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

[XanderCrews]

I definetly learned some new stuff! Thanks for translating it! I know how time consuming that can be

[langbein]

Great work langbein, both getting the pdf and translating it - appreciated!

Not really *that* much new in it for the readers here, but still good to see that information spread

There's also a new blog post up at RNoAF program today, with translation:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... ay-around/

Thanks! For me it's not so much about new information, it's more about context. Hearing it from the pilots, getting their impressions is what's interesting for me. It's more tangible than just dry facts. I also like the pictures in the .pdf. God I love the curves and details on that plane. Not as sleek as the F-16, but still a work of art.

Morten

[energo]

Thanks! For me it's not so much about new information, it's more about context. Hearing it from the pilots, getting their impressions is what's interesting for me. It's more tangible than just dry facts. I also like the pictures in the .pdf. God I love the curves and details on that plane. Not as sleek as the F-16, but still a work of art.

Morten

Bra jobba! (great work)

Not at sleek as the F-16. Still a work of art. Well said. Having been privileged to see (and touch) this aircraft up close, one thing is certain when you walk up to it: This represents something new, modern, next gen - call it what you want. The smooth surface with no visible rivets, no gaps in between the panels, no worn paint and the other small details you are used to see on fighters, gives a strong impression indeed. It did for me, at least. Same thing with the F-22 or B-2 for that matter. If you get the chance to see it in England in July, enjoy.

[gergf-14]

Awesome, can't wait for July.

[energo]

Not sure if this has been posted here, but another great article from Hanches blog. Be sure to read it all.

https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/09/16/lack-of-perfection-does-not-mean-disaster-how-i-read-test-reports-as-a-pilot/

Lack of perfection does not mean disaster – how I read test reports as a pilot

[...]

I finished up writing this article before getting ready to fly another sortie in the F-35. Based on my own experiences flying the F-35A, I feel that the media´s interpretation of the previous DOT&E report is influenced heavily by unrealistic expectations – something which seems to be a trend. I don´t see the point in countering every claim that´s being brought up. First off, it´d make for a very long article. Secondly, I would not be dealing with the bigger problem, which in my mind is a lack of understanding.

[...]

Personally, I am impressed by the the F-35. I was relieved to experience just how well the F-35 performs with regard to speed, ceiling, range and maneuverability. It would have been very problematic if the airplane´s performance didn´t hold up in these areas – there´s just no software update which is going to compensate a draggy airframe or a weak engine. (Read more about such a case in the Government Accountability Office, then the General Accounting Office´s report on the Super Hornet).

When asked about my first flight in the F-35, I compared it to flying a Hornet (F/A-18), but with a turbo charged engine. I now can quote a USMC F/A-18 Weapons School Graduate after his first flight in the F-35: «It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!» (His point being that the F-35 can afford to operate at high Angle-of-Attack and low airspeed, but that it will regain the airspeed quickly when needed). Another unintended, but illustrating example on performance came a few weeks back, when a student pilot failed to recognize that he had climbed through our temporary altitude restriction at 40,000´. The F-35 will happily climb past that altitude.

Another critical aspect of the F-35 is its minimal radar signature. Just as with the aerodynamic performance, the «stealthiness» of the F-35 is an inherent quality of the airframe itself. There would be no quick-fix to a disappointing signature. So far, my impression is that the F-35 is very difficult to find. We see this every day when training with the F-35; we detect the F-16s flying in the local airspace at vast ranges, compared to when we detect another F-35.

Sensor stability, and specifically radar stability, has been an issue. I´m not trying to downplay that the radar´s stability needs to improve, but I am not worried. What would have worried me was if the radar had poor detection range, or if the stability issues were caused by «external» factors like limited electrical power supply or limited cooling available. Fortunately, our biggest issues are related to software, and not performance. I think it´s realistic to expect software issues like this to be resolved (just like iOS 9 eventually ended up working well).

Remember that we´re not trying to re-create another «Fourth Gen» fighter in the F-35. If we had set our aim lower, we´d likely have had an easier job of developing the airplane – it would have been easier to build the F-16 again today. But is that what we need? The F-35´s specifications are ambitious, and reflect a machine which will outperform the previous generation of fighters. Having or not having that kind of military advantage eventually becomes a political question. For now, our leaders think we need that military edge.

[...]

Even today, our modern-day F-16s live with many issues; errors which were discovered in DT, OT or operational use, but which haven´t been corrected. Either because of prohibitive cost, complexity or because no one understands the failure mechanism – what is causing the problem. I´m not just talking about cosmetic or minor issues. One example is that The Norwegian Armed Forces for a period of about 10 years could not operate its F-16s in single ship formations, in bad weather or at night. The restriction was put in place because the Main Mission Computer (MMC) broke down relatively often. The resulting operational limitations hampered both training and operations. It took more than 10 years to diagnose and correct the issue, mainly because the failure mechanism was illusive.

The most outspoken critics of the F-35 couldn´t have known about our issues with the MMC in the F-16 at the time. If they did, and read that deficiency report, would they have concluded that our F-16s were non-operational, and incapable of fulfilling its mission?

[spazsinbad]

The last time that same post was referred to was here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52350&p=353053&hilit=Hanche#p353053

Earlier it was referenced here: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52276&p=352792&hilit=Hanche#p352792

[marsavian]

U.S. Air Force conducts large force exercise with friendly and enemy air made up of both F-16s and F-35s

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-f ... s.html/amp

“These guys are getting really good at flying the F-35 and they can present some aggressive situations that force young pilots into errors,” Walters said. “It’s not always the guy who should win that does win. At some point its pilots in cockpits that win fights.”

