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

[unhappycamper]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11712648/F-35-fighter-makers-leap-to-its-defence-after-it-loses-dogfight-to-1970s-jet.html



The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have defended the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after it lost a mock dogfight with an old F-16, saying report of encounter is 'misleading'

F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet
By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor
10:34AM BST 02 Jul 2015

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.

The response came after influential military blog “War is Boring” published a story claiming the new “5th generation” jet – which Britain is buying a fleet of – was unable to beat a 1970s design F-16 “4th generation” fighter in a mock dogfight.

The blog said it had seen a report from the F-35 test pilot on the exercise, explaining how his jet was too sluggish to get the older jet in his sights, and unable to manoeuvre out of the way when the F-16 targeted him.

“The defeated flier’s five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic complaints targeting the cumbersome F-35,” said War is Boring.

[Fred Sanders]

1. The military and their industrial complex whining about others "misleading" - early laugh of the day.

In a fair media world the F-35 most massive fraud in the history of frauds would lead the news every day until it was eliminated with prejudice, and the bandit contractors and their military monkeys refunded all the money wasted taxpayer money.

How come "hard working taxpayers" is banned when it comes to military waste that dwarfs all other waste combined?

[TexasProgresive]

2. S.N.A.F.U.

F.U.B.A.R., Fiasco, colossal waste of money; when will it ever be stopped. Is the F-35 a practical definition of insanity?

[leveymg]

3. The F-35 is an aerodynamic train wreck. Frontal area is too big. The low-vis shape is bad for drag

This thing is way underengined, overweight, the wrong shape, and just a poor compromise for a fighter. Just scrap it as a fighter and proceed to the next generation of unmanned aerial combat vehicles that can turn faster.

[sarisataka]

4. But, but, but...

'we didn't put every whiz bang gizmo and widget on that plane. And we would have won the battle at long distance. And the sun was in our pilot's eyes.'

But you lost.

In war you don't get a do over. You fight the battle whether or not you have the whiz bang gizmo. If you loose, you die. The End.

[TexasProgresive]

5. And this piece of crap is supposed to replace

a whole slew of manned weapons platforms including the A-10. I learned a long time ago that there is a limit to how generalized the function of a tool can be. Certain jobs need specialized tools. I was dismayed after 9-11 to learn that the U.S. no longer has planes and crew that have a primary mission of air defense.

[DashOneBravo]

6. Wow. Even worse than the Bradley Fighting Vehicle