Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Matsimus"
channel.
-
18
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
+wigon you do realize that the F-35, like the F-16, is controlled by fly-by-wire, right? This means that the computer governing the maneuvers is entirely software dependent. A lot of the testing regarding the F-35's maneuverability has dealt with problems with the software being conservative (so that they don't lose planes and kill pilots) but lacking optimization and thus wasting potential. One of the problems, for example, was the software taking too long to enter and depart from high AoA maneuvers, the more time it takes the more drag you suffer so the more energy your plane loses. Since it was perfectly safe to "teach" the software to let the plane pull those high AoA maneuvers they patched it and as a result the plane became much more nimble.
"Also F-16's don't need to be reproduced, only updated"
You're either assuming they'll never reach the limit of their service hours, or that keeping factories pumping out parts to replace aging and worn parts isn't effectively the same as making new F-16s, only not using new parts on new planes but rebuilding entire sections of aircraft with new parts while retaining the same tail numbers (Ship of Theseus, anyone?).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lonewolfmike "It does matter when it takes forever to turn your aircraft" - you're confusing turn radius for turn rate.
"The A-10 has a much tighter turn radius than an F-35 could ever dream of and that is fact" - And the F-35 is a better plane and that's a fact. There's facts to support any argument you want, what matters is correctly using them in context. Within context, turn radius is not that important. You could probably get a better turn radius out of an acrobatic biplane. So what?
"a tighter turn radius means more to troops on the ground than all the fancy electronics an F-35 has" - bullshit lol. With all the friendly fires involving A-10s they should be worried about the man in the sky accurately telling friend from foe and not how many feet it takes to make a turn. If the guy up there takes a tight turn to then blast you to bits by mistake because his situational awareness is lower, electronics start to make a whole lot of sense.
"an F-35, to my knowledge has not been used for close ground support." - and the F-22 has never shot an air target down. So what?
"And the A-10 had been PROVEN to be of great help to ground troops" - it also has been proven to be worse than the F-16, F-15 Strike Eagle, F/A-18, etc.
"Watch this and you will see why an A-10 is so much better at ground support" - Really, a history channel documentary?
Not to beat a dead horse by questioning the History Channel's accuracy (because that is a concern) but right from the gate they interview Pierre Sprey, who is considered a lunatic and a paid shill who has appeared multiple times on RT aka Putin's propaganda machine (not saying "MuH RuSsiA" but if Putin doesn't want the US to trust the F-35, it's because it's an amazing aircraft). He also got demolished in a debate with 'Chip' Burke, former pilot and JTAC who both flew the top fighter aircraft in USAF inventory but also fought on the ground with special operations teams. The rest of the documentary is basic-bitch information for any newcomer to aviation. Sorry, but a History Channel documentary that seems to have been made at least 15 years ago isn't the best source to state your case when real world combat records prove that the A-10 is hopelessly outdated and has been on life support for too long.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+bandholm your assumptions are correct. However, it's important to know that a missile's rocket only typically has a boost phase, or a boost-sustain which typically give the missile around 10 seconds of powered flight. Outside that window, pilots often do what is called (if I'm not mistaken) an F-Pole maneuver, in which they force the missile to turn in a direction they don't want to go without actually increasing the rate of closure, and then turn into the intended direction. The unpowered missile is pretty much a glider on a ballistic path, and if it had to turn again it will bleed a lot of energy and become unable to keep with a plane.
At close range the issue changes - although there's missiles capable of pulling 40 G's, when powered the missile is much faster which means the turn radius is much larger than a slower airplane. This means that a 9 G pulling airplane can out turn a missile capable of pulling hundreds of Gs. The issue is, modern missiles probably have computing power to work out the least stressful maneuver necessary to meet the airplane. So if you're pulling 9 Gs the missile won't try to follow your tail, it will turn in a predictive pursuit and then slam from the side (almost like an "S"). So it all comes down to how modern is the missile being fired.
" anywere near the power to detect incoming missiles, at a range where they can outfly them" typically what aircraft use is a RWR, which is a passive sensor which does not need high power - it detects the radar emissions of either the launching aircraft or the incoming missile. The strength of modern missiles is that they can be fired in Track-While-Scan mode and have GPS/inertial navigation course corrections meaning they won't tell the victim that there's a radar lock until the missile is close, becomes independent and turns it's own locking radar on.
Meanwhile, the F-35 actually has an always on passive electro-optical system with 360 degree coverage which is said to be able to detect missile launches.
"But air-to-air missiles are mostly heat-seekers, with a targeting radar in it as well" not quite. Both the radar and IR sensor would require line of sight to the enemy plane. But IR guided missiles can be slaved to the aircraft's radar and given these inputs it's what probably allows the missile to perform trajectory computing rather than just doing a pure pursuit on the IR signature like the old heat seekers.
"It is not really its job anyway, but that of the bombers" Actually multirole-fighters have been doing the role of bombers for quite a while. The F-4 Phantom II was able to carry a bomb load greater than the B-17 Flying Fortress over Vietnam, the F-16 was used by the Israelis in a long range operation to bomb out a nuclear reactor, etc. The major advantage of the F-35 is that you can clear out defenses before an assault due to it's stealth capabilities allowing for more paths over enemy territory where the radar coverage isn't sufficient to detect stealth aircraft and if needed, firing missiles that lock onto the radar emissions to clear the way for conventional aircraft.
The F-35 will serve the Marines for the same purpose as the Harrier - clearing the way for an amphibious invasion.
Again, most of your assumptions are correct but modern air combat has many intricacies and caveats.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1