The F-35 is a piece of garbage!

[pauldun170]

Reading the report...
The test was not an "all out dogfight test"
It was specifically testing High angles of attack performance and the F-16 was used as part of the test.

Report basically says at high AOA, the F-35 lacks the thrust to keep the fight going while at high AOA.
Keep in mind that the F-35 can reach much higher AOA than an F-16 and that the F-16 has hard software enforced AOA limits. In other words the pilot was complaining that the F-35 sucked at doing something that is not possible to do in the F-16 he was flying against.
Solution - Reduce AOA and fight the F-16 like an F-16 would fight.

Other comments are related to mushiness in controls that should be resolved with software calibration.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Reading the report...
The test was not an "all out dogfight test"
It was specifically testing High angles of attack performance and the F-16 was used as part of the test.

Report basically says at high AOA, the F-35 lacks the thrust to keep the fight going while at high AOA.
Keep in mind that the F-35 can reach much higher AOA than an F-16 and that the F-16 has hard software enforced AOA limits. In other words the pilot was complaining that the F-35 sucked at doing something that is not possible to do in the F-16 he was flying against.
Solution - Reduce AOA and fight the F-16 like an F-16 would fight.

Other comments are related to mushiness in controls that should be resolved with software calibration.

There is no real reason to fight above 20-30 degrees alpha except to get a quick snap. Also, maximum AoA does not equate to a specific level of instantaneous or sustained pitch rate that is more important. Generally, you wouldn't want to pull the stick back as far as possible below 400 Knots anyways because you put the plane into such a high AoA that you'll very quickly bleed speed and therefore turn rate, even if you can maintain high AoA.

Sustained turnrate doesn't mean pulling max AoA. Maximum AoA more or less shows the a/c's ability to produce lift up to a max AoA at a minimum speed. Delta wings produce quite a bit of lift at high AoA which is to their advantage, but it comes at the cost of high amounts of drag when, which must be overcome with engine power.

 

[SSSnail]

But but... I saw it in Top Gun once...

 

[pauldun170]

There is no real reason to fight above 20-30 degrees alpha except to get a quick snap. Also, maximum AoA does not equate to a specific level of instantaneous or sustained pitch rate that is more important. Generally, you wouldn't want to pull the stick back as far as possible below 400 Knots anyways because you put the plane into such a high AoA that you'll very quickly bleed speed and therefore turn rate, even if you can maintain high AoA.

Sustained turnrate doesn't mean pulling max AoA. Maximum AoA more or less shows the a/c's ability to produce lift up to a max AoA at a minimum speed. Delta wings produce quite a bit of lift at high AoA which is to their advantage, but it comes at the cost of high amounts of drag when, which must be overcome with engine power.

That quick snap when combined with a offbore site weapons+Helmet mounted sites add a layer of "fun" nowadays.

At the very least, F\A18 pilots have been using it's high AOA performance to annoy the crap out of viper pilots for years (AFAIK).

 

[Blitzvogel]

That quick snap when combined with a offbore site weapons+Helmet mounted sites add a layer of "fun" nowadays.

At the very least, F\A18 pilots have been using it's high AOA performance to annoy the crap out of viper pilots for years (AFAIK).

Old Hornets or Superbugs? They both have computer limited alpha capabilities just like the Viper, though I think the Superbug's is much less restrictive, especially at low speed hard maneuvers. Just about all versions of the Viper have significantly better thrust to weight ratios though and can have high off boresight weapons as well with recent upgrades. I'd rather have the Viper, especially if we're talking a Block 60, because it has the F110-GE-132. In the BVR though, I'd rather have the Superbug.

Superbugs will have a much better instantaneous turn performance than old Bugs with their much bigger LERXs I would think, but they desperately need the F414-EPE engine upgrade to increase the T/W ratio and in turn, the sustained maneuverability.

Here's an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGrLN8wr3Kg

Now we have no idea how fast these planes are going at the beginning, but I assume they are performing min. radius turns, and we should expect them to be at whatever speed is most advantageous for them. We can see the Superbugs awesome instantaneous pitch rate, but just past 180° we can see the Viper catch up quite quickly, and beat both the Superbug and F-22. Now these are min radius turns though, and it's possible the Superbug pilot was playing it safe since it's an airshow. Also, the angle the Superbug starts at is more perpendicular relative to the camera, which is to it's visual advantage. F-16 is closer to 70-80 degrees to the left.

Big LERX and a big wing doesn't always translate sustained turn performance.

 

[kage69]

I'd like to see Army and Marines moving in this direction personally...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg

Small, cheap, made for low level 'down n dirty' operations. One of the reasons I'm a huge Rutan fan. Maybe someday I'll get someone to make me one!

 

[biostud]

I'd like to see Army and Marines moving in this direction personally...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg

Small, cheap, made for low level 'down n dirty' operations. One of the reasons I'm a huge Rutan fan. Maybe someday I'll get him to make me one!

Isn't this what drones are for?

 

[Brainonska511]

Isn't this what drones are for?

Potentially. However, recent articles have suggested that the USAF is having enough problems operating 60-65 drone flights per day.
http://nyti.ms/1cYKGhq

But for CAS in asymmetric warfare against low-tech enemies, I don't see why they don't invest more into turboprop planes, like Brazil is doing for its counter-insurgency operations.
-----

As for the topic at hand, I don't see why the F35 program needed to be split 3 ways. I would have ditched the F35C and focus more on using Naval air support for supporting our second army, after all, the Marines are a part of the Navy. And for CAS against low-tech enemies, I'd support a move to something cheaper, like turboprop aircraft. Sure, it isn't as sexy as a fighter jet, but it could get the job done. And speaking of second army, I wouldn't mind seeing a consolidation of the Army and the Marines.

 

[pauldun170]

Old Hornets or Superbugs? They both have computer limited alpha capabilities just like the Viper, though I think the Superbug's is much less restrictive, especially at low speed hard maneuvers. Just about all versions of the Viper have significantly better thrust to weight ratios though and can have high off boresight weapons as well with recent upgrades. I'd rather have the Viper, especially if we're talking a Block 60, because it has the F110-GE-132. In the BVR though, I'd rather have the Superbug.

Superbugs will have a much better instantaneous turn performance than old Bugs with their much bigger LERXs I would think, but they desperately need the F414-EPE engine upgrade to increase the T/W ratio and in turn, the sustained maneuverability.

Here's an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGrLN8wr3Kg

Now we have no idea how fast these planes are going at the beginning, but I assume they are performing min. radius turns, and we should expect them to be at whatever speed is most advantageous for them. We can see the Superbugs awesome instantaneous pitch rate, but just past 180° we can see the Viper catch up quite quickly, and beat both the Superbug and F-22. Now these are min radius turns though, and it's possible the Superbug pilot was playing it safe since it's an airshow. Also, the angle the Superbug starts at is more perpendicular relative to the camera, which is to it's visual advantage. F-16 is closer to 70-80 degrees to the left.

Big LERX and a big wing doesn't always translate sustained turn performance.

F-16 (like the Typhoon) has a hard FCS limit of 27.5 degrees and cannot be over ridden.
This is in contrast to other fighter such as the Mig29\Su27\Rafale can be over ridden

FA-18 Hornet has no limits in place.
Super Hornet retains the high AOA capability of the original hornet even though I think they got rid of some legacy mechanical systems in the early models and the FCS is more aggressive in keeping departure characteristics clean.

The Super Hornet still has complete roll control at 50° AOA and has demonstrated this many times while flying at low altitude with a full combat load because there is no departure issue,"

 

[pauldun170]

Old Hornets or Superbugs? They both have computer limited alpha capabilities just like the Viper, though I think the Superbug's is much less restrictive, especially at low speed hard maneuvers. Just about all versions of the Viper have significantly better thrust to weight ratios though and can have high off boresight weapons as well with recent upgrades. I'd rather have the Viper, especially if we're talking a Block 60, because it has the F110-GE-132. In the BVR though, I'd rather have the Superbug.

Superbugs will have a much better instantaneous turn performance than old Bugs with their much bigger LERXs I would think, but they desperately need the F414-EPE engine upgrade to increase the T/W ratio and in turn, the sustained maneuverability.

Here's an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGrLN8wr3Kg

Now we have no idea how fast these planes are going at the beginning, but I assume they are performing min. radius turns, and we should expect them to be at whatever speed is most advantageous for them. We can see the Superbugs awesome instantaneous pitch rate, but just past 180° we can see the Viper catch up quite quickly, and beat both the Superbug and F-22. Now these are min radius turns though, and it's possible the Superbug pilot was playing it safe since it's an airshow. Also, the angle the Superbug starts at is more perpendicular relative to the camera, which is to it's visual advantage. F-16 is closer to 70-80 degrees to the left.

