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

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.

MSN news


Ok a certian mod and friend will jump on here and rightful claim there are missions the F-35 can do that no other fighter can and its has lots of roles. I wont argue that and for the USA that's a perfectly fine defense.

Because the USA has a fleet of F-22 and F-16 that can cover the F-35.


Thing is for the UK we are not so lucky. We are replacing most our (now pitiful) air force with these F-35 and Im sure it will have these uses. But surely its a huge problem and oversight that we don't have a F-22 equivalent? If SHTF do we really want to have to rely on the USA to do the dog fighting for us ?

To me it sees the MOD has spent billions on a plane we cant use until someone else has cleared the skies for us.

We should have just bought F18 super hornets plenty good enough for the foreseeable future Do we really need vertical take off and landing capabilities.

My worry is something happens with say Russia and yes the F-35 can go one on one with most Russian jets but our pitfall RAF will get swamped by mass amounts of cheaper Russian and knocked out leaving the UK Defense at the Mercy of the USAF.

a reply to: crazyewok

is the RAF scrapping the typhoon ?????????????

i was under the impression that the RAF fleet would be :

typhoons for interception and air superiority and F35 for strike

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: crazyewok

is the RAF scrapping the typhoon ?????????????

i was under the impression that the RAF fleet would be :

typhoons for interception and air superiority and F35 for strike

Think the end game is to replace them by 2030........... trying to find out were I read that.
Plus the new Russian air to air missiles seem to be a big worry for non stealth aircraft.

a reply to: crazyewok

It can't out turn an F-16 and it can't out run other 5th gen aircraft. It is fat surrounded by fuel and has almost no protection from AAA and fire. The whole stealth 'fan fair' only works at certain angles.

One hour flight time and send it to the hanger for they are and will be hanger queens if they are maintained for stealth mode. Sprey says anyone looking at them to purchase would be better off up grading their f-16s for the F-35 ain't gonna cut it.

youtu.be...

a reply to: crazyewok

I caught this earlier lol

a reply to: crazyewok

Plus the new Russian air to air missiles seem to be a big worry for non stealth aircraft.

Would that not in itself be a good idea for having stealthy aircraft .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: crazyewok

Plus the new Russian air to air missiles seem to be a big worry for non stealth aircraft.

Would that not in itself be a good idea for having stealthy aircraft .

Yes it would. Im not denying stealth aircraft dont have uses.

But the USA has the F-22 we don't, Just the F-35 which im not denying will be useful for certain roles but if it came to heavy air to air combat the UK could find itself in trouble.

a reply to: crazyewok

if it came to heavy air to air combat

I think the idea is not to get into that situation .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: crazyewok

if it came to heavy air to air combat

I think the idea is not to get into that situation .

# has a habit of happening.

The designers of the F-4 found that out.

I bet there was a whole lot of this going on when the pilot got a lock on!

a reply to: crazyewok

First of all, the tested airframe was not equipped with all of the advancements that the actual final product have. It flew without its full range of electronic warfare gear which has both defensive AND offensive capabilities, without its unique and advanced targeting gear, essentially it flew naked, when compared to the full compliment of tools at the disposal of the ACTUAL aircraft which will be flying missions.

The real issue with this reportage, and indeed the complaints of the airman who flew the dogfight which caused all this drama, is that none of them take into account that if the F35 had been equipped to its maximum potential, the dogfight never would have happened, because the F35 would have wiped its enemies from the air, at a distance well outside of dogfight range, and remained incognito to enemy airframes the entire time.

I you are reading a report which fails to take these into account, then a) it was written by a moron, and b) it's probably best to ignore it.

The flyer who wrote the whining drivel which lead to all this, was probably butthurt that he was placed in a position by the limitations of the test circumstances, where he could not win, because airmen have ego issues about that sort of thing. If he had of been objective about his situation, he would have realised that the aircraft he flew was not representative of a fully kitted F 35, and just shut up, rather than basically boohooing about it to all and sundry, and giving an unrealistic appraisal of the capabilities of the mission ready version of the aircraft.

a reply to: TrueBrit

True, but I keep seeing these reports on how the F-35 is a terrible dog fighter.

Im not denying the F-35 has its uses and roles it will excel in that no other plan can.

But some of the air to air combat reports seem mediocre.

a reply to: crazyewok

Ok, let me put this another way. If the other aircraft in that test had the same percentage of their systems offline for the purposes of the experiment they might never have left the runway.

Also, we do not send a Destroyer to do the work of a rib boat. For the same reason, the issue of the F35 not being a dogfighter is a non issue.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: crazyewok

Plus the new Russian air to air missiles seem to be a big worry for non stealth aircraft.

Would that not in itself be a good idea for having stealthy aircraft .

Yes it would. Im not denying stealth aircraft dont have uses.

But the USA has the F-22 we don't, Just the F-35 which im not denying will be useful for certain roles but if it came to heavy air to air combat the UK could find itself in trouble.

Mate the UK would find itself in a world of problems if Russia we to invade no matter what jets we had.

The Typhoon will still be the mainstay of the defence of the realm whilst the F-35 provides our power projection and defence of overseas territories from the QE and POW or offence from the sea primarily. They arent meant to be defenders of the mainland - they are not typhoon replacements they are tornado, jaguar and harrier replacements.

UK could never defeat Russia - but nato is a series of speed bump until we can reinforce and then decimate the russians stretched supply lines.

And it would be very difficult for any russian jet to fly all the way to the UK to beat a Typhoon, let alone in numbers that would worry the RAF - they would be hit by dutch F-16/F-F5 and Swedish Grippen whilst getting nailed by Aegis ships before the limped towards a vastly out number and electronically informed Typhoon squadron.

In the meantime, B2's would have knocked out most runways, deep strike F-35 and UCAVs would be taking out the air defenses and F-22 in Europe would be picking off those aircraft that can get in the air. Then the French, Germans, UK, SPain, Italy and US will fly with impunity smacking the living life from those pesky russian conscripts who are held up by Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Dutch, Finnish and NATO defence force ground assets and gunships.

Finally the B52, B1B and even more B2s will decimate anything of use and a ring of subs will prosecute any russian ship than works.

War pron.

Only think missing for the UK is an MPA.

a reply to: TrueBrit

No I know which is the point im making.

The F-35 certainly has its uses. But our RAF has been slashed and cut and its possible the F-35 will be the ONLY fighter in the RAF by 2030.

No you would not send a destroyer to do the job of a rib boat but if you politicians have gone full retard and sold all the rib boats off and refused to build new ones then you would.

The F-35 is a capable fighter Im NOT denying that. My worry is can a RAF of only F-35 and a few Euro fighters be viable? Should the UK not be planning to replace the Typhoon with a F-22 analogue to complement the F-35?

a reply to: crazyewok

Two QuestIons one hiwhow much flight times did the pilots have. Just a random guess Less than 200 for f35 and 1500 or more for the f16 pilots. An experienced f16 pilot can match any aircraft with an experienced pilot. My second Is what were the rules of engagement. Was it an actual dog fight or was it place the f16 on his tail and try roto lose them. On these tests experience always wins

a reply to: crazyewok

I will say this in the defense of the F-35 drawing board thinking. The F-35 is not a top dog fighting aircraft because it wasn’t designed to be one. And it wasn’t designed to be one because it is better to kill the enemy from a distance before the enemy can target you. Hopefully it works better than the missiles and the F-4 did in Viet Nam.

On the other hand the Marines want to use it as a close air support weapons platform. See the video I posted earlier.. and make your own decision up.

a reply to: 727Sky

As I said im not denying its capable of what its designed to do.

My issue is the RAF wont have a capable craft for whats its NOT designed to do.


If the USA needs a craft for a close up dog fight you have the F-22 to support the F-35.

If the RAF gets into one we have a the Euro fighter that could become obsolete soon and in 2030 we may not even have them just F-35.

Im not calling into the question the F-35 per se but the possible inflexibility of the RAF.