F-35 can't take the F-16 in a dog fight?

[ahramin]

You're forgetting China.

[co-joe]

China already owns the us. No need for war.

The viper is the only no compromise dogfight, air to air machine the us has ever made. (even the P-51 had compromises) It's a response to losing so many F-4's when the bean counters were positive that all head to heads engagements, would be beyond visual range hence the Phantom not getting a gun. Since then, every piece of winged military hardware has been a competition of just how many boxes can we tick. The F-35 is just a continuation of the be all things to all people stance. Fact is it's the jack of all trades master of none. It's no surprise that a viper can wax it in most scenarios involving a pure knife fight in a phone booth within visual range, but it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Hows the VTOL on the F-16? Is its radar even in the same realm? Isn't the F-35 supercruise? Which one has a larger radar ping? Internal weapons storage? How many F-16's did the navy or the marines buy again?

That said the price tag is retarded.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Gents,

It's a moot point. If a C-150 can take out an F-16 anything (including the F-35) can!

[niss]

Gents,

It's a moot point. If a C-150 can take out an F-16 anything (including the F-35) can!

Oh @#$!.. I'm going to hell for laughing at this.

[SuperchargedRS]

The 35 is our export, kinda like the off brand name, but cheapened down crap you buy at walmart.

It sure as heck isn't a F22 (which we can't export).

Besides Canada is Americas hat, and we won't let anyone mess with our hat, you don't need any fighters

[Mostly Harmless]

In reality, the enemy won't go after the F-22 or the F-35. The terrorists and revolutionaries will conduct business as usual in their caves and mud huts and if the US or NATO ever goes up against more than a ragtag Air Force, they will strike at the support infrastructure with far superior numbers than the sequestered US will be able to procure. Why shoot down an F-22 when shooting down a tanker or two will take down a whole wing of them?

I'm aware of this and I agree. But that's not the conversation everyone here insists on having with regard to the F-35. I find it interesting that there are so many F-35 experts here on the but not one who knows anything about the F-22.

You're forgetting China.

True, they have the size and numbers.

China already owns the us. No need for war.

Also true and a much better strategy than a war.

The viper is the only no compromise dogfight, air to air machine the us has ever made. .

Which is why I was curious about an F-22 vs F-16 match... the F-22 was much larger than the F-16. It would be interesting to hear if all that technology really does give it the advantage in a fight.

The 35 is our export, kinda like the off brand name, but cheapened down crap you buy at walmart.

It sure as heck isn't a F22 (which we can't export).

I'm aware of that, but since many here will waste page upon page on theoretically cutting the F-35 down or building it up without anyone here actually having flown one nor being personally involved in the project.... I figured at least one person would have some idea about the F-22 question I asked. Not because I think we should buy the F-22 because I know we can't but, because it is the fighter no one talks about. Did it live up to it's brochure? Was it worth the money? But I see it is unlikely anyone will hazard an answer.

[Rockie]

I find it interesting that there are so many F-35 experts here on the but not one who knows anything about the F-22.

The F-22 hasn't had a report published on how an old F-16 beat it up quite badly in air combat maneuvering, and if it did no one would care because Canada isn't buying it. Basically if you pay taxes in Canada that entitles you to weigh in on the F-35 debate since you're going to be paying for it.

Besides, pick anyone on here and they're more of an expert than the idiot M of D who said the engine would never quit.

[Mostly Harmless]

Sad excuse for saying you don't know that answer. Don't worry, I won't ask again.

[Rockie]

Answer to what question?

[AuxBatOn]

Those who know about the F-22 won't talk about it too much...

[Rockie]

Those who know about the F-22 won't talk about it too much...

Plus it's irrelevant.

[Troubleshot]

All I'm saying is with a price tag of the F-35 it seems crazy it can't even compete with a fighter from the 70's-80's....and quotes like "suffered from energy disadvantage for every engagement" are scary...even if the two aircraft have different roles, it shouldn't be that lop-sided should it? In Canada this will be our only fighter, we don't have F-22's, 15's, 16's to use for different missions...we need a multi-mission aircraft period.

That said, it could merely be a software limitation at this point who knows...I really hope we are not buying a slug that can do it all but is really not great at anything.

According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey...Great vid here I think.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

[AuxBatOn]

Pierre Sprey is a vocal proponent of the single purpose aircraft. Of course he'll hate the F-35. In an ideal world, I want an Air Supremacy fighter (F-22), an EW platform (F-18G), a Striker (F-35), a reconnaissance platform (Predator), etc.

This will give me the best chance of getting through a threat array alive and conduct my mission. It will also enable me to protect Canada, as any of my those platforms (minus the Pred) have the capabilities to do NORAD. I am pretty sure the public would be outraged if we spent $50B in capital costs alone to procure those platforms.

We need a compromise that will be able to protect our borders and project power abroad.

Any fighter/self-escort striker can do NORAD. Including the single-engined JSF (yes, I had to shut down engines in a Hornet. It was precautionary). I know of 2 or 3 accidents where the engine had a catastrophic malfunction in the 32 years we operated the aircraft. Will accidents happen? If we fly it long enough, statistically, we'll lose an aircraft because of an engine problem. But the engine is much more recent than the 60s/70s F404.

So, we are left choosing from a strike aircraft capable of Air-to-Air. Technology-wise, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the F-35 is the superior airplane: sensor fusion is the name of the game these days (having participated in 2 conflicts during 3 different combat tours and participated in a number of Large Force Employment exercise with 5th gen aircraft and 4.5th gen aircraft, I can attest to that). I personally know people who have flown the Super Hornet, the Rafale and the Typhoon. These people were also read-in to the F-35 program and all of them agree the F-35 is what we need. Because of its multi-role capabilities, its upgradability, its sensors and all the programs we will have access to that we would not normally have access to.

As far as price tag goes, it is now $98M a piece, including the engine (down from $115M), and it is expected to reach $85-90M a plane.

[Troubleshot]

Not gonna even pretend to know enough about military missions in regards to aircraft to debate with anyone that has that type of experience, but what I will say is something stinks with the F-35 program...not even talking about costs, I am talking about what they say the aircraft can deliver, it just seems to change every year....maybe that is just public perception?

It better live up to the hype or it will be the biggest screw-up in Canadian Military history. As a voter, given what I've read about the F-35 (good and bad) it is simply not worth the coin, and if I had to vote yes or no, I'd say no thanks.

Is this aircraft vital for our role in NORAD or peace-keeping? or could we fulfill those roles with something else?

[AuxBatOn]

FWIW, F-18s don't do peace keeping. We are an offensive platform with defensive capabilities.

[Diadem]

From what I've read, the F-16 would outmaneuver the F-18 in a dogfight too, but there's a reason we didn't get F-16s thirty years ago. The F-16 is superior to the F-18 (and the F-35) only when it comes to dogfighting; the F-18 and F-35 are more capable of performing every other role. Realistically, the primary use of the RCAF's fast jets over the next thirty years isn't going to be air-to-air combat, anymore than it has been for the past thirty, and having an aircraft that can perform missions like striking ground targets is much more important than having one that can win a dogfight. Is there a chance they'll be in air-to-air combat with Chinese and Russian jets? Yes, but that's a slim probability compared to the chance that they'll be bombing insurgents or maintaining no-fly zones over countries whose air forces are still running MiG-21s. It's like comparing a sports car to a pickup truck: sure, the sports car is faster and more agile, but the pickup is a lot more functional and capable.

[Johnny#5]

Super Hornets are way cheaper. Canada would be spending ridiculous money on F-35's when the military flies helicopters that barely get through a flight.

[niss]

I operated over hostile territory in Libya, Iraq and Syria. Because of our current capabilities, we are somewhat limited with where we can operate because of the threat level associated. With a 5th gen aircraft, we wouldn't have those problems.

FWIW, F-18s don't do peace keeping. We are an offensive platform with defensive capabilities.

Are you able to comment on where recent events would have warranted action but were unable due to lack of a 5th gen a/c?

[frosti]

Super Hornets are way cheaper. Canada would be spending ridiculous money on F-35's when the military flies helicopters that barely get through a flight.

F-35's are way cheaper. Canada would be spending ridiculous money to upgrade the Super Hornet when the rest of the allies fly 5th generation fighters.

[iflyforpie]

Super Hornets are way cheaper. Canada would be spending ridiculous money on F-35's when the military flies helicopters that barely get through a flight.

F-35's are way cheaper. Canada would be spending ridiculous money to upgrade the Super Hornet when the rest of the allies fly 5th generation fighters.

Im sure that's what the RAF said about the TSR-2 vs the Buccaneer... then the F-111 vs the Buccaneer, until they got the Buccaneer and were still using it 30 years later in Desert Storm