F-35 performance at Haboob Havoc 2019

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 03:01

firebase99 wrote:Im a bit confused on most posters assessment of the F-35. IMO, it did well, as it was the jet that had the most handicaps, and arguably the most severe one - lenses. Like asking a sniper to drop the rifle and go get a knife and it STILL did well.




Actually, Haboob Havoc was really more just for fun and to shake things up a bit. Hardly, a true test of the F-35's capabilities.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 03:22

With MINIMAL information I'm surprised that anyone can assess anything - apart from what was revealed opaquely. <sigh>
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2154
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 04:43

doge wrote:It's very very amazing to "Kill in only 34 seconds" the Dogfight king F-16. :applause:

outlaw162 wrote:That 34 seconds is impressive, but how soon we forget 40 second Boyd. That was 60 years ago and he started with his opponent 1000 feet behind him.

So we've dropped 6 seconds in 60 years as a measure of aerial gun employment progress.


If fight was on at 10 miles, a head on closure speed of 800mph won't close the distance in 34 seconds. A head on closure of 1000mph closes 10 miles in 36 seconds. Sounds like the F-35 driver face shot his 'ponent @ the merge. Maybe threw in some BFM-defeating maneuver to avoid getting two AMRAAMs in his own snot locker. DAS probably showed him where the Viper was and enabled him to set up for a passing snapshot. Wouldn't surprise me to learn some enterprising Lightning avionics software engineering wizard wrote some code to let HAL fly the Lightning on a very high deflection tracking pass...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8387
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 05:50

I wonder if "fastest twin AMRAAM launch" includes the time for the F-35 to open its doors?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5375
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 13:05

steve2267 wrote:Wouldn't surprise me to learn some enterprising Lightning avionics software engineering wizard wrote some code to let HAL fly the Lightning on a very high deflection tracking pass...


Given the "code" has been around since the 80s. . . (I've posted video of the program several times on this site.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5375
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 13:07

SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder if "fastest twin AMRAAM launch" includes the time for the F-35 to open its doors?


It was performed by an F-16, not F-35.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8387
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 16:09

I understand that.

My question was specifically if the time was calculated to include the door opening time on the F-35.

In other words, was the time calculated as "soonest to get a weapons lock" or "soonest to get one off the rail".

I could easily see, especially with the F-35 sporting the radar reflectors, that the F-35 actually got a radar lock first but had to wait a few seconds for either actual or simulated door opening in the time calculation. IF the door time was included in the calculation, I could see it causing the F-35's times to be longer than the F-16.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 18:39

steve2267 wrote:That 34 seconds is impressive, but how soon we forget 40 second Boyd. That was 60 years ago and he started with his opponent 1000 feet behind him.


But can Boyd do that against an F-16s?
I doubt it.
If it was set up as a guns only fight, then theres a chance that the F-16 was flying clean, guns only.

34 seconds against arguably the best gun platform ever made (if in a clean configuration)
Online

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1291
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 20:06

But can Boyd do that against an F-16?


That would have been impossible. There were no F-16s then.

But the real question is, could the current garden variety F-35 guy do what Boyd did if he was flying an F-100 instead of F-35?

First he'd have to learn to fly the aircraft without the aid of software, unless you consider 'seat of the pants' as 'soft' 'wear'. :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 20:23

outlaw162 wrote:
But can Boyd do that against an F-16?

That would have been impossible. There were no F-16s then.
But the real question is, could the current garden variety F-35 guy do what Boyd did if he was flying an F-100 instead of F-35?
First he'd have to learn to fly the aircraft without the aid of software, unless you consider 'seat of the pants' as 'soft' 'wear'. :mrgreen:

8) :devil: IS that "'soft wear' pants" with or without SKID MARKS? :doh: :mrgreen:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4424
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 20:28

That's the point though, isn't it. These SW jets (F-16 and on) are so easy to fly and fight that it softens up the learning curve.
"Spurts"

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5375
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 20:30

outlaw162 wrote:
But can Boyd do that against an F-16?


That would have been impossible. There were no F-16s then.

But the real question is, could the current garden variety F-35 guy do what Boyd did if he was flying an F-100 instead of F-35?

First he'd have to learn to fly the aircraft without the aid of software, unless you consider 'seat of the pants' as 'soft' 'wear'. :mrgreen:


What would you say was the peak, "OMG I'm so busy" fighter aircraft to fly? F-105? F-4? F-106
"There I was. . ."
Online

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1291
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 20:58

For comparison:

F-105: very little except the 'pickle' button and the LIRI/LORO rack selection switches actually worked on the old derelicts I flew, so essentially very low workload in its twilight, just point it and drop the bomb. Workload A/A consisted of trying to avoid split flaps if you got slow and milked 'em down.

F-4: I'll probably take some flack for this, but coming from single-seaters, 'baby-sitting' the WSO was the highest workload, AKA the 'talking altimeter'. "Do you mind keeping quiet while I drop some manual bombs here, young man?" and the classic A/A maneuvering fallback, "Give me boresight and 10." Not that there's anything wrong with being a WSO, a number of ours became major airline captains....that's what they really wanted to do....fly the airplane.

To me the highest workloads in the ones I flew occurred prior to flight on the ground, in both the A-7 and F-16....getting everything set up properly so the airborne workload was minimized to some extent, although some of the airborne A-7 weapons switchology was a pain....F-16 was great in the air as long as you didn't try to move around too much.

Never flew the F-106.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 21:07

'outlaw162' said: "...F-16 was great in the air as long as you didn't try to move around too much...." Could you expand on this thought please? Thanks.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4424
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Jul 2019, 21:14

small cockpit I'm guessing. I mean, I know it's small I just assume that is what he meant.
"Spurts"

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

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: playloud, white_lightning35 and 16 guests