L'Italia acquista i primi 3 F-35

[fuzz77]

Beh no...........vabbè che è monomotore e pesantuccio, ma l'F-105 era un segmento E tendente all'F

l'F-35 è un D large

[Guest EC2277]

nel frattempo "war is boring" continua la sua crociata contro l'F-35 fino a definirlo l'F 105 dei nostri tempi.

Alla fine mi sa che questo aereo farà la fine del suo bisnonno :

arrivato baldanzosamente in europa come caccia da superiorità aerea e dopo i primi scontri con gli agili monomotori della Luftwaffe e della Regia Aeronautica, declassato ad intercettore, caccia di scorta, cacciabombardiere, ricognitore, etc ( e più di un wing dovette tornare frettolosamente al P 40 )

Penso che il paragone con il P-47 sarebbe stato più corretto, se non fosse che l'F-35 non è mai stato spacciato come caccia da superiorità aerea.

L'F-105 ha poi pagato il fatto che è stato usato per una tipologia di missione opposta a quella per la quale era stato concepito e quindi penso che anche quest'altro paragone sia scorretto.

[fuzz77]

Imho l'F-35 è semplicemente un F/A-18 molto "A" e meno "F"

Storicamente l'aereo che gli si avvicina di più come caratteristiche è l'F84F Thunderstreak, anche l'F-100 super sabre ha molti punti in comune col Jsf

[ISO-8707]

Il parere di un pilota riservista US Navy di FA 18 (ex riservista USAF con almeno 1000 h su F16 ed esperienza di combattimento)

Why The “F-35 v F-16″ Article Is Garbage

JULY 1, 2015

C.W. LEMOINE

As one of our followers here on FighterSweep, you’re probably someone that likes to keep track of the latest news on America’s most advanced fighters–especially the stealthy, badass fifth-generation F-22 and F-35. More specifically, you’ve probably been keeping tabs on the development of the F-35–its setbacks, its achievements, and its march toward IOC. That also means you may have run across a very recent article that screams, “The F-35 can’t beat the plane it’s replacing in a dogfight!”

As a taxpayer, reading that probably pisses you off. After all, the F-35 acquisitions program is one of the most twisted and over-budget jobs programs in the history of the U.S. military. It’s late. It’s expensive. It’s bloated. It can’t even fly within twenty-five miles of a thunderstorm because they had to remove lightning protection to save on weight–a requirement for the Marines so they could take off and land vertically in the F-35B.

There are hundreds of valid complaints on this aircraft, but the latest clickbait headlines scattering social media aren’t among them; it’s as though suddenly everyone is Colonel John Boydreincarnate and knows what the problem is.

Now, before we get into the why, let me first preface all of this by saying I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t work for Lockheed-Martin. I have nothing to do with the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps acquisitions process. As I mentioned in my Hornet versus Viper comparison, the Viper is my first love–so naturally I smiled a little when I read the headline.

But at the end of the day, I–just like every other fighter pilot out there–have to be fair.

First, let’s talk about what really happened. According to the article, an F-35A and a two-bag Block 40 F-16D took off on Jan 14, 2015 to engage in Basic Fighter Maneuver setups to test “the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment…this consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.”

English please?

Just like a normal 1v1 proficiency sortie, the two fighters did canned setups to practice basic dogfighting. In the offensive setups, the F-35 would start off behind the F-16. At the specified range, the F-35 pilot would call “Fight’s On” and maneuver to the F-16’s control zone to employ weapons. In the defensive setups, the F-35 would start off in front while the Viper maneuvered to the F-35’s control zone. And finally, in the neutral (high-aspect) setup, the two aircraft would start completely neutral and fight until whatever DLOs (Designated Learning Objectives) they had were met, be they valid gunshots, valid missile shots, or whatever.

The Instructor Pilot in a Lockheed-Martin Block 42 F-16CM defends against an attacking student in a 6K Defensive BFM setup.

So while this particular article may lead you to believe the two aircraft went out there mano y mano and duked it out, the reality is that we don’t know where each deficiency was found. My guess is the critiques on the pitch rates for gunning and abilities to jink happened in the canned offensive and defensive setups. But one has to remember this is a test platform and they were out to get test data, not find out who the king of the mountain is.

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?

To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”

“Dirt” Taxis his F-35A past the crowd during Aviation Nation 2014 at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD (Foreign Object Debris) in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at.

For example, the test pilot was a former F-15E pilot. Two-bag Vipers do the same thing to Strike Eagles all day long. Maybe he was just used to it? I keed. I keed. But seriously, a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.

