New F-35 Report

[GregP]

Here a pretty scathing report on a dogfight test of the F-35 versus an older-block F-16. And we paid more for it than any other aircraft in history.

The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report

Draw your own conclusions.

I was paying a LOT of attention when the F-35 was sold to the DOD. When it is clean and carrying no munitions, it was supposed to be a pretty good fighter. That it wasn't going to be only came to light after the funding was committed and the program was in full swing.

I don't have much else in the way of comments except I hope they are funding F-16 spare parts.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Total bull sh!t report, flat out. They took the F-35 and put it in the most disadvantaged state possible. Of course it's going to get beat VR by an F-16, it was never designed with a dedicated air-to-air role. Do the same test BVR with everything working and see what happens.

BTW, when the Marines recently deployed, the 10 or so F-35Bs maintained about a 90% MC rate.

 

[GregP]

Hi Joe,

I wasn't asleep when they bought this plane and it was sold with a dogfight capability when the ordnance was gone. I know you like the F-35 and that's fine. But they absolutely DID sell its fighter capability when it was getting approved.

Getting into a visual range combat may not wise when you can avoid it by killing BVR, but I can guarantee it WILL get surprised by something sometime in its service career. This report may be a piece of bad journalism, I don't really know. But it sure doesn't LOOK like it can turn very well. The wings look like afterthoughts.

But ... and here's the part I want to see ... they absolutely SHOULD incestigate the capability this crate has against the current US and Allied fighter inventory. The Russians and Chinese may be "on the other side," but their planes, especially the newer ones, are not likely to be less capable than US fighters fielded in the early 1970s.

As a taxpayer, I am unwilling to spend over a hundred million dollars on a plane that can't survive an ecnounter with an early-block F-16. All they have to do to dispell this report is let the F-35 fight in a war game the way it was designed to fight, with the array of sensors and information it was designed to fight with. If it STILL loses, then its time to seriously think about continuing with the horendous expense of the program.

We already know it can't fly with low fuel because they use the fuel as a heat sink. So, exactly what IS the range of this thing between times when it is imperative to hit a tanker? Can it fly as far as, say, an F-18? Which has notoriously short range when compared with an old F-14.

It would be nice, considering all the money we've spent, to know how much it can carry and how far without air-to-air refueling. If they want to muddy or deflect that question the obvious answer is, "That's classified!" But considering the money involved, it damed well should NOT be classified. We pretty much know those parmeters for the F-15 / F-16 / F-18. All we need to know is whether or not the F-35 is any better.

 

[Greyman]

Hey GregP, we've got a long thread on the 'Modern' board on this forum on the F-35 if you want to have a look.

A good 'response' article is here here.

 

[GregP]

Thanks Greyman. I'll read it. Sorry, I forgot about the "Modern" board. Maybe Joe can move this or delete this and I'll go read in the modern forum.

This article I posted a link to was in today's AIA dailyLead. I wasn't trolling for F-35 crap. It just showed up.

 

[fastmongrel]

I thought the F35 was a bad idea from the start the problem with a multi purpose aircraft is it has to do everything well. If an F35 cant look after itself in poor conditions at low level and can be beaten by a 2nd hand 1970/80s aircraft then all that money begins to look a little sick. No use saying "Oh but the dice were loaded against the F35" combat has a nasty habit of throwing up situations where the odds are against you.

A massive problem with the F35 its too fu***ng expensive no one apart from the US can afford to lose one, good luck getting anyone in NATO risking there shiny new F35s anywhere near a man with a $5,000 shoulder launched rocket or even a $10 AK47 never mind a $20,000,000 aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

..A massive problem with the F35 its too fu***ng expensive no one apart from the US can afford to lose one, good luck getting anyone in NATO risking there shiny new F35s anywhere near a man with a $5,000 shoulder launched rocket or even a $10 AK47 never mind a $20,000,000 aircraft.

You do realize that the F-16's cost in 1998 was about $18,500,000.00 which is roughly $27,000,000.00 in today's dollars?

And why do we suppose an F-35 would do any worse than current NATO aircraft, where MANPADS are concerned?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Joe,

I wasn't asleep when they bought this plane and it was sold with a dogfight capability when the ordnance was gone. I know you like the F-35 and that's fine. But they absolutely DID sell its fighter capability when it was getting approved.

Actually if you look who added the dogfighting capability, it was the USAF and the aircraft was designed per a spec put out by the DoD. The only thing the aircraft wasn't capable of meeting was the sustained 9G turn which was something totally unnecessary in the capacity the F-35 is to be used.

Getting into a visual range combat may not wise when you can avoid it by killing BVR, but I can guarantee it WILL get surprised by something sometime in its service career. This report may be a piece of bad journalism, I don't really know. But it sure doesn't LOOK like it can turn very well. The wings look like afterthoughts.

It turns like an F-18C, nuff said.

But ... and here's the part I want to see ... they absolutely SHOULD incestigate the capability this crate has against the current US and Allied fighter inventory. The Russians and Chinese may be "on the other side," but their planes, especially the newer ones, are not likely to be less capable than US fighters fielded in the early 1970s.

And that's what being done now. no one mentions the test the marines have done or BVR tests that have already been accomplished.

As a taxpayer, I am unwilling to spend over a hundred million dollars on a plane that can't survive an ecnounter with an early-block F-16. All they have to do to dispell this report is let the F-35 fight in a war game the way it was designed to fight, with the array of sensors and information it was designed to fight with. If it STILL loses, then its time to seriously think about continuing with the horendous expense of the program.

It's already done that and there will be more of these tests that will eventually quiet the opposition.

We already know it can't fly with low fuel because they use the fuel as a heat sink.

Show us proffo of that? Are you referring to the "hot Fuel" report tfrom an interview with an air force E-4 fueler?

So, exactly what IS the range of this thing between times when it is imperative to hit a tanker? Can it fly as far as, say, an F-18? Which has notoriously short range when compared with an old F-14.

over 1300 miles. F-35s been flown on long cross countries for the past several years and have done quite well

It would be nice, considering all the money we've spent, to know how much it can carry and how far without air-to-air refueling. If they want to muddy or deflect that question the obvious answer is, "That's classified!" But considering the money involved, it damed well should NOT be classified. We pretty much know those parmeters for the F-15 / F-16 / F-18. All we need to know is whether or not the F-35 is any better.

The specs for the aircraft been out for a long time. It carries a greater bomb load than an f-105. Everyone seems to emphasize the bad press but ignores the F-35's achievements. The recent Marine deployment yielded a 90% MC rate, no one is talking about that. When it's said and done this aircraft will be a game changer, and this come from people I know who have worked on and flown it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I thought the F35 was a bad idea from the start the problem with a multi purpose aircraft is it has to do everything well. If an F35 cant look after itself in poor conditions at low level and can be beaten by a 2nd hand 1970/80s aircraft then all that money begins to look a little sick. No use saying "Oh but the dice were loaded against the F35" combat has a nasty habit of throwing up situations where the odds are against you.

That hold true for any aircraft including the F-16, Su 29 and typhoon

A massive problem with the F35 its too fu***ng expensive no one apart from the US can afford to lose one, good luck getting anyone in NATO risking there shiny new F35s anywhere near a man with a $5,000 shoulder launched rocket or even a $10 AK47 never mind a $20,000,000 aircraft.

In the end it's going to cost not much more than any other modern western fighter, that been well documented.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"He believes "the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can't conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide."

Deptula flew the F-15 and twice led joint task forces, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

 

[GregP]

Actually Joe, I worked for Parker -Hannifin for 6 years, part of that time on the F-35. I know some weaknesses, but there is no point discussing them since I also left there in 2011 and no longer have any access to insider information. If some of the previous weaknesses have not been a dressed, then it has some very specific weaknesses. The Test pilots that briefed us several times even mentioned the issues about flying with low fuel levels.

Again, if they have corrected any of these faults over the last 4 years, I'd have no real way to know. There were no corrective actions outstanding when I departed but I know of about 5 - 6 specifric weaknesses that needed them.

You and I may feel exactly opposite about the F-35, but I'm not in a position to argue from a standpoint of being up to date on it at this time. Obviously I'm not in charge of the program or it would be in serious trouble. The way it looks from here is we're going to get this thing whether or not the F-35 likers or haters are right.

Once it is in service, and I assume that to be the case, we'll have an opportunity to see how it flies or flops if it ever gets into serious combat with a credible threat aircraft. I'm assuming it can handle the older, less-capable threats from limited war type opponents. The F-15 and Su-27 / 35 series have been the top fighter predators for 3+ decades, but they've not had much in the way of face-to-face fights. The F-35 may well wind up the same way versus credible threat aircraft in its lservice lifetime. That would be nice since it would mean no major conflitcs during its service career.

I have no predictions since I don't want to get into a major fight if it can be avoided anyway. The Military usually only gets in major fights when the damned poiticians fail at their jobs.

 

[GrauGeist]

It seems to me, in this modern day and age... the U.S. military could commission a P-59 or a P-80 and the public would crap their drawers and scream that we don't need a new fighter, it costs too much, an F4 Phantom could sneak up and shoot it down, it's wings will fall off and on and on and on.

But then again, the public has been soiling thier drawers over every single new aircraft the military has ordered since the Wright brothers...none of this F-35 stuff this should come as any surprise.

 

[GregP]

The aircraft doesn't come as a surprise to me and neither do it capabilties.

But accepting the cost of it does. I'm not in power to make decisions and we seem to be spending for it regardless of whether or not it makes sense to the best defense analysts in the world. So far, the F-35 doesn't seem to have too many supporters from that quarter, but we're into early service deployment already.

Staying with the F-22 would have cheaper by long shot. Somehow we went from "the F-22 is too expensive so we're going to cap it at 177 aircraft and shut it down" to "let's spend MORE for a jet that has one less engine." Since it is going into service, let's hope the F-35 proves to be the winner the proponents say it is. As long as we're gonna' fly it anyway, go baby ... kick A$$.

I'm looking forward to seeing one at an airshow but I'm not expecting much since I've seen the Raptor demo maybe 10 times and the F-35 won't do that on its best day and they usually don't allow precision bomb drops at airshows. So, there's almost no way the F-35 can showcase it capabilities to an audience because its forte' is not sparkling airframe performance ... it is attack.

The guys who will fear it are mostly soldiers on the receiving end of an F-35 attack.

The Apache attack helicopter doesn't look all that impressive at an airshow. But if you're an enemy hiding in an abandoned shopping mall, you just might be some deep caca from an angry Apache. The F-35 is the same sort of animal. It is capable of delivering precision attacks on ground targets in horendous weather, with only very close occasional misses.

Turns out that isn't a spectacular mission and doesn't show well at an airshow. But is IS very important when required. The HUD film might make CNN news sometime and will rresemble a video game of today. The difference is the bad guys and explosions are real. I can tell you from personal experience that a Skyraider attack was and IS awesome if you're the one being "rescued" by the Sandy. But it never was or will be a great airshow act.

I expected and wanted (and still DO want) more performance from the F-35 airframe as a fighter when the bombs are gone, but never DID expect the attack part to be anything less than stellar. If it does what I THINK it will do in the attack mission, then the bad guys have little idea how much trouble they're in for.

It never WILL be able to replace the A-10 and they should seriously rethink retiring that platform in lieu of the F-35. I wouldn't want to risk an F-35 in a typical A-10 environemnt anyway since that is NOT what it was designed to do. It will kill tanks, but not up close and personal. It will kill them from BVR with standoff weapons. If you need up close and personal tank kills, you're MUCH better off with an A-10 under most ROE I have heard of. If the ROE are OK with BVR kills, then go for the F-35 attack and be done with it.

Now the question is, who will authorize changing the ROE so the F-35 can be employed as designed?

You can bet it ain't Obama.

 

[Greyman]

... the public has been soiling thier drawers over every single new aircraft ...

For sure.

There are many dogfights you could stage in which an F-16 would beat an F-35 ...

... in which an F-100 could beat an F-16 ...
... in which an F-86 could beat an F-100 ...
... in which a P-51 could beat an F-86 ...
... in which a P-36 could beat a P-51 ...
... in which a P-26 could beat a P-36 ...
... in which a P-1 could beat a P-26 ...

You fight 'in the old style' and to your older opponent's strengths, you're going to lose.

 

[GregP]

I can't think of one where an F-100 would beat an F-16. The F-16 accelerates WAY better, the software will max-performance turn it anytime, and it can extend and escape or attack as it choses. The corner speed for an F-100 is very smiliar to the corner speed of an F-16 in dogfight mode. Both are near 450 KIAS or so, and an F-16 would never slow down to 350 KIAS to engage an F-100 unless the pilot has a severe hangover and is out of practice, both at the same time.

 

[GrauGeist]

We first need to assume the mantra of: "the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter...the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter..."

This is the 21st century and the F-35 is a new age of fighting platform. If the F-16 had been a MiG-29 in a hostile environment, it would have never gotten close enough to engage in a "furball".

Each new generation of combat fighter has it's unique advantages and unfair comparisons. People always need a reason to complain about something and they'll go to great lengths to find that reason.

When the monowing first appeared, the pilots of the time viewed it with great suspicion, feeling that their biplane was far superior (and safer). Syncronized MGs mounted on the cowl was a brilliant idea but the detractors claimed it slowed the rate of fire to tje point of making them ineffective - even though a slower rate of fire was preferable over the prospect of destroying your own propellor.

And I might add that when the F-22 was in the works, people were up in arms about that, too. The ONLY reason we didn't hear more about the F-22 (or anything else) to such a degree, is because the world hadn't yet discovered social media as a means to propegate shallow causes, conspiracy theories, misinformation and other means to promote virtual bed-wetting and hyperventillating.

 

[SpicyJuan11]

A little OT, but how likely is it that the F-22 will go back into production?

 

[gjs238]

We first need to assume the mantra of: "the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter...the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter..."

This is the 21st century and the F-35 is a new age of fighting platform. If the F-16 had been a MiG-29 in a hostile environment, it would have never gotten close enough to engage in a "furball".

Not F-35 bashing here, but isn't that what was said of the F4?

 

[Glider]

Not F-35 bashing here, but isn't that what was said of the F4?

Yes and once they put a gun on it the F4 was a pretty effective dog fighter

 

[GregP]

If they use the F-35 as a stand-off attack platform or interdiction role, it will be successful.

What I'm not too sure of is why we stopped buying the F-22 and decided to throw all our eggs into the attack basket only, and why we paid so much for it.

If they try to use the F-35 as a fighter it will not be so great and could be a fiasco. I'm also not too sure why a follow-on platform is not at least being studied. I would fund some level of ongoing design effort if only to keep up with what is possible, so when it IS needeed, we aren't starting from scratch.

I see the potential of drones, but they have their limits. They can't distinguish between friend and enemy or when continuing with an attack is not indicated. All they can do is follow the program. If we make one smart enough, then it will be too expensive to lose ... more expensive maybe than the F-35. If we don't then we only send in the drones when we are sure the attack should be prosecuted or we need reconaisance.