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

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

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2169
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 19:34

Gums wrote:Salute!

Maybe John Will can confirm, but the Vipers I flew up thru Bk 15 had 9 gee bags.

Gums tries to remember.....
( I lent out my Dash One and poof!)


Depending a little bit on missile load, with 2 370s, symmetric g is 6.5 with fuel, 9 empty. Roll g limit is 4.5 and 6, respectively.
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 19:46

playloud wrote:
uclass wrote:The real stand-out stinker is that is says the F-16 has 2 drop tanks. Now the F-16 with 2 drop tanks is limited to 5.5g unless I'm wrong?? And the F-35A can pull 9g.

Well, the article also doesn't mention if there is any fuel in the tanks. That would make a difference.

It might if it were in any way likely.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25754
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 20:23

On page 8 of this thread 'Gums' says:
"...Gums tries to remember..... ( I lent out my Dash One and poof!) "


I would be lost without my NATOPS (Dash One). Our work day most often started after morning briefing with a NATOPS quiz - always good value but after 40 odd years of zilch need to know - nada without NATOPS. :-)

On page 7 of this thread 'gabrile' said:
"Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).
You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?

If it is a matter of DAS imagery being not yet available it is only a temporary problem. If you can't physically turn around in the cockpit to take an over the shoulder look (and potentially shot), like Axe says, then it would be a whole different issue...."


Then other commenters said stuff with 'SWP' saying on page 8:
"Any weapon can be aimed using the main tactical display. You do not have to use the helmet to cue a missile.

The whole reason why helmet cuing came into existence was because the plane lacked the sensors to detect or track off-bore targets. With EODAS & off board targeting that is no longer the case."


BTW the LM White Paper PDFs here have excellent info on the cockpit displays: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/

To answer 'gabriele': over on the 'AVIONICS' sub-section of this forum there is a long thread named "Helmet-mounted Display". Searching here one may find a bunch of stuff. To my mind any article mentioning the main Cockpit Display Designer Genius MIKE SKAFF will have some great info. For example:

Searching on 'Skaff' gives three worthwhile entries with this one mentioning the White Papers of LM: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221823&hilit=Skaff#p221823

Searching on word 'virtual' (for 'virtual HUD' or vHUD) click on 'quicksilver' comment here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=234157&hilit=virtual#p234157

Some 'spaz' references here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221812&hilit=virtual#p221812

The first couple of hits on search term 'rear' on this thread have surrounding good info.

Here this comment is worth repeating: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221823&hilit=Skaff#p221823
The F-35 Cockpit: Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker
"Dr. Michael L. Skaff created this briefing. Skaff described his background in a recent interview as follows: I was an F-16 pilot out of the Air Force Academy. I was prior enlisted, and I’ve been with Lockheed Martin for about 23 years working on the F-35 cockpit since ’95. I flew out of MacDill, Shaw, and Luke during the Cold War. For a full discussion with Skaff regarding the baseline F-35 please see:
[http://www.sldinfo.com/understanding-the-basic-f-35-what-is-in-the-baseline-aircraft/]

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... ion-maker/

End of page quote below is about the last two graphics as seen above (13th & 14th slides).

"...The HMD with vHUD opens the view into over 41000 square degrees. This is the full sphere surrounding the aircraft.

The thirteenth slide provides an example of the vHUD when the pilot looks directly forward where a physical HUD would be. F-35 pilots report that in about 10 minutes they become accustomed to the vHUD. The pilots recognize the potential improvements in lethality and survivability of the HMD.

The final slide provides an example of off axis symbology...."

SLIDES mentioned (edited) are reproduced below but also similar and other example vHUD graphics on this thread cited (look above the entry here:) viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221823&hilit=Skaff#p221823

Graphics of vHUD below have come from: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... t/download

First view is REAR with minimal symbology - a switch enables front/rear view - mostly will be front view and rear as required.
Attachments
F-35vHUDrear.gif
F-35vHUDfront.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 30 Jun 2015, 20:30, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2406
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 20:28

Okey I know Social media will be in chaos with this news for the next few days So I made a little copy pasta for people who will use this as "proof" that the F-35 is a failure.

Anyone here can use it as they want.
Please add or subtract anything as you see fit.

copy pasta wrote:Okey everyone seems to be to caught up with this report that they forgot to ask themselves if it's true in the first place.

The basis of this report was from a post on "War is boring". A blog by David Axe who is a known F-35 critic.

David cites an "unnamed pilot" who gave him "secret documents" that says the F-35 is inferior to the F-16.

And we are simply supposed to believe this because.....why again?

There are many pilots who refute this claim.

Lt. Col. O'mally from the 59th test and evaluation squadron says the F-35 combines the best flying characteristics of the F-16 and F/A-18.
Read here:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

The Norwegian airforce claims that in A-A configuration the F-35 is just as good or better than the F-16.

Topgun instructor Lt.Col Matthew Kelly and Brig Gen. Gary Thomas say that the F-35 will be comfortable at any type of dogfight
Read here:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... erformance

Test pilot Billy Flynn who flew F-16s, F/A-18s and Typhoons say that F-35 can match those aircraft in any maneuvering metric and surpass them in some.

These guys have staked their names and reputation on their claims.

But here we are believing some blogger with his imaginary friend who says otherwise.
Offline

Smithsguy

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2005, 19:04

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 20:34

Someone post this over to Foxtrot Alpha? They echoed the "not as good" piece recently.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25754
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 20:37

'zero-one' this URL does not work: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

Apart from the atrocious spelling of 'lightening' can you please give us the article title for an internet search or a unique sentence quote will help with this search also. Thanks.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

coldman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 21:32

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 20:46

zero-one wrote:Okey I know Social media will be in chaos with this news for the next few days So I made a little copy pasta for people who will use this as "proof" that the F-35 is a failure.

Anyone here can use it as they want.
Please add or subtract anything as you see fit.

copy pasta wrote:Okey everyone seems to be to caught up with this report that they forgot to ask themselves if it's true in the first place.

The basis of this report was from a post on "War is boring". A blog by David Axe who is a known F-35 critic.

David cites an "unnamed pilot" who gave him "secret documents" that says the F-35 is inferior to the F-16.

And we are simply supposed to believe this because.....why again?

There are many pilots who refute this claim.

Lt. Col. O'mally from the 59th test and evaluation squadron says the F-35 combines the best flying characteristics of the F-16 and F/A-18.
Read here:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

The Norwegian airforce claims that in A-A configuration the F-35 is just as good or better than the F-16.

Topgun instructor Lt.Col Matthew Kelly and Brig Gen. Gary Thomas say that the F-35 will be comfortable at any type of dogfight
Read here:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... erformance

Test pilot Billy Flynn who flew F-16s, F/A-18s and Typhoons say that F-35 can match those aircraft in any maneuvering metric and surpass them in some.

These guys have staked their names and reputation on their claims.

But here we are believing some blogger with his imaginary friend who says otherwise.

Another good one that you missed were the comments made by Lt Col Lee Kloss who went on record that the F-35A has superior maneuverability than a loaded block 50/52 viper

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2406
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 21:01

spazsinbad wrote:'zero-one' this URL does not work: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

Apart from the atrocious spelling of 'lightening' can you please give us the article title for an internet search or a unique sentence quote will help with this search also. Thanks.


You're right, Sorry Spaz, I saved that link a long time ago for one of my many copy pastas. But it looks like 8newsnow has deleted the article.
Offline

gabriele

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2015, 19:42

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 21:26

Graphics of vHUD below have come from: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... t/download


Interesting document there, i hadn't seen it. Thanks.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2473
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 23:37

Salute!

John Boy has confirmed some of my memory. The lower gee limit with gas still in the tanks may not have been a z-axis limit, but a rolling gee problem. He will know. Turns out in most cases that pulling symmetric gees with ord on the wings actually reduces stress on the wing spars. We saw that on the A-37, BTW. The up lift from wing is countered by the ord on the wing stations that "weight" more.

One thing about the BFM test was the comment about tweaking the sfwe. We learned that in 1979 and 1980 with the Viper. It was hard to remember the rolling gee limits and such. We were spoiled rotten flying clean jets or some with the centerline tank for Bees. So we tweaked the FLCS sfwe and got the "Cat III" switch. The FLCS then limited Aoa and roll rates and combinations if we were carying mudbeater loads.

