Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[GScholz]

Did any of you even watch the video I posted? (aside from GMan, as he posted the paper its based on some time ago)

Of course they didn't. It's over an hour long! Their attention spans can barely deal with headlines.

[nrshida]

It is pretty clear from reading the replies in this thread that people just don't realize how advanced these systems have become, and how computer power has revolutionized warfare.

To be fair I didn't either until I started researching it and I've got no excuse! I still think the VSTOL aspect of the design could have been solved better or the three variants perhaps be split into two instead in the interests of commonality. But as you eluded to earlier Mr. Scholz, there's the whole inter-force aspect as well which doesn't help. But you're right about the technology. It's hugely significant, even affecting things like the manoeuvrability. Many people seem hung up on the hardware with is a bit old-fashioned. In combination with the software it's way more than the sum of its parts.

I think moreover though there is a cultural issue. It's very supported to make an almost arbitrary decision and then filter out the 'information' to support your position. Not a lot of point trying to convince anyone if they choose to take a position and defend it as if their life depended on it. 

[GScholz]

Indeed Mr. Shida. Like I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, a lot of people have invested their egos in the debate. Against all rational thought.

[Wmaker]

Like I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, a lot of people have invested their egos in the debate. Against all rational thought.

Oh the irony...

[shift8]

You think the US military services/Lockheed will specifically identify the strengths and faults of the F-35 as delineated at Red Flag for the potential adversaries of the aircraft?

Really? 

I don't.

Generally Military's are pretty vocal when they dont like their equipment. Especially the US Military, which has a habit of doing everything in its power to be obstinate about a piece of gear they don't like or dont want. Just look at some of the shenanigans that went down with the F-22 was being threatened with cancellation. They are the people that DIE if they equipment doesnt work after all.

More to the point, you cannot simply disregard any positive information or excuses they give for current development. By doing so you are making it impossible for them to be right regardless of whether they tell the truth or not. Its literally the equivalent of ramming crap into your ears and saying "I dont care what anyone says, I already know they are liars."

[shift8]

Also, lets just touch on the WVR fight so many of you seem to think is intractable regardless of literally any technological advance.

WVR missile combat post merge is more about radius than it is about rate. This means that the emphasis is on a one circle fight, and therefore nose pointing ability. The F-35 has already demonstrated at least 50 degrees of AoA. If were are ignoring LOAL capabilities, all I need to do in a modern WVR fight is twist my nose around really fast with a very small radius so that I can get facing well enough to lob a AIM-9X. This is one of the reasons the F-18 hornet, which has the worst P/W and sustained turn of any still in service US fighter, can still be good at WVR when missile are involved. The F-18 has excellent high AoA and instantaneous turn, which means it can crank around for a missile shot. If you get off a missile, it is likely given modern IR AAM's that you have already won. The F-35 is looking to shape up alot like a F-18 class plane with much better acceleration due to a favorable thrust to drag ratio when loaded with weapons. It cannot be emphasized enough that the F-35 will be clean w/weapons vs opponents who have tons of stores drag. When we take all the BVR stuff into account and that complications that creates for WVR to even happen at all, and that modern BVR will be stupidly lethal, the F-35 has plenty of capability to hold its own in most situations like that.

[shift8]

This is what happens if you merge.

[Gman]

That's nothing really new Shift8, everyone here has seen that video posted on this site and others many times over, as well as all the other Aim9x shoot exs.  The Soviets had off boresight AA11/R73 with HMS back in the 80s, the Aim9x only caught up to that missile after decades of the Aim9m being behind the Russian Archer.  Also, merging isn't always a duel, it's not like it'll be always or even often be 1 fighter on 1, and both are going to always see one another and get shots off that hit.  Fighting in the real world is never as simple as that from what I've read and been told about it in the air, and EVERY fighter pilot I've ever talked to or read about when it comes to fighting in the air has said it's frequently, in fact most often, the guy you didn't even SEE that gets you.  IE being wrapped up in a fight with one opponent, it's the 3rd man in that picks you off, and if you don't see him, you can't defend OR kill him, HOBS/HMS or otherwise.  The merge isn't a dead thing, it's just more dangerous.  Ask your F16 triplets (snicker) if they've stopped training for WVR or merges because they now have the Aim9x, and the enemy having advanced AA11 models have made that a crap shoot, so why bother...And as Eagl pointed out there is the ROE issue.  With this administration there is likely this little thing called the rules of engagement.  If they were made so strict for ground forces in recent years, imagine what the protocol would be for aerial engagements.  BVR allowed without positive visual ID right now? I somehow doubt it.


And, there are just as many sources saying the "L" in "LPI" may not remain all that "low" in the not very distant future.

It is pretty clear from reading the replies in this thread that people just don't realize how advanced these systems have become, and how computer power has revolutionized warfare.

You can apply that statement to ECM and RWR technologies as well.  It's not like AESA/LPI radars have progressed, yet the ECM/RWR end of things is just stuck in 1999 forever.  I somehow doubt with the Chinese and Russian fighters coming along having stolen tech regarding creating AESA/LPI radars from the US, and made developments of their own to boot, that the USAF/USN is just standing still on creating systems to detect "Low" probability of intercept radars.  Much like the armor/warhead arms race, the radar/ESM race has to be continuing, the ESM trying to be built to be more sensitive than the radar and able to detect it prior to being detected, and vice versa.  Showing a couple graphs and saying "see, the LPI radar can't be detected" and thinking that's the end of it - there is this thing called progress and change, it happens constantly with every facet of offensive and defensive sensors and weapons.  There are PILES of sources out there stating so - again, I didn't write them, I don't understand the very technical parts of it, but I can read the conclusions, and again, RELYING on LPI to remain low probability is much the same as relying on all the F35 stealth/sensors to work, and that no future tech will compromise them.  Very dangerous position to put your eggs all into that basket, and hope nobody figures it out, since all the tech is constantly stolen by espionage right now.  That's my primary concern with the F35, that it's ability to fight with kinematics/maneuverability has been dealt away in order to have extremely good sensors/fusion and L/O characteristics.  What happens when the enemy has solved the tech side of the problems they will have fighting the F35, even partially?  That COULD happen faster than the F35 takes to be developed to its "full" potential, since it's become a fix/complete it as you go deal now.  Then what? 

LPI is strongly affected by the RCS of the target being hit with the radar signals, so LO aircraft like the F35 will have an advantage when using radar to detect non L/O aircraft, but what about vs fighters that do have LO, like the..oh I don't know 4 stealth fighter types the Chinese are currently building, or the PakFA the Russians and Indians are likely to have in some sort of numbers?  There is a lot more to it than just some magic button that makes your radar non detectable.

There is a ton out there regarding LPI and AESA for public consumption, and from all I've read assuming that LPI is going to work in the future as it MAY work right now is a pretty risky proposition. 

[shift8]

And, there are just as many sources saying the "L" in "LPI" may not remain all that "low" in the not very distant future.

You can apply that statement to ECM and RWR technologies as well.  I somehow doubt with the Chinese and Russian fighters coming along having stolen tech regarding creating AESA/LPI radars from the US, and made developments of their own to boot, that the USAF/USN isn't standing still on creating systems to detect "Low" probability of intercept radars.  Much like the armor/warhead arms race, the radar/ESM race has to be continuing, the ESM trying to be built to be more sensitive than the radar and able to detect it prior to being detected, and vice versa.  Showing a couple graphs and saying "see, the LPI radar can't be detected" and thinking that's the end of it - there is this thing called progress and change, it happens constantly with every facet of offensive and defensive sensors and weapons.  There are PILES of sources out there stating so - again, I didn't write them, I don't understand the very technical parts of it, but I can read the conclusions, and again, RELYING on LPI to remain low probability is much the same as relying on all the F35 stealth/sensors to work, and that no future tech will compromise them.  Very dangerous position to put your eggs all into that basket, and hope nobody figures it out, since all the tech is constantly stolen by espionage right now.  That's my primary concern with the F35, that it's ability to fight with kinematics/maneuverability has been dealt away in order to have extremely good sensors/fusion and L/O characteristics.  What happens when the enemy has solved the tech side of the problems they will have fighting the F35, even partially?  That COULD happen faster than the F35 takes to be developed to its "full" potential, since it's become a fix/complete it as you go deal now.  Then what? 

