Report of F35A vs F16Cblk40 goes public

[artik]

Yet another analysis in a respectable journal:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jpo-f-35-deigned-for-long-range-kills-not-dogfighting-414232/

Bottom line, if you are F-35 pilot you should pray that your enemies wouldn't get into the merge - confirmed by JPO 

[PR3D4TOR]

Source criticism again. That article's source is the OP's article: "published by War Is Boring"

[artik]

Source criticism again. That article's source is the OP's article: "published by War Is Boring"

The problem isn't the source but rather the response of JPO that actually confirmed what source says.

Edit:

“The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” he (JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova) says.

Basically confirms the issues...

[PR3D4TOR]

Basically confirms nothing. The F-35 is a strike fighter like the F/A-18. It was never meant to be a light interceptor like the F-16. As the F-16/18 pilot in the article I posted said:

"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."

Now the Hornet is generally considered to be a very good strike fighter. Perhaps you haven't noticed but the F-16 was designed for a role that is no longer needed, or perhaps was never needed. Ever since the introduction of the F-16A the USAF have tried to turn it into a better strike fighter. Putting more bombs and fuel on it. The F-16i that you guys in Israel are flying is perhaps the best example of this. The F-35 was never intended to be an F-16. It was designed to replace the F-16 as the USAF's strike fighter.

[artik]

Now this is much better resource: http://aviationweek.com/defense/controversy-flares-over-f-35-air-combat-report-0

(also need registration)

1. There is a link to the testing document
2. Quote: "Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office confirm that the document, originally leaked by the War is Boring website, is genuine"

So... lets start trashing F-35 

It is official - F-35 is lemon 


After reading the original report, flaws that are probably non-fixable in near future:

- F-35's EM is very poor (not actually a surprise)
- Helmet/Seat/Canopy restricts vision and makes hard to keep a sight of a target

Other flaws - are parts of testing that probably can be tuned.


Link to the original document: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F-35%20High%20AoA%20Maneuvers.pdf

[PR3D4TOR]

That report is not nearly as condemning as the articles based on it. Looks like a typical early combat test where the plane is not pushed to its limits and its true potential is not fully unlocked yet. As testing progresses and the FBW logic is refined they will squeeze more and more performance out of this bird. That they couldn't get max G-loads out of it is especially telling of an overprotective computer. In AH terms they're flying with the stall limiter on...


"Loads remained below limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe."

[bozon]

That report is not nearly as condemning as the articles based on it. Looks like a typical early combat test where the plane is not pushed to its limits and its true potential is not fully unlocked yet. As testing progresses and the FBW logic is refined they will squeeze more and more performance out of this bird. That they couldn't get max G-loads out of it is especially telling of an overprotective computer. In AH terms they're flying with the stall limiter on...


"Loads remained below limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe."

Oh I am sure it is not as bad as the nay sayers make it out to be. On the other hand, it is not very impressive at all. I and I suppose the many others expected a lot more from a new generation fighter/attacker/whateveryoucallit.

[PR3D4TOR]

It was never meant to be better than other modern fighters in speed or maneuverability. We're no longer in the jet age, we're in the information age, and that's where the F-35 is designed to beat it opponents. The aircraft itself is just a stealthy, long-range F/A-18. Like I said in the other thread:

In that test fight with the F-16... If the F-35 pilot had all his new toys in working order, the sensor fusion would have picked up the F-16 on radar and IR, identified it, displayed it in the pilots helmet view with a threat analysis and recommended actions. The pilot would have looked at the enemy icon and hit a button, perhaps two, and in short order a missile would have raced out to meet the F-16. The F-16 would not have known what was going on until 5-10 seconds before being blown apart, when his RWR screams a warning of the AMRAAM's radar locking on to him in the terminal phase of its attack.

[DaveBB]

It was never meant to be better than other modern fighters in speed or maneuverability. We're no longer in the jet age, we're in the information age, and that's where the F-35 is designed to beat it opponents. The aircraft itself is just a stealthy, long-range F/A-18. Like I said in the other thread:

People have been repeating that every 5 years since the first sidewinder missile was developed (Project Suntracker).  Our technology is still nowhere near advanced enough to be able to shoot a missile 100 miles away and be certain that what it hits is an enemy aircraft.  There are going to definitely be encounters where the two forces have to have visual contact to identify each other.  This is not a dig on the F-35.  Countries like Israel are in foreign airspace within 90 seconds of taking off.  A 100+ mile ranged ramjet Amraam missile is not going to do them any good.

[eagl]

To summarize predator's trollish argument:

The F-35 was designed to suck and its doing a great job at it.  It will "replace" several aircraft, the F-16, A-10, and F-15E, without being capable of doing any of the missions currently assigned to those aircraft.  It is excelling at this however, so suck it and pay up.

[PR3D4TOR]

As trollish arguments go, your's excellent! 

[HPriller]

It seems like what the F-35 is really meant to replace is the f-117.  It's an attack plane mislabeled in typical US Airforce fashion with an F prefix.  Air supremacy is and will remain the domain of the F-22.  It's just another bomber, only this one comes with stealth and supersonic capability rolled in one.  I still question how this is better than buying 10 reaper drones (or whatever than mini-stealth bomber looking drone is called) for the same money as one F-35.

[Rich46yo]

But what would actual aviators know compared to the Daily Mail? 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16/

This article should be prefaced by saying I don’t work for Lockheed Martin, BAE or any of the companies or organisations involved with the aircraft. Now that’s out of the way we can begin, the accusations of the F-35 being inferior may seem shocking at first but it should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat. Additionally, ‘AF-2′ does not feature the radar-absorbent material coating that operational aircraft have.

According to a recent press release from Lockheed Martin

    “It [the F-35 in question] 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.”

Articles making the claim that the F-16 is superior cite tests performed earlier in the year to assess the flying qualities of the F-35 during within visual range combat and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. The aim of the test was to demonstrate the ability of the F-35 to fly to the edge of its restricted test limits without exceeding them. The test scenario was apparently successful as it allowed the aircraft be cleared for greater agility in future tests.

Test pilots say the additional maneuverability available as the aircraft expands its flight envelope after every test is a testament to the performance. According to test pilot David “Doc” Nelson.

    “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’.”

Despite the claims that the F-35 is inferior to a decades old aircraft, previous exercises tell a different story.

It has been widely reported in the media over the last week that an F-35 was outperformed by an F-16, the truth is seemingly a little different.

Over the last few years there have been occasions where a flight of F-35s have engaged a flight of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios, the F-35s reportedly won each of those encounters because of its sensors and low visibility. This seems to be a case of comparing a test aircraft still in trials, that has a restricted flight envelope, against a mature dogfighter with no such restrictions.

While there are valid complaints about the programme, the latest sensationalist headlines aren’t among them.

[Nath[BDP]]

Can the F35 just turn its stealth on and run away.  haha.  POS.

[PR3D4TOR]

Nath is a poo!