Air Combat Maneuvering Thread

[Brumby]

you did not show the F-35 is an agile aircraft it is not.

Simply because agility is not the predominant feature of the game. The aim of the F-35 program is not to build an agile aircraft but rather a platform that would be suited to fight and win the next war.

F-35 bases its philosophy in DAS and stealth

I disagree but that would further deviate from the subject matter.

You are just repeating the Lockheed narrative that dogfights are over

Please refer to my recent posts on this subject. I have given you facts, statistics and reasoning where the trend is going. If you disagree with any of them I am happy to hear your undercutters but please don't use the Lockheed card because I have not once quoted Lockheed.

, however the USAF is not worry because both China and Russia are behind in numbers, China is way behind in numbers, the F-16 out number the J-10 and the same is the F-18Es and F-15s they out number J-11s, the Russian are not different they only operate a few MiG-29s, less than 250 and around 400 Su-27s, most of them are old aircraft with only less than 250 new aircraft, among them 48+ Su-35s, a few MiG-29Ks and MiG-29SMT and few Su-34s and Su-30SMs.

Please draw your conclusion and argument from your numbers. As is, it is meaningless.

Both China and Russia have less than 20 T-50s, J-31s and J-20s,; while the US has more than 200 F-35s and F-22s.

So what you say is based upon the idea. once the T-50 and J-20 are deployed in numbers the 6th generation fighter will be deployed.

Again please bring out your point because as is they are incoherent to me.

Is the F-35 a fighter? no it is not, it is one of the worse aircraft the US has built in terms of aerodynamics, but as long as the F-22 outnumber the T-50, and China can not power their J-20 with a decent engine, well F-35 will be worth as a export monkey model for US allies who might only face inferior fighters like old Su-27s or Mirage 2000s

I think you actually don't understand what the F-35's bring to the table. In fact very few people do outside the industry because of the game changing nature of this platform. Only history will truly reflect its capabilities when its impact is fully appreciated upon the battlespace (provided it works as advertised). The strength of the F-35 in my view is not the stealth but primarily is in the sensor fusion. It is also this area where most of the development delay and issues are coming from because it is a level four sensor fusion capability. I am seeing mission conceptual ideas being floated to exploit its fusion capabilities such as :
(i) mission simultaneity as opposed to sequential operational capabilities;
(ii) tunnelling through non permissive environment;
(iii) integrating extended battlespace; and
(iv) network to network expanded battlespace

 

[Brumby]

Well, to begin with your "notion" flies in the face of current practice, and that practice is that maneuverability and L/O are minimum standards for manned combat aircraft, that is why we are building the F-35 as very L/O, and very maneuverable!

Choices are for tea or coffee?? not combat aircraft where you are sending someone into a very hostile environment, such as Syria, witness the consequences for the young Jordanian Pilot? NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I think we should apply some common sense into the discussion. I did not say stealth at the total expense of maneuverability. For example, In the F-35 design we know it can pull 9G's but there might be some compromise in maneuverability because of stealth. In other words, there would be some required baseline and emphasis of some features over others based on program objectives. You can't have a maximalist design that yet you can afford. Eventually you have to decide on tradeoffs.

Looking at your hypothetical LRSB against overwhelming odds- once you begin to dispence those AAMs, you have blown your cover, and an SU-35 with a gun will spoil all your fun??

Not necessary but obviously I am making assumptions that favor my theory. I am assuming that the LRSB would also have powerful ECM features that the combination with stealth would still afford it a range advantage even when firing off a bunch of AAM's.

Finally your last supposition of over 50% PK is against 4 gen aircraft, will that same PK translate accurately against the B-2, F-22, or F-35? What about the J-20?? I rather doubt that it will, although as I have stated, a positive LOCK-ON is gonna be nearly impossible to achieve, but if for whatever reason that Lock On is achieved, then things are gonna go down hill for you?

True. I won't disagree but I don't think anybody knows for sure what the PK's would be against VLO platforms. However there are also corresponding developments of more potent AAM's that are multi sensor seekers and have jam resistant features.

Finally as I stated earlier, progress in aircraft, and AAMs has continued in a very linear fashion, our current course of action is to design and produce aircraft incorporating both L/O and super-maneuverability. I will point out once again, that the F-35 is a much safer airplane when pushed to and past its limits than the F-16.

No disagreement here. I think the problem is when comparison of the F-35 against the F-16 is made based on a one dimensional attribute of maneuverability.

 

[b787]

Simply because agility is not the predominant feature of the game. The aim of the F-35 program is not to build an agile aircraft but rather a platform that would be suited to fight and win the next war.

since you already know the F-35 is not agile then you will understand why it is still built.

J-31 and J-20 are not powered by the rights engines, these makes them not a real thread to F-35, the J-31 lacks engines that will allow it to beat the F-35, in fact it repeats the same mistakes the Americans did, large frontal section, smaller weapons bay, and large fuselage with small wings.
J-20 is slightly better since it has canards allowing it for quicker turn rates due to the lift ahead of the wing.
With the right engines with Thrust vectoring and Super cruise will probably be good maybe as good as the F-22, but it does not have them now.

DAS uses highly off bored missiles for cueing the missile with 360 degree freedom, thus they think you do not need an agile fighter, yes but the F-35 won`t dodge missiles with DAS but with agility.

DAS does not bring anything new that Rafale or Typhoon currently have,


As a platform more delays means the aircraft is getting obsolete, the only future i see for it is if it carries a laser to blow out Air to Air launched at it or to down fighters, but in kinematics it yields to Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35, PAKFA and of course F-22.

If SAMs work as advertised then forget it, they will down it.

Antey claims they can down the F-22 with their SAMs and radars

 

[Brumby]

since you already know the F-35 is not agile then you will understand why it is still built.

J-31 and J-20 are not powered by the rights engines, these makes them not a real thread to F-35, the J-31 lacks engines that will allow it to beat the F-35, in fact it repeats the same mistakes the Americans did, large frontal section, smaller weapons bay, and large fuselage with small wings.
J-20 is slightly better since it has canards allowing it for quicker turn rates due to the lift ahead of the wing.
With the right engines with Thrust vectoring and Super cruise will probably be good maybe as good as the F-22, but it does not have them now.

DAS uses highly off bored missiles for cueing the missile with 360 degree freedom, thus they think you do not need an agile fighter, yes but the F-35 won`t dodge missiles with DAS but with agility.

DAS does not bring anything new that Rafale or Typhoon currently have,


As a platform more delays means the aircraft is getting obsolete, the only future i see for it is if it carries a laser to blow out Air to Air launched at it or to down fighters, but in kinematics it yields to Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35, PAKFA and of course F-22.

If SAMs work as advertised then forget it, they will down it.

Antey claims they can down the F-22 with their SAMs and radars

I think you need to bring out a coherent argument in which to advance your position or view, whatever that might be. I don't believe this thread is about the F-35 or F-22 vs. J-20 or PAKFA. I really have no idea where you are heading with your comments.

 

[b787]

I think you need to bring out a coherent argument in which to advance your position or view, whatever that might be. I don't believe this thread is about the F-35 or F-22 vs. J-20 or PAKFA. I really have no idea where you are heading with your comments.

the question is why the Americans build a fighter that is not agile basically a turkey, you say because of its platform capability, what i am telling you and you do not see, is not because agility is irrelevant, it is very important, but if you have superiority in numbers and technology you can take some luxuries, the F-35 reflects that, it is not agile, there are systems that claim can beat it, its own stable mates F-22 and F-16 can beat it, why then they still buy it and build it, well like Pierre Sprey said it is only to spend money and make money for Lockheed, he is right, in electronics Eurofighter and Rafale are as good, in agility they are better and fighters still need agility, F-22 for such a reason have it, once the Chinese get the right engines they will force the USAF to think different, but they are planning their 6th generation fighter will arrive by that time.

 

[Brumby]

the question is why the Americans build a fighter that is not agile basically a turkey,
.

You are making two assertions.
(i)that the F-35 is not agile. Firstly you have to demonstrate that as a fact. Quoting Pierre Sprey does not make it so and neither by the comment from the test pilot.
(ii)that the F-35 is a turkey. I don't think you can possibly and reasonably make such an assertion.

you say because of its platform capability, what i am telling you and you do not see, is not because agility is irrelevant, it is very important, but if you have superiority in numbers and technology you can take some luxuries, the F-35 reflects that,

You are asserting that because the US has superiority in numbers it can afford to produce a sub optimal performing plane. That is simply some wild theory of yours which you did not even bother to explain the reasoning for such a claim.

it is not agile, there are systems that claim can beat it, its own stable mates F-22 and F-16 can beat it, why then they still buy it and build it, well like Pierre Sprey said it is only to spend money and make money for Lockheed, he is right, in electronics Eurofighter and Rafale are as good, in agility they are better and fighters still need agility, F-22 for such a reason have it, once the Chinese get the right engines they will force the USAF to think different, but they are planning their 6th generation fighter will arrive by that time.

You are again making some wild claims.

You need to understand there is a difference between making assertions and staking a view.
Frankly I think you don't understand the difference. Maybe it is a language issue.

 

[Brumby]

Have you guys read this book? It features a comprehensive set of test on post stall technology.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think we should apply some common sense into the discussion. I did not say stealth at the total expense of maneuverability. For example, In the F-35 design we know it can pull 9G's but there might be some compromise in maneuverability because of stealth. In other words, there would be some required baseline and emphasis of some features over others based on program objectives. You can't have a maximalist design that yet you can afford. Eventually you have to decide on tradeoffs.


Not necessary but obviously I am making assumptions that favor my theory. I am assuming that the LRSB would also have powerful ECM features that the combination with stealth would still afford it a range advantage even when firing off a bunch of AAM's.


True. I won't disagree but I don't think anybody knows for sure what the PK's would be against VLO platforms. However there are also corresponding developments of more potent AAM's that are multi sensor seekers and have jam resistant features.



No disagreement here. I think the problem is when comparison of the F-35 against the F-16 is made based on a one dimensional attribute of maneuverability.

Well it seems we are principally in agreement here, and agree that stealth and sensor fusion are the game changers for the F-35, it does also sport very sound aerodynamics, its a very sound aircraft, it brings all those metrics to the fore, while making a few compromises that almost always accompany new technology.

I'm afraid our buddy has left field well in hand?

 

[b787]

You are again making some wild claims.

You need to understand there is a difference between making assertions and staking a view.
Frankly I think you don't understand the difference. Maybe it is a language issue.

No i am not making assertions, i am telling you what he says from his point of view, Pierre Sprey is an aircraft designer, he worked for two main aircraft, A-10 and F-16, by working in those projects he knows the aerodynamic needs these two aircraft have to satisfy their needs.

A-10 was designed upon its gun; so it is an aircraft that will fly low and slow, then you need an armored cockpit and straight wings.

F-35 can not do strafing, first you do not need stealth coatings, and you need an agile aircraft then you need straight wings, both Su-25 and A-10 were designed with such features.

For a light fighter it needs excess thrust and a large wing, if this light weight fighter will do super maneuverability it needs thrust vectoring, originally the F-16 was designed light with a large wing and excess thrust to weight ratio of more than 1.

These needs contradict each other.

Further more Harrier is a VTOL aircraft, so it needs small wings, why? because at vertical take offs a large wing creates lots of drag.


The Harrier contradicts the F-18 needs, an F-18 needs lot of lift, why? it take offs and land at very low speeds, if you see the F-18 it has a low aspect straight wing but with a LEX, that wing is excellent for a naval fighter, it is similar to an F-14 geometry wing at take offs and landings.


Then these contradictions he says make the F-35 aerodynamically speaking crap.

How does the F-35 philosophy fixes that, basically to do strafing, F-35 can not do such mission.

It is designed to attack at high speeds and its small wing is ill suited for such mission, so the smart weapon needs to be very accurate but in a low technology environment such as Syria now, they will need other types of weapons such as Drones or Tucano type aircraft.

As a fighter it will need DAS, and that its stealth works other wise fighters like T-50 will dine F-35s and that includes supercruising Typhoons and Rafales.

As a Harrier type, it lacks VIFFing, so is ill suited for Close support for the US marines.

As a Hornet type it needs more weight reducing further its thrust to weight ratio, in this mission it will have a larger wing though.

So to put it mildly, while F-22 and T-50 can have supercrusing ability and post stall, it lacks it.

As a fighter F-22 and PAKFA will dine F-35s. Specially PAKFA that uses HMS and highly off bored missiles.

 

[Jeff Head]

B787, you are making a number of assertions that you cannot prove.

You do not know that the F-35 cannot strafe. They have barely started with the A aircraft in qualifications with the gun, and the operational test and evaluation, including comparative tests for strafing against the A-10 will not even occur until late 2017 or early 2018.

But guess what? If they are going to do comparative testing for strafing, then the F-35 can strafe.

You also do not know that it is not agile. You have not flown one, and their are people who have flown them who disagree with you. The F-35 has very, very strong off angle attributes and capabilities.

We all know what Pierre Sprey believes...but just because he wa in the know on the design of the F-16 does not make him god-like or the authority on the F-35.

You have simply latched on to him because he happens to support your own thesis.

Other guys (Brumby and AFB), your back and forth arguments are also meaningless at this point. For all involved, you have have said your part ad nausea, and it has devolved into (for several pages) basically, " you are wrong and I am right," or, "prove it to me."

As Moderator, I am now stepping in. This argument has gotten beyond meaningless.

Both sides...enough!

Talk about Air Combat Maneuverability and Supermaneuverabilty principles without dissing or praising the F-35 and the comparisons to the F-16/A-10 any further.

If more of this continues I will go back and delete a LOT of posts to where I believe the argument became circular and temporarily suspend the thread.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION..