LOL, The F35 shows every sign that like the F16 it will become the most successful fighter built in the West. From the get go: Great Britain, Netherlands, Italy, Norway, USMC, USAF, USN, Australia, Denmark, Canada, Turkey, and probably many many more over the next years will procure this plane. It will be built in volume like no other Western fighter AND will deliver bang for the buck like no other. It is nearly on schedule, and nearly on cost, and these people are screaming fire in the theater. While these experts are screaming doom, NG is already rolling the first **production** fuselages from the line. Where do they come up with this stuff? I guess it has to be in color, use shocking words and be controversial to make the news or grab anyones attention nowadays.
About 5 feet from me is a book written in the 70s. It explains why the F-15 is a piece of junk and a boondoggle. According to this respected best-seller, the F-15 will be an embarrassing failure in combat.
The CDI is a long-time leftist front trying to disarm the U.S. with phony patriots ...former U.S. military who appear to have been Soviet Moles ...paid for on the U.S. Taxpayer dime!
The cost claim on the F-22 is just insane and wrong. The actual unit costs have been dropping dramatically now that they were actually PRODUCING some deployed planes, rather than prototypes. Unfortunately, W and Rumsfeld were hell-bent on killing it at a production run of a measely 185 planes when we could really use about 600.
That said, I am no enemy of the F-35. I think it well worth doing. Here is a really good analysis and a RAND Corp statement in reply to some cockamamie comments out of Australia:
STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE OF F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTERRAND.ORG News, September 25, 2008
Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:
"Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."COMMENT:
"The historical experience, even in WWII, was that you don't win fights by dogfighting: you win by sneaking up on the opposition, shooting him, and disengaging, whether you're in a Bf 109 or an F-35. It's nice to have maneuverability and a gun so you survive if you get caught in a furball, but it's a lot better to be in an aircraft optimized to hit, disengage, improve your situational awareness, and then hit again. Dogfighting may be inevitable but if you win most of the time without, you win the war. Like: a knife or a pistol is nice, but an assault rifle or a sniper rifle is a lot more useful *most* of the time."
This is absolutely correct and far too often forgotten. A turning fight is by its very nature unpredictable and is never your first choice. Even if you are the greatest dogfighter in the world it is too easy to lose track of who is where and end up getting shot by someone you didn't even see.
"It would be rather depressing if instead of the defenses and maneuvering working, the missiles actually performed as advertised (for once) and both sides launched with 90%+ kill rates on EVERYONE. Oops. Though tactical factors (i.e., surprise, etc.) make that rather unlikely."
Even if the missiles significantly under-perform, a 21st century "dogfight" is generally going to be very short. The majority of the time one participant or both will be able to take a high percentage shot before the merge. The best course of action is to avoid a visual range fight completely, in most cases by the time you can visually ID your opponent you are already well within the no-escape zone of an AA-11, Mica-IR, Aim-9x, ASRAAM, Python-4/5, etc. The pilot with the best situational awareness will almost always win. This has been true since WWI, but it is especially true today.
People who try to judge the F-35 by the standards of previous generations of aircraft are extremely misguided. The F-35 is no less capable "dogfighting" than an F-16, but that isn't how it is intended to fight.
See here for a good explanation about some of the capabilities the F-35 will offer:
Links at:The F-35 will offer its pilot a level of situational awareness that no previous plane has ever approached. No more, "where the heck did the other one go?" or "where is my wingman?" or "who the heck is that guy up there?"
Not only will the F-35 be aware of who/what is around it... it will be able to engage them without so much as pointing its nose at them.