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

[altsym]

It was quite manoeuvrable at lower speeds, but seized up at higher ones.

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Look at the current flight test numbers., for a GROUND attack/ strike aircraft it does EXACTLY what its supposed to do.

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.

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 think that RAND article was the perfect description, "can't hide, can't fight, can't run'.

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.

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).

It's still in the flight test stage and is the most extensively tested aircraft in the history of aviation, so what do you expect? Again you're making comparisons as if its an exclusive air-to-air fighter, it is not, was never sold to be...

I don't think a 737 dives like this, so I don't know where you have come up with this stuff;

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ne...e_f-35a-completes-high-angle-attack-test.html

 

[Tante Ju]

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...

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.

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?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[vinnye]

I sure hope that no 737 ever does those manouevres while I am on board!

 

[altsym]

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..

 

[Procrastintor]

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.

 

[Procrastintor]

Altysm, you should try some! lol. Imagine a barrel roll or a loop with full passenger load, the kids would love it! (Or cry, one or the other)

 

[tyrodtom]

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.

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 ?
And your ability to go up, down, and sideways at the low airspeeds of VTOL is fairly limited when compared to the guidance possibilities of a AAM.

 

[Procrastintor]

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.

 

[Procrastintor]

Anyway, this isn't a discussion about F-35s and 737s, so let's kinda steer back onto topic.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Kid, I know you're young, but you've been running your mouth a little too much. Sit back and learn a little before spewing some pretty silly stuff, it's starting to get a bit old!

 

[Procrastintor]

OK, sorry.

 

[nincomp]

Just one more 737 comment.....pleeeease!

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..

This is why the savvy traveler always carries a change of underwear in his carry-on luggage.

Ok, I am done now. Thank you for flying with Air Nincompoop.

 

[davparlr]

Just interesting.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vHiYA6Dmws

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ole' Tex Johnson

 

[Njaco]

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.

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.

 

[OldSkeptic]

They were tied to the bombers through the order of the world most experienced air strategist Hermann Meier.

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).

 

[OldSkeptic]

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)

Its speed came from the radiator and very good detail of all the areas that could cause drag, backed with excellent (actually superb) quality control.

But it had some nasty aerodynamic problems. The poor flow design from the fuselage and wings meant it had to have a larger tail area. The larger vertical stabiliser was (until later improved) a liability.
It had some nasty stall characteristics (as did the 190), particularly at high speed (which until the vertical stabiliser was improved killed a lot of pilots).
Pilots were warned not to do flick rolls, as it would go straight into a spin (again risking that stabiliser).

It's greater weight and higher wing loading meant only a reasonable climb rate (the Spit and 109 were the climbing kings). Despite the over engineering of various components (hence the weight)it had a lower ultimate G limit (which got progressively lower as the weight went up with later models and greater loads carried).

So it was very, very good (one of the best obviously) but it wasn't perfect, but then again nothing was (or is).

 

[OldSkeptic]

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.

Heck of a lot of bombers, fighters and fighter/bombers in Vietnam would disagree with that statement.

Nope, the best that has been achieved is a greater WVR than gun only, against technically comparable foes.
The reasons are many, but can be summed up as radar BVR has too low a Pk (probability of kill), to increase that significantly you have to get into WVR anyway.
As radars and radar missiles have improved, so have counter measures and counter tactics.

Especially if you can't carry many of them. Not so bad if you are a F-15 or Su-30 and can carry heaps, so you might pop one or more off to force the enemy to manoeuvre into a poorer position (and maybe get lucky), then you can follow up on that to put yourself into a wining position.

But if you are a F-35 can only carry 2 (or maybe later 4) and still stay stealthy ... you are not going to risk them until you are right up close, pop them off and miss and you are so screwed.
In which case you might as well use an IR missile, which is harder for the other side to detect and are themselves less jammable and more manoeuvrable (especially with a helmet cued, off bore sight capability, which interestingly the F-22 doesn't have).

So if you are up against other fighters it is all still pretty much close and personal.
Issues about IFF are another factor, in contested air space the last thing you want to do is hit one of your own, so identification is critical. That means good old Mk 1 eyeball again.