F-35 performance at Haboob Havoc 2019

[Corsair1963]

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.

[spazsinbad]

With MINIMAL information I'm surprised that anyone can assess anything - apart from what was revealed opaquely. <sigh>

[steve2267]

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

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...

[SpudmanWP]

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

[sferrin]

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.)

[sferrin]

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.

[SpudmanWP]

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.

[zero-one]

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)

[outlaw162]

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'.

[spazsinbad]

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?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

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.

[sferrin]

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

[outlaw162]

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.

[spazsinbad]

'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.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

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