F-35A vs. F-105D

[Channel 2]

On Day 2, with F-22 cover, how much better would F-105D's be at doing what F-35A's are supposed to do post Day 1? ('Day 2' presupposes that everything that should be done on Day 1 actual got done.)

[Lonewolf_50]

On Day 2, with F-22 cover, how much better would F-105D's be at doing what F-35A's are supposed to do post Day 1? ('Day 2' presupposes that everything that should be done on Day 1 actual got done.)
Since there are 0 of them currently in active squadrons, they'd do as well as all of those angels dancing upon the head of a pin: nothing. No ordnance delivered.


How many F-105's are in the order of battle, as of this morning?
How many suppliers of F-105 parts are there to keep them flying?
How big is the training team at Nellis keeping F-105 tactics up to date?

[Channel 2]

Hypothetically, of course. Really no need to dance on the head of a pin. We know exactly what the F-105D could do, and did. Both have (ended up with) the same basic mission, no? Both are single engine aircraft, though the F-35A has a significantly more powerful engine. For the F-35A, let's go with LM's sales brochure numbers.

On Day 2, with external ordnance and drops, the F-105D goes way farther, waay faster, and drops waaay more bombs than a clean F-35A, no? Add externals to the F-35A, and now the F-105D goes waay farther, waaay faster, and drops way more bombs than a F-35A. Isn't that right?

Let's just talk Day 2 for awhile.

[AutoBit]

Channel,

I think you're missing the point on what F35 is designed to do, which is operate in contested airspace. Given a significant, modern Fighter threat combined with modern day SAMs I'd be surprised is everything was 'mopped' up after night 1. So I suspect the answer is; not very well.

[Courtney Mil]

I think Channel 2 is being hypothetical and positing ops in uncontested airspace where F-35 can load up the external pylons. It's a slightly fictional scenario whereby we use F-35 for one day to destroy completely the air-to-air and surface-to-air threats, put them all away until the next war and get out the 105s.

If the only metrics are farther, faster, heavier, then the question is already answered. If the question takes the whole issue in the round, then you're unlikely to get to day 2 in time for farther, faster, heavier to be any kind of advantage.

But like I said, it's a hypothetical "what if".

[Rhino power]

Oh good, just what the forum needs, another thread kicking lumps out of the F-35...

But, since it's here anyway, the F-105 could only carry dumb bombs, no smart/precision munitions, that puts it at a disadvantage to the F-35 immediately, no?

-RP

[TBM-Legend]

The Thud was a mighty fine aircraft. Read Col. Jack Brougton's book "Thud Ridge" for a glimpse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-105_Thunderchief

[AtomKraft]

I read Jack Broughtonss book. He seemed to think they were doing Vietnam a favour by bombing them to a bloody standstill.
Him and his men heroically smashing them to atoms.

As for the Thud. Half the fleet is still in Vietnam.

[KenV]

On Day 2, with external ordnance and drops, the F-105D goes way farther, waay faster, and drops waaay more bombs than a clean F-35A, no? Add externals to the F-35A, and now the F-105D goes waay farther, waaay faster, and drops way more bombs than a F-35A. Isn't that right?

Let's just talk Day 2 for awhile. Vietnam was fought for many years, so "Day 2" and thousands of days thereafter. A LOT of Thuds are still in the jungles of Vietnam. They had essentially zero air-to-air capability and had absolutely zero precision ordinance delivery capability. If you want to drop a lot of iron bombs with what today would be considered miserable accuracy with questionable survivability, then the F-105 would be a very fine platform to do that.


Edit: The A-7 was a fine attack platform also and replaced the F-105 even though it was much slower. It was operated by both USAF and USN, plus a few non-US air arms. And the A-3 in USN service, (B-66 in USAF service) was a pretty good bomber that could deliver lots more bombs farther than either the F-35 or F-105. The A-6 in USN service and F-111 in USAF service were fine attack platforms as well in their day and the F-15E/I/S/K/SG/SA/SE continues to be an exceptional attack platform today with a bigger payload and greater range than F-35. F-16 and Rafale are also a current production really good attack platforms. And the Typhoon is getting there. But clearly USAF, USN, RAF, RAAF, CAF, IDF and several other air arms have requirements that those platforms cannot meet effectively and that's the very reason the F-35 exists. It does things the others cannot do and clearly there are a number of air arms willing to pay a premium price and wait much longer than planned to get the capabilities the F-35 brings to the table.

[glad rag]

One believes the OP has been exceptionally generous to the F35 [lol] how about an internal loadout instead?

X4 SDB''s VS X1 tac Nuke.

Thud wins. Period.

Who was it who said "Talk quietly [unless your anywhere near a F35] but carry a big stick" ?

[Lonewolf_50]

Who was it who said "Talk quietly [unless your anywhere near a F35] but carry a big stick" ? Nobody who ever flew an F-105. Them were pretty noisy aircraft. Got to see a few of them at an airshow, Dulles Airport, about 1965-6. Cool as all get out, :ok: but certainly not quiet.

[melmothtw]

Vietnam was fought for many years, so "Day 2" and thousands of days thereafter. A LOT of Thuds are still in the jungles of Vietnam. They had essentially zero air-to-air capability and had absolutely zero precision ordinance delivery capability. If you want to drop a lot of iron bombs with what today would be considered miserable accuracy with questionable survivability, then the F-105 would be a very fine platform to do that.


Edit: The A-7 was a fine attack platform also and replaced the F-105 even though it was much slower. It was operated by both USAF and USN, plus a few non-US air arms. And the A-3 in USN service, (B-66 in USAF service) was a pretty good bomber that could deliver lots more bombs farther than either the F-35 or F-105. The A-6 in USN service and F-111 in USAF service were fine attack platforms as well in their day and the F-15E/I/S/K/SG/SA/SE continues to be an exceptional attack platform today with a bigger payload and greater range than F-35. F-16 and Rafale are also a current production really good attack platforms. And the Typhoon is getting there. But clearly USAF, USN, RAF, RAAF, CAF, IDF and several other air arms have requirements that those platforms cannot meet effectively and that's the very reason the F-35 exists. It does things the others cannot do and clearly there are a number of air arms willing to pay a premium price and wait much longer than planned to get the capabilities the F-35 brings to the table.

28 aerial victories and a book titled: "F105 Thunderchief MiG killers of the Vietnam War" are somewhat incongruous accolades for an aircraft with "essentially zero air-to-air capability".

[m0nkfish]

What about on Day 2 with F22 cover, how much better would the Avro Lancaster be, doing the F105D job that was trying to do the F35 job? (assuming everything on Day 1 got done.)

[sandiego89]

KenV They had essentially zero air-to-air capability


melmothtw beat me to it. The F-105 was credited with 27.5 kills (most with the gun) with what was essentially designed as a single seat penetration bomber is no slouch. That's more kills than other attack/bombers such as the A-4, A-7, A-6, and even the fighters such F-8, F-100 etc. Of the Western aircraft only the F-4 got more air to air kills in Vietnam/SEA. If you believe all the reports, the B-52 had the "best" air to air kill ratio.....


This study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/c016682.pdf is a good read on losses by type and with some good nuggets. Interesting about the part of the F-105's ability to "die slowly", which gave the aircraft perhaps an underserved rugged reputation, but highlighted that the abiltiy for an aircraft to fly on for even just a bit was a big factor in crew survival rates.


Yes the Thud had a high loss rate, perhaps 390 (sources vary), but the vast majority of the losses were to AAA, then SAM's then another big drop to MiGs, with perhaps 20+ lost to MiGs. So perhaps a 1:1 ratio, and many more likely survived by the Thuds impressive ability to outrun the MiGs down low.


As for the vs. F-35 debate, agree with the others. Bomb load, range and speed goes to the F-105, but the electronics and other feature is no comparison. Apples and oranges. Heck a B-24 could carry a similar bomb load farther, but no one is suggesting we should re-open the Liberator production line.

