You said...."1. Nobody can say for certain what the F-35 is capable of or not capable of." then went on to write tomes and tomes about what's it's capable of, most of which has been contradicted by the testing, but you would rather believe what some test pilot said it may be able to do some day in the future if they fix all the problems or what your flight simulator games represented. HA!!!! Good one.

There's a HUGE difference between random vegan's self serving idea of what is and what is not good nutrition and factual historical data about the existence or non-existence of dogfighting since WW1. The cracked.com was simply a follow up entertainment article delineating 5 notable dogfights since WW1.

Smell ya later.

Yes, you did. You said repeatedly that dogfighting capabilities are not needed at all because this fighter won't ever see dogfighting because it never happens since WW1, and all engagement happens at long range and stealth will protect it 100%.
You must have not read, the articles I linked were about air to air engagements, not bombing, and included up to the gulf war.
Again, the F-15 and F-4 as deployed today is not inferior to Russian planes. Only if you compare the original incarnation of the F-15 with the top of the line Russian planes of today, sometimes it comes out on top, sometimes it's specs are worse.
There's no such thing as a real F-35 pilot, only test pilots have ever flown it, and never in real life situations, only pre conceived situations where it still fails the test designed for it to pass.
The F-35 can't dogfight, and it's not even in the US arsenal. Jesus Christ!
The article I listed before cracked was the one with data, the cracked one was simply to show dogfights using guns have happened repeatedly since WW1, in fact at least up through Vietnam including one completely insane example of using the rotor wash of a helicopter and an AK-47 to take out a pair of fighters (which, agreed, sounded made up it was so insane), contrary to your repeated assertion that it hasn't happened at all and never will again. I notice you don't dispute their facts though.


Oh well. Here I thought perhaps reason and facts had finally permeated the fan boy shell. I guess I was wrong. I give up. If you're going to stick with ridiculous positions like 'there's been no dogfights since WW1', and 'the F-35 will out dogfight the F-4' after being proven wrong time and again with real data and test results, there's no logic or fact that will break the shell, so I quit. Don't feel bad, you're in good company with all of congress (but of course, they all got PAID to hold their positions). Enjoy your $2 trillion fleet of useless planes, since no amount of failure or expense can kill the project.

I have not agreed that my position is wrong on the performance and capability designs of the F-35 and modern air combat. Please read the rest of my post above.... I'm still saying that dogfights have ended with WW1. I've never said we don't need ANY dog fighting capabilities. I'm saying that it's never the primary design idea of a modern fighter jet. You still have a cannon for back up. Just like soldiers have a side arm and a knife. Just in case you do get caught with your pants down or the main weapon fails at a critical moment.

I have agreed on the waste of money aspect of course. I'll also agree that if test goals are being downsized to accommodate flaws, then that's just terrible. If it's not able to perform to it's design then it's useless.

The F-4 != F-35. I can see why people draw parallels. But that only works if you ignore that absolutely everything on the planes is different, the adversaries are different, and stealth is requirement for survivability. You don't use stealth planes in the way you use an non stealth plane. Have you ever heard of a sniper wearing a ghillie suit run across the open battlefield with a sword or pistol? There were so many tactical mistakes in Vietnam as well. The conditions in which that article talks about are also different. Those planes were flying low and slow for a bombing run. Because they didn't have laser, gps guided bombs, infrared fire and forget air to ground missiles or cruise missiles back in those days. You don't get fog at 40,000 feet. They had to fly that low to get a visual identification of their bombing target. That does not happen anymore either. You scream past at mach 1 above the clouds and the bomb hits where it was programmed to hit. Also the phantoms missiles were unrelaiable. That hasn't been the case since the 80s. And their training was poor. None of that is true these days, and has not been true since the 80s either. That's why every single fighter plane apart from the F-16 (which is made mostly as an export product anyway) has been created to fight at long range primarily. The F-15 which is the main air superiority fighter for the US, is heavy and has a worse maneuverability than any Russian plane. But it's still the most feared plane, with no loses in combat. The article you linked even says that. So it's basically contradicting itself. At the start it says, F-4's lost because they couldn't maneuver, and ends with therefore the US made the F-15 which has worse maneuverability than the Russian planes lol.



Edit: Cracked.com doesn't count as a reputable source for anything, including basic sentences, spelling and punctuation.

Edit2: Here is an article from an actual F-35 pilot that says the F-35 dog fights better than a F-16 since they keep tuning the fly-by-wire parameters. http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

So even if it came to a dogfighting encounter, the F-35 is still the best plane in the US arsenal for dogfighting.

Well there YOU go.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but WW1 ended well over 25 years ago, so your repeated contention that 'dogfights ended in ww1' so we don't need any dogfighting capabilities is clearly 100% wrong. I hope you'll stop repeating it now, as it's ridiculously annoying to have a conversation with someone who agrees that their position is wrong, but continues to stand on that position nevertheless.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/06/usaf_promised_the_f-4_and_f-35_would_never_dogfight_108180.html
and (the last one mentioned here is INSANE)
http://www.cracked.com/article_19396_5-aerial-battles-that-put-top-gun-to-shame.html

I hope you've also arrived at the position now that, if they have to change the testing parameters/minimum acceptable requirements to turn massive fails into 'success' that it fails miserably and can't possibly ever be prepared for real deployment and has become nothing but a massively expensive, poorly preforming jobs program.

