JSF WVR Air to Air Combat

The QLR that came out last year expressed concerns about buffeting being more than predicted and that because testing had not yet explored the full AoA regime, any changes required during testing to address buffeting could cause costs to go up. As of the QLR, AoA testing had only gone up to 20 and >20 is scheduled for later this fall.

It has to be well over 20 degrees, not sure where that came from. Hopefully it is in the F-16 AoA range or not much less. I'd say it will vary more than most aircraft depending on the amount of fuel on board. Like the P-51 Mustang, it may be a dog until a significant portion of the internal fuel is burned off.

Once in the dog fighting mode, how quickly and efficiently it can recover from a stall may be just as important as it max controlled alpha.

As others have noted, it may all be moot in the age of 5th and 6th gen off-boresight A2A missiles.

'redbird87' opines: "...As others have noted, it may all be moot in the age of 5th and 6th gen off-boresight A2A missiles." Yup. There have been endless discussions about this topic in the last few years on this forum. There is a lot to read about F-35 pilot comments about 'nose-pointing' (not pickin) and whatever. I may find some material again for you. Keep looking here in the next few minutes.... Of course this first post is not about the F-35 but imagine it might be in either offensive or aggressive mode...

Top USAF general explains EXACTLY how to kill an F-22 By Stephen Trimble on February 28, 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -exac.html

"Hopefully, you will never find yourself in air-to-air combat with a Lockheed Martin F-22, particularly if you happen to be flying any other fighter besides an F-22. The Raptor still boasts a 30:1 kill ratio in mock dogfights (the only kind of dogfight, alas, the F-22 has ever known).

Notice, however, the ":1" part of the ratio expression. That's the proof: The F-22 can be shot down. But how?

This morning, Lieutenant General Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for plans, operations and requirements, explained how a Boeing F-15 can shoot down an F-22. Carlisle spoke this morning about fifth generation fighters at a breakfast event sponsored by the Air Force Association in Rosslyn, Virginia. Here is a transcript of Carlisle's remarks:

"They [the F-22s] always start defensive as you might imagine because anything else is kind of a waste of gas. So the F-22 always start defensive. On rare occasions the F-22 guy -- first of all, the [F-15] Eagle guy, you have to fly a perfect lag fight (flight?). You have to have AIM-9X and JHMCS [joint helmet mounted cueing system] to get an off-boresight IR [infrared] capability. And the F-22 guy has to put up his power a nanosecond too early and not use his countermeasures and you may get a fleeting, one nanosecond AIM-9X shot, and that's about it."

More at the URL...
_______________________________

New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet by Dave Majumdar : 07 Nov 2008

http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter ... fleet.html

“...Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer" than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvr-ability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

Ironically, the Navy version, which has larger wings but a lower G limit of 7.5G, has the best turning capability of the three F-35 versions Beesley explained. The Air Force version, meanwhile, has the best acceleration and is rated for 9Gs, Beesley said. Davis, explaining that the Marine Corps deemphasizes manoeuvrability in its air combat doctrine, said that the short take off, vertical landing (STOVL) USMC plane has a 7G limit. Beesley said that the aircraft makes up for the lower G limit by offering the flexibility in basing required by the Marines. Nor does the STOVL give up too much in range because of the engine driven lift fan installed behind the cockpit, Beesley said. The jet has "a range of more than 500 miles", while the Air Force and Navy planes both have ranges greater than 600 miles, Beesley explained, adding that the USAF version has as much internal fuel capacity as the larger twin engined F-22 Raptor.

While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.

Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as "supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there," Beesley explained. "In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter," Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts' much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability....”

Not forgetting how good it is to have a HUD everywhere you look, including through the aircraft to see other aircraft or to have all aircraft being identified all the time to know who is who in any fantasy furball - but I digress...

A White Paper By: Lockheed Martin – An Overview of The F-35 Cockpit

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/an-o ... all-about/
OR 2.4Mb PDF at:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-15870.html

"...The helmet is an extension of the panoramic cockpit display. The head up symbols are like those used head down. It blends seamlessly with what’s head down and heads up. In addition to symbology, the pilot can select imagery from the distributed aperture system. This imagery is captured from sensors surrounding the aircraft, giving the pilot 360 degrees of situational awareness. Simply put, the pilot can use the helmet to look through the airplane and into the battlespace.

Currently, the helmet is working well but with any new technology there are developmental challenges. Mitigation pathways for the issues facing the helmet have been developed and are being implemented. The fact is that the helmet is already in use and the reviews from the pilots are overwhelmingly positive. One pilot went so far as to say, “I could fly the whole mission with a helmet bag over the top of my head and just look through the sensors and fly the airplane safely.”

Another pilot recently stated, “I wouldn’t go back to a fixed HUD (Head-Up Display). It is clear that the potential of the helmet and what it’s going to be able to do for the war fighter is overwhelmingly positive and I would never want to go back.”

Legacy aircraft have fixed HUDs, this is a combiner glass that sits on top of the glare shield onto which symbology is projected. All of that is gone from the F-35. Symbology is now projected on to the helmet’s visor.

The step from a third generation fighter like the F-4 that did not have a HUD to the fourth generation fighter like the F-16, which did, was significant. No pilot would ever go back to not having a HUD.

In the same way, pilots experiencing the legacy HUD to the F-35 approach do not want to go back either.

In the F-35, the helmet gives you a HUD everywhere the pilot looks. The pilot can look straight up, straight down, left, right or even through the airplane’s structure and get all the benefits of a HUD everywhere. It’s a huge extension of technology that provides a significant combat capability...."

