Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[Krusty]

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.

[Vraciu]

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.

[CavPuke]

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.

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.

source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-defence-equipment.htm

[Zimme83]

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.

[Squire]

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:

The Air Force on Tuesday declared its first squadron of Sopwith Camels ready for battle

...proving what?

[DaveBB]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/ioc-tomorrow-f-35a-kills-first-drone-boola-boola/?linkId=27219186

F-35 killed a drone with an Aim-9x missile.  Baby steps...

[shift8]

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.

[shift8]

[Oldman731]

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

[shift8]

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.

[Zimme83]

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..

[nrshida]

Too many bad decisions have been made, starting production way Before development and testing was done was a big misstake.

I think that was the clever part. Saved a lot of money and time and was appropriate to a development supported by modern computing.

[Squire]

dont want to admit that the dogfight is obsolete

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.

[Vraciu]

I think that was the clever part. Saved a lot of money and time and was appropriate to a development supported by modern computing.

Yeah, it was clever, Shida.  It guaranteed LockMart got paid.   Crafty.  Shady.   These words also come to mind.

[Vraciu]

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.