The F-35 Thread

[Sweep]

Skate, spot on!

 

Its in the "dogfighting report" or whatever people want to call it, btw.

 

Don't tell the haters that, though... :)

[Sierra99]

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

 

Air to Air training AND growing dependency on Air to Air missiles. Air to Air training is dogfighting, a discipline identified as a weakness for the F-35 and exactly what many think is made obsolete because of better Air to Air missiles and avionics.

 

The purpose of a Fighter should be to kill any aircraft it meets under the WORST possible circumstances...I.E. Not when it gets the first shot off but when it's down to pilot skill and close in weapons.

 

This is the area where I the F-35 has demonstrated it is lacks capability and we are setting future pilots up for failure. Not slamming the F-35... We're stuck with it. Just pointing out to the people who think dogfighting isn't necessary that we've been down this road before.

[Sweep]

BFM/ACM is not obsolete - Head-on, neutral merges are.

[StrongHarm]

The lack of A2A capability was a falsification started by a media outlet that slanders military spending at every opportunity. For more info (specifically on the trials involving the F-16) see:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2429493&postcount=2504

 

Also:

GGTharos makes some valid points about the direction of military technology. The USAF announced that the F-35 operated in Green Flag this year with several kills, more time on station and targets destroyed than the A-10, and was the only bird that took zero losses. Turn energy becomes irrelevant when the pilot can look down *through* the cockpit floor, immediately lock a bogie, and launch an all aspect missile at it with an OODA loop that takes a fraction of the time of all previous known sensors. This is a bigger technological leap than we saw between the F-4 and the F-15... and that's really saying something. But we have no context in which to judge this bird. With the attacks on this project by the media, an ambiguous mission profile, and the secrecy of the subsystems, that's really no one's fault. But I hope we're all too intelligent in these forums to believe that this bird is *a lemon* as they would have us believe. The F-15 and AH-64 killed a lot of pilots, went through many groundings and modifications, and generated much worse public opinion than the F-35 has.. and look where those birds stand now.. kings of the mountain. Never forget that the company that made the F-35 is the same company that made the P-38, F-104, F-4, F-16, not to mention the SR-71 and U-2.

 

A lot of us here were in the military. Think back to the one thing that shocked you the most when watching the news after becoming a civilian; civilians (especially the media) know nearly nothing about the realities of war, strategic planning, or military logistics... period dot. Of course there are a lot of sound bites out there aimed at swaying our opinions. The F-35 is enemy of the 'media state' second only to oil. They hate it not only because it's related to war (which we all know is an outdated concept now that we have universal harmony) but because it's money that they could put in their own pockets if it wasn't being 'wasted on that evil worthless war machine'. Best we realists look past all that and not let them provide our opinions and talking points to us. This isn't a Hollywood film where Jack Nicholson makes a bet with another general over the 9th hole that he can scam the country into making a plane that doesn't really fly. The U.S. Military is full of fighting men who understand what's at stake... and Lockheed (along with partners like BAE) have the proven ability to make breakthrough aircraft that always get the job done.

 

As to the A-10; I fully anticipate the F-35 can take the job over eventually and do it well.. just not yet. But you can't trust my opinion on that one.. I'm biased as hell because I do love that Hawg.

[Hummingbird]

What worries me agility wise is how well the F-35 will do in terms of sustained maneuvering, loosing energy fast is far from ideal in most situations - esp. if there's more than one bogey trying to get you and your high AoA maneuvering, however impressive it may be, isn't providing you enough rate to stay in trail.

[mvsgas]

What worries me agility wise is how well the F-35 will do in terms of sustained maneuvering, loosing energy fast is far from ideal in most situations - esp. if there's more than one bogey trying to get you and your high AoA maneuvering, however impressive it may be, isn't providing you enough rate to stay in trail.

 

Isn't that the way the F/A-18 fights? Slow with high AOA. Seem to work for those aircraft.

[NineLine]

Isn't that the way the F/A-18 fights? Slow with high AOA. Seem to work for those aircraft.

 

Yup, every aircraft has to fight to its strengths, I am not surprised to see more positive reports coming out as pilots get a grasp on what those strengths are and as the F-35 is improved/tweaked.

[Basher54321]

 

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

 

Rudder initiated by the pilot by stepping on rudder pedals, as opposed to any rudder movement initiated by the FBW computers.

[mikewmac]

Interesting discussion. My old VT ANG squadron will be the first ANG squadron to get the F-35A to replace their current F-16C Block 30+'s. :thumbup:

[probad]

providing you enough rate to stay in trail.

 

that is the issue here, why would you ever want to stay in trail? end him asap or get out. every second you spend in trail is one second an enemy wingman can come to support your target.

staying in trail means your enemy still isnt dead, staying in trail means you are not engaging the next enemy, staying in trail means you are occupied with not killing.

 

not killing is exactly what you dont want with a war machine

Edited March 3, 2016 by probad

[mvsgas]

Rudder initiated by the pilot by stepping on rudder pedals, as opposed to any rudder movement initiated by the FBW computers.

K, thanks

[Hummingbird]

Isn't that the way the F/A-18 fights? Slow with high AOA. Seem to work for those aircraft.

 

The F/A-18 brings lots of rate to boot though, it isn't just high five'ing the air :P

[mvsgas]

The F/A-18 brings lots of rate to boot though, it isn't just high five'ing the air :P

 

:huh:

[Hummingbird]

:huh:

 

What I mean is that the F/A-18 also maintains a high rate, it doesn't just have a high initial pitch rate, it can actually maintain a fairly high turn rate on top.

 

The F-35 on the other hand likely wont turn very well after the initial 70-90 degrees, i.e. its sustained rate is probably not very high.

 

But again IMO the F-35 was obviously never designed to be a dogfighter, and there's nothing wrong in that either. My worry is with countries buying it expecting it to do a certain job it was never specifically designed to master.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Hummingbird

[mvsgas]

K

[Hummingbird]

The F-35's DAS system is supposed to make maneuvering after the merge a thing of the past:

9fm5vfGW5RY

 

This goes some ways towards explaining why agility doesn't seem to have been prioritized as much in the F-35's design. A lot is being betted on the new sensor technology.

[probad]

it'll be important to remember that it won't be just be about the superior sa of the individual plane, but the f-35 was designed with a greater emphasis on networking to the point i would say it wouldnt be inaccurate to see each individual f-35 as only a module of an "f-35 array". i imagine the collective situational awareness across multiple f-35s would be staggering.

 

i think it's this concept that is really drawing foreign nations on board; the more elements you have, the more powerful the system gets. being able to jack straight into the biggest aerial complex on the planet is far more significant than a few degrees of sustained turning.

 

seems to me the f-35 sensors might even be overkill for a2a, rather, it's tuned for hunting even more slippery prey: highly mobile sam units ...but that's what officials have been saying since the beginning!

Edited March 4, 2016 by probad

[RoflSeal]

What I mean is that the F/A-18 also maintains a high rate, it doesn't just have a high initial pitch rate, it can actually maintain a fairly high turn rate on top.

 

The F-35 on the other hand likely wont turn very well after the initial 70-90 degrees, i.e. its sustained rate is probably not very high.

 

But again IMO the F-35 was obviously never designed to be a dogfighter, and there's nothing wrong in that either. My worry is with countries buying it expecting it to do a certain job it was never specifically designed to master.

 

F/A-18 sustained turn is almost that of the F-4 Phantom

 

 

[Hummingbird]

F/A-18 sustained turn is almost that of the F-4 Phantom

 

 

 

So you want to compare the sustained turn rate of an almost clean F-4E (4 missiles) with that of an F/A-18 carrying four missiles & three bags (one in the case of the E)? Yeah that makes sense :huh:

 

That the F/A-18 is capable of maintaining 10 deg/sec at 15 kft with that load out says it all really.

 

Btw the slatted F-4E was/is no slouch in sustained turn rate to begin with, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is better in this area than the F-35.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Hummingbird

[*Rage*]

The F-35's DAS system is supposed to make maneuvering after the merge a thing of the past:

9fm5vfGW5RY

 

This goes some ways towards explaining why agility doesn't seem to have been prioritized as much in the F-35's design. A lot is being betted on the new sensor technology.

 

Lol at the Typhoon slight. Turning is for noobs as far as the F35 is concerned:)

 

Nice system though.

Edited March 4, 2016 by ///Rage

[SkateZilla]

What I mean is that the F/A-18 also maintains a high rate, it doesn't just have a high initial pitch rate, it can actually maintain a fairly high turn rate on top.

 

The F-35 on the other hand likely wont turn very well after the initial 70-90 degrees, i.e. its sustained rate is probably not very high.

 

But again IMO the F-35 was obviously never designed to be a dogfighter, and there's nothing wrong in that either. My worry is with countries buying it expecting it to do a certain job it was never specifically designed to master.

 

LERX has alot to do with that,

 

Something the F-35 doesnt have.

[probad]

LERX has alot to do with that,

 

Something the F-35 doesnt have.

 

visually we dont see anything resembling a traditional lerx but the planes performance suggests there might be something similar at work.

 

the f-22 does not have anything visually resembling traditional lerx either.

 

the pakfa's levcons are functionally more akin to canards (in addition to being nearly the same sweep as the main wing) which also suggests actual vortex generation might be elsewhere.

 

i suspect it is the sharp lip running all down the sides of these aircraft that has a secondary function of inducing vortex generation in lieu of the lerx strake, especially the area in front of the wing. all 3 aircraft have very similar angles there, and it may be for more than just rcs reduction. with vortex generation it is the edge that matters, not so much the facing plane.

Edited March 4, 2016 by probad

[SkateZilla]

F-22 has pitch controlled thrust vectoring.

[probad]

I wouldn't overestimate VT; it's not some magic spell to be invoked. VT relies on pure thrust from the energy and so it will always be less efficient compared to that of aerodynamic surfaces which leverages already accumulated energy. As I understand it, actual usage of VT on the F-22 is rather sparing, especially in maneuvering. As described in that one Redflag pilot commentary video, Indian Flankers which used VT as a replacement for aerodynamic maneuvering found themselves at a significant disadvantage. There are also just many more significant uses for VT than maneuvering; for example the primary consideration for VT on the Typhoon is actually not so much for maneuvering, but rather supercruise.

 

What I'm trying to get at here is that the VT isn't some kind of silver bullet system that obviates the need for high performance aerodynamics. the F-22's base aerodynamics must already be stellar before the application of VT.

Edited March 5, 2016 by probad

[Emu]

Lol at the Typhoon slight. Turning is for noobs as far as the F35 is concerned:)

 

Nice system though.

There's actually so many things standing in the way of a dogfight now that the only way it can really happen is if a routine escort suddenly turns hostile, which would probably require a pilot to have a mental breakdown of some kind. When you think that an F-15 with no IRST hit a MiG-21 from 8.5nm (15+km) head-on with an AIM-9M in Desert Storm, you really have to question how an aircraft is getting past even longer range IIR AAMs combined with IRST in order for a dogfight to ensue. Seems to me that the bigger factors in manoeuvrability would be things like climb rate (for positioning), acceleration (for escape) and high speed turns (for evasion) in BVR - for two aircraft of similar RCS that is anyway.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Emu