Survivalist Forum banner

F-35 Dogfight Criticisms laid to rest?

38K views 279 replies 53 participants last post by  Ankylus 
#1 ·
#170 ·
The issue is all the fancy electronics can be countermeasured and electronics and countermeasures can be swapped out easily and repeatedly for years.. You can't countermeasure 200 cannon shells headed your way. You can only move out of their way, and that requires an airframe that was designed and built to do that from the beginning. Electronics and countermeasure dominance swing back and forth like a pendulum. When countermeasures are in the lead, dogfighting is what matters.
 
#173 ·
You can reference the posts above for more details, but the short of it is that the F-35 is designed for a completely different mission than the F-22, so they can’t really be compared. The F-35 is as maneuverable as any jet in our inventory except the F-22, so it fulfills its duties as a multi-role fighter.

I’m not sure how many BVR engagements you’ve flown, but if you think you can just CM an AIM-120 in its terminal phase (which is when you’d realize it was launched from an F-22/35) you’re misinformed. Same goes for the BFM capabilities of the F-35 - if you haven’t flown against it in multiple altitude regimes, you shouldn’t spread misinformation.
 
#174 ·
The thing that bugs me is they screwed up the fuselage design to accomodate the lift fan, so the plane can takeoff and land vertically. Then they make no use of this feature.
And it is pretty useless to try and take off vertically, because they can't carry the weight of the weapons and fuel. A truly useless feature that prevented optimal aerodynamic design of the fuselage, and also limited internal weapons storage space.

VTOL video toward the end of this video.
 
#175 ·
The thing that bugs me is they screwed up the fuselage design to accomodate the lift fan, so the plane can takeoff and land vertically. Then they make no use of this feature.
And it is pretty useless to takeoff, because they can't carry the weight of the weapons of fuel. A truly useless feature that prevented optimal aerodynamic design of the fuselage, and also limited internal weapons storage space.

VTOL video toward the end of this video.
Agreed. Waste of weight and added limitations with nothing to show for it.
 
#184 ·
Probably implied and well understood.

I wish the airframe itself was better, but I can see the value of the plane in the role of simply being an invisible forward observer/controller with superb sensors and seamless data integration to the rest of the attacking forces.

I just wish the damn thing could actually dogfight if needed, have 2 engines, and have much more weapons loadout capability in the stealth bay.

So I think of it as not a fighter plane at all, but rather more of a spy plane.
 
#185 ·
The space requirements for the STOVL messed up the fuselage aerodynamics, the internal payload and the budget. STOVL was a turd in the design punchbowl.

I suppose our ally the Brits wanted the capacity to replace the Harriers on their mini-carrier but the vandalism done to the JSF capability was just not worth it. As for the Marines needing the F-35b, well, that sounds like more politics as usual to me.
 

Attachments

#187 ·
It's a great STOVL plane. Amazing replacement for the Harrier. Just sucks for everything else. I'll say it again and again.. F-35B was a good idea, just really expensive. F-35A and F-35C were big mistakes. Should have just taken the F-35 guts from the B program and put them in an F-22 upgrade/variant for the AF and Navy.
 
#192 ·
There is always an argument not to build any more super carriers. Mostly by others wanting to use the money for their own projects.

In my view, the aircraft carrier needs a complete rethink. It is either going to get small and fast, or its going to get very, very big.
I would build them on a fast catameran (+80 kts) with the fuel/weapons stored between the two hulls.

But the undeneighable truth is the current aircraft carrier is damn big target, and the US Military is both feared and hated by many.
 
#196 ·
There is always an argument not to build any more super carriers. Mostly by others wanting to use the money for their own projects.

In my view, the aircraft carrier needs to complete rethink. It is either going to get small and fast, or its going to get very, very big.
Perhaps both directions at once.

But the undeneighable truth is the current aircraft carrier is damn big target, and the US Military is both feared and hated by many.
We also currently can not defend a carrier from hypersonic anti-ship missiles.
 
#193 ·
The only drawback of the F-35 on the Wasp class ships is the limited weight on takeoff.
They have to hit a tanker as soon as they are airborne. And that tanker needed an airstrip somewhere.

Also, I think they can't takeoff with much in the way of heavy bombs.
 
#194 ·
Right. They're for light attack and CAP. They'll carry enough SDBs for an assassination/terror camp/isolated outposts/weak enemy. If you're going up against resistance you bring a supercarrier and the amphibious ship goes troop-transport. Otherwise they make for good forward observers for ship-based munitions. Let some frigate with harpoons do it and just let the F35 guide the harpoon in. At most these ships can carry 20 F35s. Usually more like 6. 2 F35s flying CAP/Forward Observer at a time.

Grenada for example really only used half a dozen light attack A-7s. Fortunately Grenada only had 23mm AAA. But F-35 could still do it to a country with some Hawks, Roland, Rapier, SA-6, SA-8, or an old fighter force with no risk of being shot down.

This sounds like a great replacement for the harrier. It's not a replacement for an F-15 or an F/A-18. All they really needed to do was develop the electronics, mainly put it in the F-22 airframe, develop the F-35 airframe as a side project to also put the electronics in. So you have 2 airframes benefiting from the development costs. F-22 and F-22N are rocking it and you get an extra Harrier replacement to boot. I don't think the F-35's airframe was the big development issue and could have been part of a larger project. It was all the electronics.

Oddly enough, it's still not too late to do the F-22 thing. Hell, Japan basically offered to pay for it. It's just unfortunate we already spent money on the As and Cs. But they could pay off as forward observers if we don't keep going and build thousands of them and replace everything with them.
 
#199 ·
Hypersonic Maneuvering missiles are now said to be fielded by China, Russia and India.

Maneuvering is the key. A normal hypersonic missile approaching on a ballistic trajectory can have its future locations mapped out so that a slower defensive missile can make an intercept.

But if the inbound missile is maneuvering at Mach 7+, then game over. you will not stop that missile unless you are using something at least as fast and maneuverable. (unless you are just randomly spraying lead and get lucky).

A laser might be the answer, but the missile will already be heat shielded on the front like a NASA reentry vehicle, because the frictional heating will be similar. killing a missile through an ablative heat shield with a laser is a tall order. Maybe a particle beam weapon? Or a laser fired from another craft that can hit it where the shield ain't.

Unless it simply misses or malfunctions, 1 HM Missile = 1 Hit.

We are friends with India, maybe we should ask them to sell us a few missiles?
 
#200 ·
Manuvering an object traveling at hypersonic speeds is a dificult thing to do. Takes substantial control surfaces (which cause drag) or some method to change the thrust vector (which implies sustaining thrust).

Perhpas we should buy or steal such a weapon and test it under controled conditions, because I am skeptical.
 
#204 ·
The last part of that was very revealing. They more or less stated that 'It will be a while before any real defense can be put into place similar to how we STILL do not have any real defense against a large scale ICBM attack even over a half century since they were first deployed'. At about the 5:40 mark in the video...

So if we still cant do crap about a large scale attack from slower and 'easier' to hit targets in over 50 years what in the heck are we going to do about much faster and HARDER to hit incoming warheads and how long will it take us to get to where we can do anything against them?

While I admire Israel and their Iron Dome system that they use for protection I also believe that it gives many a false sense of security. Yes it is a very advanced and sophisticated system that prevents a lot of damage / harm to Israel but... It is only successful and proven so far against shooting down glorified bottle rockets and it costs them a crap ton of money to shoot one of those inexpensive bottle rockets down. Doubt if it would help them much if it was being tested against incoming munitions that were on the same technological scale as what most of the major powers possess in their arsenals.

I see the hypersonic missiles and possible defenses against them as working out the same exact way. Never going to happen due to the fact that it will always cost less to shoot at something than it does to defend against (shoot down) that which was shot at you.
 
#205 ·
Well,I have to say my knowledge about the Wasp class and the strategy behind them has climbed from zero to something positive, thanks to Hicks, Colt, JBryan and Justme. I may have to rethink my objection to the F-35b as the role for the USMC seems to have changed since Vietnam, when except for two battalions their mission was identical to the Army's.

Gracias mi amigos
 
#212 ·
Had to look up a few things to follow you techo wizards.

DCS world = https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/planes/

BFM = basic flight maneuvers

&#x1f609 = winking smiley emoticon.

AV 8 is of course the Harrier and Aim 9 the Sidewinder.

I assume a Lily pad is a mat to enable a Harrier to take off from unprepared surfaces without sucking sand and other debris into the engines.
 
#213 ·
I assume a Lily pad is a mat to enable a Harrier to take off from unprepared surfaces without sucking sand and other debris into the engines.
I'd assume so too. I know very little about the Harriers. I flew some early sims that featured it and quickly lost interest. Their special capabilities didn't, in my opinion, make up for their limited performance and payloads compared to the F-16, F-15, etc...

I don't think he really read it and thought you were referring to flying F35s, not Harriers. But yeah, the F35B is a great Harrier replacement and I'm sure the Marines love it. It'll be interesting to hear how your sim goes too.
Well, here's how it went. It works... sorta.
First, if the enemy is on their toes, this happens:



Subsequent attempts went better, but I couldn't seem to pop them from a hover due to my shoddy VTOL skills. Still ran him down and managed to rip one of his wings off.




Ran this one down and put a sidewinder up his butt.





Verdict... it's an entertaining tactic, but far too situational. It would work great as part of a story, movie, or as an exercise in situational awareness for pilots. Maybe that was the point being driven home in the exercise thess02 was talking about.

As far as actually being employed in warfare... I dunno. Seems like there are an awful lot of variables and conditions that need to fall into place just right for it to be of use.
 
#214 ·
Neat, I guess this is a free online sim?

I used to buy some simulator games called Jetfighter, JF 2, JF 3 Full burn.

It was pretty realistic, supposedly incorporating a lot of feedback from pilots.

I flew the F-22 probably 100 hours total. It also had the F-18 and a couple other on there, but they were painful after flying the F-22. It was a long time ago, but those programs were pretty sophisticated for their time.
 
#220 ·
I haven't read this whole thread and I'm only halfway through my first cup of coffee so if this has been addressed, I apologize.



The F-35 criticisms on budget are fair. F-35 criticisms with emphasis on foreign distribution are fair. However, I feel that F-35 criticism as a plane itself are misguided.

Judging it as a fighter jet is a 1980's mentality. It is stuck in the epoch of Top Gun and stories from Vietnam aces. This is the world the F16 and F15 came to know their development and fame in.

However, it didn't take long into the 90's to turn our champion dogfighter and interceptor into ground strike aircraft. The F16 grew to have a wider array of CAS weapons than it ever did Air to Air, and the F15E Strike Eagle is, in my opinion, the most successful variant of the aircraft.

Hyper-focused roles are a thing of the past. Large fleets of aircraft are no longer tenable by budget, resources, or even tactical necessity. Advanced multi-role jets are the new meta. And that's what the F-35 aims to accomplish.

Can it provide CAS as well as the A10? No, but it will do it 80% as good. Can it dogfight like the F16? No, but it can do it 80% as good. It can be stretched across to accomplish more goals with less resources. I'm going to stop this argument here because it falls victim to my own criticism that judging it as an airframe is an old mentality.

The beauty of the F35 is in it's sensor suite and it's stealth capability. Trial runs have already been completed to allow an F35 to datalink to a Drone and use it's cameras, sensors, and munitions. They're running trials right now to allow Gen 4 airframes like the F16 to launch munitions that are guided by the F35. Or even crazier, the F16 to launch a round that the F35 is painting from a datalink from a drone. Whoa.

The F35 is dispersing the need for large AWACS sort of forces. In the way that WWII divisional army mentality won't work in Afghanistan's special forces heavy roles, the idea of multiple bomber and fighter wings supported by AWACS and refueling ships won't work today. The name of the game overall is detection and early warning. The main mission of the air force right now is SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense). Namely, defeating SAM sites and their radars. This is not a mission for a dogfighting aircraft, or a fleet of jammers, or really anything we already have in our inventory.

However, if you can have one plane up that can operate stealthily at the edges of that SAM sighting range calling in precise strikes against those site from planes hovering well outside that sight range, then that's a huge win.

What used to be a large network of aircraft can now be completed by 3, maybe 4 jets. Think of the F35 as a mini AWACS that can defend itself and I think you'll be in a more proper perspective to understand the role and capabilities of the plane.


Oh, and visual range dogfights are won by the pilot, not the plane.
 
#225 ·
So much wrong in this post.
Last sentence is complete bunk. Aircraft agility, and quality of the missiles plays a huge role. If your missile misses because of faults, then the best pilot in the world gets killed. If your plane can't maneuver properly, then your chances diminish rapidly.

If it was all about the pilot, instead of spending a trillion dollars on a gen 5 fighter, we would have a nationwide fighter pilot selection and training process. Recruiters would search for pilots with the zeal of NFL recruiters.
There would be huge testing and elimination programs to find guys with top .0001% capabilities in coordination, eyesight, balance, reflexes, fitness, intelligence, etc.

If the F-35 is only about a forward observer position that can call in munitions dispensed by others, and uses the radar only from drones, then it serves no purpose that could not be served completely by the drones.

And assuming our satellites have a cloud free day, all of that same info can be obtained from space.

The F-35 is supposed to be a fighter. It even has a little "F" in its name.
And it has a cannon. If it was only to be a beyond visual range platform, then why the gun??

Regarding close air support, this plane will never provide anything remotely resembling close air support. It is too expensive to risk in proximity to battle. And it can't carry enough munitions to provide much ground support. And it has very little loiter time, which is so necessary to providing timely ground support. The warthog is already prowling around on station and a quick radio call brings down devastating cannon fire. The F-35 at best would be sitting on a runway somewhere, need to fly to the front, then drop some tiny mini-bombs that fit in its pathetic excuse for a weapons bay. And that tiny bomb would be released from 30,000 ft , because nobody wants to lose an F-35 in exchange for bombing a few ground forces.

