Posted on 06/30/2015 5:50:20 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
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.
“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.
The defeated flier’s five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic complaints targeting the cumbersome JSF. “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.
Another expensive boondoggle.
The Russians have already said their new radars can now pick the F-35 up, so the ‘stealth’ enhancements are no longer a factor.................
Looks like the offspring of an F-4 and a F-18.....................
Are there any cheap boondoggles?...............
Failing to find specific items at Home Depot or Wal-Mart come to mind. I live outside of town and its a 30 mile round trip.
I check the internet for local stock items. Their websites will tell if the item is ‘in stock’..................and I live just 2-3 miles from both................
To keep A-10s flying.
Why didn’t I think of that? Thanks.
Never let em get that close!
...
Yep. The F-35 was never intended to be a dogfighter.
There is a lot of competition for that job. Not to mention a fairly expensive way to do it. They just need to add curb feelers and be done with it.
This is really bad for the F-35. The F-16 was designed in the 70’s as a light weight primarily air to ground fighter. It initially wasn’t even equipped with a radar guided missile!
This test was a stacked deck for the F-35. They put it up against an older (block 40) 2 seat F-16 with 2 external Fuel tanks. 2 tanks limit the Viper’s performance dramatically. Lower the g limits, increased energy loss etc. Those tanks are called drop tanks for a reason. You burn the fuel out of them first. Then in a combat situation, drop them off the plane.
Even with the deck stacked against it the F-16 was superior. Had they used a newer, clean, single seat F-16 with modern AMRAAM’s and AIM-9 missiles... Oof.
It’s safe to assume both pilots were world class. Not too many guys make it to that level and suck.
A test pilot is not just "one guy" who gets beat....and he's no novice. First...you can look at the thing and know it's not going to be a dog-fighter. Second...don't let them get that close. If the A-AM's are great and the radar is great...it shouldn't be much of an issue.
I would imagine you could put a 1Lt out of flight school in the F-16 and the most seasoned pilot in that rock...and the newbie would win in a dog fight that went to guns (no missiles). Not a shocker.
Ouch, this article is very telling. The F-35 program is probably making Boyd spin violently inside his grave. Any fighter/attack aircraft in today’s military must be able to dogfight. And, dog fighting is all about energy and maneuverability. The F-16 is designed specifically to optimize these characteristics, and the F-35 does not appear to be. The only way ahead is better stand-off weapons for the F-35 (and that is a bleak hope for this $$$ weapon system). Hope UCAVs can replace this deficiency.
I've never thought of the F-35 as a fighter, but rather a fighter/bomber, with the emphasis on the bomber part.
When I look at that picture, I see the technology driven evolution of the F-105 to become the F-35, and the F-86 to become the F-16.
In that pic, you see the difference between a modern, purpose-built "Strike" fighter and a lightweight dog fighter.
How does it stack up to the Mig-35? Will we be sending up this “flying coffin” up as cannon fodder in a real war? Will this be the P-40 vs the Zero Rematch? Do we really think the days of the dog fight are over?
Another cherry-picked hit piece from the War is Boring crowd.
Some of the scenarios described in after-action report are completely unrealistic. Gun track? I don’t think there has been an air-to-air kill using a gun since the Vietnam War; in that conflict, we discovered that a gun was still useful because the reliability of air-to-air missiles (particularly the AIM-7) was poor. On several occasions, F-4 pilots had to transition to a maneuvering, WVR engagement because their AIM-7s failed to guide on the target.
Since then, the reliability of our AAMs (particularly AMRAAM variants and the AIM-9X) have improved dramatically. So, the vast majority of future engagements will be fought in the beyond visual range (BVR) arena, and that’s where the F-35 should have an advantage.
The key is situational awareness—preventing the other guy from jumping you and establishing a turning, within-visual-range (WVR) fight from the onset. And once again, the War is Boring gang cherry picks their info.
Flying in a many-v-many exercise like Red Flag (or actual combat), the F-35 is going to be networked into a vast array of sensors, like the F-22. The data gives them a “God’s-eye view” of the fight, with various tracks color-coded as friendly, hostile or unknown. By comparison, the JTIDS data link (and AWACS/Rivet Joint radio calls) used by the F-15 and F-16 are helpful, but they don’t have the big picture view you get in F-35 cockpit. That information helps the pilot assess the tactical environment and make the right decisions.
To be fair, the F-35 has its deficiencies; many of the planned upgrades that will further improve combat capabilities won’t occur until later production blocks, early in the next decade. And it’s very obvious that we made a huge mistake in limiting F-22 production to 187 aircraft. You’ll recall that critics said the Raptor was too expensive and didn’t deliver enough bang for the buck.
Now, it’s hard to find someone who won’t sing its praises, loud and long. As one USAF aggressor pilot told The Atlantic a few years ago, “I saw a Raptor just the other day; it was passing overhead, just after it called me dead.”
I’m waiting for War is Boring to post the results of the F-35 versus F-16, with the Lightning II in full stealth mode, and both carrying AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs. Then, let’s see what the kill ratio is...
Reminds me about the time the F-14 was rolled out.
I have read stuff that compared the F-35 to the F-105 Thunderchief let us say earned the nicknamed the Thud or the Lead Shed. The only way the F-35 will be effective in the air superiority role is if the stealth works and it can kill the opponent beyond visual range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.