Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

@JeffB: What that graph shows is that they have not even tried AOA above 15 when > M.87. That's what they will be doing this summer.

It also shows a clear increase in the trans-sonic region, a well known phenomenon for all aircraft, that gets better afterwords, as backed up by the graph.

As far as target selection, the pilot can use either the HOTAS, touchscreen, HMD, or voice selection.

F-16.net Sponsor

SpudmanWP wrote:

As far as target selection, the pilot can use either the HOTAS, touchscreen, HMD, or voice selection.

That F-35 capacity for enabling 'target selection' once in the WVR would seem to be 'good enough'... it looks to be pretty sufficient.

Now the important questions of course become... What is your platform's rate of climb... how sustainable is it's turn-rate at high-G... how fast can it accelerate... how superior is it's nose-pointing... how many WVR dog-fighting rounds is your platform carrying... and are you carrying a gun?

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Jul 29, 2012 - 12:59 AM; edited 1 time in total

Really, you're going with "good enough"?

The F-35 has the ability to keep track of every plane and missile in the WVR arena and to engage them as soon as they are in range by simply using a voice command, irrespective of target aspect (nose-pointing is no longer a major factor for target selection or weapons use). They do not require the pilot to twist himself and his plane around to try to find the target and line up a HOBS shot. They also have the ability to automatically share this info with the entire allied force.

To you this is simply "good enough"?

What, in your opinion, would define "great" target selection?

On the missile front: If I am self-escorting, I have 2 AMRAAMs in VLO mode and more if I go external. If I determine that the threat is high enough, I am providing escort for the package and am carrying 4-6 internal AMRAAMs. God only knows what NGM will bring to the table in the area of high internal capacity. On the gun front, since the F-35A is the most prolific model by far, I'm more likely than not carrying a gun.

Maybe we will see F-35 v F-22 DACT in TOPGUN II? But that would not be 'good enuf' for some. Very Happy

Does it strike anybody as being ironic that some of the harshest critics of the F-35's performance in this thread are the ones pushing less maneuverable and less capable 4th gen options and claiming they are "good enough"?

Just sayin'

Spud,

I'm 'going with the good enough' comment as I feel the WVR capacity for target selection will only be as good as the actual platform's ability to climb, accelerate, shoot actual dog-fighting munitions, possibly shoot guns even, sustain high-G turns and no doubt, nose-point.

If you are doubting the need for next-gen Tactical combat aircraft to be able to sustain high-energy turning, need for overall high-performance and agility, then I feel you are mistaken.

Perhaps in 15-20 years from now one can fly a future Gulfstream G700X or whatever into combat with a DEW and not have to bother so much with maneuvering, acceleration and dash speed. But we're not there yet.

Understand that shots are trashed all the time in current day air-air training exercises and that all evidence would still point to the advantage of retaining multiple rounds for air-air engagements, as well as being able to equally spoof and evade the other guy's rounds too.

There's no indication that one would see in public at least, that WVR air combat will alter from such dynamics in the foreseeable future either.

WVR will thus most likely still be about a requiring the most dominant overall package in superior performance, capabilities and quantity of platforms/munitions brought into a WVR engagement. (eg... out to 12-15km perhaps, with the assistance of IR/optical systems and when equipped w/ high-performance modern dog-fighting munitions).

So yes, with regards to multiple shots being trashed in real combat and ultimately still having to close into a merge in some combat scenarios, nose pointing and other high-performance capabilities will still remain an advantage, etc. With respect to nose pointing specifically, it will definitely help enable higher pK ratios when in closer ranges... and especially when opposing aircraft are flying at high energy and high-maneuverability.

SpudmanWP wrote:

@JeffB: What that graph shows is that they have not even tried AOA above 15 when > M.87. That's what they will be doing this summer.

Spudman, above alpha 15°/M.9, "there'd be wolves..."

SpudmanWP wrote:

@JeffB: What that graph shows is that they have not even tried AOA above 15 when > M.87. That's what they will be doing this summer.

It also shows a clear increase in the trans-sonic region, a well known phenomenon for all aircraft, that gets better afterwords, as backed up by the graph.

Gets better after what? The grey points on the graph are tagged "coverage". You'll notice that they are interspersed, seemingly randomly, with the moderate and severe buffet markers and that one is frequently right next to the other, that is, normal flight to severe buffet without the pilot doing anything particularly special. Remember that this was largely unexpected in this particular flight regime and that the real testing begins in the next few months with the results probably not available till 2014 (when's IOC again?).

SpudmanWP wrote:

As far as target selection, the pilot can use either the HOTAS, touchscreen, HMD, or voice selection.

Stop me if I'm wrong but how can the pilot order a weapons release with only the HMD? Surely this would be in concert with HOTAS or voice command?

Voice command sounds like fun:
PILOT: T.a.a.a.r.r.r.r.g.g.g.e.e.e.t.t.t...t.t.t.h.h.h.r.r.r.e.e.e.e.e...f.f.f.i.i.i.r.r.e.e.e.!.!
F-35: Voice command not recognized. Say again.
PILOT: T.a.a.a.r.r.r.r.g.g.g.e.e.e.t.t.t...t.t.t.h.h.h.r.r.r.e.e.e.e.e...f.f.f.i.i.i.r.r.e.e.e.!.!
F-35: Voice command not recognized. Say again.
CLIPPY:(ping)Hi, I'm clippy, you appear to be trying to...launch a short range air to air weapon. Can I help?
PILOT: A.a.a.a.a.a.ah.h.h....e.e.j.j.j.e.e.c.c.t.t.!.!...e.e.e.j.j.j.e.e.e.c.c.c.t.t.!.!
Laughing

spazsinbad wrote:

Maybe we will see F-35 v F-22 DACT in TOPGUN II? But that would not be 'good enuf' for some. Very Happy

Well it'd be a start. Just as long as we don't hear more stories about you whistling and making lewd remarks during the beach vollyball scenes. Laughing

I always cover my eyes when I see that scene. Very Happy

And as 'Effie' used to say: "How Embarassment". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effie

Hope this is all entertaining conversation because much of it is silly. The difference between a 30 alpha jet and a 50 alpha jet at the airspeeds/IMN on the chart are irrelevant -- both will get to placard load limit first. That's before we ever talk about weapon employment limits. And frankly, the most important point about the WVR arena is that ALL the players with HOBS missiles and helmet cueing/sighting for weapons employment will be roughly at parity exchange ratios.

This isn't single warrior combat. Forces will also employ conops that will maximize those things that some jets do best and minimize things that some do less well. And, we don't do admin joins with real adversaries at GPS waypoints, line up for 1 mile butterfly sets and declare 'tape's on...fight's on.' That's why what goes on BVR is so important -- not just for killing, but for arriving at the WVR doorstep with the most SA.

jeffb wrote:

I skipped over the words and went straight to the pictures, they really are worth a thousand words aren't they?

Notice how it's almost linear Spud? You can draw a line from 18 degrees AOA @ 0.7M right down to 9 degrees AOA @ 0.95M. Good thing it won't have maneuver much in that part of the envelope hey? LM claim that it'll get to 50 degrees angle of attack, I think they're being conservative. I reckon it'll get all the way to 180 once the wings rip off! Laughing

Yes, the words of some flight test engineers, probably aren't all that reliable...

Rolling Eyes

It's awesome you're back to interpreting pictures again though. When will we get to see you "interpret" the aircraft's RCS from internet pictures and your home made wire diagrams again?

Conan wrote:

It's awesome you're back to interpreting pictures again though. When will we get to see you "interpret" the aircraft's RCS from internet pictures and your home made wire diagrams again?

Thanks mate, just doing my bit to "keep it real" Smile

Conan wrote:

Yes, the words of some flight test engineers, probably aren't all that reliable... Rolling Eyes

Is this you harping on about about a certain flight test engineer here in Australia (yet again) or are you somehow trying to allege that the engineers on the Ahern report 'left their thumbs on the scales' in some way?

redbird87 wrote:

Archeman - I'm not arguing any of that. I was answering the original post. I think the F-35 will be plenty maneuverable for a strike aircraft.

The F-35 will be plenty maneuverable for a fighter too, and there's no fighter whose agility would be sufficient to outmaneuver the threats that you're hypothesizing about. For missiles that can turn at 50-100Gs, the differences in fighter agility is statistically negligible.

Quote:

I certainly do not share Wrightwing's arrogance that it's simply impossible for any foe to ever best us in any technical realm and that the the Matrix......uh I mean network, will always be infallible.

You misunderstood my comment first of all. Secondly, it's not arrogance to state a fact. On a systems level, there aren't any near peers, much less anyone remotely close to surpassing the variety of capabilities that are in our inventory. You're using simplistic reasoning, in order to create a scenario that fits your narrative. I simply explained the technical limitations which would make your scenario unlikely. If you don't know that you need to jam a platform, or where that platform is, or have a jammer that not only has the capability to jam the particular emitter in question, but is in the correct location, of have enough of these jammers, in the correct locations, etc.. it's simply not feasible to do what you're asserting. Then factor in the fact that these emitters aren't stationary, so unless the jammers are on airborne platforms, that can maintain the same aspect at all times(and assuming that the F-35s, etc... won't utilize any offsetting tactics), then the potential to jam would only exist in very narrow windows of time.

jeffb wrote:

Well it isn’t you know. Remember the quick look review and all that stuff about buffeting and transonic roll off?

All twin tail fighters have buffeting, etc.. issues.

Quote:

It’s inability to be flown at AOA greater than 20 degrees? No?

Inability? Show me a source for that. You're using the tired old argument- it hasn't done that yet, therefore it can't do that.

Quote:

Well there’s your problem then, you’re ignoring the facts and instead just accepting what the marketing brochure says as fact.

I feel comfortable excepting what pilots who've flown Raptors, Super Hornets, Vipers, etc.. have to say, rather than relying on brochures, or aviation lobbyists from Australia.

Quote:

Wing loading IS a determining factor for agility,

Wing loading doesn't factor in all of the sources of lift, so it's an incomplete measure to use, when trying to arrive at any sort of objective conclusion. I already gave an example where your theory is proven incorrect. The F-16's wing loading is higher than an F-4, but will complete a full circle within the time that the F-4 makes a U-turn. Body lift, instability, control surfaces, T/D, T/W, etc... all play important roles too.

Quote:

Nope, they don’t need a smaller RCS they just need a way to make the F-35s smaller RCS not matter, same thing for avionics. You keep assuming they have to do what you’re doing better. They don’t.

The F-35 will always enjoy advantages over an aircraft with a larger RCS. The latter can always upgrade avionics, but not to the extent to completely offset its disadvantages. You're also assuming that the F-35 is in stasis, while all other opponents are continually upgrading.

Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

JSF WVR Air to Air Combat