Posted on 10/12/2014 3:31:06 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Propaganda! - I’m afraid we may know the truth about these aircraft in head-to-head confrontations long before their useful life is over. And our pilots - along with the second best fighter ever built (after the F-22) will make the difference.
Yep, that FA-18 is sure one heck of an airplane!
The biggest flaw of the F35 that stands out like a sore thumb and should have made the aircraft unacceptable from the get go... One engine. Seriously, a one engine aircraft is less maneuverable than a two engine aircraft.
The Russians essentially took elements from the the F14, F15 & F18 aircraft designs and modified them to make the Sukhoi Su-30... Two engines are always better than one.
“Propaganda” was the first word that crossed my mind as I read this article.
The F-35 was built primarily to be an attack aircraft, not a fighter.
Yeah one engines suck. I mean look at the f16.
Yes, sarcasm
“Propaganda” was the first word that crossed my mind as I read this article.”
But is it true?
Oh, but one engine is so much more green than two.....[/s]
Seriously, wouldn’t be surprise to learn that environmentalists are now writing the specs for military fighters.
Are there any examples of actual dogfights in modern warfare, the kind where in close maneuverability really plays a roll?
The article cites a host western experts and statistics on the readiness levels to support it’s position that the F35 is an overpriced turkey.
Do you have any empirical evidence to counter their position, or is that not needed before labeling the story propaganda?
No.1 Lockheed Martin / Boeing F-22 Raptor (USA) - 2 engines
No.2 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (USA) - 2 engines
No.3 Eurofighter Typhoon (European Union)
No.4 Dassault Rafale (France)
No.5 Sukhoi Su-27 (Russia) - 2 engines
No.6 McDonnel Douglas F-15 Eagle (USA) - 2 engines
No.7 Mikoyan MiG-31 (Russia) - 2 engines
No.8 Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon (USA)
No.9 Saab JAS 39 Gripen (Sweden)
No.10 Chengdu J-10 (China)
Noticeably absent... The F35
The F35 is a 'joint' task force fighter, because the Americans are not currently willing to offer the F22 to it's allies, and most of it's sales are going to be from America's allies. That is, unless their allies figure out that it's a dud and back out of those contracts.
By definition they conflicted in interest and they are not privy to the actual performance of the F-35 so they have no ice what they are talking about.
Pierre Sprey is a very interesting guy who I respect, but his vision of a next generation fighter does not include installing a radar unit in the aircraft. He proposed the same for the F-16 40 years ago and was laughed out of the room.
His vision is to have thousands of small, low cost and unsophisticated fighters in actions which swamp the enemy but take heavy losses in WWII type air battles.
We actually tried this in the early days of Vietnam and got our clocks cleaned by even the most rudimentary Russian SAMs.
I think you'll have some trouble supporting that claim.
Overpriced is not the same as combat capability - especially with our pilot training. You never know until you HAVE to know.
Let them ‘misunderestimate’ the US inventory, they will learn an expensive lesson in the end.
Single engines mean lighter weight mean more maneuverable... but also less redundant. if your single engine goes out, your reaching for the rocket engine under your seat.
Thru the ~1980’s Russian engine technology was not on par with the US... they make have caught up since
What? Fighters are designed with twin engines for reliability (survivability) and thrust-weight issues.
I’m saying that it reads like propoganda.
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.