Test pilot admits the F35 cant dogfight

[XanderCrews]

it doesn't matter. the simple fact is that the environment is simply too lethal.

True, but it won't necessarily stop it from happening.

of course it stops it from happening. Pilots will be told to shoot and scoot, avoid visual combat, avoid environments that increase risk. it doesn't mean that poo won't happen and WVR will rarely occur. my point is that it will occur so rarely as to be rendered a footnote. what would have once upon a time have been 10 merges in 100 engagements will drastically shrink, because again we the pilots will be told in no uncertain terms to avoid it.

thats the whole point-- don't fly your F-35 like its an F-16 in 1982.

We didn't give you a sub MOA rifle with an 800 Meter optic and thousands of hours of training so you could do a bayonet charge. etc etc.

I think the recent Mig-21 shoot down was an example of a HOBS on HOBS encounter.

those 5th gen Mig-21s are really something.

Here is the F-35 dogfight controversy in a nutshell, with a personal anecdote thrown in.


The F-35 meets or exceeds 4th generation kinematics, all the way back in 2011 it pulled 9.9G and flew to mach 1.66. its perfectly capable of dogfighting with anything out there, unless one wants to try and say that F-16s or F-15s or F-18s are suddenly "bad" at dogfighting. The F-35B greatly exceeds the harrier, and the harrier actually has an amazing array of kills. more than the F-18 in fact.

basically the F-35 was next up after the kinematic awe of the F-22, which didn't help as it embarrasses everything before it. next, F-35 was promoted as so lethal as to not need to dogfight. this was then taken by people straight back to "muh Vietnam" where some hard lessons were to be learned and the dogfight had been prematurely declared obsolete. There was some merit in this-- however those lessons has been deeply absorbed and we have fought multiple air actions in the DECADES since vietnam, they have been nearly universally brutal toward the enemy and completely one sided. The vast majority of American kills since Vietnam have been BVR.

people basically took it and twisted it. if you can see your opponents cards a lot of pokers' strategy can be ignored. this is like people complaining that you aren't playing by those no unneeded strategies as one doesn't have to "bluff" or other nonsense when they know already. "oh your P-51 is so great compared to my sopwith camel? you don't even have wing rigging!" technology advances, and in airpower especially at an astonishing rate.

so what happened was the F-35 not really needing to dogfight became that it couldn't dogfight

one of the best Marines I ever met was a Sgt. who was a mortarman by trade, but was also a blackbelt in Akido and MCMAP (back when that meant something) now a mortar can kill things kilometers away, but I don't feel like we should have to constantly specify that although my Sgt could and should be able to rain steel on badguys miles away, and that was his primary specialty that he could also kill people hand to hand. he was perfectly capable of such, and should his mortar fail he would go to a rifle or even a handgun, and bayonet before finally going hand to hand, I think we would be remiss to believe that a mortarman having to resort to such things didn't mean a lot had gone horribly wrong in the first place, and of course by engaging in hand to hand combat, whomever was relying on his fire support was now without it. in other words, we avoid that because its not the most effective use of our resources, even though we could indeed do it the dumber, less efficient, more risky way.

And this is whats frustrating about the modern internet age. People generally speak by giving pertinent information and leaving other stuff out for the purpose of brevity. but now, whatever is left out is now twisted into an absence or lack of something:

"Generally speaking, most women are shorter than men"

then you wait to hear about someone's female cousin who is 6 foot 3, and again since we didn't specify the exception enough, so people declare it a falsehood, when that is not what is said at all. we should have to specify every tall female in the world.

we really shouldn't have to read out the f-35s resume and capabilities down to the tenth of G every time we talk about it, or else that means somehow by not mentioning dogfighting, it somehow can't do it but thats what it has been relegated to by a handful of either geneuine amatures, or in some cases, those with an actual monetary stake in driving such a falsehood in order to hopefully sell their wares to an unsuspecting public.

it really is ridiculous like a child that needs constant reassurances from mommy

[spazsinbad]

How about providing a link so others may gauge how an F-22 & an Su-35 merged somehow (on the F-35 sub forum no less).

Others? Everyone else seems to have heard about it already, but for reference, heres the interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AguVV7SH9eY&t=2298s

In other news, TU-95s have also managed to merge with F-22s.

Just in by ancient e-mail [did they MERGE?]: "VF-114 F-14 Tomcat escorting a Tu-95" and nice reply ZanderCrue...
And a merge for all seasons TOMcat V skyHAWK.

[zero-one]

of course it stops it from happening. Pilots will be told to shoot and scoot, avoid visual combat, avoid environments that increase risk. it doesn't mean that poo won't happen and WVR will rarely occur.

I'm not disputing that, it will be rare for sure, how rare, I don't know, I don't think 10 out of a hundred specially against high end targets is unrealistic, and those are not far from Lockheed's own estimates, I can no longer find the link but they said that they expect ~60% of future air combat to be BVR, ~30% to be TVR (trans visual range) and 7% to be WVR.

thats the whole point-- don't fly your F-35 like its an F-16 in 1982.

yes but you also won't always be going against Mig-23s like it was 1982

Here is the F-35 dogfight controversy in a nutshell, with a personal anecdote thrown in.

yes it can, in fact, I would put an F-35's kinematics above an F-16C and F/A-18C because it combines the best characteristics of both

those 5th gen Mig-21s are really something.

but didn't you guys say, WVR will be too lethal and should be avoided at all cost,
I guess now it only applies if you're in a 5th gen

I've heard this story before, ACEVAL\AIMVAL said all aspect heaters will result in mutual kill scenarios, which required a fire and forget missile for A-a engagements
Desert storm came and went, we've had plenty of WVR scenarios during and after that, involving all aspect, most of the time without Aim-120s on our side, but this much vaunted mutual kill scenario can't seem to happen,

In other news, TU-95s have also managed to merge with F-22s.

yes they have, and Su-35's and F-4s for that matter. But will we always expect these routine merges to be uneventful because they are not in a "shooting war"

[quicksilver]

This latest round of ‘he said, she said’ seems to be predicated on the claim by zero that some unnamed someone said a ‘merge’ was ‘impossible.’

Tell us zero — who, exactly, said it was, (quote) impossible?

[spazsinbad]

NOPE it was SQUIRRELYclogman wot rote it

Others? Everyone else seems to have heard about it already, but for reference, heres the interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AguVV7SH9eY&t=2298s

In other news, TU-95s have also managed to merge with F-22s.

[quicksilver]

Huh??

Read my question again.

[zero-one]

Tell us zero — who, exactly, said it was, (quote) impossible?

There are a few of these going around. just back read a few pages.

As has been explained now more times than I can count & explained by the knowledgeable people in their replies here again 'the merge' as you call it ain't gonna happen.

[quicksilver]

Tell us zero — who, exactly, said it was, (quote) impossible?

There are a few of these going around. just back read a few pages.

As has been explained now more times than I can count & explained by the knowledgeable people in their replies here again 'the merge' as you call it ain't gonna happen.

Got it. Thx.

Seems the proverbial horse should be long ago dead, and now buried.

[XanderCrews]

thats the whole point-- don't fly your F-35 like its an F-16 in 1982.

yes but you also won't always be going against Mig-23s like it was 1982

so... we are saying the same thing in a different way?

but didn't you guys say, WVR will be too lethal and should be avoided at all cost,
I guess now it only applies if you're in a 5th gen

I think one should avoid the dangers of drinking and driving as well, but damned if people don't still do it.

boy you got me there!

haha xander! You said don't do dumb $hit, but then this person still did dumb $hit!

check mate alright.

without being mean to certain countries, (or any competitive thing really) there are some things you can get away with vs lower competition. The things you can get away with against a noob, may get you crushed against someone with some experience. think of any competition. you can pull silly tricks with lower competitors that would get you wrecked if you tried them against someone with experience or skill.

people do really stupid stuff sometimes as a matter of course. The US military with its nearly religious belief in "safety" has far less risk tolerance than many other militaries out there as well.

I've heard this story before, ACEVAL\AIMVAL said all aspect heaters will result in mutual kill scenarios, which required a fire and forget missile for A-a engagements
Desert storm came and went, we've had plenty of WVR scenarios during and after that, involving all aspect, most of the time without Aim-120s on our side, but this much vaunted mutual kill scenario can't seem to happen,

share the numbers, I'm curious

elaborate on this

[spazsinbad]

Another MERGE via E-mail: "VF-151 F-4B Phantom II intercepts a TU-94D early 1970s"

[spazsinbad]

Hear's hoping the ALLIES with F-35s take notice in a GENERAL sense - seems RAAF does this already - avoid DOGfights!

Wilsbach to Allies: Learn from USAF’s Mistakes, Fly Your F-35 Like an F-35
27 Oct 2020 John A. Tirpak

"Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach has some advice for users of the F-35 in his region: Don’t use it like the aircraft you’re used to, but take advantage of its full potential.

Speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute virtual event Oct. 27, Wilsbach said the U.S. Air Force operated the F-22 like the F-15C for “about five years,” failing to fully exploit its fifth-generation stealth and sensor fusion capabilities. “It took us a while to learn” what the jet could really do, he said, and now, “the tactics are completely different.” He advises the F-35 partners to use the aircraft “like an F-35,” and not like some of the high-performance fourth-generation aircraft they have been operating.

“Take advantage of the lessons learned that we’ve had,” he said. “Skip right to that … and cycle through those lessons learned that much faster. Take full advantage of the platform.”

The advice “resonates with those operators,” he said. The U.S. has F-35 exchange pilots with Australia, Japan, & Korea, and “they all learn to fly it at Luke” Air Force Base, Ariz., so the foundation exists for a good partnership on the F-35 and other interoperable systems, he asserted....

...Stealth will also continue to be essential “to get inside of [an adversary’s] network and sensors undetected, so that they don’t know that they’re there, or when they do figure it out, it’s too late.”... [THEN THERE IS TALK OF INTERCEPTS]

[MERGE ME UP SCOTTIE!]

Source: https://www.airforcemag.com/wilsbach-to ... e-an-f-35/

[boogieman]

Confirmation of what we all already knew:

[doge]

I had a hard time deciding where to post this, but the article had a section on dogfights, so I'll post it here.
Kris Osborn interviewed three F-35 pilots. (Looooooooooooooooong interview )
https://warriormaven.com/military-inter ... -35-pilots

Stealth Attack at War: Fighter Pilots Tell Warrior About Flying F-35 in Combat
F-35 fighter pilots take Warrior Maven inside the cockpit of an F-35
By Kris Osborn, Warrior Maven UPDATED:JUL 28, 2021 ORIGINAL:JUL 28, 2021
(Washington, DC) Warrior Maven recently interviewed several F-35 pilots who shared what it's like flying one of the most lethal fighting jets the U.S. Military has to offer. Participant biographies and interview highlights are below:
F-35 PILOTS
Chris “Worm” Spinelli, F-35 Test Pilot, Lockheed Martin
Spinelli has been a test pilot with Lockheed Martin for one year as of today. He was hired as an F-35 Test Pilot primarily conducting F-35 acceptance flight test at the Fort Worth location.
Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Mr. Spinelli honorably served in the United States Air Force for over 24 years. His final assignment was at Edwards Air Force Base, California, as the Vice Commander of the Air Force Test Center. He has over 150 combat hours and numerous Air and Aerial Achievement Medals.

Monessa “Siren” Balzhiser, F-35 Production and Training Pilot, Lockheed Martin
Balzhiser joined Lockheed Martin in 2018 and was eventually selected to fly the F-16 as a production and training pilot. She just recently completed training to fly the F-35 in June 2021 and became Lockheed Martin’s first female F-35 training and production pilot. Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Balzhiser honorably served 17 years in the United States Air Force, most recently as an F-16 Instructor Pilot.

Tony “Brick” Wilson, Chief of Fighter Flight Operations (F-35 Test Pilot), Lockheed Martin
Wilson joined Lockheed Martin in 2016 to support the F-35 and F-16 programs. He has flown over 20 different types of aircraft and was the first aviator to execute a shipboard arrestment when he successfully landed the F-35C aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN 68). Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Wilson served 25 years in the United States Navy where he last served as an F-35 ship suitability project officer at VX-23’s Integrated Test Force.

