F-35
Jul 9, 2014 22:12:43 #
Jul 9, 2014 22:17:33 #
Believe it or not, Eisenhower pointed out the same thing....only it didn't have to do with building mansions for the homeless. However, what is the alternative to air superiority?
Jul 9, 2014 22:19:46 #
Are you referring to the Military Industrial Complex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
SteveR wrote:
Believe it or not, Eisenhower pointed out the same thing....only it didn't have to do with building mansions for the homeless. However, what is the alternative to air superiority?
Jul 9, 2014 22:33:00 #
According to this, the F35 is a joint effort between eight nations. Here's a look at a very informative video, About five minutes long or less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RtrL77IeGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RtrL77IeGc
Jul 9, 2014 22:39:15 #
We now have the same problem the German's had in WW II. Our stuff is often too high a tech level than it needs to be, just because we can do it. The result is fewer units of the weapon system. A ton of good weapons used by very good or excellent operators can whip a handful of excellent weapons if they are willing to take casualties to do so.
Tiger or Leopard tank way better than the Sherman, but we built over 50,000 of the suckers. Like a Russian field marshal said: "Quantity has a a quality all its own."
Tiger or Leopard tank way better than the Sherman, but we built over 50,000 of the suckers. Like a Russian field marshal said: "Quantity has a a quality all its own."
Jul 9, 2014 22:48:19 #
robertjerl wrote:
We now have the same problem the German's had in W... (show quote)
I think that works with tanks, but not necessarily with planes that fly at Mach 3.
Jul 9, 2014 23:28:56 #
SteveR wrote:
I think that works with tanks, but not necessarily with planes that fly at Mach 3.
What plane are you referring to that flies at mach 3?
Jul 9, 2014 23:40:10 #
The Japanese Zero was much better than the P-40 in most regards. P-40 pilots learned to get up high wait for the Zeros to pass by then dive and use the speed built up to get away. "One pass, haul ass."
During Vietnam the Sky Raider pilots used to play a game with the jet pilots who called their planes Spads because they were prop planes. They would dive on jets in the landing pattern, turn on their gun cameras, score a camera kill and then run off at grass cutting level where the jets couldn't follow them.
During Vietnam the Sky Raider pilots used to play a game with the jet pilots who called their planes Spads because they were prop planes. They would dive on jets in the landing pattern, turn on their gun cameras, score a camera kill and then run off at grass cutting level where the jets couldn't follow them.
Jul 9, 2014 23:56:28 #
I said something previously about the F-35 and air superiority. Having done some reading, the F-35 was not build as an air superiority fighter, which is why the F-22 must stay in service to support the F-35. The F-22 is our air superiority fighter. Ha!! Originally it was built with out of date computers that wouldn't even be found in current X-Box games, and must now all be updated....and here I thought the F-22 was this kind of fighter of the future!!!
Jul 10, 2014 06:05:28 #
robertjerl wrote:
We now have the same problem the German's had in W... (show quote)
Like that last statement.
Jul 10, 2014 08:43:16 #
Old warfare, new warfare. The difference is you've got to be able to get close. You can't hit it if you can't see it, which is why the combination force of the F-35 and F-22 will be so effective.
Jul 10, 2014 09:49:54 #
Well you can hit what you can't see (with your eyes that is) with the advanced radar on most modern aircraft.
The biggest problem with these 2 aircraft is the complexity. Too many advanced systems being deployed all at once. Start simple and build on it over time.
The biggest problem with these 2 aircraft is the complexity. Too many advanced systems being deployed all at once. Start simple and build on it over time.
SteveR wrote:
Old warfare, new warfare. The difference is you've got to be able to get close. You can't hit it if you can't see it, which is why the combination force of the F-35 and F-22 will be so effective.
Jul 10, 2014 10:10:04 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
The Soviet tanks were much better than the German tanks.
The problem with the German tanks was not sophistication but the fact that each was built to a different standard even though they had the same nomenclature designation. Thus, often parts interchangeability was not possible.
US doctrine did not call for a heavy tank and thus we did not have one to combat the Tiger but we countered the German Tiger with the Pershing which had a 90mm gun.
The problem with the German tanks was not sophistication but the fact that each was built to a different standard even though they had the same nomenclature designation. Thus, often parts interchangeability was not possible.
US doctrine did not call for a heavy tank and thus we did not have one to combat the Tiger but we countered the German Tiger with the Pershing which had a 90mm gun.
robertjerl wrote:
We now have the same problem the German's had in W... (show quote)
Jul 10, 2014 10:57:32 #
nakkh wrote:
Well you can hit what you can't see (with your eyes that is) with the advanced radar on most modern aircraft.
The biggest problem with these 2 aircraft is the complexity. Too many advanced systems being deployed all at once. Start simple and build on it over time.
The biggest problem with these 2 aircraft is the complexity. Too many advanced systems being deployed all at once. Start simple and build on it over time.
The answer to that is stealth technology, speed, and counter measures.
Jul 10, 2014 11:32:37 #
Gitzo wrote:
What plane are you referring to that flies at mach 3?
SR 71
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.