Joined: May 26th, 2011, 1:26 am

May 15th, 2018, 10:22 pm #61

PK does go up with closing of range. But predictably the USA has always neglected our AAM development. And sadly many in the Pentagon readily admit the AMRAAM in particular is very susceptible to DRFM jamming. Making hitting the latest Russian and Chinese Fighters a much lower probability.
"That's Mr. Esquimaux Savage to you"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

May 15th, 2018, 11:04 pm #62

The Sprey mafia's obsession with mach numbers and g-forces remind me more than a bit of 1930s biplane diehards going on about "unmaneuverable" monoplanes. Or, perhaps, grousing that an iPhone doesn't make phone calls any better than a Western Electric desktop did.

Living in the past. The air wars of the future are not going to be fought on 1980s terms, any more than 109 pilots bothered getting into turning fights with Polikarpovs.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2011, 1:26 am

May 16th, 2018, 12:04 am #63

IcelofAngeln wrote: The Sprey mafia's obsession with mach numbers and g-forces remind me more than a bit of 1930s biplane diehards going on about "unmaneuverable" monoplanes. Or, perhaps, grousing that an iPhone doesn't make phone calls any better than a Western Electric desktop did.

Living in the past. The air wars of the future are not going to be fought on 1980s terms, any more than 109 pilots bothered getting into turning fights with Polikarpovs.
A very interesting dodge attempt of the mountain of problems facing the F-35. A nice attack plane. But not a true fighter. And talk about ignoring reality. The F-35's situational awareness is just a harbinger of all future fighters. It's hardly going to be unique.
"That's Mr. Esquimaux Savage to you"
Quote
Like
Share

jua
Joined: March 17th, 2005, 3:54 am

May 16th, 2018, 3:15 pm #64

Dannytoro wrote: PK does go up with closing of range. But predictably the USA has always neglected our AAM development. And sadly many in the Pentagon readily admit the AMRAAM in particular is very susceptible to DRFM jamming. Making hitting the latest Russian and Chinese Fighters a much lower probability.
I still personally wouldn't be the Russian or Chinese pilot who dove head into one, regardless of DRFM. But they are likely more motivated than I am.
Cheers,
Josh

https://squidjigger.com
Josh@squidjigger.com
twitter: @squid_jigger
Quote
Like
Share

jua
Joined: March 17th, 2005, 3:54 am

May 16th, 2018, 3:16 pm #65

Dannytoro wrote:
IcelofAngeln wrote: The Sprey mafia's obsession with mach numbers and g-forces remind me more than a bit of 1930s biplane diehards going on about "unmaneuverable" monoplanes. Or, perhaps, grousing that an iPhone doesn't make phone calls any better than a Western Electric desktop did.

Living in the past. The air wars of the future are not going to be fought on 1980s terms, any more than 109 pilots bothered getting into turning fights with Polikarpovs.
A very interesting dodge attempt of the mountain of problems facing the F-35. A nice attack plane. But not a true fighter. And talk about ignoring reality. The F-35's situational awareness is just a harbinger of all future fighters. It's hardly going to be unique.
Name a fighter that has anything like it's sensor package, let alone integration.
Cheers,
Josh

https://squidjigger.com
Josh@squidjigger.com
twitter: @squid_jigger
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 14th, 2013, 4:04 pm

May 16th, 2018, 3:29 pm #66

He did mention a Pakistani airplane or some such.  I thought it was a joke and didn't take the bait.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

May 16th, 2018, 10:58 pm #67

Yet somehow those inadequate US missiles continue reliably to splash Soviet-Russian birds around the world.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 30th, 2005, 9:15 am

May 17th, 2018, 12:01 am #68

I said the F35 would (eventually) be a good BVR A2A system. The vital part of that system is the AWACS or whatever that is supplying the SA. Somebody on another board pointed out that a somewhat stealthy fast jet with AIM 54 equivalent could rather interfere with  that idea.
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

May 17th, 2018, 12:36 am #69

Actually, whatever is providing the SA could well be several other F-35s. The concept is more like the internet than an old mainframe-and-terminals setup.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2011, 1:26 am

May 17th, 2018, 2:06 am #70

jua wrote:
Dannytoro wrote:
IcelofAngeln wrote: The Sprey mafia's obsession with mach numbers and g-forces remind me more than a bit of 1930s biplane diehards going on about "unmaneuverable" monoplanes. Or, perhaps, grousing that an iPhone doesn't make phone calls any better than a Western Electric desktop did.

Living in the past. The air wars of the future are not going to be fought on 1980s terms, any more than 109 pilots bothered getting into turning fights with Polikarpovs.
A very interesting dodge attempt of the mountain of problems facing the F-35. A nice attack plane. But not a true fighter. And talk about ignoring reality. The F-35's situational awareness is just a harbinger of all future fighters. It's hardly going to be unique.
Name a fighter that has anything like it's sensor package, let alone integration.
Did you just decide to breeze over what I said?:

The F-35's situational awareness is just a harbinger of all future fighters. It's hardly going to be unique.
"That's Mr. Esquimaux Savage to you"
Quote
Like
Share