I saw a humorous "infographic" about the F-35 vs A-10 on Fark (I think) sometime recently.

(link to image, first couple comparisons as text):
F-35 Appearance: Pretty
A-10 Appearance: Pretty Badass
F-35 Price Tag: ~135m
A-10 Price Tag: ~12m
...

It has seem a joke for an overly long time. When you can buy every homeless person in this country a $600k mansion for the money we've spent on this thing one has to wonder why are Forget buying a homeless person/family a big mansion, get them a permanent starter home (my part of Ohio, super nice new family homes are $150k, starter homes are well under $100k), job training, and voila, not only far less money spent then is spent on homeless shelters, but they are now trained workers, in a home, and we've still save far more than this program.

Wasn't the F-22 canceled because this was supposed to save us money? That and the inability to export it... which raises the question are we wanting to build the best aircraft for our defense or a plane that we can sell, because those are not super compatible. Yes the F-15 and F-16 are both aging designs, but this program so far doesn't seem to be the answer. Heck, the B-52 fleet is scary old and there doesn't seem to be any real replacements for it.

One of the supposed tasks of the F-35 is to provide a sensor rich environment for other aircraft to operate in, providing these other craft with sensor data, but this task seems best dealt with using drones. Why I question the use of drone strikes (at least as used now), a drone flying though the field providing rich sensor data for the follow up fighters and bombers seems to be a perfect role for drones.

At this point the program is probably only going on because we've spent so much on it that turning back will be seen as a bigger waste than going forward.

Sorry, I don't care. The story could be completely true. But because its coming from putins personal propaganda channel I have to dismiss this so called leaked report for the pure BS that it is.

Do a search, it is completely true. The Air Force tried to play it down, saying that the test was only to test current dogfighting methods and that the F35 was designed for future conflict dogfighting which is 'going' to be stealth based and long range conflict only.

The plane is a debacle worse than the Bradley fighting vehicle, more expensive, and we are too far in to back out without embarrassing the big players.

*length=1:59

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:59 - length declared by bareboards2.

Yeah. I'm sure it is true, or mostly true, or contains elements of truth. But I don't like RT.

The 21st century Tokyo Rose, who sole goal was to demoralize the soldiers.

I'm with @skinnydaddy1.

Sigh... Don't care. I know its true. Here's a story about it a year before the russian government propaganda channel decided to "Report it"

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

My point was that RT could have proof that the US government was responsible for every murder and death the world over since 1776 and I still would not care . Simply because of who is saying it.

@bareboards2 as well

I understand your concerns. Thankfully there are numerous sources for information out there today.

It failed due to two reasons. The F4E was a two seater aircraft with a dedicated radar and weapons co-pilot, meaning it was really more comparable to an F15, and the weapons loadout that the F4 could carry was greater.

The only other area that the F4E was even close to the F16 in was rate of climb, and it still lost there. Now if you mean the German ICE F4E that was modified with better engines, etc, then yes, it was slightly better in RoC and turning radius.

The design and per unit cost of the F16 were much lower than the F35, because it was built on data learned from the Vietnam War, not theoretical data on a conflict that hasn't occurred yet (or may never occur). I agree we should update our weapons as needed, but we should only ever update with field tested data, not on theoretical combat.

For instance, if I came to you and said I predict our future soldiers will need to be protected from man portable rail guns, and that I needed a trillion dollars to make the new body armor, would you give it to me? Or would you say that manport rail guns are highly unlikely to be used in the near future and we need to wait and see?

The F-35 can't maneuver as well as an F-16. But F-16 can't maneuver as well as P-51 from World War 2.

There hasn't been a dog fight since the first world war. Even in WW2 it was about strategy, positioning and team work. It had very little to do with plane performance, expect for when there was a huge gap like the invention of the jet plane.

Air combat for the last 60 years has been about situational awareness first and foremost. And the F-35 has this nailed.

It's like saying that modern soldiers don't have any sword fighting skills. It's completely irrelevant. You wouldn't use a sword against a camouflaged sniper. The F-35 is a camouflaged sniper, hiding in the trees. Who would silly enough to run through an open field with a sword? Or even a pistol? The sniper will have killed you before you even know you are being targeted.


Now the people making the F-35 are probably incompetent in delivering a plane on time and on budget(either that or they are milking it). But the plane once finished, will be a winner.


