PPRuNe Forums - Significance of the "Leaked" F-35 vs. F-16 Report ?

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Significance of the "Leaked" F-35 vs. F-16 Report ? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/565409-significance-leaked-f-35-vs-f-16-report.html)

Significance of the "Leaked" F-35 vs. F-16 Report ?

I have seen the leaked F-35 test pilot report of his dogfight with a standard service configured F-16D Block 40 discussed everywhere from the Huffington Post to Mother's Weekly, but there is only one source I trust for expert opinions - this one.

So, without injecting my own unprofessional thoughts on the significance/insignificance of this encounter I would hope that I can encourage you to pitch in with your take.

For reference, here is what we know in addition to some questionable editorial comments.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/tes...ht-cdb9d11a875

You're kidding, right?

You trust the WIBbler?!!!???

Oh my! (Am I infringing copyright?)

Sorry, Fons - you ask a simple question and get two citations, one of which rendered judgment without the inconvenience of reading the leaked report, and a pure ad hominem dismissal.

But basically, if you believed the stories of how the F-35 was better in all respects than anything else (except F-22 in A2A), prepare to be disappointed.

Perhaps he knows the test pilot or he read the article from last April? LO, You can slag off an ex-F-16 and current FA-18 pilot if you like. But it doesn't have any currency with me. http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35...hter-maneuvers

Why would anyone be disappointed with testing and recommending improvements on early Flight Control Laws, LO? I haven't seen anyone credable say that the F-35 isn't second to the F-22 and claim another platform is second in A2A.

As the pilot said. http://fightersweep.com/2574/f-35-vs...ting-thoughts/
http://fightersweep.com/wp-content/u...68120698_n.jpg

The report is available to read and it is self-evident what is stated.
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a...0Maneuvers.pdf

Quote:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime. Pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons. Loads remained below limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe.
Rl: Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options, especially considering the inherent energy deficit.
-Though the aircraft has proven it is capable of high AOA flight, it wasn't effective for killing or surviving attacks primarily due to lack of energy maneuverability. Perhaps, with a faster AOA onset, there may be some advantages to choosing higher alpha when fighting a bandit.
R2: Consider increasing alpha onset.
-The high AOA blended region was not predictable primarily because it seemed too close to the ideal fighting AOAs and not intuitively "high" to the pilot while he remained focusing on the bandit rather than the displayed AOA.
R3: Consider increasing the beginning of the blended region to 30 degrees or greater.
-Significant anti-spin control authority has been demonstrated on this and other high AOA flights. The effect is abrupt, responsive, and powerful whereas pilot input seems to be sluggish and gradual.
R4: Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority.
-HMO and canopy configuration is detrimental to visual lookout. The combination should be evaluated to see if it can be improved. HMO BST FAULTs can prevent weapons employment during maneuvering.
R5: Improve HMO Boresight performance to account for dynamic maneuvers and consider improving rearward visibility by creating more space for helmet motion.

The recommendations are all well and good. They may alleviate the effects of the deficiency in energy maneuverability (by making some high-AoA maneuvers use less energy) but they do not reduce or eliminate that deficiency.

I'm aware that Lemoine is a pilot, but his secondary defense of the F-35 - that it will win in BVR without having to maneuver aggressively - is based on no better information than anyone else has, and an apparent faith in secret-squirrel capabilities that he imputes to the F-35 alone.

On the other hand, he appears conflicted:

We have sold out our fighting capability on many levels for the F-35.

Although it's not clear what he's referring to. Most pilots can't help thinking in 4th gen, as this FA-18 pilot found when he transferred to the f-22.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

think outside the box?

Very interesting and informative talk.
Certainly makes me much more comfortable when i think about the F-35 now.
Great link, thanks.

A few quotes from David "Chip" Berke (a USMC pilot with F/A-18, F-16, F-22, F-35 and Typhoon experience.)

4th Gen Rule 1: "Speed is life and more is better"

5th Gen Rule 1: "Info is life and more is better"

If you are measuring an airplane by speed and agility, you are misunderstanding the capabilities of an airplane in a 5th Generation fight.

The Raptor has more speed and maneuverability than any other fighter. Yet the LEAST impressive feature of the Raptor is its speed and manueverability. Speed and maneuverability are the LAST thing I am concerned about in a 5th Gen fight.

Innovation takes time and it is painful and expensive, but it is absolutely essential in a 5th Gen fight. And when talking 5th Gen, that means 2020 to 2025, not today. We aren't there yet operationally.

If you are thinking in 4th Gen terms, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. It is not just about the role, it is about the potential.

The F-35 facilitates an entirely new war fighting ecosystem in the same way that the iPhone created an entirely new mobile device ecosystem.

If you think of the iPhone as a phone that happens to play music and access the internet, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. If you think of the F-35 as a fighter that happens to be stealthy and interconnected, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. F-35 must be viewed is a sensor/collaborator/shooter platform.

4th Gen air warfare is about airplane dominance.
5th Gen air warfare is about spectrum dominance. F-35 is an overwhelming advancement in breadth and depth of spectrum.

Stealth means access, not just reduced detection, so that WE dictate access, not the threat

The presence of 5th Gen fighters makes 4th Gen fighters more lethal and survivable.

F-35's innovation is not what it does by itself, but what it contributes beyond the aircraft.

It is critically important to understand what it means to be part of a 5th Gen ecosystem. Equally important is understanding what it means to be excluded from it.

=======
That last line may be why so many nations are buying F-35, even though it's expensive. They understand what it means to be excluded from the 5th Gen fight and really want to be part of that fight.

My personal bottom line summary: You cannot use 4th Gen rules nor a 4th Gen pilot mindset to fight a 5th Gen fight. Do so and you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.

May I suggest that we seem to have lots of folks here permanently stuck in a 4th Gen mindset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

@a1bill:

From the recommendations listed in your post, I gather that some of the performance improvements suggested can be achieved by tuning the FBW system and the associated control rates/gains, rather than a redesign of the airframe?

Am I reading that correctly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 (Post 9065014)

Yes I thunk that’s the gist of it.

Hopefully correct and not some LM pr misinformation...

Surely the test was done for a reason. Doesn't this make all the "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff a bit irrelevant? Why bother to test or improve something that doesn't matter?

Quote:

Hopefully correct and not some LM pr misinformation...

An official test report submitted to the US government and eight other governments may be "LM pr misinformation"? And other parts of the same test report are proof positive that the F-35's maneuverability is "abysmal"? I find that to be an interesting conclusion.

Has anyone else seen an interesting dichotomy between this thread and the T-X thread? Here we are discussing the future mainstay of the USAF FJ fleet and how terrible it is in terms of manoeuvrability. On the other thread we are discussing how the USAF has asked for a training aircraft that can sustain 6.5G at 15000' (in a descent).

If the F35 is as terrible as we are led to believe why do they need a trainer to do any more than about 3G?!

Rather than just sh1t stirring without offering my own thoughts, here they are. I don't think a 5th gen fighter needs to be the bees knees in a dogfight but it wouldn't do any harm to have that ability up your sleeve should you need it.

I do not think the F35 is the white elephant everyone wants to believe it is. Once it has achieved maturity and we actually get to see more of what it is really capable of, we will probably all be talking about what an awesome machine it is.

As always though, I could be wrong. It has been known. Very rarely.

BV:ok:

PS. I would still prefer that we had bought the F35C but that is water under the bridge now.

Quote:

Surely the test was done for a reason.

I'm very confident that the test was done to improve the F-35.

Quote:

Doesn't this make all the "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff a bit irrelevant?

That depends. If all you are arguing about is maneuverability and ignoring everythine else, then I believe all that "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff is highly relevant.

Quote:

Why bother to test or improve something that doesn't matter?

It most certainly matters, that's why its being tested so it can be improved. But the point is (and apparently missed) that maneuverability must be viewed from an entirely different perspective. One cannot look at any one component and declare "abysmal failure!" as has been done repeatedly. The paradigm has shifted and requires new thinking. According to Berke, old thinking means you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.

This inevitably makes me wonder what type of noises will be coming out of the UK once their squadron F-35 pilots start to engage in exercises with the squadron Typhoon pilots.

That should prove interesting.

That's a tremendous video link.

WWW

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fonsini (Post 9065455)

****'*** Pirate, one would imagine...

Asserting that concern over apparently inferior energy maneuverability is old hat is just that - assertion. It's a pretty radical claim, and can't be made real with verbiage about iPhones and information dominance. Indeed, if it's true, then the YF-23 should have been chosen over the YF-22, the JSF should have been made a tailless delta, and we should actually be building a fighter that looks like an X-47.

It's funny, however, that the "maneuvering is irrelevant" line only popped out in public in 2008, after the F-35A had packed on an extra 2700 pounds of ugly surplus fat in its early development stage.