And it has a long sortee turnaround time, because of all the extra maintenance needed for stealth coverings. So when the call for ground support comes in, more than likely the plane will be hours from its next available takeoff, and that will already be committed to some higher priority.

And 80% as good as dog fighting as an F-16 means it will get shot down. So it will have to avoid visual range dogfights, and make kills before then.

And nothing will replace the AWACS yet that I am aware of.
 
#244 ·
Chess computers do a pretty good job of it.

AI AI oh. :)
I've seen hints in the last few months on geek sites that there's already first generation AI software for the big ones (e.g. Predator, I assume) that will let them pick their own targets and initiate weapons deployment, but nobody wants to take responsibility for letting it loose.
 
#226 ·
I think we have to accept that the general public will have to remain dissatisfied with the F-35. Its capabilities and tactical employment considerations are too secret to be shared for a long time. Unfortunately, those capabilities are what make it worth every penny we’ve spent. Without the F-35, we’d have no chance of winning WWIII.
 
#227 ·
I think they announced that Japan was going to start building F-22 airframes with F-35 computer/sensor equipment.

In my opinion, that would be the real game changer. A total domination fighter. 2 engines, the best maneuverability, better stealth, no stupid lift fan in the heart of the airframe.

Used for the Marines on their Wasp class carriers, the F-35 is a decent plane.

And as a stealthy lead element to take out radar and SAM sites, probably also a good plane.

For air to air, it is limited to all BVR engagements, and will likely need to direct missiles launched by other air assets if there are more than a couple of enemy fighters.

But if this plane comes toe to toe with a Russian super-maneuverable fighter, it will have to run for its life.

If it has secret capabilities, that would surprise me as this has been the most heavily documented plane I have ever seen.
 
#228 ·
I think they announced that Japan was going to start building F-22 airframes with F-35 computer/sensor equipment.

In my opinion, that would be the real game changer. A total domination fighter. 2 engines, the best maneuverability, better stealth, no stupid lift fan in the heart of the airframe.

Used for the Marines on their Wasp class carriers, the F-35 is a decent plane.

And as a stealthy lead element to take out radar and SAM sites, probably also a good plane.

For air to air, it is limited to all BVR engagements, and will likely need to direct missiles launched by other air assets if there are more than a couple of enemy fighters.

But if this plane comes toe to toe with a Russian super-maneuverable fighter, it will have to run for its life.

If it has secret capabilities, that would surprise me as this has been the most heavily documented plane I have ever seen.
If true, please build a proper deep strike/interceptor stealth aircraft.
The requirement for the A12 is still more important than the need for the f35.
We need to upgrade the terminal phase manuverability of our BVR missiles as well.
 
#233 ·
Honestly, though, I think 1,000 F-35s is more than enough. Right now we're planning to produce as many F-35s as the world produced F-16s (~3,000) which was supposed to be a discount cheap mass production fighter. That's a little nutty.

1,000 F-35 and 1,000 F-22 would be fine. Then you can bulk out the rest of the AF with planes that can carry a load.
 
#234 ·
F35 production is scheduled to be split between 8 or 10 countries, and 3 branches of the US Military.
The bulk of the production will be F35A, most to the US Air Force. The F35B and C production will be smaller.
About ten countries have 30-50 planes on order, but most will go to the US and UK.
Frankly I am supprised the production target is that low.
They cost so damn much, most of the partner nations wont be able to afford to develop any other new planes.
 
#236 ·
Oh, and visual range dogfights are won by the pilot, not the plane.
Korean War era - Chuck Yeager was detailed to evaluate combat capability of a Mig-15 delivered by a refugee pilot. Flying an F-86 vs. the MIG it was no contest. Put Yeager in the MIG's seat......again, no contest. If that's changed, why does the AF still teach combat maneuvering?

AFAIK the F-35B cannot do a VTO with a combat load. It is at best an STO fighter, but capable of vertical landing after fuel and munition weight is expended. Hence the acronym STOVL. So the lily-pad scenario doesn't work.
 
#245 ·
Look at WW2 kill ratios. You can sit and watch aircraft development at a rapid pace within a single generation of pilots. A plane when first introduced will have a huge kill ratio, then as the enemy starts producing planes that match it they even out, and then when the enemy starts producing planes that surpass it they hit negative kill ratios. Same pilots. Even the legendary aces start dropping their kill numbers as the planes they face change.

The Yeager comment was remarkable simply because the planes were unusually balanced.
 
#248 ·
You also have to look at pilot skill level as well. The Germans and the Japanese were losing the cream of their respective air corps while the US was rotating pilots home to teach new pilots.

The same was true in Korea. Upon introduction of the F-86, USAF pilots dominated the airspace when they encountered North Korean or Chinese MiG pilots. It was a different story when they tangled with Russian pilots.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top