Posted on 03/01/2016 3:11:46 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
A Norwegian fighter pilot has published a soft rebuttal to a damaging critique leaked last summer about the Lockheed Martin F-35A’s dogfighting prowess, contradicting many of the critical points made in the scathing review written by a Lockheed test pilot.
Royal Norwegian Air Force Maj Morten “Dolby” Hanche, a US Navy test pilot school graduate with 2,200 flight hours in Lockheed F-16s, has flown several mock dogfights from Luke AFB in Arizona since becoming the nation’s first F-35 pilot last November. These have yet to advance to performing "dissimilar" training against other aircraft types.
In a blog post on Norway’s Ministry of Defence website, Hanche never directly mentions the leaked report; entitled “F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers”, dated 14 January 2015, and exposed last June by blogger David Axe on WarIsBoring.com.
But it is clear that Hanche’s review seeks to shoot down the anonymous pilot's many complaints about the F-35, which have been cited by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has vowed on the campaign trail to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter programme.
Maj Morten "Dolby" Hanche after his first F-35 flight last November. Photo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence
That year-old leaked report described in detail a single flight on 15 January 2015 in which the Lockheed test pilot – a veteran of Boeing F-15 and F-16 cockpits – ridicules the F-35A as dangerously lacking power after high angle of attack manoeuvres, putting the aircraft at a “distinct disadvantage” in mock dogfights with an F-16 Block 40 loaded with two external fuel tanks.
By contrast, Hanche writes on the MoD’s official blog that he is “impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the [angle of attack]”, suggesting the aircraft instead rapidly regains energy after “breaking” to a near stop with its nose pointed up to 40˚ high in mid-air.
Hanche also writes that the F-35 can tilt its nose upward under control beyond the ability of the F-16. Even at these extreme angles, the pilot can still “point” the nose easily by simply tapping the rudder pedals, Hanche says, adding that he is “impressed with the stability and predictability of the airplane”.
That again puts Hanche’s review at odds with the leaked test report. The Lockheed test pilot complained that the controls of his particular F-35A – the AF-2 prototype – felt, by turns, sluggish, counter-intuitive and non-responsive in twisting maneouvres with the F-16 Block 40.
In one area, Hanche and the Lockheed test pilot share similar concerns about the F-35’s cockpit visibility, but come to different conclusions about the scale of the problem.
Both pilots agreed that the head rest makes it harder to look for targets behind the aircraft. But the Norwegian pilot suggests that his Lockheed counterpart over-stated the problem after a single flight experience. By learning to tilt forward in his seat before looking behind, Hanche makes the point that he found a way to mitigate the visibility problem through trial and error after a few flights.
Hanche also makes another point that may seem surprising nearly a decade after the first F-35A prototype completed first flight. Due to several programme delays, the US Air Force is still learning how to use the F-35A in combat. Initial operational capability for the variant is scheduled later this year.
“The final ‘textbook’ for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – basic fighter maneouvres – has not been written yet,” Hanche says. “It is literally being written by my neighbour down here in Arizona!”
Thanks hussein.
Point the nose down by tapping the RUDDER pedals?
Never flew jets but in a propellor aircraft if you are flying slowly at a high angle of attack you point the nose down by pushing the stick or yoke forward.
Pushing the rudders was part of a deliberate move to initiate a spin from a near stall/ high angle of attack/ similar.
I do believe he was using the rudder pedals to point the nose while maintaining a high angle of attack.
Reread the article.
My concern is that we are paying a colossal price for technology that will probably be countered by simpler, cheaper technology in the near term. There is no long term for a plane that does not perform as well as an older version fighter if the stealth is compromised. Note that the F-117 was withdrawn from service completely. This is because newer, networked radars could easily find it and the plane which flew only subsonic was a sitting deck for any World War Two fighter. The B-2 is being superseded by a newer version that must fly close to the ground. Why, you might ask, should a stealth aircraft fly close to the ground? Because it stealth is already greatly reduced by existing networked radars and will likely be useless long before the end of the plane-s combat life. So, we are over-paying for something that will not be of use for very long. Then, having spent the money, what will we be able to put into the air to defend against fleets of obsolete but still deadly enemy planes?
trump is going to cancel the f-35? uh, what does he plan on doing instead? we canceled the f-22 in favor of the f-35.
It's amazing how well it holds its own in air to air considering its primarily a ground attack aircraft.
Every fighter has its strengths and weaknesses - the F35 weaknesses have been overplayed and very few have commented on its strengths, for good reason. The stability of the F35 and its remarkable precise and controllable handling well into high angle of attack regime is a huge plus.
The F35 is a superior weapons platform. What it may or may not lack in raw capabilities at the edge, it compensates for in user friendliness, usability and effectiveness in practical situations.
Disruptive advances in air defense systems are a major concern and very realistic threat. F35 does have a vision of what that future might look like in a high threat, highly networked airspace occupied by piloted and semi autonomous drones and carrying advanced weapons and countermeasures to deal with the threats
Its a pretty darn good vision.
Future weapons and fuel load outs for an individual F 35 may not be limited to what can be loaded onto the airframe and may not even originate from the same location. If you think about it, the concept provides some novel and intriguing ways to counter both air to air and ground to air threats
Any new or updated fighter or strike fighter airframe will incorporate much of the F 35 avionics functionality and thats where the money goes so costs will be similar for alternatives if we kill F 35
At its heart, F35 is a first day ground attack aircraft intended to decapitate enemy air defense and C3 systems and eliminate high threat weapons systems before they can be used against our troops - or our civilian population for that matter.
On day 2 forwards its whatever it needs to be including a pretty nice mini AWACs for other earlier generation aircraft
Its like 2or3 F117s on steroids combined with 95% of an F-16 with some features lifted out a number of science fiction movies and thats not a bad place to be.
Its primary limitation will always be internal fuel capacity. Short legs in full on stealth mode will dog the plane for its entire operational life but this can be dealt with. FWIW, this same problem limits most of the competing aircraft as well
Thank you for that post.
Why the heck are we bothering with manned craft at all?
Swarms of microdrones are the future.
If you read between the lines of my post, you may find some thoughts to ponder on how F35 enables a practical and effective implementation of swarms(or more appropriate termed , flocks) of semi autonomous drones in a real world combat environment
The F117 in question “won the lottery”...NATO and the mission ops planners set the F117 up.
The tactics learned and taught at TTR and subsequently used in DS were ignored, no, they were dismissed and the rest is history...S/S 0806 was a gift from the Clintons to our enemies.
The F117 was incorporating newer technologies to offset said advances in radar and increase survivability before it was placed into flyable storage. In fact, several aircraft are maintaining flight operations to this day.
“Note that the F-117 was withdrawn from service completely”
Not a fair comparison. The 117 was slow, subsonic only. Not very maneuverable at all, and only could carry two bombs. nothing else. No external hard points, no gun, no nothing. It was slightly more capable than a technology demonstrator. With stealth compromised it had almost zero utility. That is not true for the F-35. Yes, losing stealth might reduce it down to parity with non-stealth fights, but it hardly makes it useless.
Know what the best way to control swarms of drones is? A manned high performance aircraft in close visual range. Radios can be jammed easier the farther you are from what you want to talk to. Want to be jam proof, get close. Or even use a laser link.
You are correct. He is simply yawing via rudder.
It was early. I needed more coffee.
Yup. Upon re reading the article i get it.
As i understand it, not all jets appreciate rudder input by ifself. But i was never a jet jockey.
But it is clear that Hanche's review seeks to shoot down the anonymous pilot's many complaints about the F-35, which have been cited by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has vowed on the campaign trail to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter programme.GOPJ:
...military contractors 'donors' are the people behind 'never Trump'. Trump said he wasn't going to buy weapons we don't want or need... and Military Contractors - the corrupt of the corrupt - don't like that... And they're hiding who they really are... It's no wonder people come to Congress as members of the middle class and in a few years they're all multimillionaires... *
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.