F-35 news roundup

[MarkW]

Well lets look at things.

2: The USA chooses to spend $600+Billion on its military (more than the next 20 countries combined). It does not need to do so to protect itself and generally its interests in its allies. BTW some of its said to be allies ARE NOT SO! IMO short of typically NATO and SEATO allies none others are truly allies, but are military/economic business partners to the USA. Their favour can drift in the political/diplomatic wind. The USA chooses to have military bases in 180+ countries. It generally chooses to wage war/conflict when it pleases.

You sir, and your common sense factual information, are not welcome here.

[Ken Cartwright]

Well lets look at things.

1: First I'm all for a country like Canada carrying its own weight in a defence budget to equip and maintain a qualified standing military, army, navy and air force in the defence of our sovereign territory as well as being able to contribute if deemed necessary by our government of the day in any expeditionary way for and with our trusted allies. More or less, Canada has and does maintain said commitments. Canada can send forces globally and have and can work with the USA and any other trusted allies. Many state Canada to have among the best small military on Earth.

2: The USA chooses to spend $600+Billion on its military (more than the next 20 countries combined). It does not need to do so to protect itself and generally its interests in its allies. BTW some of its said to be allies ARE NOT SO! IMO short of typically NATO and SEATO allies none others are truly allies, but are military/economic business partners to the USA. Their favour can drift in the political/diplomatic wind. The USA chooses to have military bases in 180+ countries. It generally chooses to wage war/conflict when it pleases.

3: The potential main enemies to the USA though they are not as of today and likely will not be a true threat to the USA and its allies remain to be notably Russia and China. Neither of them spend as much nor do they need to as the USA does on military. They are smart enough to know that they really only have to spend a combined amount of about 1/3rd that of the USA does on military to keep the USA in check. The USA spends 3 times more to keep them in check, again its own free choice. It's seen as good for business. Never as good in financial returns as civil business investments, but the M.I.C owns much of Congress and often the Executive Branch. It is the way it's been since WWII and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

4: Russia and China are the two closest military, strategic, diplomatic and political rivals to the USA. They spend a lot on military too, but just enough to keep the USA kind of rattled. BTW the USA loves it as it makes spending $600+B on DoD easier. Russia and China also spend the amounts they do to keep their M.I.C. viable for foreign sales as well. They have the ability just as the USA does of global reach conventionally and more so nuclear and that is enough!

5: US allies such as other NATO, SEATO allies spend the amount that they do (BTW, just enough) to first defend their sovereignty (land, sea and air, but not really political and economic as most/all have more or less sold these two out to greater global financial/corporate interests) and next to have some valid diplomatic/political weight on regional and global affairs especially among the bigger powers such as first and foremost the USA and next China and Russia. This said I believe that much of Europe is basically an economic, social, political basket case and is in a state of affairs in terms of general turmoil, social/economic flux and grievances between each state equal in aspects to where it was in 1937-38.

6: Finally back to Canada. 35 Million souls, 2nd largest physical country on Earth and we do what needs to be done to protect our land, air and sea sovereignty. We too have generally sold out our political, social and economic sovereignty long ago. "C'est la vie". Though we will likely never be invaded by a foreign power, but if attacked the USA will by commonsense come to our aid by its desires to keep its interests in us viable to it. The price for the USA to not do such is much higher.

Well that is my 2 Canuck cents! :D/>/>/>/>/> Others here can take it or leave it. My points were made clear enough. B)/>/>/>/>/> I salute our men and women in Canadian uniform. :salute:/>/>/>/>/>

Peace out to our nation's friends. B)/>/>/>/>/>

Those countries - including Canada - spending the amount that they do to "do what needs to be done to protect our land, air and sea sovereignty" are doing so within the current environment, where the US has all those bases, and spends what it does on defense, etc. Take out the US spending, and all of those countries would almost certainly have to spend a lot more than they do now to have the same level of protection that they have now with the current budgets.

[MarkW]

That argument doesn't even remotely make sense.

"NATO gets by easy because we carry the load"

How does that explain China and Russia (heck, Iran too for giggles) spending so LITTLE on defense relative to the U.S.? Let me guess, we are carrying their load too?

We outspend the world by a large margin. Fact.

[Ken Cartwright]

That argument doesn't even remotely make sense.

"NATO gets by easy because we carry the load"

How does that explain China and Russia (heck, Iran too for giggles) spending so LITTLE on defense relative to the U.S.? Let me guess, we are carrying their load too?

We outspend the world by a large margin. Fact.

One factor, I believe - and I think Gordon even alluded to it - is that China and Russia are not doing what the US is doing, they only try to disrupt the US in certain regions. I think they also know that to challenge the US globally they would need to spend a lot more than they can afford, so they choose to focus on their nearest spheres of influence instead. Plus, Russia's not too worried about the EU or China, China's not too worried about the EU or Russia, but the US has to be prepared to counter both Russia and China, as well as other countries. And by prepared I mean able to patrol areas outside of the US. I suppose you could argue that if the measure was simply having enough firepower to keep someone from invading your country, it would certainly cost less, but if other countries are able to affect your access to raw materials, etc., that are outside of your country, you still have a security issue. I think the US presence globally adds a certain level of continuity and security for more nations than just the US.

Russia's past incursions into Georgia and current activities in Ukraine and the Crimea indicate to me that they are currently willing to use the power they have to gain territory and advantages outside their borders. I would not be surprised if they were willing to do more if they felt there wasn't a higher cost in doing so, and I think dealing with the US is a big factor in that decision making process. China is beginning to spread beyond their borders as well.

One thing I've always wondered about those defense spending comparisons is if they ever factor in what you get for that money. For example, is it possible that China and Russia get more per exchange-rate dollar than the US gets? And if so, couldn't that account for some of the difference?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Ken Cartwright

[nspreitler]

One factor, I believe - and I think Gordon even alluded to it - is that China and Russia are not doing what the US is doing, they only try to disrupt the US in certain regions. I think they also know that to challenge the US globally they would need to spend a lot more than they can afford, so they choose to focus on their nearest spheres of influence instead. Plus, Russia's not too worried about the EU or China, China's not too worried about the EU or Russia, but the US has to be prepared to counter both Russia and China, as well as other countries. And by prepared I mean able to patrol areas outside of the US. I suppose you could argue that if the measure was simply having enough firepower to keep someone from invading your country, it would certainly cost less, but if other countries are able to affect your access to raw materials, etc., that are outside of your country, you still have a security issue. I think the US presence globally adds a certain level of continuity and security for more nations than just the US.

Russia's past incursions into Georgia and current activities in Ukraine and the Crimea indicate to me that they are currently willing to use the power they have to gain territory and advantages outside their borders. I would not be surprised if they were willing to do more if they felt there wasn't a higher cost in doing so, and I think dealing with the US is a big factor in that decision making process. China is beginning to spread beyond their borders as well.

One thing I've always wondered about those defense spending comparisons is if they ever factor in what you get for that money. For example, is it possible that China and Russia get more per exchange-rate dollar than the US gets? And if so, couldn't that account for some of the difference?

Comparisons of budgets rarely mention the differences in cost. China has a smaller budget but still has a million more active troops. They have a state run industry with much cheaper labor.

There is also a quality factor. Much of the rest of world doesn't train to the extent we do. I've worked with paratroopers from other countries and it isn't unusual for them to go a year or more with out jumping. We jump at least once a quarter and usually much more often. Training is expensive, but it reduces casualties. We could have the same size military and a much reduced budget if we were willing to reduce training and the overall quality of our military. That means accepting much higher casualties in case of war, and that is a cost higher than money.

[MarkW]

Also keep in ind the amount of money we dump, billions of $$, into programs that never go anywhere. That is absolutely wasted cash. Future combat systems, anyone? Or the USMC EFV?

But this also points to a simple fact: all our high tech military bang bang has NOT dissuaded China from arming south China seas island, or the Georgian and Ukrainian invasions. So perhaps the better measure is bang for the buck.

And yes, the Russians and Chinese apparently read Sun Tzu, and are aware of the fate of the state of Wu, which was the super power in its day and spent itself into oblivion. That's in chapter one or the preface, by the way.

We already have an insane military, yet we are challenged by our not so friends all the time. Kind of makes you wonder what more we need to spend to achieve some campaign promises of a "military nobody would challenge".

[nspreitler]

Also keep in ind the amount of money we dump, billions of $$, into programs that never go anywhere. That is absolutely wasted cash. Future combat systems, anyone? Or the USMC EFV?

But this also points to a simple fact: all our high tech military bang bang has NOT dissuaded China from arming south China seas island, or the Georgian and Ukrainian invasions. So perhaps the better measure is bang for the buck.

And yes, the Russians and Chinese apparently read Sun Tzu, and are aware of the fate of the state of Wu, which was the super power in its day and spent itself into oblivion. That's in chapter one or the preface, by the way.

We already have an insane military, yet we are challenged by our not so friends all the time. Kind of makes you wonder what more we need to spend to achieve some campaign promises of a "military nobody would challenge".

We do spend a lot of money that doesn't result in anything, and we let projects get out of control. The F-35 is a prime example, years late and hundreds of billions over budget but there are no good options. It can be cancelled and we spent hundreds of billions for nothing, or we can spend hundreds of billions more and actually have something. Imagine what would happen to the F-35 project managers and Lockheed executives if the F-35 project was in China.

Besides we can have the military might and still be challenged, but that's a political topic.

[Ken Cartwright]

Also keep in ind the amount of money we dump, billions of $$, into programs that never go anywhere. That is absolutely wasted cash. Future combat systems, anyone? Or the USMC EFV?

But this also points to a simple fact: all our high tech military bang bang has NOT dissuaded China from arming south China seas island, or the Georgian and Ukrainian invasions. So perhaps the better measure is bang for the buck.

And yes, the Russians and Chinese apparently read Sun Tzu, and are aware of the fate of the state of Wu, which was the super power in its day and spent itself into oblivion. That's in chapter one or the preface, by the way.

We already have an insane military, yet we are challenged by our not so friends all the time. Kind of makes you wonder what more we need to spend to achieve some campaign promises of a "military nobody would challenge".

Right, and my argument was never that the US defense spending was efficient, only that what the US does adds to the security of other nations, allowing them to spend less on their defense budgets.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Right, and my argument was never that the US defense spending was efficient, only that what the US does adds to the security of other nations, allowing them to spend less on their defense budgets.

See my signature line...

[Trigger]

ACC F-35A working up to IOC

Airmen from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings dropped laser-guided bombs at the Utah Test and Training Range this week, marking the first time an F-35 combat unit has employed weapons from the F-35A.

Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34 FS commander, said employing weapons on the F-35 allows pilots to more fully engage the aircraft and confirm that everything works as planned.

“This is significant because we’re building the confidence of our pilots by actually dropping something off the airplane instead of simulating weapon employment,” Watkins said.

Air Force F-35s have dropped weapons in test environments, but this is the first time it’s been done on jets designed to deploy once the Air Force declares initial operational capability, which it plans to do between August and December. IOC will be announced when the Air Force deems the F-35 combat-capable.

Lt. Col. Darrin Dronoff, director of Hill’s F-35 Program Integration Office, said that while this achievement is a significant step toward Air Force IOC, the milestone goes beyond that mark.

“The pilots and weapons loaders in the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings are perfecting their skills not only to prove aircraft capabilities, but they’ll also be the Airmen called upon to take the F-35 to combat, whenever that call may come,” he said.

Hill’s F-35 pilots will begin flying the F-35 in four-ship formations, which is the standard configuration flown in contested combat scenarios, as early as March.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Trigger

[TaiidanTomcat]

The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?

Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog) is the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. The author of this post, Major Morten «Dolby» Hanche, has more than 2200 hours behind him in the F-16, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate, and on 10 November 2015 he became the first Norwegian to fly the F-35. He now serves as an instructor and as the Assistant Weapons Officer with the 62nd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

I now have several sorties behind me in the F-35 where the mission has been to train within visual range combat one-on-one, or «Basic Fighter Maneuvers» (BFM). In a previous post I wrote about aerial combat in general (English version available), and about the likelihood that the F-35 would ever end up in such a situation. In this post, however, I write more specifically about my experiences with the F-35 when it does end up in a dogfight. Again, I use the F-16 as my reference. As an F-35-user I still have a lot to learn, but I am left with several impressions. For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16.

I’ll start by talking a little about how we train BFM. This particular situation – a dogfight one-on-one between two airplanes – may be more or less likely to occur, as I have described in a previous blog post (Norwegian only). Nonetheless, this kind of training is always important, because it builds fundamental pilot skills. In this kind of training we usually start out from defined parameters, with clearly offensive, defensive or neutral roles. This kind of disciplined approach to the basic parameters is important, because it makes it easier to extract learning in retrospect – a methodical approach to train for air combat.

A typical training setup begins at a distance of one, two or three kilometers from the attacker to the defender. The minimum distance is 300 meters. That kind of restriction may seem conservative, but 300 meters disappears quickly in a combat aircraft. Starting at different distances allows us to vary the focus of each engagement. Greater distance means more energy, higher g-loads and often ends in a prolonged engagement. A short distance usually means that the main objective is to practice gun engagements, either attacking or defending.

Before the training begins, we always check whether we are “fit for fight”; will I be able to withstand the g-load today? «G-awareness exercise» implies two relatively tight turns, with gradually increasing g-load. My experience is that especially dehydration, but also lack of sleep affects g-tolerance negatively. If someone has a «bad g-day», we adjust the exercises accordingly and avoid high g-loads.

As the offensive part, the training objective is to exploit every opportunity to kill your opponent with all available weapons – both missiles and guns – while maneuvering towards a stable position behind the opponent. From this «control position» it is possible to effectively employ both missiles and the gun, without the opponent being able to evade or return fire.

So how does the the F-35 behave in a dogfight? The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part.

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.

Classic maneuvering towards the control position with an F-16 (blue arrow); the offensive aircraft moves to reduce the difference in angle, and to end up behind its opponent.

Maneuvering towards the control position with an F-35 (blue arrow) the offensive party can allow a greater difference in angle (more on the side than behind, and still remain established in the control position.

It may be difficult to understand why a fighter should be able to «brake» quickly. In the offensive role, this becomes important whenever I point my nose at an opponent who turns towards me. This results in a rapidly decreasing distance between our two airplanes. Being able to slow down quicker provides me the opportunity to maintain my nose pointed towards my opponent longer, thus allowing more opportunities to employ weapons, before the distance decreases so much that a role reversal takes place.

To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.

In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me. (Same principle as many would have seen in Top Gun; «hit the brakes, and he’ll fly right by.» But me quoting Top Gun does not make the movie a documentary)

Defensive situations often result in high AOA and low airspeeds. At high AOA the F-16 reacts slowly when I move the stick sideways to roll the airplane. The best comparison I can think of is being at the helm of ship (without me really knowing what I am talking about – I’m not a sailor). Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA). This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent. This «pedal turn» yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the «pedal turn» provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.

The overall experience of flying the F-35 in aerial combat is different from what I’m used to with the F-16. One obvious difference is that the F-35 shakes quite a bit at high g-loadings and at high angles of attack, while the F-16 hardly shakes at all. The professional terminology is «buffeting», which I also described in an earlier blog post (English version available). This buffeting serves as useful feedback, but it can also be a disadvantage. Because the buffeting only begins at moderate angles of attack, it provides me an intuitive feel for how much I am demanding from the aircraft; what is happening to my overall energy state? On the other hand, several pilots have had trouble reading the information which is displayed on the helmet visor, due to the buffeting. Most of the pilots here at Luke fly with the second-generation helmet. I fly with the third-generation helmet, and I have not found this to be a real issue.

What I initially found to a bit negative in visual combat was the cockpit view, which wasn´t as good as in the F-16. The cockpit view from the F-16 was good – better than in any other fighter I have flown. I could turn around and look at the opposite wingtip; turn to the right, look over the «back» of the airplane and see the left wingtip. That´s not quite possible in the F-35, because the headrest blocks some of the view. Therefore, I was a bit frustrated during my first few BFM-sorties. However, It turned out that practice was all it took to improve the situation. Now I compensate by moving forward in the seat and leaning slightly sideways, before turning my head and looking backwards. In this way I can look around the sides of the seat. I also use my hands to brace against the cockpit glass and the canopy frame. With regards to cockpit view alone, I had an advantage in the F-16, but I am still able to maintain visual contact with my opponent during aggressive maneuvering in the F-35. The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35.

On the positive side I would like to highlight how the F-35 feels in the air. I am impressed with the stability and predictability of the airplane. Particularly at high AOA and low airspeeds. It is a peculiar feeling to be flying the F-35 at high AOA. I can pull the nose up to where my feet «sit» on the horizon and still maintain level altitude. I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA. High AOA produces lots of lift, but also tremendous induced drag. When I «break» the AOA, it is evident that the F-35 has a powerful engine. The F-35 also makes a particular sound at this point. When I quickly reduce the AOA – stick full forward – I can hear clearly, even inside the «cockpit» how the F-35 howls! It seems like the «howling» is a mix of airflow over the wings and a different kind of noise from the engine. Maybe this isn’t all that relevant, but I still think it´s a funny observation. Another aspect is the kind of reaction I get when I push the stick forward; the F-35 reacts immediately, and not delayed like the F-16. Looking at another F-35 doing such maneuvers is an impressive sight. The various control surfaces on the airplane are large, and they move very quickly. I can monitor these movements on the screens in my cockpit, and I´m fascinated by how the control surfaces move when I manipulate the stick and pedals. Especially at high AOA, it is not always intuitive what control surfaces move, and by how much.

More including visuals:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

F-35 can dogfight.

Edited March 1, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Trigger]

Meanwhile, over on FA...

[11bee]

F-35 can dogfight.

Yes, according to this guy, the F-35 can dogfight against an F-16. Of course, we've got that other pilot who stated the opposite. It's all good though, sounds like there is hope after all.

Thanks for posting, I've found his blog to be very informative.

[Trigger]

Yes, according to this guy

A former F-16 pilot, used to flying a FBW aircraft.

Of course, we've got that other pilot

A former F-15E pilot, who's not used to flying a FBW aircraft.

[11bee]

A former F-16 pilot, used to flying a FBW aircraft.

A former F-15E pilot, who's not used to flying a FBW aircraft.

Looks like they will both have to agree to disagree. Regardless, still a relatively positive article.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Of course, we've got that other pilot who stated the opposite.

The pilot never said that. The click bait driven writer who "freely interpreted" the report said that.

Allow me to demonstrate: patriots fan says "4 super bowls, but we never beat Eli manning, still a dynasty"

Axe version "patriots fan admits they Eli Manning cheated to get the Patriots 6 super bowls" spot the errors.

And secondly, the purpose was to test flight control laws, not to win and kick the crap out of an F-16. Edwards AFB and specifically AF-2 are about flight testing. Not fighting. So right off the bat that would be The "encyclopedia brown" style clue that says something doesn't add up, just like how Eli Manning doesn't play for the pats

Third. We have more than one pilot saying it can dogfight. This just happens to be very generous with details and explaination

Fourth you are welcome :) I'm hoping he writes more

Edited March 1, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Trigger]

Flashbacks to the early Raptor days...

Idiots who can't figure out how to fly a new aircraft: "This sucks."

Guys who learn the new aircraft strengths: "This is awesome!"

Internet reaction"OMG did you hear what that first guy said?!?!?"

Pierre Sprey:

Edited March 1, 2016 by Trigger

[Trigger]

Via FighterSweep; the response is from a former F-18 and F-16 driver.

Hello Fightersweep!

I just barely came across this article concerning the F-35 during BFM and found it really interesting, especially concerning the report and claims that it was junk in the dogfight arena. I for one am rooting for the F-35 and looking forward to their arrival here in Vermont.

I’ve read a lot of history books and know this is hardly the first aircraft to have such growing pains; and have little doubt it will turn out as bad as most people say. But people do love to rag on the new kid! I would like to know what you guys make of the article and the F-35’s performance.

From what I know of BFM and fighters (which is very little) it sounds a lot like a Hornet. I believe C.W. Mentioned that same thing in his report after the claims of deficiency. What caught my attention was the discussion of being able to recover energy quickly after bleeding it at high AoA. To me this pilot’s experience makes it sound like a good combination of both the Hornet’s AoA and the Viper’s ability to transition quickly from maneuver to maneuver. At times the flying he describes is eerily reminiscent of Col. John Boyd’s favorite maneuver in the Hun; but, I really want to hear more from someone who has more knowledge than me!

I appreciate any insights!

Levi

This is a great question to ask! Thank you for bringing this article to my attention, and hot off the presses, no less! What I’ve been saying all along about the F-35 is that it’s FAR too soon to be making definitive statements like “WORST FIGHTER EVER!” As the article points out, the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) for this aircraft are still in the development phase. Really smart guys are still working to figure out ways to best employ this aircraft tactically. That doesn’t happen overnight.

So, I applaud you for turning to actual fighter pilots instead of Wookie-necked hipsters to get your information. Even though he speaks in this weird “Metric system” vernacular, I will take the word of a Norwegian guy who has actually flown the jet over someone that has never put on a G-suit in his life.

