On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:12:09 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle:

Maybe and maybe not. The F-35 may not dog fight well , but can it not get info from AWACS , get the enemy fighter on its own radar , and launch a air to air missile which destroys the enemy aircraft before it is within visual range.

Always better to defeat the enemy without being close enough to be fired at.

Dan

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 11:43:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Maybe and maybe not. The F-35 may not dog fight well , but can it not get info from AWACS , get the enemy fighter on its own radar , and launch a air to air missile which destroys the enemy aircraft before it is within visual range.

Always better to defeat the enemy without being close enough to be fired at.

Dan

Should I believe you or should I believe this?

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-...g-range-2015-7

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ignoramus21329 wrote:
Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

Who are you asking?

How long have you been on Usenet?

Why don't you know how to respond so at least people know who you're responding to?

How many times have others complained to you about this?

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

Should I believe you or should I believe this?

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-...g-range-2015-7

Believe the web site you found. Just note that it has plenty of statements like the title. "The F-35 may have big problems fighting at long range " Note the word " may ".

Dan

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:50:05 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ignoramus21329 wrote:
Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

Who are you asking?

How long have you been on Usenet?

Why don't you know how to respond so at least people know who you're responding to?

How many times have others complained to you about this?

He's asking anybody who wants to answer, you stupid freak. Go back to
your rathole and chill out, Bonkers.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-7, slow eddy failed again:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:45:46 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

When (not if) a fighter plane comes in contact with another fighter
flown by the enemy, yes, you'll be in a dogfight if you don't take out
the other plane with a quick shot or missile.

And if you can't outfly the other plane, chances are higher that you
won't be able to outfly the ground attack, either.

The name given to the aircraft is a dead giveaway, Ig: "fighter"

--
Cats regard people as warmblooded furniture.
-- Jacquelyn Mitchard

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:45:49 PM UTC-7, Ignoramus21329 wrote:
Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

Fast food robots will soon make fighter pilots obsolete.

Sukhoi called. They want you to stay in the US and never return to the motherland.

"Ignoramus21329" wrote in
message ...
Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

Not if there are air superiority fighters flying top cover for it. We
learned the risk of sending planes out alone in WW1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_package
"The term is normally applied to ground attack missions, where the
strike package, including the bombers, will attacking the primary
target, fighters to defend them from enemy aircraft, wild weasels to
defend against ground-based anti-aircraft weapons, reconnaissance
aircraft for pre-raid and post-raid reconnaissance and tanker aircraft
to extend the mission radius."

In general bombers, helicopters and ground-attack planes can't
dogfight front-line fighters, one example is the otherwise very
capable Russian Su-25.
http://gawker.com/did-russian-offici...gus-1609071757
"It was sort of weird to hear a Russian general call the Russian SU-25
a "fighter jet." That's because the SU-25 is an "attack jet," a slow,
heavily armored aircraft designed for close air support of ground
troops. It's not designed to be very effective at air-to-air
intercepting and dogfighting."

The famed British Harrier / US AV-8B, which the F-35 replaces, has the
subsonic-only flight performance of the early 1950's and can't
dogfight a fighter from the 1960's.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15893
"Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in
the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn't been able to achieve
yet or can't do and people completely missing what we've already
achieved.

The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has
flown it says that it's easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build
jet airplanes and do this, we've never ever been there before. We've
never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it's
conventional counterparts. We've never done that before in 60 years of
trying."

STOVL = Short TakeOff, Vertical Landing. They can take off vertically
for demonstrations if lightly loaded but not with weapons and full
fuel.

The Il-2 was the definitive example of a dedicated ground attack
aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2
"The 23 mm armament of Il-2 was subject to a competition. One of the
first 1940 photographs of the Il-2 show it equipped with two MP-6 guns
developed by Yakov Taubin (???? ??????) at OKB-16."

"Subsequently, in May 1941, development of the MP-6 gun was terminated
and Taubin was arrested and summarily executed in October that year.

Sounds like the CCCP was a good place to be -from-.

-jsw

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:45:46 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

In today's world it is doubtful that a "dogfight" in the concept of a
WW I dogfight is even possible due to the speed. Cruising speed of an
F-15, for example, is 500 MPH. Two aircraft approaching each other at
a combined speed of 1,000 MPH can't even see each other for more than
a very limited time, say 3 seconds.

If you were to go to afterburner than you are talking about a combined
approach speed of almost 4,000 MPH.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 2015-10-08, John B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:45:46 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

In today's world it is doubtful that a "dogfight" in the concept of a
WW I dogfight is even possible due to the speed. Cruising speed of an
F-15, for example, is 500 MPH. Two aircraft approaching each other at
a combined speed of 1,000 MPH can't even see each other for more than
a very limited time, say 3 seconds.

If you were to go to afterburner than you are talking about a combined
approach speed of almost 4,000 MPH.

Right.

I think that fighter plane dogfight is like a bayonet attack. Both are
examples of tactics of past wars. They are no longer flying and shooting
cannons at each other. They shoot missiles from a distance. Same with
bayonetting. Still possible but not really very useful.

I do own a bayonet rifle. I would hate to have to bayonet anyone.

i

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:56:06 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

On 2015-10-08, John B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:45:46 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

In today's world it is doubtful that a "dogfight" in the concept of a
WW I dogfight is even possible due to the speed. Cruising speed of an
F-15, for example, is 500 MPH. Two aircraft approaching each other at
a combined speed of 1,000 MPH can't even see each other for more than
a very limited time, say 3 seconds.

If you were to go to afterburner than you are talking about a combined
approach speed of almost 4,000 MPH.

Right.

I think that fighter plane dogfight is like a bayonet attack. Both are
examples of tactics of past wars. They are no longer flying and shooting
cannons at each other. They shoot missiles from a distance. Same with
bayonetting. Still possible but not really very useful.

I do own a bayonet rifle. I would hate to have to bayonet anyone.

i

I can't comment on a fighter to fighter action as I was in SAC, but a
fighter(interceptor) to bomber action consists of ground control, who
have the big radar, controlling the interceptors until they are either
in visual, or more likely their onboard radar, contact, whereupon the
interceptors activate their rockets.

As far as I know there never was any plans for a fighter escort for
the B-52's, at least the missions where they were armed with atomic
weapons, and the B-52's that flew from Guam in the Vietnam war were,
as far as I know, unescorted. Nor do I think that the ones that flew
from Thailand were.
--
cheers,

John B.

"Ignoramus21329" wrote in
message ...
On 2015-10-08, John B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:45:46 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

In today's world it is doubtful that a "dogfight" in the concept of
a
WW I dogfight is even possible due to the speed. Cruising speed of
an
F-15, for example, is 500 MPH. Two aircraft approaching each other
at
a combined speed of 1,000 MPH can't even see each other for more
than
a very limited time, say 3 seconds.

If you were to go to afterburner than you are talking about a
combined
approach speed of almost 4,000 MPH.

Right.

I think that fighter plane dogfight is like a bayonet attack. Both
are
examples of tactics of past wars. They are no longer flying and
shooting
cannons at each other. They shoot missiles from a distance. Same
with
bayonetting. Still possible but not really very useful.

I do own a bayonet rifle. I would hate to have to bayonet anyone.

i

BVR or Beyond Visual Range combat with missiles has been the goal for
50 years, while WVR, Within Visual Range combat surrounded by plenty
of your friends whom you don't want to risk hitting with stray
missiles is the recent historical reality. The ROE, Rules of
Engagement, have forbidden shooting before positive visual
identification, especially where enemy aircraft are rare.
http://smokeandstir.org/2013/02/15/p...at-you-prefer/

There hasn't been enough combat between first-rate air forces since
WW2 to really know what will happen when large, well-trained forces
collide, and the experts aren't revealing their best estimates.
http://hushkit.net/2014/01/09/the-to...er-assessment/

It's always possible that a higher assessment of opposing aircraft is
an attempt to increase funding for your own.

One of the lessons of WW2 was that almost all prewar theories about
air power had been wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3
"It had been designed for high-altitude combat but combat over the
Eastern Front was generally at lower altitudes where it was inferior
to the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 as well as most modern Soviet
fighters."

Painful experience soon led to the superior Yak series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-9

In contrast aerial combat over Germany went to extreme altitudes as
the bombers climbed above effective Flak range. The US P-40 which
fought well at lower altitudes in China and North Africa was useless
over Europe. The British Spitfire, an excellent dogfighter both high
and low, lacked and never gained the range to escort raids over
Germany.

On the other side the Luftwaffe had planned to support the Wehrmacht
tactically and neglected long-range strategic bombing, allowing us to
build up the Normandy invasion force in Britain unhindered and Stalin
to move his massive war production out of reach, while our air power
forced German factories to widely disperse and go underground, and
then crippled the transportation they needed to move materiel [war
supplies] between them.
http://germanyinworldwar2.com/Germanfuelshortage.htm
The German fuel crisis significantly aided Zhukov's advances.
"Meanwhile the army, too, had become virtually immobile because of the
fuel shortage."

FYI
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/

-jsw

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:53:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Believe the web site you found. Just note that it has plenty of statements like the title. "The F-35 may have big problems fighting at long range " Note the word " may ".

Dan


What I posted is just the tip of the iceberg on the problems with the F-35.

Jim, I am going to read the links that you have provided. Thanks a
lot.

i

Or from El Paso to Guam or to England or Alaska or Maine.
If jet fighters wanted to come, another base would have to be
alerted.

But considering a modern Jet coming up on some Bear bombers and
he was out of air to air - a small cannon or 50's would be nice to
have. Else all he would have is wake with his afterburners to cause
them to touch each other...

Martin

On 10/8/2015 6:42 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:56:06 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

On 2015-10-08, John B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:45:46 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

In today's world it is doubtful that a "dogfight" in the concept of a
WW I dogfight is even possible due to the speed. Cruising speed of an
F-15, for example, is 500 MPH. Two aircraft approaching each other at
a combined speed of 1,000 MPH can't even see each other for more than
a very limited time, say 3 seconds.

If you were to go to afterburner than you are talking about a combined
approach speed of almost 4,000 MPH.

Right.

I think that fighter plane dogfight is like a bayonet attack. Both are
examples of tactics of past wars. They are no longer flying and shooting
cannons at each other. They shoot missiles from a distance. Same with
bayonetting. Still possible but not really very useful.

I do own a bayonet rifle. I would hate to have to bayonet anyone.

i

I can't comment on a fighter to fighter action as I was in SAC, but a
fighter(interceptor) to bomber action consists of ground control, who
have the big radar, controlling the interceptors until they are either
in visual, or more likely their onboard radar, contact, whereupon the
interceptors activate their rockets.

As far as I know there never was any plans for a fighter escort for
the B-52's, at least the missions where they were armed with atomic
weapons, and the B-52's that flew from Guam in the Vietnam war were,
as far as I know, unescorted. Nor do I think that the ones that flew
from Thailand were.
--
cheers,

John B.