Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 15:39
by Dragon029
On the 16th of December, a flight sim community on Reddit had a live Q&A session on their Discord server with "Gregory Brett", a naval aviator who has flown the Hornet, Super Hornet and F-35C.

The Q&A lasted about 2 hours and a ton of questions of various topics were asked. What I've done since then is gather up the 60 questions that seemed to pertain to the F-35C and the future Carrier Air Wing.

The questions and answers were essentially limited to non-combat aspects of the jet (for obvious OPSEC reasons), but there are some interesting tidbits in there (like where is personal gear stored in the cockpit?). Note too that one or two questions in there were ambiguous as to which platform he was talking about (like #41 about flap settings when aerial refuelling), but I've left them in as they likely either pertain to all 3 aircraft types, or the F-35C (which I would imagine is his current platform).

Also, obviously all of these statements from Brett are of his own opinions and views, and should not be interpreted as those of the US Navy or US government.
  1. Question: Out of everything that you've flown, what is the most fun to fly?
    Answer: The most fun I would say is the Legacy Hornet. Just a blue collar working man’s jet, super snappy, super agile, she'll do anything you ask of her!
  2. Question: From a human factors perspective, what does the F-35C do better than the F-18E? What does it do worse?
    Answer: The cockpit is much more ergonomic and roomier, the displays are completely customizable, the sidestick is what I prefer. Some things it doesn’t do as well as far as HF, you can’t pee easily in the jet, and it’s hard to enter data while taxiing.
  3. Question: F/A-18 or F-35?
    Answer: The two jets are apples and oranges. To just fly around and rage, F/A-18. To go downtown, F-35. Just my personal opinion. Both are a ton of fun to fly and very capable.
  4. Question: What's your biggest pet peeve about the F-35?
    Answer: Biggest pet peeve is that the jet is still immature. You sometimes have to troubleshoot by shutting the jet down and turning it back on. Once its mature, that won’t be a problem! It really is a great jet and that doesn’t happen often.
  5. Question: How does it feel to fly an immature jet in that case, is it uncomfortable?
    Answer: The jet is safe to fly, it's not IOC yet in the Navy. That's what I meant by immature. It's still an airplane, it’s just not the final product yet. I wouldn’t fly an unsafe plane and maintenance wouldn’t let me.
  6. Question: As someone who only really ever hears people talking about how much of a cost overrun it is, I want to ask how you, as an actual pilot, find the F-35? How does it handle in comparison to the others jets you have flown, and how do all the sensors work to help the pilot?
    Answer: I find the F-35 to be a great jet. It's super high tech. It's like flying a Tesla. It is a very well handling plane. It is as easy to fly as a Hornet (which itself is very easy to fly). The sensor fusion is great because I have a one stop shop for all my information on the glass, rather than checking multiple screens at once.
  7. Question: What do you think is the biggest misconception about the F-35C?
    Answer: I believe the biggest misconception is that it is built to be a dogfighter.
  8. Question: You mentioned sensor fusion, how important is the sensor fusion functionality when flying and what things could be improved in it?
    Answer: I can't get too deep into mission systems. SF is an important system for building SA in the cockpit.
  9. Question: I've heard and read several comments by claimed USN pilots saying that the F-35C is an afterthought compared to the A and B variants, and that various issues resulting from its not being designed for USN carrier used first and foremost make it less suitable to the USN's needs than the Super Hornet. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that the F-35C will be well-adapted to carrier operations?
    Answer: The F-35B model was the tough problem to solve for engineers (and they solved it well!) that drove much of the design. The C model I think is awesome because it has a better wing (in my opinion) and more gas than the A model. It's been out at sea and doing an awesome job so far. I believe it will do great while integrated in the carrier airwing, especially as experience grows.
  10. Question: What kind of opinions do you tend to see on the F-35C from your peers from the Hornet / Rhino worlds?
    Answer: I see a lot of excitement (with a few skeptics).
  11. Question: The F-35A has reportedly started to get the nickname “Panther”; I’ve also heard that during some developmental carrier trials the names “Reaper” and “Raven” have been floated for the F-35C but not gone far. Do you think the Navy might adopt “Panther” or is there another nickname that’s gathering traction in the Navy? (What do you think suits the jet?)
    Answer: The callsign for the VFA-101 F-35C squadron is "Reaper". Air Force adopted Panther. We jokingly call it the "C Panther" (Sea panther...get it?) but not really. Thats not catching on with us. We call "lightning ball" at the boat.
  12. Question: I have read about the plane being "see-through" with cameras and the visor working to enable the pilot to build more Situational awareness. Can you explain how this works, briefly, and how it is being used by the pilot?
    Answer: the helmet uses the distributed aperture system (DAS) to feed IR image to the visor. You can turn this on and off with HOTAS. It is great for an alternate to night vision, and to enhance your SA.
  13. Question: Why do you hate the F-35B so much. What did that poor thing do to deserve it?
    Answer: No comment on the B model on here. It is a marvel of engineering; I will say that.
  14. Question: How do you feel for the future of the F-35 being the replacement of the Hornet on the boats in the sea? Given its current state and budget in the program it's in and the capabilities it will supposedly bring.
    Answer: The F-35C is the future. The Hornet is old. It needs to go. There’s a reason we don't fly the F-4 and A-6 anymore...technology advances and requirements change.
  15. Question: Does the F-35C do direct lift or pitch pointing? What about direct sideforce or yaw pointing?
    Answer: Ok so Magic Carpet (now called PLM "Precision Landing Mode") does 3 things. 1) New HUD Symbology 2) Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC) 3) two new modes of flying the plane. To address each of these:
    1) The HUD now has a SRVV (Ship referenced (relative?) Velocity Vector). It takes into account the ships speed (which you enter) and the angled deck...it does the Trig for you and now you place the VV directly onto the landing area and that's where you will go. Additionally, there is a GRL (glideslope reference line) that you line up with the IFLOLS with a centred ball. I don't really pay as much attention to that one.
    2) IDLC...this is where the magic is. When you enter PLM, the jet is now in a new control law. The FCS uses ALL the flight control surfaces to deflect to give you instantaneous lift creation and lift destruction. With the Flaps at Half or Full, they will not default to all the way down. They will leave wiggle room to deflect. If you watch a PLM pass, you will see the flight controls moving like crazy, In the Rhino it even kind of looks like a bird flapping its wings.
    3) 2 new modes. PLM is flown in autothrottles. One is called Rate (APC in the F-35). This is where you pull the stick for instantaneous lift creation (or push for the opposite) and where ever you let go is where the jet will go. So if you push from 3 degrees to 4 degrees, it will stay at 4 degrees. The truly awesome mode is called Delta Path (DFP in the F-35). This is a glideslope on a spring. When this is engaged, the stick will set to a 3.5 degree glideslope (or whatever the IFLOLS is set to; you can change it). When you pull back on the stick, you will feel resistance and the ball will rise. When you let go, the jet snaps back to the perfect glideslope. The opposite for pushing to get lower.
  16. Question: The Navy has talked about plans to (15+ years from now) replace the Super Hornet with an “F/A-XX”. With mind of budget constraints, what would you personally like to see a Rhino replacement look like or prioritise (speed, stealth, sensors, payload)?
    Answer: I'd have to use my imagination a bit for that one. I would like it to have integration with all national assets, tons of gas and weapons carried internally, stealth, and speed. Supermaneuvrability is not a necessity but would be nice. That's a tall order for the engineers, so good luck.
  17. Question: Would you rather fight a horse sized F/A-18C or a dozen duck sized F-35Cs?
    Answer: No comment.
  18. Question: Follow up, can you use IDLC outside the PLM?
    Answer: You can in the F-35, in the landing configuration, but not nearly as dramatically or intentionally.
  19. Question: How do you see the proliferation of unmanned systems affecting the carrier air wing? Do you think the MQ-25 open the door to stealthy strike UCAVs? How much opposition (to adding unmanned systems) is there from the naval aviator community?
    Answer: There is not much opposition now because it is not that imminent. Personally, I love the idea of an unmanned tanker. That way you don’t put hours and fatigue on the Rhinos for a non-tactical mission.
  20. Question: Has anyone tried to use IDLC in BFM/ACM yet?
    Answer: You don’t just "use" IDLC; It doesn’t work that way. You fly what the FCS gives you.
  21. Question: What is in your opinion the strong point of the F-35 over its competitors (Rafale, Gripen, etc).
    Answer: By far its the fact that it can go into contested environments. That is no-kidding true. Combine that with the F-35C that has a ton of gas and minimal drag... it can be used on a contested strike where other jets can’t go.
  22. Question: Do you prefer the almost all digital cockpit controls (big touchscreen up front) of the F-35 or the traditional mix of digital displays and physical controls? If any, what are some things that you find traditional cockpits do better?
    Answer: Some things I do like about physical controls knobs and switches. Many of the old switches from the Hornet got replaced by pushing a button on the glass. I like that because it cleans up the cockpit, but I do miss the old Hook Handle and Probe Switch. That said, there is no flap switch! Just like in the F-16.