Ok, with that rant out of the way, let’s address your actual question: what does this article tell us?

Well, as GM pointed out, a dogfight boils down to RATE vs RADIUS. You can think of the two as ENERGY vs NOSE POSITION. The rate fighter uses his energy advantage to turn more quickly (measured in degrees per second) while the radius fighter uses his nose position advantage to make a smaller circle (measured in feet).

There are a lot of “cheats” that designers will use to make a fighter good at both. These include Leading Edge Flaps that extend based on airspeed, Leading Edge Extensions that help with low speed control, and thrust vectoring. This is why fighters like the Viper, Hornet, and Raptor do so well in both types of fights.

Angle of Attack (AoA, or Alpha) is mostly referred to in the slow speed, radius-fight environment. A fighter that can fly with high angles of attack (that angle between the relative wind and the chord line of the wing) can “point their nose” more easily. It’s what makes a Hornet so scary to fight. They’re still flying and in control while other aircraft stall and fall out of the sky.

What the Viper and F-35 have that the Hornet doesn’t is power. Yes, the Viper is AoA limited, but that also means it’s never “not flying,” and has the ability to power its way out of just about any situation. This is what’s meant by transitioning from maneuver to maneuver.

The Hornet might be able to cash in, pointing the nose at 50 knots and 60 Alpha, but that’s it. You’re along for the ride at that point. When it gets slow, it’s very hard to get that energy back.

A Viper, on the other hand, can regain that energy through thrust. Coming off the limiter slightly, especially at low altitude where the big inlet and GE motor do their best work, can mean getting back to a fighting airspeed and energy state. This is especially useful if there are multiple bandits – you don’t want to finish a fight and be a sitting duck.

If the reports are accurate, that means that the F-35 is a good compromise between the two. It has the ability to point its nose where the Viper couldn’t, while not getting itself into an unrecoverable energy state like the Hornet. That’s good news.

At the end of the day, though, I still say don’t chase the reports–and continue to ask informed questions. As the F-35 gains more ground in its testing, there will be more reports coming out – some good and some bad. We won’t really know what it’s truly capable of until we see it in the hands of Johnny Wingman who just finished his initial Mission Qualification Training. That’s where the realistic operational capabilities will be found as he employs the aircraft exactly as he’s been trained, having never been in any other jet.

[TaiidanTomcat]

F-16 and F-18 handling. Just like the requirements said. "Wookie-necked hipster" LOL The butthurt is palpable. aviation websites are melting down.

[Trigger]

The butthurt is palpable. aviation websites are melting down.

I eagerly await the "expert" analysis from the Hot Dog vendor.

"Wookie-necked hipster"

Def better than neck-beards; "Wookie-Necked Hipster" has become a part of my daily vocabulary.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I eagerly await the "expert" analysis from the Hot Dog vendor.

Possible titles:

The F-35 may not suck (but it still sucks.)

Fighter pilot knows nothing about fighters

F-35 can (barely) dogfight. (<-- watch that one will happen)

Def better than neck-beards; "Wookie-Necked Hipster" has become a part of my daily vocabulary.

Edited March 2, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Sarathi S.]

Via FighterSweep; the response is from a former F-18 and F-16 driver.

So just curious (for my own knowledge) would the Tomcat be considered more a rate fighter, or a radius one?

[TaiidanTomcat]

So just curious (for my own knowledge) would the Tomcat be considered more a rate fighter, or a radius one?

I don't know... I'm guessing radius. Especially if it had the temperamental engines.

[Collin]

F-14 was a radius player...not really rate (although the new engines helped with energy addition). When I was stashed at VFC-12, I saw the new F-14A+'s pull off some stuff I knew the smoking F-14A's couldn't.

Cheers

Collin

[Murph]

So just curious (for my own knowledge) would the Tomcat be considered more a rate fighter, or a radius one?

The A model was neither, it was more of a strafe rag in a visual fight. The B+ and D with the new engines were another animal entirely in a visual fight due to the new engines; although, they were still stuck with lower G limits than the other Teen series fighters. With the new engines, you could consider the upgraded versions more of a rate fighter; although, in practice all fighters typically use both techniques in a visual engagement as it progresses and circumstances or the game plan changes. AKA two of the three cardinal rules of BFM: "Nose position versus energy" and "Maneuver in relation to the bandit".

Regards,

Murph

Edited March 4, 2016 by Murph