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

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

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 520
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post06 May 2016, 11:46

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.




Last edited by energo on 06 May 2016, 21:51, edited 4 times in total.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2811
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 May 2016, 12:00

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:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post06 May 2016, 13:33

:applause:
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post07 May 2016, 01:23

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.
Offline

fang

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006, 10:07

Unread post07 May 2016, 05:26

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).
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post07 May 2016, 15:03

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.
Offline

accessdenied

Banned

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2015, 13:39

Unread post07 May 2016, 18:13

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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 May 2016, 18:39

Fighter turn rate (only internal fuel, equalize range)
Attachments
IMG_20160507_183615.jpg
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 May 2016, 19:34

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5982
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 May 2016, 20:14

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.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 07 May 2016, 20:16, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post07 May 2016, 20:14

@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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5982
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 May 2016, 20:29

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.
Choose Crews
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post07 May 2016, 23:09

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
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5982
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 May 2016, 00:18

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...
Choose Crews
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post08 May 2016, 02:18

Or Kopp...
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests