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

S- 400 can affect any air target at a distance of 400 kilometers. US planes have no chance. In the melee F22 and F35 have no chance against, for example, Su30 or Su35.

 

The F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia was due to US laziness as the aircraft kept flying over the same area at the same time & could therefor be timed for a shot close enough for the missile's radar to take over. It was an abuse of stealth that got it shot down.

Stealth is more than PR for example Russia is spending several $ billion to develop the Pak-Fa T-50.

 

Please don't demean the F-22 air superiority fighter by throwing it in with that F-35 dumpy looking little bomb truck.

 

Why not just find a nice fighter like a state of the art French Mirage and buy those or other aircraft seems to me its not much of an issue, go for the best and least expensive planes buying a lot of them and allow NCO train to be pilots in the armed services ranked Sergeants or their equivalents.

 

But stealth technology - a craze. Now this technology does not matter. Modern air defense easily find it.
Maybe only in Papua New Guinea are not yet able to detect stealth technology.
By the way, even the old North Korean air defense see stealth. Because they work in the meter range. Not in the decimeter, as in the West. A meter range, though bulky devices, but fine sees stealth.
Example - Russian defense 50s in Yugoslavia.

 

I do not humiliate F 22. F 22 - an excellent aircraft. But in the battle with the S 400 or S 500 has no chance. Just as in the melee in a battle with Su 30 or Su 35 . It is a fact.

F 22 lost even Rafael

The video captures the mock battle between the French fighter "Rafale" and the American 5th generation F-22 "Raptor". And oddly enough, this mock battle of American fighter pilot - lost! And not once, but with the score 4: 1 in favor of the French in a series of five training-training of combat!

[video=youtube;oGuWadoTgkE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuWadoTgkE[/video]

 

What makes you think the Russian S-400 or S-500 SAMs are more advanced than the S-300?

Just in case you don't know the Soviet (Russian) had a long history of giving higher model numbers to LESS capable weapons systems for various reasons.

Classic example:

The T-64 and T-72 tanks came out at just about the same time. Now western observers naturally assumed the T-72 was superior.

Turns out no.

The T-64 was the more capable tank the Soviets kept for themselves while the T-72 was the monkeyed down tank for export.

The Russians have not produced a brand new weapons system since the end of the Cold War that made it to actual deployment. The much vaunted Topol-M ICBM for example is just a new name for newly built SS-25s that are early 1980s technology.

 

The advantage with stealth is not that a stealth aircraft cannot be seen or targeted but that the ranges it can be locked on are much less & anything that makes the task of an incoming missile harder makes it more likely the target will evade the missile. The Russians are investing in stealth with the development of the Pak-Fa T-50 are they not?

 

I think you must have missed the last Victory day parade in Red Square.

 

I would never put much faith in what comes out in a Red Square military parade.

Remember when the Soviets overflew the parade with the SAME GROUP of a handful of prototype bombers they had cobbled together to make the west think they had built vast fleets of nuclear capable jet bombers?

 

You're right. Invest. But this is not exclusive.

 

The Russian Defense Ministry has ordered 40 jet bombers Tu-160.

 

S 400 detects and striking any target at a distance of 400 kilometers. Even He sees the goal size as of the Russian coin five rubles. (a little more than 20 cents)
S 500 - capable of hitting targets in space.

 

Of course a clean F16 is going to outmanouver a clean F35 in a dogfight LOL, anyone who expected differently is deluded.... but it defeats the point entirely those same folk are trying to make.... and means nothing in regards to war fighting capability.

The F16 was designed like that so it could haul a ground load into battle to give the A10's and rotary attack assets a front to work with, and defend itself if sprung in a last ditch WVR knife fight before trying to flee back to base and get close enough for the pilot to bail out, or get to a tanker. Being sprung means something getting through the BVR protection of the F15's and other F16's - which meant it had to be able to specialize in the WVR fight to protect the A10s and attack helos. The later is mitigated more now by improvements in BVR and missile defence (soon energy) and so the F35 is designed for the 21st century... it's meant to use external fuel and/or tanking to get to the fight and then use internal fuel and weapons carriage to provide a higher level of persistence and penetration to work with the F22 to represent the AF's contribution to greater theatre dynamism - like the USMC has with its MV22. Paradigms change, dont mix comparing one with the other.

 

It's a work in progress & full scale production has not yet started as far as I know.

Link to the T-14 thread (last page, have a read of herkdriver's post).
http://www.politicalforum.com/warfare-military/404050-russia-receive-advanced-tanks-replce-t-72-t-90-a-9.html

 

What if the F16 or the Mig deployed flares or jammers to misguide the long-range F35 projectile, and eventually the two hostile aircraft would come in within a visual range?

 

A trillion dollars? OUTRAGEOUS and INFURIATING. I am obsessing over the 20% tax rate my sons had to pay this year due to the many, many hours of overtime they worked. Obsessing or not, first they coercively get money taken away from them to pay for welfare benefits for US citizens too lazy or stupid to work; and then they have to pay the living, medical, and educational expenses for illegal immigrants; and then they get to fork over their hard earned money to pay for a trillion dollar fighter jet that doesn't work. It is a good thing they spent most of their school years getting hypnotized by the US government, because if they knew where all their hard earned money was going there would probably be a generation X revolution.

 

1983 technology

 

You have actual evidence of either of these claims?

And remember, just because something is "capable" of doing something doesn't mean it is a reliable combat system.

A World War Two Sherman tank is "capable" of killing an M-1 Abrams or Leopard II tank.

But only a crazy man would choose to take the Sherman into combat against one.

 

Wait. The F35 pilot can see exactly what's doing the opponent and in case the first attack fails he won't accept the dogfight, he will keep the plane in attack range, but beyond the distance at which the opponent could lock it [why to risk?].

Then if the F35 will run out of missiles, for example Italian Air Force would prefer to send Typhoons to give a hand to the F35 about dogfight ...

 

Once again, the F-35 was never intended as a primary air superiority fighter. That is the job of the F-22. The F-22 is supposed to clear the skies of enemy fighters and then provide overhead coverage while the F-35 goes in and hits ground targets with (normally) 4 500 lbs. laser guided bombs or 8 small 100 lb. bombs.

The F-35 is only supposed to engage enemy fighters if it happens to get "jumped" by those that have evaded the F-22 sweeps or hid out in undetected ground bases.

 

Or it can fight at night. That negates the dogfight issues.

 

Really

What about systems based purely on defensive capabilities.
Like purpose built systems to shoot down the F - 35 BoonDoggle.

One system fits all purposes is so McNamara.
And America did not learn.
Could it be, oh I don't know - profit motivated? ?

Without a Draft,
It ain't the sons and daughters of CongressPeople bleeding!

 

Maybe, maybe not. The system is still early in its development. Likely dogfighting will be done by drones in the future.

 

It's 400 billion dollars.