Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[Vraciu]

No. See my note prior to Dolby's post. The real issue here, and the deficiency we face in arguing against the F-35, is that we're pitting a hypothetical "pure" design, indeed possibly 2, given the multirole nature of the '35, against a reality; the F-35 itself.

No, we are trying to shoehorn an attack aircraft into an air superiority role for which it was not designed.

It is low, slow, limited payload, limited endurance, no supercruise.    It is an attack jet with limited defense capability--and when it does so it is at the price of half its tiny offensive load.

It was sold as a pie in the sky lie.  "Joint" Strike "Fighter".    It is certainly not the former (20% commonality) nor the latter (self-explanatory).

The real answer is, we will never know if:

A better air superiority fighter and a better strike aircraft could have been developed for the same combination of fixed and variable costs...

We already know: It's called the F-22 Raptor.   It already existed.

Maybe that's it. F-35 becomes the next-gen strike a/c with limited but real self-defense capability. Let's hope USAF procures sufficient F-22s for the pure AS role (cue the next argument about the viability of F-22 versus, for example, Typhoon or any of the new Russian stuff).

Two AMRAAMs and sub-Mach 2 speed is not much of a self-defense capability.   It is for all practical purposes *NO* offensive capability.   It will never approach the F-22 for the latter in any time zone.

[GScholz]

No. See my note prior to Dolby's post. The real issue here, and the deficiency we face in arguing against the F-35, is that we're pitting a hypothetical "pure" design, indeed possibly 2, given the multirole nature of the '35, against a reality; the F-35 itself.

It's also, in part, why Krusty and Scholz's arguments about '16 are strictly trua and valid data, but still not purely comparable.

The real answer is, we will never know if:

A better air superiority fighter and a better strike aircraft could have been developed for the same combination of fixed and variable costs...

The initial investment of a number of combat aircraft is only a small part of the lifetime cost of operating those jets. So the number of aircraft an air force can operate on a budget is not limited by the acquisition cost, but by the operating cost. So the more aircraft you have, even if they are cheaper, is going to cost you more in fuel, infrastructure, maintenance and personnel. The F-16 was designed for a 25 year service life. The F-35 is designed for a 50-year service life. The acquisition cost mostly just determines the time span necessary to acquire the jets (how many they can afford to buy per fiscal year).  The fact is that given two air forces otherwise equal, the one with multi-role aircraft will always win over the one with specialized aircraft. Even if the specialized aircraft are better in their role.

[GScholz]

Let's hope USAF procures sufficient F-22s for the pure AS role...

The F-22 production line was shut down in 2012 after completing the USAF's order for 187 jets. There will be no more F-22s...

[PJ_Godzilla]

The initial investment of a number of combat aircraft is only a small part of the lifetime cost of operating those jets. So the number of aircraft an air force can operate on a budget is not limited by the acquisition cost, but by the operating cost. So the more aircraft you have, even if they are cheaper, is going to cost you more in fuel, infrastructure, maintenance and personnel. The F-16 was designed for a 25 year service life. The F-35 is designed for a 50-year service life. The acquisition cost mostly just determines the time span necessary to acquire the jets (how many they can afford to buy per fiscal year).  The fact is that given two air forces otherwise equal, the one with multi-role aircraft will always win over the one with specialized aircraft. Even if the specialized aircraft are better in their role.

I see. Then this isn't even about production scale.

However, I think you muddy the water a bit when you use the word "win". Some would take that to mean "in combat" when I think you're actually saying the multirole user will "win" in terms of operating cost.

But that's a dangerous game; one of subverting combat capability to operating cost. It's great for a peacetime force.

[GScholz]

No. I'm saying everything else being equal (budget, technology, training etc.) a multi-role air force will always win the war over a specialized air force.

Country A has developed a multi-role aircraft. Country B has developed specialized aircraft for each role fighter, bomber, ground attack and reconnaissance. Country B's specialized aircraft are at least 20% better in their respective roles than Country A's multi-role aircraft. Both countries air forces can afford to operate 100 aircraft. Country A has 100 multi-role jets. Country B has 30 fighters, 30 bombers, 30 ground attack planes and 10 recce planes.

Day one of the war: Country B's 30 fighters face off against Country A's 100 multi-role aircraft in fighter configuration. Country B lose all their fighters. Country A's surviving multi-role planes destroy Country B's remaining air force, now defenseless without their fighter cover.

Day two of the war: Country A's surviving multi-role planes, now unopposed in the air, switch to bomber/ground attack/recce configuration and win the war for Country A.

[PJ_Godzilla]

No. I'm saying everything else being equal (budget, technology, training etc.) a multi-role air force will always win the war over a specialized air force.

Country A has developed a multi-role aircraft. Country B has developed specialized aircraft for each role fighter, bomber, ground attack and reconnaissance. Country B's specialized aircraft are at least 20% better in their respective roles than Country A's multi-role aircraft. Both countries air forces can afford to operate 100 aircraft. Country A has 100 multi-role jets. Country B has 30 fighters, 30 bombers, 30 ground attack planes and 10 recce planes.

Day one of the war: Country B's 30 fighters face off against Country A's 100 multi-role aircraft in fighter configuration. Country B lose all their fighters. Country A's surviving multi-role planes destroy Country B's remaining air force, now defenseless without their fighter cover.

Day two of the war: Country A's surviving multi-role planes, now unopposed in the air, switch to bomber/ground attack/recce configuration and win the war for Country A.

I thought you might mean this - but that means that you also make another, more implicit assumption... in this case, that Country B's 20% qualitative AS edge is nullified by Country A's 2.3:1 numerical edge.

[GScholz]

3.3:1 numerical advantage in fighters if you do the math. There's a reason why everyone is making multi-role planes these days. Even the Russians. Today (and for some time now) the C3, sensors and weapons systems are far more important than the performance of the plane. History shows that even mediocre performing planes like the "bomb-truck" F-18E are very competent fighters with the right weapons, sensors and C3 support.

So 3 F-18E vs one F-16...?

[GScholz]

I do however like the planned USAF force mix of 170 F-22s and 1000+ F-35As. The F-22s make sense as an air dominance tool against lesser opponents, and as the tip of the spear against an equal adversary...

[Vraciu]

3.3:1 numerical advantage in fighters if you do the math. There's a reason why everyone is making multi-role planes these days. Even the Russians. Today (and for some time now) the C3, sensors and weapons systems are far more important than the performance of the plane. History shows that even mediocre performing planes like the "bomb-truck" F-18E are very competent fighters with the right weapons, sensors and C3 support.

So 3 F-18E vs one F-16...?

Unfortunately with the Just So Failed you won't get 3:1.

You'll be at 1:5.

The Carrier Air Wing that once numbered 80 with airplanes that could attack at great range is now reduced to a fraction of its size--and is in so close as to be threatened by shore-based ASMs.    We are going to learn what Mitscher had to endure in 1944 all over again.

[nrshida]

Everyone of you noobs stop arguing about jets and get in the MA stat. 

[FLOOB]

Yeah but what about this?
https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.dh11xsra4

[GScholz]

Yeah but what about this?
https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.dh11xsra4

That's the 5G limited early software test I mentioned... And the media does its traitorous best...

[Serenity]

Just gonna drop this here...

https://fightersweep.com/6125/6125/

[GScholz]

Just gonna drop this here...

Like a BOMB!

Anyways... This is the same Pentagon guy who's been critical of the F-35 for years. I hope he's wrong.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Scholz has applied the logic of the horde - and it works, so long as that horde is local. We know this, right?

We know, also, the 1:1 a K-4 is better than a Pony D... but the horde prevailed.

It might work, but, as long as we understand the assumptions, we also understand the caveats.