Test pilot admits the F35 cant dogfight

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post02 Jul 2015, 20:04

johnwill wrote:Unless I dropped a decimal point somewhere, a trillion dollars over fifty years will cost every American less then twenty cents a day. Think we can afford that?



Did you account for population growth? The U.S. population is projected to hit 400 million by 2050, up from around 300 million today. So really, its probably going to be about 15 cents per day.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5378
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Jul 2015, 21:02

Here ya go:

From the May 23rd, 2011 issue of AvWeek:

"even though the cost to sustain the program into the future is an eye-popping $1 trillion, adjusted for inflation over its lifespan. That is less than the cost to sustain the F-22, about the same as the F-15, and more than either the F-16 or the F-18."

HOWEVER. That's every penny related to the purchase or use of every US F-35 planned. So a comparison to JUST the F-16 or JUST the F/A-18 wouldn't be meaningful. You'd have to add together the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier programs to have an apples-to-apples comparison.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Jul 2015, 21:38

Senators Ask For JSF Alternatives
20 May 2011 Jen DiMascio | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

"...Ashton Carter, who says the Pentagon has no good alternative to the next-generation stealthy fighter, even though the cost to sustain the program into the future is an eye-popping $1 trillion, adjusted for inflation over its lifespan. That is less than the cost to sustain the F-22, about the same as the F-15, and more than either the F-16 or the F-18.

Carter is pledging the amount will be brought down during a “should-cost” review of the program that he will finish in the next couple of months....

...Asked about the costs, Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin’s general manager for F-35 program integration, says that the next-generation fighter’s sustainment costs cannot be fairly compared to older aircraft.

He says JSF sustainment was developed on a performance-based logistics plan different than legacy sustainment processes. The JSF’s O&S estimates also go out to 2065 and are susceptible to ground rules that legacy aircraft are not bound to, he adds...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/awin/senators-a ... ternatives
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2115
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post02 Jul 2015, 23:49

hb_pencil wrote:
johnwill wrote:Unless I dropped a decimal point somewhere, a trillion dollars over fifty years will cost every American less then twenty cents a day. Think we can afford that?



Did you account for population growth? The U.S. population is projected to hit 400 million by 2050, up from around 300 million today. So really, its probably going to be about 15 cents per day.


You are right of course. But, I didn't. It was so much simpler to say "less than twenty cents a day". Oops, I said, "less then twenty cents a day".
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post03 Jul 2015, 00:12

Here is the response from the Norwegian F-35 Project Office: English version published today

Dogfighting and the F-35
By Morten Hanche

Recently I have been working on a post on the F-35 and «dogfighting» and after new allegations have surfaced concering the effectiveness of the F-35 in this area (or lack of such) it becomes even more relevant. In this post I will therefore try to elaborate a bit more on air-to-air combat and which factors help determine its outcome.

A dogfight is combat in the air between two aircraft where the distance is short enough that the pilots are able to see each other with their own eyes. When training for this kind of combat, we call it «Basic Fighter Maneuvers» (BFM). Before the days of missiles and radars, dogfighting was the only form of air combat, and machine guns (or cannons) were the only weapons. This changed rapidly during the 1960s, but it turned out that early missiles were unreliable. Machine guns and «dogfights» were therefore still relevant in both the Vietnam and Yom Kippur wars.

The F-16 was also immature in many ways when the Norwegian Air Force received them during the 1980s. The radar was «shortsighted», and the only armament were guns and short ranged heat-seeking missiles. During the 1980s, Norwegian pilots trained to meet Soviet aircraft with long-range missiles. The Norwegian pilots could certainly hope that the Soviet missiles would not work, but it would be foolish to rely on such an assumption. As a result, Norwegian F-16s would go defensively into any dogfight, with the aim of surviving the initial long range fire of their opponent, before being able to hopefully retaliate once the battle moved within visual range. To do so, the only thing our F-16s could do was to try to confuse the enemy with deceptive maneuvers; perhaps this would allow at least one of our aircraft to survive all the way to a merge and hence have an opportunity to catch up? The problem was that such diversionary maneuvers tended to confuse both parties. Therefore, the starting point for the ensuing dogfight was poor.

