Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JSF 'no match' for latest Russian fighters or Chinese radar
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/jsf-no-match-for-latest-russian-fighters-or-chinese-radar/story-e6frg8yo-1226265180090 ^

Posted on 02/07/2012 4:14:53 PM PST by kronos77

THE stealth qualities of the futuristic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on order for the Royal Australian Air Force are overrated and the plane's combat performance greatly exaggerated, a defence lobby group has claimed.

The complaints by Air Power Australia, longtime critics of the $16 billion JSF acquisition, were made last night before a public hearing of parliament's defence sub-committee.

Latest-generation Russian fighters such as the Sukhoi T-50 would easily defeat the F-35 in air-to-air combat, Air Power's Peter Goon said, referring to recent modelling tests by his organisation.

"The aircraft we are planning to buy is carrying over 2000 pounds (900kg) of dead weight," Mr Goon said, referring to the JSF's big jet engines.

New Russian and Chinese air defence radars would also have little trouble detecting the JSF, a craft touted for its stealth qualities, he added.

The RAAF says it wants 100 US-designed JSFs to replace the decommisioned F-111 strike aircraft, with the first squadron supposed to be operating by 2018.

But the program has been mired in cost overruns and delays.

Last month US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the purchase of US JSFs to be delayed to allow Lockheed-Martin time to resolve production and technical shortcomings.

The company is contracted to deliver the first two training aircraft in 2014 with another 12 scheduled for 2015-17.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith has said he is now considering an option to order additional F/A-18F Super Hornets to fill any capability gap created by further JSF production delays.

(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: aerospace; airforce; australia; f35; jsf; navair; russia; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 02/07/2012 4:14:56 PM PST by kronos77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kronos77

But, can the Super Hornet take on the T-50?


2 posted on 02/07/2012 4:20:20 PM PST by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kronos77
I always enjoy reading a little fiction from clueless bastards....


3 posted on 02/07/2012 4:21:11 PM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kronos77

FR aviation-types: Is there any truth to the assertation that the F35 is inferior to the T50?


4 posted on 02/07/2012 4:21:58 PM PST by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kronos77

It’s the pilot not the plane.


5 posted on 02/07/2012 4:22:36 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


6 posted on 02/07/2012 4:24:46 PM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kronos77

Interesting article... If the JSF is so bad in comparison to the Russian and Chinese designs then how come the Chinese have done everything in their power to steal every secret it has? And those efforts have been successful in delaying the program over and over again.

http://defensetech.org/2012/02/06/did-chinese-espionage-lead-to-f-35-delays/


7 posted on 02/07/2012 4:25:50 PM PST by The Working Man (The mantra for BO's reign...."No Child Left a Dime")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

The Goon Show, back on Down Under.


8 posted on 02/07/2012 4:25:53 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Eh ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
Right now its pure speculation since neither airframe is in active service yet...Both are still in either in development or preparing for aircrew training at this time.


9 posted on 02/07/2012 4:27:10 PM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

It’s the “Two Ronnies” that I like here!


10 posted on 02/07/2012 4:28:00 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

interesting, considering 35% of our aircraft are pilot-less.

the future will be thousands of drones versus a handful of 1980s tech

any cost overruns are, of course, planned to help handicap / cripple US air superiority


11 posted on 02/07/2012 4:30:02 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kronos77

They said the same things about the MiG-25 Foxbat until a Soviet defected in one.

Found out that every time they attained the incredible performance the engine would fail.

Read the book by the defector, after actually seeing one of them no one was impressed. Unground rivets on wings etc.

Not hi-tech.

Say BS!


12 posted on 02/07/2012 4:31:03 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kronos77
Talk about FUD. First, if the Aussies are buying the F-35 to replace their recently retired F-111Cs, then they bought the wrong aircraft. A better replacement in terms of speed, payload, range, and twin engine safety would have been the F-15E. As a bonus, the F-15E would have been a better air-to-air dogfighter than the F-35 will be.

The F-35 is a multirole strike fighter, not an air superiority fighter. As such, I wouldn't expect it to be able to out-fly the T-50 or Su-30.

I would expect it to out-bomb them, however.

13 posted on 02/07/2012 4:31:10 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

Best air superiority fighter (guns on guns, no missiles) is the F-16. I had a flight in one and it’s the best thing you’ll ever have with your clothes on.


14 posted on 02/07/2012 4:34:00 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

The truth is that phase radar has taken away the stealth.


15 posted on 02/07/2012 4:34:53 PM PST by org.whodat (Sorry bill, I should never have made all those jokes about you and Lewinsky, have fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

IIRC when that Foxbat flew to Japan the USAF and JSDF found vacuum tubes among its electronic components. Years later Soviet apologists would say they were there to make the Foxbat less vulnerable to EMPs. The Japanese model outfit Hasegawa had a detailed model of the Foxbat on the market about two months after the defection.


