and it's still hard for a Rafale to get lock at gun range...
>>29504074
>>29506445
What jet you flying now?
Yeah studying right now is becoming very fucking difficult to have motivation to do. After the inst/nav checkride where everything took a shitload of prep and there was a ton of GK, form has very little GK or prep required so I basically fuck around in the flight room or make jalapeno popcorn every day until last go steps so I can go home. Looking forward to the next step
>>29506655
F-15E. get good at corn. on that note, i should go off and study too, but yeah i understand the need for motivation even with a test staring me in the face tomorrow.
>>29495282
>That lack of wing flex
Goddamn that's impressive
>>29507123
Huh, I didn't notice. Good eyes, anon.
>>29507196
And think of this: The F-35 builds on that materials and design knowledge with newer, better materials and techniques.
ITT: /k/ has more military pilots than previously thought.
It's honestly pretty surprising how many pilots we have on here by now.
>tfw your CFI and mentor has offered to get you a slot at the local AFR base flying C-130's and also to put in good word at the local F-15 base.
>tfw ANG and AFR slots are often dictated by who you know
>>29497056
>The F-22 can barely do ground targeting, and only via radar scanning, while the F-35 has multiple targeting options.
sir! requesting 5 different HUDs to lock onto a sand nigger on a camel sir!
sure thing private.
dip dip potato chip sir!
>>29500275
>Lockheed on the other hand holds corporate monopoly on 5th gen jets production in western world.
Shit, somebody should tell that to BAE and NG.
>>29507333
>i don't know what different sensors do
>>29507571
>I need several for A2G
yikes
>>29507590
Why is that yikes?
>>29504074
>>29504301
>>29504373
That "updated Arrow" idea was retarded.
Now the "Super Arrow" idea that the guy in Edmonton (and a few other people, such as a retired Northrop Grumman engineer) are working on actually looks like a promising design.
>>29507590
>SAR won't pick it up due to jamming or other issues
>good thing i have EO sensors
and vice versa, same goes for A2A.
>>29507590
auto and CCIP/CDIP. plus you can figure out system-derived slant ranging or ground ranging from several different sources in a modern multi-role.
>>29507333
>>29507590
It's always great when the willfully ignorant post, isn't it?
>>29507737
>three levels of redundancy because systems keep failing.
the only ignorance here is this planned obsolesce bullshit.
>>29507884
What are you even complaining about?
>>29507884
Different tools for different situations. Complaining that they're redundant tools is like saying that NVGs and NADs are redundant because you have an ACOG sight.
>>29507939
it's a matter of justifying the replacement of the f-22 with said systems when the whole basis of its design was its sensor fusion and how it integrated all its radars onto one screen.
>>29499284
>What you probably meant to say is their engagement rate 12 targets per minute. And they can be deployed autonomously right now. Whereas F-35 can't carry its trump card SDB until at least next decade.
So basically Mother Russia has three and a half years to make its move. How much of Eastern Europe do you think they can grab between now and then? A lot? A little? The rest of Ukraine and call it even?
>>29508005
which is great for air to air, but you need to program the radar to do air to ground and/or have a target pod. otherwise you are going to only be able to do GPS-guided coordinate bombing from an offboard source.
none of this is stopping the F-22 from being a beast in the air to air realm. it's a limited bomber and that's fine.
>>29508005
The F-35 doesn't replace the F-22, it replaces the F-16, the F-22 replaces the F-15.
The F-22's replacement is coming in about 20 years as the F-X / NGAD program.
Remember too, just upgrading the F-22 with these systems wouldn't be easy; they've been the biggest developmental issue and source of delays in the F-35.
>>29499707
Holy cuck. Russian Aircraft threads being moderate discussion? Is that what you call blatant shilling?
Like it's quite obvious that the argument made flew completely over your head because you didn't even try to address it. Okay yeah, at + mach 1 the F35 has worse pure acceleration but how can you even refute that at sub and trans sonic speeds (those at which actual dogfights are conducted) the F35 has better energy retention?
>>29502799
For one, your not supposed to take photos on any military flight line, let alone at Edwards where they test secret squirrel shit. Also, they have security on the B-2's at all times so your not getting close to it. Spent 6 weeks at Edwards for some B1 testing, seen a lot of cool shit there, better than any museum. The commander even has an old MIG 17 he flies for reasons.
F-35 is literally just a guinea pig for ALIS. No one will take it seriously and no one will give a shit when five years from now a new more refined plane is officially announced.
>>29509504
Called the Block 4 F-35
>>29507299
Tell the military about the gliders m8
bring them back
