F-35 and Airshows

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23507
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Jun 2019, 05:38

And it is not like this ACM stuff has not been discussed Endlessly here. Every thread degenerates into ACM/dogfight ffsake.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Jun 2019, 16:29

charlielima223 wrote:



Please do not take my comment out of context with over dramatization. Beyond test footage and sales marketing, things happen and more often, not in your favor.
What if an enemy fighter jet manages to sneak pass you in all the chaos?


Nobody is sneaking past the F-35 in WVR, stealthy or not. DAS tracks/categorizes hundreds of targets, so the pilot has an unprecedented awareness of who's who.

After all in its first red flag debute USAF F-35As that were shot down were all in WVR engagements. From my understanding red air used tactics that managed to let then get in close where stealth doesnt mean much. We can all go on with "what ifs".
If by respawning while WVR is a tactic, then sure. Of course real world targets don't respawn after they're killed the first time.
As stated, i am more convinced with over the shoulder shots during the first seconds of the merge than a missile pulling an extreme 180 to engage at an enemy at your 6. Also like i said, what if that enemy aircraft already in a more advantageous position?


Over the shoulder shots won't be the first choice, but what they do, is put your opponent on the defensive. They either break off, or die.

No doubt modern missile technology/capabilities have made air combat more and more dangerous and complicated. However if these missiles were indeed the end all be all, why design an aircraft with good maneuvering qualities? Why teach ACM/BFM?

Modern missiles are why nobody wants to go to the merge, if BVR kills can be made. You still practice ACM/BFM, to give your weapons the highest possible Pk.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post22 Jun 2019, 16:32

Meanwhile, only at Canadian airshows you say?

Desperate attempt to torque a story.


https://beta.canada.com/news/canada/mil ... 25eb7/amp/








.
Attachments
B112508C-3DE2-437B-ADA8-5AF30C592911.png
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 302
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post22 Jun 2019, 19:19

sferrin wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Why not, ASRAAM has smaller fins w/o TVC and it can. Besides, the AMRAAM has had several upgrades in the C5/7/D sequence to specifically address HOBS functionality. There has also been marketing vids from Northrop showing this capability (animated) as a way to demonstrate the capabilities of EODAS.


that must be a very small and limited engagement envelope if the AIM-9X and AMRAAM-D can engage threats directly to the 6 o'clock of the aircraft. I am always skeptical of the claim that new missiles can engage threats behind the aircraft. I am sure the over the shoulder capabilities and HOBS are exceedingly impressive as demonstrated in publicly available test footage. However I have a problem visualizing a missile coming off the rails and performing a tight 180 turn.








Shows a weakness in the python since it doesn’t have flare rejection, unless they changed the seeker head and processor for this test.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Jun 2019, 18:48

Historically speaking, missiles have always performed better in test than in actual combat.

So if forced to choose between something that has been historically proven to be very useful in air combat (Kinematics) and something that is supposed to be very useful according to test (HOBS/Heaters).

I think Thats a very difficult decision, I wouldn't be so confident on choosing HOBS right away, because frankly, I don't believe it will produce video game like results where you look and shoot and kill. I think, HOBS will be used in concert with high maneuverability to maximize the Pk of the missile. So both will be of equal importance in WVR.

But a highly maneuverable platform with non HOBS missiles like the Teen series and F-22 when they were limited to just Aim-9M rounds was still considered extremely dangerous in WVR.

A non maneuverable platform with HOBS missiles on the other hand (Mig-29 in full combat configuration is supposedly not very maneuverable in certain scenarios) isn't very effective.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2224
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Jun 2019, 16:02

zero-one wrote:Historically speaking, missiles have always performed better in test than in actual combat.


True but also historically speaking since the air-to-air missile inception, they (air-to-air missiles) have replaced the gun as the fighter/interceptor aircraft main air-to-air weapon.

zero-one wrote:So if forced to choose between something that has been historically proven to be very useful in air combat (Kinematics) and something that is supposed to be very useful according to test (HOBS/Heaters).

I think Thats a very difficult decision, I wouldn't be so confident on choosing HOBS right away, because frankly, I don't believe it will produce video game like results where you look and shoot and kill. I think, HOBS will be used in concert with high maneuverability to maximize the Pk of the missile. So both will be of equal importance in WVR.

But a highly maneuverable platform with non HOBS missiles like the Teen series and F-22 when they were limited to just Aim-9M rounds was still considered extremely dangerous in WVR.


I don't think that HOBS missiles will necessarily replace kinematics (at least not for now) and the F-35 is a excellent example of this - it not only relies on HOBS missiles but also relies on kinematics (both acceleration and nose-pointing maneuvers for instance).

What HOBS missiles grants are another possibilities such and for example as:
1- Imagine a "classical" dogfight between two aircraft where none of the aircraft manage to get the advantage over the other (stalemate) because for example both aircraft have excellent agility and/or both pilots are very good. If one of the aircraft has HOBS missiles then the advantage will go this aircraft and this one will be the winner of the combat/dogfight.
2- IMO more important than 1-: HOBS missiles are very good to "shake off" any pursuing aircraft. Imagine you being a pilot and an enemy aircraft is having the advantage (located at your 4 to 8 o'clock for example) or otherwise you're being pursuited. If you shoot a HOBS missile you'll either force the enemy aircraft to evade the missile which grants you the possibility of either escaping or putting yourself at the advantage or if the enemy aircraft doesn't evade then there's a very good chance that it will be destroyed by the incoming HOBS missile.

zero-one wrote:A non maneuverable platform with HOBS missiles on the other hand (Mig-29 in full combat configuration is supposedly not very maneuverable in certain scenarios) isn't very effective.


