F-35 pilot says it can't dogfight

[+Gunrunner 313]

When a US military program's best advocate is Russian, you know you've done goofed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZbqkxjAK8E).

[MigBuster 2,861]

Why The F-35 v F-16 Article is Garbage  

 

C.W. Lemoine is the author of the military/espionage thriller novels SPECTRE RISING, AVOID. NEGOTIATE. KILL., ARCHANGEL FALLEN, and EXECUTIVE REACTION. He has flown the F-16 and F/A-18. Visit his author website at http://www.cwlemoine.com

 

 

 

As one  of our followers here on FighterSweep, you’re probably someone that likes to keep track of the latest news on America’s most advanced fighters–especially the stealthy, badass fifth-generation F-22 and F-35. More specifically, you’ve probably been keeping tabs on the development of the F-35–its setbacks, its achievements, and its march toward IOC. That also means you may have run across a very recent article that screams, “The F-35 can’t beat the plane it’s replacing in a dogfight!”

 

As a taxpayer, reading that probably pisses you off. After all, the F-35 acquisitions program is one of the most twisted and over-budget jobs programs in the history of the U.S. military. It’s late. It’s expensive. It’s bloated. It can’t even fly within twenty-five miles of a thunderstorm because they had to remove lightning protection to save on weight–a requirement for the Marines so they could take off and land vertically in the F-35B.

 

There are hundreds of valid complaints on this aircraft, but the latest clickbait headlines scattering social media aren’t among them; it’s as though suddenly everyone is Colonel John Boyd reincarnate and knows what the problem is.

 

Now, before we get into the why, let me first preface all of this by saying I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t work for Lockheed-Martin. I have nothing to do with the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps acquisitions process. As I mentioned in my Hornet Vs Viper comparison, the Viper is my first love–so naturally I smiled a little when I read the headline.

 

But at the end of the day, I–just like every other fighter pilot out there–have to be fair.

 

First, let’s talk about what really happened. According to the article, an F-35A and a two-bag Block 40 F-16D took off on Jan 14, 2015 to engage in Basic Fighter Maneuver setups to test “the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment…this consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.”

 

English please?

 

Just like a normal  1v1 proficiency sortie, the two fighters did canned setups to practice basic dogfighting. In the offensive setups, the F-35 would start off behind the F-16. At the specified range, the F-35 pilot would call “Fight’s On” and maneuver to the F-16’s control zone to employ weapons. In the defensive setups, the F-35 would start off in front while the Viper maneuvered to the F-35’s control zone. And finally, in the neutral (high-aspect) setup, the two aircraft would start completely neutral and fight until whatever DLOs (Designated Learning Objectives) they had were met, be they valid gunshots, valid missile shots, or whatever.

 

So while this particular article may lead you to believe the two aircraft went out there mano y mano and duked it out, the reality is that we don’t know where each deficiency was found. My guess is the critiques on the pitch rates for gunning and abilities to jink happened in the canned offensive and defensive setups. But one has to remember  this is a test platform and they were out to get test data, not find out who the king of the mountain is.

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?

 

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.

 

As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”

This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at.

 

For example, the test pilot was a former F-15E pilot. Two-bag Vipers do the same thing to Strike Eagles all day long. Maybe he was just used to it? I keed. I keed. But seriously, a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.

I’m sure internet debates will rage on. It’s fun to trash the new kid, especially the new kid that’s overweight, wears too much bling, and talks about how awesome it is all the time. It’s way too early to declare the F-35 the “worst fighter aircraft design ever imagined.” Please. Let’s see how it does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do against guys with similar amounts experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.

 

There’s plenty of room to criticize this program, but accuracy is important. The sky isn’t really falling, Chicken Little. And for the rest of you? Blow out your torches and hang up your pitchforks, for we have miles to go.

 

http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/ 

Edited July 1, 2015 by MigBuster

[RUSTYMORLEY 162]

I guess we will have to wait and see what happens when the F-35 is put into front-line service for real and it comes up against a real adversary in a combat zone who is armed with real missiles and guns, then we will have to watch and see what happens as to who will be the victor !!!

[MigBuster 2,861]

So the report could have been leaked - all we need now is the content and context of it.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/01/pentagon-says-damning-report-of-f-35-troubles-doesnt-tell-the-entire-story/

 

By now, after years of media beating up the most expensive weapons program in the history of the U.S. military, the Pentagon’s joint program office and Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor, have well-oiled media response teams that are quick to rush to the plane’s defense. And they wasted no time as the War is Boring report gained traction in military circles.

 

In an e-mail to reporters Wednesday morning, they said the report “did not tell the entire story” of the test dogfight between an F-35 and an F-16 this year because the F-35 was not equipped with many of the features that gives it an advantage. But they did not dispute the authenticity of the pilot’s remarks, and said they were investigating how the report, marked “For Official Use Only,” was leaked.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Axe has posted the report he has

 

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

[+Gunrunner 313]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/01/pentagon-says-damning-report-of-f-35-troubles-doesnt-tell-the-entire-story/

 

Pentagon officials said that the particular plane the test pilot flew did not have its special stealth coating, a Harry Potter-like “invisible cloak” that renders it invisible to radar.

 

*cough* BS *cough* 1) With or without the F-35 is as (in)apt at performing ACM and 2) passive stealth is already obsolescent, especially against high-tech opponents, and the RCS gains are obtained either at the cost of maintainability or ability to operate in harsh conditions.

 

From reading the report a few things jump at me :

1) The helmet problem is concerning, it makes the whole helmet concept pointless, actually transforming what was meant as an advantage into a disadvantage. It's strange that with more than a hundred built, at no point in the program such ergonomics problem was identified.

2) The F-35 indeed appears to be "a dog", however I might have missed it but nowhere does the report state the software revisions used on that plane, it was an early airframe without all systems, it's quite possible that it used older software as well, meaning that engine and flight controls were still sub-optimal and not representative of the current state of the F-35 performance, so I wouldn't base my judgement on that report alone, other planes have demonstrated how much of a difference software can make, especially early in development (and for the F-35 it's still early, as idiotic as it sounds for a 23 years old program).

 

Damn, you know things have gone awry when I actually end up defending the silly thing...

Edited July 1, 2015 by Gunrunner

[Lazarus1177 164]

Don't know if this has been posted before : https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog

 

Seems to be LM's somewhat official response.They're admitting the F-35 was never meant to dog-fight.

[+Gunrunner 313]

And yet they've repeatedly hyped it as second only to the F-22 in air combat, they used every trick in the book to sell it to countries in the market for a primarily air asset.

 

By the way, the same thing happened with the A-10, at first they claimed that it could and will replace the A-10, that it will be as good, if not better in the CAS role... now it was never meant to replace it, the A-10 won't be replaced so stop worrying about survivability to ground fire, it won't expose itself, stop worrying about loiter time, it won't be used that way, stop worrying about payload, it won't need payload the way it will be used, yada yada... if this kind of mission profile had been enough to "replace" the A-10, then the F-16 would have done it long ago.

 

I think a lot of the antipathy toward the F-35 stems from the over-the-top and entirely removed from the realities of the program's progress and capabilities astro-turfing that's been going on for nearly a decade now, had it not been sold as some sort of perfect master-of-all-trades wonder weapon, maybe it wouldn't have as many detractors, even considering the delays and cost overruns.

[MigBuster 2,861]

 

From reading the report a few things jump at me :

1) The helmet problem is concerning, it makes the whole helmet concept pointless, actually transforming what was meant as an advantage into a disadvantage. It's strange that with more than a hundred built, at no point in the program such ergonomics problem was identified.

2) The F-35 indeed appears to be "a dog", however I might have missed it but nowhere does the report state the software revisions used on that plane, it was an early airframe without all systems, it's quite possible that it used older software as well, meaning that engine and flight controls were still sub-optimal and not representative of the current state of the F-35 performance, so I wouldn't base my judgement on that report alone, other planes have demonstrated how much of a difference software can make, especially early in development (and for the F-35 it's still early, as idiotic as it sounds for a 23 years old program).

 

Damn, you know things have gone awry when I actually end up defending the silly thing...

 

1. A number of pilots did report poor rear view visibility in the past - do have the report (DOTE - Readiness For Operational Utility Evaluation, Feb 2013) but don't think it was helmet related. I don't think the pilot has to turn his head around all the way around with all the advertised systems in place - need to confirm that - i.e indications can be in the helmet or on the console. Will be interesting to see what they do here.

 

2.  The recommendations at the end are mostly for software changes to the control system - and that is what these tests are clearly for find any undesirable issues and make changes to the software - so I expect some improvements will be made there. 

The software revisions are normally in blocks - the revision given (0.1-v12.006 R33.1.5) means nothing to me.

 

Obviously a Stealth coating is of no use in a staged test like this where the other guy can see you from the off.

 

The report clearly states it is high AOA testing as an objective - which of course means you are not going to be retaining energy at all really. But the pilot seems generic on a few things (EM) - for example unless you improve the T/W / T/D the EM wont improve.

 

There was an (ADVENT?) roadmap for a new engine down the road - but they could just go for reliability over thrust (no biggy I guess).

 

The test fuel weights for the F-35 are not specified unfortunately - e.g. there should be significant differences at say 6K lbs fuel instead of 16K lbs fuel.

The F-16 has near full drop tanks (extra 6K lbs weight) though if the limit was 7G - so AF-2 needs a bit more work I would say........... 

Edited July 2, 2015 by MigBuster

[Do335 382]

Rather simple report so read it. 1 plane is bit of a dog, 2 flight control software needs work, which makes it more dog.... None surprising but yeah first time for me to hear a pilot say it.

[Tirak 4]

Looks like a classic case of the plane's software not being finished. He couldn't make full use of the aircraft in a combat situation because half the time he was fighting the plane. You can't reliably come up with tactics if you're not sure what the plane is going to do because the software isn't finished.

[+Brain32 265]

Looks like a classic case of the plane's software not being finished. He couldn't make full use of the aircraft in a combat situation because half the time he was fighting the plane. You can't reliably come up with tactics if you're not sure what the plane is going to do because the software isn't finished.

Well if you ask me I think the by far the biggest issue of the F-35 is exactly that it is not yet finished, it's taking too long complications still arise budget went through the roof...this alone creates most of the F-35 controversy...

[MigBuster 2,861]

Looks like a classic case of the plane's software not being finished. 

 

Ha - not sure any software over a certain level of complexity has ever been finished. It gets finished when the developer stops supporting it - but usually has tons of bugs and features missing.

The contractors will likely be patching and upgrading these systems over its entire lifetime.

 

These cases are more to do with software parameters - FBW is nothing new so the system should be more than mature enough. Basically they will change values in the code until they get what they want through further flight testing.

 

Simulations and models will only go so far - the actual flight testing is the only time a lot of these issues can be found and changed........ or not.

[Atreides 144]

 

 

 It can’t even fly within twenty-five miles of a thunderstorm because they had to remove lightning protection to save on weight–a requirement for the Marines so they could take off and land vertically in the F-35B.

 

 

WTH ?  This a joke ?  If true then what if said thunderstorm forces the ac to stay beyond the max range of it's AGM's ?

[MigBuster 2,861]

WTH ?  This a joke ?  If true then what if said thunderstorm forces the ac to stay beyond the max range of it's AGM's ?

 

LOL

 

I have pulled some bits from the last 3 DOTE reports that would seem related - might have to wait for the next one though for an update.

 

 

 

 

DOTE 2012 

 

Additionally, the current fuel tank venting design is

inadequate to vent the tanks during a rapid descent. As a

result of the related OBIGGS and tank venting deficiencies,

flight operations are currently not permitted within 25 miles

of known lightning conditions.

 

 

 

 

DOTE 2013

 

The program redesigned the On-Board Inert Gas Generation

System (OBIGGS) to meet vulnerability reduction and

lightning requirements. The program is currently planning

the tests for FY14 to ensure that the system is able to

maintain fuel tank inerting throughout all mission profiles.

The system should protect the F-35 from threat-induced or

lightning‑induced fuel tank explosions.

 

An OBIGGS/lightning protection Critical Design Review

in February 2013 reviewed a system design capable of

providing fuel tank inerting that would prevent fuel tank

ullage explosion due to ballistic threat encounters or

lightning strikes. The program is currently planning the

F-35B fuel system simulator testing and ground tests on

all three variants. Tests will include a spectrum of mission

profiles, including high descent-rate dives to evaluate the

improved OBIGGS ability to provide fuel tank inerting

without compromising fuel tank and wing structure integrity.

• In-flight inerting does not protect the aircraft against damage

to the airframe resulting from lightning-induced currents.

Most line-replaceable units (e.g., actuators and components

of the electrical power system) have passed lightning

tolerance qualification testing, but the existing F-35 airframe

fasteners, selected to satisfy weight reduction criteria, are

not lightning tolerant. The program still needs to complete

lightning tolerance qualification testing for remaining

components and current injection tests, before lifting current

restrictions preventing aircraft operations within 25 miles of

known lightning.

 

 

 

 

 

DOTE 2014

 

AF-4 underwent a modification from March through May,

during which the redesigned fuel tank ullage inerting

system was installed. This modification and testing is part

of the effort to address deficiencies in lightning protection

and vulnerability reduction to ballistic threats. Testing to

assess on-the-ground inerting performance of the redesign

and to validate modeling results was completed in May.

Flight testing to assess the fuel system pressurization and

ventilation capability of the redesign was mostly completed

in June; dive test points were blocked by restrictions

imposed by the engine failure. Further testing to assess

corrections to the redesign is scheduled to occur in

December 2014.

 

When effective, ullage inerting only protects the fuel tanks

from lightning-induced damage. The program has made

progress in completing lightning tolerance qualification

testing for line-replaceable units needed to protect the

remaining aircraft systems from lightning-induced currents.

Lightning tolerance tests using electrical current injection

tests are ongoing, and the program is expected to complete

the tests by 2QFY15.

 

Inerting the aircraft on the ground with external nitrogen

forces fuel to vent from the fuel tanks under certain fuel

states. The procedure to purge the fuel system with

external nitrogen was introduced with the redesigned

ullage inerting system to provide lightning protection

on the ground. The program plans to address this fuel

venting by testing two additional check valves on AF-4

for incorporation into the final design.

 

The aircraft does not maintain residual inerting after flight

for the required interval of 12 hours, which is a lightning

protection requirement. Residual inerting is a result of

the inert air produced by the OBIGGS remaining in the

ullage area of the fuel tanks after a flight. The program is

investigating a correction to this problem. If the residual

inerting cannot be improved, aircraft maintainers will be

required to purge fuel tanks with external nitrogen more

frequently or alternative lightning protection strategies

(e.g., lightning‑protected shelters, will have to be adopted.

[MigBuster 2,861]

WASHINGTON: Do dogfights matter in the age of tactical stealth? If an F-16 can outmaneuver an F-35 in a dogfight, does it matter? Does it matter if the earliest generation F-35 can’t outmaneuver an advanced model of the F-16 in an early test?

 

So many questions. We’ll try to answer them because the folks at War Is Boring got their hands on a hot document — an F-35 pilot’s evaluation of an early test of the F-35 against the F-16. Colleague David Axe got the scoop. Basically, the F-35 test pilot said the F-16 could outmanuever the F-35 in most cases during a close engagement, or what most people would call a dogfight.

 

Here’s where we get to the really complicated bit. Does it matter? Well, of course it matters if the F-35 pilot is in a dogfight and loses. But if you talk with Air Force and Marine pilots who’ve flown the Harrier, the F-18 and the F-16, every one of them I’ve talked with says the F-35 is a superior aircraft. They’ve said it on the USS Wasp. They’ve said it on the USSEnterprise and they’ve said it in the halls of the Pentagon and at Fort Worth, where the F-35 and the F-16 are made.

 

Why do they say this if an F-35 carrying no external weapons can’t out perform an F-16D loaded with heavy fuel pylons? You might well ask. Basically, it’s because the F-35’s stealth and sensors allow it to spot enemy aircraft long before they are spotted. The result? The F-35 gets a weapon lock and kills the enemy before the enemy knows the F-35 is there.

 

Few senior officials or pilots have spoken on the record about the F-35 in terms of what it can actually do in combat, though at least a half-dozen pilots have said publicly they would not trade their F-35s for an F-18, Harrier or an F-16. In the only interview the Air Force has done about the F-35’s capabilities and the first 10 days of a full-scale war, retired Gen. Mike Hostage of Air Combat Command, told me this: “In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen [aircraft] in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical.”

 

At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.

 

“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth,” Hotage told me, “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets.” In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war.

The F-35’s radar cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. For those who wonder about the worth of the opinion of a general sitting behind a desk, bear in mind that Hostage flew the F-22, as well as most models of the F-15 and the F-16.

 

I spoke to another pilot who has closely watched the F-35s development and has extensive combat experience, Dave Deptula, who now heads the Air Force Associations’s Mitchell Institute. He’s also a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors. Deptula flew the F-15 and twice led joint task forces, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

 

His bottom line about what the test pilot said: It’s “interesting, but not relevant to the issue of campaign level utility of the other very significant advantages the F-35 possesses in the areas of low observability, sensor capability, and information integration that provide the F-35 an enormous advantage relative to legacy aircraft. If one can target and kill your adversaries prior to the merge, what they can do at the merge really doesn’t matter now, does it?”

 

He believes “the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can’t conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide.”

He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”

 

Deptula says that one F-35 “can create effects that require dozens of legacy aircraft, and in some cases dozens of legacy aircraft simply cannot accomplish with one or two ‘F’-22s or ‘F’-35s can accomplish.” Dogfighting isn’t the sine qua non of air combat, he argues. Killing the enemy before he knows you’re there is. “Bottom line—it’s about the information, stupid.”

 

The official version of those opinions was issued by the F-35’s Joint Program Office:

“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 official version of those opinions was issued by the F-35’s Joint Program Office:

“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.”

And the JPO notes that this aircraft did not have the current mission systems software that allows it to spot enemies at a distance and was “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 official Air Force comment on the story from Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, head of the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office simply says: “It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current tactical fighters in terms of maneuverability, but the design is optimized for stealth. This will allow it to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.” Hostage said virtually the same thing about the F-16 and the F-35 in our interview last year. The reasonable conclusion of all this: the F-35 is not a top dogfighting aircraft because it wasn’t designed to be one. And it wasn’t designed to be one because it is better to kill the enemy from a distance before the enemy can target you.

 

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A solution to this problem could be of course to do the next BFM tests against this F-16

 

Edited July 2, 2015 by MigBuster

[+Gunrunner 313]

Do dogfights matter in the age of tactical stealth?

Remember when we asked the question "Do dogfights matter in the age of air-to-air missiles ?" or "Do fighters matter in the age of missiles ?" ? Remember how that panned out ?

Besides, manoeuvrability and acceleration are not only for dogfights.

Hubris never ends up well.

 

 

 

“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth,” Hostage told me, “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets.” In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war.

Wait, what ?

 

Indeed, the F-35 is so superior to the F-22 that we need four times as much planes to perform the same mission ! War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength much ?

 

Seriously, the thing has been sold for years as follow :

- F-22 for early stage SEAD and HVT missions (replacing the F-117 and in part the B-2) and air superiority.

- F-35 for everything else.

 

And now they're telling us that the F-35 is actually the one performing early SEAD, even though it will take four times as much planes to obtain the same result ??? WTF (yeah, I know it's probably a typo, at least I hope so, otherwise they're implying they're ready to risk four times as much lives than strictly necessary).

 

 

 

The F-35’s radar cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s

Either there were radical changes to the F-35 requirements making it's export rather puzzling (remember, the F-22 couldn't be exported because it was oh so secret and stealthy, couldn't let it fall into the wrong hands, and the F-35 was supposed to be "worse" enough that it could be exported, and now, not only is it much more advanced system-wise, but also stealth-wise ?) or this is starting to sound like grade A bullshit.

 

“I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”

Yes sure, because the point of the AWACS is not at all the great big long range radars covering 360° with almost the same range, right ?

 

 

See, that's the kind of BS that makes me critical of the program, arrogant, short-sighted astro-turfing, diminishing the importance of weaknesses while over-inflating the advantages.

Yes, sure, their vision of future warfare is glorious and might end up working, but sacrificing the rest of operational capabilities on the altar of a vision reeks of a time when we foresaw a future where everything was missiles and guns - even fighters themselves - were a thing of the past, pushing many to design around that idea sacrificing traditional capabilities, scrapping programs or even their whole industry because of a vision that never survived the first contact with reality.

Sure, 50 years later the money spent following that vision paid up, and yet we still have fighters, most of them with guns.

Nearly a trillion dollar would seem a high price to pay for potential benefits decades down the road.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Gunrunner

[MigBuster 2,861]

http://fightersweep.com/2574/f-35-vs-f-16-bfm-parting-thoughts/

 

C.W. LEMOINE 
[Editor’s Note–Yesterday, C.W. Lemoine a Naval Reserve F/A-18 pilot and prior AFRES Viper Driver, opined about several articles tied to this report. Most the pieces launched onto the Interwebs were designed specifically to raise hackles and blood pressure, and boy did they ever succeed! Here at FighterSweep, we do our best to present factual information from vetted, reliable sources, and keep our work as unbiased as possible. The notion that somehow Lockheed-Martin is lining our pockets for writing pieces in favor of their new jet is bullsh!t. Just to make that explicitly clear. So without further ado, here are the author’s afterthoughts.]

Boy, that escalated quickly…

Perhaps people misunderstood the intent of my article yesterday, or I wasn’t clear enough or both, but I am in no way defending the F-35. As a program, it is a bloated failure. I made several references to that fact.
What I was responding to was a very slanted article, one that took a very myopic set of data points (and out-of-context pilot comments from a “leaked report”) and jumped to a very big conclusion–one that is neither accurate nor fair. I am not making any excuses for the aircraft’s performance, but I also don’t think the article (written by someone with no fighter experience) was anything more than clickbait, as they say.

We have sold out our fighting capability on many levels for the F-35. Like my friend and fellow fighter pilot Jack Stewart spoke of here, I think an investment in upgraded jets (Like the Block 60 Viper with AESA radar and conformal fuel tanks) would’ve been better suited for the short term. The F-35–in theory–is a great “Day One” fighter, but it should never have been touted as a one-size-fits-all answer to all tactical aviation problems. LO is just too expensive and we simply didn’t buy enough to make it cost effective. I am disappointed that the program has cost this much money without results after nearly a decade. And I am even more disappointed that it has been at the cost of our fighter fleet across all services.
But at the end of the day, American fighter pilots will be flying this aircraft, whether we like it or not. The money is already spent, and the train has already left the station. These pilots will adapt and overcome, making it a formidable fighting machine – just as was done with the F-4 in Vietnam. The F-15, F-16, and F-22 ALL had growing pains in their early years. Have you ever heard the term Lawn Dart applied to the F-16? Or how about Craptor as it applies to the F-22?

I take issue with irresponsible journalism that creates problems where there may not be any. The F-35 has PLENTY of issues, but as I said yesterday, it’s best to focus on those that are real, tangible, and quantifiable. Hyperbole, strawman arguments, and the like do nothing for this debate.
What happened in the “test” was just that. BFM is an art, and it takes time to develop tactics suited for each aircraft. There are some good things about the aircraft (like its high-Alpha capability) that came from that test. There are also things that need to be corrected. Any other conclusions are just flat out wrong without more data to substantiate them.

I know bashing the F-35 program is the cool thing to do right now, but I don’t think taking one pilot’s comments out of context (with very little understanding for what he was actually saying from the original author) from a leaked FOUO report is a valid way to do it. Technique only. 

 

[MigBuster 2,861]

Seriously, the thing has been sold for years as follow :

- F-22 for early stage SEAD and HVT missions (replacing the F-117 and in part the B-2) and air superiority.

- F-35 for everything else.

 

And now they're telling us that the F-35 is actually the one performing early SEAD, even though it will take four times as much planes to obtain the same result ??? WTF (yeah, I know it's probably a typo, at least I hope so, otherwise they're implying they're ready to risk four times as much lives than strictly necessary).

 

 

Yes sure, because the point of the AWACS is not at all the great big long range radars covering 360° with almost the same range, right ?

 

 

See, that's the kind of BS that makes me critical of the program, arrogant, short-sighted astro-turfing, diminishing the importance of weaknesses while over-inflating the advantages.

Yes, sure, their vision of future warfare is glorious and might end up working, but sacrificing the rest of operational capabilities on the altar of a vision reeks of a time when we foresaw a future where everything was missiles and guns - even fighters themselves - were a thing of the past, pushing many to design around that idea sacrificing traditional capabilities, scrapping programs or even their whole industry because of a vision that never survived the first contact with reality.

Sure, 50 years later the money spent following that vision paid up, and yet we still have fighters, most of them with guns.

Nearly a trillion dollar would seem a high price to pay for potential benefits decades down the road.

 

AFAIK the F-16 is the only SEAD jet in the USAF and the crews are the only ones who do the job. F-16s provided area SEAD for F-117s in Desert Storm and probably provide it for F-22s and everything else over Syria.  Whether the F-22 systems can triangulate SAM positions and pass them to the F-16s over data link is something that you can only speculate on - however you would expect the SEAD role to pass to the F-35A for the USAF.

 

Not sure in reality what the actual deal with the F-22 was without more research.

 

Certainly the computing systems in the F-35 should be way in advance of the F-22 in computing terms (resource/power) so far better potential capability. So for example the F-22 may not have the throughput and power to stream video for a HMS  - so retro fitting things like EODAS could literally mean ripping out all the hardware and starting again.

 

The issue with AWACs on an airliner has always been vulnerability (like tankers I guess) - you could understand a push to get away from this eventually.

 

 

To me the energy issue was the big surprise - not for unrealistic 1 v 1 BFM - but for all actual mission roles. What was the last USAF fighter with an energy disadvantage over potential adversaries?  It seems to be underpowered although this will hopefully be improved upon over time like the F-14 & FA-18 for example. 

On that note the F-35C is 5,800lbs heavier with the same engine - and has a much bigger wing (thus more draggier)........they might need to BFM this Vs the A-7E.   

[+Coupi 4,279]

To my mind if the F-35 can't dogfight this is not important!

 

 

USAF F-35 is the "striker" which must be protected by the F-22.

 

 

From the 20's F-35A will be an element of a huger future ("global") system with UAS/UCAV, "B-X", ISR aircraft, Spacecraft ("X-37B" style), etc.

 

 

If highly needed (to supplement the only "Increment 3.2b" 120-140 combat coded Raptors...) the F-35 could be improved (if not modified)

 

for the air-to-air missions with new gen AAM, engine and avionics/radar systems or... laser:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/07/us-lockheed-martin-fighter-airforce-idUSKBN0MY26Q20150407

 

 

This is just the beginning of the story and I'm sure the Lightning II hides several secrets for doghfight!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2015 by Coupi

[+Gunrunner 313]

AFAIK the F-16 is the only SEAD jet in the USAF and the crews are the only ones who do the job. F-16s provided area SEAD for F-117s in Desert Storm and probably provide it for F-22s and everything else over Syria.  Whether the F-22 systems can triangulate SAM positions and pass them to the F-16s over data link is something that you can only speculate on - however you would expect the SEAD role to pass to the F-35A for the USAF.

 

Not sure in reality what the actual deal with the F-22 was without more research.

 

Certainly the computing systems in the F-35 should be way in advance of the F-22 in computing terms (resource/power) so far better potential capability. So for example the F-22 may not have the throughput and power to stream video for a HMS  - so retro fitting things like EODAS could literally mean ripping out all the hardware and starting again.

 

The issue with AWACs on an airliner has always been vulnerability (like tankers I guess) - you could understand a push to get away from this eventually.

 

 

To me the energy issue was the big surprise - not for unrealistic 1 v 1 BFM - but for all actual mission roles. What was the last USAF fighter with an energy disadvantage over potential adversaries?  It seems to be underpowered although this will hopefully be improved upon over time like the F-14 & FA-18 for example. 

On that note the F-35C is 5,800lbs heavier with the same engine - and has a much bigger wing (thus more draggier)........they might need to BFM this Vs the A-7E.   

 

On the SEAD mission, indeed, but in the future scenario sans-F-16 that's how the thing was sold when the limited stealth of the F-35 was questioned a few years ago, the story then was that it didn't matter because early SEAD would be the F-22's role.

