F-35 Can't Dogfight

[Steve James]

For fun

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

[klonk]

From the Air Force Times

Report: A-10 retirement indefinitely delayed

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /78747114/

Carlisle said that he believes the retirement of the A-10 could be delayed by a few years to make sure the Air Force has the number of planes it needs — especially since top brass is re-evaluating the number of F-35’s (planes intended to replace the A-10) that the U.S. will purchase.

The Popiel F-35. In addition to flying, it slices, dices and makes mountains of coleslaw.

From Wikipedia:

The JSF program was designed to replace the United States military F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding newer E/F "Super Hornet" variants) and AV-8B tactical fighter and attack aircraft. To keep development, production, and operating costs down*, a common design was planned in three variants that share 80 percent of their parts.

-----------------------
* Bwahaha.

[Michael]

top brass is re-evaluating the number of F-35’s (planes intended to replace the A-10) that the U.S. will purchase.

The Popiel F-35. In addition to flying, it slices, dices and makes mountains of coleslaw.

* Bwahaha.

I specialize in everything.

[Strange]

[klonk]

[The A-10] 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

Even an F-35 is going to need high cover if flitting around down low. Remember the old lessons of WWII. Energy management is key. Altitude is energy. Altitude can be traded for speed. Down in the weeds, the flyer does not have that advantage, opponents above him do. That is why...

[Steve James]

Even an F-35 is going to need high cover if flitting around down low.

I think you've missed the point. The F-35 is not designed to do what the A-10 does the same way the A-10 does it. That's why the service life of the A-10 was extended after the 90s and the first Gulf War. Anyway, 1, the F-35 is a stealth aircraft. It can also accomplish its mission in all weather conditions, not so for the A-10. I.e., an F-35 can fight at night in a sandstorm. 2, the reason for that capability is its high resolution all-weather vision and sensor arrays.

The A-10 flies low and slow; the F-35 can't. So, it can't do the same job (the same way); but, it also never gains the altitude to be an energy fighter. At any rate, I'm a big fan of the hog. I think it'll be a while before they're replaced, particularly if the theaters of combat remain the same. However, the A-10 was not designed to be upgraded, and that's why it will be replaced. What that is will depend on what happens in terms of warfare.

Afa energy and ww2, the Zero could generate very little energy. But, that's why few American planes could "dogfight" with a Zeke. Getting into a "turning fight" with a Zero was certain death (even after the advent of the Hellcat and Corsair. Both those American planes were "energy" fighters. In turning fights, it was only the "Thatch weave" that prevented the Zeros from eating them for lunch. That's even more true for the P-38, which was even more an energy fighter (i.e., big and heavy).

WW2 is also a poor example to use as a criticism of the F-35. The P-47 (Thunderbolt) that is the A-10s predecessor was a big, clunky, lumbering machine that, like the A-10, made up for it with an ability to take punishment. However, the P-45 (Mustang) was a light, sleek "fighter" that used energy (i.e., boom and zoom) tactics, but didn't depend on them. The ME109s that dominated European skies were held off by the Spitfires, which were dogfighters. Tactics define the necessary hardware.

The F-35 is not going to replace all the planes in the armory. There are just too many dedicated machines. The Navy is going to keep the Super Hornet, and it can be upgraded. The Marines wanted a short take off and landing machine that was also supersonic. They have Ospreys, but they're looking ahead. They're paying attention to what the Russians are building. Anyway, anytime you want to talk about WW2 aircraft, I'm down.

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=043T9z6HE60

Better yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_iW1T3yg80

1960s jet age

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvDz4MrYXNc

Note the tactical similarities and differences, learned from Vietnam. This is the point in history when the F-14s and F-15s were developed. It must be noted that teamwork have been a fundamental constant in air combat, and that dog-fighting (and dog fighting ability) has not. One of the Swiss-army gadgets that the F-35 gives its pilot the ability to look through the plane as if its transparent (in any condition). So, there's no blind spot under the wing, for ex. And, there'll be no such thing as a bogey anymore.

Anyway, there's a really long video from the Navy "top gun" school that is pretty recent. Point is, the A-10 isn't meant to do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeFxFlHSQ8Y

[klonk]

The two matters are not perfectly comparable, of course, but...

It looks like the martial artists who are the most dangerous fighters are the ones who have concentrated on getting a few things right, not the ones who try to master every aspect of huge and elaborate martial arts systems. Guo Yunshen relied, for many years, on nothing but the five basic fists of xingyi, and most usually used the beng. Our own John Wang is as knowledgeable as anyone in the world about shuai jiao, but has a clear preference for the headlock.

Combat airplanes that have in the past become legends have been focused designs around particular goals: the Mustang, the Mosquito, the SE5, the MiG 17, the A-10...

Time will tell! My prejudice is that more circuits equal more worries and the design of the F-35 reminds me of Aesop's story about the man, the boy and the donkey.

[Steve James]

Combat airplanes that have in the past become legends have been focused designs around particular goals: the Mustang, the Mosquito, the SE5, the MiG 17, the A-10...

You are absolutely correct about the planes you mention, and it's certainly true of martial arts: that specialization brings success. However, you're making a false comparison. The F-35 designates an air frame type that has several configurations which suit the specific needs of the service required. WW2 and pre-1970s aircraft service needs are extremely different today. In those days, fighters were needed in order to protect bombers from enemy fighters. Since the 1st Gulf War, our bombers have never needed fighters because of their stealth capabilities. Instead, our "fighters" became "fighter-bombers" carrying enough heavy munition to equal WW2 bombers. The big ships of WW2, like the C-47 that hasn't been mentioned and was both more specific and more important in WW2, were turned into gunships. But, they rely on AWACs, satellites, and other flying sensor intelligence and communications aircraft. So, what each F-35 package does is integrate stealth, speed, weapons load capacity, and communication. Every other competing airforce is trying to do the same thing, btw. This is not the same as arguing that a smart phone can't be a computer, television, radio, piano, guitar, compass and be able to make a call. At best, that argument may only be true for one moment in time. Things improve.

