aaron886 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 WIB is becoming infamous for citing "unnamed sources." Amazing how little people demand in terms of proof.
Exorcet Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) True, it was the author who used the word "sneak." But, if authentic, it was the pilot who complained about being unable to see aft. I'm not so much talking about being able to look back, but getting to within a certain distance of the F-35 without detection. On paper it's impossible. Even if you can't look behind you, I would imagine that the DAS would display threat direction on the front panel and not just the helmet. I'd feel safe betting that you could not get within gun range of a F-35 undetected. You may not be able to get within WVR missile NEZ either. Assuming the source the true, I don't have a problem with the comments on the F-35's performance, after all I have no charts. It's the evaluation on what those performance limits mean in real combat that I don't think are water tight. Straw man? Anyway, if it's a bad source then I apologize for bringing it up.Not a straw man, some of the arguments really don't seem well thought out. APA lists the EF-2000 as a "low capability fighter" because it's not big enough to hold a large amount internal fuel and because it doesn't use a huge radar antenna I think. They then go on to list the F-15 as "high capability" because it's basically a bigger plane. This despite having less performance and inferior missiles. Particular F-35 gripes I remember reading is that it doesn't have a 30 mm cannon (so it's somehow completely inferior in a gun fight) a "Pac-man" RCS with the assumption that if the F-35 is not facing directly at a radar it has a big enough RCS to be seen and tracked for 10's, if not hundreds of miles. APA also loves to tout the Su-35's conformal fuel tanks (I'm not even sure if they're operational) while ignoring that the F-35 has better fuel fraction than the Su-35 on internals. In APA's world that means the F-35 is heavy and can't turn, but the Su-35's extra fuel means more range with no agility impact. No surprise to me either. They should have just made more F-22's. The F-22 is hard pressed to beat the F-35 in ground attack, though I wouldn't have minded if the F-15 was completely phased out and replaced with F-22's. Replacing the F-35 with the F-22 doesn't really make sense. Edited June 30, 2015 by Exorcet Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files
wilky510 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Calling it "hate" is a way to dismiss what has been said without actually addressing it. Probably has been linked before, but this Australian site is worth a look: http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html As some have said, APA was a good source until his agenda took over his reasoning and now the site isn't a good source of information for the F-35 alone. APA wanted Australia to get the F-22, and was pushing so hard for this, they kinda went a bit too far with attacking the F-35. BTW, most of his information is outdated, as an example: he rates the APG-81 as 1200 modules, when it's actually 1600~ modules. That's a huge difference of T/R modules and nothing to sneeze at.
Emu Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Isn't the F-16 limited to 5.5g with drop tanks? If so, how could it possibly out-perform a clean F-35A in a dogfight?
Emu Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Interesting: Why The "F-35 v F-16" Article Is Garbage | Fighter Sweep http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/
mvsgas Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Isn't the F-16 limited to 5.5g with drop tanks? If so, how could it possibly out-perform a clean F-35A in a dogfight? Depends on the tanks it is carrying and if they have fuel or not. G limits do not determine a winner in a dogfight, just part of a very large equation. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Erdem Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Interesting: Why The "F-35 v F-16" Article Is Garbage | Fighter Sweep http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/ That article is just horrible.
aaron886 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 That article is just horrible. I'll take an honest article written by a fighter pilot (and an F-16 driver) over WIB's un-sourced armchair garbage any day.
Python Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I'll take an honest article written by a fighter pilot (and an F-16 driver) over WIB's un-sourced armchair garbage any day. Me too, what was horrible about it anyway Erdem? It didn't really say much other than to not jump to conclusions based on one questionable article, just common sense. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Basher54321 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/ That article is just horrible. Nope - that one makes sense - and you would hope so considering it is written by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Lucas_From_Hell Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 While I have some reservations on the F-35, I think people behave like over-expecting parents with it. The degree of pickiness is just gone overboard. The F-35 doesn't have to be better than all of the aircraft in every single aspect, and people don't seem to grasp that. Its purpose is to increase the overall battlefield capabilities of the air forces it will equip, even if that means some performance trade-offs. Example: the F-4 at its inception also had terrible maneuverability (a 'jaca', as Brazilian pilots would say), no internal cannon and missiles with less than enviable performance. It still was a substantially more capable aircraft than the Century series aircraft it replaced, despite many of the latter being much better dogfighters and having a gun to finish their business once the missiles run out. Even if the F-35 fights worse than all present teen series aircraft, it can infiltrate heavy air defences more easily and probably without getting shot down as it happened to so many of the F-16s, F-15s, A-10s and so on in the same situations. It may indeed be in trouble if it flies low enough for IR SAM coverage, or if other fighters manage to scramble in time, find it and avoid getting shot down before being able to engage. Then yes, you are in trouble. In all other situations however, I would rather be in the F-35 than the F-16.
tflash Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Somehow I find LM's response besides the question and unconvincing. It seems to acknowledge the basic claim of tbe article: http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/ [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 It doesn't really acknowledge anything. Neither the original report, nor this response provide details that are useful to judge things by. The report is an anecdote and not an actual report, the response is just PR. Right now it's just a mess. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Erdem Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Here's the original BFM report: http://imgur.com/gallery/qBgy4/new#jlZlE2y https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb
Emu Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers
Emu Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Here's the original BFM report: http://imgur.com/gallery/qBgy4/new#jlZlE2y https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb So was the F-35 still operating with software-imposed g and AoA limitations? Edited July 2, 2015 by Emu
GGTharos Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 So the F-35 is inferior in energy (not terribly surprising), and the software is getting in the way of taking advantage of its high AoA performance, so the recommendation is to adjust the software. Reads almost like I'd expect to read about an F-18 fighting an F-16. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
ArkRoyal Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Personally the contents of this "report" seem extremely fishy to me. The lack of pitch rate etc seems explained due to this being a early F-35 with probably older control software, but I cant make sense of the energy deficit. It is extraordinary difficult to believe that the F-16 with two drop tanks had better EM than a clean F-35. Makes me wonder if the internal fuel loads were even remotely comparable, or if some engine limitation was present on the F-35.
GGTharos Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 There are a lot of factors, and the main thing is that these reports are taken out of context. The flight, if real (and LM seems to acknowledge this), was a test flight to determine these things specifically and to come up with ways to either fix or mitigate deficiencies. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SimFreak Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 http://www.jqpublicblog.com/the-little-fighter-that-couldnt-moral-hazard-and-the-f-35/ Article by John Q Public.
mvsgas Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 We all have seem this countless times. Aircraft "A" against aircraft "B" did "this" or "That". But we lack details. All is possible but we would need the specific to know one way or the other. Things like which version of the F-35 (A,B, or C) weight, what was the intent of the test, etc. For all we know they where testing RCS or IR emissions for the F-35 against known system. Decoy deployment at different flight regions. Was it a new pilot, trying to create a certain evolution of the training? When was the F-35 high AOA testing? F-35A was 2012 and F-35C was in 2014 AFAIK, when was the F-35B AOA testing? Some many details are unknown. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
mvsgas Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) I think this has far more interesting and credible information that all those news reports This is a direct PDF link FY 14 Annual Report If the "Dogfight" between F-16 and F-35 did happen and if it happened in January 2015, according to this report, the F-35 may have been under restriction dude to an earlier engine failure ( this was posted by by Heli earlier on this thread here) The point is, this news reports only concentrate on a specific part to push a specific point without mentioning all the information. What do you guys think? Does it make since to have a "Dogfight" with the F-35 when it is limited to 3.2 g ( according to the annual report) What would that test? What would the USAF, USN, USMC, or LM learn from such a test? Edited July 2, 2015 by mvsgas To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Emu Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 ^Yep: As a result of the engine failure that occurred in an F-35A in late June, the program imposed aircraft operating limitations (AOL) on all variants of F-35 aircraft at the flight test centers and operational/training bases. These AOLs were: - Maximum speed of 1.6 Mach (0.9 Mach for production aircraft at operational/training bases), - Maximum g-load of 3.2 g for test aircraft and 3.0 for production aircraft, - Maneuvers limited to half-stick roll rate and 18 degrees angle of attack - No rudder input, unless required for safe flight (production aircraft restriction only) - Note: In some circumstances during flight test (but not in operational/training aircraft), exceedances were permitted and testing continued, controlled by the flight test team monitoring the aircraft, on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis (i.e., individual aircraft are cleared for specific test points).
Recommended Posts