The trouble with the basement dwellers

[tincansailor]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Hey guys I'm new to this board but I've been reading for a few months, some hilarious "facts" and rampant speculation throughout this one. What can you expect from David Archibald....Besides unrealistic solutions to phantom problems

BY FAR THE BEST PART: "Simulation has the Gripen E shooting down the Su-35 at almost the same rate that the F-22 does. The Gripen E is estimated to be able to shoot down 1.6 Su-35s for every Gripen E lost, the F-22 is slightly better at 2.0 Su-35s shot down per F-22 lost."

well seeing he posted that it has the highest sustained and instantaneous turn then even the F-22, I'd say he's on drugs

Welcome to the Board, I hope you enjoy it. I agree the article is hilarious for how silly some of it's arguments, and assertions are. It's strange that the critics of stealth argue that stealth aircraft will be spotted and shot down because hostile radar and missiles are so good, yet they advocate we buy new none stealth aircraft. If stealth aircraft can't survive how can none stealth aircraft prevail?

The maneuverability chart is interesting. According to it the SU-27/35 family would make short work of our F-16/18/15 fighters. To my knowledge no American Fighters have ever fought an SU-27 so we don't have any actual experience dealing with them. On the other hand neither do they. Also the chart doesn't have any data on an aircrafts ability to go vertical like the F-15. The F-18 seems the lest agile, but the chart doesn't take into account it's high AOA abilities, or ability to dive. The F-16 can accelerate like a bullet.

All good fighter pilots learn to use the strengths of their ship, and minimize any weaknesses. The chart tells us nothing about other critical aspects of modern air combat. Radar, RCS, EW, Cyber, HOBS Missiles, IRST, Stealth, Sensor Fusion, Counter Measures, Data Links, Decoys, Stand off Weapons, and airborne support like AWAC, CCC aircraft. Of course fighters in the real world fight as units, not individual fighters that just merge with another fighter for a turning contest.

Our air force goes into action with a complex battle plan to disrupt, and destroy a hostile air forces whole equilibrium. Look what Israel did to the Syrians in 1982, and we did in Iraq in 1991. The hostile air force was never able to coordinate any kind of effective defense. The battle wasn't decided by individual turning contests, but by planning, technology, and good tactics. It's not about engaging in a fair fight. It may be interesting to imaging a turning contest between individual aircraft but it hardly tells us what air force would prevail in a war.

F-35 critics seem to be frozen in time at the Vietnam War. Lousy Sparrow Missiles, Sidewinders that need to go right up the tail pipe, Phantoms with no guns, old MIG-17's using gorilla tactics against a high tech supersonic air force, stupid rules of engagement. It's a kind of pessimism that nothing will go right, and that every pilot will end up on their own in a free for all.

We can never know if we might be put in another restricted situation, with stupid rules of engagement. The question should be would it be better in those circumstances to be flying good dogfighters, or the F-35 with it's revolutionary capabilities? If the F-16 was designed to refight the Vietnam War imagine if we had the F-35? It would have killed every N Vietnamese fighter in the sky before they ever saw them coming, and any SAM that turned on it's radar would get a SDB for their trouble. It would have been no contest. Gripen-E may become a fine fighter, but the F-35 is the way of the future.

[basher54321]

The maneuverability chart is interesting.

The chart is a crock - he has basically made up some numbers and stuck them on a chart. It is basically good enough to fool a majority of his readers who don't understand what those figures mean.

Even if any of the figures were accurate (they are not) ITR and STR are not single figures you can put on a chart, they vary with weight, drag , altitude etc. (Note that info is mysteriously missing )


US pilots have flown against Su-27s (Well Fred Clifton has). Be interesting a few years to see if any info comes out on what the Red Eagles fly these days.

[charlielima223]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Hey guys I'm new to this board but I've been reading for a few months, some hilarious "facts" and rampant speculation throughout this one. What can you expect from David Archibald....Besides unrealistic solutions to phantom problems

BY FAR THE BEST PART: "Simulation has the Gripen E shooting down the Su-35 at almost the same rate that the F-22 does. The Gripen E is estimated to be able to shoot down 1.6 Su-35s for every Gripen E lost, the F-22 is slightly better at 2.0 Su-35s shot down per F-22 lost."

I remember reading this article about a F-35 vs Su-35 simulation. I am pretty sure I found it here somewhere in F-16.net but here it is... the results are an astonishing no brainer

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blo ... at#gallery

SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT


F-35 wins...

[playloud]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Hey guys I'm new to this board but I've been reading for a few months, some hilarious "facts" and rampant speculation throughout this one. What can you expect from David Archibald....Besides unrealistic solutions to phantom problems

BY FAR THE BEST PART: "Simulation has the Gripen E shooting down the Su-35 at almost the same rate that the F-22 does. The Gripen E is estimated to be able to shoot down 1.6 Su-35s for every Gripen E lost, the F-22 is slightly better at 2.0 Su-35s shot down per F-22 lost."

I remember reading this article about a F-35 vs Su-35 simulation. I am pretty sure I found it here somewhere in F-16.net but here it is... the results are an astonishing no brainer

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blo ... at#gallery

SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT


F-35 wins...

That's using a more modern "simulator" than the one the RAND study used. You can actually buy it on Steam, if you wanted to set up your own scenario.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/321410/

[count_to_10]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Hey guys I'm new to this board but I've been reading for a few months, some hilarious "facts" and rampant speculation throughout this one. What can you expect from David Archibald....Besides unrealistic solutions to phantom problems

BY FAR THE BEST PART: "Simulation has the Gripen E shooting down the Su-35 at almost the same rate that the F-22 does. The Gripen E is estimated to be able to shoot down 1.6 Su-35s for every Gripen E lost, the F-22 is slightly better at 2.0 Su-35s shot down per F-22 lost."

