F-16 constantly beats F-35 in dogfights

[Snapping Twig]

All aircraft have names, the A-10 Warthog for instance.

It hit me that the F-35 should be the Camel!

Why Camel?

What is a camel? It's a horse designed by a committee.

F-35 Camel.

 

[hs125]

Poor value.

Overweight, over budget, and under powered. Another subsidy for military industrial complex. An exceedingly poor value for the taxpayer.

 

[LVSteve]

Some lucky and skilled P-40 pilots, mainly British and Australian, did get a fair number of kills in N. Africa against ME-109's, but only at the lower altitudes where the P-40 could function well with its Allison engine. I have been unable to find combat reports of the few P-40's fitted with Merlin engines, the P-40F. That should have improved their higher altitude performance, and might have given an Axis pilot a nasty surprise.

The Merlin 28 fitted to the P-40F had only a 9 PSI single speed blower compared to the mighty Merlin 60 of later Spitfire and Mustang fame. While it would have given the P-40F speed parity or even a small advantage over the 109-E up to medium altitudes, I suspect the 109-E may still have had the edge above 15k ft.

 

[Jessie]

That was the goal when they fielded the F-4 with no gun.

How'd that work out?

That's not really true with respect to the range today's weapons have.
The F4 was still designed as a fairly close attack aircraft, with respect to todays missles, but using missiles instead of guns. The missiles were somewhat lacking then plus no good at really close fights.

 

[Jessie]

The upcoming generations of Chinese and Russian fighter designs.

Which, coincidentally, I'm sure will look and perform remarkably like an F35 or Raptor.
How'd they do that?

 

[LostintheOzone]

F-16 is the best pilot controlled fighter ever built. If you want a computer to fly your aircraft, be stealth and take your shots the F-35 is your bird.

 

[LVSteve]

Which, coincidentally, I'm sure will look and perform remarkably like an F35 or Raptor.
How'd they do that?

Probably because the Laws of Electromagnetism, Physics, and Fluid Dynamics mean that there are very few ideal layouts to meet the needs of stealth, maneuverability, drag and range.

 

[DR505]

All I know is: "Speed is life, More is better, Too much is just right."

 

[DR505]

Speed, maneuverability, and payload...pick any two.

 

[Dennis The B]

The F-4 wasn't the only multi-service plane, although it enjoyed a very long, and versatile life.

The history of the F-111-A (USAF)/B(USN) was a colossal waste of money. Even with the help of Grumman, General Dynamics couldn't come up with model which the Navy could use. Too long, too heavy, on aircraft carriers with limited space. Another disaster, ala M16, brought to the American taxpayer by Robert McNamara.

The F-111-A was a very good aircraft for the USAF.

 

[kaaskop49]

Wonder if greater experience and familiarity in the older aircraft could play a role here. German WWII pilot Erich Hartmann scored 352 confirmed kills flying the obsolete Bf-109.

I remember a Military Channel program several years back when the Navy phased out the Tomcat F-14 fighters and was retraining Tomcat pilots to fly and fight FA-18s. The Hornet pilot was lecturing the F-14 pilot/'student', telling him the first moment he would see the FA-18 would be when he was on the student's tail.

The Tomcat pilot responded, "You hope." Cool...

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[cmort666]

Wonder if greater experience and familiarity in the older aircraft could play a role here. German WWII pilot Erich Hartmann scored 352 confirmed kills flying the obsolete Bf-109.

There are a LOT of caveats to this.

How many of the aircraft he shot down were:

• I-15s
• I-152s
• I-153s
• I-16s
• SB-2s

Aside from obsolescent and obsolete aircraft (many of them biplanes), after the purges the Soviets were saddled with a decapitated, demoralized air force.

 

[dswancutt]

There are a LOT of caveats to this.

How many of the aircraft he shot down were:

• I-15s
• I-152s
• I-153s
• I-16s
• SB-2s

Aside from obsolescent and obsolete aircraft (many of them biplanes), after the purges the Soviets were saddled with a decapitated, demoralized air force.

A quick read shows that most likely, very few where the aircraft listed above. By his own admission, the soviets employed very poor tactics. Add to this, he flew every day and was a natural pilot.

 

[Jessie]

Probably because the Laws of Electromagnetism, Physics, and Fluid Dynamics mean that there are very few ideal layouts to meet the needs of stealth, maneuverability, drag and range.

That, and they stole the plans.

 

[Cleveland48]

You also have pilots like Adolf Galland who had 104 victories against western flown aircraft in WW2. I think technology only does so much a man behind the stick of a plane he has flown for years, is in a better situation than a pilot in a brand new super tech plane especially when the fight gets into visual range. The f4's had a heck of a time against the super slow mig 17 in Vietnam. Not counting the trouble they had with the better mig 21.

 

[cmort666]

A quick read shows that most likely, very few where the aircraft listed above. By his own admission, the soviets employed very poor tactics. Add to this, he flew every day and was a natural pilot.

The odds are, at least initially, the majority were I-153s and I-16s, since they comprised the majority of fighter aircraft in the the Soviet Airforce in 1941, augmented by smaller numbers of LaGG-3s and MiG-1s and MiG-3s.

The I-153s and I-16s really were sitting ducks against Bf-109s.

The LaGG-3 could have been a decent aircraft but was plagued by poor materials and workmanship.

The MiGs were designed as high altitude interceptors, and weren't suited to the low altitude combat that predominated.

 

[BB57]

The f4's had a heck of a time against the super slow mig 17 in Vietnam. Not counting the trouble they had with the better mig 21.

That wasn't the case once they started using the F-4 to its own advantages. The F-4 was an energy fighter and if you kept the speed up and used the vertical it could out maneuver a MiG 17 or a MiG 21. The F-4 had a superb rollrate and excellent accelleration and rate of climb for its day but to win a dog fight pilots flying it had to play to those advantages rather than trying to turn with a MiG.

Pilots also got smart regarding the rules of engagement using one element to visually ID a MiG flight and then engage them with a second trailing element.

 

[timjake]

To be fair, missiles have come a long way from the early Falcons and Sparrows. Beyond visual range kills seem to now be the expectation rather than the exception.

Pretty much all the rhetoric about "beyond visual range engagement" is just that, rhetoric. Not that the systems can't do it, the Rules of Engagement (ROEs) prevent aircrews from using it.

Leadership is so afraid of fratricide that there has to be definitive proof the target is indeed hostile, or you won't get "weapons free."

 

[rwsmith]

The more general purpose....

The more a plane is designed to do many different jobs, the less it is able to do any of those jobs extremely well.

We've generally praised the A-10 that was designed for ground support and not for strategic bombing, dogfighting or interception and it's proven hard to replace because it was designed to do one job extremely well.

In the F-35's defense, (this is hard for me to do) it's surely designed more as a stand-off fighter than for dogfights.

 

[rwsmith]

Come a LONG way....

That was the goal when they fielded the F-4 with no gun.

How'd that work out?

Missile, radar, infrared and other technologies are far advanced from the days of the Phantom. What always got me was having long range missiles but a directive to visually identify a target, which put the battle into dogfight territory.