F-35 beaten in a dogfight by F-16

Daily Mail ^ | 6/30/15 | Imogen Calderwood

[Teflonic]

It’s the most expensive weapon in history, but the F-35 stealth jet has been outperformed by a 40-year-old F-16 jet in a dogfight.

A mock air battle was held over the Pacific Ocean, between the cutting-edge F-35, the most sophisticated jet ever, and an F-16, which was designed in the 1970s.

But according to the test pilot, the F-35, which has cost the US military more than $350billion, is still too slow to hit an enemy plane or dodge gunfire.

The dogfight, staged in January near Edwards Air Force Base, California, was designed to test the F-35’s ability in close-range combat at 10,000 to 30,000 feet.

Both the F-35 pilot and the F-16 pilot were attempting to ‘shoot down’ each other down.

But, according to the pilot’s report, the F-35 performed so appallingly that he deemed it completely inappropriate for fighting other aircraft within visual range.

[Teflonic]

Treason!

[Vendome]

It wasn’t beaten by an F16.

It was beaten by a pilot who was better that day.

[spokeshave]

just swap pilots and try again.

[ealgeone]

It was beaten by a pilot who was better that day.

Would be interesting to switch pilots and see if the results are the same.

[Flick Lives]

The F-35 is the world’s 1st aircraft to use $100 bills as chaff.

[Vendome]

[SaveFerris]

They’ve been banking, no pun intended, on BVR for a long, long time now.

[PROCON]

Enough irrelevance!

Was either pilot transgender or gay?

[DuncanWaring]

Related:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3306046/posts

[CommerceComet]

Didn’t he fly an F-14 Tomcat?

[LeonardFMason]

AND the F-22 routinely smoked multiple F-15’s in the same type simulation.

What is going on?

What happened to F-22?

[I want the USA back]

Uh, were the planes flying by themselves without pilots?

[drbuzzard]

The F-22 has thrust vectoring, the F-35 does not.

Truthfully the F-35 isn’t meant to be a dogfighter, and truth be told if you end up in a dogfight in current air to air fights, you’ve messed up.

The F-16 was always known to be extremely maneuverable.

[navyguy]

Excellent point!

[Vendome]

Quibbling....

LOL

[Political Junkie Too]

But according to the other thread, the F-35 was unladen while the F-16 was burdened with two external fuel tanks. So it's not just the pilots; the F-16 was heavily disadvantaged in the test and still won. Can you put all of THAT on the F-35 pilot? Was he really that bad of a pilot that he was beaten by a weighed down F-16? If so, why was he selected for the test in the first place? Wouldn't we put our best on a test of a trillion-dollar plane?

What would it have been like if the F-35 were also burdened with the extra weight of armament?

-PJ

[TheThirdRuffian]

I’ve known about this for a bit. In fact since it happened. I’ll give you one guess as to the nationality of the pilot in the F-16. ;-)

And, in fairness, and I say this as a man who has flown F-16s his entire adult life, this is not that “real world” of a test. The F-35 would have shot down the F-16 long before they engaged in an actual dogfight.

It’s like saying “oh no, a guy with a sword and armor can kill my archer in hand-to-hand combat!” Well duh, different roles.

I do think the F-35 is a bit of a camel — that is, a horse made by committee. It tries to do too much. They should have made related, but specialized, planes.

[Vendome]

and Goose is cooked....

[TheThirdRuffian]

“What happened to F-22?”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That, and drones are going to take over.