Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[Zimme83]

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/supercruise/

A lot of interesting stuff on supercruise.

[Gman]

The Superhornets are actually slower than the legacy Hornets.  Especially with stores, as those canted pylons on the Superhornet are really draggy, but necessary as they had major issues with releasing stuff when they were straight, and had to cant them quite a bit.  While it may be true that reaching 1.5 or higher with stores is probably just as problematic with stores on legacy fighters as with the F35 now, when in trouble, dropping all stores but the 2 Aim120 carried in the slots on the fuselage and the wingtip Aim9s = a pretty clean config, and in that mode, and from what's being said about F35 accel now,  legacy Hornet will blow the doors off the F35. 

Many sources are saying the F35 is a dog accelerating past transonic, and once supersonic, takes a long, long time to gain speed.  Not a whole lot different perhaps than loaded up legacy fighters, and realistically high mach numbers don't happen much even in combat for legacy fighters now, but in the critical speed zones of say mach 1 to 1.2 or 1.3, when that AB is lit for whatever reason, there is no reason they should be still faster than the F35 in there, and they are now.  Stupid design idea, or result, either way.  And again, with the way the a2a missiles are carried with the F15/18 and even 16 to some extent, when emergency jettisoning everything but those 4 or 6, or 8 in case of the F15 typical loadout happens...

I guess what I can't wrap my head around is WHY the F35 doesn't perform like a single engine version of the F22.  The F16 sure does compared to the F15.  Yet, the F35 is the ultimate apologists airplane right now, when it comes to performance - again all based on speculation until actual 3f combat trials happen, but enough are saying it that it can't all just be rumor.  Again, why isn't there a pile of superlatives out there in the aerospace community being issued about the F35 hot rod performance, just like was done when the F22 came out?  Whoever decided that this thing didn't need to be able to turn, maneuver, accelerate, and fight, as WELL as do all the other stuff it supposedly is great at...I just don't get it.

edit - Re supercruise, I just read a great one too about the F22, by F22 pilots, talking about how it's unfortunate the have such a small fuel fraction and can't use it much.

[GScholz]

The F-18C has a top speed in airshow-mode of Mach 1.8. Both the C and E have almost identical clean performance. The E has bigger wings, but also more powerful engines.

In its minimal useful configuration (no. 1 in the chart) with no external fuel or stores of any kind except wingtip Sidewinders and semi-recessed AMMRAMs under the fuselage, basically a short range point interceptor... The F-18 (any variant) will not be able to catch a running F-35, even if it manages to detect it. And how often do you see an F-18 kitted out like that. I don't think I've ever seen one.

The typical A2A interceptor load out is this one, and this is a Mach 1.3 aircraft at best. And even if you jettison the stores those pylons remain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they can be jettisoned:

[Ack-Ack]

The F-18C has a top speed in airshow-mode of Mach 1.8. Both the C and E have almost identical clean performance. The E has bigger wings, but also more powerful engines.

In its minimal useful configuration (no. 1 in the chart) with no external fuel or stores of any kind except wingtip Sidewinders and semi-recessed AMMRAMs under the fuselage, basically a short range point interceptor... The F-18 (any variant) will not be able to catch a running F-35, even if it manages to detect it. And how often do you see an F-18 kitted out like that. I don't think I've ever seen one.

The typical A2A interceptor load out is this one, and this is a Mach 1.3 aircraft at best. And even if you jettison the stores those pylons remain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they can be jettisoned:

(Image removed from quote.)

The F-18 would be able to catch the F-35 when the Lightning II slows down to use it's ECM jammers and counter-measures since it can't deploy those at full speed. 

[GScholz]

Not yet... And it wouldn't need to if the F-18 can't close the range.

[Zimme83]

Not yet... And it wouldn't need to if the F-18 can't close the range.

But a number of other jets can do it.

[GScholz]

Our friend "Dolby" again on the speed issue:

"When I was a kid, my buddy Håkon and I would sometimes play «car trumps». The idea was to do to pull the card with the best car on it. The «best» car was usually the car with A) the most horsepower, or B) the greatest top speed (according to the card). My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?

I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.

In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots). "

I choose to believe Dolby over any of you. No offense intended.

[Gman]

Like I said, it's all speculation until the 3F combat related trials start happening - I have a friend that's a 2500 hour Hornet pilot, Empire test pilot grad, has flown the Gripen there, SH, F16 (exchange tours), and is the RCAF chief test pilot now.  He was down at the F35 training center where multi national training was going on learning to fly the sim there for months until Canada pulled the plug on the F35.  He's said some similar things to the Norwegian pilot, and some things not.

The speeds Dolby is talking about are ALL subsonic - again I've not argued that the F35 performs well down in those speeds, everyone says so, it's just that transonic and once supersonic where it's said that it sucks.  Why doesn't Dolby comment on mach .8 to 1.5?

[GScholz]

Maybe he can't. At least not beyond "I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16".

[Gman]

Maybe - like I said we'll see.  Again, every source I've read that has criticized the F35 top end speed has done the opposite with the subsonic performance, same as Dolby, and praised it, so I don't think that just because a pilot that's commented on its low speed performance automatically means it's higher velocity performance is the same.  Too many complaints from too many sources to discount it as just rumor IMO, but like I said, we'll know once the 3f tests start pretty quickly. 

While clean the Hornets may be equal or close enough to call it that, with any kind of stores mounted on wing pylons, the Legacy Hornet is faster at mid and high alt than either the E or F SuperHornets.  Again, the pylons on the SH are responsible for quite a bit of drag.  Also, according to this SH pilot, a 2 x Aim120 and 2xAim9x equipped SH can hit Mach 1.6, not just 1.2/1.3.     https://hushkit.net/2012/07/13/hushkit-exclusive-interview-with-super-hornet-pilot-fa-18e-versus-fa-18c-the-final-word/

I do hope the F35 turns out well, the alternative isn't pleasant to consider right now.  So many mixed signals, it's really a giant PITA at the moment for many aviation writers I'm sure.

[GScholz]

I agree that we'll have to wait for anything definite. When do you think that will happen?

While clean the Hornets may be equal or close enough to call it that, with any kind of stores mounted on wing pylons, the Legacy Hornet is faster at mid and high alt than either the E or F SuperHornets.  Again, the pylons on the SH are responsible for quite a bit of drag.  Also, according to this SH pilot, a 2 x Aim120 and 2xAim9x equipped SH can hit Mach 1.6, not just 1.2/1.3.

That's the same as I wrote earlier. The chart I posted shows a clean + 2xAIM9 and 2xAIM120 F-18E is as fast as the F-35 (presuming the F-35 really is a Mach 1.6 aircraft). To catch the F-35 the F-18 needs to be faster. But how many F-18s fly in that configuration? I've never seen one. In a typical configuration with wing pylons attached it is a Mach 1.3 aircraft. An F-18C might be sightly faster with wing pylons, but not Mach 1.6.


More about Dolby: http://www.na-weekly.com/featured/rnafs-future-takes-flight-in-arizona/

The guy gets around.

[Gman]

Like I said, only when in trouble, or needed to catch a critical target, would I think most legacy fighters ever punch off everything and be just clean+4 or so AAM, so not very often.

So far as when, as I said a few times, most aviation journals/sites are saying once the 3F software and upgrades are finished, only then can the F35s be declared fully combat ready/operational, and THEN and only then will info start leaking out about how lethal, or not, they are in a2a combat vs dissimilar types.  Time frame wise, god only knows, with the total mess that part of the F35 that is, very far behind sched and way, way over budget already.  The "program" declares that 3F = full warfighting capability software wise, and that it's 98% done, but it's been 98 since March of last year.  And even though they have claimed 98 percent, it all has to WORK, and it sure doesn't.  Radar still has a mean time between failure rate of...a flight...Aim120 still have the heat/vibration issue in the bays making them useless.  No gun site yet.  So many issues within that 98 percent that have code, but said code is busted.

I think they'll eventually get it all sorted out.  Takes time, they are 7 years behind already, so at this point, more delays are hardly a shock.  They should light a fire under it, for sure. 

Officially -

“Full Block 3F mission systems development and testing cannot be completed by May 2017, the date reflected in the most recent Program Office schedule, which is seven months later than the date planned after the 2012 restructure of the program. Although the program has recently acknowledged some schedule pressure and began referencing July 31, 2017, as the end of SDD flight test, that date is unrealistic as well. Instead, the program will likely not finish Block 3F development and flight testing prior to January 2018.”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/unready-war-americas-f-35-gets-bad-report-card-15092

[GScholz]

Seven years sounds excessive. Our deliveries are right on schedule at least. We're planning on full operational capability in 2025.

[Serenity]

Seven years sounds excessive. Our deliveries are right on schedule at least. We're planning on full operational capability in 2025.

Delivering airframes doesn't mean they work, particularly in this F-35 approach of "build it now, finish designing tomorrow"...

[GScholz]

I'll be pissed if they don't work right nine years from now...