F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest face palm moment from this latest report is that the helmet stops the pilot from turning his head around quickly or at all since the width of the canopy is too narrow. Can't believe that one.
Hum... does anybody remember when a pair of F-15s from Lakenheath bounced a pair of early Typhoons from the Case White trials at Warton, and promptly found themselves squarely in the Tiffies' gunsights? It was trumpeted by BAE and the RAF at the time in exactly the way that the results from this evaluation aren't. I would agree that the article hides behind so much technobabble that it seems that the outcome of the evaluation is quietly pushed down the back of the settee.
I came across this while looking for something else on the net, I don't know if it's already been posted here, and of course the accuracy of the content will no doubt be the subject of debate, still....
The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report
I also have no particular axe to grind with the F-35 one way or the other....
The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report
I also have no particular axe to grind with the F-35 one way or the other....
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because it's not been used for a while does not render it obsolete. There's always a chance where plinking away with BVR rockets won't be possible/acceptable...
Another words they determine the trade offs are worth the 1 in what ever chance of that occuring, versus advantages of what ever else they think is important.
Or more likely redefine as important as the true capabilitys of the new platform become apparent.
This thread is turning into a primary school debating society. For some reason we suddenly have a **** load of somewhat juvenile and, frankly, irrelevant posts about disjointed issues. We're currently on page 320 of this thread and all of a sudden we're seeing stuff we discussed at length months or years ago.
If we're still talking about the Green Flag "report" then just relax. None of us here have the faintest idea of the scenarios, ROE, orbats, missions, etc, etc. Of course it was a carefully scripted excercise, we've all been there.
Previous F-16 vs F-35 "engagements have no bearing on this. Nor have turn rate issues, SA, "dog fighting", the "helmet" or F-15s vs Typhoons. Polarised as this thread has become, normally the debate is fairly reasoned on both sides. Now it's just becoming bolleaux.
Just a short rant. Excuse me.
If we're still talking about the Green Flag "report" then just relax. None of us here have the faintest idea of the scenarios, ROE, orbats, missions, etc, etc. Of course it was a carefully scripted excercise, we've all been there.
Previous F-16 vs F-35 "engagements have no bearing on this. Nor have turn rate issues, SA, "dog fighting", the "helmet" or F-15s vs Typhoons. Polarised as this thread has become, normally the debate is fairly reasoned on both sides. Now it's just becoming bolleaux.
Just a short rant. Excuse me.
CM, delightful that this was discussed on page abc; however a comment was made now regards to the dogfighting capabilities which allows a response. As much as you may find it tiresome to go over the same ground new blood in does not, in respect to having not been there (200 and X pages ago). As you rightly pointed out some 320 pages later posters are still bringing up the same tired arguments. The reason, I’m not particularly interested in reading all 320 pages. I have, probably like many others, peeked in on occasion but would point out is that the bolleaux is rightfully felt by those who have a) followed all 320 pages or b) still dream (wet) that dogfighting will once again become the chivalrous game of the “nights” (I jest) of the air. Anyone that still thinks that getting in close and personal, knife fight in a telephone box (haven’t seen a box for years, take that either way) is deep into reminiscing. You would have to have stuffed up seriously as would your opponent(s) to be into guns or it would be backs to the wall again with your opponent in the same position not to shoot and scoot.
My short rant. Excuse me.
My short rant. Excuse me.
F-35 as a dogfighter, herrumph! How's a pilot meant to use his Webley to shoot down the Hun with that sissy canopy in the way? They'll be giving them bloody parachutes next!
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's not designed to be good in dogfight, therefor it's not good in dogfight, easy
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as with most aircraft, the F-35’s detection range by threat IRST systems will not be diminished much.
Low signature elements of an aircraft make it more survivable but definitely NOT invisible. Also, I hope the high frequency (X band) F-35 signature is lower than “a metal golf
ball”!
ps CM your post is right on!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bevo, a nice little summary!
And with the latest AESA radars, I've come to the conclusion that the whole doctrine needs to be re-evaluated; it's only a matter of time before the level of sensor fusion in hostile platforms becomes capable enough of tracking this generation of stealth aircraft...shockingly, I also fear the counter-capability will proliferate quicker than the aircraft, which will be a first! Then all we'll be left with is a very expensive sitting duck that we have hinged our entire air combat strategy upon.
Why not pile our future development into a handful of the next generation of 'stealthy' drones, let them take on the really nasty ground based A2/AD threats, and information hoovering ability, then get a whole lot more flexible and cheaper manned aircraft for all the other conventional roles?...data linked to the Int hoovering drones of course.
Just my two cents, obviously.
And with the latest AESA radars, I've come to the conclusion that the whole doctrine needs to be re-evaluated; it's only a matter of time before the level of sensor fusion in hostile platforms becomes capable enough of tracking this generation of stealth aircraft...shockingly, I also fear the counter-capability will proliferate quicker than the aircraft, which will be a first! Then all we'll be left with is a very expensive sitting duck that we have hinged our entire air combat strategy upon.
Why not pile our future development into a handful of the next generation of 'stealthy' drones, let them take on the really nasty ground based A2/AD threats, and information hoovering ability, then get a whole lot more flexible and cheaper manned aircraft for all the other conventional roles?...data linked to the Int hoovering drones of course.
Just my two cents, obviously.
Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog
July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.
Aircraft AF-2 did 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. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it 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.
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.
The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.
The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.
July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.
Aircraft AF-2 did 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. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it 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.
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.
The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.
The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.
The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.
But we'll still shoot you if they leak out, so watch it buster.
Otherwise, the JPO and Lockmart are spinning like a Pitts Special. Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?
But we'll still shoot you if they leak out, so watch it buster.
Otherwise, the JPO and Lockmart are spinning like a Pitts Special. Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?
Here's the test pilots notes on January's F-35/F-16 mock air-battle:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/rea...eid=bbff1c7303
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/rea...eid=bbff1c7303
Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?
Because it takes a lot of high-G maneuvering to to explain away all the data and what it really means.
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?
as it still seems to be pretty good at that even for something knocking on half a century old.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?
A few of my former mates would have liked to have pulled more g as they flew into the ground. With FBW (unless an overide option is provided) you cannot pull more than the design g however much you might like to.