Doesn't that sound familiar ?

And personally I think the F-35 would be a much better SEAD platform because its signal processing is both superior and what it can do with it much more subtle.

What I question is the shifting official and officious narratives to justify the perceived shortcomings of the program, not the actual ability of the F-35 to perform the mission (well, that in turn makes me question the actual plane abilities, why lie and change stories if the plane actually delivers ?)

 

On AWACS, I can understand it, but even with a fully networked force it will leave you with greater gaps in your coverage than AWACS, unless of course that's what the X-37 is for, but otherwise you are taking the risk of a spotty coverage, easily disrupted, or forcing you to put more planes in the air just to compensate the fact that you don't have a dedicated asset.

Of course that means you don't have a single point of failure, but that also means you get easily degraded coverage which might endanger the whole operation (one aborted mission reduces your coverage in turn potentially endangering other missions and so on).

It also poses the problem of operating costs in low-intensity contexts, I'm quite sure it's less costly to operate an AWACS than a number of fighters over the same time for the same coverage if there's little risk.

So can the F-22 or F-35 act as "mini-AWACS" or as part of a network providing a large area coverage in the absence of a dedicated asset ? Certainly.

Can they replace it or do as good a job ? No.

 

On the engine front keep in mind that everything points toward the engine development being way, way behind schedule both in the software and manufacturing front, there is probably a lot of room for improvement especially once the F-35B reaches IOC and more time can be spent on optimizing engine software for the F-35A and F-35C.

 

So yes, on paper it will still be underpowered but still, we're not seeing what the engine really is capable of yet.

[jeanba 1,915]

Another article for the "pros" :

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/

 

Basically, rather than talking about F16 vs F35, we boil down to a doctrine discussion :

- Shall we need a small number of very stealthy and powerfull 5th generations planes which will kill 4th gen before dogfight or a lot of 4th gen which will dogfight the "few" 5th gen  ?

- Shall we need few 5th Gen or a lot of 4th gen having in mind that we may (BUT WE ARE NOT SURE) only face asymetrical conflicts where sheer number of planes may be more important than the level of technology (because the ennemy air defense are even lower than 3rd gen but the number of potential target is very large) ?

Edited July 6, 2015 by jeanba

[ironroad 218]

Wasn't there a similar argument before...

 

The F-18 isn't faster than the F-14

 

The F-18 has a shorter range than the A-6

 

The F-18 can't carry as much as the A-7

[MigBuster 2,861]

That was before the FA-18E/F came along with a reduced Wiki top end <the horror>

[MigBuster 2,861]

Maybe the last on this thread

 

http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

 

 

 

[Editor’s Note: To be perfectly clear yet again, we have no partnership with Lockheed-Martin or the F-35 program. In other words, we’re not getting paid by them to write these articles. C.W. Lemoine’s views are his own and do not represent those of the United States Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps. This is just one fighter pilot’s personal opinion. Keep that in mind.]

 

Just under two weeks ago, we talked about a poorly-translated test report that gave critics of the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II ammunition to suddenly declare it the worst dogfighter ever.

 

In the time since that article, you can’t find an aviation-oriented website that hasn’t put its two cents in, declaring the F-35 everything from an F-4 clone, to an F-105, and even going as far as calling it a BVR failure.

 

So is the F-35 truly the worst fighter ever?

The standard U.S. Air Force Weapons School answer is, “It depends.”

From an acquisitions standpoint, it’s in the running. Plagued by delays, setbacks, and budget overruns, it has had its share of issues. It’s also guilty of a terrible public relations campaign.

But at the end of the day, this aircraft has done one thing no other aircraft has ever been able to do – turn an entire generation of aviation bloggers, journalists, and commenters into overnight military aviation experts.

 

It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat.

 

As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn.

 

I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion:

 

1) The F-35 vs F-16 flight was a developmental test flight.

I wrote an article about this already, and the horse is very much dead, but I think it’s worth repeating because the actual test report came out after the article. The flight was a Developmental Test Flight in which the test platform  F-35 was sent out to test flight characteristics in high performance flight. Did I say test enough?

Flight control algorithms (because this jet has a computer running millions of lines of code telling each control surface what to do) were studied and determined to require adjustment (pitch rates, departure resistance logic, etcetera). No other conclusion is valid from this TEST.

 

2) Comparisons to any Vietnam-era aircraft are INVALID.

The F-4 struggled in an era of AIM-4, AIM-9, and AIM-7. These missiles failed often (AIM-4) and either had to be guided the entire time of flight (AIM-7) or could only be shot from tail aspect (AIM-9). A reliance on these missiles had come at a time when the Air Force had shifted its focus to shooting down Soviet bombers in a Cold War scenario.

The F-105 comparison is so ridiculous it’s barely worth mentioning. Both the USAF Weapons School and Navy’s TOP GUN develop tactics to suit every aircraft in the fleet. These tactics key on strengths, minimize weaknesses, and address threats. And even after these tactics are developed, they evolve over time. What else do you expect?

