4 ms·

I'm not sure about the other capabilities of the F-35, but judging a modern war plane based on its ability to dogfight is like judging a modern ship based on it

I'm not sure about the other capabilities of the F-35, but judging a modern war plane based on its ability to dogfight is like judging a modern ship based on its ability to ram other ships. Dogfighting just isn't going to happen anymore in a battlefield where smart munitions are relatively cheap, plentiful, smart, and getting smarter every year. We are talking about skies that will soon be filled with extremely agile drones and missiles. In that environment, a manned fighter, that cannot pull high-G maneuvers (because the human pilot will pass out) cannot beat a supersonic missile or drone. We should not build planes to perform well in dogfights in the style of the Korean and Vietnam war. Stealth or unmanned is the way to go. Having said that, the Chinese long-term strategy of developing high performance drones to saturate the battlespace is probably the smartest idea of all. I don't think any stealth technology remains very "stealthy" for very long, in this era of software processing.

nickff 11y ago
The arguments you are using are similar to those used to defend the century series; back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. If one is to defend the F-35, it should be on the basis of its advanced strike capabilities, or other design considerations which were given priority. Perhaps stealth, unmanned, and/or saturation are the best strategies; I am not sure whether anyone can predict what the outcome of an encounter between such asymmetrical adversaries will be in 15-25 years.
- nether 11y ago
  > back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. Please stop this. Vietnam era missiles were little more than firecrackers with IR seekers that flew into the sun. That's why pilots needed their guns, because guided missiles were so shitty at the time. Modern missiles are basically immune to passive countermeasures and have directed warheads, thrust vectoring etc. and would be the first choice of any fighter pilot interesting in staying alive.
  - justin66 11y ago
    Do any air to air missiles in the U.S. inventory offer thrust vectoring?
    - dubyah 11y ago
      AIM-9X Sidewinder
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Modern missiles aren't immune to rules of engagement which prohibit beyond-visual-range engagement. The actual solution to this problem is to establish air superiority by sending in autonomous drones to down all aircraft and destroy all anti-aircraft munitions in a given region, and then send in human-flown craft for other work. Yes, this entails robots being given the ability to kill humans. No, this is not currently politically feasible in this country right now.
    - titzer 11y ago
      Really? It seems like there is relatively little objection in the US to the ongoing drone warfare across the middle east. That might mostly be due to ignorance. Unfortunately, the government likes to foster ignorance to prevent embarrassment and outrage, and it seems likely that the powers that be are emboldened to creep one step closer each year to fully autonomous weapon systems. Despite all the dangers and warnings, we're still slipping right into this trap due to inertia.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    Yet modern missiles are lot more effective when shot from the rear quarter of the enemy. Any fighter pilot interested in staying alive still tries to get there.
dkbrk 11y ago
All your points are well-made and I believe you are mostly correct. However, I wouldn't be so quick to entirely dismiss dogfighting as something that "just isn't going to happen anymore". Nobody knows exactly what combat would look like with modern weapons between actual adversaries; which weapons would would be ineffective; which countermeasures would succeed. The possibility that two aircraft could get close enough that it would become a dogfight should always be accounted for. Munitions could be expended to the point where no long-range missiles remain. An enemy aircraft could use terrain masking in mountainous terrain to get close; no radar can detect an aircraft through half a kilometer of rock. How about the effects of inclement weather? Or, perhaps, some F-35s are themselves using terrain masking on a ground-attack mission due to enemy SAM presence and are surprised by an enemy squadron. The point is, there is always a way things can go wrong. Ignoring that gets people killed. That said, it has been accounted for in the F-35; the Distributed Aperture System along with off-boresight missiles could actually make the turning battle of a dogfight obsolete... until the F-35 expended all its missiles. Of course a UAV could be much better than any manned aircraft in a dogfight; but battles aren't always picked, one must always be prepared for a battle to be forced under less than optimal circumstances.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
What you're saying largely aligns with detailed analysis I've read on the subject: http://www.scribd.com/doc/261173525/CSBA-Trends-in-Air-To-Air-Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/261173525/CSBA-Trends-in-Air-To-Ai...
gaius 11y ago
People have been saying that literally since the 1950s when the very first guided missiles were developed. Then along comes reality in the form of a war and the people that believed it, get spanked by those that didn't.
wora 11y ago
Besides agility, speed and radar performance are also critical in missile attack and defense. F-22 can super cruise for that reason. The size of F-35 radar is a concern for performance. Given the past experience of F-15 vs Su-27, it is very hard to believe F-35 will be competitive 10 years from now besides the numbers.
briandear 11y ago
The problem with the F35 is that the entire concept rests on a symmetric battlefield as opposed to the asymmetric threats that have been de rigeur since the end of Gulf War I. Not a "bad" airplane per se, but a paradoxically short sighted use of funds. It reminds me of the Crusader artillery project being pushed when I Was in the Army. We needed better rifles and high mobility systems more than more Napoleonic weaponry.
vlehto 11y ago
Judging war plane by it's ability of supersonic flight is stupid too. Most air to air missiles are way faster than most warplanes, and missiles have more capability to increase speed if R/D is poured into it. Putting money in radar stealth beyond certain point is stupid too. IR is increasing range, that might be way more important in near future than radar, as it's passive. Also optical tracking and long wave radar with sophisticated signal processing are coming too. Radio controlled drones are risky business as the connection can be hacked or jammed. If IR jamming by lasers really hits off, then we are back to guns in dogfight. Pulling high G maneuvers are BTW not very good indicator of turning ability. High G high speed turn might take ages compared to low speed medium G turn. Modern high power/weight ratio fighter planes still compete with modern missiles. Weird but WWII era Mosquito with IR/optical sensors and autonomous flying looks like the future. It's cheap, low signature and can't be jammed/hacked. If you could hire pilots to fly these things cheaper than construct the chips needed, then it might come sooner than 2080. (I'm looking at you China..)
stormcrowsx 11y ago
The F-15 is one of the most successful air superiority fighters in modern war history. It is not a dog fighter, its a huge aircraft with a lot of power and a high service ceiling. It got to be such a good air superiority fighter due to its ability detect and fire missiles at aircraft before they could. So I don't think the F-35 needs to dogfight, it just needs to be less detectable and a better detection system than its adversary. I agree with the drones though, making cheaper drones and having a large quantity of them seems like a better strategy. A single plane can only carry so many missiles.
- gaius 11y ago
  But the mission of the F35 is not air superiority, the RAF are using the Typhoon for that role, the US are using the F22. It will need to dogfight for self-defence when it's e.g. CAS mission gets interrupted by enemy aircraft, then it will be toast.