The other thing is, the F-35's will always be part of a force of other planes in a large scale conflict. If for some reason it does come down to dog fighting - e.g. if there are just tons of cheaper planes going against it (with suicidal pilots) that they simply cannot carry enough missiles, then the rest of the enemies would be mopped up by F-15, F-16s , F/A-18s etc.

That is all well and good, but the F35 is not just a sniper. It's a multi-role aircraft that needs to be an interceptor, a bomber, and a close ground support plane. You can be a 'sniper' and hide long range in interceptor mode, but bombing and close ground support are not going to be as kind to a plane that relies completely on stealth to overcome it's shortcomings in maneuverability, etc.

Additionally, the sheer cost of the vehicle is going to make it prohibitive for our allies to purchase it, meaning that in NATO combat groups, we will have it and our allies won't. It also means that we can't offset the trillion dollar development cost in ally purchases. Of course, it is likely that we won't even try to export it for the risk of having the stealth breached. We didn't export the F22 for similar reasons and it is dead now.

The simple fact is that we have sunk a ton of money into a pit and for little return. There are still huge long term delays in Russian and Chinese stealth programs, so just like the F22, this plane is going to come into production with no real enemies to fight against. Are we going to risk sending these vs last gen or earlier systems when our older planes are still more advanced than those and cost far less?

We aren't going to stop making this plane, we've gone too far. But it is going to be just as much of a waste as the F22 and probably more of a debacle when the enemy does come up with hardware capable of defeating it's stealth capabilities. Once that happens, we have a plane that is worse than the previous generation facing enemies more than capable of taking it out of the sky.

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.

derp sorry. How to delete?

The F-35 can fly both faster, and slower than the F-16, and longer at high angles of attack that would stall most planes. It although can't out accelerate the F-16 though since F-35 is heavier. But having the best acceleration isn't really a factor in modern air combat, where missiles are being thrown at each other from any between 20-100+km's range. As long as you can accelerate good enough, which being a fighter plane it can.

The F-35's afterburner-less supersonic speed is more important in a BVR(beyond visual range) engagement, since that's what allows you to put more distance between you and an enemy missile. The idea being that you fly perpendicular to a missile making it cover more ground and it runs out of fuel and speed so it falls out of the sky before it can reach you. Of course to lock onto a stealth plane you'd need to be quite close in the first place, by which time it would have shot you down, at least that's the theory.

If it comes to a close range scenario, say enemy AWACS manages to detect the F-35s, and direct a bunch of enemy fighters through a set of mountains to sneak up on the F-35s. And a visual range or even dog fight ensues. Then the F-35 would use a short range missile that can turn 90+ degrees and shoot behind itself . Which no other plane can do since all of the sensors are forward facing on all other planes.

But you're of course right, there is always eventually going to be a way of countering the stealth advantage, it's an arms race after all. Most likely it will be countered by some kind of cheap jamming drone swarming, which would make the F-35s sensors useless, and missiles too few, forcing the engagements to happen at shorter ranges.


------------------

What I mean by dog fighting is a one on one engagement where each plane is trying to furiously out maneuver the other. That is a rare occurrence. There is a WW2 era video that explains the tactics used that make the one on one style dog fighting obsolete. https://youtu.be/C_iW1T3yg80?t=530

The planes have a system where as soon as one plane is engage by an enemy, then your wingman, or a spare clean up squadron comes and mops it up, since the enemy makes it self an easy target when engaging a friendly.

For sure, I believe that by trying to be all things, it has made compromises in other areas. But perhaps the flexibility is a more important than a few advantages here and there. All of the current US planes are also multi role as well, with the exception of dedicated bombers. So any jack of all trades worries also apply to the majority of the planes that have been in service for the last 30 years. It seems like versatility has been the driving factor for upgrades. So it makes sense a new plane would be designed with versatility in mind.

For things like Close Air Support, I would much rather be in the invisible fast plane, than the bullet proof slow plane like the A-10. You've dropped your bombs before the enemy even know you're there, and before the bombs hit the ground, you're 40KMs away, at an altitude where most ground based missile systems can't hit you(even if they can detect you).

Close air support of that nature of course only happens when you have reached full air superiority, which the F-35 is the best plane for.

It might seem overkill now to have such an advanced plane to drop bombs on people with AK-47's, but you never know how politics can change. Assad might decide to start buying some advanced Russian SAM systems, and that's when a stealth plane will come in handy.

The sheer energy advantage of jet aircraft overwhelms any maneuverability advantages of WWII aircraft, so when a modern aircraft can't outturn and/or out-energy a 40 year old fighter, it's a steaming pile of shit...

