F-35A vs. F-105D
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Srsly
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Lonewolf,
We can revisit all the tired old arguments that were put to bed years ago. 
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?
