Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight New stealth fighter is dead meat in an a

Actually a World War One era biplane would probably be highly effective as a wood and fabric aircraft would be difficult to get any kind of radar lock on and those early engines would probably be difficult to lock on with an infrared seeker head.

 

An EMP will take care of it all.

The side that is dependent on technology will be killed.

 

Yeah, that is totally the exact same thing as horse cavalry. Did they strap jet engines onto the horses?

Why is nobody using HORSE cavalry is tactics never become obsolete?

 

http://www.military.com/video/opera...ion-the-horse-soldiers-of-9-11/1224907912001/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/22/horses-marines-afghanistan/10744395/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/1...o-won-war-afghanistan-video-daniel-greenfield

Actually, U.S. Military Still Uses Lots of Horses and Bayonets
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...litary_still_uses_lots_of_horses_and_bayonets

 

I am guessing a biplane would have an enormous RCS by modern standards.

There is probably a really good reason that there are no nations fielding biplanes anymore.

 

LOL!

Read your link. The horses are not used in Combat.

Seriously dude...you're reaching here.

No, the US does not field horseback cavalry in anything other than a ceremonial capacity. Why? Because they are obsolete and would be slaughtered.

 

The U.S. Military is the ONLY current Military that has battlefield test EMP's.

There was a breakthough in Non-Nuclear EMP Tech. a few years back of which the larger U.S. EMP's must be dropped from a C-17 or C-5M.....and these are capable of rendering entire Enemy Mechanized Divisions of Cities Inert.

The B-2's, B-1B's and B-52's can dropped NNEMP's that can take our Multiple Divisions as they are dropped in a manner that covers a wider area than the largest NNEMP's.

F-22 Raptor's can carry 2 smaller NNEMP's in their internal bomb bay's and these would be used to cut off enemy communication and command and control.

AboveAlpha

 

Please don't try using contextomy on me.

 

You don't think the Ruskies have ?

I've read that the chi-coms maybe experimenting, (*)(*)(*)(*) they would probably knock themselves off the grid.

EMP weapons would be a good topic and would deserve it's own thread.

Pretty simple to protect electronic equipment from an EMP. I hear most of are warships are protected from EMP, I suppose it can be done. But never looked into it how it's done. Water is a conductor of electricity.

But can aircraft in the air be protected from EMP ? Do you know ?

Doing a quick search I find this.

more:
http://www.metlabs.com/Industries/Military/Military-EMC-Testing.aspx

E-BOMBS Away
http://www.ausairpower.net/dew-ebomb.html

 

An Aircraft such as a B-2 or B-1B or B-52H is already shielded from EMP Thermonuclear Pulses in the 25 Megaton Range.

But of course these aircraft are traveling in the case of a B-52H at 1000 Km's per hour....the B-1B....Mach 1.5...and the B-2...Classified so they are a good distance away from the detonation and we don't drop 25 Megaton Nukes anymore as the Zombie was a 2 Megaton Device.

The Russian's have Non-Nuclear EMP's but they are nowhere near as powerful as current existing U.S. Non-Nuclear EMP's which the large one's can generate an EM-Pulse equal to a 2 Kiloton Nuke detonating.

This is about 100 Times more powerful than any existing Russian Non-Nuclear EMP.

AboveAlpha

 

Your example was not cavalry. You do know what cavalry are, right? No one was fighting on horseback in your example.

The fact that you are forced to do these kinds of semantic gymnastics at all to find any example proves you are wrong. Cavalry are obviously not used anymore in actual combat because they are obsolete. Scratching and clawing for rare and isolated examples of vaguely similar usage is not going to change that.

 

What is amazing is that he apparently did not even bother to read through his own reference, nor quote what should have been the relevent part of that article.

I read through it twice, and did not find a single reference to missiles tracking anything other then the exhaust heat.

Yes, aircraft control surfaces get hot in flight. But the real question is if they get hot enough for a missile to home in on. To the best of my knowledge, no. And yes, I have worked with IR guided missiles. Baffeling does not eliminate the heat, nobody says it does. But doing so makes it harder to detect, and the aircraft has to be even closer before there is enough of a return to lock on and track.

Not unlike how stealth itself does not make an aircraft invisible to RADAR, it just reduces the return so it has to be much closer to the RADAR for it to actually recognize it as an aircraft.

Maybe you can find some bit in that reference of his that refers to missiles tracking the heat radiating from control surfaces of aircraft in flight, I sure can not find one.

 

You been watching to many Hollywood westerns, the cavalry rarely fought on horseback, they dismounted, every fourth cavalry man would hold the reins of four horses while the other three engaged the enemy with rifle fire.

Take "Custers Last Stand" for example. All of the troops sabers were put in boxes and were with the supply train. You don't fight with single shot 45/70 Springfield carbine rifles from horseback, only in Hollywood. The cavalry could and has been used on horseback as shock troops with the infantry on there six. This is where sabers and revolvers came into play. But after discharging six rounds from a revolver you ever tried reloading a revolver on a horse ?

The Colt .45 ACP M-1911 A1 pistol was designed for the U.S. Cavalry Corps. And it was adopted by the U.S. Cavalry. Soon the Army Infantry Corps would adopt it and then the Marine Corps and Navy.

Before 1942 you didn't go down to the recruiter and joined the Army, you joined one of the Army's Corps The Corps of Infantry, Artillery Corps, Quartermasters Corps, Army Corps of Engineers, Cavalry Corps, Air Corps, Shore Artillery Corps, etc.

But I digress.

Ever hear of Pickle Meadows ? It's a Marine Corps base. They have horses. But don't tell Obama or he may purge the horses from the Corps.

 

No matter how much aircraft engine exhaust design can cool such exhaust without the aid of a Electromagnetic Light Spectrum Scrambler which masks IR-Light....even the best Russian or Chinese Stealth Aircraft will be detected.

Powerful Radar systems can detect U.S. Stealth Aircraft if they come up close to such radar systems but U.S. Stealth Aircraft work in conjuction in an overall battle plan that by design will attempt to destroy all Enemy Radars with Harm Missiles as well our Aircraft are capable of electronically burning our missile guidance if they get a lock.

This topic raises questions about the F-35's ability to Dog Fight.

But an F-35 is designed to be able to both drop ordinance undetected as well as destroy enemy fighters well before they have any clue they are being tageted.

In that respect the F-35 is capable in the extreme.

If you ask a Military Pilot if he had a choice...which aircraft would he want to fly into an air battle with given a choice of any top of the line Fighter Aircraft of any Nation except the F-22....he would immediately chose the F-35.

Why?

Because that pilot knows that the F-35 gives him the greatest level of survival and capabilities.

The only other aircraft if he could chose any aircraft he would pick would be an F-22 Raptor.

AboveAlpha

 

The point is, nobody does that anymore. The tactics are no longer relevant to the modern battlefield. They are obsolete.

Good luck using your cavalry tactics against tanks and machine guns.

 

Nobody is talking about using "Cavalry Tactics", but using horses to travel behind enemy lines. And it is really not all that dead, we have been using horses in combat since 2001 when we first entered Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/06/us/afghanistan-horse-soldiers-memorial/

[video=youtube;DLPMeFlj0G4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLPMeFlj0G4[/video]

And technically, the correct term for how modern military forces use horses in combat is not "Cavalry", but "Dragoon".

Dragoons are more simply put Mounted Infantry. They use the horses to move from place to place, but most of the time dismount and fight on foot as conventional Infantry. Cavalry on the other hand is trained to fight while in the saddle, and as a tactic became obsolete with the advent of the modern machine gun.

But the tactics of Dragoons is certainly not "obsolete". Infantry moves from place to place to engage the enemy, by whatever means nessicary. It may be on LPCs (Leather Personnel Carriers, boots), trucks, helicopters, landing craft (cause swimming to shore is a pain in the butt), motorcycles, bicycles, trucks, skis, or anything else available and able to traverse the terrain.

And in many cases, horses are still a very viable means of transport. Especially if you do not want or have the capability of a large logistical footprint in a foreign country, like the early days of Afghanistan. The first forces on the ground there were mostly Special Operators, who made contact and operated with the Northern Alliance. A military (like the Taliban) which even to this day often travels by horseback because vehicles need fuel which is not always available, and attract attention that the passenger is of some importance.

 

Considering in Vietnam the term Air Cavalry was used to describe armed choppers being used to transport men and material and weapons and ammo to a battle or to a position it is logical to state that the word Cavalry is not limited to men riding horses.

AboveAlpha

 

Tanks are using horse cavalry tactics, along with hundred years old naval tactics used at sea.

The U.S. Marines going back to 1776 have always been known as the best riflemen (sharpshooters) in the world. During the American Civil War the Union Army wanted the Commandant of the Marines to raise a regiment of Marines sharpshooters to be attached to Gen. Grants army. The Commandant said no way Jose, we Marines are only trained in fighting in a skirmish line when on land.

Are you familiar with the 2.75" (Mighty Mouse) rocket ? It saw a lot of action during the Vietnam war and still heavily used by Army and Marine helicopter gun ships as a air to ground rocket. Excellent CAS weapon when used against area targets against enemy troops. The 2.75" rocket could be used in a "DANGER CLOSE" CAS mission with in 215 meters of friendly troops. Usually fired from either a 7 or 19 tube launchers.

But the 2.75" Mighty Mouse was originally designed as an air to air AA rocket used by fighters. Firing 14 to 38 rockets at a Soviet bomber or even Migs was the original mission. What's even more interesting was West Germany's Luftwaffe F-104 tactics of attacking Soviet bombers not from the rear or head on but from the side firing a 14 to 38 rocket salvo at the aircraft.

The 2.75" rocket of today.

What's new in the pipeline ? -> http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/lgr/

 

The problem here is that far to many who try to claim "insight" into military matters are really dilettantes.

They hear something like "Cavalry", and automatically think of men mounted on horses, armed with lances, swords, or sabers. They do not think of what cavalry really means. Cavalry is in modern terms more often a tactic, meaning fast moving forces that move behind enemy lines, striking the enemy from the rear or in places-directions they are not expected (Batle of the Bulge in WWII, or 73 Easting in the Gulf War). In Vietnam, the concept of "Air Cavalry" was very effective, once again "Cavalry", but not on horses.

And like those raised on Westerns, they simply can not think of Cavalry without seeing in their minds what they learned from movies (They Died with Their Boots On), and it simply means "fighting from horse", not the reality of what it really was.

However, to those of us who take such matters very seriously (not just as a mater of some interest but of professional and personal interest), it means something very differently indeed. Myself, I actually have been wondering how many who are reading this thread knew of the fact of US forces participating in Afghanistan in 2001 on horses before I mentioned it. I myself clearly remember this being news at the time, but I bet 98% of the people have completely forgotten this little fact.

But this is a difference between dilettantes and professionals. Dilettantes only go off of what they know, not really knowing much more then the basics. Professionals retain a great deal more, knowing that while not important at the moment may be of importance at a later date. We study, research, and expand our knowledge and information, knowing it may be of critical use later on. Especially those of us who deal with this on a professional and personal basis.

Myself, first and foremost I am aware that when most people think of "Cavalry" ("Buffalo Soldiers", 7th Cavalry, etc), what they are really thinking of is Dragoons, not Cavalry. But once again, I wonder how many in here are even aware of what a Dragoon is (or simply think I am mis-spelling "dragon").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon

 

That is your opinion & what constitutes a fifth generation aircraft is very subjective. My opinion is that the T-50 will be a 5.5 generation aircraft by the time the FGFA enters service with the Indian air force.

The F-22, F-35 & T-50 all have full frontal stealth, the T-50 does not yet have it's definitive engine(IZD-30), engine covers & exhaust installed. The generally accepted view at the aviation forum I lurk about at is that the T-50 will have better stealth than the F-35 but not quite as good as the F-22.

The F-22 & T-50 do this & the F-35 should be able to do this if it gets the new variable cycle engine being developed by general electric.

A new super F-35 to rule the US military.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/new-super-f-35-rule-the-us-military-11892

The F-22 spreads it's exhaust out in a horizontal plane by using flat nozzles. Flat nozzles including oval shaped nozzles have been designed for the T-50 & such nozzles will not appear on the T-50 before the new engines because of the power drop. The F-35 does not have flat nozzles.

All three aircraft pass air around the engines for additional cooling.

A search with yahoo did not yield any results for such a system could you please provide a link? However I think that one if real might be more than fifth generation.

All three aircraft done & dusted but a lot older than fifth generation.

That statement is self contradictory, you cant have the internal weapon bays jam packed with AAMs & then have something else in there at the same time.

Number one it is in the process of doing, # 3 it has designs for & IMHO will do and # 4 if it is real & doable the Russians are known to have plasma stealth so should be able to do that as well.

If you are going to make a claim like that you need to be specific as to where the radar returns are coming from & why that will not be resolved in the final product.

T-50 is a project in development, you are jumping the gun.

The only thing I feel bad about is that Australia was not allowed to buy the F-22. If Australia & Japan had been allowed to buy the F-22 then the extra momentum & greater spread of development costs would probably have resulted in the US building it's original planned number of airframes.

I am kind of afraid of asking at the aviation forum for information about the electro-magnetic spectrum scrambler of infrared light for fear of being laughed off the forum.

 

One of the reasons for developing the IZD-30 engine is to have more power to make up for the power lose transitioning from round to flat.Two years ago I read they were trying to get the power drop down to 2 or 3% from more than 9%.

 

The test was an AF-2 model I believe. The fully operational F-35 will be much more agile. Yes, the F-16 will beat the F-35 in a turning fight. F-35 will be employed like an F-4 Phantom or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet not trying to outturn an enemy but using its instantaneous turn and AoA advantage of its powerful engines to get that good nose pointing capability. Also the issued helmet is a lot more smaller and comfy than the AF-2 helmet which was too bulky. Allowing that good turn and missile shot.

Regarding Infrared Signature, Russian Infrared Search and Track sensors(IRST) can only find only find a frontally flying target around 35 km.(OLS-35) and maybe 50-70 km in the future. While the radars on the F-35 can find targets out to hundreds of km. The rear exaust, although it doesn't have the F-22 nozzles it has the LOAN nozzle which surprises the burn from the exhaust. The skin is coated with highly absorbent substance which hides not only internal emissions but the outside emissions as air is hitting the airplane. These countermeasures reduce Russian IR systems to point blank range. Added with the F-35's DIRCM which can blind IR sensors with dazzles.

Another problem with IRST its its field of view. IRST is just a camera that scans for targets. Too see a target beyond visual range of 10km you have to zoom in. IRSTs have fairly large Field of View at 100 degrees+ azimuths. However zoomed in at max ranges it is can be low as 10 degrees. So finding a target with IRST is very hard without radar support.(which will be defeated stealth)

Most fighters on the planet won't stand a chance against F-22 or F-35 unless in overwhelming numbers. That is why Lockheed is making the "Cuda missile" which will add a greater no escape range compared to the AIM-120 AMRAAAM which will allow the F-22 to carry up to 18 missiles, and 12 for the F-35.


The PAK FA sucks IMO compared to the F-22/F-35. Its stealth is a POS barely even stealth, not even better than a Eurofighter Typhoon's stealth(the Russian company Sukohi that makes it pretty much confirms it). Its AESA is really an early AESA. Its IRST is no match for the F-35 EOTS. It has no DAS but an Ultraviolet sensors(which is only good at sensing afterburners at point blank range). As for Infrared missiles the R73 Archer are so outdated not even using IIR technology. So it will be easily blinded by the F-35's flares. It's agile. But that's pretty much it.

 

I should not have brought this up.

AboveAlpha

 

I can't mention names for obvious reasons, Obama is CnC and he loves to purge officers from the military.

But I have had Air Force full bird colonels to three star generals say that they wanted Japan and other trust worthy allies to be involved in purchasing and even manufacturing the F-22. By doing so would have lowered the cost of the F-22.

But the liberals in Congress wouldn't allow it to happen.

It's possible that there were civilians with in the DoD and in Congress, liberals to be exact who wanted to see the F-22 costing so mush that some liberal President would close down the F-22 production line. And that's what happened. Deliberately allow over inflating the cost of a weapons platform to kill it.

 

The F-22 Raptor is so advanced that it is not allowed to be sold to our closest allies.

The F-35 will be sold and is beyond capable.

The CUDA Hypersonic Missiles and the B-1MC's will make the F-35's a system our allies cannot do without.

They cannot be shot down when operating in full stealth capacity.

AboveAlpha