Comments by "Thetequilashooter1" (@Thetequilashooter1) on "Grid 88"
channel.
-
2
-
@Stephano.MBravo1 I have a lot of respect towards the Rafale, especially after how it humiliated Su-35s in Egyptian exercises. I can say the same argument to you, go and read about the latest Viper, the F-16V. Here’s a blurb about its AESA:
The APG-83 AESA radar enables greater detection and tracking ranges, multiple target track (20-plus target tracks), high-resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) maps for all-environment precision strike, interleaved air-to-air and air-to-surface mode operations for improved situational awareness, operational effectiveness and survivability; and robust electronic protection for operations in dense radio frequency (RF) environments. The APG-83 also provides greater overall system reliability and availability—three to five times that of legacy MSCAN radars.
Another key feature of the F-16V configuration is the new Center Pedestal Display (CPD), which provides critical tactical imagery to pilots on a high-resolution 6”x 8” screen. The high-resolution display allows Pilot to take full advantage of AESA and Targeting Pod data. The new CPD enables color moving maps, larger and easier to manage air-to-air Situation Displays, zoom functionality with the ability to switch information among displays, and digital display of Flight Instrument Data. The CPD is also compatible with the Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS).
2
-
@yaz2928 I guess you haven’t read how the F-35 is attacking targets at will in Syria. Syria has openly complained that their Russian made SAMs don’t work. What you don’t seem to understand is that if a large and powerful SAM site has difficulty even detecting the F-35, how do you think a tiny missile seeker head is going to do tracking and locking onto it? Not very well. In over 40 years only one stealth aircraft has been shot down after thousands of sorties being flown, and even it was a fluke due to human error of flying a predictable flight path.
In recent tests, the F-35 has guided a PAC-3 missile to intercept a cruise missile, and it linked to a USMC rocket to attack a ship. If it can guide a SAM to intercept a cruise missile, it sure as hell can guide one to intercept another fighter. The Su-57 has none of these capabilities.
Or how about how Russian made SAMs were decimated in Armenia? Drones over and over tore Armenian air defenses apart.
The F-35 is also a force multiplier. Not only can it launch its missiles from BVR, but it can guide missiles from other fighters to the targets. It’s software automatically and instantaneously tracks targets, determines the probability of kill for each, communicates this information with its wingmen, and then determines the best targeting solution for each. Russia has nothing remotely close to the F-35’s abilities. Russia hasn’t even put into service AESA in any fighter, and the F-35’s is 4th gen AESA. You need to be sensible. Russia isn’t going to pass the US after being behind for over two decades.
The F-35 has all-aspect stealth, something that the Su57 fails at significantly. And sorry, but IRST is a very short range tool that has nothing on the F-35’s passive sensors. IRST is also effected by differing weather conditions, and is not a good tool to ID targets at long range. Shooting targets without a positive ID can lead to fratricide, the last thing a pilot wants.
Russian fighters look good at airshows going low and slow performing low g maneuvers, that’s it. Watch YouTuber The Ready Room, a F-18 pilot, and how he beats a Malaysian Su-30 that has thrust vectoring three out of three times. Or how about how F-15s beat Indian Su-30MKIs over and over at Red Flag Nellis. Search here on YouTube for F-35 instant turn rate, and you’ll find it pulling many more g’s than the Su’s. And if you put ordnance on those Su’s, that will only increase their wing and drag weight, which reduces their agility, top-end speed, and their ability to recover from high-g turns. Face it, you’re wrong, and you won’t find one expert who agrees with you.
A good example of how useless Russian fighters are is the MMRCA tender where the Mig-35 performed so poorly. You can find many videos of it performing maneuvers that you think are so impressive, but it failed miserably in the competition. It only did well at top speed, but when it came to instant and sustained turn rates, and the ability to recover from high bleed turns, not so well.
If the Su-57 was so great it would not be having difficulty finding customers, and Russia’s ally India wouldn’t have left the partnership to develop it. Russia even approached India again, but India doesn’t believe the Su-57 design can be fixed to measure up against other 5th gen fighters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@startingbark0356 Like I said, you don’t know wtf you’re talking about. Top end speed is rarely used in dogfighting, other than trying to get away. And the F-35’s top speed is more than what’s needed. Just look at how slow British Harriers fly, and yet they dominated the airspace against Argentina. Not only that but flying at top speed burns a lot of fuel, which allows fewer passes in a real dogfight. Plus, the ordinance added to a legacy aircraft will only hinder the Mig’s ability to turn, recover from high-bleed turns, reduce its top speed, as well as give it a larger RCS, which makes it easier to detect on radar.
Seriously, just do a simple Google search and you’ll see how it’s dominating in dogfights. Breaking Defense has an article titled “Pilots Say F-35 Superior Within Visual Range: Dogfight Criticisms Laid To Rest”, which provides an example.
And have you even seen the more recent flight demos where it’s showing its climb and turn rates? It’s a hell of a lot better than the Russian crap at airshows where you see them flying low and slow performing low g maneuvers that in real combat would just get the pilot killed.
1
-
@startingbark0356 My gosh, you're clueless. First off, the Northrop F-5 was first built in the 1950s, and secondly US aircraft are always a generation ahead of Russia's so your excuse is a poor one. Just look at today's aircraft in service. Russia has just one Su-57 production model left after the first one crashed, while over 180 F-22's and over 700 F-35's have been built.
Show me any video of a Mig 21, or any Russian jet fighter for that matter, pulling the high-g instant turn that you'll find at the 1:05 or at the 2:10 mark in this vid of the F-35: watch?v=l2Y_I0Igl2E Not only that, but do you see how it continues to climb after the turn? You won't find any Russian jet climbing like that either, especially in a combat loadout, and you won't find any Russian jet pulling that amount of g's doing the same. When you watch a Russian fighter turn, you can see its tail drag, showing lack of power. You also won't find Russian jets having the climb rate either. Like I said, the F-35's 45,000 lbs of thrust is unmatched by any jet fighter, and even though the F-22 first flew over 20 years ago, Russia still hasn't put into the field any fighter that can match its 70,000 lbs of thrust. Russia is behind the US in jet engine tech. It's why Russia's ally India uses a US engine for its Tejas. You're saying that the Mig-21 can outclimb it is simpy ridiculous, especially considering its thust when in AB is under 16,000 lbs of thrust.
When it comes to dogfighting, the F-35 has the advantage right from the start. With its stealth and advanced sensors it can position itself in a favorable fighting position. You're intentionally chosing to not read the articles about how well the F-35 is dominating in exercises, even in visual range, because you just can't accept being wrong. That's the typical mindset of a teenager, and as you get older you'll find it's easier to admit when you're wrong because it has happened enough to make you humble.
"the F-35 cant be for long in stealth mode due its overheating problems" HAHAHA, now that's some funny crap there. Of course you misconstue what was publically released. The F-35's RAM can get damaged after flying very prolonged periods at max speed. What you don't get is that most fighters don't fly at top speed as it burns too much fuel. Pilots when retreating may go to full AB, but you don't see fighters going full speed in the dogfight.
The so-called "lighting issue" was only a precaustionary saftey measure taken during its initial development stages. Do you really think that so many nations would be buying it if it couldn't fly in a raimstorm? Try being sensible. You're grabbing at straws and showing your lack of knowledge.
As far as it fuel tanks go, they can be dropped just like how all other aircraft drop theirs. As far as top speed goes, even the Su-75's projected top speed is only Mach 1.8. That is what Russia wishes for it, but you can expect it to be lower, just like how Russia didn't meet the performance criteria set for the Su-57 when it was tested. Russia is well known for boasting about how maneuverable their aircraft are, but when used in combat or when tested against other Western aircraft in a head-to-head competition they lose. The MMRCA tender is a good example. Russia brought its best Fulcrum, the Mig-35, to the competion. Guess how it did against the Western aicraft in the tender? Horribly. The only area where it excelled was top speed, but when it came to agility the Western aircraft outperformed it. It performed so poorly an article was released afterwards titled "For Heaven's Sake Don't Buy the Russian Mig-35."