Big LERX and a big wing doesn't always translate sustained turn performance.

AIM9X would like to join that sustained turn rate competition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ


For classic WVR dogfighting, noone argues about the F-16 is a tough opponent (except Typhoon pilots. They are officially the Honey Badger of the fighter community)

However, while it bleeds energy faster than the F-16, the “Rhino” is much better than the Viper if the dogfight gets slow, because the Hornet handle high angles of attack and point the nose at the opponent easier.

Generally, you don't want to go slow but you also don't want to be in a situation where you are in a sustained turn fight in a hostile area.

 

[Blitzvogel]

AIM9X would like to join that sustained turn rate competition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ


For classic WVR dogfighting, noone argues about the F-16 is a tough opponent (except Typhoon pilots. They are officially the Honey Badger of the fighter community)

Yeah, new generation dogfighting missiles are crazy-maneuverable, but if their seeker could be overwhelmed, it would make close in dogfighting more exciting again :hmm:

I remember my dad showing me that AIM-9X video back in 2002 or so, when I was in high school and he still working for a big aerospace company. It was pretty crazy seeing a missile make a 180° turn right off the launch rail, Macross style :awe:

I like how they censor the missile hit, but it makes me wonder if it uses something other than an expanding rod warhead, hence the reason to hide it.

As for the Rutan ARES, it's a pretty sweet little airplane (mini A-10!), very nice for CAS and guerilla warfare, especially in mountainous regions like Afghanistan where not so fast flying speed is best and low level maneuverability is necessary like with the A-10. I do wonder about it's susceptibility to modern MANPADS though. Also, realistically the plane is way too small for a 25mm Gatling Cannon in the anti-armor role as you can see the plane get thrown around when it fires, making it too innaccurate for sustained fire on a small armored target. However, that could be advantageous when you need a small spread to cover a localized area with HE rounds for anti-personel. It could also carry rockets, and any other practical ground attack munition.

 

[pauldun170]

Yeah, new generation dogfighting missiles are crazy-maneuverable, but if their seeker could be overwhelmed, it would make close in dogfighting more exciting again :hmm:

I remember my dad showing me that AIM-9X video back in 2002 or so, when I was in high school and he still working for a big aerospace company. It was pretty crazy seeing a missile make a 180° turn right off the launch rail, Macross style :awe:

I like how they censor the missile hit, but it makes me wonder if it uses something other than an expanding rod warhead, hence the reason to hide it.

As for the Rutan ARES, it's a pretty sweet little airplane (mini A-10!), very nice for CAS and guerilla warfare, especially in mountainous regions like Afghanistan where not so fast flying speed is best and low level maneuverability is necessary like with the A-10. I do wonder about it's susceptibility to modern MANPADS though. Also, realistically the plane is way too small for a 25mm Gatling Cannon in the anti-armor role as you can see the plane get thrown around when it fires, making it too innaccurate for sustained fire on a small armored target. However, that could be advantageous when you need a small spread to cover a localized area with HE rounds for anti-personel. It could also carry rockets, and any other practical ground attack munition.

The AIM9x combined with the US helmet sights are pretty sick. A lock on after launch missile that has a 90 degree boresite. In tests they were able to score hits behind the firing aircraft.

 

[kage69]

Isn't this what drones are for?

You remember that whole 'cost' part, right?

I'm all for drones doing recon, surveillance, and the occasional high value strike, but for close in support you want a guy up there talking back to you, confirming your last second adjust before sending bad news downrange that could kill you as easily as the enemy.

High def screens in Doha or Tampa are no substitute for being able to bank hard and simply look down at the mess, as it's unfolding.

Also, there is something to be said for the officer up there protecting your ass who knows what ground pounders are facing in those kinds of predicaments. I don't think you generally get the same level of understanding and attention to detail from a civilian contractor operating the vehicle from a different hemisphere.

Maybe someday drones will be expressly designed for close in support, but we're still away off from that.

 

[gorobei]

article on Infrared Search and Track (IRST) and how it may really change the effect of stealth. seemingly the USAF brass thinking is late to the party.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/infrared-search-and-track-systems-and-the-future-of-the-1691441747

between irst and jammer dogfighters like the mig21 bison, gen 6 planes may be needed sooner than expected.

 

[Blitzvogel]

article on Infrared Search and Track (IRST) and how it may really change the effect of stealth. seemingly the USAF brass thinking is late to the party.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/infrared-search-and-track-systems-and-the-future-of-the-1691441747

between irst and jammer dogfighters like the mig21 bison, gen 6 planes may be needed sooner than expected.

IRST has been around since the 50s. While early versions on early century series fighters sucked (F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger) and had teething problems, they were useful to a certain degree. I think the F-14 was the first aircraft to really have one worth having, paired with it's magnification TV system and best for it's time radar system. It's only in the last 30 years or so since the Russians made it popular again with the MiG-29 and Su-27 thanks to the advent of stealth.

 

[John Connor]

article on Infrared Search and Track (IRST) and how it may really change the effect of stealth. seemingly the USAF brass thinking is late to the party.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/infrared-search-and-track-systems-and-the-future-of-the-1691441747

between irst and jammer dogfighters like the mig21 bison, gen 6 planes may be needed sooner than expected.

They designed the B-2 with low a heat signature where the exhaust glides over the top and is cooled.

 

[cabri]

Link

Even when rigged; they failed

However, the fifth generation stealth fighter jet may still have a number of maintenance and reliability problems that "are likely to present significant near-term challenges for the Marine Corps," according to a complete copy of a recent memo from the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), released in a report by the nonpartisan government watchdog group Project on Government Oversight (POGO).

Not only did the six F-35Bs used in the demonstration, referred to by the Marines as Operational Test 1, fail to achieve the number of required flight hours necessary to be declared combat-ready, but, in fact, the DOT&E found the trials, "did not -- and could not —demonstrate that Block 2B F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it was ready for real-world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured," the report says.

the report concludes that the flight tests aboard the Navy ship failed to simulate the realistic combat conditions necessary to show whether or not the F-35B is ready for actual deployment.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Link

Even when rigged; they failed

In summary - the plane was not flown enough, and the tests that were done were invalid or not sufficiently representative.

I wouldn't call that rigged per se

edit - fixed spelling

 

[norseamd]

Apparently all this media shitstorm over the F-35 is pure bullshit.

The test in January was basically to test AOA and software restrictions, and thus any claim that the F-35 can not dogfight based off that test is pure bullshit.

 

[cabri]

Apparently all this media shitstorm over the F-35 is pure bullshit.

The test in January was basically to test AOA and software restrictions, and thus any claim that the F-35 can not dogfight based off that test is pure bullshit.

The tests in May showed similar issues
Plane will not operate at present as designed/promised.

May test was done using unrealistic conditions (rigged). And even then the airframes could not perform as required.

The Pentagon, Lockheed and USMC want to crow about how well it went, completely ignoring the actual results.

The plane is not ready for combat

 

[norseamd]

What is known about the USMC IOC testing from last July?

 

[Genx87]

I am as big a critic of the F35 program as anybody. But these are all teething issues of the weapons program. Expensive teething, but nothing that wont be fixed moving forward.

 

[cabri]

I am as big a critic of the F35 program as anybody. But these are all teething issues of the weapons program. Expensive teething, but nothing that wont be fixed moving forward.

I agree, just do not like the whitewashed reports coming out by the sponsors.

When people start to believe their own propaganda, things are overlooked & ignored because they contradict the established story line. And lives/careers are then ruined due to CYA being done.

F22 pilots were lost because the O2 system "could not" be flawed.

Same with the V22 Osprey.

B2 have to fly half way around the world because they are to fragile to be based/serviced at forwsrd operating bases.

Examples over just past 10-15 years.

 

[MongGrel]

They designed the B-2 with low a heat signature where the exhaust glides over the top and is cooled.

What does a B2 have to do with anything in here to begin with.

There is a very good reason they stopped producing them.

I used to work on a lot of the F-15 Slam Eagle components a lot, if the government more more money into converting F-15's into Silent eagles would be money better spent, just IMHO.

Put those in an area with an AWACs or two flying around, I'd about guarantee won't be any fighters left to worry about dog fighting.

Yeah, they are older, but like the B-52, work very well still when the air frame is upgraded.

I think the last major dog fighting battle I've even recalled was in The Lebanon War, and the Israeli F-15s pretty much chowed down on the Palestinia Soviet MIGs with no loses.

Of course that was like 1982, but they got a big smack down.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B00Z9419XY?ie=UTF8&keywords=Modern%20Warfare&qid=1442451718&ref_=sr_1_5&s=instant-video&sr=1-5

V-22 was still one of the biggest wastes of money I've ever seen, but F-35 may have passed it I guess.

 

[norseamd]

Mongrel what do you think about the F-15K by the way?