F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23502
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Apr 2015, 23:36

One should e-mail or request via LM F-35 News website these fillum/video/film ideas - probably there is no way to do it via DoD (US Dept of Defence). I'm curious to know what these 1v1 videos would look like - what should be shown - to be satisfactory to those interested. https://www.f35.com/contact
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

jjk

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 21:08

Unread post04 Apr 2015, 18:38

spazsinbad wrote:... I'm curious to know what these 1v1 videos would look like - what should be shown - to be satisfactory to those interested. ...


I would like to see some basic fighter maneuvers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers and http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf page 49 and onwards ) from different perspectives.

I suggest a six folded split screen:
  • 2x wide angled front views from aircraft nose from attacker and defender
  • 2x normal angled views from pilots helmets (with or without 'see through the bottom of the plane' gadgets)
  • 1x overview from well above
  • 1x text screen with numerical info of speed and position of attacker and defender
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23502
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Apr 2015, 19:29

OK - good to know what you require. Have you seen any equivalent videos/films? IF not - why not? I could guess (please TOPGUN - the movie - is not a candidate).
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

jjk

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 21:08

Unread post04 Apr 2015, 19:43

spazsinbad wrote:OK - good to know what you require. Have you seen any equivalent videos/films? ...


Yeah i know, i might be over-asking, but it would have been nice to seen such a thing for worlds most expensive fighter program...
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post04 Apr 2015, 22:49

jjk wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:OK - good to know what you require. Have you seen any equivalent videos/films? ...


Yeah i know, i might be over-asking, but it would have been nice to seen such a thing for worlds most expensive fighter program...


There's a STOVL version. Frankly, I don't think it's that much to ask that they fly an F-35B to my neighborhood, land on the street, then buzz me so I can come down and watch them perform maneuvers. It would be great if I can make up a list of maneuvers for them to fly, too, but I don't want to overbearing.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2286
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post05 Apr 2015, 01:00

Salute!

Good grief. The "golden arms" at Pax and Edwuds are the last folks we want to evaluate the jets in simulated air combat.

Our Viper cadre that were in the "flyoff" back in '73 - '74 and then showed up at Hill in 1979 were a mixed bag. F-100, F-4 , F-5 and A-7. I can tell you that the ex-aggressor guys from F-5's were out of the universe for A2A. Man, they were good. They knew how to exploit the capabilities of the Viper and also knew tactics, not just basic BFM stuff.

It was only after a few months at Hill that we got to know what we were good at and what were our limits. Visiting folks came in every week and we had A2A missions that were off the normal schedule that we had for pilot checkouts. Most were weekends, and maintenance did not complain because they were learning like we pilots.

The folks from Top Gun were surprised because we could fight slow and we could go vertical like nothing they had seen except the Eagle. These were A-4 guys, and they were good. So no face shot and then the merge and we went up, then came back and watched the "last ditch maneuver" and then gunned the sucker. No need to waste $$$ with a Lima.

The first Eagles were surprised we could go vertical with them. We had to be careful at the top of a rolling scissors due to their nose-pointing ability and the Hornets a year later were the same. I once went from about 20K to 30K in a vertical scissors with another old fart in his Eagle. Niether one of us could get to guns or get enuf separation for a Lima, and wound up coming all the way down to the "floor" at 10K. What do you expect from two 40-year old has been jocks?

The sustained turn comment from one dude re: AUS discussion does not wash ( and dude was a test pilot). The Viper sustained turn rate was and still is the highest of anything I can see. We could hold 9 gees below 10K until we ran outta gas. Our sustained turn rate at that was well above 15 degrees/second ( about 360 KIAS). Turn radius was about 1500 feet!!!

Oh well. Those days are gone for me now. Guess I should just let them go.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2734
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post05 Apr 2015, 02:43

No, the dude at Pax was a flight test engineer (Peter Goon...look it up), not a pilot.

Intent of the Doc Nelson test sortie was not a "BFM evaluation"; it was an evaluation of the HQs and agility of the jet in a BFM context where (unlike typical test point generation) they could maneuaver the jet without restriction. DT guys dont do BFM...for good reason.

Take note that there were no recommendations to change anything (note the comment about future 'options').

Deep breaths...go back to the Barcalounger. :wink:
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post05 Apr 2015, 04:34

jjk wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:... I'm curious to know what these 1v1 videos would look like - what should be shown - to be satisfactory to those interested. ...


I would like to see some basic fighter maneuvers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers and http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf page 49 and onwards ) from different perspectives.

I suggest a six folded split screen:
  • 2x wide angled front views from aircraft nose from attacker and defender
  • 2x normal angled views from pilots helmets (with or without 'see through the bottom of the plane' gadgets)
  • 1x overview from well above
  • 1x text screen with numerical info of speed and position of attacker and defender


I want the option to toggle between the camera view (could be a go pro) and DAS imagery. Thats a bare minimum.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post05 Apr 2015, 17:49

quicksilver wrote:No, the dude at Pax was a flight test engineer (Peter Goon...look it up), not a pilot.

Intent of the Doc Nelson test sortie was not a "BFM evaluation"; it was an evaluation of the HQs and agility of the jet in a BFM context where (unlike typical test point generation) they could maneuaver the jet without restriction. DT guys dont do BFM...for good reason.

Take note that there were no recommendations to change anything (note the comment about future 'options').

Deep breaths...go back to the Barcalounger. :wink:

Most FTEs don't have to pass tactical quals as part of the program itself at Pax River. NFO/WSOs do when they go to FRS to fly in F/A-18s.

Part of the reason why the JSF team is taking BFM envelope cautiously is that during the Super Hornet program, the Navy almost lost a few jets when they departed controlled flight.

Test pilots flew BFM sorties in the F-22. Tom Morgenfeld and Paul Metz were involved in these missions. Capt. Morgenfeld was also a rated MiG pilot, and flew in Red Flag exercises. What they didn't do is BFM before the appropriate flight tests were complete.

I suspect there is a Navy vs USAF issue at play here. Naval Aviators go to TOPGUN for a relatively short program, compared to the graduate program at AFWS. The result is that it would be unusual to find a graduate of both AFWS and TPS. USNTPS (2 year course) is also a graduate program. It would not be unusual to find a TOPGUN pilot graduate Pax river, then go out to China Lake.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post06 Apr 2015, 14:52

Gums wrote:Salute!

Good grief. The "golden arms" at Pax and Edwuds are the last folks we want to evaluate the jets in simulated air combat.

Our Viper cadre that were in the "flyoff" back in '73 - '74 and then showed up at Hill in 1979 were a mixed bag. F-100, F-4 , F-5 and A-7. I can tell you that the ex-aggressor guys from F-5's were out of the universe for A2A. Man, they were good. They knew how to exploit the capabilities of the Viper and also knew tactics, not just basic BFM stuff.

It was only after a few months at Hill that we got to know what we were good at and what were our limits. Visiting folks came in every week and we had A2A missions that were off the normal schedule that we had for pilot checkouts. Most were weekends, and maintenance did not complain because they were learning like we pilots.

The folks from Top Gun were surprised because we could fight slow and we could go vertical like nothing they had seen except the Eagle. These were A-4 guys, and they were good. So no face shot and then the merge and we went up, then came back and watched the "last ditch maneuver" and then gunned the sucker. No need to waste $$$ with a Lima.

The first Eagles were surprised we could go vertical with them. We had to be careful at the top of a rolling scissors due to their nose-pointing ability and the Hornets a year later were the same. I once went from about 20K to 30K in a vertical scissors with another old fart in his Eagle. Niether one of us could get to guns or get enuf separation for a Lima, and wound up coming all the way down to the "floor" at 10K. What do you expect from two 40-year old has been jocks?

The sustained turn comment from one dude re: AUS discussion does not wash ( and dude was a test pilot). The Viper sustained turn rate was and still is the highest of anything I can see. We could hold 9 gees below 10K until we ran outta gas. Our sustained turn rate at that was well above 15 degrees/second ( about 360 KIAS). Turn radius was about 1500 feet!!!

Oh well. Those days are gone for me now. Guess I should just let them go.

Gums sends...



Salute, nothing like seeing Mr. Gums post on the wall, this guys been there done that.

One question sir, what did you honestly think about Doc Nelson's post?
lots of word about how the Stubby handles high AOA?

What was it like when you went against high AOA performers in your Viper? back then only the Hornet could do that,
and the Flanker, but I guess you never went up against those Sukhois....did you? please tell :mrgreen:

I always thought of the F-35A like a Hornet with a little more power, how might this come into play in todays, HOBS oriented knife fights?

Im thinking it won't be as awsome as how it was back then when Gums flew BFM, but then again, I could be wrong, highest G I ever pulled was around 2 or 3 in an amusement park :roll:
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2286
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post06 Apr 2015, 17:38

Salute!

TNX for nice words, Zero.

The Eagle was prolly best of what we saw. That's with a good pilot. Then the Hornet, but I did not see many of them before I got out. I didn't see any Constant Peg planes, but the ones we had back then couldn't turn worth a damn.

The big deal for the Viper, and still is, concerns the limiter. There might be one time in a hundred fights you want or need a few more degrees of AoA, but the Vegas odds are in favor of preserving energy. We had really nice nose rates at the top of a zoom at 140 knots IAS, and roll was better than anythng else we saw at those speeds. Last thing you needed was to do a departure recovery during a fight, ya think?

From what I have seen, looks like the F-35 would be better than a "loaded" F-16 or F-18 or other modern jet. The clean configuration a few of the new jets could place the F-35 slightly behind, but that's assuming an undetected merge with no face shots. Basic knife fight.

I do not wish to go back to the F-4 mentality of the early 60's and put all my bets on BVR missiles. A limited gun capability is nice, but the new close-in missiles are far better than we had back then. So overall, looks to this old mudbeater like the F-35 will fill the operational requirements and do so for a long time.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post06 Apr 2015, 18:22

Combo Question/Response

Since the folks involved here are reported to be primarily Test Pilots, doesn't it stand to reason that this F-35 vs F-16 BFM is part of the larger test program?

Also following that, the 'engagements' are not Free For All, Kill or Be Killed, Lets just jink about and see who wins - type engagements. Some of the questions about "What are the results" seem to imply that those engaged and the program office folks organizing the activity didn't presume to a large degree the outcome of each 'test' before executing/verifying it. I would hope by this point in the program that the program office and the pilots at least know how the aircraft maneuvers -- the purpose of the testing would likely be more focused on how the F-35 collection of systems function together with the pilot as part of war-fighting engagements during Condition X, Condition Y, Condition Z etc...
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post06 Apr 2015, 22:14

Gums wrote:Salute!

TNX for nice words, Zero.

The Eagle was prolly best of what we saw. That's with a good pilot. Then the Hornet, but I did not see many of them before I got out. I didn't see any Constant Peg planes, but the ones we had back then couldn't turn worth a damn.

The big deal for the Viper, and still is, concerns the limiter. There might be one time in a hundred fights you want or need a few more degrees of AoA, but the Vegas odds are in favor of preserving energy. We had really nice nose rates at the top of a zoom at 140 knots IAS, and roll was better than anythng else we saw at those speeds. Last thing you needed was to do a departure recovery during a fight, ya think?

From what I have seen, looks like the F-35 would be better than a "loaded" F-16 or F-18 or other modern jet. The clean configuration a few of the new jets could place the F-35 slightly behind, but that's assuming an undetected merge with no face shots. Basic knife fight.

I do not wish to go back to the F-4 mentality of the early 60's and put all my bets on BVR missiles. A limited gun capability is nice, but the new close-in missiles are far better than we had back then. So overall, looks to this old mudbeater like the F-35 will fill the operational requirements and do so for a long time.

Gums sends...



Many thanks Mr. Gums,

Woah, I always thought the the Hornet was a better BFM machine than the Eagle, being an unstable design with awesome AOA and all,

although I do know that the early Hornets didn't have as much AOA and nose pointing authority as the latest ones, especially against the Rhino.

It got me thinking, Viper and Typhoon pilots typically say that high AOA isn't very important in your typical BFM environment, but could it be because you were not trained to fight that way?

Because when you talk to Hornet and Rhino Jocks, they go on and on about high AOA, and not much about climbing and maintaining E, prolly because they were not trained to fight that way.

I could be way off the mark, but do you guys think this could be a factor?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4539
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post06 Apr 2015, 23:16

No, I think you are on to a very important bit, flying your plane. A Viper driver trained to do the slow stuff is not playing to his planes strengths. Conversely, a Rhino driver who tries at all costs to not go below 300KIAS is avoiding his planes strengths in BFM. That is what the F-35 is trying to accomplish, fight like both a Viper and a Hornet at the same time.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post06 Apr 2015, 23:18

I was curious about the differences in fighters between the Navy and the Air Force and whether the training was adjusted to the capabilities of the planes or vice versa. The Navy obviously favors certain performance parameters that the Air Force isn't concerned with, most notably low speed control for carrier landings, and this obviously affects the entire design.

I found a PDF concerning Naval air training. It mentions two models used to break down air-to-air combat sequences: Maneuver Conversion and Firing Sequence. You can read the full PDF for yourself http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/0710770100.pdf

It's an old paper, so it may not be relevant any longer, but depending on the model you use to break down air-to-air engagements, one might seem to favor certain maneuvers that the other model wouldn't.

I was trying to find information about how the Air Force approaches BFM and training. The Air Force and Navy have had fighters with quite dissimilar performance envelopes and the internet is always going on and on about 9G fighters, but the Navy has never had a 9G fighter in front line service (correct me if I'm wrong), yet they've always managed to perform well while going up against "superior" Air Force planes in exercises. There's obviously more to performance than how many Gs you can pull, but how you train your pilots should have a big effect as well.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests