Just read that a Norwegian F-16 pilot loves the F-35 and thinks its better than the F-16.
It's performance is superior to the F-16 in most scenarios. Here's an article on the F-16 versus the F-35, translated by
@Technogaianist here - http://www.*********************.co...-the-f-35-then-what-else.860/page-2#post-3257
...
Modern Air Combat; The Right Stuff, Top Gun or something else entirely?
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/ka...the-right-stuff-top-gun-eller-noe-helt-annet/
Here's coach Morten on so-called "Air Combat Maneuvers" against another Norwegian F-16. F-35 will also be able to operate this way, but with future sensors and weapons will F-35 could settle a dogfight long before it is discovered by an opponent. Photo: Morten Hanche
Many of my fellow pilots are curious what F35 does in terms of pure performance; how fast, how high, how far? Performance has also been frequently debated in both newspapers and Internet forums. In this post I intend to look at how both "stealth" and performance can affect the outcome of a dogfight. I hope you understand that I can not share the "juicy details" but I do not think they are necessary to get the message across.
Modern Air Combat bears little resemblance to air combat shown in the movie Top Gun. In Top Gun we see "melee" in the air; planes chasing each other within only a few tens of meters. When we exercise using equal rules and restrictions with two F-16s, the goal is often to kill your opponent using only the aircraft's cannon. Usually the restriction is between 1,000 and 3,000 meters. When the distance has shrunk to 500 meters the battle tends to be settled, without the help of missiles. Top Gun looks great, but it does not equate modern air combat. Training with cannons is not irrelevant, but modern air combat is happily settled before the pilots can see each other with their own eyes. Modern missiles have long ranges and are highly maneuverable. They also have reliable sensors and deadly warheads.
"Top Gun looks great, but does not equate modern air combat."
Air Combat is a ruthless arena. The outcome is influenced by many factors, including weather conditions, the aircraft's maneuverability, range, speed, sensors, antidotes (countermeasures), weapons systems, visual and electromagnetic signatures, the pilot's knowledge, training level and will. I mean it is not possible to point to one single factor as the most important. It's the sum that makes the aircraft. One weak area does not necessarily mean that the aircraft is poor in dogfight, but the properties must be balanced.
The most maneuverable aircraft has the advantage if it comes to "dogfight". If I can 'point' a plane in the direction of an opponent, I can paint him with my own sensors and threaten him with all weapons. Yet it is not always so that most maneuverable aircraft wins. Modern sensors and missiles change the balance in a dogfight. Our old F-16 is quite heavy in the rear when they are dressed up with all the necessary role equipment: External Fuel, targeting pods, weapon mounts, weapons and equipment like electronic countermeasures. There is little left for maneuverability as an audience will see at an air show.
F-16 will have to sacrifice a lot of performance to carry the necessary equipment. The F-35 can carry a lot of this internally. Photo: Morten Hanche
In return, our F-16 is equipped with a helmet sight and a very maneuverable heat-seeking missile. Therefore, it is not as critical that our F-16 is not particularly maneuverable due to our armaments; our missiles are more maneuverable than any other fighter. Helmet Mounted Displays mean we do not need to point the nose of the plane in the direction of the opponent - we can "throw" a shot over our shoulder. Enemies rarely escape ...
It is advantageous to have the fastest fighter. Superior speed makes it possible to obtain or escape an opponent. All javelin throwers use speed to throw as far as possible. Likewise it is an advantage to fly high and fast when a missiles being shot. The missile gets more energy, which in turn increases the range, so that the missile can be fired a longer distance. If we assume equally proficient pilots, equally good sensors and equally good missiles, it seems that raw performance alone can determine the outcome of an air battle - those flying fastest shoot first. Whoever shoots first wins most often.
Pierre Spey and other critics have pointed out that the F-35 is not as fast or maneuverable as modern Russian fighter. In a previous section I argued that the performance of the F-16 at an air display is theoretical and not available in a combat. Combat aircraft like the F-16 carry a heavy load out. This reduces the practical range, speed, maneuverability and maximum altitude. (This also applies to your opponent's aircraft, which carries their own combat load out).
The F-35 will have a performance with weapons that far exceeds what we have with the F-16 today. Photo: Lockheed Martin
With the F-35, we get more of all of this, compared to what we are used to today. To discover how much more there was was a positive surprise for me. With a full combat load out, the F-35 effortlessly climbs 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16, without using afterburner. The speed in 'cruise' is, without afterburners, a further 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16 I have to use afterburner to reach firing speed before a missile shot. F-35 "cruise" is both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot farther anytime.
"With a full combat load out F-35 effortlessly climbs 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16."
The F-35 also has more fuel than we are used to, it carries its payload inside and is not as dependent on afterburners. Therefore we are left with more range than the F-16 and similar aircraft can achieve. The "Combat radius" for the F-35 is between 30% and 70% greater than we get to the F-16! The extra range comes in handy in our country. The range may alternatively be replaced with endurance over a given area. This is useful for our small Air Force, which doesn't have tankers and relies on versatility at all levels.
Back to performance; perhaps it so that it flying quickly leads to shooting first? In this case, I haven one important reservation; both planes must discover each other at the same distance if kinematics are identical. My experience shows that this is not very realistic. In daily training between our own F-16, and in meeting with our allies, we experience in practice what radar signatures and electronic antidotes can do. Our old F-16 is "small" on radar and is detected late, as compared with other modern combat aircraft. We also notice the effect of external loading; the heaviest loaded aircraft is detected at the longest distance because the external load increases radar signature. Therefore I maintain that it is unrealistic to assume that two combat aircraft fighters recognize each other simultaneously, although the sensors initially are equally good. The effect of radar signature and electronic antidotes are notable.
"The effect of radar signature and electronic antidotes are notable"
If an opponent with a "heavy" radar signature meets an aircraft as the F-35, with very small radar signature, it becomes difficult to take full advantage of the superior performance provides. Imagine a meeting between a highly trained sprinter and a sniper. The mission is to shoot your counterpart. Both are armed with hunting rifles, but only the sharpshooter has a telescopic sight. The Sprinter is known to have a more powerful rifle, but he is dressed in a neon colored tracksuit, taking up a position on the far of a football field. The Marksman is camouflaged somewhere on the opposite end. The Sprinter is the fastest and has the most powerful rifle, but what is he shooting at? While the sprinter is galloping across the field in search of his opponent, he must take shot after shot. This is not an even match. Unfortunately I have found that it is extremely frustrating to fight when we can not find our opponent with our own sensors. It rarely ends well.
If an opponent can't shoot at you - then you have little use of maneuverability. Here's the picture of the heads-up display of a Norwegian F-16. Photo: Morten Hanche
The outcome of a dogfight between two identical fighters is determined ultimately by the individual pilot. It takes time and extensive resources to grow a skilled pilot. Especially important is a steady supply of flying time, a good and constructive learning environment, the availability of suitable airspace and an organizational structure that facilitates training. During exercises with my colleagues in the Air Force and I have often flown against more modern fighters than our F-16. Yet, we "Win" air combat against more sophisticated opponents, technically speaking. Often the explanation is that we are facing inexperienced pilots. More interesting is that maybe when we meet pilots with completely different cultures of learning and collaboration. My impression is that cultures where the distance from the second to lead is large, fail to cultivate equally proficient pilots. In such highly hierarchical organizations, it is near impossible to be honest with your boss in a "debriefing" after the flight. Therefore, they miss out on important learning.
My point in this post was to show that many variables affect the outcome of a dogfight. Things are rarely black and white. One of the most different might be the skill of individual pilots. I am often surprised when I read cocksure posts in newspapers and comment fields. Common to many such posts is a "digital" interpretation of performance data. A speed XY, B speed YY = A is best, period. One problem is the source data referenced. Another is that it tends to focus solely on a few parameters. Our experience with the F-35 so far has revealed a fighter that will surprise many in the air-to-air role. The combination of high performance, good sensors and low signatures makes the F-35 a dangerous opponent in air operation. Finally; remember that even Arnold Schwarzenegger had to resort to hiding his heat signature in the old classic "Predator" by using mud. Brute strength is good but camouflage works too...
...
Our test pilots love the F-35, and see it as a wonderful successor to the F-16s we've been using.
Oh, and Norway was one of the first F-16 partners, having bought it only after the USAF committed to the airframe. We're second only to the US in terms of number of years operating the aircraft. We know the F-16 better then most; the F-35 is a worthy successor.
woops, looks like I woke it up
Figure 3.4 Grading the candidate mission effectiveness in relation to mission type and level of mission intensity
Figur 3.3 shows survivability rating:
Credit for Translation goes to Hornetfinn on F.16.net
Source is the Danish MoD
http://www.fmn.dk/eng/allabout/new-fighter/Pages/new-fighter.aspx
Interesting, the Super Hornet is about equal to the Eurofighter!
I'd confirm the accuracy of the translation, but Danish is waaaay too different from Norwegian
.
What do those Norwegians know
More then your dumb *ss, that's for certain.
