At sea level, almost nothing beats a clean F-16 in a sustained turn. But now do it with all the bombs and sensors and extra fuel and missiles and at 40000 ft. And now the F-35 can also do 9G. And when it comes to instantaneous turn rate, there's no contest there.
That's why it's called Rate Fight on Deck (Close to the Ground), but F-16 could simply Jettison their Tank get themselves faster/nimble reaching mach 2 while F-35 can't *"NO MATTER WHAT"*
Important to note that at the time the F35 was limited I believe to 7 g. Latest software mod brings to 9 g turn. Even at 7 appears instantaneous turn rate is faster than f 16, although sustained turn rate a mite slower
“Remember, back the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents [F-16s] showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn't really matter and that they would still easily outmanoeuvre us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least... On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal 'Smiley' Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon (GBU-12: Laser guided weapon). During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When 'Smiley' told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden.” - Lt Col Ian 'Gladys' Knight, Commander of 323rd Test and Evaluation Squadron.
It's a basic textbook example of a rate-favored airframe (F-16) over a radius-favored airframe (F-35A), both performing down low close to the ground in really thick air. As you elevate this into higher altitudes, the radiuses and speeds get larger. Notice that the F-16 is totally stripped of all relevant and necessary combat stores, whereas the F-35 carries weapons and combat systems internally. Since the F-35A fuel fraction is so significant, you still see its same performance as if it was carrying weapons internally because weapons weight compared to fuel fraction is not significant.
If u look closer the f35 finished the turn first he just didn't level the plane sooner, all he had to do was level the f35 a bit sooner and we would not have this conversation. F35 is still the more dominant and better jet...
Is it just me or did it seem like the F-35 actually completed half of the turn (180 degrees) before the F-16. As far as I know, the F-35 does have higher angle of attack limits than the F-16 so the turn radius should be smaller. But as the turn drags on, this F-16 (flying clean) was able to maintain speed better and finsh the turn slightly earlier.
You realize this is not a fair comparison, right?? In its current configuration, the F-35 is limited to 7g. Only after the 3F software is installed later this year will the F-35 be permitted to pull its maximum 9g turn. Also, in order to get the F-16 to preform this turn it had to be completely stripped of any missiles, bombs, pylons, targeting pods, external fuel tanks, ect..Not so with the F-35, as it goes to war exactly as you see it...with all of its weapons carried internally keeping it free of all of that parasitic drag that dramatically slows down all 4th gen aircraft. Yet even with all these advantages, the F-16 still only out turns the F-35 by half a second or so. The F-35, as it is right now, is a threat to any aircraft in the world in a dogfight. However, When you see this airshow next year, when the F-35 is in its final 3F configuration and can exploit its full 9g capability, well theres not gonna be much that can stop it in a dogfight...save maybe the F-22.
It is reportated for the restricted CLAWs to affect somewhat ITR and STR, but since this kind of maneuvering are performed below the max cornering speed allowed by the frame, G loads are irrelevant. What is relevant is that the F16, which is THE turning machine still in 2017, is flying in a COMPLETELY clean configuration; which is silly since combat loadout would implicate most, if not, all the pylons being used. At that point, every 4th gen becomes suddenly MUCH slower and MUCH draggier then the F35 in its typical load out (stealth loadout: 2x AIM120D and 2 2000lbs GBUs // 4x Aim120D).
trpilot6 I realize that. You realize that. Anyone who follows the f-35 objectively realizes that. This video is further proof of the success the f-35 is. I can't wait to see the 3f software installed in the alpha then see what it can do. I am hoping the jsf decides to install the Pratt &whitney upgrade kit in existing and future f-35s until advent goes into production. We are looking at what? 47,000 lbs of thrust? Yeah, that will do. Forget it. The f-35 program is taking off. I don't know how you can really improve the alpha. I think about the bravo and Charlie to the next level and make it 9g. They would need the same titanium supports the alpha has in the rear. I wonder if the bravo needs bigger wings? I don't know. But what can the bravo and Charlie do with more 10% more thrust??? That is what keeps me up at night.
It wouldn't make sense to install the growth opt 1 package from P&W for newest aircraft. Maybe retrofit the oldest F35s from UK and US fleets could make a sense. All in all, i think all the partners involved (UK,US, .it, .no, .tr) are just waiting what GE is going to offer with the new advent tech. It is supposed to have 25% reduced fuel and the same "up to 10%" increased thrust. If F35 would end with its ~50k lb of thurst with both the systems, i'd go with GE for sure.
sh0ckv3l keep in mind P&w is also working on advent tech. I wouldn't discount them yet. I personally think P&W has the upper hand in this fight. They have the infrastructure in place to quickly produce this.
Interesting. I had no idea it was G-limited at t his time. That makes a lot of sense, given the "sluggish" turn performance I've seen from it. I figured there had to be more authority available than that. Interested to see how it looks after the upgrade.
Now imagine the F-16 with wing tanks, GBUs, and AIM-120s. That F-35 flies the same when carrying the same weapons, with way more internal fuel than an F-16 with full internal and external fuel, which is why the F-35 has superior combat radius and WVR performance combat-configured. Everything that has been said about the F-35 by detractors is from faulty sources, competitors in the aerospace business, or enemy propaganda.
what a load of rubbish F16 can carry a lot more then the F35, also when externally mounted on the F35 Stealth properties are severely reduced, time for loiter in combat radius is half that of the F16 that's if F35 wants to retain its stealth capability
The F-16's internal fuel capacity is 7,000lbs, and has to use EFTs to get any more gas, making the aircraft way more draggy. The F-35 carries 18,498lbs internally, with no external drag, making it have a better drag index, with a much more powerful engine that can operate efficiently across the flight regime. Not sure where you're getting your info, but the F-35A has a far greater combat radius than the F-16, with a combat load that has the same weapons count as the F-16, again with no drag. The F-35 with half internal fuel has more gas than the F-16 carries internally, and is still more maneuverable than the F-16 once you place weapons and gas on the external hard points of the F-16. It's pretty basic aerodynamics. Every F-16 pilot that has converted to the F-35 looks back at the F-16 and wonders what he was doing all those years without this capability. Same for Super Hornet and F-15C pilots. F-35 has far superior nose-pointing authority than the baby F/A-18A/C, with more speed like the F-16.
It does not fly the same with full stores. It weighs double as much as with full loadout and fuel. That means its wing loading is twice as much and its T:W is half. The F-16 has the same but also has to deal with aerodynamic performance loss, but that's not a huge component.
@@appa609 What you see in this is the turning capability of a combat-configured F-35 vs an airshow stunt demo F-16C flown by one of the more experienced Viper fleet pilots who has trained extensively to fly max performance in the Viper. There is no noticeable performance difference in the F-35 when carrying 2x 2000lb JDAMs and AIM-120s internally, and many F-35 pilots have stated this. Since there is no change in drag, and internal weapons weight as compared to fuel fraction is negligible, being combat-configured in an F-35 just doesn't change the aerodynamic maneuvering performance. Weapons are only a small fraction of TOGW in the F-35, and the math is very easy to do, nowhere even close to twice as much wing loading or T:W at half. Empty weight is just under 30k lbs for the F-35A. Full internal fuel is 18,498lb. 4x AIM-120 = 1340lbs or 2 x AIM-120 + 2x 2k JDAM = 4,710lbs. A2A-configured F-35A Block 3F with 4 AIM-120s is 49,836lbs at Take-Off, or .86 T/W. With a 40% fuel burn before maneuvering, you're looking at 11,100lbs of internal fuel, and anywhere from 1340-4710lbs of weapons internally. Dry thrust is 28,000lb and 43,000lb with max AB with the F135 motor. 42,439lbs weight with 4x AIM-120 with a 43,000lb motor at 60% internal fuel weight. The F-16C doesn't have anywhere near the fuel fraction of the F-35, and weapons + EFT and ECM pod/TGT pod weight is not only detrimental aerodynamically with drag, but causes weight and FLCS CAT Limit maneuvering penalties that are considerable. F-35 has all the ECM and electro-optical targeting integrated into the airframe with no penalties, similar to what early F-16 developmental and test programs asked for and got in the AFTI F-16, which had LANTIRN pods embedded in the wing roots, as well as IRST on top of the nose. The F-35 avionics architecture is heavily influenced by problems they immediately identified with the F-16, and worked hard to correct by embedding all IR and RF sensors, plus an open architecture interlaced ECM suite in the airframe. This is because the YF-16's airframe was designed from the start for WVR A2A combat using wingtip AIM-9s and the internal M61 Vulcan for short, quick engagement profiles with superior kinematics in the F-16 vs the MiG-21 in a numerically-comparable daytime WVR fight, not as a multi-role fighter that the USAF really wanted to replace its F-4Es and A-7Ds with. The USAF asked for General Dynamics to increase the airframe size to accommodate a modern radar, add relevant electronics to it, and plumb it for bombs, missiles, EFTs, and the Pave Penny laser designator. The F-16A actually did a great job of filling the initial multi-role fighter requirements, but many areas for improvement were recognized and planning began almost from the start for the next major production block upgrades to the F-16, which started with the more advanced F-16C/D. This is where it was opened up for AIM-120 employment, as well as more precision-guided munitions, more navigation capabilities, ECM, and the Improved Performance Engine starting with Block 30 Vipers. They even made a significantly-different Night Viper with LANTIRN pods, heavier landing gear, beefed up airframe, extreme Wide Field of View HUD that showed the Navigation Pod FLIR picture, and all-weather capabilities for a low altitude penetration/strike mission with the Block 40/42 Vipers. Most of those capes were invalidated as threat air defense radar networks expanded their detection and SAM engagement envelopes to much lower altitudes, so the platform adapted to a more high altitude mission profile with the Block 50/52 Vipers, as well as all the HARM targeting and SEAD/DEAD mission profile requirements that the Viper community inherited once the F-4G Wild Weasels were retired. They realized all these changes were difficult to do and quite expensive, because the airframe was never meant for any of these requirements when envisioned, and major structural changes required significant re-designs and testing/validation. The JSF took these lessons and made an open architecture bird from the start, with all of the relevant IR and RF sensor profiles already embedded into the airframe, with more weapons carrying capacity because none of the weapons stations needed to be used for External Fuel Tanks, given the huge internal fuel capacity of the JSF. In practical terms, the F-16C normally only carries A2G munitions on stations 3 & 7, while all other stations are filled with A2A, EFTs, and pods. The F-35 can deliver superior lethality and survivability with the same weapons in both A2A and A2G, but carried internally without sacrificing its VLO characteristics. There is literally nothing the F-16 can do better than the F-35 in an operational context.
if you look carefully you'll see that the F-35 was already a few seconds more into the turn than the F-16. It had already negotiated part of the turn by the time the F-16 picked up high G. Still the F-16 caught up with the F-35 and surpassed it. It won by a larger margin than is shown in the video.
they started the turn at the same time. The F-35 is said to have a better instantaneous turn, while the F-16 has a better sustained turn (slightly). This means that at the initial part of the turn, the F-35's turn will be much more noticeable than the F-16's. this is because the F-35 is capable of far higher angles of attack than the F-16. However, high angle of attacks drain energy quickly. this is the reason why the F-16 has a hard limiter at 26 degrees angle of attack. The F-35's limiter is at 50 degrees by comparison. Its actually a soft limit because the F-35 has demonstrated that it is very capable of going past that.
@Nome Cognome Both started banked for the turn with initial pitch-rate synchronized, so it looks to be a fair comparison of 2 different jets that will fly their cornering speed for the Minimum Radius Turn. The video you linked shows a very aggressive Viper driver doing the MRT in about 18.5-19.5 seconds, 12:57-13:16. Notice that it had no external stores combat systems on it, no EFTs, no ECM pod, no HARM targeting pod, no Litening Pod, no missiles, and no bombs.
If you look. They both finished the turn at the same time but the falcon leveled wings first. Looked like a tie to me. Very impressive the f-35 against a loaded f-16 would be tops. Either way, f35 is no slouch as some purport…
@@IvanDovala ... you do know that the US NAVY/MARINES only state their bare-minimum requirements ??? the marines have no use for 7G in the frontlines ... the F35C has 50% more wingspan than the A & B models ..
@@IvanDovala In the F-35A flight demo profile, the instructions to the pilot during minimum radius turn are to regulate the G to no more than 7g with the throttle, because it can accelerate in the turn. At 8g, it would be interesting as well, not that any of this is combat-relevant.
You forgot (or you purposely didn't) to also include the extra 4 seconds for when the F-35 has actually started the turn. No F-35 finishes sooner than 24 seconds. This one finishing in 20 is a bit too stretched don't you think?
Now show a combat-configured Viper flown by a fleet pilot after it has jettisoned or dropped its bombs from stations 3 & 7 and 370 Gallon wing tanks + pylons from 4 & 6, but it still left with the following aerodynamic penalties: LAU-129s on stations 1, 2, 8, 10 with missiles on them, 3 of which are normally AIM-120s LITENING Pod on station 5R ALE-50 integrated pylons on stations 2 & 8 suspending the LAU-129s PIDSU or ECIPSU pylons on stations 3 & 7 with integrated chaff/flare dispensers and other countermeasures This is assuming a later Block Viper that isn't operating in its SEAD mission profile with the AGM-88E missiles on 3 & 7, an ALQ-184(V)9 on station 5, and the Harm Targeting Pod on station 5L. That would leave you with a total of 3 external pods that significantly reduce aerodynamic performance. This is one of the main mission profiles that the go-to USAF Viper Variant is used for, namely the F-16C Block 50/52s, which have the HARM system integration and Wild Weasel mission set in addition to precision attack, interdiction, and CAS.
