Search found 30 matches: +Venable

Return to advanced search

  • Author
  • Message
doge

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

01 Mar 2020, 09:59

Heritage's John Venable has posted on the infamous National Interest! :doh: (Brave, or Reckless)
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... th-fighter
This piece originally appeared in The National Interest
Why the F-35 Is Now the World’s Most Dominant Stealth Fighter
Feb 26th, 2020 John Venable
The F-35 Lightning II is now the world’s most dominant multi-role fighter. Its detection range, geolocation, threat identification, and system response capabilities allow the jet to precisely fix and destroy the most advanced threats in the world including every layer of Russia’s latest SA-20 surface-to-air missile (SAM) system.
While it still has several rough edges, the F-35 has now crossed several thresholds that make it the most lethal and cost-effective fighter in or nearing production within the NATO Alliance. Here are 10 updates you need to know about this stealth fighter.
    1. The first U.S. F-35A wing is fully equipped and already executing combat deployments. The maneuvering restrictions the jet had when first introduced are now completely removed. Even with a complete internal weapons load-out and full internal fuel, pilots can fight without limitation. Last year, I interviewed 30 pilots at Hill Air Force Base, and all 20 with previous experience in fourth-generation fighters said they would rather fly the F-35 in combat than their previous rides. That preference held for almost every dogfight scenario they could imagine.
    2.The price of the Lightning has fallen below even the most optimistic government targets. In 2018, the Congressional Research Service estimated that an F-35A produced in 2020 would cost $77.5 million using constant 2012 dollars. Translating that cost estimate to current year dollars makes the price of each F-35A $87.1M. The actual cost of an F-35A in fiscal year 2021 is $79.2M, and it is expected to fall to $77.9M in 2022 – $9.2M cheaper than the government’s best estimate using current year dollars.
    3. The F-35A now costs less than any other ally-produced fourth-plus generation fighter. A fully combat-equipped F-35A is the same price of an F/A-18 E/F, $9.8 million below the $87.7 million base price of an F-15EX, and $40 million less than the Eurofighter—and all three of those competitors require additional equipment like multi-million dollar targeting pods before they can employ weapons in medium threat combat environments. The F-15EX self-protection system is estimated to cost $7.5 million, and the Sniper Targeting pod costs more than $1.7 million per jet, making the total cost for a combat configured F-15EX $19 million more than a fully combat configured F-35A. And none of those other jets would last for a day in a modern-day high-threat environment.
    4. Competition has increased performance and driven down costs. The total price of an F-35 is comprised of the aircraft, assembled and produced by Lockheed Martin, and the F135 engine produced by Pratt and Whitney—plus profit. When a Northrup Grumman-produced aircraft subcomponent called the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) failed to meet reliability thresholds, that system was replaced with a DAS produced by Raytheon that delivers twice the performance and five times the reliability at a per-unit cost 45 percent lower than the Northrup Grumman model. This switch alone will save the government $3 billion over the life of the program.
    5. Not all manufacturers who help build the F-35 have moved aggressively to reduce costs. Assuming it has stayed on track with Pentagon acquisition estimates, Pratt and Whitney is now delivering F-35 engines for $11.8 million a copy. With production efficiencies, that price was expected to fall to $10.7 million by FY 2025 (FY12 dollars), saving the taxpayer another million dollars per fighter. Unfortunately, without a competitive motor available, Pratt and Whitney has made it clear that further savings are no longer in the cards. The ability to competitively reduce engine cost and improve performance was lost when Congress killed funding for the F-35 alternative engine contract in 2011, leaving Pratt and Whitney as a sole-source supplier with no incentive to reduce its profits.
    6. The F-35A cost per flying hour (CPFH) is falling, but one must wade through Mark Twain’s “lies, damned lies and statistics” to find out how the jet is doing with this often misconstrued metric. CPFH calculations vary significantly between evaluating agencies, but all of them add costs for the F-35 that they do not include for the fourth-generation fighters they compare it to. Electronic countermeasures (ECM) and a precision infra-red targeting system are built into the F-35, elevating its maintenance requirements and ultimately its CPFH. Fighters like the F-15E and E(X), F-16C and FA-18E require additional equipment like external pods to give them similar capabilities but, because they are not “built in,” the pod’s acquisition price is not factored into those fourth-generation jets’ purchase price, nor are maintenance costs for those systems included in their CPFH calculations.
    CPFH calculations by the Defense Department Selective Acquisition Reports (SARs) still benefit fourth generation systems. They show the F-35A CPFH has dropped from $32,554 an hour in 2014 to $30,137 in 2018 (FY 2012 dollars). When you consider maintenance for the F-35’s targeting and ECM systems are included in that price, it begins to compare much more favorably with the F-16 CPFH of $25,541 (FY12 dollars) as well as the elusive CPFH for the F-15E and its sibling the F-15E(X). Time will tell if the F-35 CPFH make it down to the target of $25,000, but if Lockheed-Martin’s work reducing the F-35A’s cost can be used as a guide, the jet’s CPFH may very well fall below the historic cost for the F-15E (and F-15EX) and compete favorably with the F-16C—even with CPFH calculations that favor those jets.
    7. Mission capable (MC) rates for the F-35 rose considerably over the last year, but they are still below the 80 percent mission capable threshold set for the fleet by Secretary of Defense in 2018. According to Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, director of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), the MC rate rose to 73.2 percent in 2019—up 18.5 percentage points from the previous year. With priority for parts, forward-deployed F-35 combat squadrons were able to sustain an 89% MC rate, which means parts availability for the fleet is still an issue.
    8. Depots limit F-35 mission capability. When an F-35 component fails, it is replaced with an available spare, and the failed part is shipped to a depot for repair. A total of 68 depots are required to effectively sustain the F-35 weapons system, but just 30 are up and running and only 11 of those are fully operational. Parts availability for the F-35 will continue to hold down MC rates until all depots are operating at capacity. Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office have accelerated their efforts to get depots up and running and now project that 64 depots will be operational by 2024—five years earlier than the estimated 2029. Assuming funding for parts remains consistent, the parts shortfall will end, allowing fleet-wide F-35 MC rates to meet or exceed 80%.
    9. The Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) for the F-35A is still having problems. The HMDS gives pilots an unparalleled level of situational awareness in combat as it displays all critical flight and weapons systems data on the inside of the pilot’s visor. The image from the system’s built-in night vision camera is also projected onto the visor, as is the image from the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) that automatically tracks and provides vivid cues directly to the pilot on the location of friendly and enemy aircraft. The HMDS is a game-changer in combat, but interface issues with its display have caused pilots to become disoriented when refueling, or while landing the jet at night. Lockheed Martin went to work fixing this system just as soon as pilots flagged it as an urgent operational need, and that fix is currently being fielded for Navy F-35Cs. It may take several years before the HMDS fix makes its way to the Air Force.
    10. The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is still too big, slow and suffering too many problems. Every aspect of the F-35A’s maintenance, supply, and operations are managed through the F-35A ALIS. Much like an Apple iPhone Operating System (iOS), ALIS is a computer operating system that holds a conglomeration of 65 applications, sub-programs, or modules. Some were built exclusively for the F-35A; others are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) programs. The problems arise when digital inputs from either the jet or a more modern ALIS application meet analog inputs or processing from another module. The Department of Defense has elected to replace ALIS with a cloud-based operational data integrated network (ODIN). The new system is designed to decrease workload and increase mission capability rates for all F-35 variants and should begin fielding later this year.
Overall, the F-35A fighter is flying exceptionally well. It now provides the United States with a significant competitive advantage against a peer competitor threat. Shortfalls in repair parts and other smaller issues need to be fixed as soon as possible, but the capabilities that the F-35 provides the nation today along with the dramatic drop in price make Air Force decisions to procure the F-15EX and to not ramp up F-35A procurement very puzzling indeed. The aircraft provides a capability America needs to engage in strategic competition.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

13 Jan 2020, 21:29

steve2267 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:The fight described in the article is slow speed scissors stuff, nowhere near transonic speeds.

This, described in the Canin article, is what was happening wrt creating modal confusion in the fight described in the other article — “As g increases, the roll rate is reduced, and, if we’re commanding more than 50 deg/sec, the airplane unloads to get us back within the 0.8NzW limit.”


Too many "articles" and I'm becoming confused about just what we're discussing.

I can see how the quote you make about roll rate being reduced at high G, as introducing "modal confusion." But I also see "modal confusion" in the CLAW test report which was occurring at scissoring speeds (what -- 150-250kts?), that is, command roll, but get yaw (or roll & yaw), or command pitch but get nada etc.

So whether it be when scissoring, or trying to turn & burn up around corner speed or higher... I see that we are basically discussing flying qualities that are a result of the CLAW logic. Ho hum. Far far far from the "world is ending" as the journos would have the reading public believe.


And alotta this stuff has already been tweaked (it’s now 2020...) — for example, tripping anti-spin logic (in 2015) vs the high yaw rates Hanche (or perhaps the Venable/Heritage article) refers to and that we also see as a matter of routine in the airshow demos.

Because we live in the digital age, flight test has known more and learned more (i.e. ‘discovery’) about the F-35 than any fighter aircraft ever.
spazsinbad

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

05 Jan 2020, 02:55

energo wrote:
lbk000 wrote:Su-27 operate downfueled because they simply can't fight on a large fuel load, while the F-35 doesn't give a damn.


Negative. The F-35 also has limits on a comparably large internal fuel load. E.g. it doesn't have a full envelope on full internal fuel. The ORD specifically mentions "Manuevring Weight" at 60 percent internal fuel.

Please inform us of this 'new' F-35 limitation with a reference thank you - otherwise you will be bombarded with quotes to the contrary. The F-35 has full envelope maneuver with full fuel and internal weapons, explicated many times here IIRC.

Such restriction MAY have been in the past but not today - for example: 26 PDF page report attached below
"...Under previous versions of software, the JSF was restricted in maneuvering based on fuel weight and, under the best of conditions, the F-35A was limited to seven gravitational force equivalents (G-forces), simply called “Gs.” This forced pilots to artificially pad or limit their turns, so as not to “over-G” the aircraft. In a defensive engagement for example, pilots looking over their shoulder at the aircraft prosecuting them would underplay their “G” loading to ensure that they did not place too much stress on the jet (“over-G”) and force an untimely end to their sortie.

Those restrictions are now completely gone, and even with a full internal weapons load-out and fuel, pilots can pull back as far as the stick will go and let the jet limit loadings to nine Gs anytime the jet is capable of generating that kind of turn. As discussed below (under “The Weapons School Standard”), that same finesse is what fighter pilots have always referred to as energy management, and it can only be learned through multiple, regular air-to-air training repetitions..." John Venable 14 May 2019 https://www.heritage.org/node/13072063/print-display
wrightwing

Re: F-35 and Airshows

13 Nov 2019, 00:09

quicksilver wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
quicksilver wrote:So, are you saying (in comparison to the C) that the A sustains more G at the same flight conditions, or are you saying that although it sustains a lesser G number, it does so at a slower airspeed thereby producing a higher str?

You understand the term (And difference) sustained turn rate (i.e. the max number of degrees per second that can be sustained) vs. sustained G at X velocity/altitude, right? STR refers to degrees per second, not the Gs being sustained. ITR refers to the maximum instantaneous degrees per second (again, not Gs.) These numbers are generally referring to sea level performance, not M.8/15k feet at XYZ weight. To use some real world illustrations, the F-16 is an STR/rate fighter. The F-18 is an ITR/radius fighter much the same way the F-35A is to the F-35C.


STR is a consequence of G performance in a given configuration and weight at a given set of flight conditions. The program chose to use a certain set of flight conditions to make a comparative assessment; apples to apples if you will. In that official comparison, the C was/is the better performer in STR. We don’t know how that comparative performance might change if we alter the flight conditions. However, what we do know from pilot comments Is that the F-35A is a radius fighter as it generally suffers in comparison to other fighters in sustained performance (reference John Venable’s Heritage report from a few years back). Anecdotally, (from public reports) it accelerates like a Viper and points like a Hornet. It’s not a rate fighter.

Here’s the link to JV’s report — https://www.heritage.org/defense/report ... concurrent

It's a rate and radius fighter, which has been said by a number of.pilots. It has similar STR to F-16s.and superior ITR to F-18s. The C just happens to have superior ITR to the A. We're talking past each other. I'm not talking about sustained Gs. I'm talking about how many degrees per second each model can sustain vs how many degrees per second each can achieve instantaneously. These numbers don't correlate to max available G, max sustained G, or minimum radius turns.
quicksilver

Re: F-35 and Airshows

12 Nov 2019, 22:29

wrightwing wrote:
quicksilver wrote:So, are you saying (in comparison to the C) that the A sustains more G at the same flight conditions, or are you saying that although it sustains a lesser G number, it does so at a slower airspeed thereby producing a higher str?

You understand the term (And difference) sustained turn rate (i.e. the max number of degrees per second that can be sustained) vs. sustained G at X velocity/altitude, right? STR refers to degrees per second, not the Gs being sustained. ITR refers to the maximum instantaneous degrees per second (again, not Gs.) These numbers are generally referring to sea level performance, not M.8/15k feet at XYZ weight. To use some real world illustrations, the F-16 is an STR/rate fighter. The F-18 is an ITR/radius fighter much the same way the F-35A is to the F-35C.


STR is a consequence of G performance in a given configuration and weight at a given set of flight conditions. The program chose to use a certain set of flight conditions to make a comparative assessment; apples to apples if you will. In that official comparison, the C was/is the better performer in STR. We don’t know how that comparative performance might change if we alter the flight conditions. However, what we do know from pilot comments Is that the F-35A is a radius fighter as it generally suffers in comparison to other fighters in sustained performance (reference John Venable’s Heritage report from a few years back). Anecdotally, (from public reports) it accelerates like a Viper and points like a Hornet. It’s not a rate fighter.

Here’s the link to JV’s report — https://www.heritage.org/defense/report ... concurrent
steve2267

Re: Favorite F-35 Quotes

30 Oct 2019, 19:40

notkent wrote:There is a lot of good quotes in this article:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... hter-92036


Just more, re-hashed articles that that rag of a website, National Interest, is re-running. This one from 2016. The original being the article John Venable wrote for the Heritage Foundation. Gee... National Interest trying to jump on the F-35 band wagon after all? Wonder if David Axe had to choke on much crow to give the Okay for National Interest to (re)publish a 3+ year old accurate (and positive) piece on the F-35?

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

24 Jul 2019, 21:42

I finally had a chance to watch John Venable's briefing of his latest report on the F-35A. Once tidbit that I haven't read about previously that he mentioned is that the F-35 is designed to fly as part of larger formations than a four ship. I would think that with stealth aircraft - like with the F-117s over Iraq - you could fly with less and distribute them over a larger area - looking for gaps in enemy air defenses. But what he says makes sense from a ISR and data fusion perspective.

Seamlessly integrating Navy, Marine, and AF F-35s on one network will allow the US to take down IADS much more effectively.
marsavian

Re: New Heritage Foundation Report

15 May 2019, 01:25

Recommendations

The U.S. Congress should fund and authorize the Air Force to purchase 72 F-35As in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2020, and 360 over the Five-Year Defense Plan (FYDP).

The Department of Defense should approve full-rate production of the F-35A, and move to field the F-35A as rapidly as possible. The DOD should forego the acquisition of fourth-generation F-15EX fighters, and acquire 72 F-35As in 2020, while also funding the associated spare parts accounts.


The F-35 Joint Program Office should:

Repair the visual challenges and conflicts within the HMDS as an urgent operational requirement.

Elevate the requirement for and adequately fund a robust embedded training suite of capabilities within the F-35. That suite should include user-friendly software that has a selection of both canned (pre-programmed) and tailorable mission scenarios, and a level of fidelity that allows multi-ship F-35A packages to find, fix, sort, and target layered SAM systems that are pulled from the jet’s threat library.

Install concurrent software updates for the F-35A simulator in line with those made to the aircraft.

More rapidly improve F-35A Distributed Mission Training to increase the number of simulators connected through the Distributed Mission Training System to the standard number of aircraft in an LFE package.

Improve user transparency of its global parts supply system for the F-35A, accelerate the delivery of those parts, provide users with visibility of those parts as they are in transit, and bring delivery schedules for those parts up to modern-day global-supply-chain-management standards.

Increase the number of personnel dedicated to resolving maintenance action requests (ARs) and the number of teams it makes available for on-site troubleshooting.

Increase parts availability and maintenance visibility into parts sourcing, improve scheduling, and rapidly increase the joint technical data available to maintenance personnel.


The Air Force should:

Increase the average number of sorties for line fighter pilot wingmen, flight leads, and instructors to a minimum of three flights in the aircraft a week to grow or sustain their skill sets, as well as grow the F-35A experience
level with the CAF. In order to accomplish that, it should institute aggressive flying-hour contracts in all wings operating at or above IOC to grow the breadth of fighter and maintenance experience as rapidly as possible.

Segregate the costs associated with overloading unit maintenance manning for the sake of expediting the spin-up of future F-35A bed-down locations, and exclude those costs from F-35A O&M cost calculations.


Conclusion

The Joint Strike Fighter program has endured its share of growing pains, but the F-35A is now fully operational, and those flying the jet have complete confidence in its ability to operate in and around the most intense threat environments in the world. While it will take several more years before the jet, its simulators, maintenance, and logistical support fully realize their potential, the technical issues that limited the early operational employment of the JSF have been overcome, and there is no doubt in the minds of those flying the F-35A at Hill AFB that, even now, this is the most dominant and lethal multi-role weapons system in the world. It is time to field this game-changing weapons system as rapidly as possible.

—John Venable, a graduate of the USAF Fighter
Weapons Instructor Course with more than 3,300 hours
in the F-16C, is Senior Research Fellow in the Center for
National Defense, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy,
at The Heritage Foundation.
blain

New Heritage Foundation Report

15 May 2019, 00:09

AF pilots say they want the F-35As. Former Boeing executive wants the AF to buy a fighter from Boeing. John Venable is out with a new report. He suggests ramping up production to 72 aircraft per year.

https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ ... BG3406.pdf
spazsinbad

Re: Radar jamming ability

15 Feb 2019, 21:35

NATIONAL INTEREST are very lazy - they republish a lot of articles - usually not positive toward the F-35 so that OLD problems appear new to the uninformed. The article cited above was first published in 2016. Searching for VENABLE....

NOW ATTACHED 4 page PDF of ARTICLE: Air Force F-35 Proponents Strike Back at Critics Sep 2016
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... itics.aspx

search.php?keywords=Venable&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=65&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

This URL may take readers to the original article however I don't have the time to compare the pair:

At end of OP link above 1st PUBLISHED: https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/08/05/ ... er-pilots/

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52189&p=350857&hilit=Venable#p350857
from URL above my fav: "...In air combat mode, when the “world is swirling around the pilot,” who may be turning 15 to 30 degrees per second with many aircraft flying around in different directions, keeping track of just the friendly jets is a big challenge, Venable said. “What this aircraft does is to look in any direction and see who is there and you’ll be able to tell who is a good guy and who is a bad guy,” he [VENABLE?] said....."


And on to: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52189&p=349935&hilit=Venable#p349935
for:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pilo ... new-report [04 AUG 2016]

Re: Fast Five With U.S. Air Force Chief Gen. Dave Goldfein

09 Feb 2019, 06:05

The Air Force Wants to Buy More F-15X Jets, and It’s a Huge Mistake
08 Feb 2019 John Venable

"1 Last Friday, the Air Force announced plans to buy Boeing’s F-15X, based on the jet’s capabilities and comparatively low costs when stacked against the F-35A....

...3 In the unforgiving world of conflict, investments have to deliver viable combat capability, and in that regard the F-15X falls well short of the mark.

...The Air Force needs to acquire at least 72 fighters a year just to offset jets that are aging out. The largest number of F-35s it plans to purchase in any given year is 60, starting in 2026, and there’s no question the service needs to buy more jets. So does it make sense for the USAF to buy the F-15X?...

...At first blush, it’s hard to see how the F-15X could be cheaper — but for just argument’s sake, let’s say the Air Force could both buy and operate the F-15X below the price of the F-35. Are the capabilities of the F-15X even worthy of the investment?...

...As envisioned, the F-15X will include all those improvements [detailed earlier], while carrying a veritable arsenal of air-to-ground and air-to-air munitions including up to 22 air-to-air missiles. With both conformal and external drop tanks, the jet has a range of 600 miles, equaling that of an F-35A.

Many, including Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein, talk of the F-15X as a replacement for the Air Force’s F-15C. Unfortunately, the added weight and drag of the modifications that give the F-15X its superb range and suite of capabilities have also caused it to lose the agile handling characteristics and favorable thrust-to-weight ratio associated with its older, air superiority sibling.

