3 ms·

The article is a year old and parrots some of the talking points from the F-16 vs F-35 exercises that definitely didn't reflect the full capabilities of the two

The article is a year old and parrots some of the talking points from the F-16 vs F-35 exercises that definitely didn't reflect the full capabilities of the two aircraft. The F-35 at the time was flying with its flight envelope restricted by software, and the test pilots involved were not really doing an all out dogfight but were instead working on determining the F-35's flight envelope and how it responded to different tactics. In general the article just does the same thing as others, repeats stuff from blogs and so called "experts", people who have probably never even touched and F-35 much less flown one. It does seem to be a fun topic for clickbait though.

dogma1138 8y ago
And adding to that that the only nation to use it in combat so far is Israel and they seem to like it (they are the only nation to increase their order after using it in theater) and despite theirs being heavily modified I would err on the side of caution swallowing these gloomy statements that seem to have more problems with the politics and funding of the program than with the jet itself. The same things were said about the F16 in it’s early days. And in fact it was the IAF that proved that it was suited for both long distance combat sorties and old school bomb sights bombing runs when they used it to take out the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq which proved many F16 critics at the time wrong. The truth is that these days no replacement for a fighter jet would be that much superior to what it’s replacing not because it’s poorly designed but because what it’s replacing has had 40 years worth of improvements and refinements. Block 70 F16s have nearly nothing in common with the original fighting falcon there likely isn’t a single part that is even interchangeable between them. That said the F16 unlike the F35 doesn’t have another 40 years it’s air frame has already been stretched (literarily) beyond its limits so we do need a new platform regardless of its growing pains. And for people criticizing the F35 over its low order numbers well they are low compared to the F16 but the F16 has been in service for 40 years and introduced during essentially the largest arms race the world has ever seen aka the Cold War.
- WalterGR 8y ago
  The truth is that these days no replacement for a fighter jet would be that much superior to what it’s replacing not because it’s poorly designed but because what it’s replacing has had 40 years worth of improvements and refinements. What is the scope of the improvements and refinements? I’m hard-pressed to think of something you could replace “fighter jet” with and have the statement be true. Computer? Automobile? Spacecraft? Telephone? Probably not. Dwelling or building? Potentially... Is this a Ship of Thesius situation where every part of the F-16 has been redesigned and replaced over time, but it’s still called “the F-16”? Was forward-compatibility a design goal? Was it just designed at a time where the state-of-the-art was at a ‘sweet spot’ of sophistication such that the overall structure had design longevity but the guts could be replaced?
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    >What is the scope of the improvements and refinements? The current F16 has very little in common with the original one that entered into service in 1978, even the air-frame was redesigned several times, new engine, new avionics new everything, the modern F16 blocks (C 50/52 onward) are like 6000 lbs heavier (naked) than the F16A naked while having a longer range and larger carrying capacity. >Computer? Automobile? Spacecraft? Telephone? Probably not. Dwelling or building? Potentially... Yes and no, in this analogy the F16 isn't a Laptop Model X123 but rather just a "Laptop", in the desktop PC world just a "case" and on top of that if the case could also be heavily modified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... And in space you can see it today take a look at Space X and the differences implemented in Falcon 9 during it's development from block to block. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launcher_versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launcher_versions
hinkley 8y ago
The SR-71 had an official top speed, and a real top speed. Every time the Russians put out a new world record the Blackbird would go up and take it back. When we talk about how defense dollars are spent I always am of two minds. Because I have no idea if we are comparing apples to apples. Everyone knows the flight characteristics of the F-16, but how many of us know what the -35 can actually do?
- engi_nerd 8y ago
  > but how many of us know what the -35 can actually do? Zero people. What we know from the years of F-35 testing to date is that the aircraft meets the original contract specifications. What we do not know is how the aircraft will perform in operationally representative scenarios. That will be done beginning later this year (supposedly) when Initial Operational Test & Evaluation begins.
engi_nerd 8y ago
Some more details to support your point: The test in question was not even an "F-16 vs F-35" exercise, it was a regression test of a new vehicle control law software with an F-16 being used as a visual reference for maneuvering against. Additionally, the F-35 being used for the test, AF-02, is a "Flight Sciences" aircraft that lacks all of the F-35's mission systems (Radar, Electro Optical Targeting System, communications suite, and electronic warfare suite).

dogma1138 8y ago

And adding to that that the only nation to use it in combat so far is Israel and they seem to like it (they are the only nation to increase their order after using it in theater) and despite theirs being heavily modified I would err on the side of caution swallowing these gloomy statements that seem to have more problems with the politics and funding of the program than with the jet itself. The same things were said about the F16 in it’s early days. And in fact it was the IAF that proved that it was suited for both long distance combat sorties and old school bomb sights bombing runs when they used it to take out the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq which proved many F16 critics at the time wrong. The truth is that these days no replacement for a fighter jet would be that much superior to what it’s replacing not because it’s poorly designed but because what it’s replacing has had 40 years worth of improvements and refinements. Block 70 F16s have nearly nothing in common with the original fighting falcon there likely isn’t a single part that is even interchangeable between them. That said the F16 unlike the F35 doesn’t have another 40 years it’s air frame has already been stretched (literarily) beyond its limits so we do need a new platform regardless of its growing pains. And for people criticizing the F35 over its low order numbers well they are low compared to the F16 but the F16 has been in service for 40 years and introduced during essentially the largest arms race the world has ever seen aka the Cold War.

WalterGR 8y ago
The truth is that these days no replacement for a fighter jet would be that much superior to what it’s replacing not because it’s poorly designed but because what it’s replacing has had 40 years worth of improvements and refinements. What is the scope of the improvements and refinements? I’m hard-pressed to think of something you could replace “fighter jet” with and have the statement be true. Computer? Automobile? Spacecraft? Telephone? Probably not. Dwelling or building? Potentially... Is this a Ship of Thesius situation where every part of the F-16 has been redesigned and replaced over time, but it’s still called “the F-16”? Was forward-compatibility a design goal? Was it just designed at a time where the state-of-the-art was at a ‘sweet spot’ of sophistication such that the overall structure had design longevity but the guts could be replaced?
- dogma1138 8y ago
  >What is the scope of the improvements and refinements? The current F16 has very little in common with the original one that entered into service in 1978, even the air-frame was redesigned several times, new engine, new avionics new everything, the modern F16 blocks (C 50/52 onward) are like 6000 lbs heavier (naked) than the F16A naked while having a longer range and larger carrying capacity. >Computer? Automobile? Spacecraft? Telephone? Probably not. Dwelling or building? Potentially... Yes and no, in this analogy the F16 isn't a Laptop Model X123 but rather just a "Laptop", in the desktop PC world just a "case" and on top of that if the case could also be heavily modified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... And in space you can see it today take a look at Space X and the differences implemented in Falcon 9 during it's development from block to block. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launcher_versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launcher_versions

hinkley 8y ago

The SR-71 had an official top speed, and a real top speed. Every time the Russians put out a new world record the Blackbird would go up and take it back. When we talk about how defense dollars are spent I always am of two minds. Because I have no idea if we are comparing apples to apples. Everyone knows the flight characteristics of the F-16, but how many of us know what the -35 can actually do?

engi_nerd 8y ago
> but how many of us know what the -35 can actually do? Zero people. What we know from the years of F-35 testing to date is that the aircraft meets the original contract specifications. What we do not know is how the aircraft will perform in operationally representative scenarios. That will be done beginning later this year (supposedly) when Initial Operational Test & Evaluation begins.

engi_nerd 8y ago

Some more details to support your point: The test in question was not even an "F-16 vs F-35" exercise, it was a regression test of a new vehicle control law software with an F-16 being used as a visual reference for maneuvering against. Additionally, the F-35 being used for the test, AF-02, is a "Flight Sciences" aircraft that lacks all of the F-35's mission systems (Radar, Electro Optical Targeting System, communications suite, and electronic warfare suite).