F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2015, 17:46
by energo
A RNoAF test pilot accociated with the F-35-program (and whom I've had the pleassure to speak to a number of times) recently blogged about the facets of modern air combat and made a few comparisons of the performances of the two jets. Thought I'd share the main points on that particular issue and translate a few quotes. It's probably an idea to keep in mind that this is a comparison based on the RNoAF F-16MLU and the F-35 Full Mission Simulator. The 2011 Libya campaign forms the backdrop. And don't forget to read the whole article. :thumb:

Main points:

- Depending on the mission, the F-35 enjoys a 30-70 percent higher combat radius
- In Libya, operating from Crete, F-16 typically had to refuel several times - the F-35 would have done the whole mission without refueling

- In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power than the F-16
- F-35 has a 50-80 kts higher cruising speed in this scenario
- F-16 needs full AB in order to turn at high altitude whereas F-35 can operate in MIL
- F-16 has to use AB to gain speed to extend missile range where as the F-35 cruises higher and faster and thus doesn't need to [though I'm sure it could be useful]


Modern air combat; The Right Stuff, Top Gun or something else entirely?
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t-annet%2F


https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=
To fly an F-16 with 2.5 tons of weapons [and fuel] under the wings as the Norwegian F-16s did during the Libya operations, Hanche compares to using an underpowered car to pull a caravan up a steep slope.

You're actually completely dependent on full afterburner to be able to turn at high altitude. Before we even reached our destination, it was necessary to refuel in the air twice on the trip between Crete and Tripoli, he said.

[...]

F-35 would have taken the entire weapons load inside the hull without much noticable reduction in performances and would have flown the entire mission without air refueling. "





/Bolsøy

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2015, 19:11
by basher54321
Thanks

Spaz also did a PDF of the top gun blog:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&start=60

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2015, 23:22
by sergei
energo wrote:A RNoAF test pilot accociated with the F-35-program (and whom I've had the pleassure to speak to a number of times) recently blogged about the facets of modern air combat and made a few comparisons of the performances of the two jets. Thought I'd share the main points on that particular issue and translate a few quotes. It's probably an idea to keep in mind that this is a comparison based on the RNoAF F-16MLU and the F-35 Full Mission Simulator. The 2011 Libya campaign forms the backdrop. And don't forget to read the whole article. :thumb:

Main points:

- Depending on the mission, the F-35 enjoys a 30-70 percent higher combat radius
- In Libya, operating from Crete, F-16 typically had to refuel several times - the F-35 would have done the whole mission without refueling

- In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power than the F-16
- F-35 has a 50-80 kts higher cruising speed in this scenario
- F-16 needs full AB in order to turn at high altitude whereas F-35 can operate in MIL
- F-16 has to use AB to gain speed to extend missile range where as the F-35 cruises higher and faster and thus doesn't need to [though I'm sure it could be useful]


Modern air combat; The Right Stuff, Top Gun or something else entirely?
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t-annet%2F


https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=
To fly an F-16 with 2.5 tons of weapons [and fuel] under the wings as the Norwegian F-16s did during the Libya operations, Hanche compares to using an underpowered car to pull a caravan up a steep slope.

You're actually completely dependent on full afterburner to be able to turn at high altitude. Before we even reached our destination, it was necessary to refuel in the air twice on the trip between Crete and Tripoli, he said.

[...]

F-35 would have taken the entire weapons load inside the hull without much noticable reduction in performances and would have flown the entire mission without air refueling. "





/Bolsøy


"In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power "
F35 is bigger and heavy then F16 of course the same weight has less effect on.
"50-80 kts higher"
Very Big advance:)
"entire weapons load" it have 6 hardpoint internal ?
"extend missile range __________ F35 doesn't "

And how much higher will range from missiles at a speed of more to 50kts F16 ? 2-5 km ?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 00:56
by Dragon029
50-80 knots is an additional Mach 0.15 at about 30,000ft. The idea behind what the pilot is saying is that if an F-16 is cruising at Mach 0.8 and detects an enemy just coming into the range of their missile, they'll use the afterburner to get up to about Mach 0.95 and fire. They could go supersonic and fire, but due to the sound barrier hill that'll take them a while, during which they would have covered some 20km just getting to the other side of the sound barrier let alone up to a decent supersonic speed. With an F-35 cruising at Mach 0.95, as soon as it detects an enemy, it can fire it's missile if it desires, or again, if they really want to go faster, they can (and potentially faster than the F-16 depending on load out).

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 01:36
by popcorn
The ability to fire first from a longer distance avoiding the use of reheat to minimize IR signature. Smart way to fight.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 04:50
by geforcerfx
sergei wrote:"In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power "
F35 is bigger and heavy then F16 of course the same weight has less effect on.
"50-80 kts higher"
Very Big advance:)
"entire weapons load" it have 6 hardpoint internal ?
"extend missile range __________ F35 doesn't "

And how much higher will range from missiles at a speed of more to 50kts F16 ? 2-5 km ?


In a similar FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load, the F-35 would still weigh more. If a f-35 is on a full loud out compared to a F-16 it's hauling more fuel and similar combat loads, and it can do so higher and faster, for longer. As others have said the 80 knots seems small, except that adds up on a four hour flight to be 320 nautical miles further in range in the same time. The entire weapons load on a F-16 for a strike mission with two tanks leaves them with 4 combat capable hard points usually. The F-35 doesn't have to have external tanks and has it's targeting equipment built in. The F-35 has shown the ability to super cruise in testing as well, if its at mach.95 it can choose to launch it's missiles then or it has the option to quickly go supersonic(something the F-16 doesn't have the option of when loaded for strike missions) with some afterburner launch missiles then maintain supersonic to either continue engagement or leave the airspace. So compared to a F-16 or F-18 strike mission it will launch missiles from higher altitudes while going faster therefore adding range to the missiles, same concept the F-22 uses just not the same numbers.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 06:26
by hornetfinn
I'd really like to hear from our aerodynamics experts what this information really means regarding F-35 aerodynamics. I think it confirms that F-35 gets a lot of lift from its body (effective wing loading is low) and also a benefit you get from internal weapon and fuel carriage (low drag).

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 07:19
by tacf-x
It also helps that the F-35's performance is only slightly impeded by carrying full fuel and stores. The only real increase in drag that the F-35 suffers is a little more induced drag and pressure drag from having to slightly raise the angle of attack that its wings are exposed to. Since the F-35 is a heavy fighter even sans any payload that means that giving it two 2k pound bombs isn't going to result in much of percentage increase in weight. This not only means lower drag but also less of a difference in energy bled when making turns (between an empty Lightning and a Lightning with weapons load of course) so the F-35 doesn't need to use its afterburner to recover kinetic energy like the F-16 does under the same circumstances. One of my engineering profs once said that aircraft static margins are always designed to increase as a result of adding weapons payloads so it's possible the F-35's maneuverability isn't that adversely affected from carrying around its ordnance since 2K pound bombs might not be enough to significantly alter the position of the center of gravity.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 07:27
by eskodas
The F-35 just has a fuckton of military thrust for a single engine, that's all it is, especially at altitude, thrust.

F-35 is 29k with 18.5k fuel and 5k weapons on 28k thrust = 0.53 mil thurst

F-16 is 18.9k with 7.2k fuel + 5K fuel in tanks +1k for tanks + 5k bombs/missiles(+.5k for pylons) on 17.15k thrust = 0.46 mil thrust.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 08:38
by marauder2048
hornetfinn wrote:I'd really like to hear from our aerodynamics experts what this information really means regarding F-35 aerodynamics. I think it confirms that F-35 gets a lot of lift from its body (effective wing loading is low) and also a benefit you get from internal weapon and fuel carriage (low drag).



Mach: Transonic,
AOA: 14 degrees,
Inlet mass flow: 0.57
LEF: 20 degrees,
TEF: 0 degrees,
Reynolds number: 2x10^6 per ft.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 08:44
by tacf-x
eskodas wrote:The F-35 just has a fuckton of military thrust for a single engine, that's all it is, especially at altitude, thrust.

F-35 is 29k with 18.5k fuel and 5k weapons on 28k thrust = 0.53 mil thurst

F-16 is 18.9k with 7.2k fuel + 5K fuel in tanks +1k for tanks + 5k bombs/missiles(+.5k for pylons) on 17.15k thrust = 0.46 mil thrust.


Well, the F135 is desperately needed for something as heavy as an F-35. It's the prerequisite for the F-35 to actually have the ability to perform air combat maneuvering and not be like the F-111. Drag and weight also matter every bit as much as specific excess thrust and specific excess power are crucial figures in the energy game.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 08:48
by hornetfinn
I agree. In configuration with 2 2,000lb bombs (or equal) and 2 AMRAAMs (or equals), targeting system and full internal fuel load, F-35A very closely matches the dry T/W ratio and fuel fraction of F-15E an Su-35. It does have somewhat lower T/W ratio in full AB though. Of course it more than likely has the lowest thrust to drag ratio.No wonder F-16 seems rather sluggish in comparison in the same situation. IMO, that's very impressive given F-35 VLO stealth, internal weapons carriage and much more comprehensive equipment kit.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 14:18
by sergei
geforcerfx wrote:
sergei wrote:"In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power "
F35 is bigger and heavy then F16 of course the same weight has less effect on.
"50-80 kts higher"
Very Big advance:)
"entire weapons load" it have 6 hardpoint internal ?
"extend missile range __________ F35 doesn't "

And how much higher will range from missiles at a speed of more to 50kts F16 ? 2-5 km ?