[Channel 2]

1) Well, if I am not mistaken, the skies over North Vietnam were heavily contested, in fact, they were the most heavily contested in the history of aerial warfare, no?

a) Perhaps the above explains why "half of the F-105 fleet is still in Vietnam?"

2) The F-105 is credited with 24.5 gun kills and 3.0 missile kills against the MiG-17, versus 17 confirmed kills for the MiG-17. That's not too bad for an aircraft originally designed to be a nuclear attack strike aircraft. The MiG was an incredibly agile pure fighter, wasn't it?

3) The F-105F/G preformed the SEAD/ECM mission until 1984?

4) Let's spend $10k wiring the F-105D for GPS (that's the cost of doing it, not the price) and $50k for the cost of a glass panel up front, and now we have GBU-31/54 (JDAM) capability. Adding a LANTIRN/LITENING/SNIPER pod brings us up to bomb dropping skill parity with a F-35A, no? Am I wrong?

5) Not to put fine a point on it, but in a bomb dropping/visual dog fighting fly-off, after doing '4' above, a refurbished F-105D gate guard embarrasses a F-35A in any configuration. No? Am I wrong?

Not trolling. I'm just trying to understand the fundamental reasoning and rational for the F-35. In the very near future, unmanned, low-observable aircraft will be doing ALL of the Day 1 missions, no? And if this is true, and 1-4 above are all true, then why are we still building these things?

[MPN11]

No horse in this race, but I'm glad the OP has had some sensible responses.

A good question, and a good topic

[OK465]

The F-105 radar actually had an air-to-air mode, primarily radar ranging for lead computations with some search capability (With my eyeballs I could generally see much further) and it was unlikely you would need exacting lead computations when any likely opponent could easily turn better. The only USAF fighter it could out-turn was the F-101 and to air refuel smoothly on a 135 at 310 KCAS (P&D or B/R), the leading edge flaps had to be extended.

In the late 70s the air-to-air mode was not maintained, but to my surprise in 1979 I got in a tail number one day where it actually worked. It also had a small, almost unreadable head-up radar repeater in the combiner, really in fact not much good for radar bombing or a2a search anyway.

I think it's ironic that the Navy makes a point of calling the F-8 the last gunfighter....if it was, it was in name only.

(The F-105 was generally flown by the USAF's best pilots early in the game (a lot of ex-Hun guys), which probably accounted for most of the successes they had, but was opened later to lesser experienced Majors & above {not even necessarily fighter types} wanting to get their career ticket punched. At this time many of the 105 guys had opted for additional tours in the F-4.)

F-105, even in 1979, would have been tasked many days/weeks after D+1. The old girl was not as quick as she used to be. So F-35 comparison is really moot.

(BTW I don't consider myself a Thud driver (they all wear the 100 over the North patches), but I was a dilettante F-105 pilot and enjoyed the hell out of it.

[India Four Two]

Slight thread drift apropos the Thud and the Lancaster.

I hadn't realized how big the F-105 was until I saw one in the Palm Springs museum. On looking up the dimensions, I see it is 65' long, which is only 4' shorter than a Lancaster!

A few years ago, I had the surreal experience of watching a stream of Mig-21s take off at Hanoi, with Thud Ridge in the background. All commercial traffic had been halted and remained that way until the Migs returned about 20 minutes later, presumably with Bingo fuel.

[Melchett01]

I think Channel 2 is being hypothetical and positing ops in uncontested airspace where F-35 can load up the external pylons. It's a slightly fictional scenario whereby we use F-35 for one day to destroy completely the air-to-air and surface-to-air threats, put them all away until the next war and get out the 105s.

If the only metrics are farther, faster, heavier, then the question is already answered. If the question takes the whole issue in the round, then you're unlikely to get to day 2 in time for farther, faster, heavier to be any kind of advantage.

But like I said, it's a hypothetical "what if".

Slightly tangentially, how much is the F-35's technical capability compromised by its cost? Given that the forecast cost of an A variant of $75M in today's money for a platform ordered in 2018 for 2020 delivery is likely to limit numbers most nations can buy (Bs & Cs likely costing more), how much will that affect the political will to risk them in a day 1 contested environment going up against the likes of S-300, 400 etc where IADS are increasingly complex, generating a fused engagement quality operating picture from multiple potentially mobile sensors that remove the old radar gaps we'd look to exploit?

It's all well and good being able to achieve a mission on paper, but if the levels of cost-induced risk aversion are so high that putting it into that sort of scenario is unlikely to happen, why not just go for the cheaper option? How many aircraft losses would the UK be able to sustain politically before having to withdraw? How much would the F-35 have to be supplemented by other systems such as EA on top of the already high price tag?

[Bevo]

This would have been a much more interesting thread had the OP asked about an aircraft like the F-15K instead of the F-105.

[Channel 2]

This would have been a much more interesting thread had the OP asked about an aircraft like the F-15K instead of the F-105.
Go for it. If the moderators don't mind, I'm up for a wide-ranging discussion, and the F-15K should be part of it.

Here is another question: the F-35A has an engine that develops about 14,000 pounds more thrust than a F-105D (sans afterburner) and about 20,000 pounds of additional thrust in afterburner. Yet, the F-105D dramatically out preforms the F-35A in every flight dynamic metric. How can this be?

[AutoBit]

I doubt it out performs F35A in every flight regimen. I would hazard a guess that the instantaneous and sustained turned rates in the F35 are far better than then F-105, as would be instantaneous and sustained G. Additionally these days you have consider the systems on the a/c and the ability to employ those systems as a flight characteristic, in which case there is no comparison.

But the fundamental difference is the F35 'performance' is optimised for Low Observability and so there is always going to be a slight compromise in terms of pure airframe performance to maximise (or minimise) radar cross section. As for the F-15 - great aircraft. But its not going to last that long in the type of airspace that F35 was designed to go up against.

[Channel 2]

I doubt it out performs F35A in every flight regimen. I would hazard a guess that the instantaneous and sustained turned rates in the F35 are far better than then F-105, as would be instantaneous and sustained G.

Respectfully, this: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F-35%20High%20AoA%20Maneuvers.pdf strongly indicates that your guess might be off the mark.

But the fundamental difference is the F35 'performance' is optimised for Low Observability and so there is always going to be a slight compromise in terms of pure airframe performance to maximise (or minimise) radar cross section.

Interesting. Does the F-22, which is also optimized for low observability, incorporate the same crippling airframe compromises?

[AutoBit]

Ok. The discussion here is about F35 v F105 not F35 v F16. How would an F105 do against a F16?

That report has been well documented, and also well countered.

Finally the F22 has thrust vectoring which the F35 doesn't…..and neither does/did the F105. So back to the original discussion: F35 against F105 and my money's on F35.

[Courtney Mil]

Does the F-22, which is also optimized for low observability, incorporate the same crippling airframe compromises?

Crippling? Who said anything about crippling airframe compromises? F-35 is a compromise between aerodynamic performance (including energy manoeuvrability) and LO, and I would have liked to see some better performance in some areas, but you can hardly call it crippling.

[Flap62]

I guess going in on day 2 in a 105 would be so much more relaxing because you wouldn't even see what killed you.

[Buster Hyman]

Reading this thread, I decided to look up some more info on the F-105 and found the following article. I share the link for your edification only...

Joint Strike Fighter = Thunderchief II? / Back to the Future in Battlefield Interdiction (http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-Thud-2004.html)

[barnstormer1968]

Something we can never know is how well the 105 would have done from day 2 onwards on the Viernam war if the enemy SAMs had been properly targeted.

Our day 2 onwards theory for this thread is likely to assume that SAMs had been targeted to make life in the air easier. The 105 never had that luxury.

[Mechta]

To compare one Vietnam era airframe to one current/future airframe is somewhat disingenuous. What matters is the total resources required to complete the task.

In Vietnam, to bomb a bridge for instance, in addition to the bomb carrying F105, the following aircraft would have been required:

Wild Weasels to identify and take out SAM sites
Air to Air Interceptors to provide top cover
Combat SAR in case anyone was shot down
Air cover for the combat SAR
Tankers for all the above


I'm sure others could add to this list.

If the F35 can identify and either destroy, avoid or not be spotted by SAM sites, then that potentially removes the need for Wild Weasels. If (big if...) it can provide its own air to air protection, that rolls the whole attack into one aircraft, and with guided bombs or missiles, the number of attempts required is reduced, so the attack force can be smaller still.

The cost per airframe is higher, but the resources required per attack are smaller, provided the kit is as good as is it says on the tin.

[KenV]

28 aerial victories and a book titled: "F105 Thunderchief MiG killers of the Vietnam War" are somewhat incongruous accolades for an aircraft with "essentially zero air-to-air capability". Excellent point!! I acknowledge the incongruity of the Thud's accomplishments. On the other hand the B-52 had many MiG and Sukhoi kills, the B-17 and B-24 had many Messerschmitt and Focke Wulf kills, and the B-29 had many Mitsubishi and Nakajima kills. That does not mean any of them had a real air-to-air capability.

And separately, putting GPS and a few glass panels in a Thud would not make it a modern attack aircraft that would be effective in today's air warfare environment. That environment has changed dramatically since Vietnam. I'd wager that even a very experienced Thud driver with multiple MiG kills over Vietnam if given a choice between a "modernized" Thud, an F-15E, an F/A-18E, and an F-35, he would not choose the Thud. Even if his choice was limited to the Thud and F-35, I'd wager he would not choose the Thud.

[TBM-Legend]

The Thud operated in the most heavily defended airspace known up to then. She carried the strike mission very well until losses in accidents and combat ran the numbers down to where she'd lived out her useful life and was replaced, of course, with the ubiquitous mighty Fox-4.

[KenV]

Interesting. Does the F-22, which is also optimized for low observability, incorporate the same crippling airframe compromises?The F-35's airframe compromises are NOT just related to stealth and in any event are certainly not "crippliing".

The F-22 is optimized for air-to-air. It has two engines. The F-35 was mandated by the government to have only one. That's a huge "compromise" all by itself. The F-22 is essentially single role and is single service and is optimized for that role and that service. Like so many other fighters, it is kind of a point design. The F-35 was mandated by the government to be multi-role, multi-service, AND multi-national. That requires LOTS of "compromises," the vast majority unrelated to stealth. The F-22 is optimized as an air superiority fighter and is a lousy bomber. The F-35 is optimized as a tactical bomber yet has a damn good fighter capability. The F-22 was so expensive that less than 200 will ever be built (including test airframes). Literally thousands of F-35s will be built. Quantity has a quality all its own.

[GlobalNav]

@KenV "The F-22 was so expensive that less than 200 will ever be built (including test airframes). Literally thousands of F-35s will be built. Quantity has a quality all its own."

Not to pick an argument with you, but I don't think the question should be to choose between F-22 or F-35, but I think its a damn crime that fewer than 200 F-22's were built. Such a waste of development costs and such a loss of potential military capability. And by the time the piper is paid, an awful lot more will have been paid for the F-35 than optimistically estimated when the F-22 buys were stopped. To build thousands of F-35's and less than 200 F-22's was a disastrous and wasteful political decision that will leave us wanting in the air superiority arena for decades to come. Just a lonely taxpayer's lament.

[Channel 2]

The F-35 was mandated by the government to have only one [engine]. That's a huge "compromise" all by itself.

Understood KenV. However, the F-35A has been provided with an incredibly powerful engine.

F-35A Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan, minimum dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN) [That number may go to 32,000+ in the future.] in afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN)

The F-35A's nominal thrust is significantly above what a F-4E could ever produce with two engines.

F-4E Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J79-GE-17A axial compressor turbojets, both engines combined produced: dry thrust: 23,810 lbf (10.8 kN), in afterburner: 35,690 lbf (158.8 kN)

The "tanks are full" thrust to weight ratio are quite similar. F-35A = .87 versus F-4E = .86.

