Oops. Test pilots don't like F-35

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight | RealClearDefense

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”

 

Do you really believe that a test pilot, one of a very small number of test pilots would actually say that for publication? I suspect not. Even if true, the day of "dogfights" is done. Try reading this for an explanation of the current state of affairs for the f35.

F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag | Defense content from Aviation Week

Art

 

Yeah they would.... There are enough people involved with the F-35 that it would be a relatively low risk proposition to speak out on John Q Public or one of the other blogs. There are plenty of people fed up with the BS and are willing to throw a few rocks on their way out the door.

 

The military said that in the mid-60's also. History repeats, again.

 

Missile technology has come a long long way since then. From a 10% kill rate to 50%. they were premature then, not sure about that now.

From Defencetalk forum:

"Putting everything in context.


https://www.f35.com/news/detail/join...g?sf10503378=1
Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog
July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target...

More at the jump."

Art

 

The reliance on networks and satellites is a bit concerning. It works fine if you are beating down on the Iraqis or Afghanis that have limited capabilities but it's frightening to consider what happens with a more capable enemy. The Chinese hack of OPM shows that they are quite capable on the electronic front.

There is an Arthor C Clarke short story titled "superiority" which is sort of along these lines and apparently used to by part of the syllabus at some military training courses. It's probably available online and provides some good perspective on the current state of affairs and how they could turn out.

 

In response to Art.... Very valid issues about it being an early production airframe that is lacking some of the latest features. Another aspect that hasn't been discussed and likely isn't publicly available are the rules of engagement for these encounters. A few years ago there was much news about the F-22 losing in some engagements with foreign aircraft during an exercise but no note was made of the limitations placed on the F-22 which drove the outcomes.

What is concerning is that there is no refutation of the assertion that the F-35 is basically an underpowered and unmanueverable pig with a clunky helmet that can hinder head movement. While the advanced capabilities of the F-35 may help it avoid dogfights it seems that it should still be able to fight up close should the need arise.

 

Yes, Art, lets put things into context. Missiles may have come a long way but so has stealth and ECM. You can't just look at one side of the contest. Its not just the 60's. What about the 80's? The F-14 was configured with the much touted AIM-54 yet we spent majority of the time training for close-in AIM-9/guns combat. Mark is it right. It all changes when someone is fighting back (whether with bullets or electrons).

 

Ummmm... Art == this was AFTER war games testing. Its not "theoretical". They put the plane in mock battles and the pilots preferred the F16.

 

If two fighters approaching each at 700mph, they fire missiles which miss, in a very short period they are upon eachotehr and the dogfight begins.
How long does it take to cover 20 miles at closing speed of 1400 mph?

 

Topical read on the first post: Why The "F-35 v F-16" Article Is Garbage | Fighter Sweep

 

I believe about 51 seconds.

 

Short Story - Superiority - by Arthur C. Clarke

Only takes a few minutes to read it.

(Mark, corrected your spelling of Arthur, FYI.)

 

Pretty poor defense, IMO. Statements such as 'This aircraft is still in its infancy' while earlier bemoaning the fact how late and over budget the airplane is displays a determined effort to put a good spin on the aircraft. Another quip is 'The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35'. I thought the F-35 was the less draggy of the two, given its internal missile stowage and all. Then he makes excuses about time in type. Did the F-22 have that problem? Just an article with more excuses.

 

Wonder if Mr. Clarke ever looked back at this story and laughed. He wrote about interstellar warfare and says 'The Analyzer contained just short of a million vacuum tubes'. Story was written in 1951, and even though the transistor was invented in 1947 I guess Mr. Clarke failed to extrapolate the significance for the story.

 

I'd take my two-bag Viper any day...she's way sexier and moves better than the '35...sorry!

 

In Clarke's defense, transistors weren't used in the public realm until 54 or so, and not known about by the 'educated public' until 52-53.

 

No critical critique of Clarke was intended. Just wondering if he ever looked back on that and laughed just a little bit. Often sci-fi writers seem very precient.