America's fancy new fighter jet stinks at fighting. And the US Navy doesn't care.

[Onkel Neal]

America's fancy new fighter jet stinks at fighting. And the US Navy doesn't care.

In trials off the California coast in January 2015, a 1980s-vintage U.S. Air Force F-16 repeatedly defeated one of the flying branch's brand-new F-35A Joint Strike Fighter stealth jets in mock dogfights. "The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the unnamed JSF pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring obtained.

The test report is the latest proof that the F-35 — which Lockheed Martin is developing for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marines, and a host of American allies — is an inferior fighter in close combat compared to much older planes. Complex and heavy, the JSF "can't turn, can't climb, can't run," to quote one infamous 2008 war game report.

But the U.S. Navy — the third-largest purchaser of F-35s — seems unperturbed. Indeed, in recent planning the Navy describes the JSF less as a traditional fighter than as radar-evading, flying sensor and communications node.

[NeonSamurai]

The whole thing is a boondoggle, as you would expect from something as committee designed as this plane is. As for the avionics package, they would just be better off upgrading the F-16, F/A-18, and F-15 with the new avionics (or heck, maybe entirely upgrade/redesign the F-16, F/A-18, and F-15), and it would still be considerably cheaper than the F-35 program.

I do wonder how well the F-35 performs at BVR (Beyond Visual Range) and if it is any better than the F-22. The semi-stealth features could give it a potential edge in being able to shoot first before it is detected. On the other hand though, I'm not sure that the semi stealth feature is all it is cracked up to be, as to shoot you either need another aircraft feeding you target information via data-link, or you need to be using your own radar system which nullifies the stealth advantage as you are telling every aircraft near by exactly where you are.

One thing is for sure, the moment your enemy fires back, you would be in serious trouble; a plane that can't dogfight, cannot avoid missiles either. At any rate the US needs to stop designing military hardware the way it has been, trying to design a plane that can do everything and be used in all levels of service will only give you a plane that will be poor at all those things, and it won't save any of the money you think it will either, as you will have to replace or cancel the POS. The Russians know this, when the heck are we going to learn.

My favorite line:

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the Navy's top aviator, called the JSF's sensor combo a "game-changer." "Suck[ing] in all that information," an F-35 can paint "a great, clear picture of who's good and who's bad."

Oh please! Are you serious? That has to be the dumbest thing I've read someone saying about the program yet.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

America's fancy new fighter jet stinks at fighting. And the US Navy doesn't care.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

The whole thing is a boondoggle, as you would expect from something as committee designed as this plane is.

AHEM! http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2330079#post2330079 From Fubar2Niner's marvelous thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=221119

In July 2015, Lockheed Martin confirmed the authenticity of a leaked report showing the F-35 to be less maneuverable than an older F-16D with wing tanks. The pilot who flew the mission reported inferior energy maneuverability, a limited pitch rate and flying qualities that were "not intuitive or favorable" in a major part of the air-combat regime gave the F-16 the tactical advantage. In general the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential. In an interview with CBC Radio broadcast 2 July 2015, military journalist David Axe claimed to have read the leaked report and stated: "Against a determined foe, the F-35 is in very big trouble." Perhaps a bit of a costly boondoggle IMHO ...but a very cool looking plane!

[Oberon]

To be fair the Harrier was pretty terrible when it first came out too, it was deadlier to its pilot than the enemy, and the EE Lightning was a hangar queen early in its life too. Then there's the F-104, look how much refitting that took before it became a half way to decent interceptor.

The F-35 will come round eventually, probably just in time to be replaced by drones...

[Aktungbby]

It's all about lookin' cool BBY!

[Politenessman]

The problem with being reliant on keeping the fight BVR is that political considerations can preclude engaging targets without first having a visual ID (see USAF in Vietnam for example) and you don't want to be forced into visual range if you are flying an aircraft that is inadequate in that area.

Hopefully the F-35 well be fixed before it is really needed, another example of a total failure that was eventually fixed was the F-111.

It will be very expensive to fix.

[vienna]

Not a very big aficionado of fighter aircraft, so I can only really speak as a citizen/taxpayer: at 1 billion US$ each plane shouldn't this thing be a whole lot better than just a small flying bus? This is just another example of what happens when there is no accountability, oversight, or competent management in military spending. Isn't time we finally stopped being the ATM for big defense industries and made them deliver what they promised at the prices they bid when they sought to work on projects such as this. The industries know they can quote a ridiculous, lowball figure and not face any consequences when they go way, way over budget because the Pentagon and the Congress will just cut them a check to cover the "overages" they knew full well were going to happen before they even started to bid. I think they time has come to raise the stakes on the industries and hold their feet to the fire. Why doesn't the Congress take a hint from some of the "incentive" methods used in other bid contracts? A lot of contracts for other civilian projects make the contractor responsible for overages or penalize them for lowball bidding if they can't meet price/quality. Perhaps instead of the contractors padding their bottom line by "accidental" miscalculations, maybe if they were offered bonuses for completing a project on time and of specified quality and a further bonus if they complete a project as specified ahead of schedule. Following the Northridge Earthquake of 1994, there was much hand wringing and moaning over how it was going to take many months to replace and/or repair damage done to the freeway system in Southern California. Someone came up with the idea of an incentive bonus for the contractors if the got the repairs done on schedule and more if they beat cost/time projections. You never saw civil projects done so efficiently and rapidly in your life. The contractors beat the projections and pocketed tidy sums (the workers, however, were a bit miffed; they were used to drawing out projects to pad their salaries and overtime). Let's make it more profitable for the defense contractors to do the job right and fast the first time and turn off the seeming never ending spigot of taxpayer dollars...