I don't know if that's the best part. The last paragraph is rather eye-popping for shear weight of wrongness:

There is a role for a large, agile, twin-engined fighter aircraft in the Western Pacific. Apart from providing air superiority, such a platform would be ideal for delivering long range anti-ship cruise missiles. But this should not be a resurrected F-22. The F-22 program dates from 1991 when its prototype, the YF-22 produced by Lockheed Martin, won the fly-off competition against the YF-23 produced by Northrop, though the YF-23 was faster and stealthier. The U.S. Air Force awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin because it thought that Northrop would not be up to building the B-2 bomber and the new fighter at the same time. Given that the avionics of the F-22 are now over 25 years old, it would be a better outcome from here, for the long term, to go back to the YF-23 airframe and update its engines and avionics. This would produce an aircraft with a weight, acquisition cost and operating cost similar to that of the F-15. It would be as stealthy as possible from shaping without the expense, logistic footprint and low availability of maintaining a RAM coating. Northrop has been awarded the Long Range Strike Bomber program of 80 aircraft at $550 million each. Northrop’s bomber offering is an enlarged, subsonic YF-23. We also need the updated fighter variant.

I mean, I love the look of the YF-23 as much as the next guy, but this guy clearly has no idea what he thinks he's talking about.

[les_paul59]

The lack of common sense and russian internet logic is funny throughout

[XanderCrews]

The Gripen is the answer, even though it meets none of the requirements

[charlielima223]

The Gripen is the answer, even though it meets none of the requirements

its "cheap"... there for any and all requirements set forth by the military are null and void.

[KamenRiderBlade]

The Gripen is the answer, even though it meets none of the requirements

its "cheap"... there for any and all requirements set forth by the military are null and void.

Anybody who thinks like that should really get their head examined, because they are dumb & crazy

[charlielima223]

The Gripen is the answer, even though it meets none of the requirements

its "cheap"... there for any and all requirements set forth by the military are null and void.

Anybody who thinks like that should really get their head examined, because they are dumb & crazy

well that caption on the bottom there is a lie, but hey he said it on TV so it must be true right?



after all the Gripen E is a 6th generation fighter aircraft despite its limited capabilities when compared to the F-35 and other aircraft like Rafale, Typhoon, and Raptor.



and that one is just another F-tard

[optimist]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Hey guys I'm new to this board but I've been reading for a few months, some hilarious "facts" and rampant speculation throughout this one. What can you expect from David Archibald....Besides unrealistic solutions to phantom problems

BY FAR THE BEST PART: "Simulation has the Gripen E shooting down the Su-35 at almost the same rate that the F-22 does. The Gripen E is estimated to be able to shoot down 1.6 Su-35s for every Gripen E lost, the F-22 is slightly better at 2.0 Su-35s shot down per F-22 lost."

I remember reading this article about a F-35 vs Su-35 simulation. I am pretty sure I found it here somewhere in F-16.net but here it is... the results are an astonishing no brainer

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blo ... at#gallery

SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT


F-35 wins...

That's using a more modern "simulator" than the one the RAND study used. You can actually buy it on Steam, if you wanted to set up your own scenario.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/321410/

there was never a RAND sim and RAND has stated such, It''s APA REPSIM, clown club and Stillion

[arrow-nautics]

David Archibald? Is he for saving money or what? This is not the way!

[XanderCrews]

Bravo CharlieLima!! Bravo!!

[sferrin]

Apparently Dave Majumdar doesn't know what a mercenary is.

Why Is the U.S. Air Force Hiring Jet-Flying Mercenaries?

"The U.S. Air Force’s elite Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, has started using contractors flying privately-owned combat aircraft to help train the service’s tactical gurus. The contractors have been hired for what amounts to a trial run. If it goes well, there are likely to be further contracts.

The Air Force Warfare Center was forced to hire the mercenaries because budget cuts have forced the service to disband one of its two Nellis-based Aggressor Squadrons. The 65th Aggressor Squadron — which was recently inactivated — flew Boeing F-15C Eagle air superiority fighters to “replicate” advanced “Red Air” warplanes like Russian-made Su-30 Flanker. The idea of using contractors to train U.S. Air Force fighter squadrons had first been floated late in 2014 — when Air Force officials described their Red Air situation as a “mess.” "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... es%3F.html

Hey dumbass, mercinaries KILL PEOPLE FOR MONEY.

[XanderCrews]

Apparently Dave Majumdar doesn't know what a mercenary is.

Why Is the U.S. Air Force Hiring Jet-Flying Mercenaries?

"The U.S. Air Force’s elite Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, has started using contractors flying privately-owned combat aircraft to help train the service’s tactical gurus. The contractors have been hired for what amounts to a trial run. If it goes well, there are likely to be further contracts.

The Air Force Warfare Center was forced to hire the mercenaries because budget cuts have forced the service to disband one of its two Nellis-based Aggressor Squadrons. The 65th Aggressor Squadron — which was recently inactivated — flew Boeing F-15C Eagle air superiority fighters to “replicate” advanced “Red Air” warplanes like Russian-made Su-30 Flanker. The idea of using contractors to train U.S. Air Force fighter squadrons had first been floated late in 2014 — when Air Force officials described their Red Air situation as a “mess.” "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... es%3F.html

Hey dumbass, mercinaries KILL PEOPLE FOR MONEY.

Lol Any government contractor working with military is a merc? Lol ok.

FedEx delivers to my hanger = mercenary logistics

Lol just lol

BTW, watch as we disband aggressors while keeping the A-10 going, while the same people fanboying the A-10 lecture about the importance of dogfights