CAPT Private RallyPoint Member 788414 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Article:<br /><br />WASHINGTON: Do dogfights matter in the age of tactical stealth? If an F-16 can outmaneuver an F-35 in a dogfight, does it matter? Does it matter if the earliest generation F-35 can’t outmaneuver an advanced model of the F-16 in an early test?<br /><br />So many questions. We’ll try to answer them because the folks at War Is Boring got their hands on a hot document — an F-35 pilot’s evaluation of an early test of the F-35 against the F-16. Colleague David Axe got the scoop. Basically, the F-35 test pilot said the F-16 could outmanuever the F-35 in most cases during a close engagement, or what most people would call a dogfight.<br /><br />Here’s where we get to the really complicated bit. Does it matter? Well, of course it matters if the F-35 pilot is in a dogfight and loses. But if you talk with Air Force and Marine pilots who’ve flown the Harrier, the F-18 and the F-16, every one of them I’ve talked with says the F-35 is a superior aircraft. They’ve said it on the USS Wasp. They’ve said it on the USS Enterprise and they’ve said it in the halls of the Pentagon and at Fort Worth, where the F-35 and the F-16 are made.<br /><br />Why do they say this if an F-35 carrying no external weapons can’t out perform an F-16D loaded with heavy fuel pylons? You might well ask. Basically, it’s because the F-35’s stealth and sensors allow it to spot enemy aircraft long before they are spotted. The result? The F-35 gets a weapon lock and kills the enemy before the enemy knows the F-35 is there.<br /><br />Few senior officials or pilots have spoken on the record about the F-35 in terms of what it can actually do in combat, though at least a half-dozen pilots have said publicly they would not trade their F-35s for an F-18, Harrier or an F-16. In the only interview the Air Force has done about the F-35’s capabilities and the first 10 days of a full-scale war, retired Gen. Mike Hostage of Air Combat Command, told me this: “In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen [aircraft] in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical.”<br /><br />At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.<br /><br />“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth,” Hostage told me, “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets.” In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war.<br /><br />The F-35’s radar cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. For those who wonder about the worth of the opinion of a general sitting behind a desk, bear in mind that Hostage flew the F-22, as well as most models of the F-15 and the F-16.<br /><br />F-22 and F-35<br /><br />I spoke to another pilot who has closely watched the F-35s development and has extensive combat experience, Dave Deptula, who now heads the Air Force Associations’s Mitchell Institute. He’s also a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors. Deptula flew the F-15 and twice led joint task forces, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.<br /><br />His bottom line about what the test pilot said: It’s “interesting, but not relevant to the issue of campaign level utility of the other very significant advantages the F-35 possesses in the areas of low observability, sensor capability, and information integration that provide the F-35 an enormous advantage relative to legacy aircraft. If one can target and kill your adversaries prior to the merge, what they can do at the merge really doesn’t matter now, does it?”<br /><br />He believes “the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can’t conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide.”<br /><br />He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”<br /><br />Deptula says that one F-35 “can create effects that require dozens of legacy aircraft, and in some cases dozens of legacy aircraft simply cannot accomplish with one or two ‘F’-22s or ‘F’-35s can accomplish.” Dogfighting isn’t the sine qua non of air combat, he argues. Killing the enemy before he knows you’re there is. “Bottom line—it’s about the information, stupid.”<br /><br />The official version of those opinions was issued by the F-35’s Joint Program Office:<br /><br />“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.”<br /><br />MGen Jeffrey L. Harrigian Bio PhotoAnd the JPO notes that this aircraft did not have the current mission systems software that allows it to spot enemies at a distance and was “not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”<br /><br />The official Air Force comment on the story from Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, head of the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office simply says: “It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current tactical fighters in terms of maneuverability, but the design is optimized for stealth. This will allow it to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.” Hostage said virtually the same thing about the F-16 and the F-35 in our interview last year. The reasonable conclusion of all this: the F-35 is not a top dogfighting aircraft because it wasn’t designed to be one. And it wasn’t designed to be one because it is better to kill the enemy from a distance before the enemy can target you.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best">http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best</a> <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-default"> <div class="pta-link-card-picture"> <img src="https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/017/246/qrc/F-35-fires-Joint-Strike-Missile.jpg?1443047017"> </div> <div class="pta-link-card-content"> <p class="pta-link-card-title"> <a target="blank" href="http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/?utm_source=hs_email&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_content=20353267&amp;_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eZOdMxLDhI2Ojvv2WDNIcdZV3knaP2dDAhhOM_STqVlZyg8ogjFtfxcz3zAtOQGmt0jKK8EAIk6plP7y2rE7zk_2O_A&amp;_hsmi=20353267">F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who’s Best</a> </p> <p class="pta-link-card-description"></p> </div> <div class="clearfix"></div> </div> 2015-07-03T10:01:24-04:00 CAPT Private RallyPoint Member 788414

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Article:<br /><br />WASHINGTON: Do dogfights matter in the age of tactical stealth? If an F-16 can outmaneuver an F-35 in a dogfight, does it matter? Does it matter if the earliest generation F-35 can’t outmaneuver an advanced model of the F-16 in an early test?<br /><br />So many questions. We’ll try to answer them because the folks at War Is Boring got their hands on a hot document — an F-35 pilot’s evaluation of an early test of the F-35 against the F-16. Colleague David Axe got the scoop. Basically, the F-35 test pilot said the F-16 could outmanuever the F-35 in most cases during a close engagement, or what most people would call a dogfight.<br /><br />Here’s where we get to the really complicated bit. Does it matter? Well, of course it matters if the F-35 pilot is in a dogfight and loses. But if you talk with Air Force and Marine pilots who’ve flown the Harrier, the F-18 and the F-16, every one of them I’ve talked with says the F-35 is a superior aircraft. They’ve said it on the USS Wasp. They’ve said it on the USS Enterprise and they’ve said it in the halls of the Pentagon and at Fort Worth, where the F-35 and the F-16 are made.<br /><br />Why do they say this if an F-35 carrying no external weapons can’t out perform an F-16D loaded with heavy fuel pylons? You might well ask. Basically, it’s because the F-35’s stealth and sensors allow it to spot enemy aircraft long before they are spotted. The result? The F-35 gets a weapon lock and kills the enemy before the enemy knows the F-35 is there.<br /><br />Few senior officials or pilots have spoken on the record about the F-35 in terms of what it can actually do in combat, though at least a half-dozen pilots have said publicly they would not trade their F-35s for an F-18, Harrier or an F-16. In the only interview the Air Force has done about the F-35’s capabilities and the first 10 days of a full-scale war, retired Gen. Mike Hostage of Air Combat Command, told me this: “In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen [aircraft] in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical.”<br /><br />At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.<br /><br />“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth,” Hostage told me, “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets.” In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war.<br /><br />The F-35’s radar cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. For those who wonder about the worth of the opinion of a general sitting behind a desk, bear in mind that Hostage flew the F-22, as well as most models of the F-15 and the F-16.<br /><br />F-22 and F-35<br /><br />I spoke to another pilot who has closely watched the F-35s development and has extensive combat experience, Dave Deptula, who now heads the Air Force Associations’s Mitchell Institute. He’s also a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors. Deptula flew the F-15 and twice led joint task forces, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.<br /><br />His bottom line about what the test pilot said: It’s “interesting, but not relevant to the issue of campaign level utility of the other very significant advantages the F-35 possesses in the areas of low observability, sensor capability, and information integration that provide the F-35 an enormous advantage relative to legacy aircraft. If one can target and kill your adversaries prior to the merge, what they can do at the merge really doesn’t matter now, does it?”<br /><br />He believes “the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can’t conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide.”<br /><br />He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”<br /><br />Deptula says that one F-35 “can create effects that require dozens of legacy aircraft, and in some cases dozens of legacy aircraft simply cannot accomplish with one or two ‘F’-22s or ‘F’-35s can accomplish.” Dogfighting isn’t the sine qua non of air combat, he argues. Killing the enemy before he knows you’re there is. “Bottom line—it’s about the information, stupid.”<br /><br />The official version of those opinions was issued by the F-35’s Joint Program Office:<br /><br />“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.”<br /><br />MGen Jeffrey L. Harrigian Bio PhotoAnd the JPO notes that this aircraft did not have the current mission systems software that allows it to spot enemies at a distance and was “not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”<br /><br />The official Air Force comment on the story from Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, head of the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office simply says: “It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current tactical fighters in terms of maneuverability, but the design is optimized for stealth. This will allow it to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.” Hostage said virtually the same thing about the F-16 and the F-35 in our interview last year. The reasonable conclusion of all this: the F-35 is not a top dogfighting aircraft because it wasn’t designed to be one. And it wasn’t designed to be one because it is better to kill the enemy from a distance before the enemy can target you.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best">http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best</a> <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-default"> <div class="pta-link-card-picture"> <img src="https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/017/246/qrc/F-35-fires-Joint-Strike-Missile.jpg?1443047017"> </div> <div class="pta-link-card-content"> <p class="pta-link-card-title"> <a target="blank" href="http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/?utm_source=hs_email&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_content=20353267&amp;_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eZOdMxLDhI2Ojvv2WDNIcdZV3knaP2dDAhhOM_STqVlZyg8ogjFtfxcz3zAtOQGmt0jKK8EAIk6plP7y2rE7zk_2O_A&amp;_hsmi=20353267">F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who’s Best</a> </p> <p class="pta-link-card-description"></p> </div> <div class="clearfix"></div> </div>

2015-07-03T10:01:24-04:00 2015-07-03T10:01:24-04:00 CAPT Private RallyPoint Member 788421

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I still want be able to BFM at the merge. Because there will be merges.

2015-07-03T10:02:56-04:00 2015-07-03T10:02:56-04:00 PO2 Steven Erickson 788474

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Thanks for your post, Captain. I was reading the same line of articles following the "release" of an F-35 test pilot's remarks. Your rank and profession carry a lot of weight to non-flyers like me. <br /><br />So... do you see any similarities between the F-35's design role, these "explanations" and the issues that developed with the F-4's and ACM in the 60's? We designed and built the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 aircraft to fly the pants off of their adversaries... regardless of "miss"-ile tech.<br /><br />To a novice history buff like me, could we have come full circle... again?<br /><br />Thanks, again, Captain!!!!

2015-07-03T10:23:38-04:00 2015-07-03T10:23:38-04:00 MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P 788500

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I can appreciate the fervor over the F-35's stealth capabilities. Look-down/Shoot-down (shoot them before they shoot you) has long been the hallmark of air superiority. Here's my question, the Somali militias didn't possess advanced radar systems yet they were able to spot the Blackhawks coming in and used POTS and walkie-talkie RF to coordinate and bring down two airframes. The US/UN forces were loudly proclaimed to be technologically superior to the "third world ragamuffins". How then does the F-35 survive when some overly curious Khat chewing goatherd equivalent figures out how to spot this super stealthy airframe? Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges but I hope you see the point I'm trying to make. Stealth is only good until someone figures out how to "see" it. What becomes the F-35's survivability rate when faced with an adversary that can defeat the stealth feature?

2015-07-03T10:40:25-04:00 2015-07-03T10:40:25-04:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 788714

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Wars will be the proving grounds for theory and performance.

2015-07-03T12:10:14-04:00 2015-07-03T12:10:14-04:00 CW3 Private RallyPoint Member 789076

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Yes, based on the radar technology of old, it's stealth characteristics are supreme, but against developed modern radar capability, the whole idea of a stealth jet like the 22 and 35 is a complete joke. Radar absorbing paint and all. Hell, F117's were used in the gulf war....AFTER the 64's flew in under radar and destroyed said radar, because even the 117, with a cross section the size of a seagull, could be detected outside level/high flight, early 90's. Take away that fraud of a concept and you're back to an aircraft that outside of today's kind of conflict where we're up against antiquated technology, will inevitably have to deal with an up close real war, against incredibly capable aircraft, sans focus on stealth, with equally capable ASE, advanced AAA, ADA, radar, etc. The average anak engagement in Afghanistan can be done with one or two aircraft, either fixed wing, UAV, or rotary, and a small squad/team on the ground for some added LOS in remote fire tasks. Not up against battalions of tanks much less air support for those enemy forces. Against a real adversary, that small teams semi-remote concept simply will not hold up. Programs like the F35 seem to be driven by the confidence we'll never see full scale war again.

2015-07-03T14:43:07-04:00 2015-07-03T14:43:07-04:00 A1C Charles D Wilson 911749

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Do I see another F-4 Phantom issue here? The F-4 was the first fighter to run with out a gun and ended up in gun fights. So if the F-35 can not fight with close air to air combat trying to have just stand off weapons and not so great. Less say the enemy has a EMP pod and jams incoming missiles or they have fired all of their missiles what next? Hall tale and run time?!?! Ohh I get it ..then you call the F-16&#39;s in to do the job. I will wait to see how they perform in ground support and combat missions before I judge. Remember this is also a replacement for the A-10 beast that needs no replacement. They just need to make it better. Marines and Army both have asked and fought to keep the A-10 alive for close ground support.

2015-08-23T02:05:08-04:00 2015-08-23T02:05:08-04:00 SPC David S. 922775

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I love the idea that "stealth" technology will never be compromised. What happens when the pilots start saying "Oh shit he's locked on to me."<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-effective-is-chinas-new-anti-stealth-radar-system-really/">http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-effective-is-chinas-new-anti-stealth-radar-system-really/</a>

2015-08-27T17:07:12-04:00 2015-08-27T17:07:12-04:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 922860

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I would imagine for 1.3 trillion we would have an all around superior fighter. I hope their legacy will not follow our bombers in Europe in WWII. We lost around 10,000 planes due to a doctrine that exceeded the bombers capabilities.

2015-08-27T17:55:07-04:00 2015-08-27T17:55:07-04:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 1061045

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>We have to remind ourselves that often the enemy changes tactics in war.

2015-10-23T14:09:54-04:00 2015-10-23T14:09:54-04:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 4192804

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I see this as a problem of attrition and production. Germany production and attrition could not keep up with the allies. I believe air superiority will be won by legacy fighters.

2018-12-08T17:34:07-05:00 2018-12-08T17:34:07-05:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 6184714

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Yeah but I have read the F-35 carries very few missiles, I think 4. That is a limitation. If they dispense all the missiles they better beat feet because the enemy fighters probably fly twice the speed of the F-35. $80 million fighter and it can’t sustain MACH 1. It makes me sick to the stomach.

2020-08-07T23:56:48-04:00 2020-08-07T23:56:48-04:00 Sgt John H. 6867933

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I agree. Hopefully we will remain at peace and allow the debate to continue. However, we need to continue to push forward in development because our enemies never rest.

2021-03-31T12:20:06-04:00 2021-03-31T12:20:06-04:00 2015-07-03T10:01:24-04:00