F-35 and Airshows

[spazsinbad]

Back to the airshows... FROM: http://hrana.org/news/2019/05/these-pho ... -ever-see/
https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp ... isplay.jpg
&
https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp ... irshow.jpg

[F-16ADF]

I did say this F-35 EM was probably about 20K ft (seriously is there much of a difference between 19Kft and 20Kft)?. judging by the speed and the -2500Ps at max turn rate. The -2500 number tells you a great deal of info. For instance the Mirage 2000 EM at 15K at max ITR bleeds over -1800 (kinda hard to tell, since it ends at -800, but it's around there). Obviously the F-35 has far more of an energy retention advantage, that is why I say probably about 20,000ft. and the F-35 is probably carrying a far greater load than the Mirage 2000's 2 IR AAMs.

[F-16ADF]

And now here is what Keith "Okie" Nance had to say about merge speeds. Since some on this thread keep implying that the F-14 is this all great slow speed lower G jet with an unbeatable turn radius. Does Nance say he hits the merge at 250KCAS, Nope, 300KCAS, Nope. 350KCAS, Nope. He said that he would keep his speed up around 425-450KCAS. His words are at the 33:15 minute mark.


Listen to his interview, he has 3900 hours in the Tomcat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO584LI6Zjc

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I did say this F-35 EM was probably about 20K ft (seriously is there much of a difference between 19Kft and 20Kft)?. judging by the speed and the -2500Ps at max turn rate. The -2500 number tells you a great deal of info. For instance the Mirage 2000 EM at 15K at max ITR bleeds over -1800 (kinda hard to tell, since it ends at -800, but it's around there). Obviously the F-35 has far more of an energy retention advantage, that is why I say probably about 20,000ft. and the F-35 is probably carrying a far greater load than the Mirage 2000's 2 IR AAMs.

Based on the limit G, the limit speed, and the Ps=0 max speed, I concluded that it was an A model carrying an external load, as otherwise the Ps=0 line would reach the limit line.

[jetblast16]

Oops How did that get in there lol? Block 50 bringin' the noise (and rate)!

[gta4]

The super tight loop got its official name "lightning loop"! Yeah!
I noticed this maneuver 2 years ago and I knew it would be F-35's trademark. Call me prophet
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53270

[sferrin]

The super tight loop got its official name "lightning loop"! Yeah!
I noticed this maneuver 2 years ago and I knew it would be F-35's trademark. Call me prophet

The F-22 has been doing it for over a decade.

[mixelflick]

The super tight loop got its official name "lightning loop"! Yeah!
I noticed this maneuver 2 years ago and I knew it would be F-35's trademark. Call me prophet

The F-22 has been doing it for over a decade.

True, but c'mon. How many stealthy, single engined, multi-role, non-thrust vectored jets can even come close? With a 6,000lb internal weapons load, and insane amount of internal fuel??

I don't like certain things about the F-35, but there's no denying it - fantastic accomplishment by LM engineers. This thing is a world beater right NOW, nevermind in another 5 to 10 years when its fully mature...

[sferrin]

The super tight loop got its official name "lightning loop"! Yeah!
I noticed this maneuver 2 years ago and I knew it would be F-35's trademark. Call me prophet

The F-22 has been doing it for over a decade.

True, but c'mon. How many stealthy, single engined, multi-role, non-thrust vectored jets can even come close? With a 6,000lb internal weapons load, and insane amount of internal fuel??

I don't like certain things about the F-35, but there's no denying it - fantastic accomplishment by LM engineers. This thing is a world beater right NOW, nevermind in another 5 to 10 years when its fully mature...

I'm not dogging the F-35, I'm simply pointing out it wasn't the first to do it. That it does it without TVC is particularly impressive though. Love to put Carlo Kopp in an F-105 and tell him to do that maneuver.

[gta4]

Yes Carlo Kopp and pierre Sprey need to learn something.

[steve2267]

And now here is what Keith "Okie" Nance had to say about merge speeds. Since some on this thread keep implying that the F-14 is this all great slow speed lower G jet with an unbeatable turn radius. Does Nance say he hits the merge at 250KCAS, Nope, 300KCAS, Nope. 350KCAS, Nope. He said that he would keep his speed up around 425-450KCAS. His words are at the 33:15 minute mark.


Listen to his interview, he has 3900 hours in the Tomcat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO584LI6Zjc

I asked a Tomcat driver once about a slower aircraft dogfighting and the merge. I cannot even recall the exact conversation. Somehow I think I might have been asking about a modern turboprop fighter, but I may be wrong. I do recall his exact words though of his response: "You've got to live to the merge." His response seems to mirror Nance's comment about getting to the merge around 425-450 kts.

So, in a sense, speed IS life, but there is a time to go fast, and there are times to go slow.

Back on Sunday, May 05, 2019,

I never tried to make this a rate comparison, those are your words. I was saying that a jet (in this case the F-16 ) can decelerate and hold turn rate across its horizontal -Ps lines, while shrinking its corresponding turn radius. The F-14 pilot (if he chose to decelerate-which would be a dumb move on his part) will also be shrinking his radius, but at the cost of losing more speed and rate. ---Because his -Ps lines ARE NOT horizontal but angle near diagonal. The F-16 has an energy conserving Ps plateau, the F-14 has Ps spikes. So the best move for the Tomcat is to play the STR card. The F-16, hence, has more options remaing in his toolbox.

I believe it was Gums that mentioned the Viper was happy down slow. But at some point the Viper runs into that ding dang AoA limiter. At that point, the Hornet probably trumps the Viper. But take away that nuisance AoA limiter in the Stubby, yet retain the Viper's slickness, go mo faster quicker smash... and you've got a killer combination.

A USMC gyrene Killer Bee stick actuator told me that he can rate like a Viper, --OR-- radius like a Hornet if he so chooses. One of the design goals of the JSF program was an aircraft that combined the performance of the F-16 and the F/A-18. I think we are seeing the successful results of an aircraft that met, if not exceeded, those goals: you can dictate the terms of the fight. You can stay fast, save your E-chips, and still rate pretty good, or you can slow down and radius like nobodies business, and you have the ability to slow down quickly (quotes from "Dolby" Hanche) but also the smash to regain your E. It may be the agility to rapidly slow down / accelerate, that is, to move quickly, back-and-forth, left <-> right, along the doghouse plot that makes the F-35 particularly agile and dangerous from a purely kinematics point of view. Then heap all that low observables stuff, god-like SA, and intertwined and fused comms between aircraft on it... and it only becomes that much more dangerous.

I think we are all arguing about the same elephant, just from different angles or viewpoints.

My original comment was aimed more along the lines of that nifty square turn is a useful tool to have in the toolbox, but I'm not sure it is the be-all-and-end-all of ACM / DACT / BFM.

[F-16ADF]

Steve,

Yes, I fully agree with you. I asked CDR Chesire about Tomcat merge speeds a couple yrs ago, ironically he said the same thing that Nance later would say on his ACI Q&A. 425-450. Chesire did say the Tomcat did not like to be slow. In fact, in one of Gums old posts he said that at 200KCAS and under, -the Tomcat, Eagle, and Phantom would be "shaking all over" the place. He said the Hornet at those speeds was the best. Problem with Viper is at those low speeds he backs up to his AOA limit, and nose stops tracking.

F-35 solves all these issues. Obviously, it has the brute power of the F-16 (I've seen the thing go vertical right above my house, --it's a giant afterburner plume), and the slow speed grace of the Hornet. Me, personally, I think the F-35C is the best looking. Yet, the A model probably the best of the group.

[quicksilver]

As each of you try to get your mind’s eye around ‘bfm’, here are some words to add to your conversation — 3-dimensional space, time, out-of-plane maneuvering, relative position and movement (irt your adversary in that space), nose position, perception, knowledge, experience.

[F-16ADF]

This is about the best summary of the dynamics of ACM/BFM i've read on this fourm:


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=25772

"I have read these diatribes on turn rates, G, Thrust to Weight, etc on F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, etc. and have mostly stayed out of the discussions because they are absurd and show no understanding of the fundamentals of flying an airplane against another. I have read multiple armchair fighter pilots who have endlessly cited EM diagrams and pontificated about who will win and who will lose. There are no numbers and there are no charts that will predict who wins an aerial engagement. Trying to endlessly debate such things and potentially prove them on your Falcon 4.X simulator is not of any value at all. So I offer my personal perspective gained over 24 years of F-16 flying, interrupted by 1.5 years of F-4 flying in the middle, to try to curb a little bit of this useless debate. First and foremost, and indicated by every successful fighter pilot from Manfred Von Richthofen to Boots Blesse, in aerial combat it is the pilot who makes the fewest mistakes who prevails. Having a better airplane and/or knowing your aircraft capabilities and your opponents is important but decisions you make in split seconds often determine the outcome. Knowing when, and how to orient your lift vector, when to pull hard and when to ease off, and constantly assessing your position and energy in relation to your opponent are the keys to success more than the great capabilities of your jet against another. I have failed miserably as a young F-16 driver against F-5 and F-4s piloted by more experienced fighter pilots and in the time I flew the F-4 (after 8 years of F-16 experience) I achieved lots of success against less experienced F-16 and F-15 pilots. All depending on the circumstances.

Some simple considerations if you are seriously interested in understanding the process of evaluating one aircraft against another: Energy is the key. Knowing what you have and what you need. Getting it when you can and using it only when you need to. Knowing what your adversary has and what his capabilities are to get it/use it. Understanding the positional relationships that play into that decision process: Relative positions, altitudes, nose position ,etc. Then you make decisions about how to orient your lift vector, when to pull and when to ease off, how hard to pull and in what direction, etc. SO an aircraft that has better capabilities to both use energy and regain it is obviously at an advantage, but only if the pilot uses it properly. And geometry is important too. It would be very hard to kill a Sopwith camel with an F-16 due to low IR and Radar reflectivity and extremely tight turn radius and high rate. But I know which A/C I would want to go into combat in.

It is a constant evaluation of how to use energy. ITR is only important when you need to cash in energy to either survive an attack or to gain a position of advantage or exploit a fleeting weapons employment opportunity. Using it at any other time is wasting energy for no gain and provides an opportunity for your adversary (that mistake). If you pay more or less for that turn you are at more or less disadvantage after.

There are times to gain energy and times to expend it. ITR expends it, STR is neutral, and less than STR is gaining it. So in a normal fight you actually spend less time at ITR and STR than you do at something less (if you know what you are doing and are not defensive from the outset). Even when defensive you use it as long as you need to survive and then get back into energy gaining performance as fast as you can. In the F-16 we enjoyed an energy gaining capacity that rivaled any adversary and our peak performance was gained at AOA much lower than our adversaries (that also had advantages). Much ado has been made about the 25 alpha limiter in the F-16 without realizing the positive implications of max performance at a relatively low AOA. When launching missiles at high AOA the missile tends to pitch into the relative wind, especially when ejector launched as AIM-7/120 from the belly of F-15/18. This increases the angle of large off-boresight launches and may exceed the missiles capability. This is the reason for much improvement of OB capability improvements in AIM-9X and 120. Point being, pulling 45-60 alpha to point at someone (or specifically something less than right at them) is of limited value if your missile can't hack the corner. And unless your gun shoots upwards (slightly in the F-15) if you can't get into lead pursuit it also is wasted energy trying. So you cash in everything (ITR) and don't get the shot while I am working STR or less because your nose is off, I take advantage and turn defensive into neutral or offensive. So you snatch your Hornet to 45 alpha and slow to 105 knots while I am at 25 alpha at 135 knots and you really feel like you are winning this flat scissors because your nose is initially 20 degrees higher than mine and your energy remnant is zooming you higher than me. Then as your airspeed bleeds off more and you start to fall out of the sky as I am climbing at several hundred feet per minute the situation changes rapidly. You try to slide over behind me to use your gun, can't hold lead, you shoot an AIM-9 (or sillier an Aim-7/120) at 45+ alpha with a few degrees of up look and guess what? Doesn't hack the corner (although in training you may try to call a kill). Maybe an AIM-9X will work there (didn't fly with them so don't know). This was a common defensive result in a 9K set with a Hornet (ABCD, never fought E/F). Outcomes were not usually conclusive because USAF requires a KIO at role reversal but it usually occurred shortly thereafter. Good Hornet drivers would not let themselves get suckered into using all that alpha and ITR and a well flown Hornet is tough as is a well flown Eagle.

Other factors. Can you see them out the back when you are defensive? Can you roll well when at high AOA? Can you sustain high G for longer? Do you have good integrated weapons systems that are easy to use quickly (the right weapon at the right time)?

These are all important issues in 1v1 engagements. We haven't even started to talk about XvX which brings in far more considerations and actually in most aerial combat will be of more importance. How much SA do you have and what are your capabilities to exploit it? What are your tactics for mutual support? How good is your shared SA?

So go on having your debates about EM diagrams and ITR, STR, wing loading, etc. to your hearts content realizing you will never predict the outcomes of notional battles between aircraft. Only pilots, highly trained and familiar with their jets capability and their adversaries', will decide that outcome.

I will return to fond memories of winning and losing against Hornet/Eagle/Etc. drivers while flying Vipers and doing the same to include beating some Viper drivers while flying the F-4."






...Sorry for being kinda off topic-

[quicksilver]

I’m *generally* in the same camp as that author; I’m simply inclined to help others come to a better understanding of ‘it’ on their own. Another mindless discussion about rate/radius isn’t gonna take anyone someplace new on this topic. Helping them visualize the relational dynamics in 3-dimensional space might, but even that is inadequate. People have written *books* on the matter...