I’m sure internet debates will rage on. It’s fun to trash the new kid, especially the new kid that’s overweight, wears too much bling, and talks about how awesome it is all the time. It’s way too early to declare the F-35 the “worst fighter aircraft design ever imagined.” Please. Let’s see how it does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do against guys with similar amounts of experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.

There’s plenty of room to criticize this program, but accuracy is important. The sky isn’t really falling, Chicken Little. And for the rest of you? Blow out your torches and hang up your pitchforks, for we have miles to go.

Why The "F-35 v F-16" Article Is Garbage | Fighter Sweep

Replica del giorno successivo dopo l'immancabile vespaio che era susseguito all'articolo di cui sopra.

F-35 vs F-16 BFM: Parting Thoughts

[Editor’s Note–Yesterday, C.W. Lemoine a Naval Reserve F/A-18 pilot and prior AFRES Viper Driver, opined about several articles tied to this report. Most the pieces launched onto the Interwebs were designed specifically to raise hackles and blood pressure, and boy did they ever succeed! Here at FighterSweep, we do our best to present factual information from vetted, reliable sources, and keep our work as unbiased as possible. The notion that somehow Lockheed-Martin is lining our pockets for writing pieces in favor of their new jet is bullsh!t. Just to make that explicitly clear. So without further ado, here are the author’s afterthoughts.]

Boy, that escalated quickly…

Perhaps people misunderstood the intent of my articleyesterday, or I wasn’t clear enough or both, but I am in no way defending the F-35. As a program, it is a bloated failure. I made several references to that fact.

What I was responding to was a very slanted article, one that took a very myopic set of data points (and out-of-context pilot comments from a “leaked report”) and jumped to a very big conclusion–one that is neither accurate nor fair. I am not making any excuses for the aircraft’s performance, but I also don’t think the article (written by someone with no fighter experience) was anything more thanclickbait, as they say.

We have sold out our fighting capability on many levels for the F-35. Like my friend and fellow fighter pilot Jack Stewart spoke of here, I think an investment in upgraded jets (Like the Block 60Viper with AESA radar and conformal fuel tanks) would’ve been better suited for the short term. The F-35–in theory–is a great “Day One” fighter, but it should never have been touted as a one-size-fits-all answer to all tactical aviation problems. LO is just too expensive and we simply didn’t buy enough to make it cost effective. I am disappointed that the program has cost this much money without results after nearly a decade. And I am even more disappointed that it has been at the cost of our fighter fleet across all services.

But at the end of the day, American fighter pilots will be flying this aircraft, whether we like it or not. The money is already spent, and the train has already left the station. These pilots will adapt and overcome, making it a formidable fighting machine – just as was done with the F-4 in Vietnam. The F-15, F-16, and F-22 ALL had growing pains in their early years. Have you ever heard the term Lawn Dart applied to the F-16? Or how about Craptor as it applies to the F-22?

A Raptor assigned to the F-22 Combined Test Force taxis out for a sortie at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

I take issue with irresponsible journalism that creates problems where there may not be any. The F-35 has PLENTY of issues, but as I said yesterday, it’s best to focus on those that are real, tangible, and quantifiable. Hyperbole, strawman arguments, and the like do nothing for this debate.

What happened in the “test” was just that. BFM is an art, and it takes time to develop tactics suited for each aircraft. There are some good things about the aircraft (like its high-Alpha capability) that came from that test. There are also things that need to be corrected. Any other conclusions are just flat out wrong without more data to substantiate them.

I know bashing the F-35 program is the cool thing to do right now, but I don’t think taking one pilot’s comments out of context (with very little understanding for what he was actually saying from the original author) from a leaked FOUO report is a valid way to do it. Technique only.

F-35 vs F-16 BFM: Parting Thoughts | Fighter Sweep

Modificato 10 Luglio 2015 da ISO-8707

[Guest EC2277]

Più o meno dice quanto abbiamo già detto qui, aggiungendovi alcune considerazioni interessanti, ma glissa sul fatto che il motore dell'AF-2 era depotenziato; cosa che secondo me è molo importante per valutare i risultati del confronto.

Modificato 10 Luglio 2015 da EC2277

[fuzz77]

quest'aspetto qui è molto importante però

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?

To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

sostanzialmente dice che il Falcon è superiore nella conservazione dell'Energia di manovra, mentre l'F-35, come l'F-18, ha migliore governabilità agli alti angoli d'attacco alle basse velocità

non ci scordiamo mai che per un caccia il primo aspetto è decisamente più importante del secondo, i piloti infatti tendono sempre a non tirare tutti i G dal proprio aereo per evitare di perdere velocità, perché se sei lento, e di conseguenza basso, al tuo avversario frega poco se puoi alzare il muso di 35° rispetto alla direzione di volo

facendo l'esempio limite è come paragonare un biplano a un monoplano

i Typhoon hanno massacrato i Su-30 nelle cope india proprio per questo, mentre i caccia russi rimanevano appesi a mezz'aria con i loro ugelli orientabili gli inglesi li mazzolavano come volevano avendo raggiunto posizioni di vantaggio grazie all'esuberanza del proprio velivolo

[Martin Venator]

4C contro station sportiva, insomma.

[stev66]

quest'aspetto qui è molto importante però

sostanzialmente dice che il Falcon è superiore nella conservazione dell'Energia di manovra, mentre l'F-35, come l'F-18, ha migliore governabilità agli alti angoli d'attacco alle basse velocità

non ci scordiamo mai che per un caccia il primo aspetto è decisamente più importante del secondo, i piloti infatti tendono sempre a non tirare tutti i G dal proprio aereo per evitare di perdere velocità, perché se sei lento, e di conseguenza basso, al tuo avversario frega poco se puoi alzare il muso di 35° rispetto alla direzione di volo

facendo l'esempio limite è come paragonare un biplano a un monoplano

i Typhoon hanno massacrato i Su-30 nelle cope india proprio per questo, mentre i caccia russi rimanevano appesi a mezz'aria con i loro ugelli orientabili gli inglesi li mazzolavano come volevano avendo raggiunto posizioni di vantaggio grazie all'esuberanza del proprio velivolo

prestazione molto degna di nota, considerando che i su 27 avevano mazzuolato a loro tempo gli F 15 .

D'altra parte il Typhoon è l'ultimo caccia "puro" che vedremo nei cieli, una specie di Spitfire del XXI secolo.

comunque sembra che l' F35 abbia problemi anche nel combattimento Beyond Visual Range, in quanto la sua sensoristica attiva e soprattutto passiva ed i suoi missili vengono giudicati al massimo pari od inferiori delle controparti russe e cinesi.

[fuzz77]

prestazione molto degna di nota, considerando che i su 27 avevano mazzuolato a loro tempo gli F 15 .

D'altra parte il Typhoon è l'ultimo caccia "puro" che vedremo nei cieli, una specie di Spitfire del XXI secolo.

comunque sembra che l' F35 abbia problemi anche nel combattimento Beyond Visual Range, in quanto la sua sensoristica attiva e soprattutto passiva ed i suoi missili vengono giudicati al massimo pari od inferiori delle controparti russe e cinesi.

Che poi, la storia degli F-15 battuti in quel modo dai Su-30 pare sia stata pilotata dall'USAF

Sembra che gli americani si siano fatti letteralmente asfaltare per avere un pretesto per chiedere altri F-22A al congresso.

Nella realtà l'F-15C evoluto, con i piloti dell'Usaf, aveva il potenziale per raggiungere un risultato di parità contro i Su-30, del resto parliamo sempre dell'Eagle eh!

[stev66]

Che poi, la storia degli F-15 battuti in quel modo dai Su-30 pare sia stata pilotata dall'USAF

Sembra che gli americani si siano fatti letteralmente asfaltare per avere un pretesto per chiedere altri F-22A al congresso.

Nella realtà l'F-15C evoluto, con i piloti dell'Usaf, aveva il potenziale per raggiungere un risultato di parità contro i Su-30, del resto parliamo sempre dell'Eagle eh!

Diciamo che in combattimento vero che non fosse "Red Baron approved" i risultati sarebbero stati determinati dal C quadro, non dalla bravura o meno dei piloti o dall'eccellenza o meno degli aerei. Ed ovviamente è vero il contrario: sebbene in letteratura non risultino F 15 abbattuti in combattimento ( ma si sa che yankees ed israeliani barano un po' sulle definizioni* ) risulta un F 15 tornato alla base con un motore esploso per un Acrid che in Mig 21 siriano gli aveva infilato nel sotto coda.

Ma ovviamente , salvo circostanze eccezionali, un MiG 21 un F 15 non riuscirebbe neppure a vederlo .

*Es : un aereo per salvarsi da un dogfight effettua una manovra ad un numero di G superiore a quello max consentito, e tornato alla base viene messo fuori servizio perchè la struttura è ormai snervata. Questo per l'USAF non è considerata perdita in combattimento.