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

[KamenRiderBlade]

Axe with his normal stupid schitck of "Anonymous Sources"

[spazsinbad]

Mr. Gilmore has the clue...

J. MICHAEL GILMORE Statement at HASC
05 Mar 2015

"...In general, using Block 2B F-35 aircraft, pilots would operate much like early fourth generation aircraft using cockpit panel displays, with the distributed aperture system providing limited situational awareness of the horizon, and heads-up display symbology produced on the helmet....

...Fusion of information from on-board sensors and data from off-board aircraft (both F-35 aircraft in formation via the multi-function advanced data link (MADL) and other aircraft via Link 16) is planned to be much more capable and would provide better battlespace awareness than that being fielded with Block 2B..."

Source: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/ ... 150414.pdf (300Kb)

[quicksilver]

Lotsa denial around here.

My expectation is that someone leaked the flight test report. Axe's reporting, of course, perhaps by intent and certainly out of partial ignorance -- is wholly out of context. Flight test report...reporter -- like giving a monkey a watch.

DT flight (Doc Nelson is a DT guy), vanilla BFM set-ups (how many around here have done any of that? Right...not many). Clean Viper with two drops is no slouch, and (reminder alert) the F-35 was designed to have aero performance similar to...(?)...that's right, an F-16.

It didnt get beat up, but it demonstrated some areas where the flight control laws can be less restrictive because its departure recovery characteristics are so good. Maneuver potential and agility have to be balanced against handliing qualities, the ability to maintain control, departure resistance, and structural loads. That's what Doc Nelson was referring to in the April article when he talked about the clamping down and the tweaking.

(Another reminder alert) modern fighters arent going to make any money in a shooting war, gunfighting -- not the F-22, not the EF, not the SH...not the F-35. But it sure is fun to wrestle around with some extra JP in restricted airspace for a few minutes. It sure incites the interweb warriors too.

[munny]

Wow, RT used his blog as a source?

http://rt.com/usa/270583-f-35-cant-win-dogfight/

[Corsair1963]

Considering the US Government is just about ready to place a massive multi block purchase of F-35's. I guess we shouldn't be surprised! Which, begs the question on who payroll is David Axe????

[uclass]

Good 'ole RT LOL.

[bigjku]

Lotsa denial around here.

My expectation is that someone leaked the flight test report. Axe's reporting, of course, perhaps by intent and certainly out of partial ignorance -- is wholly out of context. Flight test report...reporter -- like giving a monkey a watch.

DT flight (Doc Nelson is a DT guy), vanilla BFM set-ups (how many around here have done any of that? Right...not many). Clean Viper with two drops is no slouch, and (reminder alert) the F-35 was designed to have aero performance similar to...(?)...that's right, an F-16.

It didnt get beat up, but it demonstrated some areas where the flight control laws can be less restrictive because its departure recovery characteristics are so good. Maneuver potential and agility have to be balanced against handliing qualities, the ability to maintain control, departure resistance, and structural loads. That's what Doc Nelson was referring to in the April article when he talked about the clamping down and the tweaking.

(Another reminder alert) modern fighters arent going to make any money in a shooting war, gunfighting -- not the F-22, not the EF, not the SH...not the F-35. But it sure is fun to wrestle around with some extra JP in restricted airspace for a few minutes. It sure incites the interweb warriors too.

I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation. It says that what is most important is LO and situational awareness not swinging the nose around to lay a gun on someone. That isn't the fight its built for. It will be competent at that but that isn't why it is built how it is.

You are putting your faith in LO, sensors and group awareness. And I am comfortable with that.

[optimist]

There was a report from a couple of F-16 pilots before about the rear vision, they were flying block 1B without EODAS. The questionnaire report is filled out as per the findings. No doubt the current report will be written properly, but context is everything. The F-35s 'will' know what's behind them without visually looking, going from what is said about the SA.

[uclass]

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

[gabriele]

There was a report from a couple of F-16 pilots before about the rear vision, they were flying block 1B without EODAS. The questionnaire report is filled out as per the findings. No doubt the current report will be written properly, but context is everything. The F-35 group 'will' know what's behind them without visually looking, going from what is said about the SA.

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...?

If it is a matter of DAS imagery being not yet available it is only a temporary problem. If you can't physically turn around in the cockpit to take an over the shoulder look (and potentially shot), like Axe says, then it would be a whole different issue. But from photos such as this, i wouldn't think Axe has it right:

[sferrin]

I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation.

That would explain the F-35 having the 9G turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet.

[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.

[bigjku]

I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation.

That would explain the F-35 having the 9G turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet.

That is its max load. That is vastly different from being a great energy fighter that sustains high g turns without losing speed. The energy era fighters are really more about sustained turns and carrying speed than max load. That is just the easy one to remember. I have no doubt the F-35 is competent in ACM as we know it today. But I don't think that is how the F-35 is going to fight. I think it's tactics will, once developed, be vastly different and much more defensive. Turn away and leverage DAS for a missile shot. Then use your opponent being defensive to either engage on your terms or get clear.

[sferrin]

I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation.

That would explain the F-35 having the 9G turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet.

That is its max load.

Why would you need it if you can't reach it?

[uclass]

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?