Is the F-35 a better dogfighter than the F-4?
If the US had F-35's in WW2, they would have lost the war.
Thats how bad it is
>>28348286
Do your specifically WVR combat or air combat in general?
Well, look at it this way: The F-14 and F-15 are both leagues better at dogfighting than the F-4, and the F-16 will smoke the shit out of tomcats and eagles in dogfights, aaaaand the F-35 is equal to or better than the F-16 at dogfighting.
So what do you think?
>>28348351
WVR, that's what I meant by dogfighting.
Obviously being stealthy and having AMRAAMs gives the F-35 a massive advantage BVR.
>>28348338
You're a retard, young man.
>>28348362
>the F-16 will smoke the shit out of tomcats and eagles in dogfights
citation needed
>>28348538
Those advantages still matter for WVR combat.
>>28348589
Its srsly just well known in the fighter community. An F-16 is THE benchmark for a medium to low altitude dogfighter. It has a simply insane sustained turning rate.
Remember this is WVR dogfighting, BVR, hell, even hornets beat them.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
>In his book, Sierra Hotel: Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade After Vietnam, Col C.R. Anderegg, USAF (ret), former F-15 pilot and F-4 Fighter Weapons School graduate, wrote this about the F-16: "The pure joy of the F-16, though, was in the furball (complex dogfight with many aircraft), where the aircraft had the edge over the F-15 and a significant edge over everything else. With the F-16's incredible agility and power, the pilot could get close and stay close. He was less a viper than a python gradually squeezing the fight closer while beating down his victim's energy and resistance until the time came for a mortal blow. Chaff might spoof a radar missile or flares might decoy a heat-seeker, but as one pilot said, 'The gun is stupid. You can't jam it and you can't fool it.' The F-16 was a superb gunfighter, and in the furball it was the top cat."
>>28348338
You need a machine to breath because of how low your IQ is, don't you?
>>28348286
F-35:
>Has superior thrust:weight ratio
>Has lighter wing loading
>Has slats and relaxed stability
>Has HOBS and JHMCS which can hit enemy targets even behind the jet
Gee, I dunno.
>>28348663
Which one is a better gunfighter?
Assume F-4E, and that the F-35 has a working gun.
>>28348589
F-16s are more maneuverable, but the 14 and 15 are much better air superiority fighters. Straight dogfight, they'd likely lose, but they can just boom-and-zoom it.
>>28348726
>insults someone's IQ
>doesn't know the difference between 'breath' and 'breathe'
>>28348691
>>28348752
>WVR
That's what threw me off. I was thinking straight air superiority and I was like 'wut?'
>>28348362
>The F-14 and F-15 are both leagues better at dogfighting than the F-4, and the F-16 will smoke the shit out of tomcats and eagles in dogfights, aaaaand the F-35 is equal to or better than the F-16 at dogfighting.
Do you want me to post the picture of the F-4 with a few Rafale kill marks?
>>28348894
Be nice if you do. Can't find that damn pic in my collection.
![PhotoHandlerashx[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dtU8GvN.jpg "PhotoHandlerashx[1].jpg")
>>28348977
![FF_FC_080410_1copy[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bXbT9g0.jpg "FF_FC_080410_1copy[1].jpg")
>>28348985
>>28348985
Thanks a bunch!
>>28348338
>delivers one precision guided bomb that could knock out a target that took dozens of B-17s to do, too high up for Luftwaffe or IJN fighters to touch. Crater the runways and highways and you have grounded their air force
>one Harpoon missile could knock out most capital ships, two would surely kill carriers and battleships
It would be the end-all-be-all of strategic warfare. With all the damage this thing could do, you probably wouldn't need fighters.
>invisible to the primitive radar of the day
>could attack at night and in all weather conditions.
If you landed a Paveway on an oil refinery from 40,000 feet at 2am, they would think it was an industrial accident or some magical super weapon (though an F-35 would be exactly that in 1944).
I don't much care for the F-35, but to say that it wouldn't be an asset in WWII is just dumb.
>>28349164
Almost as dumb for mistaking obvious bait/sarcasm as serious posting.
>>28349164
Harpoons wouldn't do shit to WW2 battleships
>>28349253
>Harpoons wouldn't do shit to WW2 battleships
herewego.jpg
>>28349253
U wot m8?
They'd have literally no way of evading them. Those missiles could lazily float in and smack the bridge on its nose.
>>28348691
>top cat
>>28349289
He thinks armor belts would somehow stop that rape train.
>>28348894
Yes, any plane can beat another, pilot > plane, any given sunday, etc...
But, given identical perfect pilots, generally speaking:
F-4 < F-14 ~ F-15 < F-18 <F-16
>>28349321
I'll contend that the Tomcat was better than the Eagle.
>>28349289
The harpoon is pure HE with a delayed fuse designed for blowing up modern aluminum boats
WW2 battleships had over 1 foot of solid steel armor plating.
It would minor damage at best.
When battleships are fully crewed and underway, they are VERY difficult to sink, even with uncontested air superiority.
>>28349289
They could decapitate the battleships pretty easily. Detonating an ammo magazine or something fatal is a bit harder, but not impossible.
>>28349164
Actually the F-35 would be just as visible as a prop fighter to radar of the day.
Its not like they used X-Band, which is what modern low RCS fighters are designed to be LO in.
>>28349339
Give them some time to practice & prepare, and they could probably shoot down the incoming harpoon with their huge numbers of AAA
>>28349336
Taranto
Pearl harbour
Mers el Kabir
Yamato
Musashi
Prince of Wales & Repulse
etc.
Airpower proved battleships obsolete in their entirety.
F35 is shit, gets outmanuevred by anything. It could probably get beat by a japanese zero or maybe, maybe a mustang.
>>28349362
Thet could barely hit aircraft but...it's not impossible I suppose. Murphy's Law and all that.
>>28349362
Sure worked well on the kamikaze going a fraction of a harpoon 's speed
>>28348538
I think F-4 can have AMRAAMs, seem to remember gluing them to my model aircraft :)
>>28349333
Pls dont. I mean, I actually agree, but there is almost no way of proving it.
>>28349362
lol, harpoons travel like 600mph 30 ft off the deck, and theyre probably 1/20th the size of a jap zero. good fucking luck.
>>28349379
You can't obsolete cool though.
>>28349398
There a quite a few Phantom operators that have upgraded their planes to AMRAAM capability.
Germany for sure, and I think Greece and Turkey? Maybe? I dunno.
>>28349410
>but there is almost no way of proving it.
I like to look at the Tomcat as a navalized Eagle, in a sort of way.
>>28349316
>>28349289
https://youtu.be/IUZu8bvxJs4?t=98
>>28348338
>mfw an F-35 drops a JDAM right down the smokestack of the Bismarck
>>28349413
Cool doesn't stop missiles
>>28349379
>Airpower proved battleships obsolete in their entirety.
This is the meme
It's in reality, not true.
Most of these ships are being sunk in harbor, it's like claiming aircraft are obsolete when they are destroyed on the ground.
Yamato was on a suicide run, the rest are lucky hits.
>>28349445
You sure?
http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-can-not-dogfight-effectively-2015-7
f35 is worst plane of all time.
>>28349336
its a 5G jet capable of delivering a shaped charge warhead with literal laser precision. All the deck and belt armor in the world isn't gonna do shit to stop a harpoon when it flies through the bridge window of a battleship and kills the entire senior fleet staff, or god forbid one of those wooden-decked Jap carriers.
>>28349445
You weren't cool enough then.
>>28349193
we have a saying in operations:
extreme cluelessness is often indistinguishable from malice
>>28349440
Dont forget that it did that from 40000 ft at supersonic speeds and that the Bismark literally never knew what hit it.
>>28349440
>>28349516
>pilots face when it actually went down the smokestack
>>28348286
Why does that plane have Navy written on it?
Doesn't the Navy have Navy vehicles like boats?
What would they be doing with planes?
The Navy should be in the ocean and not the air.
>>28349440
>mfw Operation Resultant Fury
>mfw thet actually could do that
>>28349379
ok sport, anything you say
>>28349544
>>28349544
>plane crashing into the hull
>same as a missile hitting the bridge
Just fucking kill yourself already, battleships are completely obsolete and would get demolished in a modern battle. If they had any reason to exist at all somebody might actually still use them.
>>28349431
Oh you mean the incident where a single missile hit caused an uncontrollable fire resulting in the loss of the ship?
I wonder how many harpoons you could buy for the cost of an Iowa-class ship.
>>28348286
well, the F-16 and F-35 are both:
>modestly-sized fighters wrapped around a powerful engine
>have high thrust-to-weight ratios
>relaxed stability airframes with FBW
>F-35s have cutting edge radar and IRST compared to an F-4
In just about any engagement, an F-35 would come out on top
>>28349468
I think I will give more weight to what actual F-35 pilots or the report in question say than a third string blog regurgitating a debunked David Axe article.
>>28349593
touche'
just about every bb left has had its bilge filed with concrete. nobody cares anymore about naval rifles in a world of missles, so i posit that the missle killed the bb not the airplane.
>>28349615
that wasnt my point. my point was that the airplane didnt immediately make the battleship obsolete.
>>28349193
>>28349321
I'd put F-15 above the F-18.
>>28348691
>Remember this is WVR dogfighting, BVR, hell, even hornets beat them.
I was about to say... BVR the Tomcat beats the F15 even, but The F15 and F18 are much cheaper to keep flying
>>28349648
>so i posit that the missle killed the bb not the airplane.
If I remember correctly, there hasn't been a surface engagement between fleets involving the use of BBs since world war 1.
I'll agree that the missile pushed the concept of BBs into obsolescence faster than aircraft, but aircraft largely sealed their fate by coming around before missiles.
>>28349666
He sure typed a lot of rebuttal for it to be a joke.
>>28349703
>hurr aircraft obsoleted battleships
>*posts situation where 100 aircraft attacked a single lone ship and only killed it due to a lucky hit*
The US lost no battleships in combat, but did lose a number of carriers. Did the plane obsolete the carrier?
>>28349668
You'd be wrong
>>28349737
>Did the plane obsolete the carrier?
No, because it was the carrier which changed the game by allowing nations to project airpower anywhere; the sea specifically.
BBs being vulnerable to air power doesn't somehow become invalid just because it takes more than 1 aircraft (looking at you, bismarck) to take it out.
>The US lost no battleships in combat
because air power proved to be more flexible and effective, hence there being zero BB vs BB action since ww1.
>>28349665
They were more than on the way out by the time AShM's came around.
>implying there were missiles were around at the end of WWII when the Montana Class BB's were cancelled.
Face it, they were dead and buried by the time Exocets and the like came around.
>>28349737
>mfw you can count the number of battles in the pacific where battleships were relevant on one hand
Cruise missiles made half the navy obsolete.
>>28349783
I think you mean one finger.
and even in that battle they got driven back by a ragtag group of destroyers and escorts.
>>28349616
less than 1 due 2 inflation
>>28349783
A lot more than you think.
Battleships were crucial for fire support and were especially vital for screening the carriers of TF 38/58.
>>28349845
>Battleships were crucial for fire support
Battleships were to take out other ships, not beaches.
ZERO BB ON BB ENGAGEMENTS IN WW2
>>28349825
Kurita got owned.
Every American report of the time concluded that Taffy 3 was doomed if the Japanese maintained cohesion and pressed on.
>>28349780
It's more doctrinal than anything else,
Then after the 50's, naval doctrine was assuming nukes, so no armor would survive that.
But of course, the US is incapable of admitting that there might be problems with how they fight wars, despite losing them to shitty third world countries like vietnam or iraq or china.
>>28349871
>ZERO BB ON BB ENGAGEMENTS IN WW2
Are you that clueless or are you trolling?
>>28349703
? There were several in WWII.
>>28349825
Guadalcanal says hi.
>>28349871
9 BB vs BB engagements in WW2
>>28349892
>Are you that clueless or are you trolling?
>relevant battles
>no fleet actions involving BBs during WW2
stay retarded
>>28349830
Thats not how inflation works retard
$100 million (the cost of an Iowa class battleship) in 1940 is worth $1.6 billion in 2011. A tomahawk missile costs $1.2 million in 2011.
Which could buy you...
1,333 Harpoon missiles with some change left over.
>>28349889
>crush all armed resistance in every battle
>I-it's your combat doctrine that's wrong America!
>>28349928
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles_between_battleships
>>28349928
You said "No BB vs BB in WW2"
Got owned rather quickly.
>>28349951
>relevant battles
>non-fleet sized engagements or actions involving BB vs BB combat
pick one and apply it to the entire war.
>>28349975
the key word being tossed around was "relevant", and I figure most people around here have enough historical knowledge to know that BBs indeed fought other BBs in the war, cuz ya know shit like the hood vs bismarck was a huge deal then and now.
>>28349951
>BB on BB battles in the pacific
two
w
o
>>28349356
>Actually the F-35 would be just as visible as a prop fighter to radar of the day.
>Its not like they used X-Band, which is what modern low RCS fighters are designed to be LO in.
>Implying low band radars have any real use in detecting, IDing, targeting, and engaging modern fighters, much less stealth
>>28349991
>Ownage hurts, doesn't it?
>>28349381
>derp derp derp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0
>>28349889
They were actually cancelled before the end of WWII. Before we completed our first nuclear testing.
>>28350043
Because there was no need for them
>>28349640
dat carbun fibrir halmet.
>>28350006
Detecting they sure as fuck do, friendo
Targeting / Engaging, no. But WW2 radar wasn't really for that, nigga. Chain Home was just an early warning system. Would have been just as effective against the F-35. (Though you couldn't really do much with that information)
>>28350078
Becaaaaause
Their job could be done by smaller more versatile platforms
Becaaaaaause
We just spent the last years fighting a naval war
Wheeeeeere
Almost every single naval actions where was decisively ended almost exclusively by carrier based aircraft.
Soooo
What conclusion can we draw from this?
>>28350096
Modern low/very low observability fighters are only detectable by those radars in the sense of "I think there might be something up there" which is absolutely worthless when you consider that the F-35 doesn't need to radiate to engage such systems. It's functionally a waste of effort.
>>28350096
So lets assume that your assumption is true.
>sir we have a single radar contact at 'x' range and 40,000 ft.
>Okay, not much one plane can do from that altitude
>our guns cant hit them.
>Sir its turning around and leaving the area
>Single bomb glides down the smokestack.
>Shieeeeeet
>At least our shit-tier radar was at least as effective against aircraft of the time.
Wew lad, glad we established that point.
>>28348589
It's true but irrelevant. Everyone, everywhere, that isn't Russian, knows you never, ever get into a dogfight with a Viper.
Same reason you wouldn't dofight with a Zero in a Wildcat.
>>28349724
some people just go the extra mile on everything
>>28350022
Considering I am >>28349783
You tell me.
>F-4s to battleships.
What is more combat effective, 1 Iowa class battleship or 1 F-35.
Not which could kill the other, but which could have more of an impact on a battle.
>>28348362
>aaaaand the F-35 is equal to or better than the F-16 at dogfighting
HUEHUEHUE
The F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are all superb dogfighters, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. In the end its the best pilots that win.
>>28353700
> Black F14
Pure, unadulterated sex.
>>28353700
That's why drones will be king of the skies soon. The pilots won't fear death. They'll do shit real pilots won't risk.
>>28353729
>Planes you can jam and take off mission with $100 of equipment
>king of the skies
>>28353700
> cypher, Shamrock, Blaze, and Avalanche.
>>28353728
you like her, do you? :3
Carrier brothers :3
>>28354090
New carrier brothers.
>>28349379
All of those went under waves with single delayed fuse light armor piercing 220kg HE warhead?
Harpoon would be totally pointless weapon against every WWII warship that isn't escort carrier, destroyer or smaller.
>>28349447
The thing that was proved in those incidents is that battleship without air cover is effectively target practice for concentrated air attack, one or two fighters with 1000kg or so laser guided bombs can hit a moving battleship about as many times as couple hundred WWII dive or torpedo bombers.
The reason US Navy kept Iowa-class battleships around was simple. They filled niche role in heavy coastal bombardment. After that they got another life extension for mostly propaganda purpose with 80's refit as Soviet Kirov class larger than average generic destroyers had to be countered on paper.
>>28353728
Given the insignia on tail... whoever approved the paint job would have his career destroyed faster than paint dries if it would be done today.
>>28348286
What does "dogfighting" even mean? Does it just mean any WVR air-to-air combat?
>>28355938
WVR just means you can spot them with eyeball. Dogfighting refers to close-range hard maneuvering for optimal position for a killshot.
>>28349164
Why bother with a harpoon? Just drop a couple laser guided 2,000lb bombs from 20k feet. Nothing on the Battleship could touch it at 20k feet and the laser guided bombs would likely set off the ammo magazines.
>>28350153
Guadalcanal.
>>28354135
Carrier cousins?
>>28349737
Carriers could strike a battleship SAG with impunity.
Carriers are faster, have more situational awareness due to more planes in the air conducting patrols, and could maintain a standoff range in which the battleships could do nothing besides defend themselves from aircraft.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about the fleet carriers, and not the light carriers/escort carriers that are slower and have less capabilities, and could theoretically have problems with a fast SAG.
A carrier presents more opportunities as well, such as deploying air power to defend the fleet as well as to extend the strike radius for land targets well outside the range of coastal artillery.
Aircraft have proven themselves perfectly capable of taking out surface combat units in ww2. The UK's raids on Italy (Taranto) and German battleships and cruisers, Japan's attack on Pearl as well as HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse.
>>28356126
Already brought up here.
>>28349440
>>28356230
In a carrier vs BB fight
Carriers will run out of planes before they sink even 1 BB
>>28348338
Fuck off Sprey
>>28356126
10.5 cm Flak 38 on the Bismarck (Almost 40,000ft ceiling), 8 cm/40 3rd Year Type on Kongo-class and plenty of other naval guns would have no trouble reaching 20k feet, dumbass.
Likely wouldn't hit something like the F-35, but its not outside of effective range.
>>28353538
>Iowa class
from what era?
>impact on a battle
what kind of battle?
where is the battle?
>>28358737
The F-35 is almost certainly out of range if it uses its ability to climb much higher than 20k feet.
