avon1944

No, the Slammer Missile is defiitely not 100%. Lt Col Mike 'Dozer' Showers used three Slammers to kill a MiG-29 over the Blakans. You Tube interview -URL;
YouTube - Red Flag, 5 of 5

The F-35 is designed for the attack mission on day one of a major war! I can handle itself in air to air but, its strength is air to ground. Maneuvering wised, it can outperform the F-16C Blk #50 or F/A-18C in every major parameter.


About three F-35's for a single F-22A. Their ground attack missions are entirely different. The F-22 will replace the F-117 in ground attack, killing headquarters, air defense hubs and, other high value strategic targets. The F-35 will kill tactical targets.

Adrian

GGTharos

You need to put this into context: Some of those slammers were fired out of parameters (ie. too far, poor intercept angle, etc). Missiles are not magical - if you shoot them within correct parameters, they are very, very deadly. If you don't, they're much easier to evade.

Jimmy

As mentioned, parameters are critical. The other thing to consider is that sometimes more than one missile is fired at a target. If the first missile hits, the other counts as a miss when you look at the overall hit ratio. Stupid, I think.

That depends on what numbers you use. Some "per frame" numbers show the F-35 costing about 3/4 of an F-22, which is absolutely inexcusable.

avon1944

How many weapons can this statement be made, if you use the weapon as the designers had intended, it works as advertised.
In this particular case there was very little maneuvering. Just four aircraft two F-15C's piloted by Lt. Col. (Capt. then) Mike "Dozer" Shower and Capt. Cesar A. Rodriguez and two MiG-29's, charging head-on at each other. The four aircraft were traveling above six hundred mph, twelve hundred plus mph closure speeds. In between the four fighters was a single F-117 about three thousand feet below the F-15's which was not detected by any of the four fighters.
A surviving MiG-29 pilot later interviewed said he would have tried to avoid the F-15's and gone for the F-117 had he known the Nighthawk was around. The Nighthawk pilot was interviewed later (part of which was in AW&ST) who stated he first thought the F-15's were firing on him. Then he noticed the missiles were not comming down but maintaining level flight and he saw the missiles making impact with the MiG-29. The Nighthawk pilot said he wanted to buy the F-15 pilots a drink.
In another kill of an MiG-29 by an F-15C firing a Slammer Missile. I remember reading about, the MiG-29 was able to get the Slammer on its "3-9" line and out maneuver the first missile. The pilot had ripple fired two missiles about ten seconds apart. The MiG-29 lost most of its energy evading the first missile but was an easy target for the second missile. By firing the missile when he did, the F-15 pilot was able to keep the MiG-29 pilot on the defensive until the second missile made the kill. So while in this engagement only one-half the missiles fired accomplished the task of killing the opponent, the other missile accomplished the task of keeping the MiG from firing at the F-15C. There can be more than one reason to fire a missile.


I agree, especially if the second missile goes through the fireball. I guess my point is there should be listings when a missile is fired in combat, so what happened to the missile that fired?
I know when testing, when a new missile misses because something happens to the target drone and the AIM-xxx misses because the target is no long around. I remember this sort of accounting took place when testing the Phoenix Missile, one missile missed due to one target missile failed and was not in the area when the Phoenix arrived.


How little of this problem should be dropped at the doorstep of the US Military or the civilian contractors and..... how much of this problem should be dropped at the doorstep of America's civilian leadership! I vote for the responsibility to be placed at the doorstep of the civilian leadership for the cost over-runs of the F-22 and F-35 programs.

Adrian

Jimmy

I believe in test programs, those misses are taken into account properly. But in combat, I dont think they are...I think it just counts as a miss.

I think the responsibility lies with the people responsible for the way the defense industry operates. The military gets screwed in damn near every contract it seems...from hardware acquisitions, to software programming, to people guarding the gates.

GGTharos

I'm aware of those incidents avon1944, but I'm not sure why you brought them up. Yes, I know there might be reasons to launch missiles early (ie. ranges at which they won't be terribly effective against a maneuvering target, here maneuvering to be taken as actively trying to evade the missile).
My point still stands: The AMRAAM works as advertized when launched inside the Rtr, and it's the Rtr range where a missile is most lethal. Anything beyond that is 'anyone's guess'.

VarSity

Does it not work out like that only if you include all of the R&D costs within the F35 price, and not the F22. You cant charge someone twice for the same thing... Or can you?

Jimmy

I think it has more to do with the F-35A and B being very very different from each other, and the C being a modified A model.

scorefour

Let's try and keep some perspective here. The F-35 really isn't designed for the A2A role. The American version only carries AMRAAM, not the 9X. To say that the F-35 beats everything but the F-22 is probably a bit of a stretch.

__________________
I want what I do not have.

Blademaster

Nobody has answered my question in another thread due to its nonvisibility and relevance.

Why did the Euros forego in making the Typhoon stealthy? What was the justification for that because with all the money they have spent on R&D, they have only produced a glorified F-15E fitted with AESA. They don't even have first look, first shot, first kill capability. For that kind of money being spent on the Typhoon, they should have made it more stealthy.

Jimmy

Stealth aircraft are pricey. Look at the Raptor. Look at the B-2. I've never seen numbers on the F-117, which isnt surprising since it wasnt even shown to the public until after it had been used.

JA Boomer

You also have to consider how long the Typhoon project was in development. It seriously started around 1979, with the Eurofighter company formed in 1986, the first prototype rollout (a BAE model) was also in 1986, and the first Eurofighter flight was in 1994. Given this timeline, you can see that the Eurofighter may have been just too early to benefit from much of the stealth research and design that has come forth in recent years.

Bella

Though, I haven't read all the posts, I would have to say that both are not proven during live action, but as of right now, I would have to say the F-22. Classified stealth, and agility makes me think that this plane is a weapon to deal with!! I've seen this plane at the Chicago air show from my balcony and the only thing I have to say is OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

T_igger_cs_30

[i]YOu actually saw it wow all I saw was (below) I said the same OMFG I]

35F-22_Stealth_Bomber.jpg

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

Bella

T_igger....., That's a great photo..........!!!!!!
I've heard that the Russian fighters can do the same manuvers as the F-22, but..............manuvability, with stealth...........there is no comparison!!
Thanks for the photo!!!!!!!