[Flipside]

Later versions of the F14 did a lot to alter that, I agree, I still think it's a pity they didn't continue, I think the plane had potential as a smaller, more manoeuvrable version.

If I remember correctly, the biggest threat to carrier groups at the time of the F14's conception was bombers carrying long-range torpedoes, which does, on reflection, explain a lot of the design choices.

Edit: I might split out the F14 discussion as it seems to be turning into a thread of its own

[IceFire]

Sounds like the military is in a bit of a pickle.  Even if the F-22 can dogfight God and all his angels, at the current inventory and with the apparent  readiness rate/logistics issues that isn't going to cut the mustard.  The JSF is an air to ground specialist with its on issues, and all the teen era fighters are feeling their age and are no longer superior to their Russian counterparts.  I assume we still have an edge in training and AWACs/Electronics/Coordination in order to stay ahead with the equipment we have but still thats pretty FUMTU.  I don't suppose they can update the bejesus out of some of the teen era designs and build new airframes? 

It will be interesting to see what comes out of it, I don't think we can expect F-15Es and Vipers to carry the load by themselves.

They are indeed in a bit of a pickle.

The biggest problem is once again that the Su-27 variants now available for export from Russia are now better than the F-15 is 1 v 1 assuming the full package of electronics and missiles and assuming the pilot is better.  But lets take the pilot out of the discussion for now.

Also Western doctrine tends to assume a disadvantage in numbers can be counter balanced by an advantage in capability (through technology mostly although tactics too). The F-15 was that advantage in capability and its still quite good but its starting to be overtaken.

The F-35 is not actually a strictly purpose built strike fighter as it was designed largely to be a F-16 replacement (with aspects of the Harrier incorporated as well).  The F-16 came about because the F-15 was expensive so a cheaper model was needed too.  The F-22 and the F-35 share a similar position.  The trouble is the the F-35 introduces a slew of new capabilities and technologies but its performance is anticipated to be at the F-16 level and possibly not quite as good in some of the really close in dogfighting capabilities.  Its stealthier, its sensors are incredible, but its also heavier with greater wing loading, and has a similar range (which is not as good as the F-15, F-22, Su-27, etc.).  So the worry is that a F-35 and a Su-27 in a close in battle will see the F-35 loose most of its advantage with the more agile Su-27.

[General Battuta]

Ground control and AWACS make all the difference, to be honest.

[TrashMan]

Extreme bull****. The JSF is a STRIKE-fighter. It's a CAS and attack plane first and foremost. Aerodynamically even venerable designs like the F-18 outperform it not to mention the F-16. It doesn't have all aspect stealth, so if you send it into contested airspace with bandits in the air, prepare to take severe losses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbnsr2oF2gM

and also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiry7ysVA9Y
because I love it

[TrashMan]

It did have some good things going for it to make a multirole aircraft, though, including potentionally massive payload and high straight-line speed. The prototypes that came out of the 21 program included terrain-following flying gear and extensive guided weapons integration since they were expected to have to pull the duty previously carried by the A-6. They also had new engines and some rudimentary vectored thrust ability. The vectored thrust probably wouldn't have made it into the final version, though.

Wasn't the quickstrike version a smaller, one-seated, nimbler variant of the F-14? That one also got canned IIRC.

[Flaser]

Extreme bull****. The JSF is a STRIKE-fighter. It's a CAS and attack plane first and foremost. Aerodynamically even venerable designs like the F-18 outperform it not to mention the F-16. It doesn't have all aspect stealth, so if you send it into contested airspace with bandits in the air, prepare to take severe losses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbnsr2oF2gM

and also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiry7ysVA9Y
because I love it

Congratulations. You've just posted videos form a "de-facto" propaganda/weapons-advert show.
Nothing factual, no studies, no credible and balanced source of information. What I said still stands.
BTW:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html

At least this source cites several factual bits of information with appropriate sources.

[NGTM-1R]

Wasn't the quickstrike version a smaller, one-seated, nimbler variant of the F-14? That one also got canned IIRC.

As far as I am aware, no such aircraft ever progressed beyond the minds of some Beltway Bandit.

[Flipside]

Wasn't the quickstrike version a smaller, one-seated, nimbler variant of the F-14? That one also got canned IIRC.

As far as I am aware, no such aircraft ever progressed beyond the minds of some Beltway Bandit.

I can see the reasoning behind it though, one of the real strengths of the F-14 was it's multi-targetting system, it could independently track 6 targets and guide missiles towards them at once which, at the time, was some impressive hardware. The ability to get one of those behind enemy lines with AMRAAM or the like probably seemed quite appealing, at least up until the birth of something like the F-18 Hornet.

[Colonol Dekker]

The only way we progress is through trial and error..

