some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Glider said:
The danger is that the rules of engagement as defined by our illustrious leaders, will not allow BVR combat
Click to expand...

Given the improvements in operational data sharing (eg between AWACS and fighters as well as fighter-to-fighter) and massive leaps in radar technology since the LBJ era, coupled with the flaws inherent in a visual engagement (the Blackhawk shootdowns over Northern Iraq anyone?), I think the likelihood of ROE limiting engagements to the visual domain as being highly unlikely.
 

I certainly could be wrong but I don't believe that BVR combat wasn't/isn't allowed over Iraq or Syria.
 
BVR combat certainly was allowed over Iraq during the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, there wasn't an air-to-air threat.

We also need to consider that with modern sensors BVR is a very, VERY long way away. According to one blog, the SniperXR pod, predecessor to the F-35's EOTS, can provide visual ID at 40+nm. That's pretty damned good...and no need to get into a close-in knife fight. Again, it's the sensor fusion capability of the F-35 that truly makes it remarkable. The stealth piece really is there to stop it getting taken out at long range or to provide greater surprise for specific ground attack ops.
 
I would put very little stock in what Bill French says, especially if his "think tank" of experts assume that China has the MiG-29, which they don't. The Su-27 exported to China in the early 90's and was a special export version (Su-27SK/UBK) and the Su-30 (Su-30MMK) which the Shenyan J-11 was developed from and either is a far cry from the Su-27 in current use by Russia.

And once again, the "leaked report" of the F-16 versus F-35 gets tossed into the article, but (once again) fails to mention that the F-35 in that "leaked report" was AF-2, a pre-production, trials and test F-35 airframe, devoid of advanced electronics, weapons suite or the component helmet. So yes, the F-16 cerainly had the advantage in that instance.

So all that article does, is proves how lopsided journalism can be as well as show just how big of a tool Bill is. It also goes a long way in demonstrating how little his "think tank" actually knows...
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Probably a master caution light will illuminate telling the pilot the door will not open. At the same time this will probably open a circuit not allowing the gun to fire...
Click to expand...

No probably about it, haven't you been reading all of these Defense Blogs? Upon gun port malfunction the aircraft will surely self destruct.
 
Thye ammunition might also not arm at that range???? Just blow a hole through the gun port...

For ships they had this problem as far back as the 16th century. As far as I know there is no record of any ship lost because it had to blow out its port covers......
 
But facts (and common sense) ruin a good story!

As long as these websites can toss out negatives about the F-35, they'll be able milk the visitor traffic for all the ad exposure and hit counts they can get.

A large share of these websites just cut-n-paste from other sites (often times verbatim without credit) and actually have no clue as to what an F-35 is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
1K
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
1K
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gnomey
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
691
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register