F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[FORBIN]

I think mock close combat to very short range, gun range ?

I have the impression that this test was essentially destined to see the aerodynamic behavior / agility of the aircraft itself regardless of its electronic.
To see what was in the belly, ofc a bit clumsy

And DAS help F-35, the pilot detecting a potential threat faster and allow firing deported for it read recently. Partially offset this handicap completely remains to see.

And even if F-35 it is less good for this kind of fight don' t forget he is stealth vs 4.5 gen fighter it will detect much before and even vs T-50 or Pak-Fa get a better RCS clearly acording all actual reports mainly cause shape etc... but especially USA do RAM coating since 40 years...
In more T-50 don't have air inlets in S and very bad infrared signature, J-20 1/ normaly must have but 2/ enough medium.

In more will carry 14 AAM after with Block 4, 16, 6 internal others 4/4.5 fighters gen carry about 6/12 max.

 

[Jeff Head]

Well said, Brat.

And time will indeed tell.

I stand by my prediction 110%

 

[Jura The idiot]

well I understand flying just at a high-school physics-class level so this part of that detractor's article caught my attention (and nobody seemed to mention it yesterday/today):
"... the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him."
I did a google search with
f-35+rear+visibility
and in the OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE document from 2013, which is available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(hope it's legit!) they say (p. 18; 36 of 68 in that PDF):
"It remains to be seen whether or not, in these more advanced aspects of training, the visibility issues will rise to the level of safety issues, or if, instead, the visibility limitations are something that pilots adapt to over time and with more experience."

Now, as of June 1, 2015, is this an issue, or non-issue?

 

[Jeff Head]

Jura, I think that both AFB and Forbin have pretty much answered the concerns.

We can continue to post detractor comments all day...as well as comments from people, like the pilot AFB mentioned, who say differently.

Let's move on to actual news about the aircraft.

 

[FORBIN]

f-35+rear+visibility

Rear visibilty ofc less good as F-16/22 see the canopy... problem designed with B constraint/ VSTOL necessity some say if he get some defects this is the fault to USMC hehe but in fact true, one fighter for three services/specifications really so difficult ...

 

[Jura The idiot]

...

Let's move on to actual news about the aircraft.

right here

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $19,641,417 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) for requirements development and maturation efforts for the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter Air System. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in March 2016. Fiscal 2014 research and development (Navy and Air Force); fiscal 2015 research and development (Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp.); and Cooperative Partner funds in the amount of $19,641,417 will be obligated at the time of award, $1,655,373 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchase for the U.S. Navy ($5,597,287; 28.7 percent); U.S. Air Force ($5,408,209; 27.54 percent); U.S. Marine Corps. ($3,904,548; 19.7 percent); and the Governments of Australia ($710,521; 3.61 percent); Canada ($337,155; 1.7 percent); Italy ($466,752; 2.38 percent); Netherlands ($217,537; 1.1 percent); Norway ($711,221; 3.62 percent); Turkey ($1,359,110; 6.92 percent); and United Kingdom ($929,076; 4.73 percent) under a Cooperative Agreement. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Air Force Brat]

well I understand flying just at a high-school physics-class level so this part of that detractor's article caught my attention (and nobody seemed to mention it yesterday/today):
"... the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him."
I did a google search with
f-35+rear+visibility
and in the OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE document from 2013, which is available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(hope it's legit!) they say (p. 18; 36 of 68 in that PDF):
"It remains to be seen whether or not, in these more advanced aspects of training, the visibility issues will rise to the level of safety issues, or if, instead, the visibility limitations are something that pilots adapt to over time and with more experience."

Now, as of June 1, 2015, is this an issue, or non-issue?

It is, or soon will be a non issue, once the helmet is brought up to speed, the pilot will have 360 degree vision in the vertical and horizontal planes, the pilot will be able to look "through" the cockpit floor, in front, behind and to either side, utilizing the cameras in place around the aircraft. As I reminded Chief, you can not judge this aircraft on the same plane as you would a 4 or 4.5 gen aircraft?

Look at PAK-FA, it also has a very pronounced turtle deck behind the cockpit, the Su-34 that turned over on landing, with the gear sticking skyward, is one of the reasons that you would like a little structure behind you to provide roll-over protection, which in the case of the SU-34 it did. When this test was flown, the helmet obviously was very immature, and did not do, what it will do today, and not nearly what it will do in the future.

Michael Gilmore's report is 2.5 years old, the aircraft was restricted from stalls or ANY aerobatics??? the report cited by Chief probably involves AF-2, which has "some" of those restrictions reduced or limited, but the pitch transition was still severely limited. The pilot was ticked that an F-16 got the drop on him, and that he was unable to return the favor, no pilot likes that, and you have to make sure "everyone" and his dog knows the other guy had an "unfair advantage", over you, so you blame your equipment. He is right, was he a little sour grapes, seems maybe he is?? but who are we to judge, lots of other pilots are reporting the exact opposite results "now" that even more flight restrictions have been lifted. This airplane is in "development", just as even the AFB is unable to roll an Airbus due to the FCS, I have NO trouble rolling the 737 or even the 747 on my flight simulator, C-130 takes a lot more work, but it can be done, LOL.

The FCS is limiting the aircraft "NOW", due to "flight restrictions" which will soon be removed and then we will see what this chick will really do, I do NOT buy that turn rate comparo, it is in-accurate in that it is based on the airplane, "as it was"? "This airplane is in the very same league as an F-22 without OVT, and that is still Very Good, in fact even without OVT, those F-22 drivers would be the gents going home, not the bad guys, but you will have to take my word on that? or not?, but it remains true none-the-less.

 

[FORBIN]

We have been deceived the true is :

Official answers...

The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. 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 a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.
Aircraft 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. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And 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 airplane at its target.
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.
The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.
The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This was not a realistic combat exercise only for see flying qualities but there are DAS and others things...

 

[Air Force Brat]

We have been deceived the true is :

Official answers...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This was not a realistic combat exercise only for see flying qualities but there are DAS and others things...

Thank you Mr. Forbin, I had not seen either article? and the first article is very good and affirms exactly what I said earlier off the top of my head without knowing that AF-2 had NO stealth coating, and just assuming the HMS was offline as was the situational awareness provided by the production aircraft with the helmet mounted sight.

Chief, this should be a lesson to you, it is really almost dishonest to use these "dishonest, sensational articles by unethical people like the war is boring crowd. The program office is investigating how they came by this flight eval, to know that this was AF-2 with-out the most basic F-35 war-fighting equipment is tantamount to "lying", and long time posters know I never use that word lightly!

This pilot if complicit with their release of this information should be "disciplined", as he also misleads. It is possible that his very honest report was "high-jacked" by the war is boring crew to make themselves look "Connected" and in the "know"? this proves they are neither connected nor in the know! In fact they are losers and liars if this is an example of their editorial policies, Shame! Shame! Shame!

>>>>> Personal message like this removed paragraph should be sent via PM <<<<<

Thank you again Mr. Forbin, that first article is gold, the WaPo article is more honest than usual, but does "snipe" at the F-35 program and aircraft in my opinion.

 

[Jeff Head]

Guys, this has been hashed on both sides.

It is clear that the test was performed for particular purposes by an aircraft that was not meant to test the aircraft on types of dogfighting (and indeed had not been cleared for the types of maneuvers) that the detractors used the test's performance to indicate a lack of.

Future posts that are purely detractor posts from detractor blogs, which play these types of games will be analyzed and removed if this is what they are doing.

Impartial, actual analysis on the actual mertis of the test and what they were intended for is fine...both positive and negative...but the pure detraction does not represent that, and takes the thread off topic.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.