F-35 performance at Haboob Havoc 2019

[wooster]

1. Maneuvering fighters are not relevant for several years now. Unless you are talking about avoiding another missile. In which case its better to be stealthier to avoid being sighted in the first place.
2. The aircraft cannot hit or maintain even marginal supersonic speed in level flight and clean without AB. Even most business jets today can hit supersonic speed in shallow dives. So finding quotes about accidental supersonic speed are meaningless with fighters as they can achieve flight attitudes far beyond civilian aircraft which while not designed for supersonic flight sure have no problem achieving it with thrust to weight ratios not even 0.5. The f-35 acheiving marginal supersonic speed with the worlds most powerful engine in dives isn't an achievement.
3. The USAF had to relax the acceleration requirements when the 35A could not achieve the requirement
4. If I can find the quotes I will post.

[steve2267]

I politely suggest you stop (and read a LOT of what is on this forum) while you are ahead.

[nathan77]

When pilots report that pulling the throttle back is akin to hitting the speed brakes, that is a draggy airframe.

Actually, if you read pilots reports of trying to land the "B" model vertically - the hardest thing is getting it to slow down as it doesn't want to even after you've eased back the throttle.

I think what you're confused with is "pulling back on the stick is akin to hitting the speed brakes". This is because the F-35 has a higher angle-of-attack than many other fighters. So if you pull back on the stick you're flying with the belly of the plane towards the direction of travel. This slows the plane down fast (and if you read pilot blogs like Hanche's it's a common dog-fighting technique in the F-35 to force the opponent to overshoot).

There is something wrong with a fighter having that much thrust and not able to go past 1.6 totally clean.

Note that the 1.6 top speed is when carrying a combat load of 2 x 2000lb bombs and 2 x AIM-120's. Some other fighters can't even carry 2000lb bombs (which are designed to take out bunkers). And carrying 5000lb of combat weight decreases the F-35's thrust to weight ratio. The top-speed of a 'clean' F-35 isn't actually known (and it's operationally irrelevant anyway) - but certainly we know that the F-35 has exceeded Mach 1.6 in testing. Certainly the feature that prevents the F-35 from being Mach 2+ capable is the fact is lacks variable geometry inlets (which effectively speed limits it).

It's worth reading the thread: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&start=780

[zero-one]

1. Maneuvering fighters are not relevant for several years now. Unless you are talking about avoiding another missile. In which case its better to be stealthier to avoid being sighted in the first place.

Are you basing this on combat simulations or actual combat, because you're wrong either way.

Actual Combat
If you listen to Dozer's retelling of his engagements over Bosnia, you'll notice that he did not fly straight and level, there was maneuvering involved even if he was still at BVR ranges. A common misconception is that agility is only needed in WVR, its very important in BVR as well.

Combat simulations (Relatively modern Su-30 vs 3 F-16Cs)
one Su-30 vs three F-16 in a BVR scenario. Again, we pushed the envelope, manoeuvred between 3000 ft to 32000 ft, pulling up to 8 g, turning, tumbling, firing and escaping missiles in a simulated engagement. The crew co-ord between us in the cockpit and the fighter controller on the ground was the best that I have ever seen! The results in a mock combat are always contentious but with ACMI, they are more reliable. End score one F-16 claimed without loss. When we got out of the cockpit we were thoroughly drenched in sweat and tired from the continuous high G manoeuvring but all smiles for the ecstasy that we had just experienced.”

Lastly, F-35 test pilot Tom Morganfeld can be quoted by saying
"Even with HOBS and LOAL, Maneuverability will "Always" be relevant in a fighter"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTsjQ_ud8E

2. The aircraft cannot hit or maintain even marginal supersonic speed in level flight and clean without AB. Even most business jets today can hit supersonic speed in shallow dives.

-But it's subsonic acceleration is like a clean F-16C even with weapons carried internally, that means its better than a
practically almost every other plane barring the F-22, so thats better than a Flanker, better a fulcrum.

3. The USAF had to relax the acceleration requirements when the 35A could not achieve the requirement

Isn't this the 2012 report, if you read it, it says the DoD "expressed the desire to reduce sustained G and acceleration goals due to accelerated degradation on the Stealth coatings on tail"

1. They only expressed the desire, it was never implemented IIRC
2. the issue was never the result of drag or power at all, it was the stealth coatings that were not holding up, newer stealth coatings should completely mitigate that. In fact the blistering in the stealth coatings in the tail seem to happen when the B and C versions fly beyond Mach 1.3 at extreme altitudes also. But they have mitigated the problem.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/
News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating

[quicksilver]

Re: transonic accel —

https://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/20 ... 2.html?m=1

[outlaw162]

"Sir, he's gaining on us."

"Don't worry, I read on F16net that biz-jets can go supersonic in a shallow dive. We'll just leave him in the dust."

"But sir, VNE is .92 Mach."

"Don't worry, those numbers don't mean anything. Hold my beer and watch this."

[marauder2048]

IIRC, the record was Mach 0.995 for the G650 in a 15 degree dive.

[wrightwing]

When pilots report that pulling the throttle back is akin to hitting the speed brakes, that is a draggy airframe. When a single engine airplane with 45,000lbs of thrust cannot maintain even 1 Mach without AB in a clean configuration, that is a draggy airframe. There is something wrong with a fighter having that much thrust and not able to go past 1.6 totally clean. People can only assume that its stealth is good enough as the insiders say it is to make up for its kinematic handicaps.

No pilots have said such a thing. They have uniformly said that it's easy to overspeed the aircraft, and that the plane wants to fly fast. M1.6 isn't the aerodynamic speed limit, by the way.

[doge]

In Haboob Havoc 2020, winner seems Canada. (Somehow France reports it. Why France !? )
So... Is Canadian pilots and CF-188 so much strong as much !?!? wow (Didn't F-35 enter the ranking this year !? Damn it !!)
I want to know more detailed results!
https://www.lequotidien.com/actualites/ ... 7776c58c6c (Language is French. Tried using ilovetranslation.com translation.)

Team 433 finish first
Norman boyven March 7, 2020
The pilots of Bagotville Base Tactical Support Squadron 433 won last week’s Air combat and air-to-ground attack at Luke base in Arizona, United States.
The U.S. base has F-16 and F-35 squadrons. Every year, the Haboob Havok competition is held. Fighter squadrons from all over the world are invited to participate in the three-day air duel and air to ground precision attack. The 433rd Squadron, which has been deployed in Arizona since mid February, conducts annual training with the U.S. air force. In addition to personal honors for several Bagotville pilots, the squadron has achieved the most cumulative results in about six to twelve squadrons in the United States and Singapore.

In air combat, the special thing about the competition is that it's a duel, and usually many planes fight at the same time. Each pilot is invited to a specific position without knowing the opponent's position in advance, and the team accumulates and reduces points based on victory and failure.

In the individual skill tests, Bagotville pilots Matthew “Leaker” Stokes and Brian “Leeroy” Coyle finished first and third in precision marksmanship on ground targets. Two other Bagotville pilots finished first and third in the rapidity test for cannon fire against an opponent in flight. Captain Richard Manson defeated his opponent in 51 seconds, leaving him in the third position, compared with "tonic" in 35 seconds. A Dutch pilot swapped flight 433 for the lead.

Bagoville's pilots will be back in sagaina next week Before them, their 425 squadron colleagues also trained in Luke for three weeks.

From AirForces Monthly, March 2020

CF-188s train with Lightnings at Luke
AirForces Monthly March 2020
THE ROYAL Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) 433 Tactical Fighter Squadron ‘Porcupines’, from Canadian Forces Base Bagotville in Quebec, began a 45-day deployment to Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, in late January. The Hornets trained alongside Luke’s F-35As, as well as resident F-16s operated by units from the US, Singapore and Taiwan, during the sixth edition of the Haboob Havoc exercise. This is an annual air-to-air and air-to-ground competition designed to encourage a ‘fighter pilot culture’. Previous Haboob Havoc gatherings included F-15s and F-16s from other USAF and ANG units.

HAVING RETURNED from their latest deployment to Afghanistan (see Wisconsin ANG F-16s return from Bagram, February, p16), the Fighting Falcons of the 115th Fighter Wing/176th Fighter Squadron ‘Badger Air Militia’ are back in training at their home base of Truax Field, Madison-Dane County Regional Airport, Wisconsin. Reportedly, members of 176th FS dropped more munitions than on any other of the unit’s previous deployments and this will probably be the last time they took the F-16 into combat before transitioning to the F-35A.