The F-35A is a platform built on stealth, with advanced sensors and the ability to target and eliminate threats long before they are within visual range.

“That’s the assumption, and we are very good at that. But in the fog and friction of war and chaos, fighting within visual range will probably always happen,” said Maj. Jondavid Hertzel, weapons officer in the 421st FS. “And that’s why we train to it. Prepare for the unexpected in wartime.”

Every aircraft has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, which combined with a pilot’s skill and experience level can dictate the outcome of a fight. As the first combat-capable F-35A units in the Air Force, pilots in the 388th and 419th have been developing tactics that can give them an edge in any fight.

“There’s been a lot said about the F-35s dogfighting capability,” said Maj. Thomas Meyer, weapons officer of the 34th Fighter Squadron. “We’ve had a lot of time to develop our tactics, which take advantage of our strengths and exploit the weaknesses of other platforms. The F-35 has become very capable in that arena.”

During the second week the pilots also integrated on missions in a large force exercise with friendly and enemy air made up of both F-16s and F-35s. Much of the learning takes place in the briefing room after the mission. Pilots can review their actions and also see what the enemy was seeing.

“You don’t get the distance between fourth generation and fifth generation fighters until we get back to tape review. It’s overwhelming to look at those screens and see all the data that is provided to these guys,” Walters said. “That’s a lifetime experience these young pilots will take forward when they integrate with the F-35A in the future.

[ricnunes]

Thanks for the article and translation langbein

[spazsinbad]

On the 5th May above 'marsavian' posted an article about F-16 students - which is further explained in article below...

Hill AFB fighter wings conduct combat exercise
06 May 2019 Micah Garbarino, 388th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah (AFNS) -- The active duty 388th Fighter Wing and Reserve 419th FW conducted an integrated combat capability exercise April 30-May 2 at the Utah Test and Training Range. The friendly and enemy forces were made up of F-35 Lightning IIs from Hill AFB, F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 311th Fighter Squadron at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, and 80th FS at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, and a team of contracted aggressor pilots from Draken International, at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

“Planning and carrying out the mission as part of a large, integrated force, at a high ops tempo is always valuable training,” said Col. Michael Ebner, 388th FW vice commander. “Whenever fourth- and fifth-generation platforms train together it’s beneficial for everyone. It was a great learning opportunity, especially for younger pilots.”

More than 40 aircraft participated. The training provided by this type of joint exercise is usually only available during large-force exercises like Red Flag. The airspace at the Utah Test and Training Range provides Hill AFB the ability to host such a large force. The defensive counter-air exercise was designed to simulate a combat operations tempo to test the capabilities of maintainers to provide aircraft and pilots to protect the airfield from a large enemy force.

“We were severely outnumbered, we had a five to one aggressor ratio and we were tasked with defending a list of assets over an eight-hour tour time block,” said Maj. Thomas Meyer, 34th Fighter Squadron weapons officer. “We had aircraft sitting in alert status to respond to whatever enemy threats were presented.”

Aircraft rotated into the fight on a continual basis for more than eight hours. If the enemy was successful in making it through the defenses and hitting a target, the friendly force was penalized by losing time to generate aircraft as maintainers took cover.

“One of the principle directives we’ve been given in the F-35 program is to integrate, and generally we only fly against other F-35s here,” said Maj. Jondavid Hertzel, 421st FS weapons officer. “This is a great opportunity for us.”

During the exercise F-35A maintainers were working to generate sorties at a steady rate, safely and efficiently.

“We’re testing everything associated with generating a combat sortie, from our weapons loading to aircraft production,” said Chief Master Sgt. Scott Spraberry, 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit superintendent. “We’re doing everything on a much more compressed schedule,”

On a normal flying day at Hill AFB, there may be eight to 10 aircraft that take off at once, then eight to 10 more jets several hours later. During this exercise, four-ship sorties launched every 30-45 minutes throughout the day. Maintainers had to be ready for the jets to land, refuel, reload and take off again, generating a total of 44 sorties a day. They worked in “cells.” Each cell was made of crew chiefs, weapons and avionics technicians and overseen by a senior non-commissioned officer responsible for keeping up to four aircraft ready for flight. [thot 'cells' were 'BOLTS'?]

“Normally our maintainers have two to three hours to turn an aircraft, so having to do so every 30 minutes really tests their skill,” said Capt. John Goodwin, 419th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron maintenance operations officer. “These exercises are an extremely effective and essential way to ensure our overall readiness.”

The 388th and 419th FWs are the Air Force’s first operational combat-capable F-35 units, having received the first jets in October 2015. They fly and maintain the jet in a Total Force partnership, which capitalizes on the strength of both components. By the end of this year, Hill AFB will be home to 78 F-35s."

Photo: "An F-35A takes off during a combat exercise at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, May 1, 2019. The active duty 388th Fighter Wing and Reserve 419th Fighter Wing, along with F-16 units from Holloman AFB, New Mexico, and Kunsan Air Base, Korea, conducted an integrated combat exercise where maintainers were tasked to continually provide ready aircraft and pilots took off in waves to simulate a large force engagement with enemy aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by R. Nial Bradshaw)" https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/03/2 ... 6-0003.JPG (4.35Mb)

Source: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... -exercise/

[marsavian]

“We flew 100 F-35A missions with 22 aircraft, integrated on 56 F-16 missions and defended vulnerable assets for a 16-hour window,” the 388th Fighter Wing stated on social media.

https://facebook.com/388fw/photos/a.188 ... =3&theater

[rowbeartoe]

Great Video.