re: F-15E's face F-35's in 8 simulated dogfights, go 0/8

quote:

---

That fricking plane has been in development for like 20 years.

---

Wasting all that money on a plane that is yet to drop a bomb in combat. Gee, wonder why the budget is in the shite?

quote:

---

My buddy works on F-15's at the Belle Chasse NASJRB and said the F-15s kicked the F-22's arse in dogfights.

---

no

Raptors Spook Iranian F-4s

quote:

---

“He [the Raptor pilot] flew under their aircraft [the F-4s] to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home'”

---

This is more of a real world scenario. Raptors would dictate the engagement. Very few Air Forces of the world would have the ability to deny Raptors tactical advantage from the offset.

quote:

---

frick dude???

That fricking plane has been in development for like 20 years.

---

Um... No, it hasn't. Ask Lockheed Martin .

For comparison, here's Boeing on the F22.

Care to explain to me how long the F35 has been in development? Or should you take my word for it about how the Defense Acquisition system works?

quote:

---

Oh boy you got me. 19 years instead of 20. My bad

---

No. That is contractor time, meaning Lockheed was developing the technology before 1997 to get the contract. This jet was selected (and initially purchased) before there was any kind of developmental testing by the military accomplished. So, basically, Lockheed hadn't even developed all of the technology OR integration thereof fully before they were awarded a contract. They said they could provide capabilities (ALISE, for example), and they had the best programmatic concept at the time in the judgement of Congress and the Air Force.

Keep in mind I never said I think that the current Defense Acquisition system is not flawed, nor that I support it. Simply that I do have a working knowledge of it.

quote:

---

to get off the ground. Nicely done.

Fast forward another 10 years and it's still not operational.

---

A little thing called 9/11 happened, and funds were redirected/not readily available for several years to just throw at the program, which was still in its relative infancy. Again I want to emphasize that this thing was purchased before going into the developmental or operational test program.

Compare that to the F22, which was ACTUALLY purchased after a test plan was written and executed for the initial test article (first aircraft produced, noted in the article).

quote:

---

Do you work in the Defense Acquisition system? If so then no, I will not take your word for it. Because the defense acquisition system doesn't "work" at all.

---

Yes, I do. Again, I don't necessarily think it is the best system. I do, however, understand how it works. The individual branches of the military, as well as Congress, have the power to accelerate programs and/or purchase them without some degree of testing.

Not trying to sound like a dick, I just see this thread pretty much every month or so, and there never seems to be much in the way of working knowledge dropped in here... It's more of the media spouting being regurgitated.

Nothing personal, just trying to shed a bit of light on the situation.

Fair enough.

Things I know.

We've spent Trillions on a plane that isn't even in service yet.

We shut down the F22 line for it.

We cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for it.

We tried to make it capable of multiple missions when history clearly states that this is a bad idea.



So we go back and forth in the weeds about the intricacies of the defense acquisition system or we can take a step back and see the forest for the trees and realize that it's all fricked.

You can take these sort of demonstrations with a grain of salt. I know this one showed positive to the F-35, but even still it isn't a valid assessment capability.

With new aircraft (and even some older) you can't "unleash" all the capability in "open-air" flight because you could expose critical technology that our adversaries can then try to exploit. That's why we have "war-reserve" modes on most of our newer equipment. When you don't let the new aircraft use all its toys, it is fighting with an arm tied behind its back. This same thing happened with the F-15C vs F-22 when the F-22 was in development. Trust me, when the F-22 can fight with both hands it is an absolute BEAST and wipes the floor with the F-15C.

For those constantly point out the "success" of the F-16 vs the F-35, see above. Plus, the F-35 isn't intended to be an air superiority fighter that is great at air-to-air combat. That's the F-22's role. The F-35 is mostly meant to penetrate hostile airspace and drop air-to-ground munitions on critical targets. The air-to-air capability is simply for self-defense.

Are there issues with the F-35s development...you bet. Same with any other major acquisition program because our system is insanely bureaucratic and practically forces waste. All that said, the F-35 will be just fine. Hopefully, we don't cut production of it as bad as we did with the F-22 because of all these "failures" only to realize a few years down the road that the aircraft was way better than these reports and that we cut way too deeply.

quote:

---

It depends on what the rules and assumptions being made were. If they were assuming something extreme in favor of the F35, like its missiles will always hit their targets, from some sort of extreme range, for instance. I'd be real interested to see if it was a fair fight.

---

The F-35s sneak up (they can't be seen on radar) on the F-16s and shoot them down with guns. There's no sport killing them with rockets out of sight.

Why the F-35 lost to the F-16

No offense to you, but the F15SE version is being developed as a generation 4.5+ fighter for the export market. It'll never see service with the USAF.