CF-188A serial 188760 of 433 Squadron returns to Luke AFB’s runway 3L after a Haboob Havoc air-to-air mission against 62nd Fighter Squadron F-35As on January 28. Nate Leong
‘Bucky Badger’ F-16C back from Bagram
Above: F-16C 87-0318 – with the ‘Bucky Badger’ markings on the tail – returns to Truax Field from a morning mission on January 21. Nate Leong

[steve2267]

When pilots report that pulling the throttle back is akin to hitting the speed brakes, that is a draggy airframe. When a single engine airplane with 45,000lbs of thrust cannot maintain even 1 Mach without AB in a clean configuration, that is a draggy airframe. There is something wrong with a fighter having that much thrust and not able to go past 1.6 totally clean. People can only assume that its stealth is good enough as the insiders say it is to make up for its kinematic handicaps.

No pilots have said such a thing. They have uniformly said that it's easy to overspeed the aircraft, and that the plane wants to fly fast. M1.6 isn't the aerodynamic speed limit, by the way.

Happened across this old post whilst searching for some terms. The "pulling the throttle back is akin to hitting the speed brakes" quote caught my eye. During discussion about the F-35B and how the "stick" and "throttle" behave differently whether one is in jet-borne flight or Mode 4 (STOVL) flight mode, I recall that someone pointed out that it is NOT a "throttle" anymore... it is a inceptor (may be the wrong term?)... and in Mode 4, pulling the throttle-thingy backwards commands rearward motion of the jet. Now something is whispering in my memory recesses that the throttle-thingy is used to command the speed brake function. Can anyone confirm? That is, if you want to go fast / faster... yeah, you push that sucker forward. But if you want to brake, you pull it aft. So that fellow "wooster" may have been correct in his quote.

Yes? No? Maybe so?

(Re-reading my post, I think I should clarify -- 'wooster' stating the F-35 is a "draggy airframe" because pulling back on the throttle is "akin to hitting the brakes" is an incorrect conclusion, IMO. Rather, his quote prompted a memory of reading somewhere that the "throttle" no longer acts as a conventional throttle on the F-35, rather the "throttle" is actually an inceptor where the pilot is commanding "go faster" or "go slower" in wing-borne flight. If my understanding is correct -- which I am asking confirmation / clarification -- then pulling the throttle inceptor rearwards slows the aircraft not because the F-35 is a "draggy airframe" but because the flight control system is being commanded by the pilot to "SLOW DOWN!" Hopefully this addendum clarifies my post?)

[quicksilver]

‘Inceptor’ is the word you’re looking for. The AIS — active inceptor system — consists of the inceptor control unit, active side stick controller, and active quadrant throttle assembly.

With selection of Mode 4, the left inceptor (heretofore referred to as a throttle) is driven to a detent. Forward movement out of the detent commands more forward speed, up to the limiting airspeed in Mode 4. Rearward movement out of the detent commands slower speed. If you pull it all the way to the aft stop, the jet will decelerate to a hover and then rearward to its limiting speed.

There is a speed brake switch on the left inceptor/throttle. However, the jet does not have a ‘speed brake’ per se; it simply configures the flight control surfaces in a fashion that slows the jet down as a ‘speed brake’ would traditionally do.

[steve2267]

There is a speed brake switch on the left inceptor/throttle. However, the jet does not have a ‘speed brake’ per se; it simply configures the flight control surfaces in a fashion that slows the jet down as a ‘speed brake’ would traditionally do.

Thank you for the clarification Quick. I do recall that there is no "speedbrake" flight control surface, rather that a combination of simultaneous flight control surface movements are commanded. And the deceleration is quite good -- Dolbe Hanche (RNAF) is quoted as saying it decelerates faster than a car using the emergency brake (or words to that effect). I was just wondering if a rapid rearward motion of the throttle inceptor in conventional wing borne flight would command the "speed brake" functionality, or if the speed brake button HAS to be depressed?

[quicksilver]

Dunno for sure but I wouldn’t want to introduce and differentiate another function that comes as a simple consequence of pulling the LHI all the way aft.