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

gabriele · by **gabriele** » 29 Jun 2015, 20:08

That's why i said "how convenient". We have to take Axe's word for everything he has written, since for some reasons we have no test pilot name, no document, no nothing.

bring_it_on · by **bring_it_on** » 29 Jun 2015, 20:09

Surely Axe could black out the name of the pilot and upload the entire report in totality. Might not fit his agenda but still....

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 29 Jun 2015, 22:35

spazsinbad wrote:That does not tell us the avionics capability of the aircraft however. IF DAS with HMDS was not able to be used then - yes - as ONE former F-16 jock transitioning to the F-35 several years ago now, with some basic hardware/software only in the 'first training evaluation' mentioned: that HE could not see behind and 'would be gunned every time' or words quoted to that effect by all and sundry. With DAS / HMDS functioning there is no way the F-16 can 'sneak up' on the F-35 - that is just plain ludicrous. I'll guess that quote comes from the 'years ago' initial training eval but of course NOT SEEING THIS FIVE PAGE report - that could be easily uploaded for verification - then I will surmise that the mouthbreathing AXE has only excerpted some bits and made up the other bits. BUT I COULD BE TODALLY RONG and a dancing fool. What does AXE write that engenders his trustworthiness/truthfulness? NOW a quote from that AvWeak article mentioned above:
"...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.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA...."

The reference to "...dont...clamp down so tight..." means that the current control laws are biased toward departure resistance at the expense of some elements of maneuverability. In order to provide a high degree of departure resistance some features of maneuverability/agility (e.g. pitch onset rate) are attenuated as one gets close to a notional limit. As noted in the April article, some of those things will be tweaked. Is part of the normal drill in DT.

playloud · by **playloud** » 29 Jun 2015, 23:31

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.

I just can't buy this. This goes against everything we have read to this point. Were the tanks empty? Even then?

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 30 Jun 2015, 00:56

gabriele wrote:How convenient: War is Boring supposedly has a damning 5-page report on the mock dogfight which proves the F-35 is terrible. We can't see the document, of course, and the test pilot who wrote it is "unnamed".

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875

Said document didn't happen to come in the form of golden plates did it? :roll:

bring_it_on · by **bring_it_on** » 30 Jun 2015, 00:59

And here they seek (they as in the basement dweller commonwealth) transparency and want nothing to ever be held back, but when it comes to accusations they hold the single source they claim and then want everyone to "take their word for it". How convenient :roll:

cantaz · by **cantaz** » 30 Jun 2015, 01:13

How does someone like Axe even vet these anonymous sources? If someone were to drop him an email with some anonymous, outrageous, completely death-spiralling claims about the F-35, would he take it at face value? :whistle:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 30 Jun 2015, 01:19

Yeah BUT... we would know "If someone were to drop him [AXE] an email with some anonymous, outrageous, completely death-spiralling claims about the F-35, would he take it at face value?" it was sent by SNAFUsolomon. :mrgreen:

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 30 Jun 2015, 01:26

Axe may have fallen for a counter-trolling operation. Anyone remember that thing with Sasha Grey supposedly being KIA in service of the Donetsk Republic?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 30 Jun 2015, 01:38

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/sashagrey.asp

SnakeHandler · by **SnakeHandler** » 30 Jun 2015, 03:25

Which block of software was AF-02 flying with? It's not still a Block 1 jet, is it?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 30 Jun 2015, 03:50

It's 2B/3i

http://aviationweek.com/F35Edwards

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 30 Jun 2015, 06:41

Not to sound all negative, but could the Report be true?

There were some strange similarities to the first report by Doc Nelson. Right off the bat, David Axe's article did mention that the plane executed the excercise in January, which was confirmed by the original report on Aviation week.

Then David Axe's report did mention that they had problems with Pitch Authority, which coincided with Doc Nelson's Statement that you can "tweek" the software to provide more maneuverability, and that the designers dont have to clamp down so hard on AOA limits.

Anyway, this article will be another major headline in the days to come with fan boys and haters claiming it as undeniable proof of the F-35's performance.

Look out, Picard will be out there reading this with a hugh grin on his face

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 30 Jun 2015, 07:32

Report may well be true but SHIRLEY given in a context - which is lacking - this detail is required - selective quoting by AXE doan cut it AND it is testing, as noted. People do lots of odd things in testing - for test purposes. Why not be patient and see how the '3F' aircraft goes against an F-16? Nope we gotta get out there with the crapola eh - AXEman - 'Fess up.

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 30 Jun 2015, 07:37

I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that AF-02 does not have any of the high powered avionic SA capability installed. There is no reason to install it in the flight sciences airplane, primarily dedicated to structural loads maneuvering flight test. My structural loads test airplane in F-16 FSD flight test was A-2. It had no radar, no HUD, no gun, no RWR, with other non-essential equipment missing that I can't remember. All the missing equipment was properly ballasted to maintain correct CG and mass distribution.