Page 3 of 6

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:58
by sferrin
sergei wrote:
araya wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

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.”.....


....The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.....


Is this really true, can someone confirm this? :shock:

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.



Airpower Australia LOL :lmao:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:17
by araya
In the past I read much about, what the F35A should/will have the turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet and this in Combat Configuration (not clean). So I was totally surprised as I read the comment of the F35 Test Pilot how was not even able to beat the F16 Block40 with External Fuel Tanks in a dogfight. So is this article true or false and if is true, how can this be possible?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Follow the sources. "Unnamed pilots" slam it while named personnel sing it's praises. If there is no verifiable source it is likely BS.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:33
by araya
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources. "Unnamed pilots" slam it while named personnel sing it's praises. If there is no verifiable source it is likely BS.


Thx

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 15:25
by eloise
sergei wrote:http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.

Oh the good old APA again :doh: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: according to that website one F-22 can probably won WW III :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 19:26
by spazsinbad
'araya' the BORING is WAR article you cited was posted here earlier by 'gabriele' with a long discussion following and earlier some more bits about Norwegian F-16s: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=293887&hilit=unnamed#p293887

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 20:36
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.



So like how the Fulcrum and Flanker have pitiful combat records outside the forums? So far the only airplanes a Flanker has managed to kill have been-- Fulcrums :wink: Not even going to get into MiG-23s, and MiG-21s-- yikes!

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 22:57
by araya
spazsinbad wrote:'araya' the BORING is WAR article you cited was posted here earlier by 'gabriele' with a long discussion following and earlier some more bits about Norwegian F-16s: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=293887&hilit=unnamed#p293887


Thanks a lot for the link spazsinbad, :D I did not saw what it was already posted and discussed, sorry. :doh:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 01:50
by delvo
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
Also follow the specific claims back to where they came from. Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter. Before this, F-35 detractors had claimed that rear visibility was a problem and the helmet was too big, so this thing obliges them by claiming that exactly those details just happened to have dictated the outcome.

What's more likely to have generated such conveniently precise point-for-point responses to earlier arguments like that: a real-world Air Force exercise whose outcome couldn't be scripted, or someone making up the perfect fantasy event to vindicate the side (s)he had taken?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 02:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Did you read the report? I did. While it wasn't flattering, it was far from damning.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 04:25
by smsgtmac
delvo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
... Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter...


I categorically reject that assertion. You overgeneralize to the point you do violence to the phenonemon and mischaracterize those who observe (rightly) that external stores and weight tend to degrade aero performance more than internal stores (with associated cross-section) and weight. Try and discern also the difference between commentary about maneuverability and post-stall controllability (aka 'supermaneuverability').

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:01
by sferrin
smsgtmac wrote:
delvo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
... Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter...


I categorically reject that assertion. You overgeneralize to the point you do violence to the phenonemon and mischaracterize those who observe (rightly) that external stores and weight tend to degrade aero performance more than internal stores (with associated cross-section) and weight. Try and discern also the difference between commentary about maneuverability and post-stall controllability (aka 'supermaneuverability').


I think you probably used too many big words for him there. :wink:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:05
by sferrin
smsgtmac wrote:
delvo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
... Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter...


I categorically reject that assertion. You overgeneralize to the point you do violence to the phenonemon and mischaracterize those who observe (rightly) that external stores and weight tend to degrade aero performance more than internal stores (with associated cross-section) and weight. Try and discern also the difference between commentary about maneuverability and post-stall controllability (aka 'supermaneuverability').


Apparently Bill Sweetman is intimidated by you. He refers to you as "Sarge Mac-and-Cheese" in an effort to make the boogieman less scary.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253413

:lmao:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:26
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
Apparently Bill Sweetman is intimidated by you. He refers to you as "Sarge Mac-and-Cheese" in an effort to make the boogieman less scary.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253413

:lmao:


Does this mean there is finally an F-35 topic that isn't locked down over there after the program took turns for the better?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:30
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Apparently Bill Sweetman is intimidated by you. He refers to you as "Sarge Mac-and-Cheese" in an effort to make the boogieman less scary.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253413

:lmao:


Does this mean there is finally an F-35 topic that isn't locked down over there after the program took turns for the better?



It's only open because of the David Axe hit piece. The basement dwellers are having a field day spewing their bullshit.