F-35 performance at Haboob Havoc 2019
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9825
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
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.
With MINIMAL information I'm surprised that anyone can assess anything - apart from what was revealed opaquely. <sigh>
doge wrote:It's very very amazing to "Kill in only 34 seconds" the Dogfight king F-16.
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.
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. . ."
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
- Location: California
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.
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."
- Banned
- Posts: 2848
- Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
- Location: New Jersey
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)
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33
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'.
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'.
IS that "'soft wear' pants" with or without SKID MARKS?
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5997
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
- Location: Nashua NH USA
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
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
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'.
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. . ."
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33
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.
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.
'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.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5997
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
- Location: Nashua NH USA
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
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests