Philadelphia Patriot
Member
I figured you guys would enjoy this article. Apparently the F-16 is still a better dogfighter than the F-35.
Link to article
Link to article
F-16 constantly beats F-35 in dogfights
- Thread starter Philadelphia Patriot
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
That may be true, but the goal anymore is to kill your opponent long before you get close to a dog fight.
You need to see the F-35 with your eyes first. It is virtually invisible on radar.
A whole lotta whiz-bang with new fighters.
You need to see the F-35 with your eyes first. It is virtually invisible on radar.
A whole lotta whiz-bang with new fighters.
The US Navy and USAF have a long history of using multi-role fighters and it's become something of an expectation in new aircraft.
Where it becomes a problem is when it's expected to be both a multi-role aircraft and a multi-service aircraft.
The F-4 Phantom is the last aircraft that really met those criteria fairly well. It became a very successful multi-role fighter, serving effectively as a fleet defense interceptor (it's original role), but evolving over time into day attack, all weather attack, reconnaissance, and SEAD roles for the Navy, Air Force and Marines.
The F-15 that largely replaced the F-4 in USAF service, started out as a pure interceptor as well, but was again adapted to other roles in the form of the F-15E, which will be in service for at least the next decade as a very capable ground attack aircraft, and it's no slouch in a dogfight either.
In contrast, the US Navy, always conscious of limited deck and hanger space, replaced the F-4, the A-7 and eventually the A-6 with the multi-role F-18, which has worked out quite well in both it's legacy Hornet and current Super Hornet iterations.
The USAF also got the F-16, which it never actually wanted, preferring instead a larger number of the more expensive F-15s. The F-16 was originally designed as a lightweight day fighter, but was immediately co-opted by the USAF as a multi-role righter getting a very capable air to ground capability at the expense of some of its dog fighting potential due to the additional weight in hardware and avionics to support the new role. None the less, the early F-16s were still extremely capable dog fighters that could be successfully flown as both an angles fighter, and as an energy fighters. Even better, with the higher thrust F110 powered big mouth Block 30 F-16's, the extra power helped offset the excess multirole weight with higher thrust and they were even were even better in the air to air role. The same applies to the newer Block 50 and 52 aircraft with over 29,000 pounds of thrust.
But none of those fighters has also been tasked with being a joint service fighter.
That's one of the rocks on which the F-35 is foundering. It's hard to configure a fighter for all three services without adding a great deal of weight and complexity that in the end will almost inevitably negatively impact performance, cost and reliability rates.
Rock number 2 is the stealth requirement. Adding a stealth requirement to the mix brings in a whole new level of aerodynamic and structural comprises. Stealth for example limits external fuel and ordinance and the required weapons bays limit payload and compete for space for internal fuel and avionics. At the same time the shape considerations limit aerodynamic potential and other considerations such as canopy shape and visibility. The F-35 is already comprising stealth performance with external pylons to get around the fuel and ordinance limitations, and it's attempting to stealth with low maintenance surfaces that may not be as effective, so it's ultimate value is somewhat questionable.
And then of course, there is the need to accommodate a VTOL capability in the design - rock number 3. Even if the USAF's F-35A variant won't be VTOL capable the demand for a high degree of parts commonality imposes several of the VTOL limitations on the design.
The marvel of the F-35 is the fact that it performs as well as it does. At 60,000 pounds, it's going to need every bit of its engine's potential 50,000 pounds of thrust to meet design goal of accelerating as fast as an external tanked F-16. It's also supposed to be able to maneuver with an F-16 in both instantaneous and sustained turns, , but that's going to be difficult with the available wing area, even if they can resolve the wing drop problems.
In the end, the proponents of the F-35 will claim the electronic advantages will be more important than maneuverability in modern air combat - and they'll be wrong.
Where it becomes a problem is when it's expected to be both a multi-role aircraft and a multi-service aircraft.
The F-4 Phantom is the last aircraft that really met those criteria fairly well. It became a very successful multi-role fighter, serving effectively as a fleet defense interceptor (it's original role), but evolving over time into day attack, all weather attack, reconnaissance, and SEAD roles for the Navy, Air Force and Marines.
