Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight New stealth fighter is dead meat in an a

That's not my point in the slightest. The F35 doesnt need to outmanouver its enemy WVR because its got all aspect sensors and missiles for unprecedented all aspect engagement - meaning it does not have to manouver like previous/existing aircraft.

It's a cute argument but without specifics is meaningless. More and more its more about the weapon system then the launching platform.

It has a huge internal fuel capacity compared to the things its replacing, and can carry external fuel as well and of course AAR. The use of SDB's means it can carry a greater effective payload for the missions it will need to focus on like BAI and CAS.

Supercruise is useful in offensive counter air, but less so for defensive counter air where the F35 is designed for. For USAF air supremacy they'd use a layered approach to gain control of airspace, but for the USN it's a different approach entirely and even more so for the USMC - where supercruise would be nice, but its not a requirement.

It's pretty normal. Can you imagine the cost to produce 3 seperate 5th gen aircraft one design each for the USMC, USN and USAF!? It would much more then the price of the F35 as nearly all the problems they had with the F35 would have occured with the others as well!

Visibility!? That is the weakest argument I've heard yet.. its irrelevant, entirely irrelevant. If they can not do the job in the dark amongst clouds then they cannot do the job. Have you seen the helmet display tech, it mitigates the rear visibility entirely.

Welcome to test and evaluation. If things werent different then they'd be the same. It's normal for cutting edge things to push boundaries in regards to weight versus strength. It's why the fastest racing yachts always lose their masts in races... they've tried to go too light and compromised on strength. If they weren't doing their best, you wouldn't be having problems that need to be discovered.

The reality is the F35 is already flying and doing its missions successfully. Teething problems are par for the course with a new airframe and are no reason to abandon or think it's a failure.

The only thing that matters is does it do its job better - and nothing (relevant) says it isn't yet.

 

I do not speak English. So I can not understand the meaning of written question.

 

This is like a Dejavue of the F-4 Phantom II story … F-4 was developed without canons, because these new excellent air to air missiles makes the canon superfluous when they will shoot down their enemies behind the horizon! Take a look on F-4 and how fast this “fairy tale” was put into garbage and she got a canon!
Yes, this was 50 years ago and in meantime much happened, but take a look on these critics’ done by USAF itself about this inability! Sorry, but this confidence in the new systems to make it superfluous is at least irrelevant and wrong!

Show me any existing plane which fulfills these all what F35 should make in a really pleasing matter! No one existing, because if a good interceptor, a lesser good Air to Ground Attacker and so one! It is simply impossible to make a “can do all” plane, because what is required for one sort of mission, is the hindering for the other one!
You can’t have a racing car which has loading options of a truck too. It will be lesser fast as other racing cars and can load lesser as other trucks. You can only try to make it better by technical improvements, but the main problem will not be solved with this!

Ehm … please take a closer look on your sources please. Yes, the fuel capacity is more, but the range without external tanks is lesser as with their predecessors!

F-35 A of Airforce has 2,220km (= 1,380 miles)
F-35 B of Marines (STOVL) has 1,670km (1,040 miles)
F-35 C of Navy has 2,590 km (1,610 miles)

Airforce: F-15 C has 2,540km (1,580 miles) and F-16 E has 2,850km (1,770 miles) both clear more as F-35 A!
Marines and Navy: F-18 Super Hornet has about 2,500 km (= 1,550 miles) and lesser as F-35 C … and the AV-8 has of course lesser as F-35 C, what is no wonder for a 40 year old predecessor.

As told, the Stealth capabilities are always pointed out, but with only 4 small internal weapon stations the use of any stations under the wings will eliminate any Stealth abilities! A greater effective payload is only a phrase which was still done since decades at many planes and proofed to be a fairy tale only and always … even with these smart weapons!

Sorry, but wrong! Supercruise is always important in offensive and defensive rule! Speed is the major factor to intercept enemies. When being in Air to Air fight … and when being lesser able for dogfight … speed is very important. Please don’t count these so called better electronic and tell it makes more speed irrelevant etc. That it is not required is due to fact that it wasn’t done by those trolls making the contracts and not by the dudes who are sitting in cockpit or commanding them!

If it is normal that public projects never fit the estimated costs and budgets at least? Yes it is! I know no civilian or military project which hold budget. But here with F-35 we have such an unbelievable blow up of costs with still no full confirmed enter of service and being full useable … it is a shame.
Sure, other did not better as fir example the Typhoon which based on the old Eurofighter project and were billions of money were burned, but the point is another one too:
How many F-22 did the USAF want to have in origin and claimed to be necessary to have and how many did they get finally … out of what reasons? Same will happen with F-35!