Well there you go, even Wikipedia says dogfights haven't existed for some 25 years So the F-35 doesn't need to have maneuverability as it's primary design feature.

I think I see why we are disagreeing - we have differing definitions of dogfights, if you read the air battle encounters from the gulf war you'll see that it wasn't dogfighting in the traditional sense where planes are doing all sorts of fancy aerobatics to try to use guns on each other like WW1.
(And wikipedia has this defintion problem too because it seems to call all air engagements a dogfight).

It was all BFM at a fairly long ranges in the order of 10 miles. (which is considered close range, since a plane takes several miles to make a turn at high speed).

Not one guns kill in the air. A few close range missile kills, but mostly long range AIM7's. (well techinically it's called medium range, but it's it's still like 20-30miles).
There's a good reason why fighter planes carry one about 7 seconds worth of bullets, and only 2 close range missiles vs 6+ long range missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

I've repeatedly discounted your comments, but I simply can't seem to make headway.

The F4E ICE was a modified German version of the F4E. It had much better engines than any other version of the craft, a dedicated WSO, and it still only barely outperformed the F16. The other F4 variants absolutely did not turn better or have a higher rate of climb than the F16.

Dogfighting hasn't been around since WW1? Are you crazy? What would you call the numerous dogfighting techniques developed during WWII? Admittedly there was a drop off in dogfighting during the Korean War, but that was because we were shifting to jets as our primary fighters and people didn't have the speeds worked out. When we went to Vietnam, we found that many times the planes were so fast they were closing into gun range before they could get a missile solution. Hence the creation of the Fighter Weapons School (aka TopGun).

The Air Force couldn't believe it was a skill issue and decided to go a different way, loading more sensors and different cannon onto the airplanes. They still relied on missiles primarily, assuming that dogfighting was DEAD. Well, after some time passed, Navy kill to loss ratios went from 3.7-1 to 13-1 and (SURPRISE) Air Force kill to loss ratios got even worse.

After this, the Air Force quietly created their own DACT program, unwilling to be vocal about how wrong they were. Now, if you primarily play video games about air sorties, you might get the idea that you get a lock a couple of miles before you even see the enemy, confirm the engagement, click a button, and then fly back home. Actual pilots will be glad to set you straight on that, since you might have to get close to the intruding craft and follow them, waiting. What happens when you get close? Dogfights happen.

As far as the capability of the plane, of course it is going to fail tests. But the problem is that, like in the case of the Marine's test, so much money has been invested in this plane that people are ignoring the failures because they are scared the program is going to get shut down. Realistically, that just is going to increase the time this plane takes to get ready for service, increase the costs, and it isn't going to fix the underlying problems in the design of the craft.

I don't know what else I can say. The plane is going to turn out to be a much more expensive version of the F22 and it will most likely quietly be cancelled later down the line like the F22 was. The bad thing is, the government will immediately jump to the next jack of all trades plane and once again we will find it is a master of none.

That's been refuted now http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

If you read the comments there, it's clear that it wasn't a performance test, but a fly by wire program trial and tune.

But of course that doesn't make head lines like sensationalism.

EDIT: Looks like Arse Technica also ran follow up story:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/

Even still I would still expect a F-16 which weighs less than 1/2, and has a better thrust to weight ratio to be fully capable of waxing the F-35 in a guns only dog fight. That's just physics. I'd also expect an even lighter and zippier F-5e to do the same to the F-16. And people did have that critism back in the early 70s.

But as I've said above many times. Dog fights haven't existed since WW1.

No, but the F-16 can out accelerate the P-51, but I don't think the F-35 can out accelerate the F-16, can it?

If the stealth tech worked every time, yes, it would have it nailed. I don't think it does, and even if it does, it's methods will be 'cracked' as soon as they're known and we'll need an entire new plane with new systems. You're right, when it goes as planned. It does not always go as planned, and we don't want to lose an F-35 every time we make a mistake in predictions, do we?

I think it's more like a camouflaged sniper hiding in the trees that's taken over the responsibility for also being an artillery brigade and a front line infantry brigade.
It can't do most of what it's designed to do, can barely do what it's best at, and if it's caught, it can't defend itself.

I really don't think there's a job they have for it that can't be done by the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-117, B-2, A-10, etc....meaning there's no need for it at all, and we could have had hundreds of those planes for the cost of the R&D done so far for a plane that doesn't yet work, and costs a mint when it is finally deployed, not just to build but for upkeep too.

I'm pretty sure a lot of pilots in WW2, and Korea, and Vietnam would disagree about dogfighting ending in WW1 and about it being all strategy and not performance. For instance, in WW2, we kicked ass largely because a zero was made of paper and couldn't take a hit while the mustang was a flying tank....or so I've read.

I can sure think of a bunch of other things the fed could have spent $1.3 Trillion on....we could all be traveling in tubes for that much money! The Republican's could make a camp to send all Muslims to on the moon for that kind of money.

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

That's in part to do with how during WW2 Europe had the bulk population of Jewish faithed people.

Outside of Europe, the population of Jewish faithed persons was scattered throughout little towns and ghettos (in the social sense, eg. like NY's Chinatown for the Chinese).

There was a small-ish population of Jewish Poles (called the Zionists) that had in the WW1 era moved to Palestine and bought land together to form their own communities.

Basically, the high concentration of Jewish faithed persons in Europe in the WW2 era made it easy to target a large percentage of their overall population.

Judea (Referred to as "Palestine" by the Romans - hence why in modern times Judea was called Palestine) had converted from Judaism to Christianity around 300 ish AD (under the influence of Rome), and then to Islam around 700 ish AD (Under the influence of the Islamic expansions). By WW2, Judaism was an archaic religion in the middle east. Similar to Zoroastrianism, where small pockets still can be found, but its otherwise not represented.

It's not till after WW2 (1948) when Britain carved out the nation of Israel from [at the time British colonial] Palestine, and surviving Jewish Europeans immigrated there from Europe, and subsequently Jewish faithed Arabs/Burburs immigrated there from around the middle east, that there was another major concentration of Jewish faithed persons to be found.

(This is when the Arab vs Israel conflict(s) began. A fun irony is that much of Israel's military in 1948 was German equipment (bf109s, etc), and much of the Arab equipment was British (spitfires, etc).)

(The Nazi government did a lot of killing, tho. The Soviet Union alone lost ~10 million soldiers, ~14-17 million civilians, and ~1-2 million Jewish persons.)

One of the reasons why Israel is so insular in regards to non-Jews, is because their overall population is small enough that they would be bred out of existence in a few generations.

-scheherazade

Of course. People always try to manipulate facts so that they fit their agenda.
History doesnt lie. Historians however... and history is written by the victors.
That doesnt make history meaningless, because sooner or later the truth gets out. It took a long while on WW2 and even WW1 (read The Sleepwalkers), but it happens. Also people, thanks to the Internet, get more and more informed from different sides. Common sense has been reformed. People actually understand cause and effect now, and dont just believe in what the news or some history books say that were written by PC or victor authors.

The problem with history is that it is taught fundamentally wrong. When it happened and who were involved are more or less unimportant. The real importance is that we learn from it, so we dont repeat historical mistakes and know what happens when we do this or that decision. People need to think for themselves when learning history, how that is projected on todays happenings, how we can avoid the things that happened so many times in history and always caused the same bad thing and how it all worked together to cause that. That should be taught. Instead names and dates are the most important thing to our society. No wonder history is so easily manipulated and repeated then!

I'm not a historian so i might be getting this wrong, but i'd been led to believe:

a) Germany itself was in debt after WW1, and the economic hardship forced on them in the form of reparations has been postulated as a reason why the Nazi party rose to power in the first place. When people are desperate, they look for someone to blame. Over in the UK, the government have ensured that we're blaming immigrants and anyone on welfare for these economic hardships that were caused by the rich elite and ruling classes, corrupt to the very core and no longer working in the interests of the country and its people.

b) European countries agreed to forget large portions of Germany's debts, because back then we seemed to know that is was pointless to wreck a country and cause untold misery, pain and death to the residents all in the name of profiting off them.

I am so disgusted and overwhelmed by how badly everything is being run, and how obviously it is being run for the benefit of a minority. I hope Greece sticks two fingers up to the lot of them and does an Iceland, followed by every other European country doing something similar. We can't hope to carry on like this, we can't let power hungry psychopaths control the world... we won't survive like this.

0.8 degree increase in 100 years. We've come from the 1915 and WW1 days when cars and planes where futuristic dreams, and not dying from tetanus or basic infections was a major concern. Today 100 years later we are thriving by comparison, in spite of the 0.8 degree increased temperature. IPCC best estimates for 2100 are about 1.5 degree increase, so another hundred years and increase that is about twice as bad. Of course, it's twice as bad as what we saw the last 100 yeas and not only survived, but thrived under. It's a problem to be sure, but it's also no catastrophe either. Switching to electric cars within 20 years will reduce emissions alot and is likely inevitable no matter what. Adopting non-emitting power is possible today if people accept nuclear as France did years ago, and would be a good idea if we could only sell environmentalists on the idea. Barring that we are waiting another 20-40 years for alternatives like solar, wind and hopefully Fusion to undercut the costs of running on coal. That said, without any special moral or government mandate we should be cutting our CO2 emissions radically long before 2100 of our own accord.

Bottom line, don't panic, it's a manageable problem and we got this. In the last 100 years we've come from not having cars or planes or space craft or computers or modern medicine to taking all those things entirely for granted. It's really hard to say that 100 years from now our descendants will be crying for their inability to cope.