back to article F-35 'incomparable' to Harrier jump jet, top test pilot tells El Reg

What's it like to fly an F-35 fighter jet? We interviewed the chief British test pilot about a uniquely British flying technique – and then had a play with a full cockpit simulator to find out for ourselves. Squadron Leader Andy Edgell is the Royal Air Force's top test pilot for the F-35 flight trials programme. A former …

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Meh

      Re: Hearts & minds propaganda, courtesy of MoD

      Despite what the article says, in Royal Navy service there is no difference between the two types. The Royal Navy will get the same overall effect by deploying its non-existent, and stupidly sold off, Harriers as it would by deploying its non-existent F-35's. i.e. no effect whatsoever.

      You can easily identify naval aircraft operators by the colour of their aircraft. US Navy aircraft are silver, Russian Navy aircraft are green and Royal Navy aircraft are invisible.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Hearts & minds propaganda, courtesy of MoD

        "You can easily identify naval aircraft operators by the colour of their aircraft. US Navy aircraft are silver, Russian Navy aircraft are green and Royal Navy aircraft are invisible."

        So, basically you are saying that only the RN have true stealth aircraft?

        The cloak of invisibility ------->

    2. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: Hearts & minds propaganda, courtesy of MoD

      I'd rather hope it was 'better' than the Harrier considering its design is about 50 years ahead of the Harriers and its mind boggling cost. (To put the gap in perspective, compare a Harrier to a pre-WW1 plane).

      There seems to be an urgent need to convince the public that the F35 is a valuable asset, worth every dollar spent on it. Realistically I fear it will never be anything more than an overpriced, unreliable PoS.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hearts & minds propaganda, courtesy of MoD

        There seems to be an urgent need to convince the public that the F35 is a valuable asset,

        And to a small extent, it is working. The balance of up/downvotes on my original post condemning this article as MoD propaganda for a programme that should be cancelled, has been a remarkably consistent ratio of 3:1. If I make the reasonable assumption that the upvoters agree, the downvoters disagree, what we can infer is that even amongst a group of unusually bright and well informed readers, 25% have taken the bait, and have been persuaded by the storyline of "what a great aircraft the F35 is".

        From the point of view of MoD, that'll be seen as a really good outcome - its cost them next to nothing, and a fair proportion of the readers appear to have been convinced. Now, not convincing 75% of readers might be seen as a bad outcome, but lets face it, MoD are the people who think it is acceptable to spend £1.3bn on a simple recruitment system that doesn't even work, buy aircraft carriers when there's no aircraft, nor sufficient surface vessels to create a convincing carrier battlegroup. And even believe there's a need for carriers when we have coped without a carrier capability for over a decade already, and by the time the QE is aircraft-equipped, we'll have managed without a carrier for fifteen years.

        Expect the "success" of this article to be followed up in the mainstream press, with a programme of "jollies for journalists" to get them to write gushing articles about the F35. The one thing they can't yet do is take them up for a joyride, because there isn't a two seater version (as there was with the Harrier, and many other fast jets), but I wouldn't be surprised if the MoD propaganda budget stretched to taking selected journos out to the US training facility in Florida.

        No matter how obvious it is that the F35 programme is stupid, over-complicated, unaffordable, poor concieved, the MoD and the morons of the British government are not going to admit they've screwed it all up, and come up with a better plan. The last chance was when they balked at the cost of redesigning the QE mid-construction to take cats and traps, but realistically, the multi-billion cost of that would probably still have been lower than the UK's share of the F35 cost-overruns.

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    VAAC 35 knot relative speed ?

    "It's a 35-knot overtaking speed at a seven-degree angle relative to the boat"

    In the video, I could not see any speed, relative to the boat ?

    1. Pen-y-gors

      Re: VAAC 35 knot relative speed ?

      Just guessing - could it be a 35kt air-speed - i.e. allowing for wind etc? Prolly totally wrong.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: VAAC 35 knot relative speed ?

        "could it be a 35kt air-speed - i.e. allowing for wind etc"

        Nope - he explicitly states "overtaking speed".

    2. x 7

      Re: VAAC 35 knot relative speed ?

      the video has no relationship to the landing technique being discussed, except that a lot of the avionics package for the F-35 is derived from the trials carried out on the VAAC Harrier. What the videos shows is an automatic vertical landing: nothing to do with the rolling vertical landing

    3. nematoad
      Happy

      Re: VAAC 35 knot relative speed ?

      "...a seven-degree angle relative to the boat," Andy said"

      I didn't realise that the F35 could land on a submarine.

      You can tell that he is in the RAF not the Navy.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: VAAC 35 knot relative speed ?

        @nematoad

        I didn't realise that the F35 could land on a submarine.

        Which is why our correspondent...

        "entered submarine mode"

      2. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: VAAC 35 knot relative speed ?

        Naval air groups all call the carrier a boat. The US as well as the UK.

  3. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    SRVL ...

    ISTR stories from the 80s that the Yanks kept smashing the front wheel ... I suspect they either weren't told about SRVL, or couldn't learnt it ?

    1. a_yank_lurker

      Re: SRVL ...

      Given the Harrier was flown by jarheads, I would put my money too stupid to learn the techinque. Go Army.

  4. AMBxx Silver badge
    Joke

    Italian Airforce?

    Can the F35 fly backwards too?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Italian Airforce?

      Nah, they just don't bother with the fuel tank.

    2. macjules

      Re: Italian Airforce?

      The ventral airbrake has a white flag concealed in it, just in case it's needed.

  5. Pen-y-gors

    VIFing?

    Can the F35 - A or B - stop in flight and go upwards? Vectoring In Flight? Useful when a fast jet is on your tail - a quick VIF and you're on its tail.

    And can an F35 land in a clearing in the woods? That's a controlled landing...

    1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      Re: VIFing?

      IIRC, that's the sort of thing that gave the Harriers a significant edge over Argie planes the Falklands conflict. The Mirages might have outperformed the Harrier on paper, but in practice the Harriers' superior maneuverability helped it win the day.

      There are those, however, who would argue that the days of plane-on-plane dog-fighting are over, so such a capability is redundant today.

      1. x 7

        Re: VIFing?

        VIFFing was never used during the Falklands: the Argie aircraft were at too far a range to get involved in air-to-air combat. If a Harrier appeared they ran: if they had stopped to fight they would have run out of fuel. The Falklands really were at the maximum endurance range of their aircraft

        PS - VIFF = Vectoring In Forward Flight

        And the US Marines invented it during a demo flight "just to see what happened if you tried it"

        1. hplasm
          WTF?

          Re: VIFing?

          "VIFFing was never used during the Falklands:"

          I guess the BBC used non-existent CGI to show that on the 6 o'clock News, then?

          "And the US Marines invented it during a demo flight "just to see what happened if you tried it"

          [citation needed]

          1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

            Re: VIFing?

            "VIFFing was never used during the Falklands:"

            I read Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins "Battle for the Falklands" last year - an excellent account of the conflict (as well as the political shennannigans in the run-up an during) and I'm sure I remember something about how the Harriers unique capabilities (i.e. vectoring) were used to their advantage in combat with Argentinian aircraft

            1. x 7

              Re: VIFing?

              If you read books about war flying by people who weren't there, and weren't pilots then the old maxim applies: rubbish in, rubbish out.

              If you want to know what happened during the Falklands air campaign, read

              Sea Harrier Over The Falklands by Sharkey Ward

              Ward was the boss of 801 Squadron. Controversial, but accurate

          2. x 7

            Re: VIFing?

            "I guess the BBC used non-existent CGI to show that on the 6 o'clock News, then?"

            You may have seen film of the VIFF technique, but not during the Falklands War

            ""And the US Marines invented it during a demo flight "just to see what happened if you tried it"

            [citation needed]"

            Here you go: http://www.airvectors.net/avav8_2.html#m3

            "* The USMC's provision for Sidewinder missiles on the AV-8A led the service to devise an interesting new dogfighting tactic, named, somewhat stiffly, "vectoring in forward flight (VIFF)". Experiments performed by the USMC with VIFF demonstrated that it had some extraordinary qualities. The Marine pilot who performed the first evaluations on VIFF in 1970, Captain Harry Blot, fully reversed the nozzles while flying at high speed on his first test flight. He reported that he "decelerated rapidly" -- but he couldn't determine just how rapidly, since he was wrapped around the stick with his nose stuck on the gunsight."

      2. John Jennings

        Re: VIFing?

        Nah - having AIM missiles is what won it for the harriers.....

        The argintinian missiles (AIM 9B) had to lock from behind, and less than 3KM range..... designed in the late 50s....

        The AIM J the aim could acquire lock at 5KM, all aspect locking. designed late 1970's

        Regan gave the RN those -on the way to the falklands - they were not even issue to us front line squadrons at the time.

        21 of 75 argintinian aircraft destroyed (inc helicopters, ground attack, anti ship fighter-bombers and unarmed) were destroyed by harriers....

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: VIFing?

        Look at how capable pilots - i.e. Israeli Air Force ones - could fight on Mirages. Being agile could help you a couple of times, but when you're truly outperformed, you won't last longer in a dogfight.

        1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
          Gimp

          Re: VIFing?

          Fact of life: an experienced operator with good knowledge of his (/her) tool will almost always outperform a less experienced operator using a "superior" tool. Knowledge of the opponent's weaknesses (when applicable) also greatly helps. That's an universal truth. I see you point and raise a "Biplan vs Jet for night frightening operations" card on the eastern front during WW2. There is one well documented case of a direct victory for a biplan over a "modern" jet airplane (left as an exercise for the reader, yadda yadda yadda). Ultimately the performance problem is almost never with your tool but almost always with how you use it. (sizequeens notwithstanding).

          1. JLV

            Re: VIFing?

            I also seem to recall a platoon of upgunned (105s) Israeli Shermans trumping a bigger herd of buttoned-up Egyptian(/Syrian?) T-55s in the 67 war.

            Skill and courage doesn't always win (Polish cavalry vs German AFVs), but it's worth keeping in mind when evaluating the merits of this or that piece of equipment from historical outcomes.

            I suspect the skill advantage of the English pilots had a lot to do with Harrier performance over the Falklands.

            1. Mark 85

              Re: VIFing?

              I also seem to recall a platoon of upgunned (105s) Israeli Shermans trumping a bigger herd of buttoned-up Egyptian(/Syrian?) T-55s in the 67 war.

              I recall that also. There's also the "case" where a Marine CH-53 helicopter shot down an attacking North Vietnamese MIG.

          2. eldakka

            Re: VIFing?

            > Fact of life: an experienced operator with good knowledge of his (/her) tool will almost always outperform a less experienced operator using a "superior" tool.

            I don't know, I get the feeling the ladies say that to me to save my feelings, not because they believe it...

      4. Mark 85

        Re: VIFing?

        There are those, however, who would argue that the days of plane-on-plane dog-fighting are over, so such a capability is redundant today.

        Bull.... they've been saying that since the late 50's. Then combat starts and "oops... where's the guns?". Vietnam and the F4 pointed that out very well.

      5. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: VIFing?

        IIRC, that's the sort of thing that gave the Harriers a significant edge over Argie planes the Falklands conflict

        Their edge was that they were up against A4 Skyhawks which were good at delivering bombs but hopelessly vulnerable. It was incredibly brave of those Argentine pilots to go ahead with those missions in those circumstances, not to mention flying donkeys like the Pucara and the Aermacchi 339 which is just a trainer.

        I think they lost only two Mirage, one to their own anti-aircraft defences. After that they changed tactics and fire Exocets from a long stand off position.

      6. Apdsmith

        Re: VIFing?

        Partly that, but also the fact that the Argentine Air Force Mirages were so far into their maximum range that they couldn't throttle up to the kinds of speeds they were built to fight at. Forced to throw away a key advantage, it's unsurprising they suffered against FAA Harriers.

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: VIFing?

          Also the had to get into the Harriers domain and not theirs.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: VIFing?

      And can an F35 land in a clearing in the woods?

      No. Neither could a Harrier, unless somebody had already laid a hard standing able to take a 7 tonne weight being dropped onto the area of three A4 sheets of paper. They did experiment with a sprayable compound to harden the ground, carried in pods under the wings, but that wasn't realistically practicable for military operations (you can imagine the comical mess when spraying araldite from a hovering Harrier).

      All the pics of Harriers in the woods tended to be on specially hardened roads around RAF Gutersloh or similar.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: VIFing?

      > Can the F35 - A or B - stop in flight and go upwards?

      You mean the Cobra manoeuvre¹? That's a Russian thing though.

      ¹ First time ever I spell that² right at first attempt

      ² Manoeuvre, not Cobra

      1. PerlyKing

        VIFF vs. Cobra

        >> Can the F35 - A or B - stop in flight and go upwards?

        >You mean the Cobra manoeuvre¹? That's a Russian thing though.

        No, VIFF can only be performed by aircraft with moveable jet nozzles, such as the Harrier.

        Pugachev's Cobra demonstrates being able to take an aircraft beyond 90 degrees angle of attack and back again while retaining control.

        Both manoeuvres leave the aircraft at low speed, which is counter to general dogfighting principles.

    4. macjules

      Re: VIF[F]ing?

      It was never employed in the Falklands or indeed any other OP UK Harriers have been involved in simply because its use immediately bleeds all energy and leaves the aircraft wallowing and vulnerable to missile (the defeat of which is largely predicated upon speed combined with defensive aids) or even a guns kill. ‘

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: VIF[F]ing?

        However the F35 won't be usable in a future Falklands conflict.

        The US company with the contract for the onboard avionics will have a significant share holding from the Argentinian teachers pension fund and so will cancel the runtime license and then Turkey will be negotiating a deal with Argentina for a new pipeline and so will refuse to do any servicing, and Boeing will be in court about bribes to Argentine officials and doesn't want any bad press...

        We may have created the solution for perpetual peace

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It takes very little to be better than tha Harrier...

