User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 6:02:51 PM EDT
 F 16 vs F 35 Turn Comparison  F-35AvsF-22vsEF-2000 TURN ver2 Notice the F-16 is completely slick of pylons, tanks, missiles, or bombs. The F-35 carries the F-16's normal combat load and much more fuel internally, while being able to turn just about like a slick F-16. The F-35 finishes its turn about 20°-30° to the right of the F-16, so the clips are oriented to 360, not each other. Pierre Sprey's "No wing, no turn" commentary. Go to 2:13 All the premises the female commentator makes are false, but they're worth the chuckle anyway.  The F-35 Is an Airplane Built For a Dumb Idea |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 6:07:03 PM EDT
[#1]
I'd like to know the exact weights of each plane in that maneuver, and how much speed and altitude each lost after completion of the turn. Just curious.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 6:18:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Our company had a major milestone for hardware deliveries on the F35 program. In celebration they brought a simulator and I got to fly in it today. It was slick as shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 6:24:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to know the exact weights of each plane in that maneuver, and how much speed and altitude each lost after completion of the turn. Just curious. The F-35 is flying in normal combat configuration, with 50% internal fuel (9,000lbs), and batter capabilities across the board when looking at fuel, radar, engine, ECM/ECCM, electro-optical aiming, etc. F-16s for airshow demos usually fly with no more than 3500lbs internal. Max internal fuel on the F-16C is 7,000lbs. Internal fuel in the F-35A is 18,000lbs, which is more than an F-16 can carry internally and externally with 2 wing tanks, which then induce a boat load of drag. F-16 drag coefficient is larger than the F-35's when the F-16 carries the same ordnance and some of the fuel the F-35 carriers internally. The F-35 was designed with the painful lessons learned from the F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-117A, B-2, and F-22. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 6:27:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Sprey really needs to stop embarrassing himself and admit he is 30+ years behind understanding the nature of air combat today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 6:29:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-16 is slick, with only wingtip rails, no missiles, no tanks, no pylons on stations 4 & 6, no pods, no ECM on centerline. The F-35 is flying in normal combat configuration, with 50% internal fuel (9,000lbs), and batter capabilities across the board when looking at fuel, radar, engine, ECM/ECCM, electro-optical aiming, etc. F-16s for airshow demos usually fly with no more than 3500lbs internal. Max internal fuel on the F-16C is 7,000lbs. Internal fuel in the F-35A is 18,000lbs, which is more than an F-16 can carry internally and externally with 2 wing tanks, which then induce a boat load of drag. F-16 drag coefficient is larger than the F-35's when the F-16 carries the same ordnance and some of the fuel the F-35 carriers internally. The F-35 was designed with the painful lessons learned from the F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-117A, B-2, and F-22. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to know the exact weights of each plane in that maneuver, and how much speed and altitude each lost after completion of the turn. Just curious. The F-35 is flying in normal combat configuration, with 50% internal fuel (9,000lbs), and batter capabilities across the board when looking at fuel, radar, engine, ECM/ECCM, electro-optical aiming, etc. F-16s for airshow demos usually fly with no more than 3500lbs internal. Max internal fuel on the F-16C is 7,000lbs. Internal fuel in the F-35A is 18,000lbs, which is more than an F-16 can carry internally and externally with 2 wing tanks, which then induce a boat load of drag. F-16 drag coefficient is larger than the F-35's when the F-16 carries the same ordnance and some of the fuel the F-35 carriers internally. The F-35 was designed with the painful lessons learned from the F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-117A, B-2, and F-22. My question should have been: With the F-16 flying as it was, and an F-35 flying with a full combat load, how much altitude and speed did each aircraft lose, performing a turn of the same radius and beginning at the same speed and altitude. Or something. ETA: Like I said, I'm just curious, I don't have any vestment in the actual outcome - it would just be interesting to see the numbers for a 5th gen fighter vs something that was put on paper 40 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 6:39:36 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean, that's nice and all. Do you know for a fact the F-35 was flying with a combat load? Were you there, or are you just taking Lockheed's word for it? My question should have been: With the F-16 flying as it was, and an F-35 flying with a full combat load, how much altitude and speed did each aircraft lose, performing a turn of the same radius and beginning at the same speed and altitude. Or something. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to know the exact weights of each plane in that maneuver, and how much speed and altitude each lost after completion of the turn. Just curious. The F-35 is flying in normal combat configuration, with 50% internal fuel (9,000lbs), and batter capabilities across the board when looking at fuel, radar, engine, ECM/ECCM, electro-optical aiming, etc. F-16s for airshow demos usually fly with no more than 3500lbs internal. Max internal fuel on the F-16C is 7,000lbs. Internal fuel in the F-35A is 18,000lbs, which is more than an F-16 can carry internally and externally with 2 wing tanks, which then induce a boat load of drag. F-16 drag coefficient is larger than the F-35's when the F-16 carries the same ordnance and some of the fuel the F-35 carriers internally. The F-35 was designed with the painful lessons learned from the F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-117A, B-2, and F-22. My question should have been: With the F-16 flying as it was, and an F-35 flying with a full combat load, how much altitude and speed did each aircraft lose, performing a turn of the same radius and beginning at the same speed and altitude. Or something. You just don't normally see anyone at perfect 90° bank angle for that exact reason you mention, which is loss of altitude. Both the F-16C and F-35A in these demos compensate for that with less than 90° bank. The point is, Pierre Sprey asserts that the F-35 can't turn because it has a tiny wing meant for vertical take-offs. That had nothing to do with the USAF specs on the F-35A, which has no such requirement, nor did it on the Navy's F-35C, which has huge wings for lower speed carrier landings, and higher perch altitude ceiling, longer combat radius for fleet defense mission sets. The USAF wanted speed comparable to or better than the F-16, which is why they specified the wing that they did. The one thing that Sprey and Boyd were vindicated in their critique of the F-15 program was questioning the worth of making a fighter capable of Mach 2+, when you don't need more than Mach 1.6 really. That would have shed some weight off of the F-15 airframe and airfoil, but it still would have needed to do Mach 1.8 at least to be able to hit Mach 1.6 with missiles and external stores. Guess what the designed max speed of the F-35 is? Mach 1.61, by control law only. The F-35A easily exceeds the F-16's cruising speed, dashes, and turning speed when combat loaded. The only way the F-16 can match it is if they strip it down of any external stores. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 7:41:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Here's a good article with healthy doses of experience and skepticism from different viewpoints.
It includes pilot perspectives from: Billy Flynn, F-35 test pilot and Canadian Air Force CF-18 pilot, with experience in 80 different airframes, to include experimental thrust-vectored F-16s and the Eurofighter: Flynn says "that the F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets," says Flynn, who is a former test pilot for the Eurofighter and Lockheed F-16. All variants of the F-35 are capable of flying at Mach 1.6 and 50° angle-of-attack, he says. The A and C models have a maximum speed of 700 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS-1296 km/h) while the F-35B can fly at 630 KCAS (1167 Km/h). The A, B and C variant are rated at 9g, 7g and 7.5g's respectively. An unnamed Super Hornet pilot: But at issue is exactly what constitutes a combat load out. An F-35 loaded up with two 2000lbs bombs and two air-to-air missiles internally is not carrying an equivalent payload to a Eurofighter Typhoon with four 2000lbs bombs and five air-to-air missiles or a Super Hornet armed with a mix of bombs and air-to-air missiles. "What was the combat load out?" the Super Hornet pilot asks. "If you compare apples and oranges --you can make claims like that." 
F-22 Pilots: They need to compare the performances based on similar amounts of ordnance carriage. Internal carriage is only required if you need the stealth," another F-22 pilot says. "At which point a fourth generation jet may not even be able to deliver on the target." Flynn: If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there," Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. "You're not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft," Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says. F-22 pilot #1: The first F-22 pilot says he is surprised to hear that there are already E-M diagrams available. "The reality is that I would be floored if they had accurate E-M diagrams right now," he says. "They are probably computer generated, and very inaccurate. Also, 'real' E-M diagrams come from OT/DT [operational test/developmental test], not the contractor." (Article is from 2013) Former F-16C pilot: F-15 Pilots Train Together During Lakenheath Deployment 04 May 2017 U.S. European Command ...“For me, it’s my first time dogfighting against an F-15,” said Air Force Maj. Luke Harris, a 34th Fighter Squadron F-35A pilot. “Dogfighting is a test of pilot skill, but it’s also constrained by the aircraft’s capabilities, and I’ve been really impressed by the flight control and maneuverability of the F-35.” However, with the F-35A’s stealth capability, dogfights aren’t likely, Harris said. Stealth, he said, allows pilots to fly undetected to a “visual merge” and engage air targets before enemies have time to react defensively, which is an advantage over the fourth-generation tactics he employed when he flew the F-16." Pilots Say F-35 Superior Within Visual Range: Dogfight Criticisms Laid To Rest
by Colin Clark, June 19, 2017 I asked one of the Air Force pilots, Lt. Col. Scott “Cap” Gunn, here whether the F-35 would win when fighting close-up with an enemy fighter. His answer was simple: “Without a doubt.” Gunn told reporters at a briefing here that he had gone up against a friend in an F-16 a few months ago. Though the F-35 “performed very well,” he made clear that it hadn’t been dominant. They flew again recently and the F-16 pilot was amazed by the improvement in the F-35’s performance. “What have they done to your jet?” the pilot said, according to Gunn. “The difference is we have learned how to fly the jet… and better understand where its advantages are.” Gunn went on to say that he “either never got it within visual range, or, if I’m going to be inside visual range, then it’s because I’m going to choose to be there.” That seems to make clear the aircraft’s vaunted fusion engine and advanced sensors — all tied into the pilot’s helmet — provides the pilot with enough warning and data to allow him to decide the terms of combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:12:39 PM EDT
[#8]
He's an audiophile who owns Mapleshade studios!
