ultramig688 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Link from war is boring. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875 Quote
jeanba Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Always remember that in the lat 70's, Agressor pilots with their F5 repteadly won against F15 and we know the rest of the story 1 Quote
Lazarus1177 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 With that kind of airframe,shouldn't it be obvious?? Quote
Tirak Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Source is unnamed, report is not provided, and the information in it contradicts other facts that we know. I'd take it with a mighty big grain of salt if I were you. Quote
RUSTYMORLEY Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The more complex a thing is made, the more likely it is to fail. The F-35 is extremely complex although advanced, but nevertheless it has so far failed to live up to expectations and the cost of the aircraft and its protracted development is spiraling ever upwards. Quote
Tirak Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The more complex a thing is made, the more likely it is to fail. The F-35 is extremely complex although advanced, but nevertheless it has so far failed to live up to expectations and the cost of the aircraft and its protracted development is spiraling ever upwards. And yet the F-35 performed with alacrity during Green Flag, having the distinction of being the only aircraft not shot down during the exercise, costs have plummeted and orders from many different countries are on the rise. The doomsayers are falling silent or becoming desperate, this article's source is suspect at best. Quote
fallenphoenix1986 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Wasn't there an article posted on here a week or two back where a Norwegian test pilot with an F-16 background said pretty much the polar opposite of everything mentioned in this article? Craig Quote
+JediMaster Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The end blows it. The test pilot explained that he has also flown 1980s-vintage F-15E fighter-bombers and found the F-35 to be “substantially inferior” to the older plane when it comes to managing energy in a close battle Really? The F-15E dogfights better? I don't think the F-15E dogfights better than an F-14, let alone a single engine plane that much smaller. Quote
+ST0RM Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 And yet the F-35 performed with alacrity during Green Flag, having the distinction of being the only aircraft not shot down during the exercise, costs have plummeted and orders from many different countries are on the rise. The doomsayers are falling silent or becoming desperate, this article's source is suspect at best. performed with "cheerful readiness"??? Nice try with the sophisticated word. In Green Flag, and in nearly every other engagement, the F-35 used it's LO abilities and engaged from BVR. Lobbing simulated AIM-120s from a distance while maintaining stealth. Sure, I get it. That is, like the Raptor, what it was built to do. Now, the questions come out as to what happens when the fight comes to the merge and becomes a WVR. This is not the first report of it being poor in a turning fight, with a lot of energy bleed. However the source trying to compare the heavy F-15E is laughable. Quote
Tirak Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 performed with "cheerful readiness"??? Nice try with the sophisticated word. In Green Flag, and in nearly every other engagement, the F-35 used it's LO abilities and engaged from BVR. Lobbing simulated AIM-120s from a distance while maintaining stealth. Sure, I get it. That is, like the Raptor, what it was built to do. Now, the questions come out as to what happens when the fight comes to the merge and becomes a WVR. This is not the first report of it being poor in a turning fight, with a lot of energy bleed. However the source trying to compare the heavy F-15E is laughable. I used the word i intended mate, it has more meaning than just cheerful readiness. Alacrity indicates a level of skill and energy to an action, a gusto to indicate ease of execution when used in this way. But by all means, feel free to educate me on language using dictionary.com Test reports from RNoAF pilots say otherwise, noting a signifigant energy advantage over the F-16, furthermore testing completed around the same time was able to push the aircraft to 110 degrees angle of attack, and the article expects me to believe the plane is sluggish? Quote
Milktrout Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Meh. Even if the F-35 was the greatest aeroplane ever built by a factor of 10:1 it would still almost certainly be a colossal waste of money. Quote
+MigBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 There could no doubt be a leaked report - however after reading David Axes interpretation of it, him getting hold of it is not much different to a Monkey getting hold of a Watch and trying to make sense of it. Without the report there are no conclusions to be drawn from it - you at least need some kind of test case. Could be related to this 1 Quote
+MigBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Wasn't there an article posted on here a week or two back where a Norwegian test pilot with an F-16 background said pretty much the polar opposite of everything mentioned in this article? Craig If you mean the one I posted it doesn't say much on turn performance http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/04/20/moderne-luftkamp-the-right-stuff-top-gun-eller-noe-helt-annet/#more-1050 At best estimations based on available figures only show near performance if that. You you could add to the above that T-38s have waxed F-22s - although I'm sure a good jock in an F-104 could beat anything flying in 1v1 BFM Gunzo exercises. Quote
Gunrunner Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) There's so much BS thrown around on the topic of the F-35 - on both sides of the fence - that it has become extremely difficult to come across any reasonable and reliable data, qualitative or quantitative about the project. By the way, any news on the development of the Cuda missile ? I think it was around the 2010-2012 time frame an Air Force general was running his mouth about the F-35 secret weapon, that we'd seen nothing yet and other garbage to distract from some new problems and delays and LM ended up "leaking" their new missile. AFAIR it was supposed to be a very compact radar guided missile, about half the size of an AMRAAM because it was designed as a kinetic impactor and usable against air and ground targets, the F-35 was supposed to have up to 12 of these missiles internally. Did that ever leave the drawing board or was it some more astro-turfing ? Anything I find is always a re-hash of the initial informations or people wondering where that went... @Tirak, I would take modern dictionaries with a grain of salt, even the most serious ones have now accepted the popular yet incorrect usages of "literally" (in the sense of virtually or figuratively). Once you ascribe to a word both a very precise meaning and its exact opposite you have, quite literally, rendered it meaningless. Regardless, alacrity, as far as I'm aware, doesn't apply to inanimate objects, of course you can insist that the F-35 is a conscious entity, but we'd be stepping out of semantics and deep into psychiatry. Edited June 30, 2015 by Gunrunner 1 Quote
