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

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

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Dec 2018, 20:54

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.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 528
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post21 Dec 2018, 21:07

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."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Dec 2018, 22:53

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:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2974
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post21 Dec 2018, 22:53

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.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Dec 2018, 22:57

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:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post22 Dec 2018, 04:28

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.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 903
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post22 Dec 2018, 07:15

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
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2974
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Dec 2018, 08:07

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.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1767
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Dec 2018, 08:52

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:
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 903
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post23 Dec 2018, 07:02

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.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2578
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post23 Dec 2018, 17:39

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.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3717
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 00:17

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.
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1767
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 08:57

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?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4801
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 09:33

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
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 16:58

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
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests