F-35 to do the job of the A-10?

[Angel's Fury]

And the decision to not arm the F-35B/C with an internal cannon is so stupid.  Didnt ANYONE LEARN from the phantom jocks in vietnam? jesus christ its vietnam all over again!  Eventualy soemthing mgith happen where the F-22s are tangeled in a big as dogfight and the F-356s get suckered into one nad run out of sidewinders and asraams...stealth aint crap in a close in dogfight.  Sheesh as if the lessopn could not be repeated once again....

The world is a very different place now. Back then US and the USSR were neck and neck. Communists were dogging us at every turn. Now, there are very few countries who can muster any sort of air based defense against an aerial assault from US forces and more often than not, they are our allies. Nowadays, pilots are mainly afraid of SAM's as they are much cheaper than maintaining an air force. Dog-fighting has gone the way of the do-do, and thus an internal cannon (to a high-altitude fighter) is pretty much the thing of the past.

Now, it's more like a ground, close-in combat type of scenario. More of the support type aircraft.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Angel's Fury

[Coota0]

the Hawgs kick ass. woe is the day the USAF takes them out of service. they should give them to the USMC. aren't MC pilots trained specifically in Close Support anyway? then the A-10 is the idea for getting down and dirty with the grunts....

Why the hell would the Mairne Corps want the A-10? A Marine Aviator is a Naval Aviator, they fly off of ships as any other Naval Aviator does supporting the grunts until a beachhead is made then the Cobras and Harriers move inland and fly from gravel roads and pastures moving with the grunts. There are exceptions to the flying off of ships, notably the C-130's (there were however tests landing and launching C-130s on Carriers) The A-10 is useless if you can't put it on a Nimitz or Wasp class ship and get it to the combat zone. The idea behind Marine Corps CAS (this came out of experience in WWII, Vietnam and Korea) is that within minutes of calling in support the zoomies will be there to save the grunts. That's why the Harriers and Cobras are based nearly on the front lines, they're slow so they have to be close, the Hornets are faster so they can be based at sea or further in the rear and still get to the front within five or ten minutes. A-10s have to be based at a real airbase, not a dirt strip, a 2 lane road or a soccer stadium, A-10s are slow meaning it will not take them the five minutes to get to the grunts needing support that an AV-8 will. There is also the price of trying to navlize an A-10. It may be good at CAS, but that doesn't mean the Corps wants it. If you want to give it to someone, give it to the Army, some of those Warrant Officers are unbelievable pilots.

[Coota0]

Dog-fighting has gone the way of the do-do, and thus an internal cannon (to a high-altitude fighter) is pretty much the thing of the past.

Funny that's what people "in the know" said after Korea, then we got our asses handed to us by a bunch of low-tech peasents over Vietnam.

Angel: The A-6 was "replaced" by the F/A-18

Edited February 24, 2004 by Coota0

[Angel's Fury]

The Marines don't need the A-10, the Army does. That's why the F-18 is used because it fits the role and the objective for the Marines.

[David Hingtgen]

I'd like to reiterate Coota0's reply to imode. They've been saying that for 50+ years, and everytime we "eliminate" the dogfight with all our technology, we get our asses kicked by someone who didn't. And the existence of airplanes dropping bombs meant no more wars would be fought with troops on the ground...

Angel's Fury: F-35's carry AMRAAM's. That's it. 2 of them, usually. So much for air superiority.

[imode]

Dog-fighting has gone the way of the do-do, and thus an internal cannon (to a high-altitude fighter) is pretty much the thing of the past.

Funny that's what people "in the know" said after Korea, then we got our asses handed to us by a bunch of low-tech peasents over Vietnam.

Angel: The A-6 was "replaced" by the F/A-18

They might have been low-tech, but we were equally low.

I still believe the Mig-15 was superior to the F-86. Hell, MiG's are still superior, but who can afford them? Not even Russia can. A few countries still have MiG-29's but can't afford to maintain them or the or buy the fuel to keep them in the air.

