F-35s hone dog fighting skills at Top Gun for 1st time

F-35s hone dog fighting skills at Top Gun for 1st time

I'm pleasantly surprised, especially after watching Top Gun earlier this week, that this should pop up.

Pilots are flying both the f18 and f35 together in order to learn how they will do on missions.

Pilots are also giving feedback on the differences between the two planes. Saying that the hornet is a balance of steering and throttle. While the lightning does that balance automagically.

It's a nice article to read to see how the f35 is coming along.

NAVAL AIR STATION FALLON, Nevada — The Navy's sole F-35C squadron made its first trip to the hallowed strike fighter ground here to hone tactical skills and fly for the first time with F/A-18 Hornets.

Strike Fighter Squadron 101's "Grim Reapers" wrapped up two weeks of training with Top Gun fliers at Fallon's Naval Strike Air Warfare Development Center on Friday, the fleet replacement squadron's latest step in putting the F-35C Lightning II through its paces toward its initial operating capability in 2018.

"The first thing is, it’s cool. The cool doesn’t wear off," pilot Lt. Cmdr. Patrick "Turtle" Rice said on Thursday. "It’s just a lot of new toys."

a reply to: grey580

That picture makes war look good.....

Saying its cool is quite a lot different from saying its hot so no surprises at all.

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
link

The problem faced is that the USAF has one of the oldest forces in the world with an average age at 25 years of age. But US cannot afford even to maintain government spending much less renew ifs forces or infrastructure. The total cost of F-35 at $1.5 trillion makes it totally unattainable in today's economic reality. US should be aiming at producing a lighter and cheaper alternative to past fighters, Bigger and more expensive doesn't always equate to better, Look at US car industry.

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: grey580

That picture makes me wish the Northrop NATF was built.....

Fixed it for ya

a reply to: glend

Except that total cost of $1.5T hasn't been $1.5T for over a year, and was for a 50 year life cycle encompassing every F-35 built.

Lighter and cheaper won't survive a peer or near peer war if one breaks out.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Neither will the Rhino, but the NATF might have had a chance...

I just wonder what might have been had the JSF procurement gone the route of the ATF procurement plan, where costs would be minimized by sharing coatings, avionics, and engines between different airframes optimized for the very different needs of the three branches.

The USMC could keep the F-35 more or less as-is, the USAF could get an F-16 on steroids with a lighter airframe stretched around that engine for better "in a pinch" a2a performance with that killer avionics suite as the icing on the cake, and the Navy could keep eating paste in the corner while crying about how Cheney took the A-12 away from them...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Its clear that a F35 cannot survive in a dogfight against a F16 much less a Sukhoi Su-35 so its selling point is mute in tomorrows world ...

Lighter and cheaper won't survive a peer or near peer war if one breaks out.

Navies around the world realize that Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks to the likes of chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles and its questionable if the F35 would do any better against Russia S500 so the role of the jet fighter really needs to be defined for future wars. Perhaps its usefulness is past and future wars will be fought with missiles and drones.

a reply to: glend

It's not SUPPOSED to be a dogfighter. That's what the F-22 is for if it gets to that. Their mission is to penetrate defenses other aircraft can't, and at times kill other aircraft before they get close enough to dogfight.

Yes, Pierre Sprey says it sucks so it must. The F-35 is as stealthy or stealthier than any other stealth platform that is currently flying. The only thing that will be stealthier is the new bomber. If Sprey had his way the entire Air Force fighter fleet would be nothing but F-16s.

The S-500 and other Russian systems that are supposed to make stealth obsolete have never been tested against a stealth aircraft that had all its systems running, trying to hide.

a reply to: glend

These should tell you everything you need to know about the state of modern Russian missiles:

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

The technology is impressive on paper, but post-USSR, the quality control and state of maintenance of their stuff has fallen to "North Korea" levels

a reply to: Barnalby

I would of liked to seen this.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I shouldn't argue with people who know more than me, my apologies zaphod58.

a reply to: Barnalby

I did laugh but then I realized it had a warhead ouch

a reply to: grey580

Where do you put its radar in that little nose?

I would love a Tmocat 2, favourite aircraft!

a reply to: glend

No reason for that. I like a good debate with anyone, especially people tatty want to learn. And I'm far from prefect, so a good debate is worth it.

a reply to: Forensick

EODAS and a dispersed array like the F-22 has.

a reply to: glend

I Seem to remember that "test" was against the protype F-35 without all the things th eproduction model has on it so of course it was not going to beat the f-16. Also it was from a Viper pilot bragging and w e all know how fighter pilot stories are like tall tales.

a reply to: glend

What you're saying doesn't really make sense when some critical thinking is applied.

The F-35 has an enormous amount of sensors and avionics integrated into the aircraft itself rather than in external pods. It has by far the best sensors and avionics of any fighter aircraft. It carries an enormous amount of fuel, over 18,000 lbs despite being an aircraft that it 29,000 pounds when empty. Weapons are also stored internally. It is also stealthy. Maintaining the F-35's sensors, stealth, internal payload and combat range, while having maneuverability that is significantly better than the F-16 or F-15 is not possible unless the aircraft is enlarged, therefore cost massively increased, therefore compromising the goals of the JSF program itself ("low" cost for example).

You then being to criticize the affordability of the F-35 (the 1.5 trillion is a nonsense outdated figure by the way) and claim that the US needs a lighter and cheaper alternative. These hurt maneuverability unless all the advantages of a 5th generation fighter are removed and you end up with something like a lightweight 4.5 generation fighter with reasonably poor combat range, payload, and avionics, but excellent maneuverability (but only when clean). Gripen NG or perhaps Super Hornet come to mind.

By the way, the purpose of that testing was to test and develop the F-35. Some of the disadvantages could be solved by upgraded firmware.

At 80 to 85 million 2018 dollars, the F-35 is not too bad for what you get. The F-22 is similar to the F-35 in a lot of ways but is more stealthy, much more maneuverable, and with proportionally less fuel and less internal weapons carriage. Given the F-22 cost $150 million in 2009 dollars, upgrading the F-22 with F-35 avionics, internal payload (2000 pound bombs), and increasing fuel capacity, would likely end up with an aircraft anywhere from 150 to 225 million dollars each in 2018 dollars. Twice as much as an F-35.

a reply to: glend

DF-21 is mainly an area denial weapon to prevent the CBG's from getting near the Chinese coast. Doesn't really make aircraft carries obsolete. In addition in the Cold War it got pretty bad when USSR had Tu-22s were loaded with AShMs.

a reply to: C0bzz

Don't forget the facts that pitting a few F-35's against the best of the previous generation, mining data and such, and developing more apropos strategies means that no one outside of that small circle knows what the resultant systems' capabilities will be.

This is the purpose of trials, whether in air, at sea or on land; to push things past the known limits.

Who'd have thought the USS Enterprise was capable of 15+ knots (+25 in reality) in moderately rough seas given its size and weight, for instance?

Not sure if this has been posted here yet:



" Spewing out 25mm rounds at three times the speed of sound, this is the Gatling gun which will be fitted to the Fleet Air Arm’s new stealth fighter firing a concerted burst.

The four-barrel gun – which will be used to strafe targets on the ground or in aerial dogfights – let rip with 181 rounds on the harmonising range at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

The gun was tested on the F-35A, the model being bought by the US Air Force; the weapon is hidden until it’s needed – it pops up Thunderbirds-style on the left side of the fuselage when the pilot presses the trigger.

On the jump jet version of the Anglo-American aircraft, which is being bought by the UK, the same gun is being installed – but it will be fitted externally, on the F-35's centreline ".

Da reply to: glend

No offense but you're assuming the economy is organic and tangible, today's economy is artificial. Our money is paper, it has no true tangible value other than what our governments say it has and we believe it has. That's why our black projects achieve things that are fiscally impossible. They operate outside the rules of what is fiscally possible.