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

JimNtexas said:
BTW, missiles are incredibly powerful, sophisticated, and reliable these days, I don't think fighters need guns anymore.
Click to expand...


Jim, I want to live in that world! Sadly none of us do. Not even remotely close. They still don't call them "hittles" and for damn good reason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Not sure about the -131 pods since we don't carry them on our Vipers, but we are still restricted from crossing an arresting cable at >90 knots with a centerline fuel tank for the same reason. Hence why our short field gear is normally stripped. And yes, agreed that it is an incredible airplane even today. Flown well, there really isn't much that can touch it in a BFM fight.

JimNtexas said:
I'm pretty sure all USAF fighter bases have arresting cables. When the F-16 was new carrying that large ALQ-131 was a problem, because it had so little ground clearance they sometimes damaged the pods if they taxied over a cable. IIRC the F-16 had to carry ecm pods on the centerline for pretty much all conventional loads.

The thing that makes me kind mad is why are our F-16s still flying with pods that were close to obsolete when I retired in 1994?! I hope the guts of the pods have been updated to at least a flip-phone technology level.

I think almost all the export models have an internal ECM system.

The F-16 basic design is 40 some-odd years old, yet it is still one of the most capable and amazing airplanes flying!
Click to expand...
 
JimNtexas said:
It's kind of sad the USAF is still using the 131, that's really old technology.

Is there still a problem with arresting cables snagging the ecm pod?
Click to expand...

Don't know what they're using these days. I retired in 1995 (our F-16C/Ds were Block 50s) and I haven't kept up.
 
Bob Noel said:
Here is a question for the monday morning quarterbacks:

Should we design the next attack aircraft to fight yesterday's engagements or future engagements?
Click to expand...

False question. We should have multiple types of attack aircraft, each optimized to the type of attack it will perform. Jack of all trades, master of none is not a good way to fight. Trying to build one airplane to do everything inherently causes trade-offs.
 
bflynn said:
False question. We should have multiple types of attack aircraft, each optimized to the type of attack it will perform. Jack of all trades, master of none is not a good way to fight. Trying to build one airplane to do everything inherently causes trade-offs.
Click to expand...

your question is a non-sequitur (spelling?)

(I'm not disagreeing about the JOAT vs specialized)
 
bflynn said:
False question. We should have multiple types of attack aircraft, each optimized to the type of attack it will perform. Jack of all trades, master of none is not a good way to fight. Trying to build one airplane to do everything inherently causes trade-offs.
Click to expand...

No way to afford that. Look at an aircraft carrier today compared to the 80s. F/A-18s do it all.
 
Dav8or said:
My two observations from this article-

  1. They are putting all their bets on the F-35's stealth abilities. They had better hope that the Russians, or Chinese, or whoever doesn't come up with a way to detect these planes at a distance. We seems a little too confident that our stealth tech works and that the potential adversaries detection tech is inferior. Until we go to war we have no way of really knowing and once at war, war has a funny way of inspiring the other guy to counter an advantage.
  2. If this is true... and I have no reason to doubt him, there seems to be less and less reason to have a pilot in the cockpit. If they are not already doing so, I hope they start work on a pilotless version for the inevitable future.
Click to expand...

If there is going to be a major war in the future I detect that there isn't going to be many airplanes in the air just Rockets.
 
FloridaPilot said:
If there is going to be a major war in the future I detect that there isn't going to be many airplanes in the air just Rockets.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The idea that dozens of our fighters are going to be go fighting it out with dozens of Russian, or Chinese fighters is ludicrous in this day and age.
 
Velocity173 said:
No way to afford that. Look at an aircraft carrier today compared to the 80s. F/A-18s do it all.
Click to expand...

You are saying we have already made the tradeoff. Are the F-18s as competent to do each of their jobs as an aircraft which is specialized for the role? More durable or lighter. Longer range tanks or maneuverability. Offense or defense. There are inherent tradeoffs in aircraft design.

This guy probably says it best. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-35-vs-russia-or-chinas-best-fighters-who-wins-13802

The F-35 inferiority is played up by those who want other aircraft and played down by those who want a single aircraft (such as Lockheed and the services leadership). Neither side is telling the whole truth. The F-35 is a long range standoff missile platform that will lose in anything other than long range stand off combat. And it might lose in long range engagements too if the information about the Russian S-400 is accurate.

As to money - that is a national choice, like all weapons systems are. We could afford to have it all if we didn't make choices to spend money on other things. In the end, we don't choose to give our pilots an optimal aircraft for all phases of air superiority. I hope we never have to learn the results of that choice.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
You are saying we have already made the tradeoff. Are the F-18s as competent to do each of their jobs as an aircraft which is specialized for the role? More durable or lighter. Longer range tanks or maneuverability. Offense or defense. There are inherent tradeoffs in aircraft design.

This guy probably says it best. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-35-vs-russia-or-chinas-best-fighters-who-wins-13802

The F-35 inferiority is played up by those who want other aircraft and played down by those who want a single aircraft (such as Lockheed and the services leadership). Neither side is telling the whole truth. The F-35 is a long range standoff missile platform that will lose in anything other than long range stand off combat. And it might lose in long range engagements too if the information about the Russian S-400 is accurate.

As to money - that is a national choice, like all weapons systems are. We could afford to have it all if we didn't make choices to spend money on other things. In the end, we don't choose to give our pilots an optimal aircraft for all phases of air superiority. I hope we never have to learn the results of that choice.
Click to expand...

Sure, in some ways it's been a trade off. I imagine not having an F-14 for air superiority, an A-7 for light strike, an A-6 for deep interdiction, an RF-8 for recon, an EA-6 for EW, all replaced with one airframe (F-18) has saved the Navy enormous $. The Pentagon likes programs that fill multiple roles and can meet the demand of more than one service. Saves money and the logistical planning involved cut drastically.

I kinda look at the F-35 like a Bradley Fighting Vehicle of the sky. They both have had major developmental & cost issues. They're both designed for multiple missions and both have had plenty of critics. The BFV performed admirably in Iraq despite those critics. I'm sure the F-35 will fulfill its roll equally well if the time comes.

No argument about making hard choices to maintain a strong military. Problem is, far too many in the country think our DOD budget is out of control as it is. It's the same old story of contractors being awarded contracts on a low bid, to only double the cost to tax payers down the road. Just like the book I mentioned earlier (The Pentagon Wars). The fraud waste and abuse in the DOD acquisitions programs are as prevalent today as it was back then.
 
The Hornet/Super Hornet is a more capable fighter airplane than the Tomcat ever was in pretty much every respect other than top speed. That being said, I agree that putting all the eggs in one basket might not have been the best choice back in the early 1990's.
 
35 AoA said:
The Hornet/Super Hornet is a more capable fighter airplane than the Tomcat ever was in pretty much every respect other than top speed. That being said, I agree that putting all the eggs in one basket might not have been the best choice back in the early 1990's.
Click to expand...

Better than Super Tomcat?
 
35 AoA said:
The Hornet/Super Hornet is a more capable fighter airplane than the Tomcat ever was in pretty much every respect other than top speed. That being said, I agree that putting all the eggs in one basket might not have been the best choice back in the early 1990's.
Click to expand...

Somebody came up with a JP-5 hose long enough to keep a F-18 permanently plugged in?:rolleyes:
 
Jaybird180 said:
Better than Super Tomcat?
Click to expand...

I guess that wouldn't be easy to say, since it was never built. But it probably could have been a pretty impressive airplane. Same as the A-6F, which I think would also have been a great aircraft to buy at the time. If you are just referring to F-14D, other than the ability to carry the lantirn FLIR pod, it was not nearly as capable as the Hornet or Super Hornet.
 
35 AoA said:
I guess that wouldn't be easy to say, since it was never built. But it probably could have been a pretty impressive airplane. Same as the A-6F, which I think would also have been a great aircraft to buy at the time. If you are just referring to F-14D, other than the ability to carry the lantirn FLIR pod, it was not nearly as capable as the Hornet or Super Hornet.
Click to expand...

A-6F. Man, how the Navy could have used those capabilities over the last 15 years...
 
warthog1984 said:
Somebody came up with a JP-5 hose long enough to keep a F-18 permanently plugged in?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

har har har :) Actually, the F/A-18E has a really impressive amount of gas, and I'd be willing to bet has similar range/loiter time/etc when compared to the big grumman products. I grew up in the F/A-18A-D however, where fuel was always a concern……while the phrase "you learn how to make gas" in the legacy Hornet community is probably impossible based on the laws of physics/etc, it isn't far off the mark. You have 3 speeds unless you are actually fighting the jet……max endurance, max range, and on-speed. If you aren't in any of the above, you are wrong and just wasting gas. You also learn to never turn the dumps on too early at the boat, lest something unexpected happen. And of course you are always sweating the next tanker, divert fuel, etc when in country. All in all, it made me a better aviator, but it certainly wasn't necessary given the fuel fractions our Tomcat and Intruder forefathers rolled around with.
 
kyleb said:
A-6F. Man, how the Navy could have used those capabilities over the last 15 years...
Click to expand...

Yeah, more than any other proposed airplane in the last 30 years, that is probably the one we should have bought for the deep interdiction/strike mission. It also would have been pretty handy in our current world of OEF/OIF/OIR and CAS type flying.
 
35 AoA said:
Yeah, more than any other proposed airplane in the last 30 years, that is probably the one we should have bought for the deep interdiction/strike mission. It also would have been pretty handy in our current world of OEF/OIF/OIR and CAS type flying.
Click to expand...
Why buy a reworked old airplane when we're going to be getting A-12's in a few years anyway? Oh wait... :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who worked on 'son of A-6F' and a few other oddities...
 
kyleb said:
A-6F. Man, how the Navy could have used those capabilities over the last 15 years...
Click to expand...
I don't think a new bomb truck would've turned out as well as E/F/G Hornets have but the E guys would welcome a new recovery tanker. :rofl:

I was going to comment earlier in the thread that it reminded me of the F-4/A-7/A-6 vs. F/A-18A-D and A-6/F-14 vs. F/A-18E/F arguments all the way back to Hornet IOC. I'm sure it happens with every new airplane.

Nauga,
and the man who wears a star
 
uuqvDnM.png
 
Dav8or said:
My two observations from this article-

  1. They are putting all their bets on the F-35's stealth abilities. They had better hope that the Russians, or Chinese, or whoever doesn't come up with a way to detect these planes at a distance. We seems a little too confident that our stealth tech works and that the potential adversaries detection tech is inferior.
Click to expand...



  1. It has already been accomplished. Both Russia and China have operational synthetic aperture radar systems which can unmask the F-35.
 
3393RP said:
It has already been accomplished. Both Russia and China have operational synthetic aperture radar systems which can unmask the F-35.
Click to expand...

And you know this how??? You read a lot of Chinese and Russian newspapers, or just internet gossip? If what you say is true, then we should just either nuke them to hell right now, or let them have the rest of the world. It really isn't worth fighting for anyhow. :yes:
 
It's an American publication called Aviation Week. The Russians displayed their system tthree weeks ago at a military conference.
 
Russians claimed in the early 90s they had low freq low wavelength radar that could detect stealth. Serbs proved it in Kosovo in 99 with the F117 shoot down. The technology is definitely out there.

Sprey loves the thing.:D

http://youtu.be/mxDSiwqM2nw
 
Last edited:
um, do people realize that stealth doesn't mean bulletproof?

A -117 being shot down doesn't mean the stealth wasn't effective - put enough flak in the air and something will get hit.
 
Bob Noel said:
um, do people realize that stealth doesn't mean bulletproof?

A -117 being shot down doesn't mean the stealth wasn't effective - put enough flak in the air and something will get hit.
Click to expand...

The F-117 taken down in Kosovo wasn't due to volume of missiles. Although several were launched, the ADA unit involved had the aircraft on radar. They had him on radar because they used long wave length radars in conjunction with the existing fire control radar on the SA-3. An unconventional tactic that worked.

I agree, stealth doesn't mean bullet proof but Sprey has a point in that its importance doesn't matter if you sacrifice other capabilities to achieve stealth.
 
Bob Noel said:
um, do people realize that stealth doesn't mean bulletproof?

A -117 being shot down doesn't mean the stealth wasn't effective - put enough flak in the air and something will get hit.
Click to expand...