And why have the pilots entirely doubts about what you write here? These doubts are well reasoned out of the experiences with the current helmet displays in use which were told same way irrelevant but did not in practice?
Remember, this is a critic by those guys who fly the F-35 and have to give in full confidence their lives in the hand of these technics!

But the promises before and all the telling around where then fairy tales and only commercial promotion = crap! Sure, only testing brings problems to day light and shows them, but structural problems which need … as it looks like as far as my information’s about are … a heavy re-design of the cell structure show a general mistake in design!

…
The only thing that matters is does it do its job better - and nothing (relevant) says it isn't yet. [/QUOTE]

Sorry, but this not more as your personal opinion and rating / conclusion only. There are others with other results as yours!

 

Not really the same though is it. Missiles were new back then and the US was involved in a new type of warfare which it did not really want to commit sufficient resources into. The expected threat in those days was shooting down Soviet bombers to protect CONUS or the CBG.

Your using a 20th century paradigm of warfare... 'interceptor' and 'air to ground'. You need to be more specific about the roles it will fulfill and understand what weapons will be used to really understand how little it matters what the airframe is capable of. Specialized airframes provide a niche advantage which is mitigated entirely by missiles already and soon drones.

My sources! You should check yours. The F35 does not replace the F15C (the F22 does) and the USAF does not use the F16E... so why are you comparing those? The F35C joins the FA18E/F/G to replace the FA18C/D, the F14C/D and EA6B.

Lets do a proper comparison of internal fuel, from smallest to largest;

F16C - 3,175 kg
AV8B - 3,400 kg
F18C - 4,926 kg
A10 - 4,990 kg
F35B - 6,045 kg
F35A - 8,390 kg
F35C - 8,900 kg

Finding range on internal fuel only is tricky, but you can see the huge difference in fuel loads there PLUS the F35 can have external fuel and AAR as well.

They aren't using those systems yet on the F35 AFAIK... and certainly not during the knife-fighting with the clean F16 which was just an assessment of handling pure and simple - interesting, expected, and irrelevant.

They are flying now, and have been for years. These things always have weak spots. If its bad enough to impact on performance then they'll probably come up with a fix.

 

And what makes you sure that THIS mistake of wrong thoughts and plans does not happen again at least here?

But the roles stay still and will still be the same and only new roles come to it …
The need of a multipurpose plane is not new and even existing planes were used for other roles as being constructed for … example is the F-104 Starfighter which was used as Air to Ground attacker too and failed utterly in this role (including other problems).
Remember about that F-16 should replace A-10 too by putting a big gun pod under her etc. … F-16 failed utterly in comparison to A-10 in 1991 for this close combat Air Support missions!

No … that a plane has to do more as 1 job today is OK, but there is always and again the tendency to put too much jobs on the back of a plane. Sure, they are able to do these jobs at least, but as told with the term “egg-laying, wool-milk-sow”, such a plane is not possible. The last try for such a can do all plane was European Tornado and only fortune was that they never had to go in air fight with Mig 29 or better planes, having well trained pilots too.

You think these 195 F-22 replace all F-15 C and E? Ehm … impossible!
USAF does not have F-16 E, correct. But the C/D and depending to which “Block” it has about same range as far as I remember without double check in my sources.
The F14C/D is still out of service since 2007 and the only user in the world is Iran. Tomcat was replaced by Super Hornet … and Super Hornet will for the first fly together with F35 for “?” years, before being replaced by F35 too or whatever will be enter Service in meantime.
EA6 is replaced by EA18 Growler … and I have doubts that F-35 will take over this role too.

Yes, the fuel in kg or lbs is much more, no doubts and I never denied … but since when is fuel capacity the important thing and not the range?
Nice to have a fuel capacity like a gas Station, but if you are not able to use this in average speed, flight time and range, it is useless at least!

I’m still not convinced! Of course I understand your position that all these nice electronically toys make dogfights unnecessary = irrelevant etc. But I have another point of view at least.
First of all is STEALTH ability more a myth and makes F35 not invisible for radar, its only a matter of technique and you see F35 too … particularly when you know that you have to search for her as enemy. Secondly is any missile fired by F35 not STEALTH and you are talking at ranges where modern planes as enemy have not only enough reaction time, but can same way fire back. So we have as number third an arms race as usual here too and this was still since World War 1 the case and always it ended in what is called dogfight!

Yes, but not only for me it is a matter of never ending story of problems and unfulfilled promises. So in conclusion I will say this:

That the current planes need a successor is clear and no objections against. The F-22 showed to be a good plane, but was very expensive and the smaller … AND as told in the past … cheaper version of a STEALTH fighter is for sure necessary. I still didn’t understand why Navy/ marines and Airforce didn’t go on same plane as F-4 before, but took F-14 and F15, followed by F-16 and F-18. A common plane for use on all 3 is good, but the F35 is in my opinion the bad decision done. It costs much more as the F-22 and is full of problems.
On the other hand we have this plane now and we must life with it, but this does not mean to be happy with it. Future will show what it brings.

 

Your long winded answer translates to "I cannot think of any fighter in production that would be a match for the F-35".

The new "Russian developments" are still in the prototype stage and may stay there indefinitely. Vaporware proves nothing. We have no way of measuring what the planes can really do, only what the Russians claim they can do. Even if they were every bit as wonderful as the Russians think they are, it is irrelevant if they never go into production.

You cannot win wars on "if only". Just ask the Nazis.

Yeah, about that...those simulated conflicts do not tell the whole story:

This is not the 1960s anymore. Technology has changed dramatically since then.

If you people are this freaked out about the F-35, you're really not going to like the next step to drone fighters. But it's coming. Like sex with Kobe, you can kick and scream all you want..but it's gonna happen.

 

Honestly ... this in content not more as Promotion and not more as that. More whishing as being at least.

And no ... I think and I'm pretty sure that Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen in latest versions and as well latest Russian developments will match F35 ... because F35 is NOT the Excalibur of aircraft as ot is sold to be. Sorry ... but so is my opinion and rating about F35 which is for sure not yours.

 

Bsed on what? They have no stealth and will be picked apart in BVR combat.

Unless they can teleport into close range I don't see how they would ever get close enough to do damage.

 

Because the Stealth capacity of F35 is questionable. If people think that Stealth means completely invisible for enemy radar, then they ate utterly wrong! Who does not believe it will find easy the answers abour. By fact Stealth reduce radar signature only too a minimum but not to nothing. So if you are enemy of F35 you must only know to look for with your radar ... and those examples I named have no cheap 50 Cent radar on board. Further they have by their own excellent BVR abilities in technique and weapons. If F35 is 5th generation, they are 4.5 or more generation.

 

It does not have to make you invisible to give you an advantage. They would need BVR weapons that completely counter stealth to be at all effective against the F-35, and I have not seen any evidence of such weapons.

 

Once again. Don't know why this is so hard to understand. The F-35 is NOT INTENDED to be primarily an air to air combat machine much less a dogfighter.

If an F-35 gets involved in a dogfight (close range combat) then it means something seriously gone wrong with mission planning.

Not even F-15 , F-16, or F/A-18 pilots get into a dogfight if they can avoid it.

The only modern combat aircraft pilots I can think of who would WANT to get into a dogfight are Iranian or Chilean pilots flying F-5 Tigers.

 

`
Despite the fact that the F-35 has cost the taxpayers over 1 trillion dollars, has been panned by most nations and has become America's most expensive folly....there are generals, officers and politicians getting rich off this fiasco. The clever Lockheed farms out all the manufacturing of parts, to all the states. If the program is ended, all the states involved with it will experience some unemployment, some more than others.

My opinion.

 

LOL! "Most Nations" who cannot field anything remotely as good.

 

`
More Allies Are Cutting Orders for the Pentagon's Costly New Fighter Jet I only know what I read.

 

All that article says is that they cost too much, not that they aren't effective. And there is no shortage of buyers:

 

Because it was about 50 years ago and weapon technology has been improving quite a lot in the West since then... not so sure about Russia though LOL, j/k. Ples its a likely precursor to energy defensive weapons... one can dream. If your trying to make a point, try harder.

Fixed wing jets of any description have no place in the modern battlefield doing gun strafing runs... in practical terms. The F22 has dropped bombs on the IS but it is sort of irrelevant. I've answered this point... weapons are doing more of the work these days meaning the design imperatives for the aircraft can focus on survivability, network integration and providing flexibility to the Air Commander.

Well they say the F22 is more capable so it needn't be a one for one frame replacement to replace the same capability.... roughly speaking.

Yea the F16E has CFT's which dramatically increase its range over the non-CFT'ed F16's. It looks like your using skewed data to make a point but I'll assume you made an innocent mistake hey?

Do we disagree? I said the FA18E/F/G and F35C were intended to replace the F14 and FA18C/D and EA6B... I guess the USN will decide in the future if they want to use an F35C to replace the Super Hornets/Growlers or a UCAV instead.

Fuel capacity is indicative of range, but its harder to find equivalent range data across those platforms online. So I use what I can. The F35 is larger, but it does not have to carry junk on external loads.

 

Well, as of about 10 years ago the U.S. was to far along in the F-35 program to make eliminating it a viable option. The military will just have to work with it and improve it as much as they can in the field.

 

Well ... please investigate and you will see that they are using very powerful BVR weapons ... including the same one which with what F35 is armed and own productions / developments. The US has no monopoly for such hight tech weapons ... I know you never told this ... and there are several modern weapon systems existing aside these used by US Forces.

Experts tell clearly that F35 is after the first shot not Stealthy anymore and more important and as still told: These modern fighters have longe range high tech radars which are able to find F35 in the sky. If the pilots know that their enemy is using F35, they know on what they have to take care on radar and on what low radar reflection they have to shot their excellent BVR weapons.

So Yes ... BVR is that for what F35 is build for and not for dogfights. But because if enemy has no 2nd class Air Force equipped with in majority 3rd generation fighters or older, the F35 will match enemies which are able for same BVR actions as F35 itself ... with only advantage to be lesser visible on radar but not invisible.
Out of this it will be a shot out on BVR between them ... but lessons learned until now are too that a dogfight is always possible - I know, you and other will deny again and again that this will happen because this and that etc. - but not only I have another opinion.

F35 is a useful and good plane ... or let me say with further improvements it will be of course and I did and will never deny this. BUT (!!!) for these advantages she delivers and so on, she is much too expensive for and too full of still existing problems. But we have F35 now and the only thing which can be done is too make the best out of it ...

 

Sure, I never told that there were no huge improvements … but not only in the West. We people in the West have to understand on one had that the Russian fighters of these days are not anymore these “flying MIG tractors with low(er) tech as the West” as in the past.
But on the other hand too much confidence in new techniques were until now always overrated when practice came.

Yes … but this is not only valid for F22 and F35, but for many other planes too. But what do you mean with term “fixed wing jets” please? Nearly all jets of today are fixed wing … so you mean the air straffing with guns by jets is outdated, because will be done by what? UAV’s? Helicopters of the Army? Sorry, here not only I can’t agree with this! THIS sort of mission is still one of the major missions for this important Air to Ground support, far before any dropping of smart bombs which hit a Coca Cola bottle out of 35,000 feet.
Sure, 1 plane of today is making the job of “?” number of planes in the past, no doubts about, but all what you tell is given by many other modern planes and at least F35 brings not this huge advantage as it is told!

As told above … I have other opinions about this “junk under the wings” as you tell. For any serious Air to Ground support mission, these 4 internal loadings are far to less to be useful with only 900kg!
And even for any Airfight role … no matter if BVR only as you tell or including dogfight were I tell that will still happen … these four internal pods are too few too.

 

Um,
"the F-35 has 11 hard points and can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16. It can carry up to eight small diameter bombs internally. There are places F-16s can’t go with a weapon load because it makes the radar cross-section so big they get targeted at extreme ranges. However, the F-35 can carry about the same load internally while preserving stealth and agility into the target area."

Yea, ground strafing is fun, but its really not relevant in a modern war, too much risk putting the jet that low and its not the most discriminating weapon system in an age where combat 'effect' is meant to be mastered to a point where its precision enables not only success but clear distinction and proportionality. The West wants to shape is war footprint to the minimum required to achieve the desired effect only and in a timely manner. You can use organic rotary assets for directed fires, or ground based indirect weapons systems. If you need lead on a ground target then you need it to be more responsive then a fixed wing asset rolling in off a station. Obviously unconventional warfare allows unique platforms to provide measured support unique to circumstances.... such as in guerrilla type wars where a AC130 is a boon.

 

Ehm … F35 has 4 internal and 6 external points under the wings – see image below. Looking these 4 internal points, the capacity for them alone is low with 2 x 2,500lbs (point 4 and and 2 x 350lbs (point 5 and 7). Sure, a full external load makes radar cross-section of F-16 big like a railway wagon … but because … and even you deny this … the external load is still necessary for many sort of Air to Ground missions which are still required, the Stealth capacity of F-35 will be over too.

Of course can a job be done on many ways and the equipment of all 4 US part-forces, as well those of other Forces in other countries give several opportunities to choose. But we both have here a general different opinion and view:
In my opinion the technically improvements gave some further options, as well improved precision of weapons in general. But this does at least not change the general requirement for several and still important as demanded missions, which a fighter plane has to fulfill too.

But I agree with you that these sort of missions are becoming more unlikely as in the past to be necessary. In general these missions are part of a bigger conflict with a more serious enemy force as that, what is currently visible or was in the past since 1991. But as unlikely they are maybe, possible they are still and should not be excluded.

 

But they sell it to these guys.. if they don't want 3rd world soldiers testing their 1st world weapons - they should pick another team.

We will probably be the first to test the F-35 against the S-300 and SU, we'll keep you informed.

 

I have investigated. I have seen no evidence supporting your claim. I have seen no BVR weapons that negate the advantages stealth provides.

It doesn't need to be. It only takes one missile to take down an enemy plane.

All the first shot does is expose the F35's position (at best). It will not negate stealth advantages. The enemy plane will still not be able to lock weapons at the same ranges the F35 can.

Lot of "ifs".

All you're really doing it attempting to compensate for F35 advantages. You're assuming that the F35 pilots are just stumbling into the theater randomly like 13 year old boys playing a video game.

It does not need to make them invisible to be effective. Stealth extends the detection range in favor of the F35...it will know the enemy is there before the enemy knows the F35 is there. And thats the point.

"Too expensive" is arbitrary. If you want the best tech it is always going to be expensive, because you have to do the hard work yourself. 2nd best tech can be bought or stolen.

 

Sure? One hint? MBDA Meteor maybe…
Aside these own misisles, didn’t you see that they are using AIM-9X, AIM-120 and AIM-132?

Well known missiles, right? These are the same weapons F35 is using! So conversely to your statements about BVR and Stealth it means that these weapons are not able for BVR too … or even not able to attack an enemy Stealth fighter.
Be aware if any of these possible enemies ever has some kind of Stealth fighters with this BVR abilities you tell about too (what is not unlikely), because then it will end in what for F35 in Airfight? Dogfight with canons like in WW-1 ... but faster only!

Really, so no one aside USA is using AIM -120 AMRAAM too? Investigate again and for MBDA Meteor too please!
Aside this, above we learned that 3 different missile types are in use for F35, lets take a closer look on them:

AIM-9X … a short range weapon and far to be new, only a modernized version
AIM-132 … also a short range weapon only!
AIM-120 … a long range missile

So in conclusion, the complete BVR advantage is based on AIM-120 together with Stealth ability and sensor, radar etc. Well … a little bit lame with view that I pinted out that Stealth abilities are limited, other 4+ generation planes use same way excellent sensor, radar etc. and that they use same or full comparable long range missiles!

But the possible enemy pilots in their 4+ fighters do so like better Playstation gamers? And no … I won’t compensate F35 advantages, I will show you that they are not these huge advantages as they are sold to be. F35 has this and that advantages (and not only problems), sure, but it is not that “wonder weapon” as people praise to be.

And right this is questionable as I wrote.

Sure, any armor project is expensive and I know not a single one which holds budget. This is valid for the good ones, as well to these ones where neither you or I or anyone else will deny that this project was crap and wasted / burned money.
But I expected much more as what F35 delivers at least for this huge amount of money each plane costs in purchase and maintenance.

Cheers,

 

Please post the evidence that leads you to believe these missiles negate stealth advantages.

So what? The F35 has a defense against them. Other planes do not. It's not complicated.

If we are both armed with hammers but you are blindfolded and I am not, which one of us is more likely to kill the other? The weapons are incidental.

If grandma had balls, she'd be grandpa.

I am discussing what is real, not speculation of what might happen in the future. No other nation has stealth aircraft in production.

That being said: Stealth technology, like all of our technology, is constantly being improved. So it would be just as easy to say that the US will likely have superior stealth by the time our enemies come out with their own stealth. We will almost certainly be the first nation to field drone fighters as well.

It is not my job to investigate your claims. You are making the claim, you are expected to provide the evidence. Your claims are not correct by default.

So really you are only even arguing scale. We are in agreement that the F35 is superior to any other fighter in production.