Download the PDF of course. & http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... t/download

I wonder when this kind of thing will become cheap enough to incorporate into console gaming systems.

There are already 'desktop F-35 training systems' available but I doubt they are affordable for joe public. Youse have to join up to use 'em. Anyhow...

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance May. 16, 2011 By DAVE MAJUMDAR

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... 6b652b%2C0

"...Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.

Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.

Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said...."

Joint Strike Fighter may miss acceleration goal By Dave Majumdar Jan 18, 2012

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... al-011812/

"...The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.

But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.

Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.

In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.

Thus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane’s acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed’s job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet’s acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.

U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.

“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”

But the F-35’s aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane...."

Read the rest as always at the URL.

Several times on here I have read people quoting that the F-15 rarely flies at over Mach and never fights there. Like the above post that states "it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span."

Conversely, see the 7:40 minute mark of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFaldqWmMj4
Obviously you can't believe everything you see or hear on these videos, but either the Colonel is mistaken about his speed, or lying, or the F-15 does operate and fight at well over Mach 1 at times.

Eglin F-35 initial cadre starts transition training By Dave Majumdar on May 24, 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... start.html

"...Lt Col Lee Kloos, the commander of the 58th Fighter Squadron, should be finished his six-ride transition course in the next week or two.

The veteran F-16 operational tester and Weapons School grad shared some of his impressions the F-35. The jet is powerful, stable and easy to fly.

"One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it's not an F-22," Kloos says. "An F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we'll never be that."

But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. "When I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16," Kloos says.

A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. "You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth," he says. "It's of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently."

The F-35's acceleration is "very comparable" to a Block 50 F-16. "Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35," Kloos says. "But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it."

The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement--especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. "It's really good at performing in that kind of configuration," Kloos says. "But that's not a configuration that I've ever--I've been in a lot of different deployments--and those are the configurations I've never been in with weapons onboard."..."

'redbird87' Sorry no can hear video here (my computer/speaker problem) so how about summarizing what is said please? Thanks.

USMC hopes to leverage USAF’s F-22 experience when deploying F-35B Dave Majumdar 20 Jul 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 5b-374565/

"...Lt Col David "Chip" Berke, commander of the base's VMFAT-501 training squadron. But while he is not a test pilot, in his previous assignment Berke was an F-22 exchange pilot with the USAF's elite 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES) at Nellis AFB, Nevada....

...Perhaps the biggest change from the fourth to the fifth-generation fighters is the change in mentality that accompanies the transition. Pilots have to think in an entirely different way in the two fifth-generation machines. “The concept of becoming a fifth-gen aviator applies to both the F-22 and F-35 equally,” Berke says. “That’s a difficult transition. It takes a little bit of time to get used to that.”..."

FACT versus FICTION:

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/re ... 24Mar1.pdf (only small)

...“Fiction
The superficially impressive manoeuvrability and power-to-weight ratio of Soviet-designed aircraft such as the Su-30 and MiG-29 confers a potentially decisive advantage over Western fighters during within visual range (WVR) combat.

FACT
It has been incorrect for some 20 years to equate WVR potential with platform agility alone. Since the 1991 Gulf War, manoeuvring to achieve a kill has been done by air-to-air missiles, not by platforms. No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’. (A manned fighter involved in WVR combat typically flies at less than half that speed and manoeuvres at a maximum of 9 ‘g’.) No less important than the missile is situational awareness. The classic case study here comes from 1993 and concerns the (British) RAF’s Tornado F-3 air defence fighter.

By the standards of the late-20th century the F-3 was a mediocre performer, handicapped by its modest agility and poor acceleration. Despite the high quality of RAF pilots, the F-3 regularly sustained a loss rate of around 3:1 in exercises against the West’s best fighter of that era, the USAF’s F-15. The turnaround came during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in the United States when, for the first time, the F-3s were fitted with Link 16 data links. The shift was dramatic. Overnight, the F-3 became an F-15 killer, reversing the loss ratio to 3:1 in its favour. Situational awareness, not manoeuvrability, was the key. In short, for WVR combat, platform agility is a secondary consideration. It is the system, and in particular situational awareness and the missile, that count.”...

Always Best to Read the Pdf.

LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics Paris Air Show » June 15, 2009

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... st-critics

"...Beesley called these comparisons naïve and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds.

Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable[sic] (comparable), despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is “a huge amount of thrust available” from the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”

Moreover, Beesley told AIN, the debate should not be limited to a discussion of visual-range dogfighting. “In a real combat mission, the ability to sneak up on your opponent and be the first to shoot is paramount,” he said....

Bloody Fighter Pilots - you just cannot trust them! But that is the way it has been since WW1 hiding behind clouds to emerge with the sun behind you to 'do the sneak'. SIGH. And again best to read it all at URL.

@redbird..... I think the point that is being made regarding the F-15 is that it spends 99% of its flying life below mach one and less then 1% supersonic. So with that being the case doesn't it not make sense to optimize the aircraft for the 99% rather the 1%?

F-35A Testing Moves Into High Speeds By DAVE MAJUMDAR : 13 June 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=CVS

"...The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry. "It flies fantastic," he said. Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it. The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain. "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air." Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage. "I'm real happy to hear that in fact is the case, because speed gives you a variety of advantages," he said. "It allows you to employ your air-to-air missiles from a range much greater than otherwise would be the case."

Though the F-35's maximum speed is Mach 1.6, the F-35 test program will eventually push the jet a little beyond that limit to make sure operational pilots have a margin of safety, Griffiths said...."

And yep...