Matrix Games Forums

https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs ... hts-2018-3

The F-35 has long been plagued by reports of that it can't dogfight as well as older, much cheaper jets, despite being in development for nearly two decades and claiming to revolutionize air combat.

In 2015, War is Boring published a report from a test pilot that said the F-35 couldn't turn or climb fast enough to keep up with older jets, and F-16s lugging heavy fuel tanks under wing still routinely trounced it.

Sorry! No money for CVs and Subs as we blew it on our version of "Meat on the table"!

The more stealthy you make your jet the less maneuverable it is. Inverse proportionality. Fact of life.

Gotta keep the MIC happy.

So it is F-35 versus the Japanese Ki-43 then?

Hi all,

Please guys... please don't post such nonsense propaganda... [:(]

The F-35 now has almost nothing to do with F-35 few years ago - just read the reports from actual pilots, actual tests and look the performance of F-35 in airshows... [&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Please guys... please don't post such nonsense propaganda... [:(]

The F-35 now has almost nothing to do with F-35 few years ago - just read the reports from actual pilots, actual tests and look the performance of F-35 in airshows... [&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

No kidding. [8|]

I recall similar slams about the F-22 a decade or so ago. It couldn't do this. It couldn't do that. Too expensive. Too much sucking up to the MIC. Blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is, today, that plane is a feared uber-predator in the air. I have no doubts that they'll fine-tune the training, sensors and approach to the F-35 to make it a similarly capable platform.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Please guys... please don't post such nonsense propaganda... [:(]

The F-35 now has almost nothing to do with F-35 few years ago - just read the reports from actual pilots, actual tests and look the performance of F-35 in airshows... [&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

Leo,

Are you saying the F35 is a better dogfighter than the aforementioned Gen IV planes?

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Please guys... please don't post such nonsense propaganda... [:(]

The F-35 now has almost nothing to do with F-35 few years ago - just read the reports from actual pilots, actual tests and look the performance of F-35 in airshows... [&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

No kidding. [8|]

I recall similar slams about the F-22 a decade or so ago. It couldn't do this. It couldn't do that. Too expensive. Too much sucking up to the MIC. Blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is, today, that plane is a feared uber-predator in the air. I have no doubts that they'll fine-tune the training, sensors and approach to the F-35 to make it a similarly capable platform.

Are you saying the F22 is a superior dogfighter to the Gen IV fighters?

It ain't about speed and maneuverability when you have stealth and better radar/missiles. The F-117 isn't the world's best bomber on many scales, but being able to sneak in and drop on target without drawing defensive reaction is priceless.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

It ain't about speed and maneuverability when you have stealth and better radar/missiles. The F-117 isn't the world's best bomber on many scales, but being able to sneak in and drop on target without drawing defensive reaction is priceless.

No question about it, but the article addressed only dog-fighting capabilities of the F35.

Discussing aspects of A2A combat is outside the scope of the article and thus the thread.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

It ain't about speed and maneuverability when you have stealth and better radar/missiles. The F-117 isn't the world's best bomber on many scales, but being able to sneak in and drop on target without drawing defensive reaction is priceless.

No question about it, but the article addressed only dog-fighting capabilities of the F35.

Discussing aspects of A2A combat is outside the scope of the article and thus the thread.

That's like saying:

Aroldis Chapman's fastball (up to 105mph) is better than any other pitcher's. Is Sandy Koufax in danger of no longer being the best pitcher ever?! Discussing aspects of Sandy Koufax's pitching other than his fastball velocity (which we can mostly only guess at but definitely wasn't 105mph) is outside the scope of the comparison and thus the thread. [8|]


C'mon now, really?

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

It ain't about speed and maneuverability when you have stealth and better radar/missiles. The F-117 isn't the world's best bomber on many scales, but being able to sneak in and drop on target without drawing defensive reaction is priceless.

No question about it, but the article addressed only dog-fighting capabilities of the F35.

Discussing aspects of A2A combat is outside the scope of the article and thus the thread.

That's like saying:

Aroldis Chapman's fastball (up to 105mph) is better than any other pitcher's. Is Sandy Koufax in danger of no longer being the best pitcher ever?! Discussing aspects of Sandy Koufax's pitching other than his fastball velocity (which we can mostly only guess at but definitely wasn't 105mph) is outside the scope of the comparison and thus the thread. [8|]


C'mon now, really?

Yeah, really. The article has nothing to do with the superiority of the F35 and the BVR-that is axiomatic. The article was about the inability of the F35 to dog-fight with 4G fighters.

But I get it, no problem.

https://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/f ... on-raptor/

"Raptor Salad". Well so much for the vaunted dog-fighting ability of the F22.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961




No question about it, but the article addressed only dog-fighting capabilities of the F35.

Discussing aspects of A2A combat is outside the scope of the article and thus the thread.

That's like saying:

Aroldis Chapman's fastball (up to 105mph) is better than any other pitcher's. Is Sandy Koufax in danger of no longer being the best pitcher ever?! Discussing aspects of Sandy Koufax's pitching other than his fastball velocity (which we can mostly only guess at but definitely wasn't 105mph) is outside the scope of the comparison and thus the thread. [8|]


C'mon now, really?

Yeah, really. The article has nothing to do with the superiority of the F35 and the BVR-that is axiomatic. The article was about the inability of the F35 to dog-fight with 4G fighters.

But I get it, no problem.

Whoosh.

F-15, designed from the ground up to be maneuverable, and thus a dog-fighter.

F-22, F-35, not so much. Designed to be stealthy, and stand off using advanced electronics to detect and engage opponents before even detected.

So, what's the point...

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

It ain't about speed and maneuverability when you have stealth and better radar/missiles. The F-117 isn't the world's best bomber on many scales, but being able to sneak in and drop on target without drawing defensive reaction is priceless.

No question about it, but the article addressed only dog-fighting capabilities of the F35.

Discussing aspects of A2A combat is outside the scope of the article and thus the thread.

That's like saying:

Aroldis Chapman's fastball (up to 105mph) is better than any other pitcher's. Is Sandy Koufax in danger of no longer being the best pitcher ever?! Discussing aspects of Sandy Koufax's pitching other than his fastball velocity (which we can mostly only guess at but definitely wasn't 105mph) is outside the scope of the comparison and thus the thread. [8|]


C'mon now, really?

Funny thing about how radar is used in baseball today. The "gun" is aimed in front of the pitchers mound currently,
previously it was aimed in front of the plate, around 10' in both cases.
The difference between the two points is about 8-9 mph on most pitches.
Makes Nolan Ryan's 101-103 mph fastballs even more impressive since they were measured near the plate.

ORIGINAL: Will_L

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961




No question about it, but the article addressed only dog-fighting capabilities of the F35.

Discussing aspects of A2A combat is outside the scope of the article and thus the thread.

That's like saying:

Aroldis Chapman's fastball (up to 105mph) is better than any other pitcher's. Is Sandy Koufax in danger of no longer being the best pitcher ever?! Discussing aspects of Sandy Koufax's pitching other than his fastball velocity (which we can mostly only guess at but definitely wasn't 105mph) is outside the scope of the comparison and thus the thread. [8|]


C'mon now, really?

Funny thing about how radar is used in baseball today. The "gun" is aimed in front of the pitchers mound currently,
previously it was aimed in front of the plate, around 10' in both cases.
The difference between the two points is about 8-9 mph on most pitches.
Makes Nolan Ryan's 101-103 mph fastballs even more impressive since they were measured near the plate.

I don't know that the difference was that stark (especially since there's been some biophysical work done lately that puts the maximum speed a human can throw a ball at a little over 100mph), but yes there's a bit of a difference because of the angles involved.

I would give up maneuverability for invisibility any day of the week. Dogfights are about who sees who first and who fires first.

Remember maneuverability doesn't count for much anymore (since WWI), The Polish PZL11 could fly circles around a BF 109, the nate could fly circles around just about anything. Didn't help them much.

ORIGINAL: fodder

I would give up maneuverability for invisibility any day of the week. Dogfights are about who sees who first and who fires first.

Remember maneuverability doesn't count for much anymore (since WWI), The Polish PZL11 could fly circles around a BF 109, the nate could fly circles around just about anything. Didn't help them much.

You're on a roll this morning, my Brother!

ORIGINAL: rustysi

F-15, designed from the ground up to be maneuverable, and thus a dog-fighter.

F-22, F-35, not so much. Designed to be stealthy, and stand off using advanced electronics to detect and engage opponents before even detected.

So, what's the point...

Because they said the exact same thing about the F4 Phantom in the early 60s. "Dogfighting is obsolete with the advent of the Radar-Guided Missile".

They didn't even put cannons on the Phantom that is how sure they were of no need for dogfighting.

I fear history will repeat itself.

ORIGINAL: fodder

I would give up maneuverability for invisibility any day of the week. Dogfights are about who sees who first and who fires first.

Remember maneuverability doesn't count for much anymore (since WWI), The Polish PZL11 could fly circles around a BF 109, the nate could fly circles around just about anything. Didn't help them much.

I fear your analogy is incomplete. With the advanced avionics of the F-22 and F-35, multiple platforms are connected with ability to transmit targeting data, range, altitude and telemetry for missile engagement unseen. So your analogy would be more like a room full of invisible fighters in a darkened room taking turns smacking a very maneuverable (and very visible) target in the back of the head whenever it turned its back to them.

So many of these 'dogfights' are scripted close-in combat that are specifically for-well-dogfighting. "OK, Jones-san, you take your flight of 2 F-15J fighters to 10,000 feet and fly this vector and speed. Smith-san here in his 2 ship F-35A group will be at 8,000 feet, flying this vector and speed at this time. Here's your ceiling. Here's your deck. Have fun."

If your definition of a dogfight is akin to that of "Top Gun", then, yes, perhaps the F-15 is the better performer in that scripted environment. If your definition of a dogfight is real-world air-to-air superiority or air-to-air combat beyond a couple km and in the absence of scripted foreknowledge, then "no". The limited capabilities of an F-15J in that circumstance don't / won't convince me.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: rustysi

F-15, designed from the ground up to be maneuverable, and thus a dog-fighter.

F-22, F-35, not so much. Designed to be stealthy, and stand off using advanced electronics to detect and engage opponents before even detected.

So, what's the point...

Because they said the exact same thing about the F4 Phantom in the early 60s. "Dogfighting is obsolete with the advent of the Radar-Guided Missile".

They didn't even put cannons on the Phantom that is how sure they were of no need for dogfighting.

I fear history will repeat itself.

The F-4 Phantom II was very very good aircraft (and the omission of cannon was a big mistake - but later rectified)!

The "problem" with F-4 in Vietnam was more with politics and RoE (i.e. "Rules of Engagement") than A2A missiles itself... the BVR was not allowed because visual target confirmation was required which was very very wrong... no wonder pilots described that this meant "Fighting with one hand tied behind the back"... [:@]


Leo "Apollo11"