16 posted on 02/07/2012 4:35:21 PM PST by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

That used to be somewhat true, but not so much anymore. Essentially, our entire air superiority doctrine is now built around first-look/first-shoot, and we rely upon our technology to do that.

If a 4th generation fighter manages to close in on an F-35, the newer fighter’s advantages largely disappear, leaving it in a knife fight with a more agile and maneuverable foe.

We threw in the towel on fair fighting a long time ago. Our whole strategy revolves around being invisible and untargetable.

What this article does NOT explain to my satisfaction, however, is why the F-35 is “no match for newer Communist bloc radars.” We know the Serbs downed an F-117, and we also know how.

The thing is, the trick the Serbs used isn’t something you can pull off anywhere or anytime. You have to have certain elements in place before hand and you also have to be looking specifically for a certain something (or lack thereof) to even point your missile in the right general direction.


17 posted on 02/07/2012 4:38:24 PM PST by Heavyrunner (Socialize this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kronos77

I think it was nearly fifty years ago that McNamara edicted one design to replace multiple specialized ones. That didn’t work out then, either. Some people never learn.


18 posted on 02/07/2012 4:47:34 PM PST by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kronos77
"...Sukhoi T-50 would easily defeat the F-35 in air-to-air combat, Air Power's Peter Goon said, referring to recent modelling tests by his organisation..."

I wonder if those were climate modeling computers they used?

19 posted on 02/07/2012 4:48:32 PM PST by Islander7 (There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Talk about FUD. First, if the Aussies are buying the F-35 to replace their recently retired F-111Cs, then they bought the wrong aircraft.

This is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense around (not that you are responsible for that, I realise you are just repeating what others are saying).

The F-35 was not intended by either the RAAF or the ADF in general to be a replacement for the F-111. It just happens that we have stopped using the F-111 at about the same time as we are waiting for the F-35s and so some people have talked about the F-35s replacing the F-111s.

Australia originally ordered the F-111 in the 1960s in a very different strategic environment. We went with the F-111 over other choices to give us two specific capabilities - one, strategic strike capability on targets in South East Asia, and two, to give us a nuclear capable bomber if we decided to acquire nuclear weapons.

We have never needed either of these two capabilities, and when the F-111 was reaching the end of its life, it was decided that we didn't need to look for a replacement with those capabilities now. We are never likely to acquire nuclear weapons at this stage (unless the world changes dramatically) and the strategic strike capability we wanted can now be better handled by ship or aircraft launched missiles which can be fired by other aircraft or ships.

In essence, Australia hasn't tried to replace the F-111 because we do not believe we have the same needs for those capabilities in our modern strategic environment, that we needed at the height of the cold war.

We used the F-111s because we had them but, to a large extent, the way we've used them has been as a much lighter strike aircraft.

The F-35 is the replacement for the F-18s more than anything else.

20 posted on 02/07/2012 4:48:36 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Heavyrunner
I think the F-18 Hornet is a pretty good fighter. Still, my hearts love is the F-16. I learned air combat maneuvers at Air Combat USA. I've taken several of their flights and learned a lot from those guys. We flew SIAI Marchetti-260's. Okay sure, they're prop but WOW!!!! You get into a furball rat chase with those guys and it's a blast!!!!

Photobucket

21 posted on 02/07/2012 4:51:26 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
it's kinda like apples and oranges...
22 posted on 02/07/2012 4:52:43 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Uh, an AMRAAM will kill about 50 miles outside of gun range. You need to alive to be superior....


23 posted on 02/07/2012 4:54:53 PM PST by Kozak ("It's not an Election it's a Restraining Order" .....PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kronos77

How much is truly known about the Russian T-50?


24 posted on 02/07/2012 4:56:39 PM PST by Erik Latranyi (Gingrich=Tea Party, Romney=Gerald Ford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

They could even get a f-15se now.


25 posted on 02/07/2012 4:59:40 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

“If the JSF is so bad in comparison to the Russian and Chinese designs then how come the Chinese have done everything in their power to steal every secret it has?”

With respect, the Chinese are probably working to steal US secrets related to steam valves and felt tip pens almost as much as they are working on mil secrets.


26 posted on 02/07/2012 5:04:40 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (The only economic certainty: When it all blows up, Krugman will say we didn't spend enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

If they have to rewrite code, it should be no problem getting some H1-Bs to do it on the cheap.


27 posted on 02/07/2012 5:05:22 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kronos77
Here's another "analysis" comparing dogfight qualities of the F-35 to the new birds from everyone else.

