F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
KenV,
You have argued cogently and honestly against others who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted the facts to support their own viewpoint (e.g. claiming this trial was intended to demonstrate the dogfighting superiority of a properly kitted-out F-35 - so wrong in so many ways as even a cursory glance reveals).
Well done. Please don't abandon those of us who remain open-minded to a monopoly of people all too keen on distorting events to suit their own agenda, whichever direction it takes.
You have argued cogently and honestly against others who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted the facts to support their own viewpoint (e.g. claiming this trial was intended to demonstrate the dogfighting superiority of a properly kitted-out F-35 - so wrong in so many ways as even a cursory glance reveals).
Well done. Please don't abandon those of us who remain open-minded to a monopoly of people all too keen on distorting events to suit their own agenda, whichever direction it takes.
Last edited by FODPlod; 3rd Jul 2015 at 00:07.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil
I take issue with your claim that "because it won't happen."
What I'm saying is, the strategic direction is such, as they want to minimise the chances of that happening. Hence when it does, they are prepared to suffer the consequences of that stance.
Whether the consequences as such. are greater than they anticipate etc. is another thing.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with today's society or political will or such like.
As I have said before, I don't like the F35 that much, but it seems to be the best there is, considring our particular circumstances.
What are those circumstances? We won't be getting into anything serious without being under the skirt of the Yanks. As such our defense and procurment revolves around supporting that relationship.
I realise the poms have the little problem with the Falklands, but in essence, without that issue, you guys should be in the same boat with regards to NATO.
Originally Posted by FOD
others who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted the facts to support their own viewpoint (e.g. claiming this trial was intended to demonstrate the dogfighting capability of a properly kitted-out F-35 - so wrong in so many ways as even a cursory glance reveals).
Way more important, in what way do you believe "the facts" we're misinterpreted?
You make a bold statement, now back it up and answer my questions.
Rh200,
Ah, I see what mean now. Thank you for your response. Yes, the UK may expect to operate under the U.S. Umbrella. I prefer that metaphor to the skirt thing. And, yes, NATO is a significant and very important part of the way forward.
My point was slightly different. The RN claims it is rebuilding an independent capability and I for one would love to it do that. But as you and I have both mentioned, that capability looks somewhat flawed in isolation.
Perhaps more specifically, the RN has to expect that the carrier and its air wing will be deployed to potential hot spots. If not, why have a carrier group? This could be a unilateral deployment. If the UK is not prepared to do that, why pay for its own carrier and aircraft rather than sheltering under the U.S. skirt?
You see where I'm going. All of that COULD result in actual engagements. If it couldn't, why spend all that money?
Ah, I see what mean now. Thank you for your response. Yes, the UK may expect to operate under the U.S. Umbrella. I prefer that metaphor to the skirt thing. And, yes, NATO is a significant and very important part of the way forward.
My point was slightly different. The RN claims it is rebuilding an independent capability and I for one would love to it do that. But as you and I have both mentioned, that capability looks somewhat flawed in isolation.
Perhaps more specifically, the RN has to expect that the carrier and its air wing will be deployed to potential hot spots. If not, why have a carrier group? This could be a unilateral deployment. If the UK is not prepared to do that, why pay for its own carrier and aircraft rather than sheltering under the U.S. skirt?
You see where I'm going. All of that COULD result in actual engagements. If it couldn't, why spend all that money?
FOD
It is amazing that the Pentagon with its $600 billion budget and LockMart with its piffling $45 billion in annual revenues have had the brass
s to stand up to a vast global conspiracy comprising three OCD Australians and a couple of journos. You do well to commend them.
It is amazing that the Pentagon with its $600 billion budget and LockMart with its piffling $45 billion in annual revenues have had the brass
s to stand up to a vast global conspiracy comprising three OCD Australians and a couple of journos. You do well to commend them.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
a vast global conspiracy comprising three OCD Australians
As for ACM being 'old hat', I can think of at least a dozen scenarios where getting inside the 'BVR bubble' is completely feasible. It's ok to think that the Raptor might be there, but it's suicide to think that it WILL be..
As CM says, you can't use a bomb truck to provide fleet CAP (for e.g). The notion of air superiority based on 'technology' alone (even at mature AOC) is pure arrogance
...others who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted the facts to support their own viewpoint
Personally speaking, I have no agenda when it comes to the F-35 or any other aircraft. I didn't wake up one morning and decide, "You know what, I think I'm going to be a hater today." I really do want to believe the hype; that the F-35 will be all things to all men (which is certainly how it has been billed by the JPO, DoD, MoD, and others), but the facts and common sense unfortunately tell me otherwise.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely post and beautifully supportive, but lacking in substance and evidence.
All this outcry over the (supposed) non-ability of the F-35 to dog fight is based on a single blog about a single test that had essentially NOTHING to do with dog fighting!!!
Hilarious.
All this outcry over the (supposed) non-ability of the F-35 to dog fight is based on a single blog about a single test that had essentially NOTHING to do with dog fighting!!!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
Suddenly you seem to be arguing with everyone, can't quite work out why.
Suddenly you seem to be arguing with everyone, can't quite work out why.
1. You few folks are not remotely close to "everyone" as you (falsely) claim. Your hubris is showing.
2. Posting a reply to a post directed at me (oft by name) is (generally) being polite, not being argumentative. Ignoring another's posts and/or significant portions of its content while continue to harangue on and on (as you few folks have done) is both impolite AND argumentative. Some would call this troll-like behavior.
3. Making wild baseless claims and jumping to absurd conclusions can rightly be called a form of "arguing". You few folks have done plenty of that in this exchange. Pot vs kettle????
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JPO: The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers (aka; dogfighting) to stress the system.
Are you familiar with the WWII Zero fighter? It could turn inside every allied fighter it came up against. EVERY one of them. The Zero racked up an impressive reputation and kill ratio before the allied pilots figured out how to use the strengths of THEIR fighters (like armor plating, self sealing tanks, much better dive performance, better high speed handling, more powerful engines, better weaponry, etc etc) to kill the zero in impressive numbers (or depressing if you were on the Japanese side.) You CANNOT compare a single feature and draw (absurd) conclusions about dog fighting from that single feature.
Last edited by KenV; 3rd Jul 2015 at 13:07.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That fantasy was explained to me by Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula (Retd) at the IQPC International Fighter conference in London in 2013.
Indeed, 'sez' me Ken (and there's no need to be capping up AND and LOT and VERY - I get where you're placing the emphasis).
I don't suggest that his opinion is 'magically better' than anyone else's, I was only pointing out that the scenario he played out was no fantasy of mine, as you suggested.
I've been away from PPRuNEe for a short while, but having recently come back to it I must say that I find you to be far more angry and irritable than I remembered from before. Lighten up man, it's an internet forum and you're arguing with strangers.
I don't suggest that his opinion is 'magically better' than anyone else's, I was only pointing out that the scenario he played out was no fantasy of mine, as you suggested.
I've been away from PPRuNEe for a short while, but having recently come back to it I must say that I find you to be far more angry and irritable than I remembered from before. Lighten up man, it's an internet forum and you're arguing with strangers.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed melmothtw!
@Ken V
Q, have you "researched" a reply to my previous question?
A. "what question"
there I've done it for you as you seem incapable of both answering a straight question and following the flow of a thread [unless it means raging]..
over to you.
@Ken V
Q, have you "researched" a reply to my previous question?
A. "what question"
there I've done it for you as you seem incapable of both answering a straight question and following the flow of a thread [unless it means raging]..
over to you.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's also completely beside the point to bang on about Zeros.
The zero was optimized for turn performance. And the designers succeeded brilliantly. The zero could turn inside EVERY allied (and Nazi) fighter. EVERY one. But it did so at some sacrifice. Like pilot armor, self sealing tanks, robust structure, etc etc. Once allied pilots figured out the zero's weaknesses and their aircraft's strengths, the zero's air dominance was wiped out and it was shot out of the skies. Japanese engineers (and Japanese procurement officials) tried valiantly to correct that mistake, but by the time they did, their air forces were in tatters, their Navy was sunk, and their nation was in ruins.
To put this in modern terms: the Flanker can do a Pugachev Cobra maneuver which no Western fighter can do. So of course all those Western fighters are doomed in a dog fight against a Flanker, huh? You're welcome to believe that fantasy.
Bottom line: a fighter has MANY features that make it a good (or bad) weapon system. Turn performance is but ONE of the features. If you are going to evaluate two fighters' dog fighting ability, you have to compare ALL their features, not just one.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say that I find you to be far more angry and irritable than I remembered from before.
Bottom line: a fighter has MANY features that make it a good (or bad) weapon system. Turn performance is but ONE of the features. If you are going to evaluate two fighters' dog fighting ability, you have to compare ALL their features, not just one.
You referred earlier to other very experienced and VERY knowledgeable fighter pilots. Would you not include this test pilot with prior F-15E operational experience into that category?