[G Larry]

Never let em get that close!

[Rennes Templar]

When I first saw the half-miilion dollar bulky helmet I questioned whether it would give advantage.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Don't know anything about flying, so obviously have no idea whether this is a real problem or not, but as a layman this doesn't seem like a good thing after spending near a trillion dollars. Seems like the only thing that sets the F35 apart is stealth, and this makes me wonder what would happen if the enemy finds the means to overcome the stealth?

I also wonder if things might not dramatically change anyway, such that we have central ‘command’ aircraft from which multiple unmanned drones are launched and controlled in combat. Have no idea, but hope that the people making the military plans for the future do.

[glorgau]

I see no problems that another 20 years of development and $2 trillion can’t fix.

[oldplayer]

This is a surprise to nobody. Their missions are different and so are their abilities. The F-16 (even the 2-place version) is one of the most agile fighters around. The original 1-seater was designed specifically to be an inexpensive dog-fighter and it turned out to be nearly as good as the twin-engine F-15 (which was our number one air superiority weapon).

The F-35, designed by Congress and by DOD committees, was to be a slow, stealthy, more capable ordinance platform to replace the incredible F-117 (Incredible because it flew at all).

Oldplayer

Oldplayer

[Moonman62]

Never let em get that close!

...

Yep. The F-35 was never intended to be a dogfighter.

[TexasGator]

Reminds me about the time the F-14 was rolled out.

[JimRed]

Never let em get that close!

The Tomcat/Phoenix combo had a standoff range of about 125 miles, IIRC. But they ditched it.