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. (http://theweek.com/articles/568792/americas-fancy-new-fighter-jet-stinks-fighting-navy-doesnt-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." (http://news.usni.org/2015/06/09/navy-air-boss-f-35c-advanced-sensors-situational-awareness-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."
:o:doh: Oh please! Are you serious? That has to be the dumbest thing I've read someone saying about the program yet.

[Aktungbby]

America's fancy new fighter jet stinks at fighting. And the US Navy doesn't care. (http://theweek.com/articles/568792/americas-fancy-new-fighter-jet-stinks-fighting-navy-doesnt-care)

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 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2330079#post2330079) :D From Fubar2Niner's marvelous thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=221119 (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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability_theory), 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_It_Happens) broadcast 2 July 2015, military journalist David Axe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 :down:...but a very cool looking plane!:o

[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... :dead:

[Aktungbby]

It's all about lookin' cool BBY!:woot:http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02980/F-35_PIC_7_2980114a.jpg

[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 ... :hmmm:

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. :yep:

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.

[Aktungbby]

Politenessman!:Kaleun_Salute:

[NeonSamurai]

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

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... :dead:

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.

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.

[em2nought]

Going to be expensive when the malfunctioning new catapults start putting F-35s in the drink. Maybe that's the plan to get rid of them. :hmmm:

Great point about rules of engagement!

[Jimbuna]

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

QFT :yep:

[Oberon]

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'm not 100% sure about the Harrier VTOLs only being naked, I think it can do them with a reduced load, otherwise it would make the FOB deployments in West Germany a bit difficult, that being said, there were probably roads nearby to enable STOL operations, although given the lifespan of the average pilot when the balloon went up it would have been academic really.

VIFFing is a handy technique that only the Harrier can do, but it only really works in the merge and it can be countered fairly easily.

It's not the best aircraft, but it wasn't really designed for air to air, it was more aimed at ground support in an era when helicopters were only just coming into their own. This niche could explain why we never really went into attack helicopters in a big way until getting the designs for the Apache from the US, I mean there was the anti-tank Lynx, but the Lynx wasn't designed as a sole attack helicopter.

Of course, when the CVA-01 project was cancelled and we found ourselves having to build a navy on the cheap, we found that a ski-jump carrier could throw VSTOL aircraft up, and so the Harrier was slotted into that role too.

Really, the Harrier is a typically British design, a square forced to the do the job of a triangle, circle, and a hexagon. In a way, the F-35 continues that mission, it's almost as if BAe had designed it and not Lockheed... :haha:

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 had a similar opinion of the Tent Peg but Schroeder tells me that the Luftwaffe thought quite highly of it. Then again, these are the guys that flew the Komet so they were probably used to aircraft that were deadlier to the pilot than the enemy. Again though, it's square pegging a round hole, the F-104 was designed as an interceptor, it was designed to fly at the enemy very fast, hit them with air to air missiles and then return, refuel and rearm. Same as the Lightning. It didn't need to dogfight or evade, it was essentially a guided missile with missiles on it.
Then someone decided to put bombs on it. :/\\!!
It's like the 262, original plans for an inteceptor and then some bright spark decides that it must be a fighter-bomber. :dead:

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).

I think in that respect it's trying to pick up the enemies EM emissions without being detected and then relaying that across. Although of course, relaying that means that the aircraft has got to make some noise itself. I don't know how they're getting around that, laser transmissions perhaps?
I think though, the idea of target acquisition and relaying is more based around the kind of setup that the AH-64D has, in that one F-35 can pick up a contact, relay it to the group and then back to the AWACs who can correlate it with their data, all in a matter of seconds. I guess having data from two fixed points might help firm up a long range shot, but since the Phoenix went out of service there's not really much point in trying to snipe the enemy out in BVR, because as soon as you drop an AMRAAM, he's going to go defensive and then work back from where that weapon came from.
Of course, he can't hit what he can't lock on, and I think that's the whole idea for the F-35, is to reduce the range at which the enemy can get a solid lock on the aircraft. Enabling the F-35 to kill, say, an Su-33 before the Su-33 can get a good lock on the 35.
A chap from the RAS used CMANO, which is probably the closest civilian sim you can get, and put some F-35s up against some Sukhois, the results were telling:
http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat


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.

Definitely agree on this though, I don't think the F-35s mission is going to be deep penetration, not against an enemy that has a half decent defense network anyway. I suspect, at the least in the RAF/RN the F-35 will be a fringe support and interception machine. I don't know what sort of aircraft would do the deep penetration missions any more, the sort of thing that the F-117 and B-2 were designed for...well, obviously we still have the B-2, but otherwise. Probably RCS reduced drones, something like the Avenger, since the Sentinel seems to have already been put on deep recon missions in Iran.
I come across as defending the F-35 here...and honestly I find myself in a very odd position, because part of me thinks that the F-35 might just make it out alright given time, that all these nightmare reports are just the result of the internet age, and we'd have been seeing similiar reports about other successful aircraft during their early days. I mean, certainly according to the article I already linked, the report from War is Boring involved a prototype aircraft which lacked certain equipment, such as off-sight bore targeting and part of the stealth gear. However, there are a lot of problems with the F-35, there is no going around it, and the price tag on it is ridiculous in an era where manned aircraft are slowly becoming obsolete.
But, we're stuck with it, certainly the UK is anyway, and we're just going to have to try and bodge the best of it and hope that our other aircraft make up the shortfall. I'd have been happier if the QEII carriers had been a standard long deck rather than another bloody ramp job, we'd have had more options on the table in regards to what aircraft we could fly from it. Heck, we could have just gone and got a load of F-18s, but no, we have to have the cheap boat with the too expensive to fly aircraft. :/\\!! British military procurement mysteries, we're full of them (see Nimrod fiasco).

Hopefully, once some of the customers start getting their F-35s we'll get more combat information about how the fully operational aircraft handles against a standard opponent.

[XabbaRus]

I saw this article and we discussed it to death over at the keypublishing forums.

I'm not a great fan of the F-35 and I'm sure it has limitations, however it also seems like it has become the done thing to trash the aircraft.

There were some inconsistencies in the report. I can't be bothered rehashing it but head over to keypublishing forums and you can see it there.

It's interesting that the F-35 used was an early model, quite possibly without the latest FCS software.

[NeonSamurai]

I'm not 100% sure about the Harrier VTOLs only being naked, I think it can do them with a reduced load, otherwise it would make the FOB deployments in West Germany a bit difficult, that being said, there were probably roads nearby to enable STOL operations, although given the lifespan of the average pilot when the balloon went up it would have been academic really.

VIFFing is a handy technique that only the Harrier can do, but it only really works in the merge and it can be countered fairly easily.

It's not the best aircraft, but it wasn't really designed for air to air, it was more aimed at ground support in an era when helicopters were only just coming into their own. This niche could explain why we never really went into attack helicopters in a big way until getting the designs for the Apache from the US, I mean there was the anti-tank Lynx, but the Lynx wasn't designed as a sole attack helicopter.

Of course, when the CVA-01 project was cancelled and we found ourselves having to build a navy on the cheap, we found that a ski-jump carrier could throw VSTOL aircraft up, and so the Harrier was slotted into that role too.

Really, the Harrier is a typically British design, a square forced to the do the job of a triangle, circle, and a hexagon. In a way, the F-35 continues that mission, it's almost as if BAe had designed it and not Lockheed... :haha:

I'm pretty sure it can't carry more than a couple of wingtip AIM9s and take off purely vertical, not at least without taking fuel off, or being extremely slow and shakey in takeoff (ie dangerous to fly). Now on a ship steaming at flank speed into the wind can help it a bit. I believe the idea in west Germany was that the harriers would use the local roads for STOL, and overpasses for shelter, the harrier doesn't need much length at all, especially if not carrying it's max payload. In a sense that would be a job it would be good at, as a semi guerrilla aircraft that doesn't need airfields.

You pretty much sum up my thoughts on VIFFing, the harrier can achieve a really tight turn circle using that trick, but it can't hold it for very long, plus VIFFing slows it's turning rate as energy is being used to push it into its turn and not around it.

Thing is though, the Harrier was not great at ground support either, due to its rather small payload and again low energy and maneuverability. All around it was really pretty mediocre.

Ultimately it's legacy was its service on the ski-jump and helo carriers. It was the only plane that could do the job.

Maybe BAe was a silent partner in the F-35 project with Lockheed. :haha:


I had a similar opinion of the Tent Peg but Schroeder tells me that the Luftwaffe thought quite highly of it. Then again, these are the guys that flew the Komet so they were probably used to aircraft that were deadlier to the pilot than the enemy. Again though, it's square pegging a round hole, the F-104 was designed as an interceptor, it was designed to fly at the enemy very fast, hit them with air to air missiles and then return, refuel and rearm. Same as the Lightning. It didn't need to dogfight or evade, it was essentially a guided missile with missiles on it.
Then someone decided to put bombs on it. :/\\!!
It's like the 262, original plans for an inteceptor and then some bright spark decides that it must be a fighter-bomber. :dead:


It was super fast, no doubt, and turned like a beached whale when it wasn't trying to see how far into the earth it could impale itself. As I recall some Canadian pilots liked it too, but the ground crews didn't due to how sharp the wings were (they would actually put guards over the edges of the wings). As an interceptor it wasn't so great, mainly because of how terrible the missiles it carried were (early AIM9's), and they were having problems with the plane crashing due to firing the gun with it's linked ammo. As an all around fighter it was not good. The MiG-21 tore it to pieces.

Apparently though not all German pilots liked the Lawn Dart either.

The poor safety record of the Starfighter brought the aircraft into the public eye, especially in German Air Force service. Fighter ace Erich Hartmann famously was retired from the Luftwaffe because of his protests against having to deploy the unsafe F-104s. The F-104 was also at the center of the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to a considerable number of political and military figures in various nations in order to influence their judgment and secure several purchase contracts; this caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan.

Having it being able to carry nuclear bombs, wasn't such a bad idea though, as it was small and fast, and you don't need pinpoint accuracy with nukes. Otherwise ya, not a good bomber, pretty tiny payload (and low wing clearance).


I think in that respect it's trying to pick up the enemies EM emissions without being detected and then relaying that across. Although of course, relaying that means that the aircraft has got to make some noise itself. I don't know how they're getting around that, laser transmissions perhaps?
I think though, the idea of target acquisition and relaying is more based around the kind of setup that the AH-64D has, in that one F-35 can pick up a contact, relay it to the group and then back to the AWACs who can correlate it with their data, all in a matter of seconds. I guess having data from two fixed points might help firm up a long range shot, but since the Phoenix went out of service there's not really much point in trying to snipe the enemy out in BVR, because as soon as you drop an AMRAAM, he's going to go defensive and then work back from where that weapon came from.
Of course, he can't hit what he can't lock on, and I think that's the whole idea for the F-35, is to reduce the range at which the enemy can get a solid lock on the aircraft. Enabling the F-35 to kill, say, an Su-33 before the Su-33 can get a good lock on the 35.
A chap from the RAS used CMANO, which is probably the closest civilian sim you can get, and put some F-35s up against some Sukhois, the results were telling:
http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat


Last i checked though, you can't really do passive target acquisition as detecting EM doesn't give you ranging data (signal strength does not equal range), or other needed data such as altitude. To do what the guy claimed, the plane would have to be flying with it's radar on, which means no more semi-stealth. I don't think the US uses lasers to transmit data from aircraft, another possibility would be to tightly beam it to a satellite, but that would induce lag, which wouldn't be good for trying to guide a missile at the target.

You are correct though with data relaying that is the idea, but any plane that has the system can do it in either direction (and it is direct plane to plane, not necessarily through AWACS). These systems are also necessary for planes like the F-22 and F-35 to fire while remaining semi-stealthy, as if they use their own radar, the enemy can fire back and have their missiles track the enemy radar until it gets close enough to lock on with it's own active radar. Of course you can do this trick with data link planes as well that are not as stealthy, one stays back and paints the target while the other sneaks in closer from another angle and fires.

I wouldn't put any stock at all in such simulations (especially CMANO, which relies on totally stupid AI pilots) as the capabilities for both planes are highly classified and not known to the general public. Also I should point out the cost differential, if I can afford 5 Su-33's to each of your 1 F-35's who is likely to win the engagement? Not to mention the F-35 needs someone else to provide the radar targeting so that it can engage in BVR without revealing itself and getting an AAM fired right back at it, homing on it's radar emissions.

Definitely agree on this though, I don't think the F-35s mission is going to be deep penetration, not against an enemy that has a half decent defense network anyway. I suspect, at the least in the RAF/RN the F-35 will be a fringe support and interception machine. I don't know what sort of aircraft would do the deep penetration missions any more, the sort of thing that the F-117 and B-2 were designed for...well, obviously we still have the B-2, but otherwise. Probably RCS reduced drones, something like the Avenger, since the Sentinel seems to have already been put on deep recon missions in Iran.
I come across as defending the F-35 here...and honestly I find myself in a very odd position, because part of me thinks that the F-35 might just make it out alright given time, that all these nightmare reports are just the result of the internet age, and we'd have been seeing similiar reports about other successful aircraft during their early days. I mean, certainly according to the article I already linked, the report from War is Boring involved a prototype aircraft which lacked certain equipment, such as off-sight bore targeting and part of the stealth gear. However, there are a lot of problems with the F-35, there is no going around it, and the price tag on it is ridiculous in an era where manned aircraft are slowly becoming obsolete.
But, we're stuck with it, certainly the UK is anyway, and we're just going to have to try and bodge the best of it and hope that our other aircraft make up the shortfall. I'd have been happier if the QEII carriers had been a standard long deck rather than another bloody ramp job, we'd have had more options on the table in regards to what aircraft we could fly from it. Heck, we could have just gone and got a load of F-18s, but no, we have to have the cheap boat with the too expensive to fly aircraft. :/\\!! British military procurement mysteries, we're full of them (see Nimrod fiasco).

Yet that was exactly what that Navy guy was talking about using the F-35 for (but I guess the Navy doesn't really have much hands on experience with stealth planes). Mostly IMHO he was just talking out of his arse though.

I figure drones will take over a lot of the deep penetration and recon jobs, along with the planes we have always used, using NOE flying and other tricks to stay hidden.

Personally I really don't believe the F-35 will ever be a good aircraft. It just simply can't be. It is trying to do way to many things which means it will be poor at all of them: they are trying to standardize the aircraft with 3 different military branches, each with differing needs; plus they are trying to make one of the variants VTOL which means that the other two variants will have to suffer the design necessities that enable VTOL; on top of it they are trying to make it stealthy too, which just further compounds the problems and highly limits the aircraft.

I don't think having the extra stuff though would have helped it in the dogfight. Sure off bore targeting would have helped, but then the f-16 has that capability too (and I'm sure it wasn't using it for that fight). Stealth technology is absolutely useless in a furball. So really nothing would have changed. We would need to see how the real plane performs in BVR testing to see where it may just perform ok.

I think Canada is stuck with it too, thanks to our stupid lil Emperor of a PM. We don't need it, we have the CF-18 which is a pretty nasty plane, we won't ever be having any carriers, and we don't really need VTOL. It is also way too expensive. Plus we are still busy trying to fix those lousy submarines England sold us some years ago. Otherwise I agree with what you said about the UK's situation with them.

Hopefully, once some of the customers start getting their F-35s we'll get more combat information about how the fully operational aircraft handles against a standard opponent.

Indeed, assuming we don't just get more hype and BS from the military, contractors, and politicians eager to avoid any more egg on their faces.

[Politenessman]

I must admit, I've long feared that "Stealth" will become the modern equivalent of dive bombing as per the WW2 Luftwaffe, ie hugely effective initially, then as various counters come into play a massive waste of resources. Almost all German WW2 bombers were designed and built with the ability to dive bomb (even the HE177 Strategic bomber) and this imposed cost, weight, design and drag limitations on almost all German bombers.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a place for a specialised stealth a/c, or that we shouldn't incorporate cheap and easy signature reduction features in fighter planes, but this idea we have that every a/c has to be RF invisible brings massive costs and worse still, a massive operating cost that extends through the life of the a/c.

I'm starting to lean towards the idea of an F-22 "silver bullet" style force for the initial air to air phase and upgraded F-15/16/18 to do most of the work. add in cheap semi stealthy cruise missiles for conventional strike and you have high end fighters for high threat scenarios and very capable mid level a/c, in numbers, to handle the rest.

I would imagine that a reasonable investment in something like the above would cover most scenarios, at least until either drones take over or directed energy weapons clear the skies.

[Schroeder]

It was super fast, no doubt, and turned like a beached whale when it wasn't trying to see how far into the earth it could impale itself. As I recall some Canadian pilots liked it too, but the ground crews didn't due to how sharp the wings were (they would actually put guards over the edges of the wings).

Funny, the two German ground crews I talked to loved the F104. Actually the German F104 G had an average safety record over it's entire lifespan compared to other NATO aircraft. That means it started out badly which was also in part to lack of proper maintenance, rushed pilot training and slow upgrade speed when errors were discovered (non of that is an issue with the aircraft itself but because of pee poor planning and resource management in the Luftwaffe at that time which wasn't solved until Joahnnes Steinhoff became chief of staff of the Luftwaffe in 1966). But once that was rectified the safety record improved dramatically.