I don't know why I am wasting my time on you. You're probably a young teenager who spouts off BS without having any knowledge or supporting facts to back up your words. Next time you comment, which I am sure you will, because you can't accept being wrong, provide supporting articles to back your opinion. I know you can't because there aren't any credible and recent more ones that make such ridiculous assertions. Prove me wrong.
1
-
1
-
@startingbark0356 One of the reasons why the F-35 was built is because the US couldn’t sell the F-22 by law. The F-35 can’t just be sold to anybody. Just look at how it’s not being sold to Turkey, a member of NATO. Russia has nothing close to the F-35’s abilities. It can detect and target adversaries hundreds of miles out, automatically and instantly determine their level of threat, determine a probability of kill for each target, communicate the information with other assets in the field, and determine the best targeting solution.
In recent tests, the F-35 linked to a PAC-3 missile, and struck a cruise missile over the horizon. You won’t find any Russian SAM to be able to do that as it’s radar cannot defeat the curvature of the earth. A F-35 also linked to an artillery unit to strike a defensive target at long range, and also linked to a marine rocket unit to strike a naval target. You won’t find any other fighter performing to this degree.
And put it this way, the F-35 has the most advanced AESA radar in the world. It can perform many functions, including jamming enemy radar. In recent exercises in Egypt, their Rafales jammed their Su-35s blind. It’s why Egypt just recently purchased an additional 100 Rafales. While the USA has had AESA radar in service for over twenty years and is in thousands of aircraft, Russia doesn’t have it in any fighter aircraft in service.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@startingbark0356 LOL, keep dreaming. Haven’t you noticed how Russian SAMs are being made a mockery out of in Syria and Armenia? Israeli F-35s are striking targets at will over Syria, and Russian S-300s and 400s haven’t been able to do anything about it. Look at how Turkish drones easily took out Russian made systems, and the Russian electronic countermeasures equipment didn’t work like it was supposed to. Russian trolls love to brag about their SAMs, but if you look at the history of warfare you’ll find that their much less effective than they used to be. The number of aircraft shot down per sortie flown has drastically gone down over time, and it’s because there are so many ways to defeat them. Jamming, spoofing, hacking, using decoys, stand off weapons, special ops, drones, have all shown to be very effective. Once they activate their radars they become a target, and they’re too slow to get away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ross72A But look at what's happened in Syria and Armenia, the same results where the S-300/400 have been ineffective. The same problem remains with SAMs: they're big, slow on the move, they emit tons of energy, are hindered by the curvature of the earth and other ground clutter, and there are many ways to counter them. Plus, and just like in the past, while SAM battery radars might be able to detect a stealth aircraft at further ranges today, the same problem remains that the tiny missile seeker head will have trouble tracking and locking onto it. You also need to keep in mind that along with stealth aircraft in the air, there will also be decoys, 4th gen aircraft, drones, jamming, etc., making it very hard to single out a stealth fighter to target.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamnzi978 It is about performance, you just can’t accept it. Israel has been flying the F-35 whenever and wherever it wants over Syria. They have called it a true game changer. Japan at first wanted nothing to do with the F-35. They lobbied the US Congress for years to try to change the laws so that they could buy the F-22. However, once they got their hands on the F-35 they not only liked it and saw what it can do, they ordered more of them. The F-35 is winning competitions for sales by its abilities. It’s not like Russia’s POS Su-57, which to date hasn’t even shown the ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles in flight from internal bays.