WARRIOR MAVEN Exclusive: F-35 at War
Kris Osborn, Warrior Maven; What makes the F-35 stand out as a fighter jet?
Spinelli: When I first got into the F-35 and even still today, the biggest, game-changing difference that I've seen specifically for the person in the cockpit, the “decision-maker”, the pilot is the F-35’s fusion and integration of all of the different sensors from the aircraft. It brings together a holistic picture that's quite amazing. This was never, never seen before on any fourth-generation platform. I don't care what people say, or what widgets or gizmos they have. I would even say it rivals the F-22. Although I haven't seen everything that the F-22 has on it.
When you look at the radar for the F-35, the electronic warfare (EW) system and then of course the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) combining it all together, that to me was the biggest difference between the F-35 and the legacy F-16s or F-18s.

Warrior Maven: So the F-35 is unique from a pilot's perspective in terms of decision-making and battle management. Do you want to weigh in on that as well, Monessa?
Balzhiser: I'm the baby F-35 pilot in the group since I just finished up training in June. So I have a mighty nine hours in the jet. However, I do have about 13 years of operational experience in the F-16. I am absolutely still learning how to fly the F-35 and how to use it to its max capabilities.
For me, the biggest difference I've seen between flying the fourth-generation F-16, which is what I previously flew, and my few hours in the F-35 is its data integration and data management capabilities. It allows extreme situational awareness­–more than any other platform that we've generated, at least that I've flown.
I also think the F-35 has a unique capability to go into extremely dynamic situations and environments, higher threat environments, more so than a normal fourth-generation fighter would be able to do. It’s extremely incredible, especially because of its stealth technology and its ability to not be seen by certain threats. I think from a from a pilot's perspective that survivability is huge, especially against some of the emerging threats that we have coming online.
That’s another point, it's a super, super, super easy transition for me and it's super, absolutely easy to fly. It's made easy to fly for a reason, because of all the management you have to do in the cockpit.

Warrior Maven: Roger that. Excellent. I'm tracking. Tony, do you want add to that?
Wilson: I want to build on what both Siren and Worm offered up. I think there's some really important takeaways there. For example, Siren touched on survivability. From my perspective, it's not just survivability when you take this aircraft into harm's way. Pilot safety is first and foremost in almost everything that we do from the time that the canopy comes down to the time the jet is back, safe on deck, having completed its mission. Then the pilot is able to hop out safely and go home.
So it’s taking the tenants of stealth to increase survivability and increase lethality as we take this aircraft into harm's way.
It’s also applying the system of sensor fusion, which reduces pilot workload and allows the pilots to have a situational “bubble” so that they're more than just a pilot and they're more than a sensor manager. They're true tacticians. The fact that the pilot has the spare capacity increases survivability and makes them more lethal.
We use systems such as Auto Ground Collision Avoidance Systems (Auto GCAS) so that when the aircraft is at a precarious attitude that could result in ground collision, the aircraft gives the pilot the capability to react and when the pilot fails to react, it recovers the aircraft and puts it on a safe trajectory again, so that not only can the pilot take it into harm's way, but they can also come home safely every time.

Warrior Maven: As all of you have extensive fourth-generation jet experience, I want to ask a follow-up on that.
Let's say there is an attack scenario where you're flying and you come across a group of enemy fighter jets. What would you have to do in a fourth-generation fighter? Or how would you approach that kind of circumstance in a fourth-generation as compared to in an F-35? To me, it seems the biggest and most significant margin of difference is simply the sensor range. There were wargames where an F-35 detected a group of enemy fighters before it was itself even detected. From what I understand that's part of the rationale and part of the whole intent for that plane design. So let’s do a quick comparison: if you were confronted with an attack, what would you do in an F-16 versus what you would do in an F-35?
Spinelli: I think the first point to make is on the differences. Are you even going to see a fight in the fourth-generation fighter? The ability to make a decision rests upon the information that you're given.
Our pilots are still able to do this exercise, and certainly Siren and Brick can recall many times when they did this, called building a “mental model.” It’s building that picture of what's going on based on information from outside sources beyond your own aircraft that are providing you a “Tactical Air” picture, but you don't actually see any of that anywhere.
In a fourth-generation fighter, you have to mentally build that model and then try to make decisions. Of course, that can be challenging depending on how dense the threat environment is regarding both air and ground threats or other threats that may be out there.
This is in contrast to an F 35, where you're seeing a much larger picture, informed by offshore sources as well, and you're seeing it from your own platform.
It should be noted that in potential threat environments some of those offshore platforms may or may not be able to get close enough to provide even the fourth generation picture that that I described. So that’s the important point, just having the knowledge and information to be able to make better-informed decisions. You are only as good as the knowledge and information you have, so that to me is one of the big differences. Decision-making that allows you to make hopefully the correct or appropriate tactical decision as the situation dictates and then be able to execute it as well in the timeline that allows the best probability for your attack to succeed versus the enemy’s attack.
As an example, in an air-to-air engagement, with a fourth-generation fighter, you're firing and then maneuvering to help survive a follow-up attack from the enemy aircraft and I can tell you personally, from my own experiences of fighting in the Raptor F-22 and in the F-16, it was very frustrating trying to see. Quite honestly, you never even see [the enemy aircraft], or know what's going on.

Balzhiser: I absolutely agree with that. We always say “first shot, first kill.”
The biggest difference between fourth-generation fighters for me was with the fourth generation, I was always managing all the different systems, from electronic warfare to the weapons to the radar to any kind of targeting pod, any kind of sensor I had. I was 100% focused on making sure they were all integrated within my own cockpit in the fourth generation.
Whereas what I've seen in the F-35 is that it's all done for you. The enhanced electrical warfare that we have in the F-35 allows us to get much closer ranges on some of these threats coming on board, as well as having a magnificent radar that allows you to shoot beyond visual range before any enemy would even detect you. So that’s a huge advantage with the fifth-generation fighter.

Wilson: For me, one of the biggest differences that jumps out is how quiet it is in the cockpit. What I mean by that is when flying my fourth-generation aircraft, it's a combination of not only managing your own sensors, not only taking in the information a particular data link is providing, but also knowing just how intensive an air-to-air engagement or an air-to-surface engagement is.
Depending on what the threats are, a lot of the errors that may be made while airborne are predominantly due to misheard comms, either not hearing a crucial piece of information or missing a crucial piece of information.
Also, the sensor suites are embedded in the F-35 all the time so the aircraft doesn't have to be re-configured for specific missions as our typical fourth-generation fighters were–uploading or downloading pods for whatever mission we were going on.
In the F-35, we carry all of our sensor suites all the time. Couple that with sensor fusion and you have the opportunity to listen to some of the engagements, but it's still very quiet because that sensor fusion is presenting the information to the pilot in such a manner that a lot of comms is not needed.
Targeting assignments can be seen and checked by flight leads to make sure that everyone is targeting appropriately. There’s a vast amount of information that the jet is able to absorb, process, and present to not only the pilot in his or her aircraft, but his or her wingman via datalink that significantly cuts the amount of comms required, which again, allows that that pilot to become a true tactician.
[The F-35] is not just good fighting against fourth generation and it’s not just about all the capabilities we have against fourth-generation, it's also about integrating with fourth-generation fighters. I've gotten to fly the F-16 in a number of large force exercises with F-35s and F-22s and we were all embedded in one strategic goal for the entire ‘war,’ so I think it's not just fighting against fourth-generation where the F-35 stands out, but also integrating with other US military platforms and other NATO platforms to meet a strategic objective.

