thunderchief
Senior Member
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Well, pilots of previous generations successfully used their eyeballs in dogfights since WW1 I'm not saying DAS is not useful , especially if it works as advertised in adverse conditions or night, but it is not something you could not live without . Standard IRSTs on 4th gen fighters like Su-30 and Su-35 already have good coverage (+- 90 deg in azimuth , +60 deg -15 deg azimuth ) . It is very questionable could F-35 escape from that zone in close combat .
Kloss says " lightly loaded air-to-air configuration" - that is not a fighter armed only with the gun, that is fighter armed with 2,4, or 6 AAMs (depends on type involved ) . And that is a very realistic scenario - just check the pics of Russian Su-27 or Chinese J-11 in recent incidents . Yup, they were not loaded to the maximum of their capabilities .
That is open for debate. It assumes distinct advantage in avionics, which may or may not be present. It also assumes various anti-stealth technologies developed today would not be effective .
In order to spot an enemy aircraft, you'll need to know it's there and where to look. That's where the DAS combined with HMD is useful. Pilots of previous generations of fighters still need to use their own eyeballs and make sure they don't lose the target out of sight. The F-16 is a small jet, the F-35 is only a bit bigger. An F-16 pilot will need to work hard to keep track of the JSF visually, while the F-35 has DAS to back him/ her up.
Well, pilots of previous generations successfully used their eyeballs in dogfights since WW1 I'm not saying DAS is not useful , especially if it works as advertised in adverse conditions or night, but it is not something you could not live without . Standard IRSTs on 4th gen fighters like Su-30 and Su-35 already have good coverage (+- 90 deg in azimuth , +60 deg -15 deg azimuth ) . It is very questionable could F-35 escape from that zone in close combat .
Well it already stated a cleaned off f-16 vs. a loaded f-35. A clean F-16 would only have an internal gun. When you put missiles on, it's getting dirty with extra drag already. In your source it is also mentioned: The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement--especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. "It's really good at performing in that kind of configuration," Kloos says. "But that's not a configuration that I've ever--I've been in a lot of different deployments--and those are the configurations I've never been in with weapons onboard."
Kloss says " lightly loaded air-to-air configuration" - that is not a fighter armed only with the gun, that is fighter armed with 2,4, or 6 AAMs (depends on type involved ) . And that is a very realistic scenario - just check the pics of Russian Su-27 or Chinese J-11 in recent incidents . Yup, they were not loaded to the maximum of their capabilities .
If a flight of F-35s meet fighters over badguy land, they'll have the upper hand to decide whether to engage or not due to stealth + escort jamming. If they decide to engage, they'll have the luxury to choose the best position for a shot that'll maximize the chance of a kill.
That is open for debate. It assumes distinct advantage in avionics, which may or may not be present. It also assumes various anti-stealth technologies developed today would not be effective .