The F-35 Thread

[Rangi]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/trial-f-35a-deployment-smooths-path-for-first-combat-422316/

 

Test deployment, I would love to see that range. Also Mountain Home, what a lovely name for an airbase.

[mvsgas]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/trial-f-35a-deployment-smooths-path-for-first-combat-422316/

 

Test deployment, I would love to see that range. Also Mountain Home, what a lovely name for an airbase.

Click on images to enlarge

F-35As visit MHAFB

 

Two F-35As begin their take-off from Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, Feb. 18, 2016. Six F-35s are here to begin an operational deployment test at the nearby range complex. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Jessica H. Evans/RELEASED)

 

F-35As visit MHAFB

 

Maj. Ethan Sabin, 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron assistant director of operations, settles into the cockpit of an F-35A at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, Feb. 12, 2016. Sabin is assigned to the 31st TES from Edwards AFB, Calif., which is part of the 53rd Wing headquartered at Eglin AFB, Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Jessica H. Evans/RELEASED)

 

Lightning strikes in Gunfighter Country

 

Two U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II, also known as Joint Strike Fighters, taxi after landing at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, Feb. 8, 2016. The F-35, visiting from Edwards Air Force Base, California, will be part of an initial operating capability test at the nearby range complex. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Samuel Morse/RELEASED)

 

Mountain Home Range Fact sheet

 

Bold Tigers boom freedom during final day of international exercise

 

A U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier streaks low over a fictitious village as a show of force to enemy insurgents engaging U.S. Marines on the ground, during exercise Mountain Roundup 2013, at Saylor Creek bombing range near Mountain Air Force Base, Idaho, Oct. 16, 2013. German Air Force joint terminal attack controllers controlled the air support. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Kevin Wallace/RELEASED)

 

Bold Tigers boom freedom during final day of international exercise

 

A German Air Force AG-51 Tornado ‘plinks’ enemy tanks during exercise Mountain Roundup 2013, at Saylor Creek bombing range near Mountain Air Force Base, Idaho, Oct. 16, 2013. German Air Force joint terminal attack controllers controlled the air support and Tornados work in union with U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers, Republic of Singaporean Air Force F-15SG Strike Eagles and U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles during the final day of Mountain Roundup. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Kevin Wallace/RELEASED)

Edited February 25, 2016 by mvsgas

[StrongHarm]

Bing and Google maps both have some great close in imagery of the Saylor Creek Range. Switch to satellite view and look to the South East of MHAFB, about 130 for 20. Looks like they paint the tanks bright blue. It would be cool if we could toggle that color on all vehicles in DCS.. for those times when that last T-90 decided to hide half way through the side of a building...

[Heli]

 

[NineLine]

[Emu]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/171702/israel-reconsidering-purchase-of-f_35-fighters.html

 

A welcome decision made back in 2008 to purchase U.S.-made Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets no longer appears very attractive in 2016 – and Israel is considering backtracking on it.

 

I see it mainly as a ToT issue.

[Heli]

Graphic: Norwegian Air Force

 

The first Norwegian pilot to fly the F-35A has shared his experience on flying Basic Fighter Maneuvers against the F-16.

 

Published on the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office, Kampflybloggen, Maj. Morten Hanche said after clocking several sorties, he concluded that the jet allows (him) to be more forward and aggressive than (he) could ever be in an F-16.

 

For example, the stealth fighter’s higher Angle of Attack allowed him to employ his weapons earlier by pointing the nose where he desire.

The jet can also decelerate faster during a merge, allowing him more opportunities to point towards the F-16 opponent and generate more firing solutions.

 

The rapid deceleration is also advantageous in a defensive position as it forces the opponent to overshoot, he said.

 

Hit the source to read what Maj. Hanche, who had 2,200 hours on the F-16, has to say on the F-35.

 

http://alert5.com/2016/03/02/norwegian-test-pilot-shares-his-experience-dogfighting-in-the-f-35a/

[HiJack]

Official Program

http://www.slideshare.net/Kampfly_no/norwegian-f35-program-march-2016

[NineLine]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/air-force-f35-drops-first-weapons/index.html

 

Also talks about the above report on comparison with the F-16.

[IvanK]

That was actually a refreshing read

[Hummingbird]

The F-35 obviously boasts an impressively high initial pitch rate thanks to its awesome AoA authority, the articles make that clear, it's in the sustained turns however that it will likely struggle, so definitely would've liked a comment on that.

[probad]

this romance of the gunfighter thing is really silly imo. as i interpret it, the whole vietnam experience was not so much that the mig killed f-4s because the f-4s lacked guns, but rather the f-4 pilots felt frustrated about not being able to pick up what would have been free kills had they guns.

 

nowadays with more effective missiles, the gun and metrics important to gun tactics (like sustained turning) are even less important. being the first one to whip around to squeeze off a shot is everything now; the threat of a missile incoming far outweighs the threat of anything else as it creates a cascading series of disadvantages for the defender. furthermore, as missile engagement fields are expanding (talking hobs here), the issue of the enemy being able to creep away during a pursuit with a few extra degrees per second becomes negligible. in fact, slowing down while snapping the nose up is in fact better in this case as it ensures the missiles has room to maneuver.

doctrinally, sustained anything is kind of a bad thing to pursue. every extra second you are taking to engage your target is one second you cannot be supporting an ally and piling on your team's advantage. it is in your interest to end a fight as soon as possible and move on to keep the kill momentum going, so it makes sense to frontload all your advantages towards securing the initial advantage as quickly as possible. i think the us's weapon development history reflects an understanding of this; the us had agile missile and helmet mounted cuing way before the russians (who thought it was a great idea, and it really was), but there was a reason the us chose to use the money at the time to develop a stronger medium range option first.

 

the f-18 has already set a precedent here, having relatively bad sustained turn performance but similarly great deceleration and instantaneous turns. i trust there is probably some wisdom in the engineers deciding to go this way.

Edited March 2, 2016 by probad

[PiedDroit]

I find very funny they bring back this old debate (about trading your speed for one good shot) :noexpression:

You could read similar discussions about F-22 and the thrust vectoring, SU-27 and it's famous Cobra.

And about rapid deceleration being an advantage? :huh: Other A/C have airbrakes instead.

Edited March 2, 2016 by PiedDroit

[Sweep]

I find very funny they bring back this old debate (about trading your speed for one good shot) :noexpression:

You could read similar discussions about F-22 and the thrust vectoring, SU-27 and it's famous Cobra.

And about rapid deceleration being an advantage? :huh: Other A/C have airbrakes instead.

 

Its (rapid deceleration) good when your 2k offensive with high AOT/low AON...

 

Its also good when defending.

 

Where it isn't good is in a head-on, neutral merge...Why would a 5th gen VLO fighter walk into one of those?

Edited March 2, 2016 by Sweep
edited with quote...

[probad]

I find very funny they bring back this old debate (about trading your speed for one good shot)

You could read similar discussions about F-22 and the thrust vectoring, SU-27 and it's famous Cobra.

And about rapid deceleration being an advantage? Other A/C have airbrakes instead.

 

other factors have changed so the answers to the old questions have changed, that's the thing.

 

and airbrakes only slow you down, they don't slow you down and change your attitude at the same time haha. it's the combination that's important.

it's not something novel for sure, the eurocanards are also known for frontloading performance on the instantaneous turn.

 

Its good when your 2k offensive with high AOT/low AON...

 

Its also good when defending.

 

Where it isn't good is in a head-on, neutral merge...Why would a 5th gen VLO fighter walk into one of those?

 

what are you responding to?

Edited March 2, 2016 by probad

[PiedDroit]

other factors have changed so the answers to the old questions have changed, that's the thing.

 

and airbrakes only slow you down, they don't slow you down and change your attitude at the same time haha.

I see what you mean, deceleration using high AoA.

I'll read a bit a more on that because I'm really curious about why they suddenly boast about the AoA / first shot etc, when this was a known feature of this A/C, from the start.

[probad]

im v curious too because i think they are selling the plane to governments very differently than how they are selling it to the public.

 

is there a reason lockheed doesn't want to enlighten the public to the changing realities of air combat doctrine? maybe some other aircraft-producing countries haven't really come around to realizing the full implications of the bigger picture doctrinal shift that is going on and the us is essentially "letting sleeping dogs lie."

 

or maybe the clients already understand the trend shift and tacitly appreciate what the f-35 offers.

 

I see what you mean, deceleration using high AoA.

 

right yeah, and keep in mind this is also what makes it different than a move like the chakra and cobra, the combination of attitude+vector+velocity change is a lot more practical in applications than flipping around but still heading the wrong way.

Edited March 2, 2016 by probad

[Sweep]

what are you responding to?

 

See edit, put a quote in there.

 

Mainly the "how is that deceleration good" idea.

 

I have a bad habit of not quoting what I'm responding to (usually I edit real quick after posting...)

[Emu]

http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

 

By David Cenciotti

A Norwegian pilot shared his experience flying mock aerial combat with the F-35.

As we reported last year, the debate between F-35 supporters and critics became more harsh in July 2015, when War Is Boring got their hands on a brief according to which the JSF was outclassed by a two-seat F-16D Block 40 (one of the aircraft the U.S. Air Force intends to replace with the Lightning II) in mock aerial combat.

 

Although we debunked some theories about the alleged capabilities of all the F-35 variants to match or considerably exceed the maneuvering performance of some of the most famous fourth-generation fighter, and explained that there is probably no way a JSF will ever match a Eurofighter Typhoon in aerial combat, we also highlighted that the simulated dogfight mentioned in the unclassified report obtained by WIB involved one of the very first test aircraft that lacked some cool and useful features.

 

Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog), the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, has just published an interesting article, that we repost here below under permission, written by Major Morten “Dolby” Hanche, one of the Royal Norwegian Air Force experienced pilots and the first to fly the F-35.

 

“Dolby” has more than 2200 hours in the F-16, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate, and currently serves as an instructor and as the Assistant Weapons Officer with the 62nd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

 

He provides a first-hand account of what dogfighting in the F-35 looks like to a pilot who has a significant experience with the F-16. His conclusions are worth a read.

 

More at link.

[probad]

some interesting insights there, the f-35 seems to be designed to fly like a videogamer's dream. pull hard on the turns and and push hard on the burn.

At high AOA the F-16 reacts slowly when I move the stick sideways to roll the airplane. ... Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side.

struck me as a somewhat forced claim, rudder has always been the standard way of controlling roll authority at high aoa, but i dont have any experience with the f-16 so is it somehow not an option there?

 

the F-35 shakes quite a bit at high g-loadings and at high angles of attack, while the F-16 hardly shakes at all

really not saying much, as the f-35 yanks way past the f-16's max aoa. i expect the f-35 would be rock steady at 21 degrees. Edited March 2, 2016 by probad

[Basher54321]

struck me as a somewhat forced claim, rudder has always been the standard way of controlling roll authority at high aoa, but i dont have any experience with the f-16 so is it somehow not an option there?

 

 

On the F-16 no - with FBW when the pilot moves the (joy)stick, a roll command is sent to the computer to do the work. You could apparently depart it if rolling with stick and then using manual rudder under some conditions.

 

Typically rudder was used for rolling the older jets (at higher AoA values) where adverse Yaw was an issue (like the F-4).

Edited March 2, 2016 by Basher54321

[Sierra99]

this romance of the gunfighter thing is really silly imo. as i interpret it, the whole vietnam experience was not so much that the mig killed f-4s because the f-4s lacked guns, but rather the f-4 pilots felt frustrated about not being able to pick up what would have been free kills had they guns.

 

nowadays with more effective missiles, the gun and metrics important to gun tactics (like sustained turning) are even less important.

 

These very arguments are why F-4s didn't have guns...the fallacy of these arguments is why fighters since have always had guns.

 

Failure to learn from history leads to repeating the same mistakes. Assuming you will always get the first shot and never need the ability to dogfight is setting up pilots...as targets.

[GGTharos]

The lesson wasn't about the gun, it was about A2A training.

[mvsgas]

...struck me as a somewhat forced claim, rudder has always been the standard way of controlling roll authority at high aoa, but i dont have any experience with the f-16 so is it somehow not an option there?

Just trying to add more information to this:

- From the F-16CM -1 Manual

PROHIBITED MANEUVERS

b. Repeated maximum rudder reversals.

c. Maximum command rolls exceeding 360 degrees of

bank angle change.

e. Rudder rolls or rudder-assisted rolls of more than 90

degrees of bank angle change with any store on station 3, 4, 6, or 7.

h. Rapid rudder release or reversal above 300 knots/0.6

mach.

You could apparently depart it if rolling with stick and then using manual rudder under some conditions.

Additionally, Basher; what do you mean by "manual rudder"?

[SkateZilla]

i know someone in the USAF that stated that F-35 in the Mock combat scenario didnt even have a completely matured FCS Software code in it.. there were excessive restrictions on the F35 during that excercise.

 

Like putting a 2002 Corvette vs a 2015 Corvette ZR1, and telling the ZR1 he's not allowed to exceed 50% RPM, 70% Throttle Depression or 2 Lateral Gs.

Edited March 3, 2016 by SkateZilla