US Navy Air Boss: F-35C a 'game-changer'

[C130]

Too small ? Really ?

View attachment 228625
Dimension wise, the F-35 is barely larger than the F-16, and a clean -16 is the official unofficial bar for 'stealth'. The -16's maneuverability made it the fighter of choice for basic air combat training, and the -35 have larger wing area than the -16 at that. The -35's internal fuel is the same as the -16's all fuel capacity.

Basically, the F-35 is the F-16 on steroid. And the F-35 is a bust ?


Bullshit. And I say that kindly.

comparing size wise F-35C to a F-16 is pointless.

compared to the upcoming J-20,Pak-Fa, and current Su-30,Su-33,J-15 it is small.

and i really mean it's internal weapons load will be small compared to current jets

 

[Penguin]

comparing size wise F-35C to a F-16 is pointless.

compared to the upcoming J-20,Pak-Fa, and current Su-30,Su-33,J-15 it is small.

and i really mean it's internal weapons load will be small compared to current jets

Both F-15 and F-22 are small compared to a SU-30
(almost everything is. although... SU-30 is small compared to F-111 ;-).

.... so what?

 

[gambit]

comparing size wise F-35C to a F-16 is pointless.

compared to the upcoming J-20,Pak-Fa, and current Su-30,Su-33,J-15 it is small.

and i really mean it's internal weapons load will be small compared to current jets

In radar detection, size matters, or specifically -- perceived size. You have never seen what a clean F-16 look like on a radar scope. I have, from below and from above.

Just because some radar specs says 'look down, shoot down' it does not mean the radar can detect the -16 when it descends below 1000 ft., or 300 meters, and have no doubt US pilots are well trained, perhaps better than most, on how to fly 'nap of the earth' penetration profile. I was on the F-111 for 4 yrs and no one, not even the Tornado pilots, can do it better than 'vark drivers. So a flight of well loaded F-16s armed for interdiction -- enemy supply disruption -- is something that no one wish to be on the receiving end.

Do you know what it takes to disrupt the operations of an air defense radar ? How about the explosive power of a hand grenade ? Just a hand grenade is enough to knock the array askew long enough to create a gap. Now how about a spray of cluster bomblets from a sneaky F-35 on a supply train or troop formation ? Or how about cluster bombs on the runways and taxi ways ? What pilot are going to be brave enough to risk running over an unseen bomblet as he runs down the runway in AB trying to take off to contribute to the war ?

The criticisms that the F-35 is not as capable an air superiority fighter as the F-22 misses the point. The F-35 as an air-air fighter will be enough to handle all current so called '4th gen' fighters but that is not its mission. Against ground targets with the current air defense technology, it is just as dangerous as fighting an opponent in the air, and how many air forces today that can field an F-22 equivalent ? Russia ? China ? In how many yrs down the road ? Too bad we do not award 'ace' status to strike pilots because if we do, the US would come out far ahead of ALL the world's air forces. The F-35 is designed to create such 'aces'.

 

[jhungary]

comparing size wise F-35C to a F-16 is pointless.

compared to the upcoming J-20,Pak-Fa, and current Su-30,Su-33,J-15 it is small.

and i really mean it's internal weapons load will be small compared to current jets

In war, there are something called Battlefield Management. You need to understand this before you understand why F-35 is better than what it intended to replace, the 16s

When I just joined the Army, I was trained as a cavalry officer, the type of battle I took is a larger scale, with full platoon or even company assaulting a fixed position.

Now, let's look at this scenario.

I have a platoon of 45 men, with Trucks and Humvee , my objective is an rear C&C camp, and I know between me and my objective there are an enemy platoon between me. And for me to assault my objective, I will need to engage the enemy platoon, take them out, and then assault the C&C bunker.

Problem as far as I can see is, I pour all my platoon to engage the enemy platoon, chances are my own platoon would become combat ineffective just for that fight, that's more WIA and KIA than able person, and my objective is not to destroy the enemy platoon, but the C&C Bunker, and since my size is big, I can't sneak past the enemy platoon and that mean there is a chance I will not be able to even engage my objective, if my own platoon would be pinned down by the enemy patrol.

Now, if I have a team of 10 specially trained men, less guns and less equipment, but with 10 men, I can sneak past the enemy patrol by stealth and penetrate and engage the C&C bunker directly, once the jobs done, those 10 men would be sneaking out of the area again.

Now, when I use a smaller team but better "Quality" troop, at worse the worse case scenario is exactly the same with when I roll in with the whole platoon. Which is my 10 men squad were pinned down by the patrol and unable to assault the objective, so, literally, you are looking at less resources to manage the same objective.

Now, think about this scenario.

I have 8 F-16 and I need to bomb the enemy C&C bunker, now I know enemy fighter patrol the area leading up to the attack, with -35s, I can choose not to engage non-mission objective, because when you roll in with your -16, you will be forced to engage the enemy fighter when you were detected, but using stealth plane, you can choose what you want to engage, that effectively take out the numerical difference