If you were a fighter pilot about to get in a dogfight, would you want to have an F-35 jet that has 2 air-to-air Missles or an F-18 with 12?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:03:36 -0400

Canada is thinking about the F-18 Super Hornet instead of the F-35. I was not aware the F-35 only has two air-to-air missles compared to the Super Hornet's twelve . The Russians have numberical superiority with MIG-31s and other older jets. Their Stealth is years behind but numerical superiority is the biggest threat. I would prefer Canada to have new F-18 Superhornet. Stealth & 2 Missles WTF?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2016 1:19 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:19:13 -0400

I have always been a fan of the F15 Strike Eagle. Or I would settle on the F-22 raptor.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 7 at 2016 1:24 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:24:10 -0400

F-18 is a proven commodity. The F-35 is still a work in Progress. In my heyday I would prefer a Mig-29 with a US Navy Fighter Jock.

Response by LCpl Michael Carter made Jul 7 at 2016 1:30 AM

LCpl Michael Carter — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:30:19 -0400

F23 black widow. It saddens me that it never hit production.

Response by PO1 Brian Austin made Jul 7 at 2016 1:33 AM

PO1 Brian Austin — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:33:41 -0400

When in doubt, always go with more missiles.

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 7 at 2016 3:11 AM

SPC Kirk Gilles — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 03:11:50 -0400

Okay I went to the foremost authority on everything-wiki pedia plus F35 clip art. It says 11 hard points. I see 2 dedicated wing rails for AAMs. So 9 more hard points. Should be able to sling up something with 9 more spots?
Look if we don't support F35 then only China will have it (cuz they stole the plans, shhh).

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Jul 7 at 2016 3:29 AM

SCPO Joshua I — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 03:29:37 -0400

Jsf can carry more than two missiles. If you're getting into a "dogfight" in one it's because you failed to employ it properly anyway.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2016 4:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 04:51:53 -0400

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 7 at 2016 5:23 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 05:23:23 -0400

A10 of course and the F18, 16, and 15. We know all of them work.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 7 at 2016 6:59 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 06:59:54 -0400

I'll take the F-22 with 2 AIM-9.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Jul 7 at 2016 6:59 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 06:59:57 -0400

According to what I've seen, the F35 has two bays that hold an additional 8 AMRAAMs ( which makes sense, because of that whole "stealth" thingy). The 2 AMRAAMS are the external hard points.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jul 7 at 2016 7:27 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 07:27:44 -0400

I guess if we fought airpower as individuals like in WWI I would pick the F-22, in spite of fewer missiles than the F-18, because the kill ratio in a 1 v 1 match-up highly favors the F-22. But, we don't fight as individuals. F-35 isn't IOC yet so hard to guess on that one. The AF and other air component pieces brought by the Navy and Marines fight as mission packages, with a mix of high and low tech capabilities. Some good discussions on War is Boring on the concerns we are moving away from that concept by concentrating only on stealth. I agree, we still need a mix, and I am in favor of the 5th gen to 4th gen data link translators that enable 4th gen to be the missile "trucks" targeting 5th gen designations.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2016 8:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 08:53:23 -0400

NONE, I'll take the A-10 !!!!

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 7 at 2016 9:08 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:08:37 -0400

I think I would prefer the F-18 which has proven capability LTC Private RallyPoint Member to the F-35 which has not been used in combat. The logistical support and maintenance experience with F-18 is decades ahead of the F-35 which is critical factor in making a decision about which air frame to procure. Any airframe needs to be supported to be able to fly consistently.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 7 at 2016 9:52 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:52:12 -0400

An F-18 doesn't normally carry 12 missiles. It can carry UP TO 12. So can the F-35, although at that point it looses a some of it's stealth capability as those missiles would be mounted on external hardpoints..

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jul 7 at 2016 11:32 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:32:01 -0400

The F-35 is a Fraud, Waste, And, Abuse roadmap. It is over budget, unstable, and inferior to the aircraft it is meant to replace. Other nations are using less expensive aircraft in larger numbers. Seems to me that if our aircraft are outnumbered 30 to 1, and have a kill ratio of 20 to 1 that we are still going to come out on the losing end with our expensive and useless planes. I would rather see our military standardize to the F-18 rather than keeping going to more expensive, yet less impressive aircraft. Let's look at what the F-35 is intended to replace in our arsenal. The F-16, AV-8, and A-10. That's right this overpriced turd is meant to fill a ground attack, air to air, and Close Air Support Role. The F-16 can carry more munitions on its wing stanchions (like the F-18 can) than the F-35 which has to keep all munitions internal in order to maintain its stealth profile. The AV-8 is a proven ground strike platform, which will also have an armament superiority due to its lack of stealth. Additionally in the Faulkland Islands war, the AV-8 was pressed into an air superiority role by the British, and succeeded in tat role. Now that brings me to the venerable A-10. What Moron thought that the F-35 was going to be anything close to the A-10 for the CAS role. The A-10 was purpose built for that role around the GAU-8 Avenger gun in its nose. The F-35 is too fast, under armored, under armed, and will not have the loiter time of the A-10. So basically what is being discussed is taking an inferior, less cost effective aircraft and replacing three aircraft. None of those aircraft will it replace effectively. Instead of continuing the F-35 Debacle, invest in proven platforms. If you need to replace the F-16, replace it with the F-18. If you must replace the AV-8, replace it with the F-18 as well. The VSTOL ability is a gimmick that is not a necessity. If you must have a VSTOL aircraft, then design one that is effective, not this turd. For a ground strike aircraft to be effective, it has to have the capability of striking more than one or two targets per sortie. Otherwise you have a ground strike craft that is spending more time in transit, on the ground, and rearming than actually striking ground targets. As for CAS, we have the greatest CAS aircraft the world has ever seen in the A-10. They can take a pounding, they can deliver more than they take. They fly slow enough to deliver firepower where the troops on the ground need it, when they need it. If you want to UPGRADE the A-10, do so. Just don't do it at the expense of its survivability and fear factor in its role. Everyone wants to re-invent the wheel, sometimes the first design was the best design.

So in answer to your direct question, Take the 18, leave the F-35 at home on the porch where the puppies belong.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2016 9:26 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:26:11 -0400

I would take a F-22. No question

Response by Maj John Bell made Aug 29 at 2018 9:35 PM

Maj John Bell — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:35:00 -0400

I chose door #3. I'd rather be a grunt watching from the ground.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 29 at 2018 11:13 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 23:13:55 -0400

When I was learning hand-to-hand combat a fellow trainee asked the instructor if it really worked. He responded, "If you run out of ammunition, go find more." That struck me as an important principal and when I got to Vietnam I always carried as much ammo as I could. I answered your question using the same principal

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Aug 30 at 2018 7:00 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:00:02 -0400

The F-18, more fire power, well tested fighter.

Response by Jamie Tran made May 16 at 2020 1:36 PM

Jamie Tran — Sat, 16 May 2020 13:36:23 -0400

If it's all about Air superiority, go for different planes such as the Dassualt Rafale because although the F-35 is a multi-role, it's best at CAS and stealth, not shooting down some Chinese knock-offs

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 16 at 2020 8:09 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 16 May 2020 20:09:12 -0400

Our $100 million fighter can not sustain anything past Mach 1 and it's supposed to be an air superiority aircraft. Oh yeah the AF generals did a head to head with the A-10 and they concluded the F-35 is a comparable air to ground fighter. The AF is smoking a lot of crack.

Response by Jamie Tran made May 16 at 2020 11:41 PM

Jamie Tran — Sat, 16 May 2020 23:41:26 -0400

The DoD has been burning money recently, I mean instead of buying F-22s and F-35s at the same time, why don't they just make something more versatile and capable of doing multi-tasks like the good ole F-16 with extra stealth capabilities ??? (The F-21 is an ideal example but they are sold to Indians instead)

Response by SFC Michael W. made May 17 at 2020 10:53 PM

SFC Michael W. — Sun, 17 May 2020 22:53:24 -0400

Stealth means absolutely nothing if you miss twice...