I thought that was odd too. About the only thing that would be “advantageous” would be that the pilot has clear feedback that the aircraft is reaching lift limits. Well, US designers are now 2 for 3 in having serious buffet in high AoA/G in recent fighters.

Hard to say how a rafale or eurofighter would compare once you consider they can’t even reach similar AoA….

Just went through the previous posts by Major Hanche shedding further light on the (at times nonsensical) debate that we’ve been having for the last two pages. Also, illustrates why a Rafale or EF pilot will have to choose between retaining agility and maintaining range & stealth (or as much stealth as they can manage). If you pile on enough fuel for it to keep up with the Flanker, you best reconcile yourself to creating a similar RCS too.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Modern Air Combat; The Right Stuff, Top Gun or something else entirely?

Many of my flier colleagues are curious about what the F-35 does in terms of pure performance; how fast, how high, how far? Performance has also been frequently debated in both newspapers and Internet forums. In this post, I therefore intend to look at how both “stealth” and performance can affect the outcome of a dogfight. I hope you understand that I can not share the “juicy details” but I do not think it is necessary to get your message across.

Modern Air Combat bears little resemblance to fly sequences known from his movie Top Gun. In Top Gun we see “melee” in the air; planes chasing each other with only a few tens of meters. When we exercise equivalent setup between two F-16, the goal is often to kill your opponent using only aircraft cannon. Usually starting setups between 1,000 and 3,000 meters. Within the distance has shrunk to 500 meters tend battle to be settled, without the help of missiles. Top Gun looks great, but it does not describe modern air combat. Training with cannon is not irrelevant, but modern air combat is happily settled before the pilots can see each other with our own eyes. Modern missiles have long range and is highly maneuverable. They also have reliable sensors and deadly warheads. When we consciously limit ourselves to only use the gun, it takes a lot for not a missile shot has ruled the fight a long time before there is talk of “dogfight”.

Air Combat is a ruthless arena. The outcome is influenced by many factors, including weather conditions, the aircraft’s maneuverability, range, speed, sensors, antidotes, weapons systems, visual and electromagnetic signature, the pilot’s knowledge, training level and will. I mean it is not possible to point to one single factor as the most important. The whole is composed. One weak area does not necessarily mean that the aircraft is poor in dogfight, but the properties must be balanced.

The most maneuverable aircraft has the advantage if it comes to “dogfight”. If I can ‘point’ own plane in the direction of your opponent, I can also accompany him with its own sensors and threaten all weapons. Yet it is not always so that most maneuverable aircraft winner. Modern sensors and missiles changes the balance in a dogfight. Our old F-16 is quite heavy in the butt when they are dressed up with all the necessary role equipment: External Fuel, målbelysningsutstyr, weapon mounts, weapons and equipment of electronic countermeasures. There is little left of maneuverability as the audience will watch a air display.

In return, our F-16 equipped with a helmet sight and a very maneuverable heat-seeking missile. Therefore, it is not as critical that our F-16 is not particularly manoeuvrable in armaments; our missiles are more maneuverable than any other fighter. Helmet Screened means that we do not need to point the nose of the plane in the direction of the opponent – we can “throw” a shot over the shoulder. Shot hardly escapes …

It is advantageous to have the fastest fighter. Superior speed makes it possible to obtain or escape an opponent. All javelin throwers user misses to throw as far as possible. Likewise it is an advantage to fly high and fast when a missile being shot. The missile gets more energy, which in turn increases the range, so that the missile can be fired by the longer distance. If we assume equally proficient pilots, equally good sensors and equally good missiles, it seems that raw performance alone can determine the outcome of an air battle – the flying fastest shoot first. Whoever shoots first wins often.

Pierre Spey and other critics have pointed out that the F-35 is not as fast or maneuverable as modern Russian fighter. In a previous section I argued that the performance of the F-16 at air display is theoretical and not available in a war situation. Combat aircraft like the F-16 carries the load out. This reduces the practical range, speed, maneuverability and maximum altitude. (This also applies to your opponent’s aircraft, which carries the load out).

With the F-35, we get more of all this, compared to what we are used to today. To discover how much more there was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 manages, without using afterburner. The speed in ‘cruises’ is 50 to 80 knots higher. In F-16 I have to use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 “cruiser” both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime.

F-35 also has more fuel than we are used to, it carries the load inside and is not as dependent on afterburner. Therefore we are left with more range than the F-16 and similar aircraft can achieve. “Combat radius” for the F-35 is between 30% and 70% longer than we get to the F-16! The extra range comes in handy in our country. The range may alternatively be replaced in endurance over a given area. This is useful for our small organization, which disposes tanker and relies on versatility at all levels.

Back to performance; perhaps it so that it flying as quickly shoot first? In this case, I take even one important reservation; both planes must discover each other at the same distance if kinematics alone shall be conclusive. My experience shows that this is not very realistic. In daily training between its own F-16, and in meeting with our allies, we experience in practice what radar signature and electronic antidotes means. Our old F-16 is “slim” in radar and is detected late, as compared with other modern combat aircraft. We also notice the effect of external load; the heaviest loaded aircraft is detected at the longest distance because the external load increases radar signature. I therefore maintain that it is unrealistic to assume that two militant fighters recognize each other simultaneously, although the sensors initially are equally good. The effect of radar signature and electronic antidotes are great.

If an opponent with “old-fashioned” radar signature meets an aircraft as the F-35, with very small radar signature, it becomes difficult to take full advantage of the superior performance provides. Imagine a meeting between a highly trained sprinter and a sniper. The mission is to shoot counterpart. Both are armed with hunting rifles, but only sharpshooter has a telescopic sight. Sprinter is known to give a more powerful rifle, but he is dressed in neon colored tracksuit, and take up positions on the short end of a football field. Marksman is camouflaged somewhere on the opposite track end. Sprinter is the fastest and the most powerful rifle, but what is he shooting at? While sprinter galloping across the field in search of his opponent, he must take shot after shot. This is not an even match. Unfortunately I have found that it is extremely frustrating to train dogfight when we can not find opponent with its own sensors. It ends rarely good.

The outcome of a dogfight between two identical fighter determined ultimately by the individual pilot. It requires time and extensive resources to cultivate a skilled pilot. Especially important is perhaps a steady supply of flying time, a good and constructive learning environment, availability of suitable airspace and an organization that facilitates training. During exercises have my colleagues in the Air Force and I have often flown against more modern fighter than our F-16. Yet, “wins” we sometimes air war against more sophisticated opponents, technically speaking. Often the explanation is that we are facing inexperienced pilots. More interesting is that maybe when we meet pilots with completely different culture for learning and collaboration. My impression is that cultures where the distance from the conductor to lead is large, fail to cultivate equally proficient pilots. In such highly hierarchical organizations, it is perhaps impossible to be honest with your boss in “debriefing” after the flight. Therefore, they miss out on important learning.

My point of this post was to show that many variables affect the outcome of the dogfight. Things are rarely black and white. One of the most diffuse might skill of the individual pilot. I am often surprised when I read cocksure posts in newspapers and comment fields. Common to many such posts is a “digital” interpretation of performance data. A speed XY, B speed YY = A is best, period. One problem is the source data referenced. Another is that it tends to focus isolated on a few parameters. Our experience with the F-35 so far has shown a fighter that will surprise many in air-to-air role. The combination of high performance, good sensors and low signature makes the F-35 into a dangerous opponent in air campaign. Finally; remember that even Arnold Schwarzenegger had to resort to lavsignatur in the old classic “Predator.” When using mud. Brute strength is good but camouflage works too …

It is really nice to finally have some detailed first-hand accounts of how the F-35 flies. After the incredible amount of venom and general ignorance directed at the plane over the years (look at the last couple pages of this thread alone…) it is nice to have a sane voice on the other side providing some actual context to the little snippets of information that have come out so far.

It is pretty clear that the F-35 isn’t an energy fighter like an F-16 but is more F-18/Mirage-2000 like in its approach to BFM. (Something nobody should be surprised to learn.) He consistently describes the F-35’s acceleration as excellent and its overall controlability as excellent. This is a completely different aircraft than the “bomber” the critics have claimed it is…

I’m just still in shock that F-16s and F-18s can’t intercept airliners.

This revelation is amazing.

General Characteristics, C and D models
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft.
Contractor: Prime: McDonnell Douglas; Major Subcontractor: Northrop.
Date Deployed: November 1978. Operational – October 1983 (A/B models); September 1987 (C/D models).
Unit Cost: $29 million.
Propulsion: Two F404-GE-402 enhanced performance turbofan engines. 17,700 pounds static thrust per engine.

From USNavy

pretty successful trolling though, if that was the goal. Nice work. you really bridged the gap from “Belgium should buy something for air policing” and “F-35 can’t catch an airliner” very nice.

Its amazing that the F-35 has 8 tons of fuel but no range.
the worlds most powered engine. But no power.
Wing area 92 percent of Rafale, and super hornet. 40 percent more than hornet but no lift.
Streamlined armed and fuel, yet high drag.
more acceleration to the F-16 and F-18, yet to sluggy.
fuel burn like super hornet, yet too much fuel burn.
top speed (with weapons) mach .2 slower than hornet and rafale empty and .1 slower than super hornet. yet too low top speed.
9G almost 2 more G than Super Hornet. but not G puller
all for plane that looks like tiny F-22.

You would have thought they would have something right. even by mistake

Even by the low standards of the F-35 hater crowd this has been a depressingly ignorant day.

The Rafale has a terribly draggy airframe actually, and its engines have incredible fuel consumption… it can’t go very far, or very fast, certainly it can’t intercept an airliner. Don’t ask me for a source or anything, anyone can see it.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-defining-next-fighter

Did Sweetman actually write that? Did he have a stroke?

What an utterly boring design..

Form follows function.

The Australian Defence White Paper has just been released.

As expected Australia has recommitted to 72 F-35A aircraft to begin operational service in Australia in 2020 and a decision on the Super Hornets will be made in the early 2020s for replacement by the late 2020s. Growler is expected in service in 2018 and will be periodically upgraded to maintain commonality with US Growler aircraft.

http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/

No real surprises for the future RAAF fighter fleet. F-35 was always the choice going forward and the Super Hornets were always viewed as an interim capability.

Interesting separate aviation reporting
– Potential/intended acquisition of two additional KC-30 AAR aircraft to bring the total to 9. This would be two additional above the two conversions that will be occurring over the next couple of years.
– Total P-8 fleet is expected to be 15 with a second tranche purchased and in service by the late 2020s supported by 7 MQ-4C Triton UAVs.
– Australian Army to receive an armed medium altitude UAV in the early 2020s.
– New short range air defence systems, replacement for RBS-70, in the early 2020s and medium range air defence by the mid to late 2020s.

Interesting non aviation white paper info
– Australia to acquire land based anti-ship cruise missiles.
– Commitment to 12 submarines.
– Future Frigate brought forward.

More good news for the F-35. Nice to see Australia being serious about its defense.

The USAF flying Yak-130’s ???

Great

Ken

It is hard to imagine from a political perspective and likely to be one of if not the least impressive aircraft from a kinematic perspective.