Report: In test dogfight, F-35 gets waxed by F-16

[mrjarrell]

They've managed to build a plane that no-one wanted for billions and it gets taken to town by a 40 year old jet loaded down with tanks and such. Sheesh. The military industrial complex at its finest.

Report: In test dogfight, F-35 gets waxed by F-16 | Ars Technica

 

[churchmouse]

No surprise here.
To many chef's in the soup.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Best to find out now instead of when Chinese and Russian counterparts are shooting missiles and bullets at it.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I read that earlier this week on ARFCOM. Mixed opinions over there, including those of current and former military pilots. Definitely not a flattering report. At the same time, there are a lot of things built into that plane to prevent it from having to dog fight as its main mode of defense. In most situations the plane will have seen and shot down the F-16 (or equivalent) long before it turns into a turning fight.

I will give the F-16 some credit though...even at 40 years old, that thing is still a nimble plane and in the hands of a good pilot is very capable.

It is kind of interesting that we're repeating some past history lessons though. In the 50's and 60's we took guns off our fighters as we expected stand off missile engagements from beyond the horizon. It turned out that a lot of those fighters ended up fighting a much different battle then they were designed to fight, including air to ground operations that allowed enemy planes to get well within dog fight range.

Hence the creation of Top Gun and other programs, and the addition of a cannon into the later 3rd and subsequent 4th gen fighters.

 

[churchmouse]

I read that earlier this week on ARFCOM. Mixed opinions over there, including those of current and former military pilots. Definitely not a flattering report. At the same time, there are a lot of things built into that plane to prevent it from having to dog fight as its main mode of defense. In most situations the plane will have seen and shot down the F-16 (or equivalent) long before it turns into a turning fight.

I will give the F-16 some credit though...even at 40 years old, that thing is still a nimble plane and in the hands of a good pilot is very capable.

It is kind of interesting that we're repeating some past history lessons though. In the 50's and 60's we took guns off our fighters as we expected stand off missile engagements from beyond the horizon. It turned out that a lot of those fighters ended up fighting a much different battle then they were designed to fight, including air to ground operations that allowed enemy planes to get well within dog fight range.

Hence the creation of Top Gun and other programs, and the addition of a cannon into the later 3rd and subsequent 4th gen fighters.

I remember a multi-task aircraft that could do all these things plus fly air cover for the fleet........F-14 Tomcat.

 

[indykid]

I thought the F-35 was supposed to replace the A-10 in close air support. After all, is has the same loiter capacity as the A-10. Well maybe not. It matches the A-10's 11 hard points for multiple varied munitions. Well, maybe not. It can fire from three miles out as such a slow speed that it can turn and be on it's way home before the munition detonates. Well, possibly.

Looks like as an adjunct to the F-22 the A-35 is not a bad aircraft, but it cannot replace both the A-10 and the F-16 as the original idea was.

 

[actaeon277]

http://rt.com/usa/combat-ship-navy-freedom-163/

It's not just the plane

 

[EyeCarry]

I would still take a ride in either one. Heck ya. I wonder how a Tomcat would stack up to the a35. Loved the look of that one too.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I seem to recall saying something about this not all that long ago although it may or may not have been here. In any event, no device intended to be all things to all people has ever succeeded at doing anything well. The favorite argument is that there are to be several very different variants, none of which are worth a damn for close combat. Churchmouse is dead center. If we wanted a dedicated interceptor platform, we had one in the F-14 (which didn't do bad a dogfighting either) and it seems that if we really needed stealth, we could have built a larger dedicated interceptor platform in stealth. I would say that a scaled-down B-2 type platform would have worked nicely, or the 'flying Dorito' which had been under development for the Navy and was cancelled would also have done nicely in this role, especially since it was developed as a catapult-launched, wire-arrested carrier platform from the beginning, hence damned durable.

For an interim upgrade, we could have developed something like the F-16I (Israel's home-customized two-seater combining the economy and nimble handling of the F-16 with the better situational awareness and more complex sensors available when a dedicated operator is available) or the F-16E/F which is the most advanced strictly US built variant operated exclusively by the UAE--yes, for the first time in our history we have exported a better machine than we operate ourselves.

So far as I am concerned, the F-35 is the F-111 all over again. Back then Robert McNamara decided that he could trim the Pentagon budget by making everyone use one airframe for all purposes. As testified before Congress in the Second Revolt of the Admirals in response to McNamara's claim that more powerful engines could cure the performance problems with the F-111, "There isn't enough thrust in all Christendom to make a fighter out of the F-111." True enough, it made a decent interceptor, a decent bomber, and a ****-poor fighter. It looks like we have rediscovered the same thing, only this time with all our eggs in one basket.

Just for fun, here is a link to the 'Flying Dorito':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II

 

[actaeon277]

I agree with IndyDave.

That's also the problem with the new littoral ship.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Pentagon admits: Navy's newest warship can't survive combat ? RT USA

It's not just the plane

You have got to be sh*tting me! We have an extremely expensive ship that doesn't perform well enough to perform combat duties greater than those we expect of Coast Guard cutters with new problems turning up all the time, and we are sending it on a foreign deployment with a crew that is still learning how to operate it knowing that it is most probably completely incapable of defending itself against attack, AND WE ARE PRESSING ONWARD WITH ORDERING MORE OF THEM?!

The only thing I can figure is that Obama intends to indirectly give the thing to China the same way we indirectly gave our stealth drone to China via Iran.

 

[OutdoorDad]

I agree with IndyDave.

That's also the problem with the new littoral ship.

This is the "A" version they are reporting on.
The "B" version is almost certainly already under production.
And I'll bet big money, the "C" version can take a licking.

 

[actaeon277]

You have got to be sh*tting me! We have an extremely expensive ship that doesn't perform well enough to perform combat duties greater than those we expect of Coast Guard cutters with new problems turning up all the time, and we are sending it on a foreign deployment with a crew that is still learning how to operate it knowing that it is most probably completely incapable of defending itself against attack, AND WE ARE PRESSING ONWARD WITH ORDERING MORE OF THEM?!

The only thing I can figure is that Obama intends to indirectly give the thing to China the same way we indirectly gave our stealth drone to China via Iran.

Too many fingers in the pie. Too many "missions" added to it.

This is the "A" version they are reporting on.
The "B" version is almost certainly already under production.
And I'll bet big money, the "C" version can take a licking.

I'd bet they are working kinks out for 10 years, and a bunch of sailors are going to be screwed trying to keep the thing going.

 

[halfmileharry]

On the up side....at this point, we don't have any very capable enemies that can do a lot of damage in these areas. We have time to learn the weaknesses and strengths and correct or compensate. In the meantime we'd better get our sh.. together.

 

[actaeon277]

On the up side....at this point, we don't have any very capable enemies that can do a lot of damage in these areas. We have time to learn the weaknesses and strengths and correct or compensate. In the meantime we'd better get our sh.. together.

China could be formidible

 

[9mmfan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again-bring back the F-22. That plane can just kick any jets ***.

 

[halfmileharry]

China could be formidible

Multiple possibilities BUT AT THIS TIME we need to address the needs and actual deployment is the best method. It's ALWAYS been like this. We'll know more about them as we use them more.
Military people will tell you...."Use what you have until you're issued better"

 

[IndyDave1776]

On the up side....at this point, we don't have any very capable enemies that can do a lot of damage in these areas. We have time to learn the weaknesses and strengths and correct or compensate. In the meantime we'd better get our sh.. together.

I vote that we figure out how to build ONE that works right before we order dozens of them.

 

[churchmouse]

I vote that we figure out how to build ONE that works right before we order dozens of them.

If memory serves the P-51 Mustang was a turd in its 1st edition. Both under powered and a bit ugly.
By the time they unleashed the P-51D on Germany it was a beautiful plane that set the sky's on fire.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

It's all OBAMAS fault