Interesting take on the Lightning II's dogfighting capabilities:

F-35 Aerial Combat Performance

- Ed

So full of holes it’s confetti.

His basic argument is that the F-35 lost because it wasn’t equipped with a helmet mounted sight and off-bore sight missiles.

But that’s not an argument that makes the F-35 a good dogfighter, it’s an argument it doesn’t need to be.

The main flaw in that argument is what happens when you end up in a turning fight and run out of missiles - in which case the F-35 can’t outturn the enemy, and it’s transonic acceleration is so slow it can’t extend and outrun the enemy to get out of the fight.

The stealth argument is also hollow, once in the dogfight the missiles are going to be IR or multimode - and the range such even a radar missile should get a lock.

Not sy8ng the original verdict was correct - but the arguments made here do nothing to prove it wrong.

For the F-35A launch customer the dynamic 'dogfighting' performance of the aircraft was baselined to meet or exceed that of the F-16 at the upper part of the envelope and the F/A-18 at the slower/high-alpha range. They got the latter (and a fair bit more) but not the former. This is all in the Program of Record.

Even in the BVR fight, getting missiles out at extended range remains an obvious priority. So the slow acceleration and extensive use of burner required on the F-35A to achieve a suitable above-mach launch speed is disappointing too. Lighting burners at night is not a good idea as in clear conditions you suddenly become WVR - IRST systems have become ubiquitous and IR missiles can now reach out and touch you at a considerable distance when compared to the days of old.

Nobody want a less agile fighter and counter-tactics, RoE, engagement windows can push you to WVR when you least want it.

Tactical development of the F-35 reflects the aircraft strengths as much as possible as you fight with what you have and not with a LM promise from years ago.

Only 800 F-35s Delivered so far - this one 27 May 2022. Is it fighting dogs? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FULH2bpWQAEjI_-?format=jpg
“27 May 2022 Entering the Fleet: the 800th F-35”
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ab5773667d.jpg

I really want to love it, but it's just not beautiful.
The Eagle? The Tomcat? Beautiful birds.
The A-5 Vigilante? Good looking, but a handful.
(Reminds me of a certain girlfriend back in the 80's, yes)

DefenseNews has a piece by Stephen Losey saying The piece is at https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022...mpaign=dfn-ebb - but you may have to register to read it.

airsound

Not judging aesthetics but that means we are nearing 1000 Stealth Fighters on the Western side of things. Good.
Should give Mad Vlad some food for thought what would be left of his conventional forces within a quite short timeframe should he venture to do stoopid things.
The fighting of Dogs just for the fun of it can be left to other platforms...

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....17fbe020d5.jpg
Fugly comin' to pound some li'l ole barkin' caravan doggies: 7240745.jpg (6720×4480) (alert5.com) (1.1Mb) "A U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225, Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, departs a Forward Arming and Refueling Point with ordnance at Yuma Proving Grounds, Yuma, Arizona, May 25, 2022. The weapons configuration consists of six guided bombs, with four mounted onto the wings and two loaded into the weapons bay, as well as a Air Intercept Missile 9X. MAG-13 squadrons are capable of conducting offensive air support, anti-aircraft warfare, and aviation reconnaissance from expeditionary sites in any clime and place. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Samuel Ruiz)" #FighterFriday – Alert 5

Close air support at $100MM/unit, makes tactical ground to ground missiles at $1MM apiece look relatively affordable.

That's what puzzles me a bit as well. It's a high end bit of kit but it's used for the 'agricultural' part of the game. And the one where IR/MANPADs ans AAA that can be optically targeted when radar fails are the dominant A2A weapon to be expected to encounter.

it's also not going to be stealthy with all that ordinance hanging off the wings. Might as well send in an A-10 - at least it has survivability for all the ground fire that's going to be coming up.

Salute!

I guess the anti-35 folks will keep on pounding on. You know, the thing can go further and deliver four big bombs within 3 meters of a target without being seen, then come home and do it again..... "but, Gums, it can't carry and employ 38 kindsa missiles and smart bombs, and can't use the AIM-9X off-boresight as well as the older fighters that carry them on the wings so their RCS is more like a B-52 than a fighter" Yada yada yada......

I had issues way back about the new guy on the street, but those were solved - they were engineering and not tactical issues. If you see the F-35 demo videos, it does things as well as the Raptor and airshow jets promoted by some other countries. The slow speed nose-pointing is great, and high speed, high gee stuff is as good or better than the Viper I flew. I do not know where this acceleration complaint is coming from. The sucker has a great T/W number and I never fought when I needed to go supersonic to "extend'. So the accel numbers must come from a st and level profile that you don't see in combat. The Viper took forever to get to 1.6M or higher unless you unloaded.

Considering the price of everything now compared to the Raptor and Typhoon in their early years, this thing seems about right for its capability. Oh, and BTW, the F-35 can now employ the AIM-9X off-boresight when the missile is loaded internally. Yeah, yeah I liked the Lima in the Viper when slaved to the radar and heard that distinctive chirp and saw the missile seeker symbol inside the radar target box - ask Mogs.....

Later...

Gums sends...

At least my post (and as I understood it the post after mine) didn't really contradict the power of this platform for IDS or even DCA missions. I was more commenting that in that config and for that mission the undeniable advantages of the F-35 aren't really exploited and at the same time in exactly that use it may even be a bit more vulnerable than simpler platforms. Your trusty F-16 wouldn't have had sigificant disadvantages in that mission/config (unlike in some other uses).

Salute!

No problem, Henra.

It is just that the anti-35 folks keep on keeping on without fielding something as good or better at the same price.

I can't find a friendly attack or fighter that has the same RCS or super radar or legs with internal gas or precision ordnance with or without GPS. Ditto for potential adversaries.

Make no mistake, after initial few days or whatever, the plane will likely use pylons for extra armament, most likely A2A missiles. But the thing will never be a bomb truck like the A-6, or the A-7 I flew over Hanoi. Having stood in front of 200 aviators at Red Flag as the Mission Commander, I had to integrate all the players with their capabilities/limitations to successfully get the job done that HHQ had aasigned. I would have loved to have had in my order of battle a few very low RCS planes with a coupla LGB eggs and Slammers and cosmic radar and be able to fly a 400 n.m. mission and come home without refueling like the Double Uglies and Hornets and.....

As with many, the long development time irritates me. I blame the creatures we must avoid for rules of the forum - poly, from the ancient Greeks for many, ticks - blood sucking insects, resulting in "polytickians".

The F-35 may not be the best all-around attack aircraft in 10 years, but this year it will be hard to beat.

Gums sends...

Hanoi is a much nicer place to visit today, definitely more inviting than during Gums star date.

The F-35 is not often describes as pretty, but it is the most plentiful low RCS/stealthy aircraft out there, and it is on our side of the fence. (even Gum's A-7 was purtier) Always wanted to swap rides when adjacent to an F-22, but at outstanding as that aircraft is, it got an oak stake in the heart from congress. Right now, the overly expensive F-22 looks pretty darn cost effective against the L-M "bargain basement, all things to all users" F-35 solution. The F-35 is going to end up with stuff on the wings as a near certainty, to conduct any form of CAS, and the ground guys need that. The biggest concern that it gives is not whether it is able to out accelerate a SU-whatever, or a MIG-yadayada, those are all ROE problems or leakers, in which case, the F-35 still is a better ride than the oppo, the concern is when a 2nd Louie is in deep doo doo and calls up for CAS, MANPADS still make it an expensive proposition for the state. The A-10 was a good idea, is a good idea, and will be a good idea into the future, IMHO. If you can get rid of the driver, then all the better, but the guy calling in the support will be a lot happier with a friendly voice than calling up "Dave from ATT, from the friendly call centre in Bangalore..."

The next weeks will indicate whether the MQ-1/-9s etc can survive in a more intense airspace than they have operated (AFAIAA... :) ) previously. MQ's are not stealthy...

The A-10 still provides a possible solution for being able to give CAS and to survive the effort. MQ with stealth would be better yet, but, 1. haven't seen much of that and 2. that may just mean that it is already very effective. Survivability of the F-35 and A-10 would appear to lean heavily to the A-10 for CAS. In the absence of that type of platform, the mini drones offer a means to give targeting, but that needs the position to be determined and provided to an in range ordnance system... works for bits of Ukraine, not going to work so well out around the spratleys.

For airspace denial at the upper levels, the F-35 is the hammer that is in the tool belt now, and without encumbrance by ROE lunacy has a fair chance of being reusable. Down in the weeds, carrying external ordnance, it would appear to be an expensive way for J.O.'s to get promotion.

The only good news to come from Ukraine is that the Russians are going to have a hard time selling their "battle proven" hardware to anyone outside of Ouagadougou as a gift that keeps giving, and as the majority of tech components come from outside of Russia, and within the former RF, it was Ukraine that did the smart tech stuff, not Moscow.... , well, global arms are going to start changing character.

It's easy: You can't find one beecause there is none ;-)

I have a very hard time seeing this change within the next 10 -20 Years:

What's there?
Su-57? Seems even Russia mostly abandoned it. If anything will be produced in atomistic quantities. RCS highly questionable. Avionics questionable. Suitability for long range attack questionable -2 huge engines/small internal volume.
S-75? Paper ware very likely without potent avionics for the next decades.
J-20? Huge, RCS somewhat questionable. Avionics? Agility? Could possibly come close in some areas though. Possibly closest contender.
FC-31: Little known but seems China is ready to market it for export. They wouldn't do that with their absolute secret top- of the line stuff. Could be OKish and getting close in some areas to F-35 but I don't see it being on par as a whole package.
The Euro projects (Tempest/FCAS) will not see Serial planes much before 2040. Probably immensely expensive.

Salute!

Folks keep harping upon CAS missions and relate to the classic videos and photos from those days of yore. 'Give me a Warthog, not an F-35" is a common theme. I and most of my CAS buddies will tellya that the low and fairly slow planes will get chewed up except in a very few scenarios. In fact, the Hawg would have been chewed up at Fulda in the mid-70's after hitting one or two tanks. Only reason it flew as many missions in the 'stan and during 'raqi II was the adversary training and such was not even a third as good as the Vee I faced and what the Royal Navy experienced at Port Stanley. Ditto for the IAF over the Sinai in 1973 when they were introduced to the SA-6. The A-10's long use in the 'stan was because the scenario was vastly different from those, and resembled what we saw In VietNam early 60's.

So I link to a Hollywood video that is very accurate for the time it portrays. I know because I arrived shortly after the battle it portrays and often flew my little Dragonlfly to drop within yards of the grunts when they were in dire straits. We were 100 knots faster than the A-1 and 100 knots slower than the Scooters and Huns, but were small and had lowest loss rate of the debacle after 5 years. That initial air cavalry unit learned and by the time I flew in their support we hit the LZ before them and had another flight or two overhead when the choppers unloaded. Anyone here not having witnessed the drill, it is an extremely accurate portrayal of what I saw more than just a few times and was impressed by the U.S. Army choppers' timing, skill and formation.

So this is what folks think of when you mention CAS, but the F-35 will never use such tactics because it doesn't need to be right on top of the bad guys, and Reapers or other plarforms can put a Hellfire or that Brit thing, which is even better, right on top and more accurate than I ever could hope for. Gotta admit, tho, that the nape is impressive and scary, I loved it.


Gums sends...

Gums, if the F-35 is carrying any external ordinance, it's RCS goes way, way up. Besides, for close air support, stealth doesn't mean much when targeting is being done by the Mark 1 eyeball. Being single engine, one lucky, relatively small caliber shot and it's not making it home. In contrast, the A-10 was designed to be hit by ground fire - nearly everything is redundant.
I just can't see the F-35 being a highly survivable asset in the CAS role. I watched something the other night on the F-111 in 'Nam - they were relatively survivable for ground attack because they'd be going well over Mach 1 at a couple hundred feet, so they were literally gone before the ground fire could react. But I don't think the F-35 has the power to do that.
Tell me why I'm wrong (serious question - not trying to sound smartass). I respect your opinion, plus you've been there and done that, I haven't.

Limit clean is 1.2M with a time limit of five minutes above total temperature of 153° and do not exceed 214°C, loaded with bombs as they would be for a mission in the .8 to .9 range. (an enthusiast looking at the Flight Manual)

Great Gum one,

your observations are wise as always, however, the fastest way to settle the annoyance that the A-10 continues to give to the debate within the USAF is to hand over a bunch of them to the UF on lend-lease, and to count noses and holes on any that come back in due course. They have the capability to lift eyewatering levels of stuff, and to make ear-pleasing noises for you-tubers. The Su-25's have survived surprisingly well to date, and they vaguely compare to the A-10. The UF has Su experienced drivers, they need a ride and the best one going begging is the A-10. There are a few Su's still floating around, looked at buying a de-milled one in 2015, and it wasn't in bad condition at all, shy on seats though, not trainers to be had. Most of the Su-25s that remain in service anywhere are not in brilliant shape, apparently maintained with the same rigor as the Reds do for their truck tires. Just under 500 odd A-10s sit outside of the daily grind at present, any of those would be an improvement over limited means to disincentivize Red teams. The A-10 is about as simple an airframe that can be bolted together, the engines are still well supported, and it gives another avenue to send messages to the conscripts sitting in their targets tanks.

Ukraine continues to show heart and headwork in their counter-offensives, today being a good day for the blue/yellow team, not so much for the Reds, they need all the gear that they can reasonably slap into the field pronto, and that seems to suggest the A-10 would have a field trial as to how relevant it is in the world order that now exists. It isn't our boots in harms way, it is the gear that is as often as not considered undesirable, yet may still have some mileage left in it. It seems a win-win for the blue suiters, they can't lose, if the plane is not viable, they get new shiny jets, if the plane is effective, they get to argue a follow-on and major upgrade. This is the opportunity for some field trials while doing good. Pretty sure that the Ukrainians will gratefully receive the hog and turn it into something,

It's not often you get an opportunity to get operational validation of a tactical weapon system without risking US boots n blood. Add gopro max's and sell the footage, ad iMAX, sell tickets, rent the ride, crowdfund, re-allocate Russian central bank funds...whatever, but the UF may just make some good use of the hog, or die trying.

What do you know about the RCS of the RCS reduced Station? including the AIM-9xII and other short range missiles. That made you come to this conclusion? "it's RCS goes way, way up" You need to elaborate on this. It is inconsistent with the UK for example. They see it as viable and they have the real data. How did you arrive at your assessment?

Why is the F-35 using mark1 eyeballs as CAS sensors? Did you read about the Rafale needing to use binoculars?
Why is the F-35 in range of small arms gunfire?
As to the A-10, Manpads make strafing runs obsolete in the modern, peer battle space. The F-111 was obsolete last century, but we kept it till 2010. When it was replaced by Super Hornets

The B-52 did CAS missions in Astan, I think you need to widen your view.

This video has been downgrade in pixels since it was first put up. It still makes a bit of sense

F-35 JSF Distributed Aperture System (DAS) Sensors Demonstrate Hostile Fire Detection Capability

td, #498, your point is well made for different aircraft types. However, considering different forms of close air support then aircraft characteristics are less important than the capability of the total weapon system, against that of the opposing defence.

Specific weapon capability can change the game; the humble ‘high’ RCS iron bomb fitted with precision guidance enables ‘stand-off’ tactics, at least above small arms fire and some MANPADs.
Better defence capability requires different weapons and/or guidance, attack options, ultimately long range stand off irrespective of carrier, aircraft or UAV.
F-35 bomb photo; a good sales pitch, public consumption, value for money.

There are good examples in the book ‘Typhoon’ about the continuing ops in Iraq; i.e. bombs above alt ‘x’, range ‘y’; greater defence capability then switch to Brimstone, again depending on target type, value-effectives, etc. The book highlights one surprise, a call to use the gun; special circumstances.
Oh, the UK F-35 doesn't have a gun …

Also see Falklands thread re Vulcan SEAD tactics.

From the above the F-35 might be considered an expensive bomb-truck, but then context is everything; context is information, intelligence, communication, awareness.
F-35 systems weapons technologies in an A-10, not everything, but sufficient in many circumstances; if only hindsight was foresight and doesn't involve very log lead times.

A better, and available mix is to envisage the F-35 as a type of forward air-control, unseen eyes and ears, and/or sniper; used together with the F-15, F-16, Typhoon bomb trucks. The wider the range of simultaneous weapon carriage, range-loiter time, the better.

But then we never fight the war that we train (plan) for.

Salute!

Some good comments and observations here, lately.

In all fairness to TD, the 'vaark never did "close air support" as TD imagined, but it introduced a direct support tactic ( not real close, but within a km) that was later employed by the B-1. Yep, the Bone! That thing prolly dropped more precision bombs than anything in the 'stan for years, and it wasn't visual parameters within a few hundred meters of the friendlies and they dropped from the stratosphere. JDAM's.

The 'vaark was the only sky-puke plane I saw in the '72-'73 last months of the "first end of the war" that the commanders allowed to drop unguided bombs within 500 or so meters of friendlies. The LORAN F-4's did not drop close to friendlies using radar, just the LORAN. The friendlies had radar beacons and would provide the "offeset" to the 'vaark and it would do a radar drop . They wouldn't let we SLUF's do it as we had 1) not practiced it, and 2) we ere the new guys in town and many grunts had not seen us in action. The 'vaark passes at the speed of stink were not supersonic, but fast and low. They were the ones over the Vee airfields at the outset of Linebacker II. One driver told me they popped up for frag clearance ( even with high drags) and down the runway - the rwy lights were still on and they laid down a dozen MK-82's.

The B-52"s dropped several km's away from the camps at Khe Sahn in '68 and An Loc in '72. Support, but not close support.

So seems we are still trapped in the WW2, Korea and 'nam concept of don't drop until you see the whites of their eyes at low altitude. I personally would like to see the friendly position and exchange of fire if dropping within one or two hundred yards, but that could be with my cosmic E-O sensors or LIDAR or finally, my Mk1 eyeball. There are great videos out there of drone strikes that illustrate the point. Nobody got down in the weeds at the speed of heat and the bad guys had a really bad day. There's also a super video of a Viper using a laser-guided wepon on a bad guy crown coming down the street to the friendly position. Not sure if he was guiding or a wingman, but results were awesome. Trying to find it.

Gums sends...

I am going to speak generally based on my limited experience in the 21st century.
CAS (as it has ever been) is very closely coordinated with the ground units - some of whom can lase the target.
Or the other aircraft in a two ship can lase once the target is identified.
Or you can get a grid coordinate from the ground unit and enter it in, and then let loose with one of the smaller GBU's (they were fielding a 250 lb guided one before I left).
The venerable 2.75" rocket now has a guidance package (IR) as of about 2012; if they do, then maybe the Zuni rockets with a smart head are an option. I'd need to do some research as I have lost touch with the latest as regards what ordnance is still available.
I'll offer a thought for the year 2022: the "close" in close air support means "close to own troops" (near to the FEBA/FLOT) more so than it means "close to the ground" - which is where the attack helicopters are with their killing equipment. :ok:

Not to mentioned the increased use of armed drones/UAVs.

For gums:
Bones in the Stan. One of the more interesting missions I recall involved about a dozen JDAMs (2000 pounders!) supporting the French or Kiwi Spec Ops folks working with some local friendlies. The Bones were not down in the weeds.

I have full confidence that the F-35 operators will figure out a 'best fit' for their TTPs for when they need to support troops with missions close to the FLOT/FEBA.

