WORLD WAR III
See other WORLD WAR III Articles
Title: Test Pilot Admits the F-35 CanÂ’t Dogfight
Source:
WarIsBoring
URL Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/te ... -35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875
Published: Jun 30, 2015
Author: DAVID AXE
Post Date: 2015-06-30 20:16:44 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 1463
Comments: 12
“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.” The test pilot’s report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history’s most expensive weapon. The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — not to mention the air forces and navies of more than a dozen U.S. allies — are counting on the Lockheed Martin-made JSF to replace many if not most of their current fighter jets. And that means that, within a few decades, American and allied aviators will fly into battle in an inferior fighter — one that could get them killed … and cost the United States control of the air. The fateful test took place on Jan. 14, 2015, apparently within the Sea Test Range over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California. The single-seat F-35A with the designation “AF-02” — one of the older JSFs in the Air Force — took off alongside a two-seat F-16D Block 40, one of the types of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace. The two jets would be playing the roles of opposing fighters in a pretend air battle, which the Air Force organized specifically to test out the F-35’s prowess as a close-range dogfighter in an air-to-air tangle involving high “angles of attack,” or AoA, and “aggressive stick/pedal inputs.” In other words, the F-35 pilot would fly his jet hard, turning and maneuvering in order to “shoot down” the F-16, whose pilot would be doing his own best to evade and kill the F-35. “The evaluation focused on the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment,” the F-35 tester wrote. “This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.” The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage. But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported. “Insufficient pitch rate.” “Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time.” “The flying qualities in the blended region (20–26 degrees AoA) were not intuitive or favorable.” The F-35 jockey tried to target the F-16 with the stealth jet’s 25-millimeter cannon, but the smaller F-16 easily dodged. “Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution,” the JSF pilot complained. And when the pilot of the F-16 turned the tables on the F-35, maneuvering to put the stealth plane in his own gunsight, the JSF jockey found he couldn’t maneuver out of the way, owing to a “lack of nose rate.” The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn. The JSF tester found just one way to win a short-range air-to-air engagement — by performing a very specific maneuver. “Once established at high AoA, a prolonged full rudder input generated a fast enough yaw rate to create excessive heading crossing angles with opportunities to point for missile shots.” But there’s a problem — this sliding maneuver bleeds energy fast. “The technique required a commitment to lose energy and was a temporary opportunity prior to needing to regain energy … and ultimately end up defensive again.” In other words, having tried the trick once, an F-35 pilot is out of options and needs to get away quick. And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him. In the end, the F-35 — the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing — is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s. The test pilot explained that he has also flown 1980s-vintage F-15E fighter-bombers and found the F-35 to be “substantially inferior” to the older plane when it comes to managing energy in a close battle. Poster Comment: FWIW, David Axe has broken a number of these stories, all of them raining on the F35's parade. A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
The F-35 has been a total waste of money. For what has been spent on it, they could have built a lot of F-15's or F-16's.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The F-35 wasn't necessarily designed as a superior dog fighter . It's more of a one size fits all, single platform ,jack of all trades ,several functions ,catering to multi branch requirements, fighter-bomber . Unless we are going to have a war with China or Russia ,it's not likely that we will need a superior dog fighter beyond our old stock F-16s F-18s. I would not have pulled the plug on the Raptor . If we have a conflict with Russia or China I'd want a bunch of them plowing the field before I send in the F-35s .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Still a failure under that criteria because the one size fits all is supposed to keep costs down.
In other words,designed to be a failure because no platform can fill all those roles. It can do nothing well because the design was always compromised in order to (partially) fill other roles. Sounds to me like this was a political decision,not a military one. No one in the military would ever give the approval for a program to go into production that would end up leaving them with less capable aircraft than they were already using. Someone,or several someones,in Congress just didn't want to spend the money to insure air superiority in any future conflicts because they wanted to spend the money elsewhere. Most likely,buying votes. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It does keep costs down because the politicians behind this are going to continue to insist it is the fighter aircraft of the future. This means no other aircraft will be designed or built that can adequately fill the operational role the F-35 fails at filling. It wastes money in the sense that the government might as well have just set that money on fire for all they get out of it in return. WTH was giving them advice on this,the Greeks? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Just think of all the pork spread out all over the nation. The other way they defer costs was to sell our allies on the concept. But someone at the Pentagon must like them . http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-to-urge-congress-to-approve-f-35-fighter- contract-1432932010 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Maybe,but the way this works in the real world is that some Senator or Congressman on a military committee will tell the Flag Officers "this is what you are going to get,and if you bitch about it we are going to cut the number of tanks/aircraft carriers/cargo planes you will get next quarter,along with cut the number of enlisted and officer members you are allowed to retain." It's the politicians that give the orders,and the military that says "Yes,Sir!" They have no authority to say "No" to anything. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
As with our stealth aircraft, the military is reluctant to use them in actual battle because they're so expensive. But they love to see them in air shows. Reminds me of the movie The Four Feathers. Is was fun to dress in the pretty uniform and attend all the parties, but when called to war, uh, I resign.
I predict canards in a future design. But when was the last time an American jet fighter was in a dogfight? The Korean War?
Does it matter? With new small fast autonomous stealth drones coming online, it is easy to foresee drones that can outmaneuver any human-piloted plane and shoot them up with just a cannon. Much cheaper and more effective than missiles. Robotics is bringing us into a new era of military operations.
The Stealths fly slow and can't dog fight and the Serbs were able to shoot one down and fill 2 others full of shrapnel and putting them out of condition (though those two made it back to France). So Stealths are there to awe the rubes at airshows these days.
As the Yom Kippur war showed - aircraft are vulnerable to fix SAM positions - if the Egyptians had not moved out of their trenches their Soviet SAMS could shoot down Israeli Mirage jets all day long. Also, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia had to be done at a distance because of their SAM defense.
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
#3. To: tomder55, TooConservative (#2)
The F-35 wasn't necessarily designed as a superior dog fighter . It's more of a one size fits all, single platform ,jack of all trades ,several functions ,catering to multi branch requirements, fighter-bomber .
#4. To: tomder55 (#2)
(Edited)
It's more of a one size fits all, single platform ,jack of all trades ,several functions ,catering to multi branch requirements, fighter-bomber .
#5. To: Pericles (#3)
(Edited)
Still a failure under that criteria because the one size fits all is supposed to keep costs down.
#6. To: sneakypete (#5)
It does keep costs down because the politicians behind this are going to continue to insist it is the fighter aircraft of the future.
#7. To: tomder55 (#6)
But someone at the Pentagon must like them . http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-to-urge-congress-to-approve-f-35-fighter- contract-1432932010
#8. To: Stoner (#1)
"The F-35 has been a total waste of money."
#9. To: TooConservative (#0)
“Insufficient pitch rate.” “lack of nose rate.”
#10. To: misterwhite (#9)
But when was the last time an American jet fighter was in a dogfight? The Korean War?
#11. To: misterwhite, Stoner (#8)
As with our stealth aircraft, the military is reluctant to use them in actual battle because they're so expensive. But they love to see them in air shows.
#12. To: TooConservative (#10)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]