I’m just gonna go out and state the obvious here.

If you’re crossing the Russian borders with bombers that means only one thing.
Having said that, he B-52 has other qualities which any Mach 3 bomber would not have. Unless you maintain flying at M3 20 meters above the ground!

And although I admire the tenacity of some people to reject reality and substitute their own, no, an M 3 bomber flying high would not be impervious to air defences. Actually it is pretty damn certain it would die a fiery death.

And you believe the report? I get it though it is a mindset. Sad that you lap it up!

Why believe any report then?

Spooling up was not a problem with the engines even in BLC mode, I did many a run on the test-bed. Their response was as fast, if not faster than other engine types. What do you compare it with, the J79? Reheat was a little slow in engaging to start with, that is why they improved it later.

I could add to the discussion without using percentages.

Getting back to the crux, a report that the F-35 cannot dog-fight is missing the point. Can it shoot down a/c and get away? That’s my question.

A 747 could in theory shoot down other aircraft and get away with it…. I don’t think that is the issue.

Other than wavedrag, which is highly irrelevant to BFM maneuverability as it is likely to happen below M0,9, cross-section has NOTHING to do with airframe drag, period. I suggest reading the pdf you posted. Specifically, focus on the formulae in section 2.2.
.

Are you saying that form drag does not affect the design? Because if it does, form drag is directly related to cross sectional area.

I get your point and agree, there was a specific objective to the test (as there are to all tests)- I also get that your trying to parse my comments into a broad interpretation. What I was referring to was F-35 test in question. There was also a specific objective to the F-35 CLAW testing, and it was not as some here are alluding to a test to see how maneuverable the F-35 was vis a vis the F-16, or who would win in a dogfight. Get it?

Yes, exactly. They tests were specific in testing new maneuverability metrics, as such were controlled in a way that highlighted post-stall, high AoA maneuvers. We both agree on that point. Where you are missing the point is that this test, or any test has a specific objective. Even this test was not an assessment of the X-31, or the Hornet in DACT, but of thrust vectoring and post stall effectiveness.

Exactly what I was saying in the above comments regarding WVR.
That is the reason we have such flight tests even today.

With the caveat that there are reasons to test aircraft such as the study you posted, testing new tactics/technology. What they don’t do is chose two dissimilar aircraft and said “have at it” with the purpose determining the maneuverability of one, or superiority in DACT. That is the root of the argument over the F-35 test.

And what was the purpose of the test? Most likely it was not, “how good is the MKI in dogfights”

Claims were specific, they were not made in a vacuum.

As this is dragging too long, I think it’d be better if we had some straight answers from both sides.

Do you FBW (or anyone else who agrees with you) believe that the “shortcomings” identified by the test pilot in that particular context of that particular test:

1.Are irrelevant but true
2.Will be corrected with the new FCS updates
3.Are not true

if your answer is 1, we all know where you are coming from and we can bring this to a close.

if your answer is either 2 or 3 you would be doing all us all a favour by explaining why it is 2 or 3 with some good points, not just beliefs and wishful thinking.

If you keep it short, we can also keep it short and reach some kind of meaningful conclusion.

Funny that this article is rarely mentioned.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/

Not surprising.

I would expect this to be the case. This is exactly what Rafale/typhoon pilots used to say.

In reality the systems found on the f-35 are offering unprecedented SA. In mock exercises were BVR shots kill 100% of the time and the other guys can’t see you you are gonna be king even if you are flying the stealth equivalent of a kite!

To be honest with you, if the F-35 is indeed as VLO as it is supposed to be then yes, it doesn’t matter how it flies. Up to the point were the other guys figure out were you are…

“Clear” indication is the purpose and meaning of the test. Lets replace F-35 with F-16, how would you test an F-16’s high AOA handling behaviour in dynamically changing conditions provided by another F-16?

At 15000 feet, starting at M0,9 leading F-16 would be instrucuted to make randomly changing scissors and barrel rolls, at 7G turns. F-16 can sustain 7G turn @14 deg/s with slightly positive excess power.

Following F-16, which is conducting its test flight, would be instructed to make a lead pursuit, with a predetermined angle to force aircraft to its lift limits. When this F-16 pull 9Gs, its at its AOA limit as desired, but its also at -800 fps excess power, causing it to slow 42 knots in one second if flight is conducted in level. With each heading change, leading F-16 would roll at 7Gs, but following aircraft would fly in its AOA limits, continuously varying between roll/yaw authority limit and clmax limit; testing flight control system and overall aerodynamics. While doing so, F-16’s lift limit excess power from 5,5G to 9G varies between -600 to -1000. So by each second, F-16 conducting max AOA maneuvers will slow down by 30-50 knots each second assuming level flight.

Also assuming vertical maneuvers are allowed, and 5000 feet safety deck, following F-16 will deplate all its energy in 14 seconds or so, and will be unable to turn with the leading F-16. If leading F-16’s pilot says “his aircraft cannot sustain energy as well as mine”, then he is an idiot.

While test conditions are arbitrary example, you definately DON’T use control aircraft in its limits. Why? Because you can’t guarantee test subject (F-35) will reach, fly and accumulate sufficent data at all its test points, before the F-16 reaching any single one of its own limits. There will be a big safe zone there so F-16 will not hinder the test, but merely provide a dynamically changing target.

Again, if tests purpose was to find actual energy maneuverability of F-35, it wouldn’t be conducted as such; Test would be to fly F-35 alone, with varying speeds and G loads. For example at M0,9 7G turn, if test equipment will measure a 1 knots per second acceleration, then engineers will calculate it as 26,3 fps specific excess power, draw its SEP graphs so that it could be compared with F-16’s flight test data factually: ON PAPER.

Only a caveman would think a pilot would be instructed in the lines of “hey go turn with F-16, see how it goes”, to see the maneuverability of the aircraft. There is a purpose to this test flight, just like a stall or spin test. Going beyond that is ignorance and stupidity of the pilot, not any different than saying “hey F-35 fell like a brick in its stall tests, but following F-16 didn’t, so F-16 is better than F-35″…

And we will not see any evidence, until F-35’s finalised design is introduced into service and we see it during airshows worldwide. Many F-16 operating countries will also operate F-35, then we will look at what pilots think about them.

Currently introduced F-35As fly with 4,5G limit, and will most obviously (at least to me) have worse maneuverability than MiG-31.

You don’t get my point by a longshot. It was a reply to “F-35 is too heavy”, “F-35 is underpowered”, “F-35 has too high wing loading” etc etc. None are true compared to F-16, and all the bragging on these issues apply more to F-22 than F-35.

What huge cross section? Frontal cross section has nothing to do with Cd0. If the term you are looking for is wetted area (Sw), to calculate form drag, then I would remind you about 50% more thrust on F-35. It sure as hell doesn’t have 50% more wetted area than F-16. I have 3d model of F-16. If you have 3d model of F-35 then we can numerically compare their wetted area. In any case, F-35’s larger dimensions allow for larger Reynolds number, and lower Cf.

However, lets not stick to details; since you missed my point, I will repeat myself; F-22, despite its IS fat and underpowered numerically, its performance is said to be an improvement over F-15. This is explained by the aerodynamic improvements made in 25 years which is supposed to reduce drag coefficients, primarily Cd0. F-35 is 32 years newer than F-16.

I ask; do physics or engineering apply to F-22 and F-35 differently? Both aircraft’s airframe differ from their predecessors with VLO shaping and internal bays. 5% improvement from F-16’s aerodynamic coefficents/curves will make F-35 better than F-16. Same 5% improvement will make F-22 inferior to F-15.

50% is very doubtful, I will have to ask a source about that.

Powerplant optimization doesn’t explain why F-35 should perform worse than F-16 at altitude.
F-35 has DSI, has 0,56 bypass ratio;
F-16 has pitot inlet with splittler plate, has 0,63-0,77 bypass ratio.

All the while, on F-22 vs F-15 comparisons, fact that F-15 has variable inlets featuring both internal and external compression mechanisms, is ignored.

Without disputing what you copiously wrote, let’s use logic.

The test was done.
The comments were made.
The pilot is not an idiot because he is a test pilot (+most pilots are not idiots)
The scenario in all likelihood didn’t play out as you outlined because the report stated “basic BFM in offensive, defensive and neutral setups”. That pretty much indicates that the F-16 wasn’t there to simply provide a visual que for the F-35 pilot. Besides they could have used another F-35 for that or a Talon!

To be honest, I am making an assumption here, that the F-35 limits were removed for the test. In my mind it is pointless to do the test with the limits on. I think it is logical to assume they were removed.