Now, I think the F-35 will ultimately be eclipsed, as will the A-10 --which eclipsed the earlier Thunderbolt. Nobody knows whether that will be the "Aurora" or some type of unmanned fighter. However, I think the various technological achievements developed because of the (way too expensive) F-35 program will all be used. It's as rational as installing computers. (Though, I think that pilots will always like to have true manual (mechanical) control of their planes). That's the program's main value. It keeps us ahead. Have you seen the future SUKs and 5th gen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdtnHU06Lvw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W6RIqrp5MU

[windwalker]

ya gotta admit

having a helmet that can allow one to see through the plane is gotta be way cool.

This article kind of outlines my own thoughts in some of the assumptions being made but never really tested,
hopefully they never do.

Air power first. The US armed forces are used to operating in conditions in which almost every aircraft in the sky is friendly. Indeed, since the very first days of WWII, when have they ever had to fear air attack? And for decades now they have assumed, correctly, that every aircraft they see is friendly. They can go where they like confident that no one is tracking them from above, no one is sighting in on them from above and that, in trouble, they can call in tremendous destruction from the air.

They kill their enemies – You Tube is full of videos – from the air without the enemy even knowing he's taken his last breath. They operate confident that the enemy's command and control system was destroyed in the first few days by air attack.

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/20/3675

[Steve James]

The US armed forces are used to operating in conditions in which almost every aircraft in the sky is friendly. Indeed, since the very first days of WWII, when have they ever had to fear air attack?

Um, where to begin? Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan? Where are those A-10s (and others) deployed today? The F-15, in the last 20 years, has had an air-to-air kill ratio of around 100-0. At least, there have been 0 air combat losses out of (at least) 100 engagements. Look it up, if no believe. Of course, russia-insider is most trustworthy. Shucks, we might as well give up now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses

[Steve James]

Oh, and to the question of "friendly skies," the writer must mean "skies cleared of all enemy aircraft" --and, you know why? --taking Baghdad for example-- because 1) B-1 stealth bombers have flown from the midwest and taken down radar defenses, and 2) since the 90s, the first thing that enemies has been to hide their aircraft. That's why all the talk nowadays of "no fly zones."

Anyway, "if" our air fighters were deficient, it would only make sense to improve them. The A-10 argument is totally irrelevant because it's not a fighter; it's a tank-killer. We would want a better fighter, based on what fighters will be capable of doing in the future. And, there's no worry that highly specialized planes (like the B-52) will ever be totally abandoned. But, that's the thing: an F-35 can carry nuclear weapons "and" travel almost twice the speed of sound, after being launched from a carrier, and be difficult to spot on radar. What Navy wouldn't want one of those?

[klonk]

Yet another argument by analogy:

The M14 was developed to replace four different weapons systems—the M1 rifle, the M1 Carbine, the M3 "Grease Gun" and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). The intention was to simplify the logistical requirements of the troops by limiting the types of ammunition and parts needed to be supplied. However, it proved to be an impossible task to replace all four. The M14 was also deemed "completely inferior" to the World War II M1 in a September 1962 report by the comptroller of the Department of Defense.[19] The cartridge was too powerful for the submachine gun role and the weapon was simply too light to serve as a light machine gun replacement for the BAR.

For those who do not have the honor of a personal acquaintance with the M14, it is a long big fat heavy rifle, quite accurate and reliable, but not handy. It had a very short career as standard issue, though some are still in use for special purposes.

Did I mention it is long and heavy? The more so as the day wears on.

As to the F-35, it is its thrust to weight ratio that bothers me most. It has the lowest among recent fighters. Even though it has that honking huge engine, it weighs sixty thousand pounds (MTOW).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4qZrPX60bw


There was once a mother who told her teenage son, "You must always say something complimentary to every girl you dance with."

So at the next dance he says to his partner, "Gee, you don't sweat much for a fat girl."

[Strange]

as i've said, you have to e singular in your (engineering) purpose
otherwise you will just end up being neither here nor there

and i suspect before too long, all that talk about controlling weapons of other pilots;
firing weapons of other fighters in my group; is gonna get pilots killed.
why? cos now that you published it; enemy fighters will know that your mind in not in your aircraft

[klonk]

Here is a rather curious counterpoint. The DeHavilland Mosquito was designed for a single purpose. It was to be a very fast-moving light bomber. It succeeded brilliantly at that. At the time of its introduction, it was faster than the fighters chasing it. Jolly good, wot?

Then the chaps started to notice that here was a strong and fast airframe that could be messed about and adapted to other things. Mount a cannon on it and go after ships, say, or chock it full of direction-finding paraphernalia and use it to precisely locate the target for night attacks by heavy bombers. It flies very high and fast? Just what we need: Chuck the bombs out and add a camera--now we have a wonderful photo reconnaissance airplane. The Mossie found her way into more uses besides, night fighter, meteorology, courier, ground attack... The video below tells about all that.

So here we have a single purpose design, brilliantly executed. Because it was an excellent airplane to begin with, people saw the potential of re-equipping it for other roles. That is quite opposite from trying to anticipate a laundry list of roles and then designing an aircraft. There is an old saying about airplanes: If it looks good it'll fly good. That is true more often than not.