F-35 'hosed' by F-16 in mock dogfight

[renaissanceman]

A mock air battle was held over the Pacific Ocean between the cutting-edge F-35 - meant to be the most sophisticated jet ever - and an F-16, which was designed in the 1970s.

But according to the test pilot, the F-35 is still too slow to hit an enemy plane or dodge gunfire. So far, it has cost the US military more than $350billion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paint.html

So even in its 'gold plated' version the F-16 out performed the F-35 (the ultimate Air Force gold plate special) in close air combat.

Somewhere in fighter pilot's heaven, John Boyd is LHAO...

Jim

[Lufthansa 380]

The thing ist, the F-35 is not designed for dogfights, it's designed to take out targets at range with its sophisticated sensors and stay undetected while doing so.

[addman]

Well, in defence of the F-35, how likely is it that a previous generation fighter gets WVR of an F-35? This was a close-combat contest only, right? I wonder how long a BVR scenario would have lasted between the two, the F-16 would probably be in flames before they even detected the F-35 on radar, even with the latest avionics for the F-16.

This is basically the same discussion they had in the 1960-70's, everybody was all "BVR!BVR!" and then real combat experience showed that agility was still as important as speed and the radars and missiles weren't enough technically advanced yet. The difference now is that the advanced avionics, radars and weapons are actually there.

[KotatehFox]

they should put them head to head agian, this time instead of up close, start at a distance, say 5v5 and use reasonably skilled pilots for each, deck them out with the latest hardware and all that..put them in a scenario where they would actually be in and all that then see who wins

[aonyn]

BVR is all well and good, until the enemy develops a countermeasure to the technology, then it is going to close back in to a knife fight.
I believe they are just making the same mistake they made initially with the F4, only a much more expensive version of the mistake this time.

Regards,
Dave

[Oracle427]

I'm not sure if the tests conducted in Red Flag with the aircraft and elite pilots from other nations include all the latest and greatest technology for reasons of national security. I imagine that they would incorporate just about everything in there.

That said, the F-22 dominated and I would expect the F-35 will do much the same thing. The F-22 makes "kills" well before it is detected and the situation doesn't generally degrade into dogfights where the aircraft power and maneuverability is as much of a factor.

Of course, all of that is simulated and assumes a certain level of performance from the BVR weapons systems. I don't have a reason to strongly doubt the results, but I also I don't feel that we are looking at a repeat of the F-4 Phantom sans guns and armed with AIM-7 Sparrows that were not effective in BVR combat.

One must not forget that the rules of engagement are probably the biggest factor in the success of these platforms. The F-4 was forced to close WVR to confirm bogeys as bandits before they could fire. This meant that they were frequently within the engagement envelope for the AIM-7 at such a short range. This also made it even more difficult for the RIO to maintain a radar lock on a maneuvering target at the shorter ranges. The AIM-7 required a lock to be maintained by the launching aircraft from launch to intercept. Modern BVR weapons can typically navigate to a predetermined point on a non-manuevering target before turning on their own radars for final intercept in the final seconds of flight. Other missiles are also capable of guiding on a maneuvering target without forcing the launching platform to spotlight the radar on their target. What this means is that the target has little warning that they are in a BVR engagement until a few seconds before missile intercept. The missile technology has been proven effective in combat over the past two decades.

A friend who is a retired fighter pilot described it as one moment you're flying along doing your thing and then, you wake up dead.

[aonyn]

What you say is true... but I still think ultimately, the knife fight must be considered.
Necessity is the mother of invention as they say.
An extended theater against a determined enemy will I believe certainly result in countermeasures to any technology, and once they find the weakness in the BVR, the engagement closes back in tight. Sure, our BVR technology is far superior to what we had in the '60s, but someone, somewhere will find and exploit any weakness.

[Marco909]

Also a factor and always has been is that training, experience and talent counts for much more than the equipment. Proved many times in different eras. The F-35 has really just got its wheels off the ground and I expect that after a few years of service it will do well. However for the cost it had better do!

[sdflyer]

LOL there are always different views
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-p ... oring-blog

The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today’s production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.

The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.

The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35’s capabilities.

[CAPFlyer]

Stinks of the "Self Jamming Bomber" and the BS that's been pulled around the F-22 now and again as well. Hell, crap like that was pulled on the F-16 and it's "Porpoising problem". There's always detractors, there's always those who will take liberties with things like FOUO to try and advance their cause. The majority of the reports I've heard are better than what they were at this point of the F-22 development, so I'm inclined to think that the F-35 is doing just fine right now and will be more than capable of defending itself if needed.

[whamil77]

I am not, and never have been, a JSF fan. Putting a single engine airplane on an aircraft carrier is insane. We spent 30 years or more getting the single engine airplanes off carriers, only to buy another one once we did. Insane. Trying to design a single airframe to meet the very different requirements of three Services is insane. For instance, the wide fuselage designed to accommodate the lifting fan in the Marine version robs the USAF and USN versions of speed and acceleration. "Jack of all trades, master of none."

But......this quote from the article is germane to the Viper fight. '"And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target."

We no longer fret over pitch rate and turn rate like we did in the 70's. It is not necessary to have an aircraft that can maneuver with an F-16 because "off-boresight" weapons make pointing the nose at an opponent unnecessary. Rather than point your nose at a bandit you simply look at him and pull the trigger. If that system was not operating on the F-35, the test was useless. The airplane wasn't designed to be used in a "nose-pointing" contest. It is designed to arrive at a merge undetected and kill every bandit there without ever having to turn. I am surprised by two things. One, that the Air Force would even allow such a test knowing the outcome would not be indicative of an actual air battle using a Full Scale Production version of the F-35. And two, given they allowed the test for data collection purposes, that the Air Force released the results to the public.

Again, I am very much not a fan of the F-35. But there is absolutely no real world application of an F-35 vs F-16 "phone booth" dogfight. The "phone booth" is fun, glamorous, sexy, and manly. I've had a Hornet in a phone booth with many, many different aircraft over the last 32 years including A-4s, F-5s, Kfirs, F-16s, F-15s, F-14s, Mirage F-1s, Mirage 2000s, Mig-29s, and others I can't divulge. It is absolutely thrilling, but it's also a place where kill ratios fall to the floor, regardless of aircraft type. The F-35 design avoids the phone booth altogether. Opponents die BVR or at the merge without ever knowing anyone was there, or at the very least without ever knowing anyone was shooting at them. The F-22 turned Red Flag into a "baby seal hunt." The F-35 will be just as good if not better.

[CAPFlyer]

Thanks for your real-world weigh-in, it's nice when we hear from the guys on the leading edge about these things.

I will say that I think the F-35 is the least compromised of the tri-service fighters of the last 30 years+. I know the wide fuselage hurts speed, but in the Navy and Air Force versions, it's additional fuel tanks, something the Super Hornet badly needs if I remember correctly. So it's an offset in my book.

Also, you talk about "getting single engine aircraft off carriers," but I seem to remember both the Navy and DoD accident rate reports showing that neither the A-4 nor the A-7 had any appreciably higher accident rate over the A-6 and F/A-18 when it comes to engine failure. Not only that, but engine technology has progressed a lot in the last 15 years, these aren't the same engines that are even in the F-16.

[DHenriques_]

I am not, and never have been, a JSF fan. Putting a single engine airplane on an aircraft carrier is insane. We spent 30 years or more getting the single engine airplanes off carriers, only to buy another one once we did. Insane. Trying to design a single airframe to meet the very different requirements of three Services is insane. For instance, the wide fuselage designed to accommodate the lifting fan in the Marine version robs the USAF and USN versions of speed and acceleration. "Jack of all trades, master of none."

But......this quote from the article is germane to the Viper fight. '"And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target."

We no longer fret over pitch rate and turn rate like we did in the 70's. It is not necessary to have an aircraft that can maneuver with an F-16 because "off-boresight" weapons make pointing the nose at an opponent unnecessary. Rather than point your nose at a bandit you simply look at him and pull the trigger. If that system was not operating on the F-35, the test was useless. The airplane wasn't designed to be used in a "nose-pointing" contest. It is designed to arrive at a merge undetected and kill every bandit there without ever having to turn. I am surprised by two things. One, that the Air Force would even allow such a test knowing the outcome would not be indicative of an actual air battle using a Full Scale Production version of the F-35. And two, given they allowed the test for data collection purposes, that the Air Force released the results to the public.

Again, I am very much not a fan of the F-35. But there is absolutely no real world application of an F-35 vs F-16 "phone booth" dogfight. The "phone booth" is fun, glamorous, sexy, and manly. I've had a Hornet in a phone booth with many, many different aircraft over the last 32 years including A-4s, F-5s, Kfirs, F-16s, F-15s, F-14s, Mirage F-1s, Mirage 2000s, Mig-29s, and others I can't divulge. It is absolutely thrilling, but it's also a place where kill ratios fall to the floor, regardless of aircraft type. The F-35 design avoids the phone booth altogether. Opponents die BVR or at the merge without ever knowing anyone was there, or at the very least without ever knowing anyone was shooting at them. The F-22 turned Red Flag into a "baby seal hunt." The F-35 will be just as good if not better.

Literally every fighter pilot I know today (and that is quite a few from all services) all seem to have the same opinion on these issues.

To sum it up.... their collective opinions are that the quickest way to lose air superiority is to opt for and commit to the multi-role fighter mission.

Dudley Henriques

[whamil77]

Thanks for your real-world weigh-in, it's nice when we hear from the guys on the leading edge about these things.

I will say that I think the F-35 is the least compromised of the tri-service fighters of the last 30 years+. I know the wide fuselage hurts speed, but in the Navy and Air Force versions, it's additional fuel tanks, something the Super Hornet badly needs if I remember correctly. So it's an offset in my book.

Also, you talk about "getting single engine aircraft off carriers," but I seem to remember both the Navy and DoD accident rate reports showing that neither the A-4 nor the A-7 had any appreciably higher accident rate over the A-6 and F/A-18 when it comes to engine failure. Not only that, but engine technology has progressed a lot in the last 15 years, these aren't the same engines that are even in the F-16.

To my knowledge, we have lost one F/A-18 to engine failure....one. And that was a hydraulic switching valve problem that caused the airplane to be uncontrollable. The airplane crashed with the remaining engine operating perfectly. The switching valve design was changed and we never had another problem with it.

Several years ago I was a member of an Accident Review Board for an F/A-18 mishap. As part of the process we compared the Hornet and Viper records. At the time, F-16 aircraft losses roughly doubled the number of F/A-18 losses. 48% of F-16 losses were due to engine failure. Fill a room with randomly selected F/A-18 pilots. Fill another with a like number of A-7 pilots and another with a like number of A-4 pilots. Enter the F/A-18 room and ask for a show of hands of everyone who has ejected from a Hornet. If a single hand goes up, the guy (or gal) becomes the center of attention, answering "what was it like?" questions from the others. Most of the time no hands go up. Now go to the A-4 or A-7 rooms and ask the same question. Anything less than 6 hands in the air would be unusual.

The GE F404 engines in the F/A-18 were reliable beyond belief, often showing major FOD damage only when the cases were opened during scheduled overhaul. I will be very surprised if JSF engines are more reliable. But even if they are, when that 10 inch long catapult mounting bolt shears and goes down the intake or that refueling probe tip gets snapped off and goes down the intake when the KC-10 WARP hose reel doesn't uptake properly, it doesn't matter how reliable the engine is........you are going swimming if you're flying a single engine plane.

[AKar]

Interesting discussion about F-18 and F404 engine. Mostly having followed type's European service, it appears to be a very reliable airplane+engine. In Finnish use, only one has been lost for a technical cause, and even that wasn't in circumstances of line service, nor engine-related.

As we know, the same engine is used in single-engine Saab JAS 39 Gripen with good record as I understand. I believe the only change in design specifically to accommodate its use in a single is an added second ignite plug in combustion chamber as an added guarantee for re-light.

-Esa