The F-15 that largely replaced the F-4 in USAF service, started out as a pure interceptor as well, but was again adapted to other roles in the form of the F-15E, which will be in service for at least the next decade as a very capable ground attack aircraft, and it's no slouch in a dogfight either.
In contrast, the US Navy, always conscious of limited deck and hanger space, replaced the F-4, the A-7 and eventually the A-6 with the multi-role F-18, which has worked out quite well in both it's legacy Hornet and current Super Hornet iterations.
The USAF also got the F-16, which it never actually wanted, preferring instead a larger number of the more expensive F-15s. The F-16 was originally designed as a lightweight day fighter, but was immediately co-opted by the USAF as a multi-role righter getting a very capable air to ground capability at the expense of some of its dog fighting potential due to the additional weight in hardware and avionics to support the new role. None the less, the early F-16s were still extremely capable dog fighters that could be successfully flown as both an angles fighter, and as an energy fighters. Even better, with the higher thrust F110 powered big mouth Block 30 F-16's, the extra power helped offset the excess multirole weight with higher thrust and they were even were even better in the air to air role. The same applies to the newer Block 50 and 52 aircraft with over 29,000 pounds of thrust.
But none of those fighters has also been tasked with being a joint service fighter.
That's one of the rocks on which the F-35 is foundering. It's hard to configure a fighter for all three services without adding a great deal of weight and complexity that in the end will almost inevitably negatively impact performance, cost and reliability rates.
Rock number 2 is the stealth requirement. Adding a stealth requirement to the mix brings in a whole new level of aerodynamic and structural comprises. Stealth for example limits external fuel and ordinance and the required weapons bays limit payload and compete for space for internal fuel and avionics. At the same time the shape considerations limit aerodynamic potential and other considerations such as canopy shape and visibility. The F-35 is already comprising stealth performance with external pylons to get around the fuel and ordinance limitations, and it's attempting to stealth with low maintenance surfaces that may not be as effective, so it's ultimate value is somewhat questionable.
And then of course, there is the need to accommodate a VTOL capability in the design - rock number 3. Even if the USAF's F-35A variant won't be VTOL capable the demand for a high degree of parts commonality imposes several of the VTOL limitations on the design.
The marvel of the F-35 is the fact that it performs as well as it does. At 60,000 pounds, it's going to need every bit of its engine's potential 50,000 pounds of thrust to meet design goal of accelerating as fast as an external tanked F-16. It's also supposed to be able to maneuver with an F-16 in both instantaneous and sustained turns, , but that's going to be difficult with the available wing area, even if they can resolve the wing drop problems.
In the end, the proponents of the F-35 will claim the electronic advantages will be more important than maneuverability in modern air combat - and they'll be wrong.
cmort666
Member
Everything is stacking up to indicate that this is a twenty first century Brewster Buffalo for the price of a squadron of B-18s per copy.
A replacement for the A-10 that can't even fire its own guns.
What could go wrong...
A replacement for the A-10 that can't even fire its own guns.
What could go wrong...
cmort666
Member
germansheperd
Member
It didn't.
GatorFarmer
Member
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.
While not a great plane, the Buffalo was not as bad as it's reputation. The Finish air force used them with great affect against the Russians. When introduced, it was the most modern fighter the navy had. But technology advanced so quickly, and the addition of armor and self sealing tanks increased its weight. Couple that with poor doctrine and the much superior Japanese aircraft it was doomed.
The same is true of the P-40.
It was quickly accused of obsolescence but when properly employed it was a very effective fighter. Japanese aces of the era felt it was the equal of the A6M2 and A6M3 Zeros, it was ,mostly just the victim early on of inexperienced pilots failing to use it's strengths, and instead trying to beat the Zeros in a dog fight complicated by a US doctrine of trying to use them to escort bombers at high altitudes in the Pacific where the relatively light AA defense didn't warrant the high altitudes.
The reality is that the P-40 was as fast or slightly faster the the various Japanese fighters it faced at altitudes below about 12000 ft, it could dive much faster at any altitude, and it had a much better rate of roll at speeds over 200 kts. Flown properly a pilot could attack, and then dive and extend away to re-engage later to it's own advantage. The key to any turning fight was to keep the speed high, quickly roll into a turn, turn no more than 90 degrees to avoid bleeding airspeed, and not allow a Zero to gain in the turn, then roll back out and extend away. At speed, the Zero could still turn very well, but the high aileron forces meant it took a great deal of time for the Zero to roll in and establish the turn, which negated it's advantage in short turns.
The F4F was slower than the P-40 and no more maneuverable, but it was much better regarded by US pilots, in large part because the Navy and Marine pilots who flew it employed much better tactics.
That's true.
The Sparrow in particular was always very sensitive, and the effects of carrier landings led to very low reliability rates in actual combat.
On the other hand, the same comment about better missiles was said when the F-4 was developed, it just didn't work out the way they planned.
With the F-35 however, they are including a gun, and the specifications call for it to be at least as maneuverable as an F-16, suggesting they don't plan to make the same mistake as they did with the F-4.
The problem is that it's no where near as maneuverable as an F-16 and in similar mission profiles where external tanks and ordinance will compromise the stealth performance, it will be even less capable of defeating a missile, or of defending itself once it becomes a visual fight.
Rastoff
US Veteran
Don't forget experience. The F35 is still new. The F16 has been around for a long time. Pilots will have more practical experience with the F16. Experience trumps electronics.
The same happened when experienced F4 pilots flew against the then new F15.
The same happened when experienced F4 pilots flew against the then new F15.
That was the philosophy of the F-4's design - they thought stand-off weapons would obviate the need for a good air-air fighter. And the F-4s got their arses handed to them in Viet Nam in dog fights, which is why they developed the next generation of fighters. It frightens me that we may have come full circle back to that same F-4 type of failed philosophy.
Last edited:
R.A. Rifleman
Member
Can someone tell what opponent they had in mind when designing something as advanced as the F-35?
GatorFarmer
Member
The upcoming generations of Chinese and Russian fighter designs.
cmort666
Member
History may be about to repeat itself...
cmort666
Member
Unfortunately, the Japanese were MUCH better pilots than the Soviets, whose leadership had just gotten massacred down to the company grade level, by its OWN side.
I'm sure that if we'd faced the demoralized, paranoid, promoted by self induced attrition Soviet pilots we'd have done a lot better with the Buffalo, even the crappy ones we used. Unfortunately, you don't usually get to select your enemy. They do that themselves.
Texas Star
US Veteran
The latest Russian fighters are pretty scary.
Worth noting that F-15's have never lost a fight against MiG's. Mostly, Israelis engaged them, as Iraq sent its planes to Iran rather than fight US aircraft or UK fighters.
As for the P-40, pilot Don Lopez, who wrote a book about flying in the CBI theater, said he found the Mustang only a small improvement when he finally got one. But I think he's alone in that assessment.
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.
Later P-38's did have remarkable turn ability and could turn inside a Zero after getting combat flaps and other improvements. Where Tom McGuire ,MH went wrong was going to the aid of a friend in a tight turn without dumping his external fuel tanks first. He spun out and was killed.
Spitfires from the MK VIII-on were also well able to deal with Zeros and other Japanese fighters. I wish the MK XIV had gotten to the Far East in time to encounter more Japanese planes.
I have a book by a Royal Navy test pilot who flew about all Allied and Axis fighters and he said the MK XIV would be his top choice for a dogfight. He liked the Mustang a lot and respected its long range, but the Spitfire was a little better in a fight. This guy once fought a very skilled FW-190 pilot to a dead heat over France, in a Spitfire MK IX. They finally broke off combat after neither managed to best the other. He had a lot of respect for the FW-190.
I'd hate to face a talented pilot in a FW-190 from a P-40.
I think the F-22 is our current best bet. But the latest Russian planes are going to be a real challenge, especially if they train their pilots better. My guess is that the F-35 is a mistake.
Worth noting that F-15's have never lost a fight against MiG's. Mostly, Israelis engaged them, as Iraq sent its planes to Iran rather than fight US aircraft or UK fighters.
As for the P-40, pilot Don Lopez, who wrote a book about flying in the CBI theater, said he found the Mustang only a small improvement when he finally got one. But I think he's alone in that assessment.
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.
Later P-38's did have remarkable turn ability and could turn inside a Zero after getting combat flaps and other improvements. Where Tom McGuire ,MH went wrong was going to the aid of a friend in a tight turn without dumping his external fuel tanks first. He spun out and was killed.
Spitfires from the MK VIII-on were also well able to deal with Zeros and other Japanese fighters. I wish the MK XIV had gotten to the Far East in time to encounter more Japanese planes.
I have a book by a Royal Navy test pilot who flew about all Allied and Axis fighters and he said the MK XIV would be his top choice for a dogfight. He liked the Mustang a lot and respected its long range, but the Spitfire was a little better in a fight. This guy once fought a very skilled FW-190 pilot to a dead heat over France, in a Spitfire MK IX. They finally broke off combat after neither managed to best the other. He had a lot of respect for the FW-190.
I'd hate to face a talented pilot in a FW-190 from a P-40.
I think the F-22 is our current best bet. But the latest Russian planes are going to be a real challenge, especially if they train their pilots better. My guess is that the F-35 is a mistake.
Last edited:
The US has a history of trouble when new aircraft are introduced. However, with time, most have turned into very good platforms, and end up exceeding expectations....Give the F-35 time, my bet is after a few years in service it will get much better.
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
If I read the article correctly, the F-35 pilot had trouble seeing the F-16 on his six.
This strikes me as an unfortunate limitation, but what do I know?
This strikes me as an unfortunate limitation, but what do I know?
It had a lot to do with the role the P-40 and the Mustang had in the CBI. The early Allison powered Mustangs (P-51, P-51A, A-36) were sweet handling aircraft and were very fast at low altitude - much faster than a P-51D due to the supercharger optimization and gar ratios. The Merlin powered Mustangs (P-51B/C, and P-51D/K) were a handful in terms of greater torque and they required near constant rudder trim changes. The early blocks of the P-51B and C only had four .50s compared to the six fifties in most of the P-40 variants from the E model onward. The P-51B and C also had issues with the canted M2 Brownings jamming under any significant G loading.
Consequently, due to all three reasons above, the P-40 was a much more stable gun platform than the Merlin powered Mustangs. The P-40s chin mounted radiator and oil cooler were also much less prone to damage from ground fire than the ventral mounted radiator and oil cooler on the P-51. The location of the radiators on the P-51 placed them in a location more likely to be hit due to the realities of gunners having to lead aircraft and usually not leading it quite enough, plus the location meant there were oil and coolant lines between the engine and radiator along the underside of the fuselage, making them very vulnerable, and a single hit would result in overheating in minutes with engine failure not too many minutes after that.
My next door neighbor when I was a kid had flown P-51s in Korea, where all those faults were made apparent on a daily basis in the air to ground missions they flew. He stated he really envied the Navy and Marine pilots flying F4U-4 and F4U-5 Corsairs, and that he wished the USAF had not scrapped all the P-47Ds and shuffled the P-47Ns off to national guard units as they would have made a much better air to ground platform in Korea.
The optimum operating altitude for the Merlin powered P-40s was not much higher than their Allison counterparts as the blower ratios were optimized for medium altitude performance. The British used different blowers and gear ratios as well in the LF Marks of the Spitfire.
The P-40Q was finally set up as a high altitude fighter, but by 1944 when it flew, it offered no real advantage over the P-51 that was already being mass produced.
It's interesting though that at least on OTU in North Africa used to have the hottest pilot in a new group of P-51 jocks fly against an instructor in a war weary P-40. The P-51 pilot would lose badly, in part because of the deficit in experience, but also in large part due to the low altitude combat over the field, and the advantages of the P-40 at low altitude where it was as fast as a P-51D, and more maneuverable - something most people never realized. The lesson being taught is that it's still the best pilot that is going to win a dogfight and having the worlds best fighter isn't enough.
