General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gman on June 29, 2015, 07:20:36 PM
Title: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on June 29, 2015, 07:20:36 PM
Not. Good.
Apparently the F16C Block40 with 2 underwing fuel tanks is able to smoke the F35A when it's completely clean, with NO internal or external armaments, just fuel.
Pretty brutal report, from the sounds of it the F35 is completely at the F16's mercy. This means it's at the F15/18's mercy too, as well as probably threats like the Mig29, Su27 series, as well as Chinese fighters like their J10s, J11s, and upcoming stealth fighters (perhaps). Not good news. Not at all. So much for the "about as maneuverable as an F16". So much BS regarding that.
Or course, this is in a sticks and stones fight, I guess the US and other NATO forces will just have to hope the sensors and weapons will allow a lot of BVR engagements vs future opponents, however history has shown close range fights almost always end up happening. And if/when they do, the F35 isn't going to win many of them.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Saxman on June 29, 2015, 07:31:18 PM
Yeah, gonna be hard to spin that.
Looks like a confirmed kill.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on June 29, 2015, 07:44:44 PM
Agreed, both sources are excellent, Tyler at Fortress America has more contacts in the defense department both current and former than any journalist I've ever seen or read. Very rarely steered wrong on intel from his current site and his former military aviation one.
I found it very interesting when the F35 pilot said his F15E Strike Eagle was more capable in A2A than the F35, and that's a far heavier jet than most potential adversaries, and although very able in A2A, not a dedicated bird like a 15C or F22, or even 29s and 27 variants.
This is really all kinds of bad, and keeping it secret is going to be hard, as more and more F35s come into the pipeline and are used in exs vs other US units, as well as when the Allies using them realize it truly sucks at VR combat. Very disappointing, I'll admit to being one of those who believed that it would roll with an F16, now it seems it's a huge dog.
This part from the F35 pilot really sums it up:
Quote
The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 07:45:58 PM
Yeah, I'd like to see that report...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 07:49:12 PM
Also if that F-16 had been carrying the 370 wing tanks he'd be limited to 5 G's... I find this very suspect.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on June 29, 2015, 07:50:40 PM
This type of story, a true test of the A2A ability of the F35 has been awaited for a long time, it's going to be a feeding frenzy, so I'm sure more info will come out regarding the source and possibly pilot who wrote it. Again, both these sites are very good at verifying their sources, and Tyler Rogoway has been doing this a long, long time, and probably has confirmed it before he would ever post it. He's actually a defender of the F35 as well, particularly the B.
Time will tell, but it would surprise me if this was just cooked up by some cook who dislikes the F35.
edit - that's actually a good point about the tanks and the imposed limit on Gs on the F16 with them. I'll ask that in the comments there, a lot of US pilots post and respond there.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 08:30:58 PM
If its true its bad news for the F-35.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: eagl on June 29, 2015, 09:52:02 PM
Its a "strike" fighter. Its also joint. That makes it a tiny single engine single seat F-111 that can take off and land vertically at the expense of being far far slower than an F-111. Everything that was "wrong" about the F-111 is also wrong about the F-35. Not many of the things that were "right" about the F-111 (speed, 2-seat, tons of gas and bomb load, etc) are "right" about the F-35 though.
But the F-35 is front-aspect low observable, which I guess makes up for it being slow, at least on the way to the target. On the way back home it can both be seen and chased down.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Scherf on June 29, 2015, 09:58:00 PM
Hey man, it's got that single-engine reliability you want for over-water operations, say from Australia.
What could *possibly* go wrong?
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Triton28 on June 30, 2015, 12:10:10 AM
But the F-35 is front-aspect low observable, which I guess makes up for it being slow, at least on the way to the target. On the way back home it can both be seen and chased down.
Boom headshot. I'll hang my head in shame now. diddly you guys, I'm going home. :mad:
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2015, 12:33:28 AM
I find myself agreeing with this gentleman over at Foxtrotalpha:
Quote
I’m not buying it with good reason. I believe sometimes these so called reports (I am NOT laying this at Tyler’s feet in any way) are put out there by writes who forget there are former military pilots like myself, who never flew an F-35 Lightning II, but did fly F-16 C & D’s.... along with the F-15- C variant. And who have many great friends who flew the F-16 variants and were promoted ad moved into the Lightning II program.(F-35) and fly it every day they are asked to.
I can say I have friends who I speak to regularly who fly both F-35 and F-22 aircraft. Many of the young guys who put all the hours on the F-117’s were first choices to go into both Gen-5 stealth aircraft models. The F-117 was EXTREMELY close t the F-16 cockpit, but I was not chosen for that program.
In my 26 year active an even now in strategic recall status, I have seen weapon systems dogged by unseen powerful entities for several reasons. Some were dogged out of political rhetoric. Some get figuratively chopped because of more important programs. An example of this being Carter shelving the original Mach 2.2 B-1 Lancer. Causing some to rage against the machine, but it was really done to finish paying for ad building the B-2 Spirit. Reagan re-awoke the B-1 program with a salted down B-1-B capable of Mach 1.25 yet now sporting a bit of stealth quality of its own. It also took the strain off the B-52 Buff’s and allowed for the axing of the F-111 Aardvark.
I would say the closest analog of the F-35 fight is the USAF doing everything it can to run a spear through the heart of the A-10 Thunderbolt 2. The different branches of the Military all have a yearly budget. However, the F-35 is crossing all three Jet flying services. The USAF, The USN and The USMC all ill fly the F-35. So one guess is that one of the Military branches is losing a ton of budget appropriations to the F-35 program so they are throwing as many things against the F-35 wall trying to make something stick, while flying the very capable aircraft they already fly. There may be SOME truth there, but I don’t believe that is the primary reason.
Even so, the stick being poked into the F-35’s eye feels and looks like something else I’ve seen before. Albeit on a smaller scale
My opinion of how to find the culprit is always the same.... Follow the cash. In this case, follow the supertanker full of cash. First let me ask this....
*Who is building the F-35..? Lockheed, Right..?
* Who is the largest supplier of military jey aircraft to the USA..? Boeing...
Because of Lockheed getting the F-35, Boeing is out...
By understanding who has the most to lose from the Joint Strike Fighter program. You get an idea why they are carving up the reputation of what my very good and trustworthy USAF pilot friends say about the F-35 Jet Fighter. And THEY SAY (The Men who fly it daily) that it is a fantastic fighter jet. One that is superior over all but the most elite US fighter aircraft.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on June 30, 2015, 12:37:51 AM
Ok... How is it surprising? You could look into specs to realize this...
I assume F-35 stealth give it nice edge in penetration of heavily protected airspace and F-35B would be good for small carriers.
Other than that it is just overpriced F-117 that can takeoff and lend vertically and have some limited A2A capabilities.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: JVboob on June 30, 2015, 12:41:27 AM
F16s dont need steath tech theyre just plain Bad arse :airplane:
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: bozon on June 30, 2015, 02:27:51 AM
You don't need stealth after you bombed their HQ and their city is below 50%.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Schwalbee on June 30, 2015, 02:40:43 AM
You don't need stealth after you bombed their HQ and their city is below 50%.
rofl. This is all that needs to be understood 😂
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: DaveBB on June 30, 2015, 05:13:39 AM
This was in January. I believe I read an article about the flight control software being relaxed since then to allow for more aggressive maneuvers.
However, there are two fundamental problems with the airframe. First is that the aircraft yaws strangely in certain specific flight envelopes (its early in the morning, I can't remember if it was in the transonic realm or if it was at a high AoA). Secondly, the cockpit is too small for the pilot wearing his gigantic helmet to be able to turn his head easily.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 01, 2015, 01:13:44 AM
Seems like an old report Gman... Tell your buddy at foxtrotalpha that he had better show a little less bias if he wants to be taken seriously. And you'd better check your own source criticism and information evaluation while you're at it.
"The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”
“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA."
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: guncrasher on July 01, 2015, 02:12:26 AM
Apparently the F16C Block40 with 2 underwing fuel tanks is able to smoke the F35A when it's completely clean, with NO internal or external armaments, just fuel.
Pretty brutal report, from the sounds of it the F35 is completely at the F16's mercy. This means it's at the F15/18's mercy too, as well as probably threats like the Mig29, Su27 series, as well as Chinese fighters like their J10s, J11s, and upcoming stealth fighters (perhaps). Not good news. Not at all. So much for the "about as maneuverable as an F16". So much BS regarding that.
Or course, this is in a sticks and stones fight, I guess the US and other NATO forces will just have to hope the sensors and weapons will allow a lot of BVR engagements vs future opponents, however history has shown close range fights almost always end up happening. And if/when they do, the F35 isn't going to win many of them.
how does the f16 compare against the a10?
semp
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Wmaker on July 01, 2015, 03:49:47 AM
Ok... How is it surprising? You could look into specs to realize this...
Yep, my thoughts exactly. With the F-35's wing loading of over 500kg per square meter, I wonder how this can come as a surprise to anybody. Of course wing-loading isn't the only metric that matters but when the difference is big enough there simply isn't anyway around the physics.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: XxDaSTaRxx on July 01, 2015, 11:39:11 AM
The F-35 program is, has been and always will be a failure from the start.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: eagl on July 01, 2015, 12:51:01 PM
What? You mean a "strike" fighter designed in a "joint" project isn't a very good fighter? Who (F-111) would (F-111) have (F-111) thought (F-111) that (F-111) could (F-111) be (F-111) possible (F-111)????? Maybe this one is faster (nope) or carries more bombs (nope) than the last time (F-111) we tried this (nope).
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Kazaa on July 01, 2015, 01:12:47 PM
Bring back the F-14. :cool:
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 01, 2015, 01:14:11 PM
Seems like an old report Gman... Tell your buddy at foxtrotalpha that he had better show a little less bias if he wants to be taken seriously. And you'd better check your own source criticism and information evaluation while you're at it.
"The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”
“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA."
Funny thing, the article never mentions the result of the dogfight between the F-16 and F-35, just a reference in the headlines.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 01, 2015, 01:33:51 PM
Seems like an old report Gman... Tell your buddy at foxtrotalpha that he had better show a little less bias if he wants to be taken seriously. And you'd better check your own source criticism and information evaluation while you're at it.
"The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”
“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA."
So now aviation week is a valid source? U didnt like when i posted F-35 critical articles from the same site....
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on July 01, 2015, 02:12:05 PM
I get the feeling you think the F111 would have been a dog as a fighter Eagl. I remember when one of the Navy Admirals from the CNO office commented in congress I think it was when they tried to make it a carrier based fighter - "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"
Regarding the article and my scolding from Predator, arbiter of all things military:
I didn't really give my own opinions, just posted what the article said, and commented on what it would mean if it was accurate.
If I was going to do so, I have a friend that has a lot of experience with the F35A so far. Also, his former CO is the xRCAF pilot who helped develop the Typhoon, and was also one of the first pilots of the F35, LtCol Billie Flynn. My good friend from school, Maj Jason Paquin, is a 3000+ hour fighter pilot in the Hornet, has flown 2 exchanges with the US military, Super Hornets and F16s, flown the Gripen and Tyhphoon as an Empire Test Pilot school grad, plus has dozens of hours on the F35A simulator, as he'll be the future eval/test pilot for the F35 if we end up buying it, or whatever else we buy. This along with the hundreds of hours of combat he has in the mid-east and Libya, gives him pretty good credibility to comment IMO.
Billie Flynn has been quoted as saying the following regarding the F35 - ""I'm dramatically more lethal than I ever was in those fourth-generation airplanes."
Sort of the opposite of the article in the OP. Also, Jason has said a few things that are in direct opposition to what Flynn said. My point is that until things flesh out some more, there is going to be a lot of this type of thing I think, even among pilots involved in employing the F35 - one says X, another says Y, particularly when reporters are involved. It's going to take some time before solid, really solid info gets out to the public regarding how it's going to perform fighter vs fighter.
A great example of this is an article that came out today, saying the F35A recently participated in Green Flag, a 2 ship doing simulated CAS and other missions, and wasn't shot down once, and accomplished their missions. And again, even within this article, there is dissent, with those opposing the first people interviews claiming "the fix was in". See what I mean?
For the first time, F-35s belonging to the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron played a major role during one of the 10 yearly iterations of Green Flag, an exercise conducted on the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, where more than 5,000 U.S. Army soldiers against simulated enemy forces in a 14-day long pre-deployment trial by fire.
Although the JSF has sporadically taken part in past Green Flag drills in the past, this was the very first time the F-35 had the primary exercise role of CAS providers: the pricey stealth multi-role planes penetrated a “contested and degraded battlespace” waiting for calls for support from JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers) and liaison officers on the ground.
According to the Air Force, the F-35s did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,” a comment that seems to suggest that F-35 is already as capable as the an A-10 or an F-16 in the CAS role, at least in the type of support with Troops in Contact required during a Green Flag exercise.
“The roles played by the two operational test fighters seem relatively modest when examined within the immense scale of a National Training Center rotation. Fourteen days of maneuvering against adversaries in vast desert mountain ranges makes Green Flag a test of the mind and body alike. But when help from the air was called upon, F-35 pilots from the 31st TES communicated and used their systems with precision. They created strategic effects that left troops on the ground largely unaware and unconcerned of what airframe they might be using — seamless integration at its finest,” says the release by the 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs.
There is a widespread concern that the pricey, troubled multirole F-35 will not be as effective as an A-10 Thunderbolt II or any of the other aircraft the JSF is about to replace but the Air Force seems to be enthusiastic about its new combat plane, especially in the much debated CAS role.
According to AW&ST the Lightning IIs achieved an important result during GF 15-08: not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.
On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display).
The debate between F-35 supporters and critics was made more harsh by a brief obtained by War Is Boring, according to which the JSF was outclassed by a two-seat F-16D Block 40 (one of the aircraft the U.S. Air Force intends to replace with the Lightning II) in mock aerial combat.
Although we have already debunked some theories about the alleged capabilities of all the F-35 variants to match or considerably exceed the maneuvering performance of every fourth-generation fighter, to such an extent we already highlighted that there is no way a JSF will ever match (for instance) a Eurofighter Typhoon in aerial combat, it must be remembered that the simulated dogfight mentioned in the unclassified report obtained by WIB involved one of the very first test aircraft: the AF-02 is quite a basic JSF that lacks a mission systems software to use all the onboard sensors, does not have the special stealth coating that makes it virtually invisible to radars and it implemented an obsolete software code full of limitations.
This does not mean the F-35 will ever be as maneuverable and lethal in aerial combat as an F-22 or an F-16, but it will probably perform a bit better than AF-02 did during its simulated dogfight against the F-16D Block 40.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 01, 2015, 02:27:24 PM
The F-35's project team responding to the leaked F-35 test pilot's report.
Some excuses..err reasons why the F-35 didn't perform very well in the mock dogfight.
Quote
Does not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area.
Does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar.
Is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target."
A little bit further down in the article, Lockheed's spokeperson puts their spin on it.
Quote
"The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations," the spokesperson wrote. And in four-on-four mock battles between F-35s and F-16s, "the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology."
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 01, 2015, 02:30:49 PM
Im not sure i feel confident over those answers...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Widewing on July 01, 2015, 08:37:26 PM
Funny thing, the article never mentions the result of the dogfight between the F-16 and F-35, just a reference in the headlines.
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.
Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson."
My translation of this geek speak is that the F-35 got waxed and the flight control software needs some work to get some additional maneuverability out of the airframe.
Still, the reality is that the best they can hope for is something close to parity with the Viper. If it had held its own or at least matched the F-16, they would be singing the JSF's praises from on high.
When they say, "U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities", it's obvious that it wasn't very impressive.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Scherf on July 01, 2015, 08:50:57 PM
Yeah, that' some real management speak right there.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 01, 2015, 11:51:16 PM
A more reasonable take on the report and a scathing rebuke of the sensationalist articles posted by the OP. This was written by C.W. Lemoine, a former USAF Viper pilot who now flies Hornets for the USN:
"First, let’s talk about what really happened. According to the article, an F-35A and a two-bag Block 40 F-16D took off on Jan 14, 2015 to engage in Basic Fighter Maneuver setups to test “the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment…this consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.”
English please?
Just like a normal 1v1 proficiency sortie, the two fighters did canned setups to practice basic dogfighting. In the offensive setups, the F-35 would start off behind the F-16. At the specified range, the F-35 pilot would call “Fight’s On” and maneuver to the F-16’s control zone to employ weapons. In the defensive setups, the F-35 would start off in front while the Viper maneuvered to the F-35’s control zone. And finally, in the neutral (high-aspect) setup, the two aircraft would start completely neutral and fight until whatever DLOs (Designated Learning Objectives) they had were met, be they valid gunshots, valid missile shots, or whatever.
So while this particular article may lead you to believe the two aircraft went out there mano y mano and duked it out, the reality is that we don’t know where each deficiency was found. My guess is the critiques on the pitch rates for gunning and abilities to jink happened in the canned offensive and defensive setups. But one has to remember this is a test platform and they were out to get test data, not find out who the king of the mountain is.
The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?
To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.
As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”
This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at.
For example, the test pilot was a former F-15E pilot. Two-bag Vipers do the same thing to Strike Eagles all day long. Maybe he was just used to it?
I keed. I keed. But seriously, a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.
I’m sure internet debates will rage on. It’s fun to trash the new kid, especially the new kid that’s overweight, wears too much bling, and talks about how awesome it is all the time. It’s way too early to declare the F-35 the “worst fighter aircraft design ever imagined.” Please. Let’s see how it does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do against guys with similar amounts experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.
There’s plenty of room to criticize this program, but accuracy is important. The sky isn’t really falling, Chicken Little. And for the rest of you? Blow out your torches and hang up your pitchforks, for we have miles to go."
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on July 02, 2015, 04:31:34 AM
Source criticism again. That article's source is the OP's article: "published by War Is Boring"
The problem isn't the source but rather the response of JPO that actually confirmed what source says.
Edit:
Quote
“The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” he (JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova) says.
Basically confirms the issues...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 05:10:41 AM
Basically confirms nothing. The F-35 is a strike fighter like the F/A-18. It was never meant to be a light interceptor like the F-16. As the F-16/18 pilot in the article I posted said:
"To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things."
Now the Hornet is generally considered to be a very good strike fighter. Perhaps you haven't noticed but the F-16 was designed for a role that is no longer needed, or perhaps was never needed. Ever since the introduction of the F-16A the USAF have tried to turn it into a better strike fighter. Putting more bombs and fuel on it. The F-16i that you guys in Israel are flying is perhaps the best example of this. The F-35 was never intended to be an F-16. It was designed to replace the F-16 as the USAF's strike fighter.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on July 02, 2015, 08:59:23 AM
Now this is much better resource: http://aviationweek.com/defense/controversy-flares-over-f-35-air-combat-report-0
(also need registration)
1. There is a link to the testing document 2. Quote: "Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office confirm that the document, originally leaked by the War is Boring website, is genuine"
So... lets start trashing F-35 :x :x :x
It is official - F-35 is lemon :neener:
After reading the original report, flaws that are probably non-fixable in near future:
- F-35's EM is very poor (not actually a surprise) - Helmet/Seat/Canopy restricts vision and makes hard to keep a sight of a target
Other flaws - are parts of testing that probably can be tuned.
Link to the original document: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F-35%20High%20AoA%20Maneuvers.pdf
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 12:49:55 PM
That report is not nearly as condemning as the articles based on it. Looks like a typical early combat test where the plane is not pushed to its limits and its true potential is not fully unlocked yet. As testing progresses and the FBW logic is refined they will squeeze more and more performance out of this bird. That they couldn't get max G-loads out of it is especially telling of an overprotective computer. In AH terms they're flying with the stall limiter on...
"Loads remained below limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe."
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: bozon on July 02, 2015, 01:23:29 PM
That report is not nearly as condemning as the articles based on it. Looks like a typical early combat test where the plane is not pushed to its limits and its true potential is not fully unlocked yet. As testing progresses and the FBW logic is refined they will squeeze more and more performance out of this bird. That they couldn't get max G-loads out of it is especially telling of an overprotective computer. In AH terms they're flying with the stall limiter on...
"Loads remained below limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe."
Oh I am sure it is not as bad as the nay sayers make it out to be. On the other hand, it is not very impressive at all. I and I suppose the many others expected a lot more from a new generation fighter/attacker/whateveryoucallit.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 01:29:49 PM
It was never meant to be better than other modern fighters in speed or maneuverability. We're no longer in the jet age, we're in the information age, and that's where the F-35 is designed to beat it opponents. The aircraft itself is just a stealthy, long-range F/A-18. Like I said in the other thread:
In that test fight with the F-16... If the F-35 pilot had all his new toys in working order, the sensor fusion would have picked up the F-16 on radar and IR, identified it, displayed it in the pilots helmet view with a threat analysis and recommended actions. The pilot would have looked at the enemy icon and hit a button, perhaps two, and in short order a missile would have raced out to meet the F-16. The F-16 would not have known what was going on until 5-10 seconds before being blown apart, when his RWR screams a warning of the AMRAAM's radar locking on to him in the terminal phase of its attack.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: DaveBB on July 02, 2015, 08:31:15 PM
It was never meant to be better than other modern fighters in speed or maneuverability. We're no longer in the jet age, we're in the information age, and that's where the F-35 is designed to beat it opponents. The aircraft itself is just a stealthy, long-range F/A-18. Like I said in the other thread:
People have been repeating that every 5 years since the first sidewinder missile was developed (Project Suntracker). Our technology is still nowhere near advanced enough to be able to shoot a missile 100 miles away and be certain that what it hits is an enemy aircraft. There are going to definitely be encounters where the two forces have to have visual contact to identify each other. This is not a dig on the F-35. Countries like Israel are in foreign airspace within 90 seconds of taking off. A 100+ mile ranged ramjet Amraam missile is not going to do them any good.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: eagl on July 02, 2015, 08:55:59 PM
To summarize predator's trollish argument:
The F-35 was designed to suck and its doing a great job at it. It will "replace" several aircraft, the F-16, A-10, and F-15E, without being capable of doing any of the missions currently assigned to those aircraft. It is excelling at this however, so suck it and pay up.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 03, 2015, 03:52:37 AM
As trollish arguments go, your's excellent! :aok
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: HPriller on July 03, 2015, 05:01:54 AM
It seems like what the F-35 is really meant to replace is the f-117. It's an attack plane mislabeled in typical US Airforce fashion with an F prefix. Air supremacy is and will remain the domain of the F-22. It's just another bomber, only this one comes with stealth and supersonic capability rolled in one. I still question how this is better than buying 10 reaper drones (or whatever than mini-stealth bomber looking drone is called) for the same money as one F-35.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Rich46yo on July 03, 2015, 10:30:23 AM
But what would actual aviators know compared to the Daily Mail? :rofl
This article should be prefaced by saying I don’t work for Lockheed Martin, BAE or any of the companies or organisations involved with the aircraft. Now that’s out of the way we can begin, the accusations of the F-35 being inferior may seem shocking at first but it should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat. Additionally, ‘AF-2′ does not feature the radar-absorbent material coating that operational aircraft have.
According to a recent press release from Lockheed Martin
“It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”
Articles making the claim that the F-16 is superior cite tests performed earlier in the year to assess the flying qualities of the F-35 during within visual range combat and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. The aim of the test was to demonstrate the ability of the F-35 to fly to the edge of its restricted test limits without exceeding them. The test scenario was apparently successful as it allowed the aircraft be cleared for greater agility in future tests.
Test pilots say the additional maneuverability available as the aircraft expands its flight envelope after every test is a testament to the performance. According to test pilot David “Doc” Nelson.
“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight’.”
Despite the claims that the F-35 is inferior to a decades old aircraft, previous exercises tell a different story.
It has been widely reported in the media over the last week that an F-35 was outperformed by an F-16, the truth is seemingly a little different.
