Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: TequilaChaser on March 07, 2016, 06:02:03 PM
Thanks save!
good read....
TC
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: TequilaChaser on March 08, 2016, 06:14:01 PM
I figured more replys would have been posted regarding the article...
the most interesting thing, that I thought about, was the new "rewriting of BFM" for the F35...... and how much of it will change from what is currently taught, and has been taught for many decades......
that is very interesting to wait to find out how they change or add/modify it, BFM instruction, for this aircraft, etc...
TC
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 08, 2016, 06:25:03 PM
You can put lipstick and high heels on a pig and make it look pretty but at the end of the date it's still a pig.
They can keep adding in new stuff to the software of the Lightning II and give it amazing performance but at the end of the day the plane is still a pig. According to the last Pentagon report, there has yet been bug fixes to the software to correct existing problems with the software and instead new features and capabilities have been added, compounding the issues with the software. The F-35A can't use the AIM-120 missile on it's own, it needs a 3rd party to lock on the target for the F-35A, because the software has issues with locking on with the AIM-120.
ack-ack
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on March 08, 2016, 06:54:20 PM
Software issues are fixable. Aerodynamic issues are another matter...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: JunkyII on March 08, 2016, 06:55:56 PM
I figured more replys would have been posted regarding the article...
the most interesting thing, that I thought about, was the new "rewriting of BFM" for the F35...... and how much of it will change from what is currently taught, and has been taught for many decades......
that is very interesting to wait to find out how they change or add/modify it, BFM instruction, for this aircraft, etc...
TC
I read it...Is he saying that in an F16 he used more lag pursuit than lead? that's what I got from it
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 09, 2016, 08:32:51 AM
I met "Dolby" and another RNoAF pilot a couple of years ago at a seminar where they presented the Norwegian part of the F-35 program. I think I even posted about it here somewhere, but the typical naysayers like Ack-Ack did their usual routine accusing "Dolby" of being a stooge of either Lockheed Martin or the government, or just afraid of losing his job. And of course spreading Pierre Sprey's ridiculous diatribe.
I have little doubt these individuals will continue to decry the F-35 even when in the near future it will be dominating every piece of sky it flies in. They can't help it as they have invested so much of their egos in the debate.
Here's "Dolby's" article from last year that is mentioned in the OP's link. It's in Norwegian, but google translate does an intelligible job:
I met "Dolby" and another RNoAF pilot a couple of years ago at a seminar where they presented the Norwegian part of the F-35 program. I think I even posted about it here somewhere, but the typical naysayers like Ack-Ack did their usual routine accusing "Dolby" of being a stooge of either Lockheed Martin or the government, or just afraid of losing his job. And of course spreading Pierre Sprey's ridiculous diatribe.
Don't lie, I never accused anyone of being a shill for Lockheed or the government. In fact, I used to be in favor of the F-35 until I started to read our own Pentagon's report about the program and from reading those reports it is clear the plane isn't ready for prime time and has become a money pit.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 09, 2016, 03:49:09 PM
I didn't mean you specifically, but naysayers like you.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 09, 2016, 03:53:57 PM
Ack-Ack you're calling the plane a pig. That is a claim that has no foundation in fact. You may lament the government or pentagon or Lockheed Martin for the delays and cost overruns, but that has nothing to do with the performance of the final product. The Bradley IFV was another financial screw up, but I don't see anyone claiming the Bradley is a bad IFV.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 09, 2016, 04:36:23 PM
Question is: Is it really relevant to compare w the F-16? I want to know how it perform against more modern fighters like Eurofighter, Rafale and even Su-35.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 09, 2016, 06:24:23 PM
Ack-Ack you're calling the plane a pig. That is a claim that has no foundation in fact. You may lament the government or pentagon or Lockheed Martin for the delays and cost overruns, but that has nothing to do with the performance of the final product. The Bradley IFV was another financial screw up, but I don't see anyone claiming the Bradley is a bad IFV.
No one I know in the know has anything positive to say about the aircraft in its present state...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on March 09, 2016, 10:13:51 PM
The Aim120 missiles range safety systems don't work in the F35 because there is SO much vibration in there, that the missiles fail safe out and don't work. The bays also get too hot - if any ord is carried, for them not to be damaged right now, under 25,000 feet the bomb bay doors must be opened to cool off the ord every...TEN MINUTES. WTF?!?
Then to top things off, the radar right now has a mean time between failure rate of...four hours. So, basically every flight the radar fails and goes tits up. Oh, but Lockheed/Martin said the good news is sometimes if you reset it it'll start working again, but usually only when the fighter is on the ground...
I'm sure there are good and bad things about the ones actually flying in service, I HAVE read things like what the Norwegian pilot has written, but I've read just as many if not more bad. In fact, I've NEVER heard of orders being given from on high that pilots MUST speak well of a new plane, and that any open negatives or criticisms will be met with punishment. Remember when the F22 was at the stage the F35 is now, being deployed and combat coded to active squadrons? EVERY SINGLE pilot that flew it raved about it, and even with the naggling little issues that still cropped up, EVERYONE knew it was the best in the world, a real killer, with superlative performance in nearly every metric. Where is that similar praise and environment with the F35? Despite any defensive things that can be said, THAT just isn't there, and it should be, with such an expensive and incredibly LONG development process. Hell, it's been longer than the F22 took to get online, and the F35 still wouldn't be able to go into combat now. No way it could, any of the 3 models.
Despite any possible future potential that the F35 may work out, it's a: taking too long, and b: costing WAY too much for the performance and capability that MIGHT be there if it all works out. IMO it should be cut, skip this Gen 5 and go straight to the new Northrup designed Gen 6 fighter, and build more advanced variants of current proven platforms until that Gen 6 fighter is ready. A few dozen squadrons of F15 SE, advanced Super Hornets, the F16 block 60s that some Arab countries have bought if need be- focus on those new IRST pods for the AF and Navy, and getting that new Aim120 online. If war comes with China in the South Pac, the above things will pay off FAR more than the F35 will, which has been slaughtered in every wargame that every company and defense department have run in that theater of ops.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: mthrockmor on March 09, 2016, 10:32:58 PM
I've played American politics for two decades now. The F-35 is a political b****, period. It flies, drops bombs, shoots missiles, guns, etc and evades radar, yada, yada yada
To read that is over cost projections and way behind schedule with a future of more money and time before its ready...that is how Washington rolls. From health care to education to roads to VA, etc...they always cost more and take longer. Do you think that is by accident?
The F-35 is just another political monster. It may in the end live up to its billing, though only after hundreds of billions are spent on it. The political class are very well taken care of. I'm pretty good with military lingo though I'll defer to many on this board to those points, I'm not even a real pilot. On the political front, which is my backyard....political monster par excellance.
boo
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 10, 2016, 05:24:06 AM
In fact, I've NEVER heard of orders being given from on high that pilots MUST speak well of a new plane, and that any open negatives or criticisms will be met with punishment.
Nor have I. Are you insinuating that F-35 pilots from eight partner nations and several more customer nations have been ordered by all their respective governments to say nice things about the jet? That would be quite the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: caldera on March 10, 2016, 07:15:17 AM
Nor have I. Are you insinuating that F-35 pilots from eight partner nations and several more customer nations have been ordered by all their respective governments to say nice things about the jet? That would be quite the conspiracy.
They all have a lot invested in it. It has to work, whether it does or not.
And since we have social justice indoctrination in the military, why not the thought police too?
Well... there sure are some worrying reports out there..
Yep. This is the latest Pentagon report on the F-35 program.
FY15 DOD PROGRAMS - F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf)
In the report it notes that the F-35A has to slow down in order to open its weapon bay doors.
Quote
For the F-35A, the airspeed at which the weapons bay doors can be open in flight (550 knots or 1.2 Mach) is less than the maximum aircraft speed allowable (700 knots or 1.6 Mach). Such a restriction will limit tactics to employment of weapons at lower speeds and may create advantages for threat aircraft being pursued by the F-35A.
The same issue also creates a problem with using counter-measures.
Quote
For the F-35A, the airspeed at which countermeasures can be used is also less than the maximum speed allowable, again restricting tactical options in scenarios where F-35A pilots are conducting defensive maneuvers.
The F-35B is plagued by a series of bugs found "in fusion, electronic warfare, and weapons employment result in ambiguous threat displays, limited ability to respond to threats, and a requirement for off-board sources to provide accurate coordinates for precision attack."
The report also shows that there are issues with the ejection system, in its current state it would be very dangerous for the pilot to hit the silk and the problems will most likely cause further delays.
Quote
"Recent discoveries that require design changes, modifications, and regression testing include the ejection seat for safe separation, wing fuel tank over-pressurization, and the life-limitations of the F-35B bulkhead. For these specific reasons and others, further program delays are likely."
ack-ack
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 10, 2016, 02:24:34 PM
Talk to many Marine pilots? And "present state" does not represent the final product.
Uh... yes... quite a few. On a daily basis. And while a few folks would like to select it, THAT'S only because they know they won't take it to war any time soon.
You can NEVER judge a product, ANY product, based solely on the claims of what it will eventually be. The fact that you are advocating throwing out the present state in favor of what tit may possibly eventually one day be, is absolute lunacy.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zoney on March 10, 2016, 03:06:24 PM
I see all you guys talking and no one listening. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 10, 2016, 03:39:46 PM
Uh... yes... quite a few. On a daily basis. And while a few folks would like to select it, THAT'S only because they know they won't take it to war any time soon.
You can NEVER judge a product, ANY product, based solely on the claims of what it will eventually be. The fact that you are advocating throwing out the present state in favor of what tit may possibly eventually one day be, is absolute lunacy.
In that case we should have scrapped the F-16 in 1979. It was plagued with problems and all of its combat capabilities wasn't available until the late '80s. I mean it couldn't even fire radar guided missiles until the Block 25 upgrade in 1984-85. In the First two years of operations the USAF lost 23 F-16s in accidents. Almost all of them due to technical issues. So far a singular pre-production F-35 has been written off due to an engine fire.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 10, 2016, 03:49:03 PM
F-16 was in the other hand designed as a cheap and lightweight day fighter. It did all the thing it was intended to do (dog fighting in day light). All the other capabilities has been added along the way. Its not the best way to do it but it is still fundamental differences between F-16 and F-35 in that case. F-35 is intended and design to replace anything from Harriers and Hornets to the A-10.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 10, 2016, 03:53:37 PM
And while the tech they DO have is fun to play with, there's a lot of awkward "Well, I mean, we can't REALLY do [X-mission] yet, but we're hoping that gets fixed soon"
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 10, 2016, 04:24:26 PM
As there would be in most new planes. F-16 pilots were saying that for the better part of a decade. People need to realize that every new generation of combat aircraft is a technological race and the F-35 is by far the most advanced and complicated aircraft ever built.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 10, 2016, 04:45:16 PM
I Think everyone knows that but problem is that the plane is at least a decade from beingt able to go into war against a capable enemy and by then it might have lost most of the advantages it had from the beginning. A super advanced fighter isnt super advanced forever, others will Catch up.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 10, 2016, 05:03:49 PM
I'm not as pessimistic as you. I put more faith in the words of the pilots who fly it than media talking heads and internet though guys. And no, nobody is going to catch up to the F-35 anytime soon, and those who will eventually catch up are all NATO countries anyway. Russia doesn't spend even one tenth of what the U.S. does on defense, and China is still trying to catch up to previous generations of aircraft, and their industrial complex is completely compromised and corrupted by their fascist political system. I'm not worried at all.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on March 10, 2016, 07:39:03 PM
I'm not as pessimistic as you. I put more faith in the words of the pilots who fly it than media talking heads and internet though guys. And no, nobody is going to catch up to the F-35 anytime soon, and those who will eventually catch up are all NATO countries anyway. Russia doesn't spend even one tenth of what the U.S. does on defense, and China is still trying to catch up to previous generations of aircraft, and their industrial complex is completely compromised and corrupted by their fascist political system. I'm not worried at all.
Those who do fly them are not anxious to truly test them. As someone who MIGHT end up flying one, I'm not satisfied with its current performance, and I'm not going to take the developer's word for it. A weapons system which DOESN'T work (A stealth aircraft which has to open its doors every few minutes doesn't work. A fighter whose radar fails every few hours doesn't work. An aircraft which cannot employ weapons or countermeasures at max speed doesn't work) should NOT be placed into the hands of our warfighters. Nor should it be allowed to continue burning money WELL beyond budget without having produced a functioning example to begin with.
As has been previously said, the F-16 wasn't what it is today, but it WAS what it was intended to be from the start. The F-35 is not. The F-16 got years to develop further to become what it is today, but the F-35 is burning time and money just trying to live up to original expectations.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 10, 2016, 08:26:57 PM
So you're saying the F-35 program should be scrapped?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 10, 2016, 09:04:28 PM
And the F-16 was NOT intended to fall out of the skies due to system failures! We were a partner nation in that program as well and bought 74 of them. We've lost 17 of them in accidents, mostly due to system failures. 22% of our entire fighter force! The first in 1981 and the last in 1989. To say that the F-16 was functioning as intended in the '80s is ludicrous beyond belief!
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 10, 2016, 09:16:09 PM
So you're saying the F-35 program should be scrapped?
Either scrapped, or capped. We should not continue paying money for a product that ISN'T being delivered.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 10, 2016, 09:27:44 PM
"Isn't being delivered" sounds like you think there's not any progress in the program? And scrapping it is not even an option. You need to pull your head out of the cockpit for a second and look at the big picture! There are eight nations involved in this program! A European factory is already delivering planes in Italy! If the U.S. were to arbitrarily scrap the F-35 the legal, financial and political ramifications would make the cost of the F-35 program look like pocket change by comparison. The F-35 simply HAS to deliver or it will quite literally be the end of the world as we know it. Your entire nation's credibility rides on it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 10, 2016, 09:48:57 PM
There are no options to the F-35, now its all about how much bang you get, and how much you have to pay for it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on March 11, 2016, 08:26:40 AM
"Isn't being delivered" sounds like you think there's not any progress in the program? And scrapping it is not even an option. You need to pull your head out of the cockpit for a second and look at the big picture! There are eight nations involved in this program! A European factory is already delivering planes in Italy! If the U.S. were to arbitrarily scrap the F-35 the legal, financial and political ramifications would make the cost of the F-35 program look like pocket change by comparison. The F-35 simply HAS to deliver or it will quite literally be the end of the world as we know it. Your entire nation's credibility rides on it.
So... I should accept a sub-standard platform, which cannot perform the missions I'm expected to accomplish, and I should risk my life on it MAYBE working, because a European factory is depending on it?
That's horse-excrement. Honestly, no, I DON'T need to pull my head out of the cockpit, because when we're talking combat aircraft, what's available to the guy in the cockpit is ALL that matters.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 11, 2016, 09:36:13 AM
Probably why you don't get to choose these things. ;) You're just a small cog in a vast machine called the United States of America (Inc.) And you are easily replaced.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 11, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
And so, once again, a project is too big to fail. You'd think we'd learn not to get ourselves into such quandries, but evidently we don't.
- oldman
Too much is invested in it, yes. It HAS to work. However I don't necessarily think it is all down to bad management decisions. Like I said before every new generation of combat aircraft (or any weapon system really) is much more advanced and complicated than the last. The benefit of having a generational advantage over your opponent has been dramatically proven in just about every war since Vietnam. This is increasing every potentially dangerous aspect about a development program: Unit cost, development time, investments... We now literally have to invests unheard of amounts of money and resources decades ahead of actually building anything. These weapons systems are becoming so expensive and time consuming that they by their very nature have to be multi-national efforts, and there is little or no room for failure. That's my take on it anyway...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 11, 2016, 10:56:42 AM
Probably why you don't get to choose these things. ;) You're just a small cog in a vast machine called the United States of America (Inc.) And you are easily replaced.
So you're okay with pilots being killed because the value of keeping the project alive is more important than their lives?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 11, 2016, 11:13:45 AM
It not really about being "ok with it". It's a national imperative. Every soldier that has ever gone to war throughout history has in one way or another been directly affected by what their governments has gambled on would work in the next war. One soldier lucks out and get an Arisaka while the other guy gets lucky and is issued a Garand or even an StG44. I'm not saying that it is ok to send you to war in an F-35 in its current sate of development. I'm saying that the partner nations will never stop developing the F-35, no matter the cost, until it actually does what it says on the box (or at least close enough for comfort). If they don't you might have to go to war in something far worse and there is no money or time to start over with a new design. You would be retired before it could be completed. Every new generation of weapons is a gamble and the odds just keep getting longer and longer.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 11, 2016, 02:50:46 PM
The next combat aircraft will look more like this, and Serenity will be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog toejam out of Hong Kong.
It's already making better landings than Serenity! (j/k) :P
Actually, it won't. The current stance of SECNAV is that we will NOT invest in unmanned combat aircraft. Drones will be used for spotters, sub hunting, and as tankers, but will not replace Hornets for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on March 11, 2016, 07:34:02 PM
Quote
We now literally have to invests unheard of amounts of money and resources decades ahead of actually building anything.
Which is why sooner or later that model of development will fail.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 11, 2016, 07:36:41 PM
Well, we're not really talking about the foreseeable future. The F-35 is designed for a 50-year long service life. However by 3040 at least a large number of nations will be fielding autonomous UCAVS that are as good or better than manned combat aircraft. A European UCAV is planned to enter service in the 2030's based on the experience they're getting with the Neuron program. What may seem like a sound policy now could very quickly change within the next 10 years.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 11, 2016, 07:42:42 PM
Which is why sooner or later that model of development will fail.
It has already failed for the Russians with the PAK FA, or at least seriously delayed it. Yes it seems to be a trend toward greater and greater risk, but there might be watershed events in the future that totally change the game. Like the advent of AI and total virtual design and prototyping (already in use in the car industry). These advances may drive cost, development time and risk down again. Time will tell.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 11, 2016, 07:53:45 PM
France, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, and I believe the UK has joined as well after this video was made, bringing with them their Taranis UCAV experience as well.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 11, 2016, 08:37:22 PM
One of the reasons why the F-35 program has turned into a money pit is that criteria was that all variants were supposed to have 70% common parts but has ended up with only 20% common parts between the variants.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 11, 2016, 09:05:20 PM
The inter-branch bickering of your military has always caused nothing but problems. I've never understood why you've never just created a unified command to control it all.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 11, 2016, 09:45:48 PM
The inter-branch bickering of your military has always caused nothing but problems. I've never understood why you've never just created a unified command to control it all.
It's not a question of a unified command, it's a question of drastically different missions and requirements. Our Navy does things with their jets no one else in the WORLD does, and that carries certain material requirements. Same can be said for the Marines, and the Air Force.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 12, 2016, 07:51:19 AM
JSF
Joint Strike Failure
Just So Failed
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 12, 2016, 09:52:01 AM
It's not a question of a unified command, it's a question of drastically different missions and requirements. Our Navy does things with their jets no one else in the WORLD does, and that carries certain material requirements. Same can be said for the Marines, and the Air Force.
In Ack-Ack's linked article Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan explains how the 70% commonality goal was attainable, but that:
"Man, is [compromise] a hard thing to do when you’re spending billions of dollars,” he said. “You want what you want, [but] hopefully get what you need."
And:
"If Pentagon leaders do choose to build a multi-variant plane to serve multiple sets of requirements, he said, the services will have to embrace compromise to a greater degree than happened in the $400 billion F-35 program."
Clearly that would be easier with a unified command (at least on the procurement side) that can cut through the bullcrap and keep all the services in line. To say that the USAF's needs are so different from those of the USN that they need a completely different fighter is absurd. That's like saying the Canadians, Finns, Aussies, Swiss, Kuwaiti, Malayans, and Spaniards can't use the F-18C as an air force jet. Their air forces all do, and chose it over the likes of the F-16.
I mean really, the Swiss! They don't even have a coastline!
You have to love those German MiG's... A DACT goldmine. (Btw. that is just a promotional video for some Swiss air show.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 12, 2016, 09:58:06 AM
In Ack-Ack's linked article Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan explains how the 70% commonality goal was attainable, but that:
"Man, is [compromise] a hard thing to do when you’re spending billions of dollars,” he said. “You want what you want, [but] hopefully get what you need."
And:
"If Pentagon leaders do choose to build a multi-variant plane to serve multiple sets of requirements, he said, the services will have to embrace compromise to a greater degree than happened in the $400 billion F-35 program."
Clearly that would be easier with a unified command (at least on the procurement side) that can cut through the bullcrap and keep all the services in line. To say that the USAF's needs are so different from those of the USN that they need a completely different fighter is absurd. That's like saying the Canadians, Finns, Aussies, Swiss, Kuwaiti, Malayans, and Spaniards can't use the F-18C as an air force jet. Their air forces all do, and chose it over the likes of the F-16.
Scholz, you're not really understanding the issue. It's not that we don't want to compromise because we can't agree on an upholstery color. Naval Aviation is drastically different than land-based aviation. The requirements a carrier aircraft has for beefier landing gear, lower stall speeds and the hook mechanism all equal weight, and reduced high-speed performance. That cuts into the Air Force desires for a higher-speed, higher altitude, longer range aircraft. Now, I'm not talking specifically of the F-35 program requirements, but giving general areas of differences which DO have a large effect on the aircraft. We aren't a nation of 100 airplanes defending a couple of mountains. We have some drastically different missions, with different requirements, and as the old saying goes, a jack of all trades is a master of none. It's very easy to sit back and only think of the cost-effectiveness and diplomacy when it's not your rear in the seat.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 12, 2016, 10:14:00 AM
That's why people who's rear is in the seat should not (and mostly do not) get to make these decisions. Having your rear on the line makes you less objective and all but cripples your willingness to compromise. As is clearly evident in the F-35 program. Soldiers of all branches of service all suffer from shiny kit syndrome. These decisions must be made by people who are above that and can appreciate the big picture... Even if it means your rear is more likely to get killed at some point in the future. When your life is on the line you are incapable of being objective.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 12, 2016, 10:29:05 AM
That's why people who's rear is in the seat should not (and mostly do not) get to make these decisions. Having your rear on the line makes you less objective and all but cripples your willingness to compromise. As is clearly evident in the F-35 program. Soldiers of all branches of service all suffer from shiny kit syndrome. These decisions must be made by people who are above that and can appreciate the big picture... Even if it means your rear is more likely to get killed at some point in the future. When your life is on the line you are incapable of being objective.
That is the most idiotic thing I have heard in a LONG time...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 12, 2016, 10:46:00 AM
Hey, don't get too uppity with your elders! ;)
The Generals run the war. And who wins the war is decided on a much higher (big picture) level than a lonely pilot in his seat. That's why you have situations like where the P-38 didn't get new props or the Panther having a weak final drive, undoubtedly resulting in many fatalities. Fact is that in the big picture it was the best option (at least the top brass thought it was at the time).
Now I'm not going to stoop down to your level of name calling, but you truly cannot believe that the individual soldier (pilot) should be the one to decide these things? Surely!
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 12, 2016, 11:02:55 AM
The Generals run the war. And who wins the war is decided on a much higher (big picture) level than a lonely pilot in his seat. That's why you have situations like where the P-38 didn't get new props or the Panther having a weak final drive, undoubtedly resulting in many fatalities. Fact is that in the big picture it was the best option (at least the top brass thought it was at the time).
Now I'm not going to stoop down to your level of name calling, but you truly cannot believe that the individual soldier (pilot) should be the one to decide these things? Surely!
I'm not saying every individual pilot should get a vote one what we purchase, but when we start purchasing equipment we KNOW won't do the job just for economical reasons, it's not only foolish but inhuman. But you certainly fit the stereotype of the European model...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 12, 2016, 04:48:23 PM
I don't see how that's your call or how you feel qualified to question those who are appointed over you. You have a chain of command, and I'm pretty sure you know what end of that chain you're at. The top brass and politicians choose what to buy and deploy, and what you get to fly. They also choose when and where to put you in harms way and even when to knowingly sacrifice your life if need be. To become a naval aviator you've signed a few papers, and I assume you read them first. "I am a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me." ... Obey them.
As for this "European model," I have no idea what you're on about.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 13, 2016, 11:29:39 AM
I don't see how that's your call or how you feel qualified to question those who are appointed over you. You have a chain of command, and I'm pretty sure you know what end of that chain you're at. The top brass and politicians choose what to buy and deploy, and what you get to fly. They also choose when and where to put you in harms way and even when to knowingly sacrifice your life if need be. To become a naval aviator you've signed a few papers, and I assume you read them first. "I am a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me." ... Obey them.
As for this "European model," I have no idea what you're on about.
The people in the chain over me are NOT the ones making these decisions. The Navy has NOT accepted the F-35 as operational. The politicians are the ones making that call. The same people who are building planes that get put immediately into mothballs because no one wants them. There's a difference between accepting a dangerous situation because that's all that is available, and intentionally plugging your ears to the danger you're putting your men into because all you can see is dollar signs.
But at this point, I'm convinced that your only concern is how well the state will profit, and what wonderful new joint ventures you can procure regardless of the **** funneled onto those of us who will use it. You're beyond reason.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 13, 2016, 11:56:36 AM
Actually my reasoning is in line with those of all the pilots who have flow the F-35 that I've heard or read express their opinions of the aircraft. And while I generally like you and think you have come incredibly far since you first appeared on this forum many years ago, I cannot say that I hold your opinion of the F-35 in high regard at all. Why should I take your word over those of real F-35 pilots who are really enthused and have nothing but good things to say? A 2000+ hours veteran of my own nation's air force whose opinions started this very discussion, or for example Lt. Col. Christine Mau: The first female pilot to fly the F-35... Yes, even the girls love it! :D
Perhaps we should just leave it at that. :salute
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 13, 2016, 12:02:32 PM
The guys who are staking their careers on what they say about the Joint Strike Failure have no choice but to praise it.
It is a boondoggle.
We would be better off with the A-7E than this junk.
JSF = POS
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 13, 2016, 12:11:29 PM
Here we go again. So she's a liar? and all the other pilots from a dozen different air forces are all liars. They lie so they can risk their own lives in a machine they know is crap.
Conspiracy nuts. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 13, 2016, 12:20:56 PM
Yeah. They're liars. Bogdon should go hang out with Baghdad Bob.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 13, 2016, 12:27:09 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 13, 2016, 07:49:28 PM
A pilot will never say that the plane he/she flies is crap in public. No matter what plane it is, you simply dont do that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 14, 2016, 10:31:31 AM
A pilot will never say that the plane he/she flies is crap in public. No matter what plane it is, you simply dont do that.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the USAF, USN and USMC since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. Aircraft that did exactly what they were supposed to do, and usually much more. Some had severe teething problems like the F-111 and F-16, but in their ultimate form they were/are truly superb.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the RAF and RN since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the Armée de l'air since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Mirage series in particular stands out as some of the best fighters of all time.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with Flygvapnet since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Gripen has perhaps suffered from more teething problems than the Draken and Viggen, but it is still a superb multi-role fighter.
There has never been a "crap" aircraft in service in any air force in the democratic west since the end of WWII! They have all been superb aircraft and any pilot would be proud to fly them! Some have been better than others, but only in the sense that there are degrees of "superb".
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 14, 2016, 11:58:57 AM
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the USAF, USN and USMC since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. Aircraft that did exactly what they were supposed to do, and usually much more. Some had severe teething problems like the F-111 and F-16, but in their ultimate form they were/are truly superb.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the RAF and RN since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the Armée de l'air since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Mirage series in particular stands out as some of the best fighters of all time.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with Flygvapnet since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Gripen has perhaps suffered from more teething problems than the Draken and Viggen, but it is still a superb multi-role fighter.
There has never been a "crap" aircraft in service in any air force in the democratic west since the end of WWII! They have all been superb aircraft and any pilot would be proud to fly them! Some have been better than others, but only in the sense that there are degrees of "superb".
The problem is, with the F-35 we're accepting too many instances of "It can't actually do this, but for another billion dollars, it might work in 20 years". And YOU'RE okay with that business model.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 14, 2016, 01:43:43 PM
That's a gross exaggeration.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Randall172 on March 14, 2016, 02:46:32 PM
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the USAF, USN and USMC since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. Aircraft that did exactly what they were supposed to do, and usually much more. Some had severe teething problems like the F-111 and F-16, but in their ultimate form they were/are truly superb.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the RAF and RN since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with the Armée de l'air since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Mirage series in particular stands out as some of the best fighters of all time.
Every single aircraft that has been accepted into service with Flygvapnet since the end of WWII have been superb aircraft. The Gripen has perhaps suffered from more teething problems than the Draken and Viggen, but it is still a superb multi-role fighter.
There has never been a "crap" aircraft in service in any air force in the democratic west since the end of WWII! They have all been superb aircraft and any pilot would be proud to fly them! Some have been better than others, but only in the sense that there are degrees of "superb".
The Russians made some awesome aircraft too, and when they flew them, they performed extremely well.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 14, 2016, 04:37:15 PM
Indeed they did, but that's beyond my point. Soviet-Block pilots couldn't speak freely without endangering their own lives and the lives of their families.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 14, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
No, it's not. The radar fails readily, the bays overheat, the doors can't be opened at cruise speed, the gun can't be fired due to software oversights... If the project was at least on time or budget, it could be tolerated, but everything about this program has failed so far.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 14, 2016, 06:36:41 PM
"It can't actually do this, but for another billion dollars, it might work in 20 years" is a gross exaggeration.
And since when has any government run project been on time or on budget? What world do you live in?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Bodhi on March 14, 2016, 08:10:51 PM
We would be better off cancelling the F-35 and upgrading the F-22, or skipping any further Gen 5 stuff and going direct to Gen 6 (supplementing with more legacy fighters). There is not a single adversary that we can't match at this point with what we have. Even if the time difference is 20 years before the Gen 6 arrives, we'd be better off without the F-35.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 14, 2016, 08:16:40 PM
Can't cancel it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Bodhi on March 14, 2016, 08:21:20 PM
Nothing is guaranteed. The next administration or major changes in the next Congress could easily change it.
If they were concerned about this country, they'd halt production until this POS gets worked out and costs are brought under control. That's about the only way to get the point across to Lockheed at this point.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on March 14, 2016, 08:27:00 PM
The Pentagon never should have issued a requirement that:
*The fighter must be stealthy. *The fighter must be V/STOL capable *The fighter will replace interceptors, naval fighters and close air support fighters.
...all in ONE airframe.
It was gross over reach.
The close air support mission I suspect was simply added on to placate the Army who has seen the USAF all but ditch close air support as a mission. The fighter is not designed to do close air at all really...no more than an F-16 or an F-18 say...but telling them it can do that job gets them a modicum of support.
The religious quest of super high tech as the holy grail in combat planes (and everything else) will not survive a major conflict. Air forces are fielding these smaller and smaller forces....all in relative peace time (bombing goat riding insurgents aside)...and in a real ugly shooting war with a capable adversary will quickly run out of forces. Nobody has asked IF the next generation of fighter should be a super stealth multi-role plane...its assumed it should be. By who I would like to know.
Where is light attack? why are there not reservist crews manning squadrons of light attack aircraft like the A-4 or A-1 or A-10? or the updated versions of those class of planes? the notion that in wartime an air force can fill out a large number of low cost fighter ground attack jets. Nobody is interested in that because its too cheap. No, no, we need EVERYTHING to be a 200-500 million dollar wonder...and the defense $$$ industries are fine with that...lets not procure anything practical for wartime use...that's just silly.
Then the drones. Good for the CIA...good for anti-insurgency and anti-terror but they can't do s*** in a real shooting war. Light loads and slow speeds they are more good as "territorial police" planes uses than military planes. They get used though because of the ever shrinking #s of fighter-bombers.
Oh wait...the USAF has announced the development of a new strategic bomber. Stealth and nuclear capable I am sure despite neither of those things having much use any more as part of the nuclear deterrent. No matter it will cost a s*** load I am sure and the US Army will STILL be asking "where are the close support assets?"
...not that its just the USA mind you. Almost all the NATO countries are fielding these tiny air forces that would be gone in a week in a major conflict. They show no more decent long term strategic planning than anybody else.
Somebody needs to go and ask the "big planning heads" what the f*** they are thinking.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 14, 2016, 08:40:06 PM
V/STOL should never have been a part of the F-35, its a luxury and a rather unnecessary feature for the MC. Their air support could be handle just as good by conventional carrier planes and helicopters.
And it could have been even more simple, USAF could have used the naval version w/o the hook etc, replacing F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 with one plane isn't so hard. It would have saved a lot.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 14, 2016, 08:42:40 PM
Nothing is guaranteed. The next administration or major changes in the next Congress could easily change it.
Nope. Contract bound to eight nations. Just let it go.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 14, 2016, 10:53:24 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 14, 2016, 11:00:28 PM
Also, let me clarify something for you: I don't know what it's like in your corner of the world, but over here, Rando McPilot cannot go on camera talking about ANYTHING, let alone a controversial aircraft. If someone is on video in uniform, they are either a Public Affairs Officer, or reading a statement prepared by the public affairs department. Which then begs the question, are the opinions they're expressing really THEIR opinions? Or might those be a canned speech designed to make everything sound hunky dory without being actively deceptive?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 14, 2016, 11:08:24 PM
But he is right, like it or not, F-35 has passed the Point of no return. It will be the next fighter for US + half of NATO, like it or not. Question is how long it will take to make the plane combat worthy and to what cost.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 15, 2016, 04:54:55 AM
Also, let me clarify something for you: I don't know what it's like in your corner of the world, but over here, Rando McPilot cannot go on camera talking about ANYTHING, let alone a controversial aircraft. If someone is on video in uniform, they are either a Public Affairs Officer, or reading a statement prepared by the public affairs department. Which then begs the question, are the opinions they're expressing really THEIR opinions? Or might those be a canned speech designed to make everything sound hunky dory without being actively deceptive?
Over here this year's "free speech award" went to Lieutenant General Robert Mood for openly criticizing government policy in the media on a number of issues. Yeah, I believe our pilots when they say they like this aircraft.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 09:27:05 AM
Oh and Serenity... You, a USN pilot, telling me that US pilots can't speak their minds... And you say this in a thread on a forum open to the public where you bash the F-35... Must be some kind of record in irony...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 15, 2016, 09:44:51 AM
Oh and Serenity... You, a USN pilot, telling me that US pilots can't speak their minds... And you say this in a thread on a forum open to the public where you bash the F-35... Must be some kind of record in irony...
Your delusional love affair with this piece of junk is the record...
It is a compromised airframe designed for yesterday's war (and they have even messed that up) which will never work at any price.
This thing will create a lot of Chinese aces.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 15, 2016, 09:53:18 AM
No, it's not. The radar fails readily, the bays overheat, the doors can't be opened at cruise speed, the gun can't be fired due to software oversights... If the project was at least on time or budget, it could be tolerated, but everything about this program has failed so far.
And it can't beat an old Viper with tanks on.
Pathetic!
If this is the future we are doomed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 15, 2016, 09:55:21 AM
We would be better off cancelling the F-35 and upgrading the F-22, or skipping any further Gen 5 stuff and going direct to Gen 6 (supplementing with more legacy fighters). There is not a single adversary that we can't match at this point with what we have. Even if the time difference is 20 years before the Gen 6 arrives, we'd be better off without the F-35.
Right on.
Better off with the Silent Eagle than this.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 10:03:15 AM
Oh and Serenity... You, a USN pilot, telling me that US pilots can't speak their minds... And you say this in a thread on a forum open to the public where you bash the F-35... Must be some kind of record in irony...
Oh and Serenity... You, a USN pilot, telling me that US pilots can't speak their minds... And you say this in a thread on a forum open to the public where you bash the F-35... Must be some kind of record in irony...
I'm not speaking here as a representative of the Navy, in uniform, or presenting myself as a government official. Nor am I in front of cameras conducting interviews. Although I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference between the two situations.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 01:56:50 PM
I'm not speaking here as a representative of the Navy, in uniform, or presenting myself as a government official. Nor am I in front of cameras conducting interviews. Although I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference between the two situations.
Then show me an anonymous F-35 pilot posting negatively about the F-35 on some public forum like you are doing here. I think you'll be hard pressed to find it because I don't believe it exists.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 15, 2016, 02:07:45 PM
Then show me an anonymous F-35 pilot posting negatively about the F-35 on some public forum like you are doing here. I think you'll be hard pressed to find it because I don't believe it exists.
No, it likely doesn't, because they would be in a HELL of a lot more hot water than I would be for this post.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 02:08:30 PM
Why aren't F-35 pilots from several different services and nations at least anonymously blowing the whistle on this aircraft if they think it is "crap"? After all it is their arses that will be riding in this aircraft for probably the rest of their careers.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 02:09:02 PM
Not even one...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Bodhi on March 15, 2016, 05:03:10 PM
Nope. Contract bound to eight nations. Just let it go.
You're being foolish. If the US backs off on orders, you can bet your sweet tush that other nations will take notice.
Chances are fairly high that the F-35 orders are going to be throttled back for the US. Beyond the failures of the program, the F-35 costs far too much for what it can deliver, especially at a time when other as important if not more important defense projects are crying for money.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 05:06:19 PM
Time will tell. Let's just leave it at that. None of us are in a position to change anything... Least of all each other's minds apparently.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on March 15, 2016, 05:08:49 PM
Quote
Oh and Serenity... You, a USN pilot, telling me that US pilots can't speak their minds... And you say this in a thread on a forum open to the public where you bash the F-35... Must be some kind of record in irony..
There have been articles written about USAF officers being ORDERED to not speak badly of the F35. This has been covered before - and like I said before, WHEN has the USAF EVER had to order someone to not slag a new fighter? From the last one, the F22, to the F15E, the F15/F16, and so on, all there was in the media was rave reviews, and rightfully so, from those who flew/tested them at first. Yet - standing orders are needed to not slag the F35 in public.
War is Boring, FoxAlpha, Defense Weekly - all of them covered the 8 page internal memo sent to all pilots/operators/techs of the F35, instructing them NOT to say anything negative, and also providing very lame canned responses to any criticism. Why was this not done with the F22, F15E, etc etc when those new fighters came out? Or the Super Hornet for something recent - even with its range and other areas which could be criticized when has ANY pilot of the thing need to be ORDERED not to slag it?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 06:02:24 PM
Could you please provide a link to that article? Would be interesting to read.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 07:19:38 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 07:23:19 PM
And even pentagon recognize that there are a lot of issues, some of them rather serious: http://uk.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3?r=US&IR=T
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 08:02:14 PM
Quote
1. PURPOSE: Provide guidance to Airmen on the F-35A in order to: 1) Articulate the capabilities of the aircraft and explain it is a capability warfighters must have (explain why we need the F-35) 2) Debunk false narratives and inaccuracies reflected in news media reporting; and 3) Emphasize the importance of the Air Force fielding the capability and having the capacity to best support combatant commander needs.
This may not come as a surprise to most of you, but that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Especially point no. 2. If a military program is unjustly demonized in the media the military must be allowed to defend it self.
Quote
Due to pre-2010 setbacks in the program and perceived performance setbacks, narratives have emerged in the news media stating the aircraft is too expensive, consistently behind schedule and is not able to achieve its’ stated missions. Air Force communicators must be prepared to consistently confront these inaccurate narratives with explanations of the aircraft’s unique and critical contributions to the joint warfighter with accurate understanding and assessment of the program’s developmental progress.
Quote
It is important to help U.S. and international audiences understand why investing in the F-35 is a defense priority...
Again perfectly reasonable. Educating personnel in how to respond to inaccurate claims and accusations is not subterfuge in my honest opinion. If anything, this shows how important the USAF believes in the F-35 and how important they think it is to their future.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 08:38:25 PM
What i don't get is why they start mass production Before the plane is even remotely ready for it. It must be very expensive to implement redesigns on already built Aircrafts. I suspect its just a way of making it looks like the plane is entering service in large numbers.
But truth is that no matter of how operational they say it is, the plane isn't even remotely ready to see combat. Weapons are not integrated, Avionics isn't working as required, it has not all weather capability etc etc.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 08:43:33 PM
Starting production this early in the development is a mistake you won't find anyone in the USAF defending. In fact I recall a video interview with a USAF officer literally saying "we won't do that again". It was neat in theory, but didn't work in real life.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 08:49:14 PM
But when decisions are made just to create the illusion of progress then the alarm bells are ringing...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 09:36:39 PM
I'm not seeing that... What exactly are you referring to?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 09:43:04 PM
The decision to declare it operational is the most obvious one.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 09:49:24 PM
None of the F-35's have been declared (fully) operational. The F-35B has entered IOC or initial operational capability, but that's it. If you think otherwise you are clearly misinformed or misunderstanding what being reported.
Quote
Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form. ... IOC includes operating the training and maintaining parts of the overall system.
"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees," Dunford said in a statement. "VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."
That statement is nothing but bs.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 10:30:02 PM
"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 10:31:38 PM
“Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 10:35:39 PM
I did. I can show you video of F-35B's operating from a ship or dropping bombs if you want. IOC still means only a "capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 10:40:55 PM
It's a fantastic machine...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 10:44:41 PM
IOC clearly means that it should be capable to perform real combat missions, and the F-35 clearly isn't near that...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 10:55:33 PM
The pilot has eyes and a radio. He can perform recce missions.
The pilot has eyes and the plane can carry bombs. He can perform CAS and Assault Support Escort.
The pilot has eyes and the radar works for four hours and the plane can carry AIM-120s and AIM-9X (externally). He can perform Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction.
The pilot can perform all these missions in a minimum usefully deployable form.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 10:56:40 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 11:01:24 PM
If you actually read that article then the only part that should carry any weight with any reasonable level headed person:
"The Marine Corps said it does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions outlined by the DOT&E in the POGO report, due to what it called a lack of context and qualifying information, according to a statement provided to CNN.
"During OT-1, we wanted to prove that non-test F-35B aircraft could be operated and sustained aboard an L-class ship," the Marine Corps said in a statement. "We successfully did that. The two weeks of operational testing assessed the aircraft's integration with the U.S. Navy ship and crew, operating a wide array of flight and deck operations."
The Marine Cops also said that the extensive testing done verified expected F-35B capabilities: successful missile shots; successful steel-on-steel, air-to-ground deliveries; and three successful sea-trials."
The rest is political and newsie sensationalism.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 11:06:32 PM
And Pentagon says that those claims are not true..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 11:08:54 PM
And who do you choose to believe, and why?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 11:13:50 PM
Are you suggesting that the Pentagon report is lying? I can see no reason for Pentagon to do that, im pretty sure they too wants to see the F-35 operational...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 11:21:59 PM
If a Swedish Air Force pilot and all his friends tell you one thing about the Gripen, and a Swedish politician tell you something else, you believe the politician?
That is your prerogative, but I prefer to believe the people who actually have first hand knowledge of the subject in question.
...
I think that is what it boils down to really. Should we call it a night my söta bror, or do you want to continue this endless discussion ad infinitum?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 11:25:54 PM
That is an irrelevant question and has nothing to do with this topic.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 11:27:24 PM
Fine.
Is this relevant enough for you? The Pentagon and the USMC obviously do not agree over that report. Who do you believe, and why?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2016, 11:36:06 PM
I'll go with the Pentagon, there are very Little that support the USMC in this case. Having only 6 fighters on the ship, a ton of LM maintenance guys and a bunch of Ospreys on standby for flying in spare parts isn't exactly a realistic Environment.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 11:40:09 PM
As I said... That is your prerogative, but I prefer to believe the people who actually have first hand knowledge of the subject in question.
That is where we differ.
Good night.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 15, 2016, 11:40:36 PM
The pilot has eyes and a radio. He can perform recce missions.
The pilot has eyes and the plane can carry bombs. He can perform CAS and Assault Support Escort.
The pilot has eyes and the radar works for four hours and the plane can carry AIM-120s and AIM-9X (externally). He can perform Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction.
The pilot can perform all these missions in a minimum usefully deployable form.
The F-35B is currently operational with a USMC squadron and it cannot perform any of those missions in its current operational state. The F-35A, currently, can't even use the AIM-120 without a 3rd party providing the target info. The F-35 has to slow down from max speed if it wants to fire any missile or counter measure.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2016, 11:45:37 PM
In other words it can do all of that in a minimum usefully deployable form.
Maybe it is a language barrier thing. Maybe minimum usefully means something entirely different in American English.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 16, 2016, 01:30:58 AM
Minimum deployable form in this case is a squadron. It means that you have atleast one squadron deployable. But that squadron should be fully capable of performing combat missions.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 16, 2016, 02:25:38 AM
Pardon me if I choose the US military's definition of the term over yours.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 16, 2016, 02:32:58 AM
Lol, it IS their definition. Just read it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 16, 2016, 02:50:10 AM
Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment. Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) schedule, the F-35A will reach the IOC milestone between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
Navy F-35C IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10 aircraft, and Navy personnel are trained, manned and equipped to conduct assigned missions. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35C will reach the IOC milestone between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 16, 2016, 04:22:25 AM
You're being foolish. If the US backs off on orders, you can bet your sweet tush that other nations will take notice.
Chances are fairly high that the F-35 orders are going to be throttled back for the US. Beyond the failures of the program, the F-35 costs far too much for what it can deliver, especially at a time when other as important if not more important defense projects are crying for money.
LockMart just fired 1000 people.
This boondoggle is about to get harpooned.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 16, 2016, 04:23:23 AM
There have been articles written about USAF officers being ORDERED to not speak badly of the F35. This has been covered before - and like I said before, WHEN has the USAF EVER had to order someone to not slag a new fighter? From the last one, the F22, to the F15E, the F15/F16, and so on, all there was in the media was rave reviews, and rightfully so, from those who flew/tested them at first. Yet - standing orders are needed to not slag the F35 in public.
War is Boring, FoxAlpha, Defense Weekly - all of them covered the 8 page internal memo sent to all pilots/operators/techs of the F35, instructing them NOT to say anything negative, and also providing very lame canned responses to any criticism. Why was this not done with the F22, F15E, etc etc when those new fighters came out? Or the Super Hornet for something recent - even with its range and other areas which could be criticized when has ANY pilot of the thing need to be ORDERED not to slag it?
Bingo. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 16, 2016, 04:25:21 AM
The F-35B is currently operational with a USMC squadron and it cannot perform any of those missions in its current operational state. The F-35A, currently, can't even use the AIM-120 without a 3rd party providing the target info. The F-35 has to slow down from max speed if it wants to fire any missile or counter measure.
Bingo. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on March 16, 2016, 04:28:22 AM
Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment. Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) schedule, the F-35A will reach the IOC milestone between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
Navy F-35C IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10 aircraft, and Navy personnel are trained, manned and equipped to conduct assigned missions. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35C will reach the IOC milestone between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately."
And what part suggest that launching a missile is enough?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on March 16, 2016, 12:51:09 PM
Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
"Trained and equipped" means the Aircraft is capable of conducting those missions. The capability to launch a missile is NOT the same thing as conucting air interdiction. The ability to drop a bomb does not mean it is capable of CAS missions.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 16, 2016, 02:04:13 PM
Apparently the United States Marine Corps disagrees with you both on this. I'm just a silly foreigner so I'll defer to their judgement.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 16, 2016, 02:14:35 PM
And you are also the guy who are wrong. You have so far not presented anything to support your opinion.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 16, 2016, 02:20:14 PM
What opinion would that be?
I believe I've only expressed one opinion on the F-35 and that is that it's a "fantastic machine". An opinion purely based on the plane's aesthetics in the video I posted.
I have no "opinion" of my own of the F-35. How can I? I have nothing to do with it or any reliable info... except that the pilots who fly it like it. I trust their opinions and defer to them.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Latrobe on March 17, 2016, 01:32:33 AM
We should seriously scrap the F35 program before it's too late. Our pilots lives are more important than building some broken aircraft. Here's raw footage proving my point. In the video the test pilot was forced to slow down (because of flawed F35 designing) in order to open the weapons bay to test missile capabilities. This resulted in lose of lift due to the F-35's horrible aerodynamics and the resulting crash of the plane. Can't tell from the video if the pilot ejected in time but I sure hope he did. Losing pilot lives just because you want to force a broken plane into service is not acceptable!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXaqMvPQ_oo
An F-16 on the other hand would not have needed to slow down to fire it's weapons and would not have resulted in the destruction of the aircraft. We should look into building more F-16's.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on March 17, 2016, 02:20:55 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on March 17, 2016, 02:32:07 AM
:aok
Imo the main problem poor management, I'm sure LM do have the capability of develop a good aircraft but instead of sorting the problems out the plane have been rushed into production. Its more about making it looks like they are doing great. Software issues are one thing, Softwares can always been replaced by new programs. But what I'm worried about is all those basic design flaws that wasn't sorted out in the early development but made it into the production line. Reliability issues, the bomb bay overheating, fuel system cannot handle high G:s, flight control problems etc. These are the thing that will take a lot of time and money to fix at this stage.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on March 18, 2016, 08:55:30 PM
Scrap the F-35. Restart development of the FB-22. It's never too late to cut one's losses.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 06, 2016, 05:25:41 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Kazaa on April 13, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
Is the F-16 even considered a relevant visual range fighter by today's standards?
Seems strange to compare something with 42 year old technology.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 13, 2016, 02:53:42 PM
The F-35 is a excellent aircraft. It will perform air to air missions extremely well. Its dogfight performance is mostly besides the point, as most combat now and in the future will take place well beyond visual range. If a dogfight does occur, it will be with HOBS weapons, which make dog fighting a moot point. Even within visual range the age of the dogfight is over. You don't dogfight when you and your opponent are launching 90 degree or 180 degree IR missiles that have 100% flare rejection at each other. You cannot evade that missile. If you are in parameters, you die. This is one of the biggest reasons the USAF and many other air forces DO NOT want to come to a merge: it is too lethal. There is a good chance that everyone dies.
Not to mention alot has to happen for a F-35 to actually GET WVR.
First your enemy has to somehow get past you in BVR. This is possible, but given stealth and superiority in sensors, it is unlikely that a opposing force will get there without extremely high losses. If at All.
Then, once you get past the BVR phase, you the have to actually FIND the F-35 and run it down. Also unlikely. Stealth makes that very hard. And if you find the F-35, running it down is problematic because a loaded Flanker will not run down any clean aircraft with a weapons load. Drag etc. There is also a high possibility that said F-35 is dragging you into his own SAM or friendly fighter support. Anyone chasing a F-35 is going to have to be a full after burner in order to even have a chance of getting to weapons range in a tail chase. Good luck with that.
Assuming you DO get to a visual fight, you then have to get to a point in that fight where kinematic characteristics even matter. With DAS, the F-35 will see you first. His buddies will also see you first. Even with a data-linked Flanker you are going to be at a huge SA disadvantage. IF he sees you first and shoots a aim9x or even makes a gun pass before you are aware: you lose.
All that aside: you might have a chance! :D
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on April 13, 2016, 05:35:09 PM
The F-35 is a excellent aircraft. It will perform air to air missions extremely well. Its dogfight performance is mostly besides the point, as most combat now and in the future will take place well beyond visual range. If a dogfight does occur, it will be with HOBS weapons, which make dog fighting a moot point. Even within visual range the age of the dogfight is over. You don't dogfight when you and your opponent are launching 90 degree or 180 degree IR missiles that have 100% flare rejection at each other. You cannot evade that missile. If you are in parameters, you die. This is one of the biggest reasons the USAF and many other air forces DO NOT want to come to a merge: it is too lethal. There is a good chance that everyone dies.
Not to mention alot has to happen for a F-35 to actually GET WVR.
First your enemy has to somehow get past you in BVR. This is possible, but given stealth and superiority in sensors, it is unlikely that a opposing force will get there without extremely high losses. If at All.
Then, once you get past the BVR phase, you the have to actually FIND the F-35 and run it down. Also unlikely. Stealth makes that very hard. And if you find the F-35, running it down is problematic because a loaded Flanker will not run down any clean aircraft with a weapons load. Drag etc. There is also a high possibility that said F-35 is dragging you into his own SAM or friendly fighter support. Anyone chasing a F-35 is going to have to be a full after burner in order to even have a chance of getting to weapons range in a tail chase. Good luck with that.
Assuming you DO get to a visual fight, you then have to get to a point in that fight where kinematic characteristics even matter. With DAS, the F-35 will see you first. His buddies will also see you first. Even with a data-linked Flanker you are going to be at a huge SA disadvantage. IF he sees you first and shoots a aim9x or even makes a gun pass before you are aware: you lose.
All that aside: you might have a chance! :D
History has time and time again shown what you are saying to be erroneous. There will always be within-visual-range dogfights as long as humans have eyes.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 13, 2016, 05:47:51 PM
History has time and time again shown what you are saying to be erroneous. There will always be within-visual-range dogfights as long as humans have eyes.
Actually, what history has shown time and time again is that weapons systems that are ineffective in their infancy are much more effective when they come into their own. It has been 40 years since Vietnam etc. The first IR missiles were garbage. Nobody thinks the current IR missiles are garbage. Tanks in WW1 were not that Amazing. In WW2 they were far more decisive. Modern Armies are EVEN MORE mechanized.
You cannot just rest your laurels on "well it didnt work as intended in vietnam" and take it for granted everything that has changed. Missiles and Radar have advanced many many fold since then. The end of the dogfight has been a long time coming. We have only been fighting in the air for about 100 years. Every other form of combat has changed dramatically over its history. So too will be the air.
What is more, we KNOW that the missiles are to the task this time around. Were not simply trusting a DLZ. We now test missiles against F-4 and F-16 target drones that can attempt to evade in a realistic fashion. Every single air force in the world in focused on BVR (yes even the Russians)
And while were at it, little known fact: The Vietnam missiles are quite a bit more effective than they are known for. 2/3rds of all the kills were with missiles EVEN after they got the guns on the F-4s. A considerable portion of the missile failures were due to poor maintenance and poor usage, not bad design. Standards on weapons maintenance were not the same then as they are now. The Jets then had very crude systems for telling the pilot when the missile was in parameters, leading to many out of parameters shots. Units were ordered to fire several shots without waiting to see the effect of the first, leading to statistical errors in pK calculation etc. There were few BVR shots, but this had more to do with Sensor limitations and IFF.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 13, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
AND if you ever managed to get to a merge, this is was your facing. Impossible to decoy with flares. Neigh-on impossible to dodge once inside DLZ. When I can shoot a missile straight back wards or off my 3-9 line, it isnt a dogfight. Doesnt matter if I can see you. IF you come to the merge somehow, you will most likely be either still defensive or only just out of defensive from a BVR shot. Once again, agility doesnt matter if I enter the fight from a position of great advantage because my AMRAAM forced you to squirm all over the sky to defeat it. Not to mention that it is nearly impossible to defeat most BVR missiles if you get that close. Once you get to RTR, the only good option is to turn away from the missile and run. Thanks for lending me your six o'clock. If you get to RTR and dont run, you die. Unless you think your 9G aircraft is going to defeat a 30-40 G missile coming at your at Mach 3-5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 13, 2016, 06:15:21 PM
We, and a good portion of Europe are using the AIM-2000 IRIS-T dogfight missile. With HMS, lock-on after launch and extreme 60g maneuverability it has "over the shoulder" capability (360° defense capability) and can attack aircraft behind the launching aircraft.
The end of the dogfight has been a long time coming.
You seem remarkably well-informed Shift8. May I ask you then, if all you say is true, I'm curious why the YF-22 design was selected over the YF-23, an apparently faster and more stealthy proposition with considerably longer range (by almost a third again) - but less manoeuvrable. The answer could of course be political / economic, a pre-disposition to Lockheed Martin, perceived versus known technical doubt etc.
Especially the 2D thrust vectoring on the YF/F-22 is a rather odd design feature is it not? Heavy, complex, expensive and in the light of what you're saying, redundant?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on April 14, 2016, 01:24:14 AM
It's all good until the air combat happens in a way that the computer models, think tank gurus, and slide rule "experts" didn't consider. Then it goes to s***. Every time.
You think WVR is going to be all super rare in the next big shooting war? I very much doubt that. If we know anything from history, war is not predictable or orderly which is why many peacetime defense ideas go right into the crapper the first time a round comes past your head.
The F-35 is a great warbird.
On paper.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 09:24:35 AM
How many fighters have been shot down by gunfire in a dogfight since the Vietnam War? Modern missiles have revolutionized air combat, in much the same way as gunpowder revolutionized ground battles. That most armies back then still thought it was a good idea to stand in open terrain in tight formations, and and wear brightly colored uniforms shows just how hard it is for military organizations to change with the advance of technology. Hopefully we've become a little better at it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 14, 2016, 01:24:15 PM
It's an interesting subject, one I've read a lot about recently, a lot of USAF and DOD reports, Rand war games results and analysis, and other stuff. I read about 20 defense sites daily, and a couple focus mostly on air combat, and are really giving this topic a lot of airplay right now. I can see both sides of it - I too have long said that the AA11 Archer/R73 would have been a rude surprise had we gone to war in the 80s against anyone equipped with it, as it had AIm9x like performance LONG before the USA had that missile, and it really surprised the US intel services when they finally got a hold of one from the East German AF after the wall fell. I agree that HOBS shots with modern IR missiles like the 9x, R73, IrisT, Asraam, Israeli missiles, and others, are very lethal now, and don't require the target to be in that front cone of vulnerability/attack. Still, anything can be decoyed eventually - when the Aim9 M model came out, it was supposed to be uber resistant to flares and deceptive defenses, and in the 1st GW an F15 after salvoing most of its Aim7s at a Mig25, all missing, had fired THREE Aim9m missiles at this single fighter, which neat as you please decoyed and evaded 2 of the first Aim9 shots, then finally took a hit from the third.
This is the issue IMO - while missile lethality HAS evolved to the point where in recent years BVR missiles have become the most effective killers stats wise, the tide can turn and the advantage swing back to ECM/defenses just as fast. According to many defense reports and articles from pilots/thinktanks/etc, it already has with the Aim120 somewhat. Digital radio frequency memory jamming is employed by many of the Russian and CHinese fighters now, and it's had a pretty drastic effect in simulations regarding the Aim120 pK.
This report has a great bunch of charts, and makes a good case for what Shift8 has said. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjX5pr-2Y7MAhVB6x4KHf6bDJkQFgg3MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcsbaonline.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2FAir-to-Air-Report-.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGuPkE3Fnei78vEdeXIqm-RbU3r4w&cad=rja
This article seems to agree with GScholz and Shift8 -
Quote
With an increasing number of modern combat aircraft equipped with missile-approach warning systems, it is likely that a pilot under attack will have sufficient time to target an attacker and launch a missile in return. Once both aircraft have “launch and leave” missiles in the air, prospects are good that the short-range engagement will result in “mutual kills,” with short-range combat kill ratios near 1:1. This suggests we may have reached a point in the development of short-range air combat technologies where serious, capable adversaries will attempt to avoid it and instead seek advantage in superior BVR capabilities.
That said, recent RAND war games have incorporated new Russian and Chinese ECM capabilities vs the Aim120 and Meteor, which have been proven already to show a massive reduction in pK of these weapons. The RAND report (I`ll link it later, as the link is on another PC) has stated that BVR MRM are losing a lot of their effectiveness, so the aforementioned chart in the previous link, showing how BVR stats from the Vietnam era basically flip flopped with guns/IR missiles, will possibly do so again now. It's like the arms vs armor contest, ECM/defenses and MRM radar guided effectiveness constantly changing the landscape of how effective each are.
I do mostly agree though with what Shift8 and others have said, however ignoring the importance of being able to a: run, fast, and b: maneuver if required, not just for offense/guns but mostly for defensive reasons, is a foolish mistake to make. There are already towed decoy systems and new laser/IR jamming/spoofing systems, both passive and active, coming online all the time, along with the radar guided ECM stuff. Just assuming that stealth will be enough to break the kill chain every time, and that being able to get fast and get away OR turn and fight WVR is no big deal anymore would be a huge mistake IMO.
Interesting article here - https://hushkit.net/2016/03/17/su-35-versus-typhoon-analysis-from-rusis-justin-bronk/
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 01:55:31 PM
There has been a quantum leap in IR missile technology with the advent of IR imaging seekers, a decade ago or so. Flares are totally ineffective against a seeker that doesn't just follow an IR hotspot, but actually is a high definition IR camera, with intelligent image processing capabilities that track the whole aircraft shape. As computer intelligence become smarter and smarter it will soon (if not already) be as hard to fool a missile as it would be to fool a human.
Just assuming that stealth will be enough to break the kill chain every time, and that being able to get fast and get away OR turn and fight WVR is no big deal anymore would be a huge mistake IMO.
I very much agree, but as "Dolby" told us in his article underestimating the F-35's capabilities (based on media reputation) would also be a mistake. And there aren't many fighters that are able to keep up with a Mach 1.6 F-35 while also carrying a war load to shoot it down with.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 14, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
One thing regarding the whole Mach 1.6 thing, I have 3 articles bookmarked from 3 different sources saying that to reach Mach 1.6 the F35 can only do so while draining all of its fuel at max thrust/AB, and it takes a very, very long time. Bill Flynn, a chief test pilot on early F35s said the following when comparing the F35 to the Typhoon in acceleration.
Quote
Transonic acceleration is excellent in the F-35, as it is for the Typhoon and better than in an F/A-18 or F-16, but mainly due to its low drag characteristics than to its powerplant. That means that immediately after the transonic regime, the F-35 would stop accelerating and struggle forever to reach a non operationally suitable Mach 1.6.
Like I said, I've read the same thing 3 other places recently, that once supersonic the F35 really, REALLY struggles to accelerate, and by the time that 1.6 figure is reached, it's beyond bingo fuel time.
It's all speculation at this point, still, with the F35, but IF that turns out to be the case...well, the whole sensor/stealth advantage BETTER work out, or the F35 pilots will be in deep, deep crap if ever tasked for air superiority missions without support of the F22 or other fighters designed to fight other fighters specifically.
IMO in the next couple of years we'll know, one way or the other. Once more mature software and such make the F35 reach the vaunted 3F coded variant, full warfighting capability, there will be a ton of exercises with it, and if it sucks, that'll get out to the media in pretty short order. Until then, again, it's all speculation. I sure hope it works, and works well, the last thing we need in these days of tight budgets and incredibly dangerous times with increasing threats and tensions in every corner of the planet, is a primary weapon, the most expensive in history, NOT to work.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 03:12:07 PM
Still, an F-18C (like the ones you guys fly now) or even the F-18E can't reach Mach 1.6 with any stores on. Not even empty pylons. They would have to be completely clean. And The Hornet would also have to use reheat but with a much smaller internal fuel load to feed it. So in a realistic confrontation the F-18C/E and the F-35 are very similar in performance, but with one significant difference. The F-35 is able to achieve Mach 1.2 without reheat, while carrying a usable war load. Only one other aircraft in the world can do that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 03:15:34 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 04:03:19 PM
Ahh, meant the F-18C, sorry...should have specified.
Those don't have data just with the hard points for F-18E. They are just so integral part of the plane you rarely see them off and the "generic" speed that is given the most for F-18c is mach 1.8.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 14, 2016, 04:18:47 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 14, 2016, 04:22:03 PM
The Superhornets are actually slower than the legacy Hornets. Especially with stores, as those canted pylons on the Superhornet are really draggy, but necessary as they had major issues with releasing stuff when they were straight, and had to cant them quite a bit. While it may be true that reaching 1.5 or higher with stores is probably just as problematic with stores on legacy fighters as with the F35 now, when in trouble, dropping all stores but the 2 Aim120 carried in the slots on the fuselage and the wingtip Aim9s = a pretty clean config, and in that mode, and from what's being said about F35 accel now, legacy Hornet will blow the doors off the F35.
Many sources are saying the F35 is a dog accelerating past transonic, and once supersonic, takes a long, long time to gain speed. Not a whole lot different perhaps than loaded up legacy fighters, and realistically high mach numbers don't happen much even in combat for legacy fighters now, but in the critical speed zones of say mach 1 to 1.2 or 1.3, when that AB is lit for whatever reason, there is no reason they should be still faster than the F35 in there, and they are now. Stupid design idea, or result, either way. And again, with the way the a2a missiles are carried with the F15/18 and even 16 to some extent, when emergency jettisoning everything but those 4 or 6, or 8 in case of the F15 typical loadout happens...
I guess what I can't wrap my head around is WHY the F35 doesn't perform like a single engine version of the F22. The F16 sure does compared to the F15. Yet, the F35 is the ultimate apologists airplane right now, when it comes to performance - again all based on speculation until actual 3f combat trials happen, but enough are saying it that it can't all just be rumor. Again, why isn't there a pile of superlatives out there in the aerospace community being issued about the F35 hot rod performance, just like was done when the F22 came out? Whoever decided that this thing didn't need to be able to turn, maneuver, accelerate, and fight, as WELL as do all the other stuff it supposedly is great at...I just don't get it.
edit - Re supercruise, I just read a great one too about the F22, by F22 pilots, talking about how it's unfortunate the have such a small fuel fraction and can't use it much.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 04:34:07 PM
The F-18C has a top speed in airshow-mode of Mach 1.8. Both the C and E have almost identical clean performance. The E has bigger wings, but also more powerful engines.
In its minimal useful configuration (no. 1 in the chart) with no external fuel or stores of any kind except wingtip Sidewinders and semi-recessed AMMRAMs under the fuselage, basically a short range point interceptor... The F-18 (any variant) will not be able to catch a running F-35, even if it manages to detect it. And how often do you see an F-18 kitted out like that. I don't think I've ever seen one.
The typical A2A interceptor load out is this one, and this is a Mach 1.3 aircraft at best. And even if you jettison the stores those pylons remain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they can be jettisoned:
The F-18C has a top speed in airshow-mode of Mach 1.8. Both the C and E have almost identical clean performance. The E has bigger wings, but also more powerful engines.
In its minimal useful configuration (no. 1 in the chart) with no external fuel or stores of any kind except wingtip Sidewinders and semi-recessed AMMRAMs under the fuselage, basically a short range point interceptor... The F-18 (any variant) will not be able to catch a running F-35, even if it manages to detect it. And how often do you see an F-18 kitted out like that. I don't think I've ever seen one.
The typical A2A interceptor load out is this one, and this is a Mach 1.3 aircraft at best. And even if you jettison the stores those pylons remain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they can be jettisoned:
The F-18 would be able to catch the F-35 when the Lightning II slows down to use it's ECM jammers and counter-measures since it can't deploy those at full speed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 04:40:06 PM
Not yet... And it wouldn't need to if the F-18 can't close the range.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 14, 2016, 04:55:56 PM
Not yet... And it wouldn't need to if the F-18 can't close the range.
But a number of other jets can do it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 05:02:26 PM
Our friend "Dolby" again on the speed issue:
"When I was a kid, my buddy Hĺkon and I would sometimes play «car trumps». The idea was to do to pull the card with the best car on it. The «best» car was usually the car with A) the most horsepower, or B) the greatest top speed (according to the card). My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?
I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.
In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots). "
I choose to believe Dolby over any of you. No offense intended.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 14, 2016, 05:26:12 PM
Like I said, it's all speculation until the 3F combat related trials start happening - I have a friend that's a 2500 hour Hornet pilot, Empire test pilot grad, has flown the Gripen there, SH, F16 (exchange tours), and is the RCAF chief test pilot now. He was down at the F35 training center where multi national training was going on learning to fly the sim there for months until Canada pulled the plug on the F35. He's said some similar things to the Norwegian pilot, and some things not.
The speeds Dolby is talking about are ALL subsonic - again I've not argued that the F35 performs well down in those speeds, everyone says so, it's just that transonic and once supersonic where it's said that it sucks. Why doesn't Dolby comment on mach .8 to 1.5?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 05:28:20 PM
Maybe he can't. At least not beyond "I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16".
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 14, 2016, 05:36:13 PM
Maybe - like I said we'll see. Again, every source I've read that has criticized the F35 top end speed has done the opposite with the subsonic performance, same as Dolby, and praised it, so I don't think that just because a pilot that's commented on its low speed performance automatically means it's higher velocity performance is the same. Too many complaints from too many sources to discount it as just rumor IMO, but like I said, we'll know once the 3f tests start pretty quickly.
While clean the Hornets may be equal or close enough to call it that, with any kind of stores mounted on wing pylons, the Legacy Hornet is faster at mid and high alt than either the E or F SuperHornets. Again, the pylons on the SH are responsible for quite a bit of drag. Also, according to this SH pilot, a 2 x Aim120 and 2xAim9x equipped SH can hit Mach 1.6, not just 1.2/1.3. https://hushkit.net/2012/07/13/hushkit-exclusive-interview-with-super-hornet-pilot-fa-18e-versus-fa-18c-the-final-word/
I do hope the F35 turns out well, the alternative isn't pleasant to consider right now. So many mixed signals, it's really a giant PITA at the moment for many aviation writers I'm sure.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 05:46:51 PM
I agree that we'll have to wait for anything definite. When do you think that will happen?
While clean the Hornets may be equal or close enough to call it that, with any kind of stores mounted on wing pylons, the Legacy Hornet is faster at mid and high alt than either the E or F SuperHornets. Again, the pylons on the SH are responsible for quite a bit of drag. Also, according to this SH pilot, a 2 x Aim120 and 2xAim9x equipped SH can hit Mach 1.6, not just 1.2/1.3.
That's the same as I wrote earlier. The chart I posted shows a clean + 2xAIM9 and 2xAIM120 F-18E is as fast as the F-35 (presuming the F-35 really is a Mach 1.6 aircraft). To catch the F-35 the F-18 needs to be faster. But how many F-18s fly in that configuration? I've never seen one. In a typical configuration with wing pylons attached it is a Mach 1.3 aircraft. An F-18C might be sightly faster with wing pylons, but not Mach 1.6.
More about Dolby: http://www.na-weekly.com/featured/rnafs-future-takes-flight-in-arizona/
The guy gets around. :)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 14, 2016, 06:59:35 PM
Like I said, only when in trouble, or needed to catch a critical target, would I think most legacy fighters ever punch off everything and be just clean+4 or so AAM, so not very often.
So far as when, as I said a few times, most aviation journals/sites are saying once the 3F software and upgrades are finished, only then can the F35s be declared fully combat ready/operational, and THEN and only then will info start leaking out about how lethal, or not, they are in a2a combat vs dissimilar types. Time frame wise, god only knows, with the total mess that part of the F35 that is, very far behind sched and way, way over budget already. The "program" declares that 3F = full warfighting capability software wise, and that it's 98% done, but it's been 98 since March of last year. And even though they have claimed 98 percent, it all has to WORK, and it sure doesn't. Radar still has a mean time between failure rate of...a flight...Aim120 still have the heat/vibration issue in the bays making them useless. No gun site yet. So many issues within that 98 percent that have code, but said code is busted.
I think they'll eventually get it all sorted out. Takes time, they are 7 years behind already, so at this point, more delays are hardly a shock. They should light a fire under it, for sure.
Officially -
Quote
“Full Block 3F mission systems development and testing cannot be completed by May 2017, the date reflected in the most recent Program Office schedule, which is seven months later than the date planned after the 2012 restructure of the program. Although the program has recently acknowledged some schedule pressure and began referencing July 31, 2017, as the end of SDD flight test, that date is unrealistic as well. Instead, the program will likely not finish Block 3F development and flight testing prior to January 2018.”
Seven years sounds excessive. Our deliveries are right on schedule at least. We're planning on full operational capability in 2025.
Delivering airframes doesn't mean they work, particularly in this F-35 approach of "build it now, finish designing tomorrow"...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 10:35:49 PM
I'll be pissed if they don't work right nine years from now...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on April 14, 2016, 11:38:04 PM
Superior transonic acceleration and inferior supersonic acceleration could be due to issues associated with the divertless supersonic inlets.
Just beware making comparisons between old things like the F-15. You aren't comparing like with like. Intake design I think is a profoundly difficult design challenge, especially to also make it stealthy and light. F-15s, Concorde etc. have much more aerodynamically commodious intakes but a lot of mechanical complexity to achieve that. That's expensive, heavy, high maintenance. Plus the engine face and other shiny things are positively glowing on your enemy's radar. Oh look, we're going to be attacked in twenty-five minutes, lolz. This could be the performance limitation for the F-35 due to other design choices.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Wmaker on April 15, 2016, 11:45:21 AM
I'm sorry, I'm done trying to prove stuff to you. If you want to refute something I've posted find your own documentation. Or don't. I don't care.
Ok, so the F-18c performance was just your own speculation, gotcha.
But you do that a lot. Lot of arguments and very little in the way of facts behind them. :)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 15, 2016, 02:13:54 PM
Welcome to my ignore list Wmaker. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 15, 2016, 05:06:06 PM
Some news, more good than bad, that the USAF will have a squadron ready for initial combat ops before 2016 is over, at least that's their claim for now. Maybe we'll see how it does at Red Flag in 2017, or other exercises before that.
The U.S. Air Force says it will have an initial squadron of F-35 fighters ready for combat by the end of 2016. The commanders of the USAF’s Air Combat Command and Air Force Materiel Command reviewed the milestones in the $379 billion weapons program last week and reported their findings to the Pentagon.
There are lingering doubts that the development of the plane’s computer logistics system, called Autonomic Logistics Information System, was on schedule. The complex system, according to military planners, required extra “focus” for the program.
“The actual plane is on schedule and doing well,” Colonel Tad Sholtis, spokesman for Air Combat Command, told reporters on April 13. “The Air Force expects to meet its target window of August through December for declaring an initial operational capability.”
The Air Force says the F-35’s performance exceeds expectations of pilots, but that they are continuing to compare the fighter to other, older aircraft. Sholtis added that the fighter was strong in some areas and less strong in other, but only by fielding the plane to familiarize airmen with the plane and its workings could they fully exploit the F-35’s capabilities.
“We anticipate that side-by-side, air-to-air and air-to-ground tests will be illustrative of the fifth generation fighter’s advanced interdiction capabilities,” Sholtis said. “This aircraft is built to go where legacy platforms cannot.”
I'll be really happy if the initial reports on this initially ready squadron from a large EX come back with rave reviews, and that it dominates Red Air and strikes all its targets. Time's going to tell, one way or the other. I'll bet they put up this F35 squadron, or at least elements of it, against simulated Su27, Su30, Su35, J11, J10, even J20 and other Chinese Stealth fighters (all 4 of them) attacks, without support from other airframes. THIS will be the most telling and important exercise, as the USAF can always do the "hedge" thing they have been, saying "it's just a striker, the F22/etc are for air cover/anti fighter ops," where as the Allied nations buying the F35 to do everything including air defense, will have to COUNT on the F35 winning vs the above threats.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 16, 2016, 10:30:45 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on April 16, 2016, 05:20:17 PM
Probably the biggest factor in the continuation of WVR aerial combat is actually identifying the enemy. The Israelis, who have far more air-to-air kills in the F-15 and F-16 than anyone else, have done it only with WVR combat.
The Vietnam missile problem was worked out. I've read a few books on it. It wasn't the missiles, it was mainly the pilots firing them outside of the firing parameters. And of course later on some F-4s went on to shoot down some F-105s BVR and the ROE went back to WVR.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: bozon on April 17, 2016, 03:00:43 AM
Probably the biggest factor in the continuation of WVR aerial combat is actually identifying the enemy. The Israelis, who have far more air-to-air kills in the F-15 and F-16 than anyone else, have done it only with WVR combat.
The Vietnam missile problem was worked out. I've read a few books on it. It wasn't the missiles, it was mainly the pilots firing them outside of the firing parameters. And of course later on some F-4s went on to shoot down some F-105s BVR and the ROE went back to WVR.
the biggest factor in the continuation of WVR air combat is that fights do not start with planes 50 miles apart in an othwise empty airspace.
In addition, missiles were missing their mark in 1980s, not just in the vietnam war. radar missiles are particularily vulnerable to various counter measures. Sure, missiles improved, but so did the countermeasures. IR missiles are currently perhaps overtaking their countermeasures, but that may not last forever. The balance between missiles and countermeasures cannot be simulated. Only a real air war will tell us where it's at - and franckly, I do not want to find out.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 09:16:24 AM
A great many of you have some very funny concepts of how these modern airplanes perform. Do us all a favor please and get a copy of a F-16 or F-15 -1 and read it through before posting any more one how these planes perform with stores on. You can get these rather easily on the internet.
Then you need to go out and get a copy of Falcon BMS or something similar and try to chase down a enemy plane that starts even as little as 10nm at full burner while carrying stores. Even without carry stores. Or you could just do that math and figure it out. News Flash: In a tail chase, no Su-30 or F-18 etc carry stores is going to easily (if at all) run down a clean F-35 regardless of altitude. Assuming you have a typical stores load, you dont have a chance in hell of keeping up. If you were light on stores or clean, you are going to take freaking FOREVER to get close enough to a fleeing F-35 to fire a missile. This entire time you will be consuming GOBS and GOBS of fuel and the F-35 will be retreating further and further into friendly airspace most likely. That means you might have limited to space to chase him until you hit either more enemy planes or SAMs etc. Missile range in a tail chase is several orders of magnitude less than it is tail aspect than it is head on or from the side. A missile that could reach out 12nm at SL launched from mach 1 might only have a range of 5nm. Even less if the bandit is hauling ass.
As for missile effectiveness in general, BVR is order of the day. PERIOD. BVR was already effective in 1991 and the stuff that we have now is far superior. Data Links, improvements to IFF, and better radar have mad PID of targets more or less a certainty at this point. AND no, counter measures have not just kept right along. There are physics limits to what can and cannot be done with CM. GScholtz has already posted imaged of focal plane array IR sensors. Chaff rejection in the AIM-120 once it enters MPRF mode during its terminal phase is nearly 100%. And even it it were not: Chaff only works when it is properly dispensed. And I got that information directly from a certain horses mouth. A horse that has fired said missile.
There is alot of information about modern aviation available, but you will have to DIG to get it. 90% of the stuff you read from a simple google search is either pure rubbish or is take out of context.
So here are a few things that everyone here needs to acknowledge here.
1. Stealth works. 2. BVR is the order of the Day. 3. Situation Awareness will trump kinematics 90% of the time. 4.A F-35 will be clean against 4th gen fighters that are not. 5. WVR combat is now so lethal that coming to a merge is a crap shoot that most likely results in mutual annihilation.
Sorry for the tone of this post. But (some) of you sound like you walked in here after reading 25 "war is boring" articles that you topped off with RAND's Pacific Defense review, and a AIDS inducing amount of Dr. Karlo Kopp.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 09:57:33 AM
the biggest factor in the continuation of WVR air combat is that fights do not start with planes 50 miles apart in an othwise empty airspace.
In addition, missiles were missing their mark in 1980s, not just in the vietnam war. radar missiles are particularily vulnerable to various counter measures. Sure, missiles improved, but so did the countermeasures. IR missiles are currently perhaps overtaking their countermeasures, but that may not last forever. The balance between missiles and countermeasures cannot be simulated. Only a real air war will tell us where it's at - and franckly, I do not want to find out.
Missiles not hitting targets is not in and off itself a measure of their effectiveness. Just like how the number of bullets fired per kill is not a measure of a guns effectiveness. From the 80's onward the proportion of BVR to WVR kills has been on the rise. This was with war where the ROE was nonsensically restrictive, such as in 1991. VID requirements were a thing in some scenarios only because the insane level of superiority of the USAF meant that taking some extra measures to prevent FF actually made sense. In a peer conflict, such luxury would neither be practical or beneficial. And today, IFF is much much much easier.
A Radar missile is NOT easy to spoof it it is properly employed. You have 3 basic ways to beating it: maneuver, chaff, or a notch. Maneuver will only work if you are far enough away. The closer you are and the slower you are, the harder this will be. Once inside RTR range, you would be VERY hard pressed to kinetically defeat a AMRAAM. Chaff rejection on modern Active missiles is extremely good, and can be EASILY upgraded to counter any new threats. Notching is already very difficult even against legacy radars, and when you throw in data links and AESA, nearly impossible.
If you shoot a AMRAAM at someone he does not know you have launched. You will not get a warning until the missile goes pitbull and your RWR picks up the missiles active seeker. At that point the missile is only about 8nm out. You will have very little time to defeat it, and most RWR's only show the compass direction of the threat, so you wont know if its coming from above or below etc. This means that you will have a hard time employing chaff properly, or in sufficient quantities before you are hit.
With a stealth plane the problem gets even more crazy. He sees you first from long range. He uses this SA to stay out any potential sensor coverage and closes in very close. When he shoots, he might be only 10nm away. If you get fired on from a AMRAAM from a mere 10nm, you are basically a dead man.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 17, 2016, 10:01:00 AM
ECM also works..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: USCH on April 17, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
I miss John :(
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 17, 2016, 10:38:47 AM
Some people can't get their heads out of Vietnam it seems. By the late '80s BVR was already dominant, both doctrinal and in practice. IFF systems have vastly reduced the risk of friendly fire in BVR situations. In 1991 it was put to the test and most air-to-air kills in that war was with BVR missiles, even those fired by the Iraqi air force.
A2A victories in chronological order: (BVR missiles in bold.)
US F-15Cs shoot down two MiG-29 and three Mirage F1 in two separate engagements. All with AIM-7 missiles.
Iraqi MiG-25s engage a flight of F/A-18Cs with R-40 missiles scoring one kill.
US F/A-18s shoot down two MiG-21s. One with AIM-7 and the other with AIM-9.
US EF-111 scored a maneuver kill on a Mirage F1.
Iraqi MiG-23 damage two F-111 with R24 missiles.
Iraqi MiG-29 damage one F-111 with an R60 missile and a B-52 with an R27 missile.
US F-15Cs shoot down two MiG-29s with one AIM-7 and one AIM-9. After the first MiG was killed the IFF malfunctioned in Rodriguez's F-15C. The Americans initially thought they had shot down a coalition aircraft and held their fire allowing the second MiG to engage them in a dogfight. An AIM-9 ended that dogfight.
US F-15Cs shoot down two Mirage F1s with AIM-7 missiles.
Saudi F-15Cs shoot down two Mirage F1 with AIM-9 missiles.
US F-15Cs kill three MiG-23s with AIM-7 missiles.
US F-15Cs shoots down three MiG-23 and one Mirage F1 trying to flee to Iran. They used an unspecified mix of AIM-7 and AIM-9 missiles.
US F-15C kills a MiG-23 with an AIM-7.
Another US F-15C kills a MiG-23 with AIM-7.
A lone US F-15C kills two MiG-21s with AIM-7 missiles after they both engage him. These MiGs were escorting Su-25s and the F-15 gives chase and shoots down both with AIM-9 missiles.
US A-10 shoots down an Iraqi Bo-105 helicopter using its GAU-8 30mm cannon.
US F-14 kills a Mi-8 helicopter with an AIM-9 missile.
US F-15Cs shoot down two Su-22s and one Su-7 as they attempt to flee to Iran. All with AIM-7 missiles.
US F-15C shoots down a Mi-24 gunship with an AIM-7 missile.
US F-15Cs kill two unidentified Iraqi helicopters by using AIM-7 missiles.
US F-15E Strike Eagle dropped a laser-guided bomb onto a Hughes 500 helicopter in the air. (Ouch!)
US A-10A shoots down Mi-8 helicopter with its GAU-8 30mm cannon.
And that concludes the A2A kills of the 1991 Gulf War.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 11:49:51 AM
ECM generally does not defeat missiles. It prevent their being fired in the first place. With the exception of a reletively new capability to line-item jam incoming seeker heats or even fry them with some of the newer US AESA's, ECM does not spoof missiles in that manner.
Once you burn through jamming it no longer has any effect. ECM is not some cloud of doom that reduces missile effectiveness.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 17, 2016, 12:33:37 PM
Production is ramping up in Europe.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on April 17, 2016, 12:50:00 PM
I thought I posed quite a good question which was not addressed about the F-22 :old:
The Italian one will be faster obviously but the electric windows won't work after 100 kilometres and they'll be later found to have illegal traction control software.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 17, 2016, 04:04:45 PM
:rofl :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on April 17, 2016, 04:34:02 PM
Just because they used missiles capable of BVR doesn't mean the kills were BVR. Nice try.
Some people can't get their heads out of Vietnam it seems. By the late '80s BVR was already dominant, both doctrinal and in practice. IFF systems have vastly reduced the risk of friendly fire in BVR situations. In 1991 it was put to the test and most air-to-air kills in that war was with BVR missiles, even those fired by the Iraqi air force.
A2A victories in chronological order: (BVR missiles in bold.)
US F-15Cs shoot down two MiG-29 and three Mirage F1 in two separate engagements. All with AIM-7 missiles.
Iraqi MiG-25s engage a flight of F/A-18Cs with R-40 missiles scoring one kill.
US F/A-18s shoot down two MiG-21s. One with AIM-7 and the other with AIM-9.
US EF-111 scored a maneuver kill on a Mirage F1.
Iraqi MiG-23 damage two F-111 with R24 missiles.
Iraqi MiG-29 damage one F-111 with an R60 missile and a B-52 with an R27 missile.
US F-15Cs shoot down two MiG-29s with one AIM-7 and one AIM-9. After the first MiG was killed the IFF malfunctioned in Rodriguez's F-15C. The Americans initially thought they had shot down a coalition aircraft and held their fire allowing the second MiG to engage them in a dogfight. An AIM-9 ended that dogfight.
US F-15Cs shoot down two Mirage F1s with AIM-7 missiles.
Saudi F-15Cs shoot down two Mirage F1 with AIM-9 missiles.
US F-15Cs kill three MiG-23s with AIM-7 missiles.
US F-15Cs shoots down three MiG-23 and one Mirage F1 trying to flee to Iran. They used an unspecified mix of AIM-7 and AIM-9 missiles.
US F-15C kills a MiG-23 with an AIM-7.
Another US F-15C kills a MiG-23 with AIM-7.
A lone US F-15C kills two MiG-21s with AIM-7 missiles after they both engage him. These MiGs were escorting Su-25s and the F-15 gives chase and shoots down both with AIM-9 missiles.
US A-10 shoots down an Iraqi Bo-105 helicopter using its GAU-8 30mm cannon.
US F-14 kills a Mi-8 helicopter with an AIM-9 missile.
US F-15Cs shoot down two Su-22s and one Su-7 as they attempt to flee to Iran. All with AIM-7 missiles.
US F-15C shoots down a Mi-24 gunship with an AIM-7 missile.
US F-15Cs kill two unidentified Iraqi helicopters by using AIM-7 missiles.
US F-15E Strike Eagle dropped a laser-guided bomb onto a Hughes 500 helicopter in the air. (Ouch!)
US A-10A shoots down Mi-8 helicopter with its GAU-8 30mm cannon.
And that concludes the A2A kills of the 1991 Gulf War.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 17, 2016, 04:56:41 PM
"26 Jan: Draeger-Shiavi-Rodriguez. This triplet of kills was a "textbook" BVR offensive sweep, with the four CITGO F-15Cs (the fourth was flown by Bruce Till) picking up four MiG-23s and bouncing three (one of them returned to H-2 early in the intercept, presumably because of mechanical problems). The targets were sorted and shot at by all four F-15s at over 13 miles (Till's AIM-7 arrived slightly after the others and thus he did not receive a kill credit)."
The other fight Rodriguez had with the MiG-29 after his IFF malfunctioned is often cited as the only turning fight of the war.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 05:04:33 PM
You seem remarkably well-informed Shift8. May I ask you then, if all you say is true, I'm curious why the YF-22 design was selected over the YF-23, an apparently faster and more stealthy proposition with considerably longer range (by almost a third again) - but less manoeuvrable. The answer could of course be political / economic, a pre-disposition to Lockheed Martin, perceived versus known technical doubt etc.
Especially the 2D thrust vectoring on the YF/F-22 is a rather odd design feature is it not? Heavy, complex, expensive and in the light of what you're saying, redundant?
Sorry I actually missed seeing this post. Thanks for the compliment, and your question is indeed a good one.
The Raptor is an extension of a correct mentality that weapons systems should be designed to cover every contingency to a extreme degree. It was designed to win every fight, regardless of the geometry of it. I agree with this philosophy. I did not agree with the cancellation of the aircraft. As the airforce stated recently, I believe in winning 100-0. Not 51-49.
The superior kinematics of the F-22 however are not just a WVR issue. The F-22's ability to fly extremely fast with and without AB is a MASSIVE plus in BVR combat. The faster and higher you are when you fire a aim-120, the further it goes. Raptors are known for flying undetected at 50,000ft plus at mach 1.8. For any 4th generation fighter to do this, they would have to be very nearly clean and be in full AB. Kinematics, particularly speed and altitude, are still important.
As for TV, there is a case to be made for its removal. If I recall correctly, even the USAF had debated this recently. However, in BVR kinematics are also important for missile evasion. There are limits to how much increased agility assists in missile defeat, but in some scenarios TV would allow for much better supersonic maneuvering than a figher without. It may also help with certain low speed terminal defenses. Essentially, there ARE some some circumstances where better maneuver would help in BVR.
The F-22 is in ideal aircraft in other words. It is a perfect expression of the ultimate aerial killing machine. It covers all the bases, and does it 2x better than anything else in virtually any area.
So why the F-35 you might wonder? Several reasons. First, we need a cheaper multi-role plane to augment F-22's. Second, the F-22 got canceled. And Third, if I cant get more raptors Ill take the next best thing.
First thing to get out of the way----the F-35 IS cheaper. Its actual cost per plane is comparable to many 4th and 4.5 gen fighters. The reason for people claiming ridiculous figures for its price are due to 1) including the cost of development in the price per plane, 2) including the cost of maintenance and fuel for the next 2 decades or so in the cost per plane, 3)The F-35 is being far more scrutinized that past projects and is using a concurrency path of development which no other US fighter has done. This leads to false comparisons.
The F-35 is like a F-16 to a F-15. The Eagle is better: but the F-16 fleshes out the ranks and is still much more capable than the competition. Based on its known performance figures, it will be alot like a F-18 in terms of a dogfight. Less than ideal sustained turn, excellent high AoA inst turn. But with F-16 like straight line acceleration, especially when you compare to loaded 4.5 gen fighters.
Essentially, the F-35 is a more economical augment that the USAF badly needs to finally replace the bulk of its legacy fighters. It will be FAR FAR superior in BVR to any 4.5 gen fighter, which will constitute most engagements. It will terrorize any non-stealth aircraft in nearly any situation. IF a dogfight does happen, it will still be extremely capable. Todays WVR missiles mean that the best fighter is the one that finds the other person first and looses a missile so that you can get out of dodge before a merge actually occurs. DAS and the AIM9X make this almost a certainty when combined with stealth.
Kinematically in BVR, the F-35 will be about equal to things like the Eurofighter, Su-30, or Rafale. All 3 of those planes claim to supercruise, but not by the Lockheed definition necessarily. A clean F-35 can SC in the technical sense, as in more than mach 1 without AB. Even a clean F-15 can do this without AB. The big difference is that a Su-30 has to carry its stores externally. So even if it could SC at more than Mach 1.5 (the LM definition) it will NOT do so with a ton a missiles and stuff. So in this sense the F-35 is comparable. When you consider that on top of this the F-35 has a much better Radar and is stealthy, you have a much superior overall aircraft.
So in summary, the F-35 is not as good as a F-22, but is still far better than the competition.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 05:09:54 PM
Just because they used missiles capable of BVR doesn't mean the kills were BVR. Nice try.
Praytell, what do you consider "BVR"?
BVR is more a description of the tactics involved than the visual nature of the fight. Pilots can sometimes see fighters from 25nm. Is that fight now suddenly WVR? No.
I can be a mere 3nm from you and the fight is still basically BVR. If there is no merge we are still having a missile lobbing and evasion contest. It is not a dogfight. And until the merge, it doesn't matter really who has the best turn rate etc.
So, nice try. :D
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 17, 2016, 05:15:11 PM
Some people can't get their heads out of Vietnam it seems. By the late '80s BVR was already dominant, both doctrinal and in practice. IFF systems have vastly reduced the risk of friendly fire in BVR situations. In 1991 it was put to the test and most air-to-air kills in that war was with BVR missiles, even those fired by the Iraqi air force.
Of the kills 69% were with BVR missiles, and 31% were not. Of those 69% of BVR missiles there is no information provided at what range those shots were made.
Also worth noting is that the Iraqis were in a complete mess. The coalition dominated the air and radio waves.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 05:24:58 PM
Of the kills 69% were with BVR missiles, and 31% were not. Of those 69% of BVR missiles there is no information provided at what range those shots were made.
Also worth noting is that the Iraqis were in a complete mess. The coalition dominated the air and radio waves.
There is tons of info out on the ranges and other geometry considerations of the gulf war engagements. TONS.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: eagl on April 17, 2016, 08:21:56 PM
A great many of you have some very funny concepts of how these modern airplanes perform. Do us all a favor please and get a copy of a F-16 or F-15 -1 and read it through before posting any more one how these planes perform with stores on. You can get these rather easily on the internet.
snip
Sorry for the tone of this post. But (some) of you sound like you walked in here after reading 25 "war is boring" articles that you topped off with RAND's Pacific Defense review, and a AIDS inducing amount of Dr. Karlo Kopp.
Shift8 do you have any fighter time? If so, how many hours and in what aircraft?
I didn't have to find a copy of the F-15E dash-1, or the -34 or even 3-1, on the internet. They were issued to me or were required reading in the vault during my time as an F-15E pilot, and I have a bit of dissimilar and multi-ship air to air training in my logbook, so maybe that's good enough to skip the internet study part.
I may not quibble with all of your points one by one, but I'll drop a few generic observations and some specific arguments in here, if that's ok with you since you seem to be the expert.
First, the F-35 is in my deeply considered opinion a flawed compromise design, like most of our other "joint" tactical aircraft. It has the mission of an F-15E, A-10, F-16, and probably a navy battleship, shoehorned into a package compact enough to fit on a carrier and handicapped with a single engine in order to save money from not buying a second one. It has numerous outstanding critical flaws like not being able to keep the weapons bay cooled during ground ops, and even when "full up" it won't be able to do any of those purported missions it is intended for with anything like the competence of the planes it is intended to replace. It can't do all-weather night low altitude deep precision strike like an F-15E, can do hardly ANY of the air superiority of the F-15C or even air defense F-16 variants due to low endurance, low speed, poor maneuverability and low weapon loadout, it doesn't have any BRRRRT or even half the loadout, loiter time, or damage tolerance of an A-10, and to top it off even if they sell thousands of them they'll still cost more per aircraft than a one for one replacement of the legacy airframes I've mentioned.
BVR is the order of the day, except when your ROE requires positive ID against non-cooperative targets or bandits in a complicated air picture, then its ACM and BFM.
The F-35 is going to be slow and will run out of gas when sprinting (running away bravely, to quote monty python), so a real air defense fighter will be able to chase it down and shoot it in its fat non-stealthy butt on egress. Same with any SAMs that survive the initial strike, and there WILL BE surviving sams as our potential adversaries have been paying close attention to what works and what doesn't as we've taken apart (or attempted to take apart) numerous IADS over the last 25 years.
I know a number of ways to defeat radar missiles. Your statement pretty much implies that you do not actually know how radar missile employment or shot doctrine works, in part because you are incorrect, and in part because of your dismissive assumptions about their effectiveness. I'll have to leave it at that due to *reasons*.
Stealth is just one more feature of a weapon system, and anyone assuming it actually works in combat either doesn't know how it works or has been ignoring development of counter-stealth technology and systems. You can't find the requisite info to intelligently discuss it on the internet or in commercial circulation no matter how hard you look, unless you take a fairly specific set of courses at a limited number of universities, and even then you won't know anything about the tactical implications. If you possessed that info, you wouldn't be discussing it anyhow.
SA trumps kinetics unless you have a mission to accomplish and the only way through the door is to kick it down. Then the guy with the biggest stick (or most sticks) may not "win" but you're still gonna gonna suffer losses getting thru the door. Or keeping the other guy from coming in YOUR door. Guess what used to keep me up at night when I was responsible for a certain what-if scenario... 1000 cannon-equipped and obsolete fighters streaming south from North Korea. We'd run out of missiles and bullets before we got half of them, even if we could individually track and engage each one with optimum efficiency. Then you can have all the SA in the world, but the survivors are gonna strafe your O-Club and your chow hall when you run out of the kinetics you pass off as unnecessary. Buying a lot of new fighters with half the missile loadout of the ones we have isn't the way to win that fight.
A clean F-35 will be facing "heavy" 4th gen fighters that can still out-turn and out-stick them, may out-number them, and will likely have the speed to run them down when the clean F-35s run out of missiles and turn to run. Hopefully we'll still have enough F-15s to bail them out when that happens.
As for a merge being a randomized blender of death, that's possible however training, intuitive systems integration, raw aircraft performance, and weapons that are awesome in a knife-fight can and have made all the difference about who wins.
That said, the F-35 is a grand experiment taking a rather large step into a truly sensor and system fused approach to tactical situational awareness. While some nifty PR talking points like the stupid touch screen (you'd know why it is stupid if you've ever had to put your finger on a switch while pulling anywhere from -2 to +9 Gs or flying a night low level in moderate to severe turbulence) come across as retarded to many of those of us who flew what is STILL our newest and still worlds best strike fighter (F-15E), the *intent* of the data fusion is a laudable goal. I hope they achieve even 10% of what they set out to gain with the F-35. The problem is, and will remain, the fact that they chose a half-assed deeply compromised "joint" airframe design as the platform with which to experiment with on the path to this data fused tactical SA revolution. It won't meet any of the services actual needs, and the requirement to make this huge leap in technology and software while fighting "simple" problems we solved 30 years ago like bomb bay temperatures and avionics cooling, is crippling the program. It may never recover or achieve its goals. Even if it meets its technology targets, it will still remain a deeply compromised tactical platform due to the handcuffs imposed by the joint nature of the development and procurement program. We should have learned our lesson with the last several joint program disasters, but we didn't.
An F-15E replacement needs to be FAST, carry a LOT of weapons and fuel, maneuverable enough to hold its own, be able to do the hardest mission without compromise (low level night all-weather deep precision strike with or without nukes) and new technology be damned, it needs a seat for a WSO because that hardest mission is, well, HARD. An F-16 replacement needs to carry a reasonable amount of weapons, be cheaply operated, and be able to turn up its own butt. An A-10 replacement needs BRRRRRT, long loiter time, damage tolerance, and a huge CAS weapons loadout.
The F-35 has none of this. What it does have going for it is manufacturing presence in an awful lot of congressional districts, and a tentative buy order from a dozen or more nations who are horrified that we're putting all our eggs in this particular basket, but who also have few or no options.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on April 17, 2016, 08:28:35 PM
BVR is more a description of the tactics involved than the visual nature of the fight. Pilots can sometimes see fighters from 25nm. Is that fight now suddenly WVR? No.
I can be a mere 3nm from you and the fight is still basically BVR. If there is no merge we are still having a missile lobbing and evasion contest. It is not a dogfight. And until the merge, it doesn't matter really who has the best turn rate etc.
So, nice try. :D
Mostly you're wrong. Somewhere inside 20-25nm, even in the F-15E, is the visual arena and the character of the engagement changes. There are reasons why this is true, that are only partly due to being able to see the enemy fighter. But if you haven't done it or aren't familiar with how fighter radars and missiles work with tactical considerations to develop shot doctrine and tactics, you won't understand what I'm talking about. In my experience, this transition of how the fight changes between 30 and 15 miles is a major shortfall in many modern combat flight simulators, because tactics that *should* be extremely effective usually don't work in the games. Unfortunately my only attempt to influence this started and ended with Janes F-15 and I found out later that I almost got in trouble over that...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 08:50:38 PM
Shift8 do you have any fighter time? If so, how many hours and in what aircraft?
I didn't have to find a copy of the F-15E dash-1, or the -34 or even 3-1, on the internet. They were issued to me or were required reading in the vault during my time as an F-15E pilot, and I have a bit of dissimilar and multi-ship air to air training in my logbook, so maybe that's good enough to skip the internet study part.
I may not quibble with all of your points one by one, but I'll drop a few generic observations and some specific arguments in here, if that's ok with you since you seem to be the expert.
First, the F-35 is in my deeply considered opinion a flawed compromise design, like most of our other "joint" tactical aircraft. It has the mission of an F-15E, A-10, F-16, and probably a navy battleship, shoehorned into a package compact enough to fit on a carrier and handicapped with a single engine in order to save money from not buying a second one. It has numerous outstanding critical flaws like not being able to keep the weapons bay cooled during ground ops, and even when "full up" it won't be able to do any of those purported missions it is intended for with anything like the competence of the planes it is intended to replace. It can't do all-weather night low altitude deep precision strike like an F-15E, can do hardly ANY of the air superiority of the F-15C or even air defense F-16 variants due to low endurance, low speed, poor maneuverability and low weapon loadout, it doesn't have any BRRRRT or even half the loadout, loiter time, or damage tolerance of an A-10, and to top it off even if they sell thousands of them they'll still cost more per aircraft than a one for one replacement of the legacy airframes I've mentioned.
BVR is the order of the day, except when your ROE requires positive ID against non-cooperative targets or bandits in a complicated air picture, then its ACM and BFM.
The F-35 is going to be slow and will run out of gas when sprinting (running away bravely, to quote monty python), so a real air defense fighter will be able to chase it down and shoot it in its fat non-stealthy butt on egress. Same with any SAMs that survive the initial strike, and there WILL BE surviving sams as our potential adversaries have been paying close attention to what works and what doesn't as we've taken apart (or attempted to take apart) numerous IADS over the last 25 years.
I know a number of ways to defeat radar missiles. Your statement pretty much implies that you do not actually know how radar missile employment or shot doctrine works, in part because you are incorrect, and in part because of your dismissive assumptions about their effectiveness. I'll have to leave it at that due to *reasons*.
Stealth is just one more feature of a weapon system, and anyone assuming it actually works in combat either doesn't know how it works or has been ignoring development of counter-stealth technology and systems. You can't find the requisite info to intelligently discuss it on the internet or in commercial circulation no matter how hard you look, unless you take a fairly specific set of courses at a limited number of universities, and even then you won't know anything about the tactical implications. If you possessed that info, you wouldn't be discussing it anyhow.
SA trumps kinetics unless you have a mission to accomplish and the only way through the door is to kick it down. Then the guy with the biggest stick (or most sticks) may not "win" but you're still gonna gonna suffer losses getting thru the door. Or keeping the other guy from coming in YOUR door. Guess what used to keep me up at night when I was responsible for a certain what-if scenario... 1000 cannon-equipped and obsolete fighters streaming south from North Korea. We'd run out of missiles and bullets before we got half of them, even if we could individually track and engage each one with optimum efficiency. Then you can have all the SA in the world, but the survivors are gonna strafe your O-Club and your chow hall when you run out of the kinetics you pass off as unnecessary. Buying a lot of new fighters with half the missile loadout of the ones we have isn't the way to win that fight.
A clean F-35 will be facing "heavy" 4th gen fighters that can still out-turn and out-stick them, may out-number them, and will likely have the speed to run them down when the clean F-35s run out of missiles and turn to run. Hopefully we'll still have enough F-15s to bail them out when that happens.
As for a merge being a randomized blender of death, that's possible however training, intuitive systems integration, raw aircraft performance, and weapons that are awesome in a knife-fight can and have made all the difference about who wins.
That said, the F-35 is a grand experiment taking a rather large step into a truly sensor and system fused approach to tactical situational awareness. While some nifty PR talking points like the stupid touch screen (you'd know why it is stupid if you've ever had to put your finger on a switch while pulling anywhere from -2 to +9 Gs or flying a night low level in moderate to severe turbulence) come across as retarded to many of those of us who flew what is STILL our newest and still worlds best strike fighter (F-15E), the *intent* of the data fusion is a laudable goal. I hope they achieve even 10% of what they set out to gain with the F-35. The problem is, and will remain, the fact that they chose a half-assed deeply compromised "joint" airframe design as the platform with which to experiment with on the path to this data fused tactical SA revolution. It won't meet any of the services actual needs, and the requirement to make this huge leap in technology and software while fighting "simple" problems we solved 30 years ago like bomb bay temperatures and avionics cooling, is crippling the program. It may never recover or achieve its goals. Even if it meets its technology targets, it will still remain a deeply compromised tactical platform due to the handcuffs imposed by the joint nature of the development and procurement program. We should have learned our lesson with the last several joint program disasters, but we didn't.
An F-15E replacement needs to be FAST, carry a LOT of weapons and fuel, maneuverable enough to hold its own, be able to do the hardest mission without compromise (low level night all-weather deep precision strike with or without nukes) and new technology be damned, it needs a seat for a WSO because that hardest mission is, well, HARD. An F-16 replacement needs to carry a reasonable amount of weapons, be cheaply operated, and be able to turn up its own butt. An A-10 replacement needs BRRRRRT, long loiter time, damage tolerance, and a huge CAS weapons loadout.
The F-35 has none of this. What it does have going for it is manufacturing presence in an awful lot of congressional districts, and a tentative buy order from a dozen or more nations who are horrified that we're putting all our eggs in this particular basket, but who also have few or no options.
Interesting that 3 F-16 pilots I know have told me exactly the opposite of everything you just said. Same goes with general statements made by the USAF over the last 20 years. In addition to the 3 I know personally, almost every statement I have seen from USAF pilots has been the opposite of what you just said. Everything I have stated here come from either consultation with actual USAF pilots, or from official documentation. You will have to excuse me if I disregard your outlier opinion. To change my mind your going to have to have alot more to go on that patronizing assumptions that you are the only fighter pilot I have conversed with.
Your statement about radar and stealth is just plain nonsense. There is plenty of available information in peer-review journals and other sources.
Your pricing information is wrong or taking out of context. The F-35 when adjusted for inflation and the fact that many of the legacy platforms you mentioned are 30+ years old is somewhat more expensive than others, cheaper than some, and equivalent to some. And even if it were more expensive: you get what you pay for.
Your mention of the "problems" the plane is having are normal developmental issues. The issue here is the concurrency method of acquisition, not the engineering itself.
Your statements about missile effectiveness are the opposite of the professional opinion of other pilots I have consulted extensively. They are in opposition to physics. And they are in opposition to historical record.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 17, 2016, 08:53:15 PM
Mostly you're wrong. Somewhere inside 20-25nm, even in the F-15E, is the visual arena and the character of the engagement changes. There are reasons why this is true, that are only partly due to being able to see the enemy fighter. But if you haven't done it or aren't familiar with how fighter radars and missiles work with tactical considerations to develop shot doctrine and tactics, you won't understand what I'm talking about. In my experience, this transition of how the fight changes between 30 and 15 miles is a major shortfall in many modern combat flight simulators, because tactics that *should* be extremely effective usually don't work in the games. Unfortunately my only attempt to influence this started and ended with Janes F-15 and I found out later that I almost got in trouble over that...
There are a whole lot of dismissive remarks in these posts. Namely "if you havent done it you wont know what im talking about" Care to actually explain? So far your havent given me a good reason to take your word over many people who have given me far more specific reasons to believe theirs.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: eagl on April 17, 2016, 09:54:55 PM
There are a whole lot of dismissive remarks in these posts. Namely "if you havent done it you wont know what im talking about" Care to actually explain? So far your havent given me a good reason to take your word over many people who have given me far more specific reasons to believe theirs.
Meet me in a SCIF with your JPAS printout and I'd be happy to clarify, with diagrams. I'm not a WIC grad so I only use 4 colors, but with a big enough whiteboard I'm sure I can make do. Can't talk stealth though. You'll notice I don't even mention specific aviation week articles, 'cause I *can't*, and neither can anyone else who has even briefly touched that world.
I will say that I spent some time as my squadron's red-air-b***ch, and when flying with our squadron's other perpetual red-air guy (a 20 yr captain who actively resisted any sort of upgrade program), I got pretty good at reliably defeating or disrupting pretty much our entire playbook. You can't possibly get that without reading stuff you simply won't find anywhere (although Robert Shaw's book Fighter Combat is pretty darn good), and reading it doesn't help understanding it until you go out and do it a couple hundred times. And at that point you can't give any details, which is why I hang out in a WWII game forum instead of a modern fighter forum where I can't say much.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 17, 2016, 10:39:07 PM
Eagle, why should I take your word over Dolby's?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on April 17, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
The Raptor is an extension of a correct mentality that weapons systems should be designed to cover every contingency to a extreme degree.
Ah I see. Interesting. So in a way you're saying since the rest of the performance was so far above everything else you might as well have TV as well. And the performance is especially provided by going very fast efficiently. I presume supersonic manoeuvring is very much limited by pilot G. There are some stealth implications of manoeuvring without moving surfaces, correct?
You can't find the requisite info to intelligently discuss it on the internet or in commercial circulation no matter how hard you look, unless you take a fairly specific set of courses at a limited number of universities, and even then you won't know anything about the tactical implications. If you possessed that info, you wouldn't be discussing it anyhow.
You're right about the tactical information Eagl, that's not even easily inferred. However I don't want to alarm you chaps in your locked bunker but stealth technology isn't that complex to work out. There's a couple of essential scientific papers which if you read a couple of times and especially look at 5 gen aircraft to see how it's applied you very quickly put the design possibilities and restrictions together. With radar only the other way of course is to look at radar reflectors and then do the opposite :rofl Us non-bunker people and academics not working in that field don't have the test equipment of course (although I do have a microwave oven) but that's a refinement level really. Principals are known.
Supersonic intake design, now that's a really tricky one. I'm twenty papers in with six months part-time work and still solutions are not intuitive.
Without divulging and classified information can I ask you one question though? Do you have a lift like in 'Spies Like Us'? :banana:
You're right about the tactical information Eagl, that's not even easily inferred. However I don't want to alarm you chaps in your locked bunker but stealth technology isn't that complex to work out. There's a couple of essential scientific papers which if you read a couple of times and especially look at 5 gen aircraft to see how it's applied you very quickly put the design possibilities and restrictions together. With radar only the other way of course is to look at radar reflectors and then do the opposite :rofl Us non-bunker people and academics not working in that field don't have the test equipment of course (although I do have a microwave oven) but that's a refinement level really. Principals are known.
Well, all I can say is that the difference between book, or even experimental knowledge of stealth technology, and its application in a military environment is a 50 page questionnaire, a background check that takes about a year, no fewer than 4 binding non-disclosure agreements that never expire, a couple years of hands-on training with a high weed-out rate, and nearly 80 years of both classified and unclassified operational experience that has been analyzed by some of the best minds on the planet and passed down to a very select community that actually needs to know both theory and practice.
But yea, other than that the book knowledge about low observable technology is totally the same :)
Anyone ever wonder how much of the stuff "everyone knows" about how nukes work is just part of the big lie protecting nuke technology? Lots of eggheads know how to build a nuke, but some of the really big and really small ones are way more complicated than the diagram in the "big book of how things work" that you can get from the library... I imagine that what everyone knows about stealth might be a bit like that, maybe.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: eagl on April 18, 2016, 12:57:42 AM
Oh yea, not trying to be belligerent, its all fun and games in here :)
Except for you damn kids get off my lawn :old:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on April 18, 2016, 01:23:10 AM
Well, all I can say is that the difference between book, or even experimental knowledge of stealth technology, and its application in a military environment is a 50 page questionnaire, a background check that takes about a year, no fewer than 4 binding non-disclosure agreements that never expire, a couple years of hands-on training with a high weed-out rate, and nearly 80 years of both classified and unclassified operational experience that has been analyzed by some of the best minds on the planet and passed down to a very select community that actually needs to know both theory and practice.
But yea, other than that the book knowledge about low observable technology is totally the same :)
Anyone ever wonder how much of the stuff "everyone knows" about how nukes work is just part of the big lie protecting nuke technology? Lots of eggheads know how to build a nuke, but some of the really big and really small ones are way more complicated than the diagram in the "big book of how things work" that you can get from the library... I imagine that what everyone knows about stealth might be a bit like that, maybe.
It's not rocket surgery :old: And I used the Ladybird book of stealth technology as my primary source. Big book of how things work has too much reading and not enough pictures.
Well perhaps you can cast your eye over the final result of my project and laugh. Or not. If not then I'll put the kettle on for when the CIA arrive :banana:
I notice you aren't really addressing the big secret issue here about whether you have a Spies Like Us lift or not. Suspicious.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on April 18, 2016, 06:49:19 AM
In 1993 at Waddington I asked the F117 pilots what it was made from to make it Stealth. The chappy said that he could tell me, but 8 years old was a young age for me to die. My mother immediately stepped in and told me to ask him again... :confused:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 18, 2016, 08:00:36 AM
In 1993 at Waddington I asked the F117 pilots what it was made from to make it Stealth. The chappy said that he could tell me, but 8 years old was a young age for me to die. My mother immediately stepped in and told me to ask him again... :confused:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on April 18, 2016, 08:38:55 AM
It's not rocket surgery :old: And I used the Ladybird book of stealth technology as my primary source. Big book of how things work has too much reading and not enough pictures.
Well perhaps you can cast your eye over the final result of my project and laugh. Or not. If not then I'll put the kettle on for when the CIA arrive :banana:
I notice you aren't really addressing the big secret issue here about whether you have a Spies Like Us lift or not. Suspicious.
I find the sesame street book of words to be a better source, because bert and ernie, right?
We got an email from the people who send official emails, saying classified stuff is still classified even if we see it on TV or in a movie, so I don't have any idea about a lift or gift or rift or anything that may or may not have been in any particular tidbit of popular culture.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on April 18, 2016, 08:31:12 PM
I find the sesame street book of words to be a better source, because bert and ernie, right?
We got an email from the people who send official emails, saying classified stuff is still classified even if we see it on TV or in a movie, so I don't have any idea about a lift or gift or rift or anything that may or may not have been in any particular tidbit of popular culture.
Yes I understand your position Eagl and respect that. You can't confirm or deny anything. I'll just have to maintain the illusion you have got one of those lifts from Spies Like Us :banana:
I've got an audiobook about stealth technology by Bert an Ernie. "Hey Burt, hey Burt, oblique irradiation of the wedge by a plane wave, hey Burt?". Classic. Rather have it by David Attenborough but hey, it was free.
Don't imagine I'm going to make many friends here saying this, but I've watched a few documentaries last night on the F-35 with an open mind and I've completely changed my mind. Pierre Sprey is a turkey. Completely outmoded ideas, conflicting thinking indicating ignorance and not honest about his knowledge and past activities. I still think the F-35 is ugly (I can't call it a design classic), but their development process is very well thought out and logical. Seems a lot of the outrage about the cost could be that this is the first time in military aircraft development the total cost is calculated and announced instead of stashed under 'advanced lift systems for bunker transportation' or 'mil spec toilet development - $22,000,000'. This includes the fuel, maintenance and spares. I actually think it will be very manoeuvreble once they've developed the software - in good time. The 'loss' against the F-16 for instance was no such thing. The SA it provides is outrageously good. There's a lot more, but the two most significant things which are very unusual are that: 1. the cost is going down and 2. so is the weight of the individual aircraft.
I think the JSF will do to air combat what the smart phone did to communication. The software challenges are incredible, but they're making progress.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 19, 2016, 02:20:35 AM
So in other words it would be wise take the word of a 2000+ hour F-16 pilot who now flies the F-35 over yours. ;)
Just curious: What do you fly these days?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 19, 2016, 09:31:27 AM
One thing I wonder about is if foreign pilots (not American) have been issued orders the same as US pilots regarding public slagging of the F35 - all F35 pilots in the US have received orders via a memo "not for public release" to only speak well of it and spin only positive PR. Why was no such orders necessary for the F22? I've brought this point up before, why was none of this incredibly negative stuff about the F35, similarly out there during the F22s development cycles? Even when the F22 had major problems, even a CRASH, nobody ever came out and said "this thing is going to lose vs current and near future threats, and badly" as they have with the F35. Why is that?
You have Dolby who has written a couple articles, and not mentioned a single negative in either. Then you have the US governments own internal analysis and think tank which has concluded several times that vs peer nation opponents the F35 is going to lose (right now) in many types of engagements air to air. Serenity is an up and coming fighter pilot in the USN fighter stream - he's heard nothing good about it from ANYONE he's spoken to, which is a lot more people involved in the area of air combat than any of us likely have. Eagl, a long time fighter veteran, flying one of if not the best fighter ever made for a long time. Mace here as well has said some important things, an instructor at the most known fighter weapons school in the world and a long time F14 pilot.
I don't doubt Dolby's experience or ability either, but he's just one pilot, and again, seeing absolutely NO mention of any problems or solutions for him in his quoted articles - how could anyone claim that it's all wine and roses right now when the list of problems from Lockheed/Government sources itself is so incredibly long, and some of them being pretty serious and without current solutions, after all these years still. It certainly IS possible, even likely, that Norway, UK, Israel, everyone else getting F35s have been issued similar orders regarding PR as American pilots, which if true means at best means the public is only getting one side of the story.
I'm still reserving judgement until at least a 4 ship of F35s is used at Red Flag or some other similar exercise/war game where it's put up against enemy red air simulating peer nation threats from China/Russia etc. Or even actual threats as when the Indians brought their SU30MKI over, or vs Malaysian or other operators of such fighters. Then the rubber is going to meet the road, and we'll see just how accurate both sides of this argument are, but IMO if several companies paid by the USAF/USN to war game out the F35 vs SU/Chinese fighters right now or in the near future have said the F35 is losing, and then the main internal analysis/think tank unit is saying the same...
Combine that with current F35 pilots being issued orders regarding PR, in addition to huge swaths of current fighter pilots in other types or retired/new/etc voicing major concerns about the F35...I think everyone should at the very least have some red flags going up over that.
I do hope it works well, and in those first exercises it's used it wallops all opponents and silences all critics, considering the cost and cost to other programs, it better. I do think everyone needs to be prepared for that NOT happening though too, considering the massive delays and criticisms out there now. Then what?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 19, 2016, 09:49:20 AM
One thing I wonder about is if foreign pilots (not American) have been issued orders the same as US pilots regarding public slagging of the F35 - all F35 pilots in the US have received orders via a memo "not for public release" to only speak well of it and spin only positive PR.
I've read that memo and it was not a gag order. It was an instruction on how to dispel common negative myths that are factually wrong about the F-35. The F-22 never had this much bad press, so there was no need.
Serenity is an up and coming fighter pilot in the USN fighter stream - he's heard nothing good about it from ANYONE he's spoken to, which is a lot more people involved in the area of air combat than any of us likely have.
I asked him about that actually, and he had not heard anything negative from any pilot who actually flies the F-35.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Toad on April 19, 2016, 11:55:14 AM
I'm still reserving judgement until at least a 4 ship of F35s is used at Red Flag or some other similar exercise/war game where it's put up against enemy red air simulating peer nation threats from China/Russia etc. Or even actual threats as when the Indians brought their SU30MKI over, or vs Malaysian or other operators of such fighters.
If the results are a great success for the F-35, you'll hear all about it from the various services and Lockheed.
If the results are NOT a great success for the F-35...we'll be told it was a great success for the F-35 anyway.
You don't really think they'd admit serious shortcomings, do you? They don't want the enemy to know that and they don't want to admit to the US public that they wasted an incredible amount of time and treasure on a loser.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 19, 2016, 12:00:00 PM
If they do terrible at Red Flag or any other NATO exercise it will be impossible to keep it a secret.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Toad on April 19, 2016, 12:21:36 PM
They'll explain away any shortcomings with some bullstuff, redefine the goals, fault the setup or some such.
Admitting failure is not an option. Any Red Air pilots that start recounting how they mopped the deck with the F-35 will be sitting in a radar station on the Korean DMZ faster than you can say "cost overrun".
Maybe it will turn out to be the greatest airborne Swiss Army Knife every designed. We had better hope it does.
I am not confidant.
Think of the various do-it-all tools you have used. Even the Leatherman tool, a useful thing in and of itself is not the true master of any of the tasks it is used to do. It does many things fairly well but is rarely more useful than a tool specifically designed for a specific task.
The idea that a single platform Wunderplane can do every/any mission is suspect in my mind from the very outset.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: artik on April 19, 2016, 12:47:53 PM
Another stuff that is rarely mentioned in this discussion even by Eagl...
WVR may be enforced not only due to ROI... Just to mention not every place is wide Iraqi desert or wide seas... It some locations it may be few minutes of flight time to cross from one base to another.
So WVR may be much more likely due to simple fact - crowded air space and close by location. And of course it isn't only specific to Israel but Europe as well. Think Latvia, Ukraine - it is just a matter of crossing the border and you on the other side. So you just wouldn't have time or opportunity for BVR.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 19, 2016, 01:51:41 PM
Any Red Air pilots that start recounting how they mopped the deck with the F-35 will be sitting in a radar station on the Korean DMZ faster than you can say "cost overrun".
What a typical U.S. centric way of thinking... What you say may be true, except if they happen to be French or German or Canadian or Indian or any other nation regularly participating in Red Flag. They will have no qualms about blowing the whistle, and no U.S. authority can order them to Korea, or any other place for that matter. All the nations who have bought the F-35 will have a thing or two to say to America if that happens...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 19, 2016, 02:09:26 PM
Especially if they're French... Imagine the smugness! :uhoh
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on April 19, 2016, 06:45:35 PM
Quote
So WVR may be much more likely due to simple fact - crowded air space and close by location. And of course it isn't only specific to Israel but Europe as well. Think Latvia, Ukraine - it is just a matter of crossing the border and you on the other side. So you just wouldn't have time or opportunity for BVR.
No wait...you will ruin everything with a scenario like that. Stick with the program! :airplane:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 19, 2016, 06:55:45 PM
Yes, the Ukraine is an excellent example of a small country... lol. Even in Israel 5 minutes flight time is BVR range. And if you place your air bases at the border... no amount of technology will cure stupid.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 19, 2016, 08:56:17 PM
No wait...you will ruin everything with a scenario like that. Stick with the program! :airplane:
So it is not to say that it is impossible to have a WVR fight. Only that it is far less likely and far less desirable.
Remember that the traditional characteristics of fighters, such as turn rate, are still not valuable in the dogfight sense until a merge happens. A F-35 is still in good shape lobbing Amraams from 3nm. Second, in such tiny scenarios, Air forces are unlikely to simply take off and sprint in a straight line at the other sides fields. It is entirely possible that bases could be inside of SAM coverage for example. In Many cases it will make sense to either put bases further back due to concerns like this, or even flay away from the enemy to gain distance.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on April 19, 2016, 09:09:30 PM
The size of a state really makes no difference. You could be at war inside the boundaries or a very large state and find yourself in a campaign where there is a lot of concentrated action or you could be in a small state where the fighting is sporadic. International boundaries don't mean a lot once the shooting starts.
The larger the campaign, the more combat planes in the area and the larger the sortie rates are make some kind of WVR engagement that much likely to occur. The chaos of war will ensure it and the analytical-think-tank computer model wars run by conultants on the company dole won't mean much.
Quote
and far less desirable.
What they desire and what they get will be far apart I think.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 19, 2016, 09:48:16 PM
My job is in network security, so I always think of the worst possible scenarios (what if this fails...). I am quite cynical.
What I see with the F-35 program is a house of cards.
I think there is a huge reliance on AWACS and data sharing, what happens if you strip all that electronics infrastructure and support away. How would a pair of isolated F-35s stand against a pair of the latest gen russian aircraft?
The other point that stands out seems to be the never ending software issues the system seems to have. I find it mind boggling. If you recall that air show crash with an early A320, the pilots managed to combine several factors to put it into 'Alpha Protection Mode' without knowing it. If a shooting fight broke out next week, how confident are the operators the software will be bug-free on the battlefield? Is a pilot going to get a "Cannon Licensing Error - Module not licensed please call your Lockheed Sales Representative" in the middle of a fight :)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Toad on April 19, 2016, 10:37:07 PM
What a typical U.S. centric way of thinking... What you say may be true, except if they happen to be French or German or Canadian or Indian or any other nation regularly participating in Red Flag. They will have no qualms about blowing the whistle,
The French/German/Canadian/Indian pilots will make their case and there will always be some reason why what they saw wasn't what really happened or what is really going to happen after the new software comes out in "two weeks".
Remember the F-16 v F-35 fight? If it doesn't do well at Red Flag the protectors of the F-35 will come up with 101 reasons why the F-35 didn't triumph. Software this, early production that, test setup incorrect, framajammstanner was on the fritz...they'll throw up a huge bullstuff smokescreen.
In the end, no one will be able to prove anything.
The US military services and Lockheed are not about to broadcast the F-35s weaknesses if any are found at Red Flag. They'll find a way to cover it up.
It's what they do.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 19, 2016, 11:01:59 PM
The size of a state really makes no difference. You could be at war inside the boundaries or a very large state and find yourself in a campaign where there is a lot of concentrated action or you could be in a small state where the fighting is sporadic. International boundaries don't mean a lot once the shooting starts.
The larger the campaign, the more combat planes in the area and the larger the sortie rates are make some kind of WVR engagement that much likely to occur. The chaos of war will ensure it and the analytical-think-tank computer model wars run by conultants on the company dole won't mean much.
What they desire and what they get will be far apart I think.
Yes, if you do nothing to alter the game in your favor. Its just plain bad strategy to design a plane for a type of combat that will result in mutual annihilation 90% of the time. BVR can be controlled and played out like a game of chess. Two planes that come to the merge with HOBS IR missiles with focal plane arrays will almost certainly kill each other.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 19, 2016, 11:05:23 PM
The French/German/Canadian/Indian pilots will make their case and there will always be some reason why what they saw wasn't what really happened or what is really going to happen after the new software comes out in "two weeks".
Remember the F-16 v F-35 fight? If it doesn't do well at Red Flag the protectors of the F-35 will come up with 101 reasons why the F-35 didn't triumph. Software this, early production that, test setup incorrect, framajammstanner was on the fritz...they'll throw up a huge bullstuff smokescreen.
In the end, no one will be able to prove anything.
The US military services and Lockheed are not about to broadcast the F-35s weaknesses if any are found at Red Flag. They'll find a way to cover it up.
It's what they do.
Do you realize that this line of reasoning is the exact same thing you are accusing Lockheed of? You claim (on assumption I might add) Lockheed and the USAF will under no circumstances admit the plane is bad if it is. However by the same token, you render both your own argument and theirs completely moot. Your are hypocritically refusing any explanation the USAF gives UNLESS it equates to "it sucks, we were wrong."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 19, 2016, 11:16:08 PM
My job is in network security, so I always think of the worst possible scenarios (what if this fails...). I am quite cynical.
What I see with the F-35 program is a house of cards.
I think there is a huge reliance on AWACS and data sharing, what happens if you strip all that electronics infrastructure and support away. How would a pair of isolated F-35s stand against a pair of the latest gen russian aircraft?
The other point that stands out seems to be the never ending software issues the system seems to have. I find it mind boggling. If you recall that air show crash with an early A320, the pilots managed to combine several factors to put it into 'Alpha Protection Mode' without knowing it. If a shooting fight broke out next week, how confident are the operators the software will be bug-free on the battlefield? Is a pilot going to get a "Cannon Licensing Error - Module not licensed please call your Lockheed Sales Representative" in the middle of a fight :)
' The never ending software issues are the result of concurrency and unparalleled scrutiny. You will find that the previous generation of planes had plenty of equally silly issues. Concurrency is the other big factor.
As for two F-35's going toe to toe with say, Su-35's.....the F-35 will walk away with the curb stomp. No AWACS is needed. If you want to compare Pak-Fa to a F-35, that is a much more even contest. But the PakFa is a F-22 "ish" plane. That comparison would be silly.
If you are in a non-stealth plane and go up against a stealth plane in even numbers: you will lose unless you are fighting planes driven by trained monkeys. Due to the difference in RCS, they will see you first. This means that they can position themselves to further reduce your other capabilities, and make detection more or less impossible until it is too late. The first warning you will get is a AMRAAM is the face. AWACS and data sharing just makes this a even more forgone conclusion.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 20, 2016, 12:57:08 AM
Shift8, ever flown in bad weather? It's pretty common. How well will the F35 work then, when it has a huge reliance on sensors that are optical in order to keep its radar off and stay stealthy? Just interested in your opinion of how weather is going to degrade the high card the F35 has in its deck, it's ability to use long range non detectable sensors to get BVR kills.
Making broad sweeping statements such as "Awacs won't be required"...that's getting a tad ridiculous. How can YOU know that? Are you privy to all the doctrine planned by the USAF/USN for air combat with the F35? I somehow doubt the USAF is going to be withdrawing its primary ISR asset from modern battlefields because you think the F35 is so amazing it doesn't need that early warning/intel any longer and go can go toe to toe with gen 4+ peer nation threats without AWACS info and direction. Let me guess...the 3 "F16 pilots" regularly consulted with.
If you don't mind, who exactly are these pilots, what squadron do they fly with, etc? If these F16 pilots are constantly going to be your fall back position for defending any of your theories, the least you can do is identify them, or at least where they are operating at the moment, and how you know and consult exactly "three" of them, and so forth. It's not classified information or anything. Gscholz has identified how he met the pilot he's getting his information from. I've done the same, name, rank, and experience. If you're going to make statements based on information you're claiming they've told you, the least you can do is identify who is giving you that info.
Again, my friend since grade school is now a Major, up for light Colonel now, and running the fighter test establishment for the RCAF, responsible for all new tactics, training, systems, weapons and employment, all of it. Many thousands of hours+ total, 2500 alone in the legacy Hornet, Gripen, F16 and Superhornet tours, and several months training at the F35 international training center in the USA. Jason Paquin, first picture that comes up with google, many more on his FB page airborne and at various fighter ex places and so on.
Shift8, ever flown in bad weather? It's pretty common. How well will the F35 work then, when it has a huge reliance on sensors that are optical in order to keep its radar off and stay stealthy? Just interested in your opinion of how weather is going to degrade the high card the F35 has in its deck, it's ability to use long range non detectable sensors to get BVR kills.
Making broad sweeping statements such as "Awacs won't be required"...that's getting a tad ridiculous. How can YOU know that? Are you privy to all the doctrine planned by the USAF/USN for air combat with the F35? I somehow doubt the USAF is going to be withdrawing its primary ISR asset from modern battlefields because you think the F35 is so amazing it doesn't need that early warning/intel any longer and go can go toe to toe with gen 4+ peer nation threats without AWACS info and direction. Let me guess...the 3 "F16 pilots" regularly consulted with.
If you don't mind, who exactly are these pilots, what squadron do they fly with, etc? If these F16 pilots are constantly going to be your fall back position for defending any of your theories, the least you can do is identify them, or at least where they are operating at the moment, and how you know and consult exactly "three" of them, and so forth. It's not classified information or anything. Gscholz has identified how he met the pilot he's getting his information from. I've done the same, name, rank, and experience. If you're going to make statements based on information you're claiming they've told you, the least you can do is identify who is giving you that info.
Again, my friend since grade school is now a Major, up for light Colonel now, and running the fighter test establishment for the RCAF, responsible for all new tactics, training, systems, weapons and employment, all of it. Many thousands of hours+ total, 2500 alone in the legacy Hornet, Gripen, F16 and Superhornet tours, and several months training at the F35 international training center in the USA. Jason Paquin, first picture that comes up with google, many more on his FB page airborne and at various fighter ex places and so on.
How about casting some light on your 3 F16 contacts regularly consulted with and giving you all this positive F35 information.
So you misunderstood my statement about AWAC's. I meant to imply that a F-35 could fight without AWAC's, not that it is not a tactical requirement in general. Just like any other fighter, the F-35 can do combat on its own if it needs to. Far more so, since it has better sensors etc.
As for bad weather, Radar works just fine in bad weather. The F-35s radar is LPI, so it isnt going to need to fly around with it radar off all the time. 2nd, there is DAS. IR works in bad weather as well. Whatever limitations theses systems have, I'd imagine that the plane with the newest and most sophisticated systems will have the better SA. Every fighters performance is degraded if you throw a work case scenario at it, I might add. So too would it be with the ability to dogfight.......
You are being somewhat unreasonable regarding my sources. I didn't, and most likely would not have, brought them up until eagle jumped in here and started using his position to strong arm the discussion. In that context I brought them up merely to demonstrated that my opinion does not exist in a vacuum. They are hardly my only source of information, it is hard to believe you are not being disingenuous when you insinuate that I ever implied that. There is plenty of available information on much of what has been discussed here. Some of the information his behind some rather hefty paywalls. In addition of peer-review papers, and other documents, there is a whole host of information I have scoured through. This includes talking to engineers etc.
As for those pilots, I am not going to disclose names. These people have been kind enough to answer my many questions, and I am not about to start throwing their names around the internet. Nor will I pester them for permission, as Im not about to bother them over some forum discussion. I very much like getting info from them, and do not want them to see me as an annoyance. One of them is a member of a online squadron I fly in, and he flew in desert storm. One is a fairly public figure who currently who flew F-16's back in the 1990's and his main job was A2A. And the third is a rather new acquaintance who has flown in at least 2 red flags and currently instructs. While I was in the Navy, I also had access to the pilots on board my ship at the time. If that is not enough information for you, then I cant help you ethically. I don't know, nor do I care to know, the names of your sources. Ill take your word for it, as I already have. Not to mention that it is essentially beyond a doubt that the overwhelming professional opinion in agreement with me. And Im not talking only pilots. That includes generals, engineers, think tanks etc.
The general assumption that dog fighting will always be a thing is not a reasonable position. And is this position that seems to be the basis for many peoples arguments not only here, but in general. Some of you speak of the merge as if it some kind of scientific law.
It is not a question of IF dog fighting will eventually go away, but WHEN. WHEN is a simple matter of WHEN weapons systems and sensors are up to the task. The subject of this discussion should be IF that has happened. Not this nonsensical faux military science that is based in layman witticisms. The nature of warfare is always changing. Air warfare has only be around for about 100 years. Missile combat for even less than that. Look at how much other types of combat have changes over the centuries. Air war has changes a ton just even over its short history. We went from biplanes to Mach 2 jets for heavens sake. (and Gman, I am not talking about you here. This is more a general impression of the F-35 debate as a whole)
Remove the F-35 in general for a second here.
This argument is more about BVR and stealth, which are the two main things the F-35 philosophy relies upon. Both of these things are the focus of every major AF in the world. BVR has only been become a larger and larger part of air warfare. Since even the F-15 Eagle, BVR has been a major and primary focus. Then the F-22 and so on. Even nations that cannot in reality afford to make stealth jets are attempting to do so. If stealth and BVR are so crap, it sure seems odd that everyone seems to want more of them. Money talks.
Did any of you even watch the video I posted? (aside from GMan, as he posted the paper its based on some time ago)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Toad on April 20, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
You claim (on assumption I might add) Lockheed and the USAF will under no circumstances admit the plane is bad if it is.
You think the US military services/Lockheed will specifically identify the strengths and faults of the F-35 as delineated at Red Flag for the potential adversaries of the aircraft?
Really?
I don't.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 10:42:17 AM
A modern AESA radar is in itself very stealthy. AESA baseband software provides a near-continuous phase shift, which allows the beam to retain shape as it moves. This generates much smaller side lobes than older PESA radars. AESA has the capability of spreading its frequencies across a wide band even in a single pulse, and changing those frequencies with every pulse. The enemy's ability to detect the radar "chirp" is even further reduced by adding noise and pulse compression to the signal itself, camouflaging it as background noise. Anyone old enough to have used radios which do not automatically squelch noise knows just how noisy an environment the RF spectrum is. Only the AESA radar system which sent out the chirp knows what noise pattern to look for in a return signal. As the range to a target closes the radar will automatically reduce power every time the pulse sweeps over that target to avoid standing out against the background noise.
It is pretty clear from reading the replies in this thread that people just don't realize how advanced these systems have become, and how computer power has revolutionized warfare.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 10:50:00 AM
Our potential enemies are also developing and fielding AESA radars. That means that in the near future the airborne radars of the air forces of industrialized nations will be all but undetectable. The old joke is that using radar is like using a flashlight at night. You can only see what's in the flashlight's cone, but everyone else can see you. Now the game is changing to where everyone has undetectable flashlights and the only way to hide is being low observable.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 12:16:33 PM
It is pretty clear from reading the replies in this thread that people just don't realize how advanced these systems have become, and how computer power has revolutionized warfare.
To be fair I didn't either until I started researching it and I've got no excuse! I still think the VSTOL aspect of the design could have been solved better or the three variants perhaps be split into two instead in the interests of commonality. But as you eluded to earlier Mr. Scholz, there's the whole inter-force aspect as well which doesn't help. But you're right about the technology. It's hugely significant, even affecting things like the manoeuvrability. Many people seem hung up on the hardware with is a bit old-fashioned. In combination with the software it's way more than the sum of its parts.
I think moreover though there is a cultural issue. It's very supported to make an almost arbitrary decision and then filter out the 'information' to support your position. Not a lot of point trying to convince anyone if they choose to take a position and defend it as if their life depended on it. :eek:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 12:38:15 PM
Indeed Mr. Shida. Like I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, a lot of people have invested their egos in the debate. Against all rational thought.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Wmaker on April 20, 2016, 12:45:29 PM
You think the US military services/Lockheed will specifically identify the strengths and faults of the F-35 as delineated at Red Flag for the potential adversaries of the aircraft?
Really?
I don't.
Generally Military's are pretty vocal when they dont like their equipment. Especially the US Military, which has a habit of doing everything in its power to be obstinate about a piece of gear they don't like or dont want. Just look at some of the shenanigans that went down with the F-22 was being threatened with cancellation. They are the people that DIE if they equipment doesnt work after all.
More to the point, you cannot simply disregard any positive information or excuses they give for current development. By doing so you are making it impossible for them to be right regardless of whether they tell the truth or not. Its literally the equivalent of ramming crap into your ears and saying "I dont care what anyone says, I already know they are liars."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 20, 2016, 01:24:45 PM
Also, lets just touch on the WVR fight so many of you seem to think is intractable regardless of literally any technological advance.
WVR missile combat post merge is more about radius than it is about rate. This means that the emphasis is on a one circle fight, and therefore nose pointing ability. The F-35 has already demonstrated at least 50 degrees of AoA. If were are ignoring LOAL capabilities, all I need to do in a modern WVR fight is twist my nose around really fast with a very small radius so that I can get facing well enough to lob a AIM-9X. This is one of the reasons the F-18 hornet, which has the worst P/W and sustained turn of any still in service US fighter, can still be good at WVR when missile are involved. The F-18 has excellent high AoA and instantaneous turn, which means it can crank around for a missile shot. If you get off a missile, it is likely given modern IR AAM's that you have already won. The F-35 is looking to shape up alot like a F-18 class plane with much better acceleration due to a favorable thrust to drag ratio when loaded with weapons. It cannot be emphasized enough that the F-35 will be clean w/weapons vs opponents who have tons of stores drag. When we take all the BVR stuff into account and that complications that creates for WVR to even happen at all, and that modern BVR will be stupidly lethal, the F-35 has plenty of capability to hold its own in most situations like that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 20, 2016, 01:26:21 PM
This is what happens if you merge.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 20, 2016, 01:34:32 PM
That's nothing really new Shift8, everyone here has seen that video posted on this site and others many times over, as well as all the other Aim9x shoot exs. The Soviets had off boresight AA11/R73 with HMS back in the 80s, the Aim9x only caught up to that missile after decades of the Aim9m being behind the Russian Archer. Also, merging isn't always a duel, it's not like it'll be always or even often be 1 fighter on 1, and both are going to always see one another and get shots off that hit. Fighting in the real world is never as simple as that from what I've read and been told about it in the air, and EVERY fighter pilot I've ever talked to or read about when it comes to fighting in the air has said it's frequently, in fact most often, the guy you didn't even SEE that gets you. IE being wrapped up in a fight with one opponent, it's the 3rd man in that picks you off, and if you don't see him, you can't defend OR kill him, HOBS/HMS or otherwise. The merge isn't a dead thing, it's just more dangerous. Ask your F16 triplets (snicker) if they've stopped training for WVR or merges because they now have the Aim9x, and the enemy having advanced AA11 models have made that a crap shoot, so why bother...And as Eagl pointed out there is the ROE issue. With this administration there is likely this little thing called the rules of engagement. If they were made so strict for ground forces in recent years, imagine what the protocol would be for aerial engagements. BVR allowed without positive visual ID right now? I somehow doubt it.
And, there are just as many sources saying the "L" in "LPI" may not remain all that "low" in the not very distant future.
Quote
It is pretty clear from reading the replies in this thread that people just don't realize how advanced these systems have become, and how computer power has revolutionized warfare.
You can apply that statement to ECM and RWR technologies as well. It's not like AESA/LPI radars have progressed, yet the ECM/RWR end of things is just stuck in 1999 forever. I somehow doubt with the Chinese and Russian fighters coming along having stolen tech regarding creating AESA/LPI radars from the US, and made developments of their own to boot, that the USAF/USN is just standing still on creating systems to detect "Low" probability of intercept radars. Much like the armor/warhead arms race, the radar/ESM race has to be continuing, the ESM trying to be built to be more sensitive than the radar and able to detect it prior to being detected, and vice versa. Showing a couple graphs and saying "see, the LPI radar can't be detected" and thinking that's the end of it - there is this thing called progress and change, it happens constantly with every facet of offensive and defensive sensors and weapons. There are PILES of sources out there stating so - again, I didn't write them, I don't understand the very technical parts of it, but I can read the conclusions, and again, RELYING on LPI to remain low probability is much the same as relying on all the F35 stealth/sensors to work, and that no future tech will compromise them. Very dangerous position to put your eggs all into that basket, and hope nobody figures it out, since all the tech is constantly stolen by espionage right now. That's my primary concern with the F35, that it's ability to fight with kinematics/maneuverability has been dealt away in order to have extremely good sensors/fusion and L/O characteristics. What happens when the enemy has solved the tech side of the problems they will have fighting the F35, even partially? That COULD happen faster than the F35 takes to be developed to its "full" potential, since it's become a fix/complete it as you go deal now. Then what?
LPI is strongly affected by the RCS of the target being hit with the radar signals, so LO aircraft like the F35 will have an advantage when using radar to detect non L/O aircraft, but what about vs fighters that do have LO, like the..oh I don't know 4 stealth fighter types the Chinese are currently building, or the PakFA the Russians and Indians are likely to have in some sort of numbers? There is a lot more to it than just some magic button that makes your radar non detectable.
There is a ton out there regarding LPI and AESA for public consumption, and from all I've read assuming that LPI is going to work in the future as it MAY work right now is a pretty risky proposition.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 20, 2016, 01:51:26 PM
And, there are just as many sources saying the "L" in "LPI" may not remain all that "low" in the not very distant future.
You can apply that statement to ECM and RWR technologies as well. I somehow doubt with the Chinese and Russian fighters coming along having stolen tech regarding creating AESA/LPI radars from the US, and made developments of their own to boot, that the USAF/USN isn't standing still on creating systems to detect "Low" probability of intercept radars. Much like the armor/warhead arms race, the radar/ESM race has to be continuing, the ESM trying to be built to be more sensitive than the radar and able to detect it prior to being detected, and vice versa. Showing a couple graphs and saying "see, the LPI radar can't be detected" and thinking that's the end of it - there is this thing called progress and change, it happens constantly with every facet of offensive and defensive sensors and weapons. There are PILES of sources out there stating so - again, I didn't write them, I don't understand the very technical parts of it, but I can read the conclusions, and again, RELYING on LPI to remain low probability is much the same as relying on all the F35 stealth/sensors to work, and that no future tech will compromise them. Very dangerous position to put your eggs all into that basket, and hope nobody figures it out, since all the tech is constantly stolen by espionage right now. That's my primary concern with the F35, that it's ability to fight with kinematics/maneuverability has been dealt away in order to have extremely good sensors/fusion and L/O characteristics. What happens when the enemy has solved the tech side of the problems they will have fighting the F35, even partially? That COULD happen faster than the F35 takes to be developed to its "full" potential, since it's become a fix/complete it as you go deal now. Then what?
LPI is strongly affected by the RCS of the target being hit with the radar signals, so LO aircraft like the F35 will have an advantage when using radar to detect non L/O aircraft, but what about vs fighters that do have LO, like the..oh I don't know 4 stealth fighter types the Chinese are currently building, or the PakFA the Russians and Indians are likely to have in some sort of numbers? There is a lot more to it than just some magic button that makes your radar non detectable.
There is a ton out there regarding LPI and AESA for public consumption, and from all I've read assuming that LPI is going to work in the future as it MAY work right now is a pretty risky proposition.
This is one of the reasons why I like the F-22 more. BUT it is also one of the reasons we need to upgrade to the F-35. As you say, things are always changing and we cant just sit on our asses. Whatever we do, our current stuff isnt going to cut it much longer.
There are 3 major caveats to tech race argument I think.
The first has to do with stealth. Radar itself is not going to easily overcome this hurdle. Much of this has to do with physical limitations that cannot ever be overcome through simple software or function changes. With high frequency radars the limit is with power and aperture size. Low Frequency radars will be able to detect these planes but will never be able to track them for weapons use purposes due to TR module spacing requirements among other things. IR sensors are currently very short ranged except in the most ideal conditions. And more importantly, unless some kind of paradigm shift occurs, they will remain more short ranged than radar.
The second caveat is that other upgrades to the F-35 can also occur to keep the plane up to snuff. Just like any other air force plane. Say for example a Su-35 Radar might detect a F-35 at 10-15nm head on now, but then they make a better radar and that goes up to 30. A simple counter to that is that America makes a even longer ranged AMRAAM that pushes out the engagement ranges and makes it needless to ever get that close etc.
Lastly there is the upgrade vs available issue. Just because a tech can be fielded wont mean it will be. And if it is fielded, it might not be fielded in significant numbers. Both the Russian and by extension Chinese track records are as such. Much of the innovation done in Russian aviation either never left the prototype stage or was never produced in large numbers.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 20, 2016, 01:55:48 PM
Quote
WVR missile combat post merge is more about radius than it is about rate. This means that the emphasis is on a one circle fight, and therefore nose pointing ability. The F-35 has already demonstrated at least 50 degrees of AoA. If were are ignoring LOAL capabilities, all I need to do in a modern WVR fight is twist my nose around really fast with a very small radius so that I can get facing well enough to lob a AIM-9X. This is one of the reasons the F-18 hornet, which has the worst P/W and sustained turn of any still in service US fighter, can still be good at WVR when missile are involved. The F-18 has excellent high AoA and instantaneous turn, which means it can crank around for a missile shot. If you get off a missile, it is likely given modern IR AAM's that you have already won. The F-35 is looking to shape up alot like a F-18 class plane with much better acceleration due to a favorable thrust to drag ratio when loaded with weapons. It cannot be emphasized enough that the F-35 will be clean w/weapons vs opponents who have tons of stores drag. When we take all the BVR stuff into account and that complications that creates for WVR to even happen at all, and that modern BVR will be stupidly lethal, the F-35 has plenty of capability to hold its own in most situations like that.
Say that all is 100% accurate - how do you figure the F35 when it's doing this 50 degree AOA stuff and rolled 70 to 90 degrees from the ground/gravity, and piling on the G, is going to drop Aim9x from its internal bay in LOAL mode, the only mode there will BE for the Aim9x when it's carried internally right now. The videos out there of the Aim120 falling from the door panel station - that missile drops an awful long way before actually igniting - it has to right, as it has to clear the bay, and so will the Aim9x. So, in these super duper high AOA shots you're describing, how exactly is the Aim9x going to separate when the F35 is rolled wings perpendicular to the ground in most cases, or at least certainly FAR from level, and then add in the LOAL that has to happen prior to it even being on its way to the target?
You're making things seem simple and problem free, when they are far from it at the moment, with this specific topic.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 20, 2016, 02:24:55 PM
Say that all is 100% accurate - how do you figure the F35 when it's doing this 50 degree AOA stuff and rolled 70 to 90 degrees from the ground/gravity, and piling on the G, is going to drop Aim9x from its internal bay in LOAL mode, the only mode there will BE for the Aim9x when it's carried internally right now. The videos out there of the Aim120 falling from the door panel station - that missile drops an awful long way before actually igniting - it has to right, as it has to clear the bay, and so will the Aim9x. So, in these super duper high AOA shots you're describing, how exactly is the Aim9x going to separate when the F35 is rolled wings perpendicular to the ground in most cases, or at least certainly FAR from level, and then add in the LOAL that has to happen prior to it even being on its way to the target?
You're making things seem simple and problem free, when they are far from it at the moment, with this specific topic.
If the fight is truly visual, then we are so far inside the kinematic range of that missile that some extra drop from the missile is not going to somehow make a near-undefeatable missile suddenly a turkey. Especially if were not using the 360 degree LOAL ability, but instead say a 90 degree or 120 degree shot, which is still far beyond what is currently available to Flankers.
Plus, that drop isn't going to do all that much to the kinematics. It isnt even all that big...
compared to raptor...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 03:01:06 PM
Gman, the more G you're pulling the faster the missile will drop away from the aircraft. AS long as the aircraft is pulling more than 1G the weapon will separate even if the aircraft is inverted. Negative Gs however will prevent weapons launch unless they're fired from a rail on the bay doors (the British are developing this for the F-35).
That's nothing really new Shift8, everyone here has seen that video posted on this site and others many times over, as well as all the other Aim9x shoot exs. The Soviets had off boresight AA11/R73 with HMS back in the 80s, the Aim9x only caught up to that missile after decades of the Aim9m being behind the Russian Archer. Also, merging isn't always a duel, it's not like it'll be always or even often be 1 fighter on 1, and both are going to always see one another and get shots off that hit. Fighting in the real world is never as simple as that from what I've read and been told about it in the air, and EVERY fighter pilot I've ever talked to or read about when it comes to fighting in the air has said it's frequently, in fact most often, the guy you didn't even SEE that gets you. IE being wrapped up in a fight with one opponent, it's the 3rd man in that picks you off, and if you don't see him, you can't defend OR kill him, HOBS/HMS or otherwise. The merge isn't a dead thing, it's just more dangerous. Ask your F16 triplets (snicker) if they've stopped training for WVR or merges because they now have the Aim9x, and the enemy having advanced AA11 models have made that a crap shoot, so why bother...And as Eagl pointed out there is the ROE issue. With this administration there is likely this little thing called the rules of engagement. If they were made so strict for ground forces in recent years, imagine what the protocol would be for aerial engagements. BVR allowed without positive visual ID right now? I somehow doubt it.
And, there are just as many sources saying the "L" in "LPI" may not remain all that "low" in the not very distant future.
You can apply that statement to ECM and RWR technologies as well. It's not like AESA/LPI radars have progressed, yet the ECM/RWR end of things is just stuck in 1999 forever. I somehow doubt with the Chinese and Russian fighters coming along having stolen tech regarding creating AESA/LPI radars from the US, and made developments of their own to boot, that the USAF/USN is just standing still on creating systems to detect "Low" probability of intercept radars. Much like the armor/warhead arms race, the radar/ESM race has to be continuing, the ESM trying to be built to be more sensitive than the radar and able to detect it prior to being detected, and vice versa. Showing a couple graphs and saying "see, the LPI radar can't be detected" and thinking that's the end of it - there is this thing called progress and change, it happens constantly with every facet of offensive and defensive sensors and weapons. There are PILES of sources out there stating so - again, I didn't write them, I don't understand the very technical parts of it, but I can read the conclusions, and again, RELYING on LPI to remain low probability is much the same as relying on all the F35 stealth/sensors to work, and that no future tech will compromise them. Very dangerous position to put your eggs all into that basket, and hope nobody figures it out, since all the tech is constantly stolen by espionage right now. That's my primary concern with the F35, that it's ability to fight with kinematics/maneuverability has been dealt away in order to have extremely good sensors/fusion and L/O characteristics. What happens when the enemy has solved the tech side of the problems they will have fighting the F35, even partially? That COULD happen faster than the F35 takes to be developed to its "full" potential, since it's become a fix/complete it as you go deal now. Then what?
LPI is strongly affected by the RCS of the target being hit with the radar signals, so LO aircraft like the F35 will have an advantage when using radar to detect non L/O aircraft, but what about vs fighters that do have LO, like the..oh I don't know 4 stealth fighter types the Chinese are currently building, or the PakFA the Russians and Indians are likely to have in some sort of numbers? There is a lot more to it than just some magic button that makes your radar non detectable.
There is a ton out there regarding LPI and AESA for public consumption, and from all I've read assuming that LPI is going to work in the future as it MAY work right now is a pretty risky proposition.
Im well aware the soviets had HOBS in the 1980s. It was also considerably less lethal, initially being only 45degree's and it still has not focal plane array so it can be flared.
Who said anything about duels? Im not sure how you got that impression. But adding more aircraft just makes the situation worse. In fact, not being able to track all the moving parts once visual is part of my argument. There are going to be alot of people flinging IR missiles that are nearly impossible to beat even if you DID see it coming. Also the USAF has a little thing called acceptable merge criteria. If those criteria are not met, your not supposed to stick around. The fact that you cannot kill what you cannot see is sort of the whole point.....
I hope that reference to my sources was a snicker about the concept of them not training BFM, and not a highly immature reference to my sources supposedly not existing.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on April 20, 2016, 03:31:38 PM
You're going to say "highly immature" when you posted an entire long sentence of laugh out loud acronyms when responding to Eagl? Interesting.
So far as your F16 triplets - If you can't even say what units they were attached to, or some sort of information regarding them, I think the wide swath of members here based on past experiences aren't going to give you much cred for anything you say referencing them, especially the predictable manner your "explanation" evaded doing so. Your opinions, info - fine, but if your going to try and strengthen your opinions and position with "stuff" you've heard from mystery men - well, this forum has had long experience with similar fiascos, involving scorpion bites and secret CIA missions, which, as luck would have it, were all performed in the F16 as well.
Gscholz, is there no issues then with firing LOAL missiles then from internal bays while maneuvering? Why are the AIm9s NEVER carried in the center bays of the F22 and given single unit only pop out doors, now that the Aim9x is capable of LOAL? Could they be in the F22? Any idea on the firing parameters for the Aim120 with the F22 bays, in terms of G, roll angle, etc? I've read that due to separation issues with the F22/Aim120 that there is a fairly tight set of parameters for launching those things, I assumed there would be similar ones with the F35, but I'm not trying to borrow trouble for it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 20, 2016, 03:46:02 PM
You're going to say "highly immature" when you posted an entire long sentence of laugh out loud acronyms when responding to Eagl? Interesting.
So far as your F16 triplets - If you can't even say what units they were attached to, or some sort of information regarding them, I think the wide swath of members here based on past experiences aren't going to give you much cred for anything you say referencing them, especially the predictable manner your "explanation" evaded doing so. Your opinions, info - fine, but if your going to try and strengthen your opinions and position with "stuff" you've heard from mystery men - well, this forum has had long experience with similar fiascos, involving scorpion bites and secret CIA missions, which, as luck would have it, were all performed in the F16 as well.
I found his argument genuinely hilarious. He used position as a end all beat all argument. Not only is this a well known logical fallacy, but is readily ridiculous when you consider there is plenty of pilot remarks out there to the opposite effect. I responded to a patronizing argument with a patronizing response. Tit-For-Tat.
Second, your argument about my triplets is nonsense. I could just make up units etc. I could easily post a picture you like you did, which proves nothing. Yet Im not calling you a liar am I? And even if I could somehow prove I indeed did know these people, I dont have text records of our conversations: so I cant very well prove I ever asked them such things can I? And like I said, which you ignored, the purpose of pointing out I had spoken with other pilots was to make a point that Eagle is not the only fighter pilot with a opinion. IIRC, I haven't yet attributed anything specific to those pilots. And even if I had, much of it is not, or can be found elsewhere.
So how you cut the toejam and stop insinuating I am somehow being disingenuous.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 20, 2016, 05:19:44 PM
' The never ending software issues are the result of concurrency and unparalleled scrutiny. You will find that the previous generation of planes had plenty of equally silly issues. Concurrency is the other big factor.
As for two F-35's going toe to toe with say, Su-35's.....the F-35 will walk away with the curb stomp. No AWACS is needed. If you want to compare Pak-Fa to a F-35, that is a much more even contest. But the PakFa is a F-22 "ish" plane. That comparison would be silly.
If you are in a non-stealth plane and go up against a stealth plane in even numbers: you will lose unless you are fighting planes driven by trained monkeys. Due to the difference in RCS, they will see you first. This means that they can position themselves to further reduce your other capabilities, and make detection more or less impossible until it is too late. The first warning you will get is a AMRAAM is the face. AWACS and data sharing just makes this a even more forgone conclusion.
F-117 was stealthy and it still got shot down.
If I understand correctly, the F-35 has to slow down to fire missiles, it has to open a bay to shoot its missiles (which is how the Yugoslavians took down the 117) if it loses its AWACS then it has to actively use its radar. Sounds like stealth goes out the window fairly quickly.
Not to mention in 2011 the Chinese hacked Lockheed (thanks to RSA) and stole a whole lot of info on the F35.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: morfiend on April 20, 2016, 05:56:40 PM
F35 is obsolete before it's deployed!
I have one word to end this.........DRONES.....
I figure I have been training future fighter pilots for about 10 years now!
In Canada we are hardening our igloos against all this nonsense..... Soon our PM will be issuing joysticks and plans to put a drone in every back yard,at the price of 1 F35 we could equip every man woman and child in the country with their own self-defense DRONE!.... :devil
:salute
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 06:25:25 PM
If I understand correctly, the F-35 has to slow down to fire missiles, it has to open a bay to shoot its missiles (which is how the Yugoslavians took down the 117) if it loses its AWACS then it has to actively use its radar. Sounds like stealth goes out the window fairly quickly.
Not to mention in 2011 the Chinese hacked Lockheed (thanks to RSA) and stole a whole lot of info on the F35.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
It is true that the F-117 shot down by the Serbs was spotted on radar when it opened its bomb bay doors, but they were only open for a few seconds. However, this allowed the Serbs to visually track the F-117 with a modified SA-3 SAM system which uses radio command guided missiles. Several missiles were fired and one detonated close enough to fatally damage the F-117.
The shoot down was as much a failure of USAF planning as it was the credit of the Serb SAM battery commander. Zoltán and his missile crews guessed the flight paths of earlier F-117s from occasional visual and radar spotting and judging from this information and what target had just been bombed, Zoltán and his missile battery determined the probable flight path of F-117.
That's the only F-117 lost to enemy action. 9 years earlier the same aircraft and many like it flew with complete impunity over Iraq and a much better and denser air defense network. F-117s flew more than 1300 sorties and destroyed more than 1600 high value targets. 40% of the total of strategic targets destroyed in the Gulf War... by the small force of 36 F-117s.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 06:26:39 PM
Allegedly this F-117 had also used exactly the same entry route time and time again. Like fishing in a drainpipe. :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on April 20, 2016, 07:03:12 PM
Quote
Even nations that cannot in reality afford to make stealth jets are attempting to do so
But not replace interceptors, close air support and strike with one air frame. They (Russians and Chinese) are not seeking to do that. Not so far anyways.
...You guys seem well impressed with short range missiles like ASRAAM. That's fine...but you can take an ASRAAM and screw it onto an F-5E. The ASRAAM does not make the F-35 a great fighter.
F-35s achilles heel is the design criteria that forced a VSTOL-Stealth design when they should have made a dedicated Stealth fighter-bomber and kept the F-22 for air superiority. It would have cost less and it would not have been required to replace everything from Mach 2+ F-15s and F-18s to low and slow (and cheaper) A-10s. The "one plane can do it all" was a BAD idea from a cost and practical perspective.
...The one-off F-117 shoot down does not impress me either I will say. Does not prove that stealth isn't valuable.
Drones? they look great until you robot air force gets hosed when the data link is destroyed or disrupted. Drones are a gimmick. You can put a man in the cockpit of a low cost attack plane instead and buy a lot of them. F*** drones.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 20, 2016, 07:27:48 PM
...The one-off F-117 shoot down does not impress me either I will say. Does not prove that stealth isn't valuable.
Stealth is valuable. But you have to take in reference to what else is going on, and if you rely on it entirely you do so at your peril.
Right through this thread you see the phrase "but the F-35 is stealthy you won't see it". Yet it is highly likely the Chinese have all the information they need to know the F35 inside out. Look at the rumoured Donald Cook Aegis shutdown in the Black Sea.. who makes Aegis and got hacked by the Chinese ;)
Like I said, a house of cards.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 07:39:19 PM
The "one plane that can do it all" is the right choice from a strategic point of view. And all major wars are won or lost on the strategic level. Imagine two evenly matched countries going to war. Both countries have air forces of 100 aircraft, but their strategies are different: Country A has developed one plane that can do it all, albeit not as good in any one role as a specialized singe role aircraft. Country B has developed specialized aircraft for each role. They have 25 air superiority fighters, 25 bombers, 25 close air support planes, and 25 recce/ESM/ECM planes.
Day one: Country B's 25 air superiority fighters face off against 100 multi-role fighter/bombers in A2A config and lose... Badly. Though their specialized fighters are somewhat better pound for pound, they can't handle 4-1 odds. The rest of country B's air force is destroyed in short order having lost its fighter component.
Day two: Country A's surviving multi-role aircraft switch roles to recce and air-to-mud and operate unopposed against enemy ground forces and strategic/political targets.
Country B loses the war.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on April 20, 2016, 08:10:13 PM
The F-117 basically only had stealth going for it and still only one was shot down in its operational history after doing something even an amateur poacher knows better than to do. I don't believe the F-35 IS putting all its eggs into the stealth basket. It's a component of a broader approach and a well-thought out one.
I think it's odd the people attacking the programme hold some illusion they are free from some odious Lockheed Martin / Governmental brain washing and yet are apparently similarly brain washed in the other direction. Where does the energy or motivation come from to be so belligerent about this programme and aircraft?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on April 20, 2016, 10:56:34 PM
Well I have an alternate war.
Country A with its "one-plane-does-it-all" air force ends up affording 100 fighters. Country B designs and purchases more affordable planes and ends up with 200 assorted types. Also Country B can produce their planes more quickly than Country As high-end superfighters.
Now run the war again.
I will say this again. This Holy Grail of every piece of military gear having to be some techno marvel; especially planes and ships...is going to be ruinous at some point. Nobody it seems asked the question "is there quality in quantity?"...how about twice the number and make them good but not the absolute technological high end at staggering costs.
You see that article with the OV-10 Broncos being sortied against ISIS? Now there is an idea.
Although this is exciting news for the OV-10, it is also a reminder of just how inept the Pentagon has been when it comes to providing sustainable, effective and affordable air support over the last 15 years.
...somebody has it figured out. I'm sure the program will be axed as soon as the shooting stops. Then they can all get back to a "proper air force"...and all that. :rolleyes:
Why be critical of the F-35? because it embodies all that is wrong with modern procurement.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Toad on April 20, 2016, 11:15:09 PM
Generally Military's are pretty vocal when they dont like their equipment.
The true strengths and weaknesses of the F-35 are not going to be detailed in any public arena.
The specifics of how the plane actually performs at Red Flag or any other exercise is going to be highly classified information. No one...not the manufacturer, the services or the people who fly them are going to give the enemy that kind of advantage.
These are things, as Eagle pointed out, that are discussed in an SCIF.
I suspect you don't have access to that sort of information. Tell me I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 20, 2016, 11:17:41 PM
Country A with its "one-plane-does-it-all" air force ends up affording 100 fighters. Country B designs and purchases more affordable planes and ends up with 200 assorted types. Also Country B can produce their planes more quickly than Country As high-end superfighters.
Now run the war again.
Then it will be a walkover with the 100 6th generation F-35s slaughtering the 4.5 generation Gripens or Flankers or whatever you care to put in your 200 "affordable planes" category. And they're not that much more affordable either. You won't get 200 Gripen E for the price of 100 F-35s, and that's probably the cheapest 4.5 gen fighter available right now. Still cost the Brazilians $4.5 billion to get 36 of them. That's $125 million per plane.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 20, 2016, 11:54:16 PM
Brazil has ordered the NG, that has very little in common with the Gripen C. Dont fall into the trap of comparing the two.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on April 21, 2016, 12:13:41 AM
Quote
Then it will be a walkover with the 100 6th generation F-35s slaughtering the 4.5 generation Gripens or Flankers or whatever you care to put in your 200 "affordable planes" category
So the Lockheed brochures say, ya. But I remind you that the F-35 is NOT a dedicated air superiority fighter.
...There is also the common theme here that the F-35 is just going to be fighting other planes in some antiseptic Battle of Britain style fight. It's tasked for strike and CAS as well. Tasks that by their very nature put aircraft at high risk. Interceptors, SAMS, AAA, all that crap.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 21, 2016, 12:56:22 AM
The true strengths and weaknesses of the F-35 are not going to be detailed in any public arena.
The specifics of how the plane actually performs at Red Flag or any other exercise is going to be highly classified information. No one...not the manufacturer, the services or the people who fly them are going to give the enemy that kind of advantage.
These are things, as Eagle pointed out, that are discussed in an SCIF.
I suspect you don't have access to that sort of information. Tell me I'm wrong.
No I dont have information from SCIF.....
But the USAF doesn't have to spell out every specific problem to complain about the plane either. If it does badly at a red flag, they can say so without spelling out every technical reason why. Just like how when the F-22 goes on a rape festival at red flag they dont name out every technical reason it did so either.
My original point still stands. You cannot argue from a vacuum where everything the govt says is a lie, so that it can suit your POV.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: save on April 21, 2016, 01:09:42 AM
One thing that most people don't know, it's going to be MUCH harder to use radar at enemy territory in the future, given they are high-tech enough to degrade your radar with mobile or semi-mobile stations like the next generations of the Krasuha-series.
All comms are basically gone- radio, radar, GPS etc within a large radius from those units, drones for example, cannot rely on any input from outside, only do basic missions, if even that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 01:18:37 AM
...There is also the common theme here that the F-35 is just going to be fighting other planes in some antiseptic Battle of Britain style fight. It's tasked for strike and CAS as well. Tasks that by their very nature put aircraft at high risk. Interceptors, SAMS, AAA, all that crap.
Perhaps you need to read up on how modern air warfare is conducted. You do not run CAS or strike missions before eliminating the opposition air force. Then you go after the SAMs and AAA, then you go to CAS and general strike missions.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 21, 2016, 02:37:37 AM
Perhaps you need to read up on how modern air warfare is conducted. You do not run CAS or strike missions before eliminating the opposition air force. Then you go after the SAMs and AAA, then you go to CAS and general strike missions.
THIS: I agree totally.
Many people seem to forget the the FIRST and PRIMARY mission of any air-force is to kill other air forces. Everything else follows.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: artik on April 21, 2016, 03:35:10 AM
Perhaps you need to read up on how modern air warfare is conducted. You do not run CAS or strike missions before eliminating the opposition air force. Then you go after the SAMs and AAA, then you go to CAS and general strike missions.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Seriously - the engagement will indeed always goes by this scenario...
See if your air force has unlimited resources and can win total air superiority than it is cool... But sometimes you need to provide CAS when you don't have total or even partial air superiority and take huge risks and continue to do missions that under "normal" situation you should never be done, because guys on the ground may pay huge price if you don't...
I suggest read about IAF during Yom Kippur War - and it isn't about technology - but rather about assumptions what should be done by the book and what actually happens.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 21, 2016, 06:10:51 AM
Seriously - the engagement will indeed always goes by this scenario...
See if your air force has unlimited resources and can win total air superiority than it is cool... But sometimes you need to provide CAS when you don't have total or even partial air superiority and take huge risks and continue to do missions that under "normal" situation you should never be done, because guys on the ground may pay huge price if you don't...
I suggest read about IAF during Yom Kippur War - and it isn't about technology - but rather about assumptions what should be done by the book and what actually happens.
If you lose your Air Force it wont matter what happens on the ground. For the ground war to win you have to either completely own the skies or contest their control so greatly that they are not a major problem. Without either of those conditions there has not been as successful offensive since during or since ww2.
Historically CAS has not been all that effective compared to the other types of ground support. Air power has had a much greater role in interdiction and logistical missions, or even strategic targets. Today ground attack will start with SEAD, and progress to strategic, logistical, and interdiction type missions. ISR of course must operate before and during all of this.
Against a peer opponent with a good IADS, you wont be able to conduct CAS. It is interesting that you mention the Israelis, because it was the assumption that they would control the skies that lead to problems in the 1973. The Egyptians compensated for their inability to compete with aircraft and tanks with large numbers of SAM's and ATGM's. The SAM umbrella prevented CAS and other types of strikes from occurring because Israel wasnt oriented enough towards SEAD. They did however control the skies in a Air to Air sense. IF they had been properly equipped to tackle the SAM problem, they would have needed to control the skies so that they could actually attack the SAM's. However they were not, and they were not able to perform CAS until the Egyptians made the rather stupid mistake of advancing past the coverage of their SAM umbrella. If anything the 1973 example makes the point in favor of the F-35, not against it. It shows that if you dont have the ability to penetrate the defenses, you wont be able to support the troops. And it absolutely was about technology. It was technology that prevented the Israeli's from leveraging air power early on. And it was a lack of technology the prevented them from fixing the problem. The only time you win against a technically superior opponent is when you have something of offset that shortfall. So you either need numbers or terrain etc. OR in the case of the Egyptians, a enemy who is so dumb they fail to fully exploit the advantage they have.....
Throwing your strikers at a contested airspace is a gross waste of resources. IF cant fight and win, then you hold off until you can. You do the ground troops no favors by sacrificing your strikers on suicide missions. You are just wasting resources.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 21, 2016, 08:50:38 AM
F-35 is still far from being capable of doing SEAD missions and cannot fly with the agm-88 internally. So unless only using jdam it will loose its stealth abilities during SEAD missions.
Right. Exactly. What you have is what you have been able to glean from the Internet. You know, the place where every government posts the true capabilities of their military equipment.
I suspect even your 3 F-16 gurus have never been in anything other than a generic briefing on the F-35. I doubt they've been in an SCIF while learning about it which puts them not far above the Internet as a source. Maybe they've talked to a few F-35 drivers who are not going to spill TS info to their old UPT buddy but instead will talk generically about the aircraft.
Quote
My original point still stands. You cannot argue from a vacuum where everything the govt says is a lie, so that it can suit your POV.
Here's what stands: the things you "know" about the F-35 are the things the government has told you. I suspect you realize this.
They tell you what they want known. That doesn't necessarily mean it's all a lie. It means you only know what they allow you to know.
From that, you extrapolate that you actually know the true capabilities and failings of the aircraft.
Yeah. Sure.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Toad on April 21, 2016, 09:45:54 AM
Seriously - the engagement will indeed always goes by this scenario...
See if your air force has unlimited resources and can win total air superiority than it is cool... But sometimes you need to provide CAS when you don't have total or even partial air superiority and take huge risks and continue to do missions that under "normal" situation you should never be done, because guys on the ground may pay huge price if you don't...
Exactly, Artik.
Apparently, there are some that think every future war will like the two Gulf wars where a very, very weak (non-existent?) enemy air force allows the aggressor air force a month to work targets unopposed before the ground war begins.
It seems that no one discusses a war where the side with the F-35 is under a sudden, massive, simultaneous air and ground assault.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 21, 2016, 09:48:46 AM
If the goal is to win against opponents like Iraq or Serbia I recommend to scrap F-35, there is no need for such plane then, the teen fighters will do the job just as good.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 02:28:58 PM
Shift8 is absolutely right about Yom Kippur. No war since WWII has been won without having at least air superiority, typically total air dominance. As long as the other side has an effective air force you cannot win a war. The Israeli state itself owes its very existence to a handful of guys in their hodgepodge mongrel 109s. A handful of guys in junk airplanes stopped the Arab armies just by contesting Egyptian air power over Israel. Just by existing. Just as the RAF had done in 1940.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: artik on April 21, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
Neither you @GScholz nor @Shift8 got my point.
But it is probably due to controversy of the topic, there were many reasons why IAF failed to handle the SAMs threat and achieve full air superiority. The standard explanation is that it wasn't properly prepared in terms of operational intelligence and didn't had technological means to handle the threat properly.
However originally planned tactics wasn't fully executed back there.
Nobody knows what would happen _if_ IAF was operating according to original plans when it was first had to deal with SAMs and than with all the rest. IAF was thrown to close the gaps in the defense instead of performing "planned" tasks by the doctrine of destroying SAM threat during the first days the rest is history.
In fact several hours before the was broken the fully armed Phantoms and Skyhaws were ready to take the first bites of the enemy but never took off for reasons unrelated to IAF or doctrine.
Would original anti-SAM missions execution as planned from the beginning would change the situation maybe yes and maybe not - nobody knows, but the reality is that at war it isn't always possible to play by the doctrine.
So talking about performing CAS only when the superiority achieved is talking out of the history or reality context.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 03:27:59 PM
Don't you see how the fact that Syria and Egypt failed to achieve air superiority over the battlefield led to their armies failing in their invasions? Israel achieved local air superiority over the battlefield allowing air to mud operations against the Arab armies. The IAF also attacked Egyptian and Syiran air fields. Some of the most famous air battles of that war was the IAF and Arab air forces trying to knock each other out of the war. Like the battle of Ofira and the battle of Mansoura. But neither managed to do so and thus there was a stalemate.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 03:51:19 PM
Right. Exactly. What you have is what you have been able to glean from the Internet. You know, the place where every government posts the true capabilities of their military equipment.
I suspect even your 3 F-16 gurus have never been in anything other than a generic briefing on the F-35. I doubt they've been in an SCIF while learning about it which puts them not far above the Internet as a source. Maybe they've talked to a few F-35 drivers who are not going to spill TS info to their old UPT buddy but instead will talk generically about the aircraft.
Here's what stands: the things you "know" about the F-35 are the things the government has told you. I suspect you realize this.
They tell you what they want known. That doesn't necessarily mean it's all a lie. It means you only know what they allow you to know.
From that, you extrapolate that you actually know the true capabilities and failings of the aircraft.
Yeah. Sure.
Good, I finally got you to admit that everything the USAF says is not a lie.
Second, no all my sources are not from the government, and some of the government ones where written before the F-35 was big deal. Alot of it has to do with general air combat etc. 90% of what has been discusses here has not be specific F-35 performance but missile and stealth conversation. There is very little technical data about the F-35 aside from general numbers. So your point is moot since at no point in this conversation has anyone been flinging around any claim of having precise details on the planes performance. The only known characteristics of the plane are some known data points on the aircraft's thrust, weight, wing loading, AoA clearance, and simple stuff like that. Alot of inferences can be made about the jet by combining that general info with general scientific knowledge. Unless you are going to accuse them of lying about something like the top speed of the plane. I have books that were published in the 1960's and 1970s that give other aircraft's top speed when they were new, and it miraculously still has the same top speed today.
And lastly, you are awfully negative about the planes future for someone who ALSO doesn't have the data you claim the rest of us don't. It is completely rational to form an opinion based on the information that is available: much of which is known for a fact. It is much better than your nonsensical "since I cant be certain, it must suck. Also the government are just a bunch of liars" conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 21, 2016, 04:06:40 PM
If the goal is to win against opponents like Iraq or Serbia I recommend to scrap F-35, there is no need for such plane then, the teen fighters will do the job just as good.
For one, who said that?
Second, yes you do. IAD's are proliferating since they are a much cheaper option for nations that cannot afford huge fleets of Su-30s
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 21, 2016, 04:22:44 PM
Apparently, there are some that think every future war will like the two Gulf wars where a very, very weak (non-existent?) enemy air force allows the aggressor air force a month to work targets unopposed before the ground war begins.
It seems that no one discusses a war where the side with the F-35 is under a sudden, massive, simultaneous air and ground assault.
Yeah....I dont recall anyone claiming all future fights will have the same strategic situation as desert storm.
And second, how exactly do you imagine this Peal Harbor doomsday scenario happening? Particularly the ground assault. Was this F-35 base placed on the front line for some retarded reason? Fact is, NO airplane does well if it finds itself under some kind of sudden surprise attack with its pants down. Just about everything gets owned when it is caught with its pants down. Last time I checked, we cannot make a surprise-proof piece of military gear.
In summary, this would be a problem at the strategic level. A problem that is no aircraft's fault, or responsibility to fix.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 21, 2016, 04:36:36 PM
In order to discuss the capabilities of the F-35 the scenario should be something like a full scale conflict with China, facing J-20 and J-31 along with S-400 etc. Its an unlikely scenario but for the sake of the debate it is more interesting.
(But since we don't know the capabilities of any of the planes we are unlikely to get anywere.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 04:49:20 PM
No. To discuss the capabilities of the F-35 we need to compare it to the other options available to us. It is clearly the best multi-role fighter available and the only 6th gen aircraft in production anywhere. As for cost you may get three Gripen Es for the price of two F-35s. There's no doubt in my mind what aircraft I would rather have, both as a pilot and as a general. And guess what... the pilots who have first hand knowledge of the F-35 and the generals of several air forces seems to agree with me. If I were a betting man I'd say the percentages are in my favor in this debate.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on April 21, 2016, 04:54:55 PM
If Pierre Sprey (co-designer of the F-16) says the F-35 is garbage, that is good enough for me.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 21, 2016, 04:56:06 PM
No. To discuss the capabilities of the F-35 we need to compare it to the other options available to us. It is clearly the best multi-role fighter available and the only 6th gen aircraft in production anywhere. As for cost you may get three Gripen Es for the price of two F-35s. There's no doubt in my mind what aircraft I would rather have, both as a pilot and as a general. And guess what... the pilots who has first hand knowledge of the F-35 and the generals of several air forces seems to agree with me. If I were a betting man I'd say the percentages are in my favor in this debate.
Not really. your opinion is not worth anything more than anyone else's. But im not going to debate whether the F-35 or the Gripen is the Best for Norway because none of us have enough information to be able to decide that. Norway have made the decision to buy F-35 and that's fine for me.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 05:02:25 PM
My opinion is based on the fact that the professional air force officers of ten countries, who are way more knowledgeable than anyone here, have chosen The F-35 over all the other options available to them. And every single pilot from those air forces who have flown the plane have nothing but praise for it. You see... Unlike the naysayers here, I'm not a total conspiracy nutcase.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 21, 2016, 05:04:40 PM
My opinion is based on the fact that the professional air force officers of ten countries, who are way more knowledgeable than anyone here, have chosen The F-35 over all the other options available to them. And every single pilot from those air forces who have flown the plane have nothing but praise for it. You see... Unlike the naysayers here, I'm not a total conspiracy nutcase.
:joystick:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 05:07:58 PM
If Pierre Sprey (co-designer of the F-16) says the F-35 is garbage, that is good enough for me.
It's just sad. Pierre Sprey has become an anachronism, unable to accept the fact that the world has changed, and keeps changing. He even resents how his own F-16 has developed into an excellent, but expensive multi-role fighter over the years.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 21, 2016, 05:59:53 PM
Maybe we should just ask the Chinese?
Quote
China obtained more than 50 terabytes of data from U.S. defense and government networks, notably the Joint Strike Fighter’s stealth radar and engine secrets, through cyber espionage, according to newly disclosed National Security Agency documents. A NSA briefing slide labeled “Top Secret” and headlined “Chinese Exfiltrate Sensitive Military Data,” states that the Chinese have stolen a massive amount of data from U.S. government and private contractors.
You keep ignoring it (GS and shift8) but all your talk of the F-35 systems and stealth goes out the window. The chinese know the system inside out, they've probably shared the info with the russians already. My guess is they know how to detect it on radar, and they have worked on ways to shut down or jam its data links.
It's like one of those B grade movies where the bad guys flick a switch and shut down the good guys weapons systems.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 06:05:01 PM
Yes because the F-35 will fly around with open wifi... Some of these arguments are beyond ludicrous.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 21, 2016, 06:15:19 PM
Yes because the F-35 will fly around with open wifi... Some of these arguments are beyond ludicrous.
Way to oversimplify things there. You are showing your true colours when you wave away the impact of china having the plans to the F35 as not being a bad thing.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 06:32:03 PM
Western intelligence got to completely pick apart a MiG-25. Didn't make it any less of an awesome interceptor. It didn't help Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher when he ate an R-40 launched by an Iraqi MiG-25 many years later.
Keep watching those B-movies.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 21, 2016, 06:52:18 PM
Western intelligence got to completely pick apart a MiG-25. Didn't make it any less of an awesome interceptor. It didn't help Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher when he ate an R-40 launched by an Iraqi MiG-25 many years later.
Keep watching those B-movies.
Was the Mig-25 based on top secret stealth technology and heavily reliant on digital data links?
I will keep watching those B movies, they spin better a better story than you do ;)
Meanwhile on the Donald Cook...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 07:04:40 PM
The digital data links are no secret. It's technology we've been using for at least 20 years. The F-35 will use tested and true existing technology to communicate with the rest of NATO, not some new vulnerable thingy that some b-grade movie hero/villain can hack with a macbook. The Chinese or any other potential adversary will no more be able to hack or jam the F-35 than they are able to hack or jam any combat aircraft currently in NATO service.
If the Chinese truly have acquired a lot of classified info on the F-35 it is unfortunate. Not because it will make the F-35 any less of a fighting machine, but because it might help the Chinese to develop similar capabilities faster.
Now please stop this ridiculous line of argumentation.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 21, 2016, 07:41:54 PM
Pray tell what do you base these claims on? Are you a cybersecurity/communications expert?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 07:57:50 PM
We've been using encrypted data links for decades. Knowing how it works doesn't change the fact that without the encryption key it would take a super commuter until the heat death of the universe to decrypt the data.
Data links currently in NATO use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Data_Link
In this context Link 16 is the most relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16
Even Jeff Goldblum can't hack these data links...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 21, 2016, 08:06:38 PM
If Pierre Sprey (co-designer of the F-16) says the F-35 is garbage, that is good enough for me.
I was wondering when this would be brought up.
Pierre Sprey is a complete and utter moron. He had little to do with the F-16s actual design, and he was considered a somewhat immature and annoying person by people who worked with him. Look it up.
And if that doesnt mean anything to you, just watch Sprey's own videos.
-he thinks the F-15 was a turkey. -he thinks the F-22 was a turkey. -he thinks the later model F-16's with radar and BVR abilities ruined his precious F-16.
In other words, to Sprey, anything that isnt a F-16A B-15 is a turkey. I think that just about wraps up his opinion nicely.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 21, 2016, 08:10:46 PM
Pray tell what do you base these claims on? Are you a cybersecurity/communications expert?
He does not need to be. This is information that most people who are serious about researching this sort of thing or who are professionals in the industry take for granted because it is a known quantity.
The chinese are not the cylons, and this is not battlestar galactica.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 21, 2016, 08:57:21 PM
He does not need to be. This is information that most people who are serious about researching this sort of thing or who are professionals in the industry take for granted because it is a known quantity.
The chinese are not the cylons, and this is not battlestar galactica.
But you both have no clue what you're talking about. I work in IT security and deal with encryption protocols and methodology all the time. Taking this sort of thing as 'granted because it is a known quantity' would get you laughed at by IT professionals. It is possibly the most ignorant thing I have heard when it comes to encryption systems.
Encryption can be broken, you don't always need a supercomputer. All you need is to study the source code for weaknesses. As encryption protocols are written by humans there are always weaknesses (see the recent Juniper issues for example, Heartbleed and numbers other encryption system weaknesses over the last 3 years).
Encryption between things (as opposed to personal devices) often uses fixed keys or fixed authentication/handshake mechanisms. If you know how that mechanism works you have another point of attack (look at the recent issues Fortinet had with their management SSH access).
Guess what the chinese have.
Look at the recent example of Apple and the FBI... look how quickly hackers were able to bypass the security system to provide access to the FBI.
And before you start on rah rah Lockhead is a government organization rah rah higher security/encryption - I would remind you that both Lockheed and RSA (whom Lockheed uses for security) got hacked.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 09:20:02 PM
How many NATO aircraft, ships and other vehicles have been hacked? None. You're comparing a highly secure military network that has very limited functionality, with civilian networks designed for much broader communication and uses. You can't hack an F-16 via the Link 16 network because there is no system in that network designed to accept commands or allow access to anything. That you work in civilian IT security is irrelevant. We're not talking about civilian IT.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: artik on April 21, 2016, 09:48:20 PM
... You're comparing a highly secure military network that has very limited functionality, with civilian networks ... That you work in civilian IT security is irrelevant. We're not talking about civilian IT.
Since I come with a background in many relevant areas including Cryptography and experience in relevant field I can say only one thing
Well. Since I have actually worked with military crypto and have experience working with people who work even more so with military crypto, all I can say is one thing
:devil
In all seriousness though, all this "expert opinion" fallacy is getting rather old.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 21, 2016, 10:06:15 PM
Wore these for the better part of three years, but what do I know...
Well. Since I have actually worked with military crypto and have experience working with people who work even more so with military crypto, all I can say is one thing
:devil
In all seriousness though, all this "expert opinion" fallacy is getting rather old.
and I've worked with military people coming into civilian IT and all I can say is...
:bhead
btw gs, google NATO system hacked... and have a good read.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 22, 2016, 01:01:44 AM
Google "conspiracy morons will believe anything" and have a good laugh. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 22, 2016, 01:39:30 AM
If Pierre Sprey (co-designer of the F-16) says the F-35 is garbage, that is good enough for me.
He was not a co-designer of anything DaveBB. Have to be very sceptical about this individual's claims. He's said some outrageously contradictory things and been deliberately unclear about his roles. Really tragically stuck in a very narrow and rigid belief system. He only gets so much attention because the media wants him to do his performing monkey act to support their unfounded ideas. I also listened at first but do some more research on him and especially the design issues he's discussing and you'll see he's a charlatan.
I'm sorry to say this but there's an awful lot of Battlestar Galactica conservatism over technology being demonstrated here. I don't know if this is some kind of cultural meta-level of paranoia about progress but even with its associated problems the advantages are game-changing and obviously going to go forward.
Just setting the actual artefact of the programme aside for a minute, the development process they've used is astoundingly well conceived and executed. A good percentage of the world's experts in this area or that have collaborated on an international level to achieve this. It's also been done economically and accountably if you make an actual like-for-like comparison. Sort of makes the peanut throwing from the gallery a bit, well, backwards to be honest. <shrug>
Just watch and see. As the software matures you'll see what the hardware can do and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 22, 2016, 05:26:45 AM
Good, I finally got you to admit that everything the USAF says is not a lie.
And now you just need to understand that everything the USAF says is not necessarily the truth. It'll be an important step. I am not hopeful.
Quote
There is very little technical data about the F-35 aside from general numbers...The only known characteristics of the plane are some known data points on the aircraft's thrust, weight, wing loading, AoA clearance, and simple stuff like that.
Exactly; what is out there can't even be 100% verified. We know what they decided to tell us. That's all.
Quote
And lastly, you are awfully negative about the planes future for someone who ALSO doesn't have the data you claim the rest of us don't. It is completely rational to form an opinion based on the information that is available: much of which is known for a fact.
Here's some rational information that is available and known for a fact. Every modern military jet aircraft that has been touted as the Swiss Army Knife of the air, the airplane that can do every mission with élan and great success.....hasn't been able to do so.
The old phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" is applicable. The F-35 will likely do one or two missions well at best; perhaps its stealth strike mission, so maybe "Jack of all trades, master of ONE" would be more applicable.
The rest of the jobs? It'll be mediocre at best when compared to an aircraft dedicated to that mission. The CAS mission springs to mind here. Example: compared to the F-22 it'll be mediocre at best as a dedicated air superiority fighter.
Many apparently think mediocre is good enough. Not all will agree with that.
It's clear in this thread that some are victims of the old "Generals always fight the last war" adage. The next full scale, all out war won't be like the two Iraq wars. Both Russia and China are evolving aircraft and anti-air defenses to try to neutralize the threat they see from US aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. To presume they will be unable to use their technology to counter these aircraft to some large or small degree is.....fantasy. Mediocre may well turn into death trap.
i think we'd all just better hope we never have to find out if the F-35 is the Wunderplane the Internet Gurus say it is.
Quote
Also the government are just a bunch of liars" conspiracy theory.
Uh....have you been paying attention to your government lately? You know, the most transparent administration in history?
Yeah...I pretty much believe my government is a bunch of liars from top to bottom. The "spin" is "in" every time they open their mouths or release a press report.
You may not believe that now but inevitably you will.
And now...as Eagl Lead has done, I think it's time to plug in the burners and exit the thread.
Y'all have some fine speculation now, y'hear?
AMF.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 22, 2016, 09:47:39 AM
And now you just need to understand that everything the USAF says is not necessarily the truth. It'll be an important step. I am not hopeful.
Exactly; what is out there can't even be 100% verified. We know what they decided to tell us. That's all.
Here's some rational information that is available and known for a fact. Every modern military jet aircraft that has been touted as the Swiss Army Knife of the air, the airplane that can do every mission with élan and great success.....hasn't been able to do so.
The old phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" is applicable. The F-35 will likely do one or two missions well at best; perhaps its stealth strike mission, so maybe "Jack of all trades, master of ONE" would be more applicable.
The rest of the jobs? It'll be mediocre at best when compared to an aircraft dedicated to that mission. The CAS mission springs to mind here. Example: compared to the F-22 it'll be mediocre at best as a dedicated air superiority fighter.
Many apparently think mediocre is good enough. Not all will agree with that.
It's clear in this thread that some are victims of the old "Generals always fight the last war" adage. The next full scale, all out war won't be like the two Iraq wars. Both Russia and China are evolving aircraft and anti-air defenses to try to neutralize the threat they see from US aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. To presume they will be unable to use their technology to counter these aircraft to some large or small degree is.....fantasy. Mediocre may well turn into death trap.
i think we'd all just better hope we never have to find out if the F-35 is the Wunderplane the Internet Gurus say it is.
Uh....have you been paying attention to your government lately? You know, the most transparent administration in history?
Yeah...I pretty much believe my government is a bunch of liars from top to bottom. The "spin" is "in" every time they open their mouths or release a press report.
You may not believe that now but inevitably you will.
And now...as Eagl Lead has done, I think it's time to plug in the burners and exit the thread.
Y'all have some fine speculation now, y'hear?
AMF.
You have a truly remarkable capacity for disregarding facts, figures, and the specific data that is available so that you can declare it all moot and substitute a bunch of loose historical generalizations that you regard as ironclad no matter what the situation.
Enjoy your fantasy land! Dont forget to coat that plane of yours in tin foil before you lite those burners! :noid
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 22, 2016, 10:27:57 AM
So are you claiming the chinese did not break into Lockheeds systems and steal any data?
That they try is a given, but I don't know if the Chinese have managed to successfully do so, or how relevant any data they may have got is. In any case it is irrelevant because hacking into a business computer system with internet access is totally different from hacking a military radio link communications system. And please don't post links to articles with civilian "expert" talking heads like yourself saying otherwise.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 22, 2016, 11:13:36 AM
I would guess that they stole a lot... (http://k14.vcmedia.vn/HX6RvqFzccccccccccccq1F56dNWGT/Image/2012/11/J31_1-da4a0.jpg)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 22, 2016, 11:33:52 AM
They don't need to steal anything to make something that looks vaguely similar. I too can make up my own stealth fighter in 3ds or Blender.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 22, 2016, 11:50:22 AM
Well... You can make a picture of a plane maybe, it's not the same as designing something that can fly.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 22, 2016, 12:31:16 PM
Designing a plane that looks somewhat like another plane is difficult how? And the J-31 doesn't really look much like a F-35. The intake area perhaps. I also looked up the alleged "hack" and it apparently took place in 2007, but not at Lockheed Martin. It was a subcontractor that allegedly got hacked, and LM has stated that classified information is protected and remains secure. I would be very surprised if LM even has sensitive data on systems connected to the internet. It would be foolish and I don't think LM are fools in any way shape or form. These guys have been in this "skunky" business since the 1940s.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on April 22, 2016, 12:55:01 PM
Yep. Pure coincident...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 22, 2016, 01:15:47 PM
You don't need to hack a company to be inspired by their designs. Just look at Soviet aircraft from the Cold War. And diverterless intakes have been around since the '90s. There are older Chinese fighters using them like the J-10B from the early 2000s.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 22, 2016, 04:05:22 PM
I do love how the Chinese like to copy our supposedly horrible planes! :D
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 22, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
That they try is a given, but I don't know if the Chinese have managed to successfully do so, or how relevant any data they may have got is.
Hold on a second, you virtually called me a conspiracy theorist and now you say you don't know?
You do realize the RSA and subsequent Lockheed hacks are public knowledge, in the public domain. Yet you make yourself out to be a massive expert on this, and then talk down to me because you think I'm a conspiracy nutjob.
Chinese hackers have allegedly stolen as much as 50 terabytes of data, including the details of the fighter’s radar systems, engine schematics, “aft deck heating contour maps,” designs to cool exhaust gases and the method the jet uses to track targets.
I've never met anyone so stubbornly in denial.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 22, 2016, 04:11:35 PM
NO WAIT! I HAVE IT FIGURED OUT!
The F-35 must be some kind of ingenious monetary ruse! We have successfully tricked the Chinese into investing into our horrible plane! The plan must be to wait till the Chinese are financially committed, then switch and build licensed copies of the Su-35 for ourselves! Amazing!
:noid
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 22, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
Hold on a second, you virtually called me a conspiracy theorist and now you say you don't know? ... Yet you make yourself out to be a massive expert on this, and then talk down to me because you think I'm a conspiracy nutjob.
I think I flat out called you and many others here conspiracy theorists, multiple times, starting on page one. No "virtual" about it. And no, I do not make myself "out to be a massive expert on this". As I've stated earlier in this thread:
I have no "opinion" of my own of the F-35. How can I? I have nothing to do with it or any reliable info... except that the pilots who fly it like it. I trust their opinions and defer to them.
I'm choosing to believe the people who actually has the knowledge to make an informed opinion on the F-35. You and others like you prefer to believe in the ludicrous theory that all these pilots and officers from 10 different air forces are all lying so they can get the dubious honor of risking their lives flying a bad war plane. That's a massive conspiracy and unless you can prove it it is just a theory. Q.E.D.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on April 22, 2016, 05:26:24 PM
History repeats itself due to the uninformed. Iraq was a repeat of Vietnam, and the F-35 is a repeat of the original F-111.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on April 22, 2016, 05:48:32 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 22, 2016, 10:41:05 PM
I think it's somewhere in between actually. It's bland I suppose. The B-model looks awesome doing its VTOL thing, but that's about it. Fortunately (or perhaps regrettably) war is not a beauty contest. Quite the opposite in fact. It's about death and destruction, and inflicting it upon the enemy in the most ugly and underhanded way possible.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: icepac on April 23, 2016, 09:55:31 AM
If the chinese were able to snare any information on design, it looks far more like they might have done so with the YF23 than any other plane.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 27, 2016, 08:53:48 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on April 28, 2016, 05:46:19 PM
I don't want to brag, but me, Shift8, and Gscholz all served in the same unit together. That's how we know so much about the F-35:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 28, 2016, 06:31:09 PM
You may claim membership in that exclusive club, but I actually know very little about the F-35. The people who do know a lot about the F-35 all speak very highly of it. That's my point.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on April 28, 2016, 08:21:54 PM
I think I flat out called you and many others here conspiracy theorists, multiple times, starting on page one. No "virtual" about it. And no, I do not make myself "out to be a massive expert on this". As I've stated earlier in this thread:
How can you call someone citing well known, well publicized facts a conspiracy theorist?
Someone who dispels such facts to put their own opinions in front of the facts IS the conspiracy theorist. YOU are the conspiracy theorist, you need to take a long long look at the mirror and judge yourself honestly.
I work in the IT industry, specializing in network security. At the time I was working as a contractor/consultant for government organizations. The RSA and subsequent Lockheed hacks were of massive impact to us.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on April 28, 2016, 08:51:23 PM
Neither "well known" or "well publicized" makes a fact. If it did then "chemtrails" is a fact. Your work in the IT industry is irrelevant, unless you work for LM that is, and you don't.
As for me being a conspiracy theorist... Exactly what conspiracy am I theorizing about?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on May 01, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
You can stick your fingers in your ears and sign lalalalalalalala all you like but it's still true:
Quote
Yesterday, at a subcommittee hearing attended by just half a dozen Senators, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer made a blunt admission: The military’s most expensive program, the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been hacked and the stolen data used by America’s adversaries. Under Secretary Frank Kendall didn’t say by whom, but the answer is almost certainly China, a cyber superpower whose People’s Liberation Army Air Force has recently rolled out some suspiciously sophisticated stealth fighter prototypes of its own. The Russians also have skilled hackers and “5th Generation” stealth jet programs, but they’re not suspected of such direct copying, at least not yet.
“I’m confident the classified material is well protected, but I’m not at all confident that our unclassified information is as well-protected,” said Kendall, the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. “It’s a major problem for us…. What it does is reduce the costs and lead time of our adversaries to doing their own designs, so it gives away a substantial advantage.”
The bad news isn’t new news: That someone had hacked F-35 subcontractor BAE Systems was first reported six years ago, and just this February Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima obtained leaked information naming the Chinese as having compromised not just the F-35 but two dozen other weapons program. Administration officials have been publicly pressuring China to rein in its hacking. But it’s still remarkable that such a senior official would so bluntly admit that US interests have been so directly harmed.
Quote
A March attack on RSA's SecurID authentication service has possibly claimed its first big victim: Lockheed Martin.
According to a source speaking to Reuters, unknown hackers have broken into Lockheed Martin's security systems by using duplicate SecurID tokens to spoof legitimate authentications into the network. These SecurID tokens are analogous to Blizzard's World of Warcraft Authenticators: Tiny little keyfobs that display an ever-changing code one must enter to log into a protected service.
Lockheed hasn't issued comment on alleged breach itself, leading only to speculation as to what data, if any, those breaching the company's network were able to acquire. But the plunder could be vast: Lockheed is the nation's largest military contractor, and it undoubtedly has treasure troves of data about existing and future weapons systems as well as information related to the various cybersecurity services the company provides.
Classified information is likely out of hackers' hands: Due to the volume of attacks that these kinds of systems on a daily basis, it's highly doubtful that Lockheed—or any security contractor—would keep top-secret information within reach, should one ever breach the remote access gates.
Quote
RSA confirms its tokens used in Lockheed hack By William Jackson Jun 07, 2011 RSA Security has confirmed that stolen data about the company’s SecurID authentication token was used in the recent attack against defense contractor Lockheed Martin. RSA has offered to replace the compromised tokens for high-risk customers.
The RSA breach, reported March 17, was the result of what the company called an “extremely sophisticated” attack. The company said that it believed the likely motive was to take data that could be used against defense contractors rather than against financial institutions or to steal personal information.
Art Coviello, executive chairman of RSA, the Security Division of EMC, wrote in a letter posted after close of business June 6 that other victims in a recent “unprecedented wave” of cyberattacks, including Epsilon, Sony, Google, PBS and Nintendo, were not related to the RSA breach.
Quote
Last week, Der Spiegel published a new tranche of documents provided to the German weekly magazine by the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden. The documents are the first public confirmation that Chinese hackers have been able to extrapolate top secret data on the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter jet. According to sources, the data breach already took place in 2007 at the prime subcontractor Lockheed Martin. A U.S. government official recently claimed that as of now, ”classified F-35 information is protected and remains secure.”
The fifth generation F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced fighter jet currently in production in the world. Experts have long argued that the design of China’s newest stealth fighter, the J-31, as well as the Chengdu J-20 fighter jet, are in parts influenced by the F-35. Bloomberg reports that the chairman of the Chinese subsidiary producing the J-31 even boasted that the Chinese plane is superior to the American product. “The J-31 will finish it off in the sky,” boasted AVIC Chairman Lin Zuomin referring to the F-35. However, most aviation experts are skeptical of this assertion.
The Snowden files outline the scope of Chinese F-35 espionage efforts, which focused on acquiring the radar design (the number and types of modules), detailed engine schematics (methods for cooling gases, leading and trailing edge treatments, and aft deck heating contour maps) among other things. The document claims that many terabytes of data specific to the F-35 joint strike fighter program were stolen.
You have no idea what you're talking about GS. Just because you worked on military comms means nothing, that is sealed gear. You have no idea what makes it tick. Being able to turn something on and off again does not qualify you in that field.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on May 01, 2016, 06:04:30 PM
I've never claimed it qualified me for anything. You're the only one here trying to pull an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. And you're failing.
And none of your quotes actually positively states that anything sensitive was hacked. Do you even read these things before you ripsnort them? Some of them actually say the opposite:
"Lockheed hasn't issued comment on alleged breach itself, leading only to speculation as to what data, if any, those breaching the company's network were able to acquire."
"Classified information is likely out of hackers' hands: Due to the volume of attacks that these kinds of systems on a daily basis, it's highly doubtful that Lockheed—or any security contractor—would keep top-secret information within reach, should one ever breach the remote access gates."
“I’m confident the classified material is well protected, but I’m not at all confident that our unclassified information is as well-protected,”
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on May 02, 2016, 04:15:05 PM
lol blogspot.com ? What blog did you pull that image from?
It's from the Wikileaks files. You having trouble keeping up?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: save on May 04, 2016, 03:37:53 AM
If you really want something really bad, you do not need to decrypt anything. a big bag of money, or recent pictures of your family life along with a colorful threat will get you most things.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on May 04, 2016, 07:22:29 AM
It's from the Wikileaks files. You having trouble keeping up?
Looks like something a 12 year old would make in photoshop. The NSA guys must be laughing their nuts off that people actually believe things like this.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on May 04, 2016, 09:18:29 AM
Line drawings.. that's fishy. CAD is done on computer. :O
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on May 04, 2016, 03:32:52 PM
Looks like something a 12 year old would make in photoshop. The NSA guys must be laughing their nuts off that people actually believe things like this.
Yeah that's why they're after Assange and Manning is locked up. Still in denial there GS ;) good on you. At least it makes it clear you will not listen to reason nor evidence.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on May 04, 2016, 04:58:36 PM
Heh, only a conspiracy nut would call anything you've posed "evidence". ;)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on May 05, 2016, 01:40:56 AM
Heh, only a conspiracy nut would call anything you've posed "evidence". ;)
You do know that the wikileaks stuff has been scoured and checked and confirmed as real. I cannot believe you are trying to write off wikileaks as non-evidence conspiracy stuff when one man rots in jail for it and another is sought by the US government for 'treason' (I always find that amusing as he is not a US citizen). I fell sorry for you gs... the level of denial you go into around the f35 is stunning.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on May 05, 2016, 01:48:36 AM
You do know that the wikileaks stuff has been scoured and checked and confirmed as real.
What "stuff" exactly, and confirmed by whom exactly? Be specific!
So far all the verifiable evidence and statements from people who actually has firsthand knowledge of the F-35 all point to it being a great aircraft (or will be when it's done). Show me some actual verifiable evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind. I'll turn on a flipping dime if the evidence supports it. But don't post more hand drawings of God knows what from some conspiracy blog site.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Puma44 on May 05, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
This dead horse is turning into hamburger.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on May 05, 2016, 03:59:22 PM
You appear far less objective than GScholz to be honest.
The wikileaks files include stuff from Snowden and Manning. Manning is in jail ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning ). Snowden is wanted by the USA for espionage ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden ) and is currently in hiding in Russia.
Julian Assange (who ran wikileaks) is currently wanted by the US and living under asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange ).
The format of the NSA Slides is quite common, if you look at any of them they look the same.
In NZ we had great interest in them as we are part of the 5 Eyes/Echelon program.
Nobody (except GS) has ever disputed the validity of the wikileaks NSA files.
Snowdens leaks in particular created a massive upheaval in the IT industry around encryption of data after it revealed what the NSA was doing across datacenters such as googles.
ALL the NSA slides bare the same format.
Denial of these slides as 'conspiracy theory' reveals someone who has no clue / is very ignorant on the subject.
I would suggest gs read up on snowden and manning more. But I doubt he will.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on May 05, 2016, 04:16:51 PM
So "scoured and checked and confirmed as real" has now become "nobody ever disputed the validity of". Right... The NSA guys are still laughing. Manning and Snowden would be charged of espionage crimes regardless of whether the intel they stole was real or a honeypot.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on May 05, 2016, 04:38:12 PM
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/facepalm.gif) Again, the event referenced in that article was not a dogfight nor a competitive test. That was an exercise to help develop the flight control software.
I don't mean to sound rude or condescending, but some of you really ought to try and think for yourselves and not swallow spoon-fed, pre-chewed parcels of propaganda from a media with an obvious agenda. If you form an almost arbitrary opinion on a whim, and then selectively pick out information to support your position, well...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: FLOOB on May 08, 2016, 05:21:02 AM
Well there's a problem with that perspective and here's the thing.. The Westland Whirlwind was a complete and shameful failure.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on May 08, 2016, 05:23:10 AM
Well there's a problem with that perspective and here's the thing.. The Westland Whirlwind was a complete and shameful failure.
Don't remember claiming it was anything uber. Complete non sequitur however. If you're trying to annoy me or offend me you're barking up the wrong tree Floob.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Serenity on May 16, 2016, 04:09:39 PM
I will say, my big complaint with the 35 has always been a systems issue, and cost/development. I'll eat any words I said about BFM, anything that can do this with such grace is pretty glorious lol. If I was the pilot of that 35, I'd HAVE to make the radio call "Deuces."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on May 16, 2016, 06:42:18 PM
:aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: save on May 31, 2016, 04:47:03 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on May 31, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
World's most expensive light attack aircraft. Can't dogfight, can't maneuver, exhibits extreme buffeting, but it can carry a couple small diameter bombs internally. It's almost as if it's a big surprise that the pilots are finding the gigantic helmets awkward to use while under high G's. I bet a lot of back and neck injuries will result from this.
History of the multi-service aircraft: The F-4 was a mediocre. Took special training for our pilots and even the Israelis to be successful with it. The F-111 multi-service aircraft was a disaster. VF-22 is a disaster.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: bozon on June 04, 2016, 02:46:06 PM
World's most expensive light attack aircraft. Can't dogfight, can't maneuver, exhibits extreme buffeting, but it can carry a couple small diameter bombs internally. It's almost as if it's a big surprise that the pilots are finding the gigantic helmets awkward to use while under high G's. I bet a lot of back and neck injuries will result from this.
History of the multi-service aircraft: The F-4 was a mediocre. Took special training for our pilots and even the Israelis to be successful with it. The F-111 multi-service aircraft was a disaster. VF-22 is a disaster.
Bad example the F-4. It was one of the most successful planes of the jet age. The IAF loved it even if it was less sexy than the Mirage III. I dont know what special training you talk about. It had an airborne radar and a WSO which were pretty new things at the time it was introduced, so yes it probably did require training of pilots who never flew a plane with a radar or had a WSO behind them.
In dogfights it compensated with brute power over nimbleness. I dont know who forgot to install the cannon in it, or forgot to train its pilots in dogfighting (maybe that is what was "special" about their training), but the IAF bought the ones with the nose cannon and blasted migs with it out of the skies. The Mirage was a better dogfighter, but in real life combat, the airborne radar proved to be priceless.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on June 06, 2016, 11:24:12 PM
I thought the F4's issue was the lack of a cannon and heavily overrated a2a missile capability? The designers decided that all future combat would be BVR (sound familiar?) and thus only highly accurate missiles would be needed (also hence the lack of good acm / tactics training). The f4 performance was good, hence tacking on a cannon didn't prove an issue, and better tactics for fighting the migs were developed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on June 07, 2016, 03:15:23 AM
The F-4 Phantom was a design for the US Navy. It was not designed for all the services. The USAF adopted it and the USMC adopted it. The F-35 is mult-role and multi-service both and was designed from the outset to be that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on June 07, 2016, 04:38:02 AM
The USAF, USN, and USMC sure was in a big hurry to replace the F-4 after the Vietnam War. It remained in service, but just because we had a lot of them. It suffered from a lot of the same flaws the F-35 does. It overly relied on electronics rather than aerodynamics. It was not maneuverable compared to the aircraft it faced in combat. The Navy developed the Fighter Weapons School to try to give its pilots a advantage over the simple yet maneuverable Migs they faced. Just as an example of how ill suited the F-4 was for dogfighting, the Navy FWS actually taught a maneuver to depart the F-4 while in a 1-circle fight. While departed, the aircraft could be induced to yaw very quickly. This enabled the pilot to slew his nose ahead of the other aircraft. Should you really have to depart an aircraft in a dogfight? Desperate times called for desperate measures. The F-4 was a big reason the USAF developed Red Flag also. The F-4 was really a mediocre aircraft. Extensive pilot training is about the only thing that made up for its deficiencies. Like I said, the U.S. was real quick to develop replacements for the F-4 after seeing its deficiencies in Vietnam.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on June 07, 2016, 05:00:28 AM
The F-4 had a tremendous weapons load, good range, it was very fast and had good rate of climb. It's radar was also more powerful than almost all its contemporaries. It's true that it was not designed for close in fighter combat but that was mitigated somewhat by better training for the aircrews in ACM. Red Flag was developed to that end. As a result of aircrew training deficiencies. It was the most important fighter the USA fielded in the 1970s and much of the 1980s. At the end of the Vietnam War it had been is service for 15 years so the fact it was being replaced is no big surprise.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on June 07, 2016, 06:00:22 AM
The F-4 was a fantastic aircraft. It's deficiencies were tied to pie-in-the-sky tactics that had no basis in the real world. This was mitigated later through training.
Frankly, the F-4 would wreck the JSF. Pole length matters. The F-35 doesn't have the load out, fuel, or speed to beat anything. It will get out-shot, out-persisted, and out-run.
Cancel it. Please.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Puma44 on June 07, 2016, 09:59:00 PM
World's most expensive light attack aircraft. Can't dogfight, can't maneuver, exhibits extreme buffeting, but it can carry a couple small diameter bombs internally. It's almost as if it's a big surprise that the pilots are finding the gigantic helmets awkward to use while under high G's. I bet a lot of back and neck injuries will result from this.
History of the multi-service aircraft: The F-4 was a mediocre. Took special training for our pilots and even the Israelis to be successful with it. The F-111 multi-service aircraft was a disaster. VF-22 is a disaster.
Do you have flight time in any of these jets?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on June 09, 2016, 05:55:23 PM
World's most expensive light attack aircraft. Can't dogfight, can't maneuver, exhibits extreme buffeting, but it can carry a couple small diameter bombs internally. It's almost as if it's a big surprise that the pilots are finding the gigantic helmets awkward to use while under high G's. I bet a lot of back and neck injuries will result from this.
History of the multi-service aircraft: The F-4 was a mediocre. Took special training for our pilots and even the Israelis to be successful with it. The F-111 multi-service aircraft was a disaster. VF-22 is a disaster.
You forgot the A-1, A-7, Douglass Skywarrior/ B-66, UH-1, Ah-1, H-60 family, and H-53 family. Oh wait, those were successful.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on June 09, 2016, 09:38:00 PM
No, but I watched an episode of "Wings" once on tv.
Hah!
- oldman
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on June 13, 2016, 04:50:20 PM
First video I've seen of the F35 cranking on some Gs at low altitude in an "air show" mode. All the other vids I've ever seen other than a few early test vids are of the US pilots treating it in a docile manner. Try to ignore the euro-mmpssh mmmpsssh techno music. F35s start flying a couple minutes in or so.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 14, 2016, 01:38:54 PM
USMC had to pull 30 F/A-18Cs out of the boneyard and refit them for flight operations because of the delays into the F-35 program.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on June 14, 2016, 04:20:18 PM
First video I've seen of the F35 cranking on some Gs at low altitude in an "air show" mode. All the other vids I've ever seen other than a few early test vids are of the US pilots treating it in a docile manner. Try to ignore the euro-mmpssh mmmpsssh techno music. F35s start flying a couple minutes in or so.
What airbase is that at? Looks oddly familiar.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: FLOOB on June 14, 2016, 04:53:38 PM
Oddly?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on June 16, 2016, 01:34:58 AM
Quote
USMC had to pull 30 F/A-18Cs out of the boneyard and refit them for flight operations because of the delays into the F-35 program.
I read that a couple days ago as well - not just the F35 delays (mostly), but also the fact that 3/4 of the USMC fighters, FORCE WIDE, are unable to fight, right this second. I just saw an interview withe one squadron CO who said of the 14 fighters he should have at full muster strength, he has 4 right now, and on the deployment he came off, only 5 flying at the end of it, and little hope to get more. His squad is part of a carrier air wing that is set to deploy again in just a few months too, and the 7 fighters down have all been cannibalized to keep the other 4 up flying. He said his pilots in the last year have gotten less than 25% of the air time they should be. This problem is spread across the USMC, USN, and USAF squads to varying degrees. The military is not in great shape, not a lot of folks are aware of this it seems. Many sources claiming this if you search right now.
Maintainers are being overworked due to shortages of people, and the USAF alone is short over 700 pilots, 20% of the total force. I guess since over 1/2 the aircraft are down for parts shortages, not having enough pilots isn't a big deal. I sure hope China doesn't pick now as a time to start pushing hard in the South Pacific, the USA is NOT ready to fight a peer nation. At all.
Quote
Of the Marine Corps' 276 F/A-18 Hornets, only 87 are currently flyable
Quote
Only 42 of the Marine Corps' 147 CH-53E Super Stallions are flyable, or about 28.5 percent of the CH-53E fleet
The bottom line is the entire American air power force is in a very precarious position, in real danger of becoming a "shambles" situation - so much has been bet on the F35, that if it doesn't perform, even better than advertised...not a good thing.
Added to which fact that the US air power budget is going to be out of money in 2021, just 5 years, if things continue the way they have been.
A lot of bad news and indicators, and very few positives out there right now. IMO, regardless if the F35 matures into a "wonder" machine or not, for the way it fits into the force structure, a sort of stealthy A7 Corsair with a whizzy helmet and "sensor fusion" - it should be dumped now, that money put into a build of about 200+ more F22s which are proven to be effective, and the rest of the $ put into shoring up the existing fleet of tactical and strategic aircraft, before it's too late.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on June 16, 2016, 05:30:45 PM
I sure hope China doesn't pick now as a time to start pushing hard in the South Pacific,
I heard the entire US education system is struggling with geographic skills as well ;)
Just FYI China is pushing hard in the South China Sea, which is nowhere near the South Pacific. In fact it's north of the equator (thats the big line around the earth...) so it is in fact closer to the North Pacific.
In the South Pacific China is just using money to buy fishing/mineral rights from poor pacific nations. No need for guns.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on June 17, 2016, 11:30:33 AM
Ok, so blending "South China sea" with "Pacific" to "South Pacific" was a misnomer. Having lived in Hong Kong for most of 1996 it's perspective I guess. Sort of like the "South" of the USA being north of the equator, yet South by perspective to the eastern seaboard states/area. The South China sea is by definition part of the Pacific. And the actual South Pacific and neutralizing the influence and defensive postures of Aus, NZ, and by extension the USA is really China's ultimate goal in the area, so the South Pacific is actually more important than the South China Sea, which is just window dressing really. Your 'no guns needed' in the South Pac is pretty funny. I'm sure if war starts China will respect the equator as an impassible barrier and just leave you alone. Sort of like Japan did...
Perhaps you should take the geography lesson, last time I checked we didn't have the US education system here in Canada.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on June 19, 2016, 06:44:14 PM
No guns needed?
Australia is one of the buyers for the JSF. They have quite a strong military. Their main concern is Indonesia, not China, Indonesia is the largest Islamic country in the world btw. NZs military is a lot smaller, we focus on quality not quantity. We could never maintain an effective combat air force so we focus on logistics capabilities so we can augment Australias capabilities.
Also of note is Fiji, one of their biggest exports is their army (used heavily by the UN).
China has significant investments in the South Pacific. They don't really need to start war. It would do them more damage. TBH the US influence in the South Pacific is very weak. Most island nations have had china throwing money at them for the last decade. NZ loves chinas trade (it comes with less hooks that trading with the US as long as we're happy to ignore the human rights thing). Australia is even going through economic hard times because mineral demand has declined from china.
You need a ladder to get out of that geography hole you're digging ;)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on June 20, 2016, 12:28:49 AM
And you're digging yourself into a logic free hole. Where else is my geography lacking? You made a similar gaff, you forget to mention that again...
Quote
China has significant investments in the South Pacific. They don't really need to start war. It would do them more damage.
So, by that rationale since China has more investments in the USA than anywhere else - period - they shouldn't really be making moves that could start one. Yet they are. Every day, between cyber warfare, Fighters doing barrel rolls around surveillance aircraft in international airspace, ramming allies of the USA's ships, directing ECM stuff at US aircraft...yep, no need for guns as your previous post, the Chinese are completely friendly due to their investments. I suppose due to Germany's investments and trade with Russia it was safe - except for that little problem in the end of June/41.
Australia has quite a strong military? Compared to China. That's pretty laughable. Should I start posting stuff from Chinese defense sites, orders of battle, etc? Australia is outnumbered in every single category by 10 to 1, and 50 to 1 in some. There are single regiments of J10, J11, and other fighters that have 2x as many aircraft as the entire Aus air force, and their navy and army? Don't be ridiculous. Indonesia while large in population has little clout on the stage with the USA, Nato, 5 eyes nations that have interests in the area, etc. China's primary focus is getting Taiwan under their control, and exerting control over all the other nations in the seas near to them, including the South Pac nations of Aus, NZ, and so forth. Yes China has a rift with Indo in the Natunas and elsewhere, but China certainly doesn't consider them the primary military threat to neutralize through both political and military means. And they aren't, what, 6 Frigates, 5 old submarines, and a handful of corvette/missile boats, and an air force with less than 40 fighters? China has nearly 200 stealth fast 8 missile carrying missile boats alone, and has piles of modern Frigs, Destroyers, Subs, and is building more at a rate far outpacing anyone else, including the USA. Fly, meet swatter.
Also, if the USA has little influence in the area, why did it pivot its entire military posture there, and why are, oh, I don't know, 10 or so countries screaming for US help and intervention with China, and asking for weapon sales, support, and all the rest?
No need to cheerlead your NZ armed forces, 2 guys from the NZ SAS worked for the same company as I doing PSD work, and were very switched on individuals. NZ, like Canada and Australia, is very similar regarding their military punching above its weight.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: icepac on June 23, 2016, 05:14:58 PM
The problem with american air power goes far deeper than a single plane.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on June 24, 2016, 05:44:33 PM
First video I've seen of the F35 cranking on some Gs at low altitude in an "air show" mode. All the other vids I've ever seen other than a few early test vids are of the US pilots treating it in a docile manner. Try to ignore the euro-mmpssh mmmpsssh techno music. F35s start flying a couple minutes in or so.
Looking good :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on June 24, 2016, 09:18:35 PM
I thought so too Gscholz, for as much as you can tell from a few turns in one vid.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on June 25, 2016, 11:18:24 AM
Another video from the F-35 debut at Luchtmachtdagen airshow in the Netherlands. Some nice closeups, and a view of the F-35s going transonic at low level. Also no techno music.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on June 25, 2016, 02:51:27 PM
Transonic flight at almost sea level in a high-G turn without afterburner. That jet engine has some serious thrust!
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on June 25, 2016, 11:41:20 PM
Interesting topic:
Not pointing the finger solely at the USAF but also their political masters and those on the industrial end of things:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: jollyFE on June 29, 2016, 02:36:24 PM
This thing flies almost every day where I work, and I have talked to many many pilots both contractor and mil and they said on several different occasions that once the "minor problems" get straightened out this thing will be a monster. Any new acft has problems, the newer and higher the tech the more problems. The plane I work with has been in development since 98 and we still see new problems.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on June 29, 2016, 06:31:58 PM
This thing flies almost every day where I work, and I have talked to many many pilots both contractor and mil and they said on several different occasions that once the "minor problems" get straightened out this thing will be a monster. Any new acft has problems, the newer and higher the tech the more problems. The plane I work with has been in development since 98 and we still see new problems.
:aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on June 29, 2016, 06:36:50 PM
RAF F-35Bs depart from Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort for their long Atlantic crossing to Farnborough, England... I'm looking forward to watching their display there.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 04, 2016, 12:32:22 PM
Apparently, what the F35 lacks is a proper adversary within our own armed forces.
Couldn't have said it better.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 04:08:43 AM
Image courtesy of USAF Air Combat Command via Twitter (with one slight addition).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClgK_BjWAAAVUsJ.jpg)
Quote: --
The Joint Operational Requirement Document for the Joint Strike Fighter / F-35 is for 3 sorties per day (4 for USMC) and in the mid-90 percent mission capability rates.
June 6-17.
11 Days.
88 sorties
7 jets.
OK.
7 jets. 3 sorties per day. 21 sorties per day. 11 Days. 231 sorties total. That is 2.6 more sorties than the 88.
5 jets, 2 spares. Organisational days either end for 9 days of flying. 15 sorties per day. 135 sorties total. 1.5 more sorties than the 88.
16 GBU-12. Wow. That is 3 or 4 F-15E sorties depending how the jet is configured.
-- End quote.
Math is undefeated.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 04:58:13 AM
So conspiracy theorist is now 'expressing fact and/or opinion different from my own'..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 06:23:45 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 06:46:03 AM
To be fair some of the sorties could have been A-2-A.
I remember an exercise were they claimed that F-22 had a kill-to-death ratio of 98:1 against legacy fighters. Problem was that the 'blue' legacy fighters also had a similar k/d ratio against the reds so it was really only about the design of the exercise and nothing about the capability of the plane.
But deploying 7 planes for 1˝ week and fly 88 sorties isn't that impressive, it says very little about what capability the plane has and at this point I doubt that they would design an exercise were the F-35 meets the best US can offer in terms of air defence. The F-35 still lacks too many systems to survive in such environment.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 06:56:51 AM
To be fair some of the sorties could have been A-2-A.
I remember an exercise were they claimed that F-22 had a kill-to-death ratio of 98:1 against legacy fighters. Problem was that the 'blue' legacy fighters also had a similar k/d ratio against the reds so it was really only about the design of the exercise and nothing about the capability of the plane.
But deploying 7 planes for 1˝ week and fly 88 sorties isn't that impressive, it says very little about what capability the plane has and at this point I doubt that they would design an exercise were the F-35 meets the best US can offer in terms of air defence. The F-35 still lacks too many systems to survive in such environment.
The point still remains. The Just So Failed can carry only two bombs if it wants to carry anything for self defense. With this kind of production you will never win a war against first tier threats (as you also noted above).
Let F-22s and F-15SEs clear a path for airplanes that can actually carry some iron.
Yeah, this farce was for show. Why not face F-15Cs? Why use the E? It's the same as loading up an F-16D with drops--it was intended to handicap the opponent. In the case of the D though it backfired. The JSF was mincemeat.
Note also they call it "Zero Losses" as if that actually says ANYTHING. I also have "Zero Losses" against the F-15E.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 07:03:50 AM
Yes, the limited internal loadout means that it will have to carry weapons on external pylons and thus removing any advantages of stealth. Some weapons, like AGM-88 has to be carried externally so it's fair to say that the F-35 cannot rely only on stealth against a capable enemy.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 10:08:48 AM
So conspiracy theorist is now 'expressing fact and/or opinion different from my own'..
"USAF does America a great disservice. Again. Air Combat Command has an interesting event that shows them more as Lockheed Martin sales people than anything else."
That's a conspiracy theory.
And the guy who runs that blog describes himself as: "Where women glow and men plunder. Defenc(s)e, Government, Aviation, Entertainment, IT, Linux, Travel, Trek, Former USAF Photographer."
Yeah... I'm not going to waste my time reading anything this guy writes.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 10:30:44 AM
A somewhat more balanced article that has actual quotes and sources: https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 10:37:45 AM
"USAF does America a great disservice. Again. Air Combat Command has an interesting event that shows them more as Lockheed Martin sales people than anything else."
That's a conspiracy theory.
And the guy who runs that blog describes himself as: "Where women glow and men plunder. Defenc(s)e, Government, Aviation, Entertainment, IT, Linux, Travel, Trek, Former USAF Photographer."
Yeah... I'm not going to waste my time reading anything this guy writes.
No, it's an editorial comment--based on the evidence at hand using The USAF Marketing Command's own PowerPoint slide.
Eric Palmer, Blacktail, Don Bacon, and M&S run rings around any analysis you've provided. (No offense.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 10:39:50 AM
A somewhat more balanced article that has actual quotes and sources: https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/
It still doesn't prove anything since we don't know how the exercise was designed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 10:41:55 AM
Yes, the limited internal loadout means that it will have to carry weapons on external pylons and thus removing any advantages of stealth. Some weapons, like AGM-88 has to be carried externally so it's fair to say that the F-35 cannot rely only on stealth against a capable enemy.
Exactly.
Nevermind that every IR seeker within 1000 miles will see that giant blowtorch firing out the back of this short-legged piece of junk. Can't climb. Can't run. Can't survive.
The Chinese are licking their chops. So are the Russians.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 10:46:30 AM
It still doesn't prove anything since we don't know how the exercise was designed.
Prove? The only people the F-35 needs to prove itself too are the people who operate it, and they seem very happy.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 10:50:12 AM
Not really, it have to prove itself to the public as well, not to mention potential enemies..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 11:02:51 AM
No Zimme. The public gets no say in what weapons the military buys. That's not how democracy works. Not in America, nor in Sweden. Unless you think you have some say in what the SwAF buys? Well... You don't. The fundamental problem I see here is that some people like Vraciu are more willing to believe and trust a blogger who has no experience with the F-35 whatsoever rather than the USAF personnel who operates the jet. It is an irrational conspiracy theory that the USAF and the air forces of a dozen other nations are all lying about the F-35.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 11:07:41 AM
The public should trust the professional soldiers to buy the equipment they need, and believe them when they say they're happy with it. If the public can't even trust their own military on something as basic as that then the country has a lot bigger problems that a potentially dud jet fighter...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 11:13:10 AM
I don't expect you to agree, you are after all one of the biggest fanboys i've met on the net. You must be a car salesman's dream. 'The manufacturer says its awesome so it has to be true since they and noone else should know'.
Building fighters is not so much about building the best plane to the lowest cost. There are a ton of 'politics' involved, The different branches have their fights about being the most important one, LM wants to get as much money as possible and so on. Noone will ever say 'We have spend 20 years and a trillion dollar on a plane that turns out to be not so spectacular as we thought'..
The public should trust the professional soldiers to buy the equipment they need, and believe them when they say they're happy with it. If the public can't even trust their own military on something as basic as that then the country has a lot bigger problems that a potentially dud jet fighter...
Usually noone cares until the soldiers are killed due to poor equipment, it has happened multiple times before.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 11:48:24 AM
I don't expect you to agree, you are after all one of the biggest fanboys i've met on the net. You must be a car salesman's dream. 'The manufacturer says its awesome so it has to be true since they and noone else should know'.
The United States Air Force should know. The Royal Air Force should know. The Royal Australian Air Force should know. The Royal Danish Air Force should know. The Israeli Air Force should know. The Italian Air Force should know. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force should know. The Royal Netherlands Air Force should know. The Royal Norwegian Air Force should know. The Republic of Korea Air Force should know. The Turkish Air Force should know.
Usually noone cares until the soldiers are killed due to poor equipment, it has happened multiple times before.
The soldiers care... and have often spoken out when they feel their equipment is not satisfactory. Which is why I find it so irrational that some people think the soldiers are lying when they praise their equipment.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 12:01:17 PM
I highly doubt that politicians 20 years ago had the slightest idea of what the F-35 can and cannot do in 5+ years when it hopefully will be operational (for real combat, not on paper).. And most countries do not buy a plane because its the best, if the F-35 was built by SAAB none of these countries would have bought it.. They buy an American plane because they believe it would give them other benefits.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 12:06:42 PM
Most countries don't want to buy planes from SAAB because they don't want to buy military equipment from neutral cowards.
:aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 12:14:08 PM
No Zimme. The public gets no say in what weapons the military buys. That's not how democracy works. Not in America, nor in Sweden. Unless you think you have some say in what the SwAF buys? Well... You don't. The fundamental problem I see here is that some people like Vraciu are more willing to believe and trust a blogger who has no experience with the F-35 whatsoever rather than the USAF personnel who operates the jet. It is an irrational conspiracy theory that the USAF and the air forces of a dozen other nations are all lying about the F-35.
Excuse me... Just because he has insight that is contrary (superior) to yours doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. He is an analyst and very good at it.
The JSF has failed every metric set for it--repeatedly.
It was poorly designed to fight yesterday's war.
DOA.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 12:15:54 PM
The public should trust the professional soldiers to buy the equipment they need, and believe them when they say they're happy with it. If the public can't even trust their own military on something as basic as that then the country has a lot bigger problems that a potentially dud jet fighter...
There is a long line of "dud" weapons programs littering our history. No, I don't trust "professionals" who are looking toward their post-retirement fluff job as an advisor to some major defense contractor.
The F-35 is a boondoggle and will never be anything else.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 12:17:54 PM
The United States Air Force should know. The Royal Air Force should know. The Royal Australian Air Force should know. The Royal Danish Air Force should know. The Israeli Air Force should know. The Italian Air Force should know. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force should know. The Royal Netherlands Air Force should know. The Royal Norwegian Air Force should know. The Republic of Korea Air Force should know. The Turkish Air Force should know.
A Lapland nurse should not know.
The soldiers care... and have often spoken out when they feel their equipment is not satisfactory. Which is why I find it so irrational that some people think the soldiers are lying when they praise their equipment.
Yes, they SHOULD know. But honor is in short supply these days. Career six-covering and preserving the flying club are more important than doing what's right.
We are pouring an endless amount of money into something that will never work at the expense of everything else that actually does.
Pathetic.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 12:25:20 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 12:27:28 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 12:37:57 PM
None of those aircraft are duds. And the context of this thread is the F-35: An aircraft.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 12:51:09 PM
You can still not deny the fact that other factors than the plane performance is considered when an aircraft is selected. Take F-16 for ex, from the beginning a cheap but mediocre plane but thanks to the fact its an American plane it have been sold in large numbers.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 01:12:16 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 01:39:09 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
And can actually carry stuff of value to the battlefield commander.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 01:53:54 PM
VTOL should never have been even considered, it's a very unnecessary feature since it doesn't add anything, it's just so the marines could feel special. But conventional land and carrier based fighters will do the same job just as good.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 01:56:38 PM
VTOL should never have been even considered, it's a very unnecessary feature since it doesn't add anything, it's just so the marines could feel special. But conventional land and carrier based fighters will do the same job just as good.
Have you looked at the pads that have to be setup for the F-35 to forward deploy?
How are those gonna' be transported?
And where is the fuel going to come from?
It's a concept that has no hope of success in the form of the Joint Strike Failure. It boggles the mind.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 02:01:56 PM
Google translate of an article today in the Norwegian "Technical Weekly" magazine with an interview with lieutenant colonel Martin «Tintin» Tesli of the RNoAF. The F-35 exceeds everything he imagined.
"- Already now we can conclude that the criticism of the F-35 is put to shame, for example in terms of maneuverability, and technical solutions. What many critics allege is not possible, we do every day. And yet the machine is not fully developed."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 02:03:59 PM
With the range of modern fighters and air refueling it should not be necessary to have VTOL aircrafts for landing at forward air bases. The Helicopter was invented for a reason..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 02:04:59 PM
Google translate of an article today in the Norwegian "Technical Weekly" magazine with an interview with lieutenant colonel Martin «Tintin» Tesli of the RNoAF. The F-35 exceeds everything he imagined.
Google translate of an article today in the Norwegian "Technical Weekly" magazine with an interview with lieutenant colonel Martin «Tintin» Tesli of the RNoAF. The F-35 exceeds everything he imagined.
Really... As a nurse it is your job to speak highly of Swedish health service?
No but it can still have negative consequences if I do it in public.. People have lost their jobs because of it...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 02:15:14 PM
Not so over here. People in public jobs are whining to the media all the time over here, and last years winner of the "Frie Ord" award (free word) was a Norwegian Army officer for speaking out against our foreign policy and military operations. He didn't lose his job over it. If anyone lost their job in a state or municipal job for speaking out in the media the result would be a wrongful dismissal suit worthy of national media attention.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 02:18:00 PM
When the Norwegian Army bought the Dingo 2 APC's for use in A-stan the resistance to it among soldiers was enormous and many openly criticized it in public.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 02:24:30 PM
Here for example: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/afghanistan/soldater-slakter-forsvarets-nye-millionkjoeretoey/a/10010783/
Active service personnel complaining to the media.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 02:26:25 PM
You can believe whatever you want, the F-35 is not an armoured car. Its a huge different between buying 10 APC:s and investing billions in a new fighter. Too many people have invested too much in the F-35. The pilots will not cut it down in public, for a number of reasons.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 05, 2016, 02:29:30 PM
You can believe whatever you want, the F-35 is not an armoured car. Its a huge different between buying 10 APC:s and investing billions in a new fighter. Too many people have invested too much in the F-35. The pilots will not cut it down in public, for a number of reasons.
Not to mention it is a $400 BILLION project. :O
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 05, 2016, 02:31:12 PM
Zimme, your opinion is noted.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 05, 2016, 02:33:01 PM
Let's hope it's against North Korea--or downtown Chicago--then or there will be a lot of dead JSF pilots.
that is ridiculous. The F-35 will not be worse than existing fighters. It has some advantages and some did advantages. The issue is that except for a few limited specific uses, it is not any significant improvment over what we have now, or that could be acheived with moderate upgrades at a fraction of the cost. The F35 will not be a failure - just an expensive disappointment.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 04:55:47 AM
that is ridiculous. The F-35 will not be worse than existing fighters. It has some advantages and some did advantages. The issue is that except for a few limited specific uses, it is not any significant improvment over what we have now, or that could be acheived with moderate upgrades at a fraction of the cost. The F35 will not be a failure - just an expensive disappointment.
Really? So you think the Su-27/37 series will have trouble decimating this lightly armed, unmaneuverable, slow, IR blowtorch?
How about PAK/FA?
We have fewer than 200 combat-coded F-22s and they'll be worn out in a decade.
Our entire force structure hinges on the JSF. That's a recipe for disaster. We would be better off with F-105s carrying JDAM.
The JSF is far worse than both the F-16 and F-15 in just about every metric (and is nowhere near the league of F-22 so that doesn't even need mention). A Strike Eagle can carry at least six times the load AND four AMRAAMs, can extend, has range, and brings utility to the fight.
The Viper, even a two-seat small mouth D with drop tanks, can wreck the JSF WVR.
F-35? :headscratch: Maybe they should call it a T/A-35 and use it for Lead-In Fighter Training.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: save on July 06, 2016, 06:51:43 AM
It's probably a good idea to keep some hundreds of F22's for quite some time.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 07:20:11 AM
It will not be a complete disaster (hopefully) but given the amount money invested it's a disappointment. The money would have been enough for like 10.000 legacy fighters and the F-35 isn't that good that it's better than 10000 'conventional' fighters. Sadly it would even have been better to spend the money on F-22:s instead. 1.5 trillion dollars its enough for plenty of Raptors (150 million a piece means >6000 raptors...)
So no, there is no way that it could be said that the F-35 is worth the money invested..
Edit: Development and production cost is so far 379 Billion $ But its still enough to buy 2.500 Raptors at 150 million a piece. (would be lower if they build 2500 of them so in reality the money would still be enough to buy an equal number of Raptors instead of the F-35..)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on July 06, 2016, 09:51:06 AM
Quote
just an expensive disappointment.
The verbal judo has already started...don't say failure say ___ instead. Sounds not quite as bad.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 10:47:40 AM
Thing is the only people who use those words are media talking heads and internet trolls. The pilots use quite different words.
Pilots who have orders from on high. "Too big to fail." Marine pilots had a lot of good things to say about the F2A also. Midway proved they were optimistic.
The internet trolls that you dismiss are armed with something undeniable: FACTS.
The Joint Strike Failure is a complete dud. It has failed every single metric--spectacularly. Even the cheerleader/fanboi Bogdon is chirping harsh realities now.
88 Sorties =15 Bombs
You can't make this stuff up.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 10:54:17 AM
It will not be a complete disaster (hopefully) but given the amount money invested it's a disappointment. The money would have been enough for like 10.000 legacy fighters and the F-35 isn't that good that it's better than 10000 'conventional' fighters. Sadly it would even have been better to spend the money on F-22:s instead. 1.5 trillion dollars its enough for plenty of Raptors (150 million a piece means >6000 raptors...)
So no, there is no way that it could be said that the F-35 is worth the money invested..
Edit: Development and production cost is so far 379 Billion $ But its still enough to buy 2.500 Raptors at 150 million a piece. (would be lower if they build 2500 of them so in reality the money would still be enough to buy an equal number of Raptors instead of the F-35..)
Exactly. The money spent on the Just So Failed would have been better spent on F-15SE, F-15SA, F-16, F-22, and Super Hornet buys. We would then have an air arm that is not falling apart before our eyes.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 10:57:57 AM
It will not be a complete disaster (hopefully) but given the amount money invested it's a disappointment. The money would have been enough for like 10.000 legacy fighters and the F-35 isn't that good that it's better than 10000 'conventional' fighters. Sadly it would even have been better to spend the money on F-22:s instead. 1.5 trillion dollars its enough for plenty of Raptors (150 million a piece means >6000 raptors...)
So no, there is no way that it could be said that the F-35 is worth the money invested..
Edit: Development and production cost is so far 379 Billion $ But its still enough to buy 2.500 Raptors at 150 million a piece. (would be lower if they build 2500 of them so in reality the money would still be enough to buy an equal number of Raptors instead of the F-35..)
The 1.5 trillion Dollar figure does not only represent the cost of buying planes, but also infrastructure upgrades, personnel training and 50 years worth of spare parts. At the current production lot an F-35A goes for $98 million. An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars. Most people don't seem to understand economy of scale, or any other economic realities for that matter. Some people can't even balance their credit cards.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 11:01:20 AM
The 1.5 trillion Dollar figure does not only represent the cost of buying planes, but also dinfrastructure upgrades, personnel training and 50 years worth of spare parts. At the current production lot an F-35A goes for $98 million. An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars. Most people don't seem to understand economy of scale, or any other economic realities for that matter. Some people can't even balance their credit cards.
Some people don't understand 88 sorties for 15 bombs or being waxed in a dogfight by an F-16D.
I have a Masters in Economics. Your numbers are based on flawed assumptions and are not fly away costs--among many other errors.
Unit price per a 2015 Defense Committee report (US Congress):
Thing is the only people who use those words are media talking heads and internet trolls. The pilots use quite different words.
Not really. Even those that pays the bill, including Pentagon have fired a lot of criticism against LM and the F-35.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 11:24:42 AM
The F-35 is still incapable of flying any kind of combat missions, it will still take a few years until the necessary software is developed and tested..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 11:27:48 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 11:34:23 AM
It seems like you're running out of arguments.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 11:44:42 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 11:50:56 AM
Can't even post real numbers, instead is using pie-in-the-sky "economies of scale" fuzzy math based on a procurement of 10,000 jets (which will never ever happen).
We are approaching $200M per unit for a jet that was supposed to be cheaper than the F-16 to procure and operate (it doesn't meet the latter either).
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 11:51:53 AM
The F-35 is still incapable of flying any kind of combat missions, it will still take a few years until the necessary software is developed and tested..
Nevermind helmet jitter, cracking bulkheads, persistent vapor trails, and an inability to even power up if it is too hot (or cold) outside.
Also, if you're flying the C and need to do RESCAP you may have left your gun on deck. Oops.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 11:59:35 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 12:09:50 PM
"Software issues" and other teething problems are not unique to the F-35, and they will be sorted out. The Department of Defense (aka the pentagon) supports the F-35 all the way. They have been critical of the procurement system and cost overruns, but that is an issue separate from the performance of the aircraft.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 12:15:34 PM
"Software issues" and other teething problems are not unique to the F-35, and they will be sorted out. The Department of Defense (aka the pentagon) supports the F-35 all the way. They have been critical of the procurement system and cost overruns, but that is an issue separate from the performance of the aircraft.
88 Sorties = 15 Bombs.
"Performance."
Beat by an F-16D with drop tanks on.
"Performance."
It has no performance. That's the point. Even Bogdon is admitting it is a pig. (Finally.)
But you accidentally stated a truth. Yes, cost is a separate issue from the (issue of the lack of) performance of the aircraft.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 12:16:10 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 12:36:40 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 12:39:00 PM
Quote:
A memo—which the Project on Government Oversight obtained in September—from the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) clearly shows that the F-35B had serious reliability issues before Dunford declared initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31. It also highlights the fact that the aircraft were not tested under realistic conditions during the F-35B’s “Operational Test One” demonstration. The seven F-35Bs onboard Wasp were “not cleared to carry or employ any ordnance.” Nor were the jets deployed with the rest of USS Wasp’s Air Combat Element (ACE) present.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 12:40:58 PM
...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
From the previously cited article:
“Even though Marine maintainers had rapid, ready access to spare parts from shore and the benefit of the expertise of embarked contractor personnel, aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two to three of the six embarked jets in an flyable status on any given day,” reads the DOT&E memo. “The challenges will be substantially tougher when the aircraft first deploys operationally, where working mission systems will not be optional, and where maintenance is likely to be more challenging due to the presence of the rest of the ACE.”
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 12:47:00 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 12:50:42 PM
QUOTE:
The top officer leading the F-35 program, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, said in two-page response that everything in Gilmore's report is accurate, but that it "does not fully address efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks." It's the F-35 joint program office's job to do so, Bogdan said.
END QUOTE.
Translation: The airplane is woefully inadequate and isn't performing to specs. But give us credit for TRYING.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 12:51:48 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 01:28:50 PM
Wrong about what?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 01:30:10 PM
If you dont even bother to read the replies you get then why are you even here?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 01:45:57 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 01:48:24 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 01:54:39 PM
More grist for the mill...
Quote:
And the kicker—two generals confessed that the whole idea of a do-it-all jet is, in fact, so conceptually flawed that it’s unlikely the Pentagon will attempt it again. Right now the Air Force and Navy are laying plans for so-called “sixth-generation” jets to eventually supersede the F-35.
“You ought to think really hard about what you really need out of the sixth-generation fighter and how much overlap is there between what the Navy and the Air Force really need,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, head of the JSF program, said at a military seminar in Washington, D.C., on March 10.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 01:55:22 PM
The report also prompted a statement from the Joint Strike Fighter Program Officer defending the aircraft.
“Although the DOT&E report is factually accurate, it does not fully address program efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks … Our government and industry team has a proven track record of overcoming technical challenges discovered during developmental and operational testing and fleet operations, and delivering on program commitments,” the statement reads, in part. “The F-35C has now ‘caught the wire’ more than 200 times at sea, the engine rub fix is incorporated on the production line and delivered engines are being retrofitted, and the F‑35B has performed more than 1,000 vertical landings safely.”
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 01:55:35 PM
Disagreeing is fine... As long as you back it up with something.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 01:57:01 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 02:46:36 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 02:54:20 PM
But you cannot accept that Pentagon confirms that the F-35 isn't gonna be ready for combat untill 2022 so you make your own definition of "combat ready".
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 02:54:33 PM
But you cannot accept that Pentagon confirms that the F-35 isn't gonna be ready for combat untill 2022 so you make your own definition of "combat ready".
That's the soonest we can even find out. By the time 2022 gets here this obsolescent jet will be OBSOLETE.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 02:59:14 PM
But you cannot accept that Pentagon confirms that the F-35 isn't gonna be ready for combat untill 2022 so you make your own definition of "combat ready".
Also, reliance on rah rah boys within the military flying club is not a good idea.
Quote:
Pierre Sprey, a defense analyst who was involved with designing the A-10 attack jet and F-16 fighter jet, said Wednesday that he is surprised at the amount of candor in Gilmore's report. He noted that it was released in what is likely Gilmore's last year as the Pentagon's top weapons tester, considering his position is a political appointment and President Obama leaves office early next year.
"This document is probably the most extraordinary review of any weapon that has come out of the DOT&E office," Sprey said. "The fact that this escaped from the Pentagon is extraordinary. . . You really need to get a sense for what it takes to put out something as critical as this in the face of a 1.3- trillion dollar monster."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 02:59:59 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 03:00:44 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 03:02:52 PM
So no, the plane isnt ready for combat, and as vraciu said:
Quote
QUOTE:
The top officer leading the F-35 program, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, said in two-page response that everything in Gilmore's report is accurate, but that it "does not fully address efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks." It's the F-35 joint program office's job to do so, Bogdan said.
END QUOTE.
Translation: The airplane is woefully inadequate and isn't performing to specs. But give us credit for TRYING.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 03:05:00 PM
[T]he DOT&E states that “the F-35B Block 2B aircraft would need to avoid threat engagement… in an opposed combat scenario, and would require augmentation by other friendly forces.”
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 03:06:44 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 03:08:42 PM
Redacted.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 03:12:50 PM
Quote
The report also prompted a statement from the Joint Strike Fighter Program Officer defending the aircraft.
“Although the DOT&E report is factually accurate, it does not fully address program efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks … Our government and industry team has a proven track record of overcoming technical challenges discovered during developmental and operational testing and fleet operations, and delivering on program commitments,” the statement reads, in part. “The F-35C has now ‘caught the wire’ more than 200 times at sea, the engine rub fix is incorporated on the production line and delivered engines are being retrofitted, and the F‑35B has performed more than 1,000 vertical landings safely.”
So they say that Yes - the report is accurate but we want an A for our efforts to fix all the issues..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 03:14:21 PM
The DoD say that the DOT&E report is factually accurate, but they disagree with the DOT&E's conclusions based on those facts.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 06, 2016, 03:14:27 PM
So they say that Yes - the report is accurate but we want an A for our efforts to fix all the issues..
Here's more from the PENTAGON DOT&E report:
While Lt Gen Bogdan claims “There were no surprises in the report,” this is not factually true, as it contains many new issues that are not yet in the public domain. These include:
-- continuing issues with the ejection seat:
-- problems with heat management of the weapons bays;
-- vibrations, stresses and other bomb bay problems are out of the flight parameters of the AIM-120 missile and Small Diameter Bombs;
-- Mechanical rubbing between the gun motor drive and wall of the gun bay require structural modifications to the bay;
-- Fleet aircraft are limited to 3 Gs when fully fueled
-- Under certain flight conditions, air enters the siphon fuel transfer line and causes the pressure in the siphon fuel tank to exceed allowable limits in all variants;
-- The program completed the final weight assessment of the air vehicles for contract specification compliance; all versions are within a few hundred pounds of contractual not-to-exceed limits;
-- Refueling from tanker wing pods was prohibited due to response anomalies from the hose and reel assemblies and the F-35B aircraft with the air refueling receptacle deployed;
-- For the F-35A, the airspeed at which the weapons bay doors can be open in flight (550 knots or 1.2 Mach) is less than the maximum aircraft speed allowable (700 knots or 1.6 Mach).
-- For the F-35A, the airspeed at which countermeasures can be used is also less than the maximum speed allowable, again restricting tactical options in scenarios where F-35A pilots are conducting defensive maneuvers;
-- Although over three years have already been lost to inaction, the Program Office still does not plan to put Block 3F upgrades to the USRL on contract until late in 2016.
-- New cracks were discovered in various components of all versions;
-- Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) activity completely stalled in 2015 and did not come close to making the necessary progress towards even the reduced set of Block 2B requirements.
-- Low availability rates are preventing the fleet of fielded operational F-35 aircraft from achieving planned, Service-funded flying hour goals.
-- A deficiency in the air vehicle’s maintenance vehicle interface (MVI)—the hardware used to upload aircraft data files—corrupted the aircraft software files during the upload process.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 06, 2016, 03:17:04 PM
For you G:
Quote
While Lt Gen Bogdan claims “There were no surprises in the report,” this is not factually true, as it contains many new issues that are not yet in the public domain. These include:
-- continuing issues with the ejection seat:
-- problems with heat management of the weapons bays;
-- vibrations, stresses and other bomb bay problems are out of the flight parameters of the AIM-120 missile and Small Diameter Bombs;
-- Mechanical rubbing between the gun motor drive and wall of the gun bay require structural modifications to the bay;
-- Fleet aircraft are limited to 3 Gs when fully fueled
-- Under certain flight conditions, air enters the siphon fuel transfer line and causes the pressure in the siphon fuel tank to exceed allowable limits in all variants;
-- The program completed the final weight assessment of the air vehicles for contract specification compliance; all versions are within a few hundred pounds of contractual not-to-exceed limits;
-- Refueling from tanker wing pods was prohibited due to response anomalies from the hose and reel assemblies and the F-35B aircraft with the air refueling receptacle deployed;
-- For the F-35A, the airspeed at which the weapons bay doors can be open in flight (550 knots or 1.2 Mach) is less than the maximum aircraft speed allowable (700 knots or 1.6 Mach).
-- For the F-35A, the airspeed at which countermeasures can be used is also less than the maximum speed allowable, again restricting tactical options in scenarios where F-35A pilots are conducting defensive maneuvers;
-- Although over three years have already been lost to inaction, the Program Office still does not plan to put Block 3F upgrades to the USRL on contract until late in 2016.
-- New cracks were discovered in various components of all versions;
-- Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) activity completely stalled in 2015 and did not come close to making the necessary progress towards even the reduced set of Block 2B requirements.
-- Low availability rates are preventing the fleet of fielded operational F-35 aircraft from achieving planned, Service-funded flying hour goals.
-- A deficiency in the air vehicle’s maintenance vehicle interface (MVI)—the hardware used to upload aircraft data files—corrupted the aircraft software files during the upload process.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 03:18:00 PM
Btw. the DOT&E is not "the Pentagon" either. The director is an assistant to the Secretary of Defense on weapons testing matters.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 06, 2016, 03:19:33 PM
He's not Norwegian so he doesn't count. :rofl (JUST KIDDING.)
Don't forget, this was against a Block 40 F-16D two-seater with drop tanks still on.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on July 06, 2016, 06:48:37 PM
The F-35 will probably be analogous to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. When they get all the kinks worked out, it will operate to a satisfactory condition in a limited envelope. But like the Bradley, when the real war starts, it will be pulled out of combat due to excessive losses.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on July 06, 2016, 06:55:10 PM
The F35 will be awesome by Version E :police:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 07, 2016, 02:49:55 AM
The F-35 will probably be analogous to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. When they get all the kinks worked out, it will operate to a satisfactory condition in a limited envelope. But like the Bradley, when the real war starts, it will be pulled out of combat due to excessive losses.
Sounds about right.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 07, 2016, 05:08:47 AM
You can't make this stuff up.
And who says praise for a flawed weapon system can't be bought?
The F-35 will probably be analogous to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. When they get all the kinks worked out, it will operate to a satisfactory condition in a limited envelope. But like the Bradley, when the real war starts, it will be pulled out of combat due to excessive losses.
Wut.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 08, 2016, 06:55:07 AM
:aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 07:01:46 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 08, 2016, 07:12:23 AM
:aok
"...the unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) of the F-35A version is now heading below $100 million. This will be the price paid by U.S. and international customers for jets delivered within Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 10..."
"...the unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) of the F-35A version is now heading below $100 million. This will be the price paid by U.S. and international customers for jets delivered within Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 10..."
"The F-35 will be cheaper to buy and operate than current models of the F-16." - LM
The engine ALONE costs more than an F-16.
$100M for a jet sans engine that can't be used for anything until it has a powerplant.... Once it gets the flawed $30M motor it can be used for nothing but training--and that only barely as case flexing of the engine limits G available.
Sounds like a bargain to me.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 07:32:13 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 08:11:11 AM
A broken clock (McCain) is right twice a day.
Quote:
The development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet, has been beset by spiraling costs and schedule delays. The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.
(Do the math: $160M each--and rising. Math can't be defeated.)
Double the price for an airplane that doesn't work. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 08, 2016, 09:22:01 AM
Soon the F-35 will move out of Low Rate Initial Production and enter full production. With the added benefit of economy of scale the price will drop considerably. :aok
"Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office are entering into the final stages of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme ahead of the ramp-up to peak production, a senior official told IHS Jane's on 7 July."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 08, 2016, 09:27:58 AM
I have never figured out how it could be a good idea to start mass production before the development is finished. It will just cost a lot of money to fix all the issues on the planes already built.
Normally you do the testing first and make sure the flaws and bugs are eliminated before putting a new product into mass production..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 09:41:20 AM
I have never figured out how it could be a good idea to start mass production before the development is finished. It will just cost a lot of money to fix all the issues on the planes already built.
Normally you do the testing first and make sure the flaws and bugs are eliminated before putting a new product into mass production..
It's not a good idea.
And this talk of prices dropping is a joke.
The average cost per jet for the entire program is $160M, minimum. You can shake that out any way you like. No matter what LM does the airplane will cost an average of $160M apiece--and climbing.
Also, these jets are shipped with defects built in. They then have to be sent back--multiple times--for fixes as they crop up. NOBODY KNOWS HOW MUCH THESE FIXES WILL COST or if they'll even work.
This airplane is a disaster and no amount of cheerleading will change that fact
REMEMBER: LM and the Air Force said it would cost the same as an F-16C to acquire and operate.
Economies of scale? Ha.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 09:43:01 AM
Soon the F-35 will move out of Low Rate Initial Production and enter full production. With the added benefit of economy of scale the price will drop considerably. :aok
"Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office are entering into the final stages of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme ahead of the ramp-up to peak production, a senior official told IHS Jane's on 7 July."
I have never figured out how it could be a good idea to start mass production before the development is finished. It will just cost a lot of money to fix all the issues on the planes already built.
Normally you do the testing first and make sure the flaws and bugs are eliminated before putting a new product into mass production..
They haven't started mass production yet... :huh
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 08, 2016, 09:56:18 AM
Lol, no they have just build 170+ prototypes so far. :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 09:56:37 AM
Lol, no they have just build 170+ prototypes so far. :rofl
:rofl :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 08, 2016, 09:59:46 AM
Lot 10 is in the bag. :aok
"WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- Lockheed Martin has received a $559 million U.S. Navy contract for low rate initial production of Lot 10 F-35 Lightning II fighters.
The cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-priced-incentive-firm contract covers Joint Strike Fighter non-air vehicle spares, support equipment, autonomic logistics information system hardware and software upgrades, supply chain management, full mission simulators and non-recurring engineering services.
It covers work for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, partner nations and foreign military sales customers."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 10:07:22 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 10:20:15 AM
"Of course the F-35 is not currently capable of meeting these requirements, but the Air Force (I predict) will declare that it is. The major problem is that the Block 2 software (which the Air Force misleadingly calls Block 3i) suffers from immaturity and instability, so the system is incapable of conducting operational missions utilizing system development and demonstration (SDD) program of record weapons and mission systems. There are also problems with mission data loads and ALIS, and the plane itself has a thousand deficiencies and a heavy maintenance requirement. So the designated IOC squadron will non-deployable, as the IOC Marine squadron is. It's a marketing move, not a military action." - Don Bacon, Aviation Week
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 10:38:07 AM
Some good stuff in here.
Quote:
The origins of this problem are a dozen years old, and have to do with variance between the original vision for the F-35 (stealthy, adaptable, precision strike aircraft with enough air-to-air capability to defend itself) and what it’s now being asked to do (everything).
...
Last week, Gen. Herbert Carlisle admitted what had been long denied by Air Force officials when he explained that the F-35 would not dogfight, leaving the definitive, core Air Force mission to the service’s small stable of F-22s. This often contradictory and always entertaining furball of rhetoric happens against the backdrop of twin revelations that the Marine Corps overstated F-35 performance during operational trials and that the Air Force quietly tuned down program requirements to stay on its developmental timeline.
...
An eight-page propaganda plan obtained by JQP — labeled “F-35A Public Affairs Guidance” and shared in entirety below — lays out in painstaking (and painful) detail the authorized answers to public questions about the program.
...
This document is about a chosen, authorized narrative of the F-35, not the F-35 itself. Given that it purports to be about the F-35, but is really about a chosen image of the F-35, it’s a fundamentally dishonest exercise.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 11:51:30 AM
The gun doesn't work. It won't power up if it is too hot or cold outside. You can't get the computer to recognize part swaps (think the disaster that is Windows Plug-and-Play).
Nevermind that it has no range. That won't matter because it can't even be fueled from the truck.
Quote:
[Now] there are concerns as to whether the F-35 can even be traditionally fueled because the plane has a problem with accepting hotter fuel. The air force’s current solution is to repaint fuel trucks to accept less sunlight in hopes of keeping the temperature down. Seriously.
Yes, that is just one example, more is mentioned in the evaluation report, available to anyone that bothers to read it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 08, 2016, 12:03:29 PM
"Initial estimates indicate a modification of approximately a half a pound to the aircraft will fix it," said DellaVedova. "Modifications to planes flying today will be incorporated to ensure full life operation."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 12:03:44 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 12:04:39 PM
"Initial estimates indicate a modification of approximately a half a pound to the aircraft will fix it," said DellaVedova. "Modifications to planes flying today will be incorporated to ensure full life operation."
"Initial estimates." I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that.
Quote:
The government and industry teams areworking to find an engineering solution, he noted. One potentialfix includes a modification of approximately a half pound to the aircraft. The fix will be incorporated to the rest of the fleet.
End quote.
They don't even HAVE a fix yet. And if they do then it will break somewhere else next. But let's keep building them any way. The boneyard is getting empty now that we have finished off all the QF-4s and are moving on to QF-16s.
Wait until this thing gets to the boat. It will break down like beer bubbles with Gas-X.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on July 08, 2016, 04:32:32 PM
The one thing that might have helped the F-35C, a larger wing, is turning out to be a failure due to cracks.
The Japanese, when they produced their own version of the F-16, increased the wing area. They had a tremendous amount of trouble with cracking.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 08, 2016, 06:48:27 PM
F-16s in general were plagued by teething problems. As with the F-35 Norway was a partner nation in the F-16 program. We lost one third of our fleet in accidents between 1981 and 1992, predominantly to technical issues. Some even just caught fire and burned up on the ground. 1992-2016 we've had a single loss: pilot error hitting power cables. Superior technology comes at a cost. Both in money and lives. Though not as high a cost as inferior technology in a shooting war...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 06:56:58 PM
F-16s in general were plagued by teething problems. As with the F-35 Norway was a partner nation in the F-16 program. We lost one third of our fleet in accidents between 1981 and 1992, predominantly to technical issues. Some even just caught fire and burned up on the ground. 1992-2016 we've had a single loss: pilot error hitting power cables. Superior technology comes at a cost. Both in money and lives. Though not as high a cost as inferior technology in a shooting war...
The only reason Norway is buying this piece of junk I because they have to. It's protection money. The USA is like the neighborhood mobster extorting money from the locals. In return Norway gets the reassurance of an umbrella for a rainy day.
It's ridiculous all the way around.
$160M mistake jets that do NOT work, do NOT perform, and will need multiple repairs and upgrades at an unspecified cost in the HOPE they'll be "combat ready" around 2022.
Sad.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 08, 2016, 06:59:15 PM
I have always wondered how the F-16XL would have turned out as a strike fighter.
It would beat the pants off the F-35 for sure.
The prototype worked very well. NASA actually used it for testing after the USAF went with the F-15E instead of the F-16XL.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on July 09, 2016, 12:23:52 PM
Correct, and from the stuff available online about the F16XL/F15E decision, it was a very close run thing. I'll link the pages I have saved about the 16XL and that F15E decision, it's very interesting. F15E turned out fantastic, but the 16XL would have been great as well, even supplementing the 15E as well wouldn't have been awful, making say 1/3 the Falcon fleet XLs would have really increased strike capabilities. The 16Xl was/is an incredible platform, and with the engines we have now with that platform - I'd like to see that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 09, 2016, 06:57:57 PM
But... But, it looked French!
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 09, 2016, 11:16:26 PM
Well, at least the French finally perfected the F-106.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: save on July 10, 2016, 06:29:18 AM
Norway actually chose from some plane types.
Swedish demands are very different from most other countries on their fighters, like take off from the road network (500 meters), and be able to use them as fighters,attack,and recon.
The only reason Norway is buying this piece of junk I because they have to. It's protection money. The USA is like the neighborhood mobster extorting money from the locals. In return Norway gets the reassurance of an umbrella for a rainy day.
It's ridiculous all the way around.
$160M mistake jets that do NOT work, do NOT perform, and will need multiple repairs and upgrades at an unspecified cost in the HOPE they'll be "combat ready" around 2022.
Sad.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 10, 2016, 06:57:52 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on July 10, 2016, 08:30:02 AM
Wow. For $160M you, too, can have a jet that can "beat" an A-4 flown by Draken, International. :rofl *slow golf clap* :huh
And to think an F-16 wasn't good enough for that mission!
The Joint Strike Failure will never EVER work. Physics cannot be beaten.
It can't employ weapons, can't outmaneuever an F-16D, has no range, no speed, and is a low-flying slug with a blow torch and persistent vapor trails that can be seen for 100 miles.
It will never get close enough to shoot anyone because pole length matters. Shooting uphill is a sure way to lose, especially with an AMRAAM PK of maybe 30 percent.
Your Norwegian buddy is just reading the approved talking points as I posted earlier. If at first you don't succeed--fighting F-16s--lower your expectations--A-4s flown by civilian contractors.
The simple fact is the JSF was really an A-35. It has now been morphed in an F/A-35 despite the fact that the F part was intended for the F-22. The JSF simply cannot do what is being asked of it and never will.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 10, 2016, 02:20:18 PM
F-35B display at RIAT Fairford:
:rock
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 10, 2016, 02:28:56 PM
$200M for the flying club airplane--$100 hamburger, air show, and autographs. :rock
Too bad it can't survive against an F-16D, not to mention emerging threat aircraft.
VTOL "capability" that is almost useless. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 10, 2016, 02:33:24 PM
The British are considering getting some F-35A models as well for the RAF, to replace the Tornadoes in the 2020s. :aok
“What we will do as we go forward into the next SDSR is look at the force mix,” said Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the Royal Air Force officer responsible for delivery of the British F-35 program.
“The F-35A offers you a greater range and greater payload. There may be space for an 'A' variant so we will look at 'A' and 'B's in the future, but not the 'C's,” Taylor said. “The F-35 and Typhoon have complimentary qualities but the Typhoon is not low-observable, it can’t get to where the F-35 can get to."
The British are considering getting some F-35A models as well for the RAF, to replace the Tornadoes in the 2020s. :aok
“What we will do as we go forward into the next SDSR is look at the force mix,” said Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the Royal Air Force officer responsible for delivery of the British F-35 program.
“The F-35A offers you a greater range and greater payload. There may be space for an 'A' variant so we will look at 'A' and 'B's in the future, but not the 'C's,” Taylor said. “The F-35 and Typhoon have complimentary qualities but the Typhoon is not low-observable, it can’t get to where the F-35 can get to."
The F-35 to replace the Tornado? 88 sorties. 15 bombs. That's one, maybe two sorties with a Tornado.
:rofl This is a joke I hope.
As for the Typhoon, it would tie the JSF up in knots without even trying.
At least they're waiting until 2020. That way maybe the gun will actually be working...and they'll only have to wait until 2022 to find out if it's combat-capable or not.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on July 10, 2016, 10:41:38 PM
I've said here before that I wished the USA had just built more F22s and abandoned the "cheaper" (snicker) JSF idea in the first place, but we are where we are.
Some positive statements coming from the USMC recently - or course I take all of these with the grain of salt as everyone else here does, could be guys defending budgets/whatever, or the truth, or in the middle. Time will tell, but I certainly hope the F35 program works out.
I do hope the bottom USAF bit is accurate - 8 F15E with that superb AESA and targeting pods the Strike Eagle has for IRST/Sniper pod (IIRC the Lantrin has been replaced by the Sniper? Anyone know what the deal is with that?) - either way, that's a very potent set of systems, one of the best AESA radars in the world and a superb IRST pod, and if no F35s were engaged it makes me think none were likely seen, or at least tracked long enough to get into a weapons engagement envelope.
I still wish the USA would take the newer skin tech and some of the sensor stuff, and maybe even the helmet, and plunk ALL of that into a new build of about 1000+ F22s instead of the 2440 F35s they plan on building, sell 1/3 or 1/2 to allies, and modify the lower time current gen 4/4.5 fleet with some wizzy stuff. Save a bunch of $, and get more capability overall for the USAF/USN IMO. Tell the USMC they are out of the vertical jet biz, save $ on modifying/rebuilding the assault ships for the F35B, let the USMC use attack helos/V22 and the USN/USMC CVN strikers instead. I realize this is wishful thinking now, and that this needed to happen 5 years ago, and never will now - we are where we are, so this single engine F35A/B/C better work.
Recent USMC statements -
Quote
The U.S. Marines’ top aviation officer offered an upbeat assessment of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter to the House Armed Services Committee during testimony July 6: The stealthy new jump-jet is performing well during training exercises despite using an interim software configuration that affords the pricey aircraft only a fraction of the capabilities the Pentagon requires of it.
To illustrate his point, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the U.S. Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for aviation, described a training evolution at the service’s elite Weapons and Tactics Instructor course — which is run by the Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One at Yuma, Arizona — where the F-35 was a participant.
Whereas normally half of a 30-aircraft strike package including Boeing AV-8B Harrier IIs, F/A-18Cs and EA-6B Prowlers would not make it through high-end air defenses, the new F-35s struck their targets with virtual impunity.
“The F-35’s 24-to-zero kill ratio killed all the targets,” Davis said. “It was like Jurassic Park, watching a velociraptor — kills everything, does really well. We can’t get that airplane fast enough into the fleet.”
Davis did not elaborate on the details of what kind of high-end threats the F-35B flew against. But Davis did say that the Marines have performed operational readiness inspections with the F-35 and are standing up additional squadrons equipped with the new aircraft.
However, the F-35B — as currently configured — has only an interim capability with a limited flight envelope and a limited ability to carry weapons. As the aircraft matures, the Air Force, Navy and Marines will need larger and more capable training ranges to cope with the demands of preparing for a high-end “near-peer” fight.
Quote
But the F-35 has one other serious liability, Kofman said — adding that U.S. Navy pilots are skeptical about single-engine designs. The F-35’s single Pratt & Whitey F135 engine — while immensely powerful, producing about 43,000 pounds of thrust — also runs extremely hot.
Unlike the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, where the exhaust from its F119 engines are flattened to reduce their infrared signature, the F-35 does not have any substantive measures to reduce the visibility of its exhaust from the enemy.
The Russians — who build excellent infrared sensors — could use the F-35’s thermal signature to develop a weapons quality track to engage the stealthy new jet.
“It probably has the hottest engine on the face of the planet,” Kofman said.
Recent USAF tests in an exercise 8 F15E tasked with Red air to go after the F35s didn't kill one.
The U.S. Air Force F-35A fleet continues to work to declare the Lightning II IOC (initial operational capability) scheduled in the August – December timeframe.
Among the activities carried out in the past weeks, a simulated deployment provided important feedbacks about the goal of demonstrating the F-35’s ability to “penetrate areas with developed air defenses, provide close air support to ground troops and be readily deployable to conflict theaters.”
Seven F-35s deployed from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, to carry out a series of operational tests which involved local-based 4th Generation F-15E Strike Eagles belonging to the 366th Fighter Wing.
In a Q&A posted on the USAF website, Col. David Chace, the F-35 systems management office chief and lead for F-35 operational requirements at ACC, provided some insights about the activities carried out during the second simulated deployment to Mountain Home (the first was in February this year):
“The F-35 recently deployed from Hill to Mountain Home where crews, maintenance and support personnel conducted a number of missions. During that deployment, crews attained a 100 percent sortie generation rate with 88 of 88 planned sorties and a 94 percent hit rate with 15 of 16 bombs on target. These numbers provide a positive indication of where we are when it comes to stability and component performance.”
“Feedback from the events at Mountain Home will feed into the overall evaluation of F-35 capabilities. The second evaluation will take place in the operational test environment with F-35 mission sets the Air Force intends to execute after IOC. All reports will be delivered in July and feed into the overall F-35 capabilities report. The ultimate goal is to provide a needed capability to the warfighter to execute the mission. It is not calendar-based or event-based.”
“The feedback from unit operators in place today has been very positive for the F-35, not just concerning performance but the ability the aircraft has with other platforms. In particular at Hill, integration with the F-15E (Strike Eagle) has gone very well. We’ve also been demonstrating the ability to put bombs on target. All of that information will be provided to us in the formal IOC readiness assessments.”
The following interesting chart accompanies the Q&A.
It shows some stats about the deployment.
F-35 deployment
The fourth column shows something interesting: during the exercise, the F-35s were challenged by some F-15Es and suffered no losses.
Even though the graphic does not say whether the F-35s did shoot back at the F-15Es some analysts (noticing also the “pew pew pew” in the chart….) have suggested the JSFs achieved stunning 8:0 kill rate against the Strike Eagle.
However, the “zero losses” may simply mean that the F-35s were able to complete their assigned strikes without being shot down by the aggressors of the Red Air: considered that the F-15Es were probably equipped with the AN/APG-82 AESA radar and the Sniper ATP (Advanced Targeting Pod), the fact that the Strike Eagles performing DCA (Defensive Counter Air) were not able to “find” and/or “engage” the almost-IOC F-35s can be considered a huge achievement for the pricey, troubled 5th generation multirole combat plane.
Actually, this is not the first time the F-35 proves itself able to fly unscathed through a fighter-defended area: not a single Lightning II was shot down during Green Flag 15-08, the first major exercise conducted, more or less one year ago, on the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, during which the F-35 flew as main CAS (Close Air Support) provider.
At that time, several analysts claimed the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft was still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war.
Let’s see what happens this time…
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 10, 2016, 11:08:45 PM
Yes, and if you read the last article I posted from our friend Morten Hanche he is obviously closed lipped about the exact performance of the F-35 (for reasons obvious to anyone who has served in any armed force), but he did add this little hint as an afterthought at the very end:
"(BFM – F-35 against A-4, might not be fair. Still, the A-4 started as the offensive part every time. At the end of each set, I was pointing at the A-4. Every time.)"
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 11, 2016, 02:43:23 AM
Gman,
Let's wait until this boondoggle has to face real IRST and layered defenses. It will be seen from 1000 miles away.
Also, it is optimized for front-quarter stealth and only against certain radar bands. The change to the weapons bay really messed up the original low observability planform. Once it gets inside enemy defenses it will be visible from the side and rear. Then the Su-37s will attack it like the hounds of hell.
It is super slow so it can't contempt an engagement. It can't fly very high so the low-PK AMRAAM will lose pole length big time.
They went against a bunch of Reserve F-15E drivers who are lucky to get 30 hours a year. The E with bags on is not an air superiority platform like the F-15C. It is a strike fighter.
Remember, 88 sorties for only 15 bombs on target. That's abysmal.
The problem with the Just So Failed is that it was intended to be a precision strike airplane with a limited ability to DEFEND itself, i.e. fight its way out of the target area if needed. It was never meant to be an F-22.
Sadly, the latter is what it is being asked to do--and it can't. It never will. Ever.
It's a niche airplane being morphed into a jack-of-all trades. It won't work. No amount of cheerleading or officially authorized Air Force propaganda will change that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 11, 2016, 02:47:33 AM
Yes, and if you read the last article I posted from our friend Morten Hanche he is obviously closed lipped about the exact performance of the F-35 (for reasons obvious to anyone who has served in any armed force), but he did add this little hint as an afterthought at the very end:
"(BFM – F-35 against A-4, might not be fair. Still, the A-4 started as the offensive part every time. At the end of each set, I was pointing at the A-4. Every time.)"
Again, A-4s (Hahahahahah) flown by a civilian contractor.
If the A-4 had AIM-9X and started offensive the JSF would be dead every time.
Also, don't forget, the A-35 (I am not calling it an F-35 any more--maybe T-35 would be better) with two JDAM can only carry two Slammers. What's it gonna do in close if it left the carrier without its gun?
It can't maneuver and has nothing to shoot.
This thing is a joke.
Air superiority fighter? On what planet?
A-4s. :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 11, 2016, 03:00:05 AM
"While a fine bomb-hauler and (one hopes) a good multi-service airframe, the F-35 is a mediocre performer. The problem with the F-35 … is speed. It doesn’t have the capability to supercruise. Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy.”
- 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 11, 2016, 07:15:59 AM
:aok
"Now with that many aircraft delivered, we are down 57 percent from the first aircraft that was delivered, and we're on a path to be down to a price of an $85 million jet by 2019, which is comparable to a fourth generation aircraft,"
"Now with that many aircraft delivered, we are down 57 percent from the first aircraft that was delivered, and we're on a path to be down to a price of an $85 million jet by 2019, which is comparable to a fourth generation aircraft,"
Average cost for the entire program of T/A-35 mistake jets is $160M each, sans engine (which is $30M).
You can dress it up any way you like it. Best case: Average price (BEFORE depot repairs of existing and future defects) is $160M per aircraft. Period. ($190M with an engine.)
Using the least damaging numbers available and rolling the engine into the total:
Minimum Program Cost of $400 Billion (and climbing) / 2,457 Jets = $162.8 MILLION each.
For an airplane that was promised to be equal to an F-16C in acquisition and operating costs we have a jet that:
- Doesn't work. - Has built-in defects of an unspecified cost to fix--if they can be fixed at all. - Costs more than double per flight hour compared to the F-16C. - Costs from five to seven times more per airplane than an F-16C. - Is over six years behind schedule. - Will not be combat-capable until 2022 at the earliest. - Cannot defeat an F-16D with drop tanks in aerial combat. - Has a dispatch reliability rate of 30 percent.
Boondoggle.
"The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations," [Lockheed Martin] said.
It is a bomb truck--or light pickup--not a fighter.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 11, 2016, 08:57:34 AM
Team Canada sees the light. May reject the A-35 for the Super Hornet or Advanced Super Hornet. An airplane that actually WORKS. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zeagle on July 11, 2016, 10:13:58 AM
That article sited by the OP is representative of what's wrong in our military. In combat, you don't get to see if you're having a "bad g day" or not.
Remember the initial deployment of the F-22? When they had to turn around and follow the tanker home because their electronics went Tango Uniform? Not to mention the OBOX killing pilots?
And we won't even mention that stupid suicide door for the lift fan on the shipboard variant of the F-35. It makes me think of the Yf-22/yf23 thing. And the YF-12/sr-71 thing. In the words of Ben Rich, "we built the wrong plane".
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Tilt on July 11, 2016, 01:00:35 PM
Saw my first 35B being demonstrated at Fairford yesterday. It was not a spectacular display.....infact it was nearly the same demo the Harrier had given some decades ago at Farnborough ( also on this week) except of course the F35B is STOVL and not VTOL.
Hopefully it will get over its shakes in time for HMRN's aircraft carriers which are purpose designed for it.
F16's and Typhoons were a plenty.
A single F22 heralded as the greatest combat aircraft ever built............. broke halfway through its display. Not such a great advert.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on July 12, 2016, 12:33:46 PM
Vraciu, I suggest you read more balanced (i.e. not anti-propoganda) sources and reports. You're heavily cherry picking the negative comments to reinforce your point.
I strongly suggest anybody interested in a fair reporting on the progress of the F-35 read the ARC forum thread about it. It has been going since 2010 and over 370 pages. It has had actual F-22 pilots commenting (when they can) and people with a HELL of a lot more personal first-person experience in the industry than you have.
It is a program that isn't finished yet, and we all understand that. However as the subtitle of the thread reads: It's not all doom and gloom. Almost anybody involved in actually using the plane has been praising its for it's amazing abilities that the planes it is replacing simply cannot match. That includes dogfighting and wargames.
Check it out. You don't need to sign up to the forum to read it. If you want the most recent stuff, start on the last couple of pages and if you have more time work your way backwards. I've been following it on and off since 2010, and it's a hell of a lot more balanced that most sources out there. Yes, it also discusses the engines and the overall costs and the different price points per LRIP and comparing the milestones and what they're hitting to other planes that were horribly late and badly designed (like... say... the Super Hornet).
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 12, 2016, 12:37:23 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 12, 2016, 12:40:11 PM
Saw my first 35B being demonstrated at Fairford yesterday. It was not a spectacular display.....infact it was nearly the same demo the Harrier had given some decades ago at Farnborough ( also on this week) except of course the F35B is STOVL and not VTOL.
Hopefully it will get over its shakes in time for HMRN's aircraft carriers which are purpose designed for it.
F16's and Typhoons were a plenty.
A single F22 heralded as the greatest combat aircraft ever built............. broke halfway through its display. Not such a great advert.
The Raptor fleet is too small to do the job. They're starting to get tired. Let's hope a Gen Six jet is in the pipeline to replace both the F-22 and the T/A-35.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 12, 2016, 12:40:44 PM
That article sited by the OP is representative of what's wrong in our military. In combat, you don't get to see if you're having a "bad g day" or not.
Remember the initial deployment of the F-22? When they had to turn around and follow the tanker home because their electronics went Tango Uniform? Not to mention the OBOX killing pilots?
And we won't even mention that stupid suicide door for the lift fan on the shipboard variant of the F-35. It makes me think of the Yf-22/yf23 thing. And the YF-12/sr-71 thing. In the words of Ben Rich, "we built the wrong plane".
Bingo. :cheers:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on July 12, 2016, 04:41:55 PM
Here are the unfixable problems with the F-35:
(1) Wings are too small. (2) Severe buffeting at high angles of attack. (3) Gigantic helmet is too big and weighs too much.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on July 12, 2016, 06:24:36 PM
1) Tell that to the F-104. A wing is designed around very many different requirements. It makes enough lift for what it is designed to do. The size doesn't matter as long as it makes all the lift it needs.
2) An overly exaggerated complaint, countered by an F-16 trainer pilot with 2200+ hours in F-16s that transitioned to the F-35s and has had dogfights with F-16s in his F-35. He said it wasn't a real problem with the third generation of helmets.
3) Not really a problem. If you're referring to the ejection seat dummy tests, those were because of a forward rotation of the ejection seat, not the weight of the helmet. This is no worse a travesty than the F-16's tendency to cause chronic shoulder and upper back/neck pain in its pilots because of the tilted seat -- which was tilted based on a lie that it decreased G-effects. It didn't, it simply wouldn't fit upright. Many decades later the F-16 seats are still reclined and nobody has snapped a neck over it. Besides, there are plenty of easy fixes for that, including weight shaving and even simply shoulder/neck-strap harness rigs like Formula 1 drivers must use when they race. They save broken necks compared to non-strapped helmets. There are lots of easy fixes and a "fix" will be found.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on July 12, 2016, 06:26:37 PM
F35B demo recently - Those short wings always throwing contrails too, I'm not a fighter pilot, but doesn't this make you easier to see, and track visually, sort of a give away to your G as well? The fighter pilot I can ask in person is away with the Snowbirds right now, maybe others here, Puma/Eagle/Serenity/etc will comment on that, but I see the A and C model do this at lower alts a lot too, not sure about mid/higher alt.
I do hope those positive comments from the USMC general I posted are true - this didn't look TOO bad so far as a low level demo goes, some pretty tight turns in the least maneuverable and worst thrust/weight/speed F35 model
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on July 12, 2016, 08:21:00 PM
4) Its not stealthy vs infrared detection systems. 5) Its range is short. 6) Its ordnance load is small unless it carries externally. 7) Its slow vs 5th gen fighters. 8) Its too much money.
...and so on.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on July 12, 2016, 09:00:39 PM
Check out the Typhie at the same show, loaded for World War 4 - holy crap. Looks like 2 IR AAM, Asraam I think, 4 MRM missiles on the wells, 6 Brimstones, 2 500-1000lb class LGB/GPS bombs, 2 fuel tanks, and a partridge in a pear tree. That's insane, especially with the show it puts on. I know the F35 with external/internal stores mix can carry a lot too, but this is impressive for the Eurofighter IMO.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 07:31:05 AM
4) Its not stealthy vs infrared detection systems. 5) Its range is short. 6) Its ordnance load is small unless it carries externally. 7) Its slow vs 5th gen fighters. 8) Its too much money.
4) Nothing is. 5) 2-3 times the range of the AV-8B/Sea Harrier it replaces. 6) It can carry an infinitely larger internal ordnance load than the AV-8B/Sea Harrier, and 2-3 times as much externally. 7) About twice the speed of the AV-8B/Sea Harrier it replaces. 8) Maybe for your pockets.
You don't seem to realize just how much more airplane the F-35 is over the AV-8B/Sea Harrier: The Sea Harrier has a 26,200 lbs max. takeoff weight. The F-35B... 60,000 lbs.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 11:01:34 AM
Check out the Typhie at the same show, loaded for World War 4 - holy crap. Looks like 2 IR AAM, Asraam I think, 4 MRM missiles on the wells, 6 Brimstones, 2 500-1000lb class LGB/GPS bombs, 2 fuel tanks, and a partridge in a pear tree. That's insane, especially with the show it puts on. I know the F35 with external/internal stores mix can carry a lot too, but this is impressive for the Eurofighter IMO.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is arguably the best 4.5 generation multi-role fighter, and most impressive in the air superiority role as well. The only reason I would choose the F-22 and F-35 over the Eurofighter is because they are sneaky. Without stealth I think the Eurofighter is superior to both of them. More so against the F-35 of course in performance terms, but the DAS does make up for some of it. As with all designs it's give and take: Stealth requires a sacrifice in some other area of the design.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on July 13, 2016, 02:53:01 PM
Quote
You don't seem to realize just how much more airplane the F-35 is over the AV-8B/Sea Harrier
...its not JUST replacing the Harrier is it?
...the F-25 is replacing the F-18, F-16, Harrier and A-10...in an Air Force that only bought a limited # of F-22s (in the case of the USAF). In other countries its replacing the F-18 and/or the F-16 and Tornado.
Quote
4) Nothing is.
...well then...maybe they should have thought about that before spending god knows how much money and design complexity and trade-offs with the design before they went with a RADAR STEALTH design that in the end is going to be of little advantage.
If it was just replacing the Harrier and just the Harrier?...I would not be against it assuming the costs were reasonable but that's not the scenario and you know that perfectly well.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 03:48:32 PM
Harrier is a plane that only exist because of the VTOL capability, other than that is a very mediocre plane by todays standard. Should not be too hard to bulid a 120 million $ plane that is better..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 05:00:30 PM
"Its"? You seem to think it is one aircraft model. It's not. The B-model in Gman's video is only replacing the Sea Harrier/AV-8B, and yes, it is expensive. It's a niche aircraft. The C-model will supplement the Super Hornet and probably replace it at some point in the future. Again an expensive niche aircraft. Though the price will come down as more aircraft are ordered. The model that's replacing the F-16 and A-10 is the A-model, and that one is not as expensive. LRIP Lot 10 has just been approved and in the next production lot the unit price is expected to be below $100 million. "Oh but that doesn't include the engine!" ... No of course it doesn't. What aircraft manufacturer makes its own engines? No one. If you bought a new F-22 from Lockheed Martin you'd also have to buy two engines for it from Pratt & Whitney. If you bought a new F-16 from Lockheed Martin you'd also have to buy an engine from General Electric. If you buy a 737 from Boeing, you'll have to buy two engines for it from CFM International.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 05:15:13 PM
...well then...maybe they should have thought about that before spending god knows how much money and design complexity and trade-offs with the design before they went with a RADAR STEALTH design that in the end is going to be of little advantage.
IR sensors are almost limited to visual range. Their only advantage over normal optics is that IR can penetrate some cloud cover and smoke. We're talking 10-20 miles typical range up to perhaps 50-60 miles under optimum conditions. With radar we're talking hundreds of miles, in any weather. The best airborne IRST system in use today is probably the French Optronique Secteur Frontal. They claim a 60-mile detection range, but that's under the best possible conditions. There's a reason planes still use radar...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 05:16:52 PM
Although most manufacturer includes the Engine in the prize. There are a lot of other parts also built by external companies but they are included in the prize.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 05:22:09 PM
Really... Please source one U.S. military contract, or any contract buying U.S. aircraft where the engines are included in the price. You made the claim, now back it up.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 05:37:26 PM
"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has reached an agreement with Pratt & Whitney for the ninth low rate initial production (LRIP) lot of F135 engines, which power the F-35 joint strike fighter.
The agreement, worth an estimated $1.4 billion over the life of the production lot, covers 66 engines, as well as spares, extra parts, and support from the Connecticut-based engine manufacturer. Specifically, the breakdown is 53 conventional takeoff and landing engines, used in the F-35A and F-35C models, and 13 short takeoff and vertical landing models used for the F-35B model.
The engine lot also includes engines for five international partners and customers: Italy, Norway, Israel, Japan and the United Kingdom. Engines under this contract should begin delivery before the end of the year, according to a Pratt statement."
The U.S. government, Norway, Israel, Japan and the U.K. all buy engines from Pratt & Whitney directly in separate deals. Not via Lockheed Martin.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 05:37:46 PM
It's irrelevant whats stands in the contracts, whats matter when talking about cost of an Aircraft is how much its actually cost. No one cares what a F-35 cost without an Engine since you kind of need the Engine.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 05:40:00 PM
Then show me the aircraft manufacturers who include the engines in the price, as you claimed "most manufacturer" do.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 05:58:54 PM
Lol, that's just a negative proof fallacy. That "neither one of them says 'Without engines'" does not prove the numbers include engines. Neither does any of those aticles actually state the price of the aircraft, only the whole deal which undoubtedly includes a lot of things... Unless your argument is that a Rafale costs $223 million (€7.25 billion for 36 aircraft) and a Gripen costs $150 million ($5.4 billion for 36 aircraft). If you do then the F-35A is a bargain! :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 06:30:08 PM
Yes of course they include a lot of things, noone buys just a fighter without an Engine and nothing more..
1.4 billion for 66 Engines is 21 million a piece but say 15 million for an Engine, thats 15% of what the airframe cost. A rather significant increase in the prize.
Talking about cost without Engines is never relevant.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 06:47:11 PM
various flyaway costs: F/A-18 60,9 million Rafale C 94 million EF2000 90 million Gripen E 50-60 million
The numbers ive seen on the F-35 is 180 million and up so far, it will of course drop when production ramps up but the 100 million without an Engine talk is just a way of hiding the real cost.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 07:03:33 PM
A more realistic unit price for a F/A-18E is $90 million. After the F-35 is in full production the unit price for the aircraft is expected to fall to about $85 million. Add the engine, by then also in full production and we're looking at a $95 million jet, which is more like $80-85 million in current value if we include inflation by then.
"According to the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report, the F/A-18E/F’s per-unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 USD (FY2012) (see footnote 2). This does not include the foreign military sales and research and development fees levied on a program of this type. Adding these costs should bring its per unit cost to around $90 million."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 07:22:11 PM
It's the target flyaway cost yes, but they still have a long way to go Before they are there.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 07:38:45 PM
Of course. That's true of any product early in its production run.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on July 13, 2016, 08:41:02 PM
A friend of mine who is a high hour Hornet pilot and CO of the RCAF test establishment told me that the SuperHornets the new Canadian gov is looking at buying as an interim solution, from 24 to 36 of them, are slated to cost nearly 90$mil USD, just for the flyaway aircraft, not counting any stores, future maintaining, etc, just the fighters complete. Doesn't seem much cheaper than the F35A at this point, comes down to maintenance cost and other future costs maybe, since commonality is a BS excuse, as our legacy Hornets are about 80% or higher dissimilar when it comes to parts than the SuperHornet, although they are similar to train our pilots on, so training costs wouldn't change or go up much. I like the SH for Canada until the F35 matures, if it turns out to be fantastic in 5 years, we can buy some then, for now our Legacy Hornets are timed right out, done, and a few squads of SuperHornets beasts nothing, it's what Australia did.
And, if by some miracle they restart the F22 line, Japan has recently said it would move heaven and earth to get some, and Canada would be better served by that aircraft than the F35 due to 2 motors, longer range (it's big up here, and sparse so far as runways go).
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 13, 2016, 09:20:42 PM
F-35 can reach a reasonable cost per plane due to the high number ordered but the overall development cost is still astronomical. Building 3000 Rafale or EF:s and they would cost a lot less, same for the Hornet.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 13, 2016, 10:01:03 PM
The Super Hornet's development costs have been recouped long ago. What's left is production cost and profit margin.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on July 14, 2016, 05:26:42 PM
In any case all your points were referring to the F-35 (any model) vs the Harrier only. I do not see any data that makes the A, B or C model of the F-35 escape the drawbacks to its overall design. It is (the three versions) replacing the F-16, F-18, Harrier, A-10 and Tornado. So talking up its points vs the Harrier only is cherry picking in the extreme.
The drawbacks I listed applies to all three versions but I will list another:
9) An STOVL ability in the F-35B that is of limited use (lets be frank....no use whatsoever) but significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S).
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 14, 2016, 05:31:57 PM
What "drawbacks to its overall design" ? And in what way does the "STOVL ability in the F-35B ... significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S)" ?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 14, 2016, 07:26:28 PM
In any case all your points were referring to the F-35 (any model) vs the Harrier only. I do not see any data that makes the A, B or C model of the F-35 escape the drawbacks to its overall design. It is (the three versions) replacing the F-16, F-18, Harrier, A-10 and Tornado. So talking up its points vs the Harrier only is cherry picking in the extreme.
The drawbacks I listed applies to all three versions but I will list another:
9) An STOVL ability in the F-35B that is of limited use (lets be frank....no use whatsoever) but significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S).
Agree its a ton of Money spend and it gives nothing in return, its just so that the Marines can feel important. Scrapping the B would have save a lot of time and Money. They could even have used just one version, the Air force could use the same plane as the navy, but without the hook.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 15, 2016, 02:54:55 AM
Well, the Marines are paying for it through their budget. So is the U.K. The additional development costs are not added to the A-model which will be the most produced variant. The three different models have three different price tags, each representing their unique development costs.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Tilt on July 15, 2016, 08:44:27 AM
Agree its a ton of Money spend and it gives nothing in return, its just so that the Marines can feel important. Scrapping the B would have save a lot of time and Money. They could even have used just one version, the Air force could use the same plane as the navy, but without the hook.
Scrapping the B would end up with who ever decided to do so paying for a pair of Queen Elisabeth class air craft carriers or at least converting them to CATOBAR or EMALs
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 15, 2016, 09:09:55 AM
Thats the drawback of designing a carrier to fit a plane instead of the opposite. But the 'B' should of course have been scrapped already back at the drawing board, now its way too late. the money have already been spent.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 15, 2016, 11:28:41 AM
Nonsense. The F-35B is an awesome combat capability for smaller carrier navies operating ski-jump STOVL carriers. Italy, Spain, India, Brazil and Thailand operate small carriers perfect for the F-35B. Turkey has its first carrier under construction as well and it will enter service in 2021.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 18, 2016, 06:19:09 PM
Nonsense. The F-35B is an awesome combat capability for smaller carrier navies operating ski-jump STOVL carriers. Italy, Spain, India, Brazil and Thailand operate small carriers perfect for the F-35B. Turkey has its first carrier under construction as well and it will enter service in 2021.
Quote:
Internal weapons carriage for the F-35B was scaled back to a pair of 1,000lb stores plus two AMRAAMs, compared to the two 2,000lb weapons that can be carried internally by both the F-35A and C.
What "drawbacks to its overall design" ? And in what way does the "STOVL ability in the F-35B ... significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S)" ?
It is blocky and draggy. The lift fan of the B takes up space for weapons and increases frontal area, something the A and C could live without but are stuck with for the sake of a mere 20% commonality.
To keep down costs all three JSF variants — the Air Force’s basic F-35A, the Marines’ vertical-takeoff F-35B and the Navy F-35C with a bigger wing for at-sea carrier landings — share essentially the same fuselage. And to fit both the F-35B’s lift fan and the bomb bays present in all three models, the “cross-sectional area” of the fuselage has to be “quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing,” conceded Lockheed exec Tom Burbage, who retired this year as head of the company’s F-35 efforts.
The extra width violates an important aerospace design principle called the “area rule,” which encourages narrow, cylindrical fuselages for best aerodynamic results. The absence of area rule on the F-35 — again, a knock-on effect of the Marines’ demand for a lift fan — increases drag and consequently decreases acceleration, fuel efficiency and flying range. Thus critics’ assertion that supersonic speed can’t be combined with STOVL and stealth, the latter of which are already incompatible with each other.
“We’re dealing with the laws of physics,” Burbage said in his company’s defense when word got out about the JSF’s performance downgrades.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 18, 2016, 07:02:40 PM
Thats the drawback of designing a carrier to fit a plane instead of the opposite. But the 'B' should of course have been scrapped already back at the drawing board, now its way too late. the money have already been spent.
Absolutely right.
The B has ruined any hope for the other two versions thanks to the Marine obsession with VTOL, something totally impractical in the guise of the Just So Failed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 18, 2016, 07:16:37 PM
The area rule is less important on modern fighters, it reduces drag but modern fighter jets have plenty of Engine Power and can plow though the sound barrier anyway. It were different with much less powerful jets in the 50:s and 60:s
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 18, 2016, 07:37:15 PM
The area rule is less important on modern fighters, it reduces drag but modern fighter jets have plenty of Engine Power and can plow though the sound barrier anyway. It were different with much less powerful jets in the 50:s and 60:s
The Joint Strike Failure is underpowered. It also has an engine that cannot grow. Thus, the wide, flat, brick-shaped frontal area destroys the airplane. All due to the lift-fan of the B.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 18, 2016, 07:41:47 PM
A more realistic unit price for a F/A-18E is $90 million. After the F-35 is in full production the unit price for the aircraft is expected to fall to about $85 million. Add the engine, by then also in full production and we're looking at a $95 million jet, which is more like $80-85 million in current value if we include inflation by then.
Except the Super actually works.
The engine is $30M on the T/A-35. I can buy three F-16Cs for that and get more value.
Also, please stop with the unit cost per block meme. This airplane was promised to be the same price to acquire and operate as an F-16C. Not happening. You can lower the unit price for Block 55 to a dollar and you still have a $100M per jet boondoggle.
The total program cost is over a trillion dollars. Cut that in half and you still have a $200M airplane that doesn't work and never will. Ever.
NEVER.
Bookmark it. I told you so. This airplane will never work. Ever ever ever never never. It is not an F-22 and never will be.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on July 19, 2016, 01:06:52 AM
It is blocky and draggy. The lift fan of the B takes up space for weapons and increases frontal area,
For a single-engined stealth aircraft you are sort of constrained to this kind of frontal profile. I think it has less to do with the lift fan and more to do with concealing the engine face from radar. Making a sort of double C-shaped inlet tract (viewed from above), in combination with the need for an internal weapons bay results in one of those naturally emergent solutions in design.
Air does counter-intuitive things at speed. You have to be careful with the old 'looks right' paradigm. It's still valid but you have to tune your eye in to unexpected things. So blocky might not directly translate to draggy. I don't know if that data is available. I suspect not.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 19, 2016, 02:32:47 AM
For a single-engined stealth aircraft you are sort of constrained to this kind of frontal profile. I think it has less to do with the lift fan and more to do with concealing the engine face from radar. Making a sort of double C-shaped inlet tract (viewed from above), in combination with the need for an internal weapons bay results in one of those naturally emergent solutions in design.
Air does counter-intuitive things at speed. You have to be careful with the old 'looks right' paradigm. It's still valid but you have to tune your eye in to unexpected things. So blocky might not directly translate to draggy. I don't know if that data is available. I suspect not.
Compare it to the F-22. The JSF, if it is to remain blocky any way, would at least have more payload capacity without the fan. The bay's would also be better designed.
I contend that the airplane would be less draggy by a fair margin without the compromises brought on by the B's requirements. A foot here a foot there--it all matters.
:salute
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on July 19, 2016, 03:38:03 AM
Compare it to the F-22. The JSF, if it is to remain blocky any way, would at least have more payload capacity without the fan. The bay's would also be better designed.
I contend that the airplane would be less draggy by a fair margin without the compromises brought on by the B's requirements. A foot here a foot there--it all matters.
:salute
F-22 is twin-engined. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Again, look at the intake designs.
Drag and size aren't as well coupled as it was once thought. That's a bit old-fashioned thinking. There are CofG issues too as well as minimum lengths of weapons. Removing the fan won't alter those constraints.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 19, 2016, 04:01:54 AM
F-22 is twin-engined. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Again, look at the intake designs.
Drag and size aren't as well coupled as it was once thought. That's a bit old-fashioned thinking. There are CofG issues too as well as minimum lengths of weapons. Removing the fan won't alter those constraints.
I am well aware of how aerodynamics works. That said, when the Lockheed Program Manager for the airplane says it is draggier than it would otherwise have been I tend to think he is right.
Yes, the F-22 is a twin. That's the point. The JSF is a fat, wide brick because of the lift fan. It is as big as a twin but has only one over stressed, underpowered motor. As a consequence it has horrible acceleration, no supercruise, and is "thermally challenged".
The weapons bays are sub-optimal as well, again due to the lift fan.
The lift fan compromises the overall design for no purpose other than a paltry 20% commonality.
:salute
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on July 19, 2016, 04:23:29 AM
Yes, the F-22 is a twin. That's the point. The JSF is a fat, wide brick because of the lift fan. It is as big as a twin but has only one over stressed, underpowered motor. As a consequence it has horrible acceleration, no supercruise, and is "thermally challenged".
The weapons bays are sub-optimal as well, again due to the lift fan.
The lift fan compromises the overall design for no purpose other than a paltry 20% commonality.
I agree on the point that something like 20% commonality is way too low and I myself would not have employed a lift fan to address this design brief. It's low enough to consider a separate aircraft might in retrospect have been a better idea, although I think such a programme would never have been approved in this time.
With the centreline occupied with engine, right through the CofG, you are either left with 'pannier' weapons bays which mean width or an underslung weapons bay which means comparable extra depth which compromises stealth. I don't agree the width is implicitly due to the lift-fan. I think it's the intake design issues and the other constraints mentioned which further include the need to compromise design choices to accomodate separate military branches and the business model too. Topics which are arguably more unsolvable than some of the design issues.
:banana:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 19, 2016, 05:11:21 AM
I agree on the point that something like 20% commonality is way too low and I myself would not have employed a lift fan to address this design brief. It's low enough to consider a separate aircraft might in retrospect have been a better idea, although I think such a programme would never have been approved in this time.
With the centreline occupied with engine, right through the CofG, you are either left with 'pannier' weapons bays which mean width or an underslung weapons bay which means comparable extra depth which compromises stealth. I don't agree the width is implicitly due to the lift-fan. I think it's the intake design issues and the other constraints mentioned which further include the need to compromise design choices to accomodate separate military branches and the business model too. Topics which are arguably more unsolvable than some of the design issues.
:banana:
Well, Burbage and Sprey say it is the fault of the lift fan. To my eye that appears correct.
Separate designs would have been better. Totally agree on that point. Trying to shoehorn three completely different requirements into one airplane has messed it up. The delays this has caused--not to mention built-in performance compromises--mean the airplane will be obsolete before it even enters service.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on July 19, 2016, 06:59:33 AM
Separate designs would have been better. Totally agree on that point. Trying to shoehorn three completely different requirements into one airplane has messed it up. The delays this has caused--not to mention built-in performance compromises--mean the airplane will be obsolete before it even enters service.
I think it can be done from the design perspective without weight or range penalty but the Airforce would have to accept something they don't care about: VSTOL but they'd just have to shut it. If you look at what's happened the businessmen wanted one product to sell both domestically and internationally and the three branches their own design and the F-35 series is somewhere in the middle of that elastic tug of war. Not so Joint, but much more Joint than anything before.
The hardest and most restrictive design is the Harrier replacement. Solving that might have to opportunity to do away with the catapult systems too. I think stealth and supersonic and VSTOL can be resolved in one design but this was a half-arsed way to achieve that at the fundamental design level.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 19, 2016, 07:09:13 AM
Sprey's a bit shifty brah, you should research him. He's said some proper crazy stuff.
I still love the guy. And he is pretty savvy when it comes to these things.
Quote
I think it can be done from the design perspective without weight or range penalty but the Airforce would have to accept something they don't care about: VSTOL but they'd just have to shut it. If you look at what's happened the businessmen wanted one product to sell both domestically and internationally and the three branches their own design and the F-35 series is somewhere in the middle of that elastic tug of war. Not so Joint, but much more Joint than anything before.
The hardest and most restrictive design is the Harrier replacement. Solving that might have to opportunity to do away with the catapult systems too. I think stealth and supersonic and VSTOL can be resolved in one design but this was a half-arsed way to achieve that at the fundamental design level.
You will always have compromises when you go for VSTOL. It's the nature of the beast.
I agree this was an awkward way to do it. Just like the Forger was compromised, so is this. The Super Harrier concept would have been better than the Just So Failed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 19, 2016, 10:02:41 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 19, 2016, 10:09:06 AM
It's irrelevant whats stands in the contracts, whats matter when talking about cost of an Aircraft is how much its actually cost. No one cares what a F-35 cost without an Engine since you kind of need the Engine.
Exactly.
"This plane costs $85M." (Nevermind that this is a complete lie by any metric.)
"Where's the engine?"
"Oh, that's a $30M option. It comes with a free bottle of ketchup and a nice set of spoons."
:confused:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 19, 2016, 10:11:53 AM
A friend of mine who is a high hour Hornet pilot and CO of the RCAF test establishment told me that the SuperHornets the new Canadian gov is looking at buying as an interim solution, from 24 to 36 of them, are slated to cost nearly 90$mil USD, just for the flyaway aircraft, not counting any stores, future maintaining, etc, just the fighters complete. Doesn't seem much cheaper than the F35A at this point, comes down to maintenance cost and other future costs maybe, since commonality is a BS excuse, as our legacy Hornets are about 80% or higher dissimilar when it comes to parts than the SuperHornet, although they are similar to train our pilots on, so training costs wouldn't change or go up much. I like the SH for Canada until the F35 matures, if it turns out to be fantastic in 5 years, we can buy some then, for now our Legacy Hornets are timed right out, done, and a few squads of SuperHornets beasts nothing, it's what Australia did.
And, if by some miracle they restart the F22 line, Japan has recently said it would move heaven and earth to get some, and Canada would be better served by that aircraft than the F35 due to 2 motors, longer range (it's big up here, and sparse so far as runways go).
The T/A-35 will cost well more than double that and bring less to the fight than the Super.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Latrobe on July 20, 2016, 11:18:06 AM
See Rule #4 (trolling)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 20, 2016, 01:15:47 PM
All data transfer is done with internet explorer.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 21, 2016, 06:40:16 PM
ARLINGTON, Va. — An experienced fighter pilot who has flown in mock combat against the Marine Corps’ F-35B Lightning II strike fighter has described the F-35’s performance as similar to that of the Air Force’s F-22A Raptor air superiority fighter.
“I was just flying at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort [S.C.] about three weeks ago against the F-35s,” said Jeff Parker, a former Air Force fighter pilot and now chief executive officer of Airborne Tactical Advantage Co. (ATAC) — a unit of Textron Airborne Solutions — that provides commercially operated adversaries, jet fighters that pose as enemy aircraft to train Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force fighter pilots. “The F-35Bs “are very ‘Raptorish’ in their training and the aircraft is a very capable airplane in the air-to-air arena.”
Parker, speaking July 18 in a teleconference with reporters, also described the challenge of providing adversary services to fifth-generation fighter aircraft like the F-22 and F-35.
“Fifth-generation aircraft have a generous appetite for bad guys — for bandits.” Parker said. “They need a lot of adversaries in order to challenge them because their systems are so spatially aware and limited only by the number of missiles that they carry. We have flown against Raptors on many occasions; they are a very impressive aircraft.”
An F-22 can carry six AIM-120 air-to-air missiles and when a section of two F-22s trains, “ideally they want 12 bandits; the minimum is eight, I believe,” he said. “The F-35 will be a little more missile-limited, but you still are going to want to max out your missile supply [and bandits to counter], because you can.”
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 21, 2016, 06:50:42 PM
"I can’t wait to get the airplane out to the Pacific," Lieutenant General Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told Reuters in an interview. "It’s tailor-made for that part of the world with its fifth generation capability and its expeditionary capabilities to land on a small ship or strip, and flow back and forth between those."
Davis says the F-35s are doing far better in combat exercises than expected, achieving so-called "kill ratios" of 24 to zero, and surviving every sort of simulated enemy attack.
"It is like watching a velociraptor going through. Everything in its path is killed," he told reporters.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Latrobe on July 22, 2016, 08:27:14 AM
See Rule #4 (trolling)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 23, 2016, 01:25:23 AM
Now for something I've been waiting for... Let's see how the F-35 does in Red Flag. Not only flying against U.S. aircraft, but also those of other allied nations. :cheers:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 23, 2016, 09:25:29 AM
Like the Velociraptor reference, They were in reality in the size of a turkey and not quite as scary as the Jurassic park ones... (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Vraptor-scale.png)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 23, 2016, 10:03:34 AM
The Jurasic Park crew based their raptor on the Utahraptor, which had just been discovered at that time.
You guys know the F-22 was not named after a dinosaur, but a bird of prey, right?
:)
I can't speak for Zimme, but yeah... I know that.
However, Lieutenant General Jon Davis of the USMC was quoted in an earlier post where he said (about the F-35B not the F-22) "It is like watching a velociraptor going through. Everything in its path is killed," and that's the comment that set Zimme off.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 24, 2016, 03:34:29 AM
USMC and RNoAF pilots talking about the F-35 at RIAT. :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on July 24, 2016, 12:21:56 PM
You guys know the F-22 was not named after a dinosaur, but a bird of prey, right?
it was a Rapier to begin with
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on July 25, 2016, 02:05:59 AM
And the "Lightning 2" before that. The F22 had more names attached to it than you could shake a stick at before they settled on "Raptor".
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on July 25, 2016, 02:54:20 AM
Quote
The simulated aerial engagements at Red Flag will focus on flight safety and finding the best uses for all the tools available to pilots rather than three-dimensional maneuvering, said 2nd Lt. Casey Littesy, a spokeswoman for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing. The F-35's long-range sensors and weapons make it unlikely that the aircraft will have to engage in within visual-range air-to-air combat, she said.
...well golly I hope the Chinese or N. Koreans get the memo when they shoot actual f***ing weapons at them. Pfft.
Quote
The F-35's long-range sensors and weapons make it unlikely that the aircraft will have to engage in within visual-range air-to-air combat
...and im so glad the PR officers have the talking points memorized. :O
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 25, 2016, 03:28:13 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 26, 2016, 05:01:33 AM
Look at all those targets! Some lucky USAF or ROKAF pilots are going to make ace in a day. Many of them in fact. 35 MiG-29s of 1980's vintage: The only potential threat to a F-22 or F-35. And by "potential" I mean "almost negligible". All the rest is 1950's and 1960's Soviet and Chinese crap.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 26, 2016, 02:41:35 PM
South Korea on the other hand has 458 fighters, 158 F-5 60 F-15E 71 F-4 169 F-16.
So they have roughly an equal number of fighters, and they are better.
But North Korea is not an argument for having F-35, the legacy fighters will do the job and it would be much more about quantity and ground attack capability. North Korean air force will be whiped out within a few days but major cities like Seoul is within artillery range and North Korea has artillery - a LOT. So most important would be a large number of aircrafts capable of bombing those artillery positions.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on July 26, 2016, 03:45:31 PM
Anyone remember the post Eagl made about his time in the ROK?
Quote
SA trumps kinetics unless you have a mission to accomplish and the only way through the door is to kick it down. Then the guy with the biggest stick (or most sticks) may not "win" but you're still gonna gonna suffer losses getting thru the door. Or keeping the other guy from coming in YOUR door. Guess what used to keep me up at night when I was responsible for a certain what-if scenario... 1000 cannon-equipped and obsolete fighters streaming south from North Korea. We'd run out of missiles and bullets before we got half of them, even if we could individually track and engage each one with optimum efficiency. Then you can have all the SA in the world, but the survivors are gonna strafe your O-Club and your chow hall when you run out of the kinetics you pass off as unnecessary. Buying a lot of new fighters with half the missile loadout of the ones we have isn't the way to win that fight.
Pred is right, others too, IF the DPRK played our game, they would get slaughtered in the air. However, what if they initiated a massive surprise arty attack vs Seoul, the DMZ, etc, and at the same time attacked the very, VERY few bases where the ROK/USAF fighters are based with huge, huge special forces attacks, and co-ordinated THAT with a selective nuke strike or two. Unlikely, yes, but it COULD happen, especially the first part. Then those ancient cannon/dumb bomb armed fighters aren't so useless any longer. Remember a few months ago when the DPRK sortied nearly all their subs? The South/NATO lost them, nearly all of them, for days. They COULD infiltrate in huge numbers of SF troops, they have the largest SF units in the world for a reason. 100+ of them hitting Kunsan, Osan, and others - which are all near the sea - isn't impossible.
Regarding the F35 specifically, that USMC General and his "velociraptor" comment has been the soundbite of the year for the F35, and I think he'll be proved either a PR master/loose with facts, or PR master/right all along, after this Red Flag going on right now. Not a lot of F35s are involved, and just the "B" model, and will be going up against a pile of higher end legacy fighters, like F16/F15Cs doing red air in some exercises apparently. Then we'll see how good this version of the F35 is right now. So, IMO, in the next few weeks, we'll have a better idea, as much as they'll tell us anyway, of how it did. If it gets slaughtered A2A, I think due to the nature of things, it'll be hard to keep it a secret, just like the F16w/tanks vs F35 thing was. Same if it dominates, and mows everything like the F22s do.
IF, IF, the F35B model works as well as this USMC General claimed they did in the last Ex at Red Flag, it'll be a pretty big media story. The USMC is standing up more squads of them now, they have a couple, and more coming, and will this time next year have 24+ of them forward deployed in Japan. The advantage the F35B gives over the Harrier is something, IF it works as advertised, but sure isn't cheap. We'll see on the A and C models I guess later on.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 26, 2016, 04:23:49 PM
When I read the comments about the F-35 participation in Red Flag I see it as a confirmation that the F-35 isnt ready for any real action, If they had confidence that it could meet other American and European fighters they would not have limited its role in the exercise. It's not very surprising tough, we will probably not see a truly combat ready f-35 squad for another 2-3 years. And only then its true capabilities can be determine.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 28, 2016, 08:20:29 AM
Anyone remember the post Eagl made about his time in the ROK?
Pred is right, others too, IF the DPRK played our game, they would get slaughtered in the air. However, what if they initiated a massive surprise arty attack vs Seoul, the DMZ, etc, and at the same time attacked the very, VERY few bases where the ROK/USAF fighters are based with huge, huge special forces attacks, and co-ordinated THAT with a selective nuke strike or two. Unlikely, yes, but it COULD happen, especially the first part. Then those ancient cannon/dumb bomb armed fighters aren't so useless any longer. Remember a few months ago when the DPRK sortied nearly all their subs? The South/NATO lost them, nearly all of them, for days. They COULD infiltrate in huge numbers of SF troops, they have the largest SF units in the world for a reason. 100+ of them hitting Kunsan, Osan, and others - which are all near the sea - isn't impossible.
Sure the DPRK has a huge army, and a human wave is still a human wave. If the North invades, South Korea would suffer enormous casualties and destruction of property, mostly civilian. Personally I don't think the DPRK would win in the end, but it would still be a disaster on an unprecedented scale for the South.
Eagl's point about "buying a lot of new fighters with half the missile loadout of the ones we have isn't the way to win that fight" I cannot agree with however. Mainly because the F-35 does not have "half the missile loadout". In a fight against an enemy like the DPRK where half the air force doesn't even have radar, the F-35's stealth can be sacrificed for a greater missile loadout.
In such a scenario the F-35 can carry twice the missile loadout of an F-16, not half. Each F-35 effectively destroying a squadron's worth of DPRK aircraft. And in a pinch, let's say a MiG-29 shows up, those external hardpoints can be jettisoned restoring the F-35 stealth.
If only real life was anything like the shiny brochures.
Then how many Mig-17s and Mig-19s do you think a 14-missiles armed F-35 can destroy?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 29, 2016, 07:24:30 PM
:aok
"The second drill, though, did not go as planned – in the best possible way, Davis said. The planes were to fly a close-air support mission through clouds at 1,000 feet, with the planes in the 3F configuration that allows for pylons to externally carry 18,000 pounds of bombs.
“I’m out there, the commandant of the Marine Corps is out there, I want to impress the commandant,” Davis said. “This first scenario was awesome, and then right before the second scenario I said, are we ready to go? And this young major comes up … he goes, ‘we’re not going to do exactly what you want us to do.’ I’m like [eyes grow wide]. “Because we didn’t think the tasking was challenging enough. So we’ve got two that are slick and two that are loaded up as bomb trucks. We can do the job sir, don’t worry.’”
So two planes forfeited their external carry capacity in exchange for stealth, and “it was a work of art,” Davis said. The planes hit all their targets in five and a half minutes, with the four planes passing images through the clouds and successfully taking out the missile threat early on.
“I just watched, I’m like, that’s not how my brain works, but that is the way their brains are working,” he said. “Gen.(Charles) Krulak, who I used to work for, said ‘you don’t man the equipment, you equip the man,’ so we’re equipping these young Marines, this generation that doesn’t know any bounds for latitude for technology, and they’re leveraging this technology and doing great things.”
IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum useully deployable form. The term is often used in government or military procurement.
For a U.S. Department of Defense military acquisition, IOC includes operating the training and maintaining parts of the overall system per DOTMLPF, and is defined as 'In general, attained when some units and/or organizations in the force structure scheduled to receive a system have received it and have the ability to employ and maintain it. The specifics for any particular system IOC are defined in that system’s Capability Development Document (CDD) and Capability Production Document (CPD).'
---
Not to be confused with combat-capable.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Rich46yo on July 30, 2016, 08:24:47 AM
The AIM-120 A and B models have a 59% kill rate, 17 for 10 kills, 20 to 34 years ago. Maybe you want to recalculate your estimates. And thats the problem with the F-35, to many people read news clipping and have no idea what the aircraft was actually designed to do.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 30, 2016, 11:26:58 AM
The AIM-120 A and B models have a 59% kill rate, 17 for 10 kills, 20 to 34 years ago. Maybe you want to recalculate your estimates. And thats the problem with the F-35,
Twenty to thirty-four (THIRTY FOUR) YEARS *AGO* against second-tier threats. A PK of 59% is anemic in and of itself but is far higher than anyone who knows anything about this subject will tell you it is RIGHT NOW (not 20+ years ago), particularly against first-tier threats.
If the most-advanced version of the Slammer has a PK of even 40% against first-tier enemies I'll eat my hat.
Quote
to many people read news clipping and have no idea what the aircraft was actually designed to do.
Oh the irony. :lol
It was designed as a strike fighter with LIMITED self-defense capability. It is now being tasked with being the world's greatest air superiority platform (along with a whole bunch of other stuff it wasn't expected to do initially).
Ain't gonna' happen.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Rich46yo on July 30, 2016, 10:18:07 PM
Quote
With the AMRAAM's anemic PK, maybe two.
Your words not mine.
Not anemic because we are talking overall kills with a evolving system. You cant compare current AMRAAM with first deployed. Would you compare current AIM-7 with the first ones?
The truth is modern air wars are won with strike fighters. Attack enemy networked air defense...destroy enemy networked air defense....game over. Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Libya, even Afghanistan. First thing is take out air defense, then game over.
Quote
It was designed as a strike fighter with LIMITED self-defense capability. It is now being tasked with being the world's greatest air superiority platform
Kinda sounds like the F-16. How did that work out? Without stealth?
The F35 it loaded with a terrific avionics package. Networked into a terrific support package. Who really is going to be a threat against an F35 equipped USAF or Ally?
Twenty to thirty-four (THIRTY FOUR) YEARS *AGO* against second-tier threats. A PK of 59% is anemic in and of itself but is far higher than anyone who knows anything about this subject will tell you it is RIGHT NOW (not 20+ years ago), particularly against first-tier threats.
If the most-advanced version of the Slammer has a PK of even 40% against first-tier enemies I'll eat my hat.
Oh the irony. :lol
It was designed as a strike fighter with LIMITED self-defense capability. It is now being tasked with being the world's greatest air superiority platform (along with a whole bunch of other stuff it wasn't expected to do initially).
Ain't gonna' happen.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on July 31, 2016, 04:59:08 AM
F-16 was from the beginning a day Fighter, designed to be cheap. The continuous upgrades have turned it to a multi role fighter and it does it well, its not a bad plane at all but against the most modern fighters it would struggle a bit - if it was just down to the capability of the planes. It rarely is though.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 31, 2016, 06:36:26 AM
"The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says"
"The F-35 Lightning II is so stealthy, pilots are facing an unusual challenge. They're having difficulty participating in some types of training exercises, a squadron commander told reporters Wednesday.
During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: bozon on July 31, 2016, 06:41:22 AM
The truth is modern air wars are won with strike fighters. Attack enemy networked air defense...destroy enemy networked air defense....game over. Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Libya, even Afghanistan. First thing is take out air defense, then game over.
The only example of the above that had any kind of real air defences was Vietnam. Hardly a winner and air defences were not take out. US air forces suffered greatly by the same presumptions that BVR missiles is all you need.
Libia and Afganistan, air power had very little effect. The real targets of the Libia bombing were sitting in fromt of their TV in France and America.
The bombing of Iraq helped the ground troops a bit and mostly killed a lot of civilians. Iraqi air defences were a joke yet the coalition still managed to lose a few planes before realizing it and flying high enough so goat herders with an ak47 will not shoot them down.
The west has not faced a serious opponent in the air since vietnam.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 31, 2016, 06:55:06 AM
The Royal Navy would disagree with you I think. But apart from them no one has faced a serious opponent in the air since the Vietnam War.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on July 31, 2016, 09:54:14 AM
Not anemic because we are talking overall kills with a evolving system. You cant compare current AMRAAM with first deployed. Would you compare current AIM-7 with the first ones?
The truth is modern air wars are won with strike fighters. Attack enemy networked air defense...destroy enemy networked air defense....game over. Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Libya, even Afghanistan. First thing is take out air defense, then game over. Kinda sounds like the F-16. How did that work out? Without stealth?
The F35 it loaded with a terrific avionics package. Networked into a terrific support package. Who really is going to be a threat against an F35 equipped USAF or Ally?
The AMRAAM has new capabilities that are offset by the enemy's ability to counter it. Nobody expects a 59% PK in future wars, particularly when deployed by the T/A-35. Pole length matters. The Just So Failed will be shooting uphill at about Mach 1.5. The bad guys will be higher and faster with the ability to shoot first and break away.
What avionics capabilities? You mean helmet jitter?
What will we do when our enemies jam our networks? This is a real threat. The airplane is already vulnerable to cyber attacks via its maintenance software.
And when the Joint Strike Failure gets a divide by zero error flameout you can't tow it back to base.
"The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says"
"The F-35 Lightning II is so stealthy, pilots are facing an unusual challenge. They're having difficulty participating in some types of training exercises, a squadron commander told reporters Wednesday.
During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane."
Quote:
Remember, ladies and gentlemen: when you ask the Air Force a question about the F-35, you’re not going to get a candid answer … you’re going to get a scripted one.
We know this because F-35 discussions are governed not by unguarded insights or unvarnished opinions, but by strictly controlled flows of information and message discipline that would make a presidential campaign blush.
An eight-page propaganda plan obtained by JQP — labeled “F-35A Public Affairs Guidance” and shared in entirety below — lays out in painstaking (and painful) detail the authorized answers to public questions about the program.
Not anemic because we are talking overall kills with a evolving system. You cant compare current AMRAAM with first deployed. Would you compare current AIM-7 with the first ones?
You seem to assume that while the AMRAAM has advanced in technology that the adversary has not. Do you honestly think the potential adversaries of the F35 have stayed put with what they had 30 years ago?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on July 31, 2016, 06:06:41 PM
AMRAAMs are death wands. Always have been. The mediocre hit statistics comes from a number of shots being taken outside the proper launch parameters. Pilots will do that in combat for a number of reasons. When fired within the launch parameters the AMRAAM has a consistent PK in the 0.9s. Dodgy statistics is not the same as PK. The PK is the probability of kill when the missile is fired within the proper launch parameters.
The fact is, the AMRAAM is the most operationally successful medium range missile in service today. There is no other current BVR weapon that has demonstrated anywhere near its operational effectiveness. AMRAAM from its beginning had active, semi-active and inertial reference guidance modes, with later variants adding home-on-jam capability, 2 way data-link capability (to among other things expand off-board targeting control of the weapon in flight) and GPS/INS guidance assistance.
It's a death wand.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on August 01, 2016, 01:20:55 AM
It's still safe to say that missiles like the Meteor is better than the AMRAAM. We also know very little about the performance of the AA-12 so it would be hard to determine how good the AMRAAM is compared to what it can be expected to meet.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 01, 2016, 05:00:25 AM
In what way is it "safe to say" the Meteor is better than the AMRAAM?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 01, 2016, 09:47:25 AM
It's still safe to say that missiles like the Meteor is better than the AMRAAM. We also know very little about the performance of the AA-12 so it would be hard to determine how good the AMRAAM is compared to what it can be expected to meet.
You'll never get through to the true believers.
You cannot say the AMRAAM is a death wand. The small sample size of actual employment tells us only one thing, that it isn't a 90% kill shot missile and never has been--nor will it be. Nothing is.
Also, with the F-22 at least it is launched from a higher altitude and speed increasing its range (pole length). The JSF, as I have repeatedly explained, is shooting uphill a full Mach number slower than its opponents. This decreases its effective range and PK. The enemy can ripple fire at a longer range forcing the JSF to break off. If the JSF shoots at its max range from low and slow the enemy can turn away and run the AMRAAM out of fuel.
Also, when it is ten against two the T/A-35 is gonna' get run down and killed no matter how many missiles it is carrying.
One of my buds was an F-22 Wing Commander among other posts. When I asked him about the AMRAAM he had much he could not say, but what I got from reading between the lines is the thing is no panacea--no weapon system is.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 01, 2016, 02:17:44 PM
Was... was he bitten by a scorpion?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on August 01, 2016, 10:32:34 PM
"WASHINGTON — The Air Force on Tuesday declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for battle, fifteen years after Lockheed Martin won the contract to make the plane.
The milestone means that the service can now send its first operational F-35 formation — the 34th Fighter Squadron located at Hill Air Force Base, Utah — into combat operations anywhere in the world."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 02, 2016, 01:06:41 PM
"WASHINGTON — The Air Force on Tuesday declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for battle, fifteen years after Lockheed Martin won the contract to make the plane.
The milestone means that the service can now send its first operational F-35 formation — the 34th Fighter Squadron located at Hill Air Force Base, Utah — into combat operations anywhere in the world."
:rofl
"Critics of the program have said declaring IOC is more of a marketing move than an actual operational one, as the service set the IOC requirements itself. Harrison acknowledged that view, but said IOC is still an improtant step forward."
Absolutely true. It can't even employ weapons. Combat ready? LOL. Nope.
Quote:
Remember, ladies and gentlemen: when you ask the Air Force a question about the F-35, you’re not going to get a candid answer … you’re going to get a scripted one.
We know this because F-35 discussions are governed not by unguarded insights or unvarnished opinions, but by strictly controlled flows of information and message discipline that would make a presidential campaign blush.
An eight-page propaganda plan obtained by JQP — labeled “F-35A Public Affairs Guidance” and shared in entirety below — lays out in painstaking (and painful) detail the authorized answers to public questions about the program.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 02, 2016, 01:43:49 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 02, 2016, 02:00:18 PM
The Brewster Buffalo of the 21st Century. *SMH*
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 02, 2016, 11:14:06 PM
Vraciu you're only hurting your own credibility by posting such sources. That's the most vitriolic hate-spewing article I've read in months with little to no basis in fact most of the time. Every sentence in every paragraph is loaded with prejudiced terminology and total bias. To call it Yellow Journalism would be too kind. You seriously need to broaden your horizons to more balanced and fair reporting and articles.
This... Even Rush Limbaugh wouldn't condone an article like this. It would be far beneath him. And we all know how "balanced" and "fair" Rush was.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 02, 2016, 11:18:58 PM
Vraciu you're only hurting your own credibility by posting such sources. That's the most vitriolic hate-spewing article I've read in months with little to no basis in fact most of the time. Every sentence in every paragraph is loaded with prejudiced terminology and total bias. To call it Yellow Journalism would be too kind. You seriously need to broaden your horizons to more balanced and fair reporting and articles.
This... Even Rush Limbaugh wouldn't condone an article like this. It would be far beneath him. And we all know how "balanced" and "fair" Rush was.
Again, I quoted directly from the USAF's own published documents. Perhaps you are referencing some other article posted by some other somebody?
This airplane is garbage. Everyone knows it. If they don't, they'll find out eventually.
Six years behind schedule. Tasked with doing things it wasn't designed for. Built for yesterday's war.
OB
SO
LES
CENT
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 02, 2016, 11:27:39 PM
I'm sorry, but you must have at least "this much" common sense to participate in a civil discussion, and so far... it's just extremist rantings that aren't based on facts.
P.S. John Q Public's rant blog is not a voice for official USAF statements or positions.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 02, 2016, 11:35:11 PM
I'm sorry, but you must have at least "this much" common sense to participate in a civil discussion, and so far... it's just extremist rantings that aren't based on facts.
P.S. John Q Public's rant blog is not a voice for official USAF statements or positions.
He posted a screenshot of the approved talking points.
The USAF got busted.
Don't shoot me, I am just the messenger.
This airplane is garbage by every metric.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 02, 2016, 11:37:14 PM
BTW, I find it rather.......ironic...that JSF cheerleaders scream bias. Every source they quote is filled with propaganda and nonsense but they call it fact. Any criticism of the Just So Failed is called "biased" even when it comes from the Pentagon's own oversight officer.
Hilarious.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 02, 2016, 11:44:13 PM
You're not hearing and not reading anything that's being put in front of you. You are only twisting things to fit your own narrative. The only reason to go to such extreme lengths is pushing a political agenda of some sort, so just out with it. Say what you mean and stop with the false arguments and misdirects.
And if you call me a JSF cheerleader you're off your rocker. Just shows how little you know and how much you're willing to make up to craft a narrative.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 02, 2016, 11:53:16 PM
No, I bought all the spin and the PR and was a huge Joint Strike Failure cheerleader. Then I had my eyes opened.
This airplane is not an F-22. It's not an F-Anything. It is an A-7 with style and a smaller payload. That's all.
It is too big to fail and too flawed to succeed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: CavPuke on August 03, 2016, 09:56:04 AM
The only example of the above that had any kind of real air defences was Vietnam. Hardly a winner and air defences were not take out. US air forces suffered greatly by the same presumptions that BVR missiles is all you need.
Libia and Afganistan, air power had very little effect. The real targets of the Libia bombing were sitting in fromt of their TV in France and America.
The bombing of Iraq helped the ground troops a bit and mostly killed a lot of civilians. Iraqi air defences were a joke yet the coalition still managed to lose a few planes before realizing it and flying high enough so goat herders with an ak47 will not shoot them down.
The west has not faced a serious opponent in the air since vietnam.
Sorry couldn't let this bald faced falsehood go unchallenged
Let the facts speack for themselves, I apologize for the off topic material.
Quote
By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces protecting all targets of value, some deployed on the roofs of numerous buildings in Baghdad housing government facilities. These weapons -- 57-mm and 37-mm AAA pieces, ZSU-23/4 and ZSU-57/2 self-propelled AAA systems, and hundreds of 14.5-mm and 23-mm light antiaircraft weapons -- formed the backbone of the integrated air defense network. In major high value target areas (such as Baghdad, airfields, chemical agent production complexes, and nuclear facilities) the combined arms air defense could prove lethal to aircraft operating below 10,000 feet.
The Iraqi air defense system was formidable, combining the best features of several systems. The multi-layered, redundant, computer- controlled air defense network around Baghdad was more dense than that surrounding most Eastern European cities during the Cold War, and several orders of magnitude greater than that which had defended Hanoi during the later stages of the Vietnam War. If permitted to function as designed, the air defense array was capable of effective protection of key targets in Iraq.
The UN and Kuwait say Iraq did not return extensive Kuwaiti military equipment, including one Hawk battery and 675 Russian-made surface-to-air missile batteries.
Between December 1998 and February 2000 the United States claims to have have effectively destroyed 30 percent of Saddam's air defense capability across the board - missile systems, triple A [Anti-Aircraft Artillery], radars, command and control, etc.--methodically, precisely, carefully, with minimal if any collateral damage. These claims are apparently not reflected in standard bean counts, which inexplicably suggest that Iraqi air defenses were as much as one-third stronger in 2000 than they were prior to the Gulf War.
By 2002 Iraq still maintained an integrated air defense system (IADS) of overlapping rings of surface-to-air missiles around Baghdad and Tikrit. However, in the no-fly zones air defenses consisted of antiaircraft artillery and modified artillery rockets, with occasional surface-to-air missiles moved into unprepared sites for a short time. Command and control in the no-fly zones was rudimentary and decentralized, because the air defenses there have been attacked with regularity over the years. By 2002 Iraq's shoulder-fired, low-altitude missiles were primarily the aging SA-7 and SA-14s. The Iraqis were not thought to have the more sophisticated SA-16s and SA-18s. The primary air defense operations center was in Baghdad, with sector air defense centers in Taji (central), Kirkuk (north), H-3 (west) and Talil (south). These centers control about 60 SAM firing units [variously called batteries or battalions] of SA-2s, SA-3s and SA-6s. At the beginning of Desert Storm, there were 90 such units. According to some estimates there are as many as 7,000-7,500 AAA guns of 23 mm or greater caliber [IISS estimates about 6,000 such guns]. The most numerous AAA guns were reportedly the 57-mm S-60 and the 100-mm KS-19.
The radar tracking information for guns inside the no-fly zones was provided from distant radars outside the no-fly zones. Effort by Chinese and other companies to improve this system with fiber-optic data links did not appear to have made a major improvement in Iraq's air defense.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on August 03, 2016, 10:14:31 AM
But despite this the loss rate among the non stealth fighters were extremely low. It is almost impossible to deny an opponent access to the sky with SAM:s alone. You need fighters. Same thing over Serbia, Hit rate of SAM:s were far below 1%.
It 's not an argument for or against the F-35, it just shows that fighters is crucial in order to gain and maintain air superiority.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on August 03, 2016, 10:37:34 AM
Quote
The Air Force on Tuesday declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for battle
...they could roll out 12 Sopwith Camels, get the pilots trained, get the a/c fueled and armed, get the support in place to service them and say the exact same thing:
Quote
The Air Force on Tuesday declared its first squadron of Sopwith Camels ready for battle
...proving what?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on August 03, 2016, 05:18:33 PM
F-35 killed a drone with an Aim-9x missile. Baby steps...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on August 03, 2016, 06:40:23 PM
Reading this thread, aside from potentially giving me AIDS, is like reading a bunch of backwards battleship mafia trying to argue that the airplane will never supersede their big guns. Or like the sniper-mafia of the 1950's forcing everyone to stick with 7.62 NATO when intermediate cartridges were the way to go.
Today's anachronisms have latched onto the F-35 because they have seen top gun too many times and dont want to admit that the dogfight is obsolete. Wouldn't be "fun" anymore. Gotta have those flashy dogfights.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on August 03, 2016, 06:41:12 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on August 03, 2016, 09:15:42 PM
Today's anachronisms have latched onto the F-35 because they have seen top gun too many times and dont want to admit that the dogfight is obsolete.
An interesting observation. And yet, didn't we do the same thing in the 1950s, producing all the fighters that had missiles, but no guns? Puma44 flew F-106s with the Genie, I knew a man who flew F-89s with the wingtip rocket pods, we had the Voodoo and a wide variety of Navy aeroplanes that assumed there would be no need for dogfighting because missiles had made it obsolete.
- oldman
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: shift8 on August 03, 2016, 09:47:24 PM
An interesting observation. And yet, didn't we do the same thing in the 1950s, producing all the fighters that had missiles, but no guns? Puma44 flew F-106s with the Genie, I knew a man who flew F-89s with the wingtip rocket pods, we had the Voodoo and a wide variety of Navy aeroplanes that assumed there would be no need for dogfighting because missiles had made it obsolete.
- oldman
Yes, historical generalizations are not proof of anything. I just thought it was time someone made the converse statement, since the only lession anyone seems to regurgitate is "back in nam" etc.
What we should actually be debating is how modern air combat will actually play out, since this is critical to what characteristics a modern fighter will have. The whole debate on a specific air frame is moot until we hash out what works and what doesnt.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on August 03, 2016, 10:22:47 PM
Modern missiles and helmet sights have made pure dog fighting less important yes. There is no longer a need for turning into the opponent's 6 to get a shot.
The debate is going in circles in here now so It isn't much Point of be in it anymore but imo the main issues are in Management and 'politics' - Too many bad decisions have been made, starting production way Before development and testing was done was a big misstake. And a lot of thing is made to create an illusion of the plane being 'better' than it is. Declaring the plane to have IOC even though everyone knows that the necessary software is still a year or so from completion, it is a way to fooling people and i don't like that. If the biggest concern is to make it look good to the public, then what else are they hiding?
A cause of concern is also how the plane will perform if it don't have the stealth advantage. countries like China will counter stealth, both with their own stealth fighters and various ways and also finding ways of detecting it.
It's all about what it can and cannot do when it's finished, and we will not know for at least a few years, my not-so-qualified guess is that we will not see the F-35 truly combat ready in any greater number before 2021-22. until then we can only guess.
But we better hope it works, and soon, U.S Fighter fleet is almost at the Point were they falls apart and a large portion of them must be replaced within the next 10 years and there are no option besides the F-35. All eggs are in the basket..
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on August 04, 2016, 01:59:17 AM
An interesting observation. And yet, didn't we do the same thing in the 1950s, producing all the fighters that had missiles, but no guns? Puma44 flew F-106s with the Genie, I knew a man who flew F-89s with the wingtip rocket pods, we had the Voodoo and a wide variety of Navy aeroplanes that assumed there would be no need for dogfighting because missiles had made it obsolete.
- oldman
We always assume dogfights will be obsolete. That standoff weapons BVR are the panacea. Then we saddle ourselves with ROE that don't work or are betrayed by technology failures.
The T/A-35 is low, slow, and poorly armed. It is being asked to do things for which it was not designed. If it ever has to fight WVR it will be dead meat. :salute
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 04, 2016, 11:22:24 AM
If the only issue with the F-35 was its lack of "dogfight" agility I might have a different opinion on it but that's not the case.
The F-35 does not lack "dogfight agility". The much publisized F-35 vs F-16 test was done with software limiting the F-35 to 5 Gs. Of course the media or F-35 haters never consider that. Morten "Dolby" Hanche explained that a stripped down F-16 would have a slightly better sustained turn rate, but the F-35 has better instantaneous turn rate. And at the time he flew with the 3i software limiting his jet to 7 Gs. With the Block 3F software the F-35 will have its full 9 G load limit available.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on August 04, 2016, 11:48:53 AM
Yeah, it was clever, Shida. It guaranteed LockMart got paid. Crafty. Shady. These words also come to mind.
Metainferring I think it was a foregone conclusion that Lockheed Martin would get the contract from the outset. I don't like the design, I think the early design process was poorly executed but the development process is very clever.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on August 04, 2016, 12:08:42 PM
Reminds me of the time that crappy design was picked over TSR. I hear that was brown envelopes
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 04, 2016, 12:28:55 PM
The F-35 does not lack "dogfight agility". The much publisized F-35 vs F-16 test was done with software limiting the F-35 to 5 Gs. Of course the media or F-35 haters never consider that. Morten "Dolby" Hanche explained that a stripped down F-16 would have a slightly better sustained turn rate, but the F-35 has better instantaneous turn rate. And at the time he flew with the 3i software limiting his jet to 7 Gs. With the Block 3F software the F-35 will have its full 9 G load limit available.
It is a slug. Software is just an excuse.
The Big Motor Viper will chew this thing to pieces. I can't imagine what an SU-27 will do to it.
Well, that's assuming it can even get airborne. If the fuel is too hot or the plug and pray software doesn't recognize a new part....etc.
And it has TREMENDOUS thermal energy issues as it is. It flies low where it is hot...and as the fuel heats up the avionics shut down. Great idea.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 04, 2016, 12:47:20 PM
Metainferring I think it was a foregone conclusion that Lockheed Martin would get the contract from the outset. I don't like the design, I think the early design process was poorly executed but the development process is very clever.
I meant that it's a scheme to milk the taxpayer. A trillion dollars. It's just like "Shovel Ready Jobs" but in a different guise.
RIPOFF.
The thing would have been useful 12 years ago. Today? Not so much.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 04, 2016, 01:19:58 PM
U.S. Navy speaks... :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 04, 2016, 01:28:46 PM
The same people who approved the Super Hornet with toed pylons. Derp. But at least the Super brings utility. The Just So Failed won't.
Propaganda. Gotta' keep the flying club going.
(The USN is trying to get OUT of the Joint Strike Failure program. They're looking ahead to a SUPER SUPER HORNET because this thing brings no value. They also have to reduce their squadron size by two airplanes just to get them on deck. Not a good situation.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Meatwad on August 04, 2016, 09:40:49 PM
The way he talks about sensor / head tracking you'd think they've got a gun turret on it or something :)
News for him - rear aspect shots aren't magic - and that's if you can turn your head to check your 6 (which apparently you cannot!)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on August 07, 2016, 01:12:53 AM
I caught that too Vulcan - I man not even have to move my plane, just turn my head and shoot the guy. Okay, with a forward facing missile that is VERY likely to be carried interenally, which means a longer firing cycle as it can't just "come off the rail, it deeds to drop, ignite, THEN begin its 180 or whatever turn - all wasted E, while the guy behind you is already got weapons guiding on you or is setting you up for a guns tracking run.
IMO the F35 is a good little aircraft, UNTIL it gets intercepted in the rear quarter by any gen 4 to 4.5 to 5 fighter, and then I think it'll be in trouble - heh trouble might be the best case scenario. In numbers, nose on...who knows, maybe the F35 WILL dominate current airborne threats, but god forbid getting jumped and starting from a bad position. Old famous "Dolby" sure didn't mention how that had been working out it borty borty bort air school.
I'd love nothing more to read that in Redflag the 6 F35Bs mowed everything in site, ground targets, red air packs, from both offensive and defensive positions...since this hasn't come out yet, and it's been over for a week...I have my doubts it was all wine and roses. The 6 USMC F35 were the only ones that participated, no AF, FOreign, or Navy F35, just the B model, which had just wiped the floor with a tyipal USMC x they do for a A2AD penetration x, where the F35Bs got their "velociraptor" knickname from the USMC gen describing the event. Comms dark on Redflag so far though....
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on August 07, 2016, 08:47:19 PM
Personally I think too much weight is placed on the F-35s stealth and tech. Especially given how much data the chinese have (despite GSs complete ignorance/denials on the Lockheed hacks the US are now claiming the latest Chinese designs are from stolen Lockheed tech).
People keep comparing it to the F-117, but the F-117 was essentially a subsonic very stealthy light bomber - not designed to actively engage enemy aircraft. Not a multimission platform designed to actively engage.
I know GS is going to call this tin foil hat stuff again... so just for you GS, here is an except from evidence presented in a US court in the prosecution of Chinese national who broke into networks and stole data ( Su Bin ):
Quote
An NSA document states that China obtained more than 50 terabytes—a huge amount of data—from U.S. defense and government networks, including the F-35 radar and engine secrets. The data included numbers and types of F-35 radar modules, and detailed engine schematics for the Lockheed Martin aircraft.
And this case specifically relates to the stealing of C-17 plans aka the Xian Y-20 ;)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on August 08, 2016, 04:47:47 AM
In the background you can also see an airborne radar, just by a coincident looking like this: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/S_100B_at_Malmen_2010-06-13_1.jpg/300px-S_100B_at_Malmen_2010-06-13_1.jpg)
But it's a wise thing to do to assume that the opponents will have their own stealth fighters and also methods of detecting stealth aircrafts. An advantage due to stealth will not last forever, especially since the F-35 is going to fly for at least 30-40 years.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: save on August 08, 2016, 06:34:17 AM
The radar does look similar, plane just a bit, the chinese dont rely on their plane engines and bought 2 extra for each plane :D
In the background you can also see an airborne radar, just by a coincident looking like this: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/S_100B_at_Malmen_2010-06-13_1.jpg/300px-S_100B_at_Malmen_2010-06-13_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on August 08, 2016, 07:13:34 AM
The radar does look similar, plane just a bit, the chinese dont rely on their plane engines and bought 2 extra for each plane :D
It's the radar that is the vital part, would be a little overkill to copy the SAAB 340 as well. :D
Edit: plane is obviously an AN-12 (Shaanxi Y-8 in China), they also have made a variant with a radar that looks a lot like the radar on a certain carrier based U.S aircraft: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Pakistan_Air_Force_Shaanxi_ZDK-03_%28Y-8%29_inflight.jpg/800px-Pakistan_Air_Force_Shaanxi_ZDK-03_%28Y-8%29_inflight.jpg)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 08, 2016, 08:33:57 AM
The Big Motor Viper will chew this thing to pieces. I can't imagine what an SU-27 will do to it. [...] And it has TREMENDOUS thermal energy issues as it is. It flies low where it is hot...and as the fuel heats up the avionics shut down. Great idea.
The facts don't bear that out. The F35-F16 fight was against a test model F-35 looking for flight data, not to determine who was the better dogfighter. It didn't have an even remotely polished flight software set.
Pilots that have THOUSANDS of hours in both F-16s and F/A-18s have said that the recent F-35s can and do dogfight well. Including out-manuevering F-16s and being able to regenerate energy lost in maneuvers much faster than Gen 4.5 fighters. Most ACTUAL PILOTS agree that it is at least as manueverable as the Hornets, and better in all other regards on top of that.
The radar shutting down mid-flight glitch has also been fixed after only a short delay. That is not a problem anymore.
The F-35 now is the most numerous 5th Gen fighter in existence. There are more F-35s in existence right this moment than there are F-22s.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 08, 2016, 10:35:56 AM
There was a time when F2As outnumbered F4Fs. Meaningless and ultimately wrongheaded.
The military keeps relearning old lessons. I suspect learning isn't taking place at all.
The jet uses fuel as a heat sink. Down low and slow where it can't do anything well it still generates heat. Friction. Atmospherics. Avionics. As the fuel burns off there is less of it to absorb that heat. It's a well-documented problem.
Helmet jitter hasn't been fixed.
It has a laundry list of problems that somehow managed to bypass the propaganda-machine's embargo.
What are the pilots gonna do? They gonna speak out about that? No. They won't. That's how careers are ended. Many of us have felt that wrath firsthand both inside and outside the military machine. People bucking for promotion don't make waves.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 08, 2016, 12:03:38 PM
So your only claim that it's not working is that the currently unanimous declaration that everybody that's ever flown this plane thinks it's amazing and outperforms every other competitor is totally lying? No matter which country they are from or what rank or how much experience they have, or how much of an authority they are on the topic?
The unanimous decision of hundreds of people means it's all a conspiracy cover up because you have a massive political agenda?
Yeah... um.... Okay.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 08, 2016, 12:06:10 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Marine Corps’ top aviator said the F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter pilots have matured in their understanding of the new platform in the year since the service declared initial operational capability (IOC), pushing themselves to push past planned tactics and create a new way of using the fifth-generation technology. Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said today at an American Enterprise Institute event that he “stacked the deck” early with Top Gun graduates and weapons tactics instructors who could quickly understand the new plane and how to best use it. Over the last year, those Marines’ efforts have led to “unprecedented” successes in live and simulated tests, shooting down all targets and suffering no JSF losses in many cases.
Last summer, as a last step before recommending an IOC declaration, Davis tasked the first F-35B squadron with completing an operational readiness inspection – a test event borrowed from the Brits, he said. As part of the test, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 performed an armed reconnaissance mission that can sometimes take AV-8B Harrier and F-18 Hornet pilots all day to complete. “These guys went out there and they found all the targets very quickly and killed all the targets,” he said, noting the early proficiency of the squadron. “Most importantly, … we put a radar [surface-to-air missile] out in the objective area. In the old days we’d have to go take care of the radar SAM, get somebody in to go take care of that because you don’t do armed reconnaissance, which is patrolling for targets out there, unless you’ve got a permissive threat environment and you beat that threat. These guys went out with the SAM in the area and did that and they killed the SAM.” Fast forward a year, he said, and the squadron has gone from proficient to innovative. Davis brought Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller to meet the pilots and learn about the planes and tactics. During the visit, the squadron was assigned two drills.
The first was done with fewer planes than Davis thought was needed, but otherwise went according to plan. He said the pilots were given a scenario that was “very high-end, off the ship, go into the jaws of death, double-digit SAMs, fighter threat, and go after a very strategic target on the ground. I watched them do it as a foursome, which normally I would say it would be 13 or 14 airplanes normally, what I would do as [commanding officer] of the weapons school, which I was. … They killed the fighters, they killed the SAMs, they killed the target, they came home. “What was most interesting to be was not what they did but how they did it. It was very much the maturation of the pilots and how they’re flying this airplane, how they’re using information, communicating with each other, sharing information,” he continued. “It was more like watching a pack of dogs go after something. And it was force-on-force, it wasn’t scripted,” so their success – particularly with so few aircraft – was far from guaranteed.
The second drill, though, did not go as planned – in the best possible way, Davis said. The planes were to fly a close-air support mission through clouds at 1,000 feet, with the planes in the 3F configuration that allows for pylons to externally carry 18,000 pounds of bombs. “I’m out there, the commandant of the Marine Corps is out there, I want to impress the commandant,” Davis said. “This first scenario was awesome, and then right before the second scenario I said, are we ready to go? And this young major comes up … he goes, ‘we’re not going to do exactly what you want us to do.’ I’m like [eyes grow wide]. “Because we didn’t think the tasking was challenging enough. So we’ve got two that are slick and two that are loaded up as bomb trucks. We can do the job sir, don’t worry.’” So two planes forfeited their external carry capacity in exchange for stealth, and “it was a work of art,” Davis said. The planes hit all their targets in five and a half minutes, with the four planes passing images through the clouds and successfully taking out the missile threat early on. “I just watched, I’m like, that’s not how my brain works, but that is the way their brains are working,” he said. “Gen.(Charles) Krulak, who I used to work for, said ‘you don’t man the equipment, you equip the man,’ so we’re equipping these young Marines, this generation that doesn’t know any bounds for latitude for technology, and they’re leveraging this technology and doing great things.”
After the event, Davis told USNI News that, in addition to the squadrons, the F-35B test squadron has been an agent for innovation with the new airplane. “We have VMX-1, which is our test squadron. We put very creative folks in there and they’re asking why all the time,” he said. “One, they’re actually getting the test plan we’ve got to do for the airplane to get the capabilities as quick as we can, but they’re also, they have tactical hunger and they want to do better and they see opportunities out there, can we do this, can we do this, can we do this.”
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 08, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Looks like you're not keeping up with the thread. This is a PR effort orchestrated from above (as proven by leaked official documents). See previously posted evidence.
You can say whatever you want. This airplane is not an F-22. It wasn't designed to be. It never will be. It is almost a decade behind schedule and will be clubbed by current and emerging threats.
It is a glossy A-7 baseball card.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 08, 2016, 12:27:58 PM
Lol. The Marines still have no way to transport the pads or the fuel to forward deploy this piece of junk.
Ignorance is bliss. Semper What's His Name.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 08, 2016, 12:33:24 PM
You're the only one trying to make false comparisons. You're the only one pushing a massive chip on your shoulder.
This is not a PR stunt. The aircraft is performing well so far. It isn't perfected nor refined yet by a long shot. The F-16 had so many compromises made for IOC that the Air Force didn't get what they originally wanted for TEN YEARS until Block 30 arrived. The Soviets admit that the F-111 was their greatest fear in Europe and positioned forces to counter it, but the F-111 had more cost overruns, delays, and flat-out pilot deaths due to structural failures than the F-35 has had so far. The Superhornet is so woeful that it's not even utilitarian. It has to run with 2 gas bags for even short missions, has to refuel after every takeoff and before every landing, and is draggy and poorly designed, underpowered, and not efficient to maintain. They're even raising the Super Hornet prices continuously while the F-35 prices drop. They're trying in vain to promote the hell out of it to every foreign buyer, except that in EVERY instance where the F-35 has been pitted against the Super Hornet, the Super Hornet isn't even a contender. It's wiped out of the contest handily.
There are many problems with the F-35 problem. If you focus on them you can understand where it is and where it's going. Simply calling the entire world of military aviators propoganda puppets makes you sound clinically insane. Put your tinfoil hat on.
P.S. You keep spam posting 3-4-5 times in a row. You don't need to do that. The F-35B isn't any more damaging than the Harrier it's replacing, which also requires cooled pads and prepared carrier decks. Harriers have destroyed runways more than F-35s.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 08, 2016, 12:36:15 PM
Good to see Koolaid won't be out of business any time soon.
Derp.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: save on August 08, 2016, 02:26:57 PM
They can copy ANYTHING they want in China, including planes without going to court. God knows what happens when international companies outsource their It business to them.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Meatwad on August 08, 2016, 05:59:17 PM
They can copy ANYTHING they want in China, including planes without going to court. God knows what happens when international companies outsource their It business to them.
Old famous "Dolby" sure didn't mention how that had been working out it borty borty bort air school.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but "Dolby," like all our fighter pilots are trained by the USAF. They only receive basic flight training in Norway. "Dolby" is a special case though since he's also a graduate of the U.S. Navy test pilot school.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on August 10, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
Dolby this Dolby that... I demand to have my handle changed!
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 10, 2016, 06:31:59 PM
Lol :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 20, 2016, 05:54:41 PM
Oh Canada...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: pipz on August 20, 2016, 08:25:41 PM
HUZZAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told them it would be a good deal. :old:
Interesting to hear the ease of transition from a f16 to the f35. Was that similarity planed do we know?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on August 21, 2016, 12:46:08 AM
My friend from high school who is the CO of our test fighter squadron now was down at the F35 training center learning to fly it before our election up here last year, and the new gov fully pulling the plug on the F35. There is a competition going on right now (of sorts, it's more of a paper comp than anything), and from what he's told me, the F35 is actually winning it, even though the gov has been squawking that it'll buy a few squadrons of Superhornets to "tide us over", which in their language means "we'll go from 144 Hornets down to 36 Supers, and call it a day most likely". I know that our training squadron for fighters, the 410, would have been eliminated mostly as all of our pilots would be trained in the USA at the F35 training center there, a HUGE advantage for allied air forces IMO in terms of cost. That way the 65 F35s we were going to buy would ALL be combat coded, or at least the vast majority, instead of having a huge amount siphoned off for training reqs.
The F35C is undergoing trials right now out on a CVN, watching the YT vids of this - pretty impressive. Say what you want about other F35 issues, but what it's done for naval aviation in terms of simplifying carrier landings and ops, can't be denied. If nothing else, the future F18 replacement will likely get this tech, as would any future naval strike fighter, making night/bad weather landings so much more accurate and simple for our guys.
Another article about the F35C ground testing that went on before the squadron deployed to the CVN. Good point in the vid below - 200+ F35s of all 3 models are flying, and have flown 60,000 hours, without a prototype crashing. The F22, F117, F18, F15, F16, so many others can't make that claim. Yes one had a fire on the ground, but it didn't crash.
Quote
Before seven of the Navy’s carrier-variant F-35 Joint Strike Fighters embarked aboard the carrier USS George Washington for a third and final round of developmental testing, they completed a required ashore training period, practicing landings at Choctaw Naval Outlying Field near Pensacola, Florida.
The landings went well — maybe a little too well.
“They were landing in the same spot on the runway every time, tearing up where the hook touches down,” Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, head of Naval Air Forces, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “So we quickly realized, we needed to either fix the runway or adjust, put some variants in the system. So that’s how precise this new system is.” U.S. Navy photo by Dane Wiedmann
U.S. Navy photo by Dane Wiedmann
The new system in question is called Delta Flight Path, a built-in F-35C technology that controls glide slope and minimizes the number of variables pilots must monitor as they complete arrested carrier landings. A parallel system known as MAGIC CARPET, short for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, is being developed for use with the Navy’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. Together, these systems may allow carriers to operate with fewer tankers, leaving more room for other aircraft, Shoemaker said.
Military.com reported on the implications of this new landing technology from the carrier George Washington earlier this week, as the first operational pilot-instructors with Strike Fighter Squadron 101, out of Oceana, Virginia, began daytime carrier qualifications on the aircraft. On Thursday, Shoemaker had an update on the ongoing carrier tests.
Of about 100 F-35C arrested landings were completed on the carrier, he said, 80 percent engaged the No. 3 wire, meaning the aircraft had touched down at the ideal spot. As of Monday, there had been zero so-called bolters, when the aircraft misses an arresting wire and must circle the carrier for another attempt.
“I think that’s going to give us the ability to look at the way we work up and expand the number of sorties. I think it will change the way we operate around the ship … in terms of the number of tankers you have to have up, daytime and nighttime,” he said. “I think that will give us a lot of flexibility in the air wing in the way we use those strike fighters.”
Tankers, or in-air refueling aircraft, must be ready when aircraft make arrested landings in case they run low on fuel during landing attempts. Fewer bolters, therefore, means a reduced tanker requirement.
“Right now, we configure maybe six to eight tankers aboard the ship,” Shoemaker said. “I don’t think we need … that many. That will give us flexibility on our strike fighter numbers, increase the Growler numbers, which I know we’re going to do, and probably E-2D [Advanced Hawkeye carrier-launched radar aircraft] as well.”
The F-35C’s last developmental testing phase is set to wrap up Aug. 23. MAGIC CARPET is expected to be introduced to the fleet in 2019, officials have said.
HUZZAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told them it would be a good deal. :old:
Interesting to hear the ease of transition from a f16 to the f35. Was that similarity planed do we know?
Well, both aircraft are LM products and the majority of F-35 pilots will transfer from the F-16. Makes sense to take that into account. Also the F-35 is a very easy plane to learn to fly: There are no two-seat models, the pilots go from the simulator straight to solo-flight.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 21, 2016, 02:57:20 PM
Yes Gman, that's my main impression of this program too. There have been no fatalities or major mishaps. No hull losses except for that one engine fire on the ground. I find that extraordinary. Combat aircraft like this used to drop like flies the first couple of years of operation from malfunctions, regardless of who made them.
As demonstrated by the article you quoted the F-35 is, as far as I know, the first fighter where the computers don't just replace or augment an analogue flight system, but actually carries some of the pilot's workload. Computerized flight has come of age so to speak.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 22, 2016, 12:15:28 PM
I could be wrong but I think the level of flight path programming that the F-111 could pull off was astounding, up to and including flying attack runs and then RTB and landing by itself with minimal supervision by the crew. Many ships with terrain-following-radars that hug the valleys of rivers also have been using an earlier iteration of this for some time.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on August 22, 2016, 03:11:21 PM
The USAF just put out the requires for a REAL replacement for the A-10. So it looks like the F-35 won't have to does the CAS support role afterall.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 22, 2016, 03:17:18 PM
All USAF jets with air-mud capability do CAS. The A-10 doesn't even fly the majority of CAS missions.
All USAF jets with air-mud capability do CAS. The A-10 doesn't even fly the majority of CAS missions.
Well according to some of those intentionally confusing charts it does, especially if you remove the non-A10 operators (ie coalition forces), and perhaps the B1 (is the B1 even a CAS aircraft - what's close about it?).
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 23, 2016, 05:16:46 AM
CAS is a mission, not an aircraft. And it's not about how close your plane is to the troops, but how close to friendly forces you can safely deliver weapons and how fast you can deliver them. A B-1 circling above the fight dropping smart bombs fits that bill. And 24% is not a majority no matter how you try to twist it. Other aircraft fly the majority of CAS missions.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: EskimoJoe on August 23, 2016, 10:06:43 AM
Okay, but out of those graphs, which aircraft best destroyed the enemy's will to fight?
I doubt it was the invisible one dropping bombs that come in like ghosts to level a compound, and probably the unkillable one scraping the dirt and buzzing the mountains and looking to roar chaos on a personal level.
Some things can't be measured.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 23, 2016, 10:54:17 AM
Considering the enemy... None of them.
If there is one thing this enemy has proved it is their will to fight against insurmountable odds.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 23, 2016, 11:13:44 AM
CAS is a mission, not an aircraft. And it's not about how close your plane is to the troops, but how close to friendly forces you can safely deliver weapons and how fast you can deliver them. A B-1 circling above the fight dropping smart bombs fits that bill. And 24% is not a majority no matter how you try to twist it. Other aircraft fly the majority of CAS missions.
You maligned Pierre Sprey earlier, and John Boyd by transit, so let's dig a little deeper into the charts, because on their face, they tell us no more than sortie count, and are thus valueless.
More worthwhile metrics might include, for example, some kind of kill efficiency per sortie, or, better, per unit ord used, these often being costly. Another good stat to check would be loss rates or damage rates per sortie. Regarding your Time-to-Target metric, he A-10 was conceived with exceptional loiter capability. Which is quicker to target? A B-1 taking off or an A-10 loitering in vicinity?
The sortie counts are worthless as an indicator of value in-role. Indeed, one could conceivably read them as a simple indicator that insufficent dedicated CAS aircraft are available in the form of the A-10 itself, leading to the misuse of birds like the '16.
Okay, now i'll malign Boyd a little: The F-111, while a horrible fighter, ended up being a pretty good/sophisticated strike/bomber aircraft and Boyd's protege Burton, who ripped the Bradley IFV for the acceptance testing used was unaware of how well suited said vehicle, in large part due to its light weight and mobility, fit into the maneuver warfare doctrine of his old mentor Boyd. God loves irony.
However, this desire to paper over the merits of an excellent CAS-specialized aircraft baffles me. I recognize that the load and range are very similar between the f-16 and A-10, but suspect the increased loiter capability, low-speed manueuverability advantage, and enhanced survivability of the hog make it a better aircraft in the anti-armor role.
I'd add, as a post-thought... those GAU shells are a low-cost mechanism for dispatching vehicles, certainly. OTOH, I wonder about the relative cost issue of maintaining another unique aircraft. Adding F-16s drives you closer to a lower complexity solution in that regard, admittedly.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 23, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
... they tell us no more than sortie count, and are thus valueless.
Not if you only want to show that the A-10 is not the only CAS capable plane in service. Also the charts do tell us more if you take the time to read them: Total weapons released by aircraft with the A-10 having a 13% share.
Regarding your Time-to-Target metric, he A-10 was conceived with exceptional loiter capability.
Nope. The A-10 was designed as a flying tank destroyer. Fielded at forward bases in Germany the A-10 was supposed to make a short flight to attack the Soviet vehicle columns rushing through the Fulda gap, then quickly RTB and reload. The A-10 actually has a rather short range and takes a long time to get on station because of its slow cruising speed. In the Gulf War the A-10s had to get on the tanker to get to the killbox, and then get back on the tanker to RTB. Not ideal.
Which is quicker to target? A B-1 taking off or an A-10 loitering in vicinity?
A loaded question. The answer to the real question is: A B-1 loitering in the vicinity. Like they do now. The B-1 can loiter for a lot longer than an A-10 and can carry more than seven times the A-10's max ord load.
However, this desire to paper over the merits of an excellent CAS-specialized aircraft baffles me. I recognize that the load and range are very similar between the f-16 and A-10, but suspect the increased loiter capability, low-speed manueuverability advantage, and enhanced survivability of the hog make it a better aircraft in the anti-armor role.
There is no desire to paper over the merits of the A-10. However, it is time to wake up to the realities of the modern battlefield. As a counter insurgency (COIN) aircraft the A-10 is still awesome, but on the modern battlefield flying low and slow is death. These days sometimes even the insurgents have manpads, like the Turks found out a while ago.
The USAF and NATO air forces are rewriting the CAS mission based on how the battlefield has evolved. Traditional CAS was always a dangerous mission even before the proliferation of advanced and highly portable air defense systems. CAS in the future will not be low and slow, but high and unseen. Using affordable precision standoff weapons like the Small Diameter Bomb.
