There's No Way The F-35 Will Ever Match The Eurofighter In Aerial Combat

[Mosamania]

Hey Gambit,

Was hoping you could answer a few questions that came to mind while reading your previous post:

Granted the LO characteristics give the f-35 a major advantage over all legacy fighters. But what about situational awareness? It has long been touted as it's biggest strength. If the f-35 finds itself in a WVR dog fight, do you agree with Lockheed and believe it will still emerge victorious a vast majority of the time?

Considering the technological capabilities of the Eurocanards and the more recent f-15 and su-27 denominations; could any of them realistically give the F-35 a formidable fight? I ask this to understand the capabilities of the aircraft within air forces that don't possess the all encompassing dominance of the skies akin to the USAF. For example, the Turks will employ the F-35 as an air superiority fighter and it will not be backed by the same unstoppable armada. In short, I am having trouble understanding the scaled down capabilities of the F-35, from a couple of thousand platforms available to the USAF, USN, and USMC; to the 100 odd available to smaller air forces.

I believe, anyone who is going to bet in the F-35 for Air-Superiority is in a very very tough gamble, a one I am not prepared to take. The USAF as I stated earlier affords to play that gamble, they have the F-22, but other small nations that don't can't afford to make that gamble.

 

[gambit]

In any X versus Y fighters debate, there comes a point where any performance advantages are only good on paper and not tactically useful. The closer the two fighters are to each other in all performance areas, the more the burden upon the pilots and increasingly less on the aircrafts. There is an unofficial agreement: 15% difference. It means one fighter must have at least a 15% greater performance specs in all major areas.

What if the F-16 was truly optimized from start to be a pure air-air combatant like Boyd and the 'Fighter Mafia' had envisioned back then and how the Raptor is designed today? We would not have the F-15 or it would have been designed to be the Strike Eagle from the start. And so today we have the F-16 inferior to the F-15 in only one area: Propulsion.

The F-35 is going to be the next F-16.

 

[Mosamania]

In any X versus Y fighters debate, there comes a point where any performance advantages are only good on paper and not tactically useful. The closer the two fighters are to each other in all performance areas, the more the burden upon the pilots and increasingly less on the aircrafts. There is an unofficial agreement: 15% difference. It means one fighter must have at least a 15% greater performance specs in all major areas.

What if the F-16 was truly optimized from start to be a pure air-air combatant like Boyd and the 'Fighter Mafia' had envisioned back then and how the Raptor is designed today? We would not have the F-15 or it would have been designed to be the Strike Eagle from the start. And so today we have the F-16 inferior to the F-15 in only one area: Propulsion.

The F-35 is going to be the next F-16.

Then YESSS, this is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along. Thank you for reaffirming it gambit.

 

[gambit]

Hey Gambit,

Was hoping you could answer a few questions that came to mind while reading your previous post:

Granted the LO characteristics give the f-35 a major advantage over all legacy fighters. But what about situational awareness? It has long been touted as it's biggest strength. If the f-35 finds itself in a WVR dog fight, do you agree with Lockheed and believe it will still emerge victorious a vast majority of the time?

Considering the technological capabilities of the Eurocanards and the more recent f-15 and su-27 denominations; could any of them realistically give the F-35 a formidable fight? I ask this to understand the capabilities of the aircraft within air forces that don't possess the all encompassing dominance of the skies akin to the USAF. For example, the Turks will employ the F-35 as an air superiority fighter and it will not be backed by the same unstoppable armada. In short, I am having trouble understanding the scaled down capabilities of the F-35, from a couple of thousand platforms available to the USAF, USN, and USMC; to the 100 odd available to smaller air forces.

Yes, I do.

But...In order to have the SA as we claim the -35 to have, there must be a net, obviously. We have no problems creating this airborne network but our allies may. If we take each fighter as standalone entities, the more advanced '4th gen' fighters can give the -35 a tough fight, but low radar observability will still be the dominant factor. With any air force that cannot wield the same level of networking capability as US, it will have to be creative on how to leverage that potential capability, such as coordinating with diverse ground radar stations to provide partial SA networking, for example.

 

[Mosamania]

Yes, I do.

But...In order to have the SA as we claim the -35 to have, there must be a net, obviously. We have no problems creating this airborne network but our allies may. If we take each fighter as standalone entities, the more advanced '4th gen' fighters can give the -35 a tough fight, but low radar observability will still be the dominant factor. With any air force that cannot wield the same level of networking capability as US, it will have to be creative on how to leverage that potential capability, such as coordinating with diverse ground radar stations to provide partial SA networking, for example.

Reaffirming my points again, as I said earlier, the US can afford to make such a gamble, smaller nations do NOT.

 

[gambit]

Then YESSS, this is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along. Thank you for reaffirming it gambit.

It is still VERY tough to beat an F-16. The -35 is going to serve in the -16's role, but it is a far better 'jack-of-all-trades' than the -16 is today.

 

[Mosamania]

It is still VERY tough to beat an F-16. The -35 is going to serve in the -16's role, but it is a far better 'jack-of-all-trades' than the -16 is today.

Being a "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none" might appeal to smaller nations, especially legacy F-16 users, however the way the F-35 is a "Jack-of-all-trade" will require those airforces tremendous work to get the most out of it. They might only end up reaching the same level as the F-16 in the end, only with more expensive upkeep.

Those smaller nations will be making a huge gamble with it if they decide to go against A2A optimized fighters. Like the Typhoon, for example, which is the point of this whole thread. We of course are not saying that the Typhoon will come out on top in 100 out of 100 confirtations, however it will without a doubt come out on top in more than 51 of them.

 

[gambit]

The G-Limiter on the F-35 have taken a hit recently of you haven't noticed. The Typhoon is a +9/-3Gs air craft, I don't think I need to further explain to you of all people what that means.

Each variant have its own g-rating. The Air Force variant have the same 9 gs rating as the -16. But the current g-limit on all variants have more to do with materials concerns than with structural and aerodynamic designs.

Being a "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none" might appeal to smaller nations, especially legacy F-16 users, however the way the F-35 is a "Jack-of-all-trade" will require those airforces tremendous work to get the most out of it. They might only end up reaching the same level as the F-16 in the end, only with more expensive upkeep.

Those smaller nations will be making a huge gamble with it if they decide to go against A2A optimized fighters. Like the Typhoon, for example, which is the point of this whole thread. We of course are not saying that the Typhoon will come out on top in 100 out of 100 confirtations, however it will without a doubt come out on top in more than 51 of them.

The Typhoon was designed to be a "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none".

There is nothing wrong with being such. The issue is how high or low capability of each 'trade'. The F-16 significantly raised the bars on all those 'trades'. The -35 will do the same but with low radar observability as a bonus. The Typhoon will lose 90 out of 100 confrontations.

 

[Toothless]

The F35 will change aerial combat I believe. Although many criticised the jet, I still believe the JSF is far superior to Eurofighter, Rafale or Su-35..

 

[Mosamania]

Each variant have its own g-rating. The Air Force variant have the same 9 gs rating as the -16. But the current g-limit on all variants have more to do with materials concerns than with structural and aerodynamic designs.

Here is the latest update on the Sustained Turn Rate for each variant:

-35A : 4.6Gs.
-35B : 4.5Gs.
-35C : 5.0Gs.

Typhoon on the other has better STR than all Aircrafts in the sky (bar the F-22)

 

[ANPP]

Typhoon is the product of conventional fighter theory while F35 is evolution from hole new non-conventional theory. While it is good & profitable to use new innovation in design,but in order to take profit one should put basic conventional fighter marks on it, inwhich F35 lake & history is proof in itself.

 

[Mosamania]

The Typhoon was designed to be a "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none".

There is nothing wrong with being such. The issue is how high or low capability of each 'trade'. The F-16 significantly raised the bars on all those 'trades'. The -35 will do the same but with low radar observability as a bonus. The Typhoon will lose 90 out of 100 confrontations.

Nope. The Partner nations designed the Typhoon for Air-Air, then the cold war ended, A2G is an after thought. C'mon Gambit no need for bias here. We all love the USA, but do you sincerely believe the F-35 will win 90 out of a hundred?

 

[gambit]

Here is the latest update on the Sustained Turn Rate for each variant:

-35A : 4.6Gs.
-35B : 4.5Gs.
-35C : 5.0Gs.

Typhoon on the other has better STR than all Aircrafts in the sky (bar the F-22)

In order to lower the limit, there has to be a previous higher limit, no? So what if the Typhoon's g-limit is the same as the -35's with both similarly configured? Or let us be generous and give the Typhoon a 20% advantage. With the much higher RCS, the Typhoon will lose before he even knows it. Heck, if we can make the B-52 equally 'stealthy' as the B-2, what a 'force multiplier' we will have.

 

[SQ8]

No, its agile aircraft.

Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has countered that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.
-
In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft's performance falls "between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope — and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities.


More than enough for stealth aircraft.


IRIS-T is no match to DAS.

I think the confusion is with performance specifications for each F-35 variant..

Each variant is essentially a different aircraft..

The A is the lightest and most combat ready..
but the detractors will always focus on the B which is essentially a heavier(and less maneuverable due to the general dead weight the VTOL system is within most of the flight).

So beesely may not be wrong about the A being as good in a knife fight as a F-16.. but he cant say for certain about the B model..

What people need to understand however.. is that while Vietnam was a miscalculation in thinking that the era of the dogfight is over.. it may actually end up applying here..
The EOTS system on the F-35 will pick out what type of aircraft and who it is facing.. and cue the missile to it without the pilot even having to look in that direction..
The idea of maneuverability would have been useful if you needed to point your nose to shoot..
that is no longer the case for most of the fighters today.. the Mig-29G's of the Luftwaffe surprised the west not because the aircraft turned as well as the F-16.. but because even in a turning fight.. with their noses at 90 degrees to each other.. the Mig was able to shoot at the F-16 by looking at it and scoring a kill with the R-73.

So while the EF may very well be able to turn quicker around the F-35... it cant turn faster than a missile that does 50gs...
and with no respect to Carlo Kopp.. but doing ballet's in the sky and pulling 10gs wont save you from a 9x that sees you in a dual-mode seeker.

However...
The same goes for the EF in a dogfight.. it wont stick around for turning and burning.. it will look for the quick shot and move out.

Chogy remarked on this as well.. Turning may no longer be the main force.. but rather slash and dash..
In that case.. the F-35 will track the EF better than it can.. EOTS trumps PIRATE anyday.

 

[gambit]

Nope. The Partner nations designed the Typhoon for Air-Air, then the cold war ended, A2G is an after thought. C'mon Gambit no need for bias here. We all love the USA, but do you sincerely believe the F-35 will win 90 out of a hundred?

Yes, I do. I know what my clean -16 look like on a scope. Your Typhoon is even worse.