https://medium.com/war-is-boring/75aee4a354bc
I still think the F111 looks wicked.
Yeah, the F-111 does look cool with its wings swept back.
How would you like to fly an airplane called the Aardvark? I can understand the A-10 being called a Warthog, but calling a fighter a ground pig?
Michael
But the F-111 wasn't a fighter.... exactly... more a divot maker.....
I plead guilty. I've always had affection for the Phantom. With an aerodynamic shape that only another Phantom could love...
Michael
I agree! The Phantom was a classic fighter. Shaped like a brick with enough power to make that brick actually get off the ground.
Once they put a gun on it, it was a true beast in the air, able to dish out incredible damage and take it too.
Also one of my favourite models to build. 8)
Quote from: DicedT on December 10, 2013, 03:44:53 PM
Yeah, the F-111 does look cool with its wings swept back.
How would you like to fly an airplane called the Aardvark? I can understand the A-10 being called a Warthog, but calling a fighter a ground pig?
Michael
Raven sounds better.
the F-111 was ineffective? ??? maybe during its first tour in Nam. after that it was a monster interdiction/strike aircraft.
QuoteHe contends the U.S. would have been better off with the cheaper A-4 attack plane as its bomber
ummm... it was, just ask any Navy pilot from the era. ignored are all the A-1s, F-105s, A-37s, and F-100s used at the same time for ground attack.
QuoteThey see the F-35 as dog meat in a dogfight against the faster and more maneuverable Russian MiG-35 and Su-30 and the Chinese J-20.
the Mig-35 is as much of a dogfighter as the SR-71. ::) (opps, was thinking of the Mig-31) still, Im not to worried about a 30+ year old airframe that an F-16 can take on. the Su-30s numbers wont ever be as great as the F-35s and Im not sure how many are going to survive the screen of F-22's. as for the J-20, theres no proof that its anything more then a technology demonstrator similar the the Russian Berkut.
QuoteLike the F-35, the F-4 was based on a conception—or a gimmick—of what future air combat would look like. The F-35 was born of the belief that fighters must use stealth and possess the ability to share tactical data with other aircraft—all in order to surprise and pick off their opponents.
For its part, the F-4 was based on the conviction that air combat would be waged from beyond visual range using long-range, radar-guided missiles.
AMRAAMs are not Sparrows and the F-35 has a gun from the get go. while I havent seen any footage of high angle manuvering from the F-35 I know that everything is capable of being pushed past 9g except the pilot.
QuoteIt relies on unproved technologies.
you really ought to watch this:
now Ive bitched a fair about about the programs problems but Ive been very fair with its successes. the best thing that could have happened was for the silly Marine version to have been cancelled. that would have drastically reduced its cost and development time.
FWIW - I don't think the guys responsible for lobbying Congress to maintain F35 funding are as wild about it as Starfury is...
ahh but thats the catch. Im NOT wild about it. planes like the F-4, F-16 and F-18 have all had long careers and have been upgraded over that time. the F-35 program was trying to deliver the final version first. Ive stated this all the F-35 thread.
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=8198.0
the F-111 was ineffective? ??? maybe during its first tour in Nam. after that it was a monster interdiction/strike aircraft.Which is why only 586 Aardvarks were built. I'm not an authority on the Ground Pig, but it seems to me that it was a case of having built an expensive aircraft, they had to do something with it. So it became a SAC bomber, Wild Weasel, etc. I think it might also have been a maintenance hog.
ummm... it was, just ask any Navy pilot from the era. ignored are all the A-1s, F-105s, A-37s, and F-100s used at the same time for ground attack.Pierre Sprey's point was that the F-4 was used as an attack aircraft when there were cheaper alternatives. I don't think the F-105s and F-100s were being used over North Vietnam by 1972.
the Mig-35 is as much of a dogfighter as the SR-71. ::) (opps, was thinking of the Mig-31) still, Im not to worried about a 30+ year old airframe that an F-16 can take on. the Su-30s numbers wont ever be as great as the F-35s and Im not sure how many are going to survive the screen of F-22's. as for the J-20, theres no proof that its anything more then a technology demonstrator similar the the Russian Berkut.Some of those F-35 critics are pretty knowledgeable (Sprey, Winslow Wheeler, Bill Sweetman). But as I also wrote, the Migs and Sukhois will also have their bugs. The point of my article was that like the F-4, the F-35 may prove good enough against the opposition, even if not as good as hyped.
AMRAAMs are not Sparrows and the F-35 has a gun from the get go. while I havent seen any footage of high angle manuvering from the F-35 I know that everything is capable of being pushed past 9g except the pilot. You're missing the point. The F-4 and F-35 were built with specific conceptions of future air combat in mind. The assumptions behind the F-4 were wrong; BVR engagements didn't happen in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Even if the AMRAAM works, if stealth doesn't, then the F-35's concept will also be proven wrong. Which doesn't mean it won't be effective. The F-4 was effective, but it took time and casualties before the pilots improvised.
you really ought to watch this:
[/i]
Amazing. Can't wait to see the Blue Screen of Death on the cockpit display if all that software turns out to be buggy.
the best thing that could have happened was for the silly Marine version to have been cancelled. I think accommodating the Marines - as if you're going to base a $150 million airplane on a beachhead under mortar bombardment - really screwed up the design.
Michael
pffft what the hell does Bill Sweetman know about airplanes.
;)
QuoteYou're missing the point.
I got the point, I just find it an apples and oranges comparison in that regard. we know the F-35 is going to get into dogfights, thats why it has the gun and sensor suites. the F-4 was among the pack of bvr/missiles only planes that hadnt been combat tested before Nam. the F-35 is not blazing a trail with stealth or electronics. theres quite a few years and a fair amount of combat time behind the technology, equipment and operational use. the hangup is fusing it all together seamlessly.
I also wouldnt worry about BSDs in the cockpit as it isnt a Windows system. :)
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 10, 2013, 04:06:54 PM
the F-111 was ineffective? ??? maybe during its first tour in Nam. after that it was a monster interdiction/strike aircraft.
I was going to say, I thought 111's were sent to Libya by Reagan to remind him not to go about doing naughty things in Germany. They seemed capable of getting the message across.
They were still in service with the RAAF until a couple of years ago, were they not?
yes they were and 586 is hardly a small production run.
to be fair they were slowly replaced by F-15 Strike Eagles as they became available as they could carry a similar load, had similar range and were not as maintenance intensive.
sorry I picked apart your article like that but I do love my military aircrafts. :)
It's a pleasure to get comments from someone knowledgeable, GDS Starfury. It's how I learn things. We'll just agree to disagree. The way the world is, at some point, the F-35 will be used in combat by the U.S. or its allies. We'll see how it goes.
Michael
I would also submit that the F-35 will not be going it alone in a combat setting. its important to know how the US military is going to slot this plane into operations. awacs, satellites, uavs, remote sensors, ground and sea based sensors and weapons... the list goes on. it will not be the plane that sallys forth over the front line in 2 ship formations looking for trouble harking back to the dawn patrols of WW1 and WW2.
I think the project as a whole has been a mess of management and shifting requirements that has not been helpful at all. I also think its a huge mistake to not have allowed some of our closest allied the chance to buy the full up version of the plane. it just pissed them off and further drove up the cost. the Marine version is just stupid. if they want their own air so bad then they should stick with their F-18s and eventually shift to Navy version F-35s.
I disagree with you on the value of a VTOL/VSTOL version for the Marines. The Harrier has been very effective for them operating off their baby carriers and from forward airbases. It's a great capability to have.
I think the mistake is trying to come up with a one-size fits all aircraft for all 3 services. The requirements for each are too disparate.
Again, I'm dubious about forward deployment of a $150 million. If the Taliban had blown up eight F-35s instead of Harriers a few months ago, it would have been a propaganda coup.
V/STOL might make sense for a cheap aircraft, but cheap and V/STOL seems to be an oxymoron. Another reason why having a separate Marine Air Force is not a good idea.
Michael
Blowing up the Harriers was a propaganda coup because it was a sizeable percentage of the total Harrier force. It was a very big deal.
V/STOL does tend to be expensive, but I imagine it's worse when you try to shoehorn it in an airframe that is supposed to be a stealthy, air superiority, ground-attack, carrier-capable aircraft.