LF: F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet

Title: F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet
Source: UK Telegraph
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ ... ses-dogfight-to-1970s-jet.html
Published: Jul 2, 2015
Author: Alan Tovey
Post Date: 2015-07-02 20:59:35 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1990
Comments: 20

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have defended the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after it lost a mock dogfight with an old F-16, saying report of encounter is 'misleading'

An extraordinary defence of the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been issued by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, the lead company building the jet.

The F-35 is intended to replace a host of different aircraft, with the stealthy new design able to carry out a wide variety of roles, from air-to-air combat to close air support of troops on the ground.

However, the $1 trillion (£620bn) project has suffered a host of delays, cost over-runs and technical problems. One of the most embarrassing of these came at the 2014 Farnborough air show when the F-35 was due to make its much-heralded UK debut but was grounded due to an engine fire.

Now the jet’s backers have hit back at the report, saying it does not tell the full story about the exercise, which took place in January.

The F-35 Joint Programme Office issued a statement saying that the F-35 used was one intended only to test the aircraft’s flying qualities, and not equipped with the high-tech systems front-line models will have. [The F-35] did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, it did not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar,” the statement said.

“Third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the aeroplane at its target.”

It added that while the close-in dogfight allowed the F-35 to be tested on the edge of its handling limits, it was not the type of combat the jet was intended for and the results were “misleading”. How the report emerged in the media was also being investigated, it said.

“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” the statement said. “There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship flight of F-35s has engaged a four-ship flight of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.”

^{Old timer: The F-16 Fighting Falcon was introduced in 1978}

While Lockheed Martin is the lead company in the massive project, which is expected to see about 3,000 of the jets sold to a variety of nations, BAE Systems is the only first-tier partner. The UK defence group makes about 15pc of each aircraft, producing the after part of the jet at its plant in Samlesbury, Lancashire.

Lockheed Martin also defended the F35’s performance in the test.

“An F-35 with its 5th generation stealth technology, full sensor suite and unsurpassed situational awareness is superior to any 4th generation aircraft flying today,” the company said.

“As many military leaders from across the globe have stated on numerous occasions and we fully endorse – when a 4th generation fighter encounters the F-35 in a combat scenario, the 4th generation fighter dies.”

Well, they can say whatever they are paid to say, but in a practical test, – when a 4th generation fighter encounters the F-35 in a combat scenario, the F-35 fighter dies.

If somehow, the 4g fighter closes the range (gets under the guns, so to speak), the 5g fighter is at a disadvantage.

Seems like there was a previous American jet that was produced sans machine guns because it was expected to dispatch any enemy fighter with missiles long before they were in range to even pose a threat.

Uh, they did have a mock dog fight. The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have defended the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after it lost a mock dogfight with an old F-16,

The F16s flying today have advanced avionics, and many other modern upgrades. So the comparison is not as stark as it is communicated.

They have to fix whatever problems and move on. The aging fleet of F16s have to be retired. We put a lot of mileage on those frames during OIF and OEF.

I am not an aviation expert, but I think the big question is, is the F-35 worth what we have spent on it? And if not, what would be the best alternative?

Nor am I an expert on aviation. I just spent the last 12 years of my 25 yrs in the Army in assignments with AF, Navy and Marine pilots/aviators. With a dash of SF types. Long story but was an occupational hazard for aging Artillerymen:)

If I remember correctly, similar concerns arose with airframes such as the F14 and F15. Apparently we worked out those concerns as well given their wonderful performances over decades. Then people complained about the F18. They work great now too.

The compaint about the F16 was that it was too light, could not go toe to toe with a high performance aircraft etc. Proven wrong.

Maybe, maybe? For what has been spent on the F-35, we should have just built new F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's ? ? ? And for CAS, just build new A-10's ?