In a similar FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load, the F-35 would still weigh more. If a f-35 is on a full loud out compared to a F-16 it's hauling more fuel and similar combat loads, and it can do so higher and faster, for longer. As others have said the 80 knots seems small, except that adds up on a four hour flight to be 320 nautical miles further in range in the same time. The entire weapons load on a F-16 for a strike mission with two tanks leaves them with 4 combat capable hard points usually. The F-35 doesn't have to have external tanks and has it's targeting equipment built in. The F-35 has shown the ability to super cruise in testing as well, if its at mach.95 it can choose to launch it's missiles then or it has the option to quickly go supersonic(something the F-16 doesn't have the option of when loaded for strike missions) with some afterburner launch missiles then maintain supersonic to either continue engagement or leave the airspace. So compared to a F-16 or F-18 strike mission it will launch missiles from higher altitudes while going faster therefore adding range to the missiles, same concept the F-22 uses just not the same numbers.


" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 15:51
by zero-one
sergei wrote:" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.



That is their max take off weight not their full combat configuration.

Again this depends on a scenario, imagine a combat scenario where the target is 500 nautical miles away,

The F-35A has an unrefueled combat radius of 613 nautical miles on full internal fuel.

The F-16C Block 50 on the otherhand has an unrefueled combat radius of around 360 miles with a 3,000 pound war load and flying in hi-lo-hi flight profile, which is needed, because the F-16 is not stealthy.

The F-35 on the other hand can simply fly hi-hi-hi and maximize her fuel.


So before reaching combat the F-16 needs to refuel or it needs to carry additional fuel in the form of external fuel tanks, you do know that F-16s are not allowed to go into combat without External fuel tanks right? they are required to always carry EFTs.

Once in combat the F-16 will have more fuel in percentage terms than the F-35.

This is why comparing 2 airplanes with the same percentage fuel figures is a flawed analysis.

According to the F-16.net versions page an air-air configured F-16 weighs 26,463 (not armed to the weight limit as you stated)
Thrust to weight ratio will be: 1.095
Wing loading will be: 88.21 lbs/ square feet

An F-35 in A-A configuration could weigh at around 38,300 lbs to match the range of the F-16C above (360 miles), considering the F-16 had a full load of fuel. and 4 A-A missiles.

that would put the F-35's
T/W ratio at: 1.12
Wing loading: 83.26.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 17:12
by lamoey
sergei wrote:" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.


If the F-35 ever go to war with at max take-off weight it means there are close to zero chance of meeting any threats, so as long as it can make it to the target, hit the right target, and then make it back, that is all that counts. In this case the F-35 can carry an impressive load of weapons, definitely not matched by any F-16.

If, on the other hand, it is flying stealthy it matches or surpasses basically anything out there. Not to mention the support organisation the others would need, like tankers and jammers etc, that the F-35 would need less of.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 19:08
by sergei
zero-one wrote:
sergei wrote:" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.



That is their max take off weight not their full combat configuration.

Again this depends on a scenario, imagine a combat scenario where the target is 500 nautical miles away,

The F-35A has an unrefueled combat radius of 613 nautical miles on full internal fuel.

The F-16C Block 50 on the otherhand has an unrefueled combat radius of around 360 miles with a 3,000 pound war load and flying in hi-lo-hi flight profile, which is needed, because the F-16 is not stealthy.

The F-35 on the other hand can simply fly hi-hi-hi and maximize her fuel.


So before reaching combat the F-16 needs to refuel or it needs to carry additional fuel in the form of external fuel tanks, you do know that F-16s are not allowed to go into combat without External fuel tanks right? they are required to always carry EFTs.

Once in combat the F-16 will have more fuel in percentage terms than the F-35.

This is why comparing 2 airplanes with the same percentage fuel figures is a flawed analysis.

According to the F-16.net versions page an air-air configured F-16 weighs 26,463 (not armed to the weight limit as you stated)
Thrust to weight ratio will be: 1.095
Wing loading will be: 88.21 lbs/ square feet

An F-35 in A-A configuration could weigh at around 38,300 lbs to match the range of the F-16C above (360 miles), considering the F-16 had a full load of fuel. and 4 A-A missiles.

that would put the F-35's
T/W ratio at: 1.12
Wing loading: 83.26.


"This is why comparing 2 airplanes with "
This is the only comparison of the different aircraft which has generally any sense,everything else just hype.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 19:45
by sergei
lamoey wrote:
sergei wrote:" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.


If the F-35 ever go to war with at max take-off weight it means there are close to zero chance of meeting any threats, so as long as it can make it to the target, hit the right target, and then make it back, that is all that counts. In this case the F-35 can carry an impressive load of weapons, definitely not matched by any F-16.

If, on the other hand, it is flying stealthy it matches or surpasses basically anything out there. Not to mention the support organisation the others would need, like tankers and jammers etc, that the F-35 would need less of.

In fact of all the matter that talk about bomb load and benefits in launching range which gives greater speed
pointlessly - it's just advertising.
When the F-35 flies on bombing mission more prudent to send a second F-35 for SEAD only if any of it may present.
F-35 will also use jammers help .

In summary the F-35 has a number of advantages over the F-16 much of which is linked with superiority in size and there is no difference whether it is a new F-35 or old F-111,It's all the same advantages and disadvantages of a large truck on a small car .
In the F-35 has other advantages, too, but they are not connected it with the F-35 only ,and more connected with the general development of the industry ,if you want most of the electronic package of F-35 can be integrated into other planes.
So what are the advantages of the F-35 have and any other do not ?-STOVL and stealth not very many huh?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 20:11
by geforcerfx
sergei wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:
sergei wrote:"In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power "
F35 is bigger and heavy then F16 of course the same weight has less effect on.
"50-80 kts higher"
Very Big advance:)
"entire weapons load" it have 6 hardpoint internal ?
"extend missile range __________ F35 doesn't "

And how much higher will range from missiles at a speed of more to 50kts F16 ? 2-5 km ?


In a similar FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load, the F-35 would still weigh more. If a f-35 is on a full loud out compared to a F-16 it's hauling more fuel and similar combat loads, and it can do so higher and faster, for longer. As others have said the 80 knots seems small, except that adds up on a four hour flight to be 320 nautical miles further in range in the same time. The entire weapons load on a F-16 for a strike mission with two tanks leaves them with 4 combat capable hard points usually. The F-35 doesn't have to have external tanks and has it's targeting equipment built in. The F-35 has shown the ability to super cruise in testing as well, if its at mach.95 it can choose to launch it's missiles then or it has the option to quickly go supersonic(something the F-16 doesn't have the option of when loaded for strike missions) with some afterburner launch missiles then maintain supersonic to either continue engagement or leave the airspace. So compared to a F-16 or F-18 strike mission it will launch missiles from higher altitudes while going faster therefore adding range to the missiles, same concept the F-22 uses just not the same numbers.


" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.


Actually max weight I can achieve on a F-35A is 66,280. That's full loaded weight with 2 aim-120 and 2 aim-9's with 2 GBU-31s and 4 storm shadow missiles. So using that max weight you get a T2W of 0.422 dry and 0.65 aft. Carrying a bomb loudout that would take 2 or more F-16's to haul. If you go a more USAF loudout (switch storm shadow with AGM-158) it's 63,836 for a dry t2w of 0.44 dry and 0.67 aft. The biggest reason the F-35 wins though in the comparison the article is highlighting is because it's carrying the F-16's same weapons and fuel loadout internally. Which gives it a weight of 54,440 dry t2w of 0.51 and aft of 0.79, on top of this it's carrying it internally so no addition major drag, so compared to a F-16(and F-18) the F-35 will fly higher and faster for further with a max combat loud of the legacy aircraft. Higher and faster again means further missile range and addition speed for combat use.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 20:31
by sergei
"the F-35 will fly higher and faster for further with a max combat loud of the legacy aircraft."
We are waiting for the calculations same weight loss for the F-16.
F-35 will fly higher yes it is Ceiling =18000m, F16 Ceiling=15200 m

"max combat loud" F-16 = 7700kg "max combat loud" F-35=8100kg not big difference.

F-35 will fly further yes , faster questionably.
On max load F35 win in range and lost aerodynamic .

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 21:44
by lamoey
sergei wrote:In the F-35 has other advantages, too, but they are not connected it with the F-35 only ,and more connected with the general development of the industry ,if you want most of the electronic package of F-35 can be integrated into other planes.
So what are the advantages of the F-35 have and any other do not ?-STOVL and stealth not very many huh?


With this statement you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the F-35 brings to the fight. It may be decades before any other aircraft can match the capabilities you seem to think is unimportant, or comes off the shelf if you just ask for it. They may just as well use a B-2 if that was all it was about, because it can sure get a big load of bombs into a stealthy aircraft, which nobody else can do either. It's a sad, sad day when somebody that thinks he understands what this is all about and then demonstrates such complete ignorance.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 22:51
by zero-one
sergei wrote:"the F-35 will fly higher and faster for further with a max combat loud of the legacy aircraft."
We are waiting for the calculations same weight loss for the F-16.
F-35 will fly higher yes it is Ceiling =18000m, F16 Ceiling=15200 m

"max combat loud" F-16 = 7700kg "max combat loud" F-35=8100kg not big difference.