As an interceptor it wasn't so great, mainly because of how terrible the missiles it carried were (early AIM9's), and they were having problems with the plane crashing due to firing the gun with it's linked ammo.
I only know of one prototype being lost because of cannon malfunction. I haven't heard of any difficulties with the production models (at least not 104G).


As an all around fighter it was not good. The MiG-21 tore it to pieces.
It wasn't meant to be an all around fighter but it had some advantages over the MiG like acceleration, rate of climb and top speed at most altitudes IIRC.


Apparently though not all German pilots liked the Lawn Dart either.
Hartmann really didn't like it but that was in the beginning when it really had some issues. But name me one aircraft of that period that didn't. Most or even all of the faults were rectified throughout it's service career.


Having it being able to carry nuclear bombs, wasn't such a bad idea though, as it was small and fast, and you don't need pinpoint accuracy with nukes. Otherwise ya, not a good bomber, pretty tiny payload (and low wing clearance).
It's also a numbers game. You get two F104 for the cost of one F4. Two F104 can almost carry what one F4 carries but they can be at two different locations which one F4 can't.

[NeonSamurai]

Funny, the two German ground crews I talked to loved the F104. Actually the German F104 G had an average safety record over it's entire lifespan compared to other NATO aircraft. That means it started out badly which was also in part to lack of proper maintenance, rushed pilot training and slow upgrade speed when errors were discovered (non of that is an issue with the aircraft itself but because of pee poor planning and resource management in the Luftwaffe at that time which wasn't solved until Joahnnes Steinhoff became chief of staff of the Luftwaffe in 1966). But once that was rectified the safety record improved dramatically.

As long as you took precautions the plane was easy to work on. Don't and the plane could cut through gloves and pant legs.

In Canada its main nicknames were the widowmaker (press nickname), and the Lawn Dart or Aluminium Death Tube (what the pilots called it), and had a 46% loss rate in Canada over the time of its service, many attributable to teething problems as well. Of course our previous jet the F-86 saber had even higher losses, but then it flew in combat in Korea.

I only know of one prototype being lost because of cannon malfunction. I haven't heard of any difficulties with the production models (at least not 104G).

Canada and the US had problems with it where it caused a number of losses until they changed 20mm cannons to a linkless version. As Canada mainly used them as a high speed low altitude ground attack aircraft, that problem could be deadly. The G series wasn't affected because they had resolved it by the C series in the US.

It wasn't meant to be an all around fighter but it had some advantages over the MiG like acceleration, rate of climb and top speed at most altitudes IIRC.

It was designed as an interceptor, but many countries used it as a general purpose fighter or even a fighter bomber after the 'bomber threat' failed to materialize. It also failed very poorly in the India/Pakistan war, where in a 4/4 fight against MiG-21's all 4 F-104's were lost with no damage done to the MiGs. Now it may be an isolated incident, but still it is a very poor showing for the F-104. It's showing in Vietnam was also poor, where it had a number of losses (most from ground fire) over a total of about 5000 sorties, and zero kills.

This doesn't mean it was a bad plane as an interceptor, it just was rather poor at anything else, especially as missiles became more capable. To make use of its advantages takes an exceptional pilot, as you can't allow yourself to be drawn into a turning fight which is the natural impulse, as this plane can't turn. As the joke with Canadian pilots goes, 'banking with intent to turn'. To fight with it, your only option is to boom and zoom, as it was even less maneuverable than the F-4 Rhino.

Hartmann really didn't like it but that was in the beginning when it really had some issues. But name me one aircraft of that period that didn't. Most or even all of the faults were rectified throughout it's service career.

Still it is telling that he got drummed out of the Luftwaffe over it.

It's also a numbers game. You get two F104 for the cost of one F4. Two F104 can almost carry what one F4 carries but they can be at two different locations which one F4 can't.

Also means you need 2 fully qualified pilots, though the F-4 would need a RIO. I'm not entirely sure who would win a fight like that, but I think the F-4 may have the advantage, even if it was designed with the principle that you can make a brick fly if you give it enough power, as it could at least turn and be somewhat acrobatic.

[NeonSamurai]

I must admit, I've long feared that "Stealth" will become the modern equivalent of dive bombing as per the WW2 Luftwaffe, ie hugely effective initially, then as various counters come into play a massive waste of resources. Almost all German WW2 bombers were designed and built with the ability to dive bomb (even the HE177 Strategic bomber) and this imposed cost, weight, design and drag limitations on almost all German bombers.

We always seem to go through design fads like the dive bomber thing. Dive bombers were popular early on because it was the only method of accurately placing bombs on target. Even late in the war dive bombing was still highly effective for ground support, provided you controlled the skies. I always thought the Stuka was an amazing machine and beautifully designed, it was also a lethal tank killer throughout the war, but it needed to be supported by fighters.

The early medium dive bombers were not too bad a design, and in a way they were necessary for any kind of precision bombing (like targeting the British Chain Home Stations for example) as Germany did not have particularly accurate bomb sights early war. But trying to make every single bomber dive capable was indeed foolish for all the reasons you said. The biggest mistake for Germany though was its failure to develop a good heavy bomber, particularly early on, which in part was due to this Dive bombing doctrine.

We still use dive bombing to this very day in Close Air Support because it remains a very effective tactic because of its precision, and it allows pilots to get in and out of the target area fairly quickly due to the speed boost from the dive. The difference though is that we no longer build specialized dive bombers, and we don't try it with anything larger than a fighter or fighter/bomber. Also the flight profile is rather different as the dive is much shallower and a lot faster and not the near vertical dives of the Stuka using dive brakes that almost made the plane hang in the sky, and blackout inducing pullouts out of the dive.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a place for a specialised stealth a/c, or that we shouldn't incorporate cheap and easy signature reduction features in fighter planes, but this idea we have that every a/c has to be RF invisible brings massive costs and worse still, a massive operating cost that extends through the life of the a/c.

