How a smart Flanker operator can deal with the F-35 JSF

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So to sum it up basically you're not sure but "think" it's flight performance will be inferior to the F-16?

No - in certain aspects, actually, its almost certain all transient aspects it will be slower than the F-16.

In sustained turning, it *may* be better than a Falcon, but an F-16 does not try and beat you with sustained turns.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In any case the F-35 may be larger but it has more and larger control surfaces as well as the benefit of an advanced FLCS.

Larger surfaces (yes, even control surfaces) are not always a plus point

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And no the F-16 does not have a better T/W ratio when fully loaded, both dry and augmented.

According to the stats it does have a better T/W ratio in afterburner. The F-16's is above 1, while the F-35s is not.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not to mention the drag, G-Limits and weight distribution of tanks, weapons, pods etc... The F-35 does not have such limitations.

Since when did an aircraft enter combat without punching off the fuel tanks? An F-16 will almost certainly have expended its BVR loadout before entering WVR combat, so the F-16 will have a lighter airframe. The JSF on the other hand has to lug the structure for the extra fuel tanks and the weapons bay around no matter how empty it is.



*Apparently*, due to some of the weight savings, the JSF may have trouble with higher g loadings, particularly on the folding wing versions.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Then of course there are the F-35's sensors, HMD, EOSS, cockpit display etc.. The combination of which offers unparalleled situational awareness in close in combat.

Which offer unparalleled diddly squat on MANEUVERABILITY.


interesting article

If your "pleasantly" surprised by that, then your easily pleased.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
...its almost certain all transient aspects it will be slower than the F-16.

I'm not so certain, I'll wait and see how it's post stall maneuvering, energy gain, tun rates and AoA stats are, among other things.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Larger surfaces (yes, even control surfaces) are not always a plus point...

No but they usually are if nicely complimented by other features.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
According to the stats it does have a better T/W ratio in afterburner. The F-16's is above 1, while the F-35s is not.

Which stats would those be, and what block or load out are we talking about here? Your basic Block 30 with full internal fuel could only carry less than 3,000 lb of other ordinance if it wants a T/W ratio near or above 1.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
An F-16 will almost certainly have expended its BVR loadout before entering WVR combat.

Maybe, but it will still have drag and other non beneficial effects from the external munitions and or pods it may be carrying.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
...particularly on the folding wing versions.

First I've heard of it, is there a source for this? All the F-35's are stated to meet the standard 9-9.5G rating. The Navy usually limits their pilots to 7.5 G's for stress and fatigue factors but they can exceed it as the situation requires.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Which offer unparalleled diddly squat on MANEUVERABILITY.

So this is a theoretical 'who is more maneuverable on paper' debate? Or who is more likely to emerge the winner of a real WVR engagement (most of the time). I'll place my money on the F-35 for the latter.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
If your "pleasantly" surprised by that, then your easily pleased.

Apparently so is Jon Beasley, no THAT should tell you something.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I'm not so certain, I'll wait and see how it's post stall maneuvering, energy gain, tun rates and AoA stats are, among other things.

As you yourself have been at pains to point out, post stalling maneuvers have no place in A2A combat... unless your admitting that the cobra and kulbit actually do serve as demonstrations of viable combat capability?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No but they usually are if nicely complimented by other features.

No, not really, if they can be supplemented with other features your onto a home run, but large vertical fins, large elevators and large wings all serve to limit maximum roll speeds, with the fins inducing yaw (but thats a control issue, and not too detrimental) - the first though is a serious problem.

The plus point is of course that any roll motion will be damped out quicker, but again, control algorithms can do that too.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Which stats would those be,

Any stats where the F-16 has a GE F110 engine.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Your basic Block 30 with full internal fuel could only carry less than 3,000 lb of other ordinance if it wants a T/W ratio near or above 1.

An AMRAAM only weighs 150 kg and an AIM-9 less than 100kg... it'll be mount point limited before it'll be weight limited.

Again, drop tanks will be punched off for A2A combat. Meanwhile the JSF has to lug the fuel it has around.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Maybe, but it will still have drag and other non beneficial effects from the external munitions and or pods it may be carrying.

An F-16 has a A2A loadout of 6 missiles IIRC, I'd guess that will be a 4/2 mix of AIM120/AIM9, so your carrying 200 kg of munitions when entering the furball.

[Plus any sensor pods I suppose - but the A2G stuff will be long gone with the drop tanks]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
First I've heard of it, is there a source for this? All the F-35's are stated to meet the standard 9-9.5G rating. The Navy usually limits their pilots to 7.5 G's for stress and fatigue factors but they can exceed it as the situation requires.

The RAAF had mentioned it as a factor in F-35 procurement (not just the folding wings, but the weight savings overall effecting limits) in AusAirPower - but I had seen talk of it elsewhere.


Note also I did denote it with *apparently* - I am not declaring it as factual by any stretch, an unconfirmed rumour for now if you will

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So this is a theoretical 'who is more maneuverable on paper' debate? Or who is more likely to emerge the winner of a real WVR engagement (most of the time). I'll place my money on the F-35 for the latter.

Most of those computers and sensors could be packed into the F-16, you know that as well as I do.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Apparently so is Jon Beasley, no THAT should tell you something.

Speaking in the magazine owned by Lockheed Martin... yeah, he is going to say its a disappointment isn't he?

Originally posted by kilcoo316
As you yourself have been at pains to point out, post stalling maneuvers have no place in A2A combat...

Of course it does, the Cobra is but one use for post stall maneuvering, something which the Viper cannot do by the way.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
...large vertical fins, large elevators and large wings all serve to limit maximum roll speeds...

Large control surfaces offer significant advantages, in such a design there has to be a balance. The Lighting will be better in other categories because of it even if it's roll rate is not as fast.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Any stats where the F-16 has a GE F110 engine.

Not for block 50's and up, those birds do not have the same TW ratio as earlier Vipers. Also, by not allowing your force to fly with offensive strike weapons you limit them to a defensive role only. Not to mention that you can't afford to throw away munitions and pods like candy, you'll eventually be forced to prohibit WVR. Not like it matters as the F-16 will be lunch long before it ever sees an F-35. Another thing, the F-35 carries almost three times the amount of fuel (internally) as the F-16 (with non conformal tanks). As such it has a significantly longer endurance and can make the F-16 reach bingo fuel very quickly by choosing to light the burners and deny engagement. All of this is of course very relevant to a real life scenario rather than a purely theoretical discussion.

As for the sensors, those changes would be so radical you would essentially end up with a new fighter aircraft, a re-packaged and less capable F-35 if you will. Unless of course you really think the Super Hornet is an upgraded Hornet with a new E/F designation.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Speaking in the magazine owned by Lockheed Martin...

Most of the things he says regarding the F-35 have been demonstrated and are quite remarkable actually. I am starting to get deja vu all over again. I remember four years ago how unrated the F-22 was in several categories

New US-bought Air Force fighters 'inferior'
By political correspondent Louise Yaxley


Joint Strike Fighter ... 'plan B needed'
A United States think tank has declared the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian-made Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.

The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a war game and the ABC has obtained the results.

In bad news for the Air Force, the report says the F-35 has inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

In short, it says the Joint Strike Fighter cannot climb and cannot run.

It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian-made Flankers is the F-22 Raptor. But the United States bans these from foreign sales.

The fighters' defenders argue it is not designed for close combat.

The RAND Corporation says a plan B is necessary and points out that if the F-35 is seen or has to engage an enemy at close range, then it will be no match for the Flankers.

Earlier this week federal Opposition MP Dennis Jensen called on the Federal Government to scrap plans to buy the F-35, saying they could leave the country vulnerable.