The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

COMMENT

As with most issues related to the F-35, this latest controversy has split observers down the middle, with the aircraft's advocates and detractors taking diametrically opposed views - and with the truth probably somewhere in the middle.

The War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.

For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.

However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.

Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so.

With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20. This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not.

Click to expand...

http://www.janes.com/article/52715/jpo-counters-media-report-that-f-35-cannot-dogfight

I swore I would never get involved in these pissing contests, but I just can't stand it any longer. what seems to be lacking in many "analyses" of this report, in the press and on this Forum, is critical thinking.

The report states and ONLY states that airframe FA-2, with a particular software fit on the flight controls, could not match the F-16 in certain maneuvers. The leap from these facts to "it can't dog fight" shows a thorough lack of understanding of how testing works, and how dog fighting works.

Absolutely right Bill.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/

But if all that stuff is correct, what incompetent clown imposed a 9g requirement on the F-35A in the first place?

LowObservable said:

But if all that stuff is correct, what incompetent clown imposed a 9g requirement on the F-35A in the first place?

Click to expand...

One thing I found interesting is that none of the JPO representatives hinted at performance gains for the F-35. The leaked report indicates that performance can be gained by improving flight control software. If that gain was substantial, you'd think that a JPO (who is clearly being defensive) would mention it. On the contrary, there is total downplaying of the F-35's flight performance characteristics. I suspect that hints towards more performance issues.

Overheard in the cafeteria at Bethesda on 2 February, 2015: "We spent eight (8) years and 400 million dollars on twelve (12) versions of .1 software trying to get the transonic roll-off and buffet out of the aircraft...and now we're back to square one."



Test Aircraft: AF-2, Test 715, Flight 505, Configuration 10-001B (Clean Wing), 0.1-v12.006 (R33.1)

OBJECTIVE

The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment. [...]

........

Now some perspective from CFDI on 12 March, 2015 http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html#wing_drop_concerns

Wing Drop Concerns

Last year (2013) DOT&E reported that every F-35 variant struggled with uncommanded “wing drop” when maneuvering hard at high subsonic and transonic speeds. This is particularly dangerous because uncommanded—which is to say, uncontrolled—wing drop can result in crashes and an inability to outmaneuver attacking planes or missiles in combat. This year’s report notes that all three variants needed “modifications of the control laws to control the effects of transonic flight [wing drop] and buffet maneuvering.” Unfortunately, the needed control law modifications will reduce the maneuverability of the F-35, only exacerbating the plane’s performance problems in this area. The F-35C’s wing drop problem is “worse than other variants” and future testing will incorporate spoilers installed in the wings to address the problem. Lockheed Martin publicly reported designing add-on spoilers in 2009, and DOT&E described plans to consider how to incorporate these new spoilers in the test plan in its 2012 report. However, add-on spoilers, such as those added to the F-18E/F to address a similar problem, almost certainly will decrease all-around stealth as well as increase weight and drag, thereby further decreasing maneuverability, acceleration, and range. Moreover, much of the extensive maneuver testing needed to validate fixes to the wing-drop problem is currently impossible due to the speed and g limits imposed by the continuing engine fan-rubbing problem (described below).

Heavy buffeting during high angle of attack maneuvers (such as during dogfighting, outmaneuvering threat missiles, and flying close support) has been reported as a serious ongoing problem with the F-35 since at least 2009. Such buffeting can cause fatigue cracks that lead to structural failure and can degrade weapons aiming, missile evasion, and dogfighting ability.

Testing to investigate the impact of buffet and transonic roll-off (TRO or “wing drop”) on the helmet-mounted display and offensive and defensive maneuvering found that “buffet affected display symbology, and would have the greatest impact in scenarios where a pilot was maneuvering to defeat a missile shot.” Buffeting also degrades the gyroscopes in the inertial platforms which are essential for flight control, navigation, and weapons aiming. DOT&E explained that this was an ongoing issue: “In heavy buffet conditions, which occur between 20 and 26 degrees angle of attack, faults occurred in the inertial measurement units (IMUs) in the aircraft that degraded the flight control system (two of three flight control channels become disabled), requiring a flight abort.” This limitation to maneuverability is an obstacle that must be overcome and any remedy must be validated by additional testing before 2B release.

Now back to the War is Boring report...

Buffet & Transonic Rolloff (TRO)

Despite concerns early in the program regarding buffet, it was not found to be detrimental during this mission. It was actually favorable when encountered because it provided a great cue of energy, similar to the F-15. Buffet was never encountered with the bandit on-axis and off-axis symbology was steady regardless of buffet level. The jet was below buffet energy levels when gunning the bandit and the aircraft was unloaded when shooting the bandit on-axis with missiles, ie across the circle. (The same pilot conducted the HMO readability tests for buffet conditions). A more difficult problem is ensuring gun pipper accuracy, especially considering the new "swimming" filters but that was beyond the scope of this test (no filters were available on the FS aircraft). TRO was never encountered during the BFM engagements.

Soo... They successfully got rid of the buffet and TRO. But they had to turn the aircraft into a dog to do it. Note the fixes Doc Nelson proposes:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R1: Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options, especially considering the inherent energy deficit.
R2: Consider increasing alpha onset.
R3: Consider increasing the beginning of the blended region to 30 degrees or greater.
R4: Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority.

All of that induces and magnifies buffet and TRO. Yep. They're in a pickle.

I have a 9th grade education so I'm not as smart as most of you. But I will offer this....

Joint (all services except Coast Guard), Strike (bombs, gun/cannon, missiles and rockets), Fighter (air-to-air combat). Does all this capability equal the JSF (F-35A/B/C) as we know them? Just asking....

-SP

CxxTxx - Is that what your sources are saying, that the F-35 is trapped between poor performance and crippling buffet / transonic roll-off issues?

That may explain why no JPO officer said that the plane's maneuverability can be fixed. Perhaps the F-35 is really trapped there.

DrRansom said:

LowObservable said:

But if all that stuff is correct, what incompetent clown imposed a 9g requirement on the F-35A in the first place?

Click to expand...

One thing I found interesting is that none of the JPO representatives hinted at performance gains for the F-35. The leaked report indicates that performance can be gained by improving flight control software. If that gain was substantial, you'd think that a JPO (who is clearly being defensive) would mention it. On the contrary, there is total downplaying of the F-35's flight performance characteristics. I suspect that hints towards more performance issues.

Click to expand...

Nothing guarantees that the person speaking in the JPO knows a thing about flight test. Program offices are crawling with people who've never smelled JP-8 and reflexively fall back on talking points. Now I'll agree with you and LO that the JPO is doing a bad job of managing the narrative around this(not that it surprises me after spending 3 years in one).


As to the 9g thing, neither aircraft can pull 9g's at 20kft and 440 kts.

DrRansom said:

CxxTxx - Is that what your sources are saying, that the F-35 is trapped between poor performance and crippling buffet / transonic roll-off issues?

That may explain why no JPO officer said that the plane's maneuverability can be fixed. Perhaps the F-35 is really trapped there.

Click to expand...

Apparently CxxTxx is unaware roll off is resolved. Perhaps next he can regale us with tails of bulkhead issues.

LowObservable said:

But if all that stuff is correct, what incompetent clown imposed a 9g requirement on the F-35A in the first place?

Click to expand...

Probably the same guy who mandated a gun. Because you never know. Now, in this hypothetical situation (where at gun range the F-16 wins) would you rather be fat and happy in an F-35, that would prevail 90%+ due to all of it's advantages, or take the F-16 and pray to baby Jesus the F-35 pilot is stupid enough to get in front of you at gun range? There is no door #3.

CxxTxx said:

TRO was never encountered during the BFM engagements.

Click to expand...

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Of course not, if the point of the test was stress the high AoA control laws, b/c the jet won't be trans-sonic at high AoA. No graduate degree in aero needed to figure that out.[/font]

Soo... They successfully got rid of the buffet and TRO. But they had to turn the aircraft into a dog to do it. Note the fixes Doc Nelson proposes:
[/size]

Click to expand...

