F-35 Can't Dogfight

[windwalker]

What happens if the software that is used to determine targets, is even better than humans?

That's the double edge. How can one make sure that the software doesn't decide that the programmer is the biggest threat? Skynet

haha, some might welcome it

[Strange]

Stealth fighters don't dogfight.

There is plenty of logic to sticking with the cheap F-16. However, the Russian SU-35 (or S-37) are designed to equal or exceed the performance capabilities of F-!6s and even F-22s.

What makes the F-35 system formidable is how it integrates stealth, sensors, weaponry and computer tech. It's like Skynet . For ex., in a flight of 4 F-35s, one plane's sensors might detect a threat, and another plane or even a ground crew would fire. Otoh, this is scary stuff if incorporated into unmanned fighter aircraft --which is probably the future. But, even in terms of pure performance, F-35s can fly farther, faster while using less fuel and carrying more armament than an F-16 (or any other US (manned) fighter).

I all sound very fancy and dandy, until i ask who has the control?
if I (the fighter pilot in the air) need someone else to trigger my weapon, i would most probably be in very deep trouble.
If I am going to pay attention to other area of engagement other than my own; this means i am ineffective in my own area and probably will get killed very fast.

If you two need to coordinate and talk and decide who's weapon it is to fire and when; then you are slower than the enemy pilot.

it cost a lot of money and don't make sense.

[klonk]

...the F-35 belongs to a school of thought that says air combat within visual range (WVR) is a thing of the past, rendered obsolete by the F-35's stealth, sensors, and networking ability. The opposing school of thought believes that stealth and long-range air-to-air missiles are well and good but that one ought to be prepared for a sneaky (or lucky) adversary that gets past your scanners and taps you on the shoulder.

My doubts about all this concern the limits on the range and efficiency of long-range air-to-air weapons. You are going to sit back and pop the bad guys from a distance? Well, the bad guys are going to have something to say about that, with counter-measures and long range weapons of their own.

I am put in mind of the F-4 Phantom, another multi-service (Navy, USAF, Marines), do-everything plane. It got pressed into many roles not because it was the best at them but because these were the available planes.

The realization (stemming from WWII) that fighter combat is a matter of energy dynamics and speed management more than aerobatic maneuvering helped F-4 drivers survive, though their plane was big and chunky, but now with the F-35 we seem to be looking at a pudgy plane with every imaginable gadget that is a bit behind the curve in flight dynamics.

So the argument seems to be that air combat has evolved again, from aerobatics to flight dynamics to a new paradigm in which success now rests on the question of who has the better gadgets. The plane is mainly a platform to bear the gadgetry aloft. If this bold step makes you uneasy, I think it should.

[Steve James]

The main problem with the F-4 was that it wasn't given a gun because it was thought that future combat would be done with missiles, and guns were no longer necessary. Unfortunately, the early generation of missiles often didn't work. However, after early losses, pilots found a way to use energy to compensate. F-4s were also clunky because they needed a second crew member.

Anyway, the arguments about whether the F-35 is superior are irrelevant. It already surpasses the capabilities of all current NATO member aircraft --proven in the regular war games. It generally kills without ever being seen. Can countermeasures be developed to "see" it sooner or better? Certainly. That has been the point of F-35 sensor development. How do we know that it can see farther than enemy aircraft? No question they are all trying. Otoh, we've been using stealth aircraft in combat since the 90s. No one else has.

What the F-35 is not is a "pilot's" plane. Strange says it looks ugly. Well, stealth depends on the plane's ability to redirect radar and other sensor signals. So, most stealth planes have funny angles. (Actually, the F-35 is one of the best looking; but, maybe that's just me). The odd angles and lack of conventionally located wing surfaces make it necessary for a computer to control flight stability. A human couldn't do it on her own. The "fly by wire" system prevents pilots from crashing. In fact, that's the primary reason F-35s "were" not as good at dogfighting. The computers limited pilot input. Without the computer limitations, the plane could maneuver in ways that would injure or kill a human. The F-35 also incorporates a big helmet that pilots don't like because they always like to swivel their heads, and maybe just because it's claustrophobic. But, that's something that will be miniaturized like everything else.

Anyway, the whole point of the F-35 program was to create a stealthy plane that could fly as fast as a fighter, carry as much ordinance as a bomber, would use the latest communications, computer and sensor tech, and be upgradable.. Not to mention, the same basic airframe would be used by all the services, some models having vertical take off and landing capabilities; others equipped with tailhooks for carrier landing, but all being supersonic. Unlike previous stealth aircraft, F-35s are built using new materials. So, yeah, the damn thing has run way over budget. It may never be what the DD intended. Otoh, imho, the individual developments will all be used and/or incorporated into future aircraft. We are definitely spending money we don't have to spend. Our F-15s, 16s, 18s, and 22s make it unnecessary.

Otoh, no one thinks the chances that we will need to develop more advanced weapons and aircraft is getting any less . So, if ya don't think we have air superiority now. How d'ya imagine we'll be able to get it? What is better than the F-35?

[Bill]

[klonk]

[Strange]

[Steve James]

This is the old model

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJhU0YhycQc

[Steve James]

This is the old model

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJhU0YhycQc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffGneGa9Eyk

[Strange]

F-15 is from the Fighter Mafia, so it's as anti-establishment as heck
plus WE bought it!
so its got to be special !

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk--QwULtTg

Check out the gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B33KN5LJWmI

[Strange]

yeah i dunno why ppl say its ugly
the A-10 is a beautiful aircraft.
how do you build a beautiful and effective fighter:
you have to be singular in your purpose.

"you can't come in close and not get hit"
sure sounds like some internal kungfu fortune cookie

now look at the f-35, its just one big mess.

[Steve James]

I dunno. "Looking good" is completely relative. Few pilots think that the A-10 is physically attractive airframe. That's why the first models were called "warthogs." Ground troops, otoh, will say that they're beautiful. That's because it's the only plane designed for ground support. It can't dogfight, but that's irrelevant. The A-10 is a flying tank.

Btw, what happens when an A-10 come up against other flying opponents? Well, they depend on our other fighters for high air cover

Anyway, I think the first stealth fighters are ugly, but the newer models look great. I can't say the latest Russian models look better or worse, and the Chinese versions are often copies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCBTtjxoamw

[Steve James]

For fun

[Steve James]

For fun