Over the last few years there have been occasions where a flight of F-35s have engaged a flight of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios, the F-35s reportedly won each of those encounters because of its sensors and low visibility. This seems to be a case of comparing a test aircraft still in trials, that has a restricted flight envelope, against a mature dogfighter with no such restrictions.
While there are valid complaints about the programme, the latest sensationalist headlines aren’t among them.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Nath[BDP] on July 03, 2015, 12:00:16 PM
Can the F35 just turn its stealth on and run away. haha. POS.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 03, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
Nath is a poo!
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: JVboob on July 04, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
I wouldnt mind it replacing the F117, but thats it.
The Falcon, Eagle, Hog, Hornet no dont agree at all with it.
Raptor is in for a long while still. I think the throw-a-way plane that has made a name for its self and proven its selft time and time again (F-16) should stay as well. The Navy/USMC needs more than the Hornet, its covering all the bases (almost).
We need a flying BB. That could float around and defend its self, launch cruise missiles and helos. Itd be armed with SAMs, 155mm cannons, (on the lower half) and that automated missile defence gun (thats on the ships these days) on top and bottom. One big flying USS Missouri mixed with a CV. :x we can only dream lol
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Serenity on July 04, 2015, 11:00:01 AM
Actually this image shows what is wrong with this plane:
If you take all these missiles - as everybody would detect you (not stealth anymore) and than either be able to cook you in BVR or in VVR combat.
If you can't get kill on F-35 in BVR, just take a decent DRFM pod and go into VVR merge. Note: AMRAAM uses mechanically driven radar - basically easy to cope with using DRFM. Even Russia produce ECM pods that can handle AMRAAM.
Once again if you got into VVR it is cooked by legacy F-16 without dropping his external tanks.
If it goes from stealthy BVR mode than either it shoots his AMRAAMs from long range that are jammed by any decent pod and actually allow you to detect were you come from. And once you in VVR with F-35 without any decent short range missile once again F-35 is cooked.
So looking at this picture... what plane I think would be able to take over F-35...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: bozon on July 05, 2015, 02:40:35 AM
Artik, In that configuration it intends to act as a flying SAM battery and make full use of its radar and network with formation members. As you said it gives up stealth, but hopes that superior avionics will give some advantage in BVR. This is fine if you lob missiles at 50+ miles and turn around and run away to keep a stand-off engagement. Probably useful in US doctrine, but useless in many other cases.
Upgraded 4th generation fighters could do it better for a fraction of the cost. The F35 has little to offer in air superiority. It is only in attack roles that it brings something new to the table.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: JVboob on July 05, 2015, 02:58:12 AM
It still doesnt bring much IMO nothing the 4th gens cant do exceedingly well and at a better cost.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Saxman on July 05, 2015, 09:33:18 AM
Artik, In that configuration it intends to act as a flying SAM battery and make full use of its radar and network with formation members. As you said it gives up stealth, but hopes that superior avionics will give some advantage in BVR. This is fine if you lob missiles at 50+ miles and turn around and run away to keep a stand-off engagement. Probably useful in US doctrine, but useless in many other cases.
Upgraded 4th generation fighters could do it better for a fraction of the cost. The F35 has little to offer in air superiority. It is only in attack roles that it brings something new to the table.
And of course there's the small matter of US military doctrine requiring visual identification before engaging...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 11:33:14 AM
The F-35 can visually identify targets at BVR ranges using the DAS optical system. Back in the day the F-14 could also visually identify targets at up to 60 miles using its AAX-1 TV camera slaved to the radar.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 11:53:59 AM
But with other fighters capable of launching their AAM without use of any radar on the launching plane or the missile itself, like the Meteor, The F-35 still can be in a disadvantageous position. Its not helping if only radar u pick up is a ground station or an AEW that relays its signal to a fighter.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 12:15:13 PM
The F-35 can do the same with its AMRAAMs and AWACS support. An F-22 will do as AWACS in a pinch. The DAS is an optical IR imaging system. It doesn't rely on anyone's radar. Also the F-35 with external stores still has a significantly reduced radar cross section compared to conventional fighters. It just isn't an invisible ghost plane anymore.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 12:40:08 PM
It is not an invicible ghost plane at any time.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 12:53:38 PM
According to the USAF the F-35 stealthiness is slightly better than the B-2 bomber, which is twice as good as the F-117. It has the radar cross section half that of a small bird. Not as good as the F-22 though which has an RCS the size of a marble.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 12:57:26 PM
Its hard to detect yes. But its not a huge advantage, even "non stealth" fighters like the Europeans have a lot of rcs reducing features too. A Gripen for ex has a rcs of a bird. Its bigger than a fully dedicated stealth fighter but togheter with ECM it still be hard to detect.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 01:30:33 PM
The frontal RCS of the Gripen isn't bad at about 0.5 meters squared (one tenth that of an F-16), but the F-35's RCS is 0.005 meters squared. F-22 is 0.0001 m2. The Gripens PS-05/A radar is capable of detecting targets with an RCS of 5 m2 (typical non stealth fighter) at a distance of 120 kilometers. That translates to 80 kilometers against a 1 m2 target. 53 km against a 0.2 m2 target. 35 km against a 0.04 m2 target. 23 km against a 0.008 m2 target. 14 km against a 0,001 m2 target
So lets say the Gripen can detect an F-35 at about 20 kilometers range. That's IR missile range.
However, detection is one thing. Tracking such a small target is much more difficult. So while sporadic detection is possible, keeping a radar lock for missiles long enough to make an interception is doubtful.
For comparison the Gripen's radar can detect another Gripen head-on at around 65-70 kilometers. BVR range.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 01:48:13 PM
A Gripen will not fly and chase fighters with its radar, thats not how its intended to fight. Present Gripen radar is not state-of-the-art, however atleast SwAF will have their E/F versions years before the F-35 is operational in sufficient numbers so its a non issue.
Im not convinced by your arguments, What u are saying is that the F-35 is a bomber with secondary fighter capability and that the pretty much only tactic in the book is the Hail Mary, firing AAM from very long range and then run for it. It will be meassures to detect and defeat the F-35 soon enough to be an issue and pretty much arguments are that it doesnt matter that the F-35 have trouble in close range fighting because it will not be any. That is an extremley dangerous way of thinking.
I dont want the F-35 to be a failure, as the main NATO fighter project its a must that the plane can do everything that they promisse. But its worrying that the leaked reports about its flaws is met with arguments like "it have so good sensors that it will not need to dogfight so it doesnt matter that it cant".
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 03:08:56 PM
America is moving away from the traditional IR missile, radar BVR missile, and air to mud missiles. Currently in development is a missile that will replace all US A2A missiles and it will also have A2G capabilities. Known as the T3 (Triple Target Terminator) it will be a multi-guidance (including GPS, radar, imaging infrared/multispectral, and/or laser guidance), multi-role smart weapon. It won't see the light of day for a long time, so for now the USAF and USN will have to make due with the AMRAAM and AIM-9X.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 03:12:41 PM
It is still a dangerous approach as there are no backup plan if its turns out it doesnt work. And its not about the US, a lot of European countries will rely on F-35 as their only fighter and they dont have the strategic depth that they can be sure that they can meet the enemy on their own terms in BVR fights.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 03:39:55 PM
I'm not sure if you're current on the development of the AMRAAM missile. It has come a long way since the A/B/C models of the 1990's Gulf War and Kosovo conflicts. They had max ranges of around 60 kilometers. The current production model the AIM-120D has a range of 180+ kilometers (presumably against large non-maneuvering targets). That's longer than the AIM-54 Phoenix missile the F-14 used to carry.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 04:01:07 PM
i know. But it still not an advantage for the F-35 as there are missiles with similar or better range out there. Meteor has a maximum range of up to 300km for example. Im no expert on Russian and Chinese missiles but I suspect they are working with having missiles atleast equal to AMRAAM.
But still, its foolish to believe that the AMRAAMS the F-35 can take internally in order to stay stealthy will save it in any possible scenario.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 04:20:51 PM
Any possible scenario... No, of course not.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 04:24:44 PM
But thats how the argument goes, that its no problem if the F-35 is beaten in a dog fight because it wont have to dog fight anyway. That is a cause of concern imo.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 04:54:04 PM
If any of you can spare the time, consider for a moment the following short story I had the notion of writing last night. (And please don't be offended by the obvious caricatures.) Best read while mildly intoxicated, and to appropriate music. The way it was written... So I cannot be held responsible for any gross misspellings, grammatical errors or general silliness!
...
ICEMAN'S WAR by PR3D4TOR
It's 2027 and America is yet again going to war. This time against the terrorist kingdom of Ushyallahstan. In addition to supporting various terrorist groups around the world, they've been real uppity in the UN lately about their peaceful nuclear program and refuse to sell their oil at reasonable prices.
Off the Ushyallahstan coast the USS George H.W. Bush launches most of its F-35 fleet to go bomb the terrorists' homes, infrastructure and other military targets, alongside US Air Force F-22s and other F-35s operating from airbases in neighboring Lapdoghistan.
In Ushyallahstan a squadron of F-16Es are preparing to take off on a daring mission. The American made ex-Egyptian multirole fighters are formidable war machines despite being of yesteryears design. Even more so after the Indian "Super Viper" upgrades they underwent last year.
While the rest of his air force is being slaughtered trying to defend cities, Colonel Akir Nakesh sends his last remaining squadron on a revenge mission against the USN carrier taskforce. Eight Super Vipers each carrying a maximum load of fuel, two anti-ship missiles, two AMRAAMs and two dogfight missiles (that are actually very good despite being French) takes off from Saddam Hussein Memorial Airport and heads out to sea...
"Darn!" ... The E-2D radar operator swears in a Southern drawl over the intercom as his display suddenly reveal eight unidentified bogeys heading straight for the task force. The Ushyallahstanis had circled around the taskforce, using their AN/ALQ-218s to triangulate the task force's EM emissions, and were now flying below the horizon in a classic anti-ship "pop-up" attack run from the north.
Unfortunately, "Iceman" is the only F-35 on BARCAP in that sector because "Maverick" had left to do his own thing, again. Futilely the radar operator hits a button signaling the "Alert 5" F-35s to launch from USS George H.W. Bush, knowing they will be too late to prevent the bogeys from getting to ASM launch range. It will be up to "Iceman" to save the day or die trying.
The lone F-35 carries the standard BARCAP loadout of twelve AMRAAMs and a pair of AIM-9X and still has half a tank of gas left after loitering for two hours 150 miles out from the carrier. This was fortunate because the E-2D had just given him orders via data link, complete with a continuously updating radar picture from the E-2D's radar, to intercept, identify and prosecute eight incoming bogeys. With the Sun setting over the East African coast turning the sky blood red "Iceman" bites his lower lip, turns his F-35 onto the intercept vector and opens the throttle to full military power...
"Now!" ... Colonel Nakesh yells into his helmet mike and his squadron all light their afterburners and point their noses skyward. He had been monitoring the E-2's radar signals for the past 15 minutes and determined that by now the Americans must have picked up his flight on radar. His eight Super Vipers scream up in a zoom climb punching through the low cloud cover, afterburners lighting up the surrounding water vapor like God rays. They level out at fifteen thousand feet and turn on their own AESA radars and ECM while spreading out to cover a larger swath of airspace. No reason to hide anymore.
The Colonel's AESA radar scans the horizon for two seconds and... "There!" ... 220 nautical miles out a huge surface contact and several smaller ships are picked up by the radar. It can only be the American task force, and his chance for revenge at last. But suddenly another contact registers on the display. 53 miles out is a single airborne contact flying at high subsonic speed heading directly towards him. "El-Sheitan Alaykom!" ... Colonel Nakesh' swearing goes on uncommented by his wingmen...
The E-2D had lost contact with the bogeys due to interference from their ECM. But, no matter, because "Iceman" had them all painted on his own AESA radar at 50 miles and closing fast. The F-35's sensor fusion system takes the target information from the AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar and fuses it with the infrared imagery from the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System. The sensor fusion system compares the information to its recognition database and identifies the bogeys as F-16s. Displaying the enemy aircraft as hostile icons on "Iceman's" helmet mounted display along with all relevant data after IFF interrogation went unanswered. "Iceman" looks at the zoomed image of the lead F-16. They're Ushyallahstani all right. He ticks off the checkbox for "visual ID confirmed" transmitting it to everyone in the data link network. The range is dropping fast on the target brackets. 42 miles...
Meanwhile Nakesh had been considering his options and he'll be damned if he was going to let a single American devil stand in the way of his revenge! - "Take him!" he commands over the radio in a calm but determined voice. As radio confirmations flood his headset Colonel Nakesh watch the brilliant flares of multiple ATK WPU-6B rocket motors streaking out from the formation. Momentarily closing his eyes he stabs his gloved thumb hard down on the firing button, launching his own AMRAAM at the infidel...
"Incoming missiles, 12 o'clock" squeaking "Betty" announces in her all business, no nonsense voice. "Iceman" watches as more icons appear in his field of view with blinking warning exclamations and time to impact estimates. The incoming missiles had been picked up by the DAS despite them flying with radars silent in the mid-course phase of their attack. The F-35 holding them all in its cold, lifeless six-eyed gaze.
"Iceman" had been holding his fire to give his AMRAAMs a better PK - probability of kill, in case the F-16s changed their minds and ran for it. Even with his formidable missile load he was facing eight hostile fighters and every shot had to count.
28 miles from the bandits, twelve seconds to missile impact, "Iceman" firmly squeeze the trigger releasing "Betty" to execute the pre-planned attack. In the space of 4 seconds the AMRAAM missiles on the wing pylons launch one after the other in rapid succession. Eight AMRAAMs arc across the sky like javelins from a battle long forgotten. 8 seconds to missile impact.
A fraction of a second after the last AMRAAM left the rails "Betty" jettisons the spent wing pylon launchers along with the two remaining Sidewinders. "Iceman" is willing to forgo their future use in return for making his F-35 stealthy. A sudden jolt shoots through the F-35's airframe as explosive bolts blow the pylons away. A startled "Iceman" pulls his F-35 into a sharp climbing left-hand turn and punches out a couple of chaff canisters...
Colonel Nakesh watches the radar display on his left MFD as the missile icon switch to indicate the AMRAAM is active and locked on the target. Five seconds to interception. The American is diving steeply to avoid the missiles, a defensive tactic that could work on older semi-active radar missiles, but Nakesh is confident his missiles will do the job right. After all, they're made in America! The corners of his mouth curl up in an evil smirk at the irony. Moments later a series of sharp flashes brighten the clouds below like lightning in a thunderstorm. The missiles found their target.
Momentarily distracted by the fireworks display below the Colonel's attention is once again drawn to his MFD as subtle bleeping sounds announce the detection of new contacts. His AESA radar has just picked up "Iceman's" AMRAAMs at 7 miles, screaming towards Nakesh's flight with a closing speed of more than Mach 5. The Colonel's expertly trained mind races through all the possible implications and courses of action available to him. It takes him three seconds to grasp the situation and make a decision. "Dash west! Dash west! Expedite!!!" He fails to conceal the borderline panic in his voice and is struck by a sudden feeling of shame. His wingmen acknowledge the urgent command in their own nervous voices.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 04:55:15 PM
The squadron turns hard towards Africa in apparent disarray, Colonel Nakesh can only hope he's made the right choice. His RWR remains silent so the AMRAAMs have not activated yet and are flying blind without mid-course guidance from the dead American. If he could only get his squadron out of their path quickly enough...
On an almost parallel course 20 miles south "Iceman" watches as his missiles curve westward. His AESA radar no longer has the hostiles in its detection cone, but missile guidance has been seamlessly handed over to the DAS optical sensors. Its predatory IR vision tracking all the bandits and the missiles hunting them, with the cold calculating precision only a machine can master. With an almost emotionless gaze "Iceman" watches his missiles converge with the targets, now maneuvering frantically and trailing streams of chaff. One bandit is even popping flares which are briefly bracketed as contacts before the sensor fusion system disregards them.
Four fiery blossoms erupt in the night sky followed by trails of fire arcing down towards the sea, their violent beauty only rivaled by the African sunset up ahead. Half of Colonel Nakesh's squadron had just died, but the only thing "Iceman" could think was "only four..." His chances of winning this battle had just dropped dramatically.
"Thank God for the bootleg Israeli ECM software upgrades" the Colonel said softly. The American had reached out of his watery grave and murdered half his men, but all was not lost. The airspace was now clear between the American carrier and his revenge! His AESA radar picked up two new aircraft coming at him from the carrier but they were hopelessly out of range to stop him. "Form up! Push on to the target!"
The four remaining bandits returned to their previous course towards the task force, and "Iceman" watched as they assembled into a loose line abreast formation. The bandits were once again pushing hard towards ASM launch range. Thankful that his deception had worked "Iceman" kept heading west towards the coast of Africa to keep his distance and stealth, slowly banking north to keep his engine fan blades hidden from enemy radars.
The enemy AESA radars were too discrete to be picked up by RWR at this range, even by the latest American gear, but "Iceman" figures he would soon be outside their detection cones. As he increases his angle of bank and starts turning into the enemy formation he prepares to expend his last four AMRAAMs. "God help me" he whispers as if the enemy somehow might hear him and detect his presence. Thousands of American lives could be riding on him making this shot...
The was no prior warning this time. Colonel Nakesh flinches as his RWR screams a warning of impending doom. "What? What's this?!" The Colonel could not believe his senses. A missile had come out of nowhere and is actively tracking him. Having no time to bark out orders he instinctively rolls his Super Viper onto its back and dives under the incoming threat, while releasing his last chaff canisters in a long stream of metal confetti. It was the same maneuver the American had tried in his dying moments, but this time the irony fails to amuse him. His eyes widen in sudden understanding and he finally realizes the horrible truth... It's him! The American devil is still alive!
The night sky blooms in blinding white light as forty pounds of high explosives detonate in the chaff cloud behind Nakesh. The Viper heaves and bucks from the supersonic shock wave and the Colonel winces in his seat at the sickening sound of shrapnel tearing through his aircraft. Nakesh grabs the ejection seat handle between his legs while the Master Alarm blares a warning drawing his eyes to the warning lights. For a moment he can't believe his luck. Only a couple of secondary systems have been knocked out. His helmet display and HUD were nonfunctional, but he had backup instruments and his MFDs were still working. No fire, his engine and radar still functional. His Super Viper still controllable and his ASM missiles still on their rails. "Allahu Ackbar!" God had saved him! God had given him another chance!
Throttling back the Colonel starts to pull out of the dive and calls out to his wingmen to report in, but he is answered only with silence. His heart sinks when he spots the three columns of fire following him down through the clouds. For a second or two he entertains the thought of going after the American who had murdered his men like a cowardly assassin, but shrugs it off. God had spared him despite his mistakes. God had spared him and his ASMs for a reason!
The American devil had spent all his missiles. Nakesh was no card player but even he could count to twelve. The devil could no longer stop him from completing his mission. He doesn't have the speed. Filled with renewed determination the Colonel punches off his external fuel tanks and relights his afterburner. Paradise awaits this holy warrior...
"Iceman" observes his missiles hit all four targets and sighs audibly inside his half-million-Dollar piece of headgear. However, his relief turns to anxiety when one of the bandits doesn't flame-ball but pulls out of his dive and continues to charge towards the task force. This is what he had been afraid of, but at least there was just one left he thought quietly. Even if he screwed this up the task force CIWS systems would in all likelihood deal with the two - four at most stealth ASMs that F-16 could be carrying. Though it was not a chance "Iceman" was prepared to accept.
"Mach 1.5" the airspeed indicator reads on the left side of his helmet mounted display. Throwing caution out the canopy "Iceman" had charged in after his missiles and was now 6 miles off the remaining bandit's right wing, closing fast in a lead pursuit. He had switched off his AESA radar in fear of alerting the enemy RWR to his presence, relying solely on the DAS optical sensors. The enemy F-16 was now accelerating fast and climbing, but "Iceman" had enough speed and altitude to overtake the bandit in a shallow dive.
The F-35 was not ideally suited for a gunfight against an agile opponent like the F-16, and he might not even get that chance. If the Viper had modern dogfight missiles its pilot could swat him out of the sky with a quick glance over the shoulder. "If he knew where to look..." he whispered to himself. In any case "Cougar" and "Merlin" were on their way and he only needed to delay the enemy for a few minutes. "A few minutes" he thought with a wry smile. Might as well be a lifetime.
Colonel Nakesh's eyes were fixed on the radar display. The American carrier had turned south and is moving at flank speed. Her escorts were forming a defensive barrier behind her, but it wouldn't matter. The Naval Strike Missiles his country had bought from Pakistan were for all intents and purposes invisible and undefeatable. They wouldn't do massive damage to a ship that size, but perhaps force the infidels to suspend flight operations for some time. It wouldn't be the victory he had hoped for, but it would be his country's only victory in this war and at this point he would take any victory he could get.
Both ASMs were heated up and ready. Target data has been transferred and all that remains is to wait a few more seconds for the range to close to 180 nautical miles. "175" he corrects himself. He must make allowances for the carrier's cowardly retreat. The two American fighters that are coming at him head-on will be in AMRAAM range by the time he can launch his ASMs, but no matter. He will gladly join his brothers in Paradise if only he can get to send those ASMs on their way first.
It is at this exact point in time, with the thoughts of Paradise fresh in his mind, that he notices the strange yellowish glare dancing and refracting through his canopy. Shocked his head snaps up and to his right, just in time to see what appears to be an angry swarm of fireflies descending upon him. The Nammo 25 mm APEX rounds rip into the F-16E, and as his aircraft disintegrates around him Colonel Akir Nakesh has one last brief moment to contemplate how completely he has failed his men, his country, and God.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 05:16:02 PM
That is a completley irrelevant made up story that can be written so it ends in any way any one wants it to end. Why not having an engine failure on the F-35 in a critical moment?
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 05, 2015, 05:21:02 PM
You write that story...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2015, 05:33:49 PM
I dont have to, we both know that anything can happen in a war. It can be a Chinese fighter slipping trough and shooting the tanker down, leaving an entire F-22 squad to ditch in the pacific when they are out of fuel. Its more than just having the best planes.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: eagl on July 05, 2015, 06:00:01 PM
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: JVboob on July 06, 2015, 12:56:52 AM
he said have a few drinks before reading it and zimmie didnt
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on July 06, 2015, 05:42:55 AM
You know PR3D4TOR
I don't know even where to start. Your logic contradicts even basic physics.
Quote
The F-35 can visually identify targets at BVR ranges using the DAS optical system. Back in the day the F-14 could also visually identify targets at up to 60 miles using its AAX-1 TV camera slaved to the radar.
Do you know what weather is? Have you even noticed what weather is in Europe for example most of the time? Even at clear skys of summer Middle East visibility of 60 miles virtually never exist.
Or maybe you think F-35's enemies will always fly at 30,000 feet?
Quote
The current production model the AIM-120D has a range of 180+ kilometers (presumably against large non-maneuvering targets)
Do you even know how missile range is calculate for publicity? At high altitude against head on target that comes close whe you fly at high speed towards the target. i.e. most favorable conditions. In reality it does not even comes close to that:
ICEMAN'S WAR by PR3D4TOR... Edited down to reality by Artik
Now I'll add several fixes to your story. I'll do a small correction:
Eight dual seat Super Vipers each carrying a maximum load of fuel, ex-Indian LITENING G4 pod, two anti-ship missiles, two AMRAAMs and two MICA IR (at least call them properly - French missiles %#^$^%). ...
The range is dropping fast on the target brackets. 42 miles. The Colonel's WSO directs his LITENING pod to the a single airborne target while the colonel concentrates on flying and penetration. The sky is crystal clear above the low clouds the pod easily detects the huge IR signature of 28,000lbf turbofan F-135. WSO zooms in and visually identifies the lonely F-35... easy meat. ...
A fraction of a second after the last AMRAAM left the rails "Betty" jettisons the spent wing pylon launchers along with the two remaining Sidewinders. "Iceman" is willing to forgo their future use in return for making his F-35 stealthy. A sudden jolt shoots through the F-35's airframe as explosive bolts blow the pylons away. A startled "Iceman" pulls his F-35 into a sharp climbing left-hand turn and punches out a couple of chaff canisters. Unfortunately for "Iceman" The Colone's WSO watches the fat lightening II using his IR pod. He detects the lunch of 8 AMRAAMs and the inconsistency between the radar and the FLIR - for an experienced WSO it is clear what Iceman tries to do. He warn the formation the F-35 got stealthy and that enemy AMRAAMs in the air
At this point the story radically changes the direction.
Now when Lightning is stealthy and not operates his radar, Colonel sends 4 of his vipers to the cloud cover - without radar IR information F-35 can't send updates to AMRAAMs - so these birds are safe and pushing towards the fleet. All the pilots and WSO are warned of incoming missiles that should be in in about of 30 seconds are getting ready - ECM turned on, chaff being released. The tiny radars of AMRAAMs stand no chance to the latest Indian ECM (that was actually developed by ELTA).
Iceman turns back. He has no radar lock warning being sure that his stealth protects him. He does not realize that he was watched by IR Pod all the time. The Colone's WSO watches the target providing vital information and helps the Vipers above the cloud to perform classic bracket maneuver splitting the flight into two sections. Distance get closer and now 4 pilots above the clouds and WSOs watch the sky for the dark image of F-35 from 15 miles in classic VVR combat.
While performing evasive maneuvers Iceman has lost some of the SA. Now he back to the sensors and realizes that the track of 4 vipers was lost of 4 are still in the air now he is overloaded with information trying to gain back his SA. He misses 4 vipers performing a classic bracket, being overloaded he plays to the Vipers hands. Now he is in VVR with 4 Vipers, one pair on his 6 and another on his 12.
Unfortunately we don't know what happened next. Iceman never come back and all 16 anti-ship missiles were eventually lunched.
Later the FLIR image of last moment of lonely F-35 attempting to save the fleet was published:
- USS George H.W. Bush was damaged by an attack of 8 Vipers and had to withdraw from the operation. - New 6th generation concept of an aircraft was designed that would become true BVR plane instead of legacy 5th generation that still kept some of the VVR capabilities for ID. - Boeing promises that 6th generation F-66 would do true BVR right unlike legacy 5th generation. It would cost only twice as 5th generation but would be 10 times more efficient. - Navy plans to replace a fleet of 200 5th generation F-35C panes by 20 extremely efficient F-66C planes to allow cost savings. - Space agency now requested that F-66S variant would be able to operate in space in addition to F-66B VTOL operations. Army requested it to be able to replace all aging Abrams tanks as well by F-66AT. Marines decided to drop their V-22 in favor of AVF-66 as troop transport and fighter in one. C-17 would be dropped in favor of F-66AC as transport aircraft. - Boeing still have some minor problem that should be resolved soon in next two decades
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: bozon on July 06, 2015, 08:34:19 AM
F66... That was a good one :rofl
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Widewing on July 06, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
According to the USAF the F-35 stealthiness is slightly better than the B-2 bomber, which is twice as good as the F-117. It has the radar cross section half that of a small bird. Not as good as the F-22 though which has an RCS the size of a marble.
Stealthy... Right up until you mount the weapons ejector racks under the wings. Then, its stealth is significantly degraded from all aspects except from above.
The racks are built by Exelis (formally EDO), and we (Circor Aerospace & Defense) designed and manufacture the pneumatic ejector system installed in each rack. We provide the pneumatic modules for the BRU-67 and BRU-68 (F-35) as well as those for Predator and Reaper.
The under-wing racks can be pitched off if need be, but the expense of tossing them is considerable, and there will be finite number in the inventory.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Widewing on July 06, 2015, 12:35:51 PM
I don't know even where to start. Your logic contradicts even basic physics.
Do you know what weather is? Have you even noticed what weather is in Europe for example most of the time? Even at clear skys of summer Middle East visibility of 60 miles virtually never exist.
Or maybe you think F-35's enemies will always fly at 30,000 feet?
F-14s regularly ID'ed Russian planes at these ranges using a rather primitive TV camera system. In my story they were flying over the Red Sea or Gulf of Aden with typical late night cloud cover. I did not specify the altitude of the clouds, but they are typically not above five thousand feet. Over water visibility above the clouds is usually unlimited, i.e. limited only by the horizon and zoom/resolution capability of the optical sensors. With the right optics you can track satellites in these conditions. In my story the attackers' altitude varied from the initial NOE to their pop-up attack altitude of fifteen thousand feet. At fifteen thousand feet the horizon is approximately at 150 miles, which makes the F-16s detecting the carrier group on radar the only stretch of what's possible in this regard.
Do you even know how missile range is calculate for publicity? At high altitude against head on target that comes close whe you fly at high speed towards the target. i.e. most favorable conditions. In reality it does not even comes close to that:
Stealthy... Right up until you mount the weapons ejector racks under the wings. Then, its stealth is significantly degraded from all aspects except from above.
The racks are built by Exelis (formally EDO), and we (Circor Aerospace & Defense) designed and manufacture the pneumatic ejector system installed in each rack. We provide the pneumatic modules for the BRU-67 and BRU-68 (F-35) as well as those for Predator and Reaper.
The under-wing racks can be pitched off if need be, but the expense of tossing them is considerable, and there will be finite number in the inventory.
Cool. In this case I think "Iceman" would have been forgiven by his superiors for losing the expensive racks.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on July 08, 2015, 01:31:51 AM
Artik you spoilsport! You're like the soviets who killed Rambo in their version of the movie! :(
Never liked Top Gun :devil :devil :devil :devil :devil
To be honest. You killed Iceman. You send him in a single F-35 armed with AMRAAMs against 8 Vipers updated with Israeli ECM? He must be suicidal :neener:
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 01:40:08 AM
I was drunk. ;)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: bozon on July 08, 2015, 05:35:18 AM
What? This is one of the best homo-erotic movies of the 80s.
:rofl
I prefer Hot Shots!
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Saxman on July 08, 2015, 06:42:52 AM
Mmmmm.... Valeria Golino....
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on July 08, 2015, 10:24:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 11:06:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on July 08, 2015, 11:20:34 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 11:30:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 11:47:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on July 08, 2015, 12:51:56 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 01:01:22 PM
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! :aok
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
Also the F-35 is just a fighter-bomber, and the A-6 Intruder was never a fighter-bomber.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on July 08, 2015, 01:27:46 PM
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.
Quote
A-6 Intruder was never a fighter-bomber.
Never said it was.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 01:37:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 02:52:22 PM
Logic is not that simple Artik.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Widewing on July 08, 2015, 03:32:40 PM
The issue is the F-35's inferior "energy maneuverability", which includes far more than a turning contest. The F-16 wins in sustained turn and in the vertical and does so with relative ease. The F-35 appears to burn of E like crazy, whereas the Viper doesn't.
Above 15k on up, the F-15 can handle the Viper. In a lower speed scrum, the Super Hornet is more maneuverable than either. The F-22 owns all of them. The F-35 is owned by all of them.
A 21st century A-7...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Widewing on July 08, 2015, 03:36:16 PM
In other words, they know it sucks, but don't know yet if it will pull a perfect vacuum...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 08, 2015, 03:58:43 PM
From the article I posted earlier in this thread by a Viper and Hornet pilot. I'll take his judgement over anyone here.
"To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.
As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”
This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at."
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Widewing on July 08, 2015, 04:26:06 PM
From the article I posted earlier in this thread by a Viper and Hornet pilot. I'll take his judgement over anyone here.
"To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.
As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”
This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at."
Sounds very much like the DoD's argument when they tried to force this down the Navy's throat as a fighter....
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Nath[BDP] on July 08, 2015, 04:55:25 PM
at least thats sexy
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on July 08, 2015, 07:20:39 PM
Quote
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.
Well we have decided to debate it despite not having classified info on the a/c and you are here with us...so welcome aboard and observe the no smoking sign and fasten your seatbelt.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 04:11:57 AM
True, except that I have not made any claims as to what the F-35 can or cannot do beyond what has been officially published... With so little actual data available doing so would, as C.W. Lemoine says, be irresponsible and sensationalist at best.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 09, 2015, 07:36:46 AM
Problem is that if it really sucks u wont hear it officially from LM or anyone near the project. they are going to insist that they have build the best fighter ever and all issuses is "going to be sorted out along the way".
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 07:47:00 AM
That's a conspiracy theory. And if you think the whole US military is in on it too that must be the biggest conspiracy theory in history.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 08:13:20 AM
People who are not familiar with the corporate culture often fall for conspiracy theories like that. Microsoft has hidden "back doors" in Windows and Google is secretly taking pictures of you etc. What these people do not understand is that a company officer and the company itself survive on one thing: Reputation. That's a major reason why the markets can be so volatile at times.
A company can be vague, evasive and even refuse to comment, but it can never lie. If a lie is found out, and most lies are, the company's reputation will be ruined along with its business. Take Microsoft for example: If they actually had hidden back doors in Windows how long would it take before some white hat hacker found out and blew the whistle? What corporation or private citizen (all of whom have their own secrets and privacy to protect) in their right mind would use a Microsoft product ever again after that? Microsoft would be ruined and thus would never ever take an insane risk like that.
Corporations, even the really big ones, are not like how they are portrayed in the movies and pulp fiction. They do not have unlimited resources to spend on secret bases in hollowed out volcanoes. They are not evil James Bond villains out to take over the world. The life of a corporate officer is a life of constant stress, overtime, financial risk and fear, and it has broken more men than any war.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 10:38:16 AM
Ok... Seems like Skuzzy withdrew his comment. The reply I made serves little purpose now.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Skuzzy on July 09, 2015, 10:53:03 AM
Ok... Seems like Skuzzy withdrew his comment. The reply I made serves little purpose now.
Well, I was walking the line of copyright infringement by posting a copy of the text from LM's site. Thought better of it and removed it. It would have derailed the topic anyway.
I'll just say I disagree with your assessment of corporations and how they disclose information. I have worked in the marketing arm of two large corporations. It is all about smoke and mirrors.
Oh, and depending on your definition of 'back door', Microsoft certainly does things they are not obliged to tell you about. They have publicly stated so. Again, depending on your definition. Just FYI.
EDIT: Unfortunately, I do not have the time for a lengthy discussion about this, which is another reason I pulled my response as it would have served to drive a long winded discussion.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 11:20:42 AM
Now my reply would have had a purpose. This is a somewhat annoying way to conduct a discussion.
I also have some experience in marketing, and lying is a cardinal sin. Emphasizing positives while downplaying negatives is not lying. Everyone does that all the time. No one is legally or morally required to tell the whole truth except under oath in a court of law. That Lockheed Martin does not release all the information they have (they are most certainly under legal obligations not to do so) does not mean that people should just fill in the blanks with whatever tickles their fancy. That road leads to tin foil hats, spitting astronauts in the face, and soccer moms not vaccinating their kids.
If Microsoft outlines their data collection and the purpose for it in the license, it is not a back door as I understand the definition. Going by wiki: "A backdoor in a computer system (or cryptosystem or algorithm) is a method of bypassing normal authentication, securing unauthorized remote access to a computer, obtaining access to plaintext, and so on, while attempting to remain undetected. The backdoor may take the form of a hidden part of a program,[1] a separate program (e.g., Back Orifice) may subvert the system through a rootkit."
That Microsoft needs to collect some data is understandable. Just like your accountant needs to look at your financial records, and your mechanic needs to inspect your car. The conspiracy theory is that Microsoft is allowing, willingly or under duress, the alphabet agencies or other "nefarious organizations" access to spy on people and companies.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
Also, customer satisfaction is directly related to how the product performs compared to the marketing. If the customer feels cheated your marketing has failed terribly. In the information age we currently live in word of mouth (or rather world of social media) is a powerful force that can make or break a company's reputation. If Lockheed Martin completely misrepresents its product, and for the sake of argument let's entertain the ridiculous idea that the USAF, USN, and Marines are all in on the scam. What happens when the RAF blows the whistle? Or one of the other seven nations buying this aircraft so far. Mass cancellations. Law suits. Legal repercussions. Political fallout on an international scale. Lockheed Martin would not survive.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 09, 2015, 01:22:38 PM
A major part of the F-35's weaponry, the SDB II (Small Diameter Bomb II) won't be deployed on the F-35 until 2022 because the software isn't ready yet and in addition, the SDB II won't fit in the F-35B's weapon bay without major modification. Until the F-35 is capable of carrying the SDB II, it won't be capable of full close air support and only able to provide basic support.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 01:56:55 PM
And?
The F-16 is scheduled to remain in service with the USAF until 2025. The F-35 is only just now starting its IOC phase, initial operational capability. It won't be fully operational for several more years.
The F-16 is scheduled to remain in service with the USAF until 2025. The F-35 is only just now starting its IOC phase, initial operational capability. It won't be fully operational for several more years.
The F-35B is slated to go into operational service with the USMC at the end of this summer and won't be able to fulfill it's full mission by providing full close air support for another 7 years. In addition, the F-35 won't be able to fire its 25mm cannon until the Block 3F software is released in 2019.
You would think that a plane that we've thrown money at that is slated to start operational service as early as next month would be fully operational and not having to wait for 7 years or possibly more until the plane is fully capable of completing its mission.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 03:00:24 PM
The F-35B just entered IOC, nothing more.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 09, 2015, 03:07:51 PM
The SDB II won't be available until 2022! Oh noes!
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.
Only the American F-35s will lack a IR missile that can be dropped from the internal weapon bays, and only by choice. The British will use their ASRAAM IR-missile which has lock-on after launch capability, 50G maneuvering and a range of 30+ miles. I assume the other European F-35 operators will adopt similar missiles.
The F-35B is slated to go into operational service with the USMC at the end of this summer and won't be able to fulfill it's full mission by providing full close air support for another 7 years. In addition, the F-35 won't be able to fire its 25mm cannon until the Block 3F software is released in 2019.
You would think that a plane that we've thrown money at that is slated to start operational service as early as next month would be fully operational and not having to wait for 7 years or possibly more until the plane is fully capable of completing its mission.
Quote
The Air Force plans to reach operational status with its F-35A in 2016 using the next iteration of the software, called 3i. Described as a technical refresh of Block 2B, 3i will also enable the aircraft to drop JDAMs, GBU 12s and AMRAAMs.
JSF officials point out that the F-35A will have substantial close-air support capabilities when it reaches full operational capability in 2018. This includes the ability to fire an internal gun and drop a range of munitions including AIM-9X weapons, AMRAAMs, GBU 12s, GBU 31s and the Small Diameter Bomb I.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 24, 2015, 07:08:15 AM
:aok Glad u found a guy that knows all about the F-35, unlike all the others.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 07:34:50 AM
Just goes to show not all journalists are sensationalist headline grabbers. In time we will see what the F-35 can do (or can't do). This entire thread (myself included) is just a collection of speculations and uninformed opinions. The only difference between me and you is that I find it hard to believe in the conspiracy theory that everyone involved in the F-35 program, including service members from 9 countries, are covering up what a failure the aircraft is. They are after all the people who might have to fly the F-35 into harm's way sometime in the future. Their butts are literally riding on it.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 24, 2015, 12:24:33 PM
I would say that "ten-signs-the-f-35-fighter-program-is-becoming-a-smashing-success" is pretty much a sensationalist headline....
I would say that "ten-signs-the-f-35-fighter-program-is-becoming-a-smashing-success" is pretty much a sensationalist headline....
There are a number of sensationalistic opinions in that piece as well.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 12:40:42 PM
In my opinion it is not sensationalistic to write something to the effect of: "It's working as intended. Everything is OK. Nothing to see here. Don't worry, everything's going to be fine." That is the opposite of sensationalism.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 24, 2015, 12:48:14 PM
Lol. opinions is what this is all about. u have your opinion too.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 12:51:33 PM
About sensationalism, you're damn right I do. I work in multimedia marketing. After a while in this line of work the tricks of the trade become so obvious that they almost pop out of the screen in every news article I read.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 24, 2015, 12:57:27 PM
Sorry but u have to accept critical opinions and article, even the bad ones. Thats how its works unless u want to do some major cutbacks in freedom and democracy.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 01:03:14 PM
In what way do I need to accept it? I dismiss most or all opinions and conclusions not based on solid, verifiable facts. Don't overestimate the individual's power in a democracy. Despite all the bad press and controversy the F-35 program has survived three Presidents so far.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 24, 2015, 01:15:53 PM
US have no option but to go on with the F-35, that is however not true for the European countries. It takes less than u realize before the F-35 can be ditched over here.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 01:17:35 PM
That is just another opinion not based on solid, verifiable facts that I summarily dismiss.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Skuzzy on July 24, 2015, 01:22:26 PM
In my opinion it is not sensationalistic to write something to the effect of: "It's working as intended. Everything is OK. Nothing to see here. Don't worry, everything's going to be fine." That is the opposite of sensationalism.
That is not what was said, but an extrapolation of what was said i.e. your opinion of what was said. Not saying it is an incorrect opinion, just that it is an opinion.
Had that been what was actually said, then I would agree, there was nothing sensationalistic about it.
The excessive use of superlatives, in that article, had me giggling a minute or two as those were the writers overstated opinions.
One could purge the sensationalistic verbage and be left with a decent article which would read much more objectively. Of course, that is also my opinion.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on July 24, 2015, 01:30:45 PM
See Rules #4, #14
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 01:37:10 PM
The main point is perhaps that at this time every conclusion written by a journalist about the F-35 is just an uninformed opinion or speculation. No journalist has access to the information necessary to write an article that comes anywhere close to fulfilling the canons of journalistic integrity.
I reserve my opinion on the F-35 for that reason, but I cannot ignore the fact that all the pilots involved with the F-35 that I have seen interviewed are all positive and praise it. To me that's a clear indication that at least some of the bad press is unfounded.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 04:39:58 PM
The excessive use of superlatives, in that article, had me giggling a minute or two as those were the writers overstated opinions.
One could purge the sensationalistic verbage and be left with a decent article which would read much more objectively. Of course, that is also my opinion.
Btw. Skuzzy, yes the author of that article is clearly biased in favor of the F-35, and to his credit he admits it: "I have an emotional attachment to the F-35 because I have worked with many of the companies that build it, including prime contractor Lockheed Martin, for much of my adult life..."
Clear and obvious editorial bias and "excessive use of superlatives" as you put it does not make it sensationalist. Sensationalism is provoking shock, excitement or outrage to generate more viewership at the expense of accuracy. The author is not doing that, but is providing an admittedly biased counter view to the wealth of sensationalist negative press.
I do not find that article shocking or outrageous. It should not be very exiting either unless you own LM stock.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: DaveBB on July 24, 2015, 06:19:18 PM
Aerodynamics, avionics, and armament. It appears this plane traded aerodynamics and armament for avionics.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 08:22:51 PM
If you count stealth as avionics. Armament however is flexible. It can trade armament for stealth and vice versa. According to the publicized specs, in full bomb-truck mode it can carry more ord than a Super Hornet. 18,000 lbs.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 08:37:02 PM
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 24, 2015, 11:26:12 PM
The problem with sensationalism is that if done right it can be very difficult to spot for the laymen (that's why it works). Only with time and experience does the sensationalism become obvious. We now live in the information age and everyone with access to a computer can do their own fact checking. Checking the sources and claims themselves. Unfortunately most people do not have, or make the time to do this.
60 minutes is generally considered a serious and respectable news source. That perception is protected by the limitations of the attention span and memory of human beings. However, we are living in the information age and much of the information that has been forgotten is now at your fingertips.
Watch this:
Now, how can anyone who has watched this ever take 60 minutes seriously again. Who knew geeks were such outlaws in the 1980s!
What's next? Perhaps Hitech Creations will be accused of causing plane crashes and terrorism. "The airline pilot was an avid Aces High player. A computer game were you score points by suicide diving your WWII Lancaster bomber into a town..." ;)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Skuzzy on July 25, 2015, 07:04:13 AM
Btw. Skuzzy, yes the author of that article is clearly biased in favor of the F-35, and to his credit he admits it: "I have an emotional attachment to the F-35 because I have worked with many of the companies that build it, including prime contractor Lockheed Martin, for much of my adult life..."
Clear and obvious editorial bias and "excessive use of superlatives" as you put it does not make it sensationalist. Sensationalism is provoking shock, excitement or outrage to generate more viewership at the expense of accuracy. The author is not doing that, but is providing an admittedly biased counter view to the wealth of sensationalist negative press.
I do not find that article shocking or outrageous. It should not be very exiting either unless you own LM stock.
Yes, there were a couple of phrases used which had me laughing my arse off, hence the use of the word "sensationalism". On the other side of the coin, I wanted to stop reading it about 1/3 the way through due to the over the top writing. It was horrible.
Sensationalism is not limited to the emotions it can provoke. If the emotions are to the excess, then the piece can be considered sensationalistic. That is the other problem with that type of writing.
It will depend on who is reading it and the perspective taken. For me, it was a very sensationalistic piece, which also contained excessive use of superlatives.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 25, 2015, 09:16:35 AM
I can't agree to that, but hey... That's OK too. :)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 26, 2015, 09:44:30 AM
A new video featuring UK pilots and maintainers. One UK pilot who has previously flown the Sea Harrier and Super Hornet described the F-35B as "a leap ahead", "without doubt unsurpassed".
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on July 26, 2015, 12:53:54 PM
It has only 4 seconds of 25mm ammo. "Of course it is a larger round, i wonder if they could step it down to a 20mm and get some fire time back."
:(
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 26, 2015, 01:52:24 PM
The F-16 has 5 seconds worth of ammo for its 20 mm gun.
25 mm is a much more desirable caliber of round, but still smallish compared to what the rest of the world uses these days. Europeans and Russians use 27 mm and 30 mm cannon in their fighter aircraft, and have been for decades. The 30 mm GSh-301 (MiG-29/Su-27) is widely considered the best aircraft cannon to date.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 27, 2015, 01:20:12 PM
Foreign production is ramping up with the test flight of the first F-35 with Australian made vert stabs.
The F-16 has 5 seconds worth of ammo for its 20 mm gun.
25 mm is a much more desirable caliber of round, but still smallish compared to what the rest of the world uses these days. Europeans and Russians use 27 mm and 30 mm cannon in their fighter aircraft, and have been for decades. The 30 mm GSh-301 (MiG-29/Su-27) is widely considered the best aircraft cannon to date.
I would vote for the Oerlikon KCA as a contender, 30x173mm round, 1030m/s muzzle velocity.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on July 28, 2015, 01:15:58 AM
During the Marine’s recent operational readiness test of the F-35B, four of the Marine aircraft went up against nine enemy aircraft.
“It went very poorly for the bad guys,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told me this afternoon. Davis provided few details, saying they were classified, He did say that the F-35s faced a threat that “we have never put an F-16 or a Harrier against.” The F-35Bs, he said, did a “great job.”
I asked Davis about the recent news that the F-35A did not fare that well in dogfight conditions against an F-16. “I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35.”
In a clear message to A-10 advocates, Davis said the F-35B performed extremely well at Close Air Support missions using Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and laster-guided GBU-12s. The aircraft does need a cannon, he conceded, for some missions. The gun is currently undergoing its first tests mounted on an aircraft but it won’t be deployed on the plane until 2017 when the Block 3F software is installed. But Davis was unequivocal in his enthusiasm for the aircraft. “No airplane in the world will be able to touch this jet at Close Air Support,” he told reporters.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 28, 2015, 06:26:55 PM
F-35 debuts at Oshkosh 2015. First display at a civilian airshow.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on July 29, 2015, 02:04:41 AM
Anyone know what the current G and other envelope restrictions are for the F35? I remember reading it someplace recently that they still haven't opened up the flight envelope, there is some unclassified info regarding this around on various defense sites. Anyhow, point being that those low level turns were done sans afterburner, and looked pretty relaxed, not being an expert, but sure looked like 5g or less compared to various F16/22/18/15/etc/etc/etc airshow max G turns I've seen on the deck over the years.
That's one thing I'd LOVE to see right about now, an F35 at an airshow doing a really high rate/radius low level turn, to see what it looks like doing so if nothing else.
One thing I'll never argue is that the F35B will give the USMC and the US forces overall a huge advantage and capability boost over the current Harrier. Much easier to fly/land which is a pretty big thing to hear the pilots talk about it, and obviously having a stealth fighter with a much, much better radar and sensor system than the AV8B means the little mini-carrier assault ships will have the ability to do more than just support troops with very, very short range bomb truck runs. Having a squadron of 12 or so B models as well as all the other aircraft types makes new ships like USS America and so on probably more capable than any other nations CVs except maybe France, or once the UK gets its new ones going. I think I've read that the USMC will be able to operate the B from 8 or 9 different assault ships in the fleet right now, with more coming.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 29, 2015, 09:38:57 AM
Current limitations and final performance estimates are obviously classified. Even if I were to come by a leaked document I would not help spread it. That would be a treasonous act in itself.
In other news, Israel is forming its first F-35i squadron.
Current limitations and final performance estimates are obviously classified. Even if I were to come by a leaked document I would not help spread it. That would be a treasonous act in itself.
In other news, Israel is forming its first F-35i squadron.
The F35 is controversial in the IAF as well. The biggest attraction for Israel is that they are getting their own custom version in which the plane will be adapted to carry Israeli equipment on the production line. The manufacturer had already backed away from some of the promises and the planes will be delivered with the original junk installed on them, that will have to be removed and the plane modified again.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 30, 2015, 12:05:04 PM
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: XxDaSTaRxx on July 30, 2015, 12:30:38 PM
Don't bother with Predator's rambling. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 30, 2015, 12:50:14 PM
You're right. I'm with the other clueless dolts in the USAF, USN, USMC, and the services of several other countries.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: DaveBB on July 30, 2015, 05:06:51 PM
Even if the F-35 turns out to be mediocre, the U.S. has already dealt with that in the form of the F/A-18. Short ranged, high drag, underpowered (compared to other 4th generation fighters). But it has still done an excellent job at its missions and only one has been lost to a Mig-25.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: CavPuke on July 30, 2015, 07:37:15 PM
Ahhh the USN's other money pit aka the USS America. A ship designed and built expressly for the F-35B and as soon as it's finished with it's sea trials it's back to the drydock for billions more in upgrades cuz it can't handle F-35B operations. No wonder the USN can't sustain carrier ops in the Persian Gulf when it's blowing billions on fiascoes such as the F35 and America class carriers. Pretty soon we'll spend ourselves out of a military just like we did with the USSR.
Quote
The flightdeck heating issue has been an embarrassing one for the F-35 program. Early on, it was assured that the heat from the F-35B's massive engine would not require any modifications for amphibious ship operations. Where the AV-8B Harrier could go, the F-35B could go.
This turned out to be a farce. The F-35B's hot exhaust has the capability to not just scorch these ships existing decks, they can melt right through them like a cutting torch, the purpose built USS America included. As a result, intricate structural members have to be added underneath spots seven and nine (F-35Bs will only be able to land on these two spots!) aboard the America, and a new deck surface coating must be added in hopes of keeping the jet's high heat signature at bay.
Maybe what is most startling is that not only is the ship that was designed for the F-35 not prepared structurally to operate that aircraft, but intellectually the ship is not prepared to deal with it either.
You're right. I'm with the other clueless dolts in the USAF, USN, USMC, and the services of several other countries.
There are complains in several of those countries about not getting what was promissed and politics still is a large part of it. Its not just the F-35, a country rarely buys the weapon system that gives them most bang for the buck. KC-46 is a very good example of that... All countries and AF will say their plane is the best, its nothing new.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 31, 2015, 09:25:19 AM
(Golf Clap) What a very eloquent, poignant rebuttal of the points the article brought up.
That's the thing; he has no points. He cannot possibly know enough hard facts to make a valid point. If you want to listen and trust the opinions of people who have no way of knowing the facts, that's your choice. I prefer to stick with the people who actually know what they're talking about.
Welcome back Zimme, but didn't we finish that discussion on page 10...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: CavPuke on August 02, 2015, 08:35:05 AM
That's the thing; he has no points. He cannot possibly know enough hard facts to make a valid point. If you want to listen and trust the opinions of people who have no way of knowing the facts, that's your choice. I prefer to stick with the people who actually know what they're talking about.
Actually he's made quite a few salient points backed by hard facts, yet you choose not to refute any of his sources or facts and instead attack the author.
Here is another hubris ridden critic:
Quote
James also agreed that an F-35A "didn't do so well" in mock dogfights with an F-16 last January. The test pilot's assessment, first reported by the "War Is Boring" blog, said that the F-35 lacked the maneuverability to keep up with the F-16 and the F-35 pilot's helmet cut down on his vision. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/28/air-force-secretary-acknowledges-wide-range-problems-f35.html
The Secretary of the Air Force herself acknowledges the facts that the F35 is in trouble and the problems may result iin less aircraft being purchased. But what does she know? I'm sure she is an uninformed critic.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Grayeagle on August 02, 2015, 04:19:06 PM
I remember a *LOT* of negative rhetoric when the F-15 was first announced ..s'kinda funny in that it used all the same words .. overpriced, not as good as <insert any other fighter in the world here> ..ad infinitum.
And then the Bacaa Valley air war happened. What was it .. 80-1 kill ratio? And the one that went down was an RF-4C ..shot down by a SAM.
First combat test of the F-15.
Then the same negative rhetoric began when the F-22 was announced. -yawn-
And now it's the F-35's turn in the barrel. -rolls eyes-
The capabilities of the design are interesting in that it is not an air superiority design ..it is multi-role in so many ways it boggles the mind. It appears they are trying to build the Swiss Army Knife of fighters .. I am sure it will do ok at whatever the mission is .. god knows if it is trying to fill the A-10 role it has some big shoes to fill.
-GE (just my 2 copper)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: bozon on August 03, 2015, 03:12:30 AM
y air war happened. What was it .. 80-1 kill ratio? [/quote] Depending on whether you in clude the Mig25, it was 83:0, break down: 41 to F15, 41 to F16 and 1 to F4 Phantom.No planes were lost in combat.
One F4 was lost a few years later due to a malfunction - navigator was taken by Hizballa and later sold to Iran, never to be seen or heard again. The pilot was rescued by hanging on the skiis of a Cobra attack hellicopter and flown out under fire.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 03, 2015, 06:55:30 AM
Actually he's made quite a few salient points backed by hard facts...
No such thing as "hard facts". Something is either factual or not. Hard evidence is a different matter, but no: His "salient points" are not backed by any facts or hard evidence.
The Secretary of the Air Force herself acknowledges the facts that the F35 is in trouble...
No she does not. She acknowledges that there are teething problems with the aircraft, something anyone with any knowledge about aircraft design should expect. However she also said that the "the F-35 will be a different plane when it's fully operational." She also acknowledges that the production program has difficulties with its attempt at concurrency, which has nothing to do with the performance or capabilities of the aircraft itself.
I wonder what would have happened to these treasonous journalists like "foxtrotalpha" if they had published leaked test flight data and tried the same smear campaign back in WWII.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 03, 2015, 07:03:55 AM
I remember a *LOT* of negative rhetoric when the F-15 was first announced ..s'kinda funny in that it used all the same words .. overpriced, not as good as <insert any other fighter in the world here> ..ad infinitum.
Right on. And the F-16 too. People never learn and the fifth columnists in the media can just rinse and repeat the same old rhetoric.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 03, 2015, 09:23:59 AM
In other news, the first F-35 squadron is operational:
Right on. And the F-16 too. People never learn and the fifth columnists in the media :rofl can just rinse and repeat the same old rhetoric.
Again a very poor attempt to obfuscate the matter at hand and attack the integrity of the critics instead of the points the critics make. I would imagine that the Secretary of the Air Force would be surprised to be categorized as a "Fifth Columnist".
Greyeagle a good read on the F-15 and F-16 programs and their proponents and opponents is a PHD dissertation by Marshall Micheal III at https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf (https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf) Pred I'm quite sure you won't want to read the treatise because of it's possible Fifth Columnist origins.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 03, 2015, 04:21:00 PM
The Secretary of the Air Force is not a fifth columnist (;)) as she did not write that diatribe. She was quoted out of context to support the writer's rhetoric.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 03, 2015, 04:58:39 PM
The road to USMC Initial Operational Capability:
I find myself agreeing with one of the youtube posters: "It is so hilarious that now the F-35s are going into service and doing just fine and passed all the testing. Proven it is ready for combat service. That those that are ignorant, fear or hate this craft still slam and make false claims. They are like rats on a sinking ship and soon they to will be drowned by their own false claims,hate or ignorance. Now they will have to join the flat earth idiots so they can have something stupid to rant about. To that nut still worried about F-22, well kid there are still here and in service."
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Grayeagle on August 06, 2015, 09:10:16 PM
Cavpuke dood .. I was workin the flightline as a USAF ECM troop when we got news of the Bacaa Valley air war. Up till then all we heard in the 'media' were negative waves about the F-16 and F-15. Lotta hype about how superior the Migs were. After Bacaa Valley .. well .. I cannot imagine how empty those Syrian flightlines were at the end of that day.
I remember a lot of hype about the Mig 25 that went Mach 3 over Libya or some such. Then that guy defected and flew his Mig 25 into Japan.. and it came to light that perhaps the Mig 25 was a bit different than the West thought it was. Like ..heavier .. for one. And it burnt to a shell to do that Mach 3 run, basically chucking out the compressor blades and converting itself to a ramjet .. ..throttle control was not an option at that point .. among other things. Turned out an F-4 could out turn that beast.. even.
Just sayin . . media has always seemed to be 99 percent BS .. combat invariably shows what is what, opinions and papers fall by the wayside.
The thing that bugs me is .. the powers that be seem to be pushing for missile boats and canning the whole dogfight genre, again. Every time we get our tits in a wringer, a fighter with a gun is required. Every Time. I hope the F22 has a long .. long .. lifespan.
In my humble opinion ..the F-22 will probably be the last human piloted air superiority fighter. Same with the F-35 as a strike fighter. AI / human guided RPV's can do it better ..already proven in the F4 era and they have gotten better exponentially. -just sayin
-GE (I could be wrong .. wouldn't be the first time :)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 06, 2015, 09:29:30 PM
Grayeagle, the last time a U.S. fighter shot down an aircraft using a gun was probably during the Vietnam War. I know the Israelis have done it, but that's mostly for the sheits and giggles (very prestigious among IAF pilots). I also know an A-10 blasted a Iraqi helicopter during GW1, but that's not a fighter. Getting rid of the gun before the missiles were combat proven was clearly a mistake, but these days it is mostly an air to mud weapon. That said the F-35A does have an internal gun, and a better one than the legacy jets it replaces. The other two can bring one along in a pod.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: eagl on August 06, 2015, 09:42:08 PM
Before the Vietnam war proved that they still needed a gun, everyone was saying "the last time anyone shot down a fighter with guns was in the Korean war, using *primitive* second generation jet fighters".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The day guns aren't necessary in an air superiority fighter is the same day a Navy SEAL doesn't need to include a knife in his kit. When was the last time a Navy SEAL had to take someone on one-on-one with nothing but his knife? The answer is that it doesn't freaking matter because they're gonna carry a knife (or two or three) when they go out, because they might need it and its worth carrying the extra weight.
Plus, strafe. Everyone thought the F-15E was too expensive to risk strafing, yet they employed the gun A/G a LOT when lives were on the line and the gun was the right weapon. At some point the price of an F-35 or F-22 will be measured up against the value of some troops in contact, and then they'll put their nose down and brrrrt like every fighter before them has done.
Heck, when I was at Lakenheath we even tried teaching the F-15C drivers how to strafe with their fixed A/A reticle. It didn't work too well because the up-canted gun plays hell with strafe ballistics, but it was important enough that a bunch of smart pilots gave it a shot.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 06, 2015, 09:48:05 PM
Like I said, mostly air to mud these days. And no air to air kills for some forty years or so.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 06, 2015, 09:49:22 PM
Found it! The newsies went ballistic over this back in the 70s.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on August 12, 2015, 12:13:01 PM
Ol' Predator will like this - The F35A has officially joined the 62nd Fighter Squadron.
I have a feeling, unlike the F22, that they will get F35's, completely ready or not, into combat missions sooner or later, in order to sway support towards the program and all that.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 13, 2015, 03:05:45 AM
They would first have to reach IOC. So far only the Marines are ready for limited operations.
In other news:
Rockwell Collins delivers first Gen 3 helmet for F-35
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 13, 2015, 10:59:14 PM
Even the Vietnamese know how cool this jet is... Beaucoup dien cai dau man!
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 16, 2015, 08:54:26 AM
"At the end of the day, history books will not remember that the F-35 was a little bit late, that there's maybe some dysfunction out there in the different zip codes in and around this town, all the history books will care about is were we ... ready to go on game day. Yes or no, that's all they're going to care about." -Lt. Gen. Jon Davis
Grayeagle, the last time a U.S. fighter shot down an aircraft using a gun was probably during the Vietnam War. I know the Israelis have done it, but that's mostly for the sheits and giggles (very prestigious among IAF pilots). I also know an A-10 blasted a Iraqi helicopter during GW1, but that's not a fighter. Getting rid of the gun before the missiles were combat proven was clearly a mistake, but these days it is mostly an air to mud weapon. That said the F-35A does have an internal gun, and a better one than the legacy jets it replaces. The other two can bring one along in a pod.
Nope. It was in 1980 when an F-14 shot down a Zero.
Never mind. That was in 1941. :)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 16, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
Time travel is cheating! :furious
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on August 16, 2015, 07:46:15 PM
Quote
completely ready or not, into combat missions sooner or later
They will bomb some insurgent in a Toyota from 35,000 feet and call it combat proven. Just wait.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 17, 2015, 02:58:21 AM
That will make it combat proven as a bomber at least...
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on August 17, 2015, 04:59:36 AM
I know the Israelis have done it, but that's mostly for the sheits and giggles (very prestigious among IAF pilots).
Sorry this only shows the misunderstanding of the situation.
It isn't about "sheits and giggles" it is about having tight airspace when you get close to target the way the gun is just more effective than missile. And it very tight and crowded with tens and hundreds aircraft airspace close to Israel like Lebanon or Syria you get close not because you "want to show off" but because does not take much time to cross the entire airspace.
Quote from an interview to "Flight International" in 1982 about "Bekaa Valley Turkey Shot"
Quote
FI: Because of the area restrictions, did you favour gun attacks rather than missiles? IAF: Not exclusively, but we shot down many with guns, a big percentage with our own Shafrir and some with all types of the Sidewinder we have. And we used the Sparrow. Surprisingly we had a much higher rate of gun kills than we expected. In such a small area with many aircraft we had to get very close to visually identify aircraft, as we were in close, we used guns.
I posted the full interview there: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,372922.0.html
Gun has important role. You can get without it... but it is much better to have one.
BTW what is more disturbing is that in Stealth mode F-35 has no close in weapons like short range heat seeking missiles - that are BTW were and remain primary killing weapon of air-force.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 17, 2015, 08:08:54 AM
BTW what is more disturbing is that in Stealth mode F-35 has no close in weapons like short range heat seeking missiles - that are BTW were and remain primary killing weapon of air-force.
That's not accurate. F-35A (and I) in stealth mode has a 25mm gun, and can carry two IR missiles (one on each bomb bay door) and two AMRAAMs in the bomb bay itself. In a later Block upgrade the total stealth payload will be increased to six missiles; two IR and four radar (or six radar), or combinations with other ordnance (see second picture below).
Currently the British ASRAAM is the only IR missile that can be carried internally. In the near future the AIM-9X and European IRIS-T missiles will also have this capability. They first need to implement a lock-on after launch system in those missiles.
The AIM-9X Block II has lock-on-after-launch capability and is in production now. It is expected to be integrated with the F-35 in 2017.
Lock on after launch is very problematic. You need some other system to imagine what the missile head will see and hopefully, when the missile is dropped and wakes up, that will be correct. There are so many things that can go wrong. A wing mounted missile is already active before it is released and that makes it much more reliable. Also, a bay missile has to drop out of the bay before it ignites so the process takes longer and is more sensitive to accelerations (G load) - not good in a tight maneuvering combat.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on August 17, 2015, 08:57:40 AM
Actually the video you had linked tells something very important.
Internal bay does not allow rail-launched missiles to be used without special trapez that extends the launcher so the missile can be safely rail-launched.
Looking at all close in 5th generation missiles IRIS-T, Python-5, ASRAAM, MICA and AIM-9X they are all rail-launched and their integration to stealthy F-35 isn't feasible without fully developing and testing the trapez.
What I do not understand why Lockheed didn't developed such a system in first place clearly understanding that most customers would like to integrate their close-in weapons into F-35's stealth mode - and virtually all close in weapons are rail launched - because as bozon said, in close in scenario LOAL is very problematic.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 17, 2015, 10:10:52 AM
Lock on after launch is very problematic. You need some other system to imagine what the missile head will see and hopefully, when the missile is dropped and wakes up, that will be correct. There are so many things that can go wrong. A wing mounted missile is already active before it is released and that makes it much more reliable. Also, a bay missile has to drop out of the bay before it ignites so the process takes longer and is more sensitive to accelerations (G load) - not good in a tight maneuvering combat.
It is not problematic at all with the F-35's sensor fusion system. The ASRAAM is never "unguided," but is guided via data link by the launching aircraft until it locks on with its own seeker, just like with the AMRAAM. Both the British and Australians have successfully tested the ASRAAM with "over the shoulder" shots against targets behind the launching aircraft. With this missile (and other missiles in the near future) the F-35 will be able to engage targets anywhere in the sky.
The AIM-9X Block II (and future Block III) also has this capability.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 17, 2015, 11:58:53 PM
Now THIS is a simpit!
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Nilsen on August 18, 2015, 01:51:02 PM
I bet our russian neighbours enjoys this report :aok So glad that my tax money is going to upgrade our air force from the F16 to the F35 bomber :)
They should just slap apple stickers on these planes, bump the price and sell them before its too late.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: craz07 on August 18, 2015, 02:13:17 PM
it will still do what the u.s. wants out of it, bomb terrorist targets, and basically nothing else... the raptor is the air superiority fighter....
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: craz07 on August 19, 2015, 09:25:54 AM
The future of warfare will not be super power on super power, if it is, it means we're in big trouble... Having a stealth multirole fighter as opposed to the f16 is a huge advantage when fighting terrorists in 2nd or 3rd world countries fighting with older equipment.... just my opinion
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on August 19, 2015, 06:22:39 PM
Modern combat aircraft are designed to fight large powerful air forces and militaries...not 3rd world insurgents. You could bomb ISIS with P-47s Thunderbolts. The problem is a large scale war with an opponent that is not weak and ill equipped. Betting that you are only ever going to have to fight tinpot dictators or small tribal "terrorists" is a dangerous assumption.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: craz07 on August 20, 2015, 08:51:42 AM
I'm not saying they're completely ill equipped to fight modern 1st world contemporary fighters, but if you're going to be spending billions of dollars you better be spending them on what their main objective is going to be... A stealth fighter that can bob and weave through terrorist or other less advanced countries radars and anti aircraft fire and that can deliver the goods is what is needed... The f22 raptor would be the "go to" if the schit ever hit the fan with a modern superpower, even though I wonder how much fighting they would actually be doing with fighter jets if this were to actually happen... The thunderbolt would be bad news, all we need is more collateral damage to win these types of wars....
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: artik on August 20, 2015, 09:01:35 AM
It is stealthy, has more armament in A2A and A2G stealthy modes, most likely cost less or same as F-35 and super maneuverable...
:neener:
:bolt:
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 20, 2015, 09:14:35 AM
It's a POS and Putin knows it. He's cutting production to almost nothing, and is withholding vital information from his production partners in India.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Squire on August 20, 2015, 04:40:47 PM
I get what your saying re that capability yes. Personally I think the F-22 should have continued production until it could entirely replace the F-15. Its certainly a very capable air to air fighter from what I know of it. There were only 195 built however.
...It would have made more sense to produce 3 aircraft: one an air superiority fighter with some a-g capability and then a dedicated multi-role fighter-bomber to do strike and then a dedicated CAS a/c. Trying to do all 3 in one airframe and then on top of that requiring it to be V/STOL and Stealthy was over reach. I oppose the notion that you need CAS aircraft that are super complex and expensive. That role should be done by a large # of less expensive yet capable airframes that can be afforded in some quantity. A-10, MB-339, Alpha Jet, Hawk 200s are examples of that...I am sure a new and better plane could have been produced those are just rough examples. The notion that a CAS airframe needs to be supersonic capable and Stealthy is insane imho. You can't afford to lose any and they are not well suited for the role.
I am going to add that the V/STOL is an almost completely useless capability for a modern jet aircraft. Not once since the Harrier came into service has it ever taken off vertically from some rough forward base to provide CAS to anybody. Its a gimmick that has no use in a real war and it was a huge mistake to require the F-35 to be able to perform it. The Assault Ships should be equipped with helos only and use the Carriers for cover which is what would happen anyways and the USAF/USN and no other air force has any use for V/STOL at all. I like the AV-8B its a fine strike a/c but its replacement does not need a vertical takeoff or landing capability. Not for the handful that would be deployed at sea on assault ships.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: rpm on August 20, 2015, 08:49:09 PM
At least it's got guns. (http://twitter.com/thef35/status/634483542680993793)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Ripsnort on August 20, 2015, 09:42:25 PM
artik, this is the true definition of an AH, AH2, AH3 player right there at 1:19 into the vid. They got their "slouch chair" on! :)
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Lab Rat 3947 on August 20, 2015, 10:19:46 PM
wrong thread
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 22, 2015, 06:24:29 AM
:rock
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Rich46yo on August 22, 2015, 08:40:20 AM
War is Boring cant seem to make up its mind. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Zimme83 on August 22, 2015, 08:50:49 AM
Such simulation is only as good as the data u put into it. I doubt that anyone can get enough accurate data from both the F-35 program, the Su-35 and the weapons and support systems to make the simulation accurate. I would not draw any conclusions from that article.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on August 22, 2015, 08:09:00 PM
Quote
War is Boring cant seem to make up its mind.
Agreed - a while ago they ran an article which said "China can defeat the Americans in Battle", followed shortly by another titled "China's military is a paper dragon". Uh...ok.
I wonder why articles based on a video game, Command/Naval-air ops, basically a Harpoon analogue, are being published in a manner which is meant to suggest they can be at all accurate? Even simulations run by the defense department and think tanks are taken with large grains of salt due to their limitations, but using a video game, and writing articles pontificating about the results? Lame. It's not the first time WiB has pulled this stunt either, they did the same thing with Command/Ops, writing an article about how the Chinese Navy could defeat the USN in the South China Sea, all based on the results from the game - which was being played by a pretty noobish player/writer to start with, not that this fact makes any difference regarding the legitimacy of info and data gleaned from a PC game which is then applied to real world combat discussions.
I did like one line one of WiB's writers came up with - "Is information the new 9g?". I think that really sums up the F35 debate pretty well.
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Mitchell on September 07, 2015, 11:52:44 AM
Lol. In all seriousness, I wonder what they will say when it losses its head to head with the A-10 in a year or 2?
Title: Re: Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public
Post by: Gman on September 15, 2015, 04:42:06 PM
More stuff Predator will love. Seems like it just isn't ready yet, not so much that it's going to be total crap, just many, many years behind where it's supposed to be, and that NO variant is ANYWHERE near being combat ready right now. Pretty horrifying results that are impossible to refute so far as current combat readiness, and these tests had HUGE benefits in favor of the F35, tons of extra contractors on scene, V22s chopped to a mission of standy only for parts for the F35s, extra contractors at every base in the excersice/test, and so, piles of extra support that will NOT be around in a true combat environment. Yet it still fell right on its face. Brutal.