OT-F-35 v. F-16

[Mach3DS]

Interesting...came across this today....seems like it was inevitable?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/tes...ht-cdb9d11a875

I'm not advocating the blog...never seen it before...just happened to link over to it while searching for something unrelated. Very telling if true.

[SeanTK]

I'll just leave this here, which should shed some light on the bias that this article shows. See a few of the highest-rated comments and the extensions off of those:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/c...ed_by_f16_the/

I'm indifferent to the F-35 right now, but I figured I'd highlight some potential concerns with the article.

A few excerpts:

"1.) This is the second-oldest F-35 in the fleet. It still has old avionics, old computers, old software, and more importantly, old limitations on the airframe due to testing rigors. It can't turn as fast as the body allows or roll as fast, etc.

2.) The F-35 pilot was an F-15 convert with less than 100 hours in type. The F-16 pilot has over 1500 hours in type."

"The other part of this is TACTICS. The US emphasizes tactics to a huge extent. Ever notice how US aircraft capabilities and specifications can be readily found online? But never tactics? That's because tactics are some of the most classified things pilots learn for their plane.

Tactics for each plane take years to be developed. An F-16 has had decades of tactics development - the F-35 very little.
One of the key things about the analogy with dogfighting the F-4 from Vietnam is that a lot of people hear "oh, the F-4 needed guns" and think that was the F-4's flaw. In fact, that wasn't it - the F-4's kill ratio went up in the latter parts of the year but very few kills were by guns.

The big change was that the tactics on how to fight the F-4 changed. The Navy discovered that the F-4's big advantage was in its power - instead of getting into a turning fight with MiGs, the F-4 used its power advantage to get into vertical fights with the MiGs. This is what schools like Top Gun are for: developing the tactics on how to fight and fly the specific planes. A Super Hornet fights considerably different from an F-16 and so on, and that's what they teach their students.
In a few years after the F-35 is in operational squadrons and in weapons school squadrons, if the F-35 still sucks, that's one thing. But assessing that today? Way way too premature."

[falcon409]

Geeze, seriously? I will admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the F-35 and don't care actually, but was the F-35 ever built specifically for close-in, "turn, burn and shoot" maneuvers? I doubt it. The airframe doesn't really give that impression despite whatever thrust vectoring abilities it might have. I would think it's primary advantage would be in being able to lock to multiple targets at great distances, eliminating the need for holding it's own in a dog fight. Sorry but this just sounds like a case of "apples and oranges ' and a silly discussion at best.

[StormILM]

Actually the F-35 won half the engagements(just on that particular iteration) and even with the early generation FCS software. The news is old, in fact older than most realize. I've read the actual report and this article in the first post is as skewed as the one written by Tyler Rogoway (both referencing the same second hand sources. FCS software tweaks for such aircraft to improve handling and maneuverability is a bit of a drawn out and at times, tedious process. The F-22 & F/A-18E/F went through hundreds of iterations and are both still being refined in upgrades. I remember well when the F-16C/D were going through FCS software upgrades to address serious asymmetric load instability which would cause the aircraft to depart at very low G & AoA loadings at high altitude whenever it was in an asymmetric weapon load configuration(such as having fired an AIM-120 with one remaining on the opposite wing). Anyhow, it is a very apples & oranges article lacking any real technical substance(and yes, written by a guy who generally flexes his expertise in political satire).

[Mach3DS]

Thanks guys...I'm not a super follower of the F35 but it seems there's plenty of negative bias. I'm sure there's truth and also sure there's a lot of hype. However I appreciate guys who know more to post. Thanks Sean. It hard to find accurate info. You guys seem familiar with this guy... I've never heard of him before. I found this linked on a business website so thought I'd try and get some scoop. thanks for the responses.

[StormILM]

No doubt the F-35 is a controversial program. My biggest ill about the program is that the goal post for the program has been moved several times by planners and project managers since it's inception in the 1990's. I am quite certain that had the program stayed the original course and not been modified and the production "pushed up", it would not be so over-budget and with as many issues as it has had. Those issues(not all of which have been reported in the media are accurate) have given plenty of ammunition to opponents of the program. There are opponents who want to dismantle the program so that the money can be re-allocated to non-defense expenditures and there are those DoD "budget warfighters" and politicians in their ivory towers in D.C. who would like nothing better than to scrap the entire program in place and steer the money to other defense contractors who's lobbyists are "nudging" them. As I've said here in the past, there are issues with the F-35 which are fair game but there's a lot of pure non-sense that's been published about the program which has in turn cemented many falsely based opinions. Looking back at all the past defense programs in this country, the F-35 isn't alone in having weathered seemingly endless assaults on costs and the integrity of the programs. So far, the vast majority of those legacy programs turned out to be very successful. I spoke with one pretty big F-35 opponent and he admitted to me that the signs were now obvious that the program is finally turning the corner but we both agreed that the F-35B variant's prolonged development headaches effectively stunted the growth rate of the A & C variants which the latter are essentially very promising.

[YoYo]

Interesting...came across this today....seems like it was inevitable?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/tes...ht-cdb9d11a875

I'm not advocating the blog...never seen it before...just happened to link over to it while searching for something unrelated. Very telling if true.

Btw. dont forget than the first role of F-35 A & B its an attack aircraft (Ground and Sea). Rapotor is a fighter and aircraft for cover of F-35A/B, so try to compare A-10C with F-16C.... . Harrier lose with F-16C too...
Only C version will be more multirole combat aircraft with more fighter characteristic.

[Naismith]

Sounds like sour grapes and political manouvering to me, but personally, I think we made a mistakes when we dumped bi-planes.

[StormILM]

Yeap, sadly all too much of that goes on. Makes me dizzy sometimes!

I am now seeing ABC news and other major news services making hay of this non-story and what's comical is that they are referencing the War is Boring article as a source. Then again, there are a lot of flunkies working at those news services who never bother to vet out the sources. I ran into that with a lady news anchor a while back who tried to make a "buy/pro-American" story over the LAS program which was between the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano and the Beech/Raytheon AT-6 Light Attack variant. She falsely claimed that the AT-6 was originally a US design and tried to raise a fuss about the decision to go with the A-29 over the AT-6 in the LAS program. When I pointed out her error and the fact that the AT-6 was developed from the Swiss Pilatus PC-9 under contract and that significant royalties were paid to Pilatus, she completely retracted the story. I'm all for reporting non-sense in govt spending/overruns, etc but I am quite stern about these so called news & information professionals to get their facts straight in doing so.

[Bjoern]

Still don't like the F-35 program. Looks too much like the 2000s version of the TFX to me. With the minor difference that this time, they are determined to pull through, no matter the cost.
And it really suffers visually from not having a second engine.

[Sundog]

More background on it here at Aviation Week.

[StormILM]

Read that article and it contains much more credible & detailed information. Aviation Week was far more fair in that article than they were when they blasted the F/A-18A/B during the early 80's and then the E/F models in the late 90's. In both of those cases, they said the Hornet/Super Hornet were essentially a major waste of money which could never hold their own against Mig's of the then current generation of fighters. That all ended up being nothing more than hot air but I also point out that the Super Hornet went through a period where MD had to deal with serious stability(the "wing drop" issue) and other maneuverability issues which like the F-35 would be ironed out via adding thousands more lines of code to the FCS software. Still, the nose-on aspect of ACM being harped on is more or less irrelevant. Some will quickly bring up the very misguided shift to the dependency on air to air missiles prior to the 1960's and the nearly disastrous outcome that decision caused but with the inherent very high reliability/accuracy, and extreme high off-boresight capability of current weapons (used in these late gen fighters), nose/HUD on fights will certainly be less common if aerial combat were to take place between aircraft roughly outfitted the same(stealth or conventional). In that case, the F-35's DAS/HMD capability coupled with AIM-9X BII/III would be quite formidable. In the case of the F-35 lacking the ability to point the nose as well as say a thrust vectoring jet, the only deficiency there would affect the use of it's gun system but with the planned HMD aiming software update that will come in later upgrades to the F-35, the pilot will be able to fire short pre-programmed bursts of 3 to 5 rounds with extreme accuracy. If DARPA manages to perfect the guided gun projectile programs in time, that capability could be extended to not only the F-35, but pretty much any gun carrying aircraft in our inventory which could greatly enhance close air support and in rare cases, gun use in air t oair engagements.

