Posted on 07/07/2015 8:02:37 AM PDT by C19fan
The aerial dogfight was not supposed to happen. On May 20, 1967, eight U.S. Air Force F-4C fighters were patrolling over North Vietnam when they spotted as many as 15 enemy MiG-17 fighters a short distance away.
Fog and the MiGs’ low altitude had prevented the F-4s from detecting the North Vietnamese jets from farther away.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
Slightly OT, but about the F-4: proof you can get just about aything to fly, so long as you put big enough engines on it.
CC
No point on building a fighter if it can’t fight. No point on building a multi-role aircraft if it doesn’t operate as advertised.
The F15/16/18 have done a great job over the years and are still superior aircraft to anything out there today. Granted, the Chinese J series can do this and the Russian Sukoi can walk on its tail, and the Grippen and Eurofighter are capable of.....
Big whoop. Until they demonstrate it in battle, like the F35 they are expensive job creators and that’s about it.
the f-35 sucks stories are quite sensational, much like the article on the M1 Tank that said the engine would die in anything but near perfect conditions.
Yes the F-35 is not the best dog-fighter neither was the F-14 (it was supposed to lob AIM 54’s at long range into bomber formations attacking the fleet)
I wish we could have Dog Fighter that could also do every thing but.. there are always trade offs.
I’ve said over and over, the f-35 is an overpriced piece of garbage.
Ping.
Later F4s were retrofitted with cannon for close combat. To fight MiG-17 the USAF shoulda reconditioned F-86s with modern engines, Gatling guns and equipment... it woulda been the slaughter of the MiG (IMHO) and Aces would’ve been many. Old designs are sometimes are best as the B-52 will testify... there are much more modern bombers... but any ground commander will always want a B-52 overhead! But as with all things government (then and now)... the most complicated and expensive option is always preferred.
I think I referenced this in an earlier article.
Actually, having read and participated in that thread, what was said was that the specific prototype F-35 that lost to the F-16 didn’t have the dogfighting software and hardware (cueing helmet) installed. And that the dogfight between the two wasn’t intended to actually test the full up F-35 production suite against an F-16.
The fantasy will last until the first a$$ kicking is received.
Put lasers on it.
The pilots helmet was too large to allow him too turn his head in the canopy.
We do not know all the details of the exercise where it lost to an F-16 or F-15. Whatever is the case.
In any event, the F-4 Phantom was a long time ago. The military technology has SLIGHTLY IMPROVED.... (sarcasm off) since the early 1950s when they were testing the F-4.
the debate can be settled if the so called “whiz kids” accept this fact...
fighters fight...
bombers bomb...
close air support provides close air support..
attack aircraft attack..
electronics warfare aircraft jam...
And so has the politicking, featherbedding, ticket-punching, and procurement system. [Sarcasm on absolute max.]
Cui Bono? is the issue. NOT technology.
In the end, it is usually the pilot that makes the difference.
If you ever a get a look at the stats, American (and Israeli) pilots have waaaaaay more flight hours in their aircraft than most potential enemies. That, more than anything indicates what the outcome of actual combat will be.
That is, assuming, our pilots don’t have asinine doctrine or rules of engagement inflicted upon them. We lost a lot of pilots in Pacific because nobody believed the Japanese were capable of building a fighter as formidable as the A6M Zero, or training its pilots to such an incredible edge. If our pilots had know what they were up against, we might have done much better during the winter of 1941-42.
Here come the homos and trannies...commanders and pilots.
The new Air Force.
The F35 had better work and better than advertised or we’re going to lose a lot of pilots in any peer to peer confrontation.
The only good thing I can see is they at least put a twenty mm gun on board for close in dog fighting use.But it won’t do much good if the plane can’t maneuver when it. Needs to.
I can’t believe that Lockheed-Martin would have built a dog of a plane.I. Guess they need to resurrect Kelly Johnson to give them some insights into what a fighter aircraft requires.
Lockheed Martin F-22 would certainly gain from it. So it would not surprise me if they are behind this push.
How many dog fights have we had since 911?
Everyone is always trying to fight the previous war instead of the next one.
Here is a documentary about that competition if you are interested.
Building the F-35 Full Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPvzEr33maM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.