To me it looked like the F-35 had already started the turn, whereas the F-16 began it a few seconds later. That might just be angles playing tricks on me though.
There's a video out now showing the full flight envelope software ability, where the F-35 does a fishhook turn, and recovers into a climb with a roll. The F-16 cannot perform a fishhook like this and recover. It simply isn't designed for it. It's the one thing that can allow the F-35 to get off that quick shot in a WVR engagement. However, the time to recover is substantial. So, the F-35 better win after doing that High AOA maneuver, or the F-16 would have enough time to get into position and take him out. Even with full flight software now operational on the F-35, the F-16's still win "most" but not all close range dogfights. When the F-16 is running light and stays in its flight envelope, it's still a real tough nut to crack. But then again, there's the F-22.... the nutcracker. ;o)
ruclips.net/video/k3b-b762QRY/видео.html Super Hornet's high AoA+minimum turn radius advantage holding it's own against F-15's high energy turn rate advantage dogfight example nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/ More F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot. I quote _Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_ Original source (non-English) suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/suomella-vahvat-ilmavoimat-mutta-kuinka-kauan/ Frisian Flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish F-18Cs gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish) F-18C has 16:1 kill ratio over EU-NATO and Sweden competition. F-35A's difference from Super Hornet is to bring F-16C's dogfight capability and merge it into F-18C's minimum turn radius with high AoA/post-stall. ruclips.net/video/Bu8G5ABHKc8/видео.html Around 1 :09:51, RAAF commander mentioned how the Super Hornet had a positive kill ratio in excess of 20 to 1 against the Alaska aggressors F-16 in an exercise in Australia more than a year ago.
This F-35 wasn't even in it's full combat configuration. After 3F, even a combat loaded F-35 would be able to turn with, or maybe even out turn an empty F-16.
Its probably close. I seriously doubt it can keep up with a clean F-16 though. It probably cannot sustain 9g. I would imagine even on Block 3F the turn rate is similar. The point is though, clean configured vipers dont see combat. The F-35 probably does the same turn with 4 internal weapons, F-16 does not.
if they have same turn radius clean it means that the f16 will only get worst from there on with all wistles and bells attached. on plus the f35 has the stealth advantage long before they meet
They both start the minimum radius turn at about 85˚ bank angle. The F-35 just has much faster Instantaneous Turn Rate than the slick F-16C. The slick F-16C has better Sustained Turn Rate, which is why it completed the MRT just a bit faster. The F-35 can have full internal weapons and demonstrate the same performance, whereas the F-16 even with half-spent weapons after actions in the TGT area headed back home can't do anything like this because it's still in CAT III stores configuration throughout its mission profile, unless it jettisons the EFTs and only retains missiles on Stations 1, 2, 8, & 9. It will still have the ECM pod (please don't jettison that), as well as chin FLIR, so you will never see an F-16 execute max performance when combat-configured, unless you embed the sensors and ECM into the airframe and use CFTs vs wing tanks. This was one of the main complaints from senior F/A-18 and F-16 pilots who put a lot of input into the JSF program. The internal weapons bays solved 2 major problems with one approach, and that was to provide a common mission stores configuration for the aircraft without degrading its aerodynamic shape, while also supporting VLO geometry of the RCS. The F-35 could have had 2 x 2000lb JDAMs and 2 x AIM-120s in this demo, and you wouldn't see a difference because those are nothing compared to fuel fraction. There is nothing to correct in the video, and the only information I would add to it would be internal fuel state in lbs, airspeed, and Gs. Both appear to be doing well over 250kts to me, which is where the F-16 maximizes its STR in its Energy-Maneuverability profile.
real F35 turn in 1/2 the time a SU35 ... one just needs to make the F35 depart from controled flight and send the tail spinning up front and put the revs in the engine to the max and you get back from where you came from ruclips.net/video/5hERYdmjZWA/видео.html
And you also gave the F-35 almost 3 seconds of advantage? To make it shorter in words and more clear...,the F-16C does it in around 16..17 seconds. The fat pig F-35 does it in no less than 24.
Show the whole video The F-16's speed was already drained while the F-35 was just pulling into the first circle. F-16 inst. turn rate is 26 deg/sec, sust. turn rate is 18 deg/sec. *F-35A Aerial Demonstration Debut at 2017 Paris Air Show inst turn rate 17 deg/sec sust. turn rate 10.6 deg/sec*
Prove your calculations. From nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/new-report-details-what-31-us-air-force-pilots-who-flew-the-17266 3. A former F-16C instructor-and graduate of the Air Force Weapons Instructor Course (Which is similar to the Navy's famed “Top Gun” school)-said the jet is constrained on how tight it can turn (G-limited) now. But even so, the rudder-assisted turns are incredible and *deliver a constant 28 degrees of turn a second* . When the Air Force removes the restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.
Flight demo pilots enter the minimum radius turn at the most optimum cornering speed of the jet. Each jet has a different cornering speed. There is no handicap to the F-16 here. F-35A has better aerodynamic and kinematic performance than the Viper, especially combat-configured.
The viper is still the best the f16 is faster it also cooler looking the newer block 70 models has phased array rader like the f35 the only advantage the f35 has is stealth take that away there toast
The F16 was built in 1974. It was essentially cheap. The F35 is insanely expensive and should perform at least as well as a fucking 50 year old design. What the Hell am I missing. Were still making models of the F15 aka EX for Christ sakes. In all actuality pilotless drones are going to the most maneuverable.
a lot of money at stake here for Lockheed, funny how they have to keep comparing the F16 to the lemon F35, a really old airframe, looks as though General Dynamics had better engineers using slide rules
the F-16 is only slightly superior to the F-35 when totally clean (no weapons, pods, etc.) but when loaded they are the same with the F-35 having far superior high angle of attack capabilities and slow speed maneuvering.
@@michaeld1170 Basic wing loading without body and vortex lift. F-35A Empty weight: 29,300 lb Wing area: 460 ft² Wing loading: 63.04 lbs/ sq feet. F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet. F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's 43,000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28,600 lbf. There's a near-straight 1.5X scaling between F16C to F-35A on basic wing loading, engine thrust, and empty weight. F-35A's wing area is influenced by weight growth and F-16C's empty weight wing loading target. *F-35A would need a minor engine upgrade to maintain 1.55X scaling and engine upgrades are in the road map.*
I want to educate the learned Indians, Pakistan has very advanced fighters jets, JF-17 and SUPER F-16 , India has Migs which are from 1960 and are called the FLYING COFFINS , there is no match . 70% of Indian war equipment is obsolete because India has no money to spent on buying war equipment because the Indian army is so big that all the money is spent on their salaries . This is not my views this from New York Times . From USA.
And if you pick two different pilots next time it will be the other way around , clearly they have an equal 360 degree turn. F-16 pilot was sharper & smoother coming out of it where as the F-35 pilot seemed to be dragging his a$$ ! Just a sharper pilot in the seat of the F-16 on this particular day.
