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

[Dav8or]

Aviation Week employs well respected journalists that have industry contacts throughout the world. They have been a trusted source for information about the defense, aviation, and aerospace sectors for over 100 years.

They have been producing articles about the vulnerabilities of stealth technology to synthetic aperture radar for years. Everything published has been researched and vetted prior to its appearance in print.

AW editorial writers have recently provided significant commentary about the United State's decision to pursue stealth technology in the new Long Range Strike Bomber Program in the face of evidence the Russian's detection capabilities compromise the planned LRSB stealth systems.

Since the LRSB program is expected to cost somewhere between $50-$60 billion for just 100 aircraft, it seems reasonable to investigate the suitability of a technology that has been in use for over fifty years.

Perhaps you should do a little research about the subject instead of making childish comments about my judgement or lack of knowledge.

OK, so a media source says stealth doesn't work because the Russians have secret sauce. Has anybody tested this in the field? If in fact the stealth features of our latest aircraft don't work and can in no way be modified to work, why do we pursue it and why do other countries pursue it? All I'm saying is give the plane a chance and perhaps have some faith in our engineers. It may not be the colossal failure AW might think it is.

 

[3393RP]

If in fact the stealth features of our latest aircraft don't work and can in no way be modified to work, why do we pursue it and why do other countries pursue it? All I'm saying is give the plane a chance and perhaps have some faith in our engineers. It may not be the colossal failure AW might think it is.

Don't ask me. AW isn't the only organization saying the F-35 is a turd. And they aren't a "media source" like USA Today. What they observe and report is the actual truth.

Why are we paying $100M or more per copy for an aircraft? The price guarantees it will be built in such small numbers its contribution to our overall defense will be insignificant.

Your 'hope it works' position is unfortunately the same position the military is taking.

Why are the Marines using an aircraft with VTOL capability ostensibly for operations in rough environments when the lift fan throws up so much debris that a FOD induced engine failure is almost certain?

The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has needed major redesign. In one example fan casing wear rings suffered major damage in just 35 hours of flight, requiring replacement of the entire engine. The problem has required reengineering of the power turbine casing.

The F-35 is a failure and I doubt it will proceed much beyond LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production).

 

[3393RP]

But can their weapons systems track and shoot down an F-35? But, but, we can see the booger but why can't our missiles knock him down? Maybe because that shooter is a smoking hole or a smoking cloud of aluminum debris by the time the F-35 is within engagement distance. Stealth doesn't make an airplane invisible, it delays a firing solution until it's too late to be effective.

Yes it can...that's the point of building the Russian S-400 integrated missile defense system.

 

[Witmo]

Yes it can...that's the point of building the Russian S-400 integrated missile defense system.

I'm sure the Russians are advertising that their missile systems are capable of doing wondrous things. Based on the Russian/Former Soviet record to date, I'd take our stuff over theirs any day of the week. Doesn't mean their stuff isn't good--it's just not the be all end all, golden bb, they would have their customers believe. Technology, training, and tactics combined will make the F-35 a game changer. Cheap out on any of those three and you may end up with something less. Focusing on one aspect of a weapons system loses you the bigger picture on its overall effectiveness.

 

[Phoenix]

When is the next 'democracy spreading mission' involving a dogfight going to be? And how many dogfights are we going to get?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why are the Marines using an aircraft with VTOL capability ostensibly for operations in rough environments when the lift fan throws up so much debris that a FOD induced engine failure is almost certain?

That was already addressed earlier. The primary purpose of the STOVL is shipboard operation. Land based is secondary.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

That was already addressed earlier. The primary purpose of the STOVL is shipboard operation. Land based is secondary.

They will always have an explanation so it's useless to try and interject common sense. The lobbyists have destroyed any common sense or fiscal responsibility concerning this turd in a punch bowl. The shipboard observers and once again, the aviation writers observe that on shipboard, the heat generated by this Rube Goldberg nightmare damages the flight deck. Instead of admitting its a loser, they will grind on costing tax payers well over a trillion dollars before its over.

 

[Witmo]

They will always have an explanation so it's useless to try and interject common sense biased opinion..

FTFY. We wouldn't want explanations interfering with your unwavering bias.

 

[3393RP]

It's not bias when the Emperor's clothes are stripped away and all that's left is a twenty five year old design. The former Soviet bloc and China have had two and a half decades to identify and exploit the inherent weaknesses in the design of the F-35.

But don't take my word for it, and certainly don't rely on a "media source" like Aviation Week. Better to listen to the United States government and its recent (March 2015) assessment of the F-35's readiness for combat.

This report (here: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/dod/2014f35jsf.pdf )

details the current condition of the program and the aircraft's readiness for operational deployment.

Here is a sample of the report's findings:

In spite of the focused effort, the program was not able to accomplish its goal of completing Block 2B flight testing by the end of October.

- Slower than planned progress in mission systems, weapons integration, and F-35B flight sciences testing delayed the completion of the testing required for Block 2B fleet release. The program now projects this to occur by the end
of January 2015, instead of the end of October 2014 as was previously planned.

- Restrictions imposed on the test fleet as a result of the engine failure in June reduced test point availability and slowed progress in mission systems and flight sciences testing from July through November. For example, the
effect on mission systems testing was approximately 17 percent loss of productivity in accomplishing test points, from 210 points accomplished per month prior to the engine restrictions to approximately 175 points per
month.

- Discoveries of deficiencies continued to occur in later versions of Block 2B software, further slowing progress. For example, completion of weapons delivery accuracy events lagged the plans for CY14 and was put on hold in
August when the program discovered a deficiency in the F-35 navigation system.

- Through the end of November, 10 of 15 weapon delivery events had been completed; all events were planned to be completed by the end of October. However, the program must transition development and flight test resources to Block 3 in order to preserve an opportunity to complete the System Design and Development phase as planned in 2018. Block 2B will finish later than planned, with deficiencies remaining that will affect operational units; fixes for these deficiencies will be deferred to Blocks 3i and 3F.

• In the FY13 Annual Report, DOT&E estimated that the program would complete Block 2B testing between May and November 2015 (7 to 13 months late), depending on the level of growth experienced, while assuming the program would continue test point productivity equal to that of the
preceding 12 months.

The report is full of other information which demonstrates poor design and operability deficiencies, for instance:

The live-fire tests “demonstrated the expected cascading damage vulnerability to fuel ingestion, fuel and hydraulic fire, and hydraulic ram events.” This means that if an F-35 is hit by gun or missile projectiles-even fragments-in any of the multiple fuel tanks throughout the plane, there’s a likelihood of catastrophic failure.

The F-35 design attempts to mitigate these problems by reducing the amount of fire-sustaining oxygen in the fuel tanks’ explosive vapor spaces, but the On-Board Inert Gas Generation System (OBIGGS) remains unable to eliminate enough oxygen during dives, and may require additional post-production modfication, even after its recent redesign.

Further, if the pilot needs to dump fuel for emergency landings, that creates a fire problem as well because the fuel doesn’t fully eject; instead it “collects in the area between the flaperons and the aircraft structure and runs inboard toward the Integrated Power Package exhaust outlet, creating a potential fire hazard.”

Some members commenting in this thread about the subject exhibit the same Panglossian attitude prevalent in members of Congress and the Armed Forces Command.

 

[JimNtexas]

So stealth is over rated and doesn't really work.

There is no such thing as a 'stealth' aircraft, that's a PR term. There do exist 'low observable' airplanes, such as the F-117.

Note that the term is low observable, not no observable.

The Cockroach that was shot had no jammer support. LO airplanes don't need much jamming, but they need some. That F-117 wasn't given the support he needed.

Flying the same track several days in a row probably didn't help much either.

 

[3393RP]

That was already addressed earlier. The primary purpose of the STOVL is shipboard operation. Land based is secondary.

Which came about by a change in doctrine. It was discovered deployment to unimproved forward areas without a high rate of loss due to FOD ingestion was impossible, and suddenly shipboard ops were the primary.

The STOVL capability and the lure of operating at unimproved forward bases was originally touted as one of the inherent capabilities that justified the cost of the hugely expensive F-35B version.

 

[3393RP]

There is no such thing as a 'stealth' aircraft, that's a PR term. There do exist 'low observable' airplanes, such as the F-117.

Note that the term is low observable, not no observable.

The Cockroach that was shot had no jammer support. LO airplanes don't need much jamming, but they need some. That F-117 wasn't given the support he needed.

Flying the same track several days in a row probably didn't help much either.

The F-117 was a technology demonstrator with limited combat functionality. It served that purpose well, and it was retired because of limitations brought on by the passage of time and the maturation of counterforce capabilities.

 

[3393RP]

Yeah, more than any other proposed airplane in the last 30 years, that is probably the one we should have bought for the deep interdiction/strike mission. It also would have been pretty handy in our current world of OEF/OIF/OIR and CAS type flying.

Says the man at the sharp end of the stick and who knows of which he speaks. Instead we have an an aircraft that is a $100 million jack of all trades and master of none.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Which came about by a change in doctrine. It was discovered deployment to unimproved forward areas without a high rate of loss due to FOD ingestion was impossible, and suddenly shipboard ops were the primary.

The STOVL capability and the lure of operating at unimproved forward bases was originally touted as one of the inherent capabilities that justified the cost of the hugely expensive F-35B version.

That was not a change in doctrine. As I've said before, I've been doing this amphibious thing with the Marines for 16 years. When we are talking STOVL, the F-35B is a one for one replacement for the AV-8B. The primary mission of both as long as I have been in the Navy is shipboard ops.

The JSF has a ton of legitimate issues. Don't take what the media reports at face value. We don't believe what they say when they report about plane crashes, why blindly believe everything they report on the JSF???

Like I said, the aircraft is extremely problematic, but not quite the way you seem to think.

 

[Fearless Tower]

.



According to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, my version is correct and yours isn't.

Good gawd, this thread has lapped itself.

Again, you too have a reading comprehension problem.

You obviously missed the part about land or ship and you clearly don't understand how a MEU operates.

NOTHING in that statement indicates that the primary mission of the F-35B is to operate from unimproved fields.

Yes, the Marines would LIKE to be able to operate from ashore, but you are missing the critical element: you HAVE to have STOVL to operate with the ACE from the ARG. Once you have that capability, it opens up additional doors.

But you still have to operate from the ship first....and that requires STOVL.

 

[3393RP]

Which came about by a change in doctrine. It was discovered deployment to unimproved forward areas without a high rate of loss due to FOD ingestion was impossible, and suddenly shipboard ops were the primary.

The STOVL capability and the lure of operating at unimproved forward bases was originally touted as one of the inherent capabilities that justified the cost of the hugely expensive F-35B version.

That was not a change in doctrine. As I've said before, I've been doing this amphibious thing with the Marines for 16 years. When we are talking STOVL, the F-35B is a one for one replacement for the AV-8B. The primary mission of both as long as I have been in the Navy is shipboard ops.

The JSF has a ton of legitimate issues. Don't take what the media reports at face value. We don't believe what they say when they report about plane crashes, why blindly believe everything they report on the JSF???

Like I said, the aircraft is extremely problematic, but not quite the way you seem to think.

.

According to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, my version is correct and yours isn't.

.

“This generational leap in technology will enable the Marines to operate a fleet of fighter/attack aircraft from existing runways, unimproved surfaces at austere bases, or the decks of ships. We find that capability extremely valuable.”

These were the words of then-U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Commandant Gen. James Conway nearly eight years ago when BF-1 rolled off the production line.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/ready-for-battle-the-road-to-usmc-ioc

Since the time since Conway made these comments, it has been shown the F-35B cannot operate from "unimproved surfaces at austere bases". Operational practices have shown the aircraft will seriously degrade any runway surface that is not robust and free from any defects.

Repeated usage of runways which at first glance appear to be able to handle the F-35's incredible downblast result in damage from the vertical lift fan.

In fact, the shipboard operations which you mention as being the desired method of deployment have only been made possible by strengthening of landing areas on LHD carriers to handle the demands of the F-35B. While some modifications were anticipated, the extent of the work was not foreseen as necessary prior to actual operational testing of the F-35B on the ships.

 

[3393RP]

NOTHING in that statement indicates that the primary mission of the F-35B is to operate from unimproved fields.

Yes, the Marines would LIKE to be able to operate from ashore, but you are missing the critical element: you HAVE to have STOVL to operate with the ACE from the ARG. Once you have that capability, it opens up additional doors.

But you still have to operate from the ship first....and that requires STOVL.

I don't believe I said the F-35B was intended to operate in a minimalist CAS environment similar to that of an A-10. But it was touted as a multirole capable aircraft, and now limitations have been discovered.

The point I am trying to make is that years ago the Marine Corps anticipated the F-35B would be able to perform operations from marginally prepared bases.

That proved to be incorrect. The aircraft will perform and be effective when coupled with the LHD platform.

My overall point is that the aircraft has been a disappointment in several aspects. It's certainly over budget. The P&W F-135 engine was discovered to have a serious defect in a disk casing. I could go on.

But it's not an unrecoverable disaster, and I think that perhaps you believe I have asserted this. That's not accurate.

I am not a military expert. I haven't served. But I am able to arrive at a reasonable opinion about the aircraft based on information generally available through industry sources.