Posted on 02/06/2016 7:44:03 AM PST by don-o
As long as F-15s and F-18s have been there to sanitize the air above it.
The video I mentioned earlier was Battle of the X-Planes.You can find it ion YouTube.
Same pressures as applied during the design of the space shuttle, and we know how well that turned out.
“One-size-fits-all”, doesn’t.
Someone always brings up the A-10 in a discussion about fighter planes.
Because the Air Foce and the Air Force fighter pilots that fly the A-10 classify it as a fighter.
The Navy has an official “attack” designation - the Air Force does not.
If one was to go into a fighter bar and declare to all the A-10 fighter pilots they are not fighter pilots, that someone would be subject to wall-to-wall counseling to correct his attitude.
cheers.
Oh, one thing, we never say “fighter planes.”
Most times we just say “fighters”
I would think Su-27s would fire from well beyond AIM-9 range.
“From what I have heard, the F-35 doesn’t stand a chance against an F-16 in head to head combat.”
You have heard wrong... :-)
A contrived, close-in dogfight is far different from modern air combat with BVR weapons. In a literally head-on encounter at a range of 30+ miles, the F-16 would be an easy target for an AMRAAM, while its own AMRAAMs would be unable to acquire the F-35.
That is not to say that the F-35 is perfect in its present form, but it has plenty of potential to be a worthy successor to the F-16 and F-18.
We could use plenty more F-22 class planes, but that’s a different story.
I am way behind the curve on all things aviation. I hope I can be added to any ping lists, so I can learn.
What about "strikers" or "jet strikers" as far as lingo?
Here is the T-45 that the Marines fly at Meridian NAS. He has yet to make his first flight. Already passed the centrifuge, had some ground school and sims.
It has a gun but only a few hundred rounds.
Wow. That PDF report shows the F-35 to be incapable of just about anything. It couldn’t even out dogfight an F-16 that had full external fuel tanks to limit the F-16 to 7.0g.
“All Aircraft and technologies have development issues.Nothing is a sure bet.”
True, but that is why you don’t bet everything on one platform like they did with the F-35.
IIRC, the F-4 Phantom II was never intended as a do-everything platform, but it evolved into that over time.
There was a competition...Lockheed and partner companies against Boeing and partner companies.
Boeing’s design was garbage. Used the same techniques/technologies the USMC was trying to get away from in the AV8.
Maybe the intent was for Boeing to create such a butt ugly airframe that couldn’t perform in order to throw the competition?
“...When the B-52 first became operational, the only aerial refuelers were KC-97s or KB-29s. ... hair raising ...
IMO the Boeing 707 was rushed into production in order to become the KC-135, which made refueling in flight for B-52’s a whole lot easier.”
elcid is correct about the difference in aircraft performance, but has left out large segments of USAF history.
Boeing’s B-47 (designed in 1945, first flight 1947, operational 1951-1969) was an intermediate-range bomber that set the design pattern for the great majority of large jets since. Built in greater numbers than the B-52, B-47s also enjoyed an edge in performance, in several other attributes.
Mid-air refueling of B-47s behind KC-97s (based on Boeing’s Stratocruiser) was indeed a demanding activity. Boeing’s KC-135 (based on the 720) was eagerly awaited by Strategic Air Command aircrews. But KC-97s did hang around until the 1970s.
In the USAF, we have “trainers,” we have “fighters” and we have “lifters”. . .no “strikers (though we do fly “strike packages”. . .you know, bunch of jets fly in a gorilla package to hit a major target.
Though. . .to keep it simple, we have two types of aircraft. . .fighters and targets. . .
Will keep you in mind.
Ref the picture. Cool jet, snappy thing. He will have the time of his life. . .as a student you are not supposed to have “air-sense” or “judgment” yet, so have at it. . . back when I was flying as a student in a T-38 over south Texas, in the MOA, got a call from ATC saying they have traffic in the area, type and altitude unknown. . .and would I mind checking it out? (ATC must have forgot I was a solo student pilot).
So, I found the little C-172 puttering along and I swooped down from his high 7 o’clock position and throttled back, speed brake out, flaps down, had everything hanging but the gear and the canopy open as I tried to slow to his speed. . .a speed we basically taxi at. . .anyway, I zipped by the guy—he was wearing a red ball-cap and white shirt, I was THAT close—and as I passed him, I hit the burner and did a climbing barrel roll up and away. Boy, those were fun days.
(Now I am a former A-10 fighter pilot and F-15E fighter pilot).
Great story!
Good thing that Cessna pilot didn’t get your buzz numbers.
;^)
” ... It couldn’t even out dogfight an F-16 that had full external fuel tanks ...”
Even if this is an accurate summary, it misses the point.
The F-35 was not designed for air-to-air combat. If it had been, other capabilities would have been diminished.
The public’s conception of air combat is somewhat out-of-date anyway: dogfighting has been on the wane since the 1930s at least.
The egoes of fighter pilots - never a small thing - cannot permit them to admit it, though.
And it’s just possible they enjoy the hero-worship that washes over them, from star-struck lesser mortals at all points of the compass.
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.