The F-15X is an updated version of the F-15E, and six active duty pilots I have interviewed who have flown both that jet and the F-35 state the former could never survive in a modern day, high-threat environment, and that it would be soundly defeated by an F-35 in almost any type of air-to-air engagement. That strongly suggests buying the F-15X in lieu of the F-35 would be a very poor choice....

...the Air Force needs to buy 72 fighters a year just to keep pace with aircraft retirements, not to mention address the need to grow new squadrons as Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson has said is required. For the reasons described above, Congress should be very skeptical of plans to buy a legacy fighter such as the F-15X and, at the very least, debate the idea of expanding F-35 production capacity to meet the needs of the Air Force. The cost of any new fighter we acquire should allow us to take the fight to the enemy on our terms for the next quarter-century."

Source: https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... ge-mistake
spazsinbad

Re: Most agile F-35?

04 Oct 2018, 03:36

Does anyone have a quote how the F-35 can keep track of baddies within 10 miles or so? TIA. Bin Lookin' No Find - but...
Air Force F-35 Proponents Strike Back at Critics
Sep 2016 Stew Magnuson

"...Harrigian [former F-22 pilot, Maj. Gen. Jeff Harrigian] said: “The F-35 [helmet’s] tremendous capability is really a first step toward providing that asymmetric advantage to the pilot with that situational awareness it provides for communications, navigation and identification capabilities.” In air combat mode, when the “world is swirling around the pilot,” who may be turning 15 to 30 degrees per second with many aircraft flying around in different directions, keeping track of just the friendly jets is a big challenge, Venable [John Venable, a former F-16 pilot with more than 3,000 hours of flying time, who is now a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation] said. “What this aircraft does is to look in any direction and see who is there and you’ll be able to tell who is a good guy and who is a bad guy,” he said...."

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... itics.aspx
steve2267

Re: Most agile F-35?

01 Oct 2018, 14:59

zero-one wrote:Thats not detrimental tho, the F-35 may not offer the same raw acceleration, energy bleed rate and sustained G rate as the Viper, but it makes up for it with better high alpha, slow speed nose authority and respectable acceleration approaching Viper levels.


I'm slightly confused here. Do I note a hint of disappointment that an airshow clean F-16 may turn better than an F-35?

Without aircraft performance numbers and charts from the pilot's manual, or E-M diagrams to overlay and compare, and without first-hand-knowledge piloting Lightnings and Vipers, we are left to point to quotes, articles and the like.

I believe we have all seen the quotes that the F-35 is "like a Hornet with four motors!" or "like a Hornet with a turbo" and that it "out-accelerates a Block 50 F-16C" or "it's acceleration is like an F-16C Block 50 with a single centerline tank." In the illustrations below, several 4th gen jets devoid of stores -- they've been jettisoned, are compared to the F-35 with full fuel and internal armament, and even in this comparison, F-16 pilots state the F-35 regains energy better than the Viper... so there is that "datapoint." So from a burning perspective, the F-35 seems to be at least on par with an F-16.

And even with the pre-3F CLAWS with it's 7g flight restrictions etc etc, F-16 pilots rated the F-35 better at slow speed responsiveness and Stack/scissors performance. There is also an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot raving about 28°/sec pedal turns and eye watering performance the 3F CLAWS-restrictions-removed aircraft will have. But what does he know? -- he's only a patch wearer after all.

Back to the future... an oldie but goodie from John Venable:

Operational Assessment of the F-35A Argues for Full Program Procurement and Concurrent Development Process
by John Venable August 4, 2016

<...snip...>

The energy and maneuverability (Em) performance of fourth-generation fighters is very often exaggerated by the idea that these fighters fly combat missions in absolutely clean “airshow” configurations. No fourth-generation jet in the U.S. inventory (or any other) goes into combat that way, and most will carry significant external stores (munitions, fuel tanks, and targeting pods) in order to accomplish their mission. When pilots know they are about to enter a dogfight situation requiring the best Em their jets can deliver, they will jettison fuel tanks and unexpended bombs, but almost every pod, rack,[21] or missile rail is permanently affixed,[22] adding significant un-jettisonable weight, drag, and RCS.

...

A Direct Comparison. Thirty-one experienced pilots currently flying the F-35A were asked to rate the energy and maneuvering characteristics of their previous fourth-generation fighters in a combat configuration throughout the dogfighting maneuver envelope in a combat configuration[23] after jettisoning their external stores. They were then asked to rate the performance of the F-35A using the same scale, with fuel and internal munition loads associated with a combat loadout[24] under their current G and CLAW restrictions.[25]

...

Each pilot was then asked to select which fighter he would rather fly in combat if he were to face a clone flying the other jet in six different air-to-air situations. (See Chart 2.) If the pilot selected an F-15C in a short-range setup, for example, he felt he could outperform a pilot of equal abilities in the F-35A. Pilots selected the F-35A 100 percent of the time in beyond-visual-range situations and over 80 percent of dogfighting situations where energy and maneuverability are critical to success.

Venable - Chart 1 - How Pilots Rate Fighter Jet Maneuverbility.PNG

Venable - Chart 2 - Pilots prefer Flying F-35A.PNG


The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environmenteven with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC,[26] this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns[27] are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”[28]

...

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent


Yes, they did rate the Viper as having a (somewhat?) better sustained turn rate, and a (marginally better) instantaneous turn rate. So if turning and burning with only a gun is your thing, then by all means, take the F-16... the Viper is still an outstanding aircraft.

If on the other hand, you want undefeatable, eye-watering performance with a disappear switch and a Gods-eye-view tossed in... the F-35 is your ride.
steve2267

Re: Favorite F-35 Quotes

25 Aug 2018, 20:24

Another "eye watering" quote, but not from Gen. Pleus. Rather this one by a patch wearer, a USAF Fighter Weapons School grad, which, IMO, makes it that much more impressive.

Operational Assessment of the F-35A Argues for Full Program Procurement and Concurrent Development Process
by John Venable August 4, 2016, The Heritage Foundation

...

The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment—even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC,[26] this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns[27] are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”[28]

...

[28] Personal interview with former F-16C pilot currently flying the F-35A, April 18, 2016.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent

Re: Taiwan still hoping to buy F-35 fighters from U.S.

27 Mar 2018, 20:13

As boring as watching batshit dry; the usual suspects or whomever whatever - for & agin - sale of F-35Bs to Taiwan.
F-35 Sale to Taiwan Not Worth the ‘Risk,’ Experts Warn
26 Mar 2018 Marcus Weisgerber

"...while experts say the F-35B is ideally suited for Taiwan’s military, they warn that it could pose more of a risk than a deterrent. You would be upping the ante significantly not just between the Taiwanese and Chinese, but between the United States and China,” said John “JV” Venable, a retired fighter pilot who is now an analyst with the Heritage Foundation. “I’m not sure that’s worth the risk for the United States.”...

...Then there are export control concerns surrounding the F-35’s advanced technology and the logistics network each plane feeds data into. “You tap into that and you’ve got access to a whole lot more information than logistics,” Venable said of the computer network known as ALIS. “There is word [on the] street that it would be very hard for the Taiwanese to hold the secrets — not because they would give them up willingly, but because of the infiltration of the Chinese into their system.”

And the plane is not cheap to buy, fly, and maintain. An F-35B, the version pushed by Cornyn and Inhofe, currently costs about $123 million each. “Do the Taiwanese have the wherewithal to buy these planes?” asked Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis for the Teal Group, a Virginia-based consulting firm. If Taiwan could only afford a small batch of F-35s, it would be better off buying high-end air defenses, Venable said.

But from a military perspective, experts say the F-35 is perfectly suited for flying in Taiwan. The plane can take off from short runways and land vertically like a helicopter. That would be important in a war with China, which would likely bomb Taiwan’s airfields preventing traditional jets from taking off. Pilots consider the F-35B “a very simple airplane to fly” compared to the Harrier, an old fighter jet that can take off and land vertically, Venable said.

“The survivability of the F-35B, and modern long-range sensors, could help Taiwan intercept Chinese missiles, promoting deterrence well into the next decade,” the senators wrote. “The F-35B would not only provide a modern fifth-generation fighter but would also bolster their capabilities in next-generation warfare.”...

Source: http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018 ... rn/146970/
Next

Return to advanced search