Replies

Sorry, blogs that use biased or outdated information don’t interest me. There was no “mock dogfight”. It was a flight designed to see how the aircraft handled in certain flight envelopes. The F35 referenced in the article is a designated “flight sciences” aircraft with limited capability, limited systems and limited flight envelope. It is not reflective of the operational fleet in general. Tactics dictate that our aircrews have BVR, First look, First Kill capability. The F35 incorporates these when fully missionized.

In addition to being fully coated with stealth materials, the pilot would typically have sensors on board a fully capable aircraft and wouldn’t have to “turn his head” to find the “enemy”. The aircraft is essentially made “transparent” through the use of numerous sensors placed around the aircraft.

But in the interest of fairness, here’s a counter to your blogger: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16/

Doc Nelson referenced in the above article is a previous active duty fighter pilot and flight test pilot in F16s, F22s and now the F35. I think his words should hold much more credence than a blogger.

Is it a 1 for 1 replacement for an A10? Hell no. I don’t believe anyone who claims to be experienced in aviation claiming such. If they do, they expose themselves as either ignorant or deceitful.

I don’t know of one person involved with the F35 who believes it is an A10 replacement. It brings first STRIKE capability, suppression of AA and once attained, then bomb trucking. More like a combination of F117 and F16 than anything else. And I’m not even getting into its avionics capabilities.

‘Dog fight failure’ is a biased and inaccurate representation of what happened. It preformed how they expected based on the parameters of the test, which were not in its favor. It may come as a shock to you but you aren’t the only one with an irrational anti-F-35 bias. Some analysts do too.

The aircraft is exactly as capable as they original planners wrote into the specification (or pretty close anyway). If you don’t like what was in that then blame the military analysts for misidentifying what they need. Personally I would trust their opinion over yours.