F-35 will fly further yes , faster questionably.
On max load F35 win in range and lost aerodynamic .



The reason why your analysis is invalid is because you are comparing 2 aircraft using a very different profile

Comparing the F-16 and F-35A at 100% internal fuel falls apart when you notice that the F-16 never leaves for combat on just 100% fuel. it is REQUIRED to carry external fuel tanks at all times. so in reality you would need to give the F-16 anywhere from 150-200% fuel,

The F-35A on the other hand is designed to go into combat on just internal fuel

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 04:48
by energo
energo wrote:- In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power than the F-16


Let me clearify what the author ment by "full combat configuration". In the Libya operations the RNoAF typically flew with two 500lbs PGMs, however in this case it was a comparison of 2000lb class weapons. Add to that 700lbs in pylons/adapters, two AMRAAMS at 340lbs a piece and two AIM-2000/IRIS-T at 190lbs and 200lbs in pylons/adapters, ALQ/ECM pod at 500lbs, Sniper 600lbs with adapter and "dollies" (fuel tanks) at 1000lbs empty. That's a about 8100lbs or 3,7 tons of weapons, pods and pylons/adapters.


/Bolsøy

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 11:50
by sergei
energo wrote:
energo wrote:- In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power than the F-16


Let me clearify what the author ment by "full combat configuration". In the Libya operations the RNoAF typically flew with two 500lbs PGMs, however in this case it was a comparison of 2000lb class weapons. Add to that 700lbs in pylons/adapters, two AMRAAMS at 340lbs a piece and two AIM-2000/IRIS-T at 190lbs and 200lbs in pylons/adapters, ALQ/ECM pod at 500lbs, Sniper 600lbs with adapter and "dollies" (fuel tanks) at 1000lbs empty. That's a about 8100lbs or 3,7 tons of weapons, pods and pylons/adapters.


/Bolsøy


If we subtract fuel tanks and containers it will be 6 point suspension ,more than the F-35 can be placed inside.
Do I understand correctly that the external fuel tanks in the Libyan war on the F-16 is not filled?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 11:54
by pron
sergei wrote:If we subtract fuel tanks and containers it will be 6 point suspension ,more than the F-35 can be placed inside.
Do I understand correctly that the external fuel tanks in the Libyan war on the F-16 is not filled?


Good to see that you continue on the same informed course.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 12:36
by sergei
lamoey wrote:
sergei wrote:In the F-35 has other advantages, too, but they are not connected it with the F-35 only ,and more connected with the general development of the industry ,if you want most of the electronic package of F-35 can be integrated into other planes.
So what are the advantages of the F-35 have and any other do not ?-STOVL and stealth not very many huh?


With this statement you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the F-35 brings to the fight. It may be decades before any other aircraft can match the capabilities you seem to think is unimportant, or comes off the shelf if you just ask for it. They may just as well use a B-2 if that was all it was about, because it can sure get a big load of bombs into a stealthy aircraft, which nobody else can do either. It's a sad, sad day when somebody that thinks he understands what this is all about and then demonstrates such complete ignorance.

You're too keen on advertising slogans or in general not understand what I was saying.
Where I said that some of the benefits are not important ?It sounds like a Freudian slip :D

Again F-16 is Lightweight Fighter and F-35 let's say not a very lightweight.Operation of the F-35 will never be cheaper operating F-16 in the same circumstances,but the F-35 can do much more than the F-16.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 12:41
by sergei
pron wrote:
sergei wrote:If we subtract fuel tanks and containers it will be 6 point suspension ,more than the F-35 can be placed inside.
Do I understand correctly that the external fuel tanks in the Libyan war on the F-16 is not filled?


Good to see that you continue on the same informed course.

--------
"dollies" (fuel tanks) at 1000lbs empty
---------
It was a clarifying question not statement.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 16:19
by energo
sergei, I think you know the answer to that one. :wink: 1000lbs is the combined weight of the two tanks/pylons when empty. Cooking basic figures is always entertaining, but the greater point is that you have two jets - one replacing the other - with a similar mission profile and this is what the pilots can expect in a real world scenario. Of course, as I mentioned, one needs to keep in mind that this is compared to a PW220E powered F-16A/MLU. Later models with more powerful engines might very well have better excess power at high altitude.


/Bolsøy

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2015, 00:59
by sergei
I got 9300kg combat load and full fuel+empty weight 8650kg = 17950kg for F-16C Thrust/weight: 0.435
F35 same combat load and fuel at the same distance+empty weight =18450kg Thrust/weight: 0.69
As expected, the farther away the target is the more advantageous to use a large aircraft.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:33
by araya
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875


Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”.....


....The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.....


Is this really true, can someone confirm this? :shock:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:54
by sergei
araya wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”.....


....The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.....


Is this really true, can someone confirm this? :shock:

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:58
by sferrin
sergei wrote:
araya wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”.....


....The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.....


Is this really true, can someone confirm this? :shock:

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.



Airpower Australia LOL :lmao:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:17
by araya
In the past I read much about, what the F35A should/will have the turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet and this in Combat Configuration (not clean). So I was totally surprised as I read the comment of the F35 Test Pilot how was not even able to beat the F16 Block40 with External Fuel Tanks in a dogfight. So is this article true or false and if is true, how can this be possible?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Follow the sources. "Unnamed pilots" slam it while named personnel sing it's praises. If there is no verifiable source it is likely BS.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:33
by araya
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources. "Unnamed pilots" slam it while named personnel sing it's praises. If there is no verifiable source it is likely BS.


Thx

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 15:25
by eloise
sergei wrote:http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.

Oh the good old APA again :doh: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: according to that website one F-22 can probably won WW III :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 19:26
by spazsinbad
'araya' the BORING is WAR article you cited was posted here earlier by 'gabriele' with a long discussion following and earlier some more bits about Norwegian F-16s: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=293887&hilit=unnamed#p293887

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 20:36
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.



So like how the Fulcrum and Flanker have pitiful combat records outside the forums? So far the only airplanes a Flanker has managed to kill have been-- Fulcrums :wink: Not even going to get into MiG-23s, and MiG-21s-- yikes!

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 22:57
by araya
spazsinbad wrote:'araya' the BORING is WAR article you cited was posted here earlier by 'gabriele' with a long discussion following and earlier some more bits about Norwegian F-16s: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=293887&hilit=unnamed#p293887


Thanks a lot for the link spazsinbad, :D I did not saw what it was already posted and discussed, sorry. :doh:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 01:50
by delvo
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
Also follow the specific claims back to where they came from. Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter. Before this, F-35 detractors had claimed that rear visibility was a problem and the helmet was too big, so this thing obliges them by claiming that exactly those details just happened to have dictated the outcome.

What's more likely to have generated such conveniently precise point-for-point responses to earlier arguments like that: a real-world Air Force exercise whose outcome couldn't be scripted, or someone making up the perfect fantasy event to vindicate the side (s)he had taken?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 02:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Did you read the report? I did. While it wasn't flattering, it was far from damning.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 04:25
by smsgtmac
delvo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
... Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter...


I categorically reject that assertion. You overgeneralize to the point you do violence to the phenonemon and mischaracterize those who observe (rightly) that external stores and weight tend to degrade aero performance more than internal stores (with associated cross-section) and weight. Try and discern also the difference between commentary about maneuverability and post-stall controllability (aka 'supermaneuverability').

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:01
by sferrin
smsgtmac wrote:
delvo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
... Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter...


I categorically reject that assertion. You overgeneralize to the point you do violence to the phenonemon and mischaracterize those who observe (rightly) that external stores and weight tend to degrade aero performance more than internal stores (with associated cross-section) and weight. Try and discern also the difference between commentary about maneuverability and post-stall controllability (aka 'supermaneuverability').


I think you probably used too many big words for him there. :wink:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:05
by sferrin
smsgtmac wrote:
delvo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Follow the sources.
... Before this, F-35 defenders had pointed out how external attachments degrade a fourth-generation plane's aerodynamic performance, so this thing answers by going out of its way to point out that factor and claim it didn't matter...


I categorically reject that assertion. You overgeneralize to the point you do violence to the phenonemon and mischaracterize those who observe (rightly) that external stores and weight tend to degrade aero performance more than internal stores (with associated cross-section) and weight. Try and discern also the difference between commentary about maneuverability and post-stall controllability (aka 'supermaneuverability').


Apparently Bill Sweetman is intimidated by you. He refers to you as "Sarge Mac-and-Cheese" in an effort to make the boogieman less scary.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253413

:lmao:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:26
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
Apparently Bill Sweetman is intimidated by you. He refers to you as "Sarge Mac-and-Cheese" in an effort to make the boogieman less scary.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253413

:lmao:


Does this mean there is finally an F-35 topic that isn't locked down over there after the program took turns for the better?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 05:30
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Apparently Bill Sweetman is intimidated by you. He refers to you as "Sarge Mac-and-Cheese" in an effort to make the boogieman less scary.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253413

:lmao:


Does this mean there is finally an F-35 topic that isn't locked down over there after the program took turns for the better?



It's only open because of the David Axe hit piece. The basement dwellers are having a field day spewing their bullshit.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2016, 11:46
by energo
More perspectives from the first two Norwegian pilots in a recent RNoAF mag.