The F-117 shoot down was more than just putting a lot of flak in the air.

Stealth has some use, but is way overrated. That is the issue that most of us have with the concept. It sells well to Congress, but reality isn't what gets briefed.
 
Velocity173 said:
Russians claimed in the early 90s they had low freq low wavelength radar that could detect stealth. Serbs proved it in Kosovo in 99 with the F117 shoot down. The technology is definitely out there.

Sprey loves the thing.:D

http://youtu.be/mxDSiwqM2nw
Click to expand...

Velocity173 said:
The F-117 taken down in Kosovo wasn't due to volume of missiles. Although several were launched, the ADA unit involved had the aircraft on radar. They had him on radar because they used long wave length radars in conjunction with the existing fire control radar on the SA-3. An unconventional tactic that worked.

I agree, stealth doesn't mean bullet proof but Sprey has a point in that its importance doesn't matter if you sacrifice other capabilities to achieve stealth.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
The F-117 shoot down was more than just putting a lot of flak in the air.

Stealth has some use, but is way overrated. That is the issue that most of us have with the concept. It sells well to Congress, but reality isn't what gets briefed.
Click to expand...

So stealth is over rated and doesn't really work. The Russians had gear that could shoot down F-117s back in '99. So what happened to Saddam? The Russians pretty much outfitted him and he had plenty of money, but we ran over him, swept the skies and his defenses were pretty ineffective. Knowing full well the attack was coming and having been stymied by the no fly zone for years, you would have thought he would have spoken to those crafty Serbs.

There certainly wasn't any effective air defenses in Afghanistan either and you'd think the Russians would love to poke a stick in our eye after we gave them so much hell in that place with our supplies of Stinger missiles. So far the track record of stealth is pretty good. Why is it that our weapon systems are always decried as bloated, boondoggles with fatal flaws and then... they work as advertised in actual combat? We is it that we completely believe the Russians when they say they can shoot down our stealth planes, but disbelieve our own engineers and defense contractors?

Maybe, just maybe, the F35 isn't the sitting duck POS the pundits say it is.

So if not stealth, then what? What should a next gen fighter have that will really give us superiority? More fancy missiles? I'm sure we're working on that regardless of airframe. Planes that can turn even tighter? I think we are already at the limit that the pilots can handle and most people absolutely bristle at the thought of a pilot less fighter plane. Give up and just build lots more last gen planes??

I believe that at some point in the not too distant future, the traditional fighter plane as we know it will go the way of the battleship.
 
Dav8or said:
So stealth is over rated and doesn't really work. The Russians had gear that could shoot down F-117s back in '99. So what happened to Saddam? The Russians pretty much outfitted him and he had plenty of money, but we ran over him, swept the skies and his defenses were pretty ineffective. Knowing full well the attack was coming and having been stymied by the no fly zone for years, you would have thought he would have spoken to those crafty Serbs.
Click to expand...

As someone who was involved in the opening strikes in the second Gulf war, I can tell you that stealth had very little to do with it. Maybe 5-10% of that effort was stealth.....unless you call TLAMs coming from at least 3 different bodies of water stealth.
 
Dav8or said:
So stealth is over rated and doesn't really work. The Russians had gear that could shoot down F-117s back in '99. So what happened to Saddam? The Russians pretty much outfitted him and he had plenty of money, but we ran over him, swept the skies and his defenses were pretty ineffective. Knowing full well the attack was coming and having been stymied by the no fly zone for years, you would have thought he would have spoken to those crafty Serbs.

There certainly wasn't any effective air defenses in Afghanistan either and you'd think the Russians would love to poke a stick in our eye after we gave them so much hell in that place with our supplies of Stinger missiles. So far the track record of stealth is pretty good. Why is it that our weapon systems are always decried as bloated, boondoggles with fatal flaws and then... they work as advertised in actual combat? We is it that we completely believe the Russians when they say they can shoot down our stealth planes, but disbelieve our own engineers and defense contractors?

Maybe, just maybe, the F35 isn't the sitting duck POS the pundits say it is.