And it's always completely irrelevant until it's completely relevant. eg. new technology comes online jamming guided missles and reducing planes to cannon warfare...

And I'd love to see how your prancing sniper does when he has to get in to knife range (close ground support where cannon fire does matter...).

The plane is an overpriced turd that has been repeatedly polished to give it the shine of a gem, but ultimately it's still a turd.

I love the last line though... "then the rest of the enemies would be mopped up by..." By? By the 40 year old workhorses that the turd is supposed to replace... X D

The F-35 will replace the US Air Force A-10s and F-16s, US Navy F/A-18s, US Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and UK Harrier GR7s and Sea Harrier

Two of your three mop up planes are already F35's. Good luck with that!

Acceleration is a big factor if you're doing any evasive maneuvering, because turning scrubs speed and you have to gain it back, preferably fast. It's not everything, but it matters.

Don't get me wrong, I do admit there are interesting, possibly unique, even useful features of the F-35, I just don't see any need for it, and certainly not at the price. When was the last time an American was shot down in a jet fighter?

My main issue with this plane is that it's sold as a replacement to nearly ALL other planes, which it had to be because of it's price tag. It doesn't do most of it's 'jobs' as well as the planes it replaces, is incredibly more expensive than they are, and they weren't in need of replacement in the first place, so why did we have this $1.3 trillion poorly performing jobs program for the aerospace industry during an economic crisis? We had much better things to spend that money on, and killing this plane project would not make us a whit less safe or ready.

Nice, I like that idea, a swarm of jammer drones to eliminate all electronic advantages. I'll put your name in the hat for the evil super genius prize this year.

Agreed, the 1 on 1 fighting scenario is not the plan anymore. That doesn't mean it never happens though, or won't ever happen in the future, and as Americans we want/expect to win every single time.

Erm, most dog fighting was catching someone by surprise and bouncing them while retaining energy. All things being equal, the plane with the superior energy and no other intervening factors (1v1) will win purely because the opponent always ends up lower and slower, and can't make up that difference. The jet engine significantly increased the available energy to a plane, but the F35 won't be jousting against prop driven fighters...

You say the F35 is faster, but that is irrelevant (unless it's running away), energy is a heck of a lot more than max speed, and that's where the F35 is a turkey. Lift, drag, power to weight etc all factor in. The F35 is a classic Frankestein's monster, asked to do far too many things, and in that process compromising and contradicting itself constantly.

It's kinda telling that you say as soon as this plane get's in trouble, a squadron has to drop everything to run in and help it... For this sort of money, the plane shouldn't need help, particularly not from the grandpa's of the fleet.

Versatility is great, but I think they tried to do everything and failed to do anything well. Having multiple skills is different from trying to be a Jack of ALL trades.

Personally, I much prefer bulletproof to 'invisible', since there's no such thing as invisible, just hard to see.

Again, that's the plan, but it can't do that today. When acting as 'close air support', it is visible and in danger from ground and directed air fire, going slow, and is slow to get going fast again. Also, close air support is not just dropping bombs, that's more medium-long range.

No, the F-35 is the worst plane for 'full air superiority' because it's far too expensive, and we won't have enough of them to control the smallest skies for years/decades, and even then they'll be to valuable to use that way.

Yes, it seems like insane overkill to be electronically invisible to fight against people who barely have electricity. Even against the most advanced ground to air systems, our current planes were doing fine. I don't see the need for this in the foreseeable future, just the desire for better, more expensive toys.

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

Doesn't matter if it won the dogfight or if it could take down a whole squadron of fighters at the swipe of a touchscreen. We still don't need it.

That's just the nature of battle, there is no magic bullet weapon. Everything has some weakness. That's why there are so many variations working together. Tanks being support by infantry, infantry being supported by air, and so on. Light vehicles, heavy vehicles. Every aspect is covered. They are all made for different reasons and nothing is left to chance.
It was also a very unlikely hypothetical situation. A squadron wouldn't have to "drop everything and run in". They would be assigned as over-watch or what used to be known as top cover. Which is done in every section of the armed forces. From planes to infantry.

The F-35 is faster, and that is what matters in a beyond visual range combat. As soon as a missile is launched from up to 100KMs away, you will be "running away" because you don't want to take the chance that your ECM and Chaff might have not been effective. You will use every tool available to keep you alive, and one of the best ways is to drag out the enemy missile long enough for it to run out of energy before it can reach you. Since a snaking path is longer than a straight line, the enemy missile will have to fly further.

