F-35 Maneuverability Good? Or Ok?

[USN_force]

It has been said the F-35's maneuverability is exceptional as LM Test Pilot Bill Flynn says. It was reported on a RAND exercise that F-35 has inferior maneuverability compared to any aircraft. One of the defense ministers said the F-35 could take down aircraft at Beyond Visual Range.

So F-35's maneuverability good? Or Bad? You decide

 

[Cat12345]

Yea..... You can't really trust the Lockheed pilots. They advertise their products to make other countries buy them. F-35 is the money demon. I think you need to talk to pilots who are going to fly it once they are in service. Considering maneuverability it isn't that impressive. It may perform like the F-22 but in terms of maneuverability, the F-35 is alright but not the best. It's going to have a serious disadvantage against the Flankers at close range even if it's integrated with DAS. F-35 just wasn't designed to be superior in that envelope just like the older planes were. F-35's maneuverability is ok. Not really the best when you compare it to the F-22, Super Hornet, J-20, SU-30/35, F-16, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen. It's only a great BVR platform because it's all BVR nowadays and in the BVR envelope, the F-35 excels there. Although it does have the 360º view for situational awareness.

 

[500]

F-35 has very good alpha (50 degrees) and very good turn rate thanks to one engine, but it has low thrust/weight ratio.

That means that in sustained maneuvering it will lose, but with modern missiles there is no really need in sustained maneuvering. In short energetic maneuvering F-35 will be equal to other jets.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

F-35 has very good alpha (50 degrees) and very good turn rate thanks to one engine, but it has low thrust/weight ratio.

That means that in sustained maneuvering it will lose, but with modern missiles there is no really need in sustained maneuvering. In short energetic maneuvering F-35 will be equal to other jets.

Exactly:

 

[Alienware]

The pilots will always make the difference in WVR, the machine will only be as good as the person behind it.

Anyway, western doctrine is focused on winning the BVR engagement... and F-35 is the best BVR fighter out there (with the exception of F-22).

I like the future layout of the Royal Air Force in particular. A mix of EF Typhoons and F-35s.

EF Typhoon and F-35 are both excellent BVR fighters (powerful AESA and Meteor)... then when it comes to the WVR engagement, Typhoon can do the dog-fighting while F-35 can pick of targets at a distance.

The French however, are heading for a mix of Rafale and Mirage 2000 With no 5th gen fighter and still operating dated Mirage 2000 the French Air Force will be severely lacking in capabilities.

Plus EF Typhoon is significantly better than Rafale.. poor French!

 

[halloweene]

Typhoon significantly better then Rafale... Although i respect both, such a sentence is hlarious. Are you reading Jon Lake?

 

[500]

nice vortex

 

[atatwolf]

F 35 is not fighter jet and shouldn't be compared to one. It is multi purpose fighter. It's strength is stealth and locating the enemy first before they can locate you.

 

[Bratva]

nice vortex

@gambit Is circular transparent thing under F-35 nose is radar enhancer?

 

[Basel]

First of all what people don't understand the concept of F-35, its not just an stealth aircraft for all services, it is also developed on a philosophy that it will be so advance in electronics and with its stealth it will not need to fight WVR battles although new way of fighting WVR is adopted for it with decent maneuverability + ultramodern electronic & weapons, and even if it had to fight WVR, how 4.5+ gen planes are going to have a first lock on F-35 due to its stealth??

 

[gambit]

@gambit Is circular transparent thing under F-35 nose is radar enhancer?

No...Housing for non-radar sensors.

The radar enhancers are here...

On Your Radar

New fairings have shown up on F-35 fighters; two ogival bumps on the top rear, forward of each vertical fin, and two on the bottom, one either side, just forward of the tailhook housing. Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti told the Daily Report the fairings are radar cross section enhancers, put there so air traffic controllers can see the stealthy F-35s when they fly through civil airspace.

For the frontal image posted, you can barely make out the port 'bumps' of the enhancers.

 

[gambit]

People should understand that development for the -35 is not the same like developments for past fighters. The F-35's modularity in design, manufacturing, and operational developments have more parallelism than in the past. The label is 'concurrency'. The jet is assigned, the test squadron conducts testing and development programs, they provide feedbacks, and the test pilots back at the manufacturer research the data and build modifications as necessary.

Those who reads Air Forces Monthly should see this comment from USMC F-35 pilot Captain Robert Guyette...

It's extremely easy to fly. In terms of stick and rudder skills, compared to a Cessna 172 or something like that, a Cessna 172 is much more challenging to stick-and-rudder fly than the F-35. The test pilots have done a really nice job of refining the flight control laws, so that if you want to put the jet in a place, it just goes there. The F-35 is a scalpel. I mean it's gnats-on [meaning you can hit just a part of the gnat], it is right there...very, very, very, very precise.

In any fly-by-wire flight controls system (FBW-FLCS) the flight controls laws governs aircraft maneuverability, even beyond suggested structural limits, but those laws depends on hardware sophistication. Anyone who does any flying knows that in the execution of any maneuver, there are usually some amounts of overshoot, meaning the aircraft goes beyond where you wanted it to go. The less sophisticated the FLCS, the more laborious it is for the pilot to execute maneuvers with accuracy and precision. Even with the sophistication of the F-16, a pilot will still produce some degrees of imprecision, why else the Thunderbirds or the Blue Angels rigorously screen candidates -- top candidates -- for their pilots who must fly and maneuvers in tight formations? I learned to fly on a Cessna 152 when I was in high school back in the late 1970s. Joined the USAF in 1983 and had stick time on the F-111 under hard TF over Scotland and F-16 over the Gulf of Mexico. I understand exactly what Capt. Guyette said in comparing the mechanical FLCS of the F-111 and the FBW-FLCS of the F-16.

The current published maneuverability specs for the F-35 today, which is widely ridiculed, WILL NOT be the specs for tomorrow as development goes.

 

[Bratva]

No...Housing for non-radar sensors.

The radar enhancers are here...

On Your Radar

For the frontal image posted, you can barely make out the port 'bumps' of the enhancers.

Won't this housing compromise stealth by reflecting radar waves?

 

[gambit]

Won't this housing compromise stealth by reflecting radar waves?

All structures contributes to total RCS. No matter how large or small. The issue is the degree of contributorship and in what aspect (view angle) to the seeking radar. The sensor housing is inevitable if the desire is to have a sensor -- any sensor. The housing's shape is indicative that a lot of thoughts have gone into calculating its level of contributorship and was found to be acceptable. It would be nice to have everything flushed with the surface, but that day is not yet here.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

F
That means that in sustained maneuvering it will lose, but with modern missiles there is no really need in sustained maneuvering. In short energetic maneuvering F-35 will be equal to other jets.

you nailed it there
thats what experts say. when maneuvering is brought up. yea try out maneuvering a missile which has an off bore sight and can pull ~ 20 Gs