[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm not 100% sure about the Harrier VTOLs only being naked, I think it can do them with a reduced load, otherwise it would make the FOB deployments in West Germany a bit difficult, that being said, there were probably roads nearby to enable STOL operations, although given the lifespan of the average pilot when the balloon went up it would have been academic really.

VIFFing is a handy technique that only the Harrier can do, but it only really works in the merge and it can be countered fairly easily.

It's not the best aircraft, but it wasn't really designed for air to air, it was more aimed at ground support in an era when helicopters were only just coming into their own. This niche could explain why we never really went into attack helicopters in a big way until getting the designs for the Apache from the US, I mean there was the anti-tank Lynx, but the Lynx wasn't designed as a sole attack helicopter.

Of course, when the CVA-01 project was cancelled and we found ourselves having to build a navy on the cheap, we found that a ski-jump carrier could throw VSTOL aircraft up, and so the Harrier was slotted into that role too.

Really, the Harrier is a typically British design, a square forced to the do the job of a triangle, circle, and a hexagon. In a way, the F-35 continues that mission, it's almost as if BAe had designed it and not Lockheed...

I'm pretty sure it can't carry more than a couple of wingtip AIM9s and take off purely vertical, not at least without taking fuel off, or being extremely slow and shakey in takeoff (ie dangerous to fly). Now on a ship steaming at flank speed into the wind can help it a bit. I believe the idea in west Germany was that the harriers would use the local roads for STOL, and overpasses for shelter, the harrier doesn't need much length at all, especially if not carrying it's max payload. In a sense that would be a job it would be good at, as a semi guerrilla aircraft that doesn't need airfields.

You pretty much sum up my thoughts on VIFFing, the harrier can achieve a really tight turn circle using that trick, but it can't hold it for very long, plus VIFFing slows it's turning rate as energy is being used to push it into its turn and not around it.

Thing is though, the Harrier was not great at ground support either, due to its rather small payload and again low energy and maneuverability. All around it was really pretty mediocre.

Ultimately it's legacy was its service on the ski-jump and helo carriers. It was the only plane that could do the job.

Maybe BAe was a silent partner in the F-35 project with Lockheed.

I had a similar opinion of the Tent Peg but Schroeder tells me that the Luftwaffe thought quite highly of it. Then again, these are the guys that flew the Komet so they were probably used to aircraft that were deadlier to the pilot than the enemy. Again though, it's square pegging a round hole, the F-104 was designed as an interceptor, it was designed to fly at the enemy very fast, hit them with air to air missiles and then return, refuel and rearm. Same as the Lightning. It didn't need to dogfight or evade, it was essentially a guided missile with missiles on it.
Then someone decided to put bombs on it.
It's like the 262, original plans for an inteceptor and then some bright spark decides that it must be a fighter-bomber.

It was super fast, no doubt, and turned like a beached whale when it wasn't trying to see how far into the earth it could impale itself. As I recall some Canadian pilots liked it too, but the ground crews didn't due to how sharp the wings were (they would actually put guards over the edges of the wings). As an interceptor it wasn't so great, mainly because of how terrible the missiles it carried were (early AIM9's), and they were having problems with the plane crashing due to firing the gun with it's linked ammo. As an all around fighter it was not good. The MiG-21 tore it to pieces.

Apparently though not all German pilots liked the Lawn Dart either.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The poor safety record of the Starfighter brought the aircraft into the public eye, especially in German Air Force service. Fighter ace Erich Hartmann famously was retired from the Luftwaffe because of his protests against having to deploy the unsafe F-104s. The F-104 was also at the center of the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to a considerable number of political and military figures in various nations in order to influence their judgment and secure several purchase contracts; this caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan.

Having it being able to carry nuclear bombs, wasn't such a bad idea though, as it was small and fast, and you don't need pinpoint accuracy with nukes. Otherwise ya, not a good bomber, pretty tiny payload (and low wing clearance).

I think in that respect it's trying to pick up the enemies EM emissions without being detected and then relaying that across. Although of course, relaying that means that the aircraft has got to make some noise itself. I don't know how they're getting around that, laser transmissions perhaps?
I think though, the idea of target acquisition and relaying is more based around the kind of setup that the AH-64D has, in that one F-35 can pick up a contact, relay it to the group and then back to the AWACs who can correlate it with their data, all in a matter of seconds. I guess having data from two fixed points might help firm up a long range shot, but since the Phoenix went out of service there's not really much point in trying to snipe the enemy out in BVR, because as soon as you drop an AMRAAM, he's going to go defensive and then work back from where that weapon came from.
Of course, he can't hit what he can't lock on, and I think that's the whole idea for the F-35, is to reduce the range at which the enemy can get a solid lock on the aircraft. Enabling the F-35 to kill, say, an Su-33 before the Su-33 can get a good lock on the 35.
A chap from the RAS used CMANO, which is probably the closest civilian sim you can get, and put some F-35s up against some Sukhois, the results were telling:
http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-...-in-air-combat

Last i checked though, you can't really do passive target acquisition as detecting EM doesn't give you ranging data (signal strength does not equal range), or other needed data such as altitude. To do what the guy claimed, the plane would have to be flying with it's radar on, which means no more semi-stealth. I don't think the US uses lasers to transmit data from aircraft, another possibility would be to tightly beam it to a satellite, but that would induce lag, which wouldn't be good for trying to guide a missile at the target.

You are correct though with data relaying that is the idea, but any plane that has the system can do it in either direction (and it is direct plane to plane, not necessarily through AWACS). These systems are also necessary for planes like the F-22 and F-35 to fire while remaining semi-stealthy, as if they use their own radar, the enemy can fire back and have their missiles track the enemy radar until it gets close enough to lock on with it's own active radar. Of course you can do this trick with data link planes as well that are not as stealthy, one stays back and paints the target while the other sneaks in closer from another angle and fires.

I wouldn't put any stock at all in such simulations (especially CMANO, which relies on totally stupid AI pilots) as the capabilities for both planes are highly classified and not known to the general public. Also I should point out the cost differential, if I can afford 5 Su-33's to each of your 1 F-35's who is likely to win the engagement? Not to mention the F-35 needs someone else to provide the radar targeting so that it can engage in BVR without revealing itself and getting an AAM fired right back at it, homing on it's radar emissions.

Definitely agree on this though, I don't think the F-35s mission is going to be deep penetration, not against an enemy that has a half decent defense network anyway. I suspect, at the least in the RAF/RN the F-35 will be a fringe support and interception machine. I don't know what sort of aircraft would do the deep penetration missions any more, the sort of thing that the F-117 and B-2 were designed for...well, obviously we still have the B-2, but otherwise. Probably RCS reduced drones, something like the Avenger, since the Sentinel seems to have already been put on deep recon missions in Iran.
I come across as defending the F-35 here...and honestly I find myself in a very odd position, because part of me thinks that the F-35 might just make it out alright given time, that all these nightmare reports are just the result of the internet age, and we'd have been seeing similiar reports about other successful aircraft during their early days. I mean, certainly according to the article I already linked, the report from War is Boring involved a prototype aircraft which lacked certain equipment, such as off-sight bore targeting and part of the stealth gear. However, there are a lot of problems with the F-35, there is no going around it, and the price tag on it is ridiculous in an era where manned aircraft are slowly becoming obsolete.
But, we're stuck with it, certainly the UK is anyway, and we're just going to have to try and bodge the best of it and hope that our other aircraft make up the shortfall. I'd have been happier if the QEII carriers had been a standard long deck rather than another bloody ramp job, we'd have had more options on the table in regards to what aircraft we could fly from it. Heck, we could have just gone and got a load of F-18s, but no, we have to have the cheap boat with the too expensive to fly aircraft. British military procurement mysteries, we're full of them (see Nimrod fiasco).

Yet that was exactly what that Navy guy was talking about using the F-35 for (but I guess the Navy doesn't really have much hands on experience with stealth planes). Mostly IMHO he was just talking out of his arse though.

I figure drones will take over a lot of the deep penetration and recon jobs, along with the planes we have always used, using NOE flying and other tricks to stay hidden.

Personally I really don't believe the F-35 will ever be a good aircraft. It just simply can't be. It is trying to do way to many things which means it will be poor at all of them: they are trying to standardize the aircraft with 3 different military branches, each with differing needs; plus they are trying to make one of the variants VTOL which means that the other two variants will have to suffer the design necessities that enable VTOL; on top of it they are trying to make it stealthy too, which just further compounds the problems and highly limits the aircraft.

I don't think having the extra stuff though would have helped it in the dogfight. Sure off bore targeting would have helped, but then the f-16 has that capability too (and I'm sure it wasn't using it for that fight). Stealth technology is absolutely useless in a furball. So really nothing would have changed. We would need to see how the real plane performs in BVR testing to see where it may just perform ok.

I think Canada is stuck with it too, thanks to our stupid lil Emperor of a PM. We don't need it, we have the CF-18 which is a pretty nasty plane, we won't ever be having any carriers, and we don't really need VTOL. It is also way too expensive. Plus we are still busy trying to fix those lousy submarines England sold us some years ago. Otherwise I agree with what you said about the UK's situation with them.

Hopefully, once some of the customers start getting their F-35s we'll get more combat information about how the fully operational aircraft handles against a standard opponent.

Indeed, assuming we don't just get more hype and BS from the military, contractors, and politicians eager to avoid any more egg on their faces.