Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.
Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.
Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said.
Stealth will allow the F-35 to go into the teeth of enemy air defenses, which are becoming increasingly lethal, Thomas said. The Marines intend to operate the F-35 for 30 to 40 years, when stealth may be required even for close-air support.
"Stealth is going to be a requirement," Thomas said, echoing a point one normally hears mostly from U.S. Air Force officials.
Alongside stealth, the sensors and networking are crucial to the F-35 program.
To that end, Kelly said that mission systems testing for the jet's radar and infrared sensors have been going well. He offered unqualified praise for the F-35's APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar.
Monday, May 16, 2011
F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News
F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Another item never to grace the pages of ARES ;)
ReplyDeleteThis caught my eye on the original article.
ReplyDelete"Eventually, the F-35B will perform vertical takeoffs, but that testing has yet to be performed because other STOVL trials are of more immediate import, Kelly said.
"There is a requirement for that and we do plan on performing vertical takeoffs," he said."
ya know what will drive the critics crazy? let me add that i can see the USAF doing it to...they might buy F-35B's especially since the F-35 is suppose to also replace A-10's!
ReplyDeletethat would be beyond sweet.
Only F-18-like perfomance at cost of $30-50 million more than a F-18?
ReplyDeleteRidiculous.
in an airplane that can takeoff and land vertically and is stealthy?
ReplyDeleteare you smoking something illegal?
you must be if you can't see the advancement!
Huron, if that's all you can see you might want to do yourself a favor and study the situation for a while before typing.
ReplyDelete@SpudmanWP: If they posted it at Ares the comments would be full of garbage like Huron's post there, with Bill leading the charge.
"Only F-18-like performance" [maneuverability] Plus:
ReplyDelete1. Greater range
2. Greater sensor integration
3. Higher speed while carrying weapons
4. Greater acceleration
5. VLO airframe
6. Reduced IR signature
7. Greater survivability
8. All sensors are built-in, ie no need to buy a FLIR.
9. Bigger & more stable post-SDD development cycle.
10. Full 360 WVR tracking of A2A targets
That's just off the top of my head. There is much more coming. On your cost point, you are mistaken at the core. The Flyaway cost of a 2012 F-18E is $71.2 million and DOES NOT include a FLIR pod. Add 6 years of inflation and compare it to a 1st FRP (2018) year F-35 in it goes up to $80.4 million. It's only $9 million less than a 2018 F-35A in then-year dollars.
If you take that "use the F35 for 30-40 years" as true than you are basically saying that the maneuverability of Navy/Marine first line fighters will have been unimproved from the introduction of the FA-18 in 1983 to what 2058? "75 years without any improvement in maneuverability", there's a motto to be proud of.
ReplyDeleteHere's an equally valid headline: "F35 exhibits no maneuverability advantage over any modern fighter aircraft from the US, Europe or Russia." If you think having an edge in maneuverability isn't important anymore, just say so and make your case but please don't try to dress equaling the FA-18 up as a success.
@BB1984 And just how many modern fighter aircraft from Europe or Russia can stop and hover in flight? Or, pirouette, firing 360 to all ground targets. That is a part of the flight envelope none of them can stay in for long.
ReplyDeleteAny fighter aircraft can land vertcally, once.
Dick, BB1984 seems to think that increased manueverability SHOULD happen. The question is why does he think that? i.e. What military advantage does it bring? Hint: not much.
ReplyDeleteI also suspect the F-35 F-18 manuevering comparison "F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope" is probably an understatement given the F-35 has no drag from external stores and can probably carry the energy at the start of the turn farther into the turn. The important point is that all the predictions of compromised performance from having multiple variants just took a hit from reality.
BTW: the F-35B is not designed to Viff or hover while in combat, but it will shoot a missile in one direction that can kill anyone in a 360 degree sphere.
@BB1984: Both the F-16 and Super Hornet are slower than a 1950's F-104, nor can they fly as high. Hell, they're even slower than the F-105. My that's progress isn't it?
ReplyDelete@sferrin: but no one put out a press release saying the F16 was impressive because it was as fast as an F104. If you want to argue that maneuverability is not important (as top speed ceased to be once planes got up towards Mach 2) then press releases about matching the FA18's maneuverability being somehow impressive are disingenuous, they're highlighting something meaningless as a strength.
ReplyDeleteIf, on the other hand, maneuverability is important enough to brag about in a press release then why is unimproved maneuverability acceptable and, by the way, why did the F22 bother with thrust vectoring? Was that all wasted money because any improvement in maneuverability over the FA-18 is wasted just like any improvement in speed over the F104/F105 is wasted?
@SMSgt Mac: You can make a case that improved missiles make improved maneuverability either irrelevant or just not cost effective but if you do then any fighter with some minimal level of maneuverability and a modern short range AAM is equally lethal. That is to say that within visual range an F35 is no more lethal than an F18 with equivalent missiles. To put it another way: F35s will trade one for one, all else being equal, with SU27s, SU30s, and SU35s within visual range. Quotes like "all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight" become meaningless because any modern fighter with a modern AAM, including much older much cheaper fighters than the F35, is lethal WVR.
@sferrin: You are talking about speed, I notice that maneuverability is conspicuously absent from your unrelated comparison.
ReplyDelete@SMSgt Mac: So, you’re admitting that super maneuverability should NOT happen? That when adversary technology counters F-35 (or any other A/C, for that matter) technology and all you have left is airframe performance, that the pilot will tell you that super maneuverability isn't important.
So I guess by your logic we should equip our soldiers with nothing but sniper rifles 'cause as long as they can kill from way beyond visual range, they'll never need to kill up close?
@SpudmanWP:
"Only F-18-like performance" [maneuverability] Plus:
1. Greater range
-marginally greater than already bad is pretty faint praise.
2. Greater sensor integration
-Point F-35, but being a 30+ year newer design, that's what it should be.
3. Higher speed while carrying weapons
-What weapons? Comparing 4 A2A missiles, 2 A2A and 2 JDAM? More?
4. Greater acceleration
-The quote was "at certain points", well obviously that means that at other points the F-18 has better acceleration!
5. VLO airframe
-See response #2 above, but is it better than T-50, or J-20?
6. Reduced IR signature
-See response #5 above
7. Greater survivability
-See response #5 above
8. All sensors are built-in, i.e. no need to buy a FLIR.
-See response #5 above
9. Bigger & more stable post-SDD development cycle.
-IOW, more $$$$ for stuff to try and keep it up to date so the lack of a good airframe doesn't get too many pilots dead.
10. Full 360 WVR tracking of A2A targets
-until all TWO of the missiles it carries are expended.
@Solomon: Why would the USAF buy the B to replace the A-10? As your very own article pointed out yesterday they need time over target, the B has the worst range of the three and simply cannot provide the loiter or persistance of the A-10.
Well said BB1984!
ReplyDeleteBTW, why no mention of which F-18 model the comparison is made against?
@BB1984:
ReplyDelete-- Your assertion that the F-35 is not anymore lethal than a F-18 (with eq missiles) is ignoring all of the F-35's sensor benefits. With EODAS, the F-35 will have first-look/First-Shoot in WVR combat and will have the ability to provide post-launch updates to the missile in case there is jamming or decoys. The F-18 cannot do that.
@Privateer454:
--I was responding to Huron's claim that the F-35 was not worth the 30-50 million more than a F-18. I was showing him all the benefits that came with only a ~$10 million bump over a F-18 (2018 FRP1 vs 2018 F/A-18E).
Don't you know, folks, Solomon has decreed that dogfighting is dead. No need for an internal gun in fighters.
ReplyDeleteSolomon seems to think that it is not possible to counter missiles anymore.
It is people like Solomon that caused too many pilots to be killed in Vietnam, since some wise folks decided that dogfighting would no longer occur.
Nobody has decreed dogfighting (or the need for a gun) dead. That is one reason why the F-35A still has an internal gun and why the B/C have a stealthy gun pod (which has more ammo than the internal one btw).
ReplyDeleteAll we have said is that fighter maneuverability is no longer the deciding factor in a WVR fight.
