Test pilot report on F-35 vs F-16 dogfight

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Even the F-16 had teething problems at first and would occasionally be called" long darts"..
One of the other nicknames for the F-16 was the "Bic 16 Disposable Jet." I'm sure ViperFixr knows the details. Something about engine failure and battery power loss, even for a second or two, can be really bad on a fly by wire high performance jet. The map in the preflight room at MacDill Air Force Base (F16 Training) had "Don't Chum the Waters" posted in the ocean areas of the map.

Not knocking the F-16, certain has a venerable history (gad I now feel old, it was "new" when I started in the Air Force!) and has performed well.
Not knocking the F35 either, simply noting that it would not be surprising if the "stealth" structural requirements may make it hard for it to compete head to head with a non-stealth fighter in a dog fight. Point being, as Hornet suggests, that the best way to win a dogfight is to "chum" your opponent BEFORE you get INTO the dogfight. It is a gamble, and time will tell if it turns out well. ViperFixr is on target to point out other proven platforms had doubts as well.

Regarding NON-multirole aircraft, the A10 was kind of the epitome of an aircraft designed for one purpose: kill tanks. In fact, basically the airplane was designed around a gun, the 30mm cannon. It was a great bird for doing what is was supposed to do, fly low and blow up slow moving or stationary targets on the ground. Some of the other fighter pilots would tease the warthog guys a bit , like the fact that it had calendar instead of an airspeed indicator, and the proposed Navy version had a nose hook, the plane would fly in front of the ship and wait for the ship to catch up! But it was a cool NON-multiplayer platform.
 
As the Marine aviator said, the F-35 as a whole is being significantly compromised by a capability that may be next to useless in reality:

While Harriers have conducted some forward rearming and refueling at shorter strips, these were more driven by the Harrier's limitations and the desire to validate its expeditionary capability than a value added to the fight. That is, while a Harrier was rearming and refueling, a Hornet would be overhead, sensor still on target, refueling from a KC-130, more weapons still on the wing.

The extraordinary complexity and demands of the F-35B have undoubtedly hampered the whole F-35 problem, creating technical problems and sucking up limited (in Pentagon terms) development dollars and engineering resources. The need to redesign the whole aircraft (all three models) to take out weight was largely an effort to salvage any combat payload for the B-model. Now, with the airframes of early planes showing cracks and wear and tear early in their lives one has to wonder how much of those and future problems will be due to weight reduction for the F-35B.


And this is my primary point:

That is exactly my beef about relying on one primary feature that can potentially be defeated by a technological surprise. That's one of the reasons why we originally created our nuclear forces _triad_ as insurance against that. The F-35 is going to need to suffice for how many decades? If and when it no longer has a stealth advantage, it's back to what it basically is, a phenomenally expensive multi-role jack of all trades but master of none.
 
Ya know, there's a couple things we didn't touch on. That multi billion dollar price tag that everyone boo hoos about. The fact of the matter is, that money doesn't just fly away with the plane. It goes into some very well paying jobs across the spectrum. And those people don't just sit on the money or keep it in a pillow--they spend it. So you say it's a welfare program--NO--recipients of welfare don't produce anything for the money they get. Should we cancel the program outright. That's the stupidest idea in a world of really bad ideas. The time it takes to develop these types of systems is now being measured in the decades. Most of that is the fault of the Gov. -some of it because of emerging technologies needing to be incorporated in the design or the customer changes some requirement mid stream.The lineage of the F-18 dates back to the 1960's, that's right!! not the 70's as most think with the Light Weight Fighter program(YF-17) but with the P-530 Cobra--The original Cobra is much closer to the F-18 legacy than the YF-17. Northrop had a winning design far ahead of it's time with no customers. It was continually refined and the result is the F-18 line of aircraft. As far as the A-10 goes--I think they should keep it for as long as possible, although that's an expensive proposition given it's age. The F-35 , as a whole,has matured into a fine weapons system and will continue to do so over the years reguardless of the bad and inaccurate press it gets.
 
One other thing to think about. Stealth only opens up extra options for how the system is used. Take away stealth and you take away tools to be used. The day may come when stealth can be affordably defeated, but I think not soon. The Russians, Chinese, and others have the same technology. It's not some deep dark secret hidden in a black whole. But it is hard to defeat ! If it were some wildly super secret, we sure as hell would not be selling these things overseas.
 
These aircraft are still at the politician generals stage. Like every new system it needs to get inti the hands of those who will be using it. Sure it will have flaws, but it will also excell in areas. It will find a place on the team.
 
Excellent thread:cool: Thanks for the info HD and Viperfix:clap: I would love to have a beer with you guys and listen to your stories!:cool:

F-22.jpg

735 CROPCR-sharp copy.jpg

CompC-B17_0199 .jpg
 
F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers --
Aviation Week & Space Technology (Guy Norris and Amy Butler) – 2 April 2015 --

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.

Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson.

The operational maneuvers were flown by Nelson in AF-2, the primary Flight Sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, and one of nine F-35s used by the Edwards AFB-based 412th Test Wing for developmental testing (DT). The F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards has six F-35As, two F-35Bs and a single F-35C dedicated to DT work, as well as a further set of aircraft allotted to the Joint Operational Test Team. Work is underway as part of efforts to clear the final system development and demonstration (SDD) maneuvering envelopes on the way to initial operational capability (IOC). The U.S. Marine Corps F-35B IOC is targeted for later this year, the Air Force’s F-35A in 2016, and the U.S. Navy’s F-35C in 2019.

“When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”
“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.

An “aggressive and unique” approach has been taken to the high AOA, or “high alpha” testing, says Nelson. “Normally, test programs will inch up on max alpha, and on the F-22 it took us 3-4 months to get to max alpha. On this jet, we did it in four days. We put a spin chute on the back, which is normal for this sort of program, and then we put the airplane out of control and took our hands off the controls to see if it came back. We actually tweaked the flight control system with an onboard flight test aid to allow it to go out of control, because it wouldn’t by itself. Then we drove the center of gravity back and made it the worst-case configuration on the outside with weapons bay doors and put the aircraft in a spin.” The aircraft has been put into spins with yaw rates up to 60 deg./sec., equal to a complete turn every 6 sec. “That’s pretty good. But we paddled off the flight-test aid and it recovered instantly,” he says.

Pilots also tested the ability of the F-35 to recover from a deep-stall in which it was pushed beyond the maximum AoA command limit by activating a manual pitch limiter (MPL) override similar to the alpha limiter in the F-16. “It’s not something an operational pilot would do, but the angle of attack went back and, with the center of gravity way back aft, it would not pitch over, but it would pitch up. So it got stuck at 60 or 70 deg. alpha, and it was as happy as could be. There was no pitching moment to worry about, and as soon as I let go of the MPL, it would come out,” Nelson says.

Following consistent recoveries, the test team opted to remove the spin chute for the rest of the test program. “The airplane, with no spin chute, had demonstrated the ability to recover from the worst-case departure, so we felt very confident, and that has been proven over months of high alpha testing,” says Nelson. “It also satisfied those at the Joint Program Office who said spin chute on the back is not production-representative and produces aerodynamic qualities that are not right.” Although there are additional test points ahead where the spin chute is scheduled to be reattached for departure resistance with various weapons loads, the test team is considering running through the points without it.

With the full flight envelope now opened to an altitude of 50,000 ft., speeds of Mach 1.6/700 KCAS and loads of 9g, test pilots also say improvements to the flight control system have rendered the transonic roll-off (TRO) issue tactically irrelevant. Highlighted as a “program concern” in the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2014 report, initial flight tests showed that all three F-35 variants experienced some form of wing drop in high-speed turns associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves. However, TRO “has evolved into a non-factor,” says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary “tug” on one shoulder harness. “You have to pull high-g to even find it.” The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as “less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can’t find one.”
 
Winston, how can you assume that Low Observable technology has been stagnant? It has not, just as the efforts to defeat it have not been idle. I would like to think we are more than a few steps in front of the problems and will stay that way.
I would too, but my point is what do we have if LO is eventually defeated to some adequate extent?

And, LO does not mean invisible. Spend a little time looking up the differences between different kinds of radar. You might find that 'seeing' an LO jet does not necessarily mean you can do anything about it. A hazy return does not necessarily lead to a firing solution (think of a GPS tracker solution that gets you to within a mile or two and only lasts fleeting seconds--will you find the rocket that way?).
The cell phone tower based bi-static radar system I linked to above that has "disappeared off the public radar" claims to allow location within 10 meters which could then be used to vector fighter aircraft to within visual range and SAMs to within a distance where imaging IR and active radar guidance could take over. Even if that system is imaginary, someday it might not be. Of course, night flying would fix the visual range fighter issue and LO makes ECM much easier because of the low returns from the F-35.

The F-35 is my third LO platform, and the most impressive by far. When I remember how much LO work my F-117As ("Once a Sheep, Always a Sheep" 8 FS) took to get ready for OIF, we've come a long way with the Lightning II. I have no problem calling a turd a turd. This is not one. In fact, it is showing early on that is has the potential to be really darned good.
F-117, F-22, to F-35. Or can't you say? :)

And, the USMC has no LO experience and is jumping from arguably a 3rd Gen STOVL platform to a 5th Gen one. It will take them a while to get this weapons system figured out. They are also going to be leaning heavily on the USAF's experience and operational testing--one team, one fight. Yes, a B model flying vertically is limited on payload/gas. Didn't I mention that I work with A models? Yes, there is a great deal of commonality--not sure what the point is to that. I've got some of the oldest Block 1B aircraft flying. We also have one of the highest flying 1Bs of them all--hundreds of flying hours. No cracks, no leaks, no structural problems. It's actually been a fairly "Maytag" jet.
I hope the F-35's LOs and much greater airspeed somehow makes STOVL worth the great effort because that Marine aviator's claim isn't the only one I've read about the Marines' lack of real use of the Harrier's talents. There's another which goes into more detail about such things as FOB vulnerabilities and fundamental flaws of the entire concept that I read quite some time ago, but I can't find it.
 
What I know about dog fighting with aircraft could be printed on a postage stamp with plenty of room leftover for the U.S. Constitution complete with all its Amendments, but with that said I’m going to go out on a limb here and ask; how many hours behind the stick did the F-16 pilot have under his belt in that aircraft?

How many hours did the F-35 pilot have with his aircraft?

Think that might have something to do with the outcome?
 
Oh I have no doubt that the name of the F-35 pilot wasn’t picked out of a hat.
But the F-35 is a new aircraft, relatively speaking, and like any new aircraft it undoubtedly has its very own flight idiosyncrasies, so even the best of the best with regards to pilots, said F-35 pilot is simply not going to have the same flight hours in the F-35 than the F-16 pilot is going to have in his aircraft and absolutely can’t have the “dog fighting” practice in the F-35 than the pilot of the F-16 most assuredly has.
 
If the weapons were sophisticated and long ranged enough, we could bring back the P-51 and P-47 and still get the job done.
 
Oh I have no doubt that the name of the F-35 pilot wasn’t picked out of a hat.
But the F-35 is a new aircraft, relatively speaking, and like any new aircraft it undoubtedly has its very own flight idiosyncrasies, so even the best of the best with regards to pilots, said F-35 pilot is simply not going to have the same flight hours in the F-35 than the F-16 pilot is going to have in his aircraft and absolutely can’t have the “dog fighting” practice in the F-35 than the pilot of the F-16 most assuredly has.

Technically speaking, the pilot does not fly the jet..."HAL" does. The pilot is a 'voting member'. Really.

But, yes, we are still early in the stages of finding out the BFM idiosyncrasies unique to the F-35. Then again, if the Lightning II is in a Basic Fighter Maneuver visual fight, things have really gone to crap. With the Distributed Aperture System, sensor fusion, the EOTS and the AIM-9X, a visual fight will not last long, especially at night. Keep in mind the Lightning II's F135 engine puts out thrust in the 40k class, more than any fighter engine ever produced. She has lots of GO MOJO and can afford to be a little hefty/draggy body wise.
 
Hi guys. One small very time little caveat to this discussion.
The missiles are NOT stealth. So once the F35 pops open it's doors and launches a missile, there goes the stealth. They may not be able to shoot back immediately because of radar lock, but they know where you are.
 
Missiles are small, RCS is low, they move VERY fast and are hard to detect. First shot often equals first kill. So, as long as we shoot first and they happen to see the shot, they're still more than likely a 'kill', they just know it's coming for them.

For the weapons bay doors, we've been down this road before with other platforms--nothing new. To be exact, if the adversary is looking in exactly the right place, with the right kind of radar, from the right azimuth/polarization, then *maybe* they will know where the jet WAS at that time, but not more than likely once they close again. Doors are not open long. AIM-120s don't chuff on the rail like an AMW Green. And, again, if we're weapons away with the first shots, advantage USAF.

Also consider that a strike package almost never operates with a singular capability--you mix and match to cover the many vulnerabilities. Other platforms likely just behind/accompanying the F-35 will help, and the self-protection capabilities of the Lightning II are impressive.

A lot of you are still thinking of aerial warfare in 'Top Gun' like terms. We have evolved a LONG way from that. There are entirely new methodologies and non-kinetic means that have changed the landscape significantly. The 5th Gen differences matter in almost any scenario or against any threat. This isn't your Grandpa's F-14 flying against nimble A-4s; it is not about who can out-fly or out-turn who.
 
As a wide-body commercial guy I just have to say:
I love it when you little pointy guys talk dirty. It is SO sexy.
 
You still have a very incomplete, simplistic perspective of how Low Observability works, and that's okay. All I can say is that it is working as we expect/hope it to perform.
If that means a knowledge of it based upon a reading and understanding of the most technical descriptions of it available in the public domain then, yes. My deep skepticism of DoD acquisitions is based upon their historical track record and personal involvement in USAF systems acquisitions to a level way beyond those my direct responsibilities should have required because others weren't doing their jobs nearly as well as they should have been and I, the customer, was going to be stuck with their end product.

I sincerely hope that you are correct about the F-35 and the wisdom of putting so many of our eggs in the LO basket for many decades to come.
 
Back
Top