F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet

The Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 02 Jul 2015 | Alan Tovey

[PotatoHeadMick]

An extraordinary defence of the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been issued by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, the lead company building the jet.

The response came after influential military blog “War is Boring” published a story claiming the new “5th generation” jet – which Britain is buying a fleet of – was unable to beat a 1970s design F-16 “4th generation” fighter in a mock dogfight.

The blog said it had seen a report from the F-35 test pilot on the exercise, explaining how his jet was too sluggish to get the older jet in his sights, and unable to manoeuvre out of the way when the F-16 targeted him.

[Revolutionary]

The F-16 has an aerodynamic advantage over the A model. The F-35 has a thrust advantage. After they fix the flight control laws (why this test was done in the first place), I expect the F-35 to have a small advantage, if flown right, over the F-16 even without all the fancy toys. My number one complaint after the flight controls would be the eyebrow on the helmet. Very, very, very bad for dogfighting. There is a better way of visor display now.
The strategic benefit of the F-35 is worth the trouble. A 5th gen fighter is costly in development and in proper sustainment. This puts our adversaries into a difficult box. They may never really get past the prototype stage or just create a gen 4+ aircraft that is also expensive.

[smokingfrog]

I guess we may need to keep a few F-16’s around for high cover.

[tanknetter]

Yep, they’re betting on standoff weapons and having ROE that actually allow their use in that role. When was the last time US pilots were cleared to engage BVR without positive visual ID on their target?

If you look at the F-35 there's a little diamond-shaped glass enclosure under the nose. That contains a pretty powerful TV camera (part of the FLIR/Targeting suite) that can look out and allow visual identification from MUCH further away than the Mk.1 Human Eyeball. Pushing out "BVR" limitations to about the same range as an AIM-120 ...

The F-14 Tomcat had a similar camera with TCS. And the later model F-4 Phantoms (E) models had essentially the same thing with TISEO.

Another thing is that the F-35's radar might be powerful and sophisticated enough to actually render a good image of an approaching bogey from BVR distances. There are some declassified B-2 radar-rendered images out there on the 'net that are actually pretty close to decent black and white photos.

[tanknetter]

I expect the F-35 to have a small advantage, if flown right, over the F-16 even without all the fancy toys

This was an A model F-35, right?

Agree with everything you said. But I've also read a few places where some of the F-35 foreign customers are considering buying the F-35C (carrier version) because of the advantages conveyed by its larger wing area. Better maneuverability, load-carrying, range, etc.

[PreciousLiberty]

” Unfortunately, even at inflated F-35 prices, the F-22 is way more expensive and can’t carry large ordnance.”

Actually the F-22 now has a lower flyaway cost per copy. It can currently carry two JDAMs plus a couple of AMRAAMs, or eight SDBs. If fitted with external hard points like the F-35 has, it could carry plenty of ordinance when stealth is not needed (most of the time). There’s also a proposed FB-22 with a larger weapons bay, no vertical stabilizers, a larger wing, and two seats - an interesting variant potentially.

With supercruise and all-aspect stealth, the F-22 is a vastly superior plane to the F-35. No wonder 0bama hates it...

[Jeff Head]

I discussed this at length with several AF buddies I know, including pilots.

The media reports on the F-35 and F-16 flight is less than forthcoming and amounts to a tempest in a teapot. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with items that make today’s production F-35s 5th Generation fighters. AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. AF-2 is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.

The tests cited by the detractors were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference only. As I said, in addition, the entire program, which is still in a test and evaluation mode, has not had its full agility and maneuvering envelope opened up for any air to air test like close in dogfighting yet.

But I will say this. Given the Off Angle capabilities the F-35 has already shown, and given its other capabilities...when it does reach operational capabilities with all the gloves off...it is going to turn and burn with the F-16 and about any other fighter currently available outside of the F-22. And the F-22 pilots are going to have to watch out and respect this bird too. Watch and see if this is not so in a few years.

[tanknetter]

It can currently carry two JDAMs

But its limited to two 1000lb JDAMs, since the weapons-bay design was frozen before the decision to take the F-22 multimission (recall the F/A-22A era?).

The F-35 was designed from the outset for 2000lb-class bombs. Which include the 2000lb JDAM penetrators.

One thing that kinda annoys me about the F-35 debate is that the aircraft has been positioned as a strike-fighter in the same class as the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet. Both of which originated as lightweight, highly maneuverable day-fighters. And onto which a light strike capacity was added (and in the case of the F/A-18 carrier capability as it evolved from the F-17).

The F-35 is really a light strike aircraft with a decent air to air capability. So think of it more as a platform that fulfills the A-7, F-117 and AV-8B role, but is better than all of those at air to air.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“Yeah, we know the aircraft isn’t operationally ready, but, What the heck! Lets see what she can do!”

What a great idea.

[Organic Panic]

The more they over think the pipes, the easier it is to stuff up the drain.

[MasterGunner01]

I recall that all these “visionaries” of the next air war were rather embarrassed when that war came to pass. The war was initially fought with the older weapon that were still abundant and there were few of the new fighters available. The USAF of the 1950’s envisioned a long range missile war against enemy bombers and not short range fighter vs. fighter short range gunfights.

Then Vietnam came along and there were no enemy bombers to shoot with missiles. The advanced fighter of the day, McDonnell F-4 Phantom, had only missiles and no guns to fight smaller, lighter MiG-17 and MiG-21 jets. Rules of Engagement required visual confirmation before the Americans could engage and that rendered the missiles completely useless because these fights usually were within the MINIMUM engagement range of the AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-7 Sparrow.

It was only when the F-4E version of the Phantom was issue to USAF squadrons that the fighter's lack of a gun was corrected. Navy and Marine Corps Phantoms never were configured for a gun. Follow-on fighters of the 1970’s (F-15, F-17, F-18) all carried guns as well as missiles. One thing seems not to have changed: the ROE requiring visual confirmation before engagement. This guarantees dogfights. And now we're full circle with the F-35.

The questions become: 1) if the F-35 cannot dogfight because of the visual confirmation ROE and 2) it cannot do close air support because it is too few, too expensive, cannot loiter over the battle area, and carries too little ordnance — WHY ARE WE BUYING IT? Buy more of those capable aircraft that are in production with improved design.

[Timber Rattler]

It added that while the close-in dogfight allowed the F-35 to be tested on the edge of its handling limits, it was not the type of combat the jet was intended for and the results were “misleading”.

So they admit that it sucks in a dogfight.

“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” the statement said.

Just like the F-4 Phantom in the 1960s? How did that turn out?

[Mr Rogers]

I was lucky enough to learn dogfighting in the 80s. At the time, it made a lot of sense. But the AIM-7E and AIM-9P are long gone.

I also remember doing “Shooter-Eye” intercepts. They are in the dust bin of history, too.

Still, it seems like an F-35 OUGHT to be able to hold its own in a dogfight...

[Mr Rogers]

I’ve got a book on my shelves that discusses in depth why the F-15 is a piece of junk and we are (were) fools to buy it.

Vietnam was 50 years ago. Please grant that technology has advanced since 1965.

[Tallguy]

So... the F-35B/C — even if it works as advertised — will still have to defend a very visible aircraft carrier from attackers. So when the attackers close with the carrier, they will also be closing with the F-35 BARCAP? Once within visual range, then what? I think they call that a “Dog Fight”.

As for the USAF’s F-35A, you can be fairly certain that some future president will impose “visual identification” requirements like LBJ did with the Sparrow-equipped F-4’s in Vietnam. Then the airforce jocks get to “Dog Fight” with similar disadvantages. At least the F-4 had thrust to burn.

[Mr Rogers]

“you can be fairly certain that some future president will impose “visual identification” requirements like LBJ did with the Sparrow-equipped F-4’s in Vietnam”

No. I won’t tell you why. Just no.

[Tallguy]

“When was the last time US pilots were cleared to engage BVR without positive visual ID on their target?”

