F-16 beats F-35 in mock dogfight

[NotarPilot]

I came across this article today which I found mildly interesting.  I've been monitoring the development of the F-35 for a few years now and have come to the opinion it's a grossly overpriced pile of "doo-doo."  If an F-16 can beat it, one has to wonder, could a Mooney beat it too?  Maybe only in fuel efficiency.

 

link to the article:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flight-test-failure-f-35-183100519.html

After Flight Test Failure, F-35 Could Be Demoted by New Defense Chief

 

By Eric Pianin6 hours ago

For more than a dozen years, the Pentagon has steadfastly stood behind the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program as the next generation of jet fighters for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, despite nightmarish development problems and daunting cost overruns.

The overall cost of developing and purchasing the jets currently is projected at $400 billion, while operating and maintenance costs could boost the overall price tag to nearly $1.5 trillion in the coming years. Lockheed Martin has weathered a vast array of design problems, most recently concerns over software and its computer system’s vulnerability.

The latest indignity was reports that the F-35 lost to an F-16 during a mock aerial dogfight last January. The gold-plated new stealth jet couldn’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane or to dodge the enemy's own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. "The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring obtained. 

Throughout its controversial development, Department of Defense officials have asserted that they would need exactly 2,443 combat F-35s, plus 14 development aircraft, to deter and fight potential adversaries such as China. But with U.S. challenges abroad changing at a dizzying speed – including the rise of ISIS and other terrorists in the Middle East and Russia’s reemergence as a potentially dangerous foe, the Pentagon is rethinking its commitment to the F-35.

On Thursday, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant who was nominated by President Obama to become the next chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the F-35 development and purchasing plan is under review, as Defense One reported.

“Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number,” Dunford wrote in response to questions asked by the committee in advance of his hearing yesterday. “Until the analysis is complete, we need to pursue the current scheduled quantity buy to preclude creating an overall near-term tactical fighter shortfall.”

Here is a useful chart that shows the Pentagon’s current F-35 development plan:

 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I think I read once that an F104 can out fly an F16.

But we have to support our military industrial complex. Who wants to fly some old plane from the 50s?

[rbridges]

is the F35 designed to be a one on one dogfighter?  I probably sound stupid, but I thought it was designed to be more of a jack of all trades fighter.

[ArtVandelay]

When is the last time a F16 has been shot down in a dogfight?

[aviatoreb]

But we have to support our military industrial complex. Who wants to fly some old plane from the 50s?

 

I fly a Mooney - and I'm lovin' it.

 

What's wrong with the 50's?  You can call me Rob Petrie.

[N33GG]

The first F-16 flew in 1978.

[Jeff_S]

If you want a more balanced opinion read the entries at http://www.fightersweep.com. There is an entry there that describes in more detail what that test flight was all about and that you can't read much into it.

[carusoam]

I'll take an F35R... It may take 35 or so years of development...

Best regards,

-a-

[BigTex]

The problem with the F35 is that it's too advanced. We all know that all it takes to beat the F16 is a low and slow 150...

[DXB]

Interesting comparison thread. I think fuel, parts, annual, and insurance are somewhat less with my M20C than the F35.  Avionics and air to air combat capabilities may be slightly inferior, but not enough to justify the added expense. The long bodies may be a more comparable  .

[MyNameIsNobody]

I think I read once that an F104 can out fly an F16.

But we have to support our military industrial complex. Who wants to fly some old plane from the 50s?

Starfighter was/is a beautiful piece of aircraft...But those tiny wings and narrow gear wear tough on pilots. Not much room for internal fuel storage. Loved the scene in Right Stuff when Yeager takes one out for a little "joy ride"....

Intense.

[flyboy0681]

I think that the sheer amount of time that the F-35 has been in development speaks volumes. It's amazing to think back decades ago when manufacturers like McDonnell, Northrup, Grumman, Lockheed et al got it right the first time. While projects by these manufacturers may not necessarily have been on budget, the finished products gave the armed services years of reliable service. I've been hearing about the F-35 for what, twenty years now, and it's still not operational. When was the last time an aircraft had still not entered service a full decade after its maiden flight? Hard to believe when you think that Boeing conceived of, designed, engineered, built, flight tested and received certification of the 747 in three years (yes three) - and it's still in production fifty years later.

 

Lastly, air-to-air combat is a relic of the past. Who are we supposed to go up against, the ISIS airforce?

[Guest]

I think I read once that an F104 can out fly an F16.

But we have to support our military industrial complex. Who wants to fly some old plane from the 50s?

Remember when NASA was developing a pen to use in the zero gravity and the Russians used a pencil? Complexity is great but not always required.

Clarence

[Guest]

I think that the sheer amount of time that the F-35 has been in development speaks volumes. It's amazing to think back decades ago when manufacturers like McDonnell, Northrup, Grumman, Lockheed et al got it right the first time. While projects by these manufacturers may not necessarily have been on budget, the finished products gave the armed services years of reliable service. I've been hearing about the F-35 for what, twenty years now, and it's still not operational. When was the last time an aircraft had still not entered service a full decade after its maiden flight? Hard to believe when you think that Boeing conceived of, designed, engineered, built, flight tested and received certification of the 747 in three years (yes three) - and it's still in production fifty years later.

Lastly, air-to-air combat is a relic of the past. Who are we supposed to go up against, the ISIS airforce?

North American Aviation did the P51 in less than 120 days from conception to first flight. But may have been more motivated, there was a war raging after all.

Clarence

[flyboy0681]

North American Aviation did the P51 in less than 120 days from conception to first flight. But may have been more motivated, there was a war raging after all.

Clarence

 

Further to my point.

[M20F]

Where is John Boyd and his fighter mafia when you need them. If you don't know who John Boyd is look him up and his biography is amazing. One of the greatest contributors to aviation that most have never heard of.

[N33GG]

I used to work at General Dynamics in Fort Worth which is now owned by Lockheed, and still live in the area. My hangar is only a few miles west of the plant. When they were testing the F35 I would always get a Notam warning about the test flight. I would always say "I don't need to hear the details, I am familiar with the procedure." Then the briefer would always ask "What procedure?" I would reply that I would pull my throttle back so I wouldn't embarrass the F35. Always got a laugh.

[flyboy0681]

I used to work at General Dynamics in Fort Worth which is now owned by Lockheed, and still live in the area. My hangar is only a few miles west of the plant. When they were testing the F35 I would always get a Notam warning about the test flight. I would always say "I don't need to hear the details, I am familiar with the procedure." Then the briefer would always ask "What procedure?" I would reply that I would pull my throttle back so I wouldn't embarrass the F35. Always got a laugh.

 

That was what, about 1997?

[N33GG]

Somewhere closer to 2006-2008, best I remember.

[Mcstealth]

There are some airplanes that just look right. One of course is our Mooney's, another is the P 51 Mustang, and another one is the F-16. That jet just looks right. According to all accounts, the F-16 has been and still is all it can be. It doesn't suprise me one bit it that the 16 can out perform the 35 in some aspects. After reading up on the 16, it seems it is still being updated to compete for sales for many years to come. Go USA!

[Jeff_S]

I mentioned above the website FighterSweep as a place to go if you want a balanced opinion of the F35. Here is another entry from today that I would encourage everyone to read, no matter what your personal opinion. (Don't be mislead by the title in the URL.)

 

http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

[aviatoreb]

There are some airplanes that just look right. One of course is our Mooney's, another is the P 51 Mustang, and another one is the F-16. That jet just looks right. According to all accounts, the F-16 has been and still is all it can be. It doesn't suprise me one bit it that the 16 can out perform the 35 in some aspects. After reading up on the 16, it seems it is still being updated to compete for sales for many years to come. Go USA!

 

The F104 looks good too.  When I was 5 and 6 years old - that was the pointy jet I would draw over and over in my kiddy-art.  I didn't know its name yet, but it was unmistakably an F104.  Well as unmistakable as a little kiddy can draw.

[Marauder]

The F104 looks good too. When I was 5 and 6 years old - that was the pointy jet I would draw over and over in my kiddy-art. I didn't know its name yet, but it was unmistakably an F104. Well as unmistakable as a little kiddy can draw.

It's good to hear you are a young man. Unlike a number of us who drew Sopwith Camels as our kiddie-art.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

It's good to hear you are a young man. Unlike a number of us who drew Sopwith Camels as our kiddie-art.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Old Coot.

[Marauder]

Old Coot.

Can read what you wrote. Don't have my quadfocals on.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk