[engi_nerd]

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.

[Someone1234]

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-...

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]

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]

> But, as he knows, because he's helped develop the aircraft, the control laws are trying to be conservative.

And are based on the physical construction of the aircraft, which is why they increased the size of the control surfaces after this.

> 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.

According to you nobody that criticizes the F-35 sacred cow does their due diligence. You paint people one of two ways: You either think the F-35 is wonderful and thus are informed, or you don't know anything.

I also love how you keep going back to an article that isn't even relevant in this thread, nobody brought it up, nobody has linked it, and yet you're strawman-ing this mysterious article to death as a defense of the pilot's own criticism's of the F-35 in 2015.

[engi_nerd]

The size of the control surfaces was NOT changed after the report that you linked to. Where do you even get this misinformation?

You yourself linked the article that I'm referring to, and you mentioned it originally.

And I am informed on the F-35 and don't think it's wonderful, but I don't think it's a horrible piece of garbage, either.

[Someone1234]

> You yourself linked the article that I'm referring to, and you mentioned it originally.

I haven't linked to any article like what you're referring to, nor did I reference it. I linked to the pilot's original mission report, I also referenced the same report. You seem to be attacking some editorial, and since you haven't linked it, nobody knows which one.

> And I am informed on the F-35 and don't think it's wonderful, but I don't think it's a horrible piece of garbage, either.

Nobody was claiming it was a "horrible piece of garbage."

[engi_nerd]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-...

You linked to this yourself.

[Bartweiss]

> 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]

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.