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

[.45 Dave]

"In an interview with the CBC's The Fifth Estate in November of 2014, F-16 co-designer Pierre Sprey berated the F-35 "inherently a terrible plane, because it's built based on a dumb idea"—a multirole, multi-service aircraft"--quoted from article. As they say "Jack of all trades, Master of none"

 

[JettaKnight]

"In an interview with the CBC's The Fifth Estate in November of 2014, F-16 co-designer Pierre Sprey berated the F-35 "inherently a terrible plane, because it's built based on a dumb idea"—a multirole, multi-service aircraft"--quoted from article. As they say "Jack of all trades, Master of none"

Sour grapes?


I will say that the F35 program has done a lot for the embedded software world. There's a new coding standard and testing tools that were developed to support that endeavor because of the massive amount of code required.


Hey, at least it doesn't freak out when you cross the international date line.

 

[Methane Herder]

View attachment 39664
F 35

View attachment 39665
F 16
MH

 

[patience0830]

Post 2014, all the cool kids say "Too Many Cooks".


Start brushing up on your Chinese, everyone.

Screw that. I'm stocking up on bullets, beans and target practice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

This is my understanding as well. The F35 would have engaged and destroyed the 16 before the pilot even knew he was there.

 

[actaeon277]

Here is another perspective; Why The "F-35 v F-16" Article Is Garbage | Fighter Sweep

It can’t even fly within twenty-five miles of a thunderstorm because they had to remove lightning protection to save on weight–a requirement for the Marines so they could take off and land vertically in the F-35B.

good thing we never fight in the rain.

 

[jblomenberg16]

View attachment 39664
F 35

View attachment 39665
F 16
MH

Based on the initial design intent, you are right. In actual service the F-16 actually did pretty well in multi-role missions. But it was definitely a fighter at heart.

 

[ruger1800]

Dog fights with planes, ancient outdated type of warfare.

 

[actaeon277]

Dog fights with planes, ancient outdated type of warfare.

They said that before Vietnam. Then our kill ratio superiority took a nose dive.

Or are you planning on replacing the fleet with drones.
Cause I'm sure they'll work fine as long as we go after non-technical enemies and stay away from anyone with a technological base and can jam them.

 

[Thor]

Eventually, the missiles are shot and there's still an enemy to deal with. Then it's handy to have a gun before ramming them. There is however, this really cool laser pod they're testing right now down at White Sands...150kW's of I'll just fry you where you stand. Go ahead, put on your laser safety glasses, I'll wait.

 

[OutdoorDad]

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'm just a little bit embarrassed.

I dont know a thing about the Littoral class warships.

I read the linked article about the first version- the (A)Littoral boats.

I surmised that there would be an imminent improved version- the (B)Littoral boats.

And I really thought that my prognostication that the next improved version could "take a licking" went totally unappreciated.

<that would be the (C)Litorral craft>.




Honestly. The military has been fighting the last war for generations. But an opportunity to opine on the effectiveness of the Littoral naval vessel comes along rarely.

 

[actaeon277]

I'm just a little bit embarrassed.

I dont know a thing about the Littoral class warships.

I read the linked article about the first version- the (A)Littoral boats.

I surmised that there would be an imminent improved version- the (B)Littoral boats.

And I really thought that my prognostication that the next improved version could "take a licking" went totally unappreciated.

<that would be the (C)Litorral craft>.




Honestly. The military has been fighting the last war for generations. But an opportunity to opine on the effectiveness of the Littoral naval vessel comes along rarely.

You're just too cerebral for us.

 

[Birds Away]

Dog fights with planes, ancient outdated type of warfare.

That's very funny.

 

[churchmouse]

That's very funny.

IKR.............

 

[Birds Away]

I'm just a little bit embarrassed.

I dont know a thing about the Littoral class warships.

I read the linked article about the first version- the (A)Littoral boats.

I surmised that there would be an imminent improved version- the (B)Littoral boats.

And I really thought that my prognostication that the next improved version could "take a licking" went totally unappreciated.

<that would be the (C)Litorral craft>.


Honestly. The military has been fighting the last war for generations. But an opportunity to opine on the effectiveness of the Littoral naval vessel comes along rarely.

You have far more confidence than I do. Be it an aircraft or a ship, the more mission you want it to be capable of the less likely it will be very good at any of them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dog fights with planes, ancient outdated type of warfare.

They said that before Vietnam. Then our kill ratio superiority took a nose dive.

Or are you planning on replacing the fleet with drones.
Cause I'm sure they'll work fine as long as we go after non-technical enemies and stay away from anyone with a technological base and can jam them.

Eventually, the missiles are shot and there's still an enemy to deal with. Then it's handy to have a gun before ramming them. There is however, this really cool laser pod they're testing right now down at White Sands...150kW's of I'll just fry you where you stand. Go ahead, put on your laser safety glasses, I'll wait.

That's very funny.

I will go with the evidence which tells us that long-range missiles are neither foolproof nor do they live up to the declared capabilities under all conditions. This is like going into a fight with a long stick. When someone gets in under that stick too close to you, he owns you unless you have a viable alternate plan and appropriate equipment to carry it out.

You have far more confidence than I do. Be it an aircraft or a ship, the more mission you want it to be capable of the less likely it will be very good at any of them.

Once again, I will go with the evidence. We have tried I don't know how man times to make weapon systems all things to all people and it has never worked, primarily because you cannot make one system appropriate for entirely different applications which are challenging different laws of physics in the pursuit of success in a given mission. Otherwise, we would have one class of motor vehicle which could replace passenger cars, semi trucks, and race cars. Seriously, the only point at which one size fits all weapon systems have ever succeeded is looking good on the bean counter's papers.

 

[T.Lex]

BTW, with China and Russia each getting closer to stealthy aircraft, long range missiles become a less effective option. Dogfights between stealthy aircraft may actually become more common.

 

[firehawk1]

Has anyone considered that all the negative assessments/information concerning the F-35 might be one big example of disinformation? Not saying it is but could it be they are wanting to keep secret the actual performance/capabilities of this aircraft?

 

[halfmileharry]

China will probably be the only country to be able to afford expensive weapons before long.
Think about it....Back to old fashioned warfare with sticks and rocks. After WW3 that's what it's all going to be about.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Has anyone considered that all the negative assessments/information concerning the F-35 might be one big example of disinformation? Not saying it is but could it be they are wanting to keep secret the actual performance/capabilities of this aircraft?

Considering that it is an extremely expensive program which plenty of critics, my guess is that while they may want to understate the performance somewhat, it would be politically suicidal to present it as a complete failure, and, therefore, I would not expect reports this dismal to be invented as disinformation.