And yes, the FLOT/FEBA may be bad terminology, given how dispersed the modern battlefield is.

Is there any significant air component to the fighting in the Donbas?
From the news reports, it seems mainly artillery and infantry, with air power not a big player in the urban combat.

Salute!

Only air I have seen is Russian helos beeing shot down, as well as a Sukhoi or two.

This thing is gonna drag out for a long time. Took ten years in the 'stan, but leadership then was a bit different, huh?

Gums sends...

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but there's an interesting piece on F-35I (IAF) and extended range adaptations. Open source, so not sure how good the detail is.

Interesting. Wonder if they did come up with some conformal tanks?

Seems a few users like Israel could use the big wing C version.

From the figures the C is a worse option than the A.

The larger wing, necessary for the carrier, is much higher drag - so whilst it carries more fuel the range is almost identical. Meanwhile extra drag/weight of the wing, undercarriage, hook etc, adversely affects performance, especially acceleration.

On paper it has the advantage for some users of being probe equipped, but LM state the same space was left empty on the A and fitting a probe isn’t an issue.

Plus the C is being bought in very few numbers by one customer, the USN, whilst the A is being bought bought by multiple users in the thousands - driving down price and increasing spares availability etc (commonality, between models, for all the original hype is low).

Salute!

Pretty sure the Cee has lots better range from off the deck than the Bug or Super Bug. And it sure as hell carries more precision eggs than the Bug without being detected,

Only two-seat F-35 I see is a weasel mission.

Gums opines....

The other article I read on that said that it included software mods, no idea as to the details.

@gums: are you referring to the Hornet as a Bug? :p
Unless you want to operate off of aircraft carriers.
I will concur with your point as regards commonality. There's a history to this.
I recall the much ballyhooed 'commonality' between the Blackhawk(A) and Seahawk (B) the practical number was about 'one third' though the official number was a bit higher than that. (And if I understand the lore correctly, the IDGB for the L Blackhawk was the child of the B Seahawk main transmission, but I may be crossing the wires of memory here).
On the other hand, Seahawk/Knighthawk (CH-60S which is now MH-60S) was built off of a then-current production Blackhawk (L) (with a few mods, of course, but my memory wires still have a few frayed ends on that one)

:} GoodNESSly FUNNI video explanation about F-35 B/S Shut up about the F-35 About halfway there is a boring ad for GROUNDnews but soldier on for more fun F-35 comments:

A couple of observations that I’ve picked up in conversation with F35 pilots over the last few years.

The first had flown F/A-18’s in operations in the Middle East. “For a pleasure flight, give me a Hornet. But if I’m going to war, give me a Lightning.”

The second, being uncharacteristically modest after scoring 10 kills over three missions at a Red Flag Alaska without once being targeted himself, “They were only F16’s and they couldn’t see me.”

I enjoyed that video, thank you. :ok:

For: CoodaShooda:
Some day, the RoE will allow BVR, and when it does the Lightning will come into its own.

What is the RoE now? I believe the F-35 has 650 parameters from its sensors to identify targets BVR that is acceptable for general use, allowing it to have a good score in various exercises including Red Flags:
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 FRIDAY, 16 MARCH 2012 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT page 61-62

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...8_Official.pdf

“...Air Vice Marshal Osley: The F-35 will play to its strengths using low observability and using better situational awareness. Its aim would be not to get within visual range. It does not need to be within visual range because of the sensors it has on board. I mentioned before that it has perhaps three times the software and therefore the discrimination of other modern aircraft. Its strength is its ability to recognise and identify an enemy aircraft at beyond visual range well ahead of the other aircraft...
...And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example — is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F-22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F-18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F-35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a consider-able distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range....”

ROE is theatre dependent, and you will not find it on the internet.

Presumably his budget for AIM-9X and the gun was handed back by the Aus DoD after the AVM's words...?

After all the money that has been spent and is still to be spent, I would expect pilots to say what was said about the F35.
After all. It is 5th generation.

You are correct. I was being a little careless there.