FBWJust in case, I`m not talking about specific F-35 test, I`m talking about your general claims.
Then with all due respect, you’re missing my point. As my claims were not general, but were specific to what was being discussed . Your pulling in x-plane studies. What are X planes tasked with? Research flying.
If you want to argue th but not if we talk about tactical evaluation phase tests.
Exactly, you are discussing tests with a specific objective. Assess post-stall maneuvering, vectored thrust, etc. Some posters on here were talking about the F-35 study as some sort of BFM face-off between the F-16 and the F-35. Which it was not. I get the point your trying to make, but frankly it borders on argumentative without purpose. Read the thread first and you’ll understand the point I was making.
If you want to argue that pitting two fighters in DACT has the objective of finding out which one is better, I’ll disagree and leave it at that.
FBWThrowing figures around and using terms (eg Brayton, de Laval), maybe he should explain a few for the uninitiated fanboys, not just use them to bamboozle. ….
No offense, I don’t find Andraxxus posting his ideas (right or wrong on the F-35) half as arrogant as a poster quizzing him and others like a schoolmaster.
When you posted this:
Perhaps you could explain the difference between the F4J and F4K/M, why the K/M series are slower for instance?
I wanted to roll my eyes for him. First off, faster how? The Spey powered K/M had better acceleration a low level. At higher alt., the J79 powered J had a higher top speed, better climb performance.
In your response:
Again though my last question. Why were the F4 K/M series slower than the J? The engines were more powerful than the J (J79=J RB168=K/M). Because the the engines were bigger, the airframe was made fatter, the cross-section bigger. They accelerated faster than the J but by virtue of the larger cross-section, they had a lower maximum speed. It was common knowledge years ago and the butt of many an American joke over our a/c.
You omitted two other factors: While the Spey produced more sea level thrust, being an early turbofan, power fell off at higher speeds/altitudes than then turbojet J79. The Spey was also shorter and heavier, putting more weight aft. Lastly, in terms of “faster” the Spey took longer to spool up giving poor throttle response.
With your background, you could add to the discussions here without being didactic or pedantic.
FBWAs 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 trueif 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.
1. Not Irrelevant very true, the frustration the pilot expresses with the FCS is almost palpable. The pilot was fighting the slow pitch and yaw response and over corrective anti-spin logic.
2. The FCS can be adjusted. With any relaxed stability design there are margins that can be adjusted between stability and agility. To what degree they can be relaxed to improve agility would also depend on: issues with wing drop and buffeting. We know it was mostly the “C” version that experienced these. To what degree they could “decouple” the FCS to taking into account the different observed performance in the three models is an open question.
There was never a question of the report being “true” or untrue. The question was David Axe trying to present the test as something it wasn’t, and a few posters on here selectively reading parts they wanted without reading the purpose of the test, background, or thinking critically about what flight tests are intended to accomplish.
FBWIf this is so, they should let the X-31 fly alone and do its thing, collect the data and save the time and money with F-18.Instead, they have used the real F-18 as a opponent a did many different BFM`s and setups in controlled manner to put the “pilot factor” almost entirely out of the way.
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?
The goal of the study was, like the tittle says “EVALUATION OF PROPOSED AGILITY METRICS USING X-31 VS. F/A-18 FLIGHT DATA“, but the goal of the tests between the X-31 and F-18 was (like you have said) to test the suitability of post-stall maneuvers and thrust vectoring in WVR combat. In other words, they tested maneuverability of the X-31 against the F-18 in order to evaluate the the high AoA/nose pointing and post stall capability of the X-31. The Russians did the same thing with the Su-37, Su-30MKI and so on…it is common practice.
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.
And the conclusion of the study is: “The results indicate that applying these agility metrics to correlate with the win or loss of an engagement did not provide consistent predictions as to which aircraft would score a win”.
Exactly what I was saying in the above comments regarding WVR.
That is the reason we have such flight tests even today.
should have been more precise, because I wasn`t commenting your point about the F-35 tests (I haven`t even read the study, didn`t have the time), I just jumped in a saw your general claims like “It is pointless to test two aircraft against each other in BFM as a comparison” and so on.
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.
was not talking about DACT, Red Flag etc. I was talking about Su-30MKI being tested in the same way X-31 was and that is something different than the things you are talking about.
And what was the purpose of the test? Most likely it was not, “how good is the MKI in dogfights”
Though I didn`t read the report I agree with you because like I said, I wasn`t commenting about your view on the subject, but rather on your general claims.
Claims were specific, they were not made in a vacuum.
FBWI`m just picking your claims I think are highly questionable regardless of whether F-35 is/or is not a good dogfighter.
There is absolutely nothing pointless about testing two aircraft against each other in BFM and there are many reasons for that.
Here is one example:file:///C:/Users/bole/AppData/Local/Temp/ADA292573.pdf
This study only looked at a small sample of the flights between the X-31 and the F/A-18.
Yes I posted that study here quite a long time ago. Did you happen to read it? The tests were studying the suitability of post-stall maneuvers and thrust vectoring in WVR combat. Not some test of the WVR capability of the F-18. You are proving my point rather than disproving it. The goal was not to see if the X-31 was a better, more maneuverable fighter. As the study says, the X-31 was inferior in thrust and wing loading. The tests were to designed to study the new maneuverability metrics and their impact on tactics.
I don`t think that even today there is some form of agility metrics that can with 100% accuracy predict the outcome of the WVR fight between two different fighter planes, specially in the era of supermaneuverability. You have to do the real life tests to confirm all the data you have simulated. USA did it , Russians did it, and they are doing it right now.
This is partially true. There is no way to accurately predict the outcome in WVR between two different aircraft. There are too many variables. That is why simulations generally are run assuming pilots of the same skill level with weapon performance figured in. Real life exercises are dependent on so many variables outside of aircraft and sensor performance.
Both the pilot and the platform counts because there would be no point investing in new technologies and solutions if the pilot is the only thing that matters. Better platform can bring decisive edge in the fight if the pilots are equally skilled, or it can even the odds if one pilot is slightly worse etc.
Anyway, such test are conducted in controlled manner trough many stages, you don`t just tell the pilots to go up there and simply fight. All the results from every single test are put together for people to get the bigger picture. And because the WVR fight is a “fluid” thing, you can use the results and make all kinds of combinations in order to make the best combat tactics for every situation.
The skill of the pilot is reflected in the way he uses and implements that tactics/maneuvers in given space and time.
Simplistic argument, no one would disagree. This has no relation to the study we are discussing. Moreover, since you posted one study, go look at the thread I created where I’ve posted numerous studies on WVR combat. It is commonly accepted that the fighter with more thrust, better performance would dominate WVR. The studies have shown that is not always the case. In fact, the USAF codified this as “Everyone dies at the same rate” WVR. The simple truth is that 1v1 WVR, the better pilot with more experience will win the majority of the time. The study in question was not a test of the F-35’s WVR performance. How do I assert this repeatedly? Because I’ve posted the paper from the AIAA dealing with the testing, because you have pilots saying it was not, because of all the reasons I stated in the above post. Simply put, there is nothing to be learned about how the aircraft would do vis-a-vis the F-16. You have an aircraft that is not even done testing, where they are still working on the control laws. What would be gleaned using a test F-35 that does not even have full sensor and software capabilities? It would not be representative of a combat coded F-35.
E-M diagrams alone can`t tell the hole story.
For example, if we are to have EF2000 and Su-30MKI E-M diagrams, I can bet that our conclusion would be that the EF would wipe the floor with MKI. Reality is somewhat different.
Exactly, how much is pilots and how much is tactics? Are you claiming that somehow the MKI is superior WVR in every scenario? I would take issue with that. There are certainly areas that the MKI is superior, and others where the Typhoon shines. Who wins is dictated by how the pilots fly to the strengths and weaknesses of the platform.
Again, It seems that reality is somewhat different because they did pit different planes against each other in controlled test environment, like the Russians did with their Su-27, Su-37, Su-30MKI, Su-35S etc.
DACT is a common exercise in all air forces, different platforms, different strengths-weaknesses. Again, this is a simplistic argument. When the F-35 starts participating in Red Flag, etc. Then they will begin to learn to fly and fight the F-35, develop tactics. This study was not that time.
I took the time to answer your points,to be honest it is an interesting conversation, but not one that has bearing on the report in question. WE KNOW WHAT THE REPORT WAS TESTING. There are a few here who want to make more out of it.
Here is another, very interesting perspective on that: http://sabresandmigs.com/the-korean-war-revisited.html
The commonly repeated consensus was that the Mig was slightly more maneuverable and could out climb the Sabre. The knock was that the Mig-15 was difficult to fly at the edge of it’s envelope and was spin prone, with a poor oxygen system. The biggest complaint was that the cannon on the Mig were slow firing and the aircraft had a poor gunsight. But really, the two aircraft were close and it comes down to pilot preference. As far as a fight? It came down to pilot skill and familiarity with the machine as it most always does.
FBWnothing you posted there, Mig, removes the fact that the aircraft was to be flown BFM and ythat it didn’t perform up to expectations. The F-16 wasn’t only there as a reference point, as you guys claim, but as an adversary in a certain amount of maneuvers to which the F-35 could be compared in a dynamical environment.
it would even rather be the opposite, if the sole purpose of a test was to pull to high alpha and see what happens, you wouldn’t need an f-16 besides it in the first place (except maybe as a chase plane, but that’s about it)
OK, then please explain why they would do the test (ignoring that the reasons were already published)?
They would not be testing the F-35 vs F-16 in dogfighting, or a maneuverability comparison for the obvious reasons that seem to escape those who want to tout the study as “proof”:
1. It is pointless to test two aircraft against each other in BFM as a comparison. It is the pilot, not the platform that makes the difference. It is the pilot’s experience that makes BFM a worthwhile exercise. The more experienced pilot will prevail the majority of the time.
2. The pilot with more hours in their type will be at a huge advantage. A very experienced pilot with few hours on a particular type still has not learned the strengths and weaknesses of the airframe.
3. No tactics have been developed for the F-35, there is no DACT experience, maneuvers, no training to draw on.
4. They would not need to fly F-35 vs F-16 BFM to assess the maneuverability of the F-35. As an aircraft progresses through flight test, they develop E-M diagrams, fly the aircraft at different speeds, altitudes, weights to collect data points. With the F-35 entering limited IOC, you can bet they have enough data to compare the maneuverability of the F-35 to the F-16 without flying them against one another.
Conclusion? The test was what they said, a look at the control laws: deliberately putting the aircraft in a high AoA, dynamic environment such as BFM. The government is not going to spend millions on a pointless exercise like pitting one fighter against the other “to see how maneuverable it is” when they would learn nothing they couldn’t with flight test.
Added note- When the US received the Mig-15 a North Korean pilot defected with, Chuck Yeager was flight testing it in the Philippines. A Colonel wanted to know why the testing did not include dogfighting the Mig vs F-86 Sabre. Yeager replied that there was no point, the better pilot would prevail regardless of which plane he was flying. The Colonel did not buy this until Yeager beat him in the Mig-15, then they switched and Yeager flew the Colonel’s F-86 and beat him again.
FBWYou purposely cut aways the part mentioned high AoA control law
Lost cause Mig-31, he’s going to cherry pick and insist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In spite of: the AIAA paper describing the test being published, clearly outlining what the purpose of the test was
(I linked to it on the previous page), pilot interviews describing test, the very wording of the test, Obligatory thinks it was some sort of maneuverability face off between the F-16 and the F-35. Which on the face of it, is absurd because that’s not how flight testing is done.
FBWNo, i was actually quoting the test pilot, it is his briefing
Correction, you were quoting a part of a test report that suits you. Hardly useful as you didn’t understand the test points, or objective, nor the point of flight test reports in general.
FBWSure, my logic escapes me.. And yet, whatever claim or prediction the naysayers have made about the F-35 in the last 4 or so years, it all came true..
Conclusion: I will gladly stick to my escaping logic further.. Don’t know how, but it works !!In this case, I think the F-35 could pod the wings.. Upon ditching them, the pilot would not recognize much of a difference in the agility, anyway..
Have a nice day 🙂
Ah, reduced to one liners as logic failures add up:
Amongst my favorites from you:
Reading the Norway briefing and attempting to argue that the combat radius was “sensor coverage” – because you could not grasp that an aircraft’s radius depends on mission. Remember that one?
Your latest gaff- claiming that ETOS was too heavy and compromised performance, and a targeting pod is better. As the faults in your logic were pointed out, you changed your stance targeting is not needed for a pure air to air mission (though ETOS is also IRST), when I gave you the weights for the IRST systems on other aircraft, you stuck to the wrong headed believe.
Perhaps your biggest fail, trying to divide opinions of people who post on the F-35 as “fanboys” or “haters”. Black and white reasoning. As if someone cannot have a positive view on some aspects of a program yet still be critical. If you want to draw such a line, we can put you (with your many gaffs), Obligatory (who seemingly cannot read or interpret documents, nor draw conclusions outside of a his limited understanding), and whoever Tony is (he seems to be 12 and agrees with you so, kudos on that). I’ll comfortably stand on the other side of that line and parse through the B.S.
BTW, I do not work for Lockheed or Pratt & Whitney- though in full disclosure I do know several people who do (and they frankly are a bit more experienced and balanced than your “haters vs fanboys” views)
FBWIt’s exactly what we are doing..
Oh, the eternal victim attitude.. Who is purposely trying to harm this poor aircraft this time?
Was it before or after 130+ series F-15s were already built? 🙂
We’ve already seen how logic escapes you. So, are we still sticking to our guns that ETOS on the F-35 is superfluous and heavy? Yet the IRST on the Su-27 that weighs 200lbs more is critical equipment? Pretzel logic.
Maybe it would be better if they podded the AESA radar too. Then at the first chance of those all too common “guns only” encounters fighters could ditch the radar for that all important gain of 1/2 degree turn radius. Get a grip man!
FBWThe report clarify the objective right as the very first sentence
Wrrroooonnnnggg, I posted the information.
Again, by all means continue to look foolish. You WANT to read into it what is not there. We have the actual test points posted, the comments from a pilot in the USAF and you want to believe David Axe’s take? Go ahead, that means the Pak-Fa is garbage, the Typhoon is junk, and so on. Because those are his other pieces. Or is it just the F-35 piece that is true because you want it to be?
David Axe’s other works:
Trashing pak-fa
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-indians-hate-their-new-russian-mad…
Trashing J-10:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/05/go-ahead-china-copy-ou…
David Axe’s absurd take on Syria:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/30/did-russia-send-an-ant…
More David Axe B.S.:
http://www.wired.com/2011/01/old-school-jet/
David Axe postulating B.S. On the J-20:
http://thediplomat.com/2011/01/chinas-over-hyped-stealth-jet/2/
Dissmisssed!
For those who want to know about the person writing these articles- cut and paste the above. The links would not go through directly. Needless to say, some of our dear posters should be careful who we get “facts” from.
FBWThere’sa name for that attitude: denial
in obligatory’s post you have the original statement. Then you have communication to try to turn a failure into a non-event
when, in a few (or more) years, the f-35 performs so that some here are entitled to say “I told you so”, my bet is that most if not all among the others will brag: “naaah, everybody knew it would be that way…” just like with the “affordable” part of the project recently
Again, believe what you want. Above are the test points. Ignore them if you wish, and you are wrong about original statement. It is parts of a test report that was edited to remove sensitive data- the edited parts were released by “War is Boring”. Axe purposely was misleading about what the test points were.
I can post a test report from the 1970’s about the F-15 AoA testing. Shockingly, it also points out problems and flaws. That’s what tests do. You want to believe it was an “overall maneuverability” test- fine you too can make a fool out of yourself as many others have over this.
FBWit’s clear that this report is forgotten, time for a revival
Is this going to be like one of your charts that you repost ad nauseam? Its already clear you’ve no idea what you are posting. Please explain to us what was the test about? What was the scenario?
Again, here is the test explained BY AN ACTUAL PILOT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN5jZCVbGK4
For interested, here was the paper on which the testing was based:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21418
Here is a short summary:
From the 2014 AIAA paper “F-35A High Angle-of-Attack Testing”[1], authored by a Mr. Steve Baer, (Lockheed Martin “Aeronautical Engineer, Flying Qualities” at Edwards AFB), and presented to the Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference held between 16 and 20 June 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia we find that F-35 High AoA testing was designed to follow in the following progression:
“The test objectives for high angle-of-attack testing are as follows:
1) Characterize the flyqualities [sic] at AoAs from 20° to the control law limit regime with operationally representative maneuvers.
2) Demonstrate the aircraft’s ability to recover from out of control flight and assess deep stall susceptibility
3) Evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the automatic pitch rocker (APR)
4) Evaluate departure resistance at both positive and negative AoA with center of gravity (CG) positions up to the aft limit and with maximum lateral asymmetry.
5) Assess the handling qualities of the aircraft in the High AoA flight.”
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/
Sooo, what is your point again. Oh yes, you’ve no idea what a flight test report does. You still think it was an F-35 vs F-16 test. Fail…..
FBWRafale, before FCS limits, went upto 110° AOA About post stall recovery, noone know, including you.
??? Were you trying to respond to tomcat’s post about the Rafale and F-35? My post was referring to the F-35 and the results of the control logic tests. Made no claim about Rafale.
FBWAfaik, the F35 has superior AoA and Post stall angle attitude than a Rafale. We now know that those are respectively 50 deg and 90+ deg. The margin is not slight. It’s a wide gap.
Having the ability to stay in control in a post-stall manuver vs being able to respond quickly without fighting the control logic that is trying to stabilize the aircraft are different. Yeah the aircraft can do it. But as report says pitch and yaw are being dampened by CLAW to the point that it is tactically useless. The control laws can be fixed, Just not sure that it is highest on the software priorities right now.
Sign In
