Navy To Ignore History With 6th Gen Fighter

[Muzzy]

How does the Lightning fare against 4th generation fighters? 

[Toad]

A Really good read on a guy that flew the F-15, F-16, F-5 and the MiG-29…with some pointed commentary on the F-35. (I happen to agree with him.)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

...Will the F-35's sensor fusion and low observability (stealth) allow it to overcome its lackluster maneuverability and kinetic performance against future enemies?

 I can't answer this one. I can ask, "Why did they make it such a pig?"…


...If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter that has three versions that make any one version less than it could be. Can you say F-111? That the F-35's avionics are better than the F-22's; how about a Raptor upgrade? I'd also build more advanced versions of the F-15 and F-16...

[Rich46yo]

I can't answer this one. I can ask, "Why did they make it such a pig?"…

Maybe ask the family of the Jordanian Pilot who was just cooked.

...If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors.

Im glad it isnt up to you then. That is the absolute worth thing to do is to build more of a 40yo design that is easily detected on radar, has far less range, is no more faster unless clean, and is far less mission capable in the modern air war.

The problem with the F35 is the same thing that plagued many combat aircraft in WW2. That of concurrency. Which means design flaws have to be fixed even as production aircraft are coming off the line. This was caused by program mismanagement and the revolutionary design and mission parameters, not by WW2's demand to get new designs in the air no matter what. There has never been an A-B-C built before.

The F16 had a lot of teething problems too. You might not remember but I do. People thought we were nuts to build such a fighter with one engine, and such a problematic one at that. The F35 will achieve its potential. Its just going to take a bigger bite out of the taxpayers arse then we thought.

[Muzzy]

I appreciate that there are bugs to be worked out, but the question I have to ask is once the teething troubles are done,  will the plane have the handling, speed, and maneuvering capabilities that it needs to compete?  Are any of these qualities even fixable?

The thing is, we're all just armchair quarterbacks, and until we hear from someone who's flown this bird, we can't really know the truth. We do know it's slow,  we know it has good avionics, but we don't know how it flies and fights, and in the end, those are the biggest questions.

[Toad]

Good point, I agree with you. What would a guy like

Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton is one of the most experienced aggressor pilots ever, having flown the F-15, F-5, F-16 and the notorious MiG-29. He's been in dogfights with pretty much every fighter out there and is a graduate of the prestigious Fighter Weapons School.

know about fighter air combat and the things need to be successful at it? They guy is clearly not a reliable source.

..and you know there is controversy over the shoot down with the US and Jordan saying the F-16 wasn't shot down and IS saying they used a heat seeker and shot it down. Man…imagine…what if the single-engine F-16 had a straight up engine failure?

[Rich46yo]

But he's never been in an F35 has he?

I remember the 'nam Vet F4 Phantom pilots badmouthing the F16 and its single engine and simple avionics back when I was in and would talk to them. They'd say, "build more Phantoms".

[Toad]

Exactly. Unless you are currently an F-35 test pilot, there's no way you can evaluate how it will eventually perform someday far into the future when it actually goes in service and it's 120 round cannon has the programming to actually allow it to fire.

Having a ton of experience in multiple fighters, in including one of the potential adversary fighters certainly does not qualify you to make observations about what is needed for fighter air combat.

[PR3D4TOR]

So what do F-35 pilots say about it? I'm assuming those pilots are transitioning from other fighters, so they would have the most informed opinion.

[Vulcan]

Some people in this thread talk like the F-35 is completely invisible or something.

[Zimme83]

At current date i believe its safe to say that almost any other modern fighter will beat the F-35. But its not even near to be operational regardless of what they say so its pretty pointless to compare F-35 with other fighters at this moment.

Biggest problem IMO with F-35 (and F-22) is that the maintenance of the stealth skin would have a negative impact on the ability to keep them in the air during combat. In case of a big conflict it can be very costly to have a lot of plane on ground for maintenance. Quantity is also a form of quality. Maybe not a problem for the US but smaller countries cannot afford it.

F-35, unlike F-22, feels a little too dependant on stealth, F-22 should be able to stand up for itself but I'm not convinced that the F-35 can compete with other modern fighters if/when it get detected and engaged in A2A-combat.

[USRanger]

Hey, at least we got rid of that worthless A-10 to help cover the cost.

[PR3D4TOR]

No. The A-10 is not getting retired yet.

[USRanger]

But soon.  Too soon.  The A-10 should be kept until a replacement is designed and put into production imo.

[Phoenix3107]

No. The A-10 is not getting retired yet.

How long has the A-10 been in service anyways? 10, 20 years now? 

Sure seemed the girl to do the job of ground busting enemy tanks and buildings and such, gonna miss her in a way. 

[Widewing]

How long has the A-10 been in service anyways? 10, 20 years now? 

Almost 40 years.... First units got it in 1976.