One more thing: am I the only one who thinks it borders on the criminal when Pentagon planners seem to be more intent on justifying their jobs and on assisting their contractor cronies rather than in providing the people who really do the fighting and risk their lives with the best possible weapons and equipment in a timely manner? I seem to recall reports of fighter pilots turning off some of the "whizz-bang" technology in their cockpits because the tech got in the way of actually flying and fighting. Just because some Pentagon desk jockey is trying to fulfill his childhood "Star Wars" fantasies by cramming in every "Oh, Wow" bit of tech is no reason the pilots and crews have to deal with possibly life-endangering situations in battle caused by tech out of control. Sometimes when you want something that flies right, aims straight, and protects you in combat, you don't really need to have "Flash Gordon" tech getting in the way...


<O>

[Mr Quatro]

The way other things have been going in this 21st century ...

I wouldn't put it past the indwelling weapons suppliers to have a new plan that includes talking points.

Instead of a real test between an old F-16 and a new F-35 being labeled as a complete success it was labeled a failure.

What good would it do to brag about being the best in the face of the enemy?

I can always hope and dream that my country is the best in everything they do, especially when push comes to shove.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

AHEM! http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2330079#post2330079 From Fubar2Niner's marvelous thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=221119

I've been saying that the F-35 has been a terrible idea for years now

Originally Posted by Oberon

To be fair the Harrier was pretty terrible when it first came out too, it was deadlier to its pilot than the enemy, and the EE Lightning was a hangar queen early in its life too. Then there's the F-104, look how much refitting that took before it became a half way to decent interceptor.

The F-35 will come round eventually, probably just in time to be replaced by drones...

I honestly never thought much of the Harrier. As a fighting aircraft, its capabilities are pretty crap. It has just one thing going for it, that it can do STOL and VTOL for landing (yes it can do VTOL takeoffs but only naked), which makes it somewhat useful for the helo-carriers. It's a poor dogfighter due to lack of energy, and its payload is very small.

I think many period early jets had high maintenance too, but the EE Lightning had the added problem of its stacked engines. I don't know if I would ever consider the Lawn Dart to be a particularly good aircraft. Sure its performance was great in it's interceptor role, though its payload was rather light. It could move but it couldn't turn well, and it had a very nasty habit of living up to its nickname.

I suspect the F-35 won't for the simple reason that it's basic design is bad. Energy problems and a lack of maneuverability are not something that can easily be fixed. I also think the Navy is deluding themselves. You can't use a stealth jet for target acquisition and relaying, at least not while having it remain semi stealthy (this whole idea makes no sense at all). Plus I highly doubt it is all that stealthy an aircraft to begin with (I suspect it is about comparable to the F-22). Furthermore if its design is as underpowered and unmaneuverable as is claimed, surface and aerial missiles will be a massive threat to it when it is detected, particularly against state of the art weapons systems which can't be jammed, are very maneuverable, and very resistant to chaff and flares. So it probably would be a bad idea to send these things into the heart of enemy territory (especially given how much these stupid things cost). You could buy half a squadron of F-16s for the cost of just one F-35.

Originally Posted by Politenessman

The problem with being reliant on keeping the fight BVR is that political considerations can preclude engaging targets without first having a visual ID (see USAF in Vietnam for example) and you don't want to be forced into visual range if you are flying an aircraft that is inadequate in that area.

Hopefully the F-35 well be fixed before it is really needed, another example of a total failure that was eventually fixed was the F-111.

It will be very expensive to fix.

This is very true, and not just in Vietnam, even the current wars had similar rules of engagement to avoid accidentally shooting down civilians or allies. Like I said above, it is also very very bad for trying to defeat missiles shot at you, as you won't be able to out energy or out turn it.

Without redesigning the entire aircraft I don't know how some of that stuff can be fixed. Sure at some point a new engine system will become available to fix some of the energy problems, but the fundamental problem is the underlying design, not the engine, so the aircraft will always be at a disadvantage.

Really the Air Force should just get the F-16 Super Viper, give it a state of the art engine with thrust vectoring, the avionics package from the F-35, and some other tweaks to improve its maneuverability, and a fully digital MFD system. The Navy could do the same with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. The Marines can just go back to walking, since they were a key contributor to the F-35 mess to begin with, because they wanted their version to be able to VTOL. That or the Marines can keep the F-35, but they get to pay for the entire development costs of it.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The F-35 will come round eventually, probably just in time to be replaced by drones...

QFT