MigBuster

If you can ignore the cheese there are some nice shots here:

Long video - a bit of history but found it interesting none the less on the modern technology in use. (despite the sales pitch) https://vimeo.com/129458153

In a preview of what WWII combat in DCS World 2 will feel like, Charles “Chuck” Ouellet gives us some impressions on his early access to DCS World 2… http://www.mudspike.com/dcs-world-2-preview-wwii-air-combat/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=SBSVse2NPdE

That looks like the default saved games location on C above - is it? If so it should only have a few ini files in it now - look at the screenshots I put up.

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

Will probably test it on a separate HD - need all the hardware to actually work before I consider it.

See here: http://combatace.com/topic/82326-running-mods-from-a-different-disk-partition/

The time period - AA combat is very interesting - every time I come back it takes a while to get back into it. The AI - very ruthless for some aspects of AA - especially if you are in a Mystere or F-100D and you get rid of all the HUD/MAP aids The endless scenarios you can create with the endless objects available - especially with the mission editor have created a lot of Nam missions I have read about. Fly an F-4K or Buccaneer off the Ark Royal - no problem! There are definitely aspects of this series that are unique to this series only!

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.

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.

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

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCCSwOFh6WM

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.

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...........

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

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.

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/

Not seen anything new on that for a few years.

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.

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.

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

Just need a Track IR now

For years, the Air Force’s M117 750-pound bomb was synonymous with “death from above.” During Vietnam, B-52 crews flying from Thailand and Japan dropped the ordnance as part of Arc Light missions and Operation Linebacker II, and nearly 20 years later, M117s rained down on Saddam Hussein’s army. On Friday, Pacific Air Forces said goodbye to its inventory of the Vietnam Era ordnance when B-52s dropped the last M117s from PACAF’s stockpile on an uninhabited island off Guam. http://flightlines.airforcetimes.com/2015/06/26/b-52-crews-drop-pacafs-last-vietnam-era-bomb/