Chuck Yeager disavows fifth generation fighters.

For someone whose met the asshole, his non-endorsement means nothing.

www.businessinsider.com...

He has always been out for himself and nothing seems to have changed.

a reply to: aholic

I don’t think being a test pilot a lifetime ago qualifies anyone to pronounce on the virtues of modern combat aircraft. Especially someone who was always known as a bumpkin — see Tom Wolfe’s portrait of him in The Right Stuff.

a reply to: aholic

Hate to be the grammar police, but your title says "disenvows", when in reality you meant "disevows" (not 100% sure that's even a word). Thanks for the info

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

‘Disavow’.

originally posted by: aholic
For someone whose met the asshole, his non-endorsement means nothing.

I'd love to know what makes you say that.

A Warthog with Swarming Drone Support.....thank you very much.Speed is passe with Drones as are missiles in general...its now a "spray em and slay em" type of situation.....lead cuts through Drone Swarms.....Missiles do not.

a reply to: Astyanax

we all make mistakes.

a reply to: Astyanax

Yup, thx for that.

I had his Sinclair Spectrum 48k game...it was crap.



It took 10 mins to load and was rubbish It had a picture of him on saying this is the most realistic flight game ever.
He must be 110 by now anyhow.

a reply to: aholic


Give the guy a break. He has risked his life to the work of man and machine a thousand times more than any of you. He is an old fighter pilot and test pilot. He did what others wouldn't do. Yeah, he is full of himself and always was, but what a man does is more important to what he says or what others think about him.


No old pilot wants to believe that the days of a live ass in a cramped seat is a thing of the past, but that is the way of the future. People, if they have self-driving cars hitting the roads these days, the self-driving fighter--literally a drone--is not far behind.

now i just heard from someone with aircraft engineering experience in top secret projects...he says nothing can turn with an f16, not even the pilot can take 9 gs for long. But out turning a missile or attacking fighter at the correct point means you win. So maybe the Chuck has a point. the F35 fails the turn contest, relying on stand off weapons and electronics.

originally posted by: darkstar57
now i just heard from someone with aircraft engineering experience in top secret projects...he says nothing can turn with an f16, not even the pilot can take 9 gs for long. But out turning a missile or attacking fighter at the correct point means you win. So maybe the Chuck has a point. the F35 fails the turn contest, relying on stand off weapons and electronics.

Uh huh..SO a F-35 with a VTOl that can stop dead and make a f-16 over shoot and them smoke him with a Sidewinder up th etail pipe is better? O...kay. Methinks someone needs a V-8 and a snickers bar.

a reply to: yuppa

now i dont know a thing about dogfighting but my guess is that coming to a stop with vtol is a loser...if the opponent notices stop maneuver, he turns and kills before the vtol guy can fire...a 9g turn is pretty quick and keeps speed up.

a reply to: aholic

He's a cranky old man. So?

No test pilot of his skill level, be it yesterday, today, or tomorrow, is without an ego.

As for his portrayal in "Right Stuff"? Only "slightly" fictionalized.

He is allowed his opinion, as is everyone. Knowledgeable or no. ...and I'd venture to guess his knowledge is better than most...certainly better than mine.

a reply to: yuppa

A modern AIM 9-X has a huge off-boresight target envelope. You don't need to shoot "up the tailpipe" any more.

In modern air combat, getting within infrared detection & targeting range is likely a mutual kill. IR missiles are damn good.

To prevent that outcome, you need the best situational awareness and information, particular integration of friend and foe and location of everybody on the battlefield, because on IR everything is a dot with little identifying characteristics, unlike radar which can distinguish better.

a reply to: darkstar57

The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and wasn't designed to out turn an F-16, or even with it. It doesn't have to, between the BVR sensors and high alpha capability it has. It can turn the nose in the direction of an opponent without having to completely turn into them.

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: yuppa

now i dont know a thing about dogfighting but my guess is that coming to a stop with vtol is a loser...if the opponent notices stop maneuver, he turns and kills before the vtol guy can fire...a 9g turn is pretty quick and keeps speed up.

Think outside the box.

A 9G turn, roll, whatever maneuver doesn't compensate for a flaps down, spoilers deployed, minimal thrust adversary... that can hover (considering the appropriate F35).

Did I say too much?

a reply to: paradoxious

I generally thought that in air-combat, energy is life---higher speed (kinetic energy) and higher altitude (potential energy) gives the advantage as it gives the aircraft options against the one that doesn't have it.

A missile fired from a fast moving aircraft from above will hit before one from a slow moving aircraft from below, and have more range.

A flaps down, spoilers deployed, minimal thrust adversary is almost like a fixed SAM site. A surprise pop-up "SAM site" could be an interesting ambush tactic, but not quite the classic air-to-air battle in question.

But if a SU-30 or J-20 gets in with a F-35, I wouldn't think that the F-35 slowing to minimal speed is going to be a winning option. Then again, I'm a computer nerd and not a flyer by any means so I'll defer to those who do have experience in this.

An interesting question: what would a F-35B look like on an opponent's IR search system if it was thrusting down, and the opponent was looking from above?

pls delete

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: paradoxious

I generally thought that in air-combat, energy is life---higher speed (kinetic energy) and higher altitude (potential energy) gives the advantage as it gives the aircraft options against the one that doesn't have it.

A missile fired from a fast moving aircraft from above will hit before one from a slow moving aircraft from below, and have more range.

A flaps down, spoilers deployed, minimal thrust adversary is almost like a fixed SAM site. A surprise pop-up "SAM site" could be an interesting ambush tactic, but not quite the classic air-to-air battle in question.

But if a SU-30 or J-20 gets in with a F-35, I wouldn't think that the F-35 slowing to minimal speed is going to be a winning option. Then again, I'm a computer nerd and not a flyer by any means so I'll defer to those who do have experience in this.

An interesting question: what would a F-35B look like on an opponent's IR search system if it was thrusting down, and the opponent was looking from above?

Yeah, kinetic energy is important, no doubt about that. From what I've gathered though, the F35B can scrub off energy and recover rather quickly. As I mentioned, throttle down, deploy flaps and spoilers- that's a huge air-brake right there... and the plane will drop rather quickly.

Throttle up, vector, point and shoot.

And you bring up a good point about the FLIR and radar. If the F35 knows the adversary is there, who had advance notification and will act first?

*edit to add:
As elevation increases, so does wind resistance decrease. A vertical separation of a few thousand feed can substantially affect the maneuverability of the higher aircraft.

Don't ask my how or why I know, but an F14 took down an F15 and F16 in competition. The F14 lost because of weight.