F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Manonthestreet]

The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report
We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.
The F-35 Can t Beat The Plane It s Replacing In A Dogfight Report

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report
We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.
The F-35 Can t Beat The Plane It s Replacing In A Dogfight Report

The report that was used was where the F-35C was going against a F-16 in a toe to toe dogfight. In that situation, there is nothing that can handle a F-16 including the F-15, F-22, Mig (anything), F-18, SU (anything). The F-16 has trouble closing but after that, it's one hell of a fighter. There is more than an even chance that the F-16 won't get the chance to close on the F-35. The test was to see how it would go if the F-16 did get the close. The Lawn Dart is one fantastic fighter for the bucks but still can't survive in a radar world of either the 5th gen or the current ground to air for very long and will be relying on the F-35 to clear the ground clutter up.

 

[Manonthestreet]

F-35 will be dead long before F-16 and if we ever fully transition to a single fighter F-35 Airforce I would expect trouble to brew immediately since they will all know what you refuse to acknowledge....its a POS

 

[Manonthestreet]

Btw if you read F-16 was dirty configed while F-35 was clean....even more damning

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Btw if you read F-16 was dirty configed while F-35 was clean....even more damning

In the same situation, NO fighter in the world can take the lawn dart. And you can bet that those two tanks were jettisoned just before the engagement which is standard practice. That means, both are clean.

There has been NO air to air combat losses on the F-16. The losses were from ground to air attacks during ground attack runs. There is the difference between the F-35 and the F-16. The F-35 is almost entirely immune from such an attack. In the Ground Attack Mode, both the F-16 and the F-35 will require pure fighter Top Caps by both the F-22 and the F-15. In the event that this is not possible, both needs to be able to defend itself from enemy fighters.

Right now, not even the vaunted F-22 nor the F-15 can handle a F-16 at medium to low altitude in a Visual Fight. Go above 15,000 feet and the F-16 loses it's edge. But below that, it's the king of the hill. But it still can't handle the F-22 or the F-15 BVR at any altitude. The F-35 can handle the F-15 BVR but can't handle the F-22. Making the F-35 fight the F-16 fight at medium to low Visual Range should never happen. Although it might happen once or twice if the F-35 pilot is not on the ball.

 

[HenryBHough]

The one feature of the overstuffed turkey that will prove of real value is the push-button that changes all instrument faces over to Arabic. It'll make the transition so much easier.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Btw if you read F-16 was dirty configed while F-35 was clean....even more damning

In the same situation, NO fighter in the world can take the lawn dart. And you can bet that those two tanks were jettisoned just before the engagement which is standard practice. That means, both are clean.

There has been NO air to air combat losses on the F-16. The losses were from ground to air attacks during ground attack runs. There is the difference between the F-35 and the F-16. The F-35 is almost entirely immune from such an attack. In the Ground Attack Mode, both the F-16 and the F-35 will require pure fighter Top Caps by both the F-22 and the F-15. In the event that this is not possible, both needs to be able to defend itself from enemy fighters.

Right now, not even the vaunted F-22 nor the F-15 can handle a F-16 at medium to low altitude in a Visual Fight. Go above 15,000 feet and the F-16 loses it's edge. But below that, it's the king of the hill. But it still can't handle the F-22 or the F-15 BVR at any altitude. The F-35 can handle the F-15 BVR but can't handle the F-22. Making the F-35 fight the F-16 fight at medium to low Visual Range should never happen. Although it might happen once or twice if the F-35 pilot is not on the ball.

F-22 can do all sorts of tricks.....that wasnt even best F-16 mod....entry level fighter nowdays.......squirm all ya want doesnt change facts....which is just your sayso vs real pilots...gee which carries more weight.....I wonder......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And I suppose you are REAL PILOTS with decades of experience? I am retired AF, myself. I do notice that your opeds are from Civilians that probably never served. They grab anything they can and leave out the rest to support their own ideas. Until the F-35 goes into combat, one will never know. The F-22 is flying over Syria right now and I imagine you were just as harsh on the F-22 as you are the F-35. And just as wrong.

 

[Manonthestreet]

And I suppose you are REAL PILOTS with decades of experience? I am retired AF, myself. I do notice that your opeds are from Civilians that probably never served. They grab anything they can and leave out the rest to support their own ideas. Until the F-35 goes into combat, one will never know. The F-22 is flying over Syria right now and I imagine you were just as harsh on the F-22 as you are the F-35. And just as wrong.

Didnt read did ya......and lying about what was left out is bushleague since you CANT SUBSTANTIATE THAT EITHER

 

[Manonthestreet]

And I suppose you are REAL PILOTS with decades of experience? I am retired AF, myself. I do notice that your opeds are from Civilians that probably never served. They grab anything they can and leave out the rest to support their own ideas. Until the F-35 goes into combat, one will never know. The F-22 is flying over Syria right now and I imagine you were just as harsh on the F-22 as you are the F-35. And just as wrong.

Love the F-22...it works and has 15-1 kill ratio on f-15 instead of losing everytime to f-16

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

 

[HenryBHough]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

So not subject to court martial if he writes truth other than the "authorized" truth!

 

[westwall]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

The only important part of the story is, is it accurate. Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid. Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians. You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.

 

[Indofred]

US latest F-35 stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by F-16 from 1970s Daily Mail Online

U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s... despite being the most expensive weapon in history

• The F-35 stealth jet has already cost the military more than $350billion
• But in a mock battle it was outperformed by an F-16 designed in the 1970s
• F-35 test pilot said new plane was too cumbersome to dodge enemy fire
• He deemed it totally inappropriate for fighting aircraft within visual range

It's not looking good for that thing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

The only important part of the story is, is it accurate. Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid. Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians. You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.

Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking. Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight. Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup. One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid. And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid. That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact. The article was more about agenda than facts. And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda. Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky. There were a hell of a lot of growing pains. But it's doing duty in Syria today. You don't hear a lot about it when it flies. That's because it's doing what it's designed to do. You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there. And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it. But the F-16 has to get there first. When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight. The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air. It's all been ground to air. Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable. If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle. The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well. If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation. One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar. You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless. What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in. If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over. If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC. They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in. We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore. And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap? By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate. And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done. There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22. This puts the US on top where it needs to stay. It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat. The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill. By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes. And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it. You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years. Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years. The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments. So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one. The Chinese are having the same problem. And so is the EU.

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22. They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here are some sour grapes for the F-35 detractors. Like it said, NO F-35s were lost in the CAS role that the A-10 and the F-16 consistently had losses. And the article you keep referring to was from the very first test F-35 without it's electronics and early engine that had to be babied. While it will NEVER dogfight successfully against the F-22, F-15 or the F-16, it can do the CAS role affectively without losses. Ain't a B*** when you get proven wrong about the CAS role of the F-35.


The Aviationist F-35s played the US Army s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process


Two F-35 Lightning II took on a primary role as Close Air Support providers during GF 15-08.

For the first time, F-35s belonging to the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron played a major role during one of the 10 yearly iterations of Green Flag, an exercise conducted on the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, where more than 5,000 U.S. Army soldiers against simulated enemy forces in a 14-day long pre-deployment trial by fire.

Although the JSF has sporadically taken part in past Green Flag drills in the past, this was the very first time the F-35 had the primary exercise role of CAS providers: the pricey stealth multi-role planes penetrated a “contested and degraded battlespace” waiting for calls for support from JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers) and liaison officers on the ground.

According to the Air Force, the F-35s did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,” a comment that seems to suggest that F-35 is already as capable as the an A-10 or an F-16 in the CAS role, at least in the type of support with Troops in Contact required during a Green Flag exercise.

“The roles played by the two operational test fighters seem relatively modest when examined within the immense scale of a National Training Center rotation. Fourteen days of maneuvering against adversaries in vast desert mountain ranges makes Green Flag a test of the mind and body alike. But when help from the air was called upon, F-35 pilots from the 31st TES communicated and used their systems with precision. They created strategic effects that left troops on the ground largely unaware and unconcerned of what airframe they might be using — seamless integration at its finest,” says the release by the 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs.

There is a widespread concern that the pricey, troubled multirole F-35 will not be as effective as an A-10 Thunderbolt II or any of the other aircraft the JSF is about to replace but the Air Force seems to be enthusiastic about its new combat plane, especially in the much debated CAS role.

According to AW&ST the Lightning IIs achieved an important result during GF 15-08: not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.

On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display).

The debate between F-35 supporters and critics was made more harsh by a brief obtained by War Is Boring, according to which the JSF was outclassed by a two-seat F-16D Block 40 (one of the aircraft the U.S. Air Force intends to replace with the Lightning II) in mock aerial combat.

Although we have already debunked some theories about the alleged capabilities of all the F-35 variants to match or considerably exceed the maneuvering performance of every fourth-generation fighter, to such an extent we already highlighted that there is no way a JSF will ever match (for instance) a Eurofighter Typhoon in aerial combat, it must be remembered that the simulated dogfight mentioned in the unclassified report obtained by WIB involved one of the very first test aircraft: the AF-02 is quite a basic JSF that lacks a mission systems software to use all the onboard sensors, does not have the special stealth coating that makes it virtually invisible to radars and it implemented an obsolete software code full of limitations.

This does not mean the F-35 will ever be as maneuverable and lethal in aerial combat as an F-22 or an F-16, but it will probably perform a bit better than AF-02 did during its simulated dogfight against the F-16D Block 40.

 

[westwall]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

The only important part of the story is, is it accurate. Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid. Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians. You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.

Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking. Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight. Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup. One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid. And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid. That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact. The article was more about agenda than facts. And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda. Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky. There were a hell of a lot of growing pains. But it's doing duty in Syria today. You don't hear a lot about it when it flies. That's because it's doing what it's designed to do. You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there. And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it. But the F-16 has to get there first. When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight. The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air. It's all been ground to air. Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable. If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle. The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well. If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation. One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar. You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless. What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in. If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over. If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC. They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in. We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore. And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap? By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate. And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done. There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22. This puts the US on top where it needs to stay. It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat. The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill. By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes. And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it. You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years. Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years. The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments. So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one. The Chinese are having the same problem. And so is the EU.

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22. They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.

The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault. Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range. No doubt about it. However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous. In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

The only important part of the story is, is it accurate. Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid. Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians. You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.

Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking. Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight. Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup. One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid. And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid. That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact. The article was more about agenda than facts. And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda. Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky. There were a hell of a lot of growing pains. But it's doing duty in Syria today. You don't hear a lot about it when it flies. That's because it's doing what it's designed to do. You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there. And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it. But the F-16 has to get there first. When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight. The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air. It's all been ground to air. Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable. If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle. The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well. If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation. One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar. You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless. What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in. If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over. If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC. They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in. We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore. And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap? By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate. And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done. There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22. This puts the US on top where it needs to stay. It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat. The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill. By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes. And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it. You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years. Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years. The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments. So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one. The Chinese are having the same problem. And so is the EU.

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22. They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.

The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault. Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range. No doubt about it. However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous. In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.

On the best fighters, we do agree. It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter. While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone. If that is the case, we ain't winnin'. The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction. That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine. I imagine I have a couple or three years on you. We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter. The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15. It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5. Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5. Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante. The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives. We don't anymore. We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters. It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings. And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning. And beginnings are painfully slow. The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35. . It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong. Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.

 

[westwall]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

The only important part of the story is, is it accurate. Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid. Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians. You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.

Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking. Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight. Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup. One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid. And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid. That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact. The article was more about agenda than facts. And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda. Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky. There were a hell of a lot of growing pains. But it's doing duty in Syria today. You don't hear a lot about it when it flies. That's because it's doing what it's designed to do. You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there. And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it. But the F-16 has to get there first. When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight. The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air. It's all been ground to air. Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable. If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle. The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well. If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation. One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar. You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless. What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in. If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over. If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC. They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in. We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore. And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap? By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate. And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done. There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22. This puts the US on top where it needs to stay. It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat. The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill. By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes. And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it. You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years. Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years. The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments. So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one. The Chinese are having the same problem. And so is the EU.

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22. They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.

The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault. Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range. No doubt about it. However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous. In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.

On the best fighters, we do agree. It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter. While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone. If that is the case, we ain't winnin'. The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction. That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine. I imagine I have a couple or three years on you. We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter. The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15. It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5. Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5. Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante. The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives. We don't anymore. We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters. It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings. And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning. And beginnings are painfully slow. The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35. . It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong. Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.

As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense. I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc. There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc. That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile. The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress. That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before. Don't kid yourself on that fact. I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these. That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance. Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.

The only important part of the story is, is it accurate. Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid. Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians. You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.

Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking. Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight. Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup. One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid. And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid. That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact. The article was more about agenda than facts. And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda. Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky. There were a hell of a lot of growing pains. But it's doing duty in Syria today. You don't hear a lot about it when it flies. That's because it's doing what it's designed to do. You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there. And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it. But the F-16 has to get there first. When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight. The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air. It's all been ground to air. Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable. If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle. The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well. If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation. One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar. You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless. What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in. If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over. If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC. They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in. We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore. And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap? By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate. And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done. There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22. This puts the US on top where it needs to stay. It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat. The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill. By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes. And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it. You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years. Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years. The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments. So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one. The Chinese are having the same problem. And so is the EU.

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22. They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.

The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault. Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range. No doubt about it. However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous. In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.

On the best fighters, we do agree. It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter. While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone. If that is the case, we ain't winnin'. The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction. That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine. I imagine I have a couple or three years on you. We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter. The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15. It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5. Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5. Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante. The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives. We don't anymore. We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters. It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings. And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning. And beginnings are painfully slow. The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35. . It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong. Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.

As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense. I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc. There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc. That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile. The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress. That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before. Don't kid yourself on that fact. I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these. That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance. Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.

And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort. Korea sure changed things.

The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106. Not much else was worth a damned. There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105. I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for. It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier. The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role. The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.

I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes. The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor. The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.

Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves. Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18. We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff. Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice. The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better. In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics. There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault. That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22. And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.

Case in point. They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS. They weren't seen but they were certain felt. This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out. Yet, there were no losses for the F-35. The term ICUUCMe comes into play. All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you. The F-35A is already able to hand CAS. But you can't see it when it does it. The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft. Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all. You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it. Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A . It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses. Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces. And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.

AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country". Or something like that.

The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now. The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil. By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil. There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.

During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks. They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting. The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area. There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists. One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together. Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds. Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters. All you know is that your stuff is going boom. Makes you a very nervous person.

You talk about cost. The F-16 is around 30mil right now. The F-35A is right around 85 mil. Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain. Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.

You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two. The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development. What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A. But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year. It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model. It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.

The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio. The A model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1. The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier. Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version? Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers. The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads. Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers. That test has already been done and it went flawless.

After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.

The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost. Simple as that. You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands. Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.

The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41. And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.

Your reasons have long since turn to whining. Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.