@BB1984: The reason nobody put out a press release stating the F-16 is as fast as an F-104 is because it isn't. The point (that you apparently can't figure out for yourself) is that there came a point that incremental improvements in speed weren't going to be worth the added expense when it came to survivability. We're pretty close to there now with manueverability. The difference in manuverability between a Typhoon and an F-16 in WVR combat isn't going to make a noticable difference to something like an AIM-9X or ASRAAM. Thrust vectoring on the F-22 is primarily for supersonic manuverability and trim. It just happens to work real well at low speed as well.
ReplyDelete@Privateer454: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out my point with the speed comparison. It does seem it takes something more than yourself to understand it though.
Thomas seems to have a reading disability. Let's all cut him a little slack.
ReplyDeleteA couple of/three points if I may,
ReplyDelete1. BB1984 and Privateer:
Please read carefully and try to grasp my point as I typed it without overlaying emotion. I indicated that that increasing maneuverability does not bring much military advantage. I believe my use of a form of the verb 'increase' without any modifiers such as 'in relation to' or 'compared to x', to most people, would have immediately indicated that I was speaking in relation to current state. That should have in no way, shape, or form, indicated to any reasonable person implied anything other than what I typed. If you would like an aeronautical and operational explanation as to why what I typed was true, just ask. But don't twist other's words just to create an opening for making cr*p up.
2. I've noticed the question as to which version of the F-18 the F-35B maneuverability is being compared. Does it matter? The F-35B is replacing the Harrier, not the F-18. What kind of maneuverability does the AV-8 have at Mach 1+? Oh....(yeah).
3. A data point for the ‘hobbyists’:
------
The F-15 was larger and more visible than its predecessor the F-4, wrote Sprey, making it vulnerable in daylight close-in dogfighting. He claimed the Eagle was too dependent on radar guided missiles, which “are not likely to be more effective than those used in Vietnam.”
Since 1960, Sprey wrote in the 1981 piece, too much of the Air Force tactitcal aviation budget had been devoted to complex night/all-weather systems “of highly questionable capability.” Sprey urged the Air Force to emphasize the F-16 over the F-15 because “in visual combat, the F-16 has been demonstrated to be the superior aircraft.”
This was the point where the military reformers misfired.
Future air combat would not, as they assumed, take place largely in daytime, close-in engagements. The F-15 would go on to become the dominant air-to-air force in the skies precisely because of its radar missiles and long reach.
In the first Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of 40 Air Force aerial victories. Of those, 28 involved radar guided missiles. Worldwide, the Eagle has racked up an unprecedented kill ratio of 104-to-zero.
Writing in 2004, David R. Mets of Air University summed it up this way:
“The Korea-style dogfight seems to have all but disappeared from the air-to-air battle. The agility of both [the F-15 and F-16] remains highly useful in dodging surface-to-air missiles, but that is not what Boyd and the [military reform] acolytes had in mind.”
------
ref: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August%202010/0810failures.aspx
Just a data point.
@SMSgt Mac I believe I am acknowledging your points. My point is not that you can't make a reasonable argument that maneuverability improvements aren't meaningful anymore, you can. My point is that mediocre maneuverability (that of the F18 in the pack of modern 3rd and 4th gen fighters) is nothing to celebrate. If improved maneuverability is important it's a big problem. If improved maneuverability is not important it's meaningless. In either case it does not justify a "gee whiz" press release trying to put lipstick on the same maneuverability as planes that were in squadron service around 1980.
ReplyDelete@sferrin. My exact words: ". . . top speed ceased to be [important] once planes got up towards Mach 2 . . ." Your response: " . . . you apparently can't figure out . . . that there came a point that incremental improvements in speed weren't going to be worth the added expense . . ." Do I have to say more?
Mac, you are aware that during the Gulf War, the F-15s were facing a vastly inferior enemy, right? You can't use that conflict to predict how future air combat will turn out against a comparable rival such as China.
ReplyDeleteBB: Your "either-or" manueverability statements are non-sequiturs, in that their second assertions do not neccessarily flow from the first. EX:" That is to say that within visual range an F35 is no more lethal than an F18 with equivalent missiles." is not true because of the effect of Low Observables in the equation. The quote from an Aussie exchange pilot flying F-15s as an Aggressor against the F-22 comes to mind: "The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been." (the original quote began with "I hate the ^%#* F-22..")
ReplyDeleteRE: "Gee Whiz PR." Actually it was an AFA article, more for Thomas' edification. And the point is that while a gun is still a last ditch Air-to-Air weapon, its importance tends to be overblown by the 'dogfighters'. (Using the 'gun' has a visceral effect on the meat-servos, even when it is the least effective weapon in their quiver -- it just feels 'good')
BTW: did you read the article at the link? I ask because my takeaway was that the maneuverability statement was in response to a question, and the most important aspect of the article to me was the emphasis on the importance of 'Stealth' coming from a Naval Aviator.
@sferrin: I guess if you can't debate successfully, you abandon civil discussion and head for insults. Nice. Way to keep the site an open place for debate. No dissenters allowed as far as you're concerned - does Solomon feel the same? Often your first post after any positive F-35 article is “Another story you won’t see on Ares.”, and yet do you desire just the opposite for this site?
ReplyDeleteFor the record I understood the point you were trying (unsuccessfully) to make, but the example was a poor one as the trade offs for maximum speed are much more vicious than designing for super maneuverability. Trying to press a design much beyond Mach 2 results in compromises that generally are not good for a fighter aircraft (see Mig-25). While maneuverability, even super maneuverability can be had without sacrificing speed, stealth, maneuverability, engine longevity, etc.
@SMSgt Mac: Reread the quoted article, it referenced the maneuverability of the B & C, so we are not just talking about the replacement for the AV-8B, but also the F/A-18 C/D and one would logically assume any ground attack duties of the E/F as well.
If the SA systems or stealth/IR countermeasures don’t live up the expectations, then the F-35 is in serious danger of being more F-105 than A-4.
@BB1984: "@sferrin. My exact words: ". . . top speed ceased to be [important] once planes got up towards Mach 2 . . ." Your response: " . . . you apparently can't figure out . . . that there came a point that incremental improvements in speed weren't going to be worth the added expense . . ." Do I have to say more? "
ReplyDeleteWhich makes it all the more puzzling that you can't manage to connect the dots. Manueverabilty in WVR is at the point of diminishing returns. Clear enough? The Hornet comparison was throwing the dimwits a bone, nothing more. Of course they're going to find a reason to whine about it (as you've demonstrated) because they don't want to hear it.
@SMSgt
ReplyDeleteRef F22in WVR comment: very interesting. Was there enough detail to understand how much of that might have been from F22/F35 shared characteristics vs. F22 unique characteristics (i.e. thrust vectoring).
Ref "Gee Whiz PR" I was referring to the original article/quotes that kicked off the post, not to your quotes/links. Sorry about any confusion on that.
Ref the link: I understand the point and for breakthrough systems (like the E-3) there's a lot of validity to it. For systems where there are clear and available alternatives, just because you can eventually make something work doesn't mean it was the right choice.
ref the link and BVR: what the reformers said was that the F16 would be better WVR while the F15 was optimized for BVR. They expected WVR combat to be prevalent. The scenarios that actually occurred favored BVR and therefore the F15 was a good choice. One take away from this is the importance of clarifying what scenarios really make sense for a plane.
If the argument is that the BVR scenario is now dominant and the F35 will do well there, that's fine. But that's a very different argument from saying that the F35 would do well WVR when I think there has been no evidence of that other than the F22 related point you made well into the thread. (BTW: I'm saying that the original post and many comments are cheer leading for the F35 for WVR work, not that you personally have been doing so)
@Privateer454: "I guess if you can't debate successfully, you abandon civil discussion and head for insults. Nice. Way to keep the site an open place for debate. No dissenters allowed as far as you're concerned - does Solomon feel the same?"
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against debate. It *is* tough to stay civil when people act like they don't know what the hell you're talking about and then attempt to make your words say something they didn't. I guess that's my fault for setting my expectations too high.
"Often your first post after any positive F-35 article is “Another story you won’t see on Ares.”, and yet do you desire just the opposite for this site?"
Not at all. On the other hand do you really want the trolls migrating here?
"For the record I understood the point you were trying (unsuccessfully) to make, but the example was a poor one as the trade offs for maximum speed are much more vicious than designing for super maneuverability. Trying to press a design much beyond Mach 2 results in compromises that generally are not good for a fighter aircraft (see Mig-25). While maneuverability, even super maneuverability can be had without sacrificing speed, stealth, maneuverability, engine longevity, etc."
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Did I mention Mach 3 anywhere? Is the F-104 capable of Mach 3? No, it isn't. But in an attempt to make a point (and a weak one at that) you resort to exaggeration and then heap on a large dose of stupidity in the form of"oh supermanueverability is so easy to add without sacrificing anything". Really? You honestly believe supermanueverability can be added with no sacrifices? It won't cost more, add weight, or effect RCS? Really? (Sorry if you're insulted by the word "stupidity", feel free to insert whatever PC word you like that is the opposite of "brilliant".)
@Privateer454: At least Solomon does not actively censor blog comments like another three-lettered 'bows at the alter of the APA" blogger I could name.
ReplyDeleteWhile we all will never agree on everything, I hope we can agree that open discussion, in a civil tongue, is the best solution.
I just want to offer Solomon (and everybody else) an apology for well, being a bit of an a-hole in a few topics. It won't happen again.
ReplyDeleteRegards all.
extremism in defense of a cause isn't a sin. unfortunately, this is no longer a scholarly debate, its an impassioned argument.
ReplyDeletewho's fault it is, i lay at the feet of the critics. a reasoned discussion of the programs faults earlier would have resulted in what they wanted.
instead they spun facts and in some cases lied. thats why this debate is off the rails.
Since it’s coming in waves now, time to compress the responses.
ReplyDelete1.Rereading the article is not required. While mentioning the C model, largely because of the drug deal that helps the Navy with the C unit cost by having the Marines subsidize their buy. Kudos to the Navy as always for their political skills inside and out of the Dept of the Navy. (I particularly enjoyed the pilot’s diplomatic response on the Marines getting the C model), but it is clear that the article is centered on the B model and the C is a sidebar. As to assuming the B (or C if you must) will assume any ground attack duties of the E/F, I believe that is a given. Which interestingly is why it was acceptable to have the B and C as less than ‘9g aircraft’, unlike the A model, for which the AF has grander Air to Air aspirations.
2.RE: “If the SA systems or stealth/IR countermeasures don’t live up the expectations, then the F-35 is in serious danger of being more F-105 than A-4.” Well, I assume that’s some unsubstantiated deprecation of the F-105 vis a vis the A-4, but we’ll set that aside and let the statement end at ‘danger’. Are you aware that all the critical technology is already working and that the challenge is in the (non-trivial) integration? (at least according to a statement I read recently made by- I believe- RADM Venlet) So it is a question of making things work together rather than "will it work at all?". And anyway, it is extremely rare that we fail from implementing technology for technology-shortcoming reasons, especially since we started using Technology Readiness Levels. If we never have trouble integrating technology, we either aren’t stretching the state of the art or we’re doing it later than we should have.
3.RE: “If the argument is that the BVR scenario is now dominant and the F35 will do well there, that's fine. But that's a very different argument from saying that the F35 would do well WVR when I think there has been no evidence of that other than the F22 related point you made well into the thread.” We return to the dynamics of the kill chain, by which one must remember that superiority in the BVR phase permits a combatant to be at initial advantage upon entering the WVR phase, which has been shown, since air combat began, to be the single most important factor in determining winners and losers. Then one must recognize that even with eyeballs on target, the stealth system has an easier time smacking the non-stealth system.(Discussion on the physical limitations of optical sensors is another thread entirely)
4.RE: “what the reformers said...” No. what they asserted was Energy-Maneuvering was the single most important part of the win-loss equation and held it as absolutely essential to and inseparable from Boyd’s OODA loop. Read Glenn Kent’s “Thinking about America’s Defense” (free at RAND) for insight into the absolute target fixation of the Fighter Mafia and the myths that still surround them. Today, the OODA loop is still a credible and widely used mental model for many thing including air combat, but the requirement to yank and bank to manage it is not, unless maybe you REALLY screw up – and no weapon system is ‘GI proof’.
5.RE: F-15 Aggressor Quote. Taken from www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041725. Judge for yourself, but you don’t win 144-0 in the first week alone by getting into furballs and using thrust vectoring as your big advantage. "144-0" factoid found here: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/07/airforce_raptor_070730/
6.Perhaps some shameless self-promotion on the larger subject at hand will help? http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/01/stealth-references.html