LPI is strongly affected by the RCS of the target being hit with the radar signals, so LO aircraft like the F35 will have an advantage when using radar to detect non L/O aircraft, but what about vs fighters that do have LO, like the..oh I don't know 4 stealth fighter types the Chinese are currently building, or the PakFA the Russians and Indians are likely to have in some sort of numbers?  There is a lot more to it than just some magic button that makes your radar non detectable.

There is a ton out there regarding LPI and AESA for public consumption, and from all I've read assuming that LPI is going to work in the future as it MAY work right now is a pretty risky proposition.

This is one of the reasons why I like the F-22 more. BUT it is also one of the reasons we need to upgrade to the F-35. As you say, things are always changing and we cant just sit on our asses. Whatever we do, our current stuff isnt going to cut it much longer.

There are 3 major caveats to tech race argument I think.

The first has to do with stealth. Radar itself is not going to easily overcome this hurdle. Much of this has to do with physical limitations that cannot ever be overcome through simple software or function changes. With high frequency radars the limit is with power and aperture size. Low Frequency radars will be able to detect these planes but will never be able to track them for weapons use purposes due to TR module spacing requirements among other things. IR sensors are currently very short ranged except in the most ideal conditions. And more importantly, unless some kind of paradigm shift occurs, they will remain more short ranged than radar.

The second caveat is that other upgrades to the F-35 can also occur to keep the plane up to snuff. Just like any other air force plane. Say for example a Su-35 Radar might detect a F-35 at 10-15nm head on now, but then they make a better radar and that goes up to 30. A simple counter to that is that America makes a even longer ranged AMRAAM that pushes out the engagement ranges and makes it needless to ever get that close etc.

Lastly there is the upgrade vs available issue. Just because a tech can be fielded wont mean it will be. And if it is fielded, it might not be fielded in significant numbers. Both the Russian and by extension Chinese track records are as such. Much of the innovation done in Russian aviation either never left the prototype stage or was never produced in large numbers.

[Gman]

WVR missile combat post merge is more about radius than it is about rate. This means that the emphasis is on a one circle fight, and therefore nose pointing ability. The F-35 has already demonstrated at least 50 degrees of AoA. If were are ignoring LOAL capabilities, all I need to do in a modern WVR fight is twist my nose around really fast with a very small radius so that I can get facing well enough to lob a AIM-9X. This is one of the reasons the F-18 hornet, which has the worst P/W and sustained turn of any still in service US fighter, can still be good at WVR when missile are involved. The F-18 has excellent high AoA and instantaneous turn, which means it can crank around for a missile shot. If you get off a missile, it is likely given modern IR AAM's that you have already won. The F-35 is looking to shape up alot like a F-18 class plane with much better acceleration due to a favorable thrust to drag ratio when loaded with weapons. It cannot be emphasized enough that the F-35 will be clean w/weapons vs opponents who have tons of stores drag. When we take all the BVR stuff into account and that complications that creates for WVR to even happen at all, and that modern BVR will be stupidly lethal, the F-35 has plenty of capability to hold its own in most situations like that.

Say that all is 100% accurate - how do you figure the F35 when it's doing this 50 degree AOA stuff and rolled 70 to 90 degrees from the ground/gravity, and piling on the G, is going to drop Aim9x from its internal bay in LOAL mode, the only mode there will BE for the Aim9x when it's carried internally right now.  The videos out there of the Aim120 falling from the door panel station - that missile drops an awful long way before actually igniting - it has to right, as it has to clear the bay, and so will the Aim9x.  So, in these super duper high AOA shots you're describing, how exactly is the Aim9x going to separate when the F35 is rolled wings perpendicular to the ground in most cases, or at least certainly FAR from level, and then add in the LOAL that has to happen prior to it even being on its way to the target? 

You're making things seem simple and problem free, when they are far from it at the moment, with this specific topic.