There really aren't any compromises except for the acceleration and maneuverability which I mentioned in my response to Newt is not really relevant. The other reason is that the F-16 is already at the physical limits of acceleration and maneuverability. Any more and the pilot would die. So the key is senors, weapons and stealth. Unless of course we start using fighter drones as instead of pilots. Then you could probably get away with some additional performance. But otherwise human piloted plane performance was already maxed in the 70s.

Overpriced? Definitely. But turd? no chance. F-35's would be covering other F-35's. In the unlikely case of someone getting in that close. As soon as an enemy plane (somehow magically gets by all defenses and sensors) pops up behind a fellow pilot, they'd be getting shot down by another F-35.

You might have a valid point with the electronic warfare, but it comes with it's own disadvantages. For example as soon as someone starts jamming, they appear hostile (or atleast "unknown")to even their own friendly forces. So it has to be used appropriately. Jamming also only works at certain ranges, and once you are close enough there are ways to get around it.
Jamming also means that you're broadcasting your own position. It definitely makes things harder for the enemy, but it's not a show stopper.

Continuing the sniper analogy. If for some reason the sniper was alone and not part of a combined force, and someone did sneak up on him with a sword then he might be in trouble. Yet do you see snipers being trained with swords in the military? No, because it's so unlikely to happen. But still they carry a knife just in case. As does the F-35. Missiles that shoot almost backwards and a cannon in case sensors fail.


These 40 year old pieces of shit you are talking about are flying at the limits of physics for human pilots by the way

In all your over defense of this overpriced Swiss Army plane, I have yet to see you answer 1)why we would need it considering many of our planes out perform all other nations planes already (contrary to your assertion that "every Russian fighter can out maneuver the F-16", I found that's only partly true against older, non upgraded F-16s ) and 2) how you get around the 'we won't use it much because it's far too expensive to put in danger' argument.
It can't be the best for air superiority if we are too afraid to use them because they cost too much, or if we only have a few, because they cost too much.
What I read (I'm not a pilot) is that air combat is about the kill-loss ratio, where today we expect the losses to be 0.
Again, stealth is NOT 100%, and every method used has eventually been 'cracked'. If it worked every time, I would agree with you. Since it only works until the enemy figures out how, it's not worth $1.3 trillion for ANOTHER stealth fighter, we've already got them.
This plane isn't bullet or missile proof, and will be just as visible and slow when doing real close air support...if it can. I've seen footage of warthogs landing that looked like a whiffle ball they were so full of holes. They're pretty tough.
In 10 years time, I have the feeling that international air superiority will not be our biggest concern. It's good to be prepared, but terrible to bankrupt yourself to meet a challenge that's already met, or a challenge that does not yet, and may never exist. Upgrading our current aircraft would be a MUCH better way to spend that money, and we would get WAY more out of each dollar.
The F-35 may not be in service for 10 years, and may already be obsolete by then (at least it's special systems that make it 'better' than the aircraft we have today). It really seems more like a star wars project, designed to force our 'enemies' to spend themselves into oblivion, but forcing us to the brink in the effort.
Not the "close air support" that the A-10 provides. If this is meant to replace them too, and I think it is, it will have to do what they do, low and slow.

I don't disagree that advanced systems CAN make more difference than slight performance specs, that's no reason to ignore performance, or go backwards. If it's the systems that make the plane perform better, the smart thing would be to put them on the better air frame and have a better plane all around for much cheaper. Simple.

To me, if we spent $1.3 trillion developing and tens of Billions building a fleet of these planes, it's more likely we'll eventually invent a reason to have to use them. Even if we don't, while nice we aren't killing for nothing, we will have wasted that money for nothing, and done it at a time when our debt and poorly used federal funds have the country literally falling apart... that seems more than dumb, it seems criminally insane and treasonous.

Overpriced, I'll agree with that - I'll also add overdue

1) We need F-35s because the playing field is currently too level. When it's life and death, you can never have too much of an advantage. It's not like a race, where better acceleration might get you over the finish line faster than the others. The thinking behind stealth is that you don't even need to be in the race.


Why they couldn't have just made more F-22s instead? I'm not sure. They probably expected the F-35 to be cheaper and less hassle to maintain. But that's probably not the case anymore.

And of course, as soon as China and Russia have their stealth planes ready the playing field will be more level again. And the air combat will change quite drastically.

2) I haven't heard of that before. If that's the case then it's a useless plane, since the whole point of of making a fighter stealth plane is to put it into danger with so much tech that it's capable of meeting the threat easily and returning home.