However, the F-4E could do Mach 2.2 until it ran out of gas, while the F-35A struggles to achieve Mach 1.2, for a matter of seconds, (or until the vertical stabilizers over-temp and the sensors red-light the panel.)

Despite having near equal thrust to weight ratios, the F-4E outperforms the F-35A in every flight metric. And in most performance parameters, the F-4E shames the F-35A.

Why? Seriously. Why?

[MSOCS]

Despite having near equal thrust to weight ratios, the F-4E outperforms the F-35A in every flight metric. And in most performance parameters, the F-4E shames the F-35A.

Aerodynamics are a funny thing Channel 2. The aircraft is, in essence, a huge lifting body (note total planform area compared to actual wing size). This is the same reason that the venerable F-16 has better turn performance, thought not by that much. High AoA (snap, shoot) of F-35 will make F-105D and F-16 eyes water as the handling characteristics are allegedly more akin to F-18 like, but with a +9gz limit (for the A). There's much more drag on the F-35 as soon as you pull AoA compared to the F-105 or F-16 - again, aerodynamics. That drag is a result of nearly 16k+ lbs of internal fuel, internal weapon bays and shape/form restrictions. One engine is a real limit on grunt overcoming the drag mentioned but....engine tech may provide restitution in that area in future, esp as total weight grows over time with upgrades etc.

Quoting the T/W ratios and postulating some very pointed assertions makes me a little suspicious, if you'll forgive me. Beyond the few similarities you mention (i.e. one of the F-35's missions) I'd say they're pretty much apples and oranges.

You clearly have an agenda in this little thought experiments and I'll leave it at that.

[KenV]

Not to pick an argument with you, but I don't think the question should be to choose between F-22 or F-35, but I think its a damn crime that fewer than 200 F-22's were built. You get no argument from me. Killing the F-22 line was a sad decision. My intent was to point out what some of the compromises were for the F-35 relative to the F-22. Contrary to the claim, the F-35's compromises were NOT primarily driven by stealth. The government mandate for a single engine was but one huge driver that required all sorts of compromises that simply did not apply to the F-22. There were many more.

[KenV]

However, the F-4E could do Mach 2.2 until it ran out of gas, while the F-35A struggles to achieve Mach 1.2, for a matter of seconds, (or until the vertical stabilizers over-temp and the sensors red-light the panel.)
Despite having near equal thrust to weight ratios, the F-4E outperforms the F-35A in every flight metric. And in most performance parameters, the F-4E shames the F-35A.
Why? Seriously. Why? Out performs the F-35A in every flight metric? You mentioned just one, top speed. What are the others? And what are the "performance parameters" other than top mach number where the F-4E "shames the F-35A?" Seriously.

And contrary to your claim that F-35 verticals limit its speed, the top speed is driven by the fixed engine inlets. The Phantom goes mach 2.2 because it has variable inlets. By your measure, the F-4 is superior to the F-22, which is also mach limited due to fixed inlets. High mach flight is of very limited value in modern air combat, and why the F-16 and F-18 are also mach limited due to fixed inlets. Do you really claim the F-4 "outperforms in every flight metric" the F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35 because it's variable inlets give it a higher mach top end than those aircraft?

[glad rag]

Could you type that a bit slower please ..

[GlobalNav]

slow reader?




just a little humor

[Channel 2]

High AoA (snap, shoot) of F-35 will make F-105D and F-16 eyes water as the handling characteristics are allegedly more akin to F-18 like, but with a +9gz limit (for the A).

I hear what you're saying MSOCS, unfortunately, it has no basis in fact.

Excerpts from:

F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers
14 January 2015

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a...0Maneuvers.pdf (http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F-35%20High%20AoA%20Maneuvers.pdf)


Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability. [...] Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.

Pitch Rate

Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time. The average Nz [“Nz” definition: Nose to Z axis / Pitch axis] achieved during the breaks or turn circle entries were typically ~6.5 [Definition: 6.5 g] or less despite a rapid full aft stick pull and then decreased as energy depleted and the aircraft slowed on the limiter. (You can forget about a clean F-35A being a “9g fighter” in the Z axis because it just won’t do it. And when they start hanging externals on it, that number is going to get way worse.) Insufficient pitch rate also occurred at slower speeds such as during gun run attempts. Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution.

High Angle of Attack

Due to the energy and pitch rate limitations described above, there were not compelling reasons to fight in this region. [...]

High Angle of Attack Blended Region

The flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AOA) were not intuitive or favorable. This was especially frustrating because as the sortie progressed, it was apparent that the aircraft fought best at the lower end of this alpha whether turning or established in a tree/scissors; so the lateral/directional control was often unpredictable. [...] Since this aircraft seemed to fight best near 20 degrees, [!!!] controls should not be blended near this region.

Guns Defense

No effective guns defense was found during this test. [...] For unloaded-roll-pull jinks, [The devastating word being: “unloaded.”] the slow pitch rate was evident in both the unload and the pull. [...] The result was a target [the F-35A] that was changing shape/attitude but not actually moving out of the piper. Higher alpha usually just resulted in a larger planform target.

[glad rag]

slow reader?




just a little humour

:ok: it needs it!

[MSOCS]

You're using an historic opinion piece based on a flight sciences test F-35 with hefty limits? Jeez buddy. I thought you were quoting something credible.

Srsly

[glad rag]

who ya talking to now?

[Lonewolf_50]

Channel 2, if what you want to do is defecate all over the F-35, we have a long running thread fit for that purpose. Why not be honest and just join the scrum there?


Your hypothetical is, as I noted in my first response, vacuous at best.
There aren't any F-105's to do the mission even if someone wanted there to be.


There aren't any horse-cavalry armed with sabers either.

[Willard Whyte]

Your hypothetical is, as I noted in my first response, vacuous at best.
There aren't any F-105's to do the mission even if someone wanted there to be.


There aren't any horse-cavalry armed with sabers either.

You could just use your imagination. F-105 was probably used as a generic term for a 'dumb' fast attack 'plane.

[GlobalNav]

"F-105 was probably used as a generic term for a 'dumb' fast attack 'plane."

A shame to summarily disrespect the airplane, so maligned during its own development, primarily as a single-engined tactical nuclear delivery system, used for altogether other purposes in the most hostile air defense environment at the time, yet so successfully by extraordinarily brave and skilled aviators in spite of high losses.

We should not forget the F-105 experience, when the new generation of strike aircraft, in spite of all the mud thrown at them in their development, will also be flown by extraordinarily brave and skilled aviators and I predict, therefore, with a high and honorable degree of success because of them, as well.

[Courtney Mil]

Channel 2, it now looks like you came here to bash the F-35 rather than conduct a hypothetical thought experiment. It also looks like you don't understand much about basic fighter manoeuvres or the purpose of the trial you're using as your evidence.

If you look at the title of the report it specifically states "High angle of attack operational manoeuvres". If you then look at the set-up condition for the "fights" you will note that the speed at "fight's on" is well below that of a normal 1v1 BFB set up. Reason? To explore high aoa handling as in a more mature fight rather than high g manoeuvring as in an optimal fight entry.

You will note the use of the terms guns defence, a low energy, high aoa manoeuvre designed to destroy the attacker's sighting solution whilst generating closure with the aim of forcing a fly through. The standard means of getting out of plane is unload, roll, pull. Maybe they don't teach that in the Microsoft Flight Sim X Fighter Weapons School.

At the energy levels used for this trial you wouldn't expect to see 9g. Not even the super-amazing F-15 will do 9g at those energy levels.

[Courtney Mil]

Lonewolf,

Channel 2, if what you want to do is defecate all over the F-35, we have a long running thread fit for that purpose. Why not be honest and just join the scrum there?


We can revisit all the tired old arguments that were put to bed years ago. :ok: :ok: :ok: