|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 194
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 194 |
It ain't the ones with people in 'em I would worry about. Those ones will be used on the civilians.
------------------------------
The APE
"But resist we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - the "Reverend" Al Sharpton
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614 |
We went to Laage, Germany in the mid-90's and flew against the Mig-29's there. The helmet mounted sight in combination with the AA-11 Archer is a formidable combination. It's not all the helmet mounted sight, the AA-11 was a much better IR missile than our Aim-9M sidewinders we were using at the time. The AA-11 had a much higher off boresight capability than we had so they could slave the seeker head to us using the helmet mounted sight long before we could get our sidewinders on them. The AA-11 also had a much shorter arming distance after it came off the rail than we did so their minimum engagement distance was closer. The Mig had a very good thrust to weight ratio also, it's turning performance was very similar to fighting an F-16 in that regard. In a BFM
engagement the Mig had an advantage against us mainly because of the AA-11 missile.
Everything else about it was junk. The workmanship on the airplane looks like the russians were drunk when they built it. The germans had a hard time keeping them running. The avionics were probably equivalent to what we had in the 70's, the radar was junk and our jammer was very effective against it. A fighter is just a moving platform for a radar, 95% of the ability of the aircraft is housed in the radar. People like to talk ACM/BFM because they watched Top Gun too many times and it's sexy, but the reality is you radar work is where you make your money. A Mig-29 should never make it to the merge against a section of F/A-18's, F-15's, or F-16's, that's the reality.
The main reason some non-hornet guys bag on the hornet is because we don't carry much gas. The navy lives and dies around it's deck cycle time on the carrier and the hornets messed that up because they couldn't stay airborne as long as the others. Things had to be rearranged when the hornet came along and it pissed off all the old school guys. The Mig is twice as bad on gas as the hornet ever was, they carry very little gas. Part of that is by design, the Mig-29 was conceived as a point defense fighter and at the height of the cold war they didn't want their pilots defecting with them. One fix for that was to not give them enough gas get to the west. Good summary. I did the same set with us in VAQ-209 and VMFA-321 and found the same things (and the beer and sausages rock over there. The evenings with the Germans crews were epic  ) Most excellent summation indeed. BUt.. Definitively count me as one of those old hornet Haters and not just the deck cycle issue because of the gas. We also had to build an entirely new air defense of the Strike Group Architecture because of the Hornet's short legs, a radar that was at the time very susceptible to 60s era SPS 141 repeater jammer used by the Soviets, no IFF (NCTR SUCKED) and until AAMRAM not so good BVR. With the Tomcat (which BTW in the A+, B & D models could easily handle just about anybody out there) We could extend the "Chainsaw" Air Defense way past 600 miles, way past. Nope and I'm not even a fighter guy, but the way ahead should have been the Tomcat 2000. Lastly, when the Tomcat boys finally sucked it up and became a bomber, it proved to be a formidable platform, if for no other reason than an extra pair of eyes at the merge, and longer loiter times in the CAS role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Hornet and their follow ons have hamstrung carrier aviation but I'll take it over that POS 35 anyday.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 15,663
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 15,663 |
We went to Laage, Germany in the mid-90's and flew against the Mig-29's there. The helmet mounted sight in combination with the AA-11 Archer is a formidable combination. It's not all the helmet mounted sight, the AA-11 was a much better IR missile than our Aim-9M sidewinders we were using at the time. The AA-11 had a much higher off boresight capability than we had so they could slave the seeker head to us using the helmet mounted sight long before we could get our sidewinders on them. The AA-11 also had a much shorter arming distance after it came off the rail than we did so their minimum engagement distance was closer. The Mig had a very good thrust to weight ratio also, it's turning performance was very similar to fighting an F-16 in that regard. In a BFM
engagement the Mig had an advantage against us mainly because of the AA-11 missile.
