Posted on 07/01/2015 7:00:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Modern air combat is all about who can see the other first and fire a missle. Just because the F16 can out turn and out perform an F35, it doesn’t really mean much, unless close range aerial turning fights are what the f35 is planned to be used for.
Aerial engagement is all about putting your strength against an enemies weakness. Look at the p47 vs the Zero. The zero could out turn it and anything else in our inventory. Well trained pilots did not fight the Zero in such a manner and instead used the p47’s speed to dive on it, hit it, and come back around. yiu never got in a turning fight with a zero and it was said it would be on your 6 in two turns.
the F35 is a one trick pony. It was designed to see first shoot first. It wasn’t designed to be a turning battle gun fighter. This is clearly the f16’s fight. Put the two planes in a more realistic scenario at BVR and lets see who wins. I’m not a fan of the F35 but this “test” seems a bit off.
“Modern air combat is all about who can see the other first and fire a missle.”
Those that refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
Your comment is the exact statement used as to why in the 1950’s “modern” fighter jet planners didn’t put a gun on the F-4...but later did.
So the F-35 is the F-16 Part Deux,LOL
wasn’t the F-35 replacing the F-22 which was replacing the F-117?
meanwhile, we stopped production of the F-22 before the F-35 was ready (i believe it was due to a ‘flaw’ in the boards which created a fault with oxygen flow in combat situations... the ‘flaw’ attributed to the chinese)
i’ve read the F-22 does very well in these types of tests
Deja Vu !
“The primary weakness of the F-14A was its TF-30 engines, which left the Tomcat distinctly underpowered and which were prone to frequent stagnation stalling.”
http://www.airfighters.com/page.php?id=40&pg=4
The F-35 is the F-111 debacle repeated. It is supposed to do everything for every service. It was a stupid idea in the 60's, it is a stupid idea today. Macnamera rides again.
Nope, the F-35 is the one size fits all replacement for the A-10, F-16, AV-8B and F/A-18.
The F-35 has been in fly offs with the F-16 before and the relative performance of the two is reasonably well known.
The F-35 compares surprisingly favorably with the F-16, but the later variants of the F-16 are the bench mark by which all other aircraft are measured when it comes to maneuverability.
In a one on one pure visual range dogfight a good pilot in an F-16 is going to have an edge, but in a classic furball multiple aircraft dogfight the F-35 has a lot going for it due to it's systems which provide superior situational awareness, superior countermeasures and the ability to track and multiple targets and resolve IFF and other targeting issues in a complex and confusing multi aircraft environment.
Once again, I'm not going to minimize the importance of close in engagements requiring gun solutions because history has not been kind to those that have made that assumption time and time again, but a classic one on one is a specialized subset of even a close in, visual range dogfight.
The article in question does not begin to address the F-35 performance in dogfight with 10-20 dissimilar aircraft engaged in a chaotic ongoing running dogfight, with both friendly and hostile aircraft violently maneuvering at up to 9gs in all 3 dimension and altitudes including aircraft being shot down as well as new aircraft entering the fight and other aircraft leaving and potential entering the fight.
This is a very realistic scenario and the F-35 has some capabilities in this arena that are very favorable to it's ability engage and destroy enemy aircraft, avoid killing any friendly aircraft and then bringing it's pilot home safely.
All after taking out a heavily defended high value enemy target.
At any rate, the capabilities of the F-35, many of which have not even begun to be exploited, potentially make the classic one on one dogfight the air to air equivalent of affixing a bayonet to the muzzle of your rifle and going hand to hand in an infantry engagement.
The big issue with the F-35 is not whether or not it can take on an F-16 in and old school BCM knife fight ( which history shows happens despite air planners desire to say it is an anachronistic thing of the past), the real big issue is whether or not disruptive advances in next generation sensors and electro -optics may degrade or even negate the effectiveness of some or all the F-35 impressive mission capabilities.
And in todays increasingly complex weapons environment , I'm frankly far more concerned with our aircraft being destroyed on the ground than I am of them being shot down in the air.
If I were a potential adversary who had to figure out the best bang for the buck way to counter American tactical aircraft I'd concentrate on hitting them on the ground because it's pretty darn hard to hit them in the sky.
FWIW, the F-35 astronomical, sticker shock inducing cost you see quoted is misleading.
The sticker shock price is the total cost of the entire F-35 program since it's inception divided over the number of aircraft produced. A huge portion of the quoted F-35’s reported price tag as already been spent many years ago on design and development.
The actual unit cost of new funds spent on each F-35 is actually competitive with and even lower in some cases than some of it's competition.
ah yes the TFX.... good times.../sarc
He is living in the past, Seek. There has been endless debate about this and it is entirely a stupid subject. Air war is changing. This is not Viet Nam, where “smart” weapons did not work and we had to up gun.
Battle management of drones and distant situation awareness (e.g. sensors) are much more important now. Even against the crappy Chinese gear a pilot cannot live through a dogfight with a drone that turns at teen level G forces. No matter what pet legacy gear is employed.
Think about it a bit. The instrumentation of the F-35 is first to effectively let the pilot (better: “battle manager”) to effectively be a decision maker floating in the air. No dependence upon “seat” effects. Add a drone or two as “wingbots” that can kill bad guy wingbots up close and personal if needed, and let the floating battle manager kill things at a great distance before they become problems.
This does not fit the zeitgeist of the fighter jock so they kvetch.
Nailed it! Good post.
Interesting, but I disagree.
See Post 34, please.
The F-117 is better replaced by the F-22 with its internal JDAM load.
Of course, there is the NGB, too (still in the requirements definition phase).
In war coming in second means coming in dead—replay of the P-40 vs Zero. How will it stack up against the Mig 35? What are we going to trust the UN to make sure there is no WW III? If we fight a war against a 1st class power (like Russia or China) will we have a chance? Unlike past wars—this new one will not give us the time to build new fighters and train new pilots.
Tactics revolve around avoiding the merge, grinder-type tactics, but in modern A/A warfare, avoiding the merge is never 100% guaranteed so A/A, ie., ‘dogfight,’ is a role that must be included.
We are seeing the modern version of the F-111. . .an aircraft that was supposed to perform all missions for all Services, but couldn't do anything well. . .until it specialized -- like the FB-111 or EF-111. . .
The F-35 pilot is a “patch wearer,” meaning he is a graduate of the Fighter Weapons School and highly experienced. He knows the F-16C and he knows the vulnerabilities of the F-16C. . .he couldn’t translate that knowledge into capability because the F-35 is over-weight, non-maneuverable with a JHMCCs-type helmet that present a significant LIMFAC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.