Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public

[artik]

What? This is one of the best homo-erotic movies of the 80s.

 

I prefer Hot Shots!

[Saxman]

Mmmmm.... Valeria Golino....

[Squire]

The brutal truth is this; BVR missiles and Stealth capability will not be any guarantor that an engagement will not end up as a visual range fight just as that's been true since 1965 in many conflicts from Vietnam to the Second Gulf War. Every time its pointed out that the F-35 has less than average maneuvering ability the supporters mention Stealth. You do not need a radar lock to shoot with a modern heat seeker. It helps but it is not required. The F-35 is also not armed with a long range BVR missile like the AIM-54. It only has AMRAAM. So its not like its shooting at 50 miles or anything.

The F-22 Raptor is Stealthy...but it also has very good speed and maneuverbility and by all accounts a very good radar. It would at least be able to engage other top end combat a/c on better than or equal terms.

The cost of the F-35 is also insane.

Rather than  go with a large # of very good combat a/c the US has gone down this path of fewer and fewer planes that are incredibly costly. There is no follow on to the A-10...the #s of Reserve and ANG fighters are diminishing and more and more there seems to be a reliance on over priced drones with tiny payloads.

I absolutely see now why the US Army is so jealous to guard its fleet of helicopters! I would not surrender that capability to an Air Force Brass and Pentagon that seems to have lost all common sense in the last 20 years. The lessons of the F-111 fiasco were not learned.

There should be 100s of light attack aircraft in multiple deployable Wings piloted by Air Force/Marine/Naval Reserves for wartime use. Capable high subsonic attack planes with decent weapons and systems that can also be built quickly in wartime to backup the Regular Forces. The obsession with everything being Stealth capable Mach 2+ superbirds ignores the need for light attack completely and by its nature ensures no backup plan for losses in wartime. Instead they get more f****** drones who's capabilities are endlessly spewed out by PR Officers. 

[PR3D4TOR]

I think it is premature to say the F-35 "has less than average maneuvering ability". The average of what? The only match-up we have any info on is against the F-16, which is the race car of fighters. The F-16 out turns the MiG-29, SU-27, Mirage 2000, F/A-18, F-15 and is a match for the F-22 even with its thrust vectoring. The only jets I can think of that might match a Viper in a pure close-in dogfight is the European double-deltas; the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen.

The current generation of the AMRAAM has the same reported range as the old AIM-54 Phoenix.

The cost of the F-35 is not insane at around $100 million per unit. An F/A-18E costs $60 million and has been in production for a long time. The current cost estimate for the F-35 is that by 2018 the unit flyaway cost has come down to $85 million.

A Eurofighter Typhoon will set you back $90 million. A Rafale costs $101 million. A new F-16 will cost you anywhere from $70 million to more than $100 million depending on what options you want.

[Squire]

A single Air Force F-35A costs $148 million.
One Marine Corps F-35B costs $251 million.
A lone Navy F-35C costs a $337 million.

The Russians and Chinese are not firing AA-2 "Atolls" anymore.

The only jets I can think of that might match a Viper in a pure close-in dogfight is the European double-deltas; the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen.

Even so you would lose F-16s in a large shooting war and the same applies to the F-35 that apparently can't beat it.

...Simply because an F-16 can give another fighter a run for its money in a close in dogfight does nothing to bolster the F-35s in close abilities. The enemies fighters are, sadly, not lumbering low tech peices of crap. At some point it will not be F-35 vs some 3rd world dirtbag air force with no support or AWACS and 2nd rate tactics and dropping bombs on a bunch of Jihadist dorkwads in Toyota trucks.

[PR3D4TOR]

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

F-35A: $98 million
F-35B: $104 million
F-35C: $116 million


America never goes to war without at least a 10:1 advantage in force (including force multipliers), so I wouldn't worry too much.

[PR3D4TOR]

Even so you would lose F-16s in a large shooting war and the same applies to the F-35 that apparently can't beat it.

If turning performance is your only metric in determining that the F-35 can't beat the F-16 (which is as retarded as saying nothing can beat the Ki-43 in the MA) then no other US jet can beat the F-16, perhaps except the F-22. Are the F-15 and F/A-18 bad combat aircraft? Obviously not. The F-15 is unsurpassed in K/D and undefeated, yet it won't win a turn fight against a Viper with equal pilot skill.

[Squire]

America never goes to war without at least a 10:1 advantage in force (including force multipliers), so I wouldn't worry too much.

Makes a nice bumper sticker. 

Are the F-15 and F/A-18 bad combat aircraft? Obviously not.

...no and neither is the Su-35 or the many other probable op force types that the F-35 is likely to have to fight at god knows what odds.

...if it cost 75 million and was just a fighter-bomber, say the replacement to the A-6 Intruder? I would have a different take on it but sadly its being asked to do a hell of a lot more.

[PR3D4TOR]

What are you worried about? You must come to the same conclusion that the Su-35 is a POS since it can't turn with a Viper! Otherwise the veracity of your previous statement is seriously impugned! 

[PR3D4TOR]

Also the F-35 is just a fighter-bomber, and the A-6 Intruder was never a fighter-bomber.

[Squire]

Who said anything about it being a POS?

It costs too much for what it is capable of doing which seems not all that much more than aircraft it is replacing.

A-6 Intruder was never a fighter-bomber.

Never said it was.

F-15 and is a match for the F-22 even with its thrust vectoring

Curious the F-35 beats all though where the poor F-22 is bested by an older plane when the argument suits you.

[PR3D4TOR]

I find it exceedingly hard to take you seriously as there is no way you can know exactly what the F-35 is capable of doing.

[PR3D4TOR]

Curious the F-35 beats all though where the poor F-22 is bested by an older plane when the argument suits you.

What?

[artik]

I find it exceedingly hard to taconflict eriously as there is no way you can know exactly what the F-35 is capable of doing.

But we know exactly what it can't do - fight handicapped f-16 in close combat.

We also do not know if the next conflict would be finally BVR (which never had been)

The rest is simple logic 

[PR3D4TOR]

But we know exactly what it can't do - fight handicapped f-16 in close combat.

No... we don't. The USAF doesn't even know yet. All we know is that a pre-production test plane without most of its sensor and combat systems functional, and without stealth, and with FBW software still being developed, and with a pilot with very little time in the plane and who couldn't move his head effectively in the cockpit, and probably a whole lot of other issues, could not turn-fight a Viper. Could not turn-fight a plane that very few other top-of-the-line 4+ gen fighters can turn-fight. We don't know anything about the F-35 fully combat ready, because no such aircraft exist yet.