New Report Details What 31 US Air Force Pilots Who Flew the F-35 Really Think

The National Interest ^ | August 6th, 2016 | John Venable

[rdcbn]

..deliver a constant 28 degrees of turn a second. When the Air Force removes the restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.

from a grunt...what does removing the restrictions actually mean ?

---

Lack of maneuvering capability has been a big down on the F-35 by it's trolls

One of the the best turning aircraft in the world is the F-16 (F-22 excepted) it has amazing initial turning and it can sustain that rate for longer than most

The red line for the F-16 turn rate is 28 degrees per second in a very small area of the flight envelope as is shown by the diagram below.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20016&sid=8ca4fa8ecc41abf6e6f99b6e13477428&mode=view

The F-35 currently has the turn rate training wheels set to the red line for the F-16 of 28 degrees per second for F-16 parity, but it can do much more

The F-35 has superior sustained turn rate capability over the F-16 in many areas of the flight envelope and will be able do much more when the training wheels are removed.

So much for the story that the F-35 is non maneuverable pig.

BTW the obsolete Mig 21 can really give the F-16 a nasty surprise it the F-16 tries to engage it below 400 knots. Everything is relative and all designs are compromises.

[USNBandit]

28 degrees sustained, with a higher AOA instantaneous capability is pretty f’ing good for a “bomb truck.” Add in the all aspect sensors, stealthy targeting sensors, and jamming capabilities of its radar and you have a pretty awesome machine.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Well, when I was in the USAF, it was top gun for navy, and red flag for af.

Did it Change? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Strike_Fighter_Tactics_Instructor_program

Doesn’t seem so.

[rdcbn]

28 degrees sustained, with a higher AOA instantaneous capability is pretty f’ing good for a “bomb truck.” Add in the all aspect sensors, stealthy targeting sensors, and jamming capabilities of its radar and you have a pretty awesome machine.

---

Truth

[mad_as_he$$]

US Air Force[edit]

Since 1949, the United States Air Force has operated a similar training program at the United States Air Force Weapons School (formerly called the “United States Air Force Fighter Weapons School” and the “Aircraft Gunnery School”), and conducts large-scale tactical training exercises (see Red Flag) at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Whereas the Navy’s Top Gun program is 9 weeks long, the US Air Force Weapons School program is five and a half months long. The program includes nearly every type of aircraft in the Air Force inventory as well as courses focused on intelligence, command and control, space and cyber operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Strike_Fighter_Tactics_Instructor_program

[mad_as_he$$]

I am at NAS Fallon on a regular basis. Never seen anything other than Navy F-18’s of all versions and the F-16’s opponent squadron there.

[Covenantor]

...every U.S. fighter pilot interviewed would pick the F-35A over his former jet in a majority of air-to-air (dogfight) engagement scenarios they could face....

WTH does that really mean? That they'd pick the F-35 in 51% of possible dogfight scenarios?

Geeze louise, even Amazon provides the actual numbers that form the approval %ages.

[Edward.Fish]

We are also missing a slot below the A-10 that used to be filled by the OV-10 Bronco.

We need to pull our Broncos out of moth balls and refit and modernize them for some of the low intensity CAS functions the A-10 is doing but is over kill for. We can field 4 Broncos for the price of one A-10 which gives better coverage and a rapid response to break up the type of ambush attacks the Obama ROE invite.

You're right.
But given how the A-10 is having trouble with being too old (1972), the older OV-10 (1965) would have an even steeper uphill battle to bring back than that to keep the A-10.

[USNBandit]

Having only seen the public data, and flown a mock up sim about six years ago, my biggest concern concern, as a pilot, would be taking in all data available. My other concern is that with the lack of a HUD the helmet mounted display needs to be extremely accurate to avoid spatial disorientation issues. The Navy is working on a new flight control regime for landing the Super Hornet that would mitigate those issues, if applied to the Lightning II.

[Carriage Hill]

Thanks.

[USNBandit]

I question the numbers on the Super Hornet, not the decision. A few years ago when the Growler buy happened I went to a brief where they stated additional aircraft had pushed the line price on the Super down below $60 million.

The Navy needs both, but that number stuck out to me as being a bit high. I have been out the business for 5 years, though.

[Carriage Hill]

Reading thru that “Pace-Finletter MOU 1952”, I can smell politics at every move, and not for the benefit of America. Many thanks for the backgrounder on it.

[Carriage Hill]

Lots to lose if they don’t comply.

[stylin19a]

:)

[hattend]

from a grunt...what does removing the restrictions actually mean ?

The flight computer will only allow a maximum "G" load or roll rate... probably until all the planes are fielded and software updates are done.

If the balloon goes up, the software limits will be lifted and all of a sudden the pilots will be GLOC (G Loss Of Consciousness) or doing 3 rolls a second or spinning about the yaw axis to turn into the enemy. (I'm being facetious but you get the idea)

[stylin19a]

thanks.
does this mean it will be able to go faster @ 28 degrees ? or turn even tighter ? turn longer ? the wings shear off ?

[hattend]

Yes

Don’t know what the G-limit is on the airframe but it will be pushing it.

[Yo-Yo]

Lies! All lies! This aircraft is a gold plated pig and will never amount to anything. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

[Mariner]

You forgot the sarcasm tag./s