F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[x_para76]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html?ito=social-facebook

 

[Kirkhill]

I love it when someone cites the Daily Mail.  The Side Bar gives me a chance to catch up on the latest in ladies' swimwear and what the Kardashians are doing.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is there truth to that article? An F16 beat the F35 in a dogfight trial?

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe OTR1 offered his opinion on the article.....

http://army.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1375128.html#msg1375128

 

[SupersonicMax]

Dogfight is not the purpose of the F-35, but the F-16 was specifically designed for it.  The F-35 is a mud-mover, with self-escort capabilities much comparable to what the Hornet is designed to do.

Let's put a JSF and a Viper for a strike in a contested area with early 2000s IADS and 4th Gen Eastern Block/Chinese fighters and let's see who comes out alive...

Totally irrelevant article.

 

[MarkOttawa]

On the other hand:

Why The “F-35 v F-16″ Article Is Garbage
http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jarnhamar]

Dogfight is not the purpose of the F-35, but the F-16 was specifically designed for it.  The F-35 is a mud-mover, with self-escort capabilities much comparable to what the Hornet is designed to do.

Let's put a JSF and a Viper for a strike in a contested area with early 2000s IADS and 4th Gen Eastern Block/Chinese fighters and let's see who comes out alive...

Totally irrelevant article.

Fair enough. I'm obviously out of my element here (and thanks for responding) but hearing your answer I can't help but think of what I read about the US deciding to remove guns from their F4 Phantoms because dog fighting was a thing of the past.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It has a gun and it has Air-to-air capabilities (and very good at that, just not designed to turn).  If there is any turning to do, the Raptors will do it: they are an air supremacy fighter with some Air to ground capabilities.  The F-4s were Air-to-Air fighters.  It didn't make sense to remove the gun.  The F-35 is a strike fighter: it makes sense to make compromise in the Air-to-air role to improve effectiveness in the Air to Ground role.

Little trivia:  how many Air to air kills came from a western fighter post-Vietnam?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Didn't the West wipe out Saddam's Air Force in the Air?

 

[PuckChaser]

Usual Wikipedia caveats, but here's a big list of all the air engagements of Desert Storm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

 

[Good2Golf]

Max, would it be reasonable to actually think of the JSF as a "F/A-35"?

G2G

 

[MarkOttawa]

Official reply:

Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog

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.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.

The release of this FOUO report is being investigated.  The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.

The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog?sf10503378=1

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SupersonicMax]

Didn't the West wipe out Saddam's Air Force in the Air?

Sorry, meant Striker Fighter, not Fighter.

G2G:  absolutely.

 

[MarkOttawa]

From the program in April, via AvWeek:

F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers
http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OTR1]

To his credit, Axe posted the 5-page document on the WIB site today. It's UNCLAS.

I expect CDF line drivers here can't comment, but I think these words abiout the document from a colleague who's a former FA2 driver and Hawk TP might chime with their thoughts.....

"Looks like standard TP stuff. Nothing there to justify a sensationalised report be Axe. Nothing there which cannot be overcome or dealt with. Yet another sensationally irrelevant piece of journalism. I think it's outrageous"

 

[YZT580]

I don't believe there has been a peer on peer air to air scenario since at least Viet Nam with the exception of the Falklands.  Planners are staking their money on air to air conflictions being resolved beyond line of sight i.e. several km.  If they are wrong, they will be raiding the deserts of Arizona to revive the parked fleets.  But the F35 is impressive at long range.  It can see, track, resolve and destroy well outside of gun range and with an unparalled accuracy.  If it couldn't, the Israelies wouldn't be signing on: they cannot afford to lose a single pilot.  I suspect though that their techniques will include stand-off escorts to follow up the initial foray and protect the F35 from close in encounters.  (just surmising)

 

[Ostrozac]

I don't believe there has been a peer on peer air to air scenario since at least Viet Nam with the exception of the Falklands.  Planners are staking their money on air to air conflictions being resolved beyond line of sight i.e. several km.  If they are wrong, they will be raiding the deserts of Arizona to revive the parked fleets.  But the F35 is impressive at long range.  It can see, track, resolve and destroy well outside of gun range and with an unparalled accuracy.  If it couldn't, the Israelies wouldn't be signing on: they cannot afford to lose a single pilot.  I suspect though that their techniques will include stand-off escorts to follow up the initial foray and protect the F35 from close in encounters.  (just surmising)

I would also count Lebanon 82 and the Iran-Iraq War to the list of peer on peer air to air scenarios post Vietnam. But you're right. It's a short list.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The text:

Read for Yourself — The F-35's Damning Dogfighting Report
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

At Flightglobal:

F-35 deigned for long-range kills, not dogfighting
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-deigned-for-long-range-kills-not-dogfighting-414232/

Bill Sweetman at AvWeek:

Controversy Flares Over F-35 Air Combat Report
http://aviationweek.com/defense/controversy-flares-over-f-35-air-combat-report-0

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Plus IHS Jane's 360 (usual copyright disclaimer):

JPO counters media report that F-35 cannot dogfight
...
COMMENT

As with most issues related to the F-35, this latest controversy has split observers down the middle, with the aircraft's advocates and detractors taking diametrically opposed views - and with the truth probably somewhere in the middle.

The War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.

For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.

However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.

Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so.

With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20. This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not.
http://www.janes.com/article/52715/jpo-counters-media-report-that-f-35-cannot-dogfight

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

AvWeek's Sweetman on future upgrades:

Advanced Electro-Optical System A Priority For F-35 Block 4

A comprehensive overhaul of one of the most important sensor systems on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a high priority for the Block 4 upgrade program, say company officials. It is needed because the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is already behind the state of the art in EO imaging and processing, and will fall further behind by 2020 as a new generation of pod-mounted systems enters service.

The Block 4 project will encompass all the new weapon and sensor capabilities for the F-35 through 2027. Program leaders are now deciding which to include and when. The new Advanced EOTS is considered important because it is the key to engaging surface moving targets and reducing the risk of fratricide and collateral damage in close air support (CAS) missions. “After things that need to be fixed, it’s the first priority,” says Paul Lemmo, vice president for fire control programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control.

The current EOTS was defined in the late 1990s...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/advanced-electro-optical-system-priority-f-35-block-4

Mark
Ottawa