F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

[cantaz]

Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).

The aircraft is what ultimately knows (before the pilot does) where the targets are through all the sensors and the fusion process, the HMDS acts like a monitor and mouse combo so the aircraft can tell the pilot what his target options are and the pilot can tell the aircraft which target he wants to select. Of course, pointing the helmet at something is just one option for communicating intent to the aircraft, HOTAS, touch screen and voice being two others. Therefore, use head pointing when it's practical (i.e. not under G load), use something else when it's not.

You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?

How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.

[cantaz]

Lotsa denial around here.

My problem is with the likelihood that a legitimate report would be leaked to that particular outlet. I find it strange that someone would look for a monkey to give a watch to.

[munny]

Bill seems to think F-35 fans are going to be crushed in a few days time. Willing to bet his report cherry picks from the report and fails to link to the entire document.

[uclass]

The real stand-out stinker is that is says the F-16 has 2 drop tanks. Now the F-16 with 2 drop tanks is limited to 5.5g unless I'm wrong?? And the F-35A can pull 9g.

[playloud]

The real stand-out stinker is that is says the F-16 has 2 drop tanks. Now the F-16 with 2 drop tanks is limited to 5.5g unless I'm wrong?? And the F-35A can pull 9g.

Well, the article also doesn't mention if there is any fuel in the tanks. That would make a difference.

[Gums]

Salute!

Maybe John Will can confirm, but the Vipers I flew up thru Bk 15 had 9 gee bags.

Gums tries to remember.....
( I lent out my Dash One and poof!)

[optimist]

Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).

The aircraft is what ultimately knows (before the pilot does) where the targets are through all the sensors and the fusion process, the HMDS acts like a monitor and mouse combo so the aircraft can tell the pilot what his target options are and the pilot can tell the aircraft which target he wants to select. Of course, pointing the helmet at something is just one option for communicating intent to the aircraft, HOTAS, touch screen and voice being two others. Therefore, use head pointing when it's practical (i.e. not under G load), use something else when it's not.

You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?

How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.

The f-35s aren't using rear vision mirrors fitted and I guess it's because they aren't needed.

[gabriele]

Source is incorrect (as if nobody knew that already), the first BFM flight against F-16s happened in April.

That's not what David "Doc" Nelson and others told AviationWeek, though. The interview was in april, but he says very clearly the flight dates back to January.

Source for that?

“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.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

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 it—that’s the option.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.

I might be wrong, but we never heard a thing about aiming SRAAMs missiles from the main display. All high-angle aiming of missiles these days is done through the helmet mounted sight, as far as i know, and i don't think it is intended to be different for the F-35.

[SpudmanWP]

Any weapon can be aimed using the main tactical display. You do not have to use the helmet to cue a missile.

The whole reason why helmet cuing came into existence was because the plane lacked the sensors to detect or track off-bore targets. With EODAS & off board targeting that is no longer the case.

[sirsapo]

Salute!

Maybe John Will can confirm, but the Vipers I flew up thru Bk 15 had 9 gee bags.

Gums tries to remember.....
( I lent out my Dash One and poof!)

Vipers these days (Blk 40/42 and 50/52) are 7.0G until the tanks are dry then 9.0G with an empty centerline or 8.5 with empty wing tanks. Not sure if that has changed since back in the day though Gums...

[Gums]

Salute!

You are on to something, Spud-man.

We are not back in the early 70's or late 60's when laying out the requirements for the Eagle and Viper. Hell, the Stubbie has about the same vis as the Double Ugly or Sluf or Thud. We were amazed and happy when the Eagle and Viper showed up with such awesome vis.

The off-boresight stuff/capability prolly only has a requirement for 100 degrees left or right of the nose. So that's where cueing from the helmet counts. Looking over your shoulder is not the optimum scenario, so use the sensors and get some separation, turn back into the fight and shoot. Your cosmic missile is not gonna do a 180 to hit the enema.

Over at Foxtrat Alpha, the clueless folks are having a field day with the issue and I can not believe anyone that can figure out the forum format and type does not have a clue about the F-35. They don't even know about live fire missile and JDAM tests or mostly anything else. Talk about basement dwellers, sheesh.

We need to set up a scenario for them as with Clancy's "Rainbow Six" solution for the greenies, set up the arena for a CAS/capture the flag scenario within an average technological country they are invading and let them fly their Hogs and Rhinos and Eagles and Vipers and Tiffies against a small number of Raptors and Stubbies over said country with an average IAD that has one or two of the "latest", but mostly 'raqi One missiles and manpads. They may try this at Red Flag, and MD and I can tell you what will happen.

The next week we reverse and have our Raptors and Growlers and Stubbies and Bones try the same thing against their identical IAD and 3rd/4th gen assets.

As far as BFM and ACT go, the gees and instant AoA are neat, but what counts is sustained turn rate and maintaining energy. The "awareness" of the playing field is prolly the best thing going for the Stubbie, and is better than the Raptor. Having a low RCS is the icing on the cake.

Gums opines...

[Dragon029]

Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).
You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?

Because it's a digital system there's a myriad of potential ways they could display the imagery - for example, rather having imagery on the cockpit panoramic display, you could have a panoramic rear view in your visor, or a little hemispherical one down in the corner, considering that you only really need to know where they are relative to you. From there you've got HOTAS and voice controls that can handle the selection of targets. The enemy starts to get too close to the center of that hemispherical view, just say "Target One, Fox Three" and off goes a missile towards the guy chasing you.

[uclass]

Source for that?

“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.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

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 it—that’s the option.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.

I might be wrong, but we never heard a thing about aiming SRAAMs missiles from the main display. All high-angle aiming of missiles these days is done through the helmet mounted sight, as far as i know, and i don't think it is intended to be different for the F-35.

Seems like rubbish to me. No pilots mentioned anything about a fight in January.

[zero-one]

A lot of people have been going on for years of how useless E-M is in a network centric environment,

"information is life, speed is irrelevant" and "if you're still measuring fighters by it's speed and maneuverability then you are
old and missing the point."


Now we hear something that might say the F-35 is a step backwards in E-M, and we're suddenly up in arms.

What happens if the F-35 does turn out to be less maneuverable than 4th gen fighters?

If the next war turns out to have more WVR encounters than expected should we be worried?
The US still has their Raptors
most of NATO has Typhoons, Rafale's or Grippens
Australia still has Rhinos
SKorea and Japan have F-16s and F-15s


Let them take care of Air superiority,

The F-35 can stick to it's main role as a mud mover.
It can gather info and data link it to real fighters but it won't go out and hunt bandits.
Self defense will be the main concern of F-35 crews in the air, Avoid other aircraft, keep your distance at all cost.
If a fight can't be avoided, keep it at BVR.

OF course all of this is only true if David Axe's report was accurate or even true at all

[newmanfrigan]

There is no evidence to back up anything David Axe is implying.

If there even is such a report, it has been cherry-picked to suit the wannabe-journalist's agenda. We all know what that is; anti-"Military Industrial Complex".

So an F-16 got on an F-35s 6? That means nothing without the context. nothing whatsoever.

I've long stopped paying attention to the critics, who have proven to be ill-informed luddites by and large, usually people who have NEVER served. That means a lot to me. If you haven't served, or you don't have some kind of academic expertise with verifiable credentials, you're just a fanboy. Sorry. Those are just the facts. They weren't right about the Osprey, F-22 (actually, they played a role in killing it, but now they love it), the M1 Abrams, the Superhornet. They weren't even right about the F-15. These are professional contrarians and click-bait agitators. Rest assured, the F-35 program is long past the point where these voices in the wilderness have any weight at all. The programs been over the hump for about 5 years now and there is no going back. These fanboy voices don't resonate anywhere outside of internet enthusiast forums. Trust me. If you were active duty and didn't check these forums, it would be as if these ideas didn't even exist. The argument only exists online and in certain governments during election years.

There is no controversy. It doesn't matter what distortion, falsification, or selective editing of any report is made. The credible sources do not support their positions.

I expect that if this report exists at all, we have just had a selective editing, or extreme cherry-picking with salacious scandals implied, dropped on a dumbass internet population of nerds and dweebs who've never worn a uniform in their life. Their opinions don't matter.

We don't need to argue about it anymore. It's over. The F-35 is the future of tactical fighter aviation globally. Next time maybe we'll check and see if David Axe agrees with our plans, and if Sweetie-pie Bilbo, with all his military experience, approves.

Or not.