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Apples and oranges, you do in fact realize that high AoA and trans-sonic are two separate pretty much non-overlapping parts of the aircraft's envelope don't you? So fixes in one area need not effect fixes in the other. Unless of course you care to share some technical information as to how there is a direct trade here.[/font]

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R1: Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options, especially considering the inherent energy deficit.
R2: Consider increasing alpha onset.
R3: Consider increasing the beginning of the blended region to 30 degrees or greater.
R4: Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority.
[/size]

Click to expand...

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Pretty good options if the anti-spin logic is too conservative. I can walk you through the general EOM's if you'd like.[/font]

All of that induces and magnifies buffet and TRO. Yep. They're in a pickle.

Click to expand...

Apples/Oranges care to explain how technically the TRO and the high Alpha stuff are connected or are even a either or trade? First principles are OK, but you can refer to the differential equations if you like.

sferrin said:

DrRansom said:

CxxTxx - Is that what your sources are saying, that the F-35 is trapped between poor performance and crippling buffet / transonic roll-off issues?

That may explain why no JPO officer said that the plane's maneuverability can be fixed. Perhaps the F-35 is really trapped there.

Click to expand...

Apparently CxxTxx is unaware roll off is resolved. Perhaps next he can regale us with tails of bulkhead issues.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what CxxTxx said. What CxxTxx suggested is:
The F-35's buffet issue was resolved with the consequence that the F-35 has awful maneuverability in high AoA regime.

If you look at the report, it said that buffeting was very strong around 20 to 26 degrees AoA, so strong as to upset IMUs. Where does the blended flight control begin? At 20 to 26 degrees AoA...

What does that suggest? Increasing the maneuverability will bring back the buffet problems.

DrRansom said:

CxxTxx - Is that what your sources are saying, that the F-35 is trapped between poor performance and crippling buffet / transonic roll-off issues? That may explain why no JPO officer said that the plane's maneuverability can be fixed. Perhaps the F-35 is really trapped there.

Click to expand...

The F-35 A, B or C does not conform to the Whitcomb area rule. Lockheed openly admits it. (But the F-16.net F-35 Fanboys go blind denying it.)

Quoting Lockheed's F-35 Program Manager, Tom Burbage: "The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing." [The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35′s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.] "We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your [flight] characteristics.”

One story has Lockheed originally intending for the F-35 to be area ruled--the original design for the weapons bays were placed one behind the other–AMRAAMs in one bay, JDAMs in another. The tail-end of the jet started to get too heavy, so Lockheed changed the bays to the wide, side by side, configuration that we have now.

The other story is Lockheed couldn't fly and hover balance the 'B' (with the lift fan) AND area rule it. (Too long.) The A and C were therefore non area ruled, and performance compromised from birth.

The Laws of Physics are the Laws of Physics. LockMart is in a pickle, and no amount of software going to change it. This is a FUNDAMENTAL design issue.

CxxTxx said:

DrRansom said:

CxxTxx - Is that what your sources are saying, that the F-35 is trapped between poor performance and crippling buffet / transonic roll-off issues? That may explain why no JPO officer said that the plane's maneuverability can be fixed. Perhaps the F-35 is really trapped there.

Click to expand...

The F-35 A, B or C does not conform to the Whitcomb area rule. Lockheed openly admits it.

Click to expand...

Produce the document.

DrRansom said:

sferrin said:

DrRansom said:

CxxTxx - Is that what your sources are saying, that the F-35 is trapped between poor performance and crippling buffet / transonic roll-off issues?

That may explain why no JPO officer said that the plane's maneuverability can be fixed. Perhaps the F-35 is really trapped there.

Click to expand...

Apparently CxxTxx is unaware roll off is resolved. Perhaps next he can regale us with tails of bulkhead issues.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what CxxTxx said. What CxxTxx suggested is:
The F-35's buffet issue was resolved with the consequence that the F-35 has awful maneuverability in high AoA regime.

If you look at the report, it said that buffeting was very strong around 20 to 26 degrees AoA, so strong as to upset IMUs. Where does the blended flight control begin? At 20 to 26 degrees AoA...

