VEVAK
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 1
What has Iran contributed to military aviation regarding strategic and tactical doctrines to emboldened you to criticize US in those arenas?
Here is what I said again...
- In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed.
The advice was meant for air combat, not for inter-state relations.
In air combat, any advantage you have is a rule. Simply put, no fighter is perfect. Each fighter have strengths and weaknesses. If you have a longer radar range, keep the fight, and the kills, under that advantage. If you can out turn under a certain altitude, take the fight to that altitude. If you have superior acceleration, do not engage in a turning fight. This goes back to WW I, refined in tactics in WW II, and we tries to embed some of that logic and algorithm into the hardware today. An area that your Iran do not have expertise in.
The 'cheating' I was referring to was in trickery, deception, mislead, seduction, enhancement, basically, anything an air force can do outside of the individual fighters to put the enemy fighters into inferior postures. AWACS is cheating because the AWACS platform extends the battlespace vision and gives its fighters 'unnatural' advantage. The word 'unnatural' does not mean Mother Nature but in reference to the jet's designed-in features and capabilities. In-flight refueling is another form of 'cheating' because it extends the fighter's fuel capacity in another 'unnatural' way. These two capabilities enhanced US airpower to the point that we are essentially unchallenged anywhere we fly. Another form of 'cheating' is data links and sharing, not just between manned but also with unmanned platforms. People mocks US pilots for not wanting to fight without these assets but they are wrong. Foolishly wrong. Whatever you have you must take to the fight because this is war, not a boxing match with a trophy at the end.
What you said about 'cheating' revealed your ignorance and I do not blame you for that ignorance. You may have served but I doubt you served in any meaningful way beyond your two-yrs commitment. I already knew how to fly before I joined the USAF. Instead of spending my money on cars, I spent on flight lessons after school. You did not understand the context of what I posted because you have no relevant experience in military aviation.
You do not know what you are talking about. When I said this...
- Low and slow, you go. Fast and high, you die.
It does not specify exact altitude/airspeed combination for every situation. When I was on the F-111, we trained for low altitude terrain following (TF) flights at near Mach. But even so, flight planning often have the F-111 at above 10k in some situations and lower in others. The advice is meant for keeping a low flight profile after the lessons learned from the XB-70 program and the U-2 shoot down incident.
Again...You have no relevant military aviation experience and your Iran do not contribute to the arts and crafts of air warfare since the beginning of aviation in general, but here you are making pronouncements against a potential opponent who have been in the lead in aviation since the first flight.
I have been reserved about the Q-313 out of respect for my fellow airmen, even for Iran, but now I will opine: The Q-313 is a fake.
Just about everything of the jet seems wrong for a manned platform. If I am proven wrong in the coming days, I have no problems with it. But I doubt Iran will be able to pull it off. In Iran, maybe for public consumption. But for experienced professionals, the Q-313 is a fraud. I wait for the day when I am proven wrong.
And it is really sad for you that you think that just because you lifted that quote somewhere in the Internet, it make valid your criticism of the F-35. I know what 9g feels like. You do not.
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/
The F-35 have been flown by experienced pilots from partner countries and your maneuvering capabilities criticism are done for, as in no longer valid. It is sad for your critical thinking skills, or lack thereof, that you do not recognize how far behind you really are. If the F-35 is as inferior as you believes, the chorus of objections from our partners' pilots would have been obvious by now, instead, the jet increasingly received affirmation even over inevitable birthing pains of a new platform. And who has not experienced such?
I will go out on a limb and say this: The F-35s on the USS America WILL decimate Iran's F-14s without the F-35 pilots breaking 6gs.
Like I said earlier -- When your Iran contribute to military aviation, you can criticize what we do on our jets. When your F-14s starts dropping out of the sky from directions unknown you will realize how revolutionary the F-35 really is.
So what is up with it? What did I said that was wrong? If it is so easy to filter out 'stealth' then why are the Russians and Chinese investing in something that is supposedly figured out?
Your statement is complete ignorance. And I say that kindly.
If the distance is close enough, any radar will pick up the F-117 or F-22. The US never made any claim about being 'invisible'. The word 'invisible' is largely a media hype word. The technically correct phrase that the USAF used is 'low radar observable'. The operative word is 'observable'. Not 'invisible'. It means the seeking radar can 'see' the F-117 but only at very short distance. It was not 'today' like you absurdly stated but have ALWAYS been that way. I have used the phrase 'low radar observable' on this forum since '09. Your continuing mischaracterization of the concept is why I have no problems saying I understand the concept better than you do.
It's funny when faced with facts you either revert back to brining Iran in to a conversation about the F-35 or much like Trump you fall into a rather predictable narcissistic mentality of me, me, me, I know better than you......
As for the Q-313 I wouldn't disagree that the project started out as a fraud however in a sense that it was a fraudulent attempt to steal money from Iran's military budget and NOT some absurd fake project meant for public consumption. If the Iranian government wanted to build a large mockup of a fighter they never intended to produce they would have done a far better job because if the goal was a fake project for public consumption they would have simply built a fake mockup of a supersonic fighter with fake slats and all with 2 larger jet engines (~the size of J79's or larger) and if the attempt was the Iranian governments attempt to fool the public they would have grabbed an F-5 HUD from storage they would have placed one larger screen in the middle with 2 MFD on either side all of which Iran has at it's disposal. Point is if it was a fake attempt by the Iranian government to fool the public they would have done far better job then that absurd design.
And NO they haven't always been that way because back in the 80's & 90's most radars in the world depending on the country would have simply filtered out anything about the size of a bird since by the most part they lacked the processing power and software to be equipped with proper filters that could differentiate. And when you say short ranges it really depends on what you mean by short! And stealth or low rcs back then had far more value then it does today.
As for F-14's and even Iranian built F-5's going up against the F-35's it really depends on what type of Radar and missile they have been upgraded with and in whos air space this fictional battle is to take place. However if your simply talking 1 on 1 with each aircrafts standard radar and missiles then of course the F-35 would not only win but could easily achieve a far greater than 10-1 kill ratio because it be pretty sad if the F-35 couldn't even match up against America's own 70's era technology. However equip each aircraft with the same sensors, weapons system and missiles and those advantages start to go away for that is the true test of a platforms capability and NOT it's ability to be equipped with more advanced sensors then America's own 70's era technology.
As for knowing what an Aircrafts Max G means I'm pretty sure I've known that since high school which was decades ago! LOL! However It's becoming more clear to me that you obviously had to look that up after I schooled you....
