The F-35 Thread

[GGTharos]

This lists old stuff at least some of which has been fixed.

 

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/the-little-fighter-that-couldnt-moral-hazard-and-the-f-35/

 

Article by John Q Public.

[Basher54321]

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.

 

 

 

 

The actual leaked report was posted earlier - doesnt give much but includes what was being tested, some config and pilot experience

 

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

 

 

No denial on the leaked report.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/01/pentagon-says-damning-report-of-f-35-troubles-doesnt-tell-the-entire-story/

 

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog

[Basher54321]

So was the F-35 still operating with software-imposed g and AoA limitations?

 

This has some info on the BFM tests in January and may give some idea - may need to register

 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

[tflash]

It is perfectly possible that the F-35 Thunderchief II had some difficulties against the Viper (Block 40!), but then again as said in many posts: it all depends on the software that was being tested, and flight control software in these kinds of jets is something that keeps evolving. I guess that on the basis of this report, if it was indeed the case to gauge dogfight capabilities, adjustments to the software will be made.

 

There was a lot of positive news also these weeks about the F-35, which seems to me much more relevant:

 

The F-35B did hundreds of operational flight test flights from the USS Wasp. In fact , this is a opening up a quantum leap in capability. Not only is there no discussion whatsoever that the F-35 is in all domains superior to the Marines Harrier it replaces (stealth, supersonic flight, range, payload, avionics, flight controls, ...), there is more:

 

The US Navy fields 8 WASP-class amphibious ships. With the F-35B on board, these are now credible aircraft carriers able to strike from further at sea. Given that many other nations only field one or two carriers at best, the idea alone that the US Navy on top of its existing carriers will now field 8 extra ships with supersonic, stealthy aircraft capable of deep strike is shifting balances even further, to say the least.

 

In light of that this dogfight story really does not mean much, in the first place maybe while the F-35 isn't even meant to engage in these kinds of dogfights.

[wilky510]

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.

Bit curious myself, i think an F-35 with 50% or less remaining fuel would be quite deadly. It would be comparable T/W with a F-16 block 40.

 

This Report just seems "off". I'm not saying the F-35 can be worse than the F-16, just feel like we're not getting the whole story.

[Basher54321]

Bit curious myself, i think an F-35 with 50% or less remaining fuel would be quite deadly. It would be comparable T/W with a F-16 block 40.

 

Too simplistic - even if the empty weight figure is accurate a static thrust figure gives no idea of actual dynamic thrust in flight - and then you need to account for Drag which is another unknown.

 

EM charts would be better.

[StrongHarm]

I think we can probably take a story leaked by "War is Boring" with a grain of salt. This was a sliced up version of the F-35 used to do flight sciences testing.. kind of like the NASA F-18s covered in weather gear... which would probably lose a dog fight against an F-4.

 

Here's the article:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/01/pentagon-defends-f-35-after-report-says-it-cant-dogfight/

 

Pay special attention to the OODA and aspect capable weapons comments. This is what I do for a living, and I can tell you that clean information delivery always makes the difference.. in military or business context.

[Sierra99]

I think we can probably take a story leaked by "War is Boring" with a grain of salt. This was a sliced up version of the F-35 used to do flight sciences testing.. kind of like the NASA F-18s covered in weather gear... which would probably lose a dog fight against an F-4.

 

I'm not sure how you can take a report Labeled EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION - FOUO with a grain of salt. The report clearly states the aircraft configuration, Clean Wings, no weapons load and software version.

 

Are we going so far as to say the report is fake?

Edited July 3, 2015 by Sierra99

[Sierra99]

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.

 

The paragraph on page 1 titled OBJECTIVE sums all of these things up pretty clearly...

 

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?

 

Nope

 

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?

 

Not relevant to the discussion. "Objective of test was to test High AOA control Laws"

 

Some many details are unknown.

 

Actually a pretty through and concise report. Now that being said...in all fairness the objective was flight control law testing...Software. And that can be changed to allow more G better control etc. That doesn't change the fact the aircraft bleeds maneuvering energy and visibility is hampered by the HMCS .

[mvsgas]

I'm not sure how you can take a report Labeled EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION - FOUO with a grain of salt. The report clearly states the aircraft configuration, Clean Wings, no weapons load and software version.

 

Are we going so far as to say the report is fake?

 

The question is which one do we believe? Both the FY14 annual report and the F-35A high AOA operational maneuvers are both dated the same. The former stating the F-35 has several flight limitation, the later stating the opposite, which one is correct or accurate?

 

I for one can't with any honesty say one way or the other. They both seem legit. At any rate, the F-35 high AOA operational maneuver pages seems to recommend software improvements for the FLCS and the Helmet. I wonder if those improvement where able to achieve any different result or if the F-35 is beyond any help on high AOA maneuvers?

[mvsgas]

Not relevant to the discussion. "Objective of test was to test High AOA control Laws"

How is High AOA testing not relevant to high AOA control laws ?

Edited July 3, 2015 by mvsgas

[Sierra99]

The question is which one do we believe? Both the FY14 annual report and the F-35A high AOA operational maneuvers are both dated the same. The former stating the F-35 has several flight limitation, the later stating the opposite, which one is correct or accurate?

 

I'd think an annual report is compiled and readied for dispersal weeks or more in advance of when its due and "May" contain less than accurate date. (Note I said May...Have no clue when L/M does such things.)

 

I for one can't with any honesty say one way or the other. They both seem legit. At any rate, the F-35 high AOA operational maneuver pages seems to recommend software improvements for the FLCS and the Helmet. I wonder if those improvement where able to achieve any different result or if the F-35 is beyond any help on high AOA maneuvers?

 

Agreed. "Stress High AOA Control Laws" indicates software testing / validation which I get. However, that doesn't solve the energy problem. In fact it means there is a far worse problem.

 

The report states:

 

"The Max Nz achieved during the breaks or turn circle entries was 6.5 Nz or less despite full aft stick pull and decreased as energy was depleted and the aircraft slowed on the limiter".

 

So lets say for a second this is a software test, they set up too conservatively so they were only able to pull 6.5 Gs because of the software. Fine. That can be changed...

 

How bad is it going to bleed energy at 9G?

 

I think we are proving we did not learn our lesson during Vietnam. We are setting an aircraft up to lose its lunch money every time it goes to war because it relies on BVR missiles and stealth to do it's job.

 

The F-35 is a collection of compromises. And apparently the ability to dogfight and the ability to get out of a dogfight alive is one of them.

[GGTharos]

How bad is it going to bleed energy at 9G?

 

The tests were done at 20000' or above. You are going to bleed energy at that altitude. Even an F-15 with reduced fuel load needs to have its nose down.

 

I think we are proving we did not learn our lesson during Vietnam. We are setting an aircraft up to lose its lunch money every time it goes to war because it relies on BVR missiles and stealth to do it's job.

 

The lessons are well learned.

 

Q: What killed the most planes?

A: SAMs and AAA

 

Q: Was the lack of a gun that hideously detrimental?

A: The gun was missed, but even after it war returned most kills were by missile

 

Q: Who is the typical winner of the fight?

A: He who fires first. Stealth generally lets you fire first.

 

Q: Who achieves his mission best?

A: The guy who doesn't get seen. Stealth and stuff.

 

The F-35 is a collection of compromises. And apparently the ability to dogfight and the ability to get out of a dogfight alive is one of them.

 

The F-35 is a strike fighter and probably fights about on par with a hornet.

 

The engine has been tested up to something close to 50000lbs thrust, but they're not cranking up to that for production. However, the capacity to add another 7000lbs thrust apparently exists. It could even be implemented as a software switch (note: The F-15 has such a thing).

 

For comparison, the F-35A has the same fuel capacity as an F-15C with the (very draggy) centerline on ... plus half.

 

The F-35A has about 4000lbs thrust less than an F-15C in full afterburner.

 

Is it therefore going to be energy deficient? Yep, like a hornet is energy deficient.

 

Do you care? Are you in danger of getting into an online-community style protracted 1v1 dogfight in real life?

Likely not. You'll drag the bandit and your wingman will stick him. Or you'll blow through and the follow up flight kills the bandits.

 

People are putting huge emphasis on this 1v1 performance stuff in light of HOBS weapons and especially tactics made possible with the use of stealth, DAS and so forth.

 

And again: It's a strike fighter. It's primary role and mission in life is to penetrate enemy airspace and blow up targets on the ground, not to defeat F-16's.

[Pilotasso]

High performance dogfighting fighters are out of favour amidst the USAF generals. This is why the F-15 remains without replacement (at 183 minus a few attrition F-22 losses there are not enough of them for the task), no new light fighter F-16 replacement either, but lots of long range AG strike platforms.

 

That's how it is, for the moment. it'll take a few F-15 AA losses to wake the USAF up. The navy is not asleep though:

[BronzeBuddha]

The engine has been tested up to something close to 50000lbs thrust, but they're not cranking up to that for production. However, the capacity to add another 7000lbs thrust apparently exists. It could even be implemented as a software switch (note: The F-15 has such a thing).

 

I've read about the F135 being pushed to over 50,000 lb thrust, but I think that was a static test and it didn't have to drive the electrical generators (which are substantial on the F-35).

 

Otherwise I agree with your points. The one who gets first look has the biggest advantage.

[GGTharos]

Consider that all other engine ratings are also 'bench thrust' that aren't driving anything :)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Funny how the F-117 - with the aerodynamics of a matchbox and defence armament consisting of prayers and an ejection seat - was revered as a force to be reckoned with, and a commander's worst nightmare. Enough aircraft were lost over areas like Baghdad because of SAM/AAA, in situations where the F-35 would have come out unscathed, and the F-117 did so repeatedly.

 

Make that supersonic, more maneuverable and able to bite back and you have a lot of trouble to deal with.

 

Stealth was always a pain to deal with. Remember, German troops were extremely demoralised by slow defenceless training biplanes dropping lead on their heads with the engines off at night. The Bf-109 outran, outmaneuvered and outgunned the U-2, but it couldn't see it in the first place.

 

As they say, lose the sight...

[Exorcet]

I think we are proving we did not learn our lesson during Vietnam. We are setting an aircraft up to lose its lunch money every time it goes to war because it relies on BVR missiles and stealth to do it's job.

Vietnam is so ancient it might not be worth remembering. We've moved on, there's only so much you can learn from outdated weapons and tactics.

 

That said though, a strike plane that is able to fight with a F-16 doesn't sound bad at all.

 

The F-35 is a collection of compromises. And apparently the ability to dogfight and the ability to get out of a dogfight alive is one of them.

It's an aircraft with a goal, no different from the F-16 it went against.

[Tirak]

The age of the dogfight is far from over, in fact if anything, when 5th generation fighters finally clash, the dogfight will be back in force. The advanced stealth technologies being integrated will mean the fight won't happen at BVR, even if you can track them, you won't be able to fire accurately. So once again we'll be in the days of IR missiles, poor radar guidance and guns.

 

With that said, I still maintain the F-35 is merely suffering from unfinished software. AF-2 is a testbed. She doesn't have DAS as far as I know, and the report gives very little context about the fight as a whole. I'll wait until further information is released before going off half cocked on a report that seems to contradict more reliable sources.

[Sierra99]

Vietnam is so ancient it might not be worth remembering. We've moved on, there's only so much you can learn from outdated weapons and tactics.

 

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

 

That said though, a strike plane that is able to fight with a F-16 doesn't sound bad at all.

 

There lies the rub...it can't. The F-16 out performed it.

 

It's an aircraft with a goal, no different from the F-16 it went against.

 

The goal should be the ability to perform at least as well as the aircraft it is expected to replace...as of right now, it is falling short. Everyone likes to point at previous fighters and say "well they had trouble too..." But never this far along into the process and nothing so damning as not being able to meet design specifications. Oh wait... We keep changing the specifications to meet the capabilities of the aircraft...

 

Sorry I forgot.

[Sierra99]

I'll wait until further information is released before going off half cocked on a report that seems to contradict more reliable sources.

 

What are the more reliable sources you speak of?

[Exorcet]

The age of the dogfight is far from over, in fact if anything, when 5th generation fighters finally clash, the dogfight will be back in force. The advanced stealth technologies being integrated will mean the fight won't happen at BVR, even if you can track them, you won't be able to fire accurately. So once again we'll be in the days of IR missiles, poor radar guidance and guns.

 

It could easily be a completely different kind of WVR though. Less about getting a firing solution and more about not being seen first.

 

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

Those who don't learn from the present will be stuck in the past. What is so great about Vietnam? Many issues that plagued missiles then were hardware specific. And even then the missile was a necessary weapon. There were no stealth planes either.

 

 

 

There lies the rub...it can't. The F-16 out performed it.

Why can't it? It sounds like they were thrown in an unrealistic stress test for the F-35. A 1v1 engagement that started at WVR. The F-35 apparently didn't even have DAS, and of course the flight software wasn't optimized. The worst that could be said for the F-35 based on this is that it should avoid gun fights with 4th gen fighters. Maneuverability issues won't hamper it from knocking out air threats like F-16's in BVR, or even in WVR with some of the more advanceds HOBS missiles.

 

 

 

The goal should be the ability to perform at least as well as the aircraft it is expected to replace...as of right now, it is falling short.

 

I don't really see the F-35 being inferior to the F-16, even in air to air. Right now the plane is still undergoing testing and can be adjusted. Also remember that the F-35 does not need to fight exactly like the aircraft it is replacing. Even if it was more maneuverable, the focus should still be on stealth and BVR. That's honestly more important than being able to turn the best, even if great turning ability is always a plus.

 

Everyone likes to point at previous fighters and say "well they had trouble too..." But never this far along into the process and nothing so damning as not being able to meet design specifications. Oh wait... We keep changing the specifications to meet the capabilities of the aircraft...

 

The F-35 is utilizing a different method of development that sees aircraft production occur side by side with testing, so you've got to be careful in trying to assess how far along it is. It's also vastly more complicated than previous aircraft. Development time and price have been going up since the end of the Cold War, nothing unusual.

 

As for timelines, the F-14 went from 1972 to the 1980's with unreliable, dangerous, and underperforming engines for one. The F-35 suffers from being in the internet age where information on its shortcomings are easier to find.

[GGTharos]

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

 

They learned history, they designed an aircraft with a specific purpose. You failed to understand that.

 

History tells us most aircraft are shot down by SAMs, not other aircraft. Having said all that ... are you saying the F-18 is 'repeating history'?

 

 

The goal should be the ability to perform at least as well as the aircraft it is expected to replace...as of right now, it is falling short.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16 in the strike role, not in the light weight fighter role. That was obvious from the beginning.

The F-16 has rarely been involved in a dogfight in RL. A modern, combat loaded F-16 is in danger of hauling so much stuff into a strike mission just to potentially match some of what an F-35 can do (if there are no SAMs around! :) ) that it probably severely under-performs a combat loaded F-35 at everything. How's that history thing now?

 

Everyone likes to point at previous fighters and say "well they had trouble too..." But never this far along into the process and nothing so damning as not being able to meet design specifications. Oh wait... We keep changing the specifications to meet the capabilities of the aircraft...

 

Sorry I forgot.

Or maybe the specifications were too ambitious/optimistic to begin with. In the end, it's a strike fighter ... not a lightweight fighter.

As far as we know, those specs were adjusted once. Not the first time this happens to an aircraft, won't be the last time. And again, there was a priority ... and that priority was strike.

[Emu]

The whole point of a stealth fighter is not to get into gun fights or WVR even. I don't even see how a gun fight could happen given the missiles available today. Even if BVR engagement returns a zero, all-aspect, dual-waveband IIR homing missiles can take out enemy aircraft from far WVR and even near BVR well before a head-to-head pass and there's pretty much no way evading or decoying them.

 

It's like a sniper engaging in hand-to-hand combat, sure they train it, but for it to ever happen, his rifle and side-arm have to prove useless and his Situational Awareness (SA) has to fail big time and the enemy has to not have a gun too. How likely is that? In reality the last NATO gun-kill on a fixed wing aircraft was in 1982 and the even the last NATO dogfights (1991) pre-date the introduction of the AMRAAM.

 

So what we have here is a fairyland situation concocted for development purposes where the F-35 was fighting with both hands behind its back, its ankles tied together and its nuts strapped to its eyes, in terms of flight restrictions, cancellation of advanced SA, for-going the pre-merge engagement and prohibition of LOAL/HOBS/HMCS abilities.

 

Anyway, it seems a pilot logged into another forum and made some helpful corrections on the matter:

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294475#p294475

 

First of all way too much is being made of this test and some players are taking things seriously out of context to grind axes. So, what is of primary importance is to understand what the test objectives were. The FLTS's out at Edwards don't fly unless they have a clear objective to gather technical data, that's what Developmental Test is all about. So, what were the objectives? From the report:

 

OBJECTIVE

The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative

maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the

overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic

environment. This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral

setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet MSL. The Flying Qualities criteria were that the

aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected,

or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA

capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors

considerations.

Please note that the object wasn't to see how the F-35 stacked up to the Viper as a dogfight, rather it was to press the limits of the high AoA control laws and then report out the flying qualities in that regime, using various specified maneuvers. The Viper was there to make things dynamic and unscripted. Also, please note "elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs" are also preludes to departing an aircraft, so the evaluation of the effectiveness was how does the anti-spin logic effect high AoA BFM. Of course that's exactly what the JPO statement said.

 

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against.

Next take a look at the setups:

 

MISSION EXECUTION

The sortie consisted of standard administration to the Sea Test Range. Ranging exercises were

conducted to familiarize the target aircraft with F-35 visual cues. An offensive capture/tracking task was

completed by the F-35 from 6,000 feet slant range with a 3,000 foot vertical offset at 22,000' MSl and

400 kts. All other testing consisted of traditional BFM setups starting at 22,000' MSL and 440 kts for 6K

and 9K fights and 20,000' MSl at 380 kts for 3K fights. The neutral fights began at approximately

18,000' to 20,000' with no limitations on airspeed or altitude following the check away. The floor was

10,000' MSL. In all, there were seventeen engagements. No loads or other aircraft limits were

exceeded with unrestricted throttle, stick, and rudder inputs.

All I have handy right now are the Block 50/52 performance charts, but they're close enough to the 40 to show that the 3K, 6K and 9K setups are right at the sweet spots of the Viper's performance.

 

Two 370's Drag Index 70

22,000' MSL 440 KCAS is 0.96M

20,000' MSL 380 KCAS is 0.81M

Note assuming KCAS not KTAS since that's what displays in the HUD and the EM chart below

 

Click image for larger version.

 

Name: Block 50 20kft EM DI 50.jpg

Views: 12

Size: 273.6 KB

ID: 238893

 

Puts things in perspective here. So, the Viper was flying right around it's corner and max instantaneous, while the F-35 was supposed to go elevated AoA and see if the control laws would prevent the plane from departing when performing elevated AoA BFM. The Viper was at a clear advantage all along, but it wasn't there to win, it was there as a visual reference to maneuver against. The whole point was to put the F-35 in a bad position and see what the control laws did. Which is exactly what the JPO said.

 

While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading.

Turns out the early law are biased towards departure prevention(not a bad thing early in a program), not exactly an Earth shattering discovery, and that there's plenty of margin available to improve performance, again not exactly Earth shattering. At least a sizable subset of these critics aren't old enough to remember that the first wave of FBW A/C went through similar cycle or didn't pay attention/forgot that Super Bug and Raptor did also.

 

Now with the critic's original argument discredited they take something else out of context...Wash, lather, repeat, the cycle continues. They're always certain their right but curiously avoid making a stand in the face of a rigorous technical argument.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Emu

[frantzleb0ucher]

I think the f-35 is more or less a test bed for VTOL stealth aircraft,a bit like the Dassault Neuron