Makes some nice stuff and does nice recordings. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:26:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Pierre Sprey
"The F-15 had gotten loaded up with junk." (F-15 air-to-air kill record is currently 104:0) "We started a guerrilla movement and did the F-16, which would wax the F-15." (F-16 kill record is 77-1) "No wing, no turn. It's astonishingly unmaneuverable." (Refer to video in OP) "It isn't good at anything. It's a Turkey." (Exact opposite of what all the pilots are saying about the F-35, especially the ones that flew F-16C, A-10, F-15C, F-15E, AV-8B, Hornet, and Super Hornet.)  F-35A block3i Turn -best turn seen so far- |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:37:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pierre Sprey "The F-15 had gotten loaded up with junk." (F-15 air-to-air kill record is currently 104:0) "We started a guerrilla movement and did the F-16, which would wax the F-15." (F-16 kill record is 77-1) "No wing, no turn. It's astonishingly unmaneuverable." (Refer to video in OP) "It isn't good at anything. It's a Turkey." (Exact opposite of what all the pilots are saying about the F-35, especially the ones that flew F-16C, A-10, F-15C, F-15E, AV-8B, Hornet, and Super Hornet.)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaHlWow6Yc4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:48:34 PM EDT
[#11]
A clean Viper is a sight to behold. It can turn, hard. But...
A clean Viper is rarely ever flown that way except for airshows. Slap on the wing tanks, HTS/SNIPER 2 pylons with BRUs and 4 bombs, 1x 9X and 3x 120s and you have a combat jet. The F35 carries most of that stuff inside (2x9X, 2 bombs or more), and it can still turn like the clean Viper. It needs no external sensors strapped on, and has the range without the external tanks. The F35 can turn better in a fight than a Viper can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:48:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pierre Sprey "The F-15 had gotten loaded up with junk." (F-15 air-to-air kill record is currently 104:0) "We started a guerrilla movement and did the F-16, which would wax the F-15." (F-16 kill record is 77-1) "No wing, no turn. It's astonishingly unmaneuverable." (Refer to video in OP) "It isn't good at anything. It's a Turkey." (Exact opposite of what all the pilots are saying about the F-35, especially the ones that flew F-16C, A-10, F-15C, F-15E, AV-8B, Hornet, and Super Hornet.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaHlWow6Yc4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:51:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-16 configured the way Boyd and Sprey wanted it wouldn't make it to the merge against the F-15. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pierre Sprey "The F-15 had gotten loaded up with junk." (F-15 air-to-air kill record is currently 104:0) "We started a guerrilla movement and did the F-16, which would wax the F-15." (F-16 kill record is 77-1) "No wing, no turn. It's astonishingly unmaneuverable." (Refer to video in OP) "It isn't good at anything. It's a Turkey." (Exact opposite of what all the pilots are saying about the F-35, especially the ones that flew F-16C, A-10, F-15C, F-15E, AV-8B, Hornet, and Super Hornet.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaHlWow6Yc4
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:57:39 PM EDT
[#14]
My problem with the f35 has always been its cost. Not necessarily with the plane itself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 8:59:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pierre Sprey "The F-15 had gotten loaded up with junk." (F-15 air-to-air kill record is currently 104:0) "We started a guerrilla movement and did the F-16, which would wax the F-15." (F-16 kill record is 77-1) "No wing, no turn. It's astonishingly unmaneuverable." (Refer to video in OP) "It isn't good at anything. It's a Turkey." (Exact opposite of what all the pilots are saying about the F-35, especially the ones that flew F-16C, A-10, F-15C, F-15E, AV-8B, Hornet, and Super Hornet.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaHlWow6Yc4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 9:00:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A clean Viper is a sight to behold. It can turn, hard. But... A clean Viper is rarely ever flown that way except for airshows. Slap on the wing tanks, HTS/SNIPER 2 pylons with BRUs and 4 bombs, 1x 9X and 3x 120s and you have a combat jet. The F35 carries most of that stuff inside (2x9X, 2 bombs or more), and it can still turn like the clean Viper. It needs no external sensors strapped on, and has the range without the external tanks. The F35 can turn better in a fight than a Viper can. A lot of my neighbors were test pilots on the F-16 CTF at Edwards. Others are or have been operational pilots, and love the plane. Once it gets laden down with everything it actually flies with on sorties, it isn't doing any airshow demos, that's for sure. CAT limits on the flight control system are there for reasons that were determined in testing at Edwards, because the aircraft will depart or suffer structural failures if you try to pull max G with it when combat loaded. This is one of the main inputs from F-16 and Hornet pilots into the JSF program. It isn't like LM just made up requirements for itself. A very common demand was, "We want performance like a slick F-16 or Hornet, but with the typical combat loads we carry on missions." One thing I will point out though is that the F-35, unlike the F-22, does not yet carry AIM-9X internally. It can carry them on wing stations, but currently only carries the AIM-120C/D internally. Weapons are one of the main weak points, because we haven't made new missile profiles in a long time, and are still working off missile size/shapes meant for 1950s aircraft. The F-35 can carry 4 x AIM-120C/D, with growth potential for 6 that has been demonstrated. They're working on a new missile for the F-22 and F-35 called the CUDA, which will increase the internal capacity to 12 for the F-35, basically like a short AMRAAM with as good or better performance than legacy AMRAAMs, as well as additional features that leap-frog off the F-35's sensor suite. Right now, the gun has become more in play with the F-35 since you can merge on your own terms in a disadvantageous position to the enemy, and zoom egress. The best fighter aces have avoided turning fights like the plague, and always looked for the most unfair positional advantages, dating back to WWI. The last best examples were Israeli F-15s and F-16s in 1982 over Bekaa Valley, with side aspect approach using vector from E-2C AWACS against limited RWR equipped MiG-21s and MiG-23s, who had all their comms with GCI jammed, radars jammed, headed into certain death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 11:51:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-16 configured the way Boyd and Sprey wanted it wouldn't make it to the merge against the F-15. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pierre Sprey "The F-15 had gotten loaded up with junk." (F-15 air-to-air kill record is currently 104:0) "We started a guerrilla movement and did the F-16, which would wax the F-15." (F-16 kill record is 77-1) "No wing, no turn. It's astonishingly unmaneuverable." (Refer to video in OP) "It isn't good at anything. It's a Turkey." (Exact opposite of what all the pilots are saying about the F-35, especially the ones that flew F-16C, A-10, F-15C, F-15E, AV-8B, Hornet, and Super Hornet.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaHlWow6Yc4No Sidewinder is going to get up there with any probability of intercept, and the radarless F-16 would be reliant on AWACS vector anyway, whereas the F-15 would have been targeting the YF-16 from BVR already. One of the main criticisms of the F-16A from the early generation of pilots was the lack of a decent pulse doppler radar that the F-16 got in the APG-63, which was full of faults, always giving fake BIT errors, sucky range, sucky performance, suck display down between the legs, sucky resolution, low reliability, etc. The APG-68 upgrade for the F-16C was a welcome addition, and now F-16 drivers want an AESA more than anything. This is the exact opposite of how Sprey and Boyd envisioned the F-16. Above FL250, the F-16 loses its EM advantages because of the little wings and heavier external ordnance. F-15 loves being up from FL250 to FL600, where a true interceptor dominates with perch advantage, big radar to do a lot of volume search with his mates, breaking down the airspace as a team and planning how they will set up on contacts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2018 11:58:50 PM EDT
[#18]
When was the last time an American pilot was in a turning fight in an air to air engagement?
Let's face it. Any adversary is going to be dead long before they even know that there are F-35s anywhere near by. All of this bullshit is about people wanting to bilk the taxpayer or having soreass over not getting their piece of this particular pie. The Russians and Chinese are a joke. They couldn't defend themselves against the US Military and they know it. America can bomb the shit out of any nation on Earth at will. The only thing that could restrain us is an adversary's nuclear capability. In a conventional war, no one would have a chance. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not anybody. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 12:00:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My problem with the f35 has always been its cost. Not necessarily with the plane itself. Super Hornet Block II was already well above $90 million. I've seen figures ranging from $92 to $98 mil per, not even talking about the Block III they want now with CFTs and upgraded features inspired by the F-35. F-16E/F Block 70 for UAE are $200 million per, more expensive than an F-22A. UAE F-16E/F Deal F-15SG for Singapore costs $83.3 million per ($1 billion for 12 aircraft). Or you could buy F-35As for $85 million per and get VLO, integrated systems, unprecedented SA, best AESA currently produced, more lethality, more survivability, better performance, better combat radius, ease of training, substantial advantages across every parameter of how we used to compare planes, with no competition in the information performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 12:06:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Institutionally stuck in 1952 over Mig Alley....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 12:09:45 AM EDT
[#21]
Here we get to listen to GD with its vast knowledge in air combat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 12:13:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sprey really needs to stop embarrassing himself and admit he is 30+ years behind understanding the nature of air combat today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 12:13:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here we get to listen to GD with its vast knowledge in air combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 12:48:24 AM EDT
[#24]
F35 threads always make me chuckle.
I personally am very happy with everyone thinking they are garbage... Never hurts to have your capabilities underestimated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 1:04:20 AM EDT
[#25]
The F-35 would have been a perfect airplane if the VTOL variant were a separate project.
It compromises the design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 1:05:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here we get to listen to GD with its vast knowledge in air combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 1:20:34 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We need to make a sticky for the 35 threads |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 1:31:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-35 would have been a perfect airplane if the VTOL variant were a separate project. It compromises the design. Cost estimates indicate at least 30% increase if 3 separate programs would have been pursued. This was the right way to go I think, looking at streamlined production. People mistakenly surmise that the F-35's aerodynamic shape was compromised to fit the lift fan of the B model. That ignores the requirement for internal weapons and serpentine intake arrangement for VLO characteristics. In the end, they made a plane that out rates the F-16 and out radiuses the Super Hornet and vice versa, across most of the flight regime, with more thrust/weight than a SH, higher cruise speed, impressive Instantaneous and Sustained Turn rates, while carrying a very similar or same combat load as the F-16 internally. That's making the mistake of looking at the F-35 from a 4th Gen E-M perspective, not even taking into account VLO, AESA, sensor fusion, Electro-Optical aiming systems, integrated quad redundant central super computing processors, a personal assistant with voice activation, flat panel cockpit, immersive Helmet Mounted Display, insane EW capabilities, and who knows what else. It's like they took the wish list from decades of F-16 and F/A-18 pilots, and made it happen, while doing it inside of a smaller radar cross section than the F-117, retaining or exceeding the combined performance characteristics of 2 of the most feared Within Visual Range fighters ever built...while carrying the combat load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 1:41:50 AM EDT
[#29]
The F-35 is so threatening to foreign industry, that the Luftwaffe fired their Chief for recommending that Germany buy the F-35 too.
Naughty Luftwaffe Chief: Nein! Nein! “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favourite of the air force is,” Gen Müllner told Jane’s and other media in November 2017.
The Chief of the Luftwaffe’s active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon. Good luck with that. We've slaved away for decades on ATF and JSF, working with plenty of international partners who saw the light from the start and threw in their funding, pilots, test resources, and cooperation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 1:49:04 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All anyone needs to know about him is that he doesn't believe fighters need radar. Might not be sexy or exciting, but who cares if you even see the threat with your own eye. As long as the radar can 'see', America wins! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 1:56:55 AM EDT
[#31]
Referring to that video, start by pausing it the very moment it starts. Note the aspect of both aircraft.
Let it run until the F-16 is broadside to the camera. (Less than a full second in.) At that frame, note the aspect of the F-35. It appears that the F-35 was given a head start in this video to make it look better. But even with that head start, which I estimate to be between 20 and 30 degrees into the turn, (maybe even 35) the F-16 still completed the circle slightly quicker. Just pointing out what I observe. Read nothing else into that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 2:13:55 AM EDT
[#32]
The F-35 will be a good fighter if we buy enough of them.