Face it, Russia is well known for overhyping its weapons. When the Apache helicopter went head to head against the Mi-28 in India, the Apache kicked its ass, and the Mi couldn’t even complete all the testing requirements. Same with the Chinook, and its beating out its Russian counterpart. Or how about all of Russia’s hype about the PAK-FA, aka Su-57? Russia’s only partner India backed out of the partnership citing numerous problems with its stealth features, engines, etc. Look at how poorly the Mig-35 performed during the MMRCA tender. Just Google “For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Buy The Russian Mig-35” and you will see why. How about Russia’s much vaunted electronic warfare abilities? According to Armenia they didn’t work in their recent battles. Or how about Russia’s premier aircraft the Su-35? Just search why Egypt recently ordered more Rafales, and you’ll find that they jammed the Su-35s and rendered them blind in recent exercises. Seriously, you Russian trolls brag, brag, brag about how great Russian equipment is, and it’s the same thing over and over that they’re more hype than anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The F-16, no doubt. There's a reason why Russia is having a hard time selling the Mig 29, while on the other hand the F-16 is continuing to rack up sales, where even old and used ones are being sold. Plus, the Mig-29 looks good on paper, hence, it has NEVER shot down an enemy fighter. The F-16 has numerous kills, including the Mig-29, and has never been shot down in a air-to-air battle. Russia trolls will make up excuses about the Mig-29's that were used, but that's all they are, excuses.
1
-
@antefran238 I agree for the most part. It’s why the Rafale won the tender in India. However, I do think that the F-16 can hold its own in certain areas, and that in the end it would come down a lot to pilot skill. During the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the the US wasn’t even offering its best. I do realize that weapons and systems have been upgraded through the years, but that applies to everyone. If I had my selection, I would pick the Rafale too. It’s a much newer airframe with more potential for growth, which are some of the reasons why both the F-16 and F-18 lost in the tender. In the end, it really doesn’t matter to me. Both fighters are on the same team, and both are superior to their adversaries warplanes. Just recently France got an additional order from Egypt for more Rafales, and it’s because the Rafales were able to jam their Su-35’s radars. Nothing is more pleasing to my ears to know that the US’s allies can take care of themselves and possible adversaries know it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ganeshkumar-gt9wx You’re not saying facts, just information that you learned from fake news that supports Russia. The real facts are SAMs aren’t as effective as they used to be. There are now so many ways to defeat them. Jamming, spoofing, using decoys, drones, stand-off weapons, hacking, stealth, special ops, etc. are all effective in countering them. It’s why aircraft aren’t shot down nearly as often as they used to be. For instance, Serbia had a well respected air defense network, but it was easily defeated because for the most part the Serbs were afraid to activate their radars knowing very well they’d be quickly targeted. Out of tens of thousands of sorties flown, only two US fighters were shot down, and even those were by fluke. They both flew predictable flight paths that made them easy targets.
What you don’t seem to understand is that it takes more than just detecting a stealth fighter. Today’s SAMs are fire-and-forget missiles, meaning they use their own internal radars to track and lock onto a target. The problem is that the tiny seeker head needs to be able to track and lock onto the fighter. Imagine how difficult that is when a large and powerful SAM site has difficulty itself. Put it this way, in exercises against the F-22 a F-15, which is well known for its powerful radars, couldn’t get a lock onto the Raptor even in visual range. The F-15 pilot was a British exchange pilot who said that the experience was extremely frustrating. Plus, the SAM site cannot guide the missile all the way to the target because that would reveal its position.
Your being Indian should help in knowing how your country is buying fewer and fewer weapons from Russia as time has gone by. Your Air Chief during the MMRCA tender stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the US wasn’t even offering its best. AESA radar is a great example. It’s at the forefront of radar for fighters, and is considered an essential need to be considered a 5th gen fighter. The USA has been fielding AESA for over twenty years in its fighters, while Russia still doesn’t have it in service in any of its fighter aircraft. It’s very expensive to make unless you have the manufacturing capabilities to build it on massive scale efficiently, which is what hurts Russia. It’s why the Chinese are surpassing Russia technologically.
Even without stealth, many of those other methods that I previously mentioned are very effective, and when you combine them together it makes it even more difficult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1