Desert Storm. F-15C’s would troll for MiGs with their sensors ahead of a strike package (usually at night when you aren’t dogfighting anyway). With AWAC’s support they had pretty good ‘situational awareness’ as to who was a good guy, and therefore who was a threat. From what I’ve read there was a suggestion that once the F15C’s radars lit-off they could positively ID the MiG’s before firing.

Now all this works when you have the full array of assets in-theater AND the other side is flying Soviet/Russian stuff (as opposed to say French or US-build stuff). What happens if we lock horns with Turks flying F-16’s?

[Forward the Light Brigade]

We got iced in WW II with the old P-40 vs the Zero, With the Migs in Vietnam, now we are using this one size fits all f-35. Are we sending up our pilots to die in air combat? Just because we have fought 3rd World Nations who have junk to fly—what happens when we face a real enemy with modern weapons an equal to our own? Can we defeat—say—France or Germany? Can we mix it up with Italy or Sweden? What about Russia? Do we have the tools to do the job or have we been so focused on price we have let slip quality?

[rdcbn]

“Yeah, we know the aircraft isn’t operationally ready, but, What the heck! Lets see what she can do!”

What a great idea.

---

It was a great idea.

The goal was to face an F-35 off against an F-16 with a highly skilled pilot who really knew how to fly the plane to it's limits and was physically capable of doing so to learn about how to improve the F-35 control characteristics

The particular plane used was the appropriate and properly instrumented aircraft for this kind of flight testing.

The flying they did was very close in and aggressive and the planes were flown at the limits (some of which are imposed by the planes flight control computer) for an extended period of time.

This is very dangerous to do and the risk of losing an aircraft is substantial.

Each F-35 is precious (and expensive as everyone loves to point out) at this time so it makes no sense to risk a production aircraft with really expensive hardware when more suitable flight test aircraft is available.

[Tallguy]

“It was only when the F-4E version of the Phantom was issue to USAF squadrons that the fighter’s lack of a gun was corrected. Navy and Marine Corps Phantoms never were configured for a gun. Follow-on fighters of the 1970’s (F-15, F-17, F-18) all carried guns as well as missiles. One thing seems not to have changed: the ROE requiring visual confirmation before engagement. This guarantees dogfights.”

Originally the Phantom was designated YAH-1 and it was a fighter-bomber replacement for the McDonnell F3H Demon. Then the Navy got a hold of it and it morphed into a missile-armed fleet defence interceptor (no internal auto-cannon). Then that famous military genius Robert McNamara decided to force this design onto the USAF and it went back to being a fighter-bomber. And, of course, the Marines have a close air support mission to worry about so they usually have to make-do with whatever is in the pipeline for the other services, principally the Navy.

Boyd’s “Fighter Mafia” found all kinds of ‘faults’ with the Phantom. But many of the problems were baked into the way the program was run and from a faulty mission analysis (which is mostly educated guesses about threats and technology).

The F-4E became a great aircraft as was the Navy’s F-4J. The plane was saddled with a terrible wing-design, but for all that the plane had enough thrust to use vertical tactics to negate the agile-turning MiGs. Plus the bugs were worked out of the Sparrow — early on a lot of those missiles barely got off the rails and when they did they failed to track.

[rdcbn]

“[The F-35] did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, it did not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar,” the statement said. “Third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the aeroplane at its target.”
Then why engage in a dogfight?

---

The F-35 has a computer controlled flight system.

The computer has arbitrary, programmer determined limits built into each control parameter just like your car has a redline on the tachometer and when you mash the throttle to exceed that red line the engine controller keeps you from doing so.

The engine in the car could rev to higher rpms and make more power but the manufacture has limited the rpms to reduce warranty claims and for safety liability issues.

When you want to go racing, the tuners reprogram the engine control units allow the engine to rev higher and faster and turn up the turbo boost.

Thats what they are doing with the JSF.

Right now the limits and red lines on the F-35 are set conservatively for various reasons. Now they are taking the training wheels off the plane and tuning it for optimized performance.