Bruh you’re stupid the F-14 turns at 15 degrees a second while the F-35 turns at 18.5 degrees a second which surpasses the F-15, F-14, and F/A-18 and is only beaten by the F-22 and F-16.
All depends on what 35 you're getting... most all the aircraft are not combat capable, and have different software. Can the 35 do a 9 g fully loaded.. probably not.
Yes, it can. The G-limits of the F-35 Block 3F's are non-dependant on combat load since those limits are in place to prevent overstress on the wings of the aircraft due to the increase of weight on the wings. Since the F-35 carries it's stores internally, it has no such limitations.
@Michael Legary what? No G limits during weapons being internal? Where did hear that BS😆... it has a stores management system that says you're dead wrong!
@@MrSteve8511 The W/SMS of the F-35 doesnt take internal stores into consideration when placing G-Limits on the airframe. Additionally, the F-35's Limit paddle doesnt care.
context: altitudes? Mach numbers mean shit without it CFT = fuel tanks. Consult the flight manual of the F16C and D to see the real speed at relative weight/payload too see the maximum IAS and/or Mach number at any given altitude. The tl;dr is: with typical loadouts, M2 on a viper happens only in videogame. With that much drag induced by ordnance, only a handful of fighters can break the M1. p.s.: on EVRY aircraft the maximum speed (in mach numbers) is not the absolute peak speed. It's the highest speed at which the a/c got tested. The F35A is capable of going above M1.9 because has enough thrust-to-drag, problem is no one knows if the wings would stay attached to the main body, lol. The M1.6 figure was just an "agreed" speed suitable for all the 3 US services. p,p,s: SuperBug, with maxed out take off weight, is only capable of M1.2 with AB engaged limited at 6.5g. Internal carriage is a very BIG thing.
F-35 is 960 mph while cruising with 2x missiles and two bombs while the F-16 with weapons cruises upto around 690Mph. This is without the afterburner which cannot be used for a long time during a mission due to fuel consumption.
so uh, the f-35 starts the turn way sooner and finishes way later than the F-16? good thing it's good at BVR because if it can't even hang with current jets in a turn good luck against the future stuff
Here's my opinion.. F16 is combat proven in many scenarios. It's still king of the hill if you take all aspects of a single engine jet fighter.. F35 is indeed impressive. However, it has 0% combat experience so far. So, until its proven its advanced technologies, I'm of the opinion that F35 has to prove itself before I'll consider it worthy of being used in the same sentence.
Just an update: F-35Is, F-35Bs, and F-35As have been in constant combat operations for about 4 years now, from Israel, USMC, USAF, and UK. Israeli F-35Is have been shot at by SAMs over 100 times, and responded by destroying the SAM sites. A highly advanced F-16I was shot down by Syrian S-200 5FEB2018.
If you look closely, people are trying to justify the amount of money thrown into the f-35 project by claiming it's superiority over a plane made in the 70's.
Until you configure the F-16 for combat with wing tanks, bombs, and missiles. Slick, it's a beast with superb retained energy that few fighters have. If you look at the F-16's EM diagrams, it has a plateau, which can be seen in this demo. That goes out the window to some extent when you load it for combat.
Thrme reason why rhe F-16 will be the better aircraft it can sustain a 9G rurn fully loaded a big selling point that why the 70 block is being sold its a effective multi role fighter
F-22 and F-35's clean the floor with F-16s, Red Flag K-D's are ~182-5 for the raptor and ~31-4 for the F-35 (Whose only losses are reportedly to F-22s)
Block 50 and 52 are D variants, which are the heaviest variants of the Viper. C is, IIRC, block 30 up to 40. Besides, the strength of F16 never been the STR, it lacks the raw thrust, but the cornering speed and roll rate. ITRs and minimal turn rates are its forte.
At sea level, almost nothing beats a clean F-16 in a sustained turn. But now do it with all the bombs and sensors and extra fuel and missiles and at 40000 ft. And now the F-35 can also do 9G. And when it comes to instantaneous turn rate, there's no contest there.
9G at 40 000ft...and then you wake up 🤣
That's why it's called Rate Fight on Deck (Close to the Ground), but F-16 could simply Jettison their Tank get themselves faster/nimble reaching mach 2 while F-35 can't *"NO MATTER WHAT"*
@@mr.z6252 And then your F-16 rums out of fuel flying back to base and crashes into a hill.
@@martijn9568 Nahhhh the Fight is over in maximum 10 minute, and fly back for Aerial refuel
@mr.z6252 Fight is over before it even begins. The F35 shoots down the F16 before the F16 even knows the F35 was there.
Important to note that at the time the F35 was limited I believe to 7 g. Latest software mod brings to 9 g turn. Even at 7 appears instantaneous turn rate is faster than f 16, although sustained turn rate a mite slower
The A model can pull 9g (it was f35a in clip)
B and C are limited to 7g
@@mEmEzMaN... You didn't read his comment did you?
@@mEmEzMaN...
F-35C has 7.5G.
F-35B has 7.0G.
@@mEmEzMaN... FYI, the 1st completed F-35A Block 3F (9G) was in December 2017.
“Remember, back the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents [F-16s] showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn't really matter and that they would still easily outmanoeuvre us.
By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least...
On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal 'Smiley' Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon (GBU-12: Laser guided weapon). During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When 'Smiley' told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden.”
- Lt Col Ian 'Gladys' Knight, Commander of 323rd Test and Evaluation Squadron.
Or Fat amy 🤣😂
In a non sarcastic way, you are definitely one of the fun guys at the party
@@longcolt9374 I am indeed. And some have said so. 😁
It looks like they actually finish the turn at the same time but the F-35 pauses for a half second before rolling out.
It's a basic textbook example of a rate-favored airframe (F-16) over a radius-favored airframe (F-35A), both performing down low close to the ground in really thick air. As you elevate this into higher altitudes, the radiuses and speeds get larger. Notice that the F-16 is totally stripped of all relevant and necessary combat stores, whereas the F-35 carries weapons and combat systems internally. Since the F-35A fuel fraction is so significant, you still see its same performance as if it was carrying weapons internally because weapons weight compared to fuel fraction is not significant.
If u look closer the f35 finished the turn first he just didn't level the plane sooner, all he had to do was level the f35 a bit sooner and we would not have this conversation. F35 is still the more dominant and better jet...
Is it just me or did it seem like the F-35 actually completed half of the turn (180 degrees) before the F-16.
As far as I know, the F-35 does have higher angle of attack limits than the F-16 so the turn radius should be smaller. But as the turn drags on, this F-16 (flying clean) was able to maintain speed better and finsh the turn slightly earlier.
yes the F-35 bled speed by doing that, which allowed the F-16 to sustain its turn at speed
You realize this is not a fair comparison, right?? In its current configuration, the F-35 is limited to 7g. Only after the 3F software is installed later this year will the F-35 be permitted to pull its maximum 9g turn. Also, in order to get the F-16 to preform this turn it had to be completely stripped of any missiles, bombs, pylons, targeting pods, external fuel tanks, ect..Not so with the F-35, as it goes to war exactly as you see it...with all of its weapons carried internally keeping it free of all of that parasitic drag that dramatically slows down all 4th gen aircraft.
Yet even with all these advantages, the F-16 still only out turns the F-35 by half a second or so. The F-35, as it is right now, is a threat to any aircraft in the world in a dogfight. However, When you see this airshow next year, when the F-35 is in its final 3F configuration and can exploit its full 9g capability, well theres not gonna be much that can stop it in a dogfight...save maybe the F-22.
It is reportated for the restricted CLAWs to affect somewhat ITR and STR, but since this kind of maneuvering are performed below the max cornering speed allowed by the frame, G loads are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the F16, which is THE turning machine still in 2017, is flying in a COMPLETELY clean configuration; which is silly since combat loadout would implicate most, if not, all the pylons being used.
At that point, every 4th gen becomes suddenly MUCH slower and MUCH draggier then the F35 in its typical load out (stealth loadout: 2x AIM120D and 2 2000lbs GBUs // 4x Aim120D).
trpilot6 I realize that. You realize that. Anyone who follows the f-35 objectively realizes that. This video is further proof of the success the f-35 is. I can't wait to see the 3f software installed in the alpha then see what it can do. I am hoping the jsf decides to install the Pratt &whitney upgrade kit in existing and future f-35s until advent goes into production. We are looking at what? 47,000 lbs of thrust? Yeah, that will do. Forget it. The f-35 program is taking off.
I don't know how you can really improve the alpha. I think about the bravo and Charlie to the next level and make it 9g. They would need the same titanium supports the alpha has in the rear. I wonder if the bravo needs bigger wings? I don't know. But what can the bravo and Charlie do with more 10% more thrust??? That is what keeps me up at night.
It wouldn't make sense to install the growth opt 1 package from P&W for newest aircraft. Maybe retrofit the oldest F35s from UK and US fleets could make a sense.
All in all, i think all the partners involved (UK,US, .it, .no, .tr) are just waiting what GE is going to offer with the new advent tech.
It is supposed to have 25% reduced fuel and the same "up to 10%" increased thrust. If F35 would end with its ~50k lb of thurst with both the systems, i'd go with GE for sure.
sh0ckv3l keep in mind P&w is also working on advent tech. I wouldn't discount them yet. I personally think P&W has the upper hand in this fight. They have the infrastructure in place to quickly produce this.
Interesting. I had no idea it was G-limited at t his time. That makes a lot of sense, given the "sluggish" turn performance I've seen from it. I figured there had to be more authority available than that.
Interested to see how it looks after the upgrade.
Now imagine the F-16 with wing tanks, GBUs, and AIM-120s. That F-35 flies the same when carrying the same weapons, with way more internal fuel than an F-16 with full internal and external fuel, which is why the F-35 has superior combat radius and WVR performance combat-configured. Everything that has been said about the F-35 by detractors is from faulty sources, competitors in the aerospace business, or enemy propaganda.
what a load of rubbish F16 can carry a lot more then the F35, also when externally mounted on the F35 Stealth properties are severely reduced, time for loiter in combat radius is half that of the F16 that's if F35 wants to retain its stealth capability
The F-16's internal fuel capacity is 7,000lbs, and has to use EFTs to get any more gas, making the aircraft way more draggy. The F-35 carries 18,498lbs internally, with no external drag, making it have a better drag index, with a much more powerful engine that can operate efficiently across the flight regime. Not sure where you're getting your info, but the F-35A has a far greater combat radius than the F-16, with a combat load that has the same weapons count as the F-16, again with no drag.
The F-35 with half internal fuel has more gas than the F-16 carries internally, and is still more maneuverable than the F-16 once you place weapons and gas on the external hard points of the F-16. It's pretty basic aerodynamics. Every F-16 pilot that has converted to the F-35 looks back at the F-16 and wonders what he was doing all those years without this capability. Same for Super Hornet and F-15C pilots. F-35 has far superior nose-pointing authority than the baby F/A-18A/C, with more speed like the F-16.
The F-16 is not Stealthy no matter what it does. so whats your point.
Stealth is an option, an option that only the 5th generation fighters can offer.
It does not fly the same with full stores. It weighs double as much as with full loadout and fuel. That means its wing loading is twice as much and its T:W is half. The F-16 has the same but also has to deal with aerodynamic performance loss, but that's not a huge component.
@@appa609 What you see in this is the turning capability of a combat-configured F-35 vs an airshow stunt demo F-16C flown by one of the more experienced Viper fleet pilots who has trained extensively to fly max performance in the Viper. There is no noticeable performance difference in the F-35 when carrying 2x 2000lb JDAMs and AIM-120s internally, and many F-35 pilots have stated this. Since there is no change in drag, and internal weapons weight as compared to fuel fraction is negligible, being combat-configured in an F-35 just doesn't change the aerodynamic maneuvering performance. Weapons are only a small fraction of TOGW in the F-35, and the math is very easy to do, nowhere even close to twice as much wing loading or T:W at half.
Empty weight is just under 30k lbs for the F-35A. Full internal fuel is 18,498lb. 4x AIM-120 = 1340lbs or 2 x AIM-120 + 2x 2k JDAM = 4,710lbs.
A2A-configured F-35A Block 3F with 4 AIM-120s is 49,836lbs at Take-Off, or .86 T/W.
With a 40% fuel burn before maneuvering, you're looking at 11,100lbs of internal fuel, and anywhere from 1340-4710lbs of weapons internally. Dry thrust is 28,000lb and 43,000lb with max AB with the F135 motor.
42,439lbs weight with 4x AIM-120 with a 43,000lb motor at 60% internal fuel weight.
The F-16C doesn't have anywhere near the fuel fraction of the F-35, and weapons + EFT and ECM pod/TGT pod weight is not only detrimental aerodynamically with drag, but causes weight and FLCS CAT Limit maneuvering penalties that are considerable. F-35 has all the ECM and electro-optical targeting integrated into the airframe with no penalties, similar to what early F-16 developmental and test programs asked for and got in the AFTI F-16, which had LANTIRN pods embedded in the wing roots, as well as IRST on top of the nose. The F-35 avionics architecture is heavily influenced by problems they immediately identified with the F-16, and worked hard to correct by embedding all IR and RF sensors, plus an open architecture interlaced ECM suite in the airframe.
This is because the YF-16's airframe was designed from the start for WVR A2A combat using wingtip AIM-9s and the internal M61 Vulcan for short, quick engagement profiles with superior kinematics in the F-16 vs the MiG-21 in a numerically-comparable daytime WVR fight, not as a multi-role fighter that the USAF really wanted to replace its F-4Es and A-7Ds with. The USAF asked for General Dynamics to increase the airframe size to accommodate a modern radar, add relevant electronics to it, and plumb it for bombs, missiles, EFTs, and the Pave Penny laser designator.
The F-16A actually did a great job of filling the initial multi-role fighter requirements, but many areas for improvement were recognized and planning began almost from the start for the next major production block upgrades to the F-16, which started with the more advanced F-16C/D. This is where it was opened up for AIM-120 employment, as well as more precision-guided munitions, more navigation capabilities, ECM, and the Improved Performance Engine starting with Block 30 Vipers.
They even made a significantly-different Night Viper with LANTIRN pods, heavier landing gear, beefed up airframe, extreme Wide Field of View HUD that showed the Navigation Pod FLIR picture, and all-weather capabilities for a low altitude penetration/strike mission with the Block 40/42 Vipers. Most of those capes were invalidated as threat air defense radar networks expanded their detection and SAM engagement envelopes to much lower altitudes, so the platform adapted to a more high altitude mission profile with the Block 50/52 Vipers, as well as all the HARM targeting and SEAD/DEAD mission profile requirements that the Viper community inherited once the F-4G Wild Weasels were retired.
They realized all these changes were difficult to do and quite expensive, because the airframe was never meant for any of these requirements when envisioned, and major structural changes required significant re-designs and testing/validation. The JSF took these lessons and made an open architecture bird from the start, with all of the relevant IR and RF sensor profiles already embedded into the airframe, with more weapons carrying capacity because none of the weapons stations needed to be used for External Fuel Tanks, given the huge internal fuel capacity of the JSF. In practical terms, the F-16C normally only carries A2G munitions on stations 3 & 7, while all other stations are filled with A2A, EFTs, and pods. The F-35 can deliver superior lethality and survivability with the same weapons in both A2A and A2G, but carried internally without sacrificing its VLO characteristics.
There is literally nothing the F-16 can do better than the F-35 in an operational context.
if you look carefully you'll see that the F-35 was already a few seconds more into the turn than the F-16. It had already negotiated part of the turn by the time the F-16 picked up high G. Still the F-16 caught up with the F-35 and surpassed it. It won by a larger margin than is shown in the video.
they started the turn at the same time. The F-35 is said to have a better instantaneous turn, while the F-16 has a better sustained turn (slightly). This means that at the initial part of the turn, the F-35's turn will be much more noticeable than the F-16's.
this is because the F-35 is capable of far higher angles of attack than the F-16. However, high angle of attacks drain energy quickly. this is the reason why the F-16 has a hard limiter at 26 degrees angle of attack. The F-35's limiter is at 50 degrees by comparison. Its actually a soft limit because the F-35 has demonstrated that it is very capable of going past that.
Dre Driesen I noticed this also, not a very fair comparison
@Nome Cognome Both started banked for the turn with initial pitch-rate synchronized, so it looks to be a fair comparison of 2 different jets that will fly their cornering speed for the Minimum Radius Turn. The video you linked shows a very aggressive Viper driver doing the MRT in about 18.5-19.5 seconds, 12:57-13:16. Notice that it had no external stores combat systems on it, no EFTs, no ECM pod, no HARM targeting pod, no Litening Pod, no missiles, and no bombs.
If you look. They both finished the turn at the same time but the falcon leveled wings first. Looked like a tie to me. Very impressive the f-35 against a loaded f-16 would be tops. Either way, f35 is no slouch as some purport…
@@michaeld1170The F35 has a higher degree of angle then even the F18SH
The F-16 here completed the sustained turn in a little bit more than 18 seconds while the F-35A completed it in about 20 seconds, not too bad.
especially if the f16 was at 50% fuel capacity sense to show how manovorable it is in a dogfight
F-35 can now pull 9Gs. Let's run this test again.
F-35B not. Only 7G.
@@IvanDovala ... you do know that the US NAVY/MARINES only state their bare-minimum requirements ??? the marines have no use for 7G in the frontlines ... the F35C has 50% more wingspan than the A & B models ..
@@smparreira no, i dont know. But i know that many things is different in real battle and war.
@@IvanDovala ... peopke look at the specksheets and see 9g ... weee
at 9g most wing suspended cargo already departed from the plane 😲
@@IvanDovala In the F-35A flight demo profile, the instructions to the pilot during minimum radius turn are to regulate the G to no more than 7g with the throttle, because it can accelerate in the turn. At 8g, it would be interesting as well, not that any of this is combat-relevant.
The f35 is basically a mini stealth bomber that manoeuvres like an f16 because of the powerful engine and the software.
Turn rate vs turn radius has been a thing since wwi
Unless the F-16 is being use as a kamikaze cruise missile, load the F-16 with bombs and missiles.
Bruh did you forget the F-16 has a 20mm rotary cannon?
@@myusername3689 Cannons wouldn't be useful against air defenses.
@@myusername3689 QF-16 is a nice kamikaze cruise missile.
@@aaroncabatingan5238Well they are testing dogfight turn performance, so in theory the gun does matter here.
F16❤
You forgot (or you purposely didn't) to also include the extra 4 seconds for when the F-35 has actually started the turn. No F-35 finishes sooner than 24 seconds. This one finishing in 20 is a bit too stretched don't you think?
Now show a combat-configured Viper flown by a fleet pilot after it has jettisoned or dropped its bombs from stations 3 & 7 and 370 Gallon wing tanks + pylons from 4 & 6, but it still left with the following aerodynamic penalties:
LAU-129s on stations 1, 2, 8, 10 with missiles on them, 3 of which are normally AIM-120s
LITENING Pod on station 5R
ALE-50 integrated pylons on stations 2 & 8 suspending the LAU-129s
PIDSU or ECIPSU pylons on stations 3 & 7 with integrated chaff/flare dispensers and other countermeasures
This is assuming a later Block Viper that isn't operating in its SEAD mission profile with the AGM-88E missiles on 3 & 7, an ALQ-184(V)9 on station 5, and the Harm Targeting Pod on station 5L. That would leave you with a total of 3 external pods that significantly reduce aerodynamic performance. This is one of the main mission profiles that the go-to USAF Viper Variant is used for, namely the F-16C Block 50/52s, which have the HARM system integration and Wild Weasel mission set in addition to precision attack, interdiction, and CAS.
To me it looked like the F-35 had already started the turn, whereas the F-16 began it a few seconds later. That might just be angles playing tricks on me though.
There's a video out now showing the full flight envelope software ability, where the F-35 does a fishhook turn, and recovers into a climb with a roll. The F-16 cannot perform a fishhook like this and recover. It simply isn't designed for it. It's the one thing that can allow the F-35 to get off that quick shot in a WVR engagement. However, the time to recover is substantial. So, the F-35 better win after doing that High AOA maneuver, or the F-16 would have enough time to get into position and take him out.
Even with full flight software now operational on the F-35, the F-16's still win "most" but not all close range dogfights. When the F-16 is running light and stays in its flight envelope, it's still a real tough nut to crack.
