The F-35 Thread

[Tirak]

Please note that the object wasn't to see how the F-35 stacked up to the Viper as a dogfight, rather it was to press the limits of the high AoA control laws and then report out the flying qualities in that regime, using various specified maneuvers. The Viper was there to make things dynamic and unscripted. Also, please note "elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs" are also preludes to departing an aircraft, so the evaluation of the effectiveness was how does the anti-spin logic effect high AoA BFM. Of course that's exactly what the JPO statement said.

 

Let's all just keep that in mind. This in no way says how the F-35 is going to perform in a dogfight. All it says is what deficiencies there are in current control laws when using elevated AoA maneuvers to act in a dogfight. It was there to troubleshoot problems when the aircraft is reaching the point where it doesn't want to fly. Lets all recall there are far more ways to win a fight than just yanking the stick, some fighters do well with that, others take advantage of other maneuvering aspects of their plane. You wouldn't go into a telephone pole spiral with a Flanker in an F-15, and you wouldn't try to out climb an F-14 in an F-5.

 

And another thing. Last year, or the year before, an F-22 on patrol spotted an Iranian F-4 that was getting too close to US assets. He flew over, got within spitting distance, counted the weapons, then pulled up next to him and told him to go home. The Iranian pilot had no idea he was there. Even if the Raptor had the aerodynamics of a brick, the fact he was stealth meant he could maneuver up to the point where he could jump out on the wing and walk over and knock the the other guy out with his fist, and the enemy NEVER SAW HIM. That's stealth in a dogfight, it means never entering the fight at a disadvantage. We can talk about the Merge all we want, but if you're 4th gen and he's 5th gen, the merge isn't going to happen, because he sees you, and kills you, before he even knows what's happening.

 

F-22's have been fighting eagles for a while now, and the Eagle pilots never stand a chance because they don't know where the Raptor is at the start of the fight. And these are veteran Raptor pilots in those Eagles, they know exactly what they're up against and they still lose.

 

TL:DR: The report is not the F-35 Dogfighting Bible. Even if it was, stealth is king.

[StrongHarm]

The report is the warped result of someone taking advantage of partial truths to further an agenda... aren't you the least bit curious as to why any professional attached to a military test facility would want to leak this information to *War is Boring*?

 

Truth: An F-16 was involved with an F-35 in a dogfight scenario to test the F-35

Falsification: The F-16 was just a maneuvering reference, they weren't trying to best one another

 

Truth: The F-35 didn't have the same energy retention as the F-35

Falsification: The F-35 wasn't using all flight surface assistance software available (intentionally as it was part of the test), and the test was done in the F-16s sweet spot.. it was conducted to check for unexpected airframe response (hardware only) to out of envelope maneuvers.

 

Here's an interesting post at The Aviation Forum by someone that's a test pilot attached to the same squadron. He has a masters degree focused on flight test, flight dynamics and control system design; facts with no agenda:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135460-test-pilot-quot-F-35-can-t-dogfight-quot&p=2237974#post2237974

 

Here's the response from the USAF on the matter:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/01/pentagon-defends-f-35-after-report-says-it-cant-dogfight/

 

Here's the F-35 results at Green Flag 2015 (A+):

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag

 

Here's my theory on the agenda from a previous post in the thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2428861

 

Personal Observation: The whole matter seems to be a hard hitting revelation that points to conspiracy and incompetence.. but that's your Hollywood intellect speaking to you. It's all being taken out of context. Similar sensationalist crap happened with the F-15 when it was going through acceptance testing.. the end result? 104 kills 0 losses and money well spent. And how did military and DOD personnel working with the bird respond to the media circus? Giggles and gets back to work; it's all inconsequential.

 

Even if the F-35 had subpar energy retention, if the F-16 were able to find it.. and then also perform the impossibility of sneaking up on it.. the F-35 pilot would look through the cockpit floor, see the threat, lock it immediately, and fire an all aspect missile at it before they got into these maneuvers. I love the F-16.. but it's not 5th gen. It would never stand a chance.

[Tirak]

Harm I'm confused, or maybe I missed the nuance. Here you say this:

 

Truth: An F-16 was involved with an F-35 in a dogfight scenario to test the F-35

Falsification: The F-16 was just a maneuvering reference, they weren't trying to best one another

 

Truth: The F-35 didn't have the same energy retention as the F-35

Falsification: The F-35 wasn't using all flight surface assistance software available (intentionally as it was part of the test), and the test was done in the F-16s sweet spot.. it was conducted to check for unexpected airframe response (hardware only) to out of envelope maneuvers.

 

But then you use the remarks of the test pilot that the "falsifications" came from as... a neutral observer?

Here's an interesting post at The Aviation Forum by someone that's a test pilot attached to the same squadron. He has a masters degree focused on flight test, flight dynamics and control system design; facts with no agenda:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135460-test-pilot-quot-F-35-can-t-dogfight-quot&p=2237974#post2237974

[url=http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135460-test-pilot-quot-F-35-can-t-dogfight-quot&p=2237974#post2237974][/url]

 

I'm not sure what it is you're saying about that information then. Are you saying it's worth considering, or that it's wrong?

[StrongHarm]

I can help you understand; read the article.. it's not from the person who made falsifications, it's from another test pilot (and expert) who's saying the report was taken out of context. Read first, post later.

 

Harm I'm confused, or maybe I missed the nuance. Here you say this:

 

But then you use the remarks of the test pilot that the "falsifications" came from as... a neutral observer?

 

I'm not sure what it is you're saying about that information then. Are you saying it's worth considering, or that it's wrong?

[Tirak]

I read every article in your post there, still confused as to what you're trying to say.

 

Are you saying that mkellytx's information is false or not? Because the information in your sections labeled "Falsification:" appears to be information that he is insinuating, which you later seem to indicate is correct, (i.e. not a falsification) because he is an expert... I may be reading the format of your post wrong, or I may be reading the format of Keypubs wrong, or I may not be hearing tone properly.

[StrongHarm]

I see Tirak. It's probably language barrier. I apologize. My point was that truth had been manipulated to give a false impression. In my post I show 'Truth:' then 'Falsification:'. The 'Truth' is indeed true, but the 'Falsification' sites how they used that 'Truth' to mislead people.

[fltsimbuff]

But this isn't the fault of the F-35. Everything has been cut since the B-2, because the USSR went away and the sales pitch for a massive airforce dwindled.

 

The F-35 isn't the problem that's draining life from the rest of the air force(s), it's the one that got away with the least harm. It's also not a jack of all trades as it has specific roles amongst other aircraft, at least in the US (For other nations it's a bigger component of the military, but how many nations relied on basically F-16's and F-18's to do everything?).

 

Part of the justification for canceling the F-22 was that the F-35 was just around the corner and could take up the slack. Politicians argued this when it was voted to cancel the program. Implying that the F-35 can take over for it is implying it is capable enough to do so. It may well be in the current climate, but the F-22 still would have been better at its primary job.

 

The F-35 does not ignore WVR, and it has aircraft like the F-22 and EF-2000 to support it in that arena.

 

I never said it ignored it. I never even really said it is poor at it. I responded to criticism that if it isn't any good it doesn't matter because WVR is dead. WVR most certainly is not yet. It remains to be seen if it will be good enough in WVR, but I am saying yes, it IS important.

 

 

The F-35 isn't like the F-16 which accidentally became a multirole fighter over years, gradually, in the face of a clear threat. It's trying to do everything the F-16 did out of the box in larger numbers. It's a bigger program. It's going to hold a bigger up front price, but really we're ending up with the same thing. At least that's the plan.

 

 

It's great to have a replacement for the F-16 that is even better, but it's not just acting as a replacement for the F-16. With the cancellation (or truncated production) of the aircraft intended to replace the vital F-15, the F-35 needs to be able to pick up its job as well. Something good enough to replace the F-16 isn't automatically appropriate to replace the F-15 as well, as the F-16 couldn't do the job the F-15 could (as shown in Desert Storm).

 

So to sum it up:

YES WVR still matters.

F-35 Price keeps going up.

F-35 keeps gobbling up resources for other projects that it wasn't originally intended to replace.

The F-35 is an awesome piece of technology that can certainly do the job of the F-16.

