Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Vifam7]

Always loved the ocean paint scheme of the F-2 and it looks awesome on a Raptor. What is that on the wing hardpoint, a Meteor?

ASM-3 anti-ship missile.

[ambient73]

Some nice footage of one of my favorites...

[505thAirborne]

Some nice footage of one of my favorites...

30+ years old, still kicking A$$ and taking names!!

[Shadow]

Interesting article.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.

And it’s even worse than a mere maneuverability issue. At one point, the pilot’s helmet was so big he couldn’t even turn his head inside the cockpit.

That’s according to a scathing report obtained by our friends over at War Is Boring that details the results of visual range air-to-air engagement tests between an F-35A and an F-16C. The F-35, which the US Air Force, Navy, and Marines are expected to rely upon, in addition to the air arms of militaries across the world for at least the next few decades, was supposed to be better than its F-16 predecessor in all respects.

The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight, even against the decades old designs it looks to replace, has always been a contentious issue. Long ago, the F-35’s maneuverability was planned to far exceed that of fourth generation fighters. Over time, those claims eroded to the point where the troubled stealth jet is described as being “about as maneuverable as an F-16.”

The fact that the F-35 can carry its weapons and fuel internally was of course the major deciding factor in being able to make such a claim.

Keep in mind, all of this is anecdotal, but testing reports over almost the last decade have supported the fact that the F-35 was not nearly as nimble as many would like it to be. Still, all claims regarding its performance against other fighters in a dogfight remained largely academic, with only bits of data to compare in a vacuum.

Which is why the candid report described in the War Is Boring article finally gives us a good first hand account as to how capable – or incapable as it may be – the F-35 is in the within-visual-range fight.

The test pilot flying the F-35 makes it very clear that the new jet, even in its ideal configuration without any external stores, was no match against a Block-40 F-16C in a less-than-ideal configuration with a pair of under-wing fuel tanks:

Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.

In dogfighting, energy is everything, and if your enemy has more kinetic and potential energy for maneuvers than you do, then you’re toast.

The report even goes into what is akin to a fairly desperate move usually only used in one-on-one air combat maneuvers, known as a rudder reversal, that the F-35 is apparently decent at performing at slow speeds. The fact that this was even detailed in the report as a useful tactic is telling. In reality, using such maneuvers means you are probably going to die if any other bad guys are in the area as it rapidly depletes the aircraft’s energy state, leaving it vulnerable to attack.

Another area that the test pilot highlights on is the F-35’s abysmal rearward visibility. David Axe from War Is Boring writes:

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.

The report goes on to make other telling remarks about the F-35’s air combat maneuvering performance. It should be noted that the aircraft’s flight software can probably still be tweaked to offer a little wider envelope for pilots to traverse during a hard turning dogfight, but seeing as this test occurred this year (almost a decade after the first F-35 flew), the amount of extra agility that can be squeezed out of the F-35 is most likely marginal at this point. Also, the aircraft flown in the test, an F-35A, is the most maneuverable F-35 variant of the lot, being capable of pulling 9g, while the carrier capable F-35C is capable of pulling 7.5g and the short takeoff and vertical landing variant, the F-35B, is only capable of pulling 7g.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

i heard the F-35 can't take out louis gossett jr and jason gedrick playing twisted sister.

but my brother works @ Lockheed as a computer engineer so i support them.

Edited July 3, 2015 by davidwhangchoi

[Vifam7]

Interesting article.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

A crap article IMHO. There's no legit source, names, or data. It only references another web article which too has no legit source, names, or data.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, even if the F-35 doesn't outmaneuver the F-16 (and well, it doesn't. It's not designed to) the purpose of the ill-reputed JSF is to take out targets beyond visual range by exploiting "multi-aspect stealth" and advanced radar technologies (most of which have trickled into other aircraft in the intervening decade since the F-35 missed its production deadline). The real purpose of the F-35 is air-to-ground attack, though A-35 is a harder designation to sell I suppose.

And therein lies the real disappointment: the not-a-fighter F-35 hasn't even proven itself capable of its actual design role, let alone being outperformed by its predecessor in combat for which the plane was not designed.

Of course, I have to sympathize with the article's sentiment in a way. It's foolish to assume the aircraft will always be invisible long enough to target, fire, and bug out. This is a plane which simply has no contingency for being seen. Radar technology can improve, enemy patrols can spot it visually, and it's not like it's immune to traditional ECM that can be used to hide enemy forces. Not to mention, its "multi-aspect stealth" is defeated as soon as it opens its missile bays to fire. There is always some unforeseen reason why relying on stealth as we know it today can fail, which is why an aircraft designed for deep airspace penetration like F-35 needs to have contingency in case of the situation going less-than-ideal. And, frankly, the aircraft doesn't have that. Even if the article is bunk, academic study of the plane's design suggests that it's incapable of outmaneuvering anything 4th-generation. The poor wing loading has been a known issue for a long time- it's a given that the plane will have dick for nose rate.

And all of this glosses over concerns that the multi-aspect stealth on the F-35 isn't as effective as was originally hoped, as well as the fact that the plane, simply, is still not production ready. A lot of countries have opted for updated versions of tried-and-true 4th gen fighters, in lieu of available F-35s, which offer all of the technical advantages the JSF was originally billed to have, minus the high stealth the JSF is supposed to offer. (Though still with reduced-radar-profile, thanks to materials and some design modifications)

I'm just not convinced the F-35 has been worth it.

[Shadow]

I imagine it's sensors and weapons like the AIM-9X and AIM-120D will off-set the F-35s lack of agility. And yes, I agree the F designation is deceiving although it's not as apparent as with the F-117. It was too ambitious imo but too much has been invested into this aircraft to ease off. I'd also like to add advances in Infra-Red detection to the list of threats that can compromise it.

[SchizophrenicMC]

However, it's already been proven that the modern sensors technology and avionics can be installed in 4th-generation airframes. Look at the F/A-18E/F and F-15SE for example. Not to mention those are both airframes that have long been able to mount the AIM-9 and AIM-120 missile systems.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

A crap article IMHO. There's no legit source, names, or data. It only references another web article which too has no legit source, names, or data.

it's a legit report or Lockheed wouldn't have responded defending itself.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog?sf10503378=1

http://abcnews.go.com/US/military-dont-worry-expensive-fighter-jet-dogfight/story?id=32152912

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, that makes things all the more interesting.

Actually I spoke to a former Lockheed structures technician while test-driving a Jeep yesterday. (The people you find when you live in D/FW) He said every single stage of the F-35 program was a mess. Beyond the design, mismanagement of production resources were causing significant delays and unit cost increases. Drilling teams were moved to assembly, and assembly guys were put on drilling, and so none of the bolt holes were coming out straight on the first pass, so engineers would have to come in, diagnose a fix, and implement it, and up goes your unit cost. And this was happening on everything that was coming out of Lockheed-Martin Fort Worth.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

F-16 crashed into as small plane today in South Carolina

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/south-carolina-aircraft-incident/

[Ghost Train]

From the now infamous F-35 War Is Boring debacle... I find it interesting that the F-16 was supposedly maneuvering with its 2 drop tanks, while the F-35 was flying clean.

[F-ZeroOne]

"A test pilot today has condemned the new generation of fighter planes as being too unmaneuverable to dogfight with biplanes... "

I saw "The Imitation Game" the other day. Continuing the misuse of aircraft in war films, it has a single-seat Me-109 escorting German bombers over London during The Blitz.

At night.

Of course, not the only slight liberty taken with that films historical story. Now the second film I've seen about Bletchley Park that doesn't actually feature Bletchley Park (another country house stands in instead). As I once heard one of the tour guides remark "To movie people, the real Bletchley Park doesn't look like Bletchley Park [1]... ".

[1] To be fair to Hollywood, the real building has long been noted for its... interesting approach to architecture.

[Scyla]

I don't get the whole dog-fight discussion. I don't think that the F-35 was ever designed to win dog-fights.

However I've talked to an ex fighter pilot the other day and he said that the Russians had some underground strips where their Migs could start once the enemy fighters where flying overhead. So all the reconnaissance wouldn't detect them. He concluded that all fighter jets should have at least some abilities to survive a fight with an enemy jet.

I don't know if this is accurate but I don't think that this is a situation the F-35 would be in often. Your thoughts?

Edited July 9, 2015 by Scyla

[SchizophrenicMC]

I think the overarching concern isn't just in the F-35's ability to fight close-in, but its overall survivability, which is hampered by its single engine, and moreover by its poor maneuverability. Its role isn't long-range air superiority, either. The F-35 is designed to infiltrate and launch primarily air-to-ground ordinance. For that mission, high adaptability is necessary from a single-seat fighter-attacker. This isn't a bomber with tons of space for countermeasures, and a squad of escorts to draw heat away, it's a single-man infiltrator. So it has to be able to do everything. The fact is, once the bomb bays open up, the F-35's stealth is entirely defeated, giving it a clear position on anyone's radar. That's not even to mention concerns that the multi-aspect stealth design of the jet isn't up to the task of subverting modern radar systems. And it's not like the plane is invisible to visual or infrared tracking.

You can't always predict the scenario, and intelligence can be incomplete. I don't know if I personally would feel comfortable with the prospects for airframe survivability in less-than-ideal operating conditions. All it takes is one misplaced digit, and some pilots won't be coming home today.

I know that those are major reasons many in the Navy aren't exactly pleased with the notion of being forced into the F-35, and they're among the reasons Canada's air force has a faction that is pushing to drop the JSF program completely- they've already ordered a number of Super Hornets in the meantime, citing the lower cost and greater reliability of having twin engines as being important to their aerial mission.

[David Hingtgen]

Said it years ago, will say it again:

Australia was smart, saw how the F-35 program was going, and decided to get really high-end uber-spec'd Super Hornets instead. Cheap, good, proven and already in service. Their Super Hornets are better than any in the U.S. Fleet, and have many features that the F-35 touts. ASRAAM capability alone gives it a boost to close-in fighting, and it's got every sensor you can think of plus a nice AESA radar IIRC.

[electric indigo]

More nice what-if schemes from Tomytec:

[SchizophrenicMC]

Said it years ago, will say it again:

Australia was smart, saw how the F-35 program was going, and decided to get really high-end uber-spec'd Super Hornets instead. Cheap, good, proven and already in service. Their Super Hornets are better than any in the U.S. Fleet, and have many features that the F-35 touts. ASRAAM capability alone gives it a boost to close-in fighting, and it's got every sensor you can think of plus a nice AESA radar IIRC.

Every avionic feature on the F-35 has found its way into other airframes because it's been over a decade since they were invented, and electronics tend to have that trickle-down effect. The only advantage the F-35 offers is multi-aspect stealth, but even that has drawn criticism for being potentially inadequate anyway.

Once the initial wonderment waned, I ceased to see the viability of the JSF.

[Sildani]

What happened to the original idea of a cheap, stealthy ground attack/strike aircraft with a flyaway cost of $40-$45 million each? Every time I saw a new pic of the prototypes, there were more bulges and blisters, like that gold-plated gemstone under the nose.

When, and why, was it decided to hang every new piece of gold-plated crap off of this airframe?

Yes, I'm fully aware that when production orders are cut, cost per remaining unit will increase. But surely not this much!

Oh, yes: "intelligent", stealthy stand-off weapons are no doubt where we're headed, and quick. So perhaps the perfect strike aircraft now is a largish airframe, multi-engined, low amount of passive stealth, with a wealth of sensors and data systems. It should have long range and loiter ability, and be capable of carrying, launching, and directing if needed up to 8 1000 pound JDAM-like intelligent standoff weapons. It should carry 4 self-defense AAMs. It wouldn't penetrate enemy airspace necessarily, its weapons would.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Sildani

[F-ZeroOne]

Dale Brown came up with that one a while back... Also, as the resident F-35 contrarian I'd like to point out that the F-16 started out as a lightweight, affordable fighter with minimal avionics. Then they started hanging boxes all over it...

Heres something a bit different; a Tiffy in special colours to mark the 75th Anniversary of The Battle of Britain:

[SchizophrenicMC]

What happened to the original idea of a cheap, stealthy ground attack/strike aircraft with a flyaway cost of $40-$45 million each? Every time I saw a new pic of the prototypes, there were more bulges and blisters, like that gold-plated gemstone under the nose.

When, and why, was it decided to hang every new piece of gold-plated crap off of this airframe?

Yes, I'm fully aware that when production orders are cut, cost per remaining unit will increase. But surely not this much!

Oh, yes: "intelligent", stealthy stand-off weapons are no doubt where we're headed, and quick. So perhaps the perfect strike aircraft now is a largish airframe, multi-engined, low amount of passive stealth, with a wealth of sensors and data systems. It should have long range and loiter ability, and be capable of carrying, launching, and directing if needed up to 8 1000 pound JDAM-like intelligent standoff weapons. It should carry 4 self-defense AAMs. It wouldn't penetrate enemy airspace necessarily, its weapons would.

In that case, the F/A-18F might just well be that aircraft.

Dale Brown came up with that one a while back... Also, as the resident F-35 contrarian I'd like to point out that the F-16 started out as a lightweight, affordable fighter with minimal avionics. Then they started hanging boxes all over it...

Heres something a bit different; a Tiffy in special colours to mark the 75th Anniversary of The Battle of Britain:

The F-16 is still lighter and cheaper than the F-15. And despite its then-cutting-edge fly-by-wire control system, at least the plane was cheap. Even the most expensive variant, adjusted for inflation, had a unit cost under $30m. Lockheed advertises the cheapest F-35 unit cost at $108m, but some sources suggest the actual unit cost for the F-35A is $148m. And it's over a decade past deadline, and it's still not production ready. And it's showing more and more signs of being an air inferiority fighter every day. At least the F-22 was able to make its full (if small) production run. If it hadn't, I don't know how Lockheed Martin would be able to convince its creditors to keep them in business.

[Sildani]

Yep, Dale Brown. I was always kinda surprised that the USA didn't take some of his suggestions for updating the B-52 on, mostly replacing the wing spars with composites, deleting the wingtip gear, and (not Brown's) replacing 8 engines with 4 modern ones.

As for the F/A-18F, maybe so. I was thinking something S-3 or E-2 sized.

As for the 35 being an air inferiority fighter, I honestly don't think that was part of its brief. That was supposed to be left to the 22.

Say,why don't we just finish researching and building the F/B-22 and be done?

Oh, and look at how high an AOA that Tiffie has to fly to not overtake the Hurricane. It must be fairly close to stall speed...

Edited July 10, 2015 by Sildani

[F-ZeroOne]

Fair points, though its also worth pointing out nearly thirty years separate the design of the two aircraft; they were both born into entirely different worlds to each other. How much would the F-16 have cost if it had to have had stealth applied from the start? (theres another argument that stealth is somehow not a requirement for modern aircraft and that they can do without it; the counter to that is that that may turn out to be the case, but if so quite a lot of nations seem to have drunk the same stealth cola as everyone else... ).

[electric indigo]

For $35 millions, you can get one of these beauties:

[Sildani]

Yeah, good point. Great airplane there, but I'm not sure if it's been used operationally.

[anime52k8]

Oh, yes: "intelligent", stealthy stand-off weapons are no doubt where we're headed, and quick. So perhaps the perfect strike aircraft now is a largish airframe, multi-engined, low amount of passive stealth, with a wealth of sensors and data systems. It should have long range and loiter ability, and be capable of carrying, launching, and directing if needed up to 8 1000 pound JDAM-like intelligent standoff weapons. It should carry 4 self-defense AAMs. It wouldn't penetrate enemy airspace necessarily, its weapons would.

*cough*B-1R*cough*

[SchizophrenicMC]

*cough*B-1R*cough*

But... B7R.

And to answer Sildani the F-22A still has its own struggles. The F/B-22 would be just another Lockheed boondoggle. I say we let Boeing design the next fighter. At least they'd get it production-ready.

[dizman]

Just put Knight26 as head of development, we would have a proper Ghost X-9 in no time.

[Knight26]

Just put Knight26 as head of development, we would have a proper Ghost X-9 in no time.

LOL, thanks for the faith, but I'm not able to play the politcal game well enough.

[SchizophrenicMC]

LOL, thanks for the faith, but I'm not able to play the politcal game well enough.

Nah, man. Stage is already set for you: American conservatives love drones. (Was that too political?)

[wmkjr]

Dale Brown came up with that one a while back... Also, as the resident F-35 contrarian I'd like to point out that the F-16 started out as a lightweight, affordable fighter with minimal avionics. Then they started hanging boxes all over it...

Heres something a bit different; a Tiffy in special colours to mark the 75th Anniversary of The Battle of Britain:

I would love to have seen a Hawker typhoon flying in formation with the Eurofighter in a matching color scheme.

[raptormesh]

Speaking about Rhinos, if you squint really well, you can almost see a tomcat:

...and then you shed a tear.

Edited July 11, 2015 by raptormesh

[spanner]

Shame on you Americans for retiring one of the greatest fighter jets of all time.. there was a lot of life left in those gorgeous birds! shame.

May the F-14 rest in peace.

[renegadeleader1]

Well to take everyone's mind off of the F-14 tragedy here's some pics I promised of my trip to NEAM and to see FiFi the last flying B-29 Bomber.

FiFi from the side

FM-2 Wildcat with its younger brother the F6F Hellcat behind it

SB2C Helldiver aka the Son of a ***** 2nd class

FiFi from the front

No Harrison NEAM will not sell you this so you can crash another one

FiFi's cockpit

My first time inside a lady old enough to be my grandmother.

Edited July 11, 2015 by renegadeleader1