Everything else about it was junk. The workmanship on the airplane looks like the russians were drunk when they built it. The germans had a hard time keeping them running. The avionics were probably equivalent to what we had in the 70's, the radar was junk and our jammer was very effective against it. A fighter is just a moving platform for a radar, 95% of the ability of the aircraft is housed in the radar. People like to talk ACM/BFM because they watched Top Gun too many times and it's sexy, but the reality is you radar work is where you make your money. A Mig-29 should never make it to the merge against a section of F/A-18's, F-15's, or F-16's, that's the reality.
The main reason some non-hornet guys bag on the hornet is because we don't carry much gas. The navy lives and dies around it's deck cycle time on the carrier and the hornets messed that up because they couldn't stay airborne as long as the others. Things had to be rearranged when the hornet came along and it pissed off all the old school guys. The Mig is twice as bad on gas as the hornet ever was, they carry very little gas. Part of that is by design, the Mig-29 was conceived as a point defense fighter and at the height of the cold war they didn't want their pilots defecting with them. One fix for that was to not give them enough gas get to the west. Good summary. I did the same set with us in VAQ-209 and VMFA-321 and found the same things (and the beer and sausages rock over there. The evenings with the Germans crews were epic ) Most excellent summation indeed. BUt.. Definitively count me as one of those old hornet Haters and not just the deck cycle issue because of the gas. We also had to build an entirely new air defense of the Strike Group Architecture because of the Hornet's short legs, a radar that was at the time very susceptible to 60s era SPS 141 repeater jammer used by the Soviets, no IFF (NCTR SUCKED) and until AAMRAM not so good BVR. With the Tomcat (which BTW in the A+, B & D models could easily handle just about anybody out there) We could extend the "Chainsaw" Air Defense way past 600 miles, way past. Nope and I'm not even a fighter guy, but the way ahead should have been the Tomcat 2000. Lastly, when the Tomcat boys finally sucked it up and became a bomber, it proved to be a formidable platform, if for no other reason than an extra pair of eyes at the merge, and longer loiter times in the CAS role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Hornet and their follow ons have hamstrung carrier aviation but I'll take it over that POS 35 anyday. I was around flying the "A" version of the Tomcat when "Chainsaw" first came about and it was amazing how well it worked 'cause if you managed your fuel properly the legs got way out there. In both the Phantom and the Tomcat, the airwings I was in (CVW 5 and CVW 1) worked on a 1+ 45 cycle. The Hornet quickly changed that but as mentioned above Russian fighters for decades have been designed for point defense with short legs/short engagement times so the Hornet would still be very effective DEPENDING on ROE. The best ROE I ever dealt with was in El Dorado Canyon (Libya). That night any target Northbound above 1000' IIRC was "hostile" and "weapons free", however none of the Migs in alert status launched. Rats!
NRA Life,Endowment,Patron or Benefactor since '72.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274 |
IIRC the Libyans quickly learned what was going to happen to them, when they launched...
"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
As I understand it, the F-22 is the best dogfighter in the world and is also stealthy. The F-35 is a stealthy aircraft that also happens to be a pig. If stealth is compromised, the F-22 is still a fine, probably the best fighter. The F-35 is a pig. If because of numbers, surprise, malfunctions, or acts of God, the F-22 gets in a merge, it is still going to be the best aircraft and will likely prevail unless something really bad happens. If the same happens with the F-35, that pilot is going to be in trouble if he is fighting a capable opponent.
The F-35 seems to be an aircraft that is completely dependent on stealth and BVR missiles to be effective. Without those, it is a pig. If we fight China or someone like that, numbers alone mean that it is going to have to do some dogfighting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
GG, are you old enough to remember when all the "smart" aerial tacticians boldly said there'd never again be a need for a gun on a fighter? That "wisdom" evaporated when our all-missile F-4s kept getting on the tails of Migs over Hanoi - with no way to shoot them down because they were inside missile armup range. Or the missiles just flat failed, which is where dependence on technology can get you. Yes I remember that, but this isn't 1965. In 1965 the Sparrow hadn't really been tested in war, and the Sidewinder while the best missile in the air, was still very new and had a lot of room to grow. Today we have the AMRAAM that has been used in combat (a little), and has never missed. Tests have show it to be nearly 100%, pilots call it the slammer. And the latest all aspect sidewinders are damn near foolproof as well. Now I'm not saying take guns out of aircraft, that's just dumb. I'm just saying if ever there was a time where a gun means much less, its now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
The one thing that worries me about the F35 and the F22 is their heavy reliance on stealth. The enemy only has to make a couple of technological break throughs and a major aspect of these aircraft will be rendered obsolete very quickly..