[RoflSeal]

You can't really use Desert Storm as showing that WVR is still relevant considering that newer generations of missile like the AIM-120 and also the AESA radars came after Desert Storm.

[GGTharos]

Better yet, not a single gun employment in these fights. It was all missiles or maneuver kills.

[fltsimbuff]

You can't really use Desert Storm as showing that WVR is still relevant considering that newer generations of missile like the AIM-120 and also the AESA radars came after Desert Storm.

 

Desert Storm was the last real air battle. What would you suggest we use? The stats on paper like they did when they removed the canon from the Phantom? We don't need to be making the same mistakes all over again. Theory != fact and these things need to be battle tested.

 

The main reason there were even as many BVR kills as there were in Desert Storm was due to AWACs support.

 

Better yet, not a single gun employment in these fights. It was all missiles or maneuver kills.

 

Exactly, but within visual range and with BFM involved, despite that many of the missiles fired were BVR Sparrows.

 

Here is an interesting take on BVR vs WVR from the Air War College http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

[GGTharos]

I've read all of those studies. I also know things those studies don't tell you: For example, the Sparrow Pk can be further broken down and you start seeing that Sparrows stored in a certain way, or of certain age had much higher Pk than other ones.

 

On the other hand, AMRAAM Pk was right away twice that of Sparrow, and if you remove out-of-parameter shots it goes even higher.

 

Pk also doesn't really tell you probability of hit: Some missiles were not counted because it wasn't possible to determine if they had hit or not when launched in a volley.

 

WVR itself is significantly changed by the two new players, and soon a third one:

 

1. Stealth. You can enter unobserved (IRST/MK1 eyeball arguments are really non-starters here. There are tactics to help the opposition look away from the sneaker)

 

2. HOBS missiles. Approach first, shoot first, retain energy for a hard turn and another HOBS shot. Somewhat mitigates energy deficiency.

 

3. DAS. For now, F-35 has it, others don't. This one replaces the 'IRST' in a huge, big way, because your aircraft will warn you when someone's entering the fray and where they are. More importantly though, it allows those who have the initiative to keep it: No more losing tally, and designating and shooting the bandit doesn't even require the helmet really ... just put him in priority with the target priority switch and fire.

 

WVR will almost always happen, but it doesn't mean it's going to go the WW2 way. Missiles aren't what they used to be: They are much more reliable, they have better sensors, and you don't need to point at the target and be within a certain aspect to shoot them any more.

 

The historical lessons that REMAIN are as follows:

 

1. He who sees/shoots first usually wins the fight ( ... stealth and sensors!)

2. SAMs and AAA claim most kills ... not other aircraft ( ... stealth and sensors!)

3. Mutual support wins the day (training ... and stealth and sensors! datalinks too)

4. Most combat kills are accomplished with missiles, not guns. There are more maneuver kills than gun kills right now.

5. The F-15 has a single gun kill to claim: A MiG-21. A MiG-25 got close to being second, but he ate a sparrow instead.

Edited July 7, 2015 by GGTharos

[Wizard_03]

WVR is the least desirable outcome, its the most work for the littlest gain. If you get yourself in a straight up dogfight with an F-35 you either;

 

A. didn't do your job right

B. are somewhere your not supposed to be

C. outnumbered and can't run, again goes back to B

 

It would be absurd to put a fighter as expensive as the F-35 in some kind of Gladiator style battle against planes 3 or 4 times less expensive (that now in the WVR arena are somewhat evenly matched), unless you had absolutely no choice.

 

In a real war it would be logistical suicide to risk that kind of asset against advanced Russian fighters who were clearly designed for that.

 

All of that being said they have still not forgotten Vietnam the F-35 is still capable in a dogfight and is still being equipped with defensive armament like the AIM-9X and and Gat. But dogfighting prowess is no more important the CAS or the million other jobs that fighter can do. But the point is it's multi role and all that that implies.

 

As far as the cost, well when you decided you want to replace three very advanced platforms and include all of their features plus all the 5th gen features into a new airframe. Your going to pay...A lot.. lol But I'm pretty sure they believe it's worth it.

[fltsimbuff]

I've read all of those studies. I also know things those studies don't tell you: For example, the Sparrow Pk can be further broken down and you start seeing that Sparrows stored in a certain way, or of certain age had much higher Pk than other ones.

 

On the other hand, AMRAAM Pk was right away twice that of Sparrow, and if you remove out-of-parameter shots it goes even higher.

 

Pk also doesn't really tell you probability of hit: Some missiles were not counted because it wasn't possible to determine if they had hit or not when launched in a volley.

 

WVR itself is significantly changed by the two new players, and soon a third one:

 

1. Stealth. You can enter unobserved (IRST/MK1 eyeball arguments are really non-starters here. There are tactics to help the opposition look away from the sneaker)

 

2. HOBS missiles. Approach first, shoot first, retain energy for a hard turn and another HOBS shot. Somewhat mitigates energy deficiency.

 

3. DAS. For now, F-35 has it, others don't. This one replaces the 'IRST' in a huge, big way, because your aircraft will warn you when someone's entering the fray and where they are. More importantly though, it allows those who have the initiative to keep it: No more losing tally, and designating and shooting the bandit doesn't even require the helmet really ... just put him in priority with the target priority switch and fire.

 

WVR will almost always happen, but it doesn't mean it's going to go the WW2 way. Missiles aren't what they used to be: They are much more reliable, they have better sensors, and you don't need to point at the target and be within a certain aspect to shoot them any more.

 

The historical lessons that REMAIN are as follows:

 

1. He who sees/shoots first usually wins the fight ( ... stealth and sensors!)

2. SAMs and AAA claim most kills ... not other aircraft ( ... stealth and sensors!)

3. Mutual support wins the day (training ... and stealth and sensors! datalinks too)

4. Most combat kills are accomplished with missiles, not guns. There are more maneuver kills than gun kills right now.

5. The F-15 has a single gun kill to claim: A MiG-21. A MiG-25 got close to being second, but he ate a sparrow instead.

 

All very good points, but you make a lot of assumptions:

- You assume the enemy will not have HOBS, Stealth, or systems granting equivalent situational awareness, which would even up the fight a bit and send the fight back towards BFM to break a stalemate.

- You assume that enemy fighters are a non-issue and that we only need to focus on SAMs and AAA. To do that you would need something else (F-22s?) to take care of air threats, IF the F-35 can't do it all by itself.

- You assume a poorly trained enemy, which has been the case in the past, but we cannot guarantee that going into the future.

 

I am really not talking about gun kills either way. BFM is still required to get into position for a missile shot once you've reached the merge. HOBS doesn't necessarily mean you can shoot someone that is on your 6.

 

PK also makes no difference when it is about identifying your target (IFF). I've never stated BVR weapons were no good, simply that they are often used WVR for many reasons.

[GGTharos]

WVR is the least desirable outcome, its the most work for the littlest gain. If you get yourself in a straight up dogfight with an F-35 you either;

 

A. didn't do your job right

B. are somewhere your not supposed to be

C. outnumbered and can't run, again goes back to B

 

None of these are correct, and that's really the meat of my issue with this. A dogfight may be forced by ROE's, as well as other conditions (necessary to buy the merge because your job is stop bandits there or die in place).

Bandits may just enter the fray while you're doing other stuff, and you simply don't have the option to retreat (by necessity, not due to lack of exit window).

 

It would be absurd to put a fighter as expensive as the F-35 in some kind of Gladiator style battle against planes 3 or 4 times less expensive (that now in the WVR arena are somewhat evenly matched), unless you had absolutely no choice.

 

In a real war it would be logistical suicide to risk that kind of asset against advanced Russian fighters who were clearly designed for that.

 

Risk is something they calculate. There's literally briefed 'acceptable merge ratios' and other instructions.

 

All of that being said they have still not forgotten Vietnam the F-35 is still capable in a dogfight and is still being equipped with defensive armament like the AIM-9X and and Gat. But dogfighting prowess is no more important the CAS or the million other jobs that fighter can do. But the point is it's multi role and all that that implies.

 

Yes, the real Vietnam lesson was not 'we need a gun', it was 'we need training'.

[fltsimbuff]

WVR is the least desirable outcome, its the most work for the littlest gain. If you get yourself in a straight up dogfight with an F-35 you either;

 

A. didn't do your job right

B. are somewhere your not supposed to be

C. outnumbered and can't run, again goes back to B

 

It would be absurd to put a fighter as expensive as the F-35 in some kind of Gladiator style battle against planes 3 or 4 times less expensive (that now in the WVR arena are somewhat evenly matched), unless you had absolutely no choice.

 

In a real war it would be logistical suicide to risk that kind of asset against advanced Russian fighters who were clearly designed for that.

 

All of that being said they have still not forgotten Vietnam the F-35 is still capable in a dogfight and is still being equipped with defensive armament like the AIM-9X and and Gat. But dogfighting prowess is no more important the CAS or the million other jobs that fighter can do. But the point is it's multi role and all that that implies.

 

As far as the cost, well when you decided you want to replace three very advanced platforms and include all of their features plus all the 5th gen features into a new airframe. Your going to pay...A lot.. lol But I'm pretty sure they believe it's worth it.

 

True in theory, but as of the most recent air battles, WVR fights still happen a lot, so we can't just pretend they don't.

 

If you don't think F-35s ought to engage in WVR battle, and WVR battle is still necessary, then something that isn't insane to send into WVR battle is needed if you want to win.

 

BVR is the ideal that has so far not been realized fully in actual combat. Until then, we need to assume WVR will take place and send the not "insane" choice into those battles. And to do that we need to have sane choices...

[GGTharos]

I'm making 'current state of the art and projected future state of the art' assumptions. IMHO, there's no point in worrying about what will happen when the F-35 becomes obsolete, because at that point it'll be obsolete. You either have something new on the table, or you've given up your lead.

 

Right now everyone else is playing serious catch-up in ALL areas of the relevant technologies ... to include the F-22 in SA capability.

 

I didn't say enemy fighters are a non-issue. Right now I'm telling you that you're ignoring history. SAMs are the most dangerous thing to a fighter, not other fighters. However many aircraft you lose to enemy air, you'll lose many times that to GBAD.

 

I don't need to assume a poorly trained enemy. F-22's have proven that a very well trained enemy still needs to know where you are (and in the case of the F-22 at least, even with 'stealth off' it's a tough nut to crack).

 

Further I even assume a battlefield significantly degraded by EW ... which one might consider actually adds to a stealth advantage.

 

I'm not considering stealth-on-stealth fights. It's a subject I don't know anything about, because despite the fact that one air force has the capability to train for it (and they do), their lips are sealed.

 

All very good points, but you make a lot of assumptions:

- You assume the enemy will not have HOBS, Stealth, or systems granting equivalent situational awareness, which would even up the fight a bit and send the fight back towards BFM to break a stalemate.

- You assume that enemy fighters are a non-issue and that we only need to focus on SAMs and AAA. To do that you would need something else (F-22s?) to take care of air threats, IF the F-35 can't do it all by itself.

- You assume a poorly trained enemy, which has been the case in the past, but we cannot guarantee that going into the future.

 

I am really not talking about gun kills either way. BFM is still required to get into position for a missile shot once you've reached the merge. HOBS doesn't necessarily mean you can shoot someone that is on your 6.

 

It does now, at least for some systems :)

 

The point is that the BFM you need to do now changes.

 

PK also makes no difference when it is about identifying your target (IFF). I've never stated BVR weapons were no good, simply that they are often used WVR for many reasons.

 

It makes a huge difference. Again, here we're back to look first shoot first principles. If the Pk is high, you can look, shoot, instead of look, shoot, look (repeat as required). Your opponent also has to fight a high Pk weapon differently.

[Wizard_03]

Well I agree, that WVR will always happen. What I'm saying is that F-35 was not designed for air dominance, clearly.. i.e. It lacks the thrust to weight and AOA capabilities you need to keep up with the SU-35s and Mig-35s in a dogfight. However good your missiles and RWR are, if you are literally are outclassed by a superior airframe you won't get a shot and if you do you won't on all his buddies, Doesn't mean they will either, but your military cannot afford to replace F-35s en masse, so why try, especially if you can avoid or deny them their advantages. Better training is not going to fix that, this is not Vietnam anymore. The F-35 is a tool you use it for what its meant for, it's not a Win all.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Wizard_03

[GGTharos]

Again, maybe because you can't. Here's a scenario:

 

You're protecting a strike force and there are enemy airfields reasonably close (literally happened in Gulf War).

