"Most pilots shot down didn't see the enemy coming"

[OldSkeptic]

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.

No one uses that in real life, the reason is that you lose far too much energy, miss and you are now a dead duck (or a nice pretty target for his comrades, even if you got lucky).
Harriers never used that in combat in the Falklands. Every hit was from the rear by normal manoeuvering. (Except a gun kill on a C-130).

 

[GrauGeist]

That's a Hollywood stunt...

If an adversary were close enough to fall for a stall-overshoot stunt, he'd have already shot you down. Stalling your aircraft intentionally in a fight will just about guarentee your being a statistic

 

[altsym]

That's a common myth. Stephen Bungey's book (most dangerous enemy) makes it clear that Goering left it up to the group commanders what tactics to follow.

Göring biggest mistakes was NOT listening to Gruppe Commanders. Example: Battle of Britian; The fighter pilots were angry when Göring made a third of their Messerschmitts into fighter-bombers; Göring retorted by saying this had to be done because of their failure to protect the bombers from the R.A.F. The result was that the fighter pilots dropped the bombs anywhere merely in order to be rid of them; they did not regard themselves as cargo carriers. Galland stated over and over the importance of the free hunt. Göring insisted that, in combat, Bf 109 fighters escort Bf 110s, which could not survive against single-engine fighters. Both Galland and Mölders shared their concerns that close escort of Bf 110s and bombers robbed fighter pilots of their freedom to roam and engage the enemy of their own terms. They also pointed to the fact that German bombers flew at medium altitudes and low speed, the best height area and speed for the manoeuvrability of the Spitfire. Galland resented his pilots having to carry out a task unsuited to their equipment but Göring would not move from his position.

So tell me again where Göring left tactics up to group commanders?

 

[OldSkeptic]

About the F-35 stuff, this all comes form the US Govt's own report: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf

The program announced an intention to change performance
specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance
from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g's and increasing the time
for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least
43 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air
vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.

The program announced an intention to change
performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn
performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g's and extending
the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by
8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air
vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations

The program announced an intention to change performance
specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from
5.0 to 4.5 sustained g's and extending the time for acceleration
from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds. These changes
were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying
qualities evaluations.

Following applies to all models:

Additionally, the current fuel tank venting design is
inadequate to vent the tanks during a rapid descent. As a
result of the related OBIGGS and tank venting deficiencies,
flight operations are currently not permitted within 25 miles
of known lightning conditions. Moreover, below 20,000
feet altitude, descent rate is restricted to 6,000 feet/minute.
Dive rates can be increased to up to 50,000 feet/minute but
only if the maneuver includes 4 minutes of level flight for
fuel tank pressurization purposes. Neither restriction is
acceptable for combat or combat training

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've seen the report - do you realize AGAIN some of the parameters were lowered by the same people who are buying the aircraft and that the aircraft is still in test phase? Oh, BTW, that report is 7 months old, a lot has happened since then (see my video)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

See the date...

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12648/f-35fast_factsmay2013.pdf

 

[OldSkeptic]

I've seen the report - do you realize AGAIN some of the parameters were lowered by the same people who are buying the aircraft and that the aircraft is still in test phase? Oh, BTW, that report is 7 months old, a lot has happened since then (see my video)

Oh yes it was the DOD that changed the specs, in recognition that it had sod all chance of meeting the original ones.
They did the same with range a while back. It never was going to meet the original requirements .. so they cut them.
Funny way to do business.

Given that it is just beginning its testing, you would expect even more things to come to light over time. All of which will take time to fix ... or have the requirements relaxed even more.

Hey, now there is a perfect solution, relax the requirements to the point where it does not even have to take off and fly, then they can say the program performs perfectly to spec...LOL.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

Let me guess, he will just pull the brakes and hd will just fly right by him. And the pilots call sign is Maverick right?

[Music=Top Gun Soundtrack]Take a ride into the Danger zone...[/Music]

On to a serious not. Even a slower flying Helo can't do that. An aircraft is not going to stop on a dime. The forward momentum is too great. Real world flying is not like in the video games.

 

[GregP]

Yeah, in video games all women are pretty, well endowed, and scantily clad.

Altogether very nice. Maybe Lara Croft?

 

[parsifal]

Yeah, in video games all women are pretty, well endowed, and scantily clad.

Altogether very nice. Maybe Lara Croft?

I have dreams like that, oh and of bacon as well.......b-a-c-o-n

 

[GregP]

Many things, like your first time, your second time, etc. , B-B-Q, your first bullseye when shooting, and your first solo flight which topped them all.

 

[fastmongrel]

The 3 F35 models are trying to be in no particular order, a race horse, a jump horse and a carthorse. If you mix all three together you get a Camel, which gives everyone the hump.

As a UK taxpayer I am very annoyed that I, my children and possibly my grandchildren (if I have any) will be paying for this gold plated diamond encrusted pig for at least the next 50 years.

 

[stona]

You can guarantee we'll buy it to guarantee the jobs at BAE Systems, from where my brother in law recently retired (early).

It's going to be a pricey beast..

"The estimated cost for a U.S. fleet of 2,443 F-35 aircraft has risen to $395.7 billion, up 70 percent from $233 billion in 2001, as measured in constant dollars, according to the U.S. Defense Department."

That's a lot of money and you can guarantee that the cost will escalate further, much higher.

Cheers

Steve

 

[fastmongrel]

I have seen figures for the F35 ABCamel costing a trillion dollars over its expected lifespan and thats not including the purchase price or any mid life upgrades. A trillion thats a million million, a 1 followed by 12 zeros.

Thats a lot of pork whole groups of people will have very fat and happy retirements courtesy of the US taxpayer which is just fine by me. It does twist my melon that my tax pounds sterling will be buying a yacht in Florida for some no mark paper pusher.

 

[DonL]

That's a common myth. Stephen Bungey's book (most dangerous enemy) makes it clear that Goering left it up to the group commanders what tactics to follow.

To protect the bombers properly they had to do both, because the RAF would just ignore the fighters if they were too far away and go straight for the bombers.
Trouble was they didn't have enough fighters to do everything needed (high cover, close(ish) cover, cover when the bombers are returning, etc, etc).

1. Several well researched books to BoB contradict your claim.
2. Also it is absolutely unlogic that all group commanders change their tactic at the same day from high cover to close cover and we know from countless german fighter pilot reports, how bad the close cover tactic was, to play the advantages of their fighter a/c's.

3. Do you have any profound knowledge or analyse, that will support your claim, that the fighter had to do both (high cover and close cover) at BoB?
Can you give me an example, where allied escort fighters (P51, P47, P38 ) flew close cover escort over germany to protect their bombers against LW fighters, which ignored also the fighters and went straight to the bombers?

Your claim about Hermann Meier's order (Göring) and your and Bungey's claim of close cover was needed at BoB has absolutely no substance.

 

[Tante Ju]

Only a part of the fighters flew close escort. Of course these were the ones (esp. Galland) that were very loud about it, but other fighters still flew Freie Jagd and top cover.

BTW when these mass bomber formations with close-by fighter escorts tactics were introduced (early September), LW bomber losses went down, RAF fighter losses went up...

 

[DonL]

Only a part of the fighters flew close escort. Of course these were the ones (esp. Galland) that were very loud about it, but other fighters still flew Freie Jagd and top cover.

BTW when these mass bomber formations with close-by fighter escorts tactics were introduced (early September), LW bomber losses went down, RAF fighter losses went up...

Any source for this claims my books show the contradict, LW fighter losses increased dramaticly, LW bomber losses remain constant and RAF fighter losses went down (especially the Hurricane).
So please show us your sources to your claims.

 

[Njaco]

That's a common myth. Stephen Bungey's book (most dangerous enemy) makes it clear that Goering left it up to the group commanders what tactics to follow.

To protect the bombers properly they had to do both, because the RAF would just ignore the fighters if they were too far away and go straight for the bombers.
Trouble was they didn't have enough fighters to do everything needed (high cover, close(ish) cover, cover when the bombers are returning, etc, etc).

By late September/early October Goering had replaced the "old head" Group Commanders with fresh blood so if these orders were left to Group Commanders, I'm sure there would have been a drastic change in this policy....unless it was a general order given by .......?

Despite any book written 50, 60 or 70 years after the event, I will stick with factual evidence from that time ...such as the Bf 109 of Lt. Wubke of 9./JG 54 who had stenciled on the side of his fighter the words "Im Luftrage dee Reichsbahn", rough translation: "In the aerial service if the State Railways". A bitter comment on close bomber escort work which pilots used to call "driving trains".

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh yes it was the DOD that changed the specs, in recognition that it had sod all chance of meeting the original ones.

Look at what was changed - for the mission and TEST profile, in the bigger picture those items have little effect on the final outcome.

They did the same with range a while back. It never was going to meet the original requirements .. so they cut them.
Funny way to do business.

Not at all - it's done all the time in the flight test world especially if those parameters were created during the flight test profile planning stages and were not part of the original contract...

Given that it is just beginning its testing, you would expect even more things to come to light over time. All of which will take time to fix ... or have the requirements relaxed even more.

Again, what was changed is meaningless in the bigger picture. You flight test to identify and fix issues that the fleet may face in the future and that's exactly what's happening on the F-35

Hey, now there is a perfect solution, relax the requirements to the point where it does not even have to take off and fly, then they can say the program performs perfectly to spec...LOL.

Right - in the mean time the aircraft continues to fly and set records as it becomes the most advanced combat aircraft ever built AND the most extensively tested aircraft in history.

 

[GrauGeist]

Only a part of the fighters flew close escort. Of course these were the ones (esp. Galland) that were very loud about it, but other fighters still flew Freie Jagd and top cover.

BTW when these mass bomber formations with close-by fighter escorts tactics were introduced (early September), LW bomber losses went down, RAF fighter losses went up...

This was a lesson learned later by the Allies and thier early bombing missions, too...you just cannot send bombers in without an escort and expect any real asset survival.