F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who’s Best

Here is a question for the monday morning quarterbacks:

Should we design the next attack aircraft to fight yesterday's engagements or future engagements?
 
Bob Noel said:
Here is a question for the monday morning quarterbacks:

Should we design the next attack aircraft to fight yesterday's engagements or future engagements?
Click to expand...

Since nobody can know what future engagements will require, we should design it to have the broadest range of capabilities, and not sacrifice every capability for stealth, or to accommodate some weird USMC fetish for VTOL.

Trying to design for "future engagements" is how we ended up with the F-4 that didn't have a gun, because "missiles are the future and we won't need a gun"...
 
Or... maybe... not all planes have the same mission...

At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Noel said:
Here is a question for the monday morning quarterbacks:

Should we design the next attack aircraft to fight yesterday's engagements or future engagements?
Click to expand...

Silly choices. Of course we should design for maximum government spending with job creation in as many congresscritters districts as we can.
 
My two observations from this article-

  1. They are putting all their bets on the F-35's stealth abilities. They had better hope that the Russians, or Chinese, or whoever doesn't come up with a way to detect these planes at a distance. We seems a little too confident that our stealth tech works and that the potential adversaries detection tech is inferior. Until we go to war we have no way of really knowing and once at war, war has a funny way of inspiring the other guy to counter an advantage.
  2. If this is true...
    He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”
    Click to expand...
    and I have no reason to doubt him, there seems to be less and less reason to have a pilot in the cockpit. If they are not already doing so, I hope they start work on a pilotless version for the inevitable future.
 
Bob Noel said:
Here is a question for the monday morning quarterbacks:

Should we design the next attack aircraft to fight yesterday's engagements or future engagements?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the question asked years ago and they decided to be wrong. As long as two opposing aircraft are in the air and IDFF is as questionable as it currently is , a dog fight is very probable. The F35 does a poor job of this and a worse job in the role of ground support. Unable to loiter and very vulnerable to a golden BB due to its very complex and expensive systems. Not mentioned is the disaster it will be in actual combat when it comes to maintenence. It was and is a lobbyists dream. Getting rid of the A10 is another poorly thought out scheme. But then , those who decided are not and will not be in the trenches. The F16 won the match easily. There doesn't seem to be any doubt about that. Another monetary nightmare is the F22.
 
Last edited:
The F-22 is worth every penny, we should have purchased the full 365 unit initial order. From talking to friends I trust in or recently retired from the Air Force, the F-22 is pretty much impossible to defeat without a huge gallon of luck.

The jury is still out on the F-35, but saying and F-16 is better because it won a knife fight in a phone booth fight is silly. Nobody beats the F-16 inside a phone booth.

The USAF has said they are going to keep F-15C's and F-15E's for many more years, which is pretty smart of them. If we ever go up against another country with a modern air defense system the F-22 and F-35 can lead the way, with the Eagles right behind them. That would be a pretty formidable strike package against anybody.


Why they won't keep the A-10 around is a mystery, it is possible that tomorrow's wars could in fact look like today's wars.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Seems like this is a re-run of pre-Vietnam thinking that caused the Phantom to be designed and built without a gun. Stupid didn't learn then and hasn't learned now.
Click to expand...

Right, the F4 was such a flop :rolleyes: only a 5 to 1 kill ratio. BTW the vast majority of F4's that did go down in all combat were taken out by a SAM.
 
Hmmmm, where's all the hate? When I posted this comparison a few months back - we got some good haterade going. Hmmmmm
 
Silvaire said:
Right, the F4 was such a flop :rolleyes: only a 5 to 1 kill ratio. BTW the vast majority of F4's that did go down in all combat were taken out by a SAM.
Click to expand...

It didn't take them long to fit the F4 with guns. They were used extensively in air to air combat with guns. This arguement is time consuming and pointless. The F35 is a lobbyists dream and the cost is absurd. The arguement that it can be also a ground support aircraft was dreamed up as another excuse for its taxpayers nightmare cost. The F 35 is still not truly deployment ready and would not meet availability standards if thrown into combat tomorrow. This expensive disaster goes Back to the year 2000. Time to admit defeat, but they won't , they will spend billions more on this loser. Similar thinking spawned the Rube Goldberg osprey.
 
I know it's only an airshow, but I got to see the F-35 perform recently and it was pretty impressive. I've never really been a fan of the plane, and it sure needs some help but watching it pretty much hover, then go straight up, and come back in a high G turn got me considering it could be ok against pretty much anything else except the lawn dart.
 
JimNtexas said:
Why they won't keep the A-10 around is a mystery, it is possible that tomorrow's wars could in fact look like today's wars.
Click to expand...
With all due respect to my Air Force brothers here at POA, the AF has a culture problem with the word Joint.

With the exception of tankers, AF leadership is historically self-centered and does not like supporting roles and that is exactly what the A-10 is. The A-10 does nothing for the Air Force. It exists solely to support the Army.

The Army loves the aircraft and is the one fighting to keep it. The Air Force wants to kill it because they don't want to be paying the huge maintenance bill for a program that supports the Army.
 
bullwinkle said:
or to accommodate some weird USMC fetish for VTOL.
Click to expand...
f-35 design issues aside, it is not some 'weird fetish'.

As I have stated in several threads on the subject, the Marine Corps has a defined and legitimate STOVL requirement that serves a greater purpose than many might like to think.

The shame is not really that we are trying to produce a new generation of STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8s, but that we are trying to put too much new shiny features on this airframe that we can't get them to all play nicely together.....and the cost keeps rising.
 
Fearless Tower said:
With all due respect to my Air Force brothers here at POA, the AF has a culture problem with the word Joint.

With the exception of tankers, AF leadership is historically self-centered and does not like supporting roles and that is exactly what the A-10 is. The A-10 does nothing for the Air Force. It exists solely to support the Army.

The Army loves the aircraft and is the one fighting to keep it. The Air Force wants to kill it because they don't want to be paying the huge maintenance bill for a program that supports the Army.
Click to expand...

So... why doesn't the AF just turn their A-10s over to the Army and let them operate them with the Army's budget?? :confused::dunno:
 
Dav8or said:
So... why doesn't the AF just turn their A-10s over to the Army and let them operate them with the Army's budget?? :confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

I remember this turf battle clearly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966

On the mission and configuration question, anyone read:
Boyd The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War

Here is a rather nice summary of his contributions to warfighting and fighter design. He is credited with demonstrating that Soviet fighters would win the majority of conflict between them and then current US fighters, leading to some changes in fighter plane design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)
 
Dav8or said:
So... why doesn't the AF just turn their A-10s over to the Army and let them operate them with the Army's budget?? :confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

The Army doesn't have the budget or infrastructure to operate/maintain/train for it. Army budget is getting slashed even more than the Air Force right now.

Shifting program money from the AF to the Army wouldn't be enough because the lack of infrastructure would increase the cost exponentially. Army hasn't had that infrastructure since 18 Sep 1947.

A more viable solution would be to merge the two services back into one, but I doubt that will ever happen.
 
Dav8or said:
So... why doesn't the AF just turn their A-10s over to the Army and let them operate them with the Army's budget?? :confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

Because that would mean that some of the USAF funds would have to be reduced and the Army would get a bigger piece of the money?

Because the USAF wants all fixed-wing aircraft?
 
Fearless Tower said:
f-35 design issues aside, it is not some 'weird fetish'.

As I have stated in several threads on the subject, the Marine Corps has a defined and legitimate STOVL requirement that serves a greater purpose than many might like to think.

The shame is not really that we are trying to produce a new generation of STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8s, but that we are trying to put too much new shiny features on this airframe that we can't get them to all play nicely together.....and the cost keeps rising.
Click to expand...

The additional shame is that they designed a STVOL aircraft and then used that template to create conventional variants for the Air Force and Navy. Everything I've read says that the Navy & Air Force versions are inherently compromised designs because they're based off a STVOL airframe.

You want STVOL? Build a STVOL aircraft and leave it at that.
 
Fredbob711 said:
You want STVOL? Build a STVOL aircraft and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
That is EXACTLY what I wish they had done. Start with a base F-35B airframe and engine and then you could upgrade the fancy whizz-bang technology over time. This idea that we have to have ALL the dealer add-ons installed at delivery is killing the program.
 
Fearless Tower said:
f-35 design issues aside, it is not some 'weird fetish'.

As I have stated in several threads on the subject, the Marine Corps has a defined and legitimate STOVL requirement that serves a greater purpose than many might like to think.

The shame is not really that we are trying to produce a new generation of STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8s, but that we are trying to put too much new shiny features on this airframe that we can't get them to all play nicely together.....and the cost keeps rising.
Click to expand...

While the idea sounds good on paper, the USMC has *never* used the AV-8B from remote, unprepared forward bases, except in training exercises. That was the justification for the capability. In actual operations it is always launched from carriers or large fixed air bases, just like every other airplane in our inventory.

I believe the F-35B will be used in the same way. In fact it will be a requirement, considering the maintenance and logistical needs of the F-35B. To build the entire airframe around this capability that is never actually used as designed has hamstrung the airplane, IMO.

I stand by my previous statement.
 
Fredbob711 said:
The additional shame is that they designed a STVOL aircraft and then used that template to create conventional variants for the Air Force and Navy. Everything I've read says that the Navy & Air Force versions are inherently compromised designs because they're based off a STVOL airframe.

You want STVOL? Build a STVOL aircraft and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Plus my previous comments that the Marines don't actually *use* STOVL airplanes the way they say they will.
 
Dav8or said:
So... why doesn't the AF just turn their A-10s over to the Army and let them operate them with the Army's budget?? :confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

Because on the Army's budget, they'd be able to keep like 10 % mission ready. They can't afford the aircraft (OH-58/TH-67) they already have so they're getting rid of them. They also have a pilot over population because we sent too many through after 9/11 and an entire airframe that's gone.

They might have been able to swing the A-10 if they weren't already into the Joint Heavy Lift replacement for the CH-47 and the Future Vertical Lift replacement for the UH-60. Those programs are going to happen.

The Army is quite happy with their AH-64 & UAV "hunter killer teams" as well. Most of the engagements in the last war weren't hard targets that needed the fire power of the A-10. AH-64 is far better at aqiuring personnel in the open with their chain gun & rockets compared to any FW overhead. I've seen Apaches expend more ordnance over a few hours than an A-10 over a few weeks. And it's far cheaper to operate.

Finally, there's the whole Key West Agreement that prohibits Army from acquiring tactical FW aircraft.

No doubt the AF is making a mistake by getting rid of the A-10 for CAS but the reality in theater, they're just another platform that's overhead with PGMs. We've had a CCT / JTAC guy on POA basically say the same thing. He calls on who's ever overhead covering his AO at any given time.
 
Last edited:
bullwinkle said:
While the idea sounds good on paper, the USMC has *never* used the AV-8B from remote, unprepared forward bases, except in training exercises. That was the justification for the capability. In actual operations it is always launched from carriers or large fixed air bases, just like every other airplane in our inventory.
Click to expand...

The speed of an airplane like the F35 makes it unnecessary to operate from remote, unprepared forward bases.

So I don't think it will ever find a role there, those aircraft are more CAS oriented anyway and the role can be filled with helicopters. F35 is a get in, hit the target, get out airframe.

I think it will definitely find a place on the small carriers though. I think we have about 10 full size carriers and 10 Wasp assault carriers. In a small conflict, a Wasp with a few F35's is going to be just as capable as a nimitz class carrier.
 
bullwinkle said:
While the idea sounds good on paper, the USMC has *never* used the AV-8B from remote, unprepared forward bases, except in training exercises. That was the justification for the capability.
Click to expand...

