Test pilot admits the F35 cant dogfight

[milosh]

I think you missed the point. If you get into a dog fight in a stealth fighter you did something drastically wrong. Also you don't want to get anywhere near the stall speed in a dogfight as that would make you a sitting duck.

Against non stealth yes but if both sides have decent number of stealth fighters then you will surely have stealth dogfights.

[spazsinbad]

I think you missed the point. If you get into a dog fight in a stealth fighter you did something drastically wrong. Also you don't want to get anywhere near the stall speed in a dogfight as that would make you a sitting duck.

Against non stealth yes but if both sides have decent number of stealth fighters then you will surely have stealth dogfights.

WOTIF my stealth is better than your stealth?

[boogieman]

As has been said upthread, there is an important distinction to be made between within-visual-range (WVR) engagements and what we might ordinarily consider "dogfights" (where opposing aircraft jockey for a firing position at each other's 6 o'clock). While the former may well remain a distinct possibility, it is not the same thing as the latter. We're now reaching a point where "ultra-HOBS" is becoming a thing, meaning that you can now shoot (and kill) the guy on your tail. This completely turns the idea of a "dogfight" on its head, because it nullifies the 6 o'clock/rear aspect control zone upon which traditional dogfighting is predicated.

[spazsinbad]

As has been said upthread, there is an important distinction to be made between within-visual-range (WVR) engagements and what we might ordinarily consider "dogfights" (where opposing aircraft jockey for a firing position at each other's 6 o'clock). While the former may well remain a distinct possibility, it is not the same thing as the latter. We're now reaching a point where "ultra-HOBS" is becoming a thing, meaning that you can now shoot (and kill) the guy on your tail. This completely turns the idea of a "dogfight" on its head, because it nullifies the 6 o'clock/rear aspect control zone upon which traditional dogfighting is predicated.

BEKUZ: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=27497&p=445838&hilit=bekuz#p445838 & download/file.php?id=33628

[hornetfinn]

As has been said upthread, there is an important distinction to be made between within-visual-range (WVR) engagements and what we might ordinarily consider "dogfights" (where opposing aircraft jockey for a firing position at each other's 6 o'clock). While the former may well remain a distinct possibility, it is not the same thing as the latter. We're now reaching a point where "ultra-HOBS" is becoming a thing, meaning that you can now shoot (and kill) the guy on your tail. This completely turns the idea of a "dogfight" on its head, because it nullifies the 6 o'clock/rear aspect control zone upon which traditional dogfighting is predicated.

Another thing is that a fighter can give targeting info to another friendly fighter or even air defence system and let them kill the bandit if needed. Especially with F-35 because it has the sensors and data link systems and networked sensor fusion to do that very precisely, automatically and quickly. Firing unit does not even need to see the target itself as the F-35 is likely able to give it very precise targeting info. Of course other aircraft have also demonstrated this kind of capability, but I think F-35 is a lot better system to use the capability in real combat and in most complex situations.

[quicksilver]

As has been said upthread, there is an important distinction to be made between within-visual-range (WVR) engagements and what we might ordinarily consider "dogfights" (where opposing aircraft jockey for a firing position at each other's 6 o'clock). While the former may well remain a distinct possibility, it is not the same thing as the latter. We're now reaching a point where "ultra-HOBS" is becoming a thing, meaning that you can now shoot (and kill) the guy on your tail. This completely turns the idea of a "dogfight" on its head, because it nullifies the 6 o'clock/rear aspect control zone upon which traditional dogfighting is predicated.

x2

[boogieman]

I'd add that if you are flying against an opponent with a spherical missile cueing capability and suddenly find yourself in a WVR fight with them, your first priority is probably going to be to extend out of it again, possibly using your own over-the-shoulder shots to at least create separation. This is for the simple reason that you are almost certainly within the NEZ of their medium (& possibly short) range AAMs and are therefore in dire straits.

The problem is not unlike flying directly over a SAM site ie. it is time to run for your flipping life. The only exception to this might be if you can get inside the bandit's missile Rmin, but that still leaves you open to being shot at by a third party. All in all, WVR is becoming a terrible place to fight (and win) across the board.

[quicksilver]

We’ve had this discussion around here before; the consequence of these new/emerging capabilities is that the boundaries that once defined where bvr ended and wvr began are being dramatically altered. Increasingly, where opposing aircraft each get a missile off of the rail, the probability of a ‘mutual kill’ is frighteningly high.

[madrat]

We’ve had this discussion around here before; the consequence of these new/emerging capabilities is that the boundaries that once defined where bvr ended and wvr began are being dramatically altered. Increasingly, where opposing aircraft each get a missile off of the rail, the probability of a ‘mutual kill’ is frighteningly high.

Which will make a loyal wingman more important than ever.

[boogieman]

We’ve had this discussion around here before; the consequence of these new/emerging capabilities is that the boundaries that once defined where bvr ended and wvr began are being dramatically altered. Increasingly, where opposing aircraft each get a missile off of the rail, the probability of a ‘mutual kill’ is frighteningly high.

Which will make a loyal wingman more important than ever.

Agree. By using F35 as the hunter and LW as the hounds, the latter could establish a dispersed forward ISR screen to protect against the possibility of "bumping" into another LO jet at a dangerously short-range, while feeding targeting data back to the shooters. This then gets more interesting as you put munitions on the LW themselves.

[hornetfinn]

I think you missed the point. If you get into a dog fight in a stealth fighter you did something drastically wrong. Also you don't want to get anywhere near the stall speed in a dogfight as that would make you a sitting duck.

Against non stealth yes but if both sides have decent number of stealth fighters then you will surely have stealth dogfights.

WOTIF my stealth is better than your stealth?

I think there might be a remote chance that some day F-35 will fight another F-35. In that case I see the following:

AWACS/AEW and ground/sea surveillance radars will be almost irrelevant for the fight. They would still be useful for other things, but they will have serious trouble detecting and tracking enemy aircraft until they are far too close for comfort. AEW aircraft would likely be pulled back for their protection for this reason. So neither side would have good overall SA before and during the fight.

F-35s would detect and track each other at about similar distances and that's likely rather short compared to detecting/tracking 4th gen fighters with F-35. As soon as you detect another F-35, you know it also has detected you and both are now very potential targets not only for each other but to other F-35s and other units (including SAMs) in the battlespace.

I think it will usually not be 1-on-1 fight, but rather many-vs-many fight with both sides fighting extremely co-operatively. Of course that is true even with 4th gen jets, but with F-35 there will be things like doing sensor fusion using all the sensors in all the friendly F-35s totally automatically, including ID and ROE stuff. So any F-35 could shoot at any target seen by any other F-35 even if it didn't see the target itself. So even after shooting all own weapons, F-35 will remain highly dangerous as it will still augment the overall SA and give targeting data to others.

I don't think anybody would start turning dogfights or anything like that in this hypothethical F-35 vs F-35 scenario. It would just make you an easier target for all those other enemy F-35s. I think if two opposing F-35s pass each other, the best option would be to get the hell out before turning and let the other friendly F-35s do their job.

[XanderCrews]

Against non stealth yes but if both sides have decent number of stealth fighters then you will surely have stealth dogfights.

Not really. it just adds another layer to the "sensor vs stealth" debate. Just think, in 10 years no one on any airplane forums are going to debate who the better "dogfighter" is but who has the better radar, and skin.

It will be super exciting

We've already had "stealth dogfights" on multiple occasions in training, since we've had 5th generation stealth fighters in service for 15 years now.

it doesn't end the way you hope.

[zero-one]

I don't think anybody would start turning dogfights or anything like that in this hypothethical F-35 vs F-35 scenario. It would just make you an easier target for all those other enemy F-35s. I think if two opposing F-35s pass each other, the best option would be to get the hell out before turning and let the other friendly F-35s do their job.

Not sure why we are generally dismissive of the possibility of "dogfights"here . Listening to actual pilots like C.W Leonine and Gonky who is usually a guest on the show, they talk about how easy it is to get into a merge even in today's network centric battlespace,

There was an episode where they suggested what they would want on a next gen fighter and both agreed that it should still have excellent traditional fighter performance qualities. Because all it would take is for someone to sneak passed all the sensors and boom, you're in the merge.

I was personally surprised with that statement, I did not think it was still possible to "sneak up" unless you're in a 5th gen yourself. but those are their words. Gonky later said that one thing you'll learn is that something always goes wrong, the moment my Radar doesn't work is when I need it the most.

Now of course we have the famous words of Ret. Lt Col David "Chip" Burke, who said that the least impressive trait of the F-22 is it's speed and agility and that if you're still thinking dogdights then you're missing the point.

However that is in sharp contrast to another F-22 pilot's statement when asked in the Fighter pilot podcast, Ret.Col Terry Scott's answer when asked what was the most impressive asset of the F-22, was the flight controls and the ability of the aircraft to move and maneuver, later on Col Scott mentioned that the Raptors have merged with Su-35's in Syria and performed "very well"

2 F-22 pilots, both retired, contrasting views. All I'm saying is, we shouldn't be so dismissive of the merge as if it's almost an impossible occurance.

[XanderCrews]

2 F-22 pilots, both retired, contrasting views. All I'm saying is, we shouldn't be so dismissive of the merge as if it's almost an impossible occurance.

infantry:



Infantry:



Infantry:



The "merge" will exist, however it will be unrecognizable compared to the past.

The entire point of maneuver is for the fighter to bring weapons to bear. if the weapons can be brought to bear from any aspect, there is no longer a need to maneuver.




air to air kills at all, regardless of WVR/BVR are damn rare anymore. So we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. (BVR, then WVR, then actual maneuver "dogfight") the bottom line is that modern aerial warfare is essentially "winner take all" in order for sustained air to air operations to occur the enemy must have a way to replenish and generate sorties either due to:

distance (korea)
political interference/boundaries/ROE. (Vietnam)
or both (korea)

compared to whats happened the last few decades-- air supremacy. Whatever is flying is shot down, ground defense nullified or destroyed, airfields destroyed, and the enemy air force is gone. We basically learned to annihalite enemy air power and the means to resist. I don't think regular US troops have been attacked by an air opponent since harassing attacks in Korea, the news for those facing the US is not so cheery

[zero-one]

The "merge" will exist, however it will be unrecognizable compared to the past.

Thank you, this was my whole point, I'm not saying it will be like World war 2 or even Vietnam.....errrr wait scratch that,
my whole argument is that we shouldn't be dismissive, so as much as it won't likely be like Vietnam, I'm also not going to completely dismiss that.

I'm happy you made infantry as your point of reference, with today's modern handheld weapons you can theoretically kill the enemy from a kilometre away, operating word is "can" because even if it's possible, the enemey won't let that happen they adjust and CQB or close quarter battles is still a very common occurrence specially in an urban setting.

So yes theoretically you can eliminate the merge, but just like the infantry, the enemy will do its best to adapt and force it because that their best chance against 5th gens.