F-35 viper agility

geogen wrote:1) AIM-9X and AIM-120C/D will probably not be the most optimal, or superior 'OTS' over-the-shoulder employed AAM (friend or foe) in the first place. (ponder a high-kinetic performing + TVC missile such as an AIM-variant ESSM perhaps (e.g., if JDRADM is too expensive or delayed) and then one could hypothesize more interesting tactics employed by the launch platform)

9x seems to do ok...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA

2) 'OTS' fired AAM will not likely give the same pK as a forward zone fired AAM and as such, will probably not want to be the tactic of choice.

I think the point is more to keep them maneuvering defensively and maintaining initiative.

Naval joint strike fighter: A glimpse into the future of naval aviation by Weatherspoon, Steve | Mid 2002

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n9086493/

"...The fuselage and weapon system of the carrier version are nearly identical with the other two versions. The major difference is the larger wing area and larger control surfaces for low carrier approach speed and outstanding low speed flying qualities. The wingspan of 42 feet is reduced to 31 feet using a wingfold for compact spotting and handling aboard ship.

The carrier variant of JSF is 5 feet shorter in overall length than the F/A-18 CID and 9 feet shorter than the F/A- 18E/F. Its maximum density spot factor, a measure of the relative space it takes up aboard ship, is 1.11 (relative to an F/A-18C at 1.0 and an F/A-18E at 1.24). Overall height, deck clearance, elevator compatibility, and servicing spotted tail-over-water are easily accommodated in the relatively compact design.

One Key Performance Parameter (KPP) for the program is for the Navy JSF to achieve a minimum combat radius of 600 NM on a representative combat profile. With the larger wing and an internal fuel capacity of over 19,000 lbs, the Navy JSF achieves well over 700 NM radius on that profile. That extra internal fuel not only means more radius, it means not having to take up weapon stations with external fuel tanks, it means less reliance on mission tanking, and it means having a decent fuel package above the fuel ladder to do realistic training at sea.

Up and away combat maneuverability and speed are in the F/A-18 and F-16 class. The Navy JSF corner speed is near 300 kts and top end speed is over 1.6 M at altitude.

As noted earlier, the major deviation from commonality in the whole JSF family are design features for carrier suitability. The larger wing enables an approach speed of less than 140 knots with nearly 9,000 lbs of bringback. Just as importantly, the addition of ailerons, larger horizontal tails and rudders, and an innovative integrated direct lift control (IDLC) assure precise ball flying. The designers recognized early on that a relatively slick (due to stealth) configuration combined with a powerful, high rotational mass engine, could cause glide slope control problems. By integrating direct lift control (using drooped ailerons) with the throttle, the pilot is able to make near instantaneous glide slope corrections, using throttle only to precisely fly the ball. Full autothrottle and Mode I capabilities are also available. Outstanding results were demonstrated in 250 field carrier landing practice (FCLP) landings with contractor and Navy pilots in the X-35C Navy JSF test aircraft in the winter of 2001...."
________________________________

"Steve Weatherspoon, Manager of Navy Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Business Development for the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company JSF Team, is a 1972 graduate of the Naval Academy. He received his MS in Engineering from Princeton in 1973, graduated from the USAF Test Pilot School in 1979, and completed the senior course of study at the Naval War College in 1990. In a 20 year Navy career he logged more than 3,500 F-14 hours and over 900 carrier landings. He completed three operational tours with F14 squadrons, culminating with command of VF-143 aboard USS Eisenhower. As a test pilot, Mr. Weatherspoon performed Navy RDT&E flight testing at the Pacific MissileTest Center This included F-14 software development testing as well as development testing of AIM-9M, AIM- 7M, AMRAAM and AIM-54C missile programs. Joining Lockheed Martin in 1992, he was responsible for a carrier suitable design for the Navy's AFX Program. He has been associated with the JAST/JSF Program since its inception in 1994, leading Innovative Strike Concepts studies, proposals, technology assessments, testing programs, and assuring JSF design carrier suitability."