But then again, there's the F-22.... the nutcracker. ;o)
Prove F-16's still win "most" but not all close range dogfights.
ruclips.net/video/k3b-b762QRY/видео.html
Super Hornet's high AoA+minimum turn radius advantage holding it's own against F-15's high energy turn rate advantage dogfight example
nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/
More F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot.
I quote
_Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_
Original source (non-English)
suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/suomella-vahvat-ilmavoimat-mutta-kuinka-kauan/
Frisian Flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish F-18Cs gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish)
F-18C has 16:1 kill ratio over EU-NATO and Sweden competition.
F-35A's difference from Super Hornet is to bring F-16C's dogfight capability and merge it into F-18C's minimum turn radius with high AoA/post-stall.
ruclips.net/video/Bu8G5ABHKc8/видео.html
Around 1 :09:51, RAAF commander mentioned how the Super Hornet had a positive kill ratio in excess of 20 to 1 against the Alaska aggressors F-16 in an exercise in Australia more than a year ago.
@@valenrn8657 "Polish new F-16"
Polish F-16s are block 50/52, so not that new tbh.
@@corvus9490 F-16V 's 1st flight was in October 2015.
The first country to confirm the purchase of the new F-16V Block 70/72 was Bahrain in June 2018.
@@valenrn8657 Okay, but that doesn't make block 50/52 "new F-16s"
This F-35 wasn't even in it's full combat configuration. After 3F, even a combat loaded F-35 would be able to turn with, or maybe even out turn an empty F-16.
Its probably close. I seriously doubt it can keep up with a clean F-16 though. It probably cannot sustain 9g. I would imagine even on Block 3F the turn rate is similar. The point is though, clean configured vipers dont see combat. The F-35 probably does the same turn with 4 internal weapons, F-16 does not.
if they have same turn radius clean it means that the f16 will only get worst from there on with all wistles and bells attached. on plus the f35 has the stealth advantage long before they meet
Fuck that's pretty good. Looks like The F-35 has the lead for the first 120 degrees or so but then loses airspeed.
The min radius turn is only 7G. It's not the fastest rate of turn either, only the tightest
The F35 starting turning before the F16 in the footage. They need to correct the timing in the video.
They both start the minimum radius turn at about 85˚ bank angle. The F-35 just has much faster Instantaneous Turn Rate than the slick F-16C. The slick F-16C has better Sustained Turn Rate, which is why it completed the MRT just a bit faster. The F-35 can have full internal weapons and demonstrate the same performance, whereas the F-16 even with half-spent weapons after actions in the TGT area headed back home can't do anything like this because it's still in CAT III stores configuration throughout its mission profile, unless it jettisons the EFTs and only retains missiles on Stations 1, 2, 8, & 9. It will still have the ECM pod (please don't jettison that), as well as chin FLIR, so you will never see an F-16 execute max performance when combat-configured, unless you embed the sensors and ECM into the airframe and use CFTs vs wing tanks.
This was one of the main complaints from senior F/A-18 and F-16 pilots who put a lot of input into the JSF program. The internal weapons bays solved 2 major problems with one approach, and that was to provide a common mission stores configuration for the aircraft without degrading its aerodynamic shape, while also supporting VLO geometry of the RCS. The F-35 could have had 2 x 2000lb JDAMs and 2 x AIM-120s in this demo, and you wouldn't see a difference because those are nothing compared to fuel fraction.
There is nothing to correct in the video, and the only information I would add to it would be internal fuel state in lbs, airspeed, and Gs. Both appear to be doing well over 250kts to me, which is where the F-16 maximizes its STR in its Energy-Maneuverability profile.
Pretty damn close
Fighter mafia strikes again ❤
f35 can rate fight??!
real F35 turn in 1/2 the time a SU35 ... one just needs to make the F35 depart from controled flight and send the tail spinning up front and put the revs in the engine to the max and you get back from where you came from
ruclips.net/video/5hERYdmjZWA/видео.html
And you also gave the F-35 almost 3 seconds of advantage? To make it shorter in words and more clear...,the F-16C does it in around 16..17 seconds. The fat pig F-35 does it in no less than 24.
Is it almost 3 seconds or a full four seconds because those are different numbers lol
@@bennittotheburrito9606
Or... as they say...
@@MaverickSu-35 also even if the f-35 was given a “3 second advantage” it’s still faster than the f-18 and f-15
@@bennittotheburrito9606
Yeah? A 360 done jn 24 seconds means faster than in 20..22, isn't it? Your logic is better than the laws of physics!
@@MaverickSu-35 source on those numbers
That F16 is clean. Bull Shit comparison
So is the engine removable ?
Why wouldn't it be?
@@Hairysteed engines go bad
are they in a same speed? ... if not the video is irrelevant then
Show the whole video The F-16's speed was already drained while the F-35 was just pulling into the first circle. F-16 inst. turn rate is 26 deg/sec, sust. turn rate is 18 deg/sec. *F-35A Aerial Demonstration Debut at 2017 Paris Air Show inst turn rate 17 deg/sec sust. turn rate 10.6 deg/sec*
Prove your calculations.
From nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/new-report-details-what-31-us-air-force-pilots-who-flew-the-17266
3. A former F-16C instructor-and graduate of the Air Force Weapons Instructor Course (Which is similar to the Navy's famed “Top Gun” school)-said the jet is constrained on how tight it can turn (G-limited) now. But even so, the rudder-assisted turns are incredible and *deliver a constant 28 degrees of turn a second* . When the Air Force removes the restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.
Flight demo pilots enter the minimum radius turn at the most optimum cornering speed of the jet. Each jet has a different cornering speed. There is no handicap to the F-16 here. F-35A has better aerodynamic and kinematic performance than the Viper, especially combat-configured.
now do f35 vs mig 29
There's a video comparison like this of F-35A vs MiG-35 and the F-35 smokes it.
F-35s are better at turns.
Sorta like a Falcon vs a Turkey 😂
F-35 isn’t a turkey
Okay
Dude! A squadron of F-16s vs a squadron of F-35 is not going to end well for the F-16
F16😘💪👍
I like the f16 something about the f35 I don't like I would of made it alot faster it's to slow and turns ok I guess for all the money spent
too much latency for f 35
The viper is still the best the f16 is faster it also cooler looking the newer block 70 models has phased array rader like the f35 the only advantage the f35 has is stealth take that away there toast
The F16 was built in 1974. It was essentially cheap. The F35 is insanely expensive and should perform at least as well as a fucking 50 year old design. What the Hell am I missing. Were still making models of the F15 aka EX for Christ sakes. In all actuality pilotless drones are going to the most maneuverable.
The F35 is less expensive than 4+ gens out there. Like the F-15EX and the Eurofighter, bruh
a lot of money at stake here for Lockheed, funny how they have to keep comparing the F16 to the lemon F35, a really old airframe, looks as though General Dynamics had better engineers using slide rules
the F-16 is only slightly superior to the F-35 when totally clean (no weapons, pods, etc.) but when loaded they are the same with the F-35 having far superior high angle of attack capabilities and slow speed maneuvering.
General Dynamics in Fort Worth was bought by Lockheed years ago, 1993. Those engineers are now the Lockheed F-35 engineers.
@@michaeld1170
Basic wing loading without body and vortex lift.
F-35A
Empty weight: 29,300 lb
Wing area: 460 ft²
Wing loading: 63.04 lbs/ sq feet.
F-16C Block 52
Wing area: 300 ft²
Empty weight: 18,900 lb
Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet.
F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C.
F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C.
F-35A's 43,000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28,600 lbf.
There's a near-straight 1.5X scaling between F16C to F-35A on basic wing loading, engine thrust, and empty weight.
F-35A's wing area is influenced by weight growth and F-16C's empty weight wing loading target.
*F-35A would need a minor engine upgrade to maintain 1.55X scaling and engine upgrades are in the road map.*
I want to educate the learned Indians, Pakistan has very advanced fighters jets, JF-17 and SUPER F-16 , India has Migs which are from 1960 and are called the FLYING COFFINS , there is no match . 70% of Indian war equipment is obsolete because India has no money to spent on buying war equipment because the Indian army is so big that all the money is spent on their salaries . This is not my views this from New York Times . From USA.
F35
And if you pick two different pilots next time it will be the other way around , clearly they have an equal 360 degree turn. F-16 pilot was sharper & smoother coming out of it where as the F-35 pilot seemed to be dragging his a$$ ! Just a sharper pilot in the seat of the F-16 on this particular day.
okay; it turns as quickly/slowly as a tomcat. not great, but it'll do.
Bruh you’re stupid the F-14 turns at 15 degrees a second while the F-35 turns at 18.5 degrees a second which surpasses the F-15, F-14, and F/A-18 and is only beaten by the F-22 and F-16.
The Tomcat was a beast lmao
All depends on what 35 you're getting... most all the aircraft are not combat capable, and have different software. Can the 35 do a 9 g fully loaded.. probably not.
Yes, it can. The G-limits of the F-35 Block 3F's are non-dependant on combat load since those limits are in place to prevent overstress on the wings of the aircraft due to the increase of weight on the wings. Since the F-35 carries it's stores internally, it has no such limitations.
@Michael Legary what? No G limits during weapons being internal? Where did hear that BS😆... it has a stores management system that says you're dead wrong!
@@MrSteve8511 The W/SMS of the F-35 doesnt take internal stores into consideration when placing G-Limits on the airframe. Additionally, the F-35's Limit paddle doesnt care.
lol
fake, F-16 will remaain a better dogfighter
Ehm..no?
You could've read the heritage reports where the 9x merges and the butterfly maneuver are performed best in the F35, not the Viper.
yes if the F-16 has to fly Mach 2 with fuel tanks and CFT and bombs, and the F-35 flies with minimal tank, under Mach 1 and 1 Sidewinder
context: altitudes? Mach numbers mean shit without it
CFT = fuel tanks.
Consult the flight manual of the F16C and D to see the real speed at relative weight/payload too see the maximum IAS and/or Mach number at any given altitude.
The tl;dr is: with typical loadouts, M2 on a viper happens only in videogame. With that much drag induced by ordnance, only a handful of fighters can break the M1.
p.s.: on EVRY aircraft the maximum speed (in mach numbers) is not the absolute peak speed. It's the highest speed at which the a/c got tested. The F35A is capable of going above M1.9 because has enough thrust-to-drag, problem is no one knows if the wings would stay attached to the main body, lol.
The M1.6 figure was just an "agreed" speed suitable for all the 3 US services.
p,p,s: SuperBug, with maxed out take off weight, is only capable of M1.2 with AB engaged limited at 6.5g.
Internal carriage is a very BIG thing.
There is zero evidence that the Viper is capable of Mach 2 with a combat load(if that's what you're getting at with the CFT and sidewinder).
F-35 is 960 mph while cruising with 2x missiles and two bombs while the F-16 with weapons cruises upto around 690Mph. This is without the afterburner which cannot be used for a long time during a mission due to fuel consumption.
so uh, the f-35 starts the turn way sooner and finishes way later than the F-16? good thing it's good at BVR because if it can't even hang with current jets in a turn good luck against the future stuff
🤮🤢🤢🤮🤢🤢🤮🤢
Here's my opinion.. F16 is combat proven in many scenarios. It's still king of the hill if you take all aspects of a single engine jet fighter..
F35 is indeed impressive. However, it has 0% combat experience so far. So, until its proven its advanced technologies, I'm of the opinion that F35 has to prove itself before I'll consider it worthy of being used in the same sentence.
F-35I (based on F-35A) and F-35B has combat experience
Just an update: F-35Is, F-35Bs, and F-35As have been in constant combat operations for about 4 years now, from Israel, USMC, USAF, and UK.
Israeli F-35Is have been shot at by SAMs over 100 times, and responded by destroying the SAM sites. A highly advanced F-16I was shot down by Syrian S-200 5FEB2018.
If you look closely, people are trying to justify the amount of money thrown into the f-35 project by claiming it's superiority over a plane made in the 70's.
you realize the f16 is the most maneuverable aircraft in the world
Adrienne Flateau Nope.
Until you configure the F-16 for combat with wing tanks, bombs, and missiles. Slick, it's a beast with superb retained energy that few fighters have. If you look at the F-16's EM diagrams, it has a plateau, which can be seen in this demo. That goes out the window to some extent when you load it for combat.
Adrienne Flateau BS. Loaded for combat it’s an 800 knot jet and You can forget about 9-Gs. It’s just physics.
Thrme reason why rhe F-16 will be the better aircraft it can sustain a 9G rurn fully loaded a big selling point that why the 70 block is being sold its a effective multi role fighter
F-16 is very maneuverable at higher speeds while F-18 is very maneuverable (for minimum turn radius advantage) at slower speeds.
Thats fake !!!f 16 is the best fighter for close air to air battle....
Actually, Hornets are better at close range rolling scissors when compared to F-15 and F16.
F-22 and F-35's clean the floor with F-16s, Red Flag K-D's are ~182-5 for the raptor and ~31-4 for the F-35 (Whose only losses are reportedly to F-22s)
The f35s main purpose is to spend money. It's completely useless against 4th generation fighters.
20/1 Redflag
You'd have to do this video when both airplanes enter and exit the turn from the same aspect. I'd say its a tie. The Rafale would beat them.
F-16C BLK50 is the best in terms of sustained turn. Rafale cannot match. Rafale is better on instantaneous turn
First, nope. F16C clean cannot be beaten in a turn fight. Second, now try to do that with all the ordnance.
Block 50 and 52 are D variants, which are the heaviest variants of the Viper. C is, IIRC, block 30 up to 40.
Besides, the strength of F16 never been the STR, it lacks the raw thrust, but the cornering speed and roll rate. ITRs and minimal turn rates are its forte.
It's impossible for the F16 C to do this turn with ordinance.
There are F-16C Block 50/52. D variants are two seaters.