New F-35 waxed by old F-16 in test flight.

[U-Ute]

The real casualty in our corrupt bureaucracy: the military.

They get tanks it doesn't want (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html), build bases they never use (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359445/Military-dumps-34m-lavish-headquarters-Afghan-base-NEVER-BE-USED-U-S-troops-sent-home.html), and now are getting a plane that doesn't work (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-in-test-dogfight-f-35-gets-waxed-by-f-16/).

What do you want to bet that this came from a contract ramrodded through by a congressman getting a sweetheart deal for a company in his district.

EDIT: Relevant Onion article (http://www.theonion.com/article/congress-reluctant-to-cut-funding-for-tank-that-ju-36099). There's always a relevant Onion article.

[Diehard Ute]

The real casualty in our corrupt bureaucracy: the military.

They get tanks it doesn't want (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html), build bases they never use (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359445/Military-dumps-34m-lavish-headquarters-Afghan-base-NEVER-BE-USED-U-S-troops-sent-home.html), and now are getting a plane that doesn't work (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-in-test-dogfight-f-35-gets-waxed-by-f-16/).

What do you want to bet that this came from a contract ramrodded through by a congressman getting a sweetheart deal for a company in his district.

EDIT: Relevant Onion article (http://www.theonion.com/article/congress-reluctant-to-cut-funding-for-tank-that-ju-36099). There's always a relevant Onion article.

I'm not really sure what to make of this.

The F-35 was never supposed to be a dog fighting plane. The F-16 was originally developed to be just that, a highly maneuverable air to air platform that has since been adapted to other roles.

As someone who causally follows military aircraft I would have predicted an F-16 could outmaneuver a F-35 in close quarters. (The F-22 is the plane built to be the air to air king)

During the design of all 5th Gen fighters the assumption (and plan) was to avoid getting into close quarters battles in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wally]

I'm not really sure what to make of this.

The F-35 was never supposed to be a dog fighting plane. The F-16 was originally developed to be just that, a highly maneuverable air to air platform that has since been adapted to other roles.

As someone who causally follows military aircraft I would have predicted an F-16 could outmaneuver a F-35 in close quarters. (The F-22 is the plane built to be the air to air king)

During the design of all 5th Gen fighters the assumption (and plan) was to avoid getting into close quarters battles in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was my understanding too. the way we fight wars has changed considerably and the need for air tactical superiority only applies when we are fighting against a foe with an established air force, which we haven't since ww2. Per wikipedia, the F-35:
The fifth generation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter) combat aircraft is designed to perform ground attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_aircraft), aerial reconnaissance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_reconnaissance), and air defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_warfare) missions.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Air Superiority with the Fifth Gen fighters is more about electronic integration of all assets on the battlefield. This capability should allow the F-35 to obliterate a flight of F-16s from way over the horizon, before they even know the F-35 is in the area. But close up dogfighting is definitely not its strong suit.

Is the F-16 really 37 years old now??

Still it is interesting to see a ~$20M, decades-old plane knock down a $320M SOTA plane...

[USS Utah]

On a somewhat related note, I recently finished reading Lords of the Sky: Fighter Pilots and Air Combat from the Red Baron to the F-16 by Dan Hampton

Hampton is a former fighter pilot, who flew Wild Weasel missions in his F-16CJ during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has written an excellent memoir titled Viper Pilot. Lords of the Sky is Hampton's second non-fiction book and covers air combat from World War I to the Iraq War. It is fantastic!

In the spring of 1915, Roland Garros mounted a machine gun in front of the cockpit of his biplane and scored the first kill in areal combat. The Dutch aircraft manufacturer Fokker, followed suite with his invention of interrupter equipment, so that the pilot would not shoot of his own propeller, and by the end of the First World War, air power had become a significant element of war. This would continue during the Second World War as fighter pilots proved that the bomber would not always get through. Combat in the jet age first appeared in Korea as first generation jets mounting guns fought it out in MiG Alley. Air combat in Vietnam introduced air-to-air missiles, as well as surface-to-air missiles, and began a transition to an era where battling air defense systems has supplanted fighting other aircraft.

Hampton has a new book out about the first Wild Weasels in Vietnam, The Hunter Killers.

[USS Utah]

According to Lockheed, the report on the dogfight did not tell the whole story.

A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin and the Department Of Defense's F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) wrote that the War is Boring post "does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2 [the second F-35 airframe]...designed for flight sciences testing of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters."

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/

[NorthwestUteFan]

I am sure Boeing enjoyed the story.

[Ma'ake]

The F-22 vs F-35 "competition" fizzled because the F-22 was way too expensive, but the F-35 has bloated into about the same price tag.

My hunch is we'll never get all the F-35s because they're just too expensive, and drones will be better, cheaper, more expendable, etc. For that matter, aircraft carriers will become a lot smaller and cheaper. Maybe the B-52s will keep flying, carrying 8 drones apiece to their launch point. :)

[Diehard Ute]

The F-22 vs F-35 "competition" fizzled because the F-22 was way too expensive, but the F-35 has bloated into about the same price tag.

My hunch is we'll never get all the F-35s because they're just too expensive, and drones will be better, cheaper, more expendable, etc. For that matter, aircraft carriers will become a lot smaller and cheaper. Maybe the B-52s will keep flying, carrying 8 drones apiece to their launch point. :)

I hate the cost argument though because Congress artificially inflates the cost.

When these programs start (B-2, F-22 etc) the cost is spelled out. That cost is then divided by the number of units that are going to be produced and a cost per unit is developed.

With the B-2, B-1 and F-22 congress got cold feet and slammed the production door far short of the predicted units. Thus the cost per unit sky rockets as the research and development, which is the largest portion of the budget, is divided over far less planes. The B-2 was slashed by 80. The F-22 more than that.

If we're honest with ourselves we're idiots for allowing politicians so much say in the day to day spending of the country. Many of the stupid military (and other) money decisions are based on politics, not best practices (the fact that many in congress suggested closing HAFB despite it being by far the most efficient base for example)

The government is flat out bad at budgets be it local, state or federal. Too much emotion, never enough experience or knowledge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk