http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_09.jpg
Then why the hell would it have hard points on its its wings that seem to be carrying munitions.
Well that's strange because there goes the stealth characteristics.
Yes - The F-35s software is still being worked on and improved. They probably still have some conservative profiles established in the software while they are going through shake down. The tests from earlier this year indicated that there is room for growth (they can raise limits\adjust the system to allow for more stressful maneuvers.)
Incremental changes as they go through the validation process.
Just to clarify,
The software in place set a profile that allowed for decent margin in departure testing among other things. This will have a significant impact on maneuvers typical in balls out testing. The results of the tests this year is that they can relax some of settings a bit.
See here -
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-f...
test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.
U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircrafts recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,
Work is underway as part of efforts to clear the final system development and demonstration (SDD) maneuvering envelopes on the way to initial operational capability (IOC).
When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, you have no limits, says Nelson. It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.
The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace, says Col. Rod Trash Cregier, F-35 program director. It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak itthats the option.
Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], you dont have to clamp down so tight,
One thing I get a kick out of is how Iran aped the F-35 design when they tried to claim they had an ultra-modern fighter.
And that's the whole point of the F-22. Remember when people were going "why are we building an incredibly expensive air superiority fighter, we don't fucking dogfight any more?"
Plus I'm going to take plenty of the F-35 articles with a grain of salt. Especially ones with stuff like this:
Did the helmet grow? We're seriously supposed to believe that the pilot couldn't even turn his head? Only thing I can guess is that he was trying to completely turn it, which aren't these helmets supposed to have a bunch of tech so that they shouldn't even be doing that?
I'm not saying the F-35 doesn't have serious flaws/issues (it certainly does), but there's been a bunch of ignorance and fervor over it so that it's seeing who can make up the most amount of claims about how much it sucks.
The entire article and the blog it links to should be taken with a grain of salt.
Remember, this is from a select number of bloggers who claim to "know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who works for the dry cleaning service that handles the stuff a base where a crew chief on a tanker knows a pilot who told him another pilot says that the F35 sucks"
Also take anything that comes from people that work in Lockheed PR or the USAF PMO with a grain of salt.
Their reputations/jobs are on the line.
Statements from those that have experience on the platform are the best evaluation
Then what are they testing with in combat training? It is not a prototype if being deployed.Since the F-35 is still in development and no-one has experience on finished fully developed planes, basically believe noone.
This was flight testing. Not combat testingThen what are they testing with in combat training? It is not a prototype if being deployed.
If you are going to come back with the fact taht they are still being refined; then any platform in the US military that uses technology is still being refined and is in development; that they should not be able to be compared against a similar platform
They system was set very conservative to allow for safe departure characteristics. At that stage in the test cycle, they put a lot of buffer in to make sure they don't make the pilot shit his pants.“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’”
This was flight testing. Not combat testing
Its in the link
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers
They system was set very conservative to allow for safe departure characteristics. At that stage in the test cycle, they put a lot of buffer in to make sure they don't make the pilot shit his pants.
Flight tests this year allowed for pilots to push the airframe without restriction on the maneuvers flown but the software constraints were still in place.
What the test revealed was that the airframe can handle more and that they can loosen up the safety nannies.
In other words, the F-35 as an airframe has not been flown to its full potential as "dogfighter" yet because its not at that stage in the test cycle.
The fateful test took place on Jan. 14, 2015, apparently within the Sea Test Range over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California. The single-seat F-35A with the designation “AF-02” — one of the older JSFs in the Air Force — took off alongside a two-seat F-16D Block 40, one of the types of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace.
The two jets would be playing the roles of opposing fighters in a pretend air battle, which the Air Force organized specifically to test out the F-35’s prowess as a close-range dogfighter in an air-to-air tangle involving high “angles of attack,” or AoA, and “aggressive stick/pedal inputs.”
In other words, the F-35 pilot would fly his jet hard, turning and maneuvering in order to “shoot down” the F-16, whose pilot would be doing his own best to evade and kill the F-35.
Isn't the whole point of the modern war scenario that if the enemy can see you, you're probably already dead?
There's a reason we spend millions upon millions on high tech munitions these days. These airframes are really only vehicles to maneuver those munitions into position and let them do their work. Air superiority is done from 50-100km away with missiles.
Link
Does not seem like flight testing when you are going up against another combat equipped aircraft.
Flight testing is when you perform a planned series of maneuvers to evaluate a specific characteristics/part of the platform.
Combat testing is when you go against an enemy (air or ground) to prove your platform is able to perform as planned/specified. the opponent has one goal only; to prove that they are better than you. Your goal is to survive and prove them wrong.
The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace, says Col. Rod Trash Cregier, F-35 program director. It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak itthats the option.
Isn't the whole point of the modern war scenario that if the enemy can see you, you're probably already dead?
There's a reason we spend millions upon millions on high tech munitions these days. These airframes are really only vehicles to maneuver those munitions into position and let them do their work. Air superiority is done from 50-100km away with missiles.
Your link is the same blog that Roger on Jalopnik quoted.
Once again I will quote from Aviation week
Modern rules of engagement require visual identification before engagement so actually maneuverability is quite important since all air to air engagements in Desert Storm were in dogfighting range.
The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM (pronounced "am-ram"), is a modern beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile
Modern rules of engagement require visual identification before engagement so actually maneuverability is quite important since all air to air engagements in Desert Storm were in dogfighting range.
*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*
Okay okay, modern RULES of engagement. But since when have we been following the rules anyway? There's a reason we have secret courts and have been blowing shit up all over the world without any oversight whatsoever for the last umpteen years...
Modern rules of engagement require visual identification before engagement so actually maneuverability is quite important since all air to air engagements in Desert Storm were in dogfighting range.
then why the fuck do we have missles like this?The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM (pronounced "am-ram"), is a modern beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile
<p> </p>Modern rules of engagement require visual identification before engagement so actually maneuverability is quite important since all air to air engagements in Desert Storm were in dogfighting range.
That's BS about their maneuverability. Check out this video of the vertical takeoff. The Chinese are scared about this.....especially if we ever float our carrier near Wake Island.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQb02O2CG9w
I am seeing different things being said by different people.
The Lockheed /USAF program are saying one thing.
the Test pilot is saying something else.
The Aviation week says almost nill about the latest test outside of the headline. All the other details are 3-4 months of testing statements.
Col. Rod Trash Cregier, F-35 program director, has a major stake in this game; one reason why I stated earlier that take anything coming out of Lockheed and the PMO with a grain of salt.
The F35 will be an attack plane (ground attack) not a air-to-air replacement for the F15 and the F22.
Did you just compare bombing civilians in 3rd world countries with friendly dictators to engaging military forces of modern nations? Those two things have nothing to do with each other.