Mordhaus said:

A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.

The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.

Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.

Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.

Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.

We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.

As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?

The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.

As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.

China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.

There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...

China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.

The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?

Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.

So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

The F-16 also failed against the F-4 when it first came out. Gee that was a huge failure, I'm glad we all went back to the F-4 and didn't keep moving forward with the newer technology.