Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public

[DaveBB]

This was in January.  I believe I read an article about the flight control software being relaxed since then to allow for more aggressive maneuvers.

However, there are two fundamental problems with the airframe.  First is that the aircraft yaws strangely in certain specific flight envelopes (its early in the morning, I can't remember if it was in the transonic realm or if it was at a high AoA).  Secondly, the cockpit is too small for the pilot wearing his gigantic helmet to be able to turn his head easily.

[PR3D4TOR]

Seems like an old report Gman... Tell your buddy at foxtrotalpha that he had better show a little less bias if he wants to be taken seriously. And you'd better check your own source criticism and information evaluation while you're at it.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers


"The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA."

[guncrasher]

Not.  Good.

Apparently the F16C Block40 with 2 underwing fuel tanks is able to smoke the F35A when it's completely clean, with NO internal or external armaments, just fuel. 

Pretty brutal report, from the sounds of it the F35 is completely at the F16's mercy.  This means it's at the F15/18's mercy too, as well as probably threats like the Mig29, Su27 series, as well as Chinese fighters like their J10s, J11s, and upcoming stealth fighters (perhaps).  Not good news.  Not at all.  So much for the "about as maneuverable as an F16".  So much BS regarding that. 

Read this:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

Or course, this is in a sticks and stones fight, I guess the US and other NATO forces will just have to hope the sensors and weapons will allow a lot of BVR engagements vs future opponents, however history has shown close range fights almost always end up happening.  And if/when they do, the F35 isn't going to win many of them.

how does the f16 compare against the a10?


semp

[Wmaker]

Ok... How is it surprising? You could look into specs to realize this...

Yep, my thoughts exactly. With the F-35's wing loading of over 500kg per square meter, I wonder how this can come as a surprise to anybody. Of course wing-loading isn't the only metric that matters but when the difference is big enough there simply isn't anyway around the physics.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

The F-35 program is, has been and always will be a failure from the start.

[eagl]

What? You mean a "strike" fighter designed in a "joint" project isn't a very good fighter? Who (F-111) would (F-111) have (F-111) thought (F-111) that (F-111) could (F-111) be (F-111) possible (F-111)????? Maybe this one is faster (nope) or carries more bombs (nope) than the last time (F-111) we tried this (nope).

[Kazaa]

Bring back the F-14.

[Ack-Ack]

Seems like an old report Gman... Tell your buddy at foxtrotalpha that he had better show a little less bias if he wants to be taken seriously. And you'd better check your own source criticism and information evaluation while you're at it.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers


"The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA."

Funny thing, the article never mentions the result of the dogfight between the F-16 and F-35, just a reference in the headlines.

[Zimme83]

Seems like an old report Gman... Tell your buddy at foxtrotalpha that he had better show a little less bias if he wants to be taken seriously. And you'd better check your own source criticism and information evaluation while you're at it.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers


"The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA."

So now aviation week is a valid source? U didnt like when i posted F-35 critical articles from the same site....

[Gman]

I get the feeling you think the F111 would have been a dog as a fighter Eagl.  I remember when one of the Navy Admirals from the CNO office commented in congress I think it was when they tried to make it a carrier based fighter - "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"

Regarding the article and my scolding from Predator, arbiter of all things military:

I didn't really give my own opinions, just posted what the article said, and commented on what it would mean if it was accurate.

If I was going to do so, I have a friend that has a lot of experience with the F35A so far.  Also, his former CO is the xRCAF pilot who helped develop the Typhoon, and was also one of the first pilots of the F35, LtCol Billie Flynn.  My good friend from school, Maj Jason Paquin, is a 3000+ hour fighter pilot in the Hornet, has flown 2 exchanges with the US military, Super Hornets and F16s, flown the Gripen and Tyhphoon as an Empire Test Pilot school grad, plus has dozens of hours on the F35A simulator, as he'll be the future eval/test pilot for the F35 if we end up buying it, or whatever else we buy.  This along with the hundreds of hours of combat he has in the mid-east and Libya, gives him pretty good credibility to comment IMO.

Billie Flynn has been quoted as saying the following regarding the F35 - ""I'm dramatically more lethal than I ever was in those fourth-generation airplanes."

Sort of the opposite of the article in the OP.  Also, Jason has said a few things that are in direct opposition to what Flynn said.  My point is that until things flesh out some more, there is going to be a lot of this type of thing I think, even among pilots involved in employing the F35 - one says X, another says Y, particularly when reporters are involved.  It's going to take some time before solid, really solid info gets out to the public regarding how it's going to perform fighter vs fighter.

A great example of this is an article that came out today, saying  the F35A recently participated in Green Flag, a 2 ship doing simulated CAS and other missions, and wasn't shot down once, and accomplished their missions.  And again, even within this article, there is dissent, with those opposing the first people interviews claiming "the fix was in".  See what I mean?

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/

For the first time, F-35s belonging to the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron played a major role during one of the 10 yearly iterations of Green Flag, an exercise conducted on the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, where more than 5,000 U.S. Army soldiers against simulated enemy forces in a 14-day long pre-deployment trial by fire.

Although the JSF has sporadically taken part in past Green Flag drills in the past, this was the very first time the F-35 had the primary exercise role of CAS providers: the pricey stealth multi-role planes penetrated a “contested and degraded battlespace” waiting for calls for support from JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers) and liaison officers on the ground.

According to the Air Force, the F-35s did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,” a comment that seems to suggest that F-35 is already as capable as the an A-10 or an F-16 in the CAS role, at least in the type of support with Troops in Contact required during a Green Flag exercise.

“The roles played by the two operational test fighters seem relatively modest when examined within the immense scale of a National Training Center rotation. Fourteen days of maneuvering against adversaries in vast desert mountain ranges makes Green Flag a test of the mind and body alike. But when help from the air was called upon, F-35 pilots from the 31st TES communicated and used their systems with precision. They created strategic effects that left troops on the ground largely unaware and unconcerned of what airframe they might be using — seamless integration at its finest,” says the release by the 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs.

There is a widespread concern that the pricey, troubled multirole F-35 will not be as effective as an A-10 Thunderbolt II or any of the other aircraft the JSF is about to replace but the Air Force seems to be enthusiastic about its new combat plane, especially in the much debated CAS role.

According to AW&ST the Lightning IIs achieved an important result during GF 15-08: not a single F-35  was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.

On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display).

The debate between F-35 supporters and critics was made more harsh by a brief obtained by War Is Boring, according to which the JSF was outclassed by a two-seat F-16D Block 40 (one of the aircraft the U.S. Air Force intends to replace with the Lightning II) in mock aerial combat.

Although we have already debunked some theories about the alleged capabilities of all the F-35 variants to match or considerably exceed the maneuvering performance of every fourth-generation fighter, to such an extent we already highlighted that there is no way a JSF will ever match (for instance) a Eurofighter Typhoon in aerial combat, it must be remembered that the simulated dogfight mentioned in the unclassified report obtained by WIB involved one of the very first test aircraft: the AF-02 is quite a basic JSF that lacks a mission systems software to use all the onboard sensors, does not have the special stealth coating that makes it virtually invisible to radars and it implemented an obsolete software code full of limitations.

This does not mean the F-35 will ever be as maneuverable and lethal in aerial combat as an F-22 or an F-16, but it will probably perform a bit better than AF-02 did during its simulated dogfight against the F-16D Block 40.

[Ack-Ack]

The F-35's project team responding to the leaked F-35 test pilot's report.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/

Some excuses..err reasons why the F-35 didn't perform very well in the mock dogfight.

• Does not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area.
• Does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar.
• Is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target."

A little bit further down in the article, Lockheed's spokeperson puts their spin on it.

"The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations," the spokesperson wrote. And in four-on-four mock battles between F-35s and F-16s, "the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology."

[Zimme83]

Im not sure i feel confident over those answers...

[Widewing]

Funny thing, the article never mentions the result of the dogfight between the F-16 and F-35, just a reference in the headlines.

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.

Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson."

My translation of this geek speak is that the F-35 got waxed and the flight control software needs some work to get some additional maneuverability out of the airframe.

Still, the reality is that the best they can hope for is something close to parity with the Viper. If it had held its own or at least matched the F-16, they would be singing the JSF's praises from on high.

When they say, "U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities", it's obvious that it wasn't very impressive.

[Scherf]

Yeah, that' some real management speak right there.

[PR3D4TOR]

A more reasonable take on the report and a scathing rebuke of the sensationalist articles posted by the OP. This was written by C.W. Lemoine, a former USAF Viper pilot who now flies Hornets for the USN:

http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

"First, let’s talk about what really happened. According to the article, an F-35A and a two-bag Block 40 F-16D took off on Jan 14, 2015 to engage in Basic Fighter Maneuver setups to test “the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment…this consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.”

English please?

Just like a normal  1v1 proficiency sortie, the two fighters did canned setups to practice basic dogfighting. In the offensive setups, the F-35 would start off behind the F-16. At the specified range, the F-35 pilot would call “Fight’s On” and maneuver to the F-16’s control zone to employ weapons. In the defensive setups, the F-35 would start off in front while the Viper maneuvered to the F-35’s control zone. And finally, in the neutral (high-aspect) setup, the two aircraft would start completely neutral and fight until whatever DLOs (Designated Learning Objectives) they had were met, be they valid gunshots, valid missile shots, or whatever.

So while this particular article may lead you to believe the two aircraft went out there mano y mano and duked it out, the reality is that we don’t know where each deficiency was found. My guess is the critiques on the pitch rates for gunning and abilities to jink happened in the canned offensive and defensive setups. But one has to remember  this is a test platform and they were out to get test data, not find out who the king of the mountain is.

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?

To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”

This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at.

For example, the test pilot was a former F-15E pilot. Two-bag Vipers do the same thing to Strike Eagles all day long. Maybe he was just used to it?

I keed. I keed. But seriously, a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.

I’m sure internet debates will rage on. It’s fun to trash the new kid, especially the new kid that’s overweight, wears too much bling, and talks about how awesome it is all the time. It’s way too early to declare the F-35 the “worst fighter aircraft design ever imagined.” Please. Let’s see how it does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do against guys with similar amounts experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.

There’s plenty of room to criticize this program, but accuracy is important. The sky isn’t really falling, Chicken Little. And for the rest of you? Blow out your torches and hang up your pitchforks, for we have miles to go."