The biggest harm we hamburgers did in the early days was to roll a lot while pulling max gee. Max AoA rolls at 25 degrees AoA were not a problem, as we were only at one gee ( Nz). Nevertheless, you could depart the jet at max AoA and with a heavy store on one wing and commanded max roll rate. John Boy can comment upon this problem we had.

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25754
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Jul 2015, 00:01

Oops on the broken link in my post above - here it is: TEXT on this page is now attached as a PDF - but not with SLIDES! FIRST PDF has TWO Pages on one WIDE page whilst the second SAME pdf has just two 'portrait sized' pages for convenience.

The F-35 Cockpit: Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker

"...The remaining slides look at the role of the helmet [with vHUD - now in HMDS III] within the cockpit system.

• The twelfth slide shows the Helmet Mounted Display. The vHUD being projected onto the visor is new technology and will change tactical employment. The jump from 3rd gen fighters to 4th gen brought a full head-up display.

The HUD was a paradigm shift, which dramatically improved lethality and survivability. In similar fashion the jump to 5th gen with a vHUD is a paradigm shift and has the potential to revolutionize employment. A physical HUD projects into about 1200 square degrees of battlespace directly in front of the aircraft. The HMD with vHUD opens the view into over 41000 square degrees. This is the full sphere surrounding the aircraft.

• The thirteenth slide provides an example of the vHUD when the pilot looks directly forward where a physical HUD would be. F-35 pilots report that in about 10 minutes they become accustomed to the vHUD. The pilots recognize the potential improvements in lethality and survivability of the HMD.

• The final slide provides an example of off axis symbology. In general, Lockheed only take key flight parameters and tactical symbology off axis. In the future Lockheed will investigate off axis attitude awareness symbology. The mil standards don’t yet address HMDs and off axis symbolgy. Lockheed will work with the Services to improve and update The standard as well as the HMD symbology."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... ion-maker/
Attachments
The F-35 Cockpit_ Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker _ SLDInfo PRN nogrfx.pdf
(98.8 KiB) Downloaded 374 times
The F-35 Cockpit_ Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker _ SLDInfo PRNbw 2 portrait pages TEXT.pdf
(99.07 KiB) Downloaded 281 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2675
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Jul 2015, 01:20

newmanfrigan wrote:There is no evidence to back up anything David Axe is implying.

If there even is such a report, it has been cherry-picked to suit the wannabe-journalist's agenda. We all know what that is; anti-"Military Industrial Complex".

So an F-16 got on an F-35s 6? That means nothing without the context. nothing whatsoever.

I've long stopped paying attention to the critics, who have proven to be ill-informed luddites by and large, usually people who have NEVER served. That means a lot to me. If you haven't served, or you don't have some kind of academic expertise with verifiable credentials, you're just a fanboy. Sorry. Those are just the facts. They weren't right about the Osprey, F-22 (actually, they played a role in killing it, but now they love it), the M1 Abrams, the Superhornet. They weren't even right about the F-15. These are professional contrarians and click-bait agitators. Rest assured, the F-35 program is long past the point where these voices in the wilderness have any weight at all. The programs been over the hump for about 5 years now and there is no going back. These fanboy voices don't resonate anywhere outside of internet enthusiast forums. Trust me. If you were active duty and didn't check these forums, it would be as if these ideas didn't even exist. The argument only exists online and in certain governments during election years.

There is no controversy. It doesn't matter what distortion, falsification, or selective editing of any report is made. The credible sources do not support their positions.

I expect that if this report exists at all, we have just had a selective editing, or extreme cherry-picking with salacious scandals implied, dropped on a dumbass internet population of nerds and dweebs who've never worn a uniform in their life. Their opinions don't matter.

We don't need to argue about it anymore. It's over. The F-35 is the future of tactical fighter aviation globally. Next time maybe we'll check and see if David Axe agrees with our plans, and if Sweetie-pie Bilbo, with all his military experience, approves.

Or not.


My issue with these trash talkers is that they cause nothing but false propaganda. Every media outlet / would be journalist who spreads false propaganda needs to be sued for libel or something equivalent. We can't have idiots spouting nonsense without validation and let it spread. Then you get idiots who are up in arms.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 699
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post01 Jul 2015, 01:26

Updated the copy pasta and added one.

copy pasta wrote:
Okey everyone seems to be to caught up with this report that they forgot to ask themselves if it's true in the first place.

The basis of this report was from a post on "War is boring". A blog by David Axe who is a known F-35 critic.

David cites an "unnamed pilot" who gave him "secret documents" that says the F-35 is inferior to the F-16.

And we are simply supposed to believe this because.....why again?

There are many pilots who refute this claim.

Lt. Col. Lee Kloos, commander of the 58th fighter squadron says loaded F-35 beats loaded F-16.
Read here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... dre-start/

The Norwegian airforce claims that in A-A configuration the F-35 is just as good or better than the F-16.

Topgun instructor Lt.Col Matthew Kelly and Brig Gen. Gary Thomas says that the F-35 will be comfortable at any type of dogfight
Read here:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... erformance

Former F-16 pilot Col De Smit says that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16
Read here:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=26752

Test pilot Billy Flynn who flew F-16s, F/A-18s and Typhoons say that F-35 can match those aircraft in any maneuvering metric and surpass them in some.

These guys have staked their names and reputation on their claims.

But here we are believing some blogger with his imaginary friend who says otherwise.
Last edited by zerion on 01 Jul 2015, 01:39, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2169
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post01 Jul 2015, 01:36

Gums wrote:Salute!

John Boy has confirmed some of my memory. The lower gee limit with gas still in the tanks may not have been a z-axis limit, but a rolling gee problem. He will know. Turns out in most cases that pulling symmetric gees with ord on the wings actually reduces stress on the wing spars. We saw that on the A-37, BTW. The up lift from wing is countered by the ord on the wing stations that "weight" more.

Right on, Gums. The F-16 tanks are compartmented, fwd, ctr, aft. To maintain flutter resistance, the tank burn sequence is ctr, aft, fwd. So when you have a full forward bay, with empty ctr and aft, the tank pitch moment per g is very high at the pylon/wing attach point. An abrupt roll maneuver at high g has the same effect. Those loads result in reduced g limit with fuel in the tanks. Still met design specs.

One thing about the BFM test was the comment about tweaking the sfwe. We learned that in 1979 and 1980 with the Viper. It was hard to remember the rolling gee limits and such. We were spoiled rotten flying clean jets or some with the centerline tank for Bees. So we tweaked the FLCS sfwe and got the "Cat III" switch. The FLCS then limited Aoa and roll rates and combinations if we were carying mudbeater loads.

The biggest harm we hamburgers did in the early days was to roll a lot while pulling max gee. Max AoA rolls at 25 degrees AoA were not a problem, as we were only at one gee ( Nz). Nevertheless, you could depart the jet at max AoA and with a heavy store on one wing and commanded max roll rate. John Boy can comment upon this problem we had.

Departures are not really my thing, but what you say is correct. You mention rolling at high g. There was one thing in the flight control system I tried for years to change, but do you think flight control people would listen to a structures guy? The symmetric g limit was 9 for air to air without tanks, protected by the limiter. The g limit for full stick rolls was 6, but it was pilot responsibility not to exceed it. There is no specified g limit for partial stick rolls above 6g, so the pilot has no guidance about how much roll he can command above 6g. I finally was able to get a g/roll limiter put in F-16XL that allowed full roll command up to 7g, linearly reduced to half stick rolls at 9g. So with XL, the pilot could use any combination of pitch and roll command at any g with full protection. We put the same function in the Korean T-50 trainer - works great.

Gums sends...
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post01 Jul 2015, 01:48

I'm pretty sure QS called this right a couple of pages ago. The 'lie' ain't in whatever the test pilot wrote, it is in how it is being reported completely without context, with miscellaneous past examples of same. Others have already linked to the relevant April announcement concerning the January BFM exercise. The key to understanding what was really going on is in the pilot statements. David Axe is More Boring Than Ever (Bless His Heart)
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests