http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-in-test-dogfight-f-35-gets-waxed-by-f-16/

A test pilot report obtained by defense journalist David Axe of War is Boring detailed the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a mock air battle against a two-seat F-16D in January. The F-16D—based on a design developed 40 years ago and from a production run in the mid-1990s—bested the F-35 in close-range combat maneuvers.

In the report, which Axe had obtained but did not publish in full, the F-35 pilot reported that his aircraft was in a “clean” configuration for the test, carrying nothing under its wings or in its internal weapons bays. The F-16, on the other hand, was flying with under-wing external fuel drop-tanks, which in theory would have put the aircraft at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

Apparently, it didn’t. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the F-35 pilot reported. That means the F-35 constantly found itself flying slower and more sluggishly, unable to effectively maneuver to get the F-16 in its sights.

Furthermore, the F-35’s high-tech helmet, which is supposed to give the pilot the ability to essentially “see through” the plane with the assistance of external cameras and sensors, didn’t help matters. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft,” the pilot reported, which made it impossible to keep visual contact with the F-16 during the dogfight.

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. “You’ve compromised the aircraft horribly for three different missions, and then you’ve compromised it again for three different services.” He said the aircraft was “astonishingly unmaneuverable” because of its ratio of wing surface to weight. “In dogfighting, it’s hopeless. “While much of what Sprey said in that interview has been rebutted at length elsewhere, the F-35 test pilot report seems to offer the same conclusion.

Ah well. Perhaps it’s better in the long run, not to go to war.

I wouldn’t have thought “dogfights” were feasible in this age of high-speed jets. And I wouldn’t have thought they need to see an enemy plane – just radar-detect them and send a guided missile off in vaguely the right direction. But I’m no expert.

From what I have read I agree with the basic premise a plane designed to do multiple roles usually ends up compromised in all of them. The only thing about that article is, if your F-35 is in a dog fight yer doing it wrong.

Having said that, I have never liked it as the selection for our next air superiority system.

“You’ve compromised the aircraft horribly for three different missions, and then you’ve compromised it again for three different services.”

lol.

and i’m not even an aircraft designer.

they’ll be nicknamed “The Homer”.

AwesomeO said:

From what I have read I agree with the basic premise a plane designed to do multiple roles usually ends up compromised in all of them. The only thing about that article is, if your F-35 is in a dog fight yer doing it wrong.

Having said that, I have never liked it as the selection for our next air superiority system.

Squadron of flying message pigeons.

They thought dogfights were obsolete in Vietnam. They were wrong.

A fighter that can’t dogfight is a lemon

Dropbear said:

They thought dogfights were obsolete in Vietnam. They were wrong.

A fighter that can’t dogfight is a lemon

You are living in the past man, stop living in the past.

AwesomeO said:

Dropbear said:

They thought dogfights were obsolete in Vietnam. They were wrong.

A fighter that can’t dogfight is a lemon

You are living in the past man, stop living in the past.

Talk to me Goose

Its not just its inability to dog fight thats a problem, it seems everything that can go wrong with the jet has gone wrong and much of its still not fixed, its supposedly restricted in what its allowed to do.

Not sure why they bothered with a manned jet anyway, for the last 10-15 years, the limiting factor of fighter/bomber design has been how to not kill the pilot or keep them conscious to operate the thing.

/wookie drone mode.

don’t go over poik. please.

poikilotherm said:

Not sure why they bothered with a manned jet anyway, for the last 10-15 years, the limiting factor of fighter/bomber design has been how to not kill the pilot or keep them conscious to operate the thing.

/wookie drone mode.

It would be interesting to see what sort of jet you could make when no pilot needed is taken into consideration

Cymek said:

poikilotherm said:

Not sure why they bothered with a manned jet anyway, for the last 10-15 years, the limiting factor of fighter/bomber design has been how to not kill the pilot or keep them conscious to operate the thing.

/wookie drone mode.

It would be interesting to see what sort of jet you could make when no pilot needed is taken into consideration

They are called guided (or misguided) missiles and they can perform better than a piloted A/C.

>>The F-16, on the other hand, was flying with under-wing external fuel drop-tanks

No fighter going back to WW2 goes into a dog fight with drop-tanks.
I’ll go out on a limb and call this one a beat up.

I didn’t think the F35 was being sold as an ASF but apparently it is. F-22 too expensive I guess

Tonight’s moon snapped through a sunroom window:

Hmm, wrong.

Dropbear said:

I didn’t think the F35 was being sold as an ASF but apparently it is. F-22 too expensive I guess

The F-22 is not for sale I don’t think.

I’ve got a mate who’s got a mate and let’s just say it depends on how badly you want one.

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t have thought “dogfights” were feasible in this age of high-speed jets. And I wouldn’t have thought they need to see an enemy plane – just radar-detect them and send a guided missile off in vaguely the right direction. But I’m no expert.

It’s about the only sort of aerial fighting that is feasible in this age. All modern fighters can only manage supersonic flight for a horribly short period of time, so protracted engagements are a joke.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t have thought “dogfights” were feasible in this age of high-speed jets. And I wouldn’t have thought they need to see an enemy plane – just radar-detect them and send a guided missile off in vaguely the right direction. But I’m no expert.

It’s about the only sort of aerial fighting that is feasible in this age. All modern fighters can only manage supersonic flight for a horribly short period of time, so protracted engagements are a joke.

I think what is meant the doctrine behind the f-35 is maximum situational awareness and a defence buzz word, system of systems, in that they can remain emissions silent and beyond visual range whilst being vectored by AWACS or Aegis, and sorting targeting priorities between themselves, decloak as it were by opening doors, release the next generation of also smart missiles, re look and then back to base for smoked kippers.

the Germans had the same problem with the Me 262, multi role jet

wasn’t good as a fighter

wasn’t good as a bomber

personally I think it could be better having slow flying missile launcher with something that can shoot down incoming missiles

you could have something like a Hercules loaded with air to air missiles

when a threat is detected some guys just push one out the door at the end

I’m no military expert, but I reckon they should just concentrate on getting the simplest version of the fighter in service, and then work on the more complicated versions later. But that means one service will have priority and others will have to wait.

party_pants said:

I’m no military expert, but I reckon they should just concentrate on getting the simplest version of the fighter in service, and then work on the more complicated versions later. But that means one service will have priority and others will have to wait.

It depends on who you expect the enemy to be, I suppose.

party_pants said:

I’m no military expert, but I reckon they should just concentrate on getting the simplest version of the fighter in service, and then work on the more complicated versions later. But that means one service will have priority and others will have to wait.

or just make an F16 drone ( I think they already have)

use the existing tech and put a robot brain in it

no life support system or worry about high Gs anymore

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

I’m no military expert, but I reckon they should just concentrate on getting the simplest version of the fighter in service, and then work on the more complicated versions later. But that means one service will have priority and others will have to wait.

or just make an F16 drone ( I think they already have)

use the existing tech and put a robot brain in it

no life support system or worry about high Gs anymore

There’s lots of spare early model F-16s in the desert parking lots, so they could try it. But I predict the problems with the F-35 will be sorted before they can make a functioning F-16 drone with dog-fighting capability equivalent to a human-operated one.

hparty_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

I’m no military expert, but I reckon they should just concentrate on getting the simplest version of the fighter in service, and then work on the more complicated versions later. But that means one service will have priority and others will have to wait.

or just make an F16 drone ( I think they already have)

use the existing tech and put a robot brain in it

no life support system or worry about high Gs anymore

There’s lots of spare early model F-16s in the desert parking lots, so they could try it. But I predict the problems with the F-35 will be sorted before they can make a functioning F-16 drone with dog-fighting capability equivalent to a human-operated one.

it could just be a side project

hparty_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

I’m no military expert, but I reckon they should just concentrate on getting the simplest version of the fighter in service, and then work on the more complicated versions later. But that means one service will have priority and others will have to wait.

or just make an F16 drone ( I think they already have)

use the existing tech and put a robot brain in it

no life support system or worry about high Gs anymore

There’s lots of spare early model F-16s in the desert parking lots, so they could try it. But I predict the problems with the F-35 will be sorted before they can make a functioning F-16 drone with dog-fighting capability equivalent to a human-operated one.

it could just be a side project

wookiemeister said:

it could just be a side project

I’d be surprised if they aren’t already working on it. But if it was easy they’d already have them in service.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t have thought “dogfights” were feasible in this age of high-speed jets. And I wouldn’t have thought they need to see an enemy plane – just radar-detect them and send a guided missile off in vaguely the right direction. But I’m no expert.

It’s about the only sort of aerial fighting that is feasible in this age. All modern fighters can only manage supersonic flight for a horribly short period of time, so protracted engagements are a joke.

I think what is meant the doctrine behind the f-35 is maximum situational awareness and a defence buzz word, system of systems, in that they can remain emissions silent and beyond visual range whilst being vectored by AWACS or Aegis, and sorting targeting priorities between themselves, decloak as it were by opening doors, release the next generation of also smart missiles, re look and then back to base for smoked kippers.

I thought that was meant to be primary role of the F35 – a jet stealth bomber

the f35 might be the replacement for the F111

they might be using the F35 for long range strikes ?

wookiemeister said:

the f35 might be the replacement for the F111

they might be using the F35 for long range strikes ?

I didn’t think it had long range strike capability without mutiple refuels.

>>the f35 might be the replacement for the F111

No. just no.

Dropbear said:

>>the f35 might be the replacement for the F111

No. just no.

I’m looking into the minds that decided to buy into the problem in the first place , you are looking for unspoken reasoning

the F35 was clearly never a fighter jet even from the outset

wookiemeister said:

Dropbear said:

>>the f35 might be the replacement for the F111

No. just no.

I’m looking into the minds that decided to buy into the problem in the first place , you are looking for unspoken reasoning

the F35 was clearly never a fighter jet even from the outset

It doesn’t seem so from its capabilities, it’s more of an intelligence jet with limited fighting ability if all the high tech wizardry fails. Perhaps they didn’t think the enemy could match it when reality now contradicts this (or seems to anyway). I don’t suppose you are going to be honest if you’ve spent a trillion dollars on a subpar plane and if you are contracted to buy it also won’t admit you made a mistake as it could cost you your job.
I was reading about the amount of computer coding for its weapons, sensory systems, etc its 8 million lines, thats a monumental effort to write and then bebug

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

Dropbear said:

>>the f35 might be the replacement for the F111

No. just no.

I’m looking into the minds that decided to buy into the problem in the first place , you are looking for unspoken reasoning

the F35 was clearly never a fighter jet even from the outset

It doesn’t seem so from its capabilities, it’s more of an intelligence jet with limited fighting ability if all the high tech wizardry fails. Perhaps they didn’t think the enemy could match it when reality now contradicts this (or seems to anyway). I don’t suppose you are going to be honest if you’ve spent a trillion dollars on a subpar plane and if you are contracted to buy it also won’t admit you made a mistake as it could cost you your job.
I was reading about the amount of computer coding for its weapons, sensory systems, etc its 8 million lines, thats a monumental effort to write and then bebug

And somewhere else says 20 million lines so thats even worse

The strange thing is that the f-18 and its derivatives is a fantastically competent multi role strike fighter.

It doesn’t have VTOL or stealth but otherwise it ticks all the boxes.

F-35 ticks none of them

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

not necessarily

if you read the art of war ( guess where that book comes from)

the supreme way to wage war is not using an army, you just bribe the LNP or labor into handing over and engage in every other way.

foreign ownership of Australia is from a defence point of view the best option , with billions of dollars of investment you won’t allow anyone to invade your investment.

what’s the point of buying any more equipment other than som rifles to keep the serfs in order?

you attack society from every quarter by destroying the serfs way of bargaining their wages

the biggest threat to the managers of Australia are the serfs that already live here

Australia only exists in adverts Anzac Day, Australia Day , Tim tams and Vegemite

I don’t buy into it

as things stand this is a normal process

Australia was once a monarchy , swept away to become a democracy.

the most natural course of events is for Australia to become an oligarchy leading to a tyranny

“ the Republic “ is just a way for the “ mates” in Australia to take complete control and then fight amongst themselves over who will become emperor ( or empress )

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

I wonder what Sun Tzu had to say about stealing your enemies’ technology.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

I wonder what Sun Tzu had to say about stealing your enemies’ technology.

Damn I was beaten to it.

wookiemeister said:

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

not necessarily

if you read the art of war ( guess where that book comes from)

the supreme way to wage war is not using an army, you just bribe the LNP or labor into handing over and engage in every other way.

foreign ownership of Australia is from a defence point of view the best option , with billions of dollars of investment you won’t allow anyone to invade your investment.

what’s the point of buying any more equipment other than som rifles to keep the serfs in order?

you attack society from every quarter by destroying the serfs way of bargaining their wages

the biggest threat to the managers of Australia are the serfs that already live here

Jesus Christ you talk a load of shit.

Not necessarily my arse.

Still .. More fool me for clicking on the nonsense

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

I wonder what Sun Tzu had to say about stealing your enemies’ technology.

Spies are good, k

Dropbear said:

wookiemeister said:

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

not necessarily

if you read the art of war ( guess where that book comes from)

the supreme way to wage war is not using an army, you just bribe the LNP or labor into handing over and engage in every other way.

foreign ownership of Australia is from a defence point of view the best option , with billions of dollars of investment you won’t allow anyone to invade your investment.

what’s the point of buying any more equipment other than som rifles to keep the serfs in order?

you attack society from every quarter by destroying the serfs way of bargaining their wages

the biggest threat to the managers of Australia are the serfs that already live here

Jesus Christ you talk a load of shit.

Not necessarily my arse.

Still .. More fool me for clicking on the nonsense

It’s somewhat true though why go to war to acquire territory when you can just buy it or make a nation dependent on your products so they will sell you anything to get a good price on them

Dropbear said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

I wonder what Sun Tzu had to say about stealing your enemies’ technology.

Spies are good, k

Supposedly the top designer left it on a USB in his local Chinese restaurant and it got back to the Chinese government

If a country can’t be bothered protecting its intelligence then too bad so sad

Dropbear said:

If a country can’t be bothered protecting its intelligence then too bad so sad

Yes its pretty poor form to allow your top rated jet design accessible by unauthorised personel.
I wonder how it was stolen via a hack through the internet or from actually inside with a dedicated terminal

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

I wonder what Sun Tzu had to say about stealing your enemies’ technology.

no probs

this comes under last espionage chapter 8

Dropbear said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

The Chinese stole the plans for the YF-22 anyway, so as soon as they get their materials engineering up to US quality, we’re fucked

I wonder what Sun Tzu had to say about stealing your enemies’ technology.

Spies are good, k

they stole the plans for ASIOs glass building