The F-35 Thread

[garrya]

People keep saying the F-35 can't dogfight, but no one can prove it, no has any -1 chart.

 

IMHO, the strongest point of the F-35, is data-fusion. You everything happening around you, I really like this concept.

 

Plus, the F-35 has the BARRACUDA EW suite, it allows the F-35 to use its jammer not only for self-defense, but also to attack.

 

There is an analysis made by an aerodynamic engineer about dogfight capabilities of F-35 and various others US platform in the link below, same combat missions are used in the comparison ( Most of his data is from flight manual)

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&start=285

Draw your own conclusions

Edited November 9, 2016 by garrya

[mvsgas]

I would like to quote Big Gen Pleus, USAF.

https://youtu.be/0zn0FHDhEK4?t=7m

I find it interesting that most of the people that complain about the F-35, have never flown the F-35...

[Hummingbird]

But why would you be in a level rate fight at 15k?

 

It was an example to illustrate that the F-18 is no slouch in the sustained realm and that its high alpha capability isn't what alone makes it deadly in a dogfight. In addition to this the F-18 has an abundance of available lift at low speeds, something I doubt F-35A has.

 

As far as I can see maneuverability was sacrificed for stealth & strike capability, which is fine, but it limits its useability for countries such as my own. You simply can't be good at everything.

[Hummingbird]

I know the Tomcat has a better turn rate, but dogfight is not just turning rate. :)

 

But yeah, you're right, it is not a good example, but you got the point, don't you?

 

I did, I just think the F-35 lacks the lift to make it particularly good in a WVR engagement, esp. one with multiple aircraft involved.

[Hummingbird]

There is an analysis made by an aerodynamic engineer about dogfight capabilities of F-35 and various others US platform in the link below, same combat missions are used in the comparison ( Most of his data is from flight manual)

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&start=285

Draw your own conclusions

 

Conclusion = mistake ridden to the point of uselessness

[The Black Swan]

The F-35 cannot carry the AIM-9X internally, so that's why Raytheon/Lockheed Martim is creating the CUDA missile.

 

The CUDA project is meant to replace the AIM-9, it would have medium range, radar guided and IR guided for terminal flight.

 

The CUDA has half of the AMRAAM size, it would allow the F-35 to have 12 CUDAs missiles internally.

 

https://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/

 

Where did you find that it has IR for terminal? I don't see it....

[Pocket Sized]

HEck.

 

I just spent like 20 minutes typing out a post about how the F-35 is pioneering FBW tech that will be passed to later aircraft. Then I accidentally hit the back button on my phone. Another time I'll come back and re-type it.

[Hummingbird]

HEck.

 

I just spent like 20 minutes typing out a post about how the F-35 is pioneering FBW tech that will be passed to later aircraft. Then I accidentally hit the back button on my phone. Another time I'll come back and re-type it.

 

I know the feeling, I deliberately keep my posts short when on the phone for that reason.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Where did you find that it has IR for terminal? I don't see it....

 

I don't remember where I saw it, but FlightGlobal mentions a multi-mode seeker.

 

According to a company product card being distributed at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida, the weapon is a medium range air-to-air missile with a multi-mode seeker.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/details-emerge-about-lockheeds-cuda-missile-382670/

[SkateZilla]

isnt CUDA mission Selectable?, ie you can use IR or RDR.

 

The missile has no warhead explosive, its a HTK missile.

[Fer_Fer]

The biggest problem of the F-35 begin and end with the JPO and Lockheed Martin.

[garrya]

Conclusion = mistake ridden to the point of uselessness

 

In what way? F-35A have very good ITR ( comparable to both F-15 and F-22) , and mediocre STR ( which still better than F-14D anyway)

F-35C have good STR, and mediocre ITR (which is still better than F-16)

Performance of F-35B is limited but it not like Harrier was extremely maneuverable or anything

The Tomcat is one of the best turning jets the US has ever fielded.

I dont buy this, unless we talk about turning as strictly ITR and ignored the structure G limits of it.

Edited November 9, 2016 by garrya

[Pocket Sized]

[quote=SkateZilla;2946877

The missile has no warhead explosive, its a HTK missile.

 

Wait, so it needs a direct hit to do any damage? That sounds... odd. I guess missile guidance has improved enough to make that viable?

[GGTharos]

Missile guidance has been good enough for this for some time now. Most heat seekers today can hit-to-kill, as can AIM-120's and a number of SAMs, most notably the hit-to-kill ballistic missile interceptors in any altitude band.

[SkateZilla]

Wait, so it needs a direct hit to do any damage? That sounds... odd. I guess missile guidance has improved enough to make that viable?

 

 

Remove Warhead and you can make the missile small enough to double what it carries

 

You dont need the Explosive Warhead to Take down an aircraft, hit it with a solid object moving at a specific speed or above w/ a specific shape, and the aircraft is pretty much destroyed.

 

 

As Far as F-35 w/ AIM-9X.

 

w/ the Sensor Suite in the F-35's, Pilot can look over his shoulder, lock the target and fire an AIM-9X and it will rotate 180 and hit a target behind the F-35.

 

So being on an F-35's 6 O'Clock isnt automatically safe like it is vs other 4th Gen Fighters that require nose on target to deploy IR or Short Range A2A Missiles.

 

So While the F-35 cannot "Turn Fight" with a super Maneuverable Aircraft, it really doesnt matter, If they are lucky enough to get close and within the F-35's IR A2A Missile's Range Bubble, They're Pretty much Toast, Pilot just has to look where the sensors queue him to, lock, Fox the AIM-9X, LOAL Data Link Kicks in, Aim-9 Can turn 180 degrees either direction on launch, Data Link will also predict paths of target.

 

There's testing w/ Delayed Ignition/Free Fall Launch and LOAL, Pilot can Lock Target, Fox Missile, It will Free Fall off Pylon/Launcher (not a Rail Launcher), Enemy Plane literally flies past free falling missile, Data Link tells Missile to Ignite and Hit Plane from the Rear.

 

Literally Dropping a IR Missile like a Mine, letting a plane fly past it, and then Data Link from Sensors tell missile to fire and hit target.

 

 

The Sensors are what makes the F-35 Lethal, not it's Sustain Gs, Max Gs or Turning Radius, the "Analysts" and "Field Experts" that claim the F-35 is a failure, never had any experience with the sensor suite and assume that any engagement would be a conventional 3rd/4th Generation Style turning fight.

 

Nope..

Edited November 9, 2016 by SkateZilla

[westr]

Always looks quite small until you see her against another aircraft and you realise actually shes bigger than you think...

[Hummingbird]

In what way? F-35A have very good ITR ( comparable to both F-15 and F-22) , and mediocre STR ( which still better than F-14D anyway) F-35C have good STR, and mediocre ITR (which is still better than F-16)

 

Nope.

 

The F-14's max ITR at 10,000 ft is 19.8 deg/sec @ 6.5 G's and 21 deg/sec @ 7.5 G's, but the aircraft can easily take 9 G as demonstrated frequently in service, which would put the max ITR somewhere around 24 deg/sec. More importantly however it can sustain 5 G's (14.2 deg/sec) already at M 0.6.

 

Sustainable load factors straight from the EM charts:

 

F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.2

0.3 = 1.95

0.4 = 2.95

0.5 = 4.0

0.6 = 5.0

0.7 = 5.3

0.75 = 5.6

 

F-16C @ 26,000 lbs w/ 2x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-120's + 2x FT pylons @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = CAT limited

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.7

0.5 = 3.55

0.6 = 4.5

0.7 = 5.5

0.75 = 6.0

 

F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.0

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.6

0.5 = 3.4

0.6 = 4.3

0.7 = 5.25

0.75 = 5.7

 

 

In short his chart is worthless as he's using the wrong numbers which he acquired from god knows where.

 

I dont buy this, unless we talk about turning as strictly ITR and ignored the structure G limits of it.

 

Do you really wanna go down that path again garrya, really?

Edited November 9, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Sweep]

Do you really wanna go down that path again garrya, really?

 

Down that path? You guys are adding vertical into this level-turn forum BFM?

 

:megalol:

[Hummingbird]

Down that path? You guys are adding vertical into this level-turn forum BFM?

 

:megalol:

 

:megalol:

[garrya]

but the aircraft can easily take 9 G as demonstrated frequently in service, which would put the max ITR somewhere around 24 deg/sec.

Which is not demonstrated in manual .You can argue that there are case where F-14 did turn over the maximum G limit stated in the manual. But an exception shouldnt be treated as the rule , and F-14 is not the only aircraft where pilot demonstrated higher G turn than stated in manual . F-15 did that before , so is Mig-25 , so is F-4 ,..etc and nothing to say that F-35C and B wont be able to turn more than the limited 7.5 G either. In fact one can say that if F-16 didnt have the limited , it can easily go over 9 G too , who know how many G those aircraft can take until the airframe break apart ? if we give F-14D the benefit of the doubt that it can go over the G limit , then why shouldnt we give the same benefit of the doubt to F-35A/B/C , F-15 ..etc ?

More importantly however it can sustain 5 G's (14.2 deg/sec) already at M 0.6.

 

Sustainable load factors straight from the EM charts:

 

F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.2

0.3 = 1.95

0.4 = 2.95

0.5 = 4.0

0.6 = 5.0

0.7 = 5.3

0.75 = 5.6

 

F-16C @ 26,000 lbs w/ 2x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-120's + 2x FT pylons @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = CAT limited

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.7

0.5 = 3.55

0.6 = 4.5

0.7 = 5.5

0.75 = 6.0

 

F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.0

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.6

0.5 = 3.4

0.6 = 4.3

0.7 = 5.25

0.75 = 5.7

From the manual when dogfight happened at 10k feet :

F-15 max sustained turn rate is 14 degrees/ second when speed is around Mach 0.85

 

F-14 max sustained turn rate is 14.1 degrees/second when speed is around Mach 0.65

 

 

F-16 max sustained turn rate at 10k feet is 14.25 degrees/second when speed is around Mach 0.85

 

 

Basically in term of sustain turn rate F-16 is on the lead with 14.25 degrees/sec followed by F-14D at around 14.1 degrees/sec , then followed by F-15C at 14 degrees/second . Different in sustained turn rate is slight . However ,the different at speed where they achieved their sustained turn rate is big , both F-15 and F-16 achieve that around Mach 0.85 while F-14 achieved that around Mach 0.65. So basically F-14 will have smaller turn radius , but F-15 , F-16 both have more excess speed to go vertical( they also enjoy advatage in T/W if i recall correctly ). Even in WW II vertical fight is important part of BFM combat.

And ofcourse one notable advatage that single engine fighter will enjoy is roll rate

 

To sum up i dont see why F-14D should be considered better (aka the best) in dogfight than F-15 , F-16 or F-35

In short his chart is worthless as he's using the wrong numbers which he acquired from god knows where.

No it isn't , the chart show sustained turn rate at Mach 0.8 , 10K feet while you only listed number until Mach 0.75 which is not where F-15 and F-16 start to shine , another thing is that he put all aircraft in the same mission profile (equal combat radius and afterburner time) instead of equalize fuel percentage

 

Do you really wanna go down that path again garrya, really?

Yes i would , simply not satisfy with your explaination

Edited November 10, 2016 by garrya

[Hummingbird]

Which is not demonstrated in manual .You can argue that there are case where F-14 did turn over the maximum G limit stated in the manual. But an exception shouldnt be treated as the rule , and F-14 is not the only aircraft where pilot demonstrated higher G turn than stated in manual . F-15 did that before , so is Mig-25 , so is F-4 ,..etc and nothing to say that F-35C and B wont be able to turn more than the limited 7.5 G either. In fact one can say that if F-16 didnt have the limited , it can easily go over 9 G too , who know how many G those aircraft can take until the airframe break apart ? if we give F-14D the benefit of the doubt that it can go over the G limit , then why shouldnt we give the same benefit of the doubt to F-35A/B/C , F-15 ..etc ?

 

1) The F-14 & F-15 both share the same ultimate load factor, the difference in the service load factor has to do with prolonging airframe longevity adjusted based first on carrier ops and then eventually on orders cut short and the production shut down. Initially it was to be cleared for 7.5 G's in service, 1.5 G's lower than the F-15 to accomodate for the extra stresses experienced during carrier service. However as production was shut down the airframes had to last even longer, thus the service load factor was dropped another 1 G.

 

2) The F-14 features no G-limiter, the pilot pulls what'ever G's he wants, there's nothing to hold him back, i.e. if he's in a pinch he can pull 12 G's no problem, he just has to be prepared for some bitching from the maintenance crew eventually - but tbh in a combat situation I think he could care less about what maintenance thinks. As the saying goes: "In combat there are no G restrictions".

 

3) Discussing performance above 9 G's is irrelevant as none of the aircraft (or pilots) can sustain this at typical WVR combat speeds, which btw usually take place at around M 0.5-0.6, not 0.85. Furthermore most aircraft are electronically limited so that they can't exceed 9 G's anyway.

 

 

From the manual when dogfight happened at 10k feet :

F-15 max sustained turn rate is 14 degrees/ second when speed is around Mach 0.85

 

 

 

F-14 max sustained turn rate is 14.1 degrees/second when speed is around Mach 0.65

 

 

 

 

F-16 max sustained turn rate at 10k feet is 14.25 degrees/second when speed is around Mach 0.85

 

 

 

 

Basically in term of sustain turn rate F-16 is on the lead with 14.25 degrees/sec followed by F-14D at around 14.1 degrees/sec , then followed by F-15C at 14 degrees/second . Different in sustained turn rate is slight . However ,the different at speed where they achieved their sustained turn rate is big , both F-15 and F-16 achieve that around Mach 0.85 while F-14 achieved that around Mach 0.65. So basically F-14 will have smaller turn radius , but F-15 , F-16 both have more excess speed to go vertical( they also enjoy advatage in T/W if i recall correctly ). Even in WW II vertical fight is important part of BFM combat.

And ofcourse one notable advatage that single engine fighter will enjoy is roll rate

 

 

You don't seem to grasp the relationship between G's & deg/sec.

 

The lower the speed you can attain your highest G's the smaller the turning circle, and if at the same time your max rate is similar to the opposing plane well then you've got him in a turn fight as that means you can trade more speed for angles than he can.

 

To sum up i dont see why F-14D should be considered better (aka the best) in dogfight than F-15 , F-16 or F-35

 

It's a tighter & generally faster turning aircraft than those three that's all, and probably by a lot compared to the F-35.

 

No it isn't , the chart show sustained turn rate at Mach 0.8 , 10K feet while you only listed number until Mach 0.75 which is not where F-15 and F-16 start to shine , another thing is that he put all aircraft in the same mission profile instead of equalize fuel percentage

 

Again, dogfights don't take place at M 0.8 or above, that's a typical merge speed, once the turning starts speed quickly drops as each aircraft tries to gain angles on the other. A more typical dogfighting speed is around M 0.5.

 

Yes i would , simply not satisfy with your explaination

 

Correction: You don't believe the official EM charts.

 

 

Anyway to get back to the F-35A, the area where I think it will fall short is in sustained maneuvering performance. Now wether or not this will turn out to be a major weakness we just don't know, but obviously all its advanced sensors are there to make sure that maneuvering performance basically doesn't matter at all - infact if they work as advertised then actual maneuver combat will die out altogether, the missiles will be doing all the turning.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Boagrius]

Anyway to get back to the F-35A, the area where I think it will fall short is in sustained maneuvering performance. Now wether or not this will turn out to be a major weakness we just don't know, but obviously all its advanced sensors are there to make sure that maneuvering performance basically doesn't matter at all - infact if they work as advertised then actual maneuver combat will die out altogether, the missiles will be doing all the turning.

 

This is what it boils down to. US doctrine (quite rightly IMO) does not treat post merge WVR combat as a good way to obtain favourable kill ratios. HMD cued HOBS missiles simply make fighting in the "phonebooth" too much of a coin flip for any manned fighter you care to throw into the mix.

 

Hence, they have moved away from "dogfighting" towards killing the enemy from BVR ranges or at least in the pre-merge - leveraging the technological lead they enjoy over the competition in VLO technology, sensors/ISR and networking.

 

The F35, like any jet, must be judged on its own merits and it has plenty of them. I think it's fair to say that the F35's particular combination of VLO, sensors, networking capability, EW suite and aerodynamic performance is unprecedented. To relegate it to the strike role going forward seems bizarre and wasteful given what it is likely to bring to the air to air arena.

 

Even in the "phonebooth" (which is only a small and diminishing part of the overall air to air combat domain), SACM is already in the pipeline to provide an internally storable WVR missile. With "insta-cueing" via EODAS, the F35 is pretty well placed to excel there too, albeit as a Plan B (or C/D/E/Z) contingency.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Boagrius

[garrya]

1) The F-14 & F-15 both share the same ultimate load factor, the difference in the service load factor has to do with prolonging airframe longevity adjusted based first on carrier ops and then eventually on orders cut short and the production shut down. Initially it was to be cleared for 7.5 G's in service, 1.5 G's lower than the F-15 to accomodate for the extra stresses experienced during carrier service. However as production was shut down the airframes had to last even longer, thus the service load factor was dropped another 1 G.

And neither of them has the same 9 G ultimate limit as F-16 or F-35A

 

2) The F-14 features no G-limiter, the pilot pulls what'ever G's he wants, there's nothing to hold him back, i.e. if he's in a pinch he can pull 12 G's no problem, he just has to be prepared for some bitching from the maintenance crew eventually - but tbh in a combat situation I think he could care less about what maintenance thinks. As the saying goes: "In combat there are no G restrictions".

The same can be said about F-15 , F-4 , Mig-25 ..etc all of which excess the advised G limit in service , but we dont draw a new ITR for them

 

3) Discussing performance above 9 G's is irrelevant as none of the aircraft (or pilots) can sustain this at typical WVR combat speeds,

sustain combat may be no , but if he's in a pinch then i dont see why they cant use it to escape or get in opponent's tail

 

which btw usually take place at around M 0.5-0.6, not 0.85.Again, dogfights don't take place at M 0.8 or above, that's a typical merge speed, once the turning starts speed quickly drops as each aircraft tries to gain angles on the other. A more typical dogfighting speed is around M 0.5.

I would have to call BS on that. Pilots will always use aircraft to its strength rather than the opponent strength ( hypothetically ,if an F-16 has to dogfight with a Spitfire, the pilot not gonna do the slow turning fight ) . And there is no point designing the F-16 that perform best at Mach 0.85 if dogfight only happened at Mach 0.5 , it not like F-16 need to be an interceptor or anything.

 

Furthermore most aircraft are electronically limited so that they can't exceed 9 G's anyway.

modern aircraft such as the Rafale have an over G switch where pilot can turn off the G limiter so that he could excess the G limit , the question is whether F-35 has one or not.And that doesnot seem like a complex thing to make (Actually come to think of it, F-35 has been tested to 9.9 G, so obviously either its limiter is not stopping at 9 G or it can be switched off)

 

 

 

You don't seem to grasp the relationship between G's & deg/sec.

 

The lower the speed you can attain your highest G's the smaller the turning circle,

yes , i did said F-14 has smaller turning radius

 

 

and if at the same time your max rate is similar to the opposing plane well then you've got him in a turn fight as that means you can trade more speed for angles than he can.

And he has more available speed to trade for altitude or ITR. Then bigger T/W will give him easier time regain the losing speed in a turn too Hypothetically speaking , a piston fighters from WW II have very good turn rate at slow speed , that doesnt mean they are superior in dogfight combat to modern jet

 

 

generally faster turning aircraft than those three that's all, and probably by a lot compared to the F-35.

As demonstrated in flight manual ,Its sustained turn rate isnt superior to all, and it achieves the max turn rate at lower speed along with a lower T/W , which means inferior vertical fight performance. Then twin engine often lesser roll rate too.

 

Correction: You don't believe the official EM charts..

what ?????? , iam not the one who draw ITR outside the chart , and all information i just posted can be see clearly on the graph too

 

 

 

Now wether or not this will turn out to be a major weakness we just don't know, but obviously all its advanced sensors are there to make sure that maneuvering performance basically doesn't matter at all - infact if they work as advertised then actual maneuver combat will die out altogether, the missiles will be doing all the turning.

I never said F-35 would depending on turning to survive , in fact i believe that turning is of lenser importance after the introduction of HOBS missiles

Edited November 10, 2016 by garrya

[Bushmanni]

Again, dogfights don't take place at M 0.8 or above, that's a typical merge speed, once the turning starts speed quickly drops as each aircraft tries to gain angles on the other. A more typical dogfighting speed is around M 0.5.

 

Small turn circle is useless in a situation that demands good STR performance. The only advantage is that you need to accelerate less to get to optimum STR speed but this applies only in the case where you start slow for some reason. When you are fighting a slow radius fight, it's all about minimum turn radius and controllability at slow speed.

 

So there's no need for F-16 for example to slow down to slower speed than where the jets performs at it's best when in a rate fight. At slow fight the F-14 seems to not be better either so F-16 has the advantage there also. Tactically there's no middle ground between radius (slow speed) fight and rate (higher speed) fight. In essence it matters little if F-14 has the advantage at M 0.5 if loses in max rate and in min radius.

 

You should start practicing dogfighting to gain a better understanding of what matters and how much as you are assuming way too much. Turn rate numbers alone won't tell the truth as there's lots of other variables that determine what you can do with the jet and what you can't. For example, by the numbers Su-27 in DCS is superior to F-15 in gunzo but it's actually not the case because of factors not captured by simple performance numbers. They are pretty much equal or F-15 slightly more likely to win, as long as F-15 doesn't start prolonged turning with the Su-27. The trick is that F-15 has acceleration and climbing capability that it can use to keep the fight neutral. It's also superior gun platform in head to head shooting so as long as the fight stays neutral, F-15 has better chance to score a kill. F-15 has also much better agility and more responsive controls in general that makes jinking and tracking jinking targets easier giving F-15 shooting opportunities that the Su-27 can have. You can't see things like these in turn rate numbers and hence make a relevant conclusion about fighting capabilities of a plane.

 

As an extreme example WWI biplane has mind blowing STR numbers but it would still easily lose to WWII plane or a modern jet in a turn fight. It's similar situation between WWII plane and a jet.

 

In documentaries US Navy pilots tell that F-18 is better than F-14 in dogfights while F-18 is supposedly inferior by simple performance numbers. How do you explain this?

 

As long as STR and ITR turn rates don't give decisive advantage to the other plane, other things are likely to be more important factors. How much difference is decisive depends on how big differences the planes have in other areas. In the end the better plane is the one whose best tactic works better than the opponents best tactic. What this tactic is could be pretty much anything in which the planes are different enough in a matter that affects factors regarding weapons employment.

[Hummingbird]

The claim that Navy pilots find the F-18 better than the F-14 in a dogfight is a gross generalization that is simply not true. You've had Navy pilots flying opposite planes claiming the opposite about each others aircraft, which is common within the field (USAF F-15 vs F-16, USN F-18 vs F-14 etc). The actual truth is in the EM charts, anyone claiming otherwise is fooling themselves, period.

 

That having been said the F-18 has it's advantages in a fight with the F-14, and vice versa, the F-14 having the better STR & climb rate, whilst the F-18 has its extreme nose authority and I would assume a similar ITR. But the F-18 is NOT the F-35, the F-18 most likely possesses both a higher ITR & STR over the F-35 at the most common dogfighting speeds, which after a few passes usually stabilise themselves around M 0.6.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Hummingbird