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.
But the Navy will be relying on the F-35 for air superiority also the Air Force only less than 200 F-22s in service.
1. The article mentions the "aerodynamic disadvantage" to the F-16 caused by the external Fuel tanks. Can you quantify this disadvantage...does it degrade the plane's maneuvering abilities by 10%, 20%, 30%???
2. Do current tactics call for the external fuel tanks to be jettisoned if the F-16 finds itself in a dog-fight (unless absolutely needed to RTB?
Thanks
Cant give you an answer to your first question as I have never flown military aircraft. But having been around them yes it is normal procedure to drop the tanks when entering combat. In the more information than you wanted to know category...
The normal fuel transfer procedure from external to internal is to transfer fuel from the centerline tank first, then from the external wing tanks. However, this may be overridden by setting the fuel transfer switch to wing first according to the Falcon manual.
The fuel system of the F-16 is based on the
Forward/ Right Left /Aft layout.
The fuel is divided into two systems, the F/R and L/A, and is fed from both systems to the engine. In this way balance is maintained and the aircraft does not become too nose or tail heavy or have a tendency to roll.
The fuel storage system is composed of the following:
•Two Reservoir tanks, these hold 480lbs of fuel each and feed the engine directly. One reservoir is for the F/R and the other L/A system.
•Forward and aft fuel tanks hold the bulk of the internal fuel. They feed into the appropriate reservoir tanks.
•The wing tanks which feed the forward and aft tanks, the left wing tank feeding the aft main tank, and the right feeding the forward tank. These tanks hold 550lbs of fuel each.
•External tanks feed into the wing main tanks. The wing externals feed into the appropriate wing tank, and the centerline feed into both. Capacity is dependent on the tank size loaded.
The fuel is transferred from the reservoirs to the engine. There are fuel pumps that are normally activated to aid the transfer, but the main transfer mechanism is gravity and siphoning between tanks. The fuel then goes through the Fuel Flow Proportioner (FFP). It adjusts flow rates from the two systems to maintain the balance of fuel between F/R and L/A systems to maintain the aircraft’s center of gravity. Should the FFP fail (it is part of the ‘A’ hydraulic system) then erratic distribution may occur leading to a center of gravity imbalance.
The fuel then goes through the main fuel valve to the engine (where it burns!). The amount of fuel in the F/R and L/A is shown on the fuel gauge. More important is the ratio of the fuel in the tanks. If the difference is too large, a center of gravity imbalance will occur. Attention to the fuel gauge indicators is important beyond just assessing remaining fuel.
Many thanks for the info. I remember, when reading about the IAF raid on the Osirak reactor, it was made possible because the Israelis had just received their first F-16s a few months before, and the were modified to carry an external centerline tank. The IAF was concerned that when the tanks were jettisoned, they might strike the bombs under each wing...seems there was minimal clearance..and either damage them, or possibly cause a detonation..Happily, all went perfectly.
My thought exactly. Is dogfighting still a valuable skill? We’re not sending up Sopwith camels any more. Isn’t high maneuverability the missile’s job?
They did when they built the F4. It was proven to be deficient in that respect when they met Migs over Nam. We lost some good pilots before we figured out solutions. The P40/Zero is another great example.
Total degradation with external wing tanks is hard to quantify. Let’s say 15%. Factors include, increased radar cross section, increased drag, decreased G limit, reduced acceleration turn rate and speed. They used the doggiest F-16 they could find and then put external stores on it to hinder it further. It still beat the F35. This was a block 40. They make newer block 50, 52 and 60 now. These newer models have bigger engines as well as better radars and helmet mounted sights ect. Send one of these out against an F-35... Oof.
External Fuel tanks are only there to get you to the battle area with full internal Fuel. They would ALWAYS be shucked off in a combat situation. Better to survive/win the fight and run out of fuel on the way home than get killed trying to carry extra Fuel.
BTW- The main reason the F35 sucks is because the Marines demanded a vertical take off and landing capability. Designing that into the F35 demanded huge compromises limiting capabilities dramatically. They should have built the Marines their own new airplane.
The F-35 is not supposed to be a replacement of the F-117. And while dogfighting is overrated in the modern air combat arena, it should not be disregarded entirely.
“But having been around them yes it is normal procedure to drop the tanks when entering combat.”
No, it is not. You drop them only if you need to do so. Otherwise you bring them back and reuse them.
It looks more like a space shuttle than a fighter jet.
More here: The F-35 Can’t Beat The Plane It’s Replacing In A Dogfight: Report
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248
Also another link at the sight:
Major Obvious: F-35 Pilot Says A-10 Will Always Be Better At Air Support
F-35 pilot Major John Wilson said the obvious in an interview with Danish aviation reporters
#32 It would be interesting if it was a F-35 vs a MIG15 : )
No “if” about it. The stealth advantage will be overcome. If it hasn’t been already; it’s just a matter of time.
JOBS!
Active Duty ping.
The Navy’s been hedging their bets and been buying, or is in the process of buying, additional Hornets.
Please ping me to aviation and aerospace articles. Thank you.
If you want added to or removed from this ping list, please contact EveningStar or Paleo Conservative.
The Tomcat/Phoenix combo had a standoff range of about 125 miles, IIRC. But they ditched it.
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.