Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[Randall172]

Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the USAF, USN and USMC since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. Aircraft that did exactly what they were supposed to do, and usually much more. Some had severe teething problems like the F-111 and F-16, but in their ultimate form they were/are truly superb.

Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the RAF and RN since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft.

Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the Armée de l'air since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Mirage series in particular stands out as some of the best fighters of all time.

Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with Flygvapnet since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Gripen has perhaps suffered from more teething problems than the Draken and Viggen, but it is still a superb multi-role fighter.

There has never been a "crap" aircraft in service in any air force in the democratic west since the end of WWII! They have all been superb aircraft and any pilot would be proud to fly them! Some have been better than others, but only in the sense that there are degrees of "superb".

The Russians made some awesome aircraft too, and when they flew them, they performed extremely well.

[GScholz]

Indeed they did, but that's beyond my point. Soviet-Block pilots couldn't speak freely without endangering their own lives and the lives of their families.

[Serenity]

That's a gross exaggeration.

No, it's not. The radar fails readily, the bays overheat, the doors can't be opened at cruise speed, the gun can't be fired due to software oversights... If the project was at least on time or budget, it could be tolerated, but everything about this program has failed so far.

[GScholz]

"It can't actually do this, but for another billion dollars, it might work in 20 years" is a gross exaggeration.

And since when has any government run project been on time or on budget? What world do you live in?

[Bodhi]

We would be better off cancelling the F-35 and upgrading the F-22, or skipping any further Gen 5 stuff and going direct to Gen 6 (supplementing with more legacy fighters).  There is not a single adversary that we can't match at this point with what we have.  Even if the time difference is 20 years before the Gen 6 arrives, we'd be better off without the F-35.

[GScholz]

Can't cancel it.

[Bodhi]

Nothing is guaranteed.  The next administration or major changes in the next Congress could easily change it.

If they were concerned about this country, they'd halt production until this POS gets worked out and costs are brought under control.  That's about the only way to get the point across to Lockheed at this point.

[Squire]

The Pentagon never should have issued a requirement that:

*The fighter must be stealthy.
*The fighter must be V/STOL capable
*The fighter will replace interceptors, naval fighters and close air support fighters.

...all in ONE airframe.

It was gross over reach.

The close air support mission I suspect was simply added on to placate the Army who has seen the USAF all but ditch close air support as a mission. The fighter is not designed to do close air at all really...no more than an F-16 or an F-18 say...but telling them it can do that job gets them a modicum of support.

The religious quest of super high tech as the holy grail in combat planes (and everything else) will not survive a major conflict. Air forces are fielding these smaller and smaller forces....all in relative peace time (bombing goat riding insurgents aside)...and in a real ugly shooting war with a capable adversary will quickly run out of forces. Nobody has asked IF the next generation of fighter should be a super stealth multi-role plane...its assumed it should be. By who I would like to know.

Where is light attack? why are there not reservist crews manning squadrons of light attack aircraft like the A-4 or A-1 or A-10? or the updated versions of those class of planes? the notion that in wartime an air force can fill out a large number of low cost fighter ground attack jets. Nobody is interested in that because its too cheap. No, no, we need EVERYTHING to be a 200-500 million dollar wonder...and the defense $$$ industries are fine with that...lets not procure anything practical for wartime use...that's just silly.

Then the drones. Good for the CIA...good for anti-insurgency and anti-terror but they can't do s*** in a real shooting war. Light loads and slow speeds they are more good as "territorial police" planes uses than military planes. They get used though because of the ever shrinking #s of fighter-bombers.

Oh wait...the USAF has announced the development of a new strategic bomber. Stealth and nuclear capable I am sure despite neither of those things having much use any more as part of the nuclear deterrent. No matter it will cost a s*** load I am sure and the US Army will STILL be asking "where are the close support assets?"

...not that its just the USA mind you. Almost all the NATO countries are fielding these tiny air forces that would be gone in a week in a major conflict. They show no more decent long term strategic planning than anybody else.

Somebody needs to go and ask the "big planning heads" what the f*** they are thinking.

[Zimme83]

V/STOL should never have been a part of the F-35, its a luxury and a rather unnecessary feature for the MC. Their air support could be handle just as good by conventional carrier planes and helicopters.

And it could have been even more simple, USAF could have used the naval version w/o the hook etc, replacing F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 with one plane isn't so hard. It would have saved a lot.

[GScholz]

Nothing is guaranteed.  The next administration or major changes in the next Congress could easily change it.

Nope. Contract bound to eight nations. Just let it go.

[Serenity]

See Rule #4

[Serenity]

Also, let me clarify something for you: I don't know what it's like in your corner of the world, but over here, Rando McPilot cannot go on camera talking about ANYTHING, let alone a controversial aircraft. If someone is on video in uniform, they are either a Public Affairs Officer, or reading a statement prepared by the public affairs department. Which then begs the question, are the opinions they're expressing really THEIR opinions? Or might those be a canned speech designed to make everything sound hunky dory without being actively deceptive?

[Zimme83]

But he is right, like it or not, F-35 has passed the Point of no return. It will be the next fighter for US + half of  NATO, like it or not. Question is how long it will take to make the plane combat worthy and to what cost.

[Vraciu]

That's a gross exaggeration.

Actually he is dead on the money.

The Super Hornet has more capability than the Joint Strike Failure ever will at a fraction of the cost. 

[GScholz]

Also, let me clarify something for you: I don't know what it's like in your corner of the world, but over here, Rando McPilot cannot go on camera talking about ANYTHING, let alone a controversial aircraft. If someone is on video in uniform, they are either a Public Affairs Officer, or reading a statement prepared by the public affairs department. Which then begs the question, are the opinions they're expressing really THEIR opinions? Or might those be a canned speech designed to make everything sound hunky dory without being actively deceptive?

Over here this year's "free speech award" went to Lieutenant General Robert Mood for openly criticizing government policy in the media on a number of issues. Yeah, I believe our pilots when they say they like this aircraft.

He still has a job btw.

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frittord.no%2Faktuelt%2Ffritt-ords-pris-2016%2F&edit-text=