Frankly I think the US should have a specialized stealth fighter/bomber. Something that would be a low production run, and multipurpose. It should be highly stealthy against radar and IR, carry a reasonable internal only payload (no exterior pylon capability), and have a large fuel capacity for range. Something kind of like an updated F-117 or the theoretical F-19. It would be outfitted with the focus on passive sensors, be able to carry Air to Air missiles (AIM-9 and AIM-120), HARMs, and different types of ground munitions (durandals, LGBs, JDAMs, cluster munitions, etc), and it would not carry a gun. It's primary purpose should deep penetration missions against high value air and ground targets, early SAM suppression, destroying the runways of key airports, and recon. Key targets would be enemy AWACs and other high value aircraft, CnC buildings, high value SAM sites, enemy infrastructure, etc.. This plane would also not be designed as a dogfighter, as it would not be an overly fast plane or particularly maneuverable, these things don't mix with a highly stealth plane. It would be designed to ambush and disappear.

Everything else should be more conventional. The reason for this is that stealth is very expensive, and entails a lot of sacrificing of the aircraft's performance and payload for that stealth. So it is kind of an all or nothing thing, as aircraft designed with both in mind have to make sacrifices either to stealth or capability, as is the case with the F-22 and F-35. They either have very limited stealth capability, or very limited combat capability, or some mix in between. This gets even more exaggerated when you attach external pylons to the F-22 or F-35, as now you have a very expensive plane, that still can't carry anywhere near what a comparable non stealth plane can, that is now rendered entirely non stealthy because of the pylons. I mean what is the point then? Sure you can ditch the pylons once the ordinance is expended and regain most of the stealth capability, but you would be 2/3rds of the way through the mission by then, so why bother using them in that capacity at all when you could field 5 times the number of conventional aircraft for the cost, each individually having greater capacity than the stealth aircraft.

This is precisely why politicians should not be allowed to dictate design philosophy, as they don't have a clue what they are doing (this goes for some of the upper brass too who are equally incompetent).

I'm starting to lean towards the idea of an F-22 "silver bullet" style force for the initial air to air phase and upgraded F-15/16/18 to do most of the work. add in cheap semi stealthy cruise missiles for conventional strike and you have high end fighters for high threat scenarios and very capable mid level a/c, in numbers, to handle the rest.


I think your better served going all the way when it comes to stealth, which is why I suggest the above. We should take a page from the Russian design philosophy of not completely redesigning everything. Take what we know works really well, and make it work even better using newer technology. Why do we have to keep redesigning the wheel from scratch every time?

I would imagine that a reasonable investment in something like the above would cover most scenarios, at least until either drones take over or directed energy weapons clear the skies.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the F-22 is out of production due to the F-35, and it too had problems.

[ikalugin]

What kind of flight profile would this aircraft be built for? If it is a high-medium altitude stealth plane, then it would be defeated by modern, mobile meter wavelength radars (such as Nebo-M) coupled with long range SAMs and/or modern fighters, as those would negate it's primary survivability feature - stealth.

And you did see A12, right?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/A-12_Avenger_Concept.jpg/800px-A-12_Avenger_Concept.jpg

[NeonSamurai]

I would picture it as being generally low flying and subsonic, preferably with the engines mounted midway in the body or wing roots and ducted to reduce IR emissions and decrease its sound signature. It probably should have super-cruise engines or some form of afterburner to give it the ability to popup and attack air or ground targets before disappearing back into the ground clutter, or to help it cover ground quickly when it has to.

I hadn't actually seen the A14 before, boy does it remind me of the Ho.229. Design wise I would see the plane having a somewhat similar shape for both stealth and other design reasons (payload, fuel capacity, etc.). Another design feature I would probably incorporate would be to remove the traditional glass cockpit and imbed the pilot cockpit flush inside the body of the aircraft, as the cockpit has always been a major source of trouble for decreasing the radar signature of a plane. The pilot would be able to see outside the plane using a camera network and helmet mounted display. I am uncertain though if it should be carrier capable or not, as that could just complicate the design due to the unique needs of Navy aircraft.

The key thing though is that this plane would have a rather small production run, as they would be too expensive and would not make sense as a replacement to more conventional craft.

As for the Nebo-M, only time will tell if it performs even half as well as claimed (wouldn't exactly be the first time Russia has exaggerated a platform's capability). I also would not be surprised if future developments in stealth technology can find a way around it, though.

[Wildcat]

I don't think ultra-maneuverability is that important a feature.

A reasonable amount of maneuverability is enough.

We're talking about a platform with an extremely sophisticated radar system which will also be backed up with link and contact data from AWACS radar aircraft, among other sensor info.

When you're taking your shots 20-30 miles away with an active radar missile, you can turn away to get some distance before the other guy's even in range to fire his missiles, if he even gets a lock on you in the first place (Stealth).

And ignoring all that, it only takes a split second of yanking the nose to get an IR missile shot off, and after that the bad guy's usually going to have to break off to evade, or he'll be hit.

Look at the examples of dogfighting in a sim/game like Flaming Cliffs (Lomac). Fights with missiles rarely devolve into scissors battles, it's usually finished in 1 or 2 reversals or even at the break, if it even gets that close. Probably more than 70% of all the fights are over at 20miles distance with a long range radar guided missile.

[ikalugin]

Nebo-M is a currently operated, mobile (15 minutes to set up) radar.

Getting stealth against it is not possible with existing known physical principles, due to the fact that the wavelength defeats both shaping and RAM coatings/structures. Even if such signature reduction measures were to be adopted, the growing radar power would still allow detection (at cost of murdering poor birds but still).

In my opinion stealth is/was overrated. Relying on it for survivability creates a single point of failure within the desighn, plus stealth is difficult if at all possible to imporve post production.

[NeonSamurai]

I don't think ultra-maneuverability is that important a feature.

A reasonable amount of maneuverability is enough.

