Genius F-16 designer explains why the F-35 is a Flying Duck

[Don1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W...56F52AE793E7E6

[Jawge]

Yuh still at it. He is talking about dogfights that's WWII and Vietnam stuff. The last time the US fighter jets engaged an enemy, it was two miles away. The US pilot downed the target and flew back to base (never laid eyes on it).

Boss at times you must listen. Don't you think the stealth helicopters (which you did not know existed) were tested on super computers and ran through many simulations. I bet they were field tested too. Guess what? One malfunctioned in Pakistan.

If one should go by your poems the US as we speak is without air defence and is subject to an air attack. Well you could be right; as this may be the reason to buy one used aircraft carrier from Russia (based on the jet capabilities they only need one )

[Don1]

Hmmmm... So let's see the matchup.

On one hand we have the opinions of a forumite with ZERO background in theoretical or practical aeronautics.... and on the other a celebrated designer of several of tbe World's most successful aircraft....

Sorry... no contest ... you're excused

[Time]

Yuh still at it. He is talking about dogfights that's WWII and Vietnam stuff. The last time the US fighter jets engaged an enemy, it was two miles away. The US pilot downed the target and flew back to base (never laid eyes on it).

Boss at times you must listen. Don't you think the stealth helicopters (which you did not know existed) were tested on super computers and ran through many simulations. I bet they were field tested too. Guess what? One malfunctioned in Pakistan.

If one should go by your poems the US as we speak is without air defence and is subject to an air attack. Well you could be right; as this may be the reason to buy one used aircraft carrier from Russia (based on the jet capabilities they only need one )

The US did not engage in dog fights with the Iraqi air force because the IAF planes were not equipped with RADAR to find the USAF planes or with jammers to jam the USAF radar. The situation will be different when the USAF meet an enemy with stealth aircraft and ability to jam RADAR. It will be dog fighting by visual rules all over again.

[Don1]

The US did not engage in dog fights with the Iraqi air force because the IAF planes were not equipped with RADAR to find the USAF planes or with jammers to jam the USAF radar. The situation will be different when the USAF meet an enemy with stealth aircraft and ability to jam RADAR. It will be dog fighting by visual rules all over again.

That's pretty basic...so why do you think Jawge doesn't know this??

Maybe he thinks the USA designs aircraft specifically to defeat the likes of Iraq and Venezuela?? LOL

[Willi]

Yes, fighting Russians/Chinese/French/Saudi/Israel/UK/Scandies/Aussie/Brazil/Canada/even Egypt & perhaps Indonesia is a different matter.

[Sir X]

Jawge frighten fi all tings American,di bredda waah wi enforce Monroe doctrine when America naah do it inna Jamaica and Nicaragua.

Im nuh tink say America waah Chiney man fi build canal and trade routes fi hook dem on dem Oil and American goods.

Friendly trade will dictate the New World order,Globilization is it.Small nations like us have to realize that our strength will be to play all sides in this war,wi caaan ave no friends ,only trade interest.

[Mosiah]

But can the USA designs compete with those from the Somali Valley?!?

[Mosiah]

Just makes little sense. Jawge frighten fi everything yankee, yet he is into science and mathematics?!?!

HUH?!?!?

[Tilla]

The US did not engage in dog fights with the Iraqi air force because the IAF planes were not equipped with RADAR to find the USAF planes or with jammers to jam the USAF radar. The situation will be different when the USAF meet an enemy with stealth aircraft and ability to jam RADAR. It will be dog fighting by visual rules all over again.

I doubt we will see us going back back to visual method of detection of planes in flight. RADAR is a 70 plus year old technology and it will be replaced by GPS tracking/mapping, which is much more accurate. I read on article on that some time ago that this will be the next frontier.

There is also LIDAR which could replace RADAR, although some issues with it needs to be straightened out. LIDAR could out perform RADAR as well.

A visual system has too many limitations for anyone to really depend on it. It may take a combination of the others to overcome each other's deficiencies and create something better than each on its own.

[Don1]

Within visual range engagement is still critical to aerial warfare.... the big limiting factor in warfighting outside visual range in a crowded aerial environment is the inability to reliably distinguish friend from foe

IFF systems are inadequate and GPS or LIDAR don't solve that problem

[Don1]

But can the USA designs compete with those from the Somali Valley?!?

Mek wi aks Ben

[Time]

I doubt we will see us going back back to visual method of detection of planes in flight. RADAR is a 70 plus year old technology and it will be replaced by GPS tracking/mapping, which is much more accurate. I read on article on that some time ago that this will be the next frontier.

There is also LIDAR which could replace RADAR, although some issues with it needs to be straightened out. LIDAR could out perform RADAR as well.

A visual system has too many limitations for anyone to really depend on it. It may take a combination of the others to overcome each other's deficiencies and create something better than each on its own.

Every detection method can be defeated. At some point two stealth aircrafts are going to meet in close combat under visual identification because they can't detect each other with electronics. The better dog fighter will win.

The Phantom 4 was designed without a canon because 'dog fights' days were 'over' because air to air missile made them redundant. It was later learned that the same rules of dog fighting applied to air to air missile combat. The missiles were just a bullets with a longer range and the missile to missile dog fight was done at a longer range. The USAF had to go back to dog fighting school (Top Gun) in order to use missiles effectively.

[Tilla]

Sorry, I guess I missed the dog fight in your argument. Dogfight is close combat in which case one fighter can or should be able to visually see the other. In those situations, then they more likely will rely on visual along with visual enhancements to give them an advantage. So things like say 360° vision (helped by cameras) and heads up display would keep the pilot informed on where the enemy is located at any point in time is what I would expect to see. I am of the opinion that the older day visual fight will not be on the table as modern day pilots would be at too much an advantage with what is available today.

I also think that the pilots will (if they don't already) have means of helping each other determine who is friend and who is foe.

[Tilla]

Within visual range engagement is still critical to aerial warfare.... the big limiting factor in warfighting outside visual range in a crowded aerial environment is the inability to reliably distinguish friend from foe

IFF systems are inadequate and GPS or LIDAR don't solve that problem

Good points. It is the reason I said any system they come up with may have to draw from each technology in areas where one is weak.

I thought of LiDAR earlier as some years ago I worked with an OEM that designs and manufactures surveillance equipment for the security forces and the Dept of Homeland Security. We were working on using LiDAR to produce 3D maps of areas with moving vehicles. The idea was to map an area and produce 3D images of the space to help the security forces better identify vehicles in the crowd.

We had very many obstacles and "frustrations" if you will allow me to say so. And yes, there was a lot of research and analysis that went into this.

Back to your point though, the crowded aerial environment and identifying friend from foe is certainly a challenge.