First, this is NOT an air superiority fighter and was never intended to be. Second, put US Avionics and Weapons in it and YES, it would defeat the Russian and Chinese birds easily.

Without a dogfight.

Sheesh, what passes for defense analysis now days...

28 posted on 02/07/2012 5:05:27 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
They said the same things about the MiG-25 Foxbat until a Soviet defected in one.

Is that the one western "experts" speculated had an outer skin of titanium that turned out to be just plain steel?


29 posted on 02/07/2012 5:05:45 PM PST by Iron Munro ("Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight he'll just kill you." John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sten
"the future will be thousands of drones versus a handful of 1980s tech"

The F35 can control those drones through it's RADAR.

30 posted on 02/07/2012 5:07:09 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Get down in ground clutter.


31 posted on 02/07/2012 5:09:55 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
It’s the pilot not the plane.

Agreed, the training of the pilot, his/her skills and the application of his/her ship is what is important (of course you can add in intangibles too such a luck, divine intervention and what else you can think of) but the first three are important. It is quite possible where you could have an F-100/MiG-19 win over a Su-30/F-22 although if I had to take something up, I'd want at least an F-4 or something made from 1960/1965 onward. Actually jet fighter performance in the physical world such as max speed, range and maneuverability pretty much plateaued at about 1960, from then on, it was mainly improvements in avionics/computers and stealth, the latter I think is overrated IMHO.

I'm a believer in Kurt Vonnegut where he wrote in his 1958 story, "The Manned Missiles," where you had UAV's fight each other in the future to a stalemate where you had the idea of using manned aircraft and manned kamikaze missiles being used to overcome the artificial intelligences of the UAV's.
32 posted on 02/07/2012 5:15:12 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Holodeck Computer: End Obama Administration simulation program, NOW!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

I read that too about the MiG-25, when you took it about Mach 2.5, you had to nurse the engine, otherwise it would crap out on you.


33 posted on 02/07/2012 5:16:33 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Holodeck Computer: End Obama Administration simulation program, NOW!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; kronos77

The way I remember that is that, yes, everyone laughed at the round-head rivets and the vacuum tube radar...that is, until a year later when the report was released. It said the round-rivets were used in non-aerodynamic areas and that US planes (Phantoms) built in the same time frame as the MIG also used vacuum tube radar, and that the Russian radar was more powerful than ours. People weren’t laughing any longer.


34 posted on 02/07/2012 5:17:49 PM PST by Imnidiot (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

IIRC, pulse CW radar can detect stealth aircraft, a technology that was used by Chain Home by the UK in the late 1930’s and World War II.


35 posted on 02/07/2012 5:19:05 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Holodeck Computer: End Obama Administration simulation program, NOW!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Hell, everything we buy in this country is made in China.

Don’t be surprised if most of the parts of the F-35 are also made there.


36 posted on 02/07/2012 5:20:21 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

How does the F-22 stack up against the F-16 IYO?


37 posted on 02/07/2012 5:20:28 PM PST by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Imnidiot
I was aware that the round rivets were in unimportant areas.

I knew about the tube radar issue.

But my point was that what we observed as “performance” (climb rate). Always caused engine failure.

Others mentioned it is the pilot and not necessarily the plane.

The Japanese Zeros in WWII out maneuvered our fighters, but tactics overcame that. They had little armor.

38 posted on 02/07/2012 6:10:44 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 70times7

Don’t know.


39 posted on 02/07/2012 6:16:31 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Yep, plain stee.


40 posted on 02/07/2012 6:16:48 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

But the UAV’s are manned to an extent. It’d be one ground pilot against another. My feeling is that when your plane is out of missiles what are you left with? Guns. And the one who is up on ACM will win the day.


41 posted on 02/07/2012 6:19:21 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.


42 posted on 02/07/2012 6:42:42 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

This is now old news they have extended the range on the newer version. http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.52/system_detail.asp


43 posted on 02/07/2012 6:43:03 PM PST by org.whodat (Sorry bill, I should never have made all those jokes about you and Lewinsky, have fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Islander7
"...Sukhoi T-50 would easily defeat the F-35 in air-to-air combat, Air Power's Peter Goon said, referring to recent modelling tests by his organisation..."

I wonder if those were climate modeling computers they used?

Probably so. As we all know, the God-like, flawless intelligence that went into the AGW modeling programs allows them to model just about anything with just a few parametric tweaks. A config parameter adjustment here & there, and lo & behold, your super computers are modeling strike fighter performance rather than global warming.

As such, no wonder the JSF was no match for the T-50. The model would quickly allow the T-50 to recognize the persistent hockey stick flight pattern of the JSF, and kill it every time.

44 posted on 02/07/2012 6:55:55 PM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; Imnidiot

The Mig 25 Foxbat was largely used for surveillance and interceptor roles. For these two purposes, the plane served well.

The engine required replacement only if the aircraft was tested to its limits: + mach 3.2 speeds.

The rivets, like Imnidiot mentioned, were in non-aerodynamic areas, and therefore economically better designed than ones wasting labour-expensive, aerodynamic rivets all over the aircraft.

Western intelligence and the MiG-25:

MiG-25RBSh with markings of 2nd Sqn/47th GvORAP (Guards independent recce Regiment)

Inaccurate intelligence analysis caused the West initially to believe the MiG-25 was an agile air-combat fighter rather than an interceptor. In response, the United States started a new program which resulted in the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. NATO obtained a better understanding of the MiG-25’s capabilities on 6 September 1976, when a Soviet Air Defence Forces pilot, Lt. Viktor Belenko, defected, landing his MiG-25P at Hakodate Airport in Japan.

The pilot overshot the runway on landing, damaging the landing gear and making the MiG-25 un-airworthy. It was carefully dismantled and analyzed by the Foreign Technology Division (now the National Air and Space Intelligence Center) of the United States Air Force, at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. After 67 days, the aircraft was returned to the Soviets in pieces. The analysis, based on technical manuals and ground tests of engines and avionics, revealed unusual technical information:

* Belenko’s particular aircraft was brand new, representing the very latest Soviet technology.

* The aircraft was assembled very quickly, and was essentially built around its massive Tumansky R-15(B) turbojets.

* Welding was done by hand. Rivets with non-flush heads were used in areas that would not cause adverse aerodynamic drag.

* The aircraft was built of a nickel alloy and not titanium as was assumed (though some titanium was used in heat-critical areas). The steel construction contributed to the craft’s 64,000 lb (29,000 kg) unarmed weight.

* Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (21.6 m/s²) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s²). One MiG-25 withstood an inadvertent 11.5 g (112.8 m/s²) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the resulting deformation damaged the airframe beyond repair.

* Combat radius was 186 miles (299 km), and maximum range on internal fuel (at subsonic speeds) was only 744 miles (1,197 km) at low altitude (< 1000 meter).

* The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines. A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight led to the destruction of its engines.

* The majority of the on-board avionics were based on vacuum-tube technology, not solid-state electronics. Although they represented aging technology, vacuum tubes were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for providing complex environmental controls inside the avionics bays. In addition, the vacuum tubes were easy to replace in remote northern airfields where sophisticated transistor parts might not have been readily available. With the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P’s original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name “Foxfire”) radar had enormous power – about 600 kilowatts. As with most Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as rugged as possible. The use of vacuum tubes also makes the aircraft’s systems resistant to an electromagnetic pulse, for example after a nuclear blast.

CITATION: Broad, William J. “Nuclear Pulse: Awakening to the Chaos Factor” and others.

Science, Volume 212, 29 May 1981, pp. 1009–1012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25#Western_intelligence_and_the_MiG-25


45 posted on 02/07/2012 7:07:38 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thanks.


46 posted on 02/07/2012 7:19:46 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

ping


47 posted on 02/07/2012 7:37:32 PM PST by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heavyrunner

Nonsense. Stealth technology has always been and still is detectable with low band transceivers. Datalink the output to a fire control transceiver manned by competent techs and the solution isn’t that difficult. Stealth technology reduces detection range it does not make one invisible. The Serbs did nothing extraordinary. The Brits tracked F-117s using shipboard RADAR during Desert Storm. Crappy tactics and air force arrogance is what led to the loss of that plane in 1999.


48 posted on 02/07/2012 7:55:34 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 70times7

I had the opportunity about 6 months ago to spend some time with a former USMC and Air National Guard pilot who retired as a Col. after 28 years. He had flown combat in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had flown every fighter in the US inventory except for the F-22, and as I sat in his house looking at all the plaques on the wall, I could easily see this guy was Sierra Hotel. He’d gone to all schools, Top Gun, you name it. He had testimonials, pictures of him with famous people shaking hands, you could tell he made a mark.

I asked him what it was like flying against an F-22, and he said it was like being a baby seal. Not even close.

“Like being a baby seal...”

Those were his words...


49 posted on 02/07/2012 8:05:48 PM PST by rlmorel ("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
That is what I had heard - that our best pilots in our best hardware were “dead” before they even knew the Raptor was in the vicinity. I am no expert on the subject by any means, but I sure would have preferred that the billions that were pissed away on the bailouts and green energy were spent on the F-22 program. Damn shame.
50 posted on 02/07/2012 9:02:39 PM PST by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson