Bye-bye F-35?

#101
#101
NorthDallas40 said:
I’d be careful about saying an F-15C equipped with the AN/APG-63 AESA would get waxed by an F-35. He who shoots first wins. If the F-35 is clean on external stations it runs a really good chance of shooting first. If he’s dirty I’ll take the Eagle.

And in close quarters I think most would prefer an F-16 or F-15. 16 for turning fights 15 to power away.

But the F-35 is very capable one sizes fits all approach.

I’m not a pilot but I’ve read a lot of the histories. Plus the F-35 is ugly when compared to an F-15 or F-16. 😬
Click to expand...

The Eagle will probably not see the Lightning II, which has AESA, EODAS and other passive sensors that will even require it to activate the radar and show a presence. The 35 will have first look first kill almost everytime, especially once you Christmas tree the others with external stores.

As far as power and maneuverability, DI increase will have a big impact on the others while 35 can carry 4 AMRAAMS internally with growth to 6. There is that infamous CLAW test a few years ago against the F-16, and that was just what it was...a CLAW test and the libs haters ran with it.

Here is a link to an aeronautical engineer analysis for F-15, F16 and F35 and you may appreciate as an engineer:

Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby - F-35 versus XYZ

The general layman sees an F-15 can go M2.5, but anecdotal evidence will show veteran drivers hardly if ever exceed M2 in their careers. I had a customer who was a Navy F-4 driver in Nam and I think the max speed he said he ever went was M1.8, and that sucker had powerful turbojets and stated for M2.4,,,iirc. Just sucks too much gas to go too fast even today, but the 35 has more gas than an F-15C! Did you know that, it has much better internal gas range.

The 35 is optimized for subsonic and transonic acceleration, where most aerial combat occurs. Aint nobody zipping by at M1+ unless it is an intercept, ingress, or evasion.

I was a skeptic a few years ago as well. I marvel at what the engineers have done now, packing so much gas, sensors, stealth, STOVL, 43K of power into an airframe., with a spiral program that will be incredible. You are obviously an intelligent man and can make a determination but I would suggest digging deeper. Guess we will find out soon enough. Thanks dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#102
#102
So we’re actually saying similar things. Remember I said he who shoots first wins. And with loaded external hard points don’t discount the RCS on the F-35.

I’ve actually got a decent idea of the Lightning’s sensor suite. 😬

Also on max clean speed I agree it’s a chest pounding stat. The power reference on the Eagle was more about flexibility to expand the combat vertically not for speed.

Again, if the F-35 winds up in a visual dogfight he’s done something horribly wrong to begin with.

I know of the F-16 vs F-35 test you’re referring to. No I’m not referencing that at all trust me. From what I’ve read most pilots the prefer the F-35 are due to its sensor capabilities and RCS. If you do the job right the other guy shouldn’t even know you’re there before he gets a missle launch detection or impact.

Final edit. To be clear I’m not against the F-35. It’s an amazing aircraft. But I really do hate the one aircraft to rule them all concept. But today’s technology gets us closer than we’ve been able to be before for sure. And like you said it’s operational now. We shall see.

Final final edit: thank you for the link.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#103
#103
The one aircraft rule does stink, just the reality of the complexity and cost of modern aircraft. If there is one thing this nation does well, is brutally effective and leading edge military equipment. The one issue I am concerned is EMP/Cyber protection for everything military, commercial, institutional, personal. etc. The 35 is basically a flying supercomputer. I hope they Feraday cage the crap out of it. It is such a digital world now and is such a threat in my mind. Not to mention ALIS, where if you do not connect in a certain amount of time, you lose capability in the jet.

As far as looks, just be glad you did not get the Monica..lol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#104
#104
NorthDallas40 said:
So we’re actually saying similar things. Remember I said he who shoots first wins. And with loaded external hard points don’t discount the RCS on the F-35.

I’ve actually got a decent idea of the Lightning’s sensor suite. 😬

Also on max clean speed I agree it’s a chest pounding stat. The power reference on the Eagle was more about flexibility to expand the combat vertically not for speed.

Again, if the F-35 winds up in a visual dogfight he’s done something horribly wrong to begin with.

I know of the F-16 vs F-35 test you’re referring to. No I’m not referencing that at all trust me. From what I’ve read most pilots the prefer the F-35 are due to its sensor capabilities and RCS. If you do the job right the other guy shouldn’t even know you’re there before he gets a missle launch detection or impact.

Final edit. To be clear I’m not against the F-35. It’s an amazing aircraft. But I really do hate the one aircraft to rule them all concept. But today’s technology gets us closer than we’ve been able to be before for sure. And like you said it’s operational now. We shall see.

Final final edit: thank you for the link.
Click to expand...

Need to clarify one thing..When I said "guess we will find out"....I meant in an operational combat context., not personally. Sorry if any misinterpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#117
#117
NorthDallas40 said:
@Orangeburst65 since this is probably in your wheelhouse got an opinion on these guys? I was going to add three reels to my shop. A 4 plug 110V pendant pulldown, a single 220V, and an airhose.

Products: Spring Driven Reels at Coxreels
Click to expand...


ND40...My job responsibility is mostly in the mechanical room, although I am involved in facilities piping and localized compressed air/vacuum systems. Hose reels, regulators, gauges and such point of use commodities are not of our offering. When in the schedule, I usually take exception to the MC.
 
#120
#120
Orangeburst65 said:
ND40...My job responsibility is mostly in the mechanical room, although I am involved in facilities piping and localized compressed air/vacuum systems. Hose reels, regulators, gauges and such point of use commodities are not of our offering. When in the schedule, I usually take exception to the MC.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks. The “MC”?

Oh I think I get it you exclude them from your bid.
 
#121
#121
NorthDallas40 said:
X to F: F-35 Lightning II And Its X-35 Predecessors | Code One Magazine
Click to expand...

She looks sleek FV and others, but looks fat at views as well with that large spine. The F-16A-C is probably the best looking IMO, but when they came out with the spinal dorsal series, it hit me. Too short of range, especially in a pacific environment. Store the gas on the top of the fuselage and we get a fat looking 35. Might be an aeronautical drag issue.

Ask a pilot what we prefers....GAS, GAS and more GAS, as well as an OODA loop and it is a winner.
 
#122
#122
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok thanks. The “MC”?

Oh I think I get it you exclude them from your bid.
Click to expand...

Correct...No POU items typically, although my company installs more localized aluminum piping, typically sans Schedule 40 stuff unless less than 2" , with quick disconnects, etc.. Just depends on the job as some people want turn-key.

I was in Houston and am currently in the process of starting a store in San Antonio. Give me a reason and I will drive to DFW and give you -40 PDP compressed air...LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and NorthDallas40
#123
#123
Take a look at the F-16XL. I’m not normally a fan of deltas but I like the look here. It lost to the Strike Eagle in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition. A re-engined variant was flying with NASA and achieved supercruise. I don’t know it might have been the first aircraft to do so. 63BE0289-595E-49B6-B125-F05ADBC54F1A.jpeg
 
#124
#124
Orangeburst65 said:
She looks sleek FV and others, but looks fat at views as well with that large spine. The F-16A-C is probably the best looking IMO, but when they came out with the spinal dorsal series, it hit me. Too short of range, especially in a pacific environment. Store the gas on the top of the fuselage and we get a fat looking 35. Might be an aeronautical drag issue.

Ask a pilot what we prefers....GAS, GAS and more GAS, as well as an OODA loop and it is a winner.
Click to expand...
Two of the reasons the Tomcat drivers I remember talking to hated the original F/A-18C/D. Little nose so lousy RADAR and no range. The E/F Super Hornet is much better received.
 
#125
#125
NorthDallas40 said:
Take a look at the F-16XL. I’m not normally a fan of deltas but I like the look here. It lost to the Strike Eagle in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition. A re-engined variant was flying with NASA and achieved supercruise. I don’t know it might have been the first aircraft to do so. View attachment 170535
Click to expand...

IMO,,,, that was the best looking fighter ever constructed by the US. That delta wing on an F-16 some would say resulted in 2X performance in some performance characteristics. Looks like a European Rafael or Tiffy, sans canard, although 20 years earlier . But then there was the canard F-16 ATFI.

Tough call...on XL vs F-15E.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top