'bowman0558.pdf' always a good read (see graphic): [0.3Mb]

Scorecard | A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program
by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN | April 2008

https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q ... nginespage

Based upon the threshold/objectives charts, test pilot/F-18 pilot anecdotes, etc... I think that it's safe to say that the F-35 will have very respectable agility.

I talked to the Airforce pilot at the F-35 booth an airshow out side Sec. Cal. About a year or so ago. The raptor did it's awsome demo that day. He said the F-35's maneuvering abillity is somewhere between a clean block-50 and a Rhino, but accelerated better at low speeds. This advantage in acceleration was less at high speed. At that point in time the F-35 had only been tested to about mach 1.3. I don't think he had been up in one him self. So much of this was hear say before it got to me. I'd be happy with a little better than a "clean" block-50 when loaded.

The "Maneuvering ability" claim suggested above, as coming in somewhere between a clean block-50 and a Rhino doesn't even make sense. It's total hearsay to begin with. The best F-16 air show demos can't even begin to be replicated by a Rhino at an airshow... whereas the best F-16 pilot truly cannot even attempt to replicate some of the 'very-low-speed' near-stall speed Rhino maneuvers either.

I'm sorry, but to date there is no evidence outside of possible computer models to support claims and the apparent design requirements, that the F-35 is as agile as an F-16.

geogen, you are such a 'grumpy monkey' *. F-35 pilots have been quoted many times on this forum about the agility of the F-35, comparing performance in different ways. I guess you will just have to fly them all to find out eh?

'Grampaw Pettibone' is another image that comes to mind (from USN)....

'grumpy monkey' is slang for the emblem of No.77 Squadron RAAF:[GrumpyGraphic to follow] http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/r ... s3/A21.htm
"...No 77 Squadron at Williamtown in May 1987. No 77 Squadron's Korean lion marking, known as "grumpy monkey..."

I'm have no problem and am proud to be the designated grumpy monkey on this one just please, produce ONE single physical evidence that an F-35 can do anything similar to a clean F-16! Seriously, why is this so classified?? Why can't there be one single video cut of and F-35 doing anything remotely close to say, what the T-50 has already been showing off. Why can't JPO show something, anything, even if it's close to replicating a flight control capability similar to an F-16? An F-16 is impressive to watch. Why would it be so classified to show something similar to what an F-16 can do??

Why cannot you be patient? The aircraft is in flight test. I'm looking forward to seeing the F-35B & C do what an F-16 cannot do. And I'll leave that to your imagination.

Here is what the USN's 'GranPawPettibone' has to add....

Being in flight testing alone is not a sufficient excuse to get this grumpy monkey's approval.


If it can effectively perform even close to equivalent maneuvering, as an F-16 and test pilots are publicly (unclassified) boasting on how it can perform as such, just show a short clip of things to come! It's not classified if test pilots are freely boasting about such agility performance!

OK, how could you tell from a short clip taken in mid flight what the aircraft was doing. Thankfully the USofA (unlike Ruskians) do not hold airshows during flight test (except for one benign flyover on way to testing). I'm certain you will never be convinced of anything geogen. What you are convinced by would never convince me probably... And again you would have to use your imagination. The F-35 is proving itself - if not to you - to those who matter.

I'm fine with that. I don't want to know, or see it, if it's this classified. Let's say I'll give it my approval as long as the publicly claimed capability (not merely in computer models) is proven and verified to Congress, behind closed doors. It's about transparency - trust but verify - that matters today, with respects to such game-changing Programs?

geogen wrote:The "Maneuvering ability" claim suggested above, as coming in somewhere between a clean block-50 and a Rhino doesn't even make sense. It's total hearsay to begin with.

If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about you'd realise that it does indeed make sense.

Somewhere between a clean block 50 and an f-4 does not make any sense. I agree with geogen. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. As long as its close to 9G instantaneous, you can defeat initial shots, and then pray your wingman is good at ACM. If an adversary knows what he is doing he will get you at the floor in a su-27. If you merge HABFM, then you're going to trade 9x/archer shots across the circle anyway. IMHO the most important statistic is the performance above 30K. Ask an eagle driver what his f-pole is when he is at 45K +