Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters Controversial ‘Dogfighting’ Report

[Maarkhoor]

WASHINGTON – For the first time since a controversial report detailing how the F-35 performs in a dogfight emerged last summer, an F-35 pilot gave an in-depth analysis of his experience flying the jet in a close-range battle scenario.

Norwegian Air Force Maj. Morten “Dolby” Hanche, the first Norwegian to fly the F-35, analyzed the jet’s performance in a dogfight in a March 1 blog post published on Norway’s Ministry of Defense website.
Although Hanche never mentions the 2015 report, “F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers" and revealed last summer by blogger David Axe on WarisBoring.com, he counters many of the anonymous author’s claims.

The 2015 report criticized the F-35’s lack of power and maneuverability compared to the F-16 during high angle of attack exercises. The F-35 “was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight,” the author wrote, also noting that “pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons.”

In contrast, Hanche wrote the F-35 is capable of a significantly higher angle of attack than the F-16, providing the pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane wherever he wants.

“This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16,” wrote Hanche, a US Navy test pilot school graduate with 2,200 flight hours in Lockheed Martin’s F-16.

Hanche now serves as an instructor and the assistant weapons officer with the 62nd fighter squadron at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.

In the defensive role, the pilot can “whip” the F-35 around while simultaneously slowing down, Hanche wrote. The plane can actually slow down more quickly than a driver is able to emergency brake a car.

At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilot’s “pedal inputs,” which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.

“This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent,” Hanche wrote. “This ‘pedal turn’ yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the ‘pedal turn’ provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.”

Hanche did have several critiques of the F-35’s performance, including a shaking or “buffeting” at high g-loadings and high angles of attack. In comparison, the F-16 hardly shakes at all, he noted. This buffeting has made it difficult for several F-35 pilots to read the information displayed on the heads-up display. However, Hanche has not found this to be an issue while using the third-generation helmet.

Both Hanche and the anonymous author of the 2015 report agreed the headrest makes it more difficult to see behind the aircraft. Hanche wrote he found initially the F-35’s cockpit limited his visibility compared with the F-16.

“The cockpit view from the F-16 was good, better than in any other fighter I have flown. I could turn around and look at the opposite wingtip; turn to the right, look over the back of the airplane and see the left wingtip,” Hanche wrote. “That´s not quite possible in the F-35, because the headrest blocks some of the view.”

But Hanche was able to improve his visibility by moving forward in his seat and leaning slightly sideways, before turning his head and looking backwards. This enabled him to see around the sides of the seat.

Hanche stressed that he was still able to maintain visual contact with his opponent during aggressive maneuvering, and the cockpit’s visual limitation is not “a genuine problem with the F-35.”

"For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16," Hanche wrote. "So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? ... To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."

Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters Controversial ‘Dogfighting’ Report

 

[Maarkhoor]

@Khafee @Windjammer @Oscar @MastanKhan @Quwa

 

[cerberus]

WASHINGTON – For the first time since a controversial report detailing how the F-35 performs in a dogfight emerged last summer, an F-35 pilot gave an in-depth analysis of his experience flying the jet in a close-range battle scenario.

Norwegian Air Force Maj. Morten “Dolby” Hanche, the first Norwegian to fly the F-35, analyzed the jet’s performance in a dogfight in a March 1 blog post published on Norway’s Ministry of Defense website.
Although Hanche never mentions the 2015 report, “F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers" and revealed last summer by blogger David Axe on WarisBoring.com, he counters many of the anonymous author’s claims.

The 2015 report criticized the F-35’s lack of power and maneuverability compared to the F-16 during high angle of attack exercises. The F-35 “was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight,” the author wrote, also noting that “pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons.”

In contrast, Hanche wrote the F-35 is capable of a significantly higher angle of attack than the F-16, providing the pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane wherever he wants.

“This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16,” wrote Hanche, a US Navy test pilot school graduate with 2,200 flight hours in Lockheed Martin’s F-16.

Hanche now serves as an instructor and the assistant weapons officer with the 62nd fighter squadron at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.

In the defensive role, the pilot can “whip” the F-35 around while simultaneously slowing down, Hanche wrote. The plane can actually slow down more quickly than a driver is able to emergency brake a car.

