First RL Demo of the F-35B @ MCAS Cherry Point (Video)

[StormILM]

Here it is, the first USMC demo of the F-35B at MCAS Cherry Point. The performance was very impressive and went off with zero problems. The pilot did not push the this F-35 demo to it's maximum capable performance but rather flew it close to the original Harrier Demo with some added portions and showing it's turning capability. You'll notice at a little past the 3 minute mark in the video that the F-35B pilot performed a Minimum Radius Turn (which is in fact tighter than F-16 & F/A-18C demo MRT's and the F-35B is the least maneuverable version of the type). This video easily dispels the untrue contention seen in many press articles and social media that this Jet can't turn as well as legacy fighters. I did see the videos of the F-35A being pushed a lot harder at the Fort Lauderdale Airshow and what I read in the press releases from Lockheed Martin and the Military, as time goes by(and pilot experience with the type expands) they will authorize the F-35 to fly further into it's envelope than current.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37861&stc=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqbZ7jLnFZY

[Bjoern]

I don't get why the F-35 needs to be compared to legacy aircraft each and every time. They were built for different battlefield environments and with different technologies. And turning fights are overrated anyway. You either join in if you have the wing area or stay in the vertical or bug out if you have the thrust. And according to Wikipedia, the F-35 has more than enough of it. The additional fat on the B model shouldn't be that relevant because it's mostly going to be used as a bomb truck anyway.


That being said: Falcons forever, because dogfights just aren't worth it when you're bingo after two minutes.

[Sundog]

I don't get why the F-35 needs to be compared to legacy aircraft each and every time. They were built for different battlefield environments and with different technologies. And turning fights are overrated anyway. You either join in if you have the wing area or stay in the vertical or bug out if you have the thrust. And according to Wikipedia, the F-35 has more than enough of it. The additional fat on the B model shouldn't be that relevant because it's mostly going to be used as a bomb truck anyway.


That being said: Falcons forever, because dogfights just aren't worth it when you're bingo after two minutes.

The F-35 has a lot of thrust because it has a lot of drag. A lot of thrust in and of itself isn't actually a metric. Always look at the non-dimensional metrics, such as thrust to weight ratio and thrust versus drag when making comparisons. Just saying.

Also, all of the F-35s are designed to be bomb trucks, hence the big bomb bays. It has a lot of capability, but it actually wasn't designed to perform to the level of the previous generation of jets were designed to, it's designed to fulfill the roles they're actually used for; i.e. it's an attack plane that can defend itself, not an air superiority fighter, though it will probably have the best SA of any aircraft out there and use that to avoid A2A engagements and send in other aircraft that are more suited for that role (F-22, Typhoon, Rafale).

[falcon409]

I guess I'm a bit jaded when viewing "high speed passes" and "360 turns" at "Show Center". After 26+ years of watching stuff like that almost every day. . .when you've seen one you've seen them all. What I did find impressive was the approach at slow speed to hover and then the transition back to level flight. Very cool.

[StormILM]

I don't get why the F-35 needs to be compared to legacy aircraft each and every time. They were built for different battlefield environments and with different technologies. And turning fights are overrated anyway. You either join in if you have the wing area or stay in the vertical or bug out if you have the thrust. And according to Wikipedia, the F-35 has more than enough of it. The additional fat on the B model shouldn't be that relevant because it's mostly going to be used as a bomb truck anyway.


That being said: Falcons forever, because dogfights just aren't worth it when you're bingo after two minutes.

Spot on! With the core DAS/EOTS coupled into the HMD and matched to a weapon like the AIM-9X Block III (which has a range of 54nm), the F-35 can track, fire and lock-after-launch on targets at any angle, even over the shoulder (behind). The SA provided by that technology has no close equal at current. In this day and time, engaging in a Dogfight will likely increase your risk of losing valuable pilot and aircraft assets. A2A Engagement (if needed) will be carried out at beyond visual ranges as much as possible and in an asymmetric manner.

Most of the F-35's hardware issues (airframe, engine, etc) have been dealt with and in a manner not unlike development issues of very successful legacy fighters. They all suffer bugs in one form or another at some point of development. The more complex, the more bugs that need to be squashed. I recently read a new report (recently declassified) on the remaining and biggest bugs that they are still sorting out which are software related. Quite frankly, they could have had this program in on time and not so over budget had they minimized the subcontracting (which has been a source of major headaches and failures). The primary lab which has been responsible for developing the core software (sole source no less) are behind the biggest lingering issues with the F-35. Lots of "finger in the pie" politics going on behind the scenes which are responsible for this programs headaches (not unlike the V-22 program's 2 decades of development nightmares). The good news is that the report noted that the software issues are on target to be fixed in stages over the next 2 1/2 years and in the meantime, they can proceed with Training and IOC at Squadron levels. The F-35 will end up being very successful but I hope that in the future the decision makers will learn from this and do a better job to prevent the same type of headaches such as were encountered in the F-35 & V-22 programs.

[Bjoern]

Spot on! With the core DAS/EOTS coupled into the HMD and matched to a weapon like the AIM-9X Block III (which has a range of 54nm)

Not even an AMRAAM can do 54 nm. Missed a comma maybe?


The F-35 will end up being very successful but I hope that in the future the decision makers will learn from this and do a better job to prevent the same type of headaches such as were encountered in the F-35 & V-22 programs.

Make that "comparatively succesful". With 2000+ orders or so, it could well become the 21st centuries' F-16. It's too complex and expensive to be considered a true successor though.

[StormILM]

Not even an AMRAAM can do 54 nm. Missed a comma maybe?



The current AIM-120C-5/7 have 57nm range, the D model will stretch that to over 97nm and beyond in future planned updates. The AIM-9X Block III has a dual stage, reignite-able thrust vectoring motor which will give it that range (acceleration burn-coast-re-ignition at terminal flight phase). The enemy IR Warning System will not pick up the incoming AIM-9X during it's coast phase and by the time the weapon's motor re-ignites, the enemy pilot will have between 1 and 3 seconds to react. If the AIM9X's LAL microprocessor doesn't detect the enemy aircraft maneuvering, the weapon will likely coast in and impact purely on kinetic energy and never set off the enemy aircraft's IRWS. The AIM-120 will tip off the enemy pilot at some point that it's inbound (via RWR or IRWS warning) but the AIM-9X has the advantage of being totally passive until it's too late.

[Ivan]

Spot on! With the core DAS/EOTS coupled into the HMD and matched to a weapon like the AIM-9X Block III (which has a range of 54nm), the F-35 can track, fire and lock-after-launch on targets at any angle, even over the shoulder (behind). The SA provided by that technology has no close equal at current. In this day and time, engaging in a Dogfight will likely increase your risk of losing valuable pilot and aircraft assets. A2A Engagement (if needed) will be carried out at beyond visual ranges as much as possible and in an asymmetric manner.


So what happens if the rules of engagement call for visual identification and a target can't be killed BVR?

- Ivan.

[Mach3DS]

Isn't the A-10's min radius turn smaller than them all? Min radius turn is a function of sustained best rate of turn. Generally if your slower you get faster turn rate and smaller turn radius. F-16 Vcorner is what like 440? F35 didn't appear to staring that turn at very high speed relatively. I'm always impressed by the hover on Harrier's and this. Great video!

[StormILM]

So what happens if the rules of engagement call for visual identification and a target can't be killed BVR?

- Ivan.
VID range with the DAS/EOTS is far beyond eyeball range, actually beyond the range of some types of airborne radar. That along with different modes of NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition), visual ID up close is more or less a thing of the past.

[wombat666]

More 'Big Boys Toys'.
With a bit of common sense and a firm hand on the RAAF brass it looks as if Australia is cancelling our order.
I know it's not the same aircraft but we don't need them.
And to be frank, the version of the aircraft we've been 'allowed' to order is the base model and is grossly over priced.................:banghead:

[Bjoern]

The current AIM-120C-5/7 have 57nm range, the D model will stretch that to over 97nm and beyond in future planned updates. The AIM-9X Block III has a dual stage, reignite-able thrust vectoring motor which will give it that range (acceleration burn-coast-re-ignition at terminal flight phase). The enemy IR Warning System will not pick up the incoming AIM-9X during it's coast phase and by the time the weapon's motor re-ignites, the enemy pilot will have between 1 and 3 seconds to react. If the AIM9X's LAL microprocessor doesn't detect the enemy aircraft maneuvering, the weapon will likely coast in and impact purely on kinetic energy and never set off the enemy aircraft's IRWS. The AIM-120 will tip off the enemy pilot at some point that it's inbound (via RWR or IRWS warning) but the AIM-9X has the advantage of being totally passive until it's too late.

Nope, sorry. I just don't believe that.
While the AIM-120C series range might just be plausible and applicable to a non-maneuvering taget, there's no way that a small missile like an AIM-9X can be effective over such an awfully long range. Especially since an IR missile is essentially dumb and will go hog wild on any juicy target in its kill zone, which is a safety liability to friendly aircraft in the vicinity.

[StormILM]

Nope, sorry. I just don't believe that.
While the AIM-120C series range might just be plausible and applicable to a non-maneuvering taget, there's no way that a small missile like an AIM-9X can be effective over such an awfully long range. Especially since an IR missile is essentially dumb and will go hog wild on any juicy target in its kill zone, which is a safety liability to friendly aircraft in the vicinity.

The AIM-120 can intercept a maneuvering target just fine and has in Combat in both the Middle East and in the Balkans. Regarding the AIM-9X Block II/III, they utilize a good bit of the late AIM-120 core components such as the mid-course guidance datalink which allows for the launch aircraft (or other targeting aircraft) to steer the missile passively towards the target before the Staring Focal Plane Array Seeker goes active. You can be rest assured that with multiple levels of IFF protocols and target filtering which are now in service that the risk of fratricide (compared to earlier generation weapons) is very low. As far as the range of Block III, again, it's not a standard AIM-9 Missile body, it is larger and longer and can accommodate the long range dual stage motors. Even the current in service Block II variant's range deeply overlaps the AIM-120-C7. While the actual range of the AIM-9X Block II & III is classified, we already have a good idea how far downrange the Block II can make effective kills and Block III will have 60% more range (estimated at around 53-54nm) while still retaining close-in supermaneuverable capability. The AIM-9X has already and continues to evolve into a highly lethal BVR weapon to fill Medium Long Range roles as the AIM-120D evolves into a true Long Range Weapon system. Anyhow, there's plenty of data publicly available one can research on the subject.

[StormILM]

More 'Big Boys Toys'.
With a bit of common sense and a firm hand on the RAAF brass it looks as if Australia is cancelling our order.
I know it's not the same aircraft but we don't need them.
And to be frank, the version of the aircraft we've been 'allowed' to order is the base model and is grossly over priced.................:banghead:

I can understand their position. The program cost spiraling out of sight is our fault alone (due to the severe mismanagement and political meddling) and I cannot blame any partner nation for rethinking their position and looking at more reasonable alternatives. It makes more sense for nations like Australia and Canada to buy the Super Hornet and perhaps add the Silent Super Hornet & EPE Engine upgrades. While those aircraft may lack some of the front line technologies of the F-35, they will still be able to fill the needed roles for at least a decade or more.

[Victory103]

It's still ugly. Where are you guys getting the AIM specs?