Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You keep either saying that the 109 controls either 'freezes' or 'seizes' at high speeds. Whats the bases of that? I know it became somewhat stiffer at higher speeds, as some later models used flettner tabs to help. IF its the way you described, every 109 that went into a dive would have plowed straight into the ground.It was quite manoeuvrable at lower speeds, but seized up at higher ones.
Look at the current flight test numbers., for a GROUND attack/ strike aircraft it does EXACTLY what its supposed to do.All of them, wing and thrust loadings are about the same as the good old Thud. Not having vectored thrust or lifting body effect to counter that (as per the F-22, or SU-30 class, etc, etc), it will climb, accelerate and handle like a pig.
Hopeless for an air-to-air fighter that will dogfight, the F-35 IS NOT an air to air fighter. The idea in this day and age is NOT to dogfight - kill your enemy and be gone, look at some of the earlier posts in this thread...And they've just dropped the G limits again. Down to about 5-6G max now (with variations between the models), which in today's terms is hopeless.
The Rand article is headed by Pierre Spey, he was part of the old Fighter mafia that brought the F-15 into play, a jealous old man who doesn't like Lockheed or being retired.I think that RAND article was the perfect description, "can't hide, can't fight, can't run'.
Currently not cleared for night flights, can't be flown where there are thunderstorms and there are severe dive limitations (roughly it is allowed to dive like a 737).Modern day Defiant or Buffalo, though just a tad more expensive (about $170+ million a pop at the moment).
Hopeless for an air-to-air fighter that will dogfight, the F-35 IS NOT an air to air fighter. The idea in this day and age is NOT to dogfight - kill your enemy and be gone, look at some of the earlier posts in this thread...
I don't believe it does and remember this aircraft is still in test. That 5G limit may be expanded at a later date - I think comparing this to Shermans or F-4s lack of cannons is a bit far reaching however as we do know history has a way of repeating itself. The F-35 was designed and built to a combat model established by the Pentagon, LMCO is just giving them what they are asking for.Still, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy and you cannot always fight on your own terms. Shermans were supposed to fight only soft targets while TDs took care of enemy armor, and of course everybody knew how silly it is to put a cannon on the F4 Phantom, bristling with state of the art short- and medium ranged AA missiles. Nobody would dogfight anymore anyway... great doctrines, weren't they? Of course writing off the F-35 for supposed lack of dog fighting capability would be an an exaggeration, but you gotta admit a 5 G g-limit does not sound too promising.
That's the argument and I have to admit with some validity. I believe the US military feels this is an answer to an aging air combat fleet that has shown some vulnerability during exercises like "Cope Thunder." You can only stretch out F-15s and F-16s so far. This aircraft is "supposed" to fill the role for the next 50 years, if it does what it's supposed to, the investment to the tax payer (and the guy or gal flying in combat) will be better than sticking to a dated design.Thing is though is the price. It would not be that much of a problem if the F-35 was just another ground attack plane like the Su 25 of the A-10. But wasn't the F-35 supposed to be capable of doing it all, hence the hefty price tag which is several times of the procurement costs of a F-15/16/18/Tornado/whatever? And if its not capable of doing it all, at this price tag, why not just have a pair of F 15s on overwatch and pair of F-18s doing the strike itself, would it be not a better investment of taxpayer dollars?
You do realize a aircraft going 500 kts or so is going to take quite a while to decelerate to zero airspeed don't you ?The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.
Yes I do, and obviously it is outside of the current prototypes' abilities. But the prototype always sucks, especially when it's still 5-6 years away from being finished. The production F-35 could very well look nothing like the F-35 that is currently being tested. The F-35 isn't even halfway through development, so it's current abilities are likely to improve based on testing.
Anyway, this isn't a discussion about F-35s and 737s, so let's kinda steer back onto topic.
The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.
Actually, the one jet I prefer to fly in is the Boeing 737. Absolutely brilliant aircraft! On a side note, I heard/read that the 737 can perform a wide array of aerobatic maneuvers..
The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.
They were tied to the bombers through the order of the world most experienced air strategist Hermann Meier.
If the P-51 wasn't superior aerodynamically, I wonder what was.
Considerably heavier than Spifire, 20-30 mph faster at all heights with the same boost and rev settings with the same engine, pulls away rapidly in a slight dive (Spitfire IX requires from 4 to 6 lbs more boost to stay in formation), vastly more range. There was an adequate warning of the high speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting.
This was an British assessment btw.
(Source: Alfred Price: Fighter Aircraft)
I think that style of dogfighting went out of style about 1954. With current technology, you may not even get a chance to eyeball your opponent.