| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| F-35 loses to F-16 in tight dogfight |
| 2015-07-01 |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #18 Yokay, I'll bite, the F-35 was originally supposed to be the "light" to the F-22's "heavy" in the Hi-Lo Mix. "Light" also read "CHEAP", at least in 1960's - 1980's-1990'S slang. Nowadays wid all the capabilities they want the F-35 to have, Cold War + even post-911 era LIGHT-VS-HEAVY has devol into HEAVY-VS-SUPERHEAVY. STAR-DESTROYER-VS-SUPER-STAR-DESTROYER, DEATH-STAR-VS-SUPER-DEATH-STAR. IOW, the definition of what constitutes a "light" fixed-wing tactical combat aircraft may have IRREVOCABLY CHANGED, AS PER SPAWAR + GLOBAL-SPACE STRIKE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2015-07-01 22:45 |
| #17 re: #13, Right there Warthog, 30+ yrs in all phases of SW development from development to auditing. Amazing what humans can manage to input into a computer, either through data or programs, and how that computer can LITERALLY cause the end times to appear. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2015-07-01 20:13 |
| #16 Mike's link Read it, its a good defense, and I do hope this is just ugly duckling stuff, but ggeeeeeebus. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2015-07-01 18:13 |
| #15 ...An opposing viewpoint: Why The “F-35 v F-16″ Article Is Garbage Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2015-07-01 18:00 |
| #14 The JSF is still in development. The full maneuvering envelope hasn't yet been released in the flight control software. It believe that aircraft's software limits it to 7Gs. In addition, the dynamic behavior hasn't been optimized. There's still a lot of development and optimizations to complete before FOC w/ block 3F software in 2017. I guarantee you if the F-16 flight characteristics in 1975 was released, you'd be complaining what a POS it is. The purpose of the test was to see how the aircraft handled in a non-scripted flight environment. Does it maneuver as predicted? Is the handling carefree? Does the unpredictable (unscripted) sequence of controls inputs reveal a tendency for the aircraft to depart from controlled flight at any point? What parts of the flight envelope are candidates for further optimization? ... |
| Posted by: Whonter Darling of the Bunions4601 2015-07-01 17:00 |
| #13 could be Dr. Steve, however I refer you to the movie "Stealth". I've been in the IT biz for over 30 years and if there's one thing I've learned, Humans make mistakes, humans program computers which make these mistakes, bigger, faster and harder to fix. |
| Posted by: Warthog 2015-07-01 16:48 |
| #12 You guys just don't get it. The F-35 is better on paper! Personally, Ima thinkern this is the last gen of manned fighter aircraft. You may be a tough, battle-hardened Marine, but your innards are no match for a box of titanium and circuit boards when it comes to high Gs. Swarms of autonomous drones, baby! But we'll save that discussion for a future issue of This Week in Killer Robots. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2015-07-01 15:28 |
| #11 Dogfighting is a bit reactive, don't you think? Let's get proactive, let's put in some portholes to shoot missiles backwards. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2015-07-01 15:24 |
| #10 Darth, what I remember from the Vietnam era is that the plan we to shoot down the bogeys with missiles, but the ROEs demanded closing to visual range. Once you are in visual range, you are in gun/dogfight range. This was one of the reasons the Navy set up Top Gun - to teach pilots to dogfight. If we ever get into a shooting war, and somebody imposes similar ROEs, the F-35 could end up at a serious disadvantage. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-07-01 15:19 |
| #9 I have seen a similar report before from another source a couple years ago. The F-35 just isn't built for dogfighting and if it has too, the best hope it has is a good wingman to scrape the bogie off its ass. It is not a dogfighter. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-07-01 15:10 |
| #8 Steve, the problem - especially with the A -10 - is that it is TOO cheap. Air Force program officers gain status by managing BIG budgets. Since the F-35 costs many millions per copy, and even your A-10++would probably only cost a few mill per copy, it is better to manage F-35 programs. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-07-01 15:10 |
| #7 It scares me when progressives and I agree on something, but the F35 is a dog. This test may be completely stupid but the F35 is too expensive for what we need. I suggest we need three aircraft: F22 -- more so as to have air supremacy whenever we wish F16++ -- a plane that does what the F16 does at about the same cost, better avionics, etc. A "generation 4.8" airplane A10++ -- a plane that does what the A10 does at about the same price with a 2015 airframe and avionics Give us the two ++ planes along with more F22s and we're good for the next 20 years. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2015-07-01 14:50 |
| #6 Ars technica just did a followup report, where they listed "Some of the excuses Lockheed gave" without mentioning the bit about the Engine, which was probaby the most important factor. Lies, half-truths, lies... bleah. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-07-01 14:11 |
| #5 As I've seen reported elsewhere, the worst thing is, the F-35 could still be a dog, but this article in particular is still a hatchet e piece. a) The original report is merely selectively quoted from, not reproduced in its entirety, and b) covers some test flights conducted when the engine was under some settings that have since been removed. In short, it's the same sort of liberal bullshit and half-truths you typically get from a Gawker-affiliated business, it's just that this time y'all have decided to believe their shit like they haven't lied to you a thousand times before. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-07-01 14:00 |
| #4 The worst part is, they tried this once before- F-111 "Macnamara's wet dream". Once again, they are learning the old adage "Jack of all trades, master of none." |
| Posted by: Nguard 2015-07-01 13:15 |
| #3 I've decided that Dwight's warning was misnamed as the "Military Industrial" complex. He really needed to add Political to the enemy. The "Political Military Industrial" complex gets more to the crux of the matter. No one seems to remember that he included a warning about other such combinations, specifically big science, in that speech. We are certainly burdened with many such CFs today. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2015-07-01 12:30 |
| #2 The F-35 was “flying clean” without excess loading of weapons while the older F-16 had two bulky underwing drop tanks installed, putting it at a disadvantage. Still, even with that perceived leg up, the new fighter was at an Energy Deficit whenever fast maneuvering was required and the pilot was unable to lock on to the older plane for a targeting solution. By comparison, the F-16 was able to maneuver into position and lock on for a shot at the F-35 with comparative ease. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-07-01 11:48 |
| #1 Sounds like the designers made the same mistake they did with the F-4. They expect these fighters to fight at distance and not get into dogfights. However, if you have more enemy than missiles, you will be in a dogfight and the F-4 and its pilots paid dearly for that mistake in Vietnam. Sounds like the same mistakes are being made. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-07-01 11:47 |