The costs are pretty silly in a time of debt for sure. My country is currently $5b in debt, and we ordered $20b worth of F-35s. Seems like it would have been a good idea to order $5b less of them But hey I'm no accountant.

The close air support style of the A-10 won't be around once they retire the A-10's. Helicopters and drones will do something similar, but in terms of planes delivering bombs it's just going to be fast movers screaming past so fast and high that man-portable missiles systems won't be able to reach.

The Air Force is quite silly when it comes to close ground support. They never learn that the 'we'll be in and out before they can touch us' doesn't work well.

To give you an idea of what they are planning to return us to with this idea and plane, I refer you to the Vietnam War. The F4 was capable of fast fly-by's, but the problem was that in the foliage it was hard to hit targets at speed. Therefore the F4's had to start reducing speed and take higher attack angles, which caused an issue with the engines. Flameouts and stalls were rampant because the plane was designed for fast fly-by's, not the type of combat it was seeing. Additionally, the slow speed and high AoA EXPOSED the plane to severe enemy return fire. The F-4, by 1 January 1972, ranked second to the F-105 in SEA combat losses-362 (all models), most of them downed by the enemy. Later, in F-4Es alone, the Air Force lost eight in 2 months of intensive combat.

The Air Force found that relying extensively on Helicopters such as the Cobra was ineffective as well. They could deliver good anti-personnel coverage, but not hard targets. They were also slower to arrive to the combat arena. Finally, no helicopter we have ever put in combat, prior to the Apache, has been heavily armored. We don't use Hinds like Russia. The Apache is armored with Kevlar areas and reinforced armor around the cockpit, and has proven effective in open land combat, but has not been extensively tested in areas of high cover during actual combat.

Ironically, the painful lessons learned in Vietnam led to the development of another aircraft, The A-10. Sadly, we are going to waste a ton of money and probably quite a few pilots before we learn this lesson again.

So, you're saying it CAN'T do the job the A-10 does, but it's still going to replace it.
Fast moving screamers were not capable of doing the job we need, so we created the tank killer-Warthog. If this replaces the warthog, but can't do what it can, it makes us LESS capable. Fast runs with bombs simply don't do the job we need, and slow and low runs with bomblets or an auto cannon just won't work with this plane.
I'm pretty sure it's just as useless against some of the other enemies/situations it's supposed to take on, and even if I'm 100% wrong about that, it's so expensive it doesn't matter. We can't afford to lose one, so we can't afford to use them.

I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.

The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.

I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.

What? Helicopters are LESS vulnerable? How do you figure? They're vulnerable to small arms fire from ground troops, unlike a Warthog (unless you have a super sniper around that can do supercomputer type calculations in a fraction of a second and hit it on the fly with a 50 cal. depleted uranium round). They can pop up and down behind cover and do awesome targeting tricks, but in my eyes, for every advantage they have, there's another disadvantage.

But then you hit the nail on the head. Drones do it ALL better, for exponentially less, without putting a highly trained pilot in danger. I think it's just plain dumb to make piloted planes when we have working drone tech. For the current cost of the R&D on this single plane, not including the cost of building a single working F-35, we could have 1.3 million drones (+-, if we make that many, I'm sure we can make them for <$1 million a piece) and own the skies of the entire planet for eternity....or at least until Skynet takes over. Drones are far cheaper to maintain, don't have the G-force limitations human pilots do, can do far more dangerous jobs because we can afford to lose them, etc. We should never make another fighter that has a pilot IMO....maybe not any kind of military fighting plane.
I also love the A-10, but I've never had to fight in one. That cannon though, so satisfying.

I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.

I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.

The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.

As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).

The ultimate problem with this is that it's not really needed.

Let's assume that all the problem get sorted out and the F-35 magically becomes the fastest, deadliest, stealthiest manned plane in the sky. It's still hamstrung by the squishy meatbag in the front.

For the cost of one F-35, you could have 10 predator drones. Slower, less maneuverable, less stealthy.... but also cheaper and expendable. You shoot down an F-35, you not only destroy the plane, but you most likely take the pilot out of the equation as well (even if they eject, they're still not going to be flying another plane any time soon). Shoot down a predator? "Game over. Insert $10 million to continue"

Manned air superiority fighters are last century.

Quite a lot of nations have old soviet Shilka's which do those supercomputer calculations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-UnealTR-Y
You get within 1.5 miles of this thing, and it chews up anything that isn't jinking.
There are also variants of this thing which have missiles, and they can even shoot down other missiles to protect itself.
For those it's better to fire helicopter missiles from a low angle. Or bomb them from up very high.

Helicopters are less vulnerable because often they can fire without revealing their position. Modern missiles can be fired from as around 8km away. And they'll fire them while hovering low enough that their radar signatures can't be distinguished from the ground and surroundings. And since they are always facing the enemy their heat signature from the engines is facing away as well. (unlike a warthog that will show it's engines to the enemy as it flies up and away after an attack). Most attack helicopters have some kind of armour as well. At least in the pilot and critical sections.
Oh yes, and something really cool - the new Apache Longbow's can fire missiles that go around terrain to hit their targets! Super cool

They absolutely have disadvantages, but any decent pilot will fly their aircraft to it's advantages

I tend to agree, had we invested this level of money in a drone I think it would easily outperform the F35 and be less costly per unit.

This is where drones come in. They can loiter literally all day long and identify targets. Without putting a pilots life in danger like with the A-10.
A fast mover comes in and releases munitions on marked locations if it is in deep territory. Or a helicopter will do it to support close by infantry.

That's the theory anyway. Whether it's realistic and works I have no idea But that's how 70% or so of air support is already done with current planes.

If anyone ever flies a stealth plane low and slow. They're an idiot. So I really hope that never happens.

Pretty much every plane ever built has a had a rough start. The F-35 is no different, expect it has more systems to tune so it takes longer. Although it's probably being milked by the manufacturer by the sounds of it.

For ground attack support absolutely drones are the way to go, and it can already be achieved with current technology. We just need more drones.

However drones can only fly if there is air superiority. Otherwise they are easy pickings for fighter planes. And that's where the F-35 comes in. The F-35 is supposed to guarantee air superiority and then also be able to help the drones out with ground support.

As for fighter plane style drones, I don't think the technology is quite there yet. Probably not the next plane, but the plane after that will be a fighter drone. Of course lasers might make the whole fighter concept obsolete. You can't dodge lasers like you can with missiles

Not quite a phalanx cannon, but still nice and scary.
So helicopters have different vulnerabilities. They can hide better from electronics and stay out of range of many identified targets, but are far more vulnerable to all kinds of ground fire, including small arms.
Nice, so basically a small aircraft mounted cruise missile.

*comedy?

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by MrFisk.

(edit) oh nevermind

/giggle

When it comes to the JSF, you can't fix stupid. In the designers, the people who think it's too big to fail, or the fanboys... = )

Thanks for those two pointless adages that you've parroted from the lame-stream media.

Since you're a military aviation expert could you tell us what's wrong with the JSF?

By the way, this whole thing is old news.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-in-test-dogfight-f-35-gets-waxed-by-f-16/

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.

LOL I can't be a pig and Sarah Palin at the same time. Make up your mind

Those are all valid criticisms, but nobody apart from the flight engineers and test pilots truly know whether this plane is a lemon or not. If it does everything it's supposed to do, then it's exactly what the military asked for, just 10 years too late....

Any suitability and fit for purpose criticism that anyone has ever come up with for the F-35 also applies to just about any piece of military equipment that has been created in the last 70 years. Engineering is a balancing act, and an iterative process. Almost every aircraft, and vehicle in the military today was built to fight a soviet army. Luckily that never happened. But that means that most aircraft and vehicles in the military today have been grossly modified to make them fit for a different purpose. The F-35 will probably go through this as well over the next 30 years, because it's a normal part of the life-cycle of military equipment. Almost every plane dropping bombs now was previously designed as a fighter. But nobody ever calls them out for being mutants like they do with the F-35, they call it additional capability. The F-35 was born with these capabilities instead of being added over time.


Expensive: I'll agree. Could the money have been spent better else where? Definitely. You could argue that the cost is tiny compared to that of a full scale war, maybe F-35 is a good deterrent. Air superiority is the key to winning a war. If you're going to spend money then that's where it should be spent. When the oceans rise enough, is a country like Indonesia going to lash out and try to take land and resources for their civilians? Maybe. I doubt all 200 million of them will just stand there and starve. (Ok I'll concede, this does make me sound a bit like Palin. But hopefully not as dumb )
They could have probably made 3 different stealth planes for 1/2 the cost, but that has it's own strategic downsides. You have to have the right assets in the right places or you have to spread them quite thinly. With a multi-role plane you have all of the capabilities everywhere. Just a matter of a loading it with different weapons.

Not needed: Time will tell whether this is the right plane, but new planes are needed. And they absolutely must have stealth. Within 10 years, weapon systems will be so advanced that if you are spotted, you're as good as dead. We are currently dropping bombs on fairly unsophisticated enemies, but wars tend to escalate quickly. You just never know either way, and it's better to be prepared for the worst. There are plenty of countries with very good planes and pilots that could get sucked into a conflict. If you're really unlucky you could be fighting US made planes with pilots trained in the same way, and you don't want to be fighting a fair fight.
Further still, Russia, China and Japan are developing their own stealth planes, which pretty much forces everyone else to do the same thing.
Especially if Donald Trump gets elected. You never know who that crazy asshole is going to provoke into a war

Doesn't work: It's still in development and testing.

Overtasked: It does the same stuff the aging multi-role planes (that were originally built as fighters) do. With the addition of stealth, and better weapons/sensors/comms. Small performance variables don't win wars, superior tactics and situational awareness does.

Underpowered: Almost every plane ever built has had it's engines upgraded to give it more thrust through it's life. And engines on planes are almost a disposable item, they're constantly being replaced throughout the life-cycle of the plane. Like a formula one car.
The current engine, is already the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter. It is good enough to fly super sonic without an afterburner, which none of the planes it's replacing are capable of.

Piloted: Agreed. But who knows, maybe a Boston Dynamics robot will be flying it soon

Test Failing: That's only a good thing. You want things to fail during tests, and not in the real world. Testing and finding flaws is a normal part of developing anything.

Fragile: That can be said for all US aircraft. They all need to have the runway checked for FOD, because one little rock can destroy even the best plane. Russian aircraft on the other hand are designed to be rugged though, because they're runways are in terrible condition. But in reality, all sophisticated equipment needs constant maintenance, especially when even a simple failure at 40,000 feet becomes an emergency.

Quickly Obsolete: Time will tell. Perhaps it would have been better to keep upgrading current planes with more technology like plasma stealth gas that make then partially stealthy, better sensors and more computing power. But by the time you've done that you've got a plane that's as heavy as F-35 anyway, and not as capable. Although it might have been cheaper in the long run.

Like I said in my previous comment. All of this doesn't make an interesting story so you'll only ever hear the two extremes which are "the plane sux" vs "it's invicible!!11" depending on your media source.

Um...who called you a pig? The voices in your head? Certainly not me. I don't know why you would say you can't be both though. That's just silly. ;-)


That's a pretty big 'If it can' that's already been proven to be an 'it can't'. Even IF it did everything it was supposed to, yes, it's 10 years too late and at least double an acceptable price tag, and still not ready for prime time, or even the 2am slot.
Yes, modification happens, but the idea is not to produce something that needs to be modified out of the box in order to do anything well.
No, many bombers are in use that were designed as bombers. Sorry, but that's just wrong.
Once again, the idea of the F-35 doesn't grant air superiority, neither does a few of these planes, especially if we are too afraid to lose a $200+ million plane so we just don't use them, which is the most likely outcome. It is in NO way a deterrent to full scale war with any foe we might ever use it against, like Russia. If it was some magic anti-war bullet, that might be money well spent, but is simply isn't in any way and NEVER will be, so that argument is just silly.
In 10 years, the stealth properties of this plane will be 5 years past obsolete....and it may STILL not be in the air.
There are no countries with air forces that can come close to ours, not one. I don't think there's even a group of 10 nations combined that come close to ours. We will NEVER be in a fair fight excepting a nuclear one where every one dies, and we'll still out nuke everyone else 10-1, it just won't matter.
Yes, Trump likely would take us to war, that's no reason to waste more money on unneeded weapons for a possible, unknown, unlikely future conflict with an unknown, unestimated enemy.
Still testing....and still testing....and still testing....$1.3 TRILLION later.....Still testing (and failing those tests)....still testing...still testing. Eventually it should be admitted that it's a failure, more testing won't help (it hasn't yet), and quit throwing mountains of good money after bad.
No, it doesn't. It's TASKED with all the same stuff the aging, multi types of planes do, but it can't do it. Stealth is not something new, BTW, we have many stealth planes already, better ones that work.
Again, out of the box needing to be upgraded is a fail. A massive, indisputable fail. That an engine powerful enough to move this pig like other planes already can doesn't exist should tell you something. It's aerodynamic....great....that's one part of a dozen that have to fit together.
The price tag is multiplied 10 fold because it has a pilot.
You want them to eventually pass ALL required tests...not fail them all, then change the parameters so it isn't canceled.
Nope...Warthog.
Not so far. So far, other stealth planes do what it's supposed to...better. Upgrading them is clearly a better plan.
Not true. All I hear is 'it sucks' because I don't read Lockheed Martin's press releases. When you look at test results, it sucks. When you look at price, it sucks. When you look at upkeep, it sucks ass. When you look at a fleet of them doing everything a dozen different planes today do, we're bankrupt and far less capable militarily, and that sucks.