We're talking about a platform with an extremely sophisticated radar system which will also be backed up with link and contact data from AWACS radar aircraft, among other sensor info.

When you're taking your shots 20-30 miles away with an active radar missile, you can turn away to get some distance before the other guy's even in range to fire his missiles, if he even gets a lock on you in the first place (Stealth).

And ignoring all that, it only takes a split second of yanking the nose to get an IR missile shot off, and after that the bad guy's usually going to have to break off to evade, or he'll be hit.

Look at the examples of dogfighting in a sim/game like Flaming Cliffs (Lomac). Fights with missiles rarely devolve into scissors battles, it's usually finished in 1 or 2 reversals or even at the break, if it even gets that close. Probably more than 70% of all the fights are over at 20miles distance with a long range radar guided missile.

I get the impression you don't fly against other humans often (or maybe they are just not very good). In my experience guns only knife fights tend to happen quite a bit if the pilots involved are highly skilled/experienced. The reason is if you know what your doing it really isn't all that hard to evade modern missiles, particularly BVR shots, so long as you are paying attention. It does though take a lot of maneuverability and a lot of available energy to pull it off, however. Also you absolutely would get a maddog sent right back at you if I have you on radar or not, as I would know where you are because to get a BVR shot off you would either have to activate your own radar to find and lock on to me, or have a friend your data linked with who has their radar on as AWACs data is not accurate enough to shoot with. Either way I get a radar spike and would be ready. If your close enough to use IR missiles, your close enough to for me to probably get a radar lock, stealthy or no, if not you can be IR boresighted or via a helmet display, which means you also get an IR missile to play with too. Even stealthy modern fighter planes still have a fairly significant IR signature. Besides going to IR means we're now in a dogfight, where energy and maneuverability mean almost everything, which by the way was the real situation with that test pilot when taking the F-35 against the F-16D. The fact that an F-16D, while still carrying its drop tanks and full missile compliment, and could still out turn and out energy a clean F-35 in a dogfight, is very very bad, considering the role it is meant to play. A fighter plane that cannot dogfight is not a fighter plane.

Nebo-M is a currently operated, mobile (15 minutes to set up) radar.

Getting stealth against it is not possible with existing known physical principles, due to the fact that the wavelength defeats both shaping and RAM coatings/structures. Even if such signature reduction measures were to be adopted, the growing radar power would still allow detection (at cost of murdering poor birds but still).

My understanding of Nebo-M is that it does not entirely defeat stealth. Shaping still would work according to the various analyses I have read for the simple reason that shaping bends radar waves around the craft rather than sending them back. But the RAM coatings maybe not so much (though for all we know this gap may already be covered by reformulating the RAM). Of course since most current stealth jets rely heavily on RAM coatings with only partially shaped designs, they may be detectable at altitude. More importantly, VHF radar has a lot of issues when trying to detect and track low flying aircraft, particularly stealth aircraft when they are flying close to the ground, even with filtering it would be very easy for a stealth plane to become part of the noise.

Besides, if the Russian radar works so well as they claim against stealthy aircraft, do you not think the US would have quickly dropped the F-35. I mean why spend all those hundreds of billions of dollars if it doesn't really work? I guarantee that Lockheed Martin Skunkworks has access to comparable VHF radar systems to the Nebo-M, and would have tested the design against it. With their setup they can pretty much simulate just about any existing radar system in the world, and very accurately examine how stealthy a design is from all aspects against all the different radar types.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP2kpNDwBEU

In my opinion stealth is/was overrated. Relying on it for survivability creates a single point of failure within the desighn, plus stealth is difficult if at all possible to imporve post production.

I both kind of agree and kind of don't. Stealth does not make sense for the main front line aircraft. But it can for highly specialized aircraft that could be used to blind the enemy deep inside their own territory. Some aspects can be changed and improved on post production, such as changing the skin material, switching RAM coatings (this has happened before with the F-117), and other minor tweaks. About the only thing you wouldn't change would be the airframe, though in theory even that would be possible.

[ikalugin]

Most stealth aircraft (ie F117A, F22A, JSF series, B2A to lesser extend) have shaping features that are either equal in size or smaller to the wavelength, but are not significantly larger than it.
This leads to a such interaction between the radiowave and the aircraft that the shaping features do not actually matter, the wavelength (by enlarge) ignores those.
RAM coatings wise, you either make those broadband and require RAM coatings/structures thickness to be on par or thicker than the wavelength, or you create narrowband RAM coastings/structures. This is why RAM coatings/structures are defeated by even shorter wavelengh radars of L-band (which also partially defeats shaping).

JSF is too big to fail, even if it's stealth (which comes from way back) is no longer a decisive factor. A purpose built, low level flight platform is another matter however, even though you could fit an L-band radar that could detect 0.005m2 RCS at 600km onto a plane.

In my opinion stealth sort of lost it's thunder back in 1987, with S300V2 (which had mobile long wavelength radar for target detection, surprise) coming around (unless you believe in the 0.00000000000001m2 RCS figures given for F117A and F22A) and rendered tactically (via fully mobile VHF/UHF and other radars) and strategically (via fielding of new long range means - such as beyound horizon radars) irrelevant, especially at high altitudes, as current airborne radar technology is still some ways behind the ground based stuff.

[Wildcat]

I've been flying combat sims (online) since Jane's F15 came out, all I can say is that I've never found maneuverability to be the most important issue in a fight. If the fight did devolve into close quarters it always ended within 30 seconds and 1-2IR missile shots.

Sure, you can evade missiles all day long but while you're doing that your enemy is just going to close distance while you can't shoot at him because you've lost your lock, or your missile range is going to be too short because you've lost energy evading the missiles, but he's still up high and now heading in the opposite direction. Besides that a good BVR fighter will send more than 1 missile your way on the first salvo and time the second one to really mess with your evasion efforts.

It all comes down to using the best features of your aircraft and the assets on your side in order to win.

You wouldn't try to dogfight a Zero in a P-38 would you? (I used to fly these exclusively online and racked up kills like crazy in both. Flying one like you'd fly the other would be a recipe for quick death). Fly your aircraft in a way that compliments its strengths. Just because an aircraft is maneuverable doesn't make it better than yours.

IMO the American side has better tools (Missiles, link data, etc) than the current Russian or Chinese offerings, and in the end that is what is most important, because I don't see any real F-35 vs F-16 engagements happening in the near future.

[NeonSamurai]

Most stealth aircraft (ie F117A, F22A, JSF series, B2A to lesser extend) have shaping features that are either equal in size or smaller to the wavelength, but are not significantly larger than it.
This leads to a such interaction between the radiowave and the aircraft that the shaping features do not actually matter, the wavelength (by enlarge) ignores those.
RAM coatings wise, you either make those broadband and require RAM coatings/structures thickness to be on par or thicker than the wavelength, or you create narrowband RAM coastings/structures. This is why RAM coatings/structures are defeated by even shorter wavelengh radars of L-band (which also partially defeats shaping).

JSF is too big to fail, even if it's stealth (which comes from way back) is no longer a decisive factor. A purpose built, low level flight platform is another matter however, even though you could fit an L-band radar that could detect 0.005m2 RCS at 600km onto a plane.

In my opinion stealth sort of lost it's thunder back in 1987, with S300V2 (which had mobile long wavelength radar for target detection, surprise) coming around (unless you believe in the 0.00000000000001m2 RCS figures given for F117A and F22A) and rendered tactically (via fully mobile VHF/UHF and other radars) and strategically (via fielding of new long range means - such as beyound horizon radars) irrelevant, especially at high altitudes, as current airborne radar technology is still some ways behind the ground based stuff.

In the end who knows, it's in Russia's best interest to claim their brand new radar can easily detect any stealth plane, just as it is in the US's interests to keep their cards close to their chest and let Russia think it can do what they claim it does. Until the actual event of combat between these two systems, we really do not know which one would come out ahead, or where the truth lies.

Shaping alone never entirely works as the best it can hope to accomplish is decreasing the radar signature and lowering the detection range (which is the entire purpose of stealth, your not invisible, your just harder to detect). You can't eliminate all the possible radar returns by shaping alone. The big question is if there exist RAM coatings that still work or not. Plus of course there are other piloting tricks that can be used to defeat radar beyond NOE flying, even with non-stealthy aircraft.

As for radar detection it was already known that the F-117 had some detection problems even before the start of the F-35 design process, that was one of the reasons why it was fazed out (the other being the massive downtime and support/maintenance costs). So it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to add stealth capability at such a greater expense, knowing it doesn't work at all. But then again I seriously question a lot of the design decisions when it comes to the F-35, so who knows.


I've been flying combat sims (online) since Jane's F15 came out, all I can say is that I've never found maneuverability to be the most important issue in a fight. If the fight did devolve into close quarters it always ended within 30 seconds and 1-2IR missile shots.

I've been messing around in flight sims since Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0, all the way through to the present, and been flying versions of Falcon 4.0 from release to today (over two decades now), the IL-2 series, Rise of Flight, DCS and some of their study sims, and just about every single major helicopter simulation ever released for pc.

I can think of many occasions in Falcon 4 or DCS where I was in a guns only situation against another player because we had already expended all of our ordinance against each other or other players that had been already shot down. Including a few times where me and another player were so evenly matched you lost because you ran out of fuel.

Sure, you can evade missiles all day long but while you're doing that your enemy is just going to close distance while you can't shoot at him because you've lost your lock, or your missile range is going to be too short because you've lost energy evading the missiles, but he's still up high and now heading in the opposite direction. Besides that a good BVR fighter will send more than 1 missile your way on the first salvo and time the second one to really mess with your evasion efforts.I've killed plenty of players with maddog AIM-9 or AIM-120 shots who though they had me tied up with their missiles, particularly in BVR settings. Short of being bushwacked, it is exceedingly rare that I won't have a chance to fire back before going into evasive maneuvers. Ripple firing is also the norm. The key in BVR combat is preparation. Very skillful pilots can also generally maintain most of their energy while defeating missile threats, but you really need to understand the missile you are fighting.

It all comes down to using the best features of your aircraft and the assets on your side in order to win.

You wouldn't try to dogfight a Zero in a P-38 would you? (I used to fly these exclusively online and racked up kills like crazy in both. Flying one like you'd fly the other would be a recipe for quick death). Fly your aircraft in a way that compliments its strengths. Just because an aircraft is maneuverable doesn't make it better than yours.I would consider booming and zooming a Zero in a P-38 to be dogfighting it, but no of course I would not try to turn with it. But then again with modern air weapons trying to boom and zoom is almost suicidal against a plane with all aspect IR missiles.

But this is exactly my point. The F-35 reportedly does not have either advantage as it has both poor energy management and poor maneuverability, it doesn't have either and still lost to a 3-4 decades old plane where the F-35 had every single advantage as far as load outs (F-16 have severe penalties to maneuverability and energy while carrying twin fueled drop tanks). The only thing going for this plane is its stealth features, which are utterly useless up close. This also means that the F-35 would have almost no chance of successfully evading a missile that has locked on to it.

If your fighting a plane that can turn like a Zero and has the speed and energy of a P-38, while your plane can't do either as well, and the other pilot is as skilled as you are, who do you think is going to win the fight?

This is why I am saying if the F-35 is performing as poorly as the test pilot claims, it is in serous trouble if it ended up in combat against a modern well equipped foe.

IMO the American side has better tools (Missiles, link data, etc) than the current Russian or Chinese offerings, and in the end that is what is most important, because I don't see any real F-35 vs F-16 engagements happening in the near future.That I really do not agree with, in fact I think you have it backwards. For one thing modern Russian fighters are more dangerous than the F-16C/D (as much as I love the F-16, the C Block 52 are pretty much out matched), as they have better energy and maneuverability, and longer ranged weapons. Current gen missiles are also very scary and much harder to evade or fool than ever before. The biggest problem the US has is that it does not have any effective long range air to air missiles any more, where as Russia does. This means Russia has a huge advantage when it comes to a head to head BVR fight as they can shoot well before the US planes can shoot back. Even their IR missiles are longer ranged. This I think is one of the key reasons why the US has been going with stealthy plane designs like the F-35, to try to get the advantage back.

[ikalugin]

As far as I am aware RAM coatings issue is due to underlying basic physics, unless US not only had a theoretical breakthrough in radio physics on Ufimtsev level, but also a simmilar breaktrhough in relevant material science and implimented those breakthroughs, then such changes are not possible.

I am not aware of such breakthroughs. And, in all likelyhood, we would be if they did occur 10 years ago.

My point is that the improvements in radar technology outpaced the reach of stealth, as permitted by known physics principles. This was due to increases in power (ie new naval L-band radar with around 1.5 mega-watts of impulse power and 1.3 consumed), improvements in mobility. This would be further improved via the GaN and better modules becomming availiable in the near future (GaN gives around 40 percent average emited power efficiency vs 20 currently availiable).
Improvements in signal processing methods and means (multistatic arrays, reverse SAR) would further improve counter stealth detection to the point, where it becomes irrelevant, as you would be able detect tertiary effects of aircraft flying through air even if aircraft itself is invisible and primary/secondary effects are fully supressed.

[NeonSamurai]

As far as I am aware RAM coatings issue is due to underlying basic physics, unless US not only had a theoretical breakthrough in radio physics on Ufimtsev level, but also a simmilar breaktrhough in relevant material science and implimented those breakthroughs, then such changes are not possible.

I am not aware of such breakthroughs. And, in all likelyhood, we would be if they did occur 10 years ago.

My point is that the improvements in radar technology outpaced the reach of stealth, as permitted by known physics principles. This was due to increases in power (ie new naval L-band radar with around 1.5 mega-watts of impulse power and 1.3 consumed), improvements in mobility. This would be further improved via the GaN and better modules becomming availiable in the near future (GaN gives around 40 percent average emited power efficiency vs 20 currently availiable).
Improvements in signal processing methods and means (multistatic arrays, reverse SAR) would further improve counter stealth detection to the point, where it becomes irrelevant, as you would be able detect tertiary effects of aircraft flying through air even if aircraft itself is invisible and primary/secondary effects are fully supressed.

Perhaps you are right, I don't know. Still my point remains, if stealth really is so ineffective, why is the US and other countries still investing so much money in its development and application. If the US has indeed found a way around the problems you mention, it would certainly be classified to the extreme. Even if it happened 10 years ago, that doesn't necessarily matter as there are still a number of highly classified projects going back 50 years now where still very little is known about them.

There are also a lot of other questions we can't answer either, such as the real world impact of these competing forms of technology. Such as even if the stealth planes can be detected and even tracked to a certain extent with newer ground based radar systems, can they really be effectively engaged with missiles, and/or aircraft, and what are the limitations as to range and other factors. Also what about the other methods of avoiding radar detection, particularly when coupled with stealth, how does that effect the equation.

Neither side can I think fully answer these questions, or be fully certain of either technology. Physics is always going to our best guesses (theories) based on the evidence we have at hand, and all of our theories are flawed because of this.

Lastly even if Russia really does have the technology to counter stealth. That in of itself does not mean a whole lot. Russia and NATO/US are very unlikely to come to direct head to head combat, and it will be quite a long while before most other countries will be able to afford to deploy such technology in any quantity for it to be of much use.

[ikalugin]

Stealth is still usefull in a number of roles. Because primary means for stealth detection (apart from optics, as those are weather dependent) use large apertures (either for high power*aperture or for long wavelengths), stealth still does offer some advantages, especially if coupled with otherwise capable platform (in terms of ECM/kinematics), as then it gives you an edge in engagements, for example in missile lock on probability (due to stealth, those would lock on at shorter ranges, thus increasing chance of evasive manuevers working out).

The problem here is that the improvements in electronics have led to a situation, where long wavelength radars (such as Nebo-M, Nebo-SVU and many others) allow for ARH missile guidance, as they now have sufficient accuracy for this. I could provide relevant calculations if you so desire. L-band and other high aperture*power AESA radars always had that accuracy in the first place.

Sure, Russia and NATO are unlikely to fight it out, but at the same time those counter stealth means are availiable for export and are affordable. For example beyound horizon radar set with 3000km range is priced at ~200m USD.

[Bospor]

A few years back I watched very interesting documentary that was based on declassified info from Soviet archives. In the 70's Russian designers were saying that the way the aircraft designs had been progressing, we eventually would come to a time when the "better" plane's technology would become unaffordable. I think we are there now. F-22 took that direction, but accountants were telling the top brass that it's not realistic to purchase fighter planes at that price. I think that's why everything got downgraded to F-35. We are basically at a crossroads for modern avionics. That very same documentary showed how they experimented with technology that allows people control environment with the power of their mind. Truly Jedi stuff! They collected people from all over the USSR with paranormal abilities and were studying them. They showed one guy who was standing on scales and was able to decrease his weight just by his mind power :) You can actually see the scale indicator move. So the direction they had decided to take is to learn how to control and fly the planes with human power I guess. It sounds funny I know, but they actually had achieved some serious results from all that. of course most of it is still classified. After the collapse of the Soviet Union however, many of these scientists immigrated to Israel and the country had become the leader in "western world" in military technologies controlled by human brain. So perhaps it is time for US Air Force to begin development of a completely new way to fly the planes. Maybe they already doing that, we will never know till its all done. These F-35's are simply there to fill the gap between what we call conventional flight and future tech.

[ikalugin]

In current exchange rates Su35S for RuAF costs something on the lines of 32m USD per plane.