[henrystreet]

here are a couple of articles that offer more insight as well

http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-...ticle-garbage/

http://fightersweep.com/2574/f-35-vs...ting-thoughts/

[Mach3DS]

Thanks henrystreet! reading the first one now....I really should have vetted the article better...but, live and learn!

[henrystreet]

the second post in the series of 2 represents the most realist appreciation of the whole situation. we have politicized and profitized weapons procurement to the point of no return. however, these are the tools our men and women will have to use in our defense. still too early to tell how that matches up with the threats.

i have seen multiple foreign articles comparing the SU-27/30 series to the rhino almost all based on a series of exercises held in India. also, one or two similar items based on cooperative exercises with some Mig-29s from former eastern bloc partners. all of these articles emphasized only a dogfighting comparison. nothing about readiness rates, range, or even bvr capabilities.

air superiority will be won by command and control, imho, not by the turning radius of a single jet. particularly for the navy, bombs on target is the primary mission.

[StormILM]

Good stuff there, the author nails the point I made in posts above (regarding the reporting which too many folks simply run with) and I fully agree with his assessment about the program being a bloated failure in the context that it's been mismanaged and having gone way off target from it's original design points and thus, way over what it should have cost (even though LM is now being profit penalized for missing production & cost targets). For me, it's not a matter of being able to achieve the goal, it's the ridiculously expensive and more so the over-managed process by which said goals are trying to be brought to fruition.

Anyhow, saved those two articles in my archive! Thanks for posting them.


(Edit, henrystreet, great response, spot on Sir!).

[Sundog]

the second post in the series of 2 represents the most realist appreciation of the whole situation. we have politicized and profitized weapons procurement to the point of no return. however, these are the tools our men and women will have to use in our defense. still too early to tell how that matches up with the threats.

i have seen multiple foreign articles comparing the SU-27/30 series to the rhino almost all based on a series of exercises held in India. also, one or two similar items based on cooperative exercises with some Mig-29s from former eastern bloc partners. all of these articles emphasized only a dogfighting comparison. nothing about readiness rates, range, or even bvr capabilities.

air superiority will be won by command and control, imho, not by the turning radius of a single jet. particularly for the navy, bombs on target is the primary mission.

Something that rarely gets reported in those battles with the Indians;

1) The USAF wanted more F-22s, so they had a vested interest in the F-15s not performing well.
2) The fight where the Flankers decimated the F-15s was set up such that neither aircraft could use their RADAR systems, but the Flanker could use its IRST.
3) When the Indians got their Su-30MKK (I forget the exact designation of the model, the one with TV) they brought them to the U.S. and the F-16 pilots cleaned their clocks. However, it was partly because the Indians bled too much energy at altitude using their TV and they would stall and fall, and the F-16s would just go vertical and drop down and kill them. There was a video on YouTube of the USAF pilots debriefing about the fight, but it was quickly removed. The USAF pilots did say it wouldn't be that easy in the future as the Indians were just figuring out the trade-offs with regard to TV and how and when to use it.

As for the MiG-29, I recently read an article about it by a USAF pilot who flew them with the Luftwaffe. I was shocked at what a dog it was, in terms of systems and handling. I still really like the way it looks, though. It would be really interesting to see if he had the chance to fly the MiG-35 how much they improved the design.

[StormILM]

Oh yes, the infamous Cope India exercise. I heard about the core of that outcome(as you mentioned) right after it happened. Another thing, some things regarding the first F-22 aggressor engagements that got my attention. I saw several photos of the F-22's which flew in those engagements which were fitted with active reflector attachments. This clearly spoiled much of the F-22's advantages as well as the F-22 Pilots being restricted in utilizing some of the more advanced core capabilities which are still very classified (even from our key allies).

"As for the MiG-29, I recently read an article about it by a USAF pilot who flew them with the Luftwaffe. I was shocked at what a dog it was, in terms of systems and handling.".

I know a retired USAF Major General(a past Red Flag Instructor & Vietnam F-4 Combat Vet) who was one of the first USAF Pilots to fight ACM/DACT training flying F-16C's against the Luftwaffe Mig-29's. In the unrestricted profiles, they defeated the Mig-29 on every sortie, not losing a single one to the Mig's. I saw the original VHS video tape of the engagement highlights and was stunned to see how easily the F-16's handled the Mig-29 in what were nose-on gun pipper only engagements. I was equally astonished at how slow of speed the tight turning/gyrating engagements were. I've read a lot about the early Fulcrum and it's very coarse hydro-mechanical control system. Some equate it's antiquated architecture to the old F-86A which compared to the E/F model Sabre, it's like night and day in handling/getting more out of the aerodynamics. I too would like to see how well the Mig-35 compares to the F-16 in well experienced hands.

[JensOle]

For most of the non US F-35 customers, they buy it for its fighter capabilities and have no need for a single role “bomb truck” and don’t have the luxury to have a dedicated F-22 type fighter. Having said that it looks like from the Norwegian fighter competition when it was compared to the Gripen that the F-35 capability for “deep strike” (deep compared to what an F-16/Gripen can do) against highly defended areas was a major reason for selecting it. Why suddenly Norway wanted this capability is another discussion…<o></o>
In Norway it looks like the real problem is the maintenance cost, the planning so far has pointed towards that it is way more costly to fly and operate than the F-16. It might very well eat up large parts of the total defense spending of the smaller nations and because of that actually prove to make the defense weaker.<o></o>

[henrystreet]

JensOle said: "For most of the non US F-35 customers, they buy it for its fighter capabilities and have no need for a single role “bomb truck” and don’t have the luxury to have a dedicated F-22 type fighter. Having said that it looks like from the Norwegian fighter competition when it was compared to the Gripen that the F-35 capability for “deep strike” (deep compared to what an F-16/Gripen can do) against highly defended areas was a major reason for selecting it. Why suddenly Norway wanted this capability is another discussion…
In Norway it looks like the real problem is the maintenance cost, the planning so far has pointed towards that it is way more costly to fly and operate than the F-16. It might very well eat up large parts of the total defense spending of the smaller nations and because of that actually prove to make the defense weaker."

this i grok. the f-16 is the f-5 freedom fighter of this era. for air defense of a limited geography, it is ideal.

[JensOle]

?? Did I say otherwise? The only mention of the F-16 I made is that it is lacking in a deep strike scenario compared with the F-35 (this was of course nothing the F-16 was designed to do). I mentioned the deep strike just as a rather strange capability for Norway to highlight in the fighter selection process (this was of course to make the F-35 look good compared with the Gripen). The F-16 has been a tremendous success for the European countries as a multirole fighter with a service life which will cover more than 40 years as a frontline fighter.

I believe the European countries very much sees the F-35 as a modern F-16 class multirole fighter. I would imagine the critics very much said the same thing about the F-16 when it was replacing the F-5 as they say today about the F-35. "To advanced and to expensive..." Only time will tell if the F-35 will be the same success as the F-16.

[henrystreet]

?? Did I say otherwise? The only mention of the F-16 I made is that it is lacking in a deep strike scenario compared with the F-35 (this was of course nothing the F-16 was designed to do). I mentioned the deep strike just as a rather strange capability for Norway to highlight in the fighter selection process (this was of course to make the F-35 look good compared with the Gripen). The F-16 has been a tremendous success for the European countries as a multirole fighter with a service life which will cover more than 40 years as a frontline fighter.

I believe the European countries very much sees the F-35 as a modern F-16 class multirole fighter. I would imagine the critics very much said the same thing about the F-16 when it was replacing the F-5 as they say today about the F-35. "To advanced and to expensive..." Only time will tell if the F-35 will be the same success as the F-16.

i am pretty sure that i was agreeing with you.