[shift8]

Say that all is 100% accurate - how do you figure the F35 when it's doing this 50 degree AOA stuff and rolled 70 to 90 degrees from the ground/gravity, and piling on the G, is going to drop Aim9x from its internal bay in LOAL mode, the only mode there will BE for the Aim9x when it's carried internally right now.  The videos out there of the Aim120 falling from the door panel station - that missile drops an awful long way before actually igniting - it has to right, as it has to clear the bay, and so will the Aim9x.  So, in these super duper high AOA shots you're describing, how exactly is the Aim9x going to separate when the F35 is rolled wings perpendicular to the ground in most cases, or at least certainly FAR from level, and then add in the LOAL that has to happen prior to it even being on its way to the target? 

You're making things seem simple and problem free, when they are far from it at the moment, with this specific topic.

If the fight is truly visual, then we are so far inside the kinematic range of that missile that some extra drop from the missile is not going to somehow make a near-undefeatable missile suddenly a turkey. Especially if were not using the 360 degree LOAL ability, but instead say a 90 degree or 120 degree shot, which is still far beyond what is currently available to Flankers.

Plus, that drop isn't going to do all that much to the kinematics. It isnt even all that big...



compared to raptor...

[GScholz]

Gman, the more G you're pulling the faster the missile will drop away from the aircraft. AS long as the aircraft is pulling more than 1G the weapon will separate even if the aircraft is inverted. Negative Gs however will prevent weapons launch unless they're fired from a rail on the bay doors (the British are developing this for the F-35).

[shift8]

That's nothing really new Shift8, everyone here has seen that video posted on this site and others many times over, as well as all the other Aim9x shoot exs.  The Soviets had off boresight AA11/R73 with HMS back in the 80s, the Aim9x only caught up to that missile after decades of the Aim9m being behind the Russian Archer.  Also, merging isn't always a duel, it's not like it'll be always or even often be 1 fighter on 1, and both are going to always see one another and get shots off that hit.  Fighting in the real world is never as simple as that from what I've read and been told about it in the air, and EVERY fighter pilot I've ever talked to or read about when it comes to fighting in the air has said it's frequently, in fact most often, the guy you didn't even SEE that gets you.  IE being wrapped up in a fight with one opponent, it's the 3rd man in that picks you off, and if you don't see him, you can't defend OR kill him, HOBS/HMS or otherwise.  The merge isn't a dead thing, it's just more dangerous.  Ask your F16 triplets (snicker) if they've stopped training for WVR or merges because they now have the Aim9x, and the enemy having advanced AA11 models have made that a crap shoot, so why bother...And as Eagl pointed out there is the ROE issue.  With this administration there is likely this little thing called the rules of engagement.  If they were made so strict for ground forces in recent years, imagine what the protocol would be for aerial engagements.  BVR allowed without positive visual ID right now? I somehow doubt it.


And, there are just as many sources saying the "L" in "LPI" may not remain all that "low" in the not very distant future.

You can apply that statement to ECM and RWR technologies as well.  It's not like AESA/LPI radars have progressed, yet the ECM/RWR end of things is just stuck in 1999 forever.  I somehow doubt with the Chinese and Russian fighters coming along having stolen tech regarding creating AESA/LPI radars from the US, and made developments of their own to boot, that the USAF/USN is just standing still on creating systems to detect "Low" probability of intercept radars.  Much like the armor/warhead arms race, the radar/ESM race has to be continuing, the ESM trying to be built to be more sensitive than the radar and able to detect it prior to being detected, and vice versa.  Showing a couple graphs and saying "see, the LPI radar can't be detected" and thinking that's the end of it - there is this thing called progress and change, it happens constantly with every facet of offensive and defensive sensors and weapons.  There are PILES of sources out there stating so - again, I didn't write them, I don't understand the very technical parts of it, but I can read the conclusions, and again, RELYING on LPI to remain low probability is much the same as relying on all the F35 stealth/sensors to work, and that no future tech will compromise them.  Very dangerous position to put your eggs all into that basket, and hope nobody figures it out, since all the tech is constantly stolen by espionage right now.  That's my primary concern with the F35, that it's ability to fight with kinematics/maneuverability has been dealt away in order to have extremely good sensors/fusion and L/O characteristics.  What happens when the enemy has solved the tech side of the problems they will have fighting the F35, even partially?  That COULD happen faster than the F35 takes to be developed to its "full" potential, since it's become a fix/complete it as you go deal now.  Then what? 

LPI is strongly affected by the RCS of the target being hit with the radar signals, so LO aircraft like the F35 will have an advantage when using radar to detect non L/O aircraft, but what about vs fighters that do have LO, like the..oh I don't know 4 stealth fighter types the Chinese are currently building, or the PakFA the Russians and Indians are likely to have in some sort of numbers?  There is a lot more to it than just some magic button that makes your radar non detectable.

There is a ton out there regarding LPI and AESA for public consumption, and from all I've read assuming that LPI is going to work in the future as it MAY work right now is a pretty risky proposition.

Im well aware the soviets had HOBS in the 1980s. It was also considerably less lethal, initially being only 45degree's and it still has not focal plane array so it can be flared.

Who said anything about duels? Im not sure how you got that impression. But adding more aircraft just makes the situation worse. In fact, not being able to track all the moving parts once visual is part of my argument. There are going to be alot of people flinging IR missiles that are nearly impossible to beat even if you DID see it coming. Also the USAF has a little thing called acceptable merge criteria. If those criteria are not met, your not supposed to stick around. The fact that you cannot kill what you cannot see is sort of the whole point.....

I hope that reference to my sources was a snicker about the concept of them not training BFM, and not a highly immature reference to my sources supposedly not existing.

[Gman]

You're going to say "highly immature" when you posted an entire long sentence of laugh out loud acronyms when responding to Eagl?  Interesting.

So far as your F16 triplets - If you can't even say what units they were attached to, or some sort of information regarding them, I think the wide swath of members here based on past experiences aren't going to give you much cred for anything you say referencing them, especially the predictable manner your "explanation" evaded doing so.  Your opinions, info - fine, but if your going to try and strengthen your opinions and position with "stuff" you've heard from mystery men - well, this forum has had long experience with similar fiascos, involving scorpion bites and secret CIA missions, which, as luck would have it, were all performed in the F16 as well.

Gscholz, is there no issues then with firing LOAL missiles then from internal bays while maneuvering?  Why are the AIm9s NEVER carried in the center bays of the F22 and given single unit only pop out doors, now that the Aim9x is capable of LOAL?  Could they be in the F22?  Any idea on the firing parameters for the Aim120 with the F22 bays, in terms of G, roll angle, etc?  I've read that due to separation issues with the F22/Aim120 that there is a fairly tight set of parameters for launching those things, I assumed there would be similar ones with the F35, but I'm not trying to borrow trouble for it. 

[shift8]

You're going to say "highly immature" when you posted an entire long sentence of laugh out loud acronyms when responding to Eagl?  Interesting.

So far as your F16 triplets - If you can't even say what units they were attached to, or some sort of information regarding them, I think the wide swath of members here based on past experiences aren't going to give you much cred for anything you say referencing them, especially the predictable manner your "explanation" evaded doing so.  Your opinions, info - fine, but if your going to try and strengthen your opinions and position with "stuff" you've heard from mystery men - well, this forum has had long experience with similar fiascos, involving scorpion bites and secret CIA missions, which, as luck would have it, were all performed in the F16 as well.

I found his argument genuinely hilarious. He used position as a end all beat all argument. Not only is this a well known logical fallacy, but is readily ridiculous when you consider there is plenty of pilot remarks out there to the opposite effect. I responded to a patronizing argument with a patronizing response. Tit-For-Tat.

Second, your argument about my triplets is nonsense. I could just make up units etc. I could easily post a picture you like you did, which proves nothing. Yet Im not calling you a liar am I? And even if I could somehow prove I indeed did know these people, I dont have text records of our conversations: so I cant very well prove I ever asked them such things can I? And like I said, which you ignored, the purpose of pointing out I had spoken with other pilots was to make a point that Eagle is not the only fighter pilot with a opinion. IIRC, I haven't yet attributed anything specific to those pilots. And even if I had, much of it is not, or can be found elsewhere.

So how you cut the toejam and stop insinuating I am somehow being disingenuous.