F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet

The Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 02 Jul 2015 | Alan Tovey

[PotatoHeadMick]

An extraordinary defence of the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been issued by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, the lead company building the jet.

The response came after influential military blog “War is Boring” published a story claiming the new “5th generation” jet – which Britain is buying a fleet of – was unable to beat a 1970s design F-16 “4th generation” fighter in a mock dogfight.

The blog said it had seen a report from the F-35 test pilot on the exercise, explaining how his jet was too sluggish to get the older jet in his sights, and unable to manoeuvre out of the way when the F-16 targeted him.

[PotatoHeadMick]

Interesting.

[FatherofFive]

“[The F-35] did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, it did not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar,” the statement said. “Third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the aeroplane at its target.”

Then why engage in a dogfight?

[USS Alaska]

It added that while the close-in dogfight allowed the F-35 to be tested on the edge of its handling limits, it was not the type of combat the jet was intended for and the results were “misleading”.

So if the F-35 encounters a group of 4 old MIGs in an old fashioned close in dog fight, the F-35 pilot is allowed to call time out and the MIG fighters will not be permitted to shoot him down...kewl.

[hadaclueonce]

They had to put in a giant order for more lipstick.

[SeeSharp]

So they’ve bet the farm on stand-off weapons. Sounds like the F-4 program.

[Crazieman]

Need more F-22s. Where they got bored dogfighting other jets and begged to do each other.

[RKBA Democrat]

The spin is absolutely hilarious. In effect, its acknowledged that the plane can’t win a dogfight. But the explanation is that when all of its extremely expensive doohickies are attached, no other fighter can get close to it to engage in a dogfight. Assuming all of those expensive doohickies actually work in a combat scenario. A really huge assumption.

I’d argue that the plane is operating to achieve its primary objective: fleecing the taxpayers of several countries.

[WriteOn]

Exactly

[OKSooner]

Then why not just dress up an F-16 with all that same stuff and then have an F-35 that flies better too?

[wrench]

ROE for the last many years have required visual confirmation before weapons launch. That results in a dogfight encounter every time.

But this new flying swiss army knife won’t have to abide by those pesky rules ?

[timlilje]

History repeats itself. We did the same shit in the 60’s with the F-4. Had no guns because we were going to use it’s missiles to kill enemy planes. The result??? It got waxed on a regular basis by the Soviet Migs—We will never learn. If we are going to go high tech then go pilot-less!!

[Yo-Yo]

If you read the test pilot's full report (I'm on my phone so I can't link to it easily,) his recommendations were to change the flight handling laws of the fly-by-wire computer to allow for more aggressive maneuvering before the anti-spin protections kicked in. This is why testing is done.

[ThunderSleeps]

Yep, they’re betting on standoff weapons and having ROE that actually allow their use in that role. When was the last time US pilots were cleared to engage BVR without positive visual ID on their target?

[USNBandit]

Both articles are true.

A fully outfitted F-35 would wreck a group of F-16s at range. In the visual arena it would be a fight for first sight, dueling with helmet mounted cueing systems.

It is still disappointing that the handling capabilities are inferior to the F-16 which lives on an AOA limiter of its own.

Stealth doesn't have to mean pig. The F-22 is an exceptionally agile aircraft. By exceptionally agile, I mean "HTF did he do that?!" agile. Unfortunately, even at inflated F-35 prices, the F-22 is way more expensive and can't carry large ordnance.

[PIF]

SU-35 sees F-35, SU-23 sees target practice ...

[rlbedfor]

The F16 is a heck of a close in fighter. But, it does not have thrust vectoring, just pure clean aero, power, and low weight. All the things in this poor defense have nothing to do with performance just dog fight avoidance.

[USNBandit]

Uh, no.

[jdsteel]

“If you read the test pilot’s full report (I’m on my phone so I can’t link to it easily,) his recommendations were to change the flight handling laws of the fly-by-wire computer to allow for more aggressive maneuvering before the anti-spin protections kicked in. This is why testing is done. “

I had read that this software “governer” was put in because the planes capabilities exceeded the human bodies ability to take the G forces. I am sure they are starting with settings on the conservative side, to avoid dead test pilots.

[Neidermeyer]

Then why engage in a dogfight?
*******************
To show what the plane can do .... if the F35 needs all those technical band-aids to cover it’s unresponsive ass then why not simply adapt those systems to a F-16 at 10% of the cost.

[I cannot think of a name]

Three words explain it all:

No John Boyd!