Originally Posted by
rossmum
Yeah, but at least you know you're buying something that will work, and you know exactly how it'll react to your environment. At the very least I think they should hold some F-111s over until they're sure the F-35 is the best replacement.
Australia has actually been testing the F-35 for a long time now, so I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing (though judging from your description of Australian' government, I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed up somewhere down the line). They'll probably keep some F-111s over as trainers and second-line fighters (read: home defence).
Are you serious? Show me an air-to-air missile which can keep up with a Cobra. They can't; they'd overshoot completely, and so would the enemy fighter which fired it, putting the Russian fighter on its tail. It's not a regular turn, dude. Due to the high AoA the initial stages of the Cobra would look like the aircraft is about to begin a steep climb, which would throw off a pursuing pilot on a guns pass as they will try and lead for it climbing. With the closing speed you get in modern fighters, by the time he realised otherwise it would be too late.
Don't be fooled into thinking that because of missiles, manoeuvrability is irrelevant - if anything, it's more important than ever. Thrust vectoring and the ability to turn almost literally on a dime are tremendous advantages in aerial combat, which is why the US now uses it on their aircraft, too.
Wait to fire the missile, or like I said, use your cannon. You stay sufficiently far away such that when you see him begin to pull the turn, you fire, which will put the missile or stream right on target. The while initiating the Cobra, there's not a whole lot you can do to get out of the way. This is why it's being debated whether or not the Cobra or related are viable combat manoeuvres; simple training and conditioning (plus experience) can pretty much nix any advantage gained by using it. And if you dive after overshooting, then you have a chance to end up behind him again anyways, because the enemy not only has to level out, he then has to angle downwards, and that is putting a helluva lot of stress on both pilot and plane.
Come off it. If anything, my post was a counter to all the anti-Russian, excessively arrogant and nationalistic comments the more ignorant Americans plaster Russian aircraft videos with on Youtube. Thankfully, not all of them are so full of themselves that they assume the US is always the best. Look up the Avro Canada Arrow, bro. Actually, look up the English Electric Lightning while you're at it.
I am not saying that Russian jets are inferior, they've actually had an edge over US models since the early stages of the Cold War, but usually lost because their pilots were generally not of the same caliber. However, I don't think the US is playing catch-up, it just has different priorities. The infrastructure for the F-22 is there to be reinstated if it comes to it, but I honestly don't think that we'll be fighting the advanced Sukhoi's or the Eurofighter any time soon, so we focus on something that enables us to perform Desert Storm-type operations with near impunity. A SAM is more easily evaded by being invisible than it is by pulling a high-g manoeuvre.
Also, the amount of America bashing in this forum grates after awhile, so excuse me if I came off a bit harsh with that tag.
If anything, they should cut the F35 and feed that money back into the F-22.
I think they should cut all the F-35 models except the B, because we need a VTOL aircraft after retiring the Harrier. We operate off of improvised airfields almost as much as carriers, and both are situations where having STOL and VTOL are advantageous. The F-35 is also stealthier than the F-15, which makes it more ideal to the situation outlined above. Granted, the F-22 is perfect for that too, but it's too expensive to keep flying in the same numbers as our current planes.
?
Bookmarks