What does that suggest? Increasing the maneuverability will bring back the buffet problems.

Click to expand...

If you're looking for an answer you'll need to go someplace more authoritative than POGO.

sferrin said:

Produce the document.

Click to expand...

Here you go, cowboy.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performan/

CxxTxx said:

sferrin said:

Produce the document.

Click to expand...

Here you go, cowboy.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performan/

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could direct me to the part that says "there is no area ruling". Your words, "does not conform to the Whitcomb area rule". Here's a revelation that is going to shake you to the core - no aircraft does. It's not a matter of either it does or it doesn't. It's a matter of trying to get as close as you can. Some manage it better than others. None get it perfect. Not even the YF-23:

CxxTxx is currently banned as a duplicate account of a previously banned user. Droning on with the exact same argument was probably a mistake.

I was about to say that his posts are starting to resemble Broncazonk.

so , just to sum up 10 pages of this thread for us who don't speak English as their mothertongue ...

f-35 lost to F-16 in a dogfight (exercise/trial/horseplay/whatever) ?

Burbage's quotes on cross-section area stand, and if you did a CS plot on the F-35 like the one on the YF-23 drawing it would be a good deal different.


The F-35A OEW is not far off that of the Super H, which is 66 feet long to the F-35's 51.8 feet (shorter than an F-16). Indeed, if you measure the body from radome tip to the end of the turkey feathers (that is, where almost all the mass and volume resides) the F-35 isn't much (if at all) longer than a Gripen. If you want to know why, look at pictures of the RN variants from the CDA phase.


And it's not just OEW but having a body that has lots of empty space in it, even when armed. And from the CS distribution point of view, I would argue that it is suboptimal to have to make room for a fan that's damn nearly as big as an Embraer 190 engine right behind the cockpit.

LowObservable said:

Burbage's quotes on cross-section area stand, and if you did a CS plot on the F-35 like the one on the YF-23 drawing it would be a good deal different.

Click to expand...

And I'm not disputing that. What I DO take exception to is the insinuation that they just tossed area ruling out the window and paid no attention to it. They'd have HAD to pay attention to it and wring every bit out of it they could given the requirements and constraints.

LowObservable said:

The F-35A OEW is not far off that of the Super H, which is 66 feet long to the F-35's 51.8 feet (shorter than an F-16). Indeed, if you measure the body from radome tip to the end of the turkey feathers (that is, where almost all the mass and volume resides) the F-35 isn't much (if at all) longer than a Gripen. If you want to know why, look at pictures of the RN variants from the CDA phase.


And it's not just OEW but having a body that has lots of empty space in it, even when armed. And from the CS distribution point of view, I would argue that it is suboptimal to have to make room for a fan that's damn nearly as big as an Embraer 190 engine right behind the cockpit.

Click to expand...

I've often wondered if they could have had a fuselage plug (or plugs) for the USAF/USN versions to give it better fineness ratio. C-141A for the STOVL and C-141B for the other two. (Yes, I'm well aware it's much easier with a tubular fuse, but if they'd planned for it from the get-go. . .)[/quote]

Bill Walker said:

I swore I would never get involved in these pissing contests, but I just can't stand it any longer. what seems to be lacking in many "analyses" of this report, in the press and on this Forum, is critical thinking.

The report states and ONLY states that airframe FA-2, with a particular software fit on the flight controls, could not match the F-16 in certain maneuvers. The leap from these facts to "it can't dog fight" shows a thorough lack of understanding of how testing works, and how dog fighting works.

Click to expand...

And that's why this topic (and others similar to it) should not be allowed to go on endlessly.

Skyblazer said:

Bill Walker said:

I swore I would never get involved in these pissing contests, but I just can't stand it any longer. what seems to be lacking in many "analyses" of this report, in the press and on this Forum, is critical thinking.

The report states and ONLY states that airframe FA-2, with a particular software fit on the flight controls, could not match the F-16 in certain maneuvers. The leap from these facts to "it can't dog fight" shows a thorough lack of understanding of how testing works, and how dog fighting works.

Click to expand...

