Those transitioning out of the F-18 and into the F-35 are equally as excited about the F-35 and her awesome flying manners?
Any articles or quotes you can share?
Now to your concerns about bleeding airspeed at high alpha, you don't have to pull that hard, but if you do, that lift generation will translate into bleeding energy and braking, a very good thing, as it prevents you from "overshooting your target". It is all very manageable, and the additional flexibility gives you at least a 50% greater capability as far as increasing your ability to achieve a targeting solution, as you can force the airplane into a firing solution, where the 4th gen would depart, and likely give you a butt kicking? LOL
I have never ever heard where it has been suggested drag is actively designed into the flight envelope of any fighter aircraft or that its a desirable attribute designers actively try to include in their designs.
Everything I have ever heard about aerodynamics is the exact opposite, where designers do all they can to maximise lift and minimise drag throughout as much of the flight envelope as they can manage.
In a turn, lift and thrust works together to counteract drag. The higher the combination of lift+drag is to drag, the faster your sustained turn rate, and the less energy you loose during turns.
If you want to slow down in a hurry, you use the airbrake, which you can control and time to maximum effect. But very rarely is it a great idea for the plane to do that automatically once it reaches a certain AoA.
Had the pilot said the F35 brakes really well, I would have absolutely no problem with that. What alarms me is that what he said suggests to me that at higher AoAs, the F35 generates a boatload of drag (irrespective of whether the pilot actually wants to slow down doing so) that eats up airspeed and energy extremely rapidly whether the pilot wants it to do that or not.
The "make him shoot past me" example is really a very selective one, and even with that it would work a hell of a lot better if you, the pilot, can control the precise moment you loose airspeed, as opposed to your airplane doing it all by itself as soon as you hit a certain AoA.
But for every example one could list where having the fighter automatically slow down would be beneficial, I am sure others can come up with many more where that would be a distinct disadvantage.
The whole reason designers are obsessed about "expanding" the flight envelope of fighters is to give pilots more control, so the plane does what they want it to do for longer before surrendering to the limitations of aerodynamics and gravity.
In the positive example the pilot used where he was able to close the distance to his target in the F35 in the offensive role 'thanks to its braking ability', it was actually a misconception (deliberate or intentional only the pilot can say). He wasn't able to close the distance in the offensive position because the F35 slowed down faster all by itself. He was able to close the distance because he was able to turn inside his opponent. Thus he was flying a much smaller circle to close the relative distance.
That would not have been possible had his opponent been able to turn just as quickly. In that case, whether he gained or lost distance to his target would depend entirely on how quickly he lost energy and airspeed in relation to his target.
Now, given the G limit of pilots, often pilots have to slow their planes down to achieve a certain turn rate to avoid G-lock, but that is a decision best left to the pilot to decide when and how fast he want's his plane to slow down.
Give aerodynamic realities, with a fixed geometric shape, there is only so fast you can turn before drag skyrockets, but a good fighter design should maximise the range the plane can turn before that starts to happen, and then limit the severity of drag increase for as long as possible. That's why
sustained turn rates are so highly regard in terms of determining how good a fighter design is.
In the age of TVC and modern FBW, some truly jaw dropping instantaneous turn rates and AoAs are achievable at incredibly slow speeds. But the thing is, no serious combat pilot would ever want to be flying anything like that slow in a combat scenario (Which is why I stressed I don't really care about airshow tricks), which is why sales brochure instantaneous turn rates are a little less reliable these days.
My concern is that the F35 might be able to beat the F16, a 3rd gen airframe fighter, because it could turn better. However, against 4th or other 5th gen designs, that can turn just as well as the F35, if not better, yet not suffer the same degree of drag induced energy loss, the F35 will find its options much more restricted.
I would also love more details on the ROE from those engagements mentioned TBH, since it seems a little strange to be the focus so much on turning.
I would have expected the F16s to try and play the energy game more when faced with the F35 since the F35 could obvious turn much better, so it would be very interest to see how the F35 fared if the F16 pulled some classic energy fighter moves, like going vertical during a turn to turn the 'braking advantage' of the F35 on its head into a disadvantage.