[Angel's Fury]

I'd like to reiterate Coota0's reply to imode.  They've been saying that for 50+ years, and everytime we "eliminate" the dogfight with all our technology, we get our asses kicked by someone who didn't.  And the existence of airplanes dropping bombs meant no more wars would be fought with troops on the ground...

Angel's Fury:  F-35's carry AMRAAM's.  That's it.  2 of them, usually.  So much for air superiority.

And that'll be enough to help the F-35 defend the carriers and it's support ships from oncoming "bogies"?

Angel: The A-6 was "replaced" by the F/A-18

Thanks.

[Stamen0083]

Dog-fighting has gone the way of the do-do, and thus an internal cannon (to a high-altitude fighter) is pretty much the thing of the past.

I can't wait to see the expression on your face when you're forced to eat your words.

Those who decided not to have an integrated gun in the F-35 has either failed the few history classes they had to take, or simply chose to not take them at all.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Dogfighting will never be replaced no matte how advnaced BVR technology advances. A lot fo phantom pilots could have been aces had they not been reliant on the sparrow and had a gun in vietnam. The israelis got a few gun kills with phantoms during the yom kippur war. We really ddi get our asses handed to us in vietnam the kill ratio from 13/1 to 2/1 is really embarrassing. Post vietnam we had tomcat crews earn 4 kills. Those were almost ALL sidewinder.(not sure if the VF-32 crew who first fired nabbed the flogger with the sparrow).

Sure stealth is beneficial but the way they are doing it with teh F-35 is STUPID. Replacing a falcon with that POS is garbage. It cant evn don sidewinders! HEll now that david mentioned it...even a F-105 RTHUD has beter dogfighitng ability! and that aint stealth and sure as hell wasnt really made for air supreiority!(multirol JSF MY ASS this thing is just a more manueverable F-1117 descendant in my eyes)

Sure stealth can save lives..to an extent. We have to keep in mind its been long rumored the nighthawk shot down over kosovo/bosnia was downed by a MIg 29 pilot.

It does nto matter whethere people think communism is dead. communism doesnt seem dead but to me the threat of russian planes never died out in the cold war...you can tell me "oh shin your pro tomcat anti cheney views are bogus cold war is over no bear bombers are a threat" but a lot of poeople seem to foget that the minute we lower our priorities we get our ases handed to us. "oh dogfighting is so world war 2 jjohnny we can nab them commies with a sparrow!" and in vietnam at one point 55% of the sparrow kills in one year were FRIENDLY fire! not to mention the failure rate for the damn thing was a lot higher. A active seeker does not automatically mean a kill.

Its known that sidewinders have a better kill ratio than BVR missles.

Let us remember people countries by russian made eqipment...and some rogue countrie or faction could buy a whole bunch of crap under our noses and next thing you nknow a restored bacckfire is the next threat.

The whole point of planes replacing previous planes is advancement in technology and capability OVER the previous plane! the JSF solves nothing except for adding stealth and being a common plane! can the F18 stupid hornet be better than the tomcat? nope. cCan the JSF replace the F-16 and a-10? it can btu it dont mean by all means it does a better job.

art this point the harrier is even a better dogfighter able to carry MORE amraams and SIDEWINDERS! as well as ahving an internal gun. JSF sucks more i think about it.

no mnatter what...once BVR is relied on too much and stealth as well watch...we'll have stealth pilots shot down by cannon fire. Remember people stealth is not invisibility. Seems to me the only new stelath plane doing it right is the F-22. Dogfighting is a facet of fighter flying that should NEVER be forgottenb! theres a REASON the F-8 pilots were prestigiously known over the years! and there kill ratio in vietnam was UNMATCHED!

dogfighitng weill never cease to exist..theres always a way around an amraam. gotta go close in sometimes if you reallt want to kill something dead/.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

ZBTW the A-6 was never truly replaced...the best replacement would have been Tomcat 21 quickstrike with the same payload and enough AAms to self excort as well as nuke capability, supercruise, AND the fact that it could be made form existing tomcat frames.

and the super hornet is cheap? mah ass!

