F-16.net

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/podca ... 645d23cd46

It took F35 only 3 seconds to completes the 135 deg hard turn. The average turn rate is 42deg/sec So the peak turn rate is higher than 42deg/sec.

Oh boy.

First, he also says he is at 50 degrees AoA. Subtract that from the 135 degrees and it drops to a transient turn rate of 28+ degrees per second. Nothing to sneeze at. Due to where that maneuver is in the demo we can also assume that is ~50% fuel remaining. We don't know G involved, but from what I have seen even 9G aircraft don't go over ~7G in the routine.

And watch the video, the nose rakes very quickly (~3s) and then seems to stabilize before he goes vertical, this is holding the nose position while AoA decreases, i.e. flight path continues to change.

Is this the maneuver in question (Dojo Drift) at 9:19 of this vid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOOmbMFA5A


If so, he is coming in as it seems under (or well under) 300knots. (slow speeds)

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Oh boy.

First, he also says he is at 50 degrees AoA. Subtract that from the 135 degrees and it drops to a transient turn rate of 28+ degrees per second. Nothing to sneeze at. Due to where that maneuver is in the demo we can also assume that is ~50% fuel remaining. We don't know G involved, but from what I have seen even 9G aircraft don't go over ~7G in the routine.

And watch the video, the nose rakes very quickly (~3s) and then seems to stabilize before he goes vertical, this is holding the nose position while AoA decreases, i.e. flight path continues to change.

If you want To throw the 50deg aoa you also need To throw the time consumed To pull 50 deg AOA, which Will not shrink the turn rate that much. We can Only assume 28deg+deg/sec.

And that is average turn rate within the 3 second interval, not the peak turn rate.

At the speed he is approaching the field in that maneuver, (300KCAS or lower) basically low speeds. There is no way that is a 9G pull. Maybe 6-7G ish. But you would certainly need more speed for 9G. Something on the order of 350KCAS if not more?



The first part of that pull is similar to the initial pull of the F-22's Hoover Pitch (Stiff Pitch) which is flown at 300KCAS.

If so, that is not at the jet's corner speed, which is defined as the lowest speed to generate maximum structural load (9G in this case for the F-35) and also referred to as ITR.


F-22 Stiff Pitch at 13:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQy1S_Rw4wM



Any thoughts on this??

ITR is any transient change in the flight path. You are looking for the definition of Peak ITR, but otherwise you are correct.

Lets look at the maneuver and what is stated. The nose is pointed 135 degrees in 3 seconds. We will use 3.00s for the sake of this discussion. By the time the nose as moved that much the AoA is 50. This means the flight path as moved 85 degrees in 3.00s.

I agree with your assessment f-16adf that the entry is likely ~300KCAS and 7G, not the conditions for peak ITR. The transient turn rate averages 28.3dps. It could even be, very nearly, constant 28.3dps, and here is why. AoA does not increase instantly, so the turn rate has to ramp up as AoA ramps up. Speed is already dropping and with it the ability to turn. We hit max lift AoA and presumably exceed it. We don;t know all the nitty gritty details about pitch onset rates (and we have no right to) but what could very well be happening is that the lift quickly (~.5s) build to a 20dps turn, peaks around 32dps at 270?KCAS and 6?G and settles around 26dps at 50AoA all in the span of 3s.

We don't know.

What CAN be taken from this is that when around 50% internal fuel (admittedly my guestimation) at "sea level standard" the F-35A can generate transient turn rates in excess of 28 dps even below corner velocity.

Thanks for the kind reply Spurts!

Either way, that's a pretty awesome move for that jet.

it's an awesome move, period. Huge energy bleeding turn, has enough control to maintain a modest climb as AoA reduces and then has the power to go into a 50-70 degree climb (perspective makes it LOOK vertical).

f-16adf wrote:F-22 Stiff Pitch at 13:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQy1S_Rw4wM



Any thoughts on this??

Don't know what's more impressive, that one or this one here at 2:42. They're slightly different.

so that looks like the same maneuver as the "Dojo Drift" performed by an aircraft that makes more lift and has more thrust. Maybe it needs to be called the Dozer Drift?

Of all I have ever seen, The most Intense instantaneous turn of F-35A is...This, Rhode Island Air Show video by Luke AFB itself.
@0:53~ (short. in a flash.)

(9 months ago, I wanted to see another angle video of this turn, I searched on the Rhode Island Air Show on Youtube,Twitter,Facebook,Instagram,etc and saw so many videos..... After all, I remember that I can't find it and everything was ended in vain....... )

DRIFT is spoken about by DOJO here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24622&p=415944&hilit=DRIFT#p415944

“By the time the nose as moved that much the AoA is 50. This means the flight path as moved 85 degrees in 3.00s.”

Yes, but theta has moved 135 degrees, which in practical application (bfm), is often more relevant/useful. Of course, e.g. if one is trying to save one’s **** in a pull out from something nose low and heading for the dirt, the flight path remains more relevant.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We don't know.

What CAN be taken from this is that when around 50% internal fuel (admittedly my guestimation) at "sea level standard" the F-35A can generate transient turn rates in excess of 28 dps even below corner velocity.

It's hard to know the weight for sure, as the routine started at full fuel.

Yeah, and the routine is toward the end, and they have reserve requirements of not less than 13%

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Yeah, and the routine is toward the end, and they have reserve requirements of not less than 13%

Suffice it to say, it flies a pretty impressive routine, at fairly good weights. It's flown similar manuevers earlier in the routine, as well. That lends pretty good credence to performance without external stores, even at high internal weights, is robust.

Most definitely.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Oh boy.

First, he also says he is at 50 degrees AoA. Subtract that from the 135 degrees and it drops to a transient turn rate of 28+ degrees per second. Nothing to sneeze at. Due to where that maneuver is in the demo we can also assume that is ~50% fuel remaining. We don't know G involved, but from what I have seen even 9G aircraft don't go over ~7G in the routine.

And watch the video, the nose rakes very quickly (~3s) and then seems to stabilize before he goes vertical, this is holding the nose position while AoA decreases, i.e. flight path continues to change.

Which goes to the reason the Jarheads are not disappointed in the performance of the Killer Bee either.

doge wrote:Of all I have ever seen, The most Intense instantaneous turn of F-35A is...This, Rhode Island Air Show video by Luke AFB itself.
@0:53~ (short. in a flash.)

(9 months ago, I wanted to see another angle video of this turn, I searched on the Rhode Island Air Show on Youtube,Twitter,Facebook,Instagram,etc and saw so many videos..... After all, I remember that I can't find it and everything was ended in vain....... )

While this is incredibly impressive, the F-22's same maneuver is much crisper, IMO. Do NOT get me wrong - the fact the F-35 has an ITR like this WITHOUT thrust vectoring is impressive. Fantastic piece of engineering. But the Raptor has so much more excess power, plus thrust vectoring = game over.

They done good on the F-35. They done out of this world, for the F-22.

Yep, the F-22 is King Kong. Everybody else is just Curious George.

I used the drag polar of Mig-29A to estimate some order of magnitude, and here are my conclusions:

At peak ITR, the ITR dissipates at about 5deg/sec^2. So if the average turn rate in a 3 second interval is 28+deg/sec, it is safe to assume the peak ITR is more than 33deg/sec. Still very impressive though.

It would be nice if you could remove the "Official declassifies" part of this topic's name.

It would be nice if the meditators merged this thread with the thread I've indicated earlier BECUZ "what has this topic got to do with 'F-35 versus XYZ'?" Answers are on the back of any cereal packet.

botsing wrote:It would be nice if you could remove the "Official declassifies" part of this topic's name.

Yes hope the moderator could do it now

Took them a long time to showcase these wares...

I almost think they deliberately held off to give Pierre Sprey/APA just enough rope. Then when the time was right, they sprang this and they hanged themselves. It's a rather remarkable piece of engineering, as it does everything really well and some things it's a world beater in.

It's air to air prowess was always in question. To some, it still is. But demos like this, what we know about its SA/EW capabilities and results from Red Flag don't lie: It's more than capable of holding its own both BVR and WVR. The damn problem is, the F-15 has set such a high bar: 104-0.

How do you Trump that?

mixelflick wrote:I almost think they deliberately held off to give Pierre Sprey/APA just enough rope. Then when the time was right, they sprang this and they hanged themselves. It's a rather remarkable piece of engineering, as it does everything really well and some things it's a world beater in.

It's a nice theory indeed

However I don't believe that to be the case.
IMO, I think that due to a combination of LM concentrating mostly on the engineering part of the JSF/F-35 program together with the perceived fact that the JSF/F-35 program didn't have and wouldn't have any competition and as such a "sure thing", lead LM to mostly forget or give a very minor importance to all the PR (Public Relations) surrounding the JSF/F-35 program.

Unfortunately (IMO), PR is extremely important to any fighter aircraft program, specially nowadays and this (lack of PR regarding the JSF/F-35 program) resulted in an increasingly number of US politicians (such as Senator McCain) demanding the canceling of the JSF/F-35 program or at least a huge review of the program (which indeed happened in 2010) and even with a JSF partner nation - Canada - threatening to pull out from the program while other partner nations had indeed second thoughts about the program (Italy, for example).

As such I don't think this was a deliberate move from LM. It was only bad PR from LM! Basically the opposite of Saab from where we saw "excellent PR" but the engineering part, well, Bah...

Bottom line, LM completely failed in terms of PR and as such they are now together with the USAF solving this issue, resorting to Airshow demonstrations which like it or not are an excellent PR tool.

I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost

I think it's inevitable due to the scope of the JSF program. It was always going to be the main target to try to steal money away from. Whenever it got into trouble, like before the realignment pre-Bogdan takeover, it was going to be too big for any PR to smooth things over. It's like opposition politics vs. government. The latter gets the attention and opposition popularity grows not based on their own actions, rather the government messing things up. You can see Gripen "NG" serving as tabula rasa (blank slate) for many critics. Not because of its own merits, but rather perceived frustrations towards the incumbent.

mixelflick wrote:Took them a long time to showcase these wares...

I almost think they deliberately held off to give Pierre Sprey/APA just enough rope. Then when the time was right, they sprang this and they hanged themselves. It's a rather remarkable piece of engineering, as it does everything really well and some things it's a world beater in.

It's air to air prowess was always in question. To some, it still is. But demos like this, what we know about its SA/EW capabilities and results from Red Flag don't lie: It's more than capable of holding its own both BVR and WVR. The damn problem is, the F-15 has set such a high bar: 104-0.

How do you Trump that?

It took them such a long time because the FCS was not actually ready, remember the 2015 F-16 AoA test and also the excess buffeting ? The point is LMT always knew what the potential was in ACM because they had designed the plane to do that but they just had to sort out the FCS to enable it in all flight conditions and scenarios. The point is it's a software change that was easily retrofitted to earlier F-35 so no harm no foul.

marsavian wrote:
It took them such a long time because the FCS was not actually ready, remember the 2015 F-16 AoA test and also the excess buffeting ? The point is LMT always knew what the potential was in ACM because they had designed the plane to do that but they just had to sort out the FCS to enable it in all flight conditions and scenarios. The point is it's a software change that was easily retrofitted to earlier F-35 so no harm no foul.

The 2015 F-35 AoA ("vs F-16") test is a beautiful example of why you test.

magitsu wrote:I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost

That was nearly 30 years ago. Back when Sony was the be all and end all of consumer electronics. Things change.

Re: "PR"

There was nothing public about the down-select deliberations that led to source selction and eventually the contract award. As Metz points out, not everyone on a source selection team is an engineer, and therefore there are certain elements of a design that have to be communicated by some means other than just "data." Some things that are plainly obvious to engineers, are not necessarily meaningful to decision-makers with non-technical backgrounds. So, in some cases, you're pointing out why certain data has meaning and/or significance. That's what LM did; that's not PR.

sferrin wrote:

magitsu wrote:I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost

That was nearly 30 years ago. Back when Sony was the be all and end all of consumer electronics. Things change.

Yes indeed, I agree with you sferrin.
Moreover at that time LM (which was teamed up with Boeing) was competing with its YF-22 against Northrop (which was teamed up with McDonnell Douglas) with its YF-23. So yes, PR should have been an important factor or one which LM certainly needed to put a strong emphasis on it.

This as opposed to several years later, after LM won the JSF contest with its X-35 in what was a "winner takes all" type of contest. Resuming, I would say that LM simply didn't have the need to put a strong emphasis on PR after having won the JSF contest and as such PR was IMO perceived by LM to not being needed that much (or being very secondary) during the F-35's development stage.

Things are definitely changing right now regarding LM/F-35 PR and I would dare to say that one of the main reason would be to win more export customers/purchases for the F-35.

ricnunes wrote:

sferrin wrote:

magitsu wrote:I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost

That was nearly 30 years ago. Back when Sony was the be all and end all of consumer electronics. Things change.

Yes indeed, I agree with you sferrin.
Moreover at that time LM (which was teamed up with Boeing) was competing with its YF-22 against Northrop (which was teamed up with McDonnell Douglas) with its YF-23. So yes, PR should have been an important factor or one which LM certainly needed to put a strong emphasis on it.

This as opposed to several years later, after LM won the JSF contest with its X-35 in what was a "winner takes all" type of contest. Resuming, I would say that LM simply didn't have the need to put a strong emphasis on PR after having won the JSF contest and as such PR was IMO perceived by LM to not being needed that much (or being very secondary) during the F-35's development stage.

Things are definitely changing right now regarding LM/F-35 PR and I would dare to say that one of the main reason would be to win more export customers/purchases for the F-35.

PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .

Frankly I'm amazed the DoD had the stones to stick with it. A stealthy, STOVL fighter, with internal weapons carriage to boot? Nah, that won't be difficult.

sferrin wrote:Frankly I'm amazed the DoD had the stones to stick with it. A stealthy, STOVL fighter, with internal weapons carriage to boot? Nah, that won't be difficult.

Probably due to the never before seen scale of the partnership construct. When you get dozen countries to fund the development instead of eventual FMS sales. They had a lock on the whole 5. gen western fighter market with that project design.

Also the standardization of capability across the board means many smaller countries become very capable of pitching in joint efforts.

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .

Absolutely and I fully agree with you.

Basically what I meant or my point was that the engineering part can be helped by good PR but the opposite is not true - it doesn't matter how good PR you have, this cannot help the engineering part is, specially if the engineering part is lets say "sub-par".

F-35C
Dang that thing can turn

WoW, that's insane!
I can perfectly understand why the F-35C is Billie Flynn's favorite variant of the F-35.
Those longer wings certainly makes the F-35C slow(er) speed turning even more impressive than other F-35 variants (like the -A) which already have impressive slow(er) speed turning capabilities!

ricnunes wrote:

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .

Absolutely and I fully agree with you.

Basically what I meant or my point was that the engineering part can be helped by good PR but the opposite is not true - it doesn't matter how good PR you have, this cannot help the engineering part is, specially if the engineering part is lets say "sub-par".

It wasn't necessarily an engineering issue, well perhaps but its not entirely the fault of the engineers. The reason the F-35 gained weight was at the intersection of "heavy aircraft part/component" vs "cost" they deviated to cost, and weight ballooned.

a lot of F-35 problems are and were thanks to the "customer" from the timelines, to the requests, bad hook data, etc. once the weight issue was put front and center and the "good idea fairies removed" SWAT produced a capable aircraft.

obviously tall trees get cut down first, and yes the JSF program has several "program induced oscillations" that spilled into the public sphere along with the sheer size.

now a word on "PR" if one looks at the results of the F-35, it generally won the PR battle. hell Bill Sweetman got fired. The F-35 won that. Other than some internet wackos in odd spots of the internet that then occasionally moved to odd spots in politics and journalism, it was basically the same garbage that was leveled against most programs, just larger. anyone familiar with the trials and tribulations of the Super Hornet from 1995 to the retirement of the Tomcat can tell you we saw the exact same arguments sometimes verbatim in fact. as I have sad before many times, there a template the media has worked off of for decades:

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-cartoon.jpg

They're not exactly creative.

it needs to be remembered that this is not a "passive environment" every time the V-22 crashed or had an incident Sikorsky was right there to try and snake the contracts away, first with H-60, then S-92 (which has suffered some high profile crashes since). The F-35 is no different. if you think the "source code" incident with the UK was some "oopsie daisy out of thin air" issue in 2005 that wasn't manufactured and brought to light by, oh I don't know the UK arm of the Eurofighter consortium, I have some magic beans to sell you. You can look at Boeing and the SH as well-- This is not a friendly competition. all F-35 problems were magnified because the death of the JSF would bring business to everyone else in the fighter game-- and yes even Bill Sweetman called it a monopoly that would kill European fighter business. i guess "ulterior motives" and "conflicts of interest" is a great pair of phrases to describe so many critics. some are simply bought outright.

Now red pill time. McCain complaining is what McCain did. one could look at McCain and Bernie blovating on the high cost of the F-35 as pure theater, as they ensured it was backed and brought to their state. its McCains job to pretend to be fiscally conservative, and Bernie's job to mention how expensive it would be and how many government funded lollipops that could buy the commoners. but at no point is it ever in real danger.

regarding the odd spots i just mentioned, some Australian politico from a fringe party tried "grilling" the boss of the Aus Air Force (Air Marshal Geoff Brown) with Goon and Kopp talking points and just got completely smacked on the PP. That was the closest to a "PR crises" as Australia ever got -- despite Airpower Australia's fanfiction, army of idiot commenters, full time goon, kopp and co. techno babble/schizo posting, and the occasional "fellow travelers" elsewhere. some easily debunked questions in a public committee with Brown specifically saying internet commenters didn't know what they were talking about. He even ran up the score when the politician breathlessly and dramatically asked if there had ever been a more controversial program in Australian military history. Brown paused and answered "I'd have to say F-111" The army general next to him cracked up and pointed out that what the critics wanted to keep. thus completing the beat down and PR backfire.

how much of this "getting it wrong on PR" actually cost the program? even regarding canada, was the CBC going to write and produce flattering things about the F-35? was the auditor general not wooed by sufficient PR fluff? lot of military programs are disliked by the public by the fact that they're military programs and not something else. (like more money to the hardworking folks in Canadian bureaucracy and that fine CBC!) now to contradict everything I've said the F-35 was having cost and public relation issues, but it was indeed the engine fire that put the program on serious hold as Canada was floating buying a few and being done in 2015 before the elections.

in other cases the PR has been excellent. Norway did a superb job. Taiwan of all places, since they are barred from getting the F-35 have been downright flattering of it in their discontent at not being able to obtain it. 60 minutes did its "hit piece" on the F-35 in early 2014 that was such a nothing burger that people critical of the F-35 slayed them for it LOL

The F-35 is and was an extremely ambitious program, and I've had my faults with it as well. however it was something that many deemed downright impossible. it was no surprise that a program trying to accomplish so much was going to run into delays and cost overruns (thats an easy call to make with a lot of programs), and that critics and competitors would pounce. There was a severe lack no so much of "PR" but of "expectation management". How could the largest most ambitious defense program ever run into problems?! for the record the Gripen NG, which is supposed to be the antithesis of JSF program, using a nice "Safe" platform is also delayed and over budget. The S-92 that was supposed to be the "safe solution" (literally) to the V-22 has aged poorly as well and has had fatal transmission issues. Those "safe" and "unambitious" programs can run into problems too.

look at this big picture. in terms of annoying comments on the internet the F-35 has been in a bad spot, but in terms of those comments having any actual effect on the program? The F-35 won that handily. real politik like the Turks and the Russian SAM purchase had a larger effect on this program than anything the news or internet comment sections ever did. In fact, I like to think for every 10,000 negative comments or so we get about the F-35, another F-35 gets it wings...



I swear there are times where this whole program is fueled by the hate and tears of the internet...

Just bekuz I like fat F-14s cartoon referenced reproduced below: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-cartoon.jpg

XanderCrews wrote:

ricnunes wrote:

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .

Absolutely and I fully agree with you.

Basically what I meant or my point was that the engineering part can be helped by good PR but the opposite is not true - it doesn't matter how good PR you have, this cannot help the engineering part is, specially if the engineering part is lets say "sub-par".

Well, that post of mine is almost 2 years old

XanderCrews wrote:now a word on "PR" if one looks at the results of the F-35, it generally won the PR battle. hell Bill Sweetman got fired. The F-35 won that. Other than some internet wackos in odd spots of the internet that then occasionally moved to odd spots in politics and journalism, it was basically the same garbage that was leveled against most programs, just larger. anyone familiar with the trials and tribulations of the Super Hornet from 1995 to the retirement of the Tomcat can tell you we saw the exact same arguments sometimes verbatim in fact. as I have sad before many times, there a template the media has worked off of for decades:

Yes, I basically agree with everything you said and yes, you're right about the PR issue above. However, I still feel that if LM started to pay attention to PR much sooner (IMO, I still think that they started late) what happened above and people Bill Sweetman & his minions or other similar wannabes would have been exposed much sooner.
And this could (I believe) even prevented the pathetic current situation around the Canadian procurement.

ricrunes, in order to not threadjack the topic,

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=448131#p448131

My rebuttal is posted in the Canada thread^