"The introduction of the F-35 will over night represent at least as big a leap in technology and capacity as we have had with the F-16 during its entire lifetime."

http://milforum.net/showthread.php/50077-Forsvaret-kj%C3%B8per-F-35-kampfly-fra-Lockheed-Martin/page110?p=1235285&viewfull=1#post1235285

(Unofficial translation by me.)

Together with the Americans we have operated our own airplanes for almost four months, and we are well on our way with the build up here at Luke. This job is unlike anything we have done previously.

The American air force has just recently begun to develop tactics and procedures for exploiting the characteristics and capacities of the airplane. A lot of the work is being done at Luke and within the squadron we are apart of. Norway and the RNoAF are participating from the start, and we have full access into the fundamental discussions. It means we can influence the development of the weapon system - we are in other words in the middle of the sweet spot.

The Norwegian officers at Luke are integrated with an American squadron. Therefore we learn daily from those who know best the F-35, and who already have years of knowledge and experience with 5th. generation airplanes. This will provide us with the best possible starting point when we begin to operate the F-35 in Norway from 2017. The F-35 today has over 50.000 flight hours, and the Norwegian airplanes have been over 150 hours in the air since we received them in December last year.

The F-16 has been a fantastic combat aircraft for the RNoAF for the last 35 years. The introduction of the F-35 will over night represent at least as big a leap in technology and capacity as we have had with the F-16 during its entire lifetime. This provides opportunities, but also challenges. If we are to exploit the capacity that the F-35 is, it will be necessary to change the way we operate, think and organize, something I think will be far more difficult than the introduction of the aircraft itself. It is not the F-35 that will have to adjust to Norwegian practices, it is we who will need to adjust to the F-35. The jets will act also as a force multiplier for the army and navy. The aircraft's characteristics and ability to cooperate will give the Norwegian politicians more alternatives to act with respect to the use of military force in the future.

We who fly the F-35 daily, can establish the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range and, can carry a significantly higher payload and provides the pilot with a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16. But we are still in the development phase of the F-35 program. It is therefore natural that the aircraft has some basic problems, even if critics often use such as "proof" that the airplane will never be able to meet the specifications.

From an operational standpoint the challenges are about getting complex systems to work together. The unique thing about the F-35 program is that we have chosen to operate the aircraft before it is fully developed. On one side this means that some systems are still immature, on the other side we get to take part in a test process which is much more comprehensive than what has been done before. Here at Luke we experience that problems are corrected continuously, and that the aircraft's maneuvering envelope is expanding. I therefore operate a completely different machine today than I did just two months ago.

When the final status is made up in 2025, I am therefore convinced that Norway and the RNoAF will have a weapons system which is even more capable than the government expected when they approved the acquisition in 2008.





Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2016, 12:00
by hornetfinn
Thank you a lot energo, that was very informative piece. Nice translation!

Together with the Americans we have operated our own airplanes for almost four months, and we are well on our way with the build up here at Luke. This job is unlike anything we have done previously.

The American air force has just recently begun to develop tactics and procedures for exploiting the characteristics and capacities of the airplane. A lot of the work is being done at Luke and within the squadron we are apart of. Norway and the RNoAF are participating from the start, and we have full access into the fundamental discussions. It means we can influence the development of the weapon system - we are in other words in the middle of the sweet spot.


I think Norwegians played the whole thing very smart and got into bus at the best possible time.

The introduction of the F-35 will over night represent at least as big a leap in technology and capacity as we have had with the F-16 during its entire lifetime.


This is what I and many other people have been trying to say for a long time. The jump in technology and capabilities is just enormous compared to any 4th gen fighter, including the latest ones. Jump from F-16A MLU must be astounding.

We who fly the F-35 daily, can establish the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range and, can carry a significantly higher payload and provides the pilot with a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16.


But it's so slow and unmaneuverable aircraft with poor range, how can this be... :bang:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2016, 13:33
by quicksilver
:applause:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 01:23
by les_paul59
Many people will soon find out, that the f-35 is faster, more maneuverable, and has better range when in a combat configuration than most jets. Many try to skew wikipedia data towards their favorite fighter by citing top speed while clean, and use the jet's ferry range as an operational range, which is laughable.

Most likely, only the f-22 is more maneuverable while carrying 2 jdams than the f-35. The f-16's maneuverability and speed isn't even close to the f-35 when the viper has a couple bags and 2 2k jdams strapped on, as well as a targeting pod.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 05:26
by fang
Thank you "energo" for bring it up and the translation work.
It's amazing how the F-35's great abilities slowly slowly discovered and shattered right in the face of all those who criticised the program (based on their fantasies and illusions).

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 15:03
by tacf-x
The anti-F-35 people will just say that those pilots are paid shills and/or just trying to keep their jobs by supporting the decisions of their employers.

Still, it's nice to hear that the F-35 is shaping up to be a world-beater. The comments that these pilots are making really do help confirm the advantage of not having to deal with drag from external stores as well as having an engine that produces as much dry uninstalled SSL thrust as an F110 in full AB.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 18:13
by accessdenied
les_paul59 wrote:Many people will soon find out, that the f-35 is faster, more maneuverable, and has better range when in a combat configuration than most jets. Many try to skew wikipedia data towards their favorite fighter by citing top speed while clean, and use the jet's ferry range as an operational range, which is laughable.

Most likely, only the f-22 is more maneuverable while carrying 2 jdams than the f-35. The f-16's maneuverability and speed isn't even close to the f-35 when the viper has a couple bags and 2 2k jdams strapped on, as well as a targeting pod.


Wow! I mean !!Wow!! So this is how we're measuring the F-35 compared to other aircraft? How well each aircraft performs when loaded with drop tanks and bombs? Really? In that case, the F-15E when loaded with 12k lbs of fastpacks and bombs is no match for the F-35! The SU-27 when loaded with drop tanks and 2000lbs of bombs is no match for the F-35 either! Thanks heavens! The USAF got it right!

I know that a Bone can fly circles around a fully laden Strike Eagle. That doesn't make the Bone an air superiority fighter, and it doesn't make the Strike Eagle a turd.

If a Stubby finds itself getting into a fight while enroute on a A2G mission, by the time said 'fight' is over, the F-35 won't have the fuel to complete the mission.

And Stubby needs all that thrust. She is fat and heavy. You would think a single engine fighter with 40klbs of thrust would be a hotdog, but this slug cannot accelerate as well as either USAF legacy plane it's replacing, and doesn't even have a cruise speed that much greater than a legacy AC either. Why? It's fat. It's heavy. It's a bomber based on the 1980s idea of lugging around 2x2000lb munitions with limited range is end all and be all of the A2G mission.... My how times have changed but the F-35 is cast in stone from 1993.

Sure it will turn out to be just fine as a fighter against legacy AC and the Eurocanards. But if you threw enough money at the F-4 and loaded it with better engines, and EOTS/DAS, 9x, and 120C it would be a hell of a fighter too.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 18:39
by eloise
Fighter turn rate (only internal fuel, equalize range)

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 19:34
by quicksilver
accessdenied wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:Many people will soon find out, that the f-35 is faster, more maneuverable, and has better range when in a combat configuration than most jets. Many try to skew wikipedia data towards their favorite fighter by citing top speed while clean, and use the jet's ferry range as an operational range, which is laughable.

Most likely, only the f-22 is more maneuverable while carrying 2 jdams than the f-35. The f-16's maneuverability and speed isn't even close to the f-35 when the viper has a couple bags and 2 2k jdams strapped on, as well as a targeting pod.


Wow! I mean !!Wow!! So this is how we're measuring the F-35 compared to other aircraft? How well each aircraft performs when loaded with drop tanks and bombs? Really? In that case, the F-15E when loaded with 12k lbs of fastpacks and bombs is no match for the F-35! The SU-27 when loaded with drop tanks and 2000lbs of bombs is no match for the F-35 either! Thanks heavens! The USAF got it right!

I know that a Bone can fly circles around a fully laden Strike Eagle. That doesn't make the Bone an air superiority fighter, and it doesn't make the Strike Eagle a turd.

If a Stubby finds itself getting into a fight while enroute on a A2G mission, by the time said 'fight' is over, the F-35 won't have the fuel to complete the mission.

And Stubby needs all that thrust. She is fat and heavy. You would think a single engine fighter with 40klbs of thrust would be a hotdog, but this slug cannot accelerate as well as either USAF legacy plane it's replacing, and doesn't even have a cruise speed that much greater than a legacy AC either. Why? It's fat. It's heavy. It's a bomber based on the 1980s idea of lugging around 2x2000lb munitions with limited range is end all and be all of the A2G mission.... My how times have changed but the F-35 is cast in stone from 1993.

Sure it will turn out to be just fine as a fighter against legacy AC and the Eurocanards. But if you threw enough money at the F-4 and loaded it with better engines, and EOTS/DAS, 9x, and 120C it would be a hell of a fighter too.


Frustrated Eagle guy? Maybe a WSO?

The general agreement -- amongst rational players -- is that comparisons should be in 'go to war' configurations that normalize weapons loads, sensors, and fuel necessary to make the notional mission.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 20:14
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:
Frustrated Eagle guy? Maybe a WSO?


I'd be willing to bet this is Geogen.



Wow! I mean !!Wow!! So this is how we're measuring the F-35 compared to other aircraft? How well each aircraft performs when loaded with drop tanks and bombs? Really? In that case, the F-15E when loaded with 12k lbs of fastpacks and bombs is no match for the F-35! The SU-27 when loaded with drop tanks and 2000lbs of bombs is no match for the F-35 either! Thanks heavens! The USAF got it right!


nope, just going off what this pilot says

If a Stubby finds itself getting into a fight while enroute on a A2G mission, by the time said 'fight' is over, the F-35 won't have the fuel to complete the mission.


Based on what? Of the top of my head I recall Navy F-18s killing MiGs and then pitching their bombs onto the MiG's airfield. So do tell us more. And I am very curious how if the F-18s had the fuel to do such things along with other legacy airplanes, yet the F-35 somehow couldn't with even more fuel

And Stubby needs all that thrust. She is fat and heavy. You would think a single engine fighter with 40klbs of thrust would be a hotdog, but this slug cannot accelerate as well as either USAF legacy plane it's replacing, and doesn't even have a cruise speed that much greater than a legacy AC either. Why? It's fat. It's heavy. It's a bomber based on the 1980s idea of lugging around 2x2000lb munitions with limited range is end all and be all of the A2G mission.... My how times have changed but the F-35 is cast in stone from 1993.


FFS. Guess how I know you don't know what you are talking about? From this very thread... on this very page:

We who fly the F-35 daily, can establish the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range and, can carry a significantly higher payload and provides the pilot with a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16.

Image

What are the comparative cruise speeds BTW? since you are comparing them I would like to know.

Sure it will turn out to be just fine as a fighter against legacy AC and the Eurocanards. But if you threw enough money at the F-4 and loaded it with better engines, and EOTS/DAS, 9x, and 120C it would be a hell of a fighter too.


So on one hand you are contradicting the Norwegian pilot and running down the F-35, and on the other hand you are saying it doesn't matter and even an F-4 can do it, providing its equipped with F-35 systems.

You sound bitter by the way. And ignorant. Really hoping you can whip out credentials that trump what this Norwegian pilot says, and/or numbers that prove your point. If not, you are making a common mistake by declaring the F-35 sluggish, what makes you particularly special is that you actually tried to do that in a thread where a pilot specifically contradicts it.

What an odd decision.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 20:14
by les_paul59
@accessdenied, the f-35 is a STRIKE fighter, you know jSf stands for joint strike fighter. So yes I think that it's range, speed and maneuverability is relevant when carrying lots of fuel and 2 2k jdams compared to other jets. By the way the f-16 has never been an air superiority platform for the usaf, no matter how much sprey would like it to be. It has for the majority of it's life been strapped with bombs, tanks and pods.

The f-35 isn't a world-beater in a clean configuration, like most 4th gen jets are. But when the f-35 shines, is when it counts, which is when it's strapped with weapons and a meaningful amount of fuel to go destroy heavily defended targets.

The whole point of carrying bombs is to actually make it to the target and destroy the target. 4th gen jets would drop their tanks and air to ground ordinance if they had to enter an air to air engagement. The f-35 will simply avoid the target via low observability or take "long amraam shots" from the shadows, and continue towards the target. So I'm pretty sure it will have enough fuel considering it's estimated "end of life" combat radius without the advent engine is 600 miles with a full internal weapons load.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 20:29
by XanderCrews
les_paul59 wrote:@accessdenied, the f-35 is a STRIKE fighter, you know jSf stands for joint strike fighter. So yes I think that it's range, speed and maneuverability is relevant when carrying lots of fuel and 2 2k jdams compared to other jets. By the way the f-16 has never been an air superiority platform for the usaf, no matter how much sprey would like it to be. It has for the majority of it's life been strapped with bombs, tanks and pods.

The f-35 isn't a world-beater in a clean configuration, like most 4th gen jets are. But when the f-35 shines, is when it counts, which is when it's strapped with weapons and a meaningful amount of fuel to go destroy heavily defended targets.

The whole point of carrying bombs is to actually make it to the target and destroy the target. 4th gen jets would drop their tanks and air to ground ordinance if they had to enter an air to air engagement. The f-35 will simply avoid the target via low observability or take "long amraam shots" from the shadows, and continue towards the target. So I'm pretty sure it will have enough fuel considering it's estimated "end of life" combat radius without the advent engine is 600 miles with a full internal weapons load.


don't worry, he clearly isn't interested in the truth or honesty, if he was he would be picking on the Norway pilot instead of your post. Pretty sure this is a member that has been banned previously for the same ignorant hard headed stupidity you are seeing before you. his favorite tactic was hit and run, whenever cornered with facts he would run away until next time. So lets see if this guy even comes back.

Clearly he is angry which is very enjoyable. Great watching him contradicted by someone who has qualifications and an opinion that matters. :D Hope I get to see an implosion here.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 23:09
by les_paul59
I've seen his posts on the f-22 forum, he is a raptor elitist...and a sukhoi fanboy.

Basically if it's not a raptor it can't compete with upgraded su 27's, you know how that story goes lol

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2016, 00:18
by XanderCrews
les_paul59 wrote:I've seen his posts on the f-22 forum, he is a raptor elitist...and a sukhoi fanboy.

Basically if it's not a raptor it can't compete with upgraded su 27's, you know how that story goes lol


Hmm maybe Haavarla then...

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2016, 02:18
by tacf-x
Or Kopp...

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2016, 03:51
by XanderCrews
I've said it before and I'll say it again if you thought people hated the F-35 before, wait until it succeeds!

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2016, 21:59
by langbein
I read an article about the norwegian pilots, planes and training at Luke AFB in a nowegian magazine. I'm currently in the process of translating it so I can post it here, with the authors blessing. He even mailed me the original .pdf file with pictures and text. Will post that as well. It will take a couple days as it's taking time to translate. Nice pictures and some insight into norwegian pilots training and how the plane is to fly in air to air combat. I just needed to try to do this since this forum and you guys on it, has given me so much.

Morten

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2016, 23:35
by sferrin
langbein wrote:I read an article about the norwegian pilots, planes and training at Luke AFB in a nowegian magazine. I'm currently in the process of translating it so I can post it here, with the authors blessing. He even mailed me the original .pdf file with pictures and text. Will post that as well. It will take a couple days as it's taking time to translate. Nice pictures and some insight into norwegian pilots training and how the plane is to fly in air to air combat. I just needed to try to do this since this forum and you guys on it, has given me so much.

Morten


Can't wait. :notworthy:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2016, 07:18
by krorvik
If possible, the norwegian text would also be good :wink:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2016, 12:10
by hornetfinn
les_paul59 wrote:@accessdenied, the f-35 is a STRIKE fighter, you know jSf stands for joint strike fighter. So yes I think that it's range, speed and maneuverability is relevant when carrying lots of fuel and 2 2k jdams compared to other jets. By the way the f-16 has never been an air superiority platform for the usaf, no matter how much sprey would like it to be. It has for the majority of it's life been strapped with bombs, tanks and pods.


This is very true. Many people seem to have the idea that maneuverability and performance is only needed for air-to-air combat. Tell that to pilots who have gone against real enemy air defences in air-to-ground configurations.

If we think about the normal air-to-ground configuration of F-35, it has truly unique performance, maneuverability and range compared to any current or foreseeable aircraft. F-35A has two 2,000 lbs class weapons or 8 SDBs, two AMRAAMs and targeting pod. AFAIK, in that configuration it's a 9G, Mach 1.6, 50 degree AoA aircraft with well over 600 nm combat radius. AFAIK, no other aircraft is even close in those configurations. F-22 can't carry similar loadout and even Dassault Rafale is only 5.5G, 20 degree AoA, subsonic aircraft in equal configuration. Maybe some F-15E variant might be capable of some of that. Even if F-35 wasn't VLO aircraft and had legacy fighter signatures, it'd be pretty damn impressive strike aircraft given maneuverability, performance, range and avionics. I'd say i'd be impressive performer even if it had 4 gen avionics.

les_paul59 wrote:The f-35 isn't a world-beater in a clean configuration, like most 4th gen jets are. But when the f-35 shines, is when it counts, which is when it's strapped with weapons and a meaningful amount of fuel to go destroy heavily defended targets.


Some 4th gen fighters can equal or even better some performance metrics of F-35 in light air-to-air configurations where there are no EFTs (dropped or not used at all).

Of course it also depends on what is used for comparison. F-35B has no real competition as it's the only STOVL game in the town and is by far superior to Harrier it replaces in every way (performance, avionics, payload, range, not to mention stealth). F-35C is also superior to every single carrier aircraft in pretty much every way. Only real competitors are Rafale M and Super Hornet and neither is superior even in light loadings.

It seems like F-35A has pretty impressive performance even in light air-to-air loadings. Mach 1.6 top speed, 9G and 50 degree AoA capability is nothing to sneeze at. F-22 is naturally superior and EF Typhoon might be in some loadings without EFTs. Typhoon certainly supercruises faster than F-35 but has inferior AoA capability. Both are significantly inferior in air-to-ground and other multi-role capabilities. It's impressive that EF Typhoon needs 3 EFTs to get even close to F-35A range and it also needs to drop them to equal the performance in air-to-air combat loadings. F-35A has both the range and performance all the time. Then we can start talking about avionics and stealth after that...

Of course this is what knowledgeable people have been saying for at least a decade. F-35A in combat will have very close to same performance it has in basic training or airshows. 4th gen aircraft do not.

les_paul59 wrote:The whole point of carrying bombs is to actually make it to the target and destroy the target. 4th gen jets would drop their tanks and air to ground ordinance if they had to enter an air to air engagement. The f-35 will simply avoid the target via low observability or take "long amraam shots" from the shadows, and continue towards the target. So I'm pretty sure it will have enough fuel considering it's estimated "end of life" combat radius without the advent engine is 600 miles with a full internal weapons load.


I think in combat situation some F-35s are tasked for air-to-ground and some to air-to-air with suitable weapons loadouts. Even air-to-ground loaded F-35 would be dangerous as it still carries two AMRAAMs and has high performance while being tough to detect, track and engage.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2016, 23:33
by lamoey
langbein wrote:I read an article about the norwegian pilots, planes and training at Luke AFB in a nowegian magazine. I'm currently in the process of translating it so I can post it here, with the authors blessing. He even mailed me the original .pdf file with pictures and text. Will post that as well. It will take a couple days as it's taking time to translate. Nice pictures and some insight into norwegian pilots training and how the plane is to fly in air to air combat. I just needed to try to do this since this forum and you guys on it, has given me so much.

Morten


Morten,

Just want to make sure you don't duplicate the effort of ENERGO. He did translate an article from milforum and it is available if you go back one page in this thread.

MVH
Morten

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2016, 23:44
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:I think in combat situation some F-35s are tasked for air-to-ground and some to air-to-air with suitable weapons loadouts. Even air-to-ground loaded F-35 would be dangerous as it still carries two AMRAAMs and has high performance while being tough to detect, track and engage.


Yup, somehow it doesn't sink into some that there will be more than one F-35 in the air... Too many Chuck Norris films, It's wolfpack tactics not lone wolf McQuade.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 15:46
by langbein
@krorvik:

The .pdf will contain the original text in norwegian

@lamoey:

Don't think it's related. This article comes from "Vi Menn". I have a few errands to run and then I'll get back to translating. Hopefully finish tonight and post.

Nice name by the way :mrgreen:

MVH,

Morten

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 15:57
by krorvik
I saw that article - but I really don't like some (well most) of the other stuff in that mag, so I hoped someone else would be able to post at least exerpts here ;)

Yay!

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 16:51
by krorvik
Btw goofy, work is much appreciated :)

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 19:51
by jessmo111
popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think in combat situation some F-35s are tasked for air-to-ground and some to air-to-air with suitable weapons loadouts. Even air-to-ground loaded F-35 would be dangerous as it still carries two AMRAAMs and has high performance while being tough to detect, track and engage.


Yup, somehow it doesn't sink into some that there will be more than one F-35 in the air... Too many Chuck Norris films, It's wolfpack tactics not lone wolf McQuade.


When you compare the planes, will F-16s normally even fly with more than 4 AMRAAM? And if they do what do they give up for load out? This will be helpful on compareing the 2

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 23:23
by les_paul59
ive seen a lot of pictures of f-16's with 2 tanks 4 amraam and 2 aim 9's

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2016, 21:50
by langbein
Testing of the F-35 in air combat manouvers, article in “Vi Menn” (Norwegian mens magazine, directly translated to “Us Men”

I read this article a little while back and thought it would be a nice contribution to this forum. My initial idea was to translate the text and scan the images, but not without permission. So I sent an email to the author to get his approval. Thankfully he said yes and even gave me the original .pdf of the story. Text (norwegian) and pictures from: Haakon Bonafede. Many thanks!

So now I'm going to translate the text, the pictures are in the .pdf (maybe someone can upload them on here from the .pdf, I'm not that good with computers). I'm also going to write the text that go with the pictures in Norwegian and in English so you can see what pictures they relate to. Sorry for any wrong spelling, I'm doing this without any spell check (just google from time to time), and there might be some technical terms I get wrong. Well, here goes!


F-35 pilot Morten “Dolby” Hanche has been dealt a bad starting point before the air battle begins. He's being hunted by his opponents at he edge of visual range. Far enough away that he must use his planes sensors, but near enough to force the “ninja-technique” necessary to win a WVR (within visual range) fight.
The target is to stay hidden and attack from a concealed position. The other F-35's plays the role of aggressors. They have to mimic potential enemy planes. The sensor package on the planes is so advanced that they have to take measures to limit them. The enemy has gotten a hint as to where Hanche is, but they don't follow him with their sensors.
The “ninja-technique” Hanche chooses is brutal and seems almost wreckless to an outsider, and in stark contrast to the critique that the F-35 can't dogfight.
-When we begin I'm “only” doing 400kts, says Hanche.
-I purposely make a hard turn towards “Red Air” in full afterburner, so hard I loose speed. Such a hard turn can be felt physically, because the high AOA (angle of attack) makes the plane shake somewhat – a bit like driving fast on an old gravel road.
It's still easy to control and it's no problem getting back up to speed. After just a short time the plane is supesonic so that I can fire the missile at about mach 1,2. It's important to have speed and altitude when firing missiles, for the same reason a spear thrower would never try a throw without a run up.


Angular
Far away from home (Norway), in a base in the desert on the outskirts of Phoneix in Arizona, the two first Norwegian F-35 is based. They're not slim and slender like their predecessor the F-16. The shape is angular like a big 4wd car. The belly is bulbous to be able to carry the weapon load internally, and the whole machine looks aggressive like a guard dog even when the tires are tied down between the blocks.
The pilot inspecting the airframe before he climbs up the built in ladder to the cockpit is somewhat of a contrast to the plane. Lieutenant Colonel Martin “Tintin” Tesli is by no means big, but a soberly guy who always has a smile lurking. He got his call sign because his “helmethair” gave him the same hairstyle as the cartoon character.Now he's in charge of the Norwegian unit at Luke AFB. His job is to find out what the F-35 can do in a fight, and teach it to the rest of the RNoAF's pilots as the F-16 is phased out.
The plane is the most sophisticated fighter ever built so far. According to several sources the plane is as visible to radar as a golf ball and impossible to detect from far away. Top speed is mach 1,6 and in addition to it's 25mm machinegun, it can carry radar guided missiles that can shoot down enemy airplanes long before they know someone is in the air with them. Also it can carry two GPS guided 2000 pound bombs in it's weaponbays and 4 laser guided bombs under it's wings if stealth is not needed.
Even so, it's the sensor capability, the ability to analyze all the data and share the information with air and ground units that impresses the most. From the future QRA-base at Evenes planes on standby can fly all the way to Svalbard and back without refueling. They can watch the whole electromagnetic spectrum to get full control of what's going on oveer and on the Norwegian sea without being detected. And use force or relay targeting data to e.g. a frigate if necessary.

The 100th mission
With 25 and 50 hours between them, “Tintin” and his partner “Dolby” is relatively new in the fighters which is Norway's most expensive weapons buy ever. But they are also the country's most experienced. With a background as fighter pilots they are a part of writing the new handbook on tactics for modern air combat based on own experience with the plane. According to them it's superior to the F-16 in every way.
-Everything I miss from the F-16 is for nostalgic reasons. The more I fly, the more privileged I feel, says “Dolby”, who's going up to fly air combat with “Tintin” and two american pilots. Before Christmas he was the first norwegian who flew the F-35, and this is a new milestone with the 100th mission for the first Norwegian F-35.
“Tintin” has arranged it so that this happens as we are visiting. Norwegian, american and australian pilots share the planes as they are available, so this time it's important that he gets the “right” plane. The fact that it's “dolby”'s name on the plane “tintin”'s flying dosn't matter as much.
“We train the World's best F-35 and F-16 fighter pilots” it says modestly on one of the signs at the base entry. On the walls of the brand new squadron building with a deck overlooking a line of parked planes protected from the sun, it says “357 kills and counting”
62nd Fighter Squadron got it's baptism of fire over Europe in 1944, and continued to shoot down enemies in both Korea and Vietnam. Now the 144 F-16 planes on the base is gradually replaced with the same number of F-35's. For RNoAF 2017 will be a milestone when the first F-35s is flown home for operational testing under Norwegian conditions. In 2019 the first planes will take over after the workhorse F-16 at Ørland.
“Tintin” has already patted “Spike” ceremoniously on the head before he gets out on the warm concrete outside the squadron building. The squadron mascot - a bulldog drawn by Walt Disney – is everywhere. On the walls, the shoulder patches and engine covers. The miniature mascot sitting on the counter where the pilots are leaving the building is to make sure they return with undamaged planes. All squadron meetings is started and ended with a forceful “SPIKE!” to keep up with traditions and build unity.