+Brain32 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) First of all please bare with me a bit and just consider this. However the source trying to compare the heavy F-15E is laughable. Physics does not have a sense of humor F-15E is heavier but it has a larger wing area nearly 10m2 comparing to F-35A now while finding correct data is very hard mind you, empty weights of both planes are not actually that far away, wikipedia cites 13,199 kg for F-35A and not too colossal 14,300 kg for the F-15E now if we calculate it by dividing weight with wing area we get 14300kg/56,5m2=253,1kg/m2 wing loading for the F-15E and 13199kg/42,7m2=309,11kg/m2 So basically not taking the lifting bodies into this VERY SIMPLE calculation F-15E actually has lower wing loading than F-35A. Now let's talk power loading, I will again compare empty weights because fuel and loadouts will always vary, so F-35A again 13199kg and 19504kg of trust so empty T/W would be 1,478 for F-15E we have 14300kg and 26308kg thrust so it's 1,839 T/W - that's also higher power loading! Mind you this is as you see VERY simplified, there's also some drag involved but considering the max speeds of both planes I don't see why would F-15E have a bigger drag. So we determined that depending on the fuel amount and loadout configuration it can VERY WELL happen that you find yourself in a F-15E that has better wingloading, better powerloading and let's make a WAG and say at a similar drag. Now ok the data is from Wikipedia, there may be better for the F-35A, if you have it show it(actually don't, I tend to forget it's not a toy), but I wouldn't say dogfighting comparison of the two is really - laughable. Edited June 30, 2015 by Brain32 Quote
Do335 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 It's probably packed with too much electronics. Only time'll tell if the extra luggage is worth it... Quote
+MigBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 First of all please bare with me a bit and just consider this. Physics does not have a sense of humor F-15E is heavier but it has a larger wing area nearly 10m2 comparing to F-35A now while finding correct data is very hard mind you, empty weights of both planes are not actually that far away, wikipedia cites 13,199 kg for F-35A and not too colossal 14,300 kg for the F-15E now if we calculate it by dividing weight with wing area we get 14300kg/56,5m2=253,1kg/m2 wing loading for the F-15E and 13199kg/42,7m2=309,11kg/m2 So basically not taking the lifting bodies into this VERY SIMPLE calculation F-15E actually has lower wing loading than F-35A. Now let's talk power loading, I will again compare empty weights because fuel and loadouts will always vary, so F-35A again 13199kg and 19504kg of trust so empty T/W would be 1,478 for F-15E we have 14300kg and 26308kg thrust so it's 1,839 T/W - that's also higher power loading! Mind you this is as you see VERY simplified, there's also some drag involved but considering the max speeds of both planes I don't see why would F-15E have a bigger drag. So we determined that depending on the fuel amount and loadout configuration it can VERY WELL happen that you find yourself in a F-15E that has better wingloading, better powerloading and let's make a WAG and say at a similar drag. Now ok the data is from Wikipedia, there may be better for the F-35A, if you have it show it(actually don't, I tend to forget it's not a toy), but I wouldn't say dogfighting comparison of the two is really - laughable. On paper there shouldn't be a reason why the F-15E wouldn't be able to hold its own - Ideally with empty CFTs - not sure on the training level for those crews in BFM though. The F-15E uses different engines - the GE-229 version would appear to have a very high T/W based on static SL thrust only. Regarding Wingloading; - when you say simplistic, yes - and it is the same mistake people make with the F-16 which also has high basic Wing loading. That WL figure only uses ref wing area and doesn't take into account all the other areas of lift generation (Tail, Vortex, LEF, TEF) and drag reduction you get with an unstable aft tail design in flight conditions (this difference is quite large). F-35 & F-22 are both unstable design concepts in this manner. Quote
ultramig688 Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 There's so much BS thrown around on the topic of the F-35 - on both sides of the fence - that it has become extremely difficult to come across any reasonable and reliable data, qualitative or quantitative about the project. I agree gunrunner, when I posted the article I thought it was interesting I didn't know it would open up a can of worms like this.i really don't have a pro or con on the F-35 I am waiting till it goes IOC and has a chance to be used in actual combat before I make a decision.i'm sure when the Israelis get theirs they may be the first ones to find out what it can do in actual combat given the way things are in the Middle East JMO. Quote
+MigBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 By the way, any news on the development of the Cuda missile ? Not seen anything new on that for a few years. Quote
Atreides Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Wait until they add the laser. :-) Lazors, really ? Quote
Gunrunner Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Lazors, really ? Indeed, it's been part of the planned growth of the F-35 for years now, the current design has electrical generation compatible with the targets set for fighter-borne lasers at the time, with enough room for capacitors to make it reasonnably usable, how that will pan out is another story entirely, especially considering the different directions laser weapons are going (using them as counter-measure/self-defence against missiles is now deemed technically achievable in a fighter-borne format in a time frame compatible with the F-35 MLU). Strangely, laser weaponry is neither the riskiest nor the most expensive part of the F-35 program. Edited July 1, 2015 by Gunrunner Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.