Pilot says F35 CAN'T dogfight!

a reply to: buddah6

Yeah, it would be nice if it could, and it might be able to, to a limited degree, by moving just the exhaust around, but not like the Harrier could.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That would certainly finish the F-35 dogfight debate! Nobody thought that Harriers would defeat Argie Mirages and Entendards. And they did handily. Unfortunately, the first thing that is overlooked is the guy in the cockpit.

The "gamers" that come on ATS never account for is the logistics and the quality of the pilots in the fight. That's why 16 Su-37s and defeat 200 F-22s in their minds. That's why a Russian pilot with 40 flight hours in the last year can out perform a pilot with 40 hours last month. Don't think that some Russian or Chinese pilots are not top notch but on the whole they are not.

I remember the F-4s, in Vietnam, was being shot down at a rate that was unacceptable. We taught the pilots to fight at Top Gun/Red Flag and things changed markedly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buddah6

Yeah, it would be nice if it could, and it might be able to, to a limited degree, by moving just the exhaust around, but not like the Harrier could.

Mayby they could add thrust vectoring similiar to the f-22 on the f-35? isnt it just a slight modification to the engines exaust?

a reply to: yuppa

I think the thing that brush my fur the wrong way is that most of the people that are calling the plane a dud is not a military pilot or any pilot for that matter. They never say who the source pilot flying the F-35 was so the debate continues endlessly.

The F-16 can defeat the F-35 who said? You know the F-16 could defeat the F-117...OMG! No airplane ever touched the F-117 in it's whole career. The F-117 was never a dogfighter and the F-35 isn't either but nobody ever said it couldn't fight. I think the big issue here is its "F" designation. More accurately, it should be the A-117 and A-35 because both are attack planes like the FA-18. Can the Hornet fight...Yes. Can it bomb...Yes. Can the F-35 fight...Yes. Can it bomb...YES. Can the F-117 dogfight...NO (one lost to a missile). Can the F-117 bomb...Yes.

What specifically makes the F-35 a dud? Please no opinions just detailed facts. No it's too expensive or I hate buying American products. Post the rates of turn at max cornering speed, acceleration ect... thing like this so we can have a real debate.

a reply to: buddah6

it is a dud because it is not at the top of every single branch of air-fighting abilities. Therefore, it is a jack-of-all-trades, but not the ace.

It can do everything you mentioned, but not. VERY. good.

Take away the VTOL ability, remove that stupid fan and install a second thrust-engine, then you might get a decent all-around-capable fighter.

VTOL what the marines so much wanted leaves this plane as a broken thing, a mishap, a dud. That huge fan with its weight and dimensions and restrictions concerning a second thrust-eninge, this stupid thing is the problem.


Another failure-by-managment, not per engineering.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It's not SUPPOSED to be at the top of every air fighting ability. No multirole aircraft ever CAN be, no matter how advanced it is. There isn't a multirole aircraft in the world, no matter who builds it, that is the best at everything it does. They all have multiple weaknesses.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: buddah6

it is a dud because it is not at the top of every single branch of air-fighting abilities. Therefore, it is a jack-of-all-trades, but not the ace.

It can do everything you mentioned, but not. VERY. good.

Take away the VTOL ability, remove that stupid fan and install a second thrust-engine, then you might get a decent all-around-capable fighter.

VTOL what the marines so much wanted leaves this plane as a broken thing, a mishap, a dud. That huge fan with its weight and dimensions and restrictions concerning a second thrust-eninge, this stupid thing is the problem.


Another failure-by-managment, not per engineering.

Specifically what things are bad? You are making general statements with no yardstick for comparison. You say it's not the tops in each category.

I have heard this argument about many weapon system we have today. The M-16 rifle, the M2/3 Bradley AFV and the next generation tanker aircraft were faulty systems per the peanut gallery. Years after the F-117 was revealed to the public there was a huge outcry that stealth wouldn't work. It was the same group that have maligned the F-35. Nothing is going to be changed. We will have the F-35 good, bad or indifferent. It may not be the plane that you feel it should be but it's coming to a airbase near you.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Check out this bleeder: JSM Joint Strike Missile, built by Kongsberg for the F-35. It rocks. Related to the NSM Navy Strike Missile, also signed Kongsberg.

www.kongsberg.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Here is a nice linky from Lm.

www.lockheedmartin.co.uk...

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Zaphod58

That would certainly finish the F-35 dogfight debate! Nobody thought that Harriers would defeat Argie Mirages and Entendards. And they did handily. Unfortunately, the first thing that is overlooked is the guy in the cockpit.

The "gamers" that come on ATS never account for is the logistics and the quality of the pilots in the fight. That's why 16 Su-37s and defeat 200 F-22s in their minds. That's why a Russian pilot with 40 flight hours in the last year can out perform a pilot with 40 hours last month. Don't think that some Russian or Chinese pilots are not top notch but on the whole they are not.

I remember the F-4s, in Vietnam, was being shot down at a rate that was unacceptable. We taught the pilots to fight at Top Gun/Red Flag and things changed markedly.

And not one of those SHAR kills was from ziffing? (I that's what they call it when they vector the nozzles).

a reply to: Forensick

Viffing is Vectoring in Forward Flight. It is a technique use by Harrier pilots to turn inside of an adversary. It may be a strategy for the F-35.

a reply to: justwanttofly

That's the scenario for the US, but most other countries buy F-16 as both air 2 air and air 2 ground. It was designed as a very good maneuverable and inexpensive to buy and operate fighter. And then it had air to ground added.

They bought a F-16 replacement, not a F/A-117 replacement. Because large scale bombing of high-defended airspace is not part of their strategic military position.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Nope.no,no.
I'm an artist and they aren't pointy enough.
GOTTA be pointy to look cool...

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm beginning to wonder if the guy who runs the web site I used is one of US now HE is using the F4 comparator...
You've all heard the arguments so I don't need to put it up.

a reply to: buddah6

I'd be highly skeptical that viffing is even possible in an F-35B.

The harrier was built around an extremely unique VTOL-oriented powerplant, and was able to vector thrust by simply rotating nozzles that more or less always pointed the center of thrust at the center of mass of the aircraft. Without needing to open any doors, fairings, etc either.

The F-35B on the other hand, has the main engine nozzle so far off-axis from the center of mass that it would put the aircraft into a tumble if the computer even let you try and VIFF it, and that's before you rip off all of those expensive stealth fairings in the process.

And don't even try and consider activating the LiftFan™ at anything more than a couple hundred knots of forward airspeed...

a reply to: Barnalby

Can Yak 29 s Viff?

a reply to: Barnalby

I already posted a solution for increasing manuverability. Thrust vectoring liek a f-22 does. its all in the exaust.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

The Yak-36, 38, and 41 were VTOL aircraft. The -41 couldn't because it had a similar fan system with a door that opened up on the forward fuselage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for the correction.

a reply to: Barnalby

I was hoping that the F-35 could but what you are saying makes perfect sense. There is a lot of doors to open in ACM environment. The only other possibility is the look down-shoot down helmet cueing systems. It wouldn't require hard maneuvering...just look and shoot!