But it's no F-22. We won't be getting any more F-22s though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 2:20:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here we get to listen to GD with its vast knowledge in air combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 2:37:50 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some participants in the thread, y'know, do it (or have done it) for a living. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 2:46:45 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPqUvCnWcrk
Notice the F-16 is completely slick of pylons, tanks, missiles, or bombs. The F-35 carries the F-16's normal combat load and much more fuel internally, while being able to turn just about like a slick F-16. Pierre Sprey's "No wing, no turn" commentary. Go to 2:13 All the premises the female commentator makes are false, but they're worth the chuckle anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4doIA3T9ps
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 2:50:55 AM EDT
[#36]
People just don’t realize how much better the F35 can make current 4th gen fighters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 7:32:52 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When was the last time an American pilot was in a turning fight in an air to air engagement? Let's face it. Any adversary is going to be dead long before they even know that there are F-35s anywhere near by. All of this bullshit is about people wanting to bilk the taxpayer or having soreass over not getting their piece of this particular pie. The Russians and Chinese are a joke. They couldn't defend themselves against the US Military and they know it. America can bomb the shit out of any nation on Earth at will. The only thing that could restrain us is an adversary's nuclear capability. In a conventional war, no one would have a chance. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not anybody.  Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 7:38:27 AM EDT
[#38]
Psstt. The USMC said the F-35C's wing will have to be redesigned because in can't carry an AIM-9 properly and dogfight.
It's almost like the F-35 was built/designed by Hesse. “It was discovered the outer, folding portion of the wing has inadequate structural strength to support the loads induced by pylons with AIM-9X missiles during maneuvers that cause buffet,” Bogdan says in written testimony to Congress on Feb. 16. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 8:02:07 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Referring to that video, start by pausing it the very moment it starts. Note the aspect of both aircraft. Let it run until the F-16 is broadside to the camera. (Less than a full second in.) At that frame, note the aspect of the F-35. It appears that the F-35 was given a head start in this video to make it look better. But even with that head start, which I estimate to be between 20 and 30 degrees into the turn, (maybe even 35) the F-16 still completed the circle slightly quicker. Just pointing out what I observe. Read nothing else into that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 8:47:09 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Referring to that video, start by pausing it the very moment it starts. Note the aspect of both aircraft. Let it run until the F-16 is broadside to the camera. (Less than a full second in.) At that frame, note the aspect of the F-35. It appears that the F-35 was given a head start in this video to make it look better. But even with that head start, which I estimate to be between 20 and 30 degrees into the turn, (maybe even 35) the F-16 still completed the circle slightly quicker. Just pointing out what I observe. Read nothing else into that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Referring to that video, start by pausing it the very moment it starts. Note the aspect of both aircraft. Let it run until the F-16 is broadside to the camera. (Less than a full second in.) At that frame, note the aspect of the F-35. It appears that the F-35 was given a head start in this video to make it look better. But even with that head start, which I estimate to be between 20 and 30 degrees into the turn, (maybe even 35) the F-16 still completed the circle slightly quicker. Just pointing out what I observe. Read nothing else into that. You really see how the F-16 plateaus out with its EM when slick though, not that it has such an advantage when laden with wing tanks, bombs, and missiles, whereas the F-35 combat configured will turn with it, looks to have more instantaneous, and isn't a slouch in energy retention at all. These are worst case performance considerations. I've never seen an F-16 be able to J-turn like an F-35 though. Guys that came from F-16s say they can do things in the F-35 that the F-16 just can't, including foreign pilots. Norwegian Air Force Maj. Morten "Dolby" Hanche, the first Norwegian to fly the F-35, analyzed the jet’s performance in a dogfight in a March 1 blog post published on Norway’s Ministry of Defense website.
"For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16," Hanche wrote. "So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? ... To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent." The crazy thing is that was with the older Control Law limits of 3i, not 3F, which opens up the performance of the aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 8:47:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Pierre Sprey needs to STFU and go back to playing his s$%tty jazz elevator music.