I suspect that is why the F117 was with drawn from service rather abruptly.. It's rumored that the Russian S-400 missile system is a legitimate threat. Russia realized long ago they're never going to match our aircraft, so they've decided to make the best AA missile systems in the world; and they did. As for stealth reliance. With the F-22 clearly stealth isn't a crutch, it can hold its own old school just fine. The F-35 isn't as capable, but it's darned near 1/4 the cost of the F-22 also. Sure it's not the greatest aircraft, but what's the alternative? Build more 4th generation aircraft? Well there's some logic to that, but you still have to have 5th generation aircraft as well. You have to move with technology or you'll get caught with your pants down. It has to have stealth technology, that's just the world today. I'm not nearly as worried about the F-35 as others, because I know our military will make it work; because they have no choice. The F4 was a train wreck at first and we turned it into the pre-eminent fighter in the world, and I'm 100% confident that's what we'll do with the F-35. If only the Marines would dump the jump jet concept, we could have saved billions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614 |
Tell that to the Israelis and their kill ratio w guns. I think EVERY Fighter Pilot here (and I'm not one of them), will eschew your views on the gun.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
GG, are you old enough to remember when all the "smart" aerial tacticians boldly said there'd never again be a need for a gun on a fighter? That "wisdom" evaporated when our all-missile F-4s kept getting on the tails of Migs over Hanoi - with no way to shoot them down because they were inside missile armup range. Or the missiles just flat failed, which is where dependence on technology can get you. Yes I remember that, but this isn't 1965. In 1965 the Sparrow hadn't really been tested in war, and the Sidewinder while the best missile in the air, was still very new and had a lot of room to grow. Today we have the AMRAAM that has been used in combat (a little), and has never missed. Tests have show it to be nearly 100%, pilots call it the slammer. And the latest all aspect sidewinders are damn near foolproof as well. Now I'm not saying take guns out of aircraft, that's just dumb. I'm just saying if ever there was a time where a gun means much less, its now. As a former grunt, your concept on aircraft guns is woefully inaccurate. I can't speak for aerial combat, but from a ground pounders perspective, the airframe/aircraft responding doesn't matter a whit - whether it can deliver good on target and on the ground (something AMRAAMs and their ilk can't do) matters a GREAT deal.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
Most excellent summation indeed. BUt.. Definitively count me as one of those old hornet Haters and not just the deck cycle issue because of the gas. We also had to build an entirely new air defense of the Strike Group Architecture because of the Hornet's short legs, a radar that was at the time very susceptible to 60s era SPS 141 repeater jammer used by the Soviets, no IFF (NCTR SUCKED) and until AAMRAM not so good BVR. With the Tomcat (which BTW in the A+, B & D models could easily handle just about anybody out there) We could extend the "Chainsaw" Air Defense way past 600 miles, way past. Nope and I'm not even a fighter guy, but the way ahead should have been the Tomcat 2000. Lastly, when the Tomcat boys finally sucked it up and became a bomber, it proved to be a formidable platform, if for no other reason than an extra pair of eyes at the merge, and longer loiter times in the CAS role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Hornet and their follow ons have hamstrung carrier aviation but I'll take it over that POS 35 anyday. Tomcat was the greatest fleet defense weapon ever created...and the Russians knew it!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614 |
In my view and especially in the latter configurations, the BEST ever, and one HUGE component was the fact it carried an extra pair of eyes, which in aerial combat, is a tremendous force multiplier.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,245
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,245 |
My analogy of the gunless fighters of 1965 wasn't so much about guns, but GunGeek's comment about all future combat being Beyond Visual Range.
That might be the idea and the ideal, but EVERYTHING in combat turns to ohsheet no matter what you planned. If the F-35 is indeed a pig in a dogfight, sooner or later, an F-35 jock is going to find himself trying to turn with an adversary - and becoming roast pork.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
If in the next 40 years stealth is completely nullified, we could have some problems. And it's not as if the F-35 is a complete dog, remember it was up against an F-16...what beats an F-16 in a VR knife fight?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614 |
15, 14D and of course F-22...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614 |
This:
"The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with effective beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”
And it sounds like the "Chick" standards were applied to make it look better:
"The second issue that deserves especial mention is that key aerial combat standards have been lowered, following initial tests. All F-35s will sit at 5.0g or less sustained turn performance – a figure that places them in a class with 1960s era planes like the F-5 or F-4 Phantom, instead of modern designs like the F-16. Acceleration is also poorer, compared to a reference F-16C Block 50 with AMRAAM missiles on its wingtips zooming from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2.
The USAF’s F-35A dropped the most, from an expected 5.3g – 4.6g in sustained turns. Acceleration will take 8 seconds longer than the F-16."
I must be psychic... or a woman; I foretold this HERE years ago. The plane is a pig and like Rocky says "waiting to be roasted"...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
In those two links you posted, in one of them the guy raves about the sensors of the F-35. In nearly every positive review I've seen, that seems to be the case. Everyone talks about how much of a game changer all the sensors are. They often say that they can shoot down other planes before anyone even knows where they are and well before they would be vulnerable themselves. In short, they say that dogfighting doesn't matter and that the real work is done BVR.
Of course, that begs the question. If all that BVR stuff and sensor stuff is truly the cat's meow, why not simply build a stealthy aircraft the size of a jetliner and load it up with a hundred AMRAMs or whatever? Obviously, maneuvering does matter some because instead of doing what I said above, we've built a fighter sized aircraft. Except we've built one that is such a dog that if maneuvering ever does become really important, it is likely to be at a disadvantage. It didn't have to be that way. The F-22 is superb in all aspects.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,245
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,245 |
Allow me to stick one more fork in this roasted pig. (I thought of jorge, you magnificent Cuban, when I wrote that...)
I sure as hell would not want to be wearing that huge, heavy, cumbersome helmet if I had to Lift Handles and Squeeze Trigger. That thing is gonna kill people.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
Interesting after action information that didn't seem to make it into the original report. The unnamed pilot also wrote that “the helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” Okay, that's an honest flaw! Pentagon officials said that the particular plane the test pilot flew did not have its special stealth coating, a Harry Potter-like “invisible cloak” that renders it invisible to radar. It was also lacking the sensors that allow “the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area,” the officials said. That's kind of a big deal, that's a good 80% of the weapon's system Finally, it didn’t have “the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.” Another bid deal, especially in a tight dogfight. Air Force Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian said in the Pentagon’s statement. Its main advantage is its stealth, he said, the ability “to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.” Just some perspective...when was the last time we went to a next generation fighter without any issues? The technology is just a stretch, the aircraft are complex and there's always a rough learning curve. I can recall this much controversy with the F-18 and V-22. I can recall nearly this much with the F-15. The F4 had AT LEAST this much controversy. With nearly everything, when you compare a perfected previous generation against a still infantile new generation, the new generation doesn't look so great. Once it's in service, more flaws will become apparent, they will be corrected, and pilots will have time to learn how to take it to the next level; and they will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614 |
"I can recall this much controversy with the F-18 and V-22. I can recall nearly this much with the F-15. The F4 had AT LEAST this much controversy" No way. not on this scale of dogcrap performance AND huge costs. Mark it down: THE PLANE SUCKS...
Rocky, spot on. This from a guy who has significant neck issues related to flying and trapping aboard.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
577 members (007FJ, 160user, 1936M71, 17CalFan, 12savage, 1lessdog, 59 invisible),
2,514
guests, and
1,279
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,681
Posts18,474,998
Members73,941
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