BTW the JSF isnt even close to being superior to the F/a-18c. 2 jdams? the hell is that minimalism?

[rdenham]

F-35's carry AMRAAM's. That's it. 2 of them, usually. So much for air superiority.

The F-35 is so far away from it productions date that it would not be hard to envision a hole host of external stores being added to it arsenal, whether it be AIM-9's or AGM-65's.

[the white drew carey]

Dogfighting will never be replaced no matte how advnaced BVR technology advances. A lot fo phantom pilots could have been aces had they not been reliant on the sparrow and had a gun in vietnam. The israelis got a few gun kills with phantoms during the yom kippur war. We really ddi get our asses handed to us in vietnam the kill ratio from 13/1 to 2/1 is really embarrassing. Post vietnam we had tomcat crews earn 4 kills. Those were almost ALL sidewinder.(not sure if the VF-32 crew who first fired nabbed the flogger with the sparrow).

Sure stealth is beneficial but the way they are doing it with teh F-35 is STUPID. Replacing a falcon with that POS is garbage. It cant evn don sidewinders! HEll now that david mentioned it...even a F-105 RTHUD has beter dogfighitng ability! and that aint stealth and sure as hell wasnt really made for air supreiority!(multirol JSF MY ASS this thing is just a more manueverable F-1117 descendant in my eyes)

Sure stealth can save lives..to an extent. We have to keep in mind its been long rumored the nighthawk shot down over kosovo/bosnia was downed by a MIg 29 pilot.

It does nto matter whethere people think communism is dead. communism doesnt seem dead but to me the threat of russian planes never died out in the cold war...you can tell me "oh shin your pro tomcat anti cheney views are bogus cold war is over no bear bombers are a threat" but a lot of poeople seem to foget that the minute we lower our priorities we get our ases handed to us. "oh dogfighting is so world war 2 jjohnny we can nab them commies with a sparrow!" and in vietnam at one point 55% of the sparrow kills in one year were FRIENDLY fire! not to mention the failure rate for the damn thing was a lot higher. A active seeker does not automatically mean a kill.

Its known that sidewinders have a better kill ratio than BVR missles.

Let us remember people countries by russian made eqipment...and some rogue countrie or faction could buy a whole bunch of crap under our noses and next thing you nknow a restored bacckfire is the next threat.

The whole point of planes replacing previous planes is advancement in technology and capability OVER the previous plane! the JSF solves nothing except for adding stealth and being a common plane! can the F18 stupid hornet be better than the tomcat? nope. cCan the JSF replace the F-16 and a-10? it can btu it dont mean by all means it does a better job.

art this point the harrier is even a better dogfighter able to carry MORE amraams and SIDEWINDERS! as well as ahving an internal gun. JSF sucks more i think about it.

no mnatter what...once BVR is relied on too much and stealth as well watch...we'll have stealth pilots shot down by cannon fire. Remember people stealth is not invisibility. Seems to me the only new stelath plane doing it right is the F-22. Dogfighting is a facet of fighter flying that should NEVER be forgottenb! theres a REASON the F-8 pilots were prestigiously known over the years! and there kill ratio in vietnam was UNMATCHED!

dogfighitng weill never cease to exist..theres always a way around an amraam. gotta go close in sometimes if you reallt want to kill something dead/.

No, Shin... Tell us how you really feel!

I agree. Just like there's always room for Jell-o, there's always room for guns.

[Anubis]

I agree a gun is a necessary add on for a jet to have as a fallback. If all else fails, a storm of armor-piercing bullets prevail.

[Druna Skass]

I really can't see dogfights being a thing of the past. There's always going to be a way to defeat a missile, and if your opponent knows what that way is and gets in your face and you have no gun...

There is no perfect guarunteed to kill the guy missile nor will there ever be one despite what the politicians say, meaning Mr. machine gun will aways be a nessesity.

[David Hingtgen]

I'd just like to bring up that Russia did a little "exercise" last week involving ICBM's and cruise missiles, including Tu-160 supersonic runs across the Atlantic, and simulated attacks against carrier battle groups. (it's AMAZING what's not reported on TV--good thing I use the net for news, especially military news). They didn't say they were practicing on how to attack *US* carrier battle groups specifically, but I don't believe anyone else has any. They said it was "anti-terrorism" practice. Uh huh. ICBM's and CVN runs.

"But we don't need F-14's, there's no more threat".

Yeah, well, tell that to Russia.

NOTHING is ever eliminated as a threat. We will always need close-in dogfighters, high-speed low-alt bombers, and high-speed dedicated interceptors, "multi-role" planes, air superiority, strategic bombers, etc. No plane can do it all, few can do 2.

Edited February 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world

I suppose you're right, David. But in that case, shouldn't we also be preparing for an attack by the bloody British?

[imode]

A active seeker does not automatically mean a kill.

Its known that sidewinders have a better kill ratio than BVR missles.

Sure. I'll give you that. But what's easier to do? Pretend you are (for arguement's sake, let's say) North Korea. If the big bad Americans were coming to bomb the crap out of you, would you rather send your expensive Migs and Su's up only to watch them get shot down, or would you fire thousands of missiles?

If you fire 235 missiles at an airplane, I'm sure one is bound to hit. Good-bye $40,000,000 worth of missiles. But hey, if you hit the airplane, the enemy loses a $40,000,000 plane, another $1 mil of payload and a pilot.

I'm not saying that the JSF should replace anything (least of all a dedicated FIGHTER) because god-forbid we end up having to fight an enemy with a Rafale or a Eurofighter. But as a front-line stealth attacker, which is obviously the direction that they want to take it, a cannon is useless. The whole point of this thread was the F-35's role as CAS, not air superiority.

[hellohikaru]

They might have been low-tech, but we were equally low.

I still believe the Mig-15 was superior to the F-86. Hell, MiG's are still superior, but who can afford them? Not even Russia can. A few countries still have MiG-29's but can't afford to maintain them or the or buy the fuel to keep them in the air.

I don't and never believe that the Migs were all that superior to western type fighters.

The Mig-15 might had an initial advantage in performance and heavier fire power on paper. Yet the Mig was difficult to fly due to its Mid tail arrangement and when later models of the Sabres entered service the gap in performance was less significant.

Of course the USAF had better pilots than the Chinese and Nkoreans and a much better gunsight. The kill ratio speaks for this.

Still believe the Migs are better ? The Israelis got hundreds of them during skirmishes with their neighbours.

The Migs might be cheaper to buy, but suffer from old technology avionics and have low engine TBO, not to mention parts which are difficult to obtain for Russian aircraft.

[JELEINEN]

I can't wait to see the expression on your face when you're forced to eat your words.

Those who decided not to have an integrated gun in the F-35 has either failed the few history classes they had to take, or simply chose to not take them at all.

How about the lesson of advancing your tactics with technological changes or the one about relying on 'proven' methods often results in unnecessary death on the battlefield.

Whether he's right or wrong, imode is the one who's actually applying history to this discussion. Just saying something happened in the past is meaningless. Don't site an example of something that happened nearly half a century ago and say that it's going to happen again and expect to be taken seriously.

[imode]

The Mig-15 might had an initial advantage in performance and heavier fire power on paper. Yet the Mig was difficult to fly due to its Mid tail arrangement and when later models of the Sabres entered service the gap in performance was less significant.

I think I saw on the history channel that the Mig-15 was superior to the F-86 in almost every way, from speed to max altitude to range and armament. There was also a Korean defector who used his Mig-15 to escape and the tests done on the plane afterwards confirmed it. Of course, the US countered these inefficiences with better tactics, kind of like a Wildcat/Zero situation from World War II with great success. That doesn't mean the F-86 was a better plane.

Likewise, Israel is and always has been a master of strategy. Read up on the 6-day war and you'll see that they defeated almost every nation around them with a smaller and inferior forces in both the air and on the ground. I have no figures to back them up, but I've read that stat for stat the more recent Mig and Sukhoi fighters have either equalled or surpassed American superiority fighters like the F-14 and the F-15. You can see for yourself the crazy maneuvers that the Russian planes can do at airshows (ignore the fiery crashes! ) I personally love the F-14, and it kinda makes me wince at the thought that a Russian plane can outfly an American built one. However, the war in Iraq and the Balkans showed that it's not the plane, but the pilot and the strategies.

[Graham]

There will always be dogfighting. People having been saying for decades that air to air combat will all be at beyond visual range (BVR) with missiles. Sorry, it usually doesn't happen that way. Most often rules of engagement are so strict that positive ID at visual range has to be made first before firing.

A gun will always be needed for both air-to-air and and CAS type missions. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The thing is that if the F-35 has an internal gunpod, then it's missile or bomb payload gets cut in half (AFAIK). It's going to be a crap poor CAS plane if all it has is only one bomb to drop when the ground pounders call for help. And of course if the F-35 adds external pylons to carry more weapons, then stealth goes out of the window.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The US is placing too much emphasis on radar defeating stealth. There are big improvements being made with other sensors, especially completely passive (non-detectable) sensors such as Infra Red Search & Track (IRST).

We are going to be at a stage soon (if we are not already), where a fighter with a state of the art IRST system, i.e. Eurofighter will be able to find, track, lock on to and fire missiles at another fighter at long range even from head on and even if the other fighter is not using afterburner. Thus the benefits of the F-35s or F-22s radar defeating stealth will be largely negated.

Graham

[the white drew carey]

There will always be dogfighting. People having been saying for decades that air to air combat will all be at beyond visual range (BVR) with missiles. Sorry, it usually doesn't happen that way. Most often rules of engagement are so strict that positive ID at visual range has to be made first before firing.

A gun will always be needed for both air-to-air and and CAS type missions. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The thing is that if the F-35 has an internal gunpod, then it's missile or bomb payload gets cut in half (AFAIK). It's going to be a crap poor CAS plane if all it has is only one bomb to drop when the ground pounders call for help. And of course if the F-35 adds external pylons to carry more weapons, then stealth goes out of the window.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The US is placing too much emphasis on radar defeating stealth. There are big improvements being made with other sensors, especially completely passive (non-detectable) sensors such as Infra Red Search & Track (IRST).

We are going to be at a stage soon (if we are not already), where a fighter with a state of the art IRST system, i.e. Eurofighter will be able to find, track, lock on to and fire missiles at another fighter at long range even from head on and even if the other fighter is not using afterburner. Thus the benefits of the F-35s or F-22s radar defeating stealth will be largely negated.

Graham

Yeah.

Not to mention that the JSF is damned ugly.

[imode]

Isn't the internet great? Okay, I don't know how accuracte this is, but I'll post the link.

http://www.rjlee.org/aakill.html

These are all the air-to-air kills from Gulf War 1 which was 10 years ago. Note, the only two kills were from an internal cannon, both credited to A-10's. Everything else was missile missile missile.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yes but that doesnt mean a gun aint needed no more. If the JSF is to be multirole and replace some F-16s it needs a cannon just in case. Internal would be better to sav on drag crap the A-7 even had a vulcan and we know that thing ...well look at it.

uhmmmmmmmmm yea missles are cheap and stealth is effective but the whole point is stealth is being relieed upon too much. This is not the case with teh F22 B 2 and F117...the JSF itself does not have a dictated role like the previous planes I have mentioned. The JSF is soemthing of an all in one wonder plane which is really an all in one SAMPLER plane...sure it can do stuff but only a lil bit of each...if stealth is the main emphasis then that thing is a waste of money. Now had it been a dedicated striker like the A-7 then yes good itll do its thing but no its not its a kjack of all trades that cant do all trades.

NO matter how good stealth is a gun will ALWAYs be needed on ANY plane that might put up a fight in a knifefight. YEs the Su 27 fanker series might be able to outmanuever the F-15 but have you played the sims? Sure they cant give all teh classififed info away but they give you at least an impression..im not talking about US navy fighters im talking about janes f15 and ssi flanker. Now I will tell you no matter how much the russians SAYT the Su37 is manueverable and such whichevr pilot is knifefighting in that thing will havea much harder time flying than his F-15 mudeagle opponent. The flanker moves good for a big ass plane but its avionics are crap. Not only are they hard to work with they take a lot of SA away from the battle nad you need that to wina fight. The pilot looking down at his IR seeker scope or radar LCD will be the one usually killed first. Note the flanker does not have HOTAS controls. And chances are the cobra and culbit would never be pulled off in a dogfight. I dont thnk any good US military pilot who has at least a basic grasp of dogfighting would ever fall for the cobra trick and get in the sights of the flanker pilot. Theres a reason why while you get close...gotta keep distance as well.

AS david said in an earlier thread thrust vectoring n the flanker wouldnt relaly work as well as its hyped up on tv. The F22 actually uses it better.

To really improve the JSf you need more hardpoints and an internal cannon as well as at least the capability to carry 4 amraams, 2 sidewinders and a vulcan with 400 rounds. SOme ass kick minimally.

[Graham]

Isn't the internet great? Okay, I don't know how accuracte this is, but I'll post the link.

http://www.rjlee.org/aakill.html

These are all the air-to-air kills from Gulf War 1 which was 10 years ago. Note, the only two kills were from an internal cannon, both credited to A-10's. Everything else was missile missile missile.

Yes, chances are that 99% of the time a pilot will not need his cannon in air-to-air combat. However, it's nice to have it for that 1% of the time when it is needed. And let's face it, crap happens!

And a cannon is useful for the CAS role. After other munitions have been expended, a cannon can still be used to strafe ground targets.

Graham

[Graham]

Another "completely forgotten" basic lesson of air combat design:

Go look at a F-35's cockpit (especially a STOVL variant), and tell me how much rearward vision the pilot has. Stealth is nothing if someone can fly right up behind you with 30mm cannons and shoot you full of holes.

Yup, I've also been saying this in several other threads as well. The F-35 has crap rear visibilty.

Having good rear visibility is another lesson that aircraft designers seem to forget between wars.

Graham

[Stamen0083]

Having good rear visibility is another lesson that aircraft designers seem to forget between wars.

Can we assume that the VF-1 Valkyries have rearward looking cameras, then, because I think that those planes have crap as far as rearward vision goes too?

Weird, because the VF-0 has raised bubble canopy.

[Coota0]

F-35's carry AMRAAM's.  That's it.  2 of them, usually.  So much for air superiority.

The F-35 is so far away from it productions date that it would not be hard to envision a hole host of external stores being added to it arsenal, whether it be AIM-9's or AGM-65's.

I read that in a "Low Threat Enviroment" the F-35 would be able to carry external stores in order to carry more ordanance.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

oh crap defniitely does happen. Sparrow laden phantom jocks where in a shock when peasant migs were ambnushing and OUTutning them! and then when right in front..the phantoms couldnt get a kill due to lack of cannon. So i wouldnt say 90% of the time they dont need the cannon I thinkits more along the lines of 75% just to be safe.

Oh and graham the F-14D tomcat was the first navy pane equipped with an IRST. Anyon know if Ef2000 has a mauser cannon in all versions? I heard some were abandoning it which is a shame since the damn thing is so nimble.

IN terms of the Vf=-1 it has crap for rear visibility but is smaller and much more manueverable not to mention has RELIABLE engines compared to VF-0. VF-0 is not any advanced compared to it...look at ti and its like an older plane...I mean its a lot bigger and heavier, has crappier engines, and is nowhere near as aerodynamically "correct" but i still think it looks cool because it bridges the gap between conventional nuke VF and modern jet fighters. The only thing its got over the VF-1 is a bubblke canopy.

[David Hingtgen]

What to add, what to add...

Um, let's see. Oooh! YF-23's have a very low IR signature. And not just the engines, everything. Fewer edges=less friction. And the whole thing's sleek as hell. Low drag, thus low friction thus low heat. YF-23 is very stealthy, both radar AND IR. Sidewinders (and all its cousins) still account for most missile kills, not radar-guided. (And that would imply most kills are made at shorter ranges, too, not 20 miles out) Having a very cool exhaust, and little leading edge friction, makes it hard for even the most advanced IR missile to lock on and track.

Cannons--such a basic, reliable, simple thing to add. Little reason not to. ESPECIALLY CAS. Bombs and missiles have a blast radius, guns do not. Anecdote time:

F-14 pilot (maybe the RIO) shotdown in Iraq. Iraqi's literally chasing him down in a truck, but an A-10 comes in and nigh-vaporizes the truck from behind with its cannon, yards away from the pilot, saving him so he could be rescued soon thereafter. Couldn't do that with a bomb, blast radius would have likely killed the F-14 pilot. Guns==real fast, real accurate. CAS is about operating CLOSE to friendlies. You can use a 4,000lb LGB when you're in the middle of nowhere, or hundreds of yards away from "the good guys". But not when you're talking about second-by-second changes in the situation. Only a gun can be aimed that fast, without having to worry about collateral damage, etc.

[Graham]

Oh and graham the F-14D tomcat was the first navy pane equipped with an IRST. Anyon know if Ef2000 has a mauser cannon in all versions? I heard some were abandoning it which is a shame since the damn thing is so nimble.

IN terms of the Vf=-1 it has crap for rear visibility but is smaller and much more manueverable not to mention has RELIABLE engines compared to VF-0. VF-0 is not any advanced compared to it...look at ti and its like an older plane...I mean its a lot bigger and heavier, has crappier engines, and is nowhere near as aerodynamically "correct" but i still think it looks cool because it bridges the gap between conventional nuke VF and modern jet fighters. The only thing its got over the VF-1 is a bubblke canopy.

I think the IRST on the F14D is a fairly old look down system. AFAIK, on the Eurofighter the IRST image can be displayed on the HUD, so the pilot doesn't need to go heads down. And combined with the helmet mounted sight, off-boresight targeting, low radar cross section, direct voice input, excellent defensive systems, super cruise and low radar cross section makes the Eurofighter an excellent dual role (air and ground) machine (well, at least it will be in it's full-up Tranch 2 or Tranch 3 configuration).

I'll have to check all my literature on the Eurofighter, but I think all versions, both single and dual seat retain the cannon. However, I know that some versions of the French Rafale have deleted it. I think the 2-seat M (marine) version doesn't have it), but I need to check.

The VF-0 also has other advantages over the VF-1, such as an active stealth system and the leg mounted atmospheric FAST packs with micro-missile launchers, meaning in an atmosphere the VF-0 carries more missiles than the VF-1.

Graham

[F-ZeroOne]

The Mig-15 might had an initial advantage in performance and heavier fire power on paper. Yet the Mig was difficult to fly due to its Mid tail arrangement and when later models of the Sabres entered service the gap in performance was less significant.

I think I saw on the history channel that the Mig-15 was superior to the F-86 in almost every way, from speed to max altitude to range and armament. There was also a Korean defector who used his Mig-15 to escape and the tests done on the plane afterwards confirmed it. Of course, the US countered these inefficiences with better tactics, kind of like a Wildcat/Zero situation from World War II with great success. That doesn't mean the F-86 was a better plane.

I wouldn't entirely trust the History Channel for the last word - not when Hurricanes in footage are referred to as Spitfires...

Again, its always a bit relative. The MiG-15 would appear to have had better altitude performance and speed than a F-86, but that same North korean defector also warned the test pilots - one of whom was Chuck Yeager - not to turn on the emergency fuel pump. Not if they still wanted the tail to stay attached to the aircraft at any rate...

The US did have a big advantage in that its pilots had a good deal of combat experience, and that probably more than anything else was the biggest advantage. Yeagers commanding officer pointed out that during the MiG-15 tests, Yeager did things with the aircraft that probably even the Russians hadn't.

Its also interesting that you bring up the Wildcat/Zero subject. Saburo Sakai, a great Japanese ace, once escaped from a swarm of Hellcats - on paper, a much better plane - through the benefit of his much greater combat experience.

Sakai, by the way, had just returned to flying after losing one eye...!

Or then theres the Falklands - on paper, the Argentine aircraft had much higher performance than the Harriers. The difference was geography - the distance the Argentines were operating from - training, and a superior weapons system.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

wow man thats stupid...taking a cannon away from a rafale! crap eben the ruissian planes all have cannons!(all teh fighters)

IN terms of the Mig 15 I think in many ways it was superior but was definitely not thee ultimate better plane. Hell skyraiders shot that thing down in vietnam and an A-4 nabbed it with zunis. I think the mig and sabre were neck and neck its really close. comparing them is nothing like comparing the phantom to the crusader.

In terms of EF2000 I really hope they did not delete the mauser cannon on ANY version! crap eve the tornado its suppposed to replace even the armed recon version still retains 2 cannons!

IN terms of JSF I still think it will flop and ultimately be a waste of money. Who are they kidding. you mineswell jsut keep building more f117s since they do what the JSf is suppposed to do anywyas

@jdams=2lgbs on f117. Not much difference.

[imode]

F-35's carry AMRAAM's.  That's it.  2 of them, usually.  So much for air superiority.

The F-35 is so far away from it productions date that it would not be hard to envision a hole host of external stores being added to it arsenal, whether it be AIM-9's or AGM-65's.

I read that in a "Low Threat Enviroment" the F-35 would be able to carry external stores in order to carry more ordanance.

I think they pretty much want the F-35 to perform a role similar to an F-117, which is to give us the ability to strike silent and independently. They can also be deployed by carrier, so pilots don't have to fly half-way across the world from air bases in North America. Best of all, they're cheap. Less than half the cost of the F-117. Some people have questioned how effective it's stealth capabilities are, but who's to say really? I don't think anyone has that information.

Once air superiority has been achieved (nowadays air superiority doesn't even mean shooting the other guy's airplanes down, it's more like bombing his radar and SAM sites), it will perform a role more like an F-16, carrying more payload. I don't see how this plane can be "worse" than an F-16 as some have claimed. I also don't see this plane ever replacing an A-10 or performing any type of CLOSE air support, but as a multi-role Strike Fighter (JSF) you could probably do a lot worse.

F-14 pilot (maybe the RIO) shotdown in Iraq. Iraqi's literally chasing him down in a truck, but an A-10 comes in and nigh-vaporizes the truck from behind with its cannon, yards away from the pilot, saving him so he could be rescued soon thereafter. Couldn't do that with a bomb, blast radius would have likely killed the F-14 pilot.

Yeah. Having a slow-moving support craft with a nasty cannon spitting hot depleted-uranium death is always a plus. However, that A-10 won't always be up there and when you look in the sky, all you'll see is a F-16 or F-18 or god forbid, a B-52 30,000 feet up with a 1,000 lb. JDAM. If you're running from something-- well then my friend, you are crap out of luck. But if you're being pinned down like what happened to US forces at Mazar E-sharif in Afghanistan, I wouldn't mind a bomb dropping so much. Course the bomb dropped on top of them, but hey! Accidents happen! For all the low/slow flying that A-10's do, they still managed misidentify and proceed to plaster two British tank crews.

Who are they kidding. you mineswell jsut keep building more f117s since they do what the JSf is suppposed to do anywyas

Of course, F-117's cost over twice as much, but we American tax payers don't care, do we?

Edited February 25, 2004 by imode

[ewilen]

Excellent points all, imode! Couldn't have said it better myself.

About the Mig-15/F-86 issue, I met a retired pilot at an airshow at Travis AFB a few years ago, a guy who's in a wheelchair now but had flown F-86's in Korea, the SR-71, and probably Mustangs in WWII and everything in between. His comment on the Mig-15 was that it wasn't very durable. I liked how he put it: "They considered their aircraft expendable. Well, we expended some for them."