nickff 11y ago

The arguments you are using are similar to those used to defend the century series; back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. If one is to defend the F-35, it should be on the basis of its advanced strike capabilities, or other design considerations which were given priority. Perhaps stealth, unmanned, and/or saturation are the best strategies; I am not sure whether anyone can predict what the outcome of an encounter between such asymmetrical adversaries will be in 15-25 years.

nether 11y ago
> back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. Please stop this. Vietnam era missiles were little more than firecrackers with IR seekers that flew into the sun. That's why pilots needed their guns, because guided missiles were so shitty at the time. Modern missiles are basically immune to passive countermeasures and have directed warheads, thrust vectoring etc. and would be the first choice of any fighter pilot interesting in staying alive.
- justin66 11y ago
  Do any air to air missiles in the U.S. inventory offer thrust vectoring?
  - dubyah 11y ago
    AIM-9X Sidewinder
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Modern missiles aren't immune to rules of engagement which prohibit beyond-visual-range engagement. The actual solution to this problem is to establish air superiority by sending in autonomous drones to down all aircraft and destroy all anti-aircraft munitions in a given region, and then send in human-flown craft for other work. Yes, this entails robots being given the ability to kill humans. No, this is not currently politically feasible in this country right now.
  - titzer 11y ago
    Really? It seems like there is relatively little objection in the US to the ongoing drone warfare across the middle east. That might mostly be due to ignorance. Unfortunately, the government likes to foster ignorance to prevent embarrassment and outrage, and it seems likely that the powers that be are emboldened to creep one step closer each year to fully autonomous weapon systems. Despite all the dangers and warnings, we're still slipping right into this trap due to inertia.
- vlehto 11y ago
  Yet modern missiles are lot more effective when shot from the rear quarter of the enemy. Any fighter pilot interested in staying alive still tries to get there.

dkbrk 11y ago

All your points are well-made and I believe you are mostly correct. However, I wouldn't be so quick to entirely dismiss dogfighting as something that "just isn't going to happen anymore". Nobody knows exactly what combat would look like with modern weapons between actual adversaries; which weapons would would be ineffective; which countermeasures would succeed. The possibility that two aircraft could get close enough that it would become a dogfight should always be accounted for. Munitions could be expended to the point where no long-range missiles remain. An enemy aircraft could use terrain masking in mountainous terrain to get close; no radar can detect an aircraft through half a kilometer of rock. How about the effects of inclement weather? Or, perhaps, some F-35s are themselves using terrain masking on a ground-attack mission due to enemy SAM presence and are surprised by an enemy squadron. The point is, there is always a way things can go wrong. Ignoring that gets people killed. That said, it has been accounted for in the F-35; the Distributed Aperture System along with off-boresight missiles could actually make the turning battle of a dogfight obsolete... until the F-35 expended all its missiles. Of course a UAV could be much better than any manned aircraft in a dogfight; but battles aren't always picked, one must always be prepared for a battle to be forced under less than optimal circumstances.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago

What you're saying largely aligns with detailed analysis I've read on the subject: http://www.scribd.com/doc/261173525/CSBA-Trends-in-Air-To-Air-Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/261173525/CSBA-Trends-in-Air-To-Ai...

gaius 11y ago

People have been saying that literally since the 1950s when the very first guided missiles were developed. Then along comes reality in the form of a war and the people that believed it, get spanked by those that didn't.

wora 11y ago

Besides agility, speed and radar performance are also critical in missile attack and defense. F-22 can super cruise for that reason. The size of F-35 radar is a concern for performance. Given the past experience of F-15 vs Su-27, it is very hard to believe F-35 will be competitive 10 years from now besides the numbers.

briandear 11y ago

The problem with the F35 is that the entire concept rests on a symmetric battlefield as opposed to the asymmetric threats that have been de rigeur since the end of Gulf War I. Not a "bad" airplane per se, but a paradoxically short sighted use of funds. It reminds me of the Crusader artillery project being pushed when I Was in the Army. We needed better rifles and high mobility systems more than more Napoleonic weaponry.

vlehto 11y ago

Judging war plane by it's ability of supersonic flight is stupid too. Most air to air missiles are way faster than most warplanes, and missiles have more capability to increase speed if R/D is poured into it. Putting money in radar stealth beyond certain point is stupid too. IR is increasing range, that might be way more important in near future than radar, as it's passive. Also optical tracking and long wave radar with sophisticated signal processing are coming too. Radio controlled drones are risky business as the connection can be hacked or jammed. If IR jamming by lasers really hits off, then we are back to guns in dogfight. Pulling high G maneuvers are BTW not very good indicator of turning ability. High G high speed turn might take ages compared to low speed medium G turn. Modern high power/weight ratio fighter planes still compete with modern missiles. Weird but WWII era Mosquito with IR/optical sensors and autonomous flying looks like the future. It's cheap, low signature and can't be jammed/hacked. If you could hire pilots to fly these things cheaper than construct the chips needed, then it might come sooner than 2080. (I'm looking at you China..)

stormcrowsx 11y ago

The F-15 is one of the most successful air superiority fighters in modern war history. It is not a dog fighter, its a huge aircraft with a lot of power and a high service ceiling. It got to be such a good air superiority fighter due to its ability detect and fire missiles at aircraft before they could. So I don't think the F-35 needs to dogfight, it just needs to be less detectable and a better detection system than its adversary. I agree with the drones though, making cheaper drones and having a large quantity of them seems like a better strategy. A single plane can only carry so many missiles.

gaius 11y ago
But the mission of the F35 is not air superiority, the RAF are using the Typhoon for that role, the US are using the F22. It will need to dogfight for self-defence when it's e.g. CAS mission gets interrupted by enemy aircraft, then it will be toast.