So if not stealth, then what? What should a next gen fighter have that will really give us superiority? More fancy missiles? I'm sure we're working on that regardless of airframe. Planes that can turn even tighter? I think we are already at the limit that the pilots can handle and most people absolutely bristle at the thought of a pilot less fighter plane. Give up and just build lots more last gen planes??

I believe that at some point in the not too distant future, the traditional fighter plane as we know it will go the way of the battleship.
Click to expand...

Well Mr Sprey made comments in the link I provided that pretty much declared it useless, but I made no such comment. Stealth enhances survivability, doesn't make you invisible. I do agree with Sprey in that when you go the stealth route, there are take always in other areas such as maneuverability. Mr Sprey is a pretty darn smart dude so I'm not gonna sharp shoot too much of what he says. Also, I don't think any of our our engineers have said the F-35 can't be shot down. It's low observable, not invisible.

F-117s were untouched in Desert Storm mostly because they flew through a hole in air defense radar courtesy of AH-64s...Go Army! They didn't fly nearly the amount of missions that other coalition aircraft flew as well. It was also reported from three separate British destroys in the Gulf that they had F-117s on radar up to 40 miles out as they passed overhead.

Everyone wants to look at this aircraft as an all or none. It's either the greatest warplane ever made or it's a POS. Thats not real world. Real world is about percentages. Your weapon system's effectiveness against another's. Its not, it's stealth, so game over we win. No, it's stealth, so we have an advantage in the engagement but not 100 % effective. People get hung up on its lack of maneuverability. It was never designed for that. That's why if theyever go into combat it will be escorted by air superiority aircraft (F-22, F-15). Just like the Brits will be using theirs in conjunction with Typhoons. It's not just about working with another aircraft as an escort either, it's about synergy with other systems (Tomahawk, UCAV). The F-35 won't be going it alone.

Also, survivability isn't just about stealth. It's about tactics and using your other existing passive & active aircraft survivability systems (flares, chaff, ECM, IR reduction). I imagine the F-35 has a pretty good ECM suite should it be needed. It's also about intel. It's about knowing where your primary threat is and avoiding it visually, thermally or electronically.

So, I don't look at it as a dog and I don't look at it as the greatest fighter in the world either. It's a weapon system that does multiple things; some well, others not so much. Only complaint I have is it's outrageous cost. But, I would think if we built lower cost, specialized aircraft in large quantities such as the reformers (Sprey, Boyd, Burton) advocate, the costs would end up being equally as much?:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
And you know it works... because they said so? :dunno:
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you should do a little research about the subject instead of making childish comments about my judgement or lack of knowledge.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
Aviation Week employs well respected journalists that have industry contacts throughout the world. They have been a trusted source for information about the defense, aviation, and aerospace sectors for over 100 years.

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

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

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

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

The F35 has been carefully researched and written about by most aviation and finance investigators. It is the most expensive weapon ever devised and so far the biggest blunder. These writers have all written about it as a failure and they have followed it for the 15 years it's been designed and built and failed to pass muster. They seem to agree that in combat conditions it would be hard pressed to show up due to its complexity and that to replace the A10 with it as a ground support aircraft is absurd, it's inability to loiter being a big consideration, not to mention its cost if shot down. Of course there are always the armchair commandos who pass gas in opposition but that's to be expected.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
... Of course there are always the armchair commandos who pass gas in opposition but that's to be expected.
Click to expand...

Lookup "Armchair commandos" in the dictionary and see Jimmy Cooper's picture illustrating the entry.
 
Fearless Tower said:
More F-35 issues:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425635/f-35-latest-problems-ejector-seat

Apparently, they are just now coming to the realization that the ejection force combined with the weight of the helmet is likely to be fatal for a third of the pilots.
Click to expand...

I'd venture to say that in every fighter squadron I served in, there were exactly zero aircrew who weighted 135 or less. There were several fighters that had restrictive physical requirements, some had weight, some had height, some had seated height restrictions. If you didn't meet the requirement, you didn't fly that model without a waiver if you could get it. Nothing new here. Now perhaps the PC crowd will lament when Suzy fighter pilot doesn't get that F-35 she wants because she weighs 110 soaking wet--boo hoo.
 
3393RP said:
It has already been accomplished. Both Russia and China have operational synthetic aperture radar systems which can unmask the F-35.
Click to expand...

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