Warrior Maven: What about the long-standing discussion about maneuverability and dogfighting? I think the perceived consensus is that the F-35 is not an F-22 in terms of air-to-air dominance or superiority, but still has the ability to dogfight. Recognizing, of course, the preceding premise is that the F-35 wouldn't ever have to be in dogfights by virtue of its successes, precision, and range of its sensors.
Spinelli: Yes, we have heard that. In fact, I was at Edwards Air Force Base when the test pilots were there and they were writing that original report. It's been the narrative ever since and I want to say a few things about that.
First of all, it should be noted the aircraft was in its infancy stages and we were still just trying to learn how to fly the airplane. The entire CLAW (Flight Control Laws) hadn't been delivered yet so the guys hadn't really developed tactics, techniques, and procedures, etc. So to say that the F-35 can't BFM I think is a gross overstatement. Honestly, you know I think it would be quite eye-opening to see an F-35 and an F-16 in a basic fighter maneuver (BFM) engagement, depending on how it was managed.
BFM, that's basically the one-versus-one engagements where pilots engage in what otherwise known as a dog fight. That's what the operational pilots will do. They’ll take it to altitude and then they'll fight against each other. Certainly the F-35 has some advantages that the F-16 does not, particularly in its helmet integration, along with its advanced weapons, which are a lot more beneficial in platforms like the F-22 or F-35.
Now, I think it would be fair to say that the F-22 has given us thrust vectoring and there's not another US fighter anywhere near as capable as an F-22 at performing drastic maneuvering in the high-angle-of-attack regime.
But as Kris pointed out, I think the real question becomes: is that the classical mission set that we're really interested in? Perhaps the answer is no, perhaps it's yes, depending upon what the threat is and where you're going and what it is that we want to do. Even if [air-to-air engagements] aren’t your highest priority, which I would say is not the case with a BSM engagement–a dogfight engagement with an F-35 is your number one priority type of engagement. Yet even if it isn't the highest priority, then does the F-35 still perform adequately or admirably given the current flight? I believe that answer is yes.
However, I stand by this point and I will continue to stand by this point: the F 35 is not a capability, the F-22 is not a capability. None of those are because a ‘widget’ is not a capability.
A capability is having the appropriate training, the appropriate supply and maintenance, and the background supply chain to support it, and probably most importantly, having a logistic chain to keep it armed. Really that's what wins the war.
All your fancy fighters can be great, but if you can't keep them armed, they're not going to win. That's something I think that often gets lost in the dialogue when we're talking about F-35 versus F-22 versus F-16. I think some of that was lost early on in the program.

Wilson: My background is mostly with teams coming from the US Navy. One of the things that we are taught as tactical aviators is analyzing a threat and analyzing our aircraft to see where our strengths lie and where our performance is not as good as our opponent’s.
I’m coming from the FA-18 community. That aircraft has excellent high airway maneuvering capability. So one of the things that we would always try to achieve was to force the fighter jet to go in the direction that would be advantageous for the FA-18.
By comparison, the F-16 is a great ‘weight fighter.’ It has a lot of high thrust for the weight. Imagine going around a racetrack, except in this case, you want to come around the racetrack faster so you can get behind the other racer and shoot them. The F-16 has fantastic thrust weight capability.
What the F-35 brings to the pilot is actually a combination of both. It has fantastic high airway capability but doesn't sacrifice thrust to weight. The thrust to weight ratio that I get out of the F-35 is fantastic. So now I have multiple options when I find myself in a dogfight situation depending on what the threat is that I’m dealing with. I can choose which fight is going to best suit me against that opponent.
Just as a quick side note, with the naysayers who say that the F-35 is not maneuverable, I always refer them to the Paris Air Show. And note, [the F-35] is not an airshow-configured aircraft, where the pods and tanks and everything that they would normally be strapped with are taken off of the aircraft to show off its max maneuvering capability.

Balzhiser: As you said, from my perspective, having the sensor suite that we have, having sensor fusion and MADL all of those potential engagements should be avoided before we ever even get within visual range, let alone actually have to dogfight in the air, whatever the opponent is. The tactical scenario, more often than not, is going to be solved much further out, which is going to give us the advantage.
If, for whatever reason, we do have to come to this merge, the F-35 aircraft is maneuverable. I think the proof is in the pudding if you talk not only to us, but if you talk to the fleet users, especially those that have come from other fourth generation aircraft, and you ask them ‘Hey, if you had to go into harm's way today, what would you want to take?’ They are all going to say the F-35.

Warrior Maven: What are some of the specific details you see when you're in the cockpit? Since the F-35 has the sensor fusion technology, you look at a single display. What do you see?
Spinelli: Well, the great thing about [the display] is you can control what you see and what you don't. You can declutter and put everything on it that you need, so you're seeing an advanced picture of friendlies, air-to-air and air-to-ground stats, and navigation points. It’s all encompassed in one display, which is why I say it becomes a matter of how well a pilot can process all that data, because it's a lot of data and it's always dynamic. It's always giving you real-time information from every single sensor in the jet.
I was also going to speak on the customizability of the displays and every mode. We have that huge screen that can be split up into sections.
In the F-16 there’s center pedestal now that the pilots are excited about because it shows the map, but in the F-35 that's just half or even a quarter of our whole screen. We can put a full map display on the entire half of the screen, if we want and that’s full color, which can be very beneficial, depending upon where you're at and what you're doing. I really like that.
There’s very easy access to what we call the ‘Quick Access stuff’ such as the engine or the fuel specifications. The simple stuff that should be easy is right there at your fingertips. Not to mention the helmet, which is always there and has all the information that you need to help navigate including altitude, airspeed, etc. You can put that not only in your helmet, but you can also actually put that up on one of your displays as well and send it to the virtual hub.
One of the really cool things is you can maximize any view, or “portal” if you will, similar to the window maximize function on a PC, or you can minimize and have thumbnails on the bottom to be able to show other stuff going on. Those thumbnail displays are a little bit more limited, because they're obviously smaller.
With the F-35 though, you can set up the display however is best for you to best fly and employ the airplane. I'm sure as time goes on the weapon schools will put out papers about how to best set up the portals, what to put where and why. Then again, going back to my comment earlier, the F-35 alone isn't necessarily a capability, but rather the capability comes with having properly trained people and infrastructure behind it.
The touchscreen is good, too. We may have some quirks, but it works. I don't normally have any issues with it and it’s a really nice way to interact with the airplane. That is also very much an F-35­–specific feature that’s not really in any legacy fourth-generation fighte

Warrior Maven: What about weapons? For example, how quickly would you be able to identify a J-20 missile at range?
Wilson: I'm sure that specific number is classified and I don't actually even know them to be quite blunt with you. You did make a good point, which shows you obviously have some understanding of this.
Regarding the sensor suite in the F-35, the information that's displayed is only as good as the information that we have, which is gathered by our intelligence community, and put through the paces. There’s a whole lab down in Florida where they are taking all the information from the intelligence community and bringing actual F-35 hardware into the loop to ensure that when those sensors see something, they can identify what it is and it's not just a bunch of ones and zeros coming in through the digital amplifiers. That’s really important.

Warrior Maven: What about the continued software upgrades and weapons applications, whether it's a small diameter bomb or the Storm Breaker that's on the way? Can you discuss any other kinds of future munitions that can be expected?
Spinelli: The F-35 is going to get all the new weapons. It will be the platform that the Air Force is going to integrate and Lockheed will be part of that, of course.
A lot of the real test work will be done at Edwards Air Force Base and other test locations. The F-35 has a fairly robust suite right now–we have air-to-air and air-to-ground, but it's going to continue to grow.

