Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight

2015-07-01T15:41:51-04:00

From: "War is Boring" blog on Medium.com
--
A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”

The test pilot’s report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history’s most expensive weapon.

The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — not to mention the air forces and navies of more than a dozen U.S. allies — are counting on the Lockheed Martin-made JSF to replace many if not most of their current fighter jets.

And that means that, within a few decades, American and allied aviators will fly into battle in an inferior fighter — one that could get them killed … and cost the United States control of the air.

The fateful test took place on Jan. 14, 2015, apparently within the Sea Test Range over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California. The single-seat F-35A with the designation “AF-02” — one of the older JSFs in the Air Force — took off alongside a two-seat F-16D Block 40, one of the types of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace.

The two jets would be playing the roles of opposing fighters in a pretend air battle, which the Air Force organized specifically to test out the F-35’s prowess as a close-range dogfighter in an air-to-air tangle involving high “angles of attack,” or AoA, and “aggressive stick/pedal inputs.”

In other words, the F-35 pilot would fly his jet hard, turning and maneuvering in order to “shoot down” the F-16, whose pilot would be doing his own best to evade and kill the F-35.

“The evaluation focused on the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment,” the F-35 tester wrote. “This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.”

The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.

“Insufficient pitch rate.” “Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time.” “The flying qualities in the blended region (20–26 degrees AoA) were not intuitive or favorable.”

The F-35 jockey tried to target the F-16 with the stealth jet’s 25-millimeter cannon, but the smaller F-16 easily dodged. “Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution,” the JSF pilot complained.

And when the pilot of the F-16 turned the tables on the F-35, maneuvering to put the stealth plane in his own gunsight, the JSF jockey found he couldn’t maneuver out of the way, owing to a “lack of nose rate.”

The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn.

The JSF tester found just one way to win a short-range air-to-air engagement — by performing a very specific maneuver. “Once established at high AoA, a prolonged full rudder input generated a fast enough yaw rate to create excessive heading crossing angles with opportunities to point for missile shots.”

But there’s a problem — this sliding maneuver bleeds energy fast. “The technique required a commitment to lose energy and was a temporary opportunity prior to needing to regain energy … and ultimately end up defensive again.” In other words, having tried the trick once, an F-35 pilot is out of options and needs to get away quick.

And to add insult to injury, 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.

In the end, the F-35 — the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing — is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s.

The test pilot explained that he has also flown 1980s-vintage F-15E fighter-bombers and found the F-35 to be “substantially inferior” to the older plane when it comes to managing energy in a close battle.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jul 1 at 2015 3:48 PM

2015-07-01T15:48:05-04:00

Could have done without that bit of news!

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 1 at 2015 3:49 PM

2015-07-01T15:49:04-04:00

Some pilots tell me dog-fighting is a lost form of art and almost unnecessary because a missile does all the work.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 1 at 2015 3:49 PM

2015-07-01T15:49:16-04:00

Then I hope it can do CAS or function as a bomber... RallyPoint Shared Content... or why do we need it? I believe the USAF's favorite, is the Air Superiority Fighter.... Much means it needs to win at air to combat...

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jul 1 at 2015 4:13 PM

2015-07-01T16:13:06-04:00

Aerodynamically, the F-35 is a pig compared to the F-16. F-35 pilots have begun calling it the "Super Guppy". The F-16 will keep beating it in dogfights, because dogfights are about turning radius (pitch rate), specific excess thrust, and wing loading (assuming equally capable pilots). If the F-35 hasn't killed the enemy fighter long before the merge (the first turn in a dogfight), it has failed, and deserves to be smoked.
But, in a real air-to-air fight between the F-35 and F-16, my money is on the F-35. weird, huh?

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 1 at 2015 4:22 PM

2015-07-01T16:22:31-04:00

And YES America, YOU paid for it! :-)

Stealth and high maneuverability is it possible to get the best of both in a single airframe?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 4:47 PM

2015-07-01T16:47:46-04:00

I don't know what you guys think, but it almost seems like the F35 would make a good carrier based jet. I know the Marines are getting a bit more involved w/ it. It is a compact, air combat design.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jul 1 at 2015 4:53 PM

2015-07-01T16:53:01-04:00

How dare he (or anyone) speak ill of the F-35? Isn't that considered a stoning offense by the people around the big table?

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jul 1 at 2015 4:56 PM

2015-07-01T16:56:13-04:00

Trillion dollar boondoggle. "Shocking"

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 6:09 PM

2015-07-01T18:09:55-04:00

I hope it does better in a cat fight.

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Jul 1 at 2015 6:18 PM

2015-07-01T18:18:36-04:00

I am looking at this in a few ways. As a retired MSgt who worked Aircraft Structural Maintenance on all sorts of aircraft including F-15's, F-16's and A-10. I have seen the effects of flying these magnificent birds, in a maintenance environment. I would love to see the maintenance sheet on the F-35 after this flight. If it over 'G"ed, if it had stress cracks. I know with composites they have a lot more give and are better over all but the F-16 was an Engineered Beast. Had a few weak points but overall it was a pleasure to work on.

Now from a History Major's point of view. This is very disappointing news. During the Vietnam War, the introduction of the F-4 Phantom was supposed to revolutionize air combat. Relying on missiles it was supposed to take out the opposition before they were ever seen. That didn't happen. The F-4 was built without a gun. It proved a fatal flaw. The Missile was not the end all weapon. It still isn't 100% either. Each day we develop new Missile systems and new ways to defeat missile systems. Our aircraft needed to be able to dog fight.

Enter the F-16. The F-16 was the F-4's replacement. It could out turn, out maneuver out fight the F-4 in almost every way imaginable. It was the appropriate replacement and served with distinction for decades.

Enter the F-35. This cash cow for Lockheed Martin makes me wonder.
It can't out dog Fight the aircraft it is supposed to replace.
One touted feature, the Super smart helmet, seems to have a size problem, which should have been addressed before production ever happened. (I wonder if the engineers talked?)

I understand these are just the Con's of this test. The article is very one sided, and while the test pilot is talking all the bad stuff, we don't get the full debrief.

Still this does not give me the warm fuzzes that all the money being spent on this weapon system is worth it. We are cutting members, and military benefits to put cash into the pockets of big business so then can give us inferior products? I hope this plane lives up to the hype. Peoples lives are on the line.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 7:05 PM

2015-07-01T19:05:38-04:00

This is more than anecdotal evidence that this aircraft can't do what it is billed to do. Who wants to fly an expensive pig of an aircraft? What happens when it meets a more capable opponent?

Response by Maj Matt Hylton made Jul 1 at 2015 7:55 PM

2015-07-01T19:55:00-04:00

Counterpoint:
http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 9:26 PM

2015-07-01T21:26:45-04:00

An F35 should never have to reach Post Merge ICV/SCV BFM dog fights. Advanced Ai radars give it the ability to track and engage targets behind it and highly capable and maneuverable missiles like the Aim120 and Aim9X will allow it to shoot down targets behind it without ever turning around.

Response by Maj Tim Rogers made Jul 2 at 2015 2:40 AM

2015-07-02T02:40:57-04:00

"Sea Test Range near Edwards AFB"? Well, I guess if you mean "near" as being within 200 miles.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 2:46 AM

2015-07-02T02:46:53-04:00

Sounds to me like engine and elevator/spoiler upgrades need to happen.

Response by SPC David S. made Jul 2 at 2015 11:03 AM

2015-07-02T11:03:58-04:00

Very interesting details -
F-16 has better clean speed (Mach 2 vs 1.6) is almost twice as light loaded out (26,500 lbs vs 49,500 lbs) and if all goes well with final projected cost F-16 C/D versions adjusted for inflation (1998 costs of 18 million) is a little over 1/3 the cost (27.3 million vs 80 million) for A models and a little over 1/4 the cost for B (104 million) and C (116 million) models. Air Force only - The F-35A's cost per flying hour is also $32.5k while the F-16C/D is $25.5k. This equates to 316 hours per year for every F-16 and only 250 hours per F-35 if operational cost were fixed. This is a 27% increase in cost per flight hours. Now on top of all of that it can't hang with the F-16 in a dog fight. It seems this was not a surprise with the new Cuba missile being smaller so the F-35 can pack them in it will have a better chance in the air with more missiles - however when the F-35 goes black its seems to be a sitting duck. In risk assessment the F-35 one air frame concept has a number of concerns as any exploitable features in one F-35 transposes that risk to the other branches as well as having a more complex supply chain with some parts being made in China. The Obama administration reportedly waived laws prohibiting certain Chinese-made parts on U.S. weapons systems. Experts say the apparently unprecedented move represents a major national-security risk and is part of a troubling trend. I feel that a dog-pile approach in cheaper unmanned or manned fighters would have been a better strategy.

Response by Maj Tim Jones made Jul 2 at 2015 1:23 PM

2015-07-02T13:23:07-04:00

Appears the AF and LM didn't consult Col John Boyd's E-M theory from the 60s.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 3:47 PM

2015-07-02T15:47:05-04:00

I knew ten years ago this program was a waste of money.

Response by CPL(P) Bret Farritor made Jul 3 at 2015 8:48 AM

2015-07-03T08:48:35-04:00

I apologize I did not scroll through the Comments but the 'leaked debrief' is 'Click Bait'.

As below:
http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

Response by MSgt John Wylie made Jul 7 at 2015 11:50 AM

2015-07-07T11:50:18-04:00

Brazillion dollar OOPS!

Response by TSgt Christopher Till made Jul 7 at 2015 12:44 PM

2015-07-07T12:44:10-04:00

Whether it's a F-22 or a F-35, if they're in a dogfight, they screwed up somewhere along the way. I have heard talk about this being "an unfair fight," a well-seasoned fighter pilot vs a test pilot. I watched a F-22 go up against 4 F-15Cs, waxed them before they knew what hit them. Seen a few F-22s sneak into Red/Green Flag, and tear it up in the sky, once again, before they knew what hit them.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Jan 12 at 2019 2:51 AM

2019-01-12T02:51:02-05:00

Nothing new about designers and planner not bothering to listen to the people Who actually have to use the aircraft, the pilots. These are they same type genius that figured with missiles etc. the Vietnam era F4 Phantom didn't need guns, they did esp close in, the other guys had guns. They had to add a underside pod with the 22 mm Vulcan cannons to even the odds. Their thinking about the A10, again a mistake, that replaced a WWII/Korea vintage A1E that had to be taken out of mothballs for close air support as the fat mover couldn't do that job anywhere near as well and couldn't even hang in the target area long enough to be any use due to fuel consumption levels. The bottom line is the weapons systems etc have to be up to the job they are expected to do. They still haven't learned and still don't bother listening to the pilots, they know what is need and what does and doesn't work. Will these designers and planners ever learn ? The last 50 years prove they haven't yet !

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 12 at 2019 1:02 PM

2019-01-12T13:02:09-05:00

I am disgusted if true.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2023 6:44 PM

2023-03-18T18:44:59-04:00

..."And to add insult to injury, 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.

In the end, the F-35 — the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing — is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s.

The test pilot explained that he has also flown 1980s-vintage F-15E fighter-bombers and found the F-35 to be “substantially inferior” to the older plane when it comes to managing energy in a close battle."...