The F-35 can't win in a dogfight against an F-16, the jet it is supposed to replace. War is Boring.

F-35C in a test flight. US Navy Photo/public domain. 

The F-35 has no business being in a dogfight and will lose to the F-16, one of the planes it is meant to replace. War is Boring. The blog War is Boring, obtained a scathing report on a test flight that pitted the beleaguered aircraft against a F-16D. In the practice dogfight, the F-35A, the most maneuverable model compared to the Marines B model and the Navy's C model, had trouble turning, climbing and keeping energy up. The F-35 should have had the advantage because the F-16D was loaded down with heavy drop tanks that would have limited its maneuverability. Instead, the F-35 had difficulty keeping energy up and was outmaneuvered by the older fighter. When the F-35 tried to get guns on target, the F-16 was able to jink but when the positions were reversed, the F-35 was unable to do the same. The only way the F-35 could engage the F-16 was to bleed off energy by using its rudders to create a fast yaw rate, which is incredibly dangerous in a dogfight. The test pilot also complained that he was unable to turn his helmet effectively to spot the enemy plane when it was behind him. The pilot essentially stated the F-35 was inferior in a dogfight to both the F-16 and the F-15.

My Comment:

I have a few things to say that kind of defend the F-35's lack of dogfight ability. I'm no fan of the plane but I believe in providing context. First, our F-22's, which are effective dogfighters, are supposed to be the planes clearing out the skies. We only have 187 F-22's so combat losses in a major war could force the F-35's in a fighter role. And of course, the Navy doesn't have F-22's to use. But for the time being, the F-35 won't be the only option. 

Second, our entire military doctrine is to destroy jets on the ground so they never get up into the air to dogfight. The F-35 can do this, though not as well as other planes. In theory the F-22's should clear out the skies so the F-35's and various bombers can destroy airfields and aircraft on the ground so they never get a chance to fight. 

Third, dogfighting doesn't really happen much in modern air combat. Most air to air engagements take place outside of visual range and they rarely devolve into turning dogfights. Even energy fighting would be rare. Most of the time, if the fighters aren't blown up on the ground, they will be targeted by missiles from very far away and would never get a chance to get into a dogfight in the first place. 

Of course the counter argument is that the F-35 doesn't have all that many missiles, unless it uses hardpoints which kills its stealth, so in an extended engagement they may be forced into close combat. And there is always a chance that the F-35's could be caught by surprise by enemy fighters. In an ambush situation, the F-35 would either be forced to run or try to win a dogfight at a huge disadvantage. And from what it sounds, the rudder maneuver to increase yaw while getting on target that the report mentioned would make them extremely vulnerable to other enemy aircraft even if they were able to get guns or missiles on target during a dogfight. I'm no expert of dogfighting but one thing I do know is that you need to keep speed and energy up in a dogfight. If you don't you leave yourself extremely vulnerable. 

The obvious solution is to not let F-35's get into dogfights. But it is going to be forced into the role. It's also being forced into other roles it isn't well suited for, such as close air support and ground attack. Sure, it can do all of these things but it can't do anything well. It's a true jack of all trades and master of none. It was designed to do everything so it shouldn't be surprising if it ends up in a close range fight at some point.

I think the F-35 could have been a decent plane if it had just focused on being one thing or the other. The F-35B model will probably work out for the Marines, considering what they need it for. The Harrier was never all that good either, but the short take off characteristics was more important then the deficiencies it had. Like the Harrier, the F-35 was never meant to be the front line fighter for the U.S. military. It was meant to take off from amphibious assault ships in support of Marines on the ground. 

Instead the F-35 is getting pushed into all kinds of roles that it just isn't suited for. A much smarter way to do things is to have a separate fighter for each role. Right now our Air Force has the F-22 for air to air, with the F-15 and F-16 being fighter-bombers, and the A-10 for ground assault. The F-35 is going to be asked to take on all rolls and by trying to do everything it can't do any of those rolls as good as the planes it is replacing. 

Considering the obscene amount of money the F-35 is going to cost us, it is a utter shame that it can't do much of anything well. Our rivals, China and Russia, aren't having the same problems. Indeed, China pretty much copied the F-35 with their J-31 and refined the design, slimming the plane, making it more maneuverable and gave it a critical second engine. In short, the Chinese have a better fighter then the F-35 in the pipeline and there is little doubt in my mind that the Russians will have a better fighter as well. 

If it wasn't for our limited number of F-22's, which have had some minor problems of their own, America could lose our air superiority. I just hope that we don't double down and continue to throw good money after bad for the F-35. But given how much money and how many jobs are on the line, I don't see the F-35 going anywhere anytime soon.