  23. Question: In one of the interviews with Mike Dozer (F-15C Pilot), he mentioned that pilots usually shoot 2 missiles at a single target to up the pK. Does this also apply nowadays to you and the Navy?
    Answer: Logically, more missiles improves your odds. Can’t say more than that.
  24. Question: What are your thoughts on the risk of single-engine aircraft in blue-water operations? Has engine tech progressed far enough that this isn't a major problem for the F-35?
    Answer: The single engine originally gave me pause. That said, I have complete confidence that it is suitable for carrier and blue water ops. The tech is THAT good. I flew routinely 100-200 miles off shore in training without a second thought. Or even a first thought. Two engines are nice, and I would take it if it were possible. But this is the plane we have, and It's proven to be exceptionally reliable. I have additional reasons to believe that but I can’t get into it here.
  25. Question: Do you have any interesting stories, about your F-35C flying experience (in training missions, etc), that you can share?
    Answer: Not that I can share at this time.
  26. Question: The [F-35C] touch screens - are they capacitive touch screens? how well do your flight gloves interact with them? Do you need specific flight gloves for the touch screen functionality? same question goes with the UFC on the Super Hornet.
    Answer: For the PCDs on the F-35, not sure if they are capacitive or not. I didn't wear gloves (whoops). For the UFCD on the Rhino, it is a plane of light about 1/8 inch off the surface. Depending where you break the light determines what button you hit. Gloves or no gloves and it works.
  27. Question: How were you able to be selected to fly the F-35C? or did you sign up on some roster?
    Answer: I had a list of possible assignments after one of my tours for what I wanted to do next. F-35 pilot is what I put at the top of my list.
  28. Question: Do you miss the HUD on the F-35C?
    Answer: I actually like the HMD vHUD. It works the same way, its super high tech. It's great.
  29. Question: What is your opinion of automated/semi-automated carrier landing avionics (magic carpet and the like)?
    Answer: Magic Carpet is NOT automated. You are still flying the plane! ACLS Mode 1 is an auto-land. I think PLM is a great tool that increases safety
  30. Question: Have F-35C (and/or B) squadrons had the chance to do their equivalent of Hornet Ball / cruise videos? (Obviously they'd be for internal viewing only for now). Is there a "Lightning Ball" moniker for those videos / events?
    Answer: You won’t see any in cockpit GoPro footage or camera footage of 5th gen aircraft. The F-35C is included in the west coast ball.
  31. Question: Do the Super Hornet or F-35 use tactile "display" systems (i.e. information can be displayed to the pilot via the sense of feeling, presumably by means of the flight suit)? What are your thoughts on it, whether hypothetically or from experience?
    Answer: I have no experience of that, nor does anybody that I Know. That said, I think it could be useful during the administrative portions of flight, but more distracting in the tactical phases. Again, just an opinion.
  32. Question: I know you're F-35C, but for the A model (and pod on the others), if you could trade in the gun for a single AIM-9X, would you? How about a twin 9x installation?
    Answer: It depends on the mission. I think I would most want the gun for strafing the ground, personally. That's just me though. So for a mission where I may strafe, I'd want the gun. If it was A/A, I may do without the gun, depending on the mission planning factors. Just personal opinion.
  33. Question: Did you ever have a chance to exercise in TOPGUN or Red Flag?
    Answer: Topgun is not something you exercise in. It is a school for training "patchwearers" and an institution that develops and writes up tactics. Only a small percentage go. That said, I have gone to Fallon, where TG is, and do many exercises up there, many involving patchwearers on the blue and red side. I have not participated in a red flag. I unfortunately showed up to my squadron just after they did a RF Alaska. Would’ve been awesome.
  34. Question: On a scale of 1-10, how game changing is DAS in ACM?
    Answer: No comment, but it is an effective tool.
  35. Question: Can you see ATC radar on your RWR and if you can what does it show up as?
    Answer: I have not seen ATC radar on the RWR, not sure if there is a way to or not. Actually, it's possible I may have and didn't even know it!
  36. Question: What was the toughest adjustment you had to make transitioning to the F-35C and what were the biggest similarities?
    Answer: Biggest adjustment was some of the Pilot Vehicle Interface. For example, the TDC is now at your thumb. You just have to look at different places for different information. You pick it up quick though.
  37. Question: External LO weapons pods - yes or no?
    Answer: I think that would be cool if they did that.
  38. Question: Have you ever flown the B variant and experienced the SVTOL? (Not sure if it’s on the C variant) and if so, was it a weird feeling not doing a traditional take-off the first time?
    Answer: I've flown the B model sim and did use the STOVL. It was educational to say the least. Way outside my comfort zone, but the jet made it super easy!
  39. Question: It’s been mentioned that you are also an LSO, what was the lowest grade that you give out for a pilot and what mistake did he make?
    Answer: Cut Pass for Idle in the Wires.
  40. Question: Is that for not going full burner after catching the wire?
    Answer: Only the legacy hornet can go to full burner in the wires (With the option of mil). The Rhino and F-35 only go to MIL. If you see burner in the wires on YouTube for those 2 planes they made a mistake. The idle in the wires means not going to at least mil.
  41. Question: When refuelling mid-air, do you use a similar flaps setting as the Harriers? I believe they use STOL flaps for that.
    Answer: Flaps auto.
  42. Question: Unmanned battle buddy- would you rather it carried more fuel or more weapons?
    Answer: Too simplistic. I guess more weapons? Never thought about that hypothetical before?
  43. Question: Did they ever figure out how to haul F135 engines onto a carrier? Last I heard the C-2 couldn't quite do it.
    Answer: Yes they can haul it. I believe the Osprey can do it among other techniques.
  44. Question: If there is one jet (or prop, be it) that you wish you could have some time on, what would it be?
    Answer: Raptor.
  45. Question: How much heavier is the workload in the 35 vs a 2-seat hornet?
    Answer: I've never flown a 2 seat hornet. There is more work to do in the 35 but also more automation which is nice.
  46. Question: How often do you fly the F-35 loaded with external stores, how much of a difference do internal stores make other than stealth?
    Answer: I have personally never flown with external stores.
  47. Question: Have pilots been allowed any input on the development of the F-35 platform? Or even the Super Hornet for that matter. Like Navy pilots during WW2 with the F6F Hellcat.
    Answer: The inputs for the requirements happened while I was a kid. I'm sure pilots had input. Even to this day when they discuss making improvements, pilots are kept in the discussion
  48. Question: Have you had any mock battles against other nations fighter wings, if so what nation do you most vividly remember and why?
    Answer: I have fought a Malaysian Hornet. Friends of mine have flown against other nations Flankers and Fulcrums in training. They got the better deal than I did. Those training engagements were BFM by the way. I didn't do any large-scale exercises with our allies unfortunately.
  49. Question: What was your toughest BFM match? (Which aircraft it was and how did it turn out for you?)
    Answer: Raptor. Very Poorly.
  50. Question: Scratch that Raptors, everybody knows it is tough to fight them. What is the second toughest then?
    Answer: I've fought Hornets and Vipers. The outcomes varied depending on the skill of the pilot for each of those. No joke.
  51. Question: What's the worst aircraft you've faced in BFM or any other kind of ACM?
    Answer: I haven't fought that many different types of planes in BFM. You'll find that a typical fighter pilot hasn’t gone up against the entire Jane's catalogue of fighters.
  52. Question: The legacy hornet has significant delay on from when you move the throttle, and when the engine revs up to whatever RPM. How is this in comparison to the super hornet and the F-35?
    Answer: The engine response time in the Hornet is not bad. The Super Hornet has the addition of FADECs which makes things even smoother. F-35 also has FADECs. Very good response times.
  53. Question: Based PURELY on looks, F-22 or F-35? I personally think the F-22 is the sexier of the both, but some people don't think so.
    Answer: F-22
  54. Question: Is it easier or harder to catch your desired (eg 3) wire with a Super Hornet or F-35C (if you had to nitpick)?
    Answer: They both have PLM so both are equal in that regard. F-35 uses ONLY PLM
  55. Question: What trait do you find most important in BFM for a pilot?
    Answer: By far its going to be experience. More reps makes a better BFM’er, every time. The ability to see visual cues, and manage your energy are keys as well. Those are easier said than done.
  56. Question: How do you typically pronounce "HMDS" for the F-35?
    Answer: "H-M-D"
  57. Question: Where do you store any personal effects in the F-35C (say if you were doing a long transit flight)?
    Answer: There is a good amount of room in the F-35. I can fit stuff off to the right just like I would in the Hornet. Fill the Helmet bag, and maybe add some stuff on top of it. For cross country, I can put a small duffel bag behind the headbox of the seat. Won’t interfere with the canopy.
  58. Question: An extension to that last question; have travel pods been used on any F-35s that you know of, or is just a matter of throwing any larger baggage on a C-17, etc?
    Answer: No, they haven’t been in use for the F-35C. Can’t speak to the other variants.
  59. Question: A-10C or F-35 for ground attack?
    Answer: I have a definite opinion on this, but won’t comment publicly. I can say that nothing is like an A-10.
  60. Question: Does the F-35's stick move or is it more or less fixed?
    Answer: It definitely moves.

