srbknight 925 Posted July 1, 2015 Jez. Of course that every possible unit will be defending it's country from foreing occupants, but in the peace time law enforcement (any kind of it) is not considered to be a part of defense. By that logic, I can write about regular citizens of USA in here cos they would be defending their homes in case of war. Ministry of Interior is not Ministry/Department of Defense, no matter what vehicles and weapons it has and is not to be categorized as part of the defense other than in extraordinary times (war). yes but i am talking about heavily armed police and units an PTJ SAJ Gendermerie that have this kind of equipment right now in inventory! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Degman 73 Posted July 1, 2015 yes but i am talking about heavily armed police and units an PTJ SAJ Gendermerie that have this kind of equipment right now in inventory! I know what you mean, but it's still Ministry of Interior. Every country has anti-terrorist units and special police that posses armored vehicles and modern weapons, but their missions are not defense of a country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) I know what you mean, but it's still Ministry of Interior. Every country has anti-terrorist units and special police that posses armored vehicles and modern weapons, but their missions are not defense of a country. Yes you have right about MoI well trust me army of Serbia is in deep mud right now and Police is only armed with this things for problems with southern part of Serbia that proclaims independence from us ---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ---------- Less maneuverability than every current US aircraft in inventory is that only pain of Joint strike fighter presented 15 years ago by lockheed martin can someone from United States expand to us what is happened with this stealth fighter ? https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875 Edited July 1, 2015 by SRBKnight Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Degman 73 Posted July 1, 2015 F-35 is to be followed by F-22 Raptors if it will be ever sent on battlefield. Also, dogfights doesnt exist anymore, so perhaps it could stand a chance. Missiles are what matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 1, 2015 F-35 is to be followed by F-22 Raptors if it will be ever sent on battlefield. Also, dogfights doesnt exist anymore, so perhaps it could stand a chance. Missiles are what matters. maybe could be true the air defense and missiles are working in both thing but the aircrafts with this price must be able for everything ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistyronin 1181 Posted July 1, 2015 maybe could be true the air defense and missiles are working in both thing but the aircrafts with this price must be able for everything ! Why? That doesn't make any sense. The money went to get a stealth design for a strike fighter, not a good dogfighter., and that's what they got. That's also the reason for the limitations of its gun. If you pay a lot of money for apples, you get good apples, not pears. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drebin052 324 Posted July 1, 2015 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875 "Unnamed pilot" and "latest damning report" with no link provided to it? I don't see this report being cited elsewhere by any other sources other than War Is Boring either, so this looks like another yet another sensationalised "F-35 is useless!" article... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Why? That doesn't make any sense.The money went to get a stealth design for a strike fighter, not a good dogfighter., and that's what they got. That's also the reason for the limitations of its gun. If you pay a lot of money for apples, you get good apples, not pears. lol Not all that glitters is gold :D ---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ---------- "Unnamed pilot" and "latest damning report" with no link provided to it?I don't see this report being cited elsewhere by any other sources other than War Is Boring either, so this looks like another yet another sensationalised "F-35 is useless!" article... more articles http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/the-us-defence-force-has-discovered-its-f-35-program-is-a-trillion-dollar-blunder/story-fnpjxnlk-1227423586922 http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-fighter-jet-from-the-1980s/ http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/mondo/figuraccia-f35-sconfitto-vecchio-f16-test-guerra-1146973.html The Diplomat is more close to government so i guess it's more valid ! Showing the F-16 beat F-35 in dogfight and maneuverability seems F-16 would not give up US has confirmed two years before that F-35A will replace f-16 in current inventory Also British daily mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html Edited July 1, 2015 by SRBKnight Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drebin052 324 Posted July 1, 2015 more articles http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/the-us-defence-force-has-discovered-its-f-35-program-is-a-trillion-dollar-blunder/story-fnpjxnlk-1227423586922 http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-fighter-jet-from-the-1980s/ http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/mondo/figuraccia-f35-sconfitto-vecchio-f16-test-guerra-1146973.html Italian and more things Showing the F-16 beat F-35 in dogfight and maneuverability seems F-16 would not give up US has confirmed two years before that F-35A will replace f-16 in current inventory First of all, news.com.au is the Australian equivalent of the DailyMail, ergo it's a highly sensationalist news source that gets its "news" second hand and also tends to like mixing its own rubbish into it. Secondly it references War Is Boring here as its only source, again with the "unnamed pilot" story: “The evaluation focused on the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified manoeuvres in a dynamic environment,†the F-35 tester wrote in the report obtained by Medium. The same applies to The Diplomat, it too references War Is Boring as its only source to the "report": However, according to a report obtained by War is Boring, defending itself against legacy 4th generation air-superiority fighters is perhaps too tall of an order for the F-35. A five-page report by a test pilot of an aerial combat exercise over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California in January 2015 notes that the F-35 could not beat the F-16 in a close-range dogfight (aka “visual range air-to-air engagement testsâ€). Translated by Google, the third article references a report from the DailyMail here. It doesn't reference War Is Boring, but considering the wording it's highly likely that the writer just rewrote the article from them, which isn't surprising considering the DailyMail's standards so... According to reports from the Daily Mail, "the most expensive weapon of war in American history, during a test of 'dogfight' (combat aerial view head to head) over the Pacific Ocean near the base of Edwards in California has proved too slow " compared to most tested F-16. The simulation saw the two fighters collide at close range between 3 thousand and 10 thousand meters of altitude. In the clash pilots tried to crash each other, obviously without using real weapons. None of them provide the name of the pilot or a link to the report either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 1, 2015 First of all, news.com.au is the Australian equivalent of the DailyMail, ergo it's a highly sensationalist news source that gets its "news" second hand and also tends to like mixing its own rubbish into it.Secondly it references War Is Boring here as its only source, again with the "unnamed pilot" story: The same applies to The Diplomat, it too references War Is Boring as its only source to the "report": Translated by Google, the third article references a report from the DailyMail here. It doesn't reference War Is Boring, but considering the wording it's highly likely that the writer just rewrote the article from them, which isn't surprising considering the DailyMail's standards so... None of them provide the name of the pilot or a link to the report either. I don't really care about US f-35 but i found the news that might be interesting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drebin052 324 Posted July 1, 2015 I don't really care about US f-35 but i found the news that might be interesting No problem. The issue lies with journalists who just write clickbait anti-F35 articles for the heck of it (War Is Boring and people like Bill Sweetman are especially guilty of this). The F-35 may have problems, but it's not the disaster that they try to portray it as. And I honestly have yet to see a single 5th gen fighter that hasn't gone past its initial budget margins or delivery date due to constantly shifting requirements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 1, 2015 No problem.The issue lies with journalists who just write clickbait anti-F35 articles for the heck of it (War Is Boring and people like Bill Sweetman are especially guilty of this). The F-35 may have problems, but it's not the disaster that they try to portray it as. And I honestly have yet to see a single 5th gen fighter that hasn't gone past its initial budget margins or delivery date due to constantly shifting requirements. well always when i read something i trust it 50% then i do some researches and i got some truth 1.f-35 is expensive and stop 2.Less maneuverability comparing it to actual USAF aircraft's 3. it's much less stealthier when it have to flew into rain mission or something like that 4. New helmet is too big to look behind your six 5.sure it could be much cheaper 6.It's beautiful and hot aircraft 7.but for me F-15 and F-16 are the Kings of US aircraft industry ! and one thing i hate fifth gen aircraft's because of their construction and look i always prefer old 3rd or 4th generation of aircraft's ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drebin052 324 Posted July 1, 2015 1.f-35 is expensive and stop For all intents and purpose, this guy sums up the F-35's situation very well: Every new military procurement program is expensive, and the F-35 is no exception to that considering it is the first true multirole fighter that uses exclusively 5th gen tech as opposed to a mixture of 4.5 and prototype technology like the F-22; hence why the F-22 is twice as expensive as the F-35 and was cancelled with so few active numbers (it's a very good platform but not cost-effective for anything other than air superiority). The catalyst behind the F-35's huge costs were amplified because of the fact that all three variants needed to cater towards not just the USAF/USN/USMC, but also to U.S. allies who each have their own doctrine and therefore require different specs for their planes. For example the F-35's costs were already down $7.4 billion last year to $11.5 billion this financial year compared to the projections back in 2012 where it spiked due to the new software and restructuring changes that were made. Once that settled down, the costs followed as the GAO reports from last year and this year showed. This downward trend will continue now that the F-35 is officially in mass production and not in LRIP (where it was most expensive), and will continue to drop so as long as no more major changes are introduced to the platform. 7.but for me F-15 and F-16 are the Kings of US aircraft industry ! Kings during the Cold War perhaps, but it's not 1991 any more. While I don't want to sound like an armchair general, with the current way world geopolitics are heading towards, my two cents are that proxy wars between nations with ties to the U.S. and those of the East are most likely going to become a common sight, and those allies will not be going up against downgraded export models of Chinese/Russian fighters. If the U.S. wants to keep its technological lead ahead of its opponents then it can't just stick with the bare minimum by upgrading only legacy platforms and not getting any new airframes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) For all intents and purpose, this guy sums up the F-35's situation very well: Every new military procurement program is expensive, and the F-35 is no exception to that considering it is the first true multirole fighter that uses exclusively 5th gen tech as opposed to a mixture of 4.5 and prototype technology like the F-22; hence why the F-22 is twice as expensive as the F-35 and was cancelled with so few active numbers (it's a very good platform but not cost-effective for anything other than air superiority). The catalyst behind the F-35's huge costs were amplified because of the fact that all three variants needed to cater towards not just the USAF/USN/USMC, but also to U.S. allies who each have their own doctrine and therefore require different specs for their planes. For example the F-35's costs were already down $7.4 billion last year to $11.5 billion this financial year compared to the projections back in 2012 where it spiked due to the new software and restructuring changes that were made. Once that settled down, the costs followed as the GAO reports from last year and this year showed. This downward trend will continue now that the F-35 is officially in mass production and not in LRIP (where it was most expensive), and will continue to drop so as long as no more major changes are introduced to the platform. Kings during the Cold War perhaps, but it's not 1991 any more. While I don't want to sound like an armchair general, with the current way world geopolitics are heading towards, my two cents are that proxy wars between nations with ties to the U.S. and those of the East are most likely going to become a common sight, and those allies will not be going up against downgraded export models of Chinese/Russian fighters. If the U.S. wants to keep its technological lead ahead of its opponents then it can't just stick with the bare minimum by upgrading only legacy platforms and not getting any new airframes. those aircrafts are unbeatable in the air ! still there is F-16F block 60 that is maybe better than some new aircrafts and also f-15SE silent eagle that is stealth i guess but without too much change on design ! F-22 is so nice but seems to me that US is not want to give them leading of air force Edited July 1, 2015 by SRBKnight Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vilas 477 Posted July 2, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Degman 73 Posted July 2, 2015 The F-22 Raptor was supposed to be the most advanced airplane that ever flied, being dominant in literally every field and that's why companies working on it had constant issues that led to eventual abortion of a program (note that it was a first such as attemp in a modern history). The F-35 is F-22's successor and it has the same radar, improved electronics and solved problems, however it is not as good in dogfight (which is unimportant today), but still is dominant to every other airplane. His radar + AMRAAM AIM-120 missiles ensures air survivability, while its air-to-ground capabilities ensures it's multi-role efficiency. 1 trillion of dollars is 1 trillion of dollars, yes, but that's the cost of progress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 3, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html OMG is this is ridiculous ! ---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ---------- The F-22 Raptor was supposed to be the most advanced airplane that ever flied, being dominant in literally every field and that's why companies working on it had constant issues that led to eventual abortion of a program (note that it was a first such as attemp in a modern history). The F-35 is F-22's successor and it has the same radar, improved electronics and solved problems, however it is not as good in dogfight (which is unimportant today), but still is dominant to every other airplane. His radar + AMRAAM AIM-120 missiles ensures air survivability, while its air-to-ground capabilities ensures it's multi-role efficiency. 1 trillion of dollars is 1 trillion of dollars, yes, but that's the cost of progress. i don't know about Radars i am not so sure Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Degman 73 Posted July 3, 2015 Su-30/35 vs F-35 ? Please, read some fighter specs before posting this or visiting such as websites that are providing false informations and/or creating absurd compartments that even doesn't include important things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 3, 2015 Su-30/35 vs F-35 ? Please, read some fighter specs before posting this or visiting such as websites that are providing false informations and/or creating absurd compartments that even doesn't include important things. That's funny but it's true Russian fighters had longest range of radars and missiles latest AIM-120C-7 with 105km or latest AIM-120D (C-8) can't even reach distance if it's compared to AA-X-13 Arrow Russian (R-37) then K-100-1 maybe AA-10 Alamo or R-27 can be compared to AiM-120 but still the sources said that there is no such similar comparable missile to be counter apart to Russian missiles! Su-30MKK Has While lacking an APAR, the Su-30MKK radar system can detect targets at distances up to 400 kilometers, as well as tracking up to aerial targets and engage up to eight of these targets simultaneously. Sukhoi Su-30MKK has owes these capabilities to its new Irbis phased-array radar control system. The system was developed by Tikhomirov Instrument Engineering Research Institute, a KRET subsidiary, and is being manufactured by the Ryazan State Instrument Factory, another subsidiary of KRET. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sooke 13 Posted July 3, 2015 It doesn't make much sense. What's a F/A-18 A-F ? It's an average of the capabilities of the entire F-18 serie ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sudayev 27 Posted July 3, 2015 Top risk alert in USA. Intelligence warns about possible terrorist attacks during 4th July weekend http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-authorities-gear-july-4-amid-worries-isis-inspired-n385176 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 3, 2015 It doesn't make much sense. What's a F/A-18 A-F ? It's an average of the capabilities of the entire F-18 serie ? actual version of the aircraft desing A-F (A,B,C,D,E,F) (compared to their design most of these version has not a lot of changes only engines on super hornet) as you can see the source is from 2003 and US navy air force had actual F-18e/f blk 20 in usage ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
negah 26 Posted July 3, 2015 What is a chance of a missile hitting plane at ranges of 100km? With modern/near future (russian/chinese) planes having some sorts of stealth technology and therefore reduced payload most encounters will most likely work like "get in missile range, shoot at that point on the radar, turn around to outrun/outrange the enemy missiles, repeat until bingo fuel/out of missiles". So one day they will have to engage each other in dogfight range to actually get some shit done. Really people believed that planes will not get into dogfights in Vietnam war, which led to early versions of Phantoms lacking cannons which was a big mistake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sooke 13 Posted July 3, 2015 actual version of the aircraft desing A-F (A,B,C,D,E,F) (compared to their design most of these version has not a lot of changes only engines on super hornet) as you can see the source is from 2003 and US navy air force had actual F-18e/f blk 20 in usage ! lol what ?! That's like saying a Su-27 is the same as a Su-30. Maybe you can post this sort of crap on russian forums and everyone applauds but in here you better know what you're talking about. The F-18E is a lot more than a F-18C with new engines...Get a clue, please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
srbknight 925 Posted July 3, 2015 lol what ?! That's like saying a Su-27 is the same as a Su-30. Maybe you can post this sort of crap on russian forums and everyone applauds but in here you better know what you're talking about. The F-18E is a lot more than a F-18C with new engines...Get a clue, please. well it's not even from russian forum it's from Australian web site but ok tell me what is your opinion or source about this aircrafts f-35 or F-22 their radar ranges missiles capabilities ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
