4 ms·

It lost in an air to air trial to an older aircraft, and they covered it up. Are you sure?

by Someone1234 8y ago

greedo 8y ago
It wasn't a "trial", whatever that means. It was a test flight, with parameters that the critics have no knowledge of.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  And they tried to cover it up. Plus they could have released anything that helped make the aircraft look less deficient, they didn't. Just tried to hide the test and pretend it didn't occur.
  - greedo 8y ago
    Tried to cover it up? It's an unclassified report from the test pilot. Not really intended for public disclosure, but this isn't the Pentagon Papers. And the author of the article has an axe to grind against almost all of the military. He left out most of the in that mitigated the story he's been pushing for a decade.
engi_nerd 8y ago
That wasn't a trial of air-to-air combat. It was a control law test of the F-35. An F-16 aircraft, which was already being used during the mission as a "chase" aircraft for test execution safety reasons, was also used by the F-35 pilot as a visual reference. There was no coverup. Rather, the reporter who was sent the document and wrote about it simply didn't have the engineering knowledge to understand what he was reading, nor did he ask anyone experienced with flight testing to review what he had been sent and what he had written.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > It was a control law test of the F-35. Could you explain this, or point me to a link? I don't know the term and I'm having trouble searching it since the words are so common, but I'd love to see a proper breakdown of what was being tested.
  - engi_nerd 8y ago
    Sure. The F-35 is a "fly-by-wire" aircraft, which means that computers are required to direct the movements of the control surfaces. The engineering and mathematics here is not my area (my flight test experience lies in data acquisition, instrumentation, and data analysis/reduction) but I do know that the computers run software -- control laws -- that take the pilot's instructions as inputs, observe the dynamics of the airplane, and issue control commands to the surfaces to execute the inputs.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  The document was the opinion of the F-35 pilot just to be clear. Here's a direct quote from the pilot: > The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There are multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him # > The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime. The original documents can be read here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-... Perhaps you're going to claim the pilot themselves aren't qualified to criticize the program either? PS - This resulted in mechanical changes to the aircraft as well as changes to the headset resulting in millions more in expenditure.
  - engi_nerd 8y ago
    I think you are making some of the same mistakes as the author of the piece you linked to. You are not understanding the context of the whole test, nor are you reading all of the pilot's observations. Look at what the pilot says about pitch rate, and I'll pick out the part that makes all the difference. Brackets and emphasis mine: "Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time. Therefore there were multiple occasions where it would have been tactically sound to accept excessive energy loss in order to achieve a fleeting WEZ. [Weapon Engagement Zone]. The CLAW [Control Law] prevented such shot opportunities (and hindered defeating shots)." In other words, the control laws prevented him from doing what he wanted. But, as he knows, because he's helped develop the aircraft, the control laws are trying to be conservative. Therefore, in his conclusions and recommendations, he says: "Consider increasing alpha onset." and "Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority". These fixes were put in the CLAW really quickly. As for your jab about "pilots themselves aren't qualified to criticize the program either", well, look, the reporter didn't do his due diligence. You can criticize anything you like, but when you don't do the work to make your criticisms informed by relevant experience and knowledge, you're just another guy with an opinion and a blog.
    - Someone1234 8y ago

It lost in an air to air trial to an older aircraft, and they covered it up. Are you sure?

greedo 8y ago

It wasn't a "trial", whatever that means. It was a test flight, with parameters that the critics have no knowledge of.

Someone1234 8y ago
And they tried to cover it up. Plus they could have released anything that helped make the aircraft look less deficient, they didn't. Just tried to hide the test and pretend it didn't occur.
- greedo 8y ago
  Tried to cover it up? It's an unclassified report from the test pilot. Not really intended for public disclosure, but this isn't the Pentagon Papers. And the author of the article has an axe to grind against almost all of the military. He left out most of the in that mitigated the story he's been pushing for a decade.

engi_nerd 8y ago

That wasn't a trial of air-to-air combat. It was a control law test of the F-35. An F-16 aircraft, which was already being used during the mission as a "chase" aircraft for test execution safety reasons, was also used by the F-35 pilot as a visual reference. There was no coverup. Rather, the reporter who was sent the document and wrote about it simply didn't have the engineering knowledge to understand what he was reading, nor did he ask anyone experienced with flight testing to review what he had been sent and what he had written.

Bartweiss 8y ago
> It was a control law test of the F-35. Could you explain this, or point me to a link? I don't know the term and I'm having trouble searching it since the words are so common, but I'd love to see a proper breakdown of what was being tested.
- engi_nerd 8y ago
  Sure. The F-35 is a "fly-by-wire" aircraft, which means that computers are required to direct the movements of the control surfaces. The engineering and mathematics here is not my area (my flight test experience lies in data acquisition, instrumentation, and data analysis/reduction) but I do know that the computers run software -- control laws -- that take the pilot's instructions as inputs, observe the dynamics of the airplane, and issue control commands to the surfaces to execute the inputs.
Someone1234 8y ago
The document was the opinion of the F-35 pilot just to be clear. Here's a direct quote from the pilot: > The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There are multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him # > The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime. The original documents can be read here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-... Perhaps you're going to claim the pilot themselves aren't qualified to criticize the program either? PS - This resulted in mechanical changes to the aircraft as well as changes to the headset resulting in millions more in expenditure.
- engi_nerd 8y ago
  I think you are making some of the same mistakes as the author of the piece you linked to. You are not understanding the context of the whole test, nor are you reading all of the pilot's observations. Look at what the pilot says about pitch rate, and I'll pick out the part that makes all the difference. Brackets and emphasis mine: "Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time. Therefore there were multiple occasions where it would have been tactically sound to accept excessive energy loss in order to achieve a fleeting WEZ. [Weapon Engagement Zone]. The CLAW [Control Law] prevented such shot opportunities (and hindered defeating shots)." In other words, the control laws prevented him from doing what he wanted. But, as he knows, because he's helped develop the aircraft, the control laws are trying to be conservative. Therefore, in his conclusions and recommendations, he says: "Consider increasing alpha onset." and "Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority". These fixes were put in the CLAW really quickly. As for your jab about "pilots themselves aren't qualified to criticize the program either", well, look, the reporter didn't do his due diligence. You can criticize anything you like, but when you don't do the work to make your criticisms informed by relevant experience and knowledge, you're just another guy with an opinion and a blog.
  - Someone1234 8y ago