And that's why this topic (and others similar to it) should not be allowed to go on endlessly.

Click to expand...

Or really get going at all. This report (or rather the bastardized "interpretation" of it) has lit the internet on fire. No doubt David Axe and the rest of that crew are basking in the attention. Accuracy was never his, or their, intent.

sferrin said:

Or really get going at all. This report (or rather the bastardized "interpretation" of it) has lit the internet on fire. No doubt David Axe and the rest of that crew are basking in the attention. Accuracy was never his, or their, intent.

Click to expand...

Yep, he scored with his click bait and even managed to get himself interviewed by Foxnews.com. That'll probably drive some traffic on his website.

DrRansom said:

sferrin said:

DrRansom said:

CxxTxx - Is that what your sources are saying, that the F-35 is trapped between poor performance and crippling buffet / transonic roll-off issues?

That may explain why no JPO officer said that the plane's maneuverability can be fixed. Perhaps the F-35 is really trapped there.

Click to expand...

Apparently CxxTxx is unaware roll off is resolved. Perhaps next he can regale us with tails of bulkhead issues.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what CxxTxx said. What CxxTxx suggested is:
The F-35's buffet issue was resolved with the consequence that the F-35 has awful maneuverability in high AoA regime.

If you look at the report, it said that buffeting was very strong around 20 to 26 degrees AoA, so strong as to upset IMUs. Where does the blended flight control begin? At 20 to 26 degrees AoA...

What does that suggest? Increasing the maneuverability will bring back the buffet problems.

Click to expand...

Consistent with the report, there would be no TRO since the F-35A wasn't shallow enough in AOA and fast enough in the transonic region for it to manifest.

Depending on LEF deflection angle, there would be some mild and inconsequential buffeting in the 15 - 18 degree AOA range at the lower speeds attained in the test.

In any event, I'm not sure what you can infer about the F-35A's overall A2A capability based on test centered around combat
altitudes 10,000 ft. lower than the Korean War mean against an opponent which spends most of its A2A time there.

I can't help but think that this sort of violent debate is a major contributor to the sort of highly politicized and defensive rhetoric that we get out of LM, the program office and all the political advocates for the program.

That's the cycle:
1: something a little negative comes out like this, hardly good at all but not damning;
2: it gets jumped on and exploited well beyond it's actual critical value;
3: LM/JPO come out guns blazing in it's defence, probably making larger claims than they could substantiate
4: people jump on the LM/JPO counter claims with their own commentaries
5: GOTO 2

Meanwhile hardly anyone knows the whole story, I'm sure there are decision makers who aren't properly informed, some of them wearing blue suits and what the voting public are supposed to think I can't even imagine.

I accept that no matter how skeptical I am about the the F-35 that I can not make a fair in depth technical analysis, it's not what I know. I do know politics however, and secret deals in hotel rooms and promises made about the"secret 5% capability" looks like (though doesn't necisarily equate to) an aircraft with a better marketing department than actual fighting ability. This is LM's contribution to fur ball. The issues of how the F-35 will fight when it's the primary or sole combat aircraft or some of the partner nations hasn't been addressed in a clear neutral way and a quick look at Australia's air 2000 requirements show a big gap between the projected requirement and what we got. This might not be a problem, maybe the F-35a is the right aircraft for the job, again, I have an opinion but it's just that and certainly not the best informed one even on this thread much less the forum or the world. This incessant hyperbole is at least half the problem though. This is an important discussion that apparently can't actually be had. How can there be fair public education in this environment? People are right to be very skeptical of the marketing, sales and PR machines, but that's not entirely what's happening here.

I get it, it's the biggest defence project ever and it really does matter, people are right to be passionate, I just wish they would have an equal passion for keeping the invective to a minimum and for a few high profile people on both sides, a passion for keeping their mouths shut. Even those with genuine objections do no favors to their platform when they get pissy.

If there is a remote chance that the F-35 program will be cancelled or scaled back greatly, maybe this is the beginning stage of that. People would not be so upset if the F-35 was a better aircraft than the amount of money that was (and is) being put into it. I for one hope the program is cancelled. Even when the software is tweaked, the F-35 will be nothing but more never ending problems. Not trying to offend anyone that supports the F-35, but its been a huge mistake and money pit.

In fact you can't take a better plan than F-35 , now .

I am hearing the Coasters and Charlie Brown from the F-35 base: "Why's everybody always pickin' on me?"

The paper is news (not mere clickbait) because of the lofty claims made for the F-35, officially and on the record.

Citing U.S. Air Force analyses, (Davis) said the F-35 is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market, including Sukhois.

Pentagon, Lockheed rebut F-35 fighter jet critics | Reuters

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ?better than or equal to? Typhoon or Super Hornet - 2/7/2013 - Flight Global


Now, there may be reasons why the test results don't cast doubt on these statements, but it's rather obvious why the leak is news.

sferrin said:

Yep. Imagine if Social Media were around for the F-14's first crash with those underpowered "interim" engines, or scores of engineless F-15s sitting there "useless", F-16s that couldn't fight at night or engage BVR, "flawed" B-52s that have their tails fall off, etc. etc. etc. Because "if it bleeds it leads" we are constantly bombarded by negativity (not just the F-35 but in general). Some shrink PhD candidate has probably already written a thesis on the effect it is having on society. I can't imagine it would be positive.

Click to expand...

The f-14, f-15, f-16 development lasted only couple of years. So it is a reasonable excuse that when these aircraft went operational, they still lacked many capabilities that would make them truly effective.


The f-35 development is not.

If the f-35 can perform as advertised by northrop grumman. Wouldn't the combination of EODAS and an advanced missile make aggressive energy maneuvers at close range irrelevant?


Armed with such capability, wouldn't flying in a straight line to RETAIN energy and speed the wisest choice?


I guess we just have to wait and see how effective and how close to reality this new capability will turn out to be, and also if potential adversary will not be able to come up with an effective counter.

donnage99 said:

If the f-35 can perform as advertised by northrop grumman. Wouldn't the combination of EODAS and an advanced missile make aggressive energy maneuvers at close range irrelevant?


Armed with such capability, wouldn't flying in a straight line to RETAIN energy and speed the wisest choice?


I guess we just have to wait and see how effective and how close to reality this new capability will turn out to be, and also if potential adversary will not be able to come up with an effective counter.

Click to expand...

As I see it the prime opponents that the F-35 might face will be quite aware that the US will be trying to fight a long range BVR war and will be doing as much jamming and general obfuscation as possible. Knowing that the US will try and fight a clean battle at arms length you'll see them try and get in close, this seems to be the trend (for aircraft at least, obviously long range SAMs are the order of the day). How able they are to actually interfere with the US standoff strategy is the question. I don't think anyone really knows, no major air battles have been fought by the US since 1991. There were maneuvering fights over Iraq, but command and control, IFF, target cueing from AWACS and individual aircraft and a whole host of other things have progressed markedly since then.

I think part of the furor is people's frustration that if it weren't for the tri-service design then you could have had a maneuverable aircraft with all the other capabilities they're now offering.

I don't want to be the guy who brings up the trope that long range missile fights were predicted to be the future of air combat since the 50's, but at the very least nobody can say that a real war has ever been fought that way.

Certainly other countries still think maneuverability is a key characteristic of their fighters, from the typhoon to the Russian and French jets, including those for export. But then the F-35 is supposed to be a buddy aircraft with the Raptor, it was never supposed to be trying to out fly Su-35s. It's only because of the cutback in the F-22 fleet that this is getting people so worked up because it's much more likely that the F-35 will be fighting a lot more of it's own air battles.

phrenzy said:

donnage99 said:

If the f-35 can perform as advertised by northrop grumman. Wouldn't the combination of EODAS and an advanced missile make aggressive energy maneuvers at close range irrelevant?


Armed with such capability, wouldn't flying in a straight line to RETAIN energy and speed the wisest choice?


I guess we just have to wait and see how effective and how close to reality this new capability will turn out to be, and also if potential adversary will not be able to come up with an effective counter.

Click to expand...

As I see it the prime opponents that the F-35 might face will be quite aware that the US will be trying to fight a long range BVR war and will be doing as much jamming and general obfuscation as possible. Knowing that the US will try and fight a clean battle at arms length you'll see them try and get in close, this seems to be the trend (for aircraft at least, obviously long range SAMs are the order of the day). How able they are to actually interfere with the US standoff strategy is the question. I don't think anyone really knows, no major air battles have been fought by the US since 1991. There were maneuvering fights over Iraq, but command and control, IFF, target cueing from AWACS and individual aircraft and a whole host of other things have progressed markedly since then.

I think part of the furor is people's frustration that if it weren't for the tri-service design then you could have had a maneuverable aircraft with all the other capabilities they're now offering.

I don't want to be the guy who brings up the trope that long range missile fights were predicted to be the future of air combat since the 50's, but at the very least nobody can say that a real war has ever been fought that way.

Certainly other countries still think maneuverability is a key characteristic of their fighters, from the typhoon to the Russian and French jets, including those for export. But then the F-35 is supposed to be a buddy aircraft with the Raptor, it was never supposed to be trying to out fly Su-35s. It's only because of the cutback in the F-22 fleet that this is getting people so worked up because it's much more likely that the F-35 will be fighting a lot more of it's own air battles.

Click to expand...

Low frequency radars with digital signal processing, and updated (which Russia is doing now), IRST development, and missile jamming could make older aircraft like the Mig-21bis deal with the F-35 eventually.


Even a simple Mig-21bis, if able to avoid or jam the F-35s missiles, would be very dangerous for the F-35 in close range fight, if that low frequency radar is able to direct the Mig-21 in close for a gun or IR missile kill.

Then if the Mig-21 is also equipped with the ability to jam the F-35s missiles then the fight becomes close range, or the F-35 has to run away. Jamming and spoofing is a two-way street, so If I were Russia and China, I would invest heavily in theses types of anti-F-35 systems/tactics. F-35 a grave, expensive mistake.

The F-35 is a hot, fat target for IRST, so how is it the F-35 is invisible? Put a good IRST system on an older Mig and save a lot of money.

Just curious to see your responses, but what if by the time that happens and these opponents to the US have fielded them in sufficient number, the USAF or whomever have integrated something like this onto the F-35, and have a near or complete 360 degree engagement envelope WVR?

donnage99 said:

sferrin said:

Yep. Imagine if Social Media were around for the F-14's first crash with those underpowered "interim" engines, or scores of engineless F-15s sitting there "useless", F-16s that couldn't fight at night or engage BVR, "flawed" B-52s that have their tails fall off, etc. etc. etc. Because "if it bleeds it leads" we are constantly bombarded by negativity (not just the F-35 but in general). Some shrink PhD candidate has probably already written a thesis on the effect it is having on society. I can't imagine it would be positive.

Click to expand...

The f-14, f-15, f-16 development lasted only couple of years. So it is a reasonable excuse that when these aircraft went operational, they still lacked many capabilities that would make them truly effective.


The f-35 development is not.

Click to expand...

The F-35 is just a weee bit more complicated than any of those.

Among in-production combat aircraft, the best potential laser platform is not the F-35. It's not American either. Also, when you do have such a weapon, "maneuvering is irrelevant" is more than a marketing slogan.

How did they fix the TRO issue? Last time I looked (and it was a while back) they had no more plans to alter the flight control rules the implication being that they'd done all they could. At the time they discussed fences(??) for the outer wings (iirc) but were concerned about the impact those would have on the all important RCS. The articles above mention changes to 'control surfaces', does anyone have any more information?

I notice there's no mention of airframe buffet being reduced so I imagine that's still an issue too.

Just speculation here but if they did address the TRO with additional changes to the flight control rules could they have loaded it up with so much 'check for TRO symptom and correct' processing that it effectively reduced the aircraft's pitch rate to something that would fit with the description given by the anonymous test pilot in the War is Boring article? Just spit balling of course, anyone with more info?

Updated:-
Ah sorry about that, should have just read the thread above properly. Perils of posting at 1 in the morning. Mea culpa.