hopsalotF35 has indeed excellent stealth and an exceptional sensor package…no doubt. However despite the later reports I remain unconvinced by its maneuverability. Those reports are not all neutral and often pieces of PR.
Sufficient for a tactical aircraft but I don’t believe it will be able to match 4th gen aircrafts. No wonder it remains very shy at air shows after all those years…the few public demonstrations completely fall behind other 4th gen aircrafts.
What part of this is unclear?
1. Even with developmental restrictions that limit the F-35A’s responsiveness and ability to maneuver, every U.S. fighter pilot interviewed would pick the F-35A over his former jet in a majority of air-to-air (dogfight) engagement scenarios they could face.
2. A former F-15C instructor pilot said he consistently beat his former jet in mock dogfights.
3. A former F-16C instructor—and graduate of the Air Force Weapons Instructor Course of “Top Gun” fame—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.
31 elite fighter pilots who have flown the F-35 were surveyed and the information was actually made public. What exactly is your standard of proof? Can you show me a similar report about any other fighter in the world today?
hopsalotMy observations: speed recovery advantage of the F-35A vs F-16C seems to show that all the targeting pods have substantial drag. F-15C was probably the most unencumbered.
The F-15C was flying in a real-world air to air loadout. (What an F-15C would be carrying after jettisoning its tanks.)
The F-16s and F-15E in this comparison are in an air to ground configuration after dropping or jettisoning their tanks and air to ground ordnance.
The F-15C was certainly the least encumbered, but that didn’t stop the F-35 from winning consistently per the comment of the one F-15C pilot.
It will be interesting to see what an up-engined F-35 can do. If I recall, the F135 isn’t making full use of the F-35 inlet, since there’s currently enough flowrate to accommodate a more powerful motor. Block 1 improvement of the F135 that (if properly funded) should be in service in 2023 is supposed to provide up to 47,300 lbf of thrust, so it will be interesting to see what an F-35A with full 9g envelope and Block 1 F135 would do.
“Eye watering” was the term used by the F-16 pilot, and that wasn’t even referring to the up-rated engine.
Overall the F-35 seems to have roughly similar maneuverability as 4th generation aircraft. It’s may be nothing special, but it will still be very dangerous in a dogfight.
Here I disagree. How do you read “nothing special” from these comments? The pilots are describing a jet that is consistently beating the F-15C in WVR, no mean feat that… and it is doing it with a 7G limit in place. (Remember also that the F-35’s biggest advantage is in BVR)
Think about that, an F-35 flying into badguy land can drop its bombs and out-perform an F-15C in WVR. That isn’t “nothing special.”
hopsalotwhat is known is that goals were lowered until F-35 passed the threshold of acceptable,
it was deemed too difficult to improve performance to the point where it would at least match F-16.
….and then we have to withstand pilots and internet warriors shouting how close of a match to F-22 raptor the F-35 pig really is
Obligatory : “F-35 is a pig”
Actual pilots:
1. Even with developmental restrictions that limit the F-35A’s responsiveness and ability to maneuver, every U.S. fighter pilot interviewed would pick the F-35A over his former jet in a majority of air-to-air (dogfight) engagement scenarios they could face.
2. A former F-15C instructor pilot said he consistently beat his former jet in mock dogfights.
3. A former F-16C instructor—and graduate of the Air Force Weapons Instructor Course of “Top Gun” fame—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.
If only I knew who to believe, elite fight pilots who have actually flown the plane, or internet fanboys… :rolleyes:
hopsalotThis report is perfectly consistent with what the “naysayers” have been saying for years.. that this flying brick will have hard time to match even an F-16, despite the 180 odd kN thrust installed.. and that the “almost F-22 for a price of a Viper” thing claimed by the fanboy brigade ain’t happening.. of course, the fanboys (and Beesley) have silently abandoned this tirade and shifted the goalposts towards an F-16 since then, but my memory is still very good..
The heritage article proves one thing.. that one can’t ever get disappointed if the goals are set low enough.. I am guessing Russians won’t need polls regd. whether the T-50 flies better than a MiG or an Su-25 because that’s freaking self-explanatory..
my $0.02 only..
I never considered the possibility that you were simply functionally illiterate. That would explain a lot actually…
100% of pilots surveyed would prefer to fly the F-35 over their current aircraft in a BVR engagement, by far the most important metric.
Even when you restrict the comparison to a WVR fight the overwhelming majority of F-16 pilots would choose the F-35 over the F-16.
:stupid:
hopsalotJust a few samples:
For an example I will never call F-35 a lemon (also because I love eating lemons) just a flying brick, meaning that it, despite its excellent engine and trust to weight ratio is the slowest one of the lot (and probably also the one with the lowest climbing rate as they have still not published it) due to its own high drag.
About the scores of tri service professionals enjoying a thirty years dev tempo on a single aircraft type I just have the impression that they have spent most of this time in correcting inherent defects of the project instead of making some real progress in its flying performance…
with the F-4 the USA have proven to the world that a brick could fly, providing you put enough thrust in it…” , well, the F-35 is a second proof of the same idea… it needs a 20t of thrust engine just to manage comparable performance to a modern 4th gen fighter (which does it with half that power, usually)
Lukos, the problem ain’t that the F35 is stealthy, the problem is that it flies like a brick because it had to fit on a LHD.
Nic
what I find revealing, but not surprising, of the true nature of that aircraft is that, not only it doesn’t maneuver as a dogfighter, but you can’t see behind you (something absolutely necessary for dogfighting). At first, pilots complained because of the huge headrest and fuselage masking rear view… criticism that was pushed aside as the pilot can look through the airframe, thanks to the picture projected on his helmer visor… inthe end, the rear view problem is still there, even if the helmet works as advertised simply because unless you let a cameleon fly the thing, your pilot still has his eyes on the front side of his head (meaning: he MUST turn his head to see behind, be it with of wothout projection in the helmet) and, according to that test, there isn’t enough room under the canopy to turn your head around during combat. Basically, again, it is a strike platform, made to go to target, drop whatever ordnance it was decided to use to destroy it, and go back… it is not supposed to fight other aircraft, unless when, exceptionnally, it gets caught.
This brick of a bird should be the counterweight of future adversaries? Then we are seriously FUBAR.
hopsalotAgree. On the overall i think that the opinions of the pilots are more or less what we were expecting. That this particular bird excels in the ATG scenario should be no surprise, and being a mach 1.6, 9g´s (or even 7g´s), with a LO airframe and equiped with cutting edge avionics… thats a very, very dangerous adversary for virtualy everything that flies today (or in the foreseable future).
This report is perfectly consistent with what most informed observers have been expecting, but there have been legions of fanboys who have been deriding the F-35 as a “flying brick” for years.
hopsalotGripen needs 600 meters of Runway, and everything you need to handle the aircraft on the ground fits into two trucks.
Gripen can be serviced by a ground crew of 6, including one expert and 5 conscripts.
Using dispersed bases is routine for the Swedish Air Force.
The F-35 was not designed for this type of operation, and I suspect the requirements of an F-35 base
is much more complex.
Actually, the F-35B is designed for exactly those sorts of operations. Don’t let that slow you down though… :rolleyes:
DSO Defined- Distributed short take-off, vertical land (STOVL) operations (DSO) is a threat-based limited objective operation which occurs primarily when the entire MAGTF cannot be brought to bear against the enemy. DSO asymmetrically moves inside of the enemy targeting cycle by using multiple mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-FARPs). Using existing infrastructure (multi-lane roads, small airfields, damaged main bases), DSO provides strategic depth and operational resiliency to the joint force. DSO, coupled with the 5thgeneration low observable forcible entry capability of the F-35B, provides the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) with game-changing strategic access inside of the enemy weapons engagement zone (WEZ). The ability to operate inside of an A2/AD environment from multiple austere locations enables the joint force to have operational depth while simultaneously providing a strong deterrence to adversary aggression.
DSO Characteristics- Can be executed with sea based or land based logistics and land sites. Shared logistics assets (whether from ships or main bases)support numerous dispersed M-FARPs through mobile distribution sites.-Austere M-FARPs enable concept to be implemented at the time of crisis rather than requiring years of infrastructure preparation.-DSO can rely on a passive defense if not operating in the vicinity of a main base or from a damaged main base airfield. M-FARPs are only active for a limited period of time to operate inside of an enemies targeting cycle (24-72 hrs). Deception and decoys further increased the efficacy of DSO.-Scalable in size, DSO can range from MEU sized F-35B divisions supported by MV-22s/CH-53s to MEB sized multiple squadron packages. The specific footprint ashore is scenario based for designated M-FARPs.-During the early phase of operations, the air combat element (ACE) is the supported effort and the ground combat element (GCE) and logistics combat element (LCE) are the supporting efforts in order to deploy and employ STOVL aircraft in an A2/AD environment.-DSO study (Feb ‘14)) has proven the concept is logistically feasible using organic MEU/MEB air and surface connectors along with maritime prepositioning ship squadron (MPSRON) and Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships.-Scheduled aircraft maintenance conducted on sea base (LHA, LHD or a coalition carrier, such as the UK’s Queen Elizabeth II) or at main base away from threat. DSO provides high sortie generation through fuel and ordnance reload inside of the threat WEZ.
See slides 37-38
hopsalotAll of this, obviously if we would live in a normal world, let’s say one in which the next twenty years acquisitions of both countries would not be already completely sold out, body , mind and a.s.s.holes to the F-35 or the T-X program would be not completely made up i.e. rigged on in order to avoid any honest chance of a T-100 victory…:apologetic::apologetic:
Setting requirements that are too high for older designs to meet is “rigging” the competition?
The USAF will have at least three competing teams with trainers capable of meeting the requirements… NG, Boeing/Saab, and KAI/LM. They really don’t need to lower the bar to achieve competition.
hopsalotLots of good news lately.
Even the critics have given up on calling everyone with any direct insight into the program liars.
hopsaloti think the radar is a good cue where to look, i’ll agree f-35 would have lower ir signature than a sukoi, but not an f-16
Which radar? The one on the AWACS? The one of the F-35 that is emitting? Or the ones on the F-35s that aren’t emitting? You realize even if you were able to detect one of the F-35s near you you wouldn’t likely have reliable range/speed information and you would have no idea how many you didn’t detect.
That is where these fanboy arguments always fall apart. An IRSTS is a useful tool and certainly it is better than nothing, but they aren’t capable of substituting for a radar in any general sense. That is why radars remain the primary sensors of all fighters flying today.
As for estimating the F-35’s IR signature… good luck. There is simply no information available. We know that the F-35 was designed to minimize its IR signature and that a great deal of effort was put into doing so, but that is about it.
hopsalotwhats stopping non-F-35 from using their EOTS ?
You mean IRSTS? Only the F-35 has EOTS…
hopsalotFYI MAWS/MLD are switched off on fighters in simulated fights vs F-35
:stupid:
hopsalotI don’t totally disagree, but there are missile departures warning stuff for that.
Of course, but those systems are still uncommon among operational aircraft and they may or may not have the range to detect a launch.
hopsalot@tactical-benny, an accurate calculation, but the problem with claimed Pk (IMHO that is what Amiga500 tried to say, but failed badly in the process), is very much independent from the actual firing scenario.
You fire a AIM-120B at 100km againist an incoming target with ~300 m/s closure rate at ~16 km altitude. What is your Pk? It is what manufacturer claims IF target does nothing. It is ZERO if target does so much as putting a 30 degree angle, without even reducing its speed.
Lets put stealth out of discussion for the sake of argument, if 4xF-35s and 4xSu-27s can exchange their R-27REs and AIM-120Bs at 100+ km range, none will hit. Exchange them at 60-70 km range, they will still fall short if target simply turns 60 degree and still maintaning target lock to its target. Note that those are not hard evasion maneuvers, just gentle turns without even requiring countermeasures.
If target Su-27s drop down to <5km altitude, and when you launch AIM-120s from so little as 10-15 km range, there will still be conditions Pk will be zero, which will be achievable by putting 180 degree to the missile. One can’t even talk about a certain reliable Pk if you fire AIM-120 at less than 7 km range, as this time it will be effective againist tail-on targets, but a high speed approaching target will be immune to it.
Problem with F-35’s 4 AAM limit is, (again without stealth), would you fire your missile at 100 km or even at 60 km? If you do, you will be forcing your opponent to act accordingly (and waste some of its energy on it) but surely be wasting your missile, but if you dont, enemy aircraft will approach you unhindered, gaining both KE & PE, maneuvering to a more advantageous position to fire at you. Again in the above scenario, Su-27 can fire its first R-27RE missile at 100km, second at 60, then 30, then 20, throw a pair of R-27TEs somewhere along the line, and will still have 4 R-73s to merge and finish off if all those R-27RE/TEs fail to hit.
With stealth in question, obviously all such scenario would play differently, but since F-35’s potential adversaries would be equally stealthy, missile count in internal bays will eventually turn out to be a problem.
You are of course correct that it is possible to defeat a missile kinematically, but you also hit on one of the F-35’s key advantages… to defeat a missile in that manner you need to know that there is a missile in the first place. In a scenario where two 4th generation fighters are facing off both would expect to see and be seen by their adversary. When/how they fire their missiles is where a lot of the tactics come into play. A longer ranged shot would be easier to defeat, but holding your missiles until closer range has risks as well.
If an F-35 were flying against a 4th generation fighter the F-35 would expect to be able to choose when/how it fired more or less at will. Its opponent might only become aware it was in danger when the incoming missile went active, far too late to initiate the types of maneuvers you are describing.
hopsalotMarine Corps F-35B Stealth Fighter Is Ready for War, General Says:
-The Marine Corps expects to send its first squadron of F-35Bs to Japan in January ahead of a deployment with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit.
But there’s nothing stopping the Marines’ two operational squadrons of 5th-generation fighters from deploying earlier if called upon, Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said Friday.
“We have a unit that’s ready to go right now,” Davis told Military.com following an event at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. “If we think we need to do that, we’re ready to do that.”
Davis alluded to the Marines’ F-35 deployment plan, which calls for the permanent relocation of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 from Yuma, Arizona, to Japan at the start of next year and two subsequent F-35 deployments with Marine Expeditionary Units by 2018.
If a combatant commander calls for a unit to deploy for combat or for another contingency mission, Davis said it would be necessary to re-evaluate those plans.
“Do we keep that on track, or do we do something different,” he said. “That’s up to the national command authorities.”
In an address to the think tank, Davis bragged that the F-35 had been “phenomenally successful” in recent tests that required the aircraft to locate and destroy targets and face off against notional enemy fighters.
“We’ve got a jewel on our hands,” he said. “Everyone who flies a pointy-nose aircraft in the Marine Corps wants to fly this.”
Earlier this month at the Farnborough International Airshow, Davis’ deputy, Col. William Lieblein, said the Corps plans to deploy F-35 squadrons aboard three MEUs and aboard one aircraft carrier by 2021.
Davis confirmed Friday that, in addition to the deployment of VMFA-121 from Japan with the 31st MEU, a second squadron would go out on a pump with a West Coast-based MEU in 2018.
Davis’ comments align with those of Air Force Gen. Hawk Carlisle, head of Air Combat Command, who told reporters this month that he would be ready and willing to deploy the F-35A Air Force variant of the aircraft at the behest of the relevant combatant commander as soon as the Air Force declares initial operational capability, which could happen as soon as early August.
The comments refute criticisms about aircraft software glitches and technical issues, including a dense report released this year by the Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which raised concerns about maintenance downtime and software delays.
“Some of the technical challenges facing the program will take years to correct, and as a result, the F-35’s operationally demonstrated suitability for combat will not be known until 2022 at the earliest,” staff with the Project on Government Oversight said of the report in a blog post.
On Friday, Davis noted that the F-35 was not only a capabilities boon for the Marine Corps, but an opportunity to retire aging AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets that are nearing the end of their service lives.
The Marine Corps recently pulled 23 Hornets out of the “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona to help the service maintain its combat and training presence until more F-35B squadrons are activated. The Marine Corps currently has two active F-35 squadrons, with three more planned to stand up by 2020.
“We’re going to get out of those airplanes as quick as we can,” Davis said. “And the only way we can get out of them is when the F-35s arrive.”
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/07/29/marine-corps-f-35b-stealth-fighter-is-ready-for-war-general-says/Just more good news for the F-35. This can’t be healthy for the psyche of the F-35-contras. If news comes out of Red Flag that F-35B’s were able to beat F-22’s…. Oh boy.
These are exciting times for the USMC. Going from a bunch of beat up old F-18s and Harriers to the world’s most advanced fighter. It is a big leap forward.
I wouldn’t wait around for a bunch of accounts of F-35Bs flying against F-22s. These aircraft both have plenty of much more urgent and useful stuff to do.
Sign In
