jobsloha.blogg.se

Most defensive maneuvers are designed to counter an attack coming from astern, mainly by forcing an attacker to overshoot. There are far too many other factors to look at.In this the defender rolls inverted and dives away vertically, pulling out in a direction opposite to that of his opponent. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. In addition, an analyst at  points out that we should not over-interpret the results of a single visual range air-to-air engagement test: You can definitely tweak it-that’s the option.” It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. Rod Cregier, who explained the simulated dogfights in more neutral terms noting that the simulation was primarily designed to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace. The article quotes the F-35 program director Col. Tyler Rogoway over at FoxTrot Alphaelaborates that “the aircraft flown in the test, an F-35A, is the most maneuverable F-35 variant of the lot, being capable of pulling 9g, while the carrier capable F-35C is capable of pulling 7.5g and the short takeoff and vertical landing variant, the F-35B, is only capable of pulling 7g.”Īviation Week reported on the same or similar air-to-air combat maneuvers involving a F-16D Block 40 and an F-35 with an AF-02 designation. While the F-35 did not carry any weapons in its bomb bay, the F-16 carried two fuel tanks under its wings (see: “Oops, US Close-Air Support Bomb Doesn’t Fit on the F-35”). The specific planes used in the exercises were an older F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with the designation AF-02 and a two-seat F-16D Block 40. According to the report: “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.”

The pilot notes: “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.” Nevertheless, when the F-16 took over the role of the attacker the F-35 failed to evade the older fighter jet due to a “lack of nose rate.”Īdditionally, it turned out that the pilot’s helmet was just too big to be of any use in a dogfight. “The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the pilot emphasized in the report noting that the only way to successfully engage the F-16 was by executing a specific maneuver: Diplomat Brief Weekly Newsletter NĪttempting to attack the F-16 with the F-35’s 25mm cannon also failed. A five-page report by a test pilot of an aerial combat exercise over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California in January 2015 notes that the F-35 could not beat the F-16 in a close-range dogfight (aka “visual range air-to-air engagement tests”). However, according to a report obtained by War is Boring, defending itself against legacy 4 th generation air-superiority fighters is perhaps too tall of an order for the F-35. Yet, the plane obviously should still have the capacity to successfully defend itself against enemy air superiority fighters (In fact, some countries interested in procuring the F-35 want to deploy it first and foremost in an air-superiority role). The 5 th generation stealthy multirole aircraft is primarily designed for ground attack, aerial reconnaissance, and air defense missions rather than air combat. The United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are planning to acquire a total of 2,457 F-35 fighter jets with operation and maintenance costs estimated as high as $1,016 billion over the next four decades, according to the Office of the U.S.