He's 40+ years behind the times. His ideas suck, he's an idiot, and we're all dumber for having to listen to his version of "old man yelling at clouds". Boyd and Sprey are farces. They've been misquoted, misused, and basically made themselves laughingstocks with their bleating. Unfortunately, they have good press and are always willing to say something bad about something for either $$$ or to expand their ignorance. They also have a loyal cadre of sycophants who help continue the charade that they're Gods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 9:13:50 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Psstt. The USMC said the F-35C's wing will have to be redesigned because in can't carry an AIM-9 properly and dogfight. It's almost like the F-35 was built/designed by Hesse. https://i.imgur.com/DD3H4Sr.png Quote HistoryQuoted:
Psstt. The USMC said the F-35C's wing will have to be redesigned because in can't carry an AIM-9 properly and dogfight. It's almost like the F-35 was built/designed by Hesse. https://i.imgur.com/DD3H4Sr.png Don't ever look at F-16 CAT limits on stores carriage, or F-16C and F/A-18 departure characteristics with asymmetric loads.  F/A-18 Hornet Out of Control  F-16 Loss of Control, Test Pilot on Yaw Departure Ignore all the developmental problems with the F/A-18E/F wing buffeting issues as well. Wing buffeting prompts F/A-18E/F adjustments The U.S. Navy expects software adjustments and changes to a porous wing fairing to solve a buffeting problem that has appeared on some test flights of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The fairing is seen as the solution to a wing-drop phenomenon in which asymmetric lift causes uncommanded banks. One of the issues being worked is the number of holes in the fairing, their size, and their location, according to a Navy official. Testing of various configurations is underway at NAS Patuxent River. It's another to come up with every possible external stores configuration (something not needed all the time with the F-35) and test those to see where the weaknesses are. Be glad we have a very mature test and evaluation program in our military, versus elsewhere. To conclude this is an inherent flaw in the F-35 and that it's akin to the "Hesse" of jets ignores all the precedent of other aircraft, which have experienced decades of problems, many of which have led to crashes and fatalities galore, unlike the F-35 program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 9:27:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pierre Sprey needs to STFU and go back to playing his s$%tty jazz elevator music. He's 40+ years behind the times. His ideas suck, he's an idiot, and we're all dumber for having to listen to his version of "old man yelling at clouds". Boyd and Sprey are farces. They've been misquoted, misused, and basically made themselves laughingstocks with their bleating. Unfortunately, they have good press and are always willing to say something bad about something for either $$$ or to expand their ignorance. They also have a loyal cadre of sycophants who help continue the charade that they're Gods. The problem is he painted himself into the "reformer" schtick, so every Pentagon rock has a bogey man underneath it that if they would just listen to him, it would all be figured out at a fraction of the cost, in a much smarter manner. The problem is, most of what he advocated for has been invalidated, and some surprising things he did advocate for or would have advocated after the past 40 years are incorporated into the F-35. His critiques of what the F-15 became were invalidated for air combat. His critiques of the M-1 Abrams were wholly invalidated in actual combat in Desert Storm, which was probably the most lop-sided armor victory in the history of tank warfare. One of his main assertions was that the Abrams' turbine would choke in the desert sand. The biggest thing I notice about Sprey is he doesn't come out and specifically say what his alternative recommendation is. Is it that we buy thousands of YF-16s with no radars like he wanted in the early 1970s? Is it F-20s? What exactly does he recommend to the vast collective of combat experience from pilots, air planners, strategists, and the intelligence community, because pilots and air planners have been asking for: * Better SA * Better sensors * Better engines * Internal weapons storage for better handling, fuel efficiency, and VLO * More combat radius * More EW capabilities * Higher fidelity networking/communications/data management These features lead to: * More lethality * More survivability They aren't asking for the cheapest day fighter we can crank out, because that type of aircraft isn't going to last 20 minutes in a modern denied access environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 10:44:09 AM EDT
[#44]
I think it will turn out to be a good and useful jet, but my main issue is LM has been coddled in the development and we keep throwing cash at them to fix issues (S/W, weight) they should be responsible for. Plus ALIS, which is suppposed to reduce support costs just seems to be a money hog as well. Time will tell with that.
Remember, F35 was supposed to be the low end complement to the F22 high end. Not sure if that is still true. Good vids of Dutch F35s doing pretty fast 180 deg turns back in 2016 (not sure of the S/W version).  Massive DUTCH AIR FORCE DISPLAY to introduce F-35 at Luchtmachtdagen 2016 Remember, we will soon be facing down these Chinese developments: TVC on J10 
FC31 
Latest J20 with sensor window 
Go here for more Chicom military developments. Amazing the progress they are making. https://twitter.com/xinfengcao |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 10:44:55 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, no shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Some participants in the thread, y'know, do it (or have done it) for a living. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 10:51:27 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Notice the F-16 is completely slick of pylons, tanks, missiles, or bombs. The F-35 carries the F-16's normal combat load and much more fuel internally, while being able to turn just about like a slick F-16. you being a f35 champion is laughable, especially when you dont know the capabilities |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 11:18:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here we get to listen to GD with its vast knowledge in air combat. Iron Eagle I-III, Top Gun, Red Flag, Firefox, and Stealth. That's not even counting the post-grad instruction. We're MORE than qualified! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 11:27:29 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a good article with healthy doses of experience and skepticism from different viewpoints. It includes pilot perspectives from: Billy Flynn, F-35 test pilot and Canadian Air Force CF-18 pilot, with experience in 80 different airframes, to include experimental thrust-vectored F-16s and the Eurofighter: Flynn says "that the F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets," says Flynn, who is a former test pilot for the Eurofighter and Lockheed F-16. All variants of the F-35 are capable of flying at Mach 1.6 and 50° angle-of-attack, he says. The A and C models have a maximum speed of 700 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS-1296 km/h) while the F-35B can fly at 630 KCAS (1167 Km/h). The A, B and C variant are rated at 9g, 7g and 7.5g's respectively. An unnamed Super Hornet pilot: But at issue is exactly what constitutes a combat load out. An F-35 loaded up with two 2000lbs bombs and two air-to-air missiles internally is not carrying an equivalent payload to a Eurofighter Typhoon with four 2000lbs bombs and five air-to-air missiles or a Super Hornet armed with a mix of bombs and air-to-air missiles. "What was the combat load out?" the Super Hornet pilot asks. "If you compare apples and oranges --you can make claims like that." http://i.imgur.com/rRqohld.jpg https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7jFg33D.png&hash=015e9286ebbe57cfacb11122fcea11a4 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f5dW9eUg3fk/VSaNTuCBMUI/AAAAAAAADf0/QIw-4ORCbYY/s1600/MBDA_SPEAR_F35_JSF_Farnborough_1.jpg http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=17141&mode=view F-22 Pilots: They need to compare the performances based on similar amounts of ordnance carriage. Internal carriage is only required if you need the stealth," another F-22 pilot says. "At which point a fourth generation jet may not even be able to deliver on the target." Flynn: If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there," Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. "You're not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft," Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says. F-22 pilot #1: The first F-22 pilot says he is surprised to hear that there are already E-M diagrams available. "The reality is that I would be floored if they had accurate E-M diagrams right now," he says. "They are probably computer generated, and very inaccurate. Also, 'real' E-M diagrams come from OT/DT [operational test/developmental test], not the contractor." (Article is from 2013) Former F-16C pilot: F-15 Pilots Train Together During Lakenheath Deployment 04 May 2017 U.S. European Command ...“For me, it’s my first time dogfighting against an F-15,” said Air Force Maj. Luke Harris, a 34th Fighter Squadron F-35A pilot. “Dogfighting is a test of pilot skill, but it’s also constrained by the aircraft’s capabilities, and I’ve been really impressed by the flight control and maneuverability of the F-35.” However, with the F-35A’s stealth capability, dogfights aren’t likely, Harris said. Stealth, he said, allows pilots to fly undetected to a “visual merge” and engage air targets before enemies have time to react defensively, which is an advantage over the fourth-generation tactics he employed when he flew the F-16." Look at the shadows and markings, they are exactly the same for every missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 11:30:21 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People just don’t realize how much better the F35 can make current 4th gen fighters. I see the -35 like having a Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or Tim Duncan on your team. Not only are they outstanding players in their own right, they are a force multiplier. They elevate everyone else's game to an unbelievable level just by being on the court. It doesn't necessarily need to out run or out turn all the bad guys planes. It'll most likely be way up above, loitering and watching stealthily, jamming shit, directing the traffic and finding targets while bomb trucks drop bombs from a standoff position. If it is discovered and the enemy tries to intercept it.... SURPRISE COCKFAG, it's a goddamed ninja assassin super secret squirrel bad ass Gen5 fighter that they'd have to contend with. And a few of its F-22 buddy wingmen. Good luck. I believe that, once it's all said and done, the F-35 will be one of those "game changer" events that completely shifts the paradigm. As in, things will be referred to by "well, before the F-35, yadda yadda", or "well, after the F-35..." everything before it will be considered "then", and everything after is "now". As in all weapons platforms, the designers and engineers have certain things in mind when they design something, but once it's put in the hands of the users (in this case, pilots), and they begin to use it and learn its capabilities, they use them in ways the designers could have never dreamed possible. I think that this airplane will be doing things that will forever change how warfare is conducted. I see it being used more for wild weasel type roles, almost like a CAS AWACS, spoofing and jamming while coordinating all the chess moves in its AO. That's just my observation on it. I'm just a lowly mechanic and knows nothing about actual military doctrine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2018 11:30:30 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sprey really needs to stop embarrassing himself and admit he is 30+ years behind understanding the nature of air combat today. These guys were proven horrifically wrong in 1991. Id rather watch videos of old timers talking about Iron Sights and Garands over the M-16 than watch this guy. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