 

In some situations you don't get the luxury of turning around and running/getting them to chase you/playing it safe, because you're the only thing standing between them and that strike force. You MUST engage, and it WILL become WVR for a variety of reasons.

 

The question here is, how much can you whittle them down before they merge, and can you gain an acceptable merge ratio.

 

A superior airframe is fine and dandy until it finds itself out-numbered. In a guns-only fight it might not care too much, but when modern (never mind HOBS) missiles are involved, things start looking a little different.

 

And this isn't some kind of desperate last-stand scenario either, it's just average air to air stuff.

[Basher54321]

Something good enough to replace the F-16 isn't automatically appropriate to replace the F-15 as well, as the F-16 couldn't do the job the F-15 could (as shown in Desert Storm).

 

Nope you are way off there - the F-35A being designed with more emphasis for A-G should give some clue.

 

 

 

So to sum it up:

YES WVR still matters.

 

 

Well yes WVR does matter - for the hell of it I will take LMs figures where they estimated about 7% of combat could be WVR. But WVR does not mean 1v1 or that both sides know of each other presence - never been that way. The F-35A I expect will be taking apart red air in Red Flag WVR just fine and likely doing zero close in turning whatsoever.

 

 

1991 is too long ago to compare with today - the weapons and avionics are vastly different - there is pretty much no comparison.

[Wizard_03]

The question here is, how much can you whittle them down before they merge, and can you gain an acceptable merge ratio.

 

That Is what I mean, you use what you have. F-35 is stealthy, AESA and your 120Ds data links. ect that's where you have the advantages. People seem to think that dog fighting is the only and best way to beat your enemy and that is not true anymore. Especially when your enemy lives to dogfight.

 

And in a situation like that, I would think and hope you'd prolly have a big ole AWACS telling you exactly what your buddies at those nearby airfields are throwing at you and thus you'd be able start killing things before they get near you. Whittle them down. Also I think being in the F-35.. you are the strike package that's the point you can do everything no more playing defense for A-10s or F-117s.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Wizard_03

[fltsimbuff]

Nope you are way off there - the F-35A being designed with more emphasis for A-G should give some clue.

 

Are you trying to say the F-16 was as capable as the F-15 at air-air? I am not sure what exactly you didn't like about my statement.

 

Well yes WVR does matter - for the hell of it I will take LMs figures where they estimated about 7% of combat could be WVR. But WVR does not mean 1v1 or that both sides know of each other presence - never been that way. The F-35A I expect will be taking apart red air in Red Flag WVR just fine and likely doing zero close in turning whatsoever.

 

 

1991 is too long ago to compare with today - the weapons and avionics are vastly different - there is pretty much no comparison.

 

We will have to agree to disagree here. The level of tech of the weapons had nothing to do with most of the WVR battles during that time. It was mostly ROE, which we cannot predict.

[Basher54321]

Are you trying to say the F-16 was as capable as the F-15 at air-air? I am not sure what exactly you didn't like about my statement.

 

 

In some aspects it does have some advantages - although my point was the USAF changed it into a multi role jet and A-G was its primary role - (political reasons) - so no surprise they went for full on A-G this time.

 

Obviously it was only AIM-9 armed in the 80s but since 1992 has been AIM-120 armed.

 

 

The level of tech of the weapons had nothing to do with most of the WVR battles during that time. It was mostly ROE, which we cannot predict.

 

Errm nope - The ROE allowed BVR in 1991 as long as criteria was satisfied due to the technology advances there had been. The AIM-7M performance was spectacular (compared to the Nam era AIM-7D/E/E-2 when it left the rail (e.g. motor actually fired) - it truly was a different world to Vietnam.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Basher54321

[fltsimbuff]

I'm making 'current state of the art and projected future state of the art' assumptions. IMHO, there's no point in worrying about what will happen when the F-35 becomes obsolete, because at that point it'll be obsolete. You either have something new on the table, or you've given up your lead.

 

It doesn't have to be obsolete for it to lose enough advantage that it is forced into WVR fights. The PAK-FA is supposed to be completed in 2016, so it's not like we have no reason to plan for Stealth-on-stealth fights. The very idea of going up against another Stealth aircraft means that the idea you will always see the other guy first in the F-35 is a non-starter.

 

China and Russia both put a lot into SAMs, it's true. That is a much larger threat, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the Air threat. F-15s flew CAP for F-16 and other strike packages going into Iraq. Strike packages of F-35s will either need something else up there covering them, or they will end up getting into air-air fights that could result in a mission (soft) kill at the least. F-22s would do a better job of providing CAP, but there likely aren't enough of them.

 

So the question becomes, can the F-35 when configured in air-air role successfully mix it up with enemy fighters (PAK-FA, SU-35s, or what have you) during CAP coverage? Will they be able to augment the F-22 there successfully?

 

These are questions which haven't been answered yet, but which need to be addressed. I still feel the F-22 would have been ideal as CAP assets, and that the decision to rely on the F-35 to pick up slack in that area is a mistake.

 

Maybe when the F-35 can hold its own in combat with an F-22 I'll change my mind.

[fltsimbuff]

In some aspects it does have some advantages - although my point was the USAF changed it into a multi role jet and A-G was its primary role - (political reasons) - so no surprise they went for full on A-G this time.

 

Obviously it was only AIM-9 armed in the 80s but since 1992 has been AIM-120 armed.

 

Right, none of that seems contrary to what I said. The F-16 gained some of the ability of the F-15 with the AMRAAM, but still didn't have the legs (range) or as powerful radar as the Eagle.

 

Errm nope - The ROE allowed BVR in 1991 as long as criteria was satisfied due to the technology advances there had been. The AIM-7M performance was spectacular (compared to the Nam era AIM-7D/E/E-2 when it left the rail (e.g. motor actually fired) - it truly was a different world to Vietnam.

 

The ROE required positive identification, which often required VISUAL identification. Again, not a technology issue but enforcement of ROE. The unreliability of IFF was a tech issue, but not with the weapons, but the IFF itself. The bigger part of the problem was that other coalition members didn't have IFF at all or didn't have the IFF codes to query.

 

Another good example is the very limited tasking of Navy F-14s to intercepts because they had to rely on AWACS for IFF (they could not use IFF to interrogate potential targets).

 

So yes, it was an ROE issue, not a tech issue. I am not saying the ROE was wrong, but it was very limiting.

[Basher54321]

Right, none of that seems contrary to what I said. The F-16 gained some of the ability of the F-15 with the AMRAAM, but still didn't have the legs (range) or as powerful radar as the Eagle.

 

 

The F-16A certainly had a large range advantage over the F-15A and likely the C without FAST Packs (Seldom used on the C anyway)

 

 

In an air-to-air configuration, the F-16 has a higher fuel fraction and lower specific fuel consumption than the F-15. An F-15C IP at the Fighter Weapons School, (then) Major Mike "Boa" Straight, wrote an article about this in the Fighter Weapons Review in 1988 or 1989. I'm not just making this up. On-station time, acceleration to intercept speed and range advantages go to the Viper.

 

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

 

Yes the F-16 has Smaller radar but also a smaller RCS ;)

 

 

Its not your fault - aero isn't simply big plane is better.

 

 

 

 

The ROE required positive identification, which often required VISUAL identification. Again, not a technology issue but enforcement of ROE. The unreliability of IFF was a tech issue, but not with the weapons, but the IFF itself. The bigger part of the problem was that other coalition members didn't have IFF at all or didn't have the IFF codes to query.

 

Another good example is the very limited tasking of Navy F-14s to intercepts because they had to rely on AWACS for IFF (they could not use IFF to interrogate potential targets).

 

So yes, it was an ROE issue, not a tech issue. I am not saying the ROE was wrong, but it was very limiting.

 

 

 

AFAIK In all the F-15C engagements the ROE for BVR could be and was always satisfied with an EID only - and IFF failed once leading to a 2v1 Vs a MiG-29.

 

Thats from https://ospreypublishing.com/f-15c-eagle-units-in-combat-pb

 

Other aircraft were not fitted with the required technology like the F-14s to play a part sure - do you have a defined ROE document for 1991 - not the most interesting thing got to say.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Basher54321