At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilot’s “pedal inputs,” which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.

“This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent,” Hanche wrote. “This ‘pedal turn’ yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the ‘pedal turn’ provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.”

Hanche did have several critiques of the F-35’s performance, including a shaking or “buffeting” at high g-loadings and high angles of attack. In comparison, the F-16 hardly shakes at all, he noted. This buffeting has made it difficult for several F-35 pilots to read the information displayed on the heads-up display. However, Hanche has not found this to be an issue while using the third-generation helmet.

Both Hanche and the anonymous author of the 2015 report agreed the headrest makes it more difficult to see behind the aircraft. Hanche wrote he found initially the F-35’s cockpit limited his visibility compared with the F-16.

“The cockpit view from the F-16 was good, better than in any other fighter I have flown. I could turn around and look at the opposite wingtip; turn to the right, look over the back of the airplane and see the left wingtip,” Hanche wrote. “That´s not quite possible in the F-35, because the headrest blocks some of the view.”

But Hanche was able to improve his visibility by moving forward in his seat and leaning slightly sideways, before turning his head and looking backwards. This enabled him to see around the sides of the seat.

Hanche stressed that he was still able to maintain visual contact with his opponent during aggressive maneuvering, and the cockpit’s visual limitation is not “a genuine problem with the F-35.”

"For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16," Hanche wrote. "So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? ... To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."

Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters Controversial ‘Dogfighting’ Report

Nicely crafted article

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I think that most of the pilots coming from the F16's are flying the F35 like an F16----. Once they learn how to fly it like an F35---it will be a different story----.

What do you think @Viper0011. @gambit

 

[gambit]

Hi,

I think that most of the pilots coning from the F16's are flying the F35 like an F16----. Once they learn how to fly it like an F35---it will be a different story----.

What do you think @Viper0011. @gambit

Most people, which includes all of the F-35 negative critics, do not realize that the F-22 and F-35 are the world's first true software based fighters. It is software from sensors to flight controls and the integration of the sensors suite to flight controls is unlike ANYTHING seen before from any country.

It is just like the V-22 Osprey where a pilot cannot fly the aircraft like a fixed wing or a rotary wing but that he must learn to fly the Osprey as a unique creature with its own flight characteristics. Note that since the Osprey have seen combat missions, its critics have quite disappeared.

As more and more experienced pilots gain their unusual experience on the F-35, just like the Osprey pilots, they will adapt to the F-35's uniqueness and will be able to exploit its capabilities in ways the F-35's opponents will not expect. The only mission that I hesitate to praise the F-35 is that of CAS, where the A-10 remains king of the mountain.

At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilot’s “pedal inputs,” which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.

“This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent,”

“This ‘pedal turn’ yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the ‘pedal turn’ provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.”

Source: Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters Controversial ‘Dogfighting’ Report

This is a warning.

In current fighters, the pilot rarely, if ever, touch the rudder pedals. The aircraft's FLCC does everything in regards to flight control surfaces activation according to dynamic algorithms.

Nose pointing, or reorientation, is NOT the same as turning. Non-flyers do not understand this. An aircraft can fly straight ahead but can still have its nose askew. I can and have done it on a simple Cessna 152 simply by kicking the rudder pedals side to side.

The F-22's engine thrust redirection reorient the jet's nose, then the flight control surfaces appropriately deflects to change the jet's actual heading and all of that is done without the pilot's inputs. That is what make the Raptor's so maneuverable.

What Major Hanche did was something very similar to the F-22. And it was done by software without Hanche worrying about the final result.

Maybe Hanche is telling Pierre Sprey to STFU and that people should stop citing Sprey.

 

[Windjammer]

Touching the argument, one British aviation journalist argues that there is no outright best fighter in the world, he gave the example that while the F-16 can fly rings around almost anything out there, it can not hold station like say the Tornado.....where the F-35 will have many advantages, it's bound to be exploited for it's weakness and vulnerability by the opposition.

 

[gambit]

Touching the argument, one British aviation journalist argues that there is no outright best fighter in the world, he gave the example that while the F-16 can fly rings around almost anything out there, it can not hold station like say the Tornado.....where the F-35 will have many advantages, it's bound to be exploited for it's weakness and vulnerability by the opposition.

There is an old saying in the martial arts...A good fighter hides his weaknesses, but a great fighter uses them.

Am not saying the F-35 will be smooth sailing from now on, but if this Norwegian pilot is any indicator, it will be that the F-35 will give many pilots, with their diverse experiences, as time goes by and as more and more pilots gain experience on the F-35, each will have a personal 'I can do what...?!?!' moment in the jet based upon what the pilot could not do in the old jet versus what can be done in the F-35.

I may have a heart attack or get run over by a truck tomorrow and never know how the F-35 turns out, but I will say that the F-35 is going to eat the Rafale for breakfast, the Typhoon for lunch, and the Chinese J-20 for dinner. Not going to say anything about the Russian PAK and its Indian FGFA counterpart because neither is going to happen. Those programs are even more problematic, from policies to technological, than the F-35's.

 

[Desertfalcon]

I don't know of any great fighter aircraft, (Or for that matter, any weapons system in general.), that did not experience teething problems and design fixes that caused it's critics to ridicule the design, write it off, talk about how worthless it would be in combat, what a waste of money it was, hence the F-14 was too big for a carrier, the F-16 was only going to be good as a cheap, clear weather fighter, the A-10 was too slow and would never survive over a battlefield, etc. etc.,

It's always the same story.

 

[DavidSling]

Can't wait untill F35I arrives to Israel.
It's going to be a beast

 

[MastanKhan]

Most people, which includes all of the F-35 negative critics, do not realize that the F-22 and F-35 are the world's first true software based fighters. It is software from sensors to flight controls and the integration of the sensors suite to flight controls is unlike ANYTHING seen before from any country.

It is just like the V-22 Osprey where a pilot cannot fly the aircraft like a fixed wing or a rotary wing but that he must learn to fly the Osprey as a unique creature with its own flight characteristics. Note that since the Osprey have seen combat missions, its critics have quite disappeared.

As more and more experienced pilots gain their unusual experience on the F-35, just like the Osprey pilots, they will adapt to the F-35's uniqueness and will be able to exploit its capabilities in ways the F-35's opponents will not expect. The only mission that I hesitate to praise the F-35 is that of CAS, where the A-10 remains king of the mountain.


This is a warning.

In current fighters, the pilot rarely, if ever, touch the rudder pedals. The aircraft's FLCC does everything in regards to flight control surfaces activation according to dynamic algorithms.

Nose pointing, or reorientation, is NOT the same as turning. Non-flyers do not understand this. An aircraft can fly straight ahead but can still have its nose askew. I can and have done it on a simple Cessna 152 simply by kicking the rudder pedals side to side.

The F-22's engine thrust redirection reorient the jet's nose, then the flight control surfaces appropriately deflects to change the jet's actual heading and all of that is done without the pilot's inputs. That is what make the Raptor's so maneuverable.

What Major Hanche did was something very similar to the F-22. And it was done by software without Hanche worrying about the final result.

Maybe Hanche is telling Pierre Sprey to STFU and that people should stop citing Sprey.

Hi,

@gambit Thank you very much for your post---. That is what I had been thinking for awhile---that there is something missing somewhere---the issue is not the machine in itself---it is the mind of the man operating the machine that has the problems adapting to it.

The only problem is in understanding the fact---that the machine will work and function to the best of its ability when it is used in the manner it is supposed to be operated in.

You know what---it might not be a bad idea to start pilots afresh on this aircraft---someone who has 200-300 hours in the air---to rather an old dog with 2000 hours---.

And just because @Viper0011. thinks that car sales is not the same as defence sales----I can tell you from my personal experience as a sales person and as a manager---that it is very difficult to teach an old dog new tricks---.

The growing pains of change are visible in many an industry---.

Right now the pilots have to overcome their own personal prejudices---' I could do this in an F16---why can't I do this in an F35"---or if I did this in an F16---it behaved in this manner---why does the F35 not do that---oh man---why did we have to screw things up---it worked well on the F16's---.

It is like a constant battle with self----with the way your brain was programmed---to the manner that it is going to be upgraded to what needs to be done---.

We all resist to change---even the willing---but we adapt when we find that there is no other way around it.

This norwagian pilots has given such a massive insight into the mind of the pilot and the program- itself--that it might totally change the flight training of the pilots---if it has already not been done.