This cartoon is closer to the truth than that fiction excuse for a movie....
Posted on 06/30/2015 11:52:34 AM PDT by Teflonic
You are 100% correct, see my post #39
;)
The F-16 and the F-18 were both sold as cheap alternatives to more expensive aircraft. We are very lucky that both of them were physically big enough to develop into the platforms those stripped down aircraft were intended to avoid. Both programs have been very successful.
It’s not intended to be one, but it does an eye watering job of it, despite not having the helmet.
Are you implying that missile technology in the late 50s was comparable to what it is now? Seriously?
In the Gulf War, every kill on an Iraqi aircraft was done with a BVR missile.
Dogfights are what happens when you screw up. Heck, the guns simply don’t carry enough ammunition to make dogfighting anything but a last resort.
[I’ll give you one guess as to the nationality of the pilot in the F-16.]
Wouldn’t be surprised one bit. They have a lot of dogfight training and experience.
Back when he had hair.
I think the idea of making a good fighter and then putting bombs on it works. The other way, not so much
Realistically, we would have to be in a very tight situation before they would even commit an F-35 to a combat arena where it would have a serious challenge. At $350 Million+ per copy, they could not afford to have one shot down. If one was shot down, then the Air Force would face having the program canceled, or curtailed, and they certainly don’t want to lose their new toy.
This cartoon is closer to the truth than that fiction excuse for a movie....
We need the F15 silent eagle... heck, a silent Hornet would do wonders against the F35
Could it carry a 1 pound coconut?
More here: The F-35 Can’t Beat The Plane It’s Replacing In A Dogfight: Report
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248
Also another link at the sight:
Major Obvious: F-35 Pilot Says A-10 Will Always Be Better At Air Support
F-35 pilot Major John Wilson said the obvious in an interview with Danish aviation reporters
Initially I think the F-16s were tactically considered more expendible even to the point of taking on the role of bait and decoys. They weren't considered as first class air dominance fighters. You can probably speak better for the Navy about the F/A-18 but I suspect that a similar mindset prevailed.
Obviously each proved superb for all the roles assigned and many not considered when designed. The Growler configuration comes to mind.
Frankly the F-16 can hold its own against 5th generation planes in terms of handling qualities. It only comes up short when the aerial battlefield suits the design philosophy of 5th generation fighters..
Those were the days...
My husband served in the 388 TFW at Hill AFB 1979 to 1981 when he retired.
“They’ve been banking, no pun intended, on BVR for a long, long time now.”
Want to bet the rules of engagement are that the pilot must have a visual before pulling the trigger? Our political masters give away every advantage for the warfighter.
That is an F-22 caught in the gun-sight of an F/A-18 Super Hornet.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.
ping
I’m sure the caliphate will order whatever is necessary to weaken America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.