Although it was a "test", test have shots (using ex-East German Mig-29s) that the combination of HMS+AA-11 was potentially very deadly even if this system was (even at that time) somehow "archaic".
In real combat these systems didn't seem to have much success indeed but I don't think that this had anything to do with the quality of the system (namely the HMS) itself.
For example the HOBS features of the AA-11 (which was the missile used by the Mig-29 system above) weren't that spectacular namely when compared with the later Israeli Python missiles and/or other more modern and advanced western missiles such as the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, etc...
Also, most Mig-29 were either shot down at BVR or in other situations where the pilots didn't have much of a chance to visually see and cue the AA-11 missiles via HMS.
Now the F-35 for example can cue HOBS missiles thru other much more effective means compared to the only mean available in the Mig-29 which is the pilot visually looking/aiming with his head at the enemy aircraft - something again, which can only be done visually using the pilot's "Mk1 eyeball".
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 994
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 11:32

instantaneous has replace sustained?
Aussie fanboy
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4540
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 14:43

instantaneous + recovery has replaced sustained maybe. No one wants to be a sitting duck.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2734
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 14:57

Binary alternatives rarely reflect the reality of air combat.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 15:10

for as long as I can remember the F-16 has been regarded as the better knife fighter vs the F/A-18.

Though Hornet drivers and fans may have substantial valid arguments, the major consensus seems to be, beginner to average pilots will find the Viper more forgiving. Simply ham fist your way out of trouble as one Viper pilot put it.

Its not until we get to expert level pilots where the narrative seems to change into, "both have their strengths, it really depends on who exploits them better or who makes the 1st mistake" but then again experts say that about any plane, be it an F-16 vs F/A-18
or
T-38 vs F-22.

Anyway, did HOBS make the Hornet the preferred platform for average pilots since instantaneous turns has become more important than sustained. The Hornet is said to "accelerate as well as anything" down low, so recovery might not be too much of a problem over there.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2224
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 16:03

zero-one wrote:for as long as I can remember the F-16 has been regarded as the better knife fighter vs the F/A-18.


If both the F-16 and F/A-18 were armed with guns only then that would likely be correct.

However the inception of All-Aspect "dogfighting" air-to-air missiles (AIM-9L/M for example, comes into my mind) somehow changed that paradigm. These missiles became the main "dogfighting" weapon so the first aircraft that manages to get a shot with such missile(s) will likely have a bigger chance of winning the dogfight and the high AoA/nose pointing abilities of the Hornet certainly help it getting the first shot with an All-Aspect missile (although and granted, this wouldn't be the only feature to get such a first shot) .

zero-one wrote:Anyway, did HOBS make the Hornet the preferred platform for average pilots since instantaneous turns has become more important than sustained. The Hornet is said to "accelerate as well as anything" down low, so recovery might not be too much of a problem over there.


I tried to hint the following in my previous post:
- HOBS and high AOA maneuvering are never intended to replace Acceleration/energy maneuvering. They (HOBS and high AOA maneuvering) add another layers to the aerial/dogfight combat. And in order to achieve a conclusion such as the 'X' plane is better than the 'Y' in dogfighting or whatever then this conclusion can only be achieved by "summing" all the aircraft features/layers and even then, this is simpler being said than done.

Anyway, I think it's relatively easy to reach the conclusion that the "agility features" of the F-16 and F/A-18 are both very important since one of the F-35 requirements was to combine both types/kinds of agility.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 749
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 18:30

zero-one wrote:Historically speaking, missiles have always performed better in test than in actual combat.

So if forced to choose between something that has been historically proven to be very useful in air combat (Kinematics) and something that is supposed to be very useful according to test (HOBS/Heaters).


You're way underestimating how much missiles are integral part of BFM tactics. Read about ACEVAL/AIMVAL, all aspect missiles like AIM-9L/M totally changed how BFM is done. I don't know why you're proposing an either/or situation with kinematics and missiles?

zero-one wrote:A non maneuverable platform with HOBS missiles on the other hand (Mig-29 in full combat configuration is supposedly not very maneuverable in certain scenarios) isn't very effective.


Where did you hear this?
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1102
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 20:50

Nope, we are NOT overestimating missiles.

During tests, they always work perfect.
On computer simulations, they are always good.

In Vietnam only 10 % worked as planned. => Got the picture?

You can not expect a missile that has been vibrating 100 hrs on a wingtip to perform;
Just be happy when the motor ignites, all the rest is optional and a heathy dose of good luck.

Many, many years ago, we got a bunch of 20 9L"s to shoot.

2 out of 20 worked.
The rest of the pilots got drunk, just out of sheer happiness that their missiles did not kil themselves.
We had to repair and repaint airframes, and re-polish cockpits.

THAT ladies and gentlemen, is reality.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1102
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 21:00

Sorry guys, my mistake; too long ago; re-checked my logs..
The where ex-German -9 Bravo's. Not Limas.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23507
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 22:26

vilters wrote:Sorry guys, my mistake; too long ago; re-checked my logs..
The where ex-German -9 Bravo's. Not Limas.

The Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm A4G Skyhawks back in the 1970s had a requirement for every qualified A4G pilot to fire one AIM-9B Sidewinder per year (or more if circumstances warranted it - I did from two squadrons - one at sea). To my knowledge over the first five years only one missile went wonky to actually shoot down the JINDIVIK towing the flare.

To estimate the number of missiles fired - to my knowledge - requires too much brain power without coffee this morning.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bayernfan, notkent and 23 guests