# F-35: top gun or 'dog' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914 "2013-08-22T22:22:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/141 "2013-08-30T06:14:17Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > Your assertion is disengenuous, at least in the case of the F-4. That was a Navy fleet defense fighter from the first line drawn on the blueprints. The Air Force adopted it after the fact because it was a damn good fighter in spite of the performance handicaps of navalization… mostly overcome with more thrust and good combat electronics. > > Probably the best missile sled of its generation. What is disingenuous about it exactly? It served both the Navy and the Air Force. The F-14 was built around the Phoenix missile and was a leap forward in technology. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/142 "2013-08-30T06:42:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If you’re going to quote my posts, respond to them, rather than the imaginary person you seem to be arguing with. Here’s what I said: > > What is “flat false” about that, Chucky? because of the planes I listed. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, I don’t need you to tell me about an aircraft I introduced you to three pages ago, but thanks. The PAK-FA/T-50 is at the prototype stage. The engines that will power production versions do not exist. The avionics are still literally on the drawing board. You can see videos of them testing the engine. To say they don’t exist is misleading. The T-50 is expected to come on line before the Navy version of the F-35 does. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/143 "2013-08-30T17:01:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > because of the planes I listed. Pop quiz: which was better, the F-14 or the F-15? ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/144 "2013-08-30T17:08:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Pop quiz: which was better, the F-14 or the F-15? I’ll play: for what, RNATB? The F-15 would’ve been hard-pressed to defend against a saturation ASM missile attack at distance, especially pre-AMRAAM. The F-14 wasn’t all that as a dogfighter, Top Gun and [Commander Kleeman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)) aside. (This is probably your point.) Fun discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/145 "2013-08-30T17:12:54Z")
Right. The F-14 was for fleet defense and was basically just good at going quickly in a straight line while carrying a lot of missiles. It had no ground-attack capability (though admittedly the F-15 didn’t either in its original form) and was too big and too heavy to dogfight. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/146 "2013-08-30T17:55:33Z")
Historically, carrier-capable planes have always performed distinctly less well than land-based planes, so I agree with that assessment. The difference is particularly evident when comparing planes that used the same powerplant. The P-47 Thunderbolt, a land-based plane using the legendary Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, significantly outperformed the similarly-shaped Grumman F6F Hellcat, using the same engine. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/147 "2013-08-31T06:56:13Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Historically, carrier-capable planes have always performed distinctly less well than land-based planes, so I agree with that assessment. The difference is particularly evident when comparing planes that used the same powerplant. The P-47 Thunderbolt, a land-based plane using the legendary Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, significantly outperformed the similarly-shaped Grumman F6F Hellcat, using the same engine. The Hellcat had a much better rate of climb and carried a 60% greater payload. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/148 "2013-09-02T22:09:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The PAK-FA is a Mach 2 aircraft with three axis thrust vectoring that _doesn’t actually exist_ yet. Not existing will certainly be a hindrance in any dogfight. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/149 "2013-09-02T23:34:45Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Not existing will certainly be a hindrance in any dogfight. Except that it does actually exist and has been in flight tests. Just like the F-35. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/150 "2013-09-03T00:50:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Except that it does actually exist and has been in flight tests. Just like the F-35. 5 PAK-FA prototypes were built. The 100th F-35 just entered final assembly. You have a strange definitions of things. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/151 "2013-09-03T01:37:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 5 PAK-FA prototypes were built. The 100th F-35 just entered final assembly. You have a strange definitions of things. [f-35 deployment](http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/procurement/302767-lockheed-martin-confident-f-35-will-hit-deployment-deadlines-:): The Marine Corps will be the first service to get their version of the F-35, with service leaders expecting the jet to be ready for duty no later than December 2015, according to the congressional report. After that the F-35 is scheduled to fly for the AF in Dec of 2016 and the Navy in February of 2019. [PAK-FA deployment](http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130806/182606552.html) In late April, President Vladimir Putin said the T-50 would enter service with the country’s armed forces in 2016, and not 2015 as had been previously announced. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/152 "2013-09-03T02:18:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [f-35 deployment](http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/procurement/302767-lockheed-martin-confident-f-35-will-hit-deployment-deadlines-:): The Marine Corps will be the first service to get their version of the F-35, with service leaders expecting the jet to be ready for duty no later than December 2015, according to the congressional report. > > After that the F-35 is scheduled to fly for the AF in Dec of 2016 and the Navy in February of 2019. > > [PAK-FA deployment](http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130806/182606552.html) In late April, President Vladimir Putin said the T-50 would enter service with the country’s armed forces in 2016, and not 2015 as had been previously announced. So the United States will have at least 40 operational jets PLUS those used in flight training PLUS those used in the test program. The Russians will have how many when IOC is declared? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/153 "2013-09-03T02:24:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It had no ground-attack capability [Bombcat](http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/bombcat.htm) > [@](#): > > When the VFX specification was released in June 1968 it’s print contained an important secondary role:-that of close air support with a bombload of up to 14,500 pounds. Thus right from the beginning the F-14 was designed to carry bombs, indeed early Grumman publicity material for the winning design (303E) shows it doing just that. > > During the flight test program at least one of the pre-production F-14A conducted tests with 14 Mk82 500lb bombs attached to modified Phoenix launchers (see image on right). However after testing was complete the air-to-ground capability was allowed to lapse… > > The air-to-ground role and the F-14 were not complete strangers during the 1980’s, as the F-14D was developed it incorporated the necessary software and hardware to enable it to carry iron bombs and the incorporation of more advanced weapons would be relatively simple. In addition small sections of the Tomcat community continued to argue for an air-to-ground role, culminating in the dropping of two inert Mk84’s by a F-14A from VX-4 on the 10th of November 1987. Clearance trials continued at a slow pace and in July 1992 Fleet squadrons received clearance for GP bombs. Cluster bomb units and LGB’s followed soon after… > > With it’s long range and ability to carry (and if needed bring back) a heavy load of ordnance the F-14 has become the carrier’s deep strike platform, in effect replacing the A-6. Although not a true all weather platform (the FLIR’s effectiveness is downgraded by cloud or rain) the F-14 is highly effective in the self-escorted strike role, leaving the shorter ranged F/A-18’s to carry out missions closer to the carrier. In theory the F-14 will be replaced by th F/A-18E/F, but even that will not have the same range in strike missions (475nm for the F/A-18 compared with the F-14’s 650nm). The Bombcat was recently called upon to remind Saddam Hussein of the consquences of defying the UN, aircraft from VF-211 and VF-102 flying missions as part of the Southern Watch operation over Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/154 "2013-09-03T02:36:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So the United States will have at least 40 operational jets PLUS those used in flight training PLUS those used in the test program. > > The Russians will have how many when IOC is declared? They’re both hitting production at about the same point in time. One is a superior air combat plane and it isn’t the F-35 and certainly not the Marine version which is the first in production. What’s your point since you wandered in on a “the T-50 doesn’t exist” thread hijack? This isn’t a race to the moon for the bragging rights of who was first. It’s a production run of the next generation of aircraft. What the Russians will have is a faster and more maneuverable plane during the life cycle of the F-35. The whole thread is based on whether the F-35 program is producing a top gun plane or a dog. It’s not a dog but it’s not a top gun plane either. It seems like an expensive plane for what they are as a group. None of the variants can replace something like an A-10 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/155 "2013-09-03T02:55:12Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > They’re both hitting production at about the same point in time. One is a superior air combat plane and it isn’t the F-35 and certainly not the Marine version which is the first in production. Get your facts straight. The first production F-35 was an F-35A, which was delivered to the Air Force in May 2011. As far as calling the PAK-FA the “superior air combat plane,” you’ve also said similar things about various fourth generation fighters in comparison to the F-35, so clearly you aren’t a good judge of air combat capabilities. > [@](#): > > What the Russians will have is a faster and more maneuverable plane during the life cycle of the F-35. There will also be 11 times more fifth generation aircraft in the US inventory than in the Russian. > [@](#): > > None of the variants can replace something like an A-10 There’s no disagreement that the A-10 is a cool airplane. And when someone heard decades ago that the US was going to build bombers that didn’t even have machine guns on them to defend against enemy fighters, they probably lamented the greatness of the B-29 and similar planes. The fact is that the A-10, like other fourth and third generation aircraft, just don’t have a future. We’re never going to see another giant gun on an aircraft, because it just doesn’t make much sense over the next 40 years to try to make a survivable aircraft with a ginormous gun. And to that other poster who said the bathtub on the A-10 makes it “survivable,” it doesn’t. Survivability means not getting shot down by S-400s. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/156 "2013-09-03T03:01:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Get your facts straight. The first production F-35 was an F-35A, which was delivered to the Air Force in May 2011. The Air-force has test versions of the F35-A for instruction purposes and their flight envelope is severely restricted. The first “combat ready” F35-A’s are not due for delivery to the Air-force until Dec 2016. [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/combat-ready-dates-for-f-35-jets-set-by-u-s-military.html](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/combat-ready-dates-for-f-35-jets-set-by-u-s-military.html) The currently available software essential to control the aircraft (software Blocks 1A and 1B) is “intended to provide only basic pilot training and has no combat capability. The current aircraft have a number of significant operational restrictions such as limited maneuvering, speeds, and constrained descent rates; no carriage of weapons, no use of countermeasures, and no opening of weapons bay doors in flight.” (p. 1.) Also, “student pilots were limited in flight maneuvering to very basic aircraft handling, such as simple turns, climbs, and descents as the flight envelope of speed and altitude was limited, angle-of-attack and g-loading were restricted, and maneuvers normally flown during a familiarization phase of a syllabus were explicitly prohibited.” (p. 2.) [http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/03/20130306-air-forces-f-35a-not-ready-for-combat.html](http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/03/20130306-air-forces-f-35a-not-ready-for-combat.html) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/157 "2013-09-03T03:38:25Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] One is a superior air combat plane and it isn’t the F-35 and certainly not the Marine version which is the first in production. [/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, what about the T-50 do you judge makes it a superior air craft? The only thing I see that’s superior about the T-50 or even the FGFA is the unit cost. Other than that, the stealth on the T-50 or even the FGFA is only rated at ‘low-observable’ instead of the ‘very-low-observable’ of the F-22 and F-35. So, what is there about it that you consider to be a ‘superior air combat plane’, because except for the price I’m not seeing it. > [@](#): > > What the Russians will have is a faster and more maneuverable plane during the life cycle of the F-35. It’s faster (once they put on the next generation engines), but then older generations of Soviet fighters were faster than their American counter parts pretty much all the way back to the early Migs. So what? As is pretty obvious, the slower US birds are superior in every meaningful way. I’m not seeing where you are getting that it’s more maneuverable from, and faster doesn’t now or in the past really mean all that much in modern dog fights. The key is to not be seen, not go a few miles per hour faster, since regardless of how fast you go the missiles are a hell of a lot faster than the fastest fighter. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/158 "2013-09-03T03:41:02Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > The Air-force has test versions of the F35-A for instruction purposes and their flight envelope is severely restricted. The first “combat ready” F35-A’s are not due for delivery to the Air-force until Dec 2016. > [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/combat-ready-dates-for-f-35-jets-set-by-u-s-military.html](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/combat-ready-dates-for-f-35-jets-set-by-u-s-military.html) No, you don’t understand what “combat ready” means. The first production jets started delivering two years ago. They are not test jets, they are production jets. Those planes are being used for flight training. Initial Operating Capability is NOT the same as delivery of the first production jets – that has already occurred. IOC occurs when the first squadron is adequately equipped with enough jets, pilots, maintainers, and support equipment. It is the combination of combat ready people and equipment that makes the 2016 date, not delivery of “combat ready F-35s.” But you are correct that the flight envelope is restricted in training, and that is a problem. However, the Block 1 software is already being replaced by Block 2. [Cite.](http://theaviationist.com/2013/05/11/block-2a-joint-strike-fighters/#.UiVZ_T_px8E) The main delay in getting to IOC is really the software. F-35 needs Block 3 software, and it is way behind. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/159 "2013-09-03T03:42:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Get your facts straight. The first production F-35 was an F-35A, which was delivered to the Air Force in May 2011. for testing. You can say the same thing about the PAK-FA. [I have my facts straight](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II). Introduction December 2015 (USMC F-35B)[1][2] December 2016 (USAF F-35A)[2] February 2019 (USN F-35C)[2] > [@Ravenman](#): > > As far as calling the PAK-FA the “superior air combat plane,” you’ve also said similar things about various fourth generation fighters in comparison to the F-35, so clearly you aren’t a good judge of air combat capabilities. I pointed out the shortcomings of the F-35 against 4th generation aircraft. Sorry if that bothers you. The PAK-FA is faster and more maneuverable. > [@Ravenman](#): > > There will also be 11 times more fifth generation aircraft in the US inventory than in the Russian. So? How does that make the F-35 better? Are we planning on going to war the day they hit the runway? > [@Ravenman](#): > > There’s no disagreement that the A-10 is a cool airplane. And when someone heard decades ago that the US was going to build bombers that didn’t even have machine guns on them to defend against enemy fighters, they probably lamented the greatness of the B-29 and similar planes. > > The fact is that the A-10, like other fourth and third generation aircraft, just don’t have a future. We’re never going to see another giant gun on an aircraft, because it just doesn’t make much sense over the next 40 years to try to make a survivable aircraft with a ginormous gun. And to that other poster who said the bathtub on the A-10 makes it “survivable,” it doesn’t. Survivability means not getting shot down by S-400s. The A-10 is[specifically designed to take hits](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10.htm). If anything returns from a S-400 it’s going to be an A-10. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/160 "2013-09-03T03:56:47Z")
> [@XT](#): > > It’s faster (once they put on the next generation engines), but then older generations of Soviet fighters were faster than their American counter parts pretty much all the way back to the early Migs. So what? As is pretty obvious, the slower US birds are superior in every meaningful way. I’m not seeing where you are getting that it’s more maneuverable from, and faster doesn’t now or in the past really mean all that much in modern dog fights. The key is to not be seen, not go a few miles per hour faster, since regardless of how fast you go the missiles are a hell of a lot faster than the fastest fighter. What does the Early Migs have to do with the PAK-FA? I posted a video of the 360 engine nozzles in action. the closest thing we have is the Raptor. As an air superiority fighter maneuverability is important. And has been pointed out earlier, the radar evading advantage is likely to disappear. [cite.](http://www.businessinsider.com/quantum-imaging-university-of-rochester-radar-stealth-f-35-fifth-generation-2012-12) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914.md?page=9)