Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight

[Originalman]

The thing is the U.S. is banking on it being such a smart and stealthy fighter that it will never have to get involved in a dog-fight.

The approach is while the Russian SU-30 and SU-35s, the French Rafale, and Swedish Saabs are far superior fighters in terms of flying machines the Pentagon planners are hoping that the F-35 will never have to engage in a close quarters dog-fight because they know it wont stand a chance.

The key is to sneak in on the enemy without being detected and fire at them before they even know you were ever there. Which is a great plan. You cant fight what you cant see. Especially since it's supposed to have multi lock technologies where one F-35 can detect multiple targets and assign some to another F-35 that further away to take out if the one that detected the enemy doesnt have enough arsenal to hit all the targets. Deadly shyt when you think about it

Just one problem: Radar technology is catching up. Newer radar technologies being developed by Chinese and Swedish among others can detect an F-111 and an F-22 so by default will detect an F-35.

The U.S. is gonna have to go back and order more F-22s because the F-35 will just be average at best as a fighter. It will still be a valuable attack platform but will need fighter/interceptor type planes like the F-18, F-16 or F-22 to escort it into heavily defended enemy skies.

True on everything. The thing is to restart the F-22 they will have to make new tools and fixtures. On all of these new top secret planes they destroy all the tools and fixtures to build them once they are done deliverying all sets of planes.

So the cost to restart building the F-22 might be double or triple the initial cost.

Plus the government is already starting on research for the 6th generation fighter. Hell the proposal bidding should start around 2025.

The military basically does phases like marvel studios when it comes to movies. They are thinking decades ahead.

Plus china and russia steal american technology anyway. So once america makes a generational fighter they need to make another generation cause china and russia probably stole the technology of the predecessor fighter.

 

[intruder]

And the military learned a long time ago there's no such thing as a do it all jet. I knew this project was a boondoggle because of the history of projects like this. Some CEO bribed the hell out of whoever was in charge to push this con job through.

That's not totally true.

We've seen some multi-role aircrafts that have done very well all over the world.

The French Mirage IV and Mirage 2000 by D'assaut is the perfect example. It's a bomber when you need it to be. It's a fighter/interceptor when you need it to be. It's a ground support platform when you need it to be.
One of the best sellers and successful aircrafts throughout the world.It's successor, the Rafale, seems like it will do the same.


The problem in the U.S. system is you have so many different manufacturers and the government tries to throw a bone (in the form of contracts) at every one of them to keep them happy. That's the military-industrial complex people talk about.

Russia has 3 design bureaus (aka companies) making aircrafts. Mikoyan makes Mig fighters. Sukhoi makes the SU-line fighters. Tupolev makes long range bombers.

The U.S. has/had Boeing, Fairchild Republic, Lockheed, General Dynamics, McDonnel-Douglas, Northrop, Grumman, (these last 2 later merged) all making bids for contracts for their products. They all gotta eat. Even when their plane doesn't win the challenge they still get some small contract for a few units in terms of test planes and further experiments.

 

[Originalman]

Also want to say that the government thought the F-4 phantom did not need guns and that lock on systems and long range missles would eliminate that.

Until the viet cong got in that behind with them small agile migs and the US had to put a gun pod on the F-4.

 

[intruder]

Yep the government tried to be cheap and have one platform do it all plane. But the shyt has bite them in the ass with the F-35 costing damn near 500 billion.

Also lockheed ran game because the F-22 is top of the line and can't be sold overseas to allies.

So they said hey lets make a watered down stealth fighter that we can sell to the government as a replacement for the F-22, F-16, F-15, harrier, F-18 and A-10 and because it isnt as advanced as the F-22 congress will let us sell it to alies.......so we have the F-35.

But truth is some of these allies are able to upgrade their avionics to to the point where they don't need the F-35 if they already have F-16s and F-15s which are still Superior fighters to this day.

So then they have to make a choice: tell the U.S. and their F-35 deal to kick rocks and risk not being able to get deals in the future or bite the bullet and buy a crappy plane. Until they are ready to build their own they are stuck. But the Israelis are already working on theirs . The Indians too. They are all following Sweden's model and will eventually tell the countries that make military aircrafts (U.S., France, U.K., Italy, Russia) to kick rocks

 

[Originalman]

But truth is some of these allies are able to upgrade their avionics to to the point where they don't need the F-35 if they already have F-16s and F-15s which are still Superior fighters to this day.

So then they have to make a choice: tell the U.S. and their F-35 deal to kick rocks and risk not being able to get deals in the future or bite the bullet and buy a crappy plane. Until they are ready to build their own they are stuck. But the Israelis are already working on theirs . The Indians too. They are all following Sweden's model and will eventually tell the countries that make military aircrafts (U.S., France, U.K., Italy, Russia) to kick rocks

Yeah man but none of them gonna tell the US to kick rocks. They will buy the planes and weapons from the US as always. Because it aint just the planes they get access to it is the other state of the art defense systems.

Not just that but buying from the US on the defense side opens up opportunities to buy things from the US on the commercial side and getting commercial investments.

The shyt is all tied together.

Oh and as far as isreal and defense spending the US economic help is tied to them consistantly buying from and doing business with the US and american defense contractors.

 

[Originalman]

That's not totally true.

We've seen some multi-role aircrafts that have done very well all over the world.

The French Mirage IV and Mirage 2000 by D'assaut is the perfect example. It's a bomber when you need it to be. It's a fighter/interceptor when you need it to be. It's a ground support platform when you need it to be.
One of the best sellers and successful aircrafts throughout the world.It's successor, the Rafale, seems like it will do the same.


The problem in the U.S. system is you have so many different manufacturers and the government tries to throw a bone (in the form of contracts) at every one of them to keep them happy. That's the military-industrial complex people talk about.

Russia has 3 design bureaus (aka companies) making aircrafts. Mikoyan makes Mig fighters. Sukhoi makes the SU-line fighters. Tupolev makes long range bombers.

The U.S. has/had Boeing, Fairchild Republic, Lockheed, General Dynamics, McDonnel-Douglas, Northrop, Grumman, (these last 2 later merged) all making bids for contracts for their products. They all gotta eat. Even when their plane doesn't win the challenge they still get some small contract for a few units in terms of test planes and further experiments.

Fairchild isnt around any longer. The US also does that because by government law you can't have one contractor bid on one program.

It even works like that for sub contractors and smaller companies.

This is one of the things that comes up with the bidding of the B-21. If lockheed won it then basically Northrop Grumman would have to sell off its aerospace portion of the company. That would mean only lockheed would have the stealth technology and there for all government contracts for stealth planes would have to go to lockheed (boeing does not have stealth technology).

Also if you look at the setup of contracts its is basically a default that certain folks will get certain contracts.

Boeing makes the new tankers/transporters, lockheed the new fighters and Northrop Grumman makes the new bombers (since 1990s).

 

[Originalman]

But the A-10 is still the very best at what it does for a hell of a lot less money than the F-35. The A-10 has had weapons system and avionics upgrades almost consistently since its inception. The airframe is still in combat shape and nothing on the battlefield is as good at close air support and tank busting than it is. I am with the vets and current pilots who are lobbying to keep it in service. Its a beautiful beast imo.

Yep the A-10 has been constantly upgraded for the last 20 years.

Folks dont even realize that the B-52 is from the 50s and the B-1 is from the late 70s.

These planes still fly and patrol our country because they are constantly upgarded and get MRO.

Anyone who thinks the A-10 can't be effective has never spoken to a general or a soldier in the infantry.

The A-10 can survive is harsh conditions and surounded with deadly enemy fire. Something no other aircraft in the US inventory that can do that and fire at the enemy with an overwhelming onslaught of weapons with deadly precision giving ground troops air support.

Plus the A-10 has the ability to protect its pilot and stay in a hazardous combat zones in the air for extentded period of time with a large weapon payload.

I mean think about this.......Congress still hasn't given Boeing the green light to sell A-10s overseas.

Their thought is that the plane is too deadly to ground forces if it ends up in the wrong hands.

That tells you everything you need to know about the plane.

 

[Geek Nasty]

That's not totally true.

We've seen some multi-role aircrafts that have done very well all over the world.

The French Mirage IV and Mirage 2000 by D'assaut is the perfect example. It's a bomber when you need it to be. It's a fighter/interceptor when you need it to be. It's a ground support platform when you need it to be.
One of the best sellers and successful aircrafts throughout the world.It's successor, the Rafale, seems like it will do the same.


The problem in the U.S. system is you have so many different manufacturers and the government tries to throw a bone (in the form of contracts) at every one of them to keep them happy. That's the military-industrial complex people talk about.

Russia has 3 design bureaus (aka companies) making aircrafts. Mikoyan makes Mig fighters. Sukhoi makes the SU-line fighters. Tupolev makes long range bombers.

The U.S. has/had Boeing, Fairchild Republic, Lockheed, General Dynamics, McDonnel-Douglas, Northrop, Grumman, (these last 2 later merged) all making bids for contracts for their products. They all gotta eat. Even when their plane doesn't win the challenge they still get some small contract for a few units in terms of test planes and further experiments.

There's a difference between multirole and do-it-all. The do-it-all model has always failed and WILL always fail. There's also a big difference between the US that has the money to design aircraft for each niche and smaller countries that have to use a couple models for all roles. Multirole aircraft supplement specialized, expensive aircraft in their jobs or allow smaller countries to only rely on a handful of platforms. The F-16 and F/A-18 were originally multirole supplement aircraft (until the Navy realized what a waste of money the F-14 was then they created their fighter/interceptor variant of the F/A-18).

 

[Originalman]

There's a difference between multirole and do-it-all. The do-it-all model has always failed and WILL always fail. There's also a big difference between the US that has the money to design aircraft for each niche and smaller countries that have to use a couple models for all roles. Multirole aircraft supplement specialized, expensive aircraft in their jobs or allow smaller countries to only rely on a handful of platforms. The F-16 and F/A-18 were originally multirole supplement aircraft (until the Navy realized what a waste of money the F-14 was then they created their fighter/interceptor variant of the F/A-18).

True and just the fact that lockheed sold the F-35 as a replacement to the A-10 tells you all you need to know.....

 

[MMS]

Yep which was why the F-14 was created.

the F14 is a much more defensive jet than the F15 or F18

 

[intruder]

There's a difference between multirole and do-it-all. The do-it-all model has always failed and WILL always fail. There's also a big difference between the US that has the money to design aircraft for each niche and smaller countries that have to use a couple models for all roles. Multirole aircraft supplement specialized, expensive aircraft in their jobs or allow smaller countries to only rely on a handful of platforms. The F-16 and F/A-18 were originally multirole supplement aircraft (until the Navy realized what a waste of money the F-14 was then they created their fighter/interceptor variant of the F/A-18).

Perhaps i used the multi role term incorrectly. The airplanes i mentioned are pretty much do-it-all type airplanes that can be modified for various roles. The Typhoon and Rafale are perfect examples.

 

[Geek Nasty]

Perhaps i used the multi role term incorrectly. The airplanes i mentioned are pretty much do-it-all type airplanes that can be modified for various roles. The Typhoon and Rafale are perfect examples.

I agree with how you used multirole, its just that anyone buying one of these planes has to understand it's not going to be as good as a specialized aircraft in it's role. The F-35 is being sold as a replacement for the A-10, F-16, F-117, F/A-18(?) and Harrier, but it can't touch any of those other planes doing their respective jobs.

 

[intruder]

I agree with how you used multirole, its just that anyone buying one of these planes has to understand it's not going to be as good as a specialized aircraft in it's role. The F-35 is being sold as a replacement for the A-10, F-16, F-117, F/A-18(?) and Harrier, but it can't touch any of those other planes doing their respective jobs.

Oh yeah definitely agree.

It's not as tough/rugged and not able to pound enemy ground troops like the A-10 in a ground support role. There is no way around this one.

As far as fighter/interceptor/attack platform it's nowhere near the attacker and fighter the F-16 or even F-18 is but as I explained they are hoping stealth will make them not have to dog-fight. They' may be in for a rude awakening as newer radar technology makes the current stealth technology useless.

 

[RicanFury]

There was no reason to upgrade the fleet seeing as though dogfighting is really a thing of the past. I can see how they are working out the kinks tho. Itll be awesome in due time

i dont know man...i think the military should always keep in good practice the age old combat scnerios including dog fighting and hand to hand combat in case. what if a third world country uses some old ass planes that can engage in this type of battle, better to know this stuff than not. you dont want to lose the skills gained in the past. once that stuff is lost its lost. i say design an special plane just for air to air combat. we need only to look back to the past for the standard and to our own hallmark breed for inspiration and a name:

call it the USA F76 Pitbull Jet

 

[MoneyTron]

I agree with how you used multirole, its just that anyone buying one of these planes has to understand it's not going to be as good as a specialized aircraft in it's role. The F-35 is being sold as a replacement for the A-10, F-16, F-117, F/A-18(?) and Harrier, but it can't touch any of those other planes doing their respective jobs.

The F-35 is more than enough a replacement for the F-117. It can do everything the F-117 can do but better. It's 1970's design using Gen 1 stealth tactics not to mention limited range, slef defense, and payload.

The Harrier is no comparison. It's a 1950's design.

The F-16C and F/A-18C will get their lunch eaten in almost all aspects by the F-35. There is nothing they can do that the F-35 won't be able to do but its clear the opposite isn't true. The F-35 has more range, better weapons systems, and the ability to even use electronic warfare without any additional pods or addons.

The only thing the F-35 won't be able to replace well is the CAS mission of A-10 which is extremely specialized.

The F-35 has a weapons system will eventually be the #1 force multiplier the Air Force has. I don't see anything on the horizon coming close to having the multirole abilities of the F-35.