[TrashMan]

Congratulations. You've just posted videos form a "de-facto" propaganda/weapons-advert show.
Nothing factual, no studies, no credible and balanced source of information. What I said still stands.
BTW:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html

At least this source cites several factual bits of information with appropriate sources.

Of course they won't be giving data sheets. This is after all, a entertainment show. Just dumping crude data is boring.
But you kinda miss my point here.

A plane doesn't have to be the most nimble aircraft ever designed to be able to dogfigh efficiently. First of all, aiurcraft dotn' perform the same under all conditions. For example - dogfighting at high alitidues and dogfighting at low altitudes are completely different and a fighter that excells at high altitudes can become twice as sluggish at low altitude. There are a LOT of factors involved into digfighting, so you can't just take a look at 2-3 stats and claim "X is so awesome, Y is crap".

The JSF looks like a capable, heavily armed craft. And heavily armed means a lot these days. Dogfighing is a rarity in modern warfare, not the norm. Most arial combat starts and ends at a lot bigger ranges.

[Flaser]

Congratulations. You've just posted videos form a "de-facto" propaganda/weapons-advert show.
Nothing factual, no studies, no credible and balanced source of information. What I said still stands.
BTW:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html

At least this source cites several factual bits of information with appropriate sources.

Of course they won't be giving data sheets. This is after all, a entertainment show. Just dumping crude data is boring.
But you kinda miss my point here.

A plane doesn't have to be the most nimble aircraft ever designed to be able to dogfigh efficiently. First of all, aiurcraft dotn' perform the same under all conditions. For example - dogfighting at high alitidues and dogfighting at low altitudes are completely different and a fighter that excells at high altitudes can become twice as sluggish at low altitude. There are a LOT of factors involved into digfighting, so you can't just take a look at 2-3 stats and claim "X is so awesome, Y is crap".

The JSF looks like a capable, heavily armed craft. And heavily armed means a lot these days. Dogfighing is a rarity in modern warfare, not the norm. Most arial combat starts and ends at a lot bigger ranges.

Please, read the goddamn article I posted!
It primarily deals with BVR, not dogfighting.

[Colonol Dekker]

The JSF is meant to be heavily armed for the first few days of war, enabling it to get in and take out (by comparison to modern western powers) weak C3 systems and defensive emplacements. After thate "softening period" (remember the opening of Gulf War2?) The JSF is stripped down for CAP and escort. Read the dev brief 

[Mika]

: Looks at the whole discussion and is amazed :

I never thought there would be this many aviation experts in here.

Me, I only consider taking some glider flying lessons at some time in future.

Though those who really are interested might want to go to www.f-16.net
and check F-22 forum for the Air Force and Lockheed Martin comments about the Washington Post article.

[General Battuta]

Congratulations. You've just posted videos form a "de-facto" propaganda/weapons-advert show.
Nothing factual, no studies, no credible and balanced source of information. What I said still stands.
BTW:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html

At least this source cites several factual bits of information with appropriate sources.

The JSF looks like a capable, heavily armed craft. And heavily armed means a lot these days. Dogfighing is a rarity in modern warfare, not the norm. Most arial combat starts and ends at a lot bigger ranges.

Pretty much untrue. Long-range engagements have been fairly rare. Those dogfights that have occurred have been in pretty close.

However SAMs are (and will remain) a much bigger threat.

[TrashMan]

Pretty much untrue. Long-range engagements have been fairly rare. Those dogfights that have occurred have been in pretty close.

Dogfights are pretty much close by definition.

If you take out an enemy at 30km it's not considered a dogfight, and most of the modern air combat ends like that.
There's a nice show called Dogfights on Discovery channel. It shows you that dogfights become more and more rare and that the dogfights that did happen, happened mostly because someone made an error and actually let the enemy close in.

[Dilmah G]

Only in a perfect world will you detect enemies at BVR range every time, there are a few things pilots can do to sneak in to visual range, and as such it's not really an *error*, but more a case of good piloting by the hostile pilot.

[Colonol Dekker]

People need to start citing evidenciary backup to nullify retorts.........

[Dilmah G]

Uncle: Mi-24 pilot, helicopters but still, flying below radar range still works and was a common practice when he flew in the 90s. And also, coming in on your target's six o'clock is good exploitation of the lacking in forward facing radar.

[TrashMan]

Only in a perfect world will you detect enemies at BVR range every time, there are a few things pilots can do to sneak in to visual range, and as such it's not really an *error*, but more a case of good piloting by the hostile pilot.

Things like taking 10 minutes so identify contacts as hostile? Cause that's one of the examples of modern air combat that occured during Desert Storm. Another one includes a flight of 4 F-15 shooting down 3 enemy Mig-29's at long range.
There are more examples, but most dogfights scenarios were WW2 or Vietnam era ones.

[General Battuta]

Dekker's right, we need to start citing sources other can YouTube crap and the Discovery Channel.