But it seems no amount of logic and results will dissuade you from your love of this unmitigated debacle. That's your choice, but you aren't convincing anyone else to go along with you.

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.

You asked if I was a pig some food related thread. And I said yes and posted a picture of me in the Bahamas

I totally agree that the development and costs are ridiculous. I honestly don't care if the plane sucks or not(although I would rather my taxes be wasted on a functional plane at least!), but the reason I'm taking the time to reply is because I think the performance and capability concerns of the plane are unfounded for these reason:


1. Nobody can say for certain what the F-35 is capable of or not capable of. It's all classified. There are simply no facts or data that the public has access to. Anything the public sees is watered down a lot, and I think this is where the majority of confusion is coming from. Not one article I've seen can tell you 1 specific bit of information about why it's a bad plane. Because there is no data. They'll say it's bad, and then start going on about congressional corruption (which is legitimate, but nothing to do with the planes capabilities).

2. The general media does not have an understanding of how air combat really works.

3. Nobody can predict the future, so the media making claims about certain things becoming obsolete is just a guess, and quite often irrelevant. They also seem to ignore the fact the F-35 if it becomes obsolete in 10 years, then so have all of the 40 year old planes. All anyone can do is be prepared for the things they know about, because it's not possible to be prepared for something that you don't know about.

That is the logic I am thinking with anyway. It's sensationalism vs corporate propaganda, and there is no way to tell who is right since there is no data.

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?

Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a while ago on another thread, but that still doesn't answer why you think being one precludes being the other. ;-)
EDIT: I hope you notice that I didn't actually CALL you either a pig or Palin, I simply asked if you were either (or both). ;-)

1)all we have are test results showing how they failed multiple tests of it's required capabilities, and other reports saying the military changed the test requirements after the fact to turn those 'fails' into 'barely passed the tests'.
2) mostly, yes. Not 100%. For the most part, the general media does not have a real understanding of anything they 'report'.
3) I'm making claims about it becoming obsolete in <10 years, not repeating any media claim, based on past lifespans of electronic secrets. It's more prone to obsolesce than previous planes because it's main, and really only 'claim to fame' (as you've repeatedly said) are it's electronics, both stealth and targeting, and when those are 'gone' it's a flying golden pig. I think giving it 10 years is really being quite generous, secrets rarely last that long these days.

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

Dogfighting first appeared during World War I, shortly after the invention of the airplane. Until at least 1992, it was a component in every major war, despite beliefs after World War II that increasingly greater speeds and longer range weapons would make dogfighting obsolete.

In the Gulf War of 1990–91, dogfighting once again proved its usefulness when the Coalition Air Force had to face off against the Iraqi Air Force, which at the time was the fifth largest in the world. Many dogfights occurred during the short conflict, often involving many planes. By the end of January, 1991, the term "furball" became a popular word to describe the hectic situation of many dogfights, occurring at the same time within the same relatively small airspace. Oh, fun fact, most of those planes 'dogfighting' in that 'relatively small airspace' were F15's...

But you can ignore that if you want. I mean, ACM schools that teach dogfighting even today probably don't exist...

I linked earlier the marine test that certified the F35 even though it failed the test pretty much completely. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

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

Ok yeah that's scary.

Reminds me of the movie "The Pentagon Wars". It's a good laugh if you haven't seen it

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.

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.

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 repeatedly said that it doesn't have to be as good as a dogfighter as the F-16. And I even explain what would happen if it for some odd reason did get into a dog fight.

You've got some very good selective reading. Because when I linked you heaps of peer reviewed scientific articles about nutritional research, you come back with "I don't read internet science".
And then you proceed to link an article from cracked.com which is infotainment when being generous, and the article contains not a single reference.

Good day to you sir.

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.

There goes that selective reading of yours again...... I swear you must just read the first sentence and then form a reply based off that.

You've missed the point by so much that you're basically an early F-4 Phantom missile.

Yes, I have seen it, great movie.