User Profile: DRT_7.62_BTHP

DRT_7.62_BTHP

Member Since: August 13, 2012

Comments

123
  • November 8, 2014 at 8:10pm

    Haters r gonna hate. I drink no cool aid. The 35 wasn’t designed to be the 22. Or an air superiority fighter. If you want Mach 2 it’s gonna cost more. Besides planes rarely go above Mach 2. It carries 4 missiles internally with plans for 6, But it can also direct missiles from other 35s or from ships. If stealth is needed the wont carry external. Engage and disengage, have you heard of stealth?  Pilots who have flown against 22s say it’s like flying blind. Even when they can see it they can’t get weapons lock. 

    Responses (1) +
  • November 6, 2014 at 6:48pm

    Lunar
    yeah how is that Pak FA going? China and the J 20 and 31 I’m more worried about. The Russians don’t have industrial base to build quality fifth-generation aircraft, especially in a number. You should see what the Indians have to say about it. The Chinese might be able to steal enough technology to get pretty close but their engines keep exploding and have to rely on Russian built. As was mentioned you’re comparing apples to oranges, the F 35 is a strike fighter. That Pak FA and J 20 are air superiority planes. We have high low mix of fighters. The F-22 is high and the F 35 is the low.

  • November 6, 2014 at 6:29pm

    The F 35 is too slow for you and I assume you disagree with the people who set the requirements. Mach 1.6 was the top speed requirement for the JSF competition. The F 35 met that requirement and the generals were content with that. Those people know more about it than you or me. And have you looked at the top speeds of the aircraft the F 35 is replacing?

  • [1] November 5, 2014 at 5:00pm

    You’re all over the place. The Harrier is aging and dangerous. A replacement is needed. The F-35 is no harrier and much easier to fly in STOVL mode. 
    Harrier
    Max speed: .95M
    Max payload: 9200
    Combat radius: 300nm
    Internal fuel: 7500
    F-35
    Max speed: 1.6M
    Max payload: 15000
    Combat radius: 450
    Internal fuel: 13100 lb
     The F-35C has the same max payload as the intruder. Get your facts strait. 
    On one hand you say F-35 is bad cuz one engine then you say the crusader(1 engine) should have been upgraded and kept in service. Great argument. 

  • November 5, 2014 at 11:36am

    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d … -tactical/
    Lt Col Matt Kelly wrote:
    Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35′s performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-[Maneuverability] diagrams, which display an aircraft?s energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope. 

    So do you still think they are lying? 

    Now lets talk thrust. This is a no brainer, the F-35′s engine is rated at 43,000lbs the most powerful in the world. So lets cut to the chase and compare.

    Thrust to weight at max thrust:
    (All loaded with 8,000 lbs)

    Mig-29 (M/M2): 1.05
    F-16C (block 50): 1.05
    Su-30MKI: 1.13
    F/A-18C: 1.14
    F-35A: 1.15

    Surprise Surprise, the F-35 has the best Thrust to weight ratio of all of the planes involved, and really in a dogfight Thrust to weight can be more valuable than Wing loading. 

    Now Drag: 

    All these planes will carry weapons externally adding lots of drag. with a full centerline tank the F-16 is reduced to 7Gs max and the Mig-29 is reduced to an appalling 4Gs, the F-35 will carry most if not all its missiles internally, very little drag.

    So to conclude, even without Stealth, even without all its advanced sensors and ECM suits, the F-35 will (in the words of Pierre Spray) wax the competition every single time, then if the F-35 is a dog the rest should be compared to kittens

  • November 5, 2014 at 10:37am

    Wing Loading:
    Mig-29 M/M2: 91
    F-16C (block 50): 90
    F-35A: 81
    F/A-18C: 77
    Su-30MKI: 72

    So as you can see at dogfighting weights, the F-35 is not bad at all, its not the best but really not all that bad. 

    Now consider this, the F-35 probably has the most efficient body lifting surface of all these aircraft due to the fact that its fuselage has the smoothest flatest surface of all these planes, not a lot of disturbance for the wind to flow around on. 

    So lets give all these aircraft a Body lifting coefficient of 40% but to be conservative lets give the F-35 45%, the truth is probably much larger but hey lets keep it down.

    Wing loading plus body lift:

    Mig-29 (M/M2): 54.6
    F-16C (block 50): 54
    F/A-18C: 46
    F-35A: 44
    Su-30MKI: 43

    The F-16s wing loading is similar to the Mig-29s which is why it replicates the Mig-29 in RedFlag.

    But Notice how the F-35′s wing loading is so close to the F/A-18 and just 1 pound above the Su-30, which is why when you ask pilots they will say that the F-35 maneuvers like an F/A-18 with better acceleration. 

    And really acceleration is the only thing Hornet pilots dont like about it.

  • November 5, 2014 at 10:33am

    So by Pierre Spray’s own argument the horribly turning F-4 should fly circles around his hotrod F-16? What?s happening here?

    Well the F-16 does not rely on just wings to produce lift, it has a blended body and wing design, plus LERX that produce vortices above the airplane (if you remember you physics, high pressure below + low pressure above creates lift)

    around 40% of the F-16s total lift does not come from the wings at all. So in reality the F-16′s actual wing loading when loaded with 8,000lbs is closer to 49 lbs per square feet not 81 lbs.

    The F-35 is the same. to get the F-35 to have 110lbs / sq ft of wing loading as Pierre Spray said it needs to carry 21,300 lbs of load. 

    The f-16 can never do that, but the F-35 can! that?s what?s great about this plane, it gives you options, if you need to go to a long range mission then sure, the F-35 CAN carry 18,000lbs of fuel and 18,000lbs of weapons.

    But if your going to a CAP mission where a dogfight is possible, then why load it with 21K? Most likely an F-35 would take off with 18,000lbs, And when it gets to combat it would probably have 10,000lbs depending on the range to the target.

    So lets pit the F-35 against some really good aircraft, Wing Loading calculation. 
    All loaded with 8,000 lbs, perfect for dogfighting:

  • November 5, 2014 at 10:28am

    Lets look at some figures against some proven and supposedly superior platforms, lets compare them and see. 

    If you really know something about planes you would know that you basically need 3 essentials to be maneuverable:

    1. Lots of Lift
    2. Lots of thrust
    3. Little Drag

    Lets discuss lift: 
    I know you probably heard Pierre Spray said that the F-35 is a dog because it has little wings. and has to carry 110lbs of airplane for every square foot of wing. 

    Pierre Spray was involved in the aircraft industry at around the 1960s where fighters were basically tubes with wings. he was not the co-designer of the F-16. 
    At that time all of the lift came from the wings. small wings = small lift.

    But at around that time Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) was experimenting with Lifting Body designs, they wanted to produce fuselages that can assist the wings in producing lift instead of being dead weight.
    Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Marietta_X-24

    That?s why at around the 1970s we began to see fighters with wide flat fuselage sections and smaller wings. So lets compare the wing loading of the F-4 against Pierre Spray’s favorite F-16 variant the F-16A.

    F-4
    Empty: 30,328lbs
    Load:8000 lbs
    Comabt Weight: 38,328
    Wing Area: 530 feet
    Wing Loading: 72 lbs/ sq feet

    F-16A
    Empty: 16,300
    Load:8000 lbs
    Comabt Weight: 24,300
    Wing Area: 300 feet
    Wing Loading: 81 lbs/ sq feet

    So by Pierre Spray’s own argument the horribly turning F-4 should fly circles around his hotrod F-

  • November 5, 2014 at 10:14am

    Here’s a couple
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4D_Skyhawk
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader

  • November 4, 2014 at 5:18pm

    It’s true. Turkey is starting to lean a little radical. Their current president is a little scary. That’s why the kids were protesting so much a little while ago. I don’t even think turkey should be part of NATO.

  • [1] November 4, 2014 at 5:15pm

    A little hard evidence would be great. Saying you heard this guy on this one TV program is a little much. Wargames with the F 35 have just barely started. And they definitely haven’t gone up against any F-22′s. Heck their envelope hasn’t been fully opened.

  • November 4, 2014 at 4:58pm

    You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. The F 35 is built by Lockheed Martin who also built the F-117 and F-22.The F 35 is also newer, has newer sensors, has newer and better cockpit, better stealth coating, and an engine based off the F-22′s engine. It also has IR stealth. As was already stated only the Marine variant of the F 35 has STOVL capability. Which is very good for landing on amphibious assault ships. The F 35 was developed after the F-22 I don’t know why he seemed to think the F-22′s components are more advanced. The F 35 has no dedicated sparrow bays.

  • [1] November 4, 2014 at 4:34pm

    Number three

  • [1] November 4, 2014 at 4:33pm

    Yeah people love to point to the F-117 shoot down to say “stealth is obsolete.” I’m well aware of the incident. Stealth doesn’t make an aircraft invisible to radar but harder to detect. The guys got lucky. It took weeks of trying and a lot of missiles to shoot down one jet. Had NATO changed their flight paths the jet never would have been shot down.
    The radar they used, and ones like it today, can only say an aircraft is somewhere in this general direction. It can’t guide missiles. What they did was wait until the jet was coming along like it usually was, then launch a bunch of missiles and hope one got close enough to get a lock. And eventually they got one close enough to lock on.

    It was acceptable losses according to the AF.

    The F-35 was developed decades after the F-117. I think there have been some upgrades to stealth since then. And I don’t think our Air Force as well as many others would be pursuing stealth aircraft if it was totally obsolete. notice no stealth aircraft have been shot down since.

    The F-22 is the best air superiority plane however the production line has been shut down and saying they should make a naval version is living in a dream world.

  • [2] November 4, 2014 at 4:30pm

    I’m confused by you post. On one hand you say the F-117 shoot down, of which I’m well aware of, is proof the F-35s stealth is obsolete. And on the other you say the F-22 and B-2 have superior stealth because they were developed later. The F-35 has the latest tech yet is obsolete. OK.

    If stealth is truly obsolete why is stealth tech being developed by militaries all over the world? Are they just doing it for kicks? I think they know something you don’t.

  • November 4, 2014 at 4:23pm

    There’s a great documentary called Battle of the X planes. I suggest you watch it because you obviously have no idea about how the JSF program has gone.

  • [2] November 4, 2014 at 10:03am

    Your comment about radar is BS

  • November 4, 2014 at 10:01am

    Common misconception.

    Responses (8) +
  • [1] November 4, 2014 at 10:00am

    I don’t think that happened.

  • September 25, 2014 at 7:14pm

    To be fair the air force has been trying retire the A-10 for a year or so. They want it, they just can’t afford it in the current fiscal environment. The A-10 is a great platform as long as its in a permissive environment. it won’t survive survive against a modern IADS. The Su-25 hasn’t fared well against a few man pads and SAMs.

    Responses (1) +
123