With the F-35 however the situation is quite different. Today’s missiles are far more reliable and the sensors are in a completely different league. I know that the F-35 will perform formidably at long range, but it is not my intention in this post to discuss whether dogfighting is relevant or not for the F-35. There are several reasons why the F-35 could end up in a dogfight. After all, when all the missiles are gone the gun is the only option that we are left with. Or what if we meet an opponent with an even smaller radar signature? Or an opponent that is able to evade all our missiles, in one way or another? My focus in this post is therefore the factors that help determine the outcome of a dogfight.

The performance of the airplane is important. The most relevant factors are how small I can make my turn radius, how quickly I can turn the aircraft around and how quickly the airplane can accelerate and gain speed. But let’s say that I am training BFM in «my» F-16 against a SAAB Safari (basic trainer) from the pilot training school at Bardufoss. Would this be an easy match? As it happens, the Safari is actually better than the F-16 in two relevant areas; it has a smaller turning radius and can fly slower. As a consequence, I will lose if I enter the fight on the Safari’s terms, and try to win by «out-turning» my opponent (just ignore for the moment that the Safari is completely unarmed).

The relevance is that although the F-16 is an agile airplane, I cannot beat neither the SAAB Safari nor any other combat aircraft without having a good plan for doing so. In a dogfight between an F-16 and a SAAB Safari I will have other strenghts; I can find the Safari on my radar and enter the fight unseen, I can sustain five times the speed of the Safari and I can fly higher.

So what would I actually have done in a theoretical dogfight like this one?

I would have done anything I could to sneak in undiscovered; plunge down on the Safari from an almost vertical position, slightly behind. The Safari-pilot wouldn´t have had any realistic chance to see me before the attack was over. If I had missed with the first volley from my cannon, the plan would have been to «escape» vertically upward again, and repeat the attack. This is not something the Safari would be able to match. I would be fighting the Safari on my own terms.

So how does this apply in the case of an engagement between the F-16 and the F-35? It depends, and it particularly depends on how the F-16 is loaded. A stripped-down F-16 is a formidable opponent to anyone in BFM. However, this changes quickly when we dress the F-16 up for combat. If we are to compare the F-16 and F-35 on an equal basis, we must assume that the F-16 will be carrying both external fuel, a «jamming pod» for electronic warfare, weapon mounts for bombs, missiles and a camera pod for target acquisition and illumination. With this loadout, the F-16´s performance is significantly reduced: The maximum angle of attack is reduced by 40% (the ability to move the nose away from the direction of travel), the roll rate is lowered, the maximum allowable airspeed is reduced and the g-limitations are stricter.

So what, you might ask? My point is that a that a well thought-out plan is essential. I need to know the strengths and weaknesses of both my own airplane and that of my opponent. Even with a superior and modern fighter I must utilize my own strengths and not let my opponent dictate the terms of the fight.

Overall I can say that a stripped-down F-16 has slightly better sustained turn rate than the F-35. However, an F-35 has the advantage with regards to getting inside the turn of its opponent. In a dogfight between the F-16 and the F-35 they will therefore both have strengths to play on.

When we train BFM in Norway – F-16 against F-16 – it is often the case that one of the two plays the role of the opponent. When an instructor acts as the opponent to an inexperienced pilot, the instructor commonly refrains from using the afterburner. Compared to the instructor, the student pilot has 60% more engine power available – a «twin engined» F-16! Still, the student pilot does not always win, despite superior power and performance.

Another common scenario is to train from a defensive starting point. At exercise start, the ‘aggressor’ will usually be 3,000 ft behind, in a lazy turn. In this situation, the aggressor has every advantage. With a skilled pilot, the defending aircraft should not be able to survive an attack from such a short distance. Nevertheless, it still happens that the roles are switched, and the hunted becomes the hunter. My main thesis is therefore hardly controversial; the pilot who trains consistently and builds experience – the pilot with a large «bag of tricks» – will win!

How I end up in a dogfight is also a critical factor. Just earlier today I was lucky enough to be able to practice three BFM sets in the F-16. Two defensive sets, and one «high aspect» set. Before we took off, we went through the initial parameters, our roles, safety rules and objectives for the exercise. The world was simple; two fighters in the training area and one mission to complete. I was 100% ready to defend myself in the best way possible when my colleague called «fight’s on» over the radio. When we run larger and more realistic scenarios, however, my experience is that the path leading up to a BFM-engagement tends to be both confusing and chaotic. If we are in control, know what we are doing and interpret the tactical situation correctly, we will not end up in a dogfight. When we do end up in a dogfight anyway, it tends to be both unexpected and inconvenient.

The first hint of an unseen foe could be cannon rounds slamming into the hull. That rarely ends well. Fortunately, the F-35 is tricky to spot and has very good sensors. It’s hard to sneak up on an F-35 without being detected. I think it is unlikely that I will be caught completely off guard in the F-35. I my opinion, the most likely scenarios for an F-35 to end up in a dogfight is that an opponent somehow has evaded its missiles, or that all missiles are spent. Therefore, I believe that the F-35 will be the one to enter the arena with the best situational awareness. Having an overview of the situation will allow me to plan my attack; I can prepare myself mentally for what will happen, I can minimize my signature, maybe try to sneak up on my opponent from a dead angle. I can adjust my speed, height and geometry, I can dump heavy weapons to make the aircraft more maneuverable, and I can prepare my desired weapon and optimize the sensors as I approach the merge. I would therefore argue that the situational awareness of a well-trained pilot is the strongest factor when it comes to winning a dogfight.

Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog) is the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. The author of this piece, Captain Morten Hanche, is a F-16-pilot with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and has been picked to lead Norwegian Operational Testing & Evaluation of the F-35.


http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/06/30/dogfight-og-f-35/
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Jul 2015, 01:09

Thanks for that perspective Lamoey. It's apparent that some people are jumping to all sorts of conclusions with limited information and understanding of the recent F-35 report. It was just one snapshot in time of a platform still in development but this does not sit well with those with a need for instant gratification. Oh well, this too will pass... :shrug:
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

eskodas

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2014, 22:46

Unread post09 Jul 2015, 18:02

agilefalcon16 wrote:


That link is indeed a good compilation of information, however I never suggested the plane isn't a capable aircraft. It certainly will be. I was just stating that - considering the extreme cost of the program in its entirety - the fact that this multirole fighter can do all that it can do, yet cannot do so while simultaneously (and impressively) out-flying its still quite potent 40 year old multirole predecessor, is still a bit disheartening. (In my opinion)


If you had of read the webpage you would know it's not an "extreme" cost, it's cost is fairly moderate relative to other aircraft, it's simply a matter of the US possessing a lot of aircraft that are old and need replacing. The F-35 *is* capable of out maneuvering the F-16 in certain regimes, but it's not necessary in the slightest thanks to both High Off Bore missiles and the F-35s superior Sensors/Stealth. It's a matter of cost. https://i.imgur.com/qRto6cG.png
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post09 Jul 2015, 22:27

lamoey wrote:Here is the response from the Norwegian F-35 Project Office: English version published today

Dogfighting and the F-35
By Morten Hanche

Overall I can say that a stripped-down F-16 has slightly better sustained turn rate than the F-35. However, an F-35 has the advantage with regards to getting inside the turn of its opponent. In a dogfight between the F-16 and the F-35 they will therefore both have strengths to play on.


Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog) is the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. The author of this piece, Captain Morten Hanche, is a F-16-pilot with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and has been picked to lead Norwegian Operational Testing & Evaluation of the F-35.


http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/06/30/dogfight-og-f-35/


I will add this from another blog post. My translation.

...With the F-35 we will get more of this*, compared to what we are used to today. To discover this was a very positive experience for me. With full armaments the F-35 operates without straining itself at altitudes 10000 to 15000 ft higher than our F-16, without using afterburner. The cruise speed is 50 to 80 knots higher, just like that. In the F-16 i have to gain speed before shooting a missile. F-35 cruises faster and higher. This is why I am ready to shoot [the missile] far at any time.


Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog) is the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. The author of this piece, Captain Morten Hanche, is a F-16-pilot with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and has been picked to lead Norwegian Operational Testing & Evaluation of the F-35

http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/201 ... elt-annet/


* Range, altitude, speed.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 08:08

It is really sad that the trembling TRIMBLE has NOT linked to the 'HANCHE' story and why not? So I will guess the trembling trimble 'very late I gather' story refers to complete Hanche report above by 'lamoey' - I can only guess. Anyhoo Tremble:
Norwergian pilot counters leaked F-35 dogfight report [Must be a 'hit piece' for a slow news day eh]
01 Mar 2016 Stephen Trimble

"A Norwegian fighter pilot has published a soft rebuttal to a damaging critique leaked last summer about the Lockheed Martin F-35A’s dogfighting prowess, contradicting many of the critical points made in the scathing review written by a Lockheed test pilot.

Norwegian air force Maj Morten “Dolby” Hanche, a US Navy test pilot school graduate with 2,200 flight hours in F-16s, has flown several mock dogfights at Luke AFB, Arizona, against F-16s since becoming Norway’s first F-35 pilot last November.

In a blog post on Norway’s Ministry of Defence web site, [URL pray tell] Hanche never directly mentions the leaked report entitled, “F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers”, dated 14 January 2015, and exposed last June by blogger David Axe on WarIsBoring.com....

...In one area, Hanche and the Lockheed test pilot share similar concerns about the F-35’s cockpit visibility, but come to different conclusions about the scale of the problem.

Both pilots agreed that the head rest makes it harder to look for targets behind the aircraft. But the Norwegian pilot suggests that the Lockheed pilot over-stated the problem after a single flight experience. By learning to tilt forward in his seat before looking behind, Hanche makes the point that he found a way to mitigate the visibility problem through trial and error after a few flights.

Hanche also makes another point that may seem surprising nearly a decade after the first F-35A prototype completed first flight. Due to several programme delays, the US Air Force is still learning how to use the F-35A in combat. [Aircraft is in SDD dimwit] Initial operational capability for the F-35A is scheduled later this year.

“The final ‘textbook’ for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – basic fighter maneouvres – has not been written yet,” Hanche writes. “It is literally being written by my neighbor down here in Arizona!”

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... or-422552/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

endre

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2016, 11:00

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 08:23

He had not linked to it yet because I had not sent him the live link before he published...:)

Here you go: http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... ed-so-far/
Public Affairs, Norwegian F-35 Program Office
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 09:19

OK thanks 'endre'.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2791
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 10:37

This is great insight to how F-35 flies, thank you! I think a lot of pilots are going to be very surprised when going against F-35 in air-to-air exercises! I think even F-22 pilots will find it very, very difficult opponent.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 10:51

Tweet War is Boring? :P

Nah. Screw 'em.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 12:50

element1loop wrote:Tweet War is Boring? :P

Nah. Screw 'em.

He'd ignore it anyway.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post01 Mar 2016, 13:30

Sheesh, not only did Trimble not link to the source, but there's a few errors in that article; "Boeing F-15 and F-16", "lacking power after high angle of attack manoeuvres", "up to 40˚ high in mid-air."; must have been written quickly. He also seems to run with the idea proposed by Axe that the pilot was giving a 'scathing' review, when that's the nature of how such reports should read.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marsavian, southerncross and 13 guests