"Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight" Topic

This threads belongs from mon cher ami Terrement… who is on "forced vacations" at the Dawhouse… (smile).

"A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can't turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy's own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

"The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled "for official use only."

The test pilot's report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history's most expensive weapon…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

So they made a stealth F4 Phantom. lol It couldn't dog fight, so it would just kick in the after burners and out run who ever was on their tail. Then turn around and come back in for another head on run at'em.

Ha!

The Coot pilots wish they had the Phantom's thrust and speed.

It's about as fast and agile as a poor, 1960s era aircraft, and that list certainly doesn't include the Phantom in it.

Two of the best parts:

In the end, the F-35 — the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing — is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s.

F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history's most expensive weapon.

The problem is always that people with vested interests will always try and sell you stuff you don't need and at the very top of that list is the wonder 'something' that will "do it all".

Like the F35.

But it's the same if it's glue, a pair of multi-tool pliers or anything else: it will always be a compromise because – in the end – you simply can't produce a one off 'something' that will fulfill all of your needs as well as the specific one made as "the right tool for the right job".

A Harrier was – even in it's later incarnations – a subsonic aircraft but it was battle proven, could dog fight well and could stovl very well. Sure, you had to have three hands to fly it but that's what computers are for.

Could that not have been done? Fit better controls and 'puters to – effectively -a Mk III Harrier?

Rather than start again with an F35: a 'stealth' F16/F18/Harrier all in one replacement (to go with the F15 replacements) how about a modernised Harrier, an updated F16 (or just buy Typhoons and have done with it – certainly an option for those countries who already own them and don't have to by from the US) and – if you want moderately stealthy (as the F35 was only ever going to be, frankly) how about the (quite) stealthy 'Silent Eagle' that Boeing have touted? link

It's a very sad state of affairs but – from a UK perspective – I'm sure our two aircraft carriers will be just fine: that big flat top with no cats fitted means we can launch… er,… oh yes: nothing at all. Helicopters, perhaps.

It couldn't be more embarrassing if someone at Lockheed had sold us some magic beans on our way to market…

John T

But can it bomb? With Strike as its mission how does it do stealthily putting ordnance on target from US Navy platforms – that is what I would like to know?

*Sigh*

I suspect that "dogfighting" will be a very rare occurrence in future battle with most air to ground and air to air combat being of the "stand-off" variety with "smart weapons" doing all the maneuvering and combat.

This may be on a par with an ex-WWI triplane pilot complaining about the lack of maneuverability of an ME-109.

Aircraft with pilots aboard may be a short term design issue. By 2035 the bulk of combat aircraft may be remote or computer piloted. The F-35 may be the last of a breed.

Remember those last of a breed types like the Wyvern when jets took over?

Slightly off topic – I did not recall the Westland Wyvern, but googled it and read about the pilot that ejected from underwater – what a story!

Meh. link

Cheer up John, the carriers can always be used to host Flugtag events too.

Those nice bow ramps should provide for a bit more distance for the participants.

We've done this already (again and again): TMP link

Yawn

Same ballhooks repeated here.

Can we please have a moratorium on F-35 BS threads?

Hopefully dogfighting will be as common in the next 40 years as it has been in the last 40.

I still think they should order the F-23 be put in production and cut back the F-35As on order. Didn't Northrop tool up an attack version of the F-23 w/increased internal stowage as well?

I second Jemima Fawr

This equine has been abused to an unrecognizable mess.

Supposedly the F-23 was a bit too radical for the USAF, IIRC, which is why the F-22 got the nod, which is a shame.

Actually, Jemima, the info on the helmet doesn't fit inside the cockpit is a new revelation.

Probably need to create a blown bubble canopy to address that, which would also help some with rear visibility too.

The fact that the F-35 is not and never has been designed to be an air defence dogfighter has been done to feckin death.

Joint STRIKE Fighter. The clue is in the name.

"Test pilot admits that the Hawker Typhoon 'can't dogfight as well as the Hurricane it replaces' shocker!"

But can it bomb? With Strike as its mission how does it do stealthily putting ordnance on target from US Navy platforms – that is what I would like to know?

If the defenders are flying a bunch of IRST-equipped platforms as a combat air patrol, backed by S-band or L-band ground radars…..radar stealth (which is mostly counter-X-band) isn't going to help it much, and the likelihood of having to engage and shoot down defenders to reach the target increases significantly.

So some inherent dogfighting capability will definitely matter even in our supposedly-stealthy strike aircraft.

Of course, the counter argument is always "Well we'd have F-22s or something clear the skies and do SEAD"….in which case, we could just keep using the same bomb trucks we do now and didn't need to invest a TRILLION dollars to replicate this functionality.