F35 Sets New Record - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


F35 Sets New Record

This is a discussion on F35 Sets New Record within the Air Force forums, part of the Armed Services category; Didn't an F-22 "down" 5 F-15s in air to air duels?...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Armed Services > Air Force

67Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old October 3rd, 2014, 08:18 PM   #16
Old Salt
 
BigBuckeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,037
Didn't an F-22 "down" 5 F-15s in air to air duels?

BigBuckeye is online now  
Remove Ads
Old October 3rd, 2014, 10:13 PM   #17
Inquisitor
 
GARRARD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tampa
Posts: 11,327

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBuckeye View Post
Didn't an F-22 "down" 5 F-15s in air to air duels?
Actually, it was 8.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f...ilities-2014-9

GARRARD is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2014, 10:28 PM   #18
Lifer
 
Girth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Puyallup WA
Posts: 2,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBuckeye View Post
Didn't an F-22 "down" 5 F-15s in air to air duels?

Impressive systems..... IF you can keep them flying. I work with one guy who quit his job rather than be sent off to work on them, and I don't blame him.

Girth is offline  
 
Old October 4th, 2014, 07:37 AM   #19
In the gilded halls of Valhala
 
Dredsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamstrosity View Post
LOL - Just like the A10, still gettin' it done after all these years.

My first pc compatible had the sx.

That christmas i had friemds come to see my sound card. No morr beeps and boops.

It had enough power to mail bomb everyone in the GL chat. The things kids do...

Thanks from Hamstrosity
Dredsen is offline  
Old October 4th, 2014, 09:19 AM   #20
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
danthman114's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yuma, Az
Posts: 5,112
this is old news actually. i remember when the jsf first came to yuma. i got the whole story by the folks who have to work on them. when they first arrived they couldnt fly with ordanance but they fixed that. there was actually 2 different aircraft the government that hovered but the deadline came and time ran out and only the f35 was "complete". the other that i cant remember the name was better and was actually ready but they needed to put a couple things together but they didnt allow any more time.. i heard all the crap thats wrong with the jsf (no classified stuff of course)
now its a bad ass aircraft that lives up to the hype. now the pilots on the other hand...

they are getting "shot down" in training during wti by the old f5's. then again the pilots in the f5 have an insane amount of flight time. i guess you can compare it to the tankers over at irwin. they always win

danthman114 is online now  
Old October 4th, 2014, 03:38 PM   #21
Squad Leader
 
Bastiat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 252

Excellent article on the topic, called The Jet That Ate the Pentagon. Appropriate.

Bastiat is offline  
Old December 12th, 2014, 11:04 PM   #22
Inquisitor
 
GARRARD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tampa
Posts: 11,327

Awards Showcase

Read earlier this week, the AF has to repaint their fuel trucks from green to white because the F-35 gets finicky about the temperature of its fuel.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...er-jet-running

GARRARD is offline  
Old December 13th, 2014, 04:54 PM   #23
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MN
Posts: 1,906
in almost every instance, the latest greatest military technology is already 15-20yrs old by the time it arrives. nothing new, and no reasons to be suprised by it. at least while our latest and greatest is 20yrs old tech, our enemies are using 30-50 yr old tech.

Thanks from Dave P
lefty o is offline  
Old August 26th, 2015, 03:52 PM   #24
Rifleman
 
talkingrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: georgia
Posts: 48
the marines version is almost operation ready , but the dod has still spent to much cash on a non operational a/c thanks Obama and congress

talkingrock is offline  
Old August 26th, 2015, 09:24 PM   #25
Platoon Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Girth View Post
Some bold statements, and an entertaining interview. Saw this a while ago and got a kick out of it. The idea that such an aircraft could replace the A-10 is laughable. No other way to say it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw


He's a colorful character apparently, and certainly not a fool, though it appears not everyone agrees with his views. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pie...and-1592445665
Saw this guy on one of those military channel best fighter plane shows. He didn't like the F4 Phantom either.

Stg1944 is offline  
Old August 27th, 2015, 12:44 AM   #26
Site Sponsor
 
ShootingSight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,729
I spent a career in corporate America, and I see how his point of view, and the opposing point of view both have passion, and fact to support them.

A guy who wants to pitch a position will speak of the merits of their idea, and dismiss the shortcomings as not important. So this guy developed the F16 because he believed in aircraft tailored to a single task. However the mission is never constant, so what he believed in, even if it was true then, is less true now. Plus, there are lots of ways to measure performance: stripped down, or loaded up. Which is more important? Who the heck knows. Is VTOL important? Yes. It is critical? No. Is it 50/50, or 60/40, or 40/60? Who knows!

Bottom line, there is rarely a clear measuring stick by which to evaluate possible contenders, so when you have 100 success factors, someone has to weigh the individual factors to create an aggregate score, and weighting the factors differently will affect the outcome.

THe stealth argument had a certain degree of BS in it too. Yes, low frequency sees more things than high frequency, however low frequency sees with a lot lower resolution. So low frequency might be able to see a general area where the stealth aircraft might be, it cannot locate it's exact position,

ShootingSight is online now  
Old August 27th, 2015, 06:37 PM   #27
Lifer
 
Girth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Puyallup WA
Posts: 2,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingSight View Post
THe stealth argument had a certain degree of BS in it too. Yes, low frequency sees more things than high frequency, however low frequency sees with a lot lower resolution. So low frequency might be able to see a general area where the stealth aircraft might be, it cannot locate it's exact position,
Maybe... if it weren't for the fact that its proven it works well enough. As was mentioned in the other thread, theres at least one Air Force pilot who will attest to its effectiveness. Granted, that was older generation stealth tech, but also much older generation missile and radar tech. Its a sure bet the electronics have progressed faster and further than the physical designs of the aircraft. Without effective ECW systems, "stealth" won't protect you once they know you're in the area.

It will boil down to who has the better electronics. The guys firing missiles or the guys trying to jam them. Thats a lesson we took from the Israelis, and one the Israelis of course learned the hard way.

Girth is offline  
Old August 27th, 2015, 08:28 PM   #28
Scout Sniper
 
mbrokaw89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 823
I don't see why everybody is hating on the F-35. Is it everything we dreamed it would be? Nope, but at least we are trying to push the limits of the technology. Once we stop trying and say oh what we have is good enough, we fall behind. The only thing keeping the USA relevant in the world is our military technology. We have to keep pushing the envelope. You're not going to hit a home run every time. You learn and adapt and keep making things better and better. The concept of the joint strike fighter isn't brand new, but it has yet to be perfected. We have started down that road gentlemen. Americas best and brightest won't let us down.

mbrokaw89 is offline  
Old August 27th, 2015, 09:10 PM   #29
Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 231
That's funny. My friend was a programmer. I asked him why he did not upgrade to a faster processor. He told me he brain runs about the same speed as a 386-25mhz processor. No need to go faster..

sormi is offline  
Old August 27th, 2015, 10:52 PM   #30
Fire Team Leader
 
1MOA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Girth View Post
Some bold statements, and an entertaining interview. Saw this a while ago and got a kick out of it. The idea that such an aircraft could replace the A-10 is laughable. No other way to say it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw


He's a colorful character apparently, and certainly not a fool, though it appears not everyone agrees with his views. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pie...and-1592445665
He makes a hell of a point. Sadly he does not point out anything that is not really known but it sounds like no one in the military is listening.

1MOA is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Armed Services > Air Force


Search tags for this page

f35 forum

,
speed hammer
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
M1 Garand stock sets, Boyd's, Dupage, CMP Gus Fisher Gus Fisher 23 June 24th, 2013 05:18 PM
5 piece shim set. Another batch. UPDATED jake2far SPF 70 April 18th, 2012 05:38 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List