The F35 currently has it's issues, but the F-16 cannot "fly circles" around the F-35. I think it's important to realize the context that the TEST dogfight took place in. As a result of failing to report the context, the report was highly misconstrued. The "dogfight" was with a pre-production model F-35, and the context was a test flight designed to look at a highly programmable flight model and search for tweaks. See this: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16/

(Written on 02/03/2016)(Permalink)

Well they are pretty far inboard on those little wings, and the tail is pretty far back on that long fuselage! Not like a glider, which has ailerons far outboard and a tail that is close to the nose. An old instructor of mine used to always say how when jet pilots came back to general aviation, he had to remind them what their feet were for, presumably because there isn't much adverse yaw to deal with in jets.

(Written on 01/21/2016)(Permalink)

Doubt it. It looked like a simple 1g alieron roll vs a slow roll that needs lots of rudder to keep the nose up. Impressive roll rate for not going very fast!

(Written on 01/20/2016)(Permalink)

You're either joking or not a pilot... What do you think is going to happen with soft sand?

(Written on 10/12/2015)(Permalink)

Great set of comments Tim. They will fix & figure it out like they did with the F4. Having seen this aircraft up close and personal at EAA Airventure this year, I can tell you that it is a work of *art* compared to the F4, however! The pilot was absolutely glowing as he talked about flying it.

(Written on 08/03/2015)(Permalink)

For sure it doesn't take CAS off the mission list. I personally think they'll keep the A-10 flying for awhile. Aircraft such as the Super Tucano are interesting. It leaves me wondering if a lighter, cheaper CAS aircraft that can loiter for hours and not minutes is a better answer than a cold-war era tank-buster. The Air Force seems to think that it might be a viable solution for insurgencies or areas where the SAM threat is less.

(Written on 06/11/2015)(Permalink)

I don't buy into conspiracy theories in the age of wikileaks, whistleblower protection, and multi-million dollar book deals. I understand why the F35 was done this way. Given the complexity and cost of modern aircraft, wouldn't it be tempting to save money by designing something that is multirole capable? By nature multirole is a compromise. Anything specialized will be better at it's specialized task than something designed to do several roles. The F35 won't replace the A-10's sheer capability at CAS. It can't. The A-10 was designed around the gun and you'd have to design another airplane around the gun to get that capability. Most certainly whatever THAT plane was wouldn't look anything like the F35. The F-16 is a multirole aircraft. As such it's neither as good at CAS as the A-10, nor is it as dominating in ACM as the F-15. But that aircraft has served this nation and others quite well. As far as multirole aircraft go, the F35 looks to be a quantum leap beyond the agi

(Written on 06/11/2015)(Permalink)

Is it needed? Yes that's the golden question, isn't it? I think that answer will depend on what happens with China. If we find ourselves facing off with them then yes. If we fade into the darkness of failed nations, then no. It was needed back when it was first put on to the drawing board but as with most modern systems, that was a long time ago.

(Written on 06/11/2015)(Permalink)

Everyone blasts this plane, yet it's more capable than anything it's replacing. So it has problems? So did every other major aircraft system we've every deployed. The F-16 had engine problems that caused flight restrictions requiring it to remain within glide distance. The F-14 had huge teething problems also and suffered from major cost overruns. Having spoken to guys who fly this plane, I get a distinctly different impression from them that all you internet "experts". The way forward often is not an easy path. We've lost all our ability to push through problems as a nation...it's sad.

(Written on 06/11/2015)(Permalink)

Why on earth would they do this? Are we trying to make the military comfortable operating on American soil, or are we trying to make the population comfortable with the sounds of war? And if either of these are true - WHY?

(Written on 02/01/2013)(Permalink)