[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.

[SeeSharp]

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

[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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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 ...

[I cannot think of a name]

Three words explain it all:

No John Boyd!

[Revolutionary]

The F-16 has an aerodynamic advantage over the A model. The F-35 has a thrust advantage. After they fix the flight control laws (why this test was done in the first place), I expect the F-35 to have a small advantage, if flown right, over the F-16 even without all the fancy toys. My number one complaint after the flight controls would be the eyebrow on the helmet. Very, very, very bad for dogfighting. There is a better way of visor display now.
The strategic benefit of the F-35 is worth the trouble. A 5th gen fighter is costly in development and in proper sustainment. This puts our adversaries into a difficult box. They may never really get past the prototype stage or just create a gen 4+ aircraft that is also expensive.

[smokingfrog]

I guess we may need to keep a few F-16’s around for high cover.

[Jeff Head]

I discussed this at length with several AF buddies I know, including pilots.

The media reports on the F-35 and F-16 flight is less than forthcoming and amounts to a tempest in a teapot. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with items that make today’s production F-35s 5th Generation fighters. AF-2 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. AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. AF-2 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 airplane at its target.

The tests cited by the detractors were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference only. As I said, in addition, the entire program, which is still in a test and evaluation mode, has not had its full agility and maneuvering envelope opened up for any air to air test like close in dogfighting yet.

But I will say this. Given the Off Angle capabilities the F-35 has already shown, and given its other capabilities...when it does reach operational capabilities with all the gloves off...it is going to turn and burn with the F-16 and about any other fighter currently available outside of the F-22. And the F-22 pilots are going to have to watch out and respect this bird too. Watch and see if this is not so in a few years.

[Organic Panic]

The more they over think the pipes, the easier it is to stuff up the drain.

[MasterGunner01]

I recall that all these “visionaries” of the next air war were rather embarrassed when that war came to pass. The war was initially fought with the older weapon that were still abundant and there were few of the new fighters available. The USAF of the 1950’s envisioned a long range missile war against enemy bombers and not short range fighter vs. fighter short range gunfights.

Then Vietnam came along and there were no enemy bombers to shoot with missiles. The advanced fighter of the day, McDonnell F-4 Phantom, had only missiles and no guns to fight smaller, lighter MiG-17 and MiG-21 jets. Rules of Engagement required visual confirmation before the Americans could engage and that rendered the missiles completely useless because these fights usually were within the MINIMUM engagement range of the AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-7 Sparrow.

It was only when the F-4E version of the Phantom was issue to USAF squadrons that the fighter's lack of a gun was corrected. Navy and Marine Corps Phantoms never were configured for a gun. Follow-on fighters of the 1970’s (F-15, F-17, F-18) all carried guns as well as missiles. One thing seems not to have changed: the ROE requiring visual confirmation before engagement. This guarantees dogfights. And now we're full circle with the F-35.

The questions become: 1) if the F-35 cannot dogfight because of the visual confirmation ROE and 2) it cannot do close air support because it is too few, too expensive, cannot loiter over the battle area, and carries too little ordnance — WHY ARE WE BUYING IT? Buy more of those capable aircraft that are in production with improved design.

[Timber Rattler]

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 they admit that it sucks in a dogfight.

“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” the statement said.

Just like the F-4 Phantom in the 1960s? How did that turn out?