A full copy of the chat's transcript can be found here.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 16:53
by steve2267
[quote=“Dragon029”]
Question: The Navy has talked about plans to (15+ years from now) replace the Super Hornet with an “F/A-XX”. With mind of budget constraints, what would you personally like to see a Rhino replacement look like or prioritise (speed, stealth, sensors, payload)?
Answer: I'd have to use my imagination a bit for that one. I would like it to have integration with all national assets, tons of gas and weapons carried internally, stealth, and speed. Supermaneuvrability is not a necessity but would be nice. That's a tall order for the engineers, so good luck.
[/quote]

Not to nitpick, but didn’t he just describe the F-35?

Perhaps direct SatCOMMS... but isn’t that coming? And most everything integration related is a matter of software in the Lightning. The only thing I see the Lightning lacking might be speed, which may be rectified with GO2.0 motors or AETP motors. Fully loaded, a SeaMonster is pushing 70,000lbs. Hard to see stuffing more gas or weapons in an aircraft and keeping all those other attributes while still being affordable.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 17:07
by Dragon029
More or less, he was put on the spot (questions were coming so rapidly that they had to shut down messaging a few times to let him respond), but I think he's essentially just asking for more of all those things; affordability generally isn't that high on a fighter pilot's wishlist.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 17:20
by SpudmanWP
Last official plan I saw says SATCOMM is in Blk4 (likely 4.2 with TR3).

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 17:57
by steve2267
Upon further reflection, re: #16, he may be describing an F-22 or YF-23 with F-35 stealth materials (rugged, durable, easier to maintain) and avionics.

That LM-proposed F-22/F-35 hybrid would probably, with possible exception of enough gas, meet his wishlist.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 17:59
by quicksilver
"Not to nitpick, but didn’t he just describe the F-35?"

Perhaps. Depends on what stuff finds its way into the Blocks beyond 3F, much of which will never make its way into the public awareness.

"The only thing I see the Lightning lacking might be speed, which may be rectified with GO2.0 motors or AETP motors."

And change the fineness ratio.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 03:42
by jetblast16

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 14:16
by zero-one
Dragon029 wrote:[*]Question: What do you think is the biggest misconception about the F-35C?
Answer: I believe the biggest misconception is that it is built to be a dogfighter.


Is this a Typo?
No one has ever had the misconception of the F-35 as being built as a dogfighter.

but saying that it is a big misconception means that the F-35 is the farthest thing from a dog fighter that you can have.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 14:25
by Dragon029
I'm pretty sure he's just talking about the false notion that new jets have to be more agile and better at dogfighting; that the F-35C wasn't built specifically to be a dogfighter, because overmatching your opponent in BVR combat, etc is the way forward for air dominance.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 15:00
by zero-one
I can't watch the video from where I am right now, but are we sure he didn't say "isn't"

"It is built to be a dogfighter" and "It isn't built to be a dogfighter" sound so much alike but are exact opposites

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 02:04
by Dragon029
There was no video; this was a live text chat that I participated in (around 10 of the questions are mine). I took particularly good care of preserving meaning and intent when applying spelling and punctuation corrections to the questions and answers.

Here's the exact answer:

[2018-12-16 18:42:00 +00:00] Gregory Brett:
@Dragon029 I believe the biggest misconception is that it is built to be a dogfighter

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 03:31
by knowan
There's also the misconception that a plane not built primarily as a dogfighter, can't dogfight.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 03:38
by popcorn
knowan wrote:There's also the misconception that a plane not built primarily as a dogfighter, can't dogfight.

Yeah, and actually excel vs them.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 08:10
by zero-one
Okay, well this is quite confusing. '

There was an episode by Lockheed Martin on Youtube called "Test pilot Tuesdays" Where a test pilot was asked random questions.

One of the questions on one episode is "What is the most common misconception about the F-35"

He said there were 2 that he comes across most of the time and number 1 is the turning capability. People think it can't turn but in reality it turns very well.

Now heres the confusing part.
1. No one has ever had the misconception that the F-35 is built as a dog fighter. If anything, all the pro F-35 crowd has ever said was that It can dogfight if it needs to.

2. We now know that it can turn, so if it was never built to be a dog fighter, that means there are other things he noticed that make it "not built to dogfight"

Is it the pilot interface? Recently the decision not to include touch screens in the F-16V was made because having touch screens in a dynamic maneuvering environment can be dangerous.

So maybe the F-35 having the largest touch screen panel ever put on a fighter is the reason why he feels the F-35 was never built to dogfight.

Technically speaking the F-15, F-22, Typhoon, Rafale and even Flankers were not built specifically as dog fighters but you will never hear their pilots saying this

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 08:36
by Corsair1963
You mean this assume.....


https://youtu.be/2cjvx5DsGqo


The test pilot was Elliott Clemence that was assigned to VFA-101 and flew the F-35C I mite add..... :wink:

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 08:51
by zero-one
:thanks: :thanks: :thanks: :thanks: :thanks:

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 09:27
by spazsinbad
zero-one wrote:"...Is it the pilot interface? Recently the decision not to include touch screens in the F-16V was made because having touch screens in a dynamic maneuvering environment can be dangerous....

I'm not following the F-16 or variants thereof (out dated trash :roll: :P ) however said change to F-16V MAY NOT HAVE all the goodies extant in the F-35 cockpit. The PVI Pilot Vehicle Interface is a 'genius design' by all accounts, driven by many interfaces - not just touch. The cowpie throttle and stick have a lot of buttons with voice commands for the pilot to get what he needs without looking at the PCD or touching it. There is a lot of info on this forum about this aspect + vHUD etc.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 13:12
by sferrin
knowan wrote:There's also the misconception that a plane not built primarily as a dogfighter, can't dogfight.


Yep. The F-16 was designed to be a multirole aircraft, not a "not a pound for air to ground" aircraft like the F-15, and it certainly doesn't want for dogfight abilities.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 15:48
by f-16adf
It shouldn't come as a shock to the system that not every ex F-16 and F-18 guy if when asked would rather BFM or hot dog around in their old mount or the F-35, doesn't pick the F-35. No new revelation here......

The more important question is: Which jet would you rather go to war in. And I bet the overwhelming majority if not ALL will pick the -35.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 16:37
by zero-one
Actually, most pilots prefer to dogfight in the F-35

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... hink-31012
1. Even with developmental restrictions that limit the F-35A’s responsiveness and ability to maneuver, every U.S. fighter pilot interviewed would pick the F-35A over his former jet in a majority of air-to-air (dogfight) engagement scenarios they could face.


https://www.heritage.org/defense/report ... concurrent
Pilots selected the F-35A 100 percent of the time in beyond-visual-range situations and over 80 percent of dogfighting situations where energy and maneuverability are critical to success.


This navy pilot must be one of the few who didn't like the F-35's dog fighting performance

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 16:55
by f-16adf
Yes, most do pick it. But not all.

This Hornet guy is one example. I do not think he is saying the F-35C is bad at dog-fighting. He just said that "The most fun I would say is the Legacy Hornet. Just a blue collar working man’s jet, super snappy, super agile, she'll do anything you ask of her!"

I've had a F-16 pilot tell me near the same.



I seriously do not understand the mental gymnastics that goes on here concerning the F-35 and its dog-fight ability. All we have to go by is what the pilots have to say, or watching its air demos. All other material (actual EM charts, not flight modeled) is classified; and will remain so for the next 30+ years.



The F-35 is just fine in the air; and it will only get better. Is it the best 3-9 BFM jet out there, No. Is it the hapless slug (i.e. F-105 type can't turn.......)that people like Sprey made it out to be, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 16:57
by Dragon029
zero-one wrote:Okay, well this is quite confusing. '

There was an episode by Lockheed Martin on Youtube called "Test pilot Tuesdays" Where a test pilot was asked random questions.

Just re-read the top of my post; I explained where this all came from there.

zero-one wrote:He said there were 2 that he comes across most of the time and number 1 is the turning capability. People think it can't turn but in reality it turns very well.

1. No one has ever had the misconception that the F-35 is built as a dog fighter. If anything, all the pro F-35 crowd has ever said was that It can dogfight if it needs to.


The pro F-35 crowd may have been saying that it can dogfight if it needs to, but a lot of laymen (which make up the majority of F-35 commentators) don't understand what BVR combat is, and think that you need to be able to dogfight like they do in the movies.

To them, the F-35 is a fighter, therefore it is designed to dogfight right?

The F-35 may be built to be able to dogfight, but it's not "built to be a dogfighter." If the F-35 was built to be a dogfighter, it would have been given thrust vectoring, a built-in 20mm, less weight at whatever expense, etc.

The F-35C today is decent at turning, but it lags behind in areas such as thrust-to-weight (for example, with its current engine it doesn't get a 1.0 T:W ratio until it's down to 36% fuel).

f-16adf wrote:I seriously do not understand the mental gymnastics that goes on here concerning the F-35 and its dog-fight ability.


I have to agree. The jet's far more agile than (eg) Pierre Sprey would describe it, but it wasn't meant to try and keep up with something like a Su-35 in a turning fight, not any more than is necessary for a skilled pilot to get his chance, or to facilitate a high pK AIM-9X launch.

Also, if anyone here is debating about the pilot's view of the jet, but hasn't read all 60 questions and answers, I'd suggest you do that first before replying:

The two jets are apples and oranges. To just fly around and rage, F/A-18. To go downtown, F-35. Just my personal opinion. Both are a ton of fun to fly and very capable.

I find the F-35 to be a great jet. It's super high tech. It's like flying a Tesla. It is a very well handling plane. It is as easy to fly as a Hornet (which itself is very easy to fly).

The F-35C is the future. The Hornet is old. It needs to go. There’s a reason we don't fly the F-4 and A-6 anymore...technology advances and requirements change.

it can go into contested environments. That is no-kidding true. Combine that with the F-35C that has a ton of gas and minimal drag... it can be used on a contested strike where other jets can’t go.

The engine response time in the Hornet is not bad. The Super Hornet has the addition of FADECs which makes things even smoother. F-35 also has FADECs. Very good response times.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 17:20
by zero-one
I have reservations.
I'm almost certain he may have said "wasn't" instead of "was"

I don't know, to me it just makes more sense.
Nobody ever labeled the F-35 as being built as a dog fighter, to this day the number of civilians who believe that the F-35 can at least hold its own in a dogfight remains very small.

So why would he say that it is the Biggest misconception about the F-35?

I get what you're saying, the F-35 was never built specifically for dogfighting, but so was the F-15, F-16, F-22 and Typhoon.
yet I have never heard or read a pilot say that the F-22 was not built as a dogfighter.

It's like saying, the F-15 is not built specifically to go supersonic.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 17:52
by steve2267
Zero, what is it with you and dogfighting? Whenever someone mentions, or you somehow interpret what someone knowledgeable about the F-35 said, even hints that the F-35 is not el supremo at dogfighting, you seem to pop rivets. Give it a rest and join everyone else in the 5th generation.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 18:12
by spazsinbad
:shock: :roll: :doh: Despairingly I reckon (like the meme that says 'when HITLER is brung up then the internet conversation is over' I reckon that when the 'F-35 dogfighting is bringed up then that forum conversation is FINISHED! :devil: :bang: 8)

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 19:56
by sferrin
f-16adf wrote:Yes, most do pick it. But not all.

This Hornet guy is one example. I do not think he is saying the F-35C is bad at dog-fighting. He just said that "The most fun I would say is the Legacy Hornet. Just a blue collar working man’s jet, super snappy, super agile, she'll do anything you ask of her!"

I've had a F-16 pilot tell me near the same.


I wonder how much "fun" they'd have against F-35s in Red Flag.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 20:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Even this guy said Hornet to just fly around, Lightning to go downtown.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 20:20
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Even this guy said Hornet to just fly around, Lightning to go downtown.


When former Bug drivers are quoted exclaiming, “It’s like a Hornet with FOUR motors” or “It’s like a Hornet with a TURBO!”, it makes me wonder why the Reddit pilot, or any Bug or Rhino driver would pick the old plane for tooling around in. Maybe it’s a familiarity or first love thing. Maybe the Hornet cockpit is more comfortable (easier in which to pee, anyway.). Or perhaps flight control “feel.” A number of pilots have remarked about how great ergonomics are in the Hornet... so maybe the pilot interface is a little more “natural.” But none of these areas have been noted as “peeves” by Lightning drivers, not that I recall anyway.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 20:47
by spazsinbad
Perhaps our esteemed F-35C pilot on REDDIT does not have enough hours on the aircraft to be as comfortable as he may become when he has a similar number of hours compared to whatever other aircraft he has flown? Think o'nt. Several test & operational F-35 pilots have been quoted saying after 'fifty (or X number) hours they were OK with the vHUD, HMDS, Flight Contols or whatever bugged them during the change over. But someone said 'dogfighting' so I'm OVER and OUT. :mrgreen:

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 23:48
by f-16adf
So what if the pilot said he would rather hot dog or have fun in the F-18 more? The point is, he said he would rather take the F-35 to war vs legacy Hornet. That is what matters the most.

As he said, the Hornet is old (like the F-16,F-15,A-10). These jets have been in near constant action since August 1990. Their time has passed.



If I was a pilot in Vietnam circa 1965, I probably would pick the F-104 as the ultimate fun to fly or rage in jet. Yet, I would not want to go to SEA in one. I'd pick the Phantom for that.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 04:51
by bring_it_on
Answer: I haven't fought that many different types of planes in BFM. You'll find that a typical fighter pilot hasn’t gone up against the entire Jane's catalogue of fighters.


A sharp contrast to those in the basement dweller community :mrgreen:

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 05:29
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:Zero, what is it with you and dogfighting? Whenever someone mentions, or you somehow interpret what someone knowledgeable about the F-35 said, even hints that the F-35 is not el supremo at dogfighting, you seem to pop rivets. Give it a rest and join everyone else in the 5th generation.


Thank-you.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 05:33
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Even this guy said Hornet to just fly around, Lightning to go downtown.


When former Bug drivers are quoted exclaiming, “It’s like a Hornet with FOUR motors” or “It’s like a Hornet with a TURBO!”, it makes me wonder why the Reddit pilot, or any Bug or Rhino driver would pick the old plane for tooling around in. Maybe it’s a familiarity or first love thing. Maybe the Hornet cockpit is more comfortable (easier in which to pee, anyway.). Or perhaps flight control “feel.” A number of pilots have remarked about how great ergonomics are in the Hornet... so maybe the pilot interface is a little more “natural.” But none of these areas have been noted as “peeves” by Lightning drivers, not that I recall anyway.


Most fighter guys I know love most what they loved first. Doesn’t mean it’s the best at everything forever, it’s just like the pet you grew up/came of age with.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 05:38
by quicksilver
f-16adf wrote:It shouldn't come as a shock to the system that not every ex F-16 and F-18 guy if when asked would rather BFM or hot dog around in their old mount or the F-35, doesn't pick the F-35. No new revelation here......

The more important question is: Which jet would you rather go to war in. And I bet the overwhelming majority if not ALL will pick the -35.


Winner, winner — chicken dinner.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 05:51
by popcorn
This...
Custom Image 20122018112124.jpg

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 16:53
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:When former Bug drivers are quoted exclaiming, “It’s like a Hornet with FOUR motors” or “It’s like a Hornet with a TURBO!”, it makes me wonder why the Reddit pilot, or any Bug or Rhino driver would pick the old plane for tooling around in. Maybe it’s a familiarity or first love thing. Maybe the Hornet cockpit is more comfortable (easier in which to pee, anyway.). Or perhaps flight control “feel.” A number of pilots have remarked about how great ergonomics are in the Hornet... so maybe the pilot interface is a little more “natural.” But none of these areas have been noted as “peeves” by Lightning drivers, not that I recall anyway.


Or maybe it's just and simply a "nostalgia" thing.
Similar to those guys who prefer to drive for fun an old Cadillac (or some other car from that era) this despite any equivalent modern car being better in everything, including in every part or envelop of the performance.


Regarding the F-35 and "designed for dogfight", I must admit that I was always and still am puzzled when I read or hear when someone says that the "F-35 wasn't designed for dogfight". This regarding being an aircraft (F-35) which was designed to combine the agility of the F-16 with the agility of the F/A-18. IMO, any aircraft with these agility requirement was obviously designed for having a dogfight capability in mind. (Now, I obviously agree that this is probably the least important of the F-35's capabilities).

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 16:57
by Dragon029
ricnunes wrote:Regarding the F-35 and "designed for dogfight", I must admit that I was always and still am puzzled when I read or hear when someone says that the "F-35 wasn't designed for dogfight".


That isn't the terminology the pilot used though.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 17:02
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Regarding the F-35 and "designed for dogfight", I must admit that I was always and still am puzzled when I read or hear when someone says that the "F-35 wasn't designed for dogfight".


That isn't the terminology the pilot used though.


Yes, you're right.
I admit that with my last paragraph above I digressed from what the pilot mentioned (and got into the old "F-35 wasn't designed for dogfight" topic/discussion).

Or resuming, only my first paragraph was directed/my comment to what the pilot actually said.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 18:05
by f-16adf
There is a difference between "not being designed to dog-fight" and being "the best dog-fighter". The F-35 came out of the JSF progam. (Joint STRIKE FIGHTER). So obviously for the fighter aspect it had to include close in attributes as well as BVR.

I spoke with 2 F-35 pilots from Eglin last summer. I asked them "is it fair to conclude that the F-35 is part Hornet and part Viper close in?" The one guy basically said, "yes, that is a reasonable assessment." However, being part Hornet/Viper doesn't make it the best BFM jet. The one pilot said that Air to Air it doesn't compare to the F-22. Now, you guys can think I'm full of s**t, I really don't care. Go ask some F-35 pilots the same question next summer to calm your nerves down.

And I seriously do not get the big deal if the Navy Aviator said he liked to "rage in the Hornet" better. So what?


You know, if that jet in the near future does ACM against the euros and somehow inadvertently ends up in a Rafale or Typhoon HUD gun camera; are you guys going to start dropping from heart attacks? Let it go-

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 22:53
by ricnunes
f-16adf wrote:I spoke with 2 F-35 pilots from Eglin last summer. I asked them "is it fair to conclude that the F-35 is part Hornet and part Viper close in?" The one guy basically said, "yes, that is a reasonable assessment." However, being part Hornet/Viper doesn't make it the best BFM jet. The one pilot said that Air to Air it doesn't compare to the F-22. Now, you guys can think I'm full of s**t, I really don't care. Go ask some F-35 pilots the same question next summer to calm your nerves down.


According to your own logic, just because the F-22 is better (or a better dogfighter) than the F-35 (and I guess that no-one here disagrees with this) nothing prevents the F-35 from being better than all other fighter aircraft (dogfight wise).

It's funny that you mention "Go ask some F-35 pilots". There's a well known article from a Norwegian pilot (Maj Morten “Dolby” Hanche) which basically states that the F-35 is superior to the F-16 in dogfight and if we read carefully this same report/article the reason seem to be because of exactly the fact that the F-35 combines the F-16 energy/acceleration with the F/A-18 High AoA.
So, what some/many have been posting here is also based on "what pilots say", you know?

And seriously, I didn't see anyone here having a "nerve breakdown". Actually the only one closest to having an actual "nerve breakdown" in this thread seems to be you :wink:


f-16adf wrote:And I seriously do not get the big deal if the Navy Aviator said he liked to "rage in the Hornet" better. So what?


And again liking the "rage better in the Hornet" doesn't mean that the Hornet is a better dogfighter - it's actually very, very far from it.
Someone posted an excellent comparison example between the F-104 and the F-4.

Other excellent example is that the pilot mentioned in this thread still isn't used or has the same/similar experience with the F-35C that he already has with the Hornet.


f-16adf wrote:You know, if that jet in the near future does ACM against the euros and somehow inadvertently ends up in a Rafale or Typhoon HUD gun camera; are you guys going to start dropping from heart attacks? Let it go-


Err no. We all seem to agree (including the pilot on mentioned in this thread) that the F-22 is the best dogfighter here however the F-22 did end up in the HUD gun camera of a Super Hornet. Does this mean that the Super Hornet is a better dogfighter than a F-22? Obviously not!

P.S- I'm also a big of the Hornet (Legacy and Super Hornet). But claiming that the Hornet is a better dogfighter than the F-35 is IMO very far from the truth.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 07:12
by knowan
Worth noting that the F-35C is noticeably worse than the F-35A (and B) in acceleration, which may be something the F-35C pilot has a problem with.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 14:43
by f-16adf
Ricnunes,

1. Read carefully what I said. I never concluded the Hornet is a better dog-fighter than the F-35. I said "who cares" if this Naval aviator said that he would rather hot dog or rage in the Hornet.

"Question: Out of everything that you've flown, what is the most fun to fly?
Answer: The most fun I would say is the Legacy Hornet. Just a blue collar working man’s jet, super snappy, super agile, she'll do anything you ask of her!"



https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/c ... 35c_naval/



So go argue with the Navy aviator, not me. I just quoted his words.



2. It is a near absurd assertion by people to conclude that EVERY former teen series pilot MUST AGREE on that the F-35 is the absolute best jet within the 3-9 mark. I have news for you, the overwhelming majority do like it the most, but not all.



3. Just because a jet combines attributes of the F-16/F-18 doesn't make it the best dog-fighter. That was the reason why I use the euro ACM example. I also used it because the anti F-35 crowd will be the first to buttress it against supporters of the jet. AGAIN, SAYING IT CAN'T DOG-FIGHT, AND IT WAS A MISTAKE. ALL W/O KNOWING THE ROE. Remember the AdA Rafale supposed "kill" on the F-22 and the uproar from that? With the F-35, the reaction will be far worse.




4. "Err no. We all seem to agree (including the pilot on mentioned in this thread) that the F-22 is the best dogfighter here however the F-22 did end up in the HUD gun camera of a Super Hornet. Does this mean that the Super Hornet is a better dogfighter than a F-22? Obviously not!

P.S- I'm also a big of the Hornet (Legacy and Super Hornet). But claiming that the Hornet is a better dogfighter than the F-35 is IMO very far from the truth."



The Eglin pilot said the F-22 is a better A-A jet than the F-35, not me. Also, a former F-22 "demo" pilot told me the like back in 2017. You can go argue with them-


I don't care if it ended up in the HUD of a Hornet. The point is (as being used as an example) if the F-35 does end up in the HUD of a Rafale, are you guys going go to the ends of the earth to try and dissuade the anti- F-35 crowd (Sprey and every troglodyte with a keyboard) about the matter? That is what I implied-



I never said the Hornet is a better dog-fighter than the F-35.


Here is what I said:


"It shouldn't come as a shock to the system that not every ex F-16 and F-18 guy if when asked would rather BFM or hot dog around in their old mount or the F-35, doesn't pick the F-35. No new revelation here......

The more important question is: Which jet would you rather go to war in. And I bet the overwhelming majority if not ALL will pick the -35."



"Yes, most do pick it. But not all.

This Hornet guy is one example. I do not think he is saying the F-35C is bad at dog-fighting. He just said that "The most fun I would say is the Legacy Hornet. Just a blue collar working man’s jet, super snappy, super agile, she'll do anything you ask of her!"

I've had a F-16 pilot tell me near the same.

I seriously do not understand the mental gymnastics that goes on here concerning the F-35 and its dog-fight ability. All we have to go by is what the pilots have to say, or watching its air demos. All other material (actual EM charts, not flight modeled) is classified; and will remain so for the next 30+ years.

The F-35 is just fine in the air; and it will only get better. Is it the best 3-9 BFM jet out there, No. Is it the hapless slug (i.e. F-105 type can't turn.......)that people like Sprey made it out to be, ABSOLUTELY NOT."



"So what if the pilot said he would rather hot dog or have fun in the F-18 more? The point is, he said he would rather take the F-35 to war vs legacy Hornet. That is what matters the most.

As he said, the Hornet is old (like the F-16,F-15,A-10). These jets have been in near constant action since August 1990. Their time has passed.

If I was a pilot in Vietnam circa 1965, I probably would pick the F-104 as the ultimate fun to fly or rage in jet. Yet, I would not want to go to SEA in one. I'd pick the Phantom for that."



"There is a difference between "not being designed to dog-fight" and being "the best dog-fighter". The F-35 came out of the JSF progam. (Joint STRIKE FIGHTER). So obviously for the fighter aspect it had to include close in attributes as well as BVR.

I spoke with 2 F-35 pilots from Eglin last summer. I asked them "is it fair to conclude that the F-35 is part Hornet and part Viper close in?" The one guy basically said, "yes, that is a reasonable assessment." However, being part Hornet/Viper doesn't make it the best BFM jet. The one pilot said that Air to Air it doesn't compare to the F-22. Now, you guys can think I'm full of s**t, I really don't care. Go ask some F-35 pilots the same question next summer to calm your nerves down.

And I seriously do not get the big deal if the Navy Aviator said he liked to "rage in the Hornet" better. So what?

You know, if that jet in the near future does ACM against the euros and somehow inadvertently ends up in a Rafale or Typhoon HUD gun camera; are you guys going to start dropping from heart attacks? Let it go-"





Again, no statement exists concluding that the Hornet is better at anything against the F-35.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 16:10
by f-16adf
I don't do reddit. However, I occasionally read it.

Now, you guys can come to your own conclusions about this individual who claims to be a Super Hornet pilot. I do not know if he is fake or not? I believe his account was deleted.


"I've worked with a few guys who have flown it. The word seems to be that it's about similar to a Rhino performance wise (a bit of a fat kid), but the avionics and sensors are absolutely face melting. Avionics, sensors/sensor fusion, weapons, stealth/LO, pilot interface...that is what makes an air superiority fighter these days. The F-35 can do things that us 4th gen pilots can only dream of."


DISCLAIMER: Those are HIS words, not mine. Is he real or fake, who knows? Ask 35AOA that question.


link to his entire interview (4yrs ago):

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ ... ilot_amaa/

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 20:12
by wrightwing
ricnunes wrote:
steve2267 wrote:When former Bug drivers are quoted exclaiming, “It’s like a Hornet with FOUR motors” or “It’s like a Hornet with a TURBO!”, it makes me wonder why the Reddit pilot, or any Bug or Rhino driver would pick the old plane for tooling around in. Maybe it’s a familiarity or first love thing. Maybe the Hornet cockpit is more comfortable (easier in which to pee, anyway.). Or perhaps flight control “feel.” A number of pilots have remarked about how great ergonomics are in the Hornet... so maybe the pilot interface is a little more “natural.” But none of these areas have been noted as “peeves” by Lightning drivers, not that I recall anyway.


Or maybe it's just and simply a "nostalgia" thing.
Similar to those guys who prefer to drive for fun an old Cadillac (or some other car from that era) this despite any equivalent modern car being better in everything, including in every part or envelop of the performance.


Regarding the F-35 and "designed for dogfight", I must admit that I was always and still am puzzled when I read or hear when someone says that the "F-35 wasn't designed for dogfight". This regarding being an aircraft (F-35) which was designed to combine the agility of the F-16 with the agility of the F/A-18. IMO, any aircraft with these agility requirement was obviously designed for having a dogfight capability in mind. (Now, I obviously agree that this is probably the least important of the F-35's capabilities).


The issue I think is confusing tactics with capabilities. At no point in time, has anyone ever said that the F-35 wasn't designed to be very agile. Too many tend to believe that dogfight is a synonym for agility, so when they hear that the F-35 wasn't designed to dogfight, they hear "we didn't design it to be agile." What they should hear is "we designed it to be agile enough to dogfight, but lethal enough that it doesn't need to."

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 20:24
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:At no point in time, has anyone ever said that the F-35 wasn't designed to be very agile.


Here I beg to differ.
I've seen lots and lots of people claiming that the "F-35 can't turn", the "F-35 is a modern F-105", the "F-35 is a turkey" and so on...
Granted that in this forum (F-16.net) there hasn't been much of such claims (but and nonetheless they still happen from time to time) and also granted that such kind of comments have been diminishing as time goes by but nevertheless and again, they still exist (and will continue to exist in the foreseeable future).

Unless of course that with that comment of yours above, you meant on this thread alone? If this was the case then I take back what I've said here in this last post of mine.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 20:54
by ricnunes
f-16adf wrote:Ricnunes,

1. Read carefully what I said. I never concluded the Hornet is a better dog-fighter than the F-35. I said "who cares" if this Naval aviator said that he would rather hot dog or rage in the Hornet.


Ok, lets say that we misunderstood each other's posts.

I may misunderstood you about potentially claiming that the Hornet could be a better dogfighter than the F-35.

At the same time it seems that you could be misunderstanding my posts as being a criticism to that Hornet pilot - it is not! All I'm saying or doing is trying to interpret that pilot's words and IMO those words seem "clearly" to be a "nostalgia" thing with terms of "rage", "blue collar working man’s jet" or basically the aircraft that he would choose to "taking for a spin".

Resuming what he said is something that I recognize and have seen a lot during my life - just like the example of Cadillac that I've gave before.
Another example: I have a friend of mine which is an excellent mechanic and likes driving old cars and you know what is his favorite old car? An Austin Mini! That's not even the best in anything among old cars but heck, it's his favourite. Go figure. But people are like that. And IMO the pilots that may prefer a Hornet to a F-35 - even for a dogfight (although I've yet to see pilot clearly stating this) - choose this because of "psychological factors" which are not much different of those of my friend that I just mentioned exhibits.



f-16adf wrote:3. Just because a jet combines attributes of the F-16/F-18 doesn't make it the best dog-fighter.


While those attributes may not make the F-35 the best dogfighter (singular), those same attribute will undoubtedly makes the F-35 one of the best dogfighters (plural). I would bet some serious money that the F-35 is on the top 5 in terms of dogfight capabilities and I have very, very high confidence that it's on the top 3 (in terms of dogfight capabilities) and I still believe that it's in fact on the top 2 (also in terms of dogfight capabilities) or second only to the F-22 to be more precise.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 21:07
by f-16adf
The guy with the biggest illogical mouth (aka Sprey--who didn't design or ever work for GD) unfortunately initially set the tone of the debate for the F-35. People mistakenly call him the father of the F-16, which is incorrect. Hillaker designed it. Sprey is the father of nothing.

It was Sprey who came up with such nonsensical statements like: "is a turkey, no wing, it's a F-105, a tri-service turkey-failure like the F-4, and .....) Just go on the other forums and you will see (even to this day) people still saying that it can't do this or that even when they have not seen the jet up close. Trying to debate these guys is a waste of time. I once argued with a kid on YT who insisted to me that the F-35 can't maneuver because of its (so he thinks) small wing. He kept going on and on about "small wing area, high wing loading...." Yet trying to tell him that the jet gets additional lift from its unstable tail, tail booms, and front fuselage chines just went over his head. And as I said, these clowns are just waiting for the F-35 to be in the HUD of some other jet so they (and Sprey) can say "hey I told you so."

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 22:53
by ricnunes
f-16adf wrote: It was Sprey who came up with such nonsensical statements like: "is a turkey, no wing, it's a F-105, a tri-service turkey-failure like the F-4, and .....) Just go on the other forums and you will see (even to this day) people still saying that it can't do this or that even when they have not seen the jet up close. Trying to debate these guys is a waste of time. I once argued with a kid on YT who insisted to me that the F-35 can't maneuver because of its (so he thinks) small wing. He kept going on and on about "small wing area, high wing loading...." Yet trying to tell him that the jet gets additional lift from its unstable tail, tail booms, and front fuselage chines just went over his head. And as I said, these clowns are just waiting for the F-35 to be in the HUD of some other jet so they (and Sprey) can say "hey I told you so."


Yeah indeed. It's "impressive" (on the negative side) how someone like Sprey managed to rally up such an "Army of Minions"... :roll:

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 22:53
by wrightwing
ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:At no point in time, has anyone ever said that the F-35 wasn't designed to be very agile.


Here I beg to differ.
I've seen lots and lots of people claiming that the "F-35 can't turn", the "F-35 is a modern F-105", the "F-35 is a turkey" and so on...
Granted that in this forum (F-16.net) there hasn't been much of such claims (but and nonetheless they still happen from time to time) and also granted that such kind of comments have been diminishing as time goes by but nevertheless and again, they still exist (and will continue to exist in the foreseeable future).

Unless of course that with that comment of yours above, you meant on this thread alone? If this was the case then I take back what I've said here in this last post of mine.

I don't mean those who are confusing terms. I meant at no point has LM, air forces, pilots, etc.... ever made such a statement.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 22:57
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:At no point in time, has anyone ever said that the F-35 wasn't designed to be very agile.


Here I beg to differ.
I've seen lots and lots of people claiming that the "F-35 can't turn", the "F-35 is a modern F-105", the "F-35 is a turkey" and so on...
Granted that in this forum (F-16.net) there hasn't been much of such claims (but and nonetheless they still happen from time to time) and also granted that such kind of comments have been diminishing as time goes by but nevertheless and again, they still exist (and will continue to exist in the foreseeable future).

Unless of course that with that comment of yours above, you meant on this thread alone? If this was the case then I take back what I've said here in this last post of mine.

I don't mean those who are confusing terms. I meant at no point has LM, air forces, pilots, etc.... ever made such a statement.


Oh ok. Sorry for misunderstanding your post then :oops:

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 04:28
by knowan
f-16adf wrote:The guy with the biggest illogical mouth (aka Sprey--who didn't design or ever work for GD) unfortunately initially set the tone of the debate for the F-35. People mistakenly call him the father of the F-16, which is incorrect. Hillaker designed it. Sprey is the father of nothing.


IIRC, Sprey and the 'Fighter Mafia' were originally critics of the F-16, because it was larger with more sophisticated radar and avionics than they wanted.
After the plane proved itself to be successful, they changed their tune and started claiming credit for it.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 07:15
by charlielima223
knowan wrote:
IIRC, Sprey and the 'Fighter Mafia' were originally critics of the F-16, because it was larger with more sophisticated radar and avionics than they wanted.
After the plane proved itself to be successful, they changed their tune and started claiming credit for it.


From my understanding the F-16 was the result of the ideas of the "Fighter Mafia". However as the aircraft developed and more capabilities started to be added through upgrades and modernization... that is when they started to throw hissy fits. The F-16 of today is NOTHING like how that F-tard Sprey envisioned it. In his mentally challenged mind the best fighter aircraft attributes is a mix between the F-5 and F-86

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 08:07
by wrightwing
charlielima223 wrote:
knowan wrote:
IIRC, Sprey and the 'Fighter Mafia' were originally critics of the F-16, because it was larger with more sophisticated radar and avionics than they wanted.
After the plane proved itself to be successful, they changed their tune and started claiming credit for it.


From my understanding the F-16 was the result of the ideas of the "Fighter Mafia". However as the aircraft developed and more capabilities started to be added through upgrades and modernization... that is when they started to throw hissy fits. The F-16 of today is NOTHING like how that F-tard Sprey envisioned it. In his mentally challenged mind the best fighter aircraft attributes is a mix between the F-5 and F-86

Sprey had nothing to do with the F-16.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 08:52
by zero-one
steve2267 wrote:Zero, what is it with you and dogfighting? Whenever someone mentions, or you somehow interpret what someone knowledgeable about the F-35 said, even hints that the F-35 is not el supremo at dogfighting, you seem to pop rivets. Give it a rest and join everyone else in the 5th generation.


Hey I simply enjoy these discussions way too much. ACM is probably the most exciting facet about air combat, for me at least thats why when someone begins to talk about it, I just dive right in and I don't think its just me. whenever the topic becomes ACM, this forum comes alive with pages upon pages of people sharing their thoughts and opinions about it.

I think thats awesome. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

You seem to think that I am distressed when someone says that the F-35 can't dogfight, when in reality. It gives me an opportunity to talk about ACM again.

Contrast that with discussions about Stealth and BVR, Its a pretty boring topic because we all know, nobody holds a candle to the F-35 and F-22 end of discussion, case closed, thread dead.

So when you say "join everyone else in the 5th generation." well join who? not a lot of topics generate more discussion than dogfight topics.

And If you say 5th gen means no dogfights, I'd disagree, 5th gen means superiority in all facets of air combat including dogfights. Is it unlikely to have dogfights, you bet. Should we stop talking about it? Heck No :devil:

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2018, 07:02
by charlielima223
wrightwing wrote:Sprey had nothing to do with the F-16.


Not directly.
From my understanding the LFW Program which lead to the F-16 was an outgrowth of the ideas of the Fighter Mafia... a group that that F-tard Sprey was unfortunately a part of or associated with. He had nothing to do with the F-16 in terms of engineering, design, requirement, specification etc. If ANYTHING his involvement with the F-16 is extremely peripheral at best.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2018, 17:39
by mixelflick
The F-35 might not be able to perform some of the "tricks" an SU-35/various Flanker derivatives can, but it will be the second most successful aircraft air to air (F-22 being far and away #1). That, primarily due to its stealth and SA. It may not do EVERYTHING better vs. the competition, but the RESULT will be the same: F-35 winning the vast majority of contests, with minimal (if any) losses.

On the acceleration thing, I have some concerns with the F-35C - not the A. We know the A can out-accelerate a clean Flanker by 20%, and the SU-35 by 10%. Where the B falls I'm not sure, but the C we know took a big step back in the acceleration dept.. Yes, it's only one metric... but its an important metric WVR. Those more powerful engines can't come soon enough, and getting those into the F-35C should be the priority IMO.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 00:17
by sprstdlyscottsmn
We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact. You cannot scale acceleration times by air density alone, so a 1,300ft acceleration is completely in-comparable to a 30,000ft one.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 08:57
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact.


Wasn't there an old RNAF graph showing that the F-35A can closely match the subsonic acceleration of a clean Viper Block 50.
I think people simply have the notion that since an F-16 can out accelerate anything barring an F-22 in the subsonic regime, an F-35A will as well.

But can an F-16C out accelerate almost everything short of an F-22?

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 09:33
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact.


Wasn't there an old RNAF graph showing that the F-35A can closely match the subsonic acceleration of a clean Viper Block 50.
I think people simply have the notion that since an F-16 can out accelerate anything barring an F-22 in the subsonic regime, an F-35A will as well.

But can an F-16C out accelerate almost everything short of an F-22?



In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only
the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006.
As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35
have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very
nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The
"subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can
get."




viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52508

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 16:58
by blindpilot
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact. You cannot scale acceleration times by air density alone, so a 1,300ft acceleration is completely in-comparable to a 30,000ft one.


This says it well, absent any published data. Even with, or modified, even KPPs don't tell the whole story. This said we can assume the "A" to have the best perfomance overall, and B/C will have some variation.

Yet I would also take care imputing transonic acceleration compromises for the C into the base subsonic realm. The 135 is a beast of an engine and getting off the line or going from 100 kts to 300 kts in the C will be close to base A numbers. Usual BFM situation will be in that realm, recovering from post stall to "let's go" subsonic acceleration. There is no "60 seconds longer" in that case, that we might see in trying to get to Mach 1.2.

MHO,
BP

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 17:06
by f-16adf
It is possible the Block 42 w/the Pratt -229 and the Block 30 are quicker than the 50 (depending on altitude). Also, the Eurofighter Typhoon could probably out accelerate all those jets except the F-22.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2018, 01:45
by quicksilver
blindpilot wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact. You cannot scale acceleration times by air density alone, so a 1,300ft acceleration is completely in-comparable to a 30,000ft one.


This says it well, absent any published data. Even with, or modified, even KPPs don't tell the whole story. This said we can assume the "A" to have the best perfomance overall, and B/C will have some variation.

Yet I would also take care imputing transonic acceleration compromises for the C into the base subsonic realm. The 135 is a beast of an engine and getting off the line or going from 100 kts to 300 kts in the C will be close to base A numbers. Usual BFM situation will be in that realm, recovering from post stall to "let's go" subsonic acceleration. There is no "60 seconds longer" in that case, that we might see in trying to get to Mach 1.2.

MHO,
BP


x2

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 15:07
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact. You cannot scale acceleration times by air density alone, so a 1,300ft acceleration is completely in-comparable to a 30,000ft one.


This says it well, absent any published data. Even with, or modified, even KPPs don't tell the whole story. This said we can assume the "A" to have the best perfomance overall, and B/C will have some variation.
Yet I would also take care imputing transonic acceleration compromises for the C into the base subsonic realm. The 135 is a beast of an engine and getting off the line or going from 100 kts to 300 kts in the C will be close to base A numbers. Usual BFM situation will be in that realm, recovering from post stall to "let's go" subsonic acceleration. There is no "60 seconds longer" in that case, that we might see in trying to get to Mach 1.2.

MHO,
BP

x2


OK.... what is fair to say about its acceleration then vs. the various Flankers?

Let's assume it's the SU-35 we're talking about, the most capable Flanker. And the F-35A, the most sprightly of the 3 variatnts. Let's also assume a 5,000lbs weapons load and 1/2 internal fuel for each, and both are at 25,000 feet and accelerate straight and level. Is there a way to ballpark its acceleration vs. the SU-35????

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 16:02
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Not with any degree of accuracy. I would fully expect the Su-35S to have wonderful acceleration as it has a LOT of thrust compared to the previous generation of Flankers. Even in my analysis I am doing I acknowledge the lack of data that helps determine dynamic thrust. It draggy, yes, compared to the F-35A, but it also has more net thrust than anything in the west bar the F-22. It SHOULD have the best transonic/supersonic acceleration of any 4th gen jet barring the supersonic performance of the MiG-31.

Re: Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 15:38
by lbk000
Just making a note that for the purposes of our favorite olde-fashioned Le Dogefighte, transonic acceleration isn't particularly relevant. Acceleration and deceleration inside M .6 is what makes the rodeo ride.

Transonic performance is a matter of interest for the all-important positioning game outside of the fight, yet in the 5thgen context is an issue ruled by ISR: He who sees first moves soonest, and he who moves soonest, moves fastest.

In other words, Su-35 is stuck with acceleration of 0 anytime he's not aware of F-35 movements. It is unlikely any marginal advantage the Su-35 has in raw acceleration performance will be enough to overcome the lead time advantage that the F-35 gains from LO.

Ontopic: Wonder if interviewed pilot feels stifled by the F-35's teething/testing or LO discipline. Legacy aircraft, being what they are, might grant a perceived freedom to be smash around harder?