Classified
-No pictures head on without the engine covers on. No pictures of the cockpit, demands the base PR lady. Her task is to protect the top secret parts of the plane against curious eyes. -And don't go closer than five meters, she adds.
The grey machine with Norwegian emblems symbolizes not only a US guarantee of supremacy in the air, it's also our most expensive defence investment ever. For the full package of 52 planes and equipment, the average prize is about a billion Nok per plane.
While “Tintin” fires up the engine and the plane's computer systems, I recall the conversation we had the day before. Morten Hanche, who had the first flight, said he had some thoughts in the beginning about how expensive the plane was. -But you just have to rationalize that away. The plane is so expensive that you can't think about it. If you do you won't dare to fly it, he explains.
But the F-35 is not perfect. While the four pilots that are going up together are doing their checklists, Hanche turns off the engine, exits the plane and fires up the reserve. Probably a bug in the software. But the serious critique of the F-35's dogfighting capabillities has been put to shame lately. Especially the claim that it is inferior to the 4th generation F-16. According to the norwegian pilots, the critique is wrongly based on an evaluation of a single test flight where tactics were being developed. As the plane is designed to deliver weapons at a distance it's not especially developed to dogfight.
-Still, everybody is surprised at how good it manouvers. I hadn't expected it to be so aggressive in dogfights, “Tintin” says.

Superior in dogfights
They elaborate on the experience after one and a half hour of dogfight-training, one on one over White Tank Mountains, the training are west of the base.
The roar of the engines is unmistakable as they return. It's the most powerful engine in any fighter ever and will be noticed well when stationed at Ørland in Norway. “Tintin” is sweating after the maneuvers, and his helmet-hair gets damper when he comes out of the plane into 35 degrees C desert air.
So far the plane is cleared for up to 7g. When the next software update comes alog it will be 9g like the F-16. Even now the F-35 has maneuvering capabilities that makes “Tintin” and “Dolby” rewrite the manual for dogfights. Traditionally, the one with the highest speed has the advantage in dogfights. The F-35 gives the pilots the possibility to maneuver with much higher AOA. In comparison to the F-16 it has much better nose pointing capabilities.
-The ability to point towards my opponent makes me able to deliver a weapon sooner than I'm used to. It forces my opponent to react more defensive and gives me the ability to slow down fast, Hanche says. -Since I can slow down fast I can point my plane at my enemy for longer before the roles are reversed. The backside is that you loose energy, but it's not really a problem. The plane has so much engine power and low drag that the acceleration is awesome. With a F-16 I would have had to dive to gain as much speed after a hard turn.
Hanche has earlier put words to his experience of flying the F-35 in several post on “The combat aircraft blog” Here he describes how the aggressive F-35 gives him the ability to stick to an opponent and keep him in his sights:

“To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.
In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me.”

Another trait of the F-35 emerges when in defensive situations. At high AOA the F-16 responds slow when moving the stick sideways to roll the plane. A bit like using the rudder on a large ship I think, not that I know what I'm talking about – I'm not a sailor. In the F-35 I can use the rudder-pedals to steer the nose sideways. At high AOA the F-35 still responds quick compared to the F-16. This gives me the opportunity to point the nose where I want and threaten my opponent. I can do this “pedalturning” impressively fast, even at low speeds. As a defensive capability I can neutralize a situation fast or even reverse the roles.
A negative in training one on one has been that the view out of the cockpit is not as good as on the F-16. The visibility in a F-16 is especially good, better than in any other fighter I've flown. I could turn all the way around in my seat and see the opposite wingtip. In the F-35 I can't do that because the seat blocks some of the view. This made me a bit frustrated after the first flights. I had to learn to move different. Now I move forward in the seat before I lean a bit sideways and turn my head to look back. That way I can look around the sides of the seat. In the F-35 you learn to work around the issue and it's not a real disadvantage once you know how to do it.


The computer helmet
The 41 year old fighter pilot Martin “Tintin” Tesli is true enthusiast. At home he has a T-33 training fighter from the 1950s that he uses in airshows. He loves contrasts, the veteran fighter is fully analog unlike the F-35s “brain” that lighten the workload for the pilot.
But in a way the F-35 talks directly to the pilot. Even in the first flight “Dolby” was surprised by the shaking in the fuselage that varied as he was turning harder, almost like driving a car.. For the pilot this means that he gets a feedback as to how much energy the plane has without looking at the instruments. -It gives a real feeling of flying, more so than in the F-16, says “Tintin”.
Regardless, if you get in a dogfight in the F-35 you've probably done something wrong. The ability to see from far away without being seen changes the game completely. The plane is a surveillance- , bomb- and fighter plane all at once, with the ability to move freely in areas with modern anti air defenses. Where you earlier needed a lot of F-16s you now only need four F-35s to do the same job.
-It's not fair being a F-35 pilot. It's unfair how we can sneak in and finish the job at a long distance, “Dolby” says ironically.
The advanced autopilot and the good flying qualities of the plane takes some of the adrenaline out of the flying, making it easier for the pilot to do the mission. One of the most important tools is the helmet which has become an integral part of the plane. It's a bit like having a laptop on your head. “Tintin” let us hold the helmet with its kevlar shell, built in night vision and visor which shows all the projected information to the pilot.. If a missile is fired at the plane, a short tone followed by a woman's voice tell that the missile is coming from the side. When “Tintin” rotates his head in that direction, symbols on the visor will tell him the missiles position, speed and direction. This makes it easier to avoid ground threats and survive in a more modern battlespace. He can also fire his own missile while he accelerates away and lets the computer guide the weapon by just looking at the symbol of his opponent.
Six outside cameras also project a 360 degree field on his visor. If he looks down he will see the ground “through” the bottom of his plane. It comes down to the most important ability a pilot has, to prioritize his tasks instinctively. But I belive the generation of gamers will use the plane even better, says Hanche. In peacetime though, the most important thing is to not drop the helmet so it get damaged. The cost of this wonder is about 3,5 million Nok a piece. The cost of training with the F-35 is also higher than the last generation fighter. According to the DoD the cost for USAF to train one hour in the F-35 is about 120 000 Nok. Multiply that with 150 hours a year it comes to about 18 million Nok per pilot per year for training. To get the most cost effective training, the norwegian pilots will use a simulator for 40% of their training in the new simulator-building at the Ørland base once it's finished. The simulators are so good that the F-35 is only single seater, the pilot does his, or hers, first flight alone after about 30 hours in the simulator.
The plan is also that maintenance will be simplified. In peacetime the hangars will work as a drive-thru system where each plane has its own depot. A two man crew is responsible for avionics and engine systems while ALIS wil tell what needs to be changed instead of regular maintenance intervalls, says Major Bjorn Tommy Eigeland. He is the liaison at Lukes responsible for building the maintenance department in Norway. The radar absorbing coating on the hull will complicate maintenance if you have to break it remove panels.
He and his colleagues has bought bikes to travel the roads in the US while they live there. Pilots are not the only ones allowed to have some fun.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2016, 22:45
by spazsinbad
Many thanks for translation & original PDF 'langbein'. The article has some great information whilst these are a few of many good quotes from it that impressed.
"...The plane has so much engine power and low drag that the acceleration is awesome....

...A negative in training one on one has been that the view out of the cockpit is not as good as on the F-16. The visibility in a F-16 is especially good, better than in any other fighter I've flown. I could turn all the way around in my seat and see the opposite wingtip. In the F-35 I can't do that because the seat blocks some of the view. This made me a bit frustrated after the first flights. I had to learn to move different. Now I move forward in the seat before I lean a bit sideways and turn my head to look back. That way I can look around the sides of the seat. In the F-35 you learn to work around the issue and it's not a real disadvantage once you know how to do it...."

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 19:53
by krorvik
Great work langbein, both getting the pdf and translating it - appreciated!

Not really *that* much new in it for the readers here, but still good to see that information spread :)

There's also a new blog post up at RNoAF program today, with translation:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... ay-around/

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 21:16
by XanderCrews
I definetly learned some new stuff! Thanks for translating it! I know how time consuming that can be 8)

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 19:06
by langbein
krorvik wrote:Great work langbein, both getting the pdf and translating it - appreciated!

Not really *that* much new in it for the readers here, but still good to see that information spread :)

There's also a new blog post up at RNoAF program today, with translation:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... ay-around/


Thanks! For me it's not so much about new information, it's more about context. Hearing it from the pilots, getting their impressions is what's interesting for me. It's more tangible than just dry facts. I also like the pictures in the .pdf. God I love the curves and details on that plane. Not as sleek as the F-16, but still a work of art.

Morten

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2016, 18:46
by energo
langbein wrote:Thanks! For me it's not so much about new information, it's more about context. Hearing it from the pilots, getting their impressions is what's interesting for me. It's more tangible than just dry facts. I also like the pictures in the .pdf. God I love the curves and details on that plane. Not as sleek as the F-16, but still a work of art.

Morten


Bra jobba! (great work)

Not at sleek as the F-16. Still a work of art. Well said. Having been privileged to see (and touch) this aircraft up close, one thing is certain when you walk up to it: This represents something new, modern, next gen - call it what you want. The smooth surface with no visible rivets, no gaps in between the panels, no worn paint and the other small details you are used to see on fighters, gives a strong impression indeed. It did for me, at least. Same thing with the F-22 or B-2 for that matter. If you get the chance to see it in England in July, enjoy.
:crazypilot:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2016, 10:37
by gergf-14
Awesome, can't wait for July.

:mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2016, 18:22
by energo
Not sure if this has been posted here, but another great article from Hanches blog. Be sure to read it all. :cheers:

https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/09/16/lack-of-perfection-does-not-mean-disaster-how-i-read-test-reports-as-a-pilot/

Lack of perfection does not mean disaster – how I read test reports as a pilot

[...]

I finished up writing this article before getting ready to fly another sortie in the F-35. Based on my own experiences flying the F-35A, I feel that the media´s interpretation of the previous DOT&E report is influenced heavily by unrealistic expectations – something which seems to be a trend. I don´t see the point in countering every claim that´s being brought up. First off, it´d make for a very long article. Secondly, I would not be dealing with the bigger problem, which in my mind is a lack of understanding.

[...]

Personally, I am impressed by the the F-35. I was relieved to experience just how well the F-35 performs with regard to speed, ceiling, range and maneuverability. It would have been very problematic if the airplane´s performance didn´t hold up in these areas – there´s just no software update which is going to compensate a draggy airframe or a weak engine. (Read more about such a case in the Government Accountability Office, then the General Accounting Office´s report on the Super Hornet).

When asked about my first flight in the F-35, I compared it to flying a Hornet (F/A-18), but with a turbo charged engine. I now can quote a USMC F/A-18 Weapons School Graduate after his first flight in the F-35: «It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!» (His point being that the F-35 can afford to operate at high Angle-of-Attack and low airspeed, but that it will regain the airspeed quickly when needed). Another unintended, but illustrating example on performance came a few weeks back, when a student pilot failed to recognize that he had climbed through our temporary altitude restriction at 40,000´. The F-35 will happily climb past that altitude.

Another critical aspect of the F-35 is its minimal radar signature. Just as with the aerodynamic performance, the «stealthiness» of the F-35 is an inherent quality of the airframe itself. There would be no quick-fix to a disappointing signature. So far, my impression is that the F-35 is very difficult to find. We see this every day when training with the F-35; we detect the F-16s flying in the local airspace at vast ranges, compared to when we detect another F-35.

Sensor stability, and specifically radar stability, has been an issue. I´m not trying to downplay that the radar´s stability needs to improve, but I am not worried. What would have worried me was if the radar had poor detection range, or if the stability issues were caused by «external» factors like limited electrical power supply or limited cooling available. Fortunately, our biggest issues are related to software, and not performance. I think it´s realistic to expect software issues like this to be resolved (just like iOS 9 eventually ended up working well).

Remember that we´re not trying to re-create another «Fourth Gen» fighter in the F-35. If we had set our aim lower, we´d likely have had an easier job of developing the airplane – it would have been easier to build the F-16 again today. But is that what we need? The F-35´s specifications are ambitious, and reflect a machine which will outperform the previous generation of fighters. Having or not having that kind of military advantage eventually becomes a political question. For now, our leaders think we need that military edge.

[...]

Even today, our modern-day F-16s live with many issues; errors which were discovered in DT, OT or operational use, but which haven´t been corrected. Either because of prohibitive cost, complexity or because no one understands the failure mechanism – what is causing the problem. I´m not just talking about cosmetic or minor issues. One example is that The Norwegian Armed Forces for a period of about 10 years could not operate its F-16s in single ship formations, in bad weather or at night. The restriction was put in place because the Main Mission Computer (MMC) broke down relatively often. The resulting operational limitations hampered both training and operations. It took more than 10 years to diagnose and correct the issue, mainly because the failure mechanism was illusive.

The most outspoken critics of the F-35 couldn´t have known about our issues with the MMC in the F-16 at the time. If they did, and read that deficiency report, would they have concluded that our F-16s were non-operational, and incapable of fulfilling its mission?

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2016, 21:14
by spazsinbad
The last time that same post was referred to was here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52350&p=353053&hilit=Hanche#p353053

Earlier it was referenced here: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52276&p=352792&hilit=Hanche#p352792

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 06:20
by marsavian
U.S. Air Force conducts large force exercise with friendly and enemy air made up of both F-16s and F-35s

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-f ... s.html/amp

“These guys are getting really good at flying the F-35 and they can present some aggressive situations that force young pilots into errors,” Walters said. “It’s not always the guy who should win that does win. At some point its pilots in cockpits that win fights.”

The F-35A is a platform built on stealth, with advanced sensors and the ability to target and eliminate threats long before they are within visual range.

“That’s the assumption, and we are very good at that. But in the fog and friction of war and chaos, fighting within visual range will probably always happen,” said Maj. Jondavid Hertzel, weapons officer in the 421st FS. “And that’s why we train to it. Prepare for the unexpected in wartime.”

Every aircraft has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, which combined with a pilot’s skill and experience level can dictate the outcome of a fight. As the first combat-capable F-35A units in the Air Force, pilots in the 388th and 419th have been developing tactics that can give them an edge in any fight.

“There’s been a lot said about the F-35s dogfighting capability,” said Maj. Thomas Meyer, weapons officer of the 34th Fighter Squadron. “We’ve had a lot of time to develop our tactics, which take advantage of our strengths and exploit the weaknesses of other platforms. The F-35 has become very capable in that arena.”

During the second week the pilots also integrated on missions in a large force exercise with friendly and enemy air made up of both F-16s and F-35s. Much of the learning takes place in the briefing room after the mission. Pilots can review their actions and also see what the enemy was seeing.

“You don’t get the distance between fourth generation and fifth generation fighters until we get back to tape review. It’s overwhelming to look at those screens and see all the data that is provided to these guys,” Walters said. “That’s a lifetime experience these young pilots will take forward when they integrate with the F-35A in the future.

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 15:52
by ricnunes
Thanks for the article and translation langbein :thumb:

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 03:50
by spazsinbad
On the 5th May above 'marsavian' posted an article about F-16 students - which is further explained in article below...
Hill AFB fighter wings conduct combat exercise
06 May 2019 Micah Garbarino, 388th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah (AFNS) -- The active duty 388th Fighter Wing and Reserve 419th FW conducted an integrated combat capability exercise April 30-May 2 at the Utah Test and Training Range. The friendly and enemy forces were made up of F-35 Lightning IIs from Hill AFB, F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 311th Fighter Squadron at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, and 80th FS at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, and a team of contracted aggressor pilots from Draken International, at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

“Planning and carrying out the mission as part of a large, integrated force, at a high ops tempo is always valuable training,” said Col. Michael Ebner, 388th FW vice commander. “Whenever fourth- and fifth-generation platforms train together it’s beneficial for everyone. It was a great learning opportunity, especially for younger pilots.”

More than 40 aircraft participated. The training provided by this type of joint exercise is usually only available during large-force exercises like Red Flag. The airspace at the Utah Test and Training Range provides Hill AFB the ability to host such a large force. The defensive counter-air exercise was designed to simulate a combat operations tempo to test the capabilities of maintainers to provide aircraft and pilots to protect the airfield from a large enemy force.

“We were severely outnumbered, we had a five to one aggressor ratio and we were tasked with defending a list of assets over an eight-hour tour time block,” said Maj. Thomas Meyer, 34th Fighter Squadron weapons officer. “We had aircraft sitting in alert status to respond to whatever enemy threats were presented.”

Aircraft rotated into the fight on a continual basis for more than eight hours. If the enemy was successful in making it through the defenses and hitting a target, the friendly force was penalized by losing time to generate aircraft as maintainers took cover.

“One of the principle directives we’ve been given in the F-35 program is to integrate, and generally we only fly against other F-35s here,” said Maj. Jondavid Hertzel, 421st FS weapons officer. “This is a great opportunity for us.”

During the exercise F-35A maintainers were working to generate sorties at a steady rate, safely and efficiently.

“We’re testing everything associated with generating a combat sortie, from our weapons loading to aircraft production,” said Chief Master Sgt. Scott Spraberry, 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit superintendent. “We’re doing everything on a much more compressed schedule,”

On a normal flying day at Hill AFB, there may be eight to 10 aircraft that take off at once, then eight to 10 more jets several hours later. During this exercise, four-ship sorties launched every 30-45 minutes throughout the day. Maintainers had to be ready for the jets to land, refuel, reload and take off again, generating a total of 44 sorties a day. They worked in “cells.” Each cell was made of crew chiefs, weapons and avionics technicians and overseen by a senior non-commissioned officer responsible for keeping up to four aircraft ready for flight. [thot 'cells' were 'BOLTS'?]

“Normally our maintainers have two to three hours to turn an aircraft, so having to do so every 30 minutes really tests their skill,” said Capt. John Goodwin, 419th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron maintenance operations officer. “These exercises are an extremely effective and essential way to ensure our overall readiness.”

The 388th and 419th FWs are the Air Force’s first operational combat-capable F-35 units, having received the first jets in October 2015. They fly and maintain the jet in a Total Force partnership, which capitalizes on the strength of both components. By the end of this year, Hill AFB will be home to 78 F-35s."

Photo: "An F-35A takes off during a combat exercise at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, May 1, 2019. The active duty 388th Fighter Wing and Reserve 419th Fighter Wing, along with F-16 units from Holloman AFB, New Mexico, and Kunsan Air Base, Korea, conducted an integrated combat exercise where maintainers were tasked to continually provide ready aircraft and pilots took off in waves to simulate a large force engagement with enemy aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by R. Nial Bradshaw)" https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/03/2 ... 6-0003.JPG (4.35Mb)


Source: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... -exercise/

Re: F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 18:46
by marsavian
“We flew 100 F-35A missions with 22 aircraft, integrated on 56 F-16 missions and defended vulnerable assets for a 16-hour window,” the 388th Fighter Wing stated on social media.

https://facebook.com/388fw/photos/a.188 ... =3&theater