Warrior Maven: What about for example, the Delta flight path and autonomy? I’m guessing this would be particularly relevant with the B and the C models.
Wilson: One of the fundamental design concepts for the F-35 was to make it easy to fly. You can imagine the challenge that has presented for the Lockheed Martin engineers, because you're taking an aircraft that is designed to be used on a conventional carrier or on small deck carriers for the B model and having it provide carefree handling to the pilot in any given regime, whether it's dogfighting, refueling, or trying to come aboard a ship.
So, the first thing that the engineers did, to my knowledge, was apply nonlinear dynamic inversion control laws and create the A model to be a production line style aircraft. That gave the engineers the capability to design that carefree handling. What that translates to for the pilot is, first and foremost, whether I happen to be in an A model or B model or C model, they fly almost identically. It’s only in the landing environment or the takeoff environment where there's any significant difference between the A model and the C model specifically.
We'll focus on the B model. If you look at earlier Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) or Short Take-off and Landing (STOL) aircraft, they all had a higher mishap occurrence rate. That’s because the pilots were forced to make a transition in the way that they flew depending on which aircraft they were flying.
The conventional plane is handled just like any plane, but when [the pilot] would start to slow down and go into the hover, then they'd have to make a mental switch and fly it more like a helicopter. With the nonlinear dynamic inversion, the control inputs are identical, whether I'm hovering or I'm flying. I use the stick to go up and down, and use the pedals for left and right. The throttle makes the aircraft go forward, or if I'm hovering, I can make it go backwards. It’s amazing. At the heart of the matter is that it is really easy. It’s basically hitting three buttons and I can come to a stable hover over a point on the ground or the sea, meaning we're able to input things into the aircraft as we're trying to come aboard ship. If the ship is making, for example, 15 knots through the water, then I can program that into the jet and then by hitting a button, the jet will capture the same speed as the ship. After that it’s really a matter of taking those inputs and finishing the landing.
I had the opportunity to participate in all three ship trips for the C model and Delta flight path. I hate the term because I feel it is a bit over overused, but I can't think of a better term: the Delta flight path is a game changer for the US Navy and for the aviators that are trying to bring this plane aboard the ship.
Just to give you an example: when flying a fourth-generation fighter and trying to bring it aboard the ship there are three tasks involved. I’ve got to be on glide slope, which is presented to you by the ball, the Fresnel lens, on the side of the ship. I've got to be on centerline, or aligned with the landing area of the aircraft carrier, which on US aircraft carriers, it's about 10 degrees. Then I have to be on speed or basically at the proper attitude so that the aircraft is not too fast or too slow and I can give the hook the maximum probability of engaging the wire.
Now, let's say I start to drift off centerline. Well, to make the correction to get back on the centerline, I've got to do a slight heading change. When I do that, because I'm banking the aircraft slightly, it reduces lift. So now I've got to come up on power to compensate for that loss of lift so that the aircraft doesn't settle and go below glide slope. Once I level the wings and the lift is back, I've got to come back on the power and then I've got to counter that correction to realign. So you can see it's a lot a lot of moving parts.
However, when you engage Delta flight path, the plane does everything it can to help the pilot out. Comparing fourth-generation fighters to the Delta flight path, on the Delta flight path, if I start to drift off center line, I simply have to put lateral stick in. That’s important because now I'm not worried about messing with the throttle and I'm not worried about maintaining glide slope, so it becomes much easier to keep all that stuff in the pilot scan.
What we've seen as a result is that the aircraft is able to land on a tighter dispersion. The hook point is hitting the same point on the deck, or very close, at a higher rate. There are several benefits from that.
First and foremost, it increases safety margins, so it's safer and easier for the pilots to get the aircraft aboard the ship. When you reduce the number of times the pilot misses all the wires, landing rates go up, which means that the aircraft carrier doesn't have to steam or drive as long in the same direction into the wind. That in turn increases the flexibility of the ship to maneuver.

Warrior Maven: For the last few minutes, I want to highlight your expertise. What are some of the defining experiences you've had, whether it's red teaming, or wargaming, or simulating combat, etc.?
Spinelli: I'm going to reinforce this point and I think it's important. I left the operational field back in 2003-2004 timeframe, but nonetheless, I’ve stayed in touch with folks who've still been there. I understand that world and I understand what they do. When we first had the opportunity to fly the F-35, I didn't really know what I was going to think of it. Even having been in the Air Force and having seen the plane fly around at Edwards Air Force Base, all I've ever heard was bad and negative things about the airplane.
So I'll never forget in 2017 when I got into the [F-35] jet for the first time and I took off. I thought I was going to auto eject, I thought I was going to be terrible. It took maybe five minutes for me to think, ‘What is everybody complaining about? This thing is pretty awesome.’ I have grown to love flying it and love the airplane. The capability is unmatched. Sure, it had some growing pains initially, like everything does.
As I go out into the community-- I was very involved in the church and hockey events for my boys–when people find out what I did, of course, they always wanted to know how is the F-35? I would tell them about it and I would say the same thing: If you had to go to war with a jet, what do you want to fly? And the answer is the F-35. If anyone tells you otherwise, they're lying, or they don't understand what they're talking about. Because that is a true statement.
Even today, the F-16 is a very capable and awesome aircraft. But if I have to go to war, I'm going to be in an F-35. That thing is amazing–the enhanced vision, the stealth, the interoperability, the weapons, it’s just awesome. It's a good airplane and we're making it better, and we are going to continue to do that with the help of our foreign partners.

Wilson: Kris, we really appreciate you asking us because if you really want to hear what the F-35 can do, you need to ask the pilots, particularly the operational pilots, who are going through training.
I spent six weeks with operational pilots finding out how they train, how the trainers are teaching new students, how the training integrates with fourth generation. Worm said it: if you want to take a lethal and survivable aircraft into combat, you're going to take the F-35.