"Revealed: How China and Russia Could Destroy..." Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleCan you identify the specialist?
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleScenario ideas from Afghanistan in 2002.
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 28 Jul 2015 9:25 p.m. PST |
… America's F-35 in Battle. "After the leaking of a report about the recent failure of an F-35 to win in a dogfight against an F-16D, debate has intensified about the future nature of air to air combat. In a recent Strategist post, Andrew Davies identifies the importance of combining long-range air-to-air engagement using ‘Beyond-Visual Range Air to Air Missiles' (BVRAAMs), with the advantage bestowed by stealth technology to reduce detectability of the aircraft, as well as exploiting superior sensors, information processing and electronic warfare capability. Davies also notes that it is yet to be demonstrated how effective these capabilities will be in a future operational environment, stating "…there are reasons to wonder how effective the F-35's bag of tricks will be into the future, especially as counter-stealth systems evolve, and I'd like to see it carry more and longer-ranged weapons…" Clearly the F-35 was designed to undertake a particular approach to air-to-air combat in mind (long-range attacks) rather than close-in dogfighting. This highlights a key question that is now generating significant debate: "Are our current assumptions about future air combat—that BVR engagement will dominate and ‘dogfights' have had their day "—correct?…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Saber6 | 28 Jul 2015 9:32 p.m. PST |
|
paulgenna | 29 Jul 2015 6:28 a.m. PST |
A recent article on Defense News said the Marines were ready to sign-off on the F-35B. I find it hard to believe any branch is willing to go backwards on an aircraft with the hopes it will work out in the future. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 29 Jul 2015 7:13 a.m. PST |
The marines left themselves with no other choice when they decided on the F-35B to replace their AV-8B's and F-18C's. As for A2A doctrine, just because they were wrong about BVR during the Vietnam War doesn't mean they're wrong now. Only combat experience can prove who's right. |
Tango01 | 29 Jul 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
|
Mako11 | 29 Jul 2015 1:09 p.m. PST |
Frequently though, in virtually all wars, the products never live up to the marketing hype. |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Jul 2015 7:23 p.m. PST |
Which makes it all the more surprising when the products greatly exceed the marketing hype. Say, Abrams tanks in 1991, making hit after hit at 2500+m, at least one full kilometer further than what Jane's had predicted for their gun's maximum range. Not that I expect the F35 to greatly exceed the marketing hype. As far as the Marines and the F35B go, the Corps insisted on a VSTOL aircraft. Since there's only 4 VSTOL fighter-bombers in the world, they're rather limited in what they can fly. Harriers, F35Bs, Yak38s, and Yak141s. |
|