U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1

[super-bee_ski]

Ski...There was a point made about the Helmet and interference with the vision on an approaching aggressor on the F-35 Pilots "6". Something about not being able to swivel and turn to see because the helmet being larger than current ones because of all the helmets capabilities is too large and hits the top back of the pilots seat. You got any input on that? I do agree that it is a very well designed machine but that engine initially as installed was causing major headaches with failures and engine fires. I'll try and find that article and post it up...cr8crshr/Tuck

Yup,
It is an awesome system, being tested at Nellis AFB for the last couple of months.
I have met and talked to a couple of the pilots who have "experienced" it but no one has mentioned any significant anomalies with it OR perhaps it is being "hushed"
It gets pretty "busy" in that cockpit...I can see an interference fit.
I do know they are developing it for the F-22 also...

It is supposed to be real "eerie", flying the jet and being able to "see thru" the jet and looking as though your in a clear bubble!


Yup, they worked that "Engine Fire" issue out.
It was not the Jet, it was the engine/harness issues.

That F-35 engine is HUGE!
"We" watched a "Max Climb" takeoff on Wednesday 01 July and that F-35 climbed in Full Burner mode all the way to 10K and I thought he would never stop!

- - - Updated - - -

Well whoop-de-doo for you and him, I have too! Long ago when they were still doing Flt. testing on it. A little fringe perk for being a Tanker crew, spent 3 weeks down there doing test support, as well as other flight test stuff y'all do down there..

Yeah, I "gots" a few thousand hours in a EC-135E (Snoopys)
Aircrew member too...18 years.
BTW: Again, thanks for doing a great job in the Air Force!
If I'd had known you were at Eddies, I would have requested a pass for you too.
Seeing a F-22 is one thing.
Seeing the CLASS II MODS that we do here is another thing.

And again, thanks for your GREAT SERVICE to our Country!
Tanker Crew is a great job!

Edwards is gearing up for the new C-46, the Air Force's newest Tanker coming on line soon.
It too will be flight tested here.

 

[69a100]

Yeah, I "gots" a few thousand hours in a EC-135E (Snoopys)
Aircrew member too...18 years.
BTW: Again, thanks for doing a great job in the Air Force!
If I'd had known you were at Eddies, I would have requested a pass for you too.
Seeing a F-22 is one thing.
Seeing the CLASS II MODS that we do here is another thing.

And again, thanks for your GREAT SERVICE to our Country!
Tanker Crew is a great job!

Edwards is gearing up for the new C-46, the Air Force's newest Tanker coming on line soon.
It too will be flight tested here.

No kidding, I was in the 4th ACCS from 81-85 at Ellsworth flying A's, C's, & E models, Flew a few Looking Glass missions too. Loved and miss SAC!
I wish I knew you was there too, I have always wanted to get a ride in a Fighter, you think you could hook up a retired Boomer a yank & bank ride and try and make me puke? I'm really up for it!
As far as this topic has gone, I really don't see the need to build a expensive, high tech new aircraft when there have been some really good platforms in the past. If the DoD really want's the same fighter's for the 3 Branches, why not just rebuild the F-4 with engines, new electronics and gizmo's and what not's? The only difference is no stealth, it worked in the past!
Need a new Bomber? How about a B-52 J? The list can go on.

 

[super-bee_ski]

It's crazy ....
With all the success "we" have with the B-2 NOW we are getting the LRSB (Long Range Strategic Bomber)

As a matter of fact, it will be moving here at our F22 facility and WE are moving "down the street" to where the F-16 facility is.
The F-16 team moved last year to another side of the base.

So, we will be seeing a new bomber on the horizon.

 

[Bruzilla]

you overlooking the main thing here...early detection and enemy destroyed long before visual..insert word STEALTH here..there is no need for a dog fight situation..and throw the F16 against a strike eagle 15 and what the massacre make that 8 16's to the strike eagle..

That's a great thing in theory that fails in practice. We saw the same thing with the F-14 Tomcat. That bird could use it's AWG-9 radar to detect and track a target, and guide an AIM-54 missile to it, all without letting the enemy pilot know he had even been detected, and do all this at a range of 100+ NM! They were untouchable by any enemy. They would launch the Phoenix, it climbed to about 80,000 feet, flew to where the radar told it the target was, and began a terminal dive to the target before activating it's own radar. Since most fighters have ECM/ESM sensors on the underside, most enemy pilots wouldn't know they were under attack until they looked up and saw the missile about to hit him. It was perfect... but then policy met technology, and the Rules of Engagement (ROE) forced pilots to visually verify their targets before firing, which defeated the whole purpose of the AWG-9/AIM-54 combo. It's the same problem with the F-35s and F-22s. Having a stealthy bird does nothing for you if the ROE mandates you get within visual range of the target. Sad to say, but the dog fight is never going away.

- - - Updated - - -

How was the F-111 a disaster Bru? Maybe for the Navy as they wanted it at first. The Air Force how ever took it over and made it into a very effective Fighter Bomber and Electronics Weapons Platform.

That's a negative there Sir! The F-111 was the USAF's design for a low-altitude/high-speed nuclear capable bomber. The Navy wanted the Douglas Missileer to be it's new air superiority fighter, but it didn't have variable-geometry wings, which the Navy wanted. It was McNamara's decision to force the Navy to accept a modified version of the F-111, and it was the Air Force's bird, not the Navy's.

The F-111 had the wings the Navy wanted, but that was it. It couldn't be fitted with the AWG-9, nor could it be adapted to carry the AIM-54 because of it's massive weight. Even after two weight reduction programs, and extensive redesigns of the landing gear to handle carrier sink rates, the bird still was too heavy to launch and recover with the Phoenixes, so the Pentagon had to throw in the towel and let the Navy move forward with the F-14.

The F-111 was everything the USAF needed it to be, but it was designed by them to meet their requirements. But it was a disaster for the Navy, just as I suspect the F-35 will be.

- - - Updated - - -

To those not in the know, it sounds like trying be all things to all people makes it a master of none.

"you overlooking the main thing here...early detection and enemy destroyed long before visual..insert word STEALTH here..there is no need for a dog fight situation..and throw the F16 against a strike eagle 15 and what the massacre make that 8 16's to the strike eagle.. "

Interesting perspective from the second link.
"...all is reminiscent of the question that we’ve been asking for years — if you don’t really need competitive maneuverability, than why do we need a fighter at all?"


Just for those that may not be aware of it.
Airlines "get buy" with using two engines on extended overwater flight because of ETOPS programs. (Engines Turn Or People Swim)
A dedicated mechanic is used for each engine on the pre-flight.
That's so one person can't screw up both engines.
Guess what happens with when a mechanic leaves an oil cap off one of the engines.
Been there and "seen" it.
But it blows out pretty quick for a turn back while still close to land.
On one engine with lots of pucker.

I'll just say this... I flew on six missions in ten years of flying on P-3Cs where we came back home on two engines. And I can't even remember all the missions where we had to land on three. It's one thing to fly jet engines over the oceans at 30,000-40,000 feet, but that's not where we're flying them. We're at 50ft-10,000ft most of the time, and the effects of salt spray, corrosion, and zero response times are much more hazardous.

 

[super-bee_ski]

Spotted today 08 July 2015
0600hrs PST at Edwards ...


-Italy's new KC-767 for upcoming support on their F-35 program

 

[69a100]

Hey Ski- that's a cute little airplane.

 

[bigaadams]

politically correctness is ruining this nation when the enemy has the same capabilities...do you think they will be concerned over ROE

 

[super-bee_ski]

John,
Sorry about the "little-pic"
Yeah, the US version is coming soon.

This one is Italy's

I know it "don't" look like much

 

[69a100]

I've seen the Japs version a few times here at Travis, no more exciting than a 135, but pretty cool all the configs they can do. A few years ago Boeing had a semi trailer mock up that had a sim like thing for doing A/R, neat but to hi-tech for me. Now the big Sexy on the other had, now there's a beaut!

 

[super-bee_ski]

I LOVE the MILF pic!

funny thing, this new KC-46
The "boomer" sits up front.

No more Barca Loungers (3) in the back like on the KC-10
That certainly was the best seat in the house....

 

[69a100]

I LOVE the MILF pic!

funny thing, this new KC-46
The "boomer" sits up front.

No more Barca Loungers (3) in the back like on the KC-10
That certainly was the best seat in the house....

That and in the front for receiver A/R. There's gotta be a vid of on u tube somewhere? Had a Marine F-18 driver sit there and watch us do it with a 135, he had no idea that we did that and had real respect for the AF. Drogue AR sucks!

 

[Bruzilla]

politically correctness is ruining this nation when the enemy has the same capabilities...do you think they will be concerned over ROE

They're always concerned about it. The problem is they're more worried about friendly fire casualties and hitting the wrong plane than they are combat effectiveness.

 

[hotrod]

do they have heated and cooled seats?...just asking

 

[Budnicks]

Disinformation...gotta love it why tell em what we really got.

Bingo

that was my first thoughts too...
-
-
-
-

oh yeah &
thanks for the inside scoop Ski

 

[super-bee_ski]

Well,
69a100 was a Boomer...
He will tell you that the venerable KC-135 "Tanker" boomers "seat" is actually a hammock that the Boomer lays down on his/hers belly with their chin in a support strap.
The hammock is like a webbing and he/she "Flys" the Boom to the receiving jet...


NOW: ..and this is an interesting FACT... when performing Aerial Refuel operations, the BOOMER is in charge of the Aircraft...
Correct...the pilot/co-pilot are merely the "drivers" of the Tanker to get the tanker "On Station" so the Boomer can fulfill his/her mission.

-Another words, it is the ONLY Military aircraft where the Enlisted Boomer is "In Charge" of the aircraft while performing aerial refueling!
Neat!

The KC-10 on the other hand...well, there are 3 Barca Lounger style chairs in a row.
The "Boomer" is in the middle chair with the Stan Eval on one side and Instructor in other chair...
Or, Student in center and instructor on the side.

The seats are magnificently comfortable and the view is simply amazing.
Your at FL350 (35,000) and you are isolated at the very aft of the KC-10 looking down and out.
Simply amazing view!

I flew on the EC-135Es and the EC-18Bs (Electronics/Snoopys)
We had refuel capabilities...
We could receive fuel


PIC of a KC-135 Boomer and observer:
NOTE: Chin support

 

[69a100]

Well,
69a100 was a Boomer...
He will tell you that the venerable KC-135 "Tanker" boomers "seat" is actually a hammock that the Boomer lays down on his/hers belly with their chin in a support strap.
The hammock is like a webbing and he/she "Flys" the Boom to the receiving jet...

It may have been at one time, it is now more or less a sheet metal pallet with a pad to lie on.

NOW: ..and this is an interesting FACT... when performing Aerial Refuel operations, the BOOMER is in charge of the Aircraft...
Correct...the pilot/co-pilot are merely the "drivers" of the Tanker to get the tanker "On Station" so the Boomer can fulfill his/her mission.

-Another words, it is the ONLY Military aircraft where the Enlisted Boomer is "In Charge" of the aircraft while performing aerial refueling!
Neat!

This is entirely correct, I let my pilots know how and where the receiver is, and as needed will give the receiver pilot "verbal correction" as needed to get him in a position where I can make connect or when they are on the boom, letting them know that they are getting close to a "limit" where a disconnect would occur.

The KC-10 on the other hand...well, there are 3 Barca Lounger style chairs in a row.
The "Boomer" is in the middle chair with the Stan Eval on one side and Instructor in other chair...
Or, Student in center and instructor on the side.

The seats are magnificently comfortable and the view is simply amazing.
Your at FL350 (35,000) and you are isolated at the very aft of the KC-10 looking down and out.
Simply amazing view!

I flew on the EC-135Es and the EC-18Bs (Electronics/Snoopys)
We had refuel capabilities...
We could receive fuel


PIC of a KC-135 Boomer and observer:
NOTE: Chin support

I just wish the seats in the back had a recline postion, when going slow to refuel A-10's we would go so slow that the deck angle would change wher the front of the plane is about 10 feet higher than the back of the plane. I felt as if I was being thrown into the back window. Let's have a look at some more pic's, shall we?
Me proving a bucket list item! My buddy giving me a hard time.APU took a dump in Uragray, that little mess cost the U.S $20KGot plenty plowed here a few times! Exttra credit if you can name this place. Pic of the panel.Sitting at Barksdale waiting to go to do this! Brand spanking fresh out of the factory New car smell new F-22's and taking them to their new home in Anchorage, NOTE, no markings at all!This is my idea of a cargo load! Let's play football!

 

[super-bee_ski]

Is that the hotel about 40 minutes South of Lakenheath?

Cool pics John!
T-bird re-fuel AND some Raptors....


Wings: Flight Crew
Wings with "Star" : 10 years Flying status
Wings with "Star" and Wreath": 15+ Years flying service

This was US coming into "Eddies" after chasing a cruise missile for 10 hours or so.....(5 hours captive carry on a Buff & 5 hours "flight")
NOTE: You can see our refuel door directly above the cockpit area

 

[69a100]

Maybe? It's the Bird in Hand right outside Moldyhole. I got so many flying pics! I'm looking for one I have of the "10" boom fully extended with a big-*** bend in it. They were doing testing on the bend strength before breaking. Really impressive pic, has about a 40* in it! Will post if and when I ever find it.
This was in Mex city, Pimp my carrage!
This was a old train station converted it a food type place. Grilled meat everywhere, hungry?Just a cool pic.Yep, it all about me.

HOT damm I found it! Is there anybody there that can tell the story behind this?

 

[Photon440]

If by 'Moldyhole' you mean the Bird in Hand Pub in Mildenhall, England...

 

[69a100]

I know of no other place, do you?