F-35s hone dog fighting skills at Top Gun for 1st time

a reply to: Caughtlurking

Exactly, when it comes to the DOD. They have a blank cheque.

Top Gun is the best place to trial the F35 in all ATA combat.All its strengths and weaknesses will be found and be trained the crap out of.In the future it will delve deeper into Red Flag in a far stronger positition..

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Zaphoid, I grew up reading about the likes of the F14 and F15 which were always great aircraft in their time and probably could handle the best of today. When I look at the F35 I don't get that same feeling. I feel the US is on a major slide both technically and economically and is pushing BS not technology. Stealth might be effective against X-Band radars but its cheaper for countries to build counter stealth radar (S-Band) and passive radar than it is to redesign the F35. It just doesn't weigh up against the competition

a reply to: C0bzz

If we accept that stealth could have been already dead before the F35 made it to production and the F35 is not equipped to dogfight against the likes of a T-50 PAK-FA then what benefit does it provide versus an expendable cruise missile.

a reply to: glend

Wow, what a joke. Thrust vectoring gives it a better score towards being a 5th Gen fighter? Please. Funny how the F-22 doesn't have certain features but gets points for them.

The F-35 has an outstanding maneuvering envelope, allowing for high angle of attack and off angle missile launches at targets.

What does the ability to launch weapons while supersonic have to do with being a 5th Gen or not? Although the F-35 has launched weapons while supersonic.

Most of those points were guesses in 2009, especially for the Russian and Chinese aircraft, considering they either flew or started serious testing well after that was released.

The T-50 flew in January 2010, and has run into multiple issues in testing. The J-20 and J-31 made their first flights in 2011 and 2012. But this "letter" was already stating that they knew their capabilities compared to other aircraft.

a reply to: glend

I keep hearing how stealth is defeated so easily, but almost every major nation in the world has some kind of stealth program going on, some of them have multiple programs.

a reply to: glend

Its been said many, many times on here that it's what we aren't being told about the F-35 that makes it so darn awesome. If people knew more about the classified capabilities of this plane, they probably would look at it in a whole new light.

I wonder if F-22 pilots want to be F-35 pilots and vice versa?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think people are nitpicking.

I mean just because you CAN detect an F-35, it'll probably be to late to really do anything. Sure the capability to detect the stealth exists, but from what Ive read there is a huge difference in being able to detect them and being able to detect them at a distance with accuracy that enables a response worth a damn.

It would be like seeing a baseball half a second before it hits you. Did you see it? Sure. Were you able to do anything about it despite that fact? No.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Zaphod58

I feel the US is on a major slide both technically and economically

What exactly is sliding technicality about a supersonic stealth VSTOVL, AESA packing, glass cockpit biggest engine ever aircraft?

The economy has nothing to do with the F-35.

Double post so to take advantage of this and before my post gets removed may I suggest you change the 'e' in your name for an 'a'.

I'll get my coat.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: glend

I keep hearing how stealth is defeated so easily, but almost every major nation in the world has some kind of stealth program going on, some of them have multiple programs.

The only weakness to this system is the politician's weakness to foreign espionage. One set of diagrams for a padded bank account could compromise the whole effort decades into the future, and who trusts anyone these days especially freedom hating Obamanauts?

a reply to: glend

Methods to counter-stealth generally have massive disadvantages. That's why radars are the way they are. For example, radars with lower frequencies than X-band tend to have lower resolution and are significantly more bulky. Bulky equipment is larger and less mobile, and therefore easier to destroy. Fire control radar will therefore generally use X-band. bi-static radar requires some form of high speed communications link between transmitter and receiver.

An S500 site is big and relatively immobile and for a number of reasons is likely easy to detect. The F-35 therefore just needs to keep at a safe distance (the minimum safe distance has decreased massively due to stealth) and attack the S500 with standoff munitions like JSOW, JSOW-ER, JASSM. No, this is not fool proof, especially if there are multiple sites and radars, but how do you think the 'lighter and cheaper" aircraft would fare? Why do you suggest less capable aircraft then say that the F-35 is not capable enough?

Stealth also provides massively reduced warning time, even if it ends up being detected.

Cruise missiles also do not provide the capability the F-35 does.

The same people who complain about how expensive the F-35 is seem to be oblivious to the cost avoidance achieved by resisting the often unnecessary pursuit of speed, maneuverability, and operating altitude.

If you want something better than the F-35 (it's too late now) then spend more money on defense or kill other programs to fund it.

a reply to: C0bzz

How do you think the 'lighter and cheaper" aircraft would fare? Why do you suggest less capable aircraft then say that the F-35 is not capable enough?

Germans had better aircraft in WW2 (Focke-Wulf Fw 190) but were beaten by numbers. The extra cost of stealth aircraft restricts quantity, the gambit is that stealth is advantageous by 3 to 1 in a war against a peer like the F15 (30M unit cost). That could be a loosing gamble if stealth technology fails to provide any real advantage. The other side of the coin is the role of jet fighters themselves. A F16 is said to be able to do a sustained G9 turn so the weakest link is already the pilot. Jet fighters could be replaced by smaller and more capable drones in the not too distant future that are cheap to produce and stored away for war. That would also negate the costs in training pilots which costs $6 million a year a year for each fighter pilot.

a reply to: glend

UAVs are years from being ready for air to air combat. They work as limited strike aircraft, but aren't even close to able to attack an airborne target. They're looking at as long as ten years.

The problem is how fast the technology is changing, on both sides. The new bomber will have an RCS they couldn't even dream of when the B-2, or even the F-22 came out. Meanwhile counter stealth radars are getting, and air to air missiles are getting scary. Anything with an RCS like the F-15 will have an extremely hard time surviving long well before we are going to see UAV battles.

a reply to: glend

Germans had better aircraft in WW2 (Focke-Wulf Fw 190) but were beaten by numbers.

Sure, often bigger numbers of cheaper and less capable aircraft can give overall greater capability. On the other hand, cheaper aircraft that simply can not provide the capability required are useless (hence why we don't still buy enormous numbers of spitfires for example).

the gambit is that stealth is advantageous by 3 to 1 in a war against a peer like the F15 (30M unit cost)

The F-15 does not cost 30M dollars. The F-15K (Republic of Korea) cost $100 million, the F-15SE is supposed to cost around $100 million. The only way you can arrive at 30M for an F-15 is if you go back several decades where the value of the dollar was different, the cost of labor was different, and the cost of materials were different. So the F-35 is cheaper than the F-15.

In addition, the F-35 will be cheaper than the Rafale and Eurofighter, both of which cost around $100 million today. The closest non-stealth equivalent to the F-35 is probably the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is likely to cost around 67 million dollars in 2018 dollars. That makes the F-35 between 20% and 25% more expensive than the F/A-18 E/F Block II. A hypothetical block III Super Hornet with avionics more closely matching the F-35 would be more expensive. In addition the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Super Hornet all require external targeting pods, which can cost millions of dollars. On the other hand, mass producing these aircraft to the extent the F-35 will be mass produced will bring costs down.

But in any event, the F-35 is not 3x more expensive than non-stealth aircraft, in terms of unit cost it's roughly equivalent to the latest 4th generation fighters.

A F16 is said to be able to do a sustained G9 turn so the weakest link is already the pilot.

You keep making assumptions that maneuverability is extremely important, particularly sustained maneuverability. My understanding is sustained turning performance was important with early WVR missiles where getting behind the opponent was necessary, whereas today instantaneous performance is becoming more relevant with todays all-aspect missiles (really good read).

The F-16 will only be able to sustain 9g's at low altitude with no payload. At 15,000 feet, with two external fuel tanks, two 2000 lb bombs, two AMRAAMS, and a targeting pod, the figure is around 4 g's.

I agree UAVs could offer substantially better performance in many ways, including maneuverability, stealth and even range.

et fighters could be replaced by smaller and more capable drones in the not too distant future that are cheap to produce and stored away for war. That would also negate the costs in training pilots which costs $6 million a year a year for each fighter pilot.

Maybe. However this hasn't been even close to being proven and a massive amount of development is still required. It's likely a couple of decades before drones reach the point where they can replace the F-35.

Thanks Zaphod58 and C0bzz you both have an amazing in depth knowledge and arn't afraid to share it. I take my hat off to you both, thanks. (I know the art of retreating at least),

Germans had better aircraft in WW2 (Focke-Wulf Fw 190) but were beaten by numbers.

Cough MkIX Spitfires,Hawker Tempest,P51 Mustang,La5 and later version Yakalov fighters.All fighters have strengths and weaknesses but the initial shock of superiority if not progressed and the technology forwarded will waiver.That is where the F22 and F35,s will command the air as a lot of the tricks have matured due to extended testing and trial and error.Im old enough to have seen a lot of the USA,s legacy fleet be in its prime and a lot of platforms ONLY became good because of testing and maturity of ideas and bugs being worked out of the systems.With the F4 Phantoms surviving for so long with it failing initially in combat in Vietnam speaks volumes..

a reply to: glend

Something else you might want to consider is that the f16 first flew 40 years ago. Yes the current model was built more recently but the airframe is ancient technology. Upgraded internal equipment can only last so long. Imagine going to the car dealer today and buying a car that was designed in 1975.

F-35 is good for strike and as an interceptor but as a fighter it has weaknesses. The stealth is good the sensors are good but flight performance and cockpit visibility are a step backwards. WVR vs Su-35 or Su-27 or Mig-29 it won't be very good. And BVR if it gets spotted on IRST it won't be very good.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
F-35 is good for strike and as an interceptor but as a fighter it has weaknesses. The stealth is good the sensors are good but flight performance and cockpit visibility are a step backwards. WVR vs Su-35 or Su-27 or Mig-29 it won't be very good. And BVR if it gets spotted on IRST it won't be very good.

Most radars(even air to air) wont detect the f-35 until it gets within 25 miles in a active ECM environment. well withing range of the newer long range amraams who get up to 90 nm or so and can hunt their targets a bit.