And btw. the GAU-8 is not cheap to run. At $65 per round (last time i checked) a full mag is going to cost $70,000. A SDB precision guided standoff bomb is $40,000. A JDAM costs $25,000. A GBU-12 laser guided bomb is $21,000. And if you use the GAU-8 liberally on every sortie you're looking at changing all seven barrels every 20-30 sorties.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 23, 2016, 01:45:51 PM
I'll probe further on two issue and make a couple of comments without pulling the quotes. 1. Accepted - other aircraft are CAS-capable. But, we already knew that. 2. On the range issue, a comparison of F-16 and A-10 show ranges of approx 2200NM. Further, A-10 shows, at least per Wiki source, as having nearly a 2-hour loiter capability in the target vicinity, max (I'm sure that's just one profile). While I'd never disparage the range of an intercontinental bomber like B-1, how many of those are in the inventory (76, I thought...) and it's certainly a much higher-value target, albeit your point stands assuming complete and total air dominance. It's a different issue, granted, but it's hard to imagine B-1 as cost effective in a CAS role. 3. Accepted that sophisticated hand-held anti-air weaponry is potentially a game-changer in terms of the design brief... My question here is one of countermeasure capability. How does fast and maneuverable more effectively counter a MANPAD than slow and maneuverable? Or is it strictly a matter of that attack altitude, which drives intercept time for the manpad's missile (thus buying reaction time for the pilot) ? 4. As for the cost-effectiveness of the GAU, it'd be valuable to know the average "actual" rounds fired per kill, which would undoubtedly include some waste. What you've stated is the upper bound for usage. Clearly, one shot-one kill would be extremely cost effective but is probably not even within human capability, given the ROF and subject to the trigger settings (is fixed number rounds burst or single shot even a capability of the GAU?).
In short, I see point 3 as potentially a design-brief game-changer of overriding import, one of which I'd only given passing consideration before, probably because, thinking honestly on the matter, I took for granted that the Iraqi forces in both Iraq wars should have had numerous previous gen weapons of the type. I mean, Stinger and RedEye are both old as dirt - and Iraqi army performance was poor generally... Doubtless the lethality of current-gen MANPADS has evolved significantly.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 23, 2016, 02:10:36 PM
1. Dave apparently didn't know.
2. The A-10 has a 1.5-2 hour loiter time in the CAS profile, but that only allows for a 250 mile combat radius. In the real world you can only deploy the A-10 into an uncontested airspace. And in uncontested air space any aircraft can loiter for a couple of hours as long as there are tankers available nearby. Without tankers an F-35 could probably loiter for at an hour, maybe 90 minutes with drop tanks on a 250 mile mission.
3. High and unseen. At 30,000 feet you're not going to see or hear a fighter. And in an F-35 the radars won't see you either.
4. Let's just agree that shooting at the enemy is not cheap. However, closing to such a range that the enemy can effectively shoot back is potentially much more expensive.
And the older Igla is still an effective weapon against low and slow aircraft. As this Turkish Cobra crew discovered to their demise.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: FLOOB on August 23, 2016, 06:34:18 PM
Chuck Yeager says the F-35 is a waste of money.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 23, 2016, 08:03:18 PM
He also says the F-22 is a waste of money. And he's right in the sense that any weapon system is a waste of money if we all could just learn not to be stunninghunks to each other... But that's hippie talk.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Oldman731 on August 23, 2016, 08:36:50 PM
If there is one thing this enemy has proved it is their will to fight against insurmountable odds.
You would be very surprised at how quickly they tend to give up and GTFO when CAS arrives, then.
Even with Apaches, which is another thing you guys don't seem to be considering for your CAS argument. Granted they're not long range players, they certainly fit in the short range protection and interdiction role. You have to consider the overlap. The F-16s can get there quick and suppress and potentially eliminate a target with their limited ordnance, where the A-10s might not be as quick they can show up when the F-16s are done and stick around until the F-16s come back, by which time the A-10s probably won't be needed back anyway. The F-35 doesn't really fill any gaps in this method. It's just kinda.. there. For no reason.
If anything, I fully support the return of B-52 fleets for the destruction of everything.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 24, 2016, 02:44:09 AM
The F-16s can get there quick and suppress and potentially eliminate a target with their limited ordnance, where the A-10s might not be as quick they can show up when the F-16s are done and stick around until the F-16s come back, by which time the A-10s probably won't be needed back anyway. The F-35 doesn't really fill any gaps in this method. It's just kinda.. there. For no reason.
Except that the F-16s won't be around for much longer. In your scenario the F-35 and other platforms will replace both the F-16 and A-10.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 24, 2016, 09:59:13 AM
And, I think that brings us full circle and to, since John Boyd was mentioned (by me), my question, probably already answered in the 55 or so preceding pages: can F-35 actually dogfight?
Maybe better, has anyone done an E/M comparison on the two? This would be a good time for Leon "Badboy" to make an appearance.
If F-35 isn't a decent match-up E-M -wise to F-16, then we're talking Century Fighter part II here, and I really don't care whether the standoff gear promises standoff kill capability.
As for the CAS role, let's see what the new spec produces. If G. Scholz is correct, we'd be seeing a high-loiter, high-capacity standoff weapons platform that operates at 20K+. I'd question whether that now makes it a target for another, and possibly more dangerous tier of the air defense - SAMs. I'm certain it does, bt also suspect those are more easily suppressed than the sneakier manpads.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 24, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
The early test with the F-16 that started the whole "F-35 lost to a 30-year old F-16" toejamstorm was done with the F-35 software being immature and limited to 5G. "Dolby" Hanche described the difference between the F-35 and a "light F-16" as the F-16 having the edge in sustained turn rate, while the F-35 had the edge in instantaneous turn rate, acceleration and climb. At the time he was flying the F-35A with the 3i software, limited to 7G. What the 9G capable 3f software does to the F-35's dogfight capabilities is yet to be seen. Or at least yet to be reported. My impression is that it is similar to an F-18E compared to an F-16, except with more thrust. A "light F-16" is a hard plane to beat in a dogfight. I know of only three planes that can do it, and they're all European double-deltas.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 24, 2016, 11:28:20 AM
And it's not really the standoff weapons that have reduced the need for extreme maneuverability in modern fighter designs, but the advancements in dogfight missiles. There is no longer any need to point the nose of the aircraft at the enemy. There's no real need to maneuver into a specific position in space relative to your target to fire your weapons at him. All you need to do is to look at the enemy with your helmet sight and send the missile on its way. This revolution started in the 1980s with the Soviet AA-11 Archer, and today all modern air forces have dogfight missiles with helmet mounted sights.
The focus on standoff weapons and tactics comes from the realization that in a dogfight between modern adversaries all aircraft involved are likely to get shot down because everyone will get their missiles off the rails. The lethality and sophistication of modern missiles is turning the air war into a game of hide and seek, where the one who gets spotted first gets killed by a stealthy missile launched by an adversary he never knew was there. It's turning into fast paced aerial submarine warfare almost.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 24, 2016, 11:40:05 AM
Yes, yes... according to the billing, if the F-35 gets in the dogfight to begin, he's screwed up. However, reading the brief on F-35, it looks very much like a decent strike aircraft and an excellent asset for early penetration missions; those needed to take out the top tier of an air defense system.
I'd say, after that, you're better off sending 7 F-16s. Pity we can't re-spool the lines. Why 7? Because, at 18.8M per copy, that's how many you get for the cost of one F-35 STRIKE fighter.
It's reminiscent of the old "bigger, higher, faster" USAF mentality. Getting a specialized design brief produces special-role superstars. And this STILL applies, probably even more so, if the aspect of the missiles has increased so radically, as you state in subsequent post.
Wait for the new asc software..? Here's my general beef. If the thing is a strike aircraft, let's design it for strike and move on, satisfied with the knowledge that it can fight almost as well as an F-16 in the fighter role. By all means, develop the software, but let's get away from this crazy idea that a multi-role aircraft can specialize as well as a specialized aircraft - and then let's develop a specialized aircraft for the next-gen air superiority role. They've made a $130M Swiss Army knife after a 4+B development program. For that, two better aircraft probably could've been developed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 24, 2016, 12:08:57 PM
The F-16A may have cost that in the late 1970s. The F-16 is still in production, and a new Block 60 F-16E/F will cost you upwards of $60 million. Typically $80+ million with optional equipment.
... if the F-35 gets in the dogfight to begin, he's screwed up.
No more so than any other jet fighter.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 24, 2016, 12:15:42 PM
The Upgraded Block 61 F-16E+ the UAE bought cost them almost $200 million each. The technology in these jets is exceedingly expensive these days.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 24, 2016, 12:26:31 PM
18.8 was C/D... Raising the question, how did UAE manage to outprice F-35..?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 24, 2016, 01:41:07 PM
F-16C/D was back in the 1980s. A new F-16E = $60M+. F-18E = $60M. Eurofighter = Ł125M. Rafale C = €69M. F-15K: $100M.
No such thing as a cheap modern fighter jet. Not in the west anyway. The cheapest you could get is probably the JAS-39 Gripen E. I've seen unit flyaway price estimates as low as $49 million.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 24, 2016, 01:51:03 PM
I'd say, after that, you're better off sending 7 F-16s. Pity we can't re-spool the lines. Why 7? Because, at 18.8M per copy, that's how many you get for the cost of one F-35 STRIKE fighter.
Price per hour of flight time is quite high on F-16s these days. Your price is far below actual cost as well.
However, to answer the quoted part above, all you need to do is look up HUD cam footage on youtube of an F-16 strike package trying to enforce a no-fly zone over Kuwait or Iraq or whatever it was. The entire strike was delayed diverted, disrupted, and essentially shut down by the amount of SAMs filling the skies. They were 100% defensive for half an hour straight and ended up pulling back (and, if I recall losing a plane or two in the process) and evading for their lives the entire way out.
Just saying "Send the F-16s in" doesn't work. It hasn't worked in a long time. Look at the cost/benefit analysis done for the F-117 during Gulf War. Instead of needing an entire HARM strike team and supporting jammers just to temporarily disrupt some of the SAM centers, then on top of that needing multiple redundancies in the planes assigned and payloads because they would be stopped before dropping or have to evade, and on top of THAT needing AWACs, tankers at 3 or 4 positions along the route to refuel these 100-plane missions, 4 F-117s could do on their own with no support.
That was in 1990. The F-16 is old (and falling apart these days) and sending it into a hot area doesn't work. Hasn't worked since the late 1980s. This is a 1970s short range interceptor design. It was never built or designed for strike capabilities, or even for long range flights.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 24, 2016, 01:58:05 PM
They're the first production of a new model, so they naturally incur more development costs. In time it will come down to the $60 million range. The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60/61s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a non-stealth budget alternative to the F-35A, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore.
The UAE invested in the "Desert Falcon’s" development, and the contract reportedly includes royalty fees if other countries buy it. Investment doesn’t end when the fighters are delivered, either. Money is still needed for ongoing training, fielding, and equipment needs, and the UAE has decided that they need more planes too.
It's a very good fighter, but... no stealth. To continue the submarine analogy it's a fast and maneuverable sub with good sensors, but it is noisy...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 24, 2016, 05:46:02 PM
And don't give me this "current unit cost" argument because that doesn't fly. If I buy ten airplanes at $300M and get ten more for free then they each cost me $150M.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Krusty on August 24, 2016, 11:45:36 PM
Math is funny in how you can make up a lot of things and justify the outcome because numbers add up. Looks like somebody's been reading too much "war is boring" blogs.
Fact is that every US congressional report that comes out since the first two planes posted a price tag of 220+ Million Dollars (sans engine) has been dropping significantly. That includes multiple reports within the same year, and going from batch to batch. Meanwhile inflation has been rising steadily while that price has been going down. That 80-85 Million range will be when it is in full production and not LRIP (Limited Range Initial Production) batches. That should kick in for the full production run in 2018. LRIP is always more expensive, but allows for rapid advancements in design changes on the production line which otherwise might take 10+ years, as with the F-16s.
Let's look at some other production (not LRIP) costs per-plane:
Eurofighter: 119 Mil F-15K: 108 Mil Rafale B: 98 Mil Super Hornet -E (more recently marketted versions cost more, even): 78 Mil Jas-39C: 69 Mil
Even sans engines, its price point is middle of the pack but its performance or "sales-points" if you prefer blows all the competition off the scorecard. In actual performance so far it has been a rockstar compared to currently serving combat-ready airframes. Keep in mind that's with a 7-G limitation on the software, which won't fully unlock until final production starts in 2018.
You'll notice the F-16 isn't on that list. That's because the 1974 era design is breaking down and horribly limited in what you can upgrade. It doesn't have any space, any cooling or even enough power generation to add on countless computer modules and technology upgrades. It's a dead end. The USAF has in recent years spent multiple Billions (with a B) on just stiffener plates and similar updates to keep the 1995-era F-16C/Ds semi-functioning in this modern day. Almost all of the airframes are at the very limit of their operational lifespan (allowed flight hours) and are developing microfractures in multiple bulkheads and wing mount points. Keep in mind this is just a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The stiffener plates are also externally tacked on, so it's not like they had to rip the sucker apart and put them on the inside of the plane. That's why those UAE F-16 E/F models are so damn expensive: They have every possible modernization packed into them -- no possible upgrades after that point -- and they have been heavily modified from the cheap original models. If production began on brand-new F-16s and the F-35 magically didn't exist, we'd be paying even more than the UAE for updated F-16 airframes (which would still have all the current deal-breaking shortcomings that the F-16 has now).
A good reference point on just how bulky and ungainly and unwanted these stiffener plates are can be found on the usaf-sig website. Remember the USAF had to allocate BILLIONS of dollars for this program just to keep these in the air until the F-35 is ready. This and other MLU projects for the F-16 have been costing hundreds of millions of dollars of additional operating costs to many international users as well. http://www.usaf-sig.org/images/stories/Kit_Corrections/Viper_Article/Nirel2.jpg
And that's just to keep it from falling apart in mid-air, like some F-15s did not too long ago. Super Hornets are already past this point and are being retired to non-combat roles. They're taking legacy hornets (Cs and Ds) from low-hour units like the Marines or training squadrons and giving them the worn-our Super Hornets and using the still-viable legacy Hornets. To use a controversial example: The real reason the F-14 was retired was not the price per airframe, but the operating costs and maintenance costs. The common joke was to let Iran have more F-14s and they'd go bankrupt inside 5 years.
Every aviation branch in our military is horribly desperate for this F-35 airframe. That's a basic fact. We need new aircraft -- and I mean new designs, not "more of a 1970s design that doesn't work." So we're going to get them, regardless of what plane it is. Look at the options. The price point of the F-35 is comparable to any other contemporary that might even be a remote option, yet the F-35 in its LRIP state with software limitations is still besting all the competition in every example in any international competition it participates in.
No matter how you try to coin a phrase or create a perjorative name for it, this plane is coming, it will be the primary fighter of our air services (much as I have issues with the cross-service platform), and it is already performing better than anything we've got flying right now. That's not counting the fact it won't even be "finalized" for 2-3 more years.
What exactly do you want? Objectively looking at the price point, looking at the capabilities, looking at what progress they're making and how close they are to full production, what, exactly, are you crying out for or lamenting? The points you keep bringing up have little or no merit, IMO. There are many points you have made that are good (i.e. cheap marketting fluff to not include engine price in the cost), but these are not "deal breakers" so to speak and the ones you latch onto are unsubstantiated and even refuted by the facts.
As for me? I personally hate how they took one plane and forced it to be the basis of all three branches. That hasn't worked out most times in the past (with some exceptions) and kills/stifles the aviation world's minimal remaining competitive natures. They keep this up and we'll have a monopoly going which will just churn out crap and we have no alternative. Also, the variations are too much from branch to branch when they don't need to be. That ruins the entire point of using the same airframe. Have the AF unit use the same nose gear as the naval unit, for example. WHY create cost delays and problems and production divergence to implement hundreds of minor changes like that? The USAF used A-7s, F-4s, and other aircraft designed for the Navy with only moderate changes in the past. Tell them to suck it up or have fun in their grounded F-16 fleet. Seriously!
I have many issues I can bring up that are all very valid problems with this project and how it's been run so far. I am not happy in the least. Objectively, however, the constant wolf-cries of "the end is near!!!" get old.
I think that's all I'm going to say on this thread anymore. It's becoming repetitive. I welcome comments in general to further the conversation, discussion, or debate. There's not enough of that here to justify this thread. It's borderline politics, which I won't get sucked into.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 25, 2016, 05:06:31 AM
I don't want to quote the long screed, but I'll paraphrase. It's in your third from last paragraph. only speaking for myself.
And that's also why counter evidence isn't viable.
F-16 is probably getting a lot of unquestioned love because it was developed to a much more pure design brief. As you noted in the para I cite, F-35 is developed to a compromised design brief, very likely in the name of realizing the cost-efficient side of what you note higher in your post; the price-volume death spiral. As volume decreases, the amount of fixed cost amortized per unit increases. That goes for not just the finished product but for example, the nose gear you cite.
But it's, in past at least, shown to be a false idol. However, there is no alternative, in this case. We don't, and can't, as you note, establish what could have been developed under purer design briefs for the F-35s multiple roles. Itr's a hypothetical argument versus a reality.
That's the nature of my beef, even as I've acknowledged that, yes, the pure design brief constraints may have changed... and yes, the F-16 is a limited and dated design with a big signature, radar-wise and probably thermally.
One small question remains in my mind regarding the purchase of incremental F-16s at this time, however. If UAE is still purchasing E models, then I'm assuming production capacity must still exist for them. I'd further assume that the price quoted baked in some production number assumptions on that capacity. I'd be curious to know just what the variaable cost is, as opposed to the fully accounted.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on August 25, 2016, 05:29:42 AM
So many pages of bile... Not one of you here realise that all this is back and forth is an appalling waste of time, go outside and play, you must be Vitamin D deficient by now.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 25, 2016, 05:35:35 AM
I contest your point, and think it needs 56 pages worth of exhausting argumentation wrung from it.
Actually, that's exactly why I hijack late, then post and bail early. However, I also want to give Scholz some credit for getting me up to speed with a quick mental snapshot of the current environment. It's been over twenty years since I left the defense industry for the beloved Blue Oval, as I'm sure he could tell from my thinking about the threat environment.
It's about 6a here. Time to go.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 25, 2016, 09:18:38 AM
Another true believer or am I reading you wrong?
I have already made many of your points. These were dismissed by the JSF cheerleader class. They believe the official party line of the USAF and Marine Corps Flying Clubs.
For an abysmally low "joint" airframe percentage we get a flawed design that serves no one well for a ridiculous cost. All of this because of the Marine obsession with a capability it has never used--and will never use.
Our teen series is breaking down because we aren't procuring them. This leaves the rest of the fleet--and those in the boneyard--to take the load until the Joint Strike Failure comes online. I would rather buy Silent Eagles as a stop gap over this thing.
This airplane is an expensive waste of time.
It is not an F-22. It was never meant to be an F-22. It will never be an F-22.
It is not an air superiority fighter. It is an attack jet with limited self-defense capability. That's it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 25, 2016, 10:49:16 AM
However, I also want to give Scholz some credit for getting me up to speed with a quick mental snapshot of the current environment.
You're welcome. :)
Finally we have some concrete info on how pilots rate the F-35 compared to other aircraft. The Heritage Foundation has interviewed 31 F-35 pilots and made a report on their findings.
The whole report: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/BG3140.pdf
“Even pre-IOC, this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”
[/b] It is not an air superiority fighter. It is an attack jet with limited self-defense capability. That's it.
No. See my note prior to Dolby's post. The real issue here, and the deficiency we face in arguing against the F-35, is that we're pitting a hypothetical "pure" design, indeed possibly 2, given the multirole nature of the '35, against a reality; the F-35 itself.
It's also, in part, why Krusty and Scholz's arguments about '16 are strictly trua and valid data, but still not purely comparable.
The real answer is, we will never know if:
A better air superiority fighter and a better strike aircraft could have been developed for the same combination of fixed and variable costs...
And even defining "better", in this context is one fraught with difficulty. My own strategic take is that compromised design briefs produce jacks of all trades, masters of none, but I am lacking an empirical pier for comparison to F-35.
OTOH, we know what the Eurofighter performance and costs are, likewise F-22. Thus, we can establish that a better pure AS aircraft ALONE could've been developed for equal or less.
Maybe that's it. F-35 becomes the next-gen strike a/c with limited but real self-defense capability. Let's hope USAF procures sufficient F-22s for the pure AS role (cue the next argument about the viability of F-22 versus, for example, Typhoon or any of the new Russian stuff).
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zoney on August 25, 2016, 02:25:42 PM
Are there no longer any secrets?
Does the U.S.A. no longer classify information about aircraft Top Secret?
How much information has not been made available that might speak volumes for the potential of the aircraft?
Without all the information, and the ability to understand it, you are just guessing.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 25, 2016, 03:04:25 PM
No. See my note prior to Dolby's post. The real issue here, and the deficiency we face in arguing against the F-35, is that we're pitting a hypothetical "pure" design, indeed possibly 2, given the multirole nature of the '35, against a reality; the F-35 itself.
No, we are trying to shoehorn an attack aircraft into an air superiority role for which it was not designed.
It is low, slow, limited payload, limited endurance, no supercruise. It is an attack jet with limited defense capability--and when it does so it is at the price of half its tiny offensive load.
It was sold as a pie in the sky lie. "Joint" Strike "Fighter". It is certainly not the former (20% commonality) nor the latter (self-explanatory).
Quote
The real answer is, we will never know if:
A better air superiority fighter and a better strike aircraft could have been developed for the same combination of fixed and variable costs...
We already know: It's called the F-22 Raptor. It already existed.
Quote
Maybe that's it. F-35 becomes the next-gen strike a/c with limited but real self-defense capability. Let's hope USAF procures sufficient F-22s for the pure AS role (cue the next argument about the viability of F-22 versus, for example, Typhoon or any of the new Russian stuff).
Two AMRAAMs and sub-Mach 2 speed is not much of a self-defense capability. It is for all practical purposes *NO* offensive capability. It will never approach the F-22 for the latter in any time zone.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 26, 2016, 06:41:07 AM
No. See my note prior to Dolby's post. The real issue here, and the deficiency we face in arguing against the F-35, is that we're pitting a hypothetical "pure" design, indeed possibly 2, given the multirole nature of the '35, against a reality; the F-35 itself.
It's also, in part, why Krusty and Scholz's arguments about '16 are strictly trua and valid data, but still not purely comparable.
The real answer is, we will never know if:
A better air superiority fighter and a better strike aircraft could have been developed for the same combination of fixed and variable costs...
The initial investment of a number of combat aircraft is only a small part of the lifetime cost of operating those jets. So the number of aircraft an air force can operate on a budget is not limited by the acquisition cost, but by the operating cost. So the more aircraft you have, even if they are cheaper, is going to cost you more in fuel, infrastructure, maintenance and personnel. The F-16 was designed for a 25 year service life. The F-35 is designed for a 50-year service life. The acquisition cost mostly just determines the time span necessary to acquire the jets (how many they can afford to buy per fiscal year). The fact is that given two air forces otherwise equal, the one with multi-role aircraft will always win over the one with specialized aircraft. Even if the specialized aircraft are better in their role.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 26, 2016, 06:49:12 AM
The initial investment of a number of combat aircraft is only a small part of the lifetime cost of operating those jets. So the number of aircraft an air force can operate on a budget is not limited by the acquisition cost, but by the operating cost. So the more aircraft you have, even if they are cheaper, is going to cost you more in fuel, infrastructure, maintenance and personnel. The F-16 was designed for a 25 year service life. The F-35 is designed for a 50-year service life. The acquisition cost mostly just determines the time span necessary to acquire the jets (how many they can afford to buy per fiscal year). The fact is that given two air forces otherwise equal, the one with multi-role aircraft will always win over the one with specialized aircraft. Even if the specialized aircraft are better in their role.
I see. Then this isn't even about production scale.
However, I think you muddy the water a bit when you use the word "win". Some would take that to mean "in combat" when I think you're actually saying the multirole user will "win" in terms of operating cost.
But that's a dangerous game; one of subverting combat capability to operating cost. It's great for a peacetime force.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 26, 2016, 07:32:46 AM
No. I'm saying everything else being equal (budget, technology, training etc.) a multi-role air force will always win the war over a specialized air force.
Country A has developed a multi-role aircraft. Country B has developed specialized aircraft for each role fighter, bomber, ground attack and reconnaissance. Country B's specialized aircraft are at least 20% better in their respective roles than Country A's multi-role aircraft. Both countries air forces can afford to operate 100 aircraft. Country A has 100 multi-role jets. Country B has 30 fighters, 30 bombers, 30 ground attack planes and 10 recce planes.
Day one of the war: Country B's 30 fighters face off against Country A's 100 multi-role aircraft in fighter configuration. Country B lose all their fighters. Country A's surviving multi-role planes destroy Country B's remaining air force, now defenseless without their fighter cover.
Day two of the war: Country A's surviving multi-role planes, now unopposed in the air, switch to bomber/ground attack/recce configuration and win the war for Country A.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 26, 2016, 10:04:43 AM
No. I'm saying everything else being equal (budget, technology, training etc.) a multi-role air force will always win the war over a specialized air force.
Country A has developed a multi-role aircraft. Country B has developed specialized aircraft for each role fighter, bomber, ground attack and reconnaissance. Country B's specialized aircraft are at least 20% better in their respective roles than Country A's multi-role aircraft. Both countries air forces can afford to operate 100 aircraft. Country A has 100 multi-role jets. Country B has 30 fighters, 30 bombers, 30 ground attack planes and 10 recce planes.
Day one of the war: Country B's 30 fighters face off against Country A's 100 multi-role aircraft in fighter configuration. Country B lose all their fighters. Country A's surviving multi-role planes destroy Country B's remaining air force, now defenseless without their fighter cover.
Day two of the war: Country A's surviving multi-role planes, now unopposed in the air, switch to bomber/ground attack/recce configuration and win the war for Country A.
I thought you might mean this - but that means that you also make another, more implicit assumption... in this case, that Country B's 20% qualitative AS edge is nullified by Country A's 2.3:1 numerical edge.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 26, 2016, 11:03:12 AM
3.3:1 numerical advantage in fighters if you do the math. There's a reason why everyone is making multi-role planes these days. Even the Russians. Today (and for some time now) the C3, sensors and weapons systems are far more important than the performance of the plane. History shows that even mediocre performing planes like the "bomb-truck" F-18E are very competent fighters with the right weapons, sensors and C3 support.
So 3 F-18E vs one F-16...?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 26, 2016, 12:53:47 PM
I do however like the planned USAF force mix of 170 F-22s and 1000+ F-35As. The F-22s make sense as an air dominance tool against lesser opponents, and as the tip of the spear against an equal adversary...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 26, 2016, 01:29:50 PM
3.3:1 numerical advantage in fighters if you do the math. There's a reason why everyone is making multi-role planes these days. Even the Russians. Today (and for some time now) the C3, sensors and weapons systems are far more important than the performance of the plane. History shows that even mediocre performing planes like the "bomb-truck" F-18E are very competent fighters with the right weapons, sensors and C3 support.
So 3 F-18E vs one F-16...?
Unfortunately with the Just So Failed you won't get 3:1.
You'll be at 1:5.
The Carrier Air Wing that once numbered 80 with airplanes that could attack at great range is now reduced to a fraction of its size--and is in so close as to be threatened by shore-based ASMs. We are going to learn what Mitscher had to endure in 1944 all over again.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on August 26, 2016, 01:48:59 PM
Everyone of you noobs stop arguing about jets and get in the MA stat. :furious
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: FLOOB on August 26, 2016, 01:54:16 PM
Yeah but what about this? https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.dh11xsra4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 26, 2016, 02:08:28 PM
Anyways... This is the same Pentagon guy who's been critical of the F-35 for years. I hope he's wrong.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 26, 2016, 03:24:22 PM
Scholz has applied the logic of the horde - and it works, so long as that horde is local. We know this, right?
We know, also, the 1:1 a K-4 is better than a Pony D... but the horde prevailed.
It might work, but, as long as we understand the assumptions, we also understand the caveats.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on August 26, 2016, 04:24:11 PM
Here's the real list of problems with the F-35. It will be a good aircraft once they solve them
(1)Overheating problems with weapons bay. (2)Can't open it's weapons bay at high speed. (3)Buffets at high angle of attacks. (4)Helmet that is supposed to allow you to see through the aircraft doesn't work. (5)Very small internal weapons load. (6)Wing loading too high. (7)Major cracks forming on airframe. (8)Poor maneuverability. (9)High drag. (10) Unable to supercruise.
Once these teething problems are solved, mark my words, this plane will turn out to be a winner. Almost all planes go through initial problems when they first start production. Like the F-16. It's side stick controller was too sensitive. Then wires chafed due to its extreme maneuverability and caused instrument problems.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 26, 2016, 07:56:37 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on August 26, 2016, 09:22:21 PM
I am surprised Michael Gilmore hasn't awaken with a horse head in his bed, yet. Bravo for him.
The Marines and Air Force have lowered standards to claim IOC. This thing is a turkey.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 27, 2016, 12:39:31 PM
Oops.
---
But there was a catch. By the Air Force’s own reckoning, the F-35A with Block 3i software wouldn’t be able to fight in the most dangerous environments without unacceptable risk to its pilots. Where before the Air Force required that its Initial Operational Capability F-35s be capable of offensive air-to-air missions and the suppression of enemy air defenses in a heavily opposed “anti-access” environment, under the new planning the initial F-35s would be suitable only for “basic” close air support and other ground-attack missions and “limited” defense-suppression — and none of it in anti-access airspace.
To meet a deadline that Congress found acceptable, the Air Force decided to debut F-35s that it knew full well wouldn’t actually be combat-ready in any meaningful sense of the term. In May 2013, the flying branch submitted its F-35 IOC date to Congress and then, according to the history, “began the tense wait to see if the JSF program could fulfill its promises over the next three years.”
Here's the real list of problems with the F-35. It will be a good aircraft once they solve them (3)Buffets at high angle of attacks. (4)Helmet that is supposed to allow you to see through the aircraft doesn't work.
3 is a B*%&#! The T-45 does it, and it's rather unnerving.
4 DOES work. I've actually seen it with my own eyes and used it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 27, 2016, 03:29:32 PM
For close to two decades, critics have taken shots at the F-35 joint strike fighter — and they had plenty of ammunition.
Cost overruns and schedule delays piled up as it became known as the most expensive weapon system ever fielded. There were those who wondered if the Defense Department would ever see any results from its massive investment. The plan to fly it as it was developed, known as concurrency, was at one point called “acquisition malpractice” by the Defense Department’s Undersecretary of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall.
But at the beginning of August, the aircraft’s largest customer, the U.S. Air Force, declared that it had reached initial operating capability, or IOC, which means battlefield commanders can call on at least one fully equipped and trained squadron to drop precision–guided weapons on enemy air defenses in contested environments.
“It’s a major milestone in the sense that it has grown up a bit. It has still got a lot of growing to do. There is still a lot of work with the avionics and interfaces as well as the software, and those go hand in hand,” said John Venable, a former F-16 pilot with more than 3,000 hours of flying time, who is now a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
There are key components that have yet to be integrated, including parts of the helmet’s display system, a Gatling gun and the ability to shoot Sidewinder missiles. Much of that will be part of the next block of software due in August 2017.
Meanwhile, the aircraft’s defenders such as Venable are beginning to talk about what it can do as opposed to what it can’t yet do. Pilots and tacticians are just scratching the surface when it comes to understanding the aircraft and its fifth-generation capabilities.
“When people talk about situational awareness, it is exponentially higher in this airplane than it has been in any airplane up to this point. And that is a godsend for the guys in the fighter cockpits,” he said in an interview.
Venable penned an Aug. 4 backgrounder report for the foundation in which he interviewed 31 F-35A pilots and asked them to compare their new aircraft with their previous fighters in terms of maneuverability, stealth and tactics.
He noted that fighter pilots were well known for blunt opinions and a lack of tact. As an outsider he was met with a good deal of skepticism.
“When I walked out of these [interviews] I got the gospel on what each man genuinely believed about both of his jets,” he said. Their first aircraft is the love of their life and the F-35A is “the mistress” they are unsure about. The pilots had F-15C, F-16C, F-15E and A-10 backgrounds, but none came from the F-22 community.
Maneuverability in a dogfight has been a big question mark since a leaked report in 2015 called into question the F-35A’s air-to-air performance over a fourth-generation aircraft.
Venable noted at the time of that test F-35A pilots were governed by software control laws, known as CLAWS, that limited them to three to five Gs during turns. There have been big strides since then and they are now limited to seven Gs. Ultimately, they will be allowed nine Gs. For the purpose of the survey, he asked the pilots to consider only what the aircraft can do now at seven Gs and to not speculate on how it would perform when the software no longer restricted them.
All but two of the pilots thought the F-35A outperformed his previous airplane in air-to-air combat engagements. The two who didn’t favored their old F-15Cs in the 9,000-foot perch setup, a high-altitude combat scenario.
In beyond-visual-range scenarios, they all chose the F-35. For setups where energy and maneuverability are critical to success, they chose it 80 percent of the time.
“The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment — even with its current G and maneuver restrictions,” Venable wrote.
All of the pilots ended up saying that they would choose the F-35 over their previous jet, although Venable said that question wasn’t included in the survey. “I decided to let the numbers speak for themselves,” he said.
Two former F-22 pilots, Maj. Gen. Jeff Harrigian and Col. Max Marosko III, recently published a paper with the Mitchell Institute about the F-35A that they hoped would “demystify things that have been written in publications,” said Harrigian, who directs the F-35A integration office.
The F-35A “allows you to understand where you need to be in the next three to five minutes, where you need to move assets, and to have that battlefield situational awareness to make decisions quicker and better than we could in any other legacy airplane. And that is fundamental to the platform and what it brings to the fight,” he said at a panel discussion where he presented the report, “Fifth Generation Air Combat: Maintaining the Joint Force Advantage.”
The integrated avionics and sensors autonomously fuse and prioritize data for the pilot to reduce his workload “allowing him to focus more on the mission as opposed to managing sensors,” he said.
He also lauded the aircraft’s stealth. “There is nothing like running an intercept and then at the end of the day realizing that no one ever saw you.”
Venable said he walked on an F-35A wings in his street shoes, and it didn’t harm the protective coating that helps provide the plane’s stealth. He could never do that on an F-22, which is known for its sensitive coating. The tougher stealth layer will allow it to be stationed in more austere settings in harsher environments.
“You can park them out in the sun in the open. … Now you’re starting to talk about a real fighter that has the real potential to do what you need to do in a real-world environment,” Venable said.
Harrigian said: “As we look at operations in highly contested environments with modern long-range [surface-to-air missiles], increased air-to-air threats and the capability the threat has these days to move targets and make them mobile … the only aircraft that can get there are modern, fifth-generation aircraft.”
In a fourth-gen fighter, “you might get in there and release the bomb, but the odds of escaping are not high,” he said. “In our minds, it comes down to the ability to kill and survive.” The F-35A has robust defenses against electronic warfare and cyber attacks, but he could not go into details.
The helmet with its internal displays as opposed to a heads-up cockpit display is a real-game changer, both Harrigian and Venable said.
There is still a lot of complex work to be done on the helmet, which is expected to be finished in time for the next software upgrade. Meanwhile, the current display that fuses the aircraft’s three main sensors — the radar warning receiver, distributed aperture infrared search and track system, and the passive coherent location system — finds and identifies friendly and enemy aircraft and provides unparalleled situational awareness, Venable said.
Harrigian said: “The F-35 [helmet’s] tremendous capability is really a first step toward providing that asymmetric advantage to the pilot with that situational awareness it provides for communications, navigation and identification capabilities.”
In air combat mode, when the “world is swirling around the pilot,” who may be turning 15 to 30 degrees per second with many aircraft flying around in different directions, keeping track of just the friendly jets is a big challenge, Venable said.
“What this aircraft does is to look in any direction and see who is there and you’ll be able to tell who is a good guy and who is a bad guy,” he said.
Harrigian added that the ability to allow F-35A pilots to be mission commanders will be unmatched.
Air Force tacticians such as Harrigian and Marosko, who is serving as deputy director of air and cyberspace operations at Headquarters Pacific Air Forces in Hawaii, are just beginning to look at not only what the F-35A can do, but what it will be able to accomplish flying in teams with fourth-gen aircraft as well as joint forces and allies.
The F-35A will have to address threats covering an entire spectrum from relatively permissive environments found in Central Command’s area of operations to more contested scenarios found in the Pacific Command, Marosko said.
For example, the F-35A could be used to destroy enemy air defenses to create pockets of permissive airspace in which fourth-generation aircraft can operate, he said.
Venable said most of the current F-35A pilots have only 100 to 300 hours of flight time on the aircraft, which isn’t much. “These guys aren’t getting out and standing their airplane on its tail. They’re not understanding the nuances and they really need to be given that opportunity with a lot of flying time to go out there and max fly the airplane.”
Harrigian said: “There is more work that needs to be done with this. … When you give this stuff to airmen: get out of the way. They’ve got it.”
Venable said: “This airplane is not out of the woods. It still has some growing to do and the growing pains are still going to be with us for awhile.”
When the Defense Department decided to do concurrent development, it chose a path of greater risk, he said. He pushed back at the notion that concurrency was acquisition malpractice, although there were lessons to be learned from the program’s mistakes.
The years between when the F-35 was conceived and today were ones of rapid technological advancement. To have frozen the requirements in place in 2001 would have resulted in a fighter that was outdated as soon as it was fielded, he argued in his report. The Royal Air Force’s Tornado F-3 is one example. The technology that went into it was mature, there were no technological risks, and therefore no technological leaps. It was virtually obsolete as soon as it was fielded. The Defense Department had that program in mind when it chose concurrency.
“The risks of developmental delays and cost overruns were accepted to mitigate an even bigger risk: that the United States would field its own version of the Tornado F-3,” he wrote.
That “riskier acquisition strategy had to pay off dividends … and what the payoff is — from what the pilots told me — is an extraordinary fighter,” he said.
One lesson to takeaway is leadership. The program’s first 18 years saw nine directors. The military’s habit of swapping out program managers every three years to accommodate officer career paths just doesn’t work with a long, complex acquisition process, he added.
After the Defense Department recognized this, it installed Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan as the director, and has kept him in the position.
“The single biggest requirement [for a program like the F-35] becomes competent, long-tenured leadership,” Venable wrote.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 27, 2016, 04:46:46 PM
Guess the helmet STILL isn't finished.
Thought so.
Derp.
The airplane cannot enter anti-access environments, the gun is unusable--and will be for at least three more years--and we won't even know if the weapons are deployable for about eight more years.
Sounds like a bargain.
Wouldn't surprise me if in ten years we are flying them from the factory right to the boneyard at DM.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 27, 2016, 04:52:03 PM
EIGHTEEN *YEARS* and we still have nothing of useful value except as a trainer.
We managed to win WWII in less than four.
:huh
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on August 28, 2016, 10:03:38 PM
All of the pilots ended up saying that they would choose the F-35 over their previous jet, although Venable said that question wasn’t included in the survey. “I decided to let the numbers speak for themselves,” he said.
LOL that is epic-ally funny!
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on August 29, 2016, 12:56:36 PM
F-35 surges forward with record-breaking weapons tests
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- The F-35 Integrated Test Force here recently completed 25 missions comprised of 12 weapons delivery accuracy and 13 weapon separation tests as part of a monthlong weapons firing test surge.
Historically, WDAs take place once a month given the myriad of coordination required. The highest number previously accomplished in a month was three in November 2014 during block 2B software testing.
Maj. Charles Trickey, interim director of operations for the 461st Flight Test Squadron, flew the final mission of the surge Aug. 17. The mission was completed at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, where F-35 Lightning IIs shot two advanced medium-range, air-to-air missiles at a QF-4 drone.
“Some of these WDAs were particularly challenging events,” Trickey said. He said the final mission was actually the fourth attempt to complete this test. “It was really cool to see the satisfaction of the team, and to get that feeling of accomplishment after doing something that challenging.”
All told, the F-35 ITF deployed 30 weapons in 31 days, which included 12 WDAs and 13 separations, according to Trickey.
“Thirty separations in 31 days; that’s never been done before in flight test,” said Capt. Brett Tillman, a flight test engineer with the 461st FTS. “The fact that we could get everything together to do that number of separations in that few days is pretty amazing.”
These successful test events -- performed using the F-35’s newest block 3F software -- demonstrated the accuracy of the aircraft. Five of the test events featured dropping multiple weapons.
The effort for this surge wasn’t limited to the F-35 test team. There were a number of units outside the F-35 ITF that put in extra effort and time to make the surge successful, including Edwards AFB airfield and tanker operations, the 416th FTS and the F-35 Joint Program Office.
The F-35 weapons test team was given exclusive use of the Sea Test Range, an instrumented Pacific Ocean test area off the central coast near Point Mugu, California. Tests were also conducted at the U.S. Navy’s China Lake weapons range in California and White Sands missile range.
“The amount of coordination and teamwork from the ITF and the outside organizations to enable this is unprecedented,” Tillman said. “The work these team members put in is amazing. It couldn’t have been done without them.”
During this surge period, a total of 30 weapons were dropped or fired, including the joint direct attack munition, AIM-120 advanced medium-range, air-to-air missile, GPS-guided 250-pound small diameter bomb, AIM-9X Sidewinder supersonic, heat-seeking, air-to-air missile and GPS laser-guided munition.
“The WDAs rely on the full capability of the F-35 -- multiple sensors, navigation, weapons envelope, mission planning, data links and inter-agency range scheduling -- all working in sequence to put steel on target,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, an F-35 program executive officer. “This was a tremendous effort by the F-35 test team. They surged and worked seven days a week for more than a month to expend 30 ordnance and advanced weapons testing. This testing has moved us that much closer to delivering the full F-35 capability to warfighters within the next two years.”
The F-35 is a multi-role, next-generation fighter that combines advanced stealth with speed, agility and a 360-degree view of the battlespace. The F-35 will form the backbone of air combat superiority for decades to come and replace legacy tactical fighter fleets with dominant air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities to deter and defeat potential adversaries.
The Marine Corps declared the F-35B combat ready, or initial operating capability, in July 2015; the Air Force declared F-35A IOC on Aug. 2; and the Navy intends to attain F-35C IOC in 2018. More than 200 F-35s have flown in excess of 66,000 fleet-wide hours, with over 300 F-35 pilots and 3,000 maintainers trained to operate and support this next-generation aircraft.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on August 29, 2016, 04:36:54 PM
F-35 surges forward with record-breaking weapons tests
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- The F-35 Integrated Test Force here recently completed 25 missions comprised of 12 weapons delivery accuracy and 13 weapon separation tests as part of a monthlong weapons firing test surge.d 3,000 maintainers trained to operate and support this next-generation aircraft.
Wow. A whole 25 missions. No data on accuracy. No data on conditions of the test. Nothing. Just "we dropped a lot of stuff" Air Force PR spin.
They're in trouble with this program and they know it. This is a desperate attempt to shift the narrative.
Among the gullible it appears to be working... :huh
The US Marine Corps' F-35 just proved it's ready to take enemy airspace
During tests that concluded on September 1, US Marine Corps F-35Bs proved their ability to multitask in the exact kind of way they would need to while breaching an enemy air-defense zone.
The Marines at Edwards Air Base, California, completed multiple tests of AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles in complicated air-to-air and air-to-ground scenarios, but the highlight of the test involved a 500-pound laser-guided bomb.
An F-35B successfully dropped the 500 pounder and supported it with onboard sensors to hit a ground target while simultaneously shooting down an unmanned F-16 drone with the AIM-120.
"This was a phenomenally successful deployment that was made possible by the close coordination between the JSF Operational Test Team, US Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and industry," Lt. Col. Rusnok, the officer in charge of the testing said in a statement emailed to Business Insider.
This test exemplifies the "multi-role" aspect of the F-35, functioning as a fighter jet and a bomber in the same moment. This test also likely means that the Navy, Air Force, and any other partner nations flying the F-35 variants will have this capability too.
Furthermore, it's much like what future F-35 pilots could expect when breaching enemy airspace, in that they'd have to deal with multiple threats at once.
Should an F-35 be detected, which would be difficult, air defenses as well as fighter planes would immediately scramble to address the threat. So for an F-35, multitasking is a must and now, a proven reality.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 03, 2016, 01:39:40 AM
Ya' can't make this stuff up.
"Good news"?
Try "spin".
The A outperforms the B yet cannot enter anti-access airspace...and we are supposed to believe the B can?
:rofl
This merely demonstrates the T/A-35 is woefully inadequate as an F-22 replacement/equivalent. A single 500 lb bomb? Big whoop.
The gun still doesn't work, either.
Also, COLONEL, it's not a deployment--it's an EMPLOYMENT. A TEST. Geeze...
"On day one of live fire testing, the team was able to shoot two missiles on two separate test set-ups within 12 minutes – an exceptional level of efficiency in a test environment."
:rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: BuckShot on September 03, 2016, 12:34:12 PM
V isn't going to give up until this thread is locked or thru cancel the 35!
I like it, neat plane.
The catbird 767 test bed is pretty cool too.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 04, 2016, 10:06:02 AM
V isn't going to give up until this thread is locked or thru cancel the 35!
I like it, neat plane.
The catbird 767 test bed is pretty cool too.
Just call me "Mister Cold Shower" -- somebody has to keep it real.
Like it all you want. I like the Christen Eagle. Neat plane. But it isn't going to win a war, and neither will the Just So Failed. The JSF is a "success" only through lowered expectations. It's a complete boondoggle and a disaster. Let's hope it never has to see combat against Tier 1 threats because it will get creamed.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: BuckShot on September 04, 2016, 10:16:42 AM
Just trying to keep it light V-ray! I give you permission to turn the hot water up 1/4 turn.
Not comparing it to anything else and looking at it by itself as an airplane, you must admit they are trying some cool concepts with it, the helmet, VTOL/ and no VTOL versions of one plane, etc.
I like airplanes.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 04, 2016, 01:52:36 PM
Yeah I know. I put him on the ignore list a long time ago. Just not worth reading.
We know. We know. You "ignore" me. I also know you read everything I write and attempt to counter every single fact I post--while pretending to have not read them. :rofl :aok
Unfortunately, truth doesn't seem to penetrate your pom-poms.
You just can't handle acknowledging the fact that you are wrong about the JSF. (Why you are so in love with this piece of junk I will never know.) But that's okay. Others get to see the truth when I post, not the official Air Force/Marine Corps/Bogdon/LockMart spin.
Truth hurts. But it helps us grow. You should try it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 04, 2016, 05:44:03 PM
Just trying to keep it light V-ray! I give you permission to turn the hot water up 1/4 turn.
Not comparing it to anything else and looking at it by itself as an airplane, you must admit they are trying some cool concepts with it, the helmet, VTOL/ and no VTOL versions of one plane, etc.
I like airplanes.
:rofl :salute
Believe me, when I first saw it I was mesmerized. We all were. I was convinced this airplane was going to be revolutionary.
But reality is a harsh mistress.
Much to my disappointment, I began to realize this machine was a fantasy. Had they stuck to its original mission and deployed it on time it might have had some use. But we are talking at least five years before it is fully operational--and it is already eight years late.
It was designed for yesterday's war.
It is compromised from the getgo because of the Marine VTOL obsession.
It is not an air superiority fighter--never will be, never can be.
It is overweight. Over budget. Over hyped.
The best that can be said about it is that it is new so it will be a few years before the wings fall off.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zoney on September 04, 2016, 07:40:40 PM
Believe me, when I first saw it I was mesmerized. We all were. I was convinced this airplane was going to be revolutionary.
But reality is a harsh mistress.
Much to my disappointment, I began to realize this machine was a fantasy. Had they stuck to its original mission and deployed it on time it might have had some use. But we are talking at least five years before it is fully operational--and it is already eight years late.
It was designed for yesterday's war.
It is compromised from the getgo because of the Marine VTOL obsession.
It is not an air superiority fighter--never will be, never can be.
It is overweight. Over budget. Over hyped.
The best that can be said about it is that it is new so it will be a few years before the wings fall off.
Blahblahblahblahblah
You're not an expert, give it a rest, those that know far more than you are happy with it and it is only getting better.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 04, 2016, 09:54:33 PM
You're not an expert, give it a rest, those that know far more than you are happy with it and it is only getting better.
1) I am an expert and say that with absolutely no humility. ;)
2) I know (and fly/have flown with) people who know more than you or anyone else in this thread on the subject, i.e. F-22 and F-15 Wing Commanders, F-16 Fighter Weapons Instructors, a T-Bird Squadron Commander, Harrier pilots, ad nauseum.
3) Numbers (FACTS) don't lie, no matter how much the Air Force tries to spin it. They've been caught in their BS and no amount of pom-pom waving is going to change that fact.
4) No, everyone is NOT happy with it. The Canadians are trying to dump it and the Israelis (who actually know something about combat) are doing everything they can to come up with a software overlay and some of their own avionics to make the thing *HOPEFULLY* of some minor use. ALSO, THE LEAD PENTAGON WEAPONS TEST OFFICER HAS WRITTEN UP A LAUNDRY LIST OF PROBLEMS. HE IS SAYING THE AIRPLANE IS NOT WORKING AND WILL NOT WORK FOR SOME TIME--IF AT ALL. That guy knows way more than YOU & GScholz and he agrees with ME.
"The F-35 remains for the IAF the only game in town. There is no other.
"Therefore we are obligated to give thanks, to praise, to laud, to glorify, to exalt, to bless, to extol and to adore the Adir, and thank the blessed Uncle Sam that gave us the right to own such a marvel, and keep our mouths shut."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on September 05, 2016, 12:36:37 AM
By your logic Vraciu, I'm an expert on coding because I know HiTech.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zoney on September 05, 2016, 12:44:11 AM
So Vraciu, you aren't a fighter pilot, you aren't an engineer, you know people who have never flown the F35, and your an expert on it because you talked to those people.
Got it.
This is the last time I interact with you in any way.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 05, 2016, 01:26:36 AM
So Vraciu, you aren't a fighter pilot, you aren't an engineer, you know people who have never flown the F35, and your an expert on it because you talked to those people.
Got it.
This is the last time I interact with you in any way.
Don't do me any favors.
(I don't have to be an engineer. I can do basic math and read what the true, UNBIASED experts write. That's enough. Oh, and the T/A-35 is not a fighter and never will be.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 05, 2016, 01:28:53 AM
By your logic Vraciu, I'm an expert on coding because I know HiTech.
I have a lifetime of experience in aviation. That makes me an expert.
I know the right answers because I know where to look and who to ask. It isn't that hard.
I don't buy "official talking points" particularly when they don't align with reality. YMMV.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on September 05, 2016, 09:23:32 AM
The U.S should have went with the F-22 and the FB-22. The cost of maintaining a jet over its lifetime is far higher than the actual cost of buying one (by about 5x if I remember correctly).
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 05, 2016, 11:25:04 AM
The U.S should have went with the F-22 and the FB-22. The cost of maintaining a jet over its lifetime is far higher than the actual cost of buying one (by about 5x if I remember correctly).
Your sentiments are exactly right.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on September 05, 2016, 12:11:11 PM
I have a lifetime of experience in aviation. That makes me an expert.
I know the right answers because I know where to look and who to ask. It isn't that hard.
I don't buy "official talking points" particularly when they don't align with reality. YMMV.
Have you flown the F35 or F16 into combat? Have you engaged in any form of aerial combat for your country? Have you written a thesis comparing and contrasting both aircraft? If your answer is no, you are not an expert.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Rich46yo on September 05, 2016, 12:52:04 PM
Have you flown the F35 or F16 into combat? Have you engaged in any form of aerial combat for your country? Have you written a thesis comparing and contrasting both aircraft? If your answer is no, you are not an expert.
He's really not even worth replying to. I suggest we all let this thread die unless someone has something technical to offer.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: morfiend on September 05, 2016, 01:54:56 PM
He was almost right on point 4!!!
The Canadians arent trying to drop it we have dropped it as the money allocated to purchase has been put to better use!
We will feed,house and school many people with those funds!
Oh ya and give them free healthcare........ :devil
IMHO,and I`m no expert but manned aircraft are obsolete,5 g`s or even 9 g`s arent going to cut the mustard when you can build a drone that can pull 20 or more G. Flood the sky with drones and they dont even need to be armed,just run into stuff!
Our new PM wants 2 drones in every driveway and wifi across the country........... :devil
:salute
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 05, 2016, 05:42:45 PM
Have you flown the F35 or F16 into combat? Have you engaged in any form of aerial combat for your country? Have you written a thesis comparing and contrasting both aircraft? If your answer is no, you are not an expert.
Keep dreaming, bub. None of those are a requirement. In fact, they can be a detriment.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 05, 2016, 05:43:41 PM
The Canadians arent trying to drop it we have dropped it as the money allocated to purchase has been put to better use!
We will feed,house and school many people with those funds!
Oh ya and give them free healthcare........ :devil
IMHO,and I`m no expert but manned aircraft are obsolete,5 g`s or even 9 g`s arent going to cut the mustard when you can build a drone that can pull 20 or more G. Flood the sky with drones and they dont even need to be armed,just run into stuff!
Our new PM wants 2 drones in every driveway and wifi across the country........... :devil
:salute
Bravo, Canada!! Let's hope the other partner nations wise up and dump this turkey before it gets someone killed. (I haven't seen anything that says Canada has actually pulled the trigger to get out of the Just So Failed program, however.)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 05, 2016, 05:45:40 PM
I will continue to set the record straight for those open minded enough to listen.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on September 05, 2016, 11:36:00 PM
Regarding the 65 planed Canadian F35s -
It hasn't been dropped from consideration, all that is happened is a party that won the election had an election promise to not buy it.
What's actually happened is this - just 2 weeks ago, the Canadian government paid millions, nearly 40 to be exact, to remain an F35 partner and keep their seat at the table, as there has been a paper "contest" of sorts, with LM, Dassault, the Eurofighter group, MacDoug and the Superhornet people, and Saab having all sent representatives to plead the case for their fighter to replace the aging CF18s. There will likely still be a real fly off/contest of sorts, however the F35 is STILL in the competition. A good friend of mine for the last 30 years is the CO of our test fighter squadron and is right in the middle of all of this right now. The F35 purchase has been cancelled, under the guise of it being chosen without any competition, but the F35 is STILL in contention, and is in fact rumored to be the leader in the paper competition so far, again, versus all the other aircraft. The Liberal government knows that it'll look foolish if it wins, and has floated ideas such as doing what Australia did, buying Superhornets in small numbers, like 12 or 24, as an interim fix, however nothing has been decided yet. All that they've done is promise to have a competition to see which of the currently available gen 4.5 and higher fighters would be the best buy.
There have been flip flops less outrageous out there, so don't be surprised if the F35 in fact wins the official fly off, in whatever form that takes, and ends up being the CF18 replacement after all. It's probably a coin flip right now, with the SuperHornet, either interim or full buy on one side, and the F35 on the other. The Eurofighter is almost as much $ as the F35, the Rafale would render the RCAF's huge stocks of Aim120, Aim9, bombs, and gun ammo worthless and require complete replacement, and the Gripen has been declared "unfit" for the RCAF by insiders, for some unknown and likely ridiculous reason.
There is a huge economic factor here too, there are many parts and components for the F35 being constructed in Canada by Canadian aerospace companies in that industry, and those jobs = gone if the F35 isn't chosen, and Canada could face other penalties and economic fallout for dropping out. I'm just saying that it's a part of this equation as well, not the be all end all part of the debate.
Canada has so far forked over more than $311 million to develop the F-35 — without any guarantee it will actually buy the multibillion-dollar stealth fighter.
The most recent instalment was made June 24, when the Liberal government quietly paid $32.9 million to the U.S. program office overseeing development of the warplane, despite having promised during last year's election campaign not to buy the F-35.
The contribution keeps Canada at the table as one of the nine partners in the project for the next year. Partners get a discount when purchasing the stealth fighter, and have access to billions of dollars in contracts associated with producing the plane.
The only thing that is certain regarding the RCAF's fighter program right now is that the current CF18s are timed OUT. The entire batch of nearly 140 that were purchased long ago were F18A and B models, which have been constantly upgraded along the way, and they all are very high time ariframes. Our guys are constantly having issues sourcing and procuring parts and keeping them flying. There are roughly 62 single seat and 18 2 seat fighters being upgraded to the current standard flying, the rest are either in mothballs/storage or have been canabilized here and there, and of those 80 only 35 at max are able to fly at any given time, and many of those are represented in the 410 training squadron and not combat coded and ready to fight. So, with a huge, huge airspace to defend, as well as potential missions like the RCAF has been engaged in since 9/11 possibly coming up still, the bottom of the barrel has been scratched and gouged deep already. Replacements are needed, and quickly. The current government has decreed that Canada will no longer be involved in foreign offensive military ops, and that the fighter the RCAF needs is only required to defend NORAD airspace. Obviously the F35 isn't optimized as an interceptor, which is what the mission calls for by this new "definition", so it's difficult to know what the future will bring.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 06, 2016, 02:43:42 AM
If defending Canadian airspace is the only mission (I find that somewhat ridiculous) then the EF2000 or F-15 (yes it's still in production) would be a better option than the F-35. The Rafale is also better and you can use the AIM-9s since they have the same interface as the French Magic II. AMRAAM and Meteor integration is also being developed for the Rafale. The only possible threat to Canada in the foreseeable future is from long range bombers. You don't need stealth to counter that... But governments, and priorities change.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on September 06, 2016, 03:36:54 AM
It hasn't been dropped from consideration, all that is happened is a party that won the election had an election promise to not buy it.
What's actually happened is this - just 2 weeks ago, the Canadian government paid millions, nearly 40 to be exact, to remain an F35 partner and keep their seat at the table, as there has been a paper "contest" of sorts, with LM, Dassault, the Eurofighter group, MacDoug and the Superhornet people, and Saab having all sent representatives to plead the case for their fighter to replace the aging CF18s. There will likely still be a real fly off/contest of sorts, however the F35 is STILL in the competition. A good friend of mine for the last 30 years is the CO of our test fighter squadron and is right in the middle of all of this right now. The F35 purchase has been cancelled, under the guise of it being chosen without any competition, but the F35 is STILL in contention, and is in fact rumored to be the leader in the paper competition so far, again, versus all the other aircraft. The Liberal government knows that it'll look foolish if it wins, and has floated ideas such as doing what Australia did, buying Superhornets in small numbers, like 12 or 24, as an interim fix, however nothing has been decided yet. All that they've done is promise to have a competition to see which of the currently available gen 4.5 and higher fighters would be the best buy.
There have been flip flops less outrageous out there, so don't be surprised if the F35 in fact wins the official fly off, in whatever form that takes, and ends up being the CF18 replacement after all. It's probably a coin flip right now, with the SuperHornet, either interim or full buy on one side, and the F35 on the other. The Eurofighter is almost as much $ as the F35, the Rafale would render the RCAF's huge stocks of Aim120, Aim9, bombs, and gun ammo worthless and require complete replacement, and the Gripen has been declared "unfit" for the RCAF by insiders, for some unknown and likely ridiculous reason.
There is a huge economic factor here too, there are many parts and components for the F35 being constructed in Canada by Canadian aerospace companies in that industry, and those jobs = gone if the F35 isn't chosen, and Canada could face other penalties and economic fallout for dropping out. I'm just saying that it's a part of this equation as well, not the be all end all part of the debate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-stealth-fighter-jet-1.3696269 The only thing that is certain regarding the RCAF's fighter program right now is that the current CF18s are timed OUT. The entire batch of nearly 140 that were purchased long ago were F18A and B models, which have been constantly upgraded along the way, and they all are very high time ariframes. Our guys are constantly having issues sourcing and procuring parts and keeping them flying. There are roughly 62 single seat and 18 2 seat fighters being upgraded to the current standard flying, the rest are either in mothballs/storage or have been canabilized here and there, and of those 80 only 35 at max are able to fly at any given time, and many of those are represented in the 410 training squadron and not combat coded and ready to fight. So, with a huge, huge airspace to defend, as well as potential missions like the RCAF has been engaged in since 9/11 possibly coming up still, the bottom of the barrel has been scratched and gouged deep already. Replacements are needed, and quickly. The current government has decreed that Canada will no longer be involved in foreign offensive military ops, and that the fighter the RCAF needs is only required to defend NORAD airspace. Obviously the F35 isn't optimized as an interceptor, which is what the mission calls for by this new "definition", so it's difficult to know what the future will bring.
You hit on one of the main reasons why this boondoggle is still here. Blackmail. (I won't get into the non-monetary arm-twisting by the US government toward our allies. You can dig that up yourself on Wiki Leaks.)
Lockheed was very shrewd--as were its lackeys in Congress. They spread T/A-35 production across hundreds of districts and partner nations to insure "skin in the game" which shields it from cancelation. Too big to fail.
Anyone wanting out of the program will pay a huge price in penalties and lost manufacturing. Thus it takes a ton of guts (and political capital) to pull out of the Ponzi scheme.
Canada would be fine with Super Hornets. Put the Enhanced Performance Engine in there and it is a beast in A2A configuration. They don't need the supposed first strike stealth capability falsely promised by the Just So Failed. A Silent Eagle would also be a good choice as well, though pricier than the Super.
In any event, the Joint Strike Failure is not a fighter and never will be. If Canada is going to buy the wrong plane any way they should buy the Super Hornet. It's cheaper and it actually works.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: LCADolby on September 06, 2016, 12:27:03 PM
The 461st at Edwards released a video of their recent surge in weapons testing. Looks good :aok
Surge?
Two missiles fired in TWELVE minutes?
I got news for ya. You can "surge" until the cows come home. The airplane is still a DECADE behind schedule. A DECADE.
Behind schedule, over budget, designed for yesterday's war. Slower that the Super Slow Hornet.
We are going backwards.
This is not a fighter and never will be.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 07, 2016, 07:07:04 AM
Ah the beloved (sarc) $400K helmet. Ruh roh...
"Intricate kit breaks—and when it does, a pilot cannot simply borrow another’s helmet. This is because each HMDS is calibrated to an individual flyer, such as the alignment of their pupils for eye-tracking, which is a two-day laboratory job that only Rockwell Collins is authorised to conduct." H/T - The Economist
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on September 07, 2016, 04:56:28 PM
World's most expensive 5th Generation A-7.
I am still concerned about the cracking of the airframe. What is the latest news on that?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 07, 2016, 06:20:24 PM
I am still concerned about the cracking of the airframe. What is the latest news on that?
Not a bad comparison I guess... If the A-7 had been supersonic, had a state of the art air intercept radar, and radar guided missiles back in its day.
The cracking I've read about was in the engine mounts and bulkheads of an airframe that had flown the equivalent of 7000 hours. They've also discovered cracks in the wings of the C model. This is not unexpected, but basically by design. They fatigue test to see where the structure needs to be beefed up. It is way easier to add metal/composite as fatigue hot spots are found then to take material out of an over built airframe. The beef up as you go method yields the airframe with highest strength to weight ratio.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on September 08, 2016, 02:00:01 AM
There was a lot of press about the two Aim120s fired as the F4 target drone which was the target was actually preserved and returned to base. Many "The F35's only 2 missiles both missed" etc etc etc. Turns out they didn't actually miss, but were right on target and closing to warhead detonation when it was decided there was no point in wasting the last F4 drone that was to be used to prove that the missile warheads worked, so they sent self destruct through the datalink connection from the F35 to the Aim120s. That's actually a pretty interesting feature, and probably has some real world use for times in swirling combat when a pilot might wish he hadn't let one fly due a friendly or unknown all of sudden showing up somewhere downrange.
IMO this still all boils down to theory - does low observability, new/great sensors, and modern tech in weapons and their employment trump maneuverability, speed, and power? I've said this before, I'm still waiting for info from a very large EX where the various versions of the F35 are used in large, as in a 4 ship or a section of a squadron versus current Red Air and other threats at say Red Flag or what have you. The Air Force has recently joined the USMC in stating that using their F35s even with current software and restrictions is to the point now where all the other fighters (save the F22 of course) are saying it's pointless to even play, as they are dead as soon as they turn inbound during their scenarios, and never even see the F35. I do hope that's true, this thing needs to work, regardless of how any of us feel about its design and the compromises made in building it the way it is. There are still issues, but there are still issues with every fighter out there in some manner, and there have been more and more glimmers of hope regarding the F35 recently IMO.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 08, 2016, 07:01:46 AM
Not a bad comparison I guess... If the A-7 had been supersonic, had a state of the art air intercept radar, and radar guided missiles back in its day.
The cracking I've read about was in the engine mounts and bulkheads of an airframe that had flown the equivalent of 7000 hours. They've also discovered cracks in the wings of the C model. This is not unexpected, but basically by design. They fatigue test to see where the structure needs to be beefed up. It is way easier to add metal/composite as fatigue hot spots are found then to take material out of an over built airframe. The beef up as you go method yields the airframe with highest strength to weight ratio.
"Basically by design." This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yet another flaw of the Just So Failed program.
Fatigue testing is done in a benchmark airframe BEFORE production in order to find problems. You don't DESIGN an aircraft to have cracking show up AFTER it is built.
SMH. You can't make this stuff up.
Oh, and at the time the A-7 had the most state-of-the-art avionics around. It was the first airplane with a modern HUD and it went from mockup to combat in about two and a half years. It left active service just shy of fifty years later.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 08, 2016, 07:05:02 AM
The cracking I've read about was in the engine mounts and bulkheads of an airframe that had flown the equivalent of 7000 hours. They've also discovered cracks in the wings of the C model. This is not unexpected, but basically by design.
Have to say I'm rather sceptical about this comment. Upon which date was it announced that a borderline airframe was in flight to investigate stress cracks through flight?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 08, 2016, 07:11:15 AM
There was a lot of press about the two Aim120s fired as the F4 target drone which was the target was actually preserved and returned to base. Many "The F35's only 2 missiles both missed" etc etc etc. Turns out they didn't actually miss, but were right on target and closing to warhead detonation when it was decided there was no point in wasting the last F4 drone that was to be used to prove that the missile warheads worked, so they sent self destruct through the datalink connection from the F35 to the Aim120s. That's actually a pretty interesting feature, and probably has some real world use for times in swirling combat when a pilot might wish he hadn't let one fly due a friendly or unknown all of sudden showing up somewhere downrange.
IMO this still all boils down to theory - does low observability, new/great sensors, and modern tech in weapons and their employment trump maneuverability, speed, and power? I've said this before, I'm still waiting for info from a very large EX where the various versions of the F35 are used in large, as in a 4 ship or a section of a squadron versus current Red Air and other threats at say Red Flag or what have you. The Air Force has recently joined the USMC in stating that using their F35s even with current software and restrictions is to the point now where all the other fighters (save the F22 of course) are saying it's pointless to even play, as they are dead as soon as they turn inbound during their scenarios, and never even see the F35. I do hope that's true, this thing needs to work, regardless of how any of us feel about its design and the compromises made in building it the way it is. There are still issues, but there are still issues with every fighter out there in some manner, and there have been more and more glimmers of hope regarding the F35 recently IMO.
Those glimmers are fool's gold. The airplane isn't meeting its design requirements so they lowered them and put out a press release.
Speed is life and this thing is a slug. It will NEVER be an air superiority fighter. Never.
If we are lucky it will be a passable light attack jet (see A-4) for second tier regional wars.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 08, 2016, 08:15:58 AM
Have to say I'm rather sceptical about this comment. Upon which date was it announced that a borderline airframe was in flight to investigate stress cracks through flight?
I can't wait to hear the answer. Gonna be a good one. :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 08, 2016, 09:15:25 AM
Have to say I'm rather sceptical about this comment. Upon which date was it announced that a borderline airframe was in flight to investigate stress cracks through flight?
At least two and a half years ago... It's not a "borderline airframe" and it's not "in flight". You're making too many assumptions.
They were ground testing the airframe to simulate 8000-16000 flight hours. No flying F-35 is even close to that yet, and won't be for many years. These are test and changes done to the production line and retrofitted to existing aircraft to prevent cracking problems years from now.
Quote
“The crack was not predicted to occur by prior analyses or modeling,” she said. “We can’t know all the changes that must be made to the structures until the testing is complete, and it is not surprising when discoveries like this occur.”
The purpose of “durability testing is to intentionally stress the aircraft to its structural limits so we can identify any issues and corrective actions needed to fix them,” the Pentagon’s DellaVedova said in an e-mailed statement. “These discoveries are expected and planned for in a developmental program.”
Quote
Ground testing stresses an airframe to simulate flight conditions and determine whether a plane can reach its projected lifetime, which in the case of the Marines’ F-35B is 8,000 flying hours.
To provide an extra margin of assurance, the Marine, Air Force and Navy versions of the F-35 are all required to undergo tests for the equivalent of 16,000 flight hours. The Marine version was supposed to complete its second 8,000 hours of testing by the end of this year.
The ground testing aircraft had accumulated 9,480 hours “when testing was stopped to conduct root-cause analysis on discovered bulkhead cracks,” DellaVedova said.
“Because of the high hours accumulated,” this “discovery does not affect current F-35B flying operations,” he said, adding that the suspension of ground testing won’t affect the Marine Corps’ goal of declaring its first squadron operational no later than December 2015.
There was a lot of press about the two Aim120s fired as the F4 target drone which was the target was actually preserved and returned to base. Many "The F35's only 2 missiles both missed" etc etc etc. Turns out they didn't actually miss, but were right on target and closing to warhead detonation when it was decided there was no point in wasting the last F4 drone that was to be used to prove that the missile warheads worked, so they sent self destruct through the datalink connection from the F35 to the Aim120s. That's actually a pretty interesting feature, and probably has some real world use for times in swirling combat when a pilot might wish he hadn't let one fly due a friendly or unknown all of sudden showing up somewhere downrange.
Yes I saw several articles that took that successful test and twisted it into a negative propaganda piece. Irresponsible journalism. As for missile tests in general they often replace the warhead with a telemetry package so they can gather data on the terminal performance of the missile. Unless the missile scores a direct kinetic hit the drone is preserved.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 08, 2016, 09:28:10 AM
Yes I saw several articles that took that successful test and twisted it into a negative propaganda piece. Irresponsible journalism. As for missile tests in general they often replace the warhead with a telemetry package so they can gather data on the terminal performance of the missile. Unless the missile scores a direct kinetic hit the drone is preserved.
Irresponsible journalism doesn't make this airplane a Mach 1.6 Su target.
I guess the journalists who published the "Not For Public Release" OFFICIAL AIR FORCE PROPAGANDA DIRECTIVE were also irresponsible, eh?
At least two and a half years ago... It's not a "borderline airframe" and it's not "in flight". You're making too many assumptions.
They were ground testing the airframe to simulate 8000-16000 flight hours. No flying F-35 is even close to that yet, and won't be for many years. These are test and changes done to the production line and retrofitted to existing aircraft to prevent cracking problems years from now.
The cracking I've read about was in the engine mounts and bulkheads of an airframe that had flown the equivalent of 7000 hours.
So I naturally assumed it was a mixture of flying and test jig.
You said it was 'basically by design'. I don't think so, which would be evidenced if the announcement that it was 'by design' coincided with the reporting of the discovery of the cracks. If it had been announced at the start of the programme it'd be a different matter.
I think more likely the programme can tolerate the unexpected by virtue of it's Cook–Craigie++ plan. Which is completely reasonable of course. But I doubt with the state of the art modelling simulations they intended a design solution incorporating an element of trial and error. Likely a mistake they've had to correct. The point is the official line might be less than frank, in this regard.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 08, 2016, 10:53:48 AM
Also the article you posted is entitled 'Lockheed F-35 for Marines Delayed as Test Exposes Cracks'.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 08, 2016, 10:57:29 AM
Bad choice of words on my part, but the word "equivalent" and the fact that no F-35 could possibly have flown 7000 hours yet should have given you pause.
“The crack was not predicted to occur by prior analyses or modeling,” she said.”
“These discoveries are expected and planned for in a developmental program.”
If it had been announced at the start of the programme it'd be a different matter.
Why would they announce anything? The only reason they've commented at all is because someone leaked/sold classified test results and it was deemed worth it to answer the bad press.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 08, 2016, 11:02:12 AM
Also the article you posted is entitled 'Lockheed F-35 for Marines Delayed as Test Exposes Cracks'.
Just more irresponsible journalism again. A claim directly refuted by the article itself:
“Because of the high hours accumulated,” this “discovery does not affect current F-35B flying operations,” he said, adding that the suspension of ground testing won’t affect the Marine Corps’ goal of declaring its first squadron operational no later than December 2015.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 08, 2016, 11:08:30 AM
Just scanning this article now. They've replaced Titanium (GR5 I assume) with Aluminium alloy in the Marine's version.
"That move was part of an effort in 2004 and 2005 to lighten the increasingly heavy Marine Corps version".
“the cracks continued to grow” until a “bulkhead severed and transferred loads, which caused cracking in the adjacent” bulkhead.
Bit alarming to my eyes.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 08, 2016, 11:20:10 AM
Bad choice of words on my part, but the word "equivalent" and the fact that no F-35 could possibly have flown 7000 hours yet should have given you pause.
I don't follow the programme I'm too busy with my own projects. I just pass the break times and train journeys on the AH forum for entertainment.
They don't have to. But what's that business about anything you fail to say now which you will use in your defence later. That's all I meant with that. Important to deduce as well as extrapolate. To me anyway.
“Because of the high hours accumulated,” this “discovery does not affect current F-35B flying operations,” he said, adding that the suspension of ground testing won’t affect the Marine Corps’ goal of declaring its first squadron operational no later than December 2015.
But they also conceded it would require a lengthy redesign. They've tried to save a relatively small amount of weight with a core, structural material change. From this you infer all is well?
Respectfully I think you're missing the point. Perhaps deliberately I don't know. We're reading the same articles and you interpret all is well, according to plan. I read the same and think, Crikey, they really switched from Titanium for that little of a weight saving in an almost ad hoc stylee in the core structure, and now they've found it failed enough to pass the cracks to the neighbouring bulkhead? I hope they can solve it, because they're in a lot of trouble there with very little margin.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 08, 2016, 11:42:12 AM
I don't assume to know better than the people working on it. You do realize these are "second life" cracks right? Cracks that occur after the designed lifespan-hours of the aircraft have been spent. They're testing the airframe to twice the designed lifespan, just to be on the safe side.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 08, 2016, 12:06:39 PM
I don't assume to know better than the people working on it.
That doesn't assert the people who are working on it haven't found themselves in a unplanned and less than ideal situation and are now facing an extremely difficult set of problems to solve while trying to put a positive spin on it.
You do realize these are "second life" cracks right? Cracks that occur after the designed lifespan-hours of the aircraft have been spent. They're testing the airframe to twice the designed lifespan, just to be on the safe side.
I have an intermediate understanding of metal fatigue and materials by engineering standards. Enough to comprehend the issues quite well. It's not like there isn't a HUGE body of knowledge now about stress fatigue in airframes. Even if you only count it from the first Comet break up onwards. Why are they accepting the delay and redesigning if the aircraft will never reach this number of hours? If it's just to be on the safe side you'd typically overstress it, not overlife it. Something isn't right in that information.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on September 08, 2016, 12:09:41 PM
I'm sure the air frames are expected to last more than 7000 hours... It's true that it isn't an issue yet since the fleet is so young but it's still a major problem that need to be fixed and all the existing air frames need to be modified.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 08, 2016, 01:13:53 PM
That doesn't assert the people who are working on it haven't found themselves in a unplanned and less than ideal situation and are now facing an extremely difficult set of problems to solve while trying to put a positive spin on it.
Why are they accepting the delay and redesigning if the aircraft will never reach this number of hours?
What delay? There was no delay in production or in training for the USMC. It had no impact on the timeline. The only thing that was put on hold until fixes were made was the stress testing itself, for obvious reasons. I hope you realize this was two and a half years ago and the problem was fixed the same year? I believe it cost the F-35B 50 lbs extra weight.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 08, 2016, 01:17:32 PM
I'm sure the air frames are expected to last more than 7000 hours... It's true that it isn't an issue yet since the fleet is so young but it's still a major problem that need to be fixed and all the existing air frames need to be modified.
It was fixed two years ago. This is history we're arguing over. Yes the F-35 is designed for a 8000 flight hours service life, or approximately 30 - 50 years. The test aircraft had accumulated 9,480 hours when the cracks were discovered. On our F-16s we had to replace the wings at 4000 hours due to cracks.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 08, 2016, 02:01:17 PM
What delay? There was no delay in production or in training for the USMC. It had no impact on the timeline. The only thing that was put on hold until fixes were made was the stress testing itself, for obvious reasons. I hope you realize this was two and a half years ago and the problem was fixed the same year? I believe it cost the F-35B 50 lbs extra weight.
I note you ignored the points about load versus fatigue and the point about frame hours. It isn't nothing, there was a delay in the development process and a redesign. All of that amounts to additional cost.
It's irrelevant really. The point is the continual implication everything is tickety boo just because the official line says so. This was a counter-example. 50 lbs is quite a lot by the way looking at how close they are to the limits. You can't just keep adding mass with STOVL. What did they do, go back to using Titanium for the bulkheads?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 08, 2016, 02:08:14 PM
What delay? There was no delay in production or in training for the USMC. It had no impact on the timeline. The only thing that was put on hold until fixes were made was the stress testing itself, for obvious reasons. I hope you realize this was two and a half years ago and the problem was fixed the same year? I believe it cost the F-35B 50 lbs extra weight.
The wing cracking on the F-35C is a CURRENT problem that has NOT been fixed. The F-35B will also fail in the future in different places as stress gets transferred to other areas as weaker ones are beefed up. They've shaved it to the bone because it is too heavy to be of any use. Despite their best efforts the B has suffered a weight gain of more than ten percent (I don't feel like figuring out the exact figure) since 2002. The other variants have also experienced similar weight gains, a trend that is continuing at the expense of its already-limited performance.
Wake up.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 08, 2016, 02:29:24 PM
That the official LM line is consistently the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That's just another assumption on your part, and a pretty stupid one at that. I have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth or not, and they're certainly not telling the whole truth. Why would they. But they are the only people who actually knows the truth. They and the pilots and maintainers who work with the jet. I tend to believe in the opinions of the people whose lives will depend on this plane if and when they have to go to war.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 08, 2016, 06:04:48 PM
That's just another assumption on your part, and a pretty stupid one at that. I have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth or not, and they're certainly not telling the whole truth. Why would they. But they are the only people who actually knows the truth. They and the pilots and maintainers who work with the jet. I tend to believe in the opinions of the people whose lives will depend on this plane if and when they have to go to war.
That worked for the Marines at Midway in their F2As didn't it?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on September 08, 2016, 08:36:30 PM
It was fixed two years ago. This is history we're arguing over. Yes the F-35 is designed for a 8000 flight hours service life, or approximately 30 - 50 years. The test aircraft had accumulated 9,480 hours when the cracks were discovered. On our F-16s we had to replace the wings at 4000 hours due to cracks.
"Equivalent flight time", not actual flight time. When some states "equivalent" like this my BS meter pegs out.
Quote
The reason for that is because the F-35B structural durability test article had already accumulated 9,480 hours of equivalent fight time when testing was stopped to discover the root cause of the problem.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 09, 2016, 12:24:55 AM
That's just another assumption on your part, and a pretty stupid one at that.
Reasonable assumptions based on available evidence, interpolating and extrapolating, especially working from an inconsistency can take one quite far. You should try it :D Remember no one has all the facts. Especially those involved, ironically.
I tend to believe in the opinions of the people whose lives will depend on this plane if and when they have to go to war.
Have you any opinions from those who have flown the Marine's version? Because I notice you tend to flick between discussions of variants and the overall programme in a logically disingenuous manner when convenient.
Yes well, how do I say this while retaining some modicum of politeness? You do seem to almost have a disability when it comes to being critical of information from certain official sources. Perhaps only with military things. That's all I've seen. This is just an assumption from observing your posts. Over several related and lengthy threads. For years. Consistently.
Being involved in the programme also means they are all stakeholders. That ought to indicate some caution. The bulkhead issue is merely an example. I said there were two ways out of it and indeed they chose to add weight. This variant is approaching its limit and that doesn't tally with the everything going according to plan narrative. 'Basically by design'. No, not hardly. They're doing their best to solve problems which should've been avoided way upstream of where they are now with an enviable budget and facilities.
The reality is probably in the middle of the fanboi and paranoid extremes. All this forum hot air gets no one anywhere really. About as much ground gained on either side as the quietest week of the front line measuring contest in the Great War.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on September 09, 2016, 01:49:03 AM
I often think the same, regarding that last bit Shida.
I still am sticking to my original point made here years ago on this topic: until I see large numbers of F35s, as in squadrons or a detachment of one at least, perform at Red Flag/etc, taking on swarms of Red Air, flown by the best pilots in the world, simulating modern threats like the SU and various Chinese fighters as well as modern SAM/AA/AD threats... Even if that means using F22s as the Chinese stealth analogues, and in that exercise we see the F35 succeed and win fights and accomplish mission goals with minimal loses, against Red Air that gets to reset and simulate massive enemy numbers, which WILL be faced in any war with China/Russia/near peer states/etc, the jury is out.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 09, 2016, 06:36:31 AM
Have you any opinions from those who have flown the Marine's version? Because I notice you tend to flick between discussions of variants and the overall programme in a logically disingenuous manner when convenient.
Of course. It's perhaps the most lauded version by those who fly it. Here's a couple of hits on youtube:
Yes well, how do I say this while retaining some modicum of politeness? You do seem to almost have a disability when it comes to being critical of information from certain official sources. Perhaps only with military things. That's all I've seen. This is just an assumption from observing your posts. Over several related and lengthy threads. For years. Consistently.
While I'm sure that is the impression I give off, it is not accurate. I many have a disability, as you put it, when it comes to being critical of information from soldiers, but that's because I've been one. I know what soldiers are like. If there is something we don't like about our gear or vehicles or whatever, we whine a lot. We whine to each other, to our families and friends. Sometimes even to the press. A good example is Serenity here who in several threads have whined about the F-35 even though he's never flown one and is still just a cadet pilot in the USN. Over in the O'Club he's whining about the T-45 he's flying now. The thing that bothers me about all the negative press the F-35 is getting is that even if 10% of it was true there should be a ****storm of whining from F-35 personnel. There isn't.
Reasonable assumptions based on available evidence, interpolating and extrapolating, especially working from an inconsistency can take one quite far. You should try it :D Remember no one has all the facts. Especially those involved, ironically.
You know, governments are notoriously bad at keeping secrets; a reasonable assumption would be that there is no vast international conspiracy involving the governments and militaries of twelve different nations on four different continents. Thousands of people directly involved with the F-35, some willing to risk their lives in it. And they're all supposed to be lying and hiding the fact that the plane is a turd. And not a single individual steps out of line and whistle blows, not even anonymously. Not one.
A reasonable assumption would be that people like "Dolby" Hanche is telling the truth when they praise the F-35 and its capabilities. As officers and servicemen of their respective countries' armed forces their integrity, while not beyond reproach, is still something they have earned through their service and professionalism. If you want to call these people liars you had better be prepared to back that up with a lot more than "interpolating and extrapolating". Because if you do your own integrity is on the line, not just theirs.
"I would emphasize the term 'multirole' after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this 'bomber'! - Morten Hanche. RNoAF F-35 pilot and 2,200-hour F-16 veteran.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 09, 2016, 08:27:49 AM
Again. People have their ORDERS regarding what to say about the T/A-35. See my multiple posts about the memo that was leaked on this subject.
Whiners get passed over for promotion. If you think a successful military career is not dependent upon politics you're dreaming in technicolor.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 09, 2016, 08:54:16 AM
Quote from: GScholz
"I would emphasize the term 'multirole' after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this 'bomber'! - Morten Hanche. RNoAF F-35 pilot and 2,200-hour F-16 veteran.
Two AMRAAMs. Two small bombs. That's considered a "real bite" these days? :huh
This Morten Hanche guy doesn't know what he's talking about. No wonder they picked him to speak to the public about this horribly flawed, hopelessly outclassed piece of junk.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Mister Fork on September 09, 2016, 10:56:52 AM
I often think the same, regarding that last bit Shida.
I still am sticking to my original point made here years ago on this topic: until I see large numbers of F35s, as in squadrons or a detachment of one at least, perform at Red Flag/etc, taking on swarms of Red Air, flown by the best pilots in the world, simulating modern threats like the SU and various Chinese fighters as well as modern SAM/AA/AD threats... Even if that means using F22s as the Chinese stealth analogues, and in that exercise we see the F35 succeed and win fights and accomplish mission goals with minimal loses, against Red Air that gets to reset and simulate massive enemy numbers, which WILL be faced in any war with China/Russia/near peer states/etc, the jury is out.
+1 on that it needs a real test.
The problem with it I have is that it's overly complex and expensive to fight in wars and conflicts I don't think exist any more, and is perhaps better suited for drones.
If we have a conflict where we are up against hundreds of opposing well trained fighters, then we've already lost.
And if the F-35 isn't the solution, what kind of aircraft would be better suited?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 09, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
The problem with it I have is that it's overly complex and expensive to fight in wars and conflicts I don't think exist any more, and is perhaps better suited for drones.
If we have a conflict where we are up against hundreds of opposing well trained fighters, then we've already lost.
And if the F-35 isn't the solution, what kind of aircraft would be better suited?
F-22s to datalink to the F-15 Advanced (SIXTEEN AMRAAMs). The F-15SA now in production can carry 16 AAMs and this upgrade can be fitted to existing airframes.
Or a mix of F-22 and F-15SE. You could even use the F-15SE wth ejectable pylons meaning that once it fires off its external stores it can "cloak" like a Bird of Prey in Star Trek.
The Just So Failed at max can carry four Slammers in "stealth" configuration. It is NOT an air superiority platform.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 09, 2016, 03:05:35 PM
Of course. It's perhaps the most lauded version by those who fly it. Here's a couple of hits on youtube:
I thought you'd actually talked to this Dolby chap. Probably doesn't have time. I'm sure I've seen him spending a lot of time in the MA too flying sausage planes. Haven't watched the videos yet because I have trouble with links. I imagine a lot of the pilot's comments pertain to a comparison with hovering a Harrier? If so then yes, I imagine they are absolutely elated :rofl
So let's compartmentalise the conversation a bit or we're in severe logical fallacy territory real quick, and we all hate that.
I haven't commented much about the flight characteristics because I'm not qualified to do so. I've only flown an R-22 for an hour and although I did quite well apparently it scared the crap out of me. I've also had a bit of stick time in a powered glider - a much more peaceful and harmonious affair - and aside from crashing Hillbilly's R/C plane for him that’s about the extent of my physical flying experience.
I believe those pilots who say it handles well, and has a lot more potential than the rides they are used to. I also supported the assertion earlier in this thread that the 'dogfight' mentioned in the title wasn't one. I think I also stated software would change the hardware quite a bit too. This I gathered from reading a few articles and making assumptions :) Although Vraciu does have a very good point. I imagine one non-constructive comment and you'd be flying toilet roles into Afghanistan in an Airtruk. Pilot's who are used to a competitive selection processes probably know that quite well. I agree they are well aware of the political aspects also. This must be allowed for in some of the anecdotes.
The question is, is it $1.508 trillion and 40 years of knowledge and technological development-worth of better? I think this is a justifiable complaint by a lot of ordinary tax-paying folk living in many countries, who have paid for it when it all boils down to it.
I myself wonder for instance why wasn’t more of the budget diverted early on into researching emerging materials for instance? Why does the airframe have a finite lifespan at all? Why on earth did they go with the very questionable liftfan system, which would inescapably doom the project into a spliting into variants. Just some peculiar and poorly executed initial design decisions. Haven't they basically ended up with payload approximately what the CALF programme would have resulted in, with a far more messy and compromised production programme and having spent an awful lot more money?
I don’t consider myself to at all be on the conspiracy theory side of the fence, I can still be critical of some of the reports, especially if I sniff inconsistencies. Respectfully you didn’t confine your statements to comments by pilots. A design issue was raised which sounded sniffy. The evidence was contradictory, contrary to convention (load versus hours as a for instance) and presented with a positive spin. This is entirely the point. No wonder people become suspicious.
A reasonable assumption would be that people like "Dolby" Hanche is telling the truth when they praise the F-35 and its capabilities. As officers and servicemen of their respective countries' armed forces their integrity, while not beyond reproach, is still something they have earned through their service and professionalism. If you want to call these people liars you had better be prepared to back that up with a lot more than "interpolating and extrapolating". Because if you do your own integrity is on the line, not just theirs.
I don't sense a great deal of negative attention heading in the direction of the pilots / servicemen. At the same time I don't share your obligation to be what I consider overly respectful. We can just differ on this point with our dissimilar backgrounds.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 09, 2016, 03:22:07 PM
I thought you'd actually talked to this Dolby chap. Probably doesn't have time. I'm sure I've seen him spending a lot of time in the MA too flying sausage planes. Haven't watched the videos yet because I have trouble with links. I imagine a lot of the pilot's comments pertain to a comparison with hovering a Harrier? If so then yes, I imagine they are absolutely elated :rofl
Harrier, F-18 and EA-6B in service with the Marines. The F-35B replaces all of them. The Marine pilots called it the most lethal and advanced fighter in the world. And yes, I've talked to "Dolby". Both the Norwegian fighter pilot and the British cartoon pilot. ;)
I believe those pilots who say it handles well, and has a lot more potential than the rides they are used to. I also supported the assertion earlier in this thread that the 'dogfight' mentioned in the title wasn't one. I think I also stated software would change the hardware quite a bit too.
Although Vraciu does have a very good point. I imagine one non-constructive comment and you'd be flying toilet roles into Afghanistan in an Airtruk. Pilot's who are used to a competitive selection processes probably know that quite well. I agree they are well aware of the political aspects also. This must be allowed for in some of the anecdotes.
"I imagine" is exactly the kind of speculation that should be avoided at all cost. Serenity here has pretty much debunked that theory in this very thread. As a cadet pilot he is at the very bottom end of the "competitive selection processes" as you put it. And even if the United States were to have such an unfortunate practice, we're talking about pilots from eight different countries and not one single individual steps out of line even anonymously? I find that very hard to believe.
The question is, is it $1.508 trillion and 40 years of knowledge and technological development-worth of better? I think this is a justifiable complaint by a lot of ordinary tax-paying folk living in many countries, who have paid for it when it all boils down to it.
The only people qualified to answer that question would be the pilots and tacticians who are exploring the F-35's capabilities. Obviously most of their opinions would be classified, but they seem to be very happy with it. I've heard comments like "five times better" but those are clearly subjective opinions. It is not a justifiable complaint when you can't actually answer the question. We'll have to wait until the aircraft (F-35A in my case) is fully operational and its true capabilities can be explored in a realistic environment.
Why does the airframe have a finite lifespan at all?
All airframes do. We have not yet invented Everlast or Adamantium. The lifespan can be prolonged more or less indefinitely of course, but then you're really talking about slowly replacing the whole aircraft part for part. Nothing lasts forever.
Haven't they basically ended up with payload approximately what the CALF programme would have resulted in, with a far more messy and compromised production programme and having spent an awful lot more money?
DARPA's CALF program was initiated by Lockheed Martin and was merged with the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program to create the Joint Strike Fighter program. The F-35 is the result of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter program.
I don’t consider myself to at all be on the conspiracy theory side of the fence, I can still be critical of some of the reports, especially if I sniff inconsistencies. Respectfully you didn’t confine your statements to comments by pilots. A design issue was raised which sounded sniffy. The evidence was contradictory, contrary to convention (load versus hours as a for instance) and presented with a positive spin. This is entirely the point. No wonder people become suspicious.
I hope no one is naive enough to believe any company would put a negative spin on their own product... And "load versus hours" is not contrary to convention. The point of their testing is not to over stress the airframe, but to over cycle it. Finding out how many hours of normal use the airframe is likely to last.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 10, 2016, 03:36:55 AM
Harrier, F-18 and EA-6B in service with the Marines. The F-35B replaces all of them. The Marine pilots called it the most lethal and advanced fighter in the world. And yes, I've talked to "Dolby". Both the Norwegian fighter pilot and the British cartoon pilot. ;)
My point was I'm sure it is an improvement over what they are flying. Of course they're excited about that. I did watch one video, the RAF pilot seemed mostly relieved he didn't have to worry about the verticle landing for the whole flight. To be fair, 1960 was the first year the Kestrel flew. It's now 2016. Perhaps you don't choose to recognize that subtlety?
we're talking about pilots from eight different countries and not one single individual steps out of line even anonymously? I find that very hard to believe.
An issue I have with your reporting is your attempts to generalize from a specific or 'flip channels' between the variants like a logical Fred Astaire. Just because it's pleasant to fly and potentially more well armed and capable than what they have now doesn't mean it's a good as it could've been.
The only people qualified to answer that question would be the pilots and tacticians who are exploring the F-35's capabilities.
No that's not correct. Pilots & tactitions have very little to do with developing technology or exploring innovative design solutions and no qualifications in that domain. Again I'm sure it's better than the older equipment thay have.
All airframes do. We have not yet invented Everlast or Adamantium. The lifespan can be prolonged more or less indefinitely of course, but then you're really talking about slowly replacing the whole aircraft part for part. Nothing lasts forever.
I understood there have been two aircraft produced historically with (effectively) no hour limit on their airframes. Of course I'm happy to be corrected by more knowledgeable AH forum members, of which there are many. Both are several generations old. Many of those aircraft the JSF are replacing have ran out of airframe time and it was designed to replaced a large collection of aircraft. Ought it not to have been part of the design brief suggesting a longer lifetime in the replacement aircraft? From the bulkhead incident I gathered the long-term solution is going to be refitting again, just like F-16s and everything else?
Yup, for the five or six minutes it's needed during every single sortie, and for the rest of the time it's utterly dead weight. It can't even viff (or am I wrong about that?).
I have no insight into what their options were or how they went about choosing the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem.
There was plenty in the documentary about the JSF flyoff I watched years ago. My impression was they copied the arse end of that Russian thing which left them to solve the front half. Seemed to almost lick a finger and stick it in the wind. Have you seen this?:-
I'm sorry, but that just sounds like hubris on your part.
Following a non-explorative design process like they did in my institution would get your projects frozen. The process was inferior to the one we are trained to use. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but let's agree to call a spade a spade. In a development process if necessity is the mother of invention then trust me, assumption is the mother of all f*** *ps.
DARPA's CALF program was initiated by Lockheed Martin and was merged with the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program to create the Joint Strike Fighter program. The F-35 is the result of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter program.
Err yes, I know. The merge incorporated the mistake of not designing for the most restrictive case first, as the CALF programme did. What about the payloads?
And "load versus hours" is not contrary to convention. The point of their testing is not to over stress the airframe, but to over cycle it. Finding out how many hours of normal use the airframe is likely to last.
But there was a quote about strength (explaining the lengthy testing?) which said something like to be on the safe side? I'm too lazy to look actually but conventionally maximum loads are determined by overloading. Fatigue is tested by overlifing. Which was it then? If you're going to flip back and forth between explanations then that's just circular arguing.
We can go at this endlessly (and some probably will). I'm interested in participating in a discussion or the closest thing we can get to that. If this is to indulge your inbuilt need to act as a counterpoint to the consiracy theorists then best of luck. Hope you win your argument. Perhaps you'll even convince the odd one :)
Yes lots of good music coming out of Norway. :cheers:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 10, 2016, 09:32:47 AM
Harrier, F-18 and EA-6B in service with the Marines. The F-35B replaces all of them. The Marine pilots called it the most lethal and advanced fighter in the world.
Hahahahaha! Hyperbole at its finest.
Two-to-four AMRAAMs equates to "the most lethal fighter in the world"?
:rofl
You can't make this stuff up. Also, it is NOT a fighter.
Read that quote again and think about what it implies.
Also, how does this turkey replace the A-6? It can't. It doesn't have the range or payload.
Quote
I'm sorry, but that just sounds like hubris on your part.
Wow, talk about irony.
Quote
I hope no one is naive enough to believe any company would put a negative spin on their own product... And "load versus hours" is not contrary to convention. The point of their testing is not to over stress the airframe, but to over cycle it. Finding out how many hours of normal use the airframe is likely to last.
Not true. Both types of testing are done--on static airframes. Ultimate load and fatigue. But since the Just So Failed is using "concurrence" (production while under development) we have a very buggy, expensive, DELAYED program that is not working, and we are finding problems that may never be fixable on already-produced airframes. In any case the fixes will cost a fortune.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 10, 2016, 09:39:01 AM
No VIFFimg, Shida. It would blow the suicide door right off. It would also take too long for the fan to spool up.
It's a terrible system. Insanely complex--read: prone to failure. Also, as you said, dead weight.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 12, 2016, 08:15:42 AM
My point was I'm sure it is an improvement over what they are flying. Of course they're excited about that. I did watch one video, the RAF pilot seemed mostly relieved he didn't have to worry about the verticle landing for the whole flight. To be fair, 1960 was the first year the Kestrel flew. It's now 2016. Perhaps you don't choose to recognize that subtlety?
VTOL or STOVL is a really difficult design challenge. The Kestrel/Harrier is the only really successful/useful VTOL/STOVL fighter in all those years. And it is not for a lack of trying. Out of 45 VTOL/STOVL designs on that chart you posted four were successful. Four. And the Yak-38 wasn’t really that successful/useful.
An issue I have with your reporting is your attempts to generalize from a specific or 'flip channels' between the variants like a logical Fred Astaire. Just because it's pleasant to fly and potentially more well armed and capable than what they have now doesn't mean it's a good as it could've been.
I'm pretty sure it isn’t as good as it could have been. Very few design are. The basic fact is that the more radical the design the greater risk of failure. Most designs take some risk, but are mostly conventional. History is full of examples of exciting advanced new designs that lose out to more conventional designs simply because they can’t get them to work in time or on budget.
No that's not correct. Pilots & tactitions have very little to do with developing technology or exploring innovative design solutions and no qualifications in that domain. Again I'm sure it's better than the older equipment thay have.
You misunderstand. It is the pilots and tacticians of the various air forces – the end user – that will determine whether or not the F-35 is successful. Whether it was worth the investment. The designers can only hope their choices were the right ones.
You are also wrong in that pilots and tacticians have very little to do with developing technology. I don’t know how many former military test pilots and former military personnel Lockheed Martin employs as consultants, but I’m pretty sure they could have their own air force if they wanted to. One larger than many countries'. To design something, you first need to know that the end user needs it, and what it needs to do. Then it needs to be tested and refined, tested and refined, etc.
Speculation? The JSF appears to be made out of almost exclusively conventional materials <shrug>
Conventional materials now yes. The JSF program started back in the early 90’s, and back then composites and stealth skins were very “exotic”. Stealth skins still are, really. You can’t really have exotic materials on a modern fighter because of the development time. The materials need to be mature before you can use them on a multi-million Dollar machine that must last for half a century.
And you are just speculating on how much of the budget was diverted early on into researching emerging materials. You’re not privy to their budget plans. You’re not privy to all the materials used on the jet. And you don’t know how many of the emerging materials they’ve researched, if any, that made it to production.
Many of those aircraft the JSF are replacing have ran out of airframe time and it was designed to replaced a large collection of aircraft. Ought it not to have been part of the design brief suggesting a longer lifetime in the replacement aircraft?
The F-35 is designed to have twice the flight hours of the F-16, F-18 and other legacy types. They were designed for 4,000 flight hours. The F-35 is designed for 8,000.
So when you write “ought it not to have been part of the design brief suggesting a longer lifetime…” I have to ask wtf are you on about? How long would it have taken you to google basic information like that?
Yup, for the five or six minutes it's needed during every single sortie, and for the rest of the time it's utterly dead weight. It can't even viff (or am I wrong about that?).
No it can’t VIFF. Yes, it is dead weight, but it is worth it for the capability it delivers to the USMC and other small carrier operators like the RN.
There was plenty in the documentary about the JSF flyoff I watched years ago. My impression was they copied the arse end of that Russian thing which left them to solve the front half. Seemed to almost lick a finger and stick it in the wind. Have you seen this?:-
Look at the core feature shared by the majority of solutions tried. Ever.
Yes, look at the core feature shared by the majority of solutions tried. Ever. Now look at what kind of aircraft most of them are: Subsonic rotorcraft. How many of the designs are supersonic? One… The X-32B which lost to the X-35B for the exact same reasons I stated above: They couldn’t get it to work in time or on budget. Tilt-rotors and vectored thrust is great for subsonic applications, but not for supersonic fighter jets.
If you look closer, you’ll notice that the only successful supersonic jet VTOL/STOVL designs are in the combined power plant for hover category, with vectoring rear engines and separate lift engines in the front: The Yak-38 and Yak-141. The Yak-141 would probably have made it into production if not for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it was the most advanced VTOL/STOVL jet when the JSF program began. The F-35B replaces the hover engines for a fan to save weight and increase reliability. In other respects the F-35B was an already proven design concept. Which is why it won against Boeing’s more innovative (and butt-ugly) X-32B: It worked.
Following a non-explorative design process like they did in my institution would get your projects frozen. The process was inferior to the one we are trained to use. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but let's agree to call a spade a spade. In a development process if necessity is the mother of invention then trust me, assumption is the mother of all f*** *ps.
In the real world however truly revolutionary and innovative designs rarely make it into production. The vast majority of designs, be it aircraft or cars or whatever, are based on older designs already proven to work. And when we’re talking about international investments in the trillions of Dollars, risk aversion becomes a dominant factor in decision-making.
As a designer you may look at a more innovative design proposal and conclude that it’s the better option and should be developed further. However, the people who manage the financing of the project may choose the less innovative option because it represents less risk of failure. When you’re responsible for peoples’ jobs and companies’ futures you may have other priorities than your typical designer tinkering with fancy ideas.
Err yes, I know. The merge incorporated the mistake of not designing for the most restrictive case first, as the CALF programme did. What about the payloads?
What about the payloads? None of the CALF designs ever got beyond initial study phase before the program was merged into the JSF program, and they’re still classified, so you tell me. What about the payloads?
However, if we look at the Lockheed AFX-653 CALF proposal it is pretty clear that the F-35 is the ultimate result of the CALF program.
But there was a quote about strength (explaining the lengthy testing?) which said something like to be on the safe side? I'm too lazy to look actually but conventionally maximum loads are determined by overloading. Fatigue is tested by overlifing. Which was it then? If you're going to flip back and forth between explanations then that's just circular arguing.
Don’t be lazy. Find the quote.
They were fatigue testing for lifetime, not maximum loads.
We can go at this endlessly (and some probably will). I'm interested in participating in a discussion or the closest thing we can get to that. If this is to indulge your inbuilt need to act as a counterpoint to the consiracy theorists then best of luck. Hope you win your argument. Perhaps you'll even convince the odd one :)
I’m here mostly for fun. :)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: FLOOB on September 12, 2016, 08:44:14 AM
Hey what are you guys talking about?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 12, 2016, 09:51:15 AM
A horribly compromised, hopelessly flawed strike aircraft being shoehorned into an air superiority role for which it was never designed--and can never succeed at.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 12, 2016, 11:09:57 AM
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/64012541.jpg)
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 12, 2016, 11:13:22 AM
You don't have to read this thread PJ. It is entirely voluntary.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 12, 2016, 12:06:38 PM
I know. I'm just railing against the darkness.
My thinking on this is that we've seen the arguments pro and con. You've neatly summarized the doctrine that drove the design brief. We understand the risks.
Beyond that, we will not know the outcome of the design experiment until and unless it is tested in combat. Vrac has registered his skepticism. It is noted. My own take: I'd like stealth and more load out and EM capability... and recognize this might've been too much to ask.
The rest is flogging the figurative.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 12, 2016, 03:14:17 PM
Was getting boring anyway :rofl
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 12, 2016, 03:19:38 PM
I'm not going to read that.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 12, 2016, 04:04:29 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 12, 2016, 04:31:20 PM
You could have made the font size readable instead...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 12, 2016, 04:35:50 PM
Yeah, you don't want to expose a fanboi any more than you have to.
Good post. Glad I got to read it before you took it down. :salute
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 14, 2016, 07:25:48 AM
The F-35's ability to guide missiles from other platforms has been put to the test:
"An F-35B just carried out a remarkable test where its sensors spotted an airborne target, sent the data to an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense site, and had the land-based outpost fire a missile to defeat the target — thereby destroying an airborne adversary without firing a single shot of its own.
This development simultaneously vindicates two of the US military's most important developments: The F-35 and the Naval Integrated Fire Control Counterair Network (NIFC-CA)."
More here: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-aegis-integration-2016-9?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 14, 2016, 09:43:57 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 14, 2016, 10:48:50 AM
So much for the theory that our joint Strike Failure end users are guaranteed to be honest in their pronouncements.
Lying in the military is common, Army War College study says
The new study found that many Army officers have become “ethically numb” in the face of overwhelming demands and the need to put their reputations on the line to verify that all required standards and training requirements have been met.
Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession
Untruthfulness is surprisingly common in the U.S. military even though members of the profession are loath to admit it. Further, much of the deception and dishonesty that occurs in the profession of arms is actually encouraged and sanctioned by the military institution. . . It takes remarkable courage and candor for leaders to admit the gritty shortcomings and embarrassing frailties of the military as an organization in order to better the military as a profession. Such a discussion, however, is both essential and necessary for the health of the military profession.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 14, 2016, 11:13:56 AM
Lastly, Don Bacon sums this up nicely:
This will be the program that kills the US Air Force more effectively than any enemy could have ever hoped to. Where have all the useless F-35 prototypes gone?
-- Some rough figures --
number of useless F-35 prototype aircraft delivered - approximately 180 aircraft (per Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson, Aug 10, 2016
number of F-35s in "combat capable" (not) squadrons (22)
USMC - 10 USAF - 12 USN - 0
test fleet - 12
training fleets (113)
USMC - 24 USAF - 88 (72 at Luke, 16 at Eglin) USN - 21
foreign sales - 15 ----------- total 182
So the USAF has clogged up their bodily arteries, their vital squadrons, with approximately 90 useless "training" aircraft. This is for an aircraft that is easy to fly, they say. “I can take off, type in an altitude, type in a heading and just let the jet go out and fly.” (Edit in: So can I. It's called an FMS with an Autopilot and Flight Guidance Panel. Gee whiz! - Vraciu)
Thus the AF is rendering those squadrons non-deployable. And they've just begun, as they plan to DOUBLE the number of aircraft in "training" squadrons. But hey, these squadrons are in the training command not the combat command, so they don't count against unit readiness?And with fifteen billion dollars worth of idle metal sitting on the tarmac they complain about a lack of funds. The budget cuts are killing us, they say.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 14, 2016, 01:22:43 PM
Video of the live-fire test. Unfortunately no F-35 footage, but still...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 14, 2016, 05:29:04 PM
That's a wrap for the third and final shipboard developmental test phase (DT-III) for the F-35C:
Guys seem satisfied :aok
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on September 14, 2016, 09:25:48 PM
The F-35's ability to guide missiles from other platforms has been put to the test:
"An F-35B just carried out a remarkable test where its sensors spotted an airborne target, sent the data to an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense site, and had the land-based outpost fire a missile to defeat the target — thereby destroying an airborne adversary without firing a single shot of its own.
This development simultaneously vindicates two of the US military's most important developments: The F-35 and the Naval Integrated Fire Control Counterair Network (NIFC-CA)."
More here: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-aegis-integration-2016-9?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
So the F-35 needs to drag around an Aegis Destroyer to shoot stuff down?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 15, 2016, 02:02:32 AM
Quite ;) However, I'm more interested in what it would mean for a group of F-35s operating together. One or two forward scouts all stealthed up, relaying target tracking data to more F-35s in "missile boat" config trailing far behind and out of reach.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 15, 2016, 01:49:42 PM
Okay, back in for a question... While I find the ability to designate a target useful, in abstract it differs little from any of the other means used across the armed forces for second party designation. I mean and for example: ground troops frequently "paint" targets for airborne weapons platforms. Why is this leveraging of the aegis touted as "special". Is it the first use of a second party designator for that system?
Second, your vision of "stand-off" F-35s as platforms for other, closer "designator" F-35s also strikes me as compelling but not unique.
You guys are pretty compulsive on this subject, hence my inability to completely vacate the thread...
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on September 15, 2016, 03:21:51 PM
I should be a standard feature for a modern fighter to have the ability to exchange radar information with other systems, it would be a great disadvantage for the F-35 if it couldn't.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 17, 2016, 09:28:14 AM
Okay, back in for a question... While I find the ability to designate a target useful, in abstract it differs little from any of the other means used across the armed forces for second party designation. I mean and for example: ground troops frequently "paint" targets for airborne weapons platforms. Why is this leveraging of the aegis touted as "special". Is it the first use of a second party designator for that system?
Second, your vision of "stand-off" F-35s as platforms for other, closer "designator" F-35s also strikes me as compelling but not unique.
You guys are pretty compulsive on this subject, hence my inability to completely vacate the thread...
It's not just "painting" a target for another platform to shoot. It is sharing the sensor data directly via data link so that every platform in the system has a common sensor picture and can use that to guide their weapons. Exactly how the system works is classified for obvious reasons, but a couple of years ago Billie Flynn gave us some insight:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 17, 2016, 09:30:41 AM
I should be a standard feature for a modern fighter to have the ability to exchange radar information with other systems, it would be a great disadvantage for the F-35 if it couldn't.
I believe Ericsson pioneered this kind of system for the Swedish armed forces.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on September 17, 2016, 01:31:18 PM
First version were operational in the mid 80:s allowing JA-37:s to fire the Skyflash while having another JA providing radar guidance for the missile.
Gripen can use information from any land or airborne radar system to provide target data and vice versa. It's a great feature to have since a fighter can avoid using its own radar and still have all the information it need. A missile can be fired from one fighter and another fighter provides mid flight target update for the missile for ex.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Rich46yo on September 17, 2016, 02:27:27 PM
I should be a standard feature for a modern fighter to have the ability to exchange radar information with other systems, it would be a great disadvantage for the F-35 if it couldn't.
It means more then that. What sensor fusion means, or will mean shortly, is that EVERY land, sea, air, space asset will have access to EVERY bit of data every other asset has world wide and a commander will actually have instant ability to assign systems for tasks using data collated by other systems. Anywhere. Any time.
Just look at every single weapons system and data gathering asset being on one grid for war fighters to not only access for a true picture of the battlefield but also use for attack or for a commander to assign a system to attack. This is some real Skynet stuff only needing the A.I. to make it work even faster. Thats why I compare it to the movie Enders Game. It may be only used initially in theater but eventually it will be capable of fighting a global war in minutes and seconds.
Think about it? "Data" is what really helped us win WW2. Data from code breaking, Intelligence, recce planes. And the quicker you got it the better.
So if a F35 runs out of ATA missiles there will be other land, sea, air assets networked into it that will be able to launch in defense of it. Or a million other possibilities because everything is going to be networked together.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on September 17, 2016, 04:01:42 PM
How will frequency hopping help? All you need to look for is a signal on the Ku band. You don't care what the signal content is.
Stop with your logic! We are building this overpriced, under-performing monstrosity whether you like it or not. It's got sensors. Sure, they don't *actually* work, but one day in the future all this whizz-bang stuff will come together and we will have the technology reliable enough to fight the Soviets....errrm, wait, do terrorists have fighter jets?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on September 18, 2016, 10:22:19 AM
Quote
So if a F35 runs out of ATA missiles there will be other land, sea, air assets networked into it that will be able to launch in defense of it. Or a million other possibilities because everything is going to be networked together.
Its that sort of predicting the future battlefield in those rosy, antiseptic RAND study terms that makes me nervous.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on September 18, 2016, 11:28:49 AM
One thing that is interesting to me is the politics and/or orders given for test pilots and current military pilots to squawk only what they are told. That video above with Billie Flynn. Do you realize that he worked for the Eurofighter before Lockheed Martin as their chief test pilot, and had NOTHING but bad things to say about the F35 prior to working for LM? I'll link some of the videos and articles he's quoted in while working with the Eurofighter team, and how much he trashed the JSF program in favor of the plane he was currently working with (Typhoon at that time). Now, in that video, since his paycheck has LM at the top instead of the Eurofighter consortium, what, surprise, all of a sudden the F35 is the greatest thing since bread was sliced? Hilarious.
Makes me wonder about the infamous Dolby and all of his praise, Dolby this Dobly that, Dolby Dolby Dolby. What tune would Dolby sing if Norway had bought the Eurofighter instead of the F35?
In Billie Flynn's case - a friend flew with him as a newly promoted Captain when Flynn was CO of the old 441 CF18 squadron here - he's worked for many aerospace companies in his post RCAF career. He's flown a lot of fighters too, almost as many as my friend has flown as CO of our test/eval squadron, Tornado, F16, Typhoon, F18 and of course the F35. Yet, it seems he jumps ship to whomever is writing the checks. When he worked for the Eurofighter team, he went on at great length how it would dominate every other fighter yet created or on the drawing board. Then when he was hired by Lockheed Martin, he said the following, and was called out by other test pilots he had worked with while at Eurofighter -
Quote
Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (that during last year’s Red Flag Alaska achieved several simulated kills against the F-22 Raptor) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.
According to the Lockheed pilot, (besides its stealthiness) the F-35 features better transonic acceleration and high AOA (angle-of-attack) flight performance than an armed Typhoon or Super Hornet.
Which was complete bunk, and proven to be so by other test pilots.
Typhoon with a loadout that the F35 will never match, and is very unlikely to be able to perform in a similar manner with a loadout even close to this - 2 IR AAM, 4 MRM AAM, 2 fuel tanks, 2 Paveway bombs, 6 ATG Brimstone...load the F35 up with all of that and let's see it run some of these maneuvers. I'm not saying the F35 due to fusion/stealth won't be more capable on the battlefield, but Flynn is obviously full of crap based on his claims regarding the F35s straight performance capabilities vs the Eurofighter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl70X64n3xg
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Bushmills on September 18, 2016, 12:45:40 PM
I have a buddy in school with an iq in excess of 200 and yes he has been tested he is a military air combat genuis wanna know what he said about the f35? its designed to be flown by a computer by ai not a human being thats why its lacklustre performance does not make sense in the now but it will in the future be flying completely unmanned.
Some of the conversations I have with this guy leave me in cold sweats honestly the future is not a good one for us. He also says a lot of flights are at this very moment unmanned and there is a life like dummy sat in the flight seat the government is not telling the pubic anything about this recently there was an incident were due to a screw up in the program it actually ejected the fake pilot (it has no forearms or legs accordin to eyewitnesses) shortly after take off and members of the pubic did see this
the poor guy in the f16 does not stand a chance against the ai f35 no way could his body handle even some of the gs this thing can do with his fake pilot. someone should rent these jerks a copy of termintor 1 & 2 really dumb idea if you ask me :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 18, 2016, 02:12:48 PM
I have a buddy in school with an iq in excess of 200 and yes he has been tested he is a military air combat genuis wanna know what he said about the f35? its designed to be flown by a computer by ai not a human being thats why its lacklustre performance does not make sense in the now but it will in the future be flying completely unmanned.
Some of the conversations I have with this guy leave me in cold sweats honestly the future is not a good one for us. He also says a lot of flights are at this very moment unmanned and there is a life like dummy sat in the flight seat the government is not telling the pubic anything about this recently there was an incident were due to a screw up in the program it actually ejected the fake pilot (it has no forearms or legs accordin to eyewitnesses) shortly after take off and members of the pubic did see this
the poor guy in the f16 does not stand a chance against the ai f35 no way could his body handle even some of the gs this thing can do with his fake pilot. someone should rent these jerks a copy of termintor 1 & 2 really dumb idea if you ask me :rolleyes:
It'd have to be flown by AI. The drones that are flown from Nevada have to be flown via autopilot due to the 2 second delay in radio transmissions.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on September 18, 2016, 04:31:20 PM
I have a buddy in school with an iq in excess of 200 and yes he has been tested he is a military air combat genuis wanna know what he said about the f35?
No, because no such person exists.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: nrshida on September 19, 2016, 11:51:41 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Bushmills on September 20, 2016, 06:56:35 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Dobs on September 20, 2016, 01:30:53 PM
Well...some "great" conversations here...and some rubbish.
Advantage of F-35 is stealth, avionics, and sensor intergration. Does it have growing pains....yep, just like every other fighter has had.
Sensor fusion came to be in the 22 and 35.... As far as Piloted by Ai...tell your buddy to put down his doobie and pay attention. Ai piloted aircraft will not have cockpits and all the weight and expense that go with them.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Bushmills on September 20, 2016, 01:43:22 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Chalenge on September 20, 2016, 02:09:41 PM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on September 20, 2016, 03:58:00 PM
As they teach in any college psychology class, the IQ test was designed to point out people with learning deficiencies. So while it is accurate is spotting people of low intelligence, the inverse isn't true. It's not very good at pointing out people with high intelligence. Besides that fact, there are many different types of intelligence. While I haven't researched this part, the IQ test is probably only suitable for something called "crystalline" or "fixed" intelligence.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Gman on September 20, 2016, 07:58:04 PM
Excellent article for a US F35 pilot who just flew in a 4 ship exercise. Very fair IMO, pilot comes across as pretty honest. Looks like he's pretty happy and impressed so far. Bodes well, I hope.
Excellent article for a US F35 pilot who just flew in a 4 ship exercise. Very fair IMO, pilot comes across as pretty honest. Looks like he's pretty happy and impressed so far. Bodes well, I hope.
You don't have to fantasize about who you are, or who your friends are. It does not support your argument for or against the F-35. We already know it's an under-powered, overweight, over budget, technical marvel that the Pentagon will be forced to use whether it wants to, or not.
its a drone plane, i believe what this guy says you would have to talk to him he has like tons of phds and stuff :cool: besides how would you know what an f35 flies like? ever flown one? or an f16? :airplane:
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Chalenge on September 20, 2016, 10:58:44 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on September 21, 2016, 03:13:28 AM
It's not just "painting" a target for another platform to shoot. It is sharing the sensor data directly via data link so that every platform in the system has a common sensor picture and can use that to guide their weapons. Exactly how the system works is classified for obvious reasons, but a couple of years ago Billie Flynn gave us some insight:
Follow-up question: does this also mean that the F-35 tied into the second party sensor need not reveal itself? I'm taking it to be a big YES. IE, you can maintain your stealth in aircraft A by using the active sensing of aircraft B.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 22, 2016, 06:00:07 AM
Yes, that's exactly how I read it. All these platforms will be networked so they share a common sensor picture. In the test they just did it allowed a SAM site to fire a SM-6 missile at a target without using its own radar (the shot was in fact below the horizon and thus the range of its own radar,) instead using sensor information from the F-35 to guide the missile to its target.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Dobs on September 22, 2016, 08:56:05 AM
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Squire on September 22, 2016, 02:28:10 PM
Whats all this talk about VTOL and thrust vectoring? The F-35 does not possess thrust vectoring for air combat you guys know that right? All it can do with its movable nozzle is land or takeoff. That's it. It does not use it to maneuver like the F-22 or Harrier.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on September 25, 2016, 09:30:03 AM
F-35s grounded once again, including those considered "fit for combat". Insulation is crumbling on fuel lines and fuel tanks inside the jet. Now that is going to be a labor intensive fix. And why did it crumble in the first place?
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Zimme83 on September 25, 2016, 12:10:07 PM
You have the answer in the article.
Quote
Representatives from the Air Force and Lockheed Martin's F-35 program told CNN that the defective cooling lines were not found in all the aircraft. They said the use of the faulty part was limited to one sub-contractor that did not work on all the planes.
So I guess that it wont be too complicated to fix it.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on September 25, 2016, 12:33:06 PM
So I guess that it wont be too complicated to fix it.
You don't think it is going to be difficult to replace lines running through the fuel tanks?
Quote
The decision affecting the most expensive weapons system ever was made "due to the discovery of peeling and crumbling insulation in avionics cooling lines inside the fuel tanks," the Air Force said in a statement, describing the action as a temporary pause in flight operations."
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 25, 2016, 01:15:08 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: DaveBB on September 25, 2016, 01:42:24 PM
I wonder how they discovered this? No doubt a piece of insulation blocked a transfer pump on one of their "combat ready" planes.
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vulcan on September 25, 2016, 03:37:55 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: GScholz on September 25, 2016, 04:11:15 PM
I asked you what question I had not answered. How is that belittling? :huh
Title: Re: Dogfight : F35 vs F16
Post by: Vraciu on September 25, 2016, 07:54:25 PM