That is NOT the justification. The primary use of the AV-8 for the USMC has always been part of the ACE (Air Combat Element of the MEU). And that role requires the STOVL capability.....unless you want the DOD to start budgeting to make large deck amphibs the size of CVNs.
 
bullwinkle said:
Exactly. Plus my previous comments that the Marines don't actually *use* STOVL airplanes the way they say they will.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are getting your info, but I have been working with Marines for 16 years. What you say is simply not true.
 
dell30rb said:
The speed of an airplane like the F35 makes it unnecessary to operate from remote, unprepared forward bases.
Click to expand...

Right! So then why build in a big, heavy, complex STOVL system you are not going to use?!? :dunno:

The USMC sold the STOVL concept for doing exactly what they are NOT going to do. All other variants of the F-35 suffer as a result, because they all require the structure in the airframe to accommodate the STOVL system.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is NOT the justification. The primary use of the AV-8 for the USMC has always been part of the ACE (Air Combat Element of the MEU). And that role requires the STOVL capability.....unless you want the DOD to start budgeting to make large deck amphibs the size of CVNs.
Click to expand...

I'd rather see them beef up the gear of the airplanes to take harder cat shots and launch from the smaller carriers, or increase the wing area to allow slower takeoffs, than engineer some monster lift fan system that eats up about 30% of the fuselage. Either of those options would cost 5% of what the rotating nozzle and lift fan cost.

But then it would cost less, and there would be less money to spread around congressional districts...
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't know where you are getting your info, but I have been working with Marines for 16 years. What you say is simply not true.
Click to expand...

Not every Marine agrees with you:

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/01/marine-questions-value-of-stovl-jets-harrier-and-f-35b.html

The Marine Corps Commandant said : ""VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship."

Again, the emphasis on austere sites that the Marines never use in practice.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/31/f35-operational-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/

And all of the STOVL talk doesn't even touch on the Marines' primary air mission: Close Air Support. The F-35 (especially the B model with the heavy lift fan taking up room for fuel) doesn't have the loiter endurance, weapons load, or survivability to do very well in that role.
 
bullwinkle said:
Not every Marine agrees with you:

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_...ns-value-of-stovl-jets-harrier-and-f-35b.html

The Marine Corps Commandant said : ""VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship."

Again, the emphasis on austere sites that the Marines never use in practice.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...l-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/

And all of the STOVL talk doesn't even touch on the Marines' primary air mission: Close Air Support. The F-35 (especially the B model with the heavy lift fan taking up room for fuel) doesn't have the loiter endurance, weapons load, or survivability to do very well in that role.
Click to expand...
You are clearly missing something.

The Marines can't meet their CAS requirements for the MEU without STOVL. The MEU requires an organic (a Hornet squadron on a CVN is not organic to ARG/MEU) CAS requirement and that means STOVL is a requirement since the MEU operates from the ARG. The STOVL provides an additional capability that can be useful at remote basing when the MEU transitions ashore, but that is more of an additional benefit that primary requirement.

IOW, the primary requirement is STOVL operations from ships. If you meet that requirement, it gives you additional options of operating from short, less developed (or damaged) fields ashore.
 
I don't think I'm missing anything. There are ways to achieve short takeoff and landing that don't require eating 30% of your fuel carriage in lift fans and nozzles. I don't think they really need *vertical* landing...just short landing.

Like I said, make the plane with a bigger wing than the "normal" F-35s, and reinforce the gear to take harder cat shots and I bet you could get it there.

But that doesn't address the other concerns about the F-35 in the CAS role.
 
bullwinkle said:
I'd rather see them beef up the gear of the airplanes to take harder cat shots and launch from the smaller carriers, or increase the wing area to allow slower takeoffs, than engineer some monster lift fan system that eats up about 30% of the fuselage. Either of those options would cost 5% of what the rotating nozzle and lift fan cost.
Click to expand...
I think you seriously underestimate the cost that would be associated with retrofitting existing LHD's with arresting gear and a completely new and so far very problematic catapult.

The cost of retrofitting an existing LHD just for the F-35B as-is amounts to roughly half a billion dollars per hull. You'd easily exceed $1Billion per hull and then some to do what you are suggesting. And then you would have still have a expensive and not so capable aircraft like the F-35C.

At any rate, I don't think the F-35 needs a beefed up gear. The F-14 is the airframe that had catapult-gear issues which drove the debacle that is known as the electromagnetic catapult.

bullwinkle said:
But then it would cost less, and there would be less money to spread around congressional districts...
Click to expand...
The outrageous cost is not from the landing gear or airframe. It is all the Gucci crap they are trying to put on the airframe and the integration of those features that makes the cost of the program sky rocket.
 
bullwinkle said:
I don't think I'm missing anything. There are ways to achieve short takeoff and landing that don't require eating 30% of your fuel carriage in lift fans and nozzles. I don't think they really need *vertical* landing...just short landing.

Like I said, make the plane with a bigger wing than the "normal" F-35s, and reinforce the gear to take harder cat shots and I bet you could get it there.

But that doesn't address the other concerns about the F-35 in the CAS role.
Click to expand...

Come come now! Your being far too sensible! At this stage they are not going to admit the F35 is a total disaster so they will stagger ahead dreaming up all sorts of justification for this Rube Goldberg scheme, costing the taxpayers eventually over one trillion dollars!
 
bullwinkle said:
Like I said, make the plane with a bigger wing than the "normal" F-35s, and reinforce the gear to take harder cat shots and I bet you could get it there.
Click to expand...
Do you realize the F-35B is already at least twice the size of an AV-8B?

You make that thing any bigger and you would essentially have to scrap the LHD class (including the new LHA-R class) and develop an entirely new large deck amphib.

I thought you wanted cost-savings???
 
Jimmy cooper said:
At this stage they are not going to admit the F35 is a total disaster so they will stagger ahead dreaming up all sorts of justification for this Rube Goldberg scheme, costing the taxpayers eventually over one trillion dollars!
Click to expand...
As far as admitting the F-35 is a total disaster.....well, that is just around the corner I think. The Air Force is already regretting the decision for the F-35A and looking into options to restart the F-22 production line.

The Marines will fight for the aircraft, because it is more capable than the AV-8 and they really backed themselves into a corner on this. But the Air Force and Navy seem to become more and more disillusioned every day.

I wouldn't be surprised if the program gets cancelled at some point. We agree to buy whatever F-35Bs are already finished (it's already more than the current Harrier inventory) and then rest get scrapped - we go back to the drawing board.

At least, that's what I hope happens.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Do you realize the F-35B is already at least twice the size of an AV-8B?

You make that thing any bigger and you would essentially have to scrap the LHD class (including the new LHA-R class) and develop an entirely new large deck amphib.

I thought you wanted cost-savings???
Click to expand...

Haha, fair enough.

I admit to not being an F-35 fan, but I am not an expert in all aspects. But I have read a *lot* about it (I actually did start as a fan). It seems to me the STOVL capability is what kills the performance of all variants.

As you said, a clean sheet STOVL airplane for the USMC would have been better than shoehorning it into the F-35.
 
bullwinkle said:
It seems to me the STOVL capability is what kills the performance of all variants.
Click to expand...
I think there is a lot of truth to that. The idea of a common airframe ruined the other variants, but was likely the only way that the Marines could get funding for a new STOVL aircraft. Rumsfeld was all liquored up on the idea of common airframes, common equipment, common uniforms....etc across the DOD. Most of the defense acquisition nightmares we are dealing with today are the direct result of his decisions and refusal to listen to counsel.

Rumsfeld was a complete IDIOT and the worst SECDEF since possibly McNamara.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top