It is 2015. Think of BFM as the equivalent of unarmed hand to hand combat for Marine grunts. It is important, because it is self defense, but it is not THE mission. It is not the primary method of achieving a kill. It hasn’t been since the early 80s. Yes, BFM can still happen. There are hundredsof scenarios where an F-35 may find its way to the merge. In a world with high off-boresight short and medium-range missiles, is it still possible to get a guns kill? Absolutely. Is it likely? No.

In an environment where everyone, including the enemy, has these missiles, a prolonged engagement in which you dogfight into a gun weapons employment zone is not a highly survivable situation. Unless you managed to get wrapped up with the only remaining MiG in bad-guy country, it likely means his buddies are close by. Saddling up for a guns kill from a neutral merge takes time and fuel – luxuries you just don’t have in combat. And this applies to any aircraft – fifth-gen, fourth-gen, or said threat country.

Countries have spent a lot of time and money developing these missiles for this very reason. If you find yourself in the phonebooth, the quickest kill is the most survivable. Now, if the F-35 gets into a turning fight is it a sitting duck? I don’t know. You can find HUD footage of a T-38 gunning an F-22 on YouTube. Is a trainer aircraft with paper-thin wings a BFM monster against a jet that nearly flies up its own rear-end during airshows? No. But any given Sunday, anything is possible.

The F-35A is a 9G-capable aircraft with a monster engine and a relatively high-alpha capability. It may not be a Raptor. It may not even be a Viper, but it won’t be an F-4 either. I don’t know how it will do in Dissimilar Air Combat Training until it starts wrapping it up on a regular basis in the real world (i.e. – operational squadrons, not test aircraft in test squadrons). And guess what? None of these journalists do either.

 

3.) F-35 sensors, avionics, technology, and capabilities are classified.

It’s hard not to laugh when another “definitive” article comes out declaring not only is the F-35 a lame duck WVR, but it’s also dead in the water BVR. Holy crap.

There are two groups of people that know the true capabilities of the F-35: those that have the clearance necessary to read about it, and the people who built it (who have the same clearance)…. And probably the Chinese, but that’s another story. Anyone else that makes claims to know what the capabilities of this aircraft are and how they compare to threat aircraft (also classified, by the way), are just wrong and have traveled so far out of their lane it’s not even funny. They just don’t know what they don’t know.

I’m sorry, but you don’t have a right or need to know. The military keeps these things classified for a very good reason – to save American lives. Sensors, capabilities, tactics, and the like are not going to be released to journalists unless someone does so illegally. And even then, it’s like a dog watching TV. They’re not going to understand what they’re even looking at (as we’ve seen in these “expert interpretations” of a leaked FOUO test report).

Why is this important? Because any unclassified source that claims to know how an F-35 will do in a BVR engagement is flat-out wrong. Anything beyond that is pure speculation based on marketing brochures that are worth less in the real world than the paper they’re printed on.Sorry.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first aircraft to be developed, tested, and flown in the “instant gratification” age. No other aircraft has had its dirty laundry aired in real time quite like this one. And a lot of people have worn out their “Jump to Conclusions Mat” as a result – without any valid information to back it up.

 

4.) The F-35 debate is political in nature.

This is where I must apologize. In my follow up, I went a bit out of my way to trash the F-35 as a program.

As a fighter pilot, this is pretty far out of my own lane. The merits of the cost per unit and total program costs/timeline are something politicians and elected officials should debate and explain to America. As a taxpayer, it’s everyone’s right to question how money is spent. But the two issues should not be confused.  I should not have brought it up as part of the argument.

How an aircraft is acquired doesn’t mean much in the battlespace. The military acquisitions process needs work, or as Navy dudes say, it’s an “other.” That’s really irrelevant to the onslaught of hit pieces that have come out lately.

 

5.) The F-35 won’t be a bust, but it also won’t be perfect either.

Both the F/A-18 and F-16 have had almost 30 years worth of development, and neither of them are perfect to this day. They weren’t perfect when they first came out and both aircraft have their own strengths and weaknesses. Having flown both, I have seen it firsthand. That doesn’t mean either aircraft is a bust. Very smart fighter pilots and engineers have done a great job in making them very formidable against even newer and better threat aircraft.

 

I am confident that the next generation of fighter pilots and engineers will make the F-35 equally lethal through superior training, tactics, and even aircraft upgrades down the road. It’s just what we do as American fighter pilots.

It may be frustrating for spectators and participants alike. There may be more growing pains, but it’s going to push through eventually. And if you’re a true aviation enthusiast, you should be rooting for it.

 

From my perspective, the horse is dead and I won’t feed the million-man Strawman Army anymore. The show will go on and, eventually, this jet will become the face of the American strike fighter.

 

Just my humble opinion. Your mileage may vary.