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

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

[MasterGunner01]

The good thing that came about as the result of the “missiles only” idea for fighters was the gun made a come back that holds to this very day. That is a good thing.

The “visual recognition before engagement” ROE is still a problem that saddles our pilots and negates the improvements in missiles and low observable tech. If you have to get a visual before you can shoot, the intended bogey can see you. So much for a stealthy, long range bad guy kill.

I firmly believe that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter platform. The new world is the Unmanned Autonomous Aerial Vehicle (UUAV) or "drone". I think there are a lot of pilots that see this as a distinct possibility for their career path. That is why there is a huge fight over drone controllers being pilots or not. The fighter mafia wants control over the shooting platform and does not want to lose jobs to artificial intelligent software.

[CodeToad]

“Now they are taking the training wheels off the plane and tuning it for optimized performance.”

And by 2045 they might actually finish making this Pug.

[Thud]

The same thing happened in the Vietnam War. USAF and Navy F-4's were supposed to engage only at long range but found themselves constantly in short range dogfights with Mig-17's and Mig-19's. And they lost.

If a fighter can't effectively engage at short range, it isn't a fighter. It has to be decent at short range. Then it can be optimized to be best in longer-range engagements. But if it is a sure loser at short ranges, it is a loser period.

This is typical USAF, which has always placed its institutional interests ahead of the national interest even when that is openly laughable. The USAF's insistence that only officer pilots can operate drones is the best current example of this. We'd be much better off if the USAF is folded back into the Army.

[pluvmantelo]

No John Boyd!

---

In Destruction & Creation, Boyd attempts to provide a philosophical foundation for his theories on warfare. In it he integrates Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to provide a context and rationale for the development of the OODA Loop.*

Sounds like quite a character. Thanks for the reference.

*From Wikipedia

[Mr Rogers]

“We’d be much better off if the USAF is folded back into the Army.”

Since you obviously know nothing about air combat, I guess I’m free to ignore this suggestion as well.

[GeronL]

Was it equipped with engine, wings and avionics is my question

[Thud]

Thank you for proving my point. War is more than air combat. The USAF pretends those are the same.

[Mr Rogers]

“War is more than air combat.”

Duh!

But those who know nothing about air combat probably should not direct it - and it IS part of combat. I’ve been an ALO and I know full well how little the US Army understands airpower.

People on this thread act as if Vietnam was yesterday. Well, I flew F-4s...in the 80s. I flew with a number of Vietnam vets. I also flew with AIM-7Es and AIM-9Ps, and I also worked legacy fighter upgrades before leaving the military a few years back.

This isn’t 1965. Those whose knowledge is stuck in 1965 should not comment on the technology of 2015, or what our needs are likely to be in 2025.

[wrench]

Name one, just one fighter shot down at extreme range in the last 30 years in an air to air fight. Just one, I’ll wait.

And the one between the USN and the USAF idiots doesn’t count.

[USNBandit]

Name a fully developed visual engagement since Vietnam. The Gulf of Sidra doesn’t count.

[diogenes ghost]

Sorry, Jeff, but you gotta lay off that Kool-Aid.

This aircraft design was doomed before it ever left the drawing board.

Trying to design an aircraft for air superiority, ground attack, ISR, close air support, carrier use (single engine = deadly), STOVL, SEAD and other missions simply guarantees it will be terrible at ALL of them. Not great....not good....just terrible.

Envision a car that is designed to be great/very good at drag racing, oval racing, off-road racing and rally racing. Now think how that vehicle will stack up against any special-use vehicle built by any decent builder. No contest....the race is over before the cars are built.

Same thing with the JSF....the finest engineering in the world cannot make a turd fly like a bird.

[Jeff Head]

No Kool-Aid, diog. I worked in the industry myself. I know people who work there now. I have friends in the Air Force and the Marines who are involved...and I know that AF-2 and this particular test were not at all about what David A. puports the report to be about.

But for David A. that does not matter, he achieved his aim of moving a lot of traffic to his web site.

The F-35 will end up being a very superior 5th gen strike aircraft and will be a very worthy replacement for the F-16s, the F/A-18C/Ds and the Harriers in particular.

Time will porve this correct.

That’s not Kool-Aid, that’s a prediction based upon knowledge.

That does not mean everything will be smooth as silk...a program this large and complex never is.

But once the full flight envelope is opened up, and once the full operational capabilities come online...that’s the way it will turn out.

[Thud]

You proved another point. The USAF has destroyed its credibility by defending the indefensible, with its insane insistence that only officer pilots are capable of flying drone as the most recent example. That one, in particular, reminds people that the era of manned combat aircraft is ending fast. And puts it in their faces that the USAF is merely defending its institutional interests in EVERYTHING.

Whatever merits a given argument made by the USAF concerning its procurement and personnel policies has is disbelieved outside the USAF because all the AF lies have caught up with it. All it has now is institutional and contractor power.

I.e., the USAF is an institutional dinosaur and we'd be better off without it.

As for the F-35 itself, consider how vulnerable it (and any allegedly stealthy manned aircraft) is to detection by UAV cloud sensor groups reporting to manned stations at safe distances which process the data. All-aspect stealth is not feasible.

[Memphis Moe]

Can you say Brewster Buffalo?

[Mr Rogers]

“That one, in particular, reminds people that the era of manned combat aircraft is ending fast.”

I retired in 2008. I am familiar with two things:

1 - the USAF wants UAVs to work in a way almost no civilian does. Contrary to popular wisdom, the USAF is putting a TON of work into UAVs.

2 - We have a long way to go. By 2050, I could see it happening...maybe. People do not come close to understanding the technical challenges that need to be beat for the day of manned combat aircraft to end. I worked with engineers who were working on it, so I think I know the real poop and not the popular fiction.

Those two, in turn, indicate you don’t know squat all about what is going on or why.

I also spent time in 2007 working air support for the Army in combat. The US Army has some outstanding people, but almost none of them understand airpower. That is OK. I don’t understand tanks. The difference is that I know what I don’t know, while many of the Army officers thought they knew what they did not.