    The Harrier was a nice plane, its VSTOL capabilities a first, but it could never be a great fighter or attack plane in a difficult environment exactly because its VSTOL capabilities made it a slower, more vulnerable plane. Good for CAS, if you already had air superiority - but it couldn't obtain it alone against a capable opponent.

    As a VSTOL plane, and Harrier replacement, the F-35 can be somewhat better, if they can tame and fix its many teething issues.

    Just, as an all-around plane - one that should take the roles that were covered by F-14, F-16, A-6, the F-35 is just a so-so plane, and will have troubles against more capable ones.

    In fact, USAF didn't want to renounce to its F-15 and F-22. Just, everybody else has to get the F-35.

    1. Steve Evans

      Re: It takes very little to be better than tha Harrier...

      but it could never be a great fighter or attack plane in a difficult environment

      The Argentinian airforce would beg to differ.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "The Argentinian airforce would beg to differ"

        The Argentinian Air Force wasn't a very capable opponent and had to operate very afar from its land air bases. Still they could sink Brirish ships which didn't have a CAP keeping attack planes away, and clear the area from enemy recce planes.

        That's also why escortless Vulcans could bomb Port Stanley without being intercepted.

    2. JLV

      Re: It takes very little to be better than tha Harrier...

      IIRC the Harrier has also been pretty deadly to its pilots in accidents.

      https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-77618.html but it's hardly the only such entry.

      F35 sucks, true, but let's remain factual about what Harrier did and did not do well.

    3. ElReg!comments!Pierre
      Pint

      Re: It takes very little to be better than tha Harrier...

      Just, as an all-around plane - one that should take the roles that were covered by F-14, F-16, A-6, the F-35 is just a so-so plane, and will have troubles against more capable ones.

      An aicraft covering most of these bases have been deployed in operations around the globe for quite some time now, with reported superiority on both airspace control and ground strike over USA-built alternatives. The problem is, it's French.

    4. JimC

      Re: It takes very little to be better than tha Harrier...

      Well, the Harrier, at least in its pre prototype development version as the P1127, went into service 50 years before the F35. Go back 50 years before that and the new fighters going into service were the Sopwith Pup and Sopwith Triplane.

  7. Gary Heard

    Flying experience

    The Grob? Your readers experience was in the Chipmunk, doing aerobatics near the Severn Bridge having flown out of Filton, back in the late 60's and early 70's.

    As for Gliding, the Kirby T31 was what I went solo on -- flew like a brick outhouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_Tandem_Tutor).

    But I was also lucky enough to get so much height off a winch launch in a T21 Seburgh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T.21) the pilot did a loop and a Chandelle (stick Back hard and as she starts to stall push the stick hard left and forward with plenty of left rudder -- glider ends up with wings vertical and then you use the stick and rudder to level out as you dive -- basically drop sideways on with the ailerons and rudder turning you to a recoverable position a you gain speed) in a Glider with no canopy That was FUN.

    With Flight Sim, back in the day... I flew Munich to Milan in the sailplane in real time 6.25 hours I was sat there.....

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: Flying experience

      I flew the Grob Tutor, aka the Grob 115e from 5AEF at RAF Wyton while in the cadets. It was a nice plane, much better than the BAE Bulldog because of the faster climbing speed and lower operating costs, letting people fly more often*. Even if the Bulldog unit at Cambridge was more conveniently located for us.

      * Fortunately I was in the ATC when the Tutor had just been introduced, and was in before the problems with the propellers detaching from the rest of the aircraft came up, although it's quite arguable that 5G+ stall turns and other exceptionally violent aerobatics we did might have made some contribution towards causing these problems a few years later on...

      One wonders if Grob had any idea what sort of use these planes would be exposed to when they agreed to maintain them on a fixed price contract, the poor sods probably throught they'd be used like any other flying school.

    2. Joe Werner Silver badge

      Re: Flying experience

      Hmpf... FNCs (fuel to noise converters) ;p

      Went solo in an ASK13, first solo "distance" flight in a K8 (even after I was allowed on modern stuff, like LS4). Later I was one of the early production "test" pilots of the LS8-18, good times! Alas, it's a bloody time intensive hobby... still miss it at times though.

      (still sad Rolladen Schneider went bankrupt, like... 15 years or so ago)

    3. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Re: Flying experience

      "Chandelle (stick Back hard and as she starts to stall push the stick hard left and forward with plenty of left rudder"

      In the interests of public safety, please don't take aerobatic (OK, technically not aerobatic) flight instruction from Internet posters. Particularly not this bit, which is closer to a description of how to spin into the ground than information on how to perform a Chandelle.

      1. Danny 14

        Re: Flying experience

        ah the chipmonk. climb to 3500, push until 130 and pull back nice and smoothly throughout the loop.

        easy plane to fly but a pig to land. grobs were being introduced and were a joy to fly.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon