F-35 Musings, what’s Missing?

War is Boring recently published a report on the limitations of the F-35 Lightning II when faced with a simulated air-to-air combat engagement against an F-16 Fighting Falcon,  one of the aircraft the Lightning II is meant to replace. A flurry of arguments, from Lightning II supporters and detractors alike, inevitably followed. The various claims can be summarized as follows:

Pro F-35

  • It was an early model F-35A, missing many of the technologies that would give it an advantage
  • The F-16 pilot was vastly more experienced in type, allowing him to wring greater performance out of his plane
  • The F-35 was not designed for dogfighting, instead being meant to use stealth to attack without being seen

The Cons:

  • The F-16 was a twin-seater, and therefore less maneuverable.
  • The F-16 was burdened with two external fuel tanks
  • The F-35 was carrying no ordinance and was in a clean configuration which should have offered performance increases
  • The F-35 pilot reported visibility difficulties resulting from the size of the F-35 helmet
  • The F-35 bled significant energy in hard maneuvering, limiting it’s ability to win a turning fight

The controversy raises important questions, not only for the US Air Force, who will rely heavily on the type, but also for international operators who may use the F-35 as the only type in service.The F-35 will inevitably be tasked with a plethora of missions and aircraft’s ability to win a close-range engagement may be crucial.

Two factors, more than any other, influence an aircraft’s abilities in air combat: thrust and wing loading. Thrust is used to maintain energy levels during hard maneuvering. With sufficient thrust an aircraft can hang in the turning fight longer, possibly long enough to force an opponent to disengage. Wing loading affects maneuverability by reducing the energy required to change flight path. Lesser wing loading is better for maneuverability, but it comes at a cost. To achieve a lower wing loading requires either airframe weight be reduced (often not possible) or a larger lifting surface. That larger lifting surface brings a penalty in the form of drag. Drag reduces energy, increases fuel consumption, decreases range, decreases acceleration and limits maximum speed.

In the case of the F-35, the F135 engine is the only engine available and until upgraded (likely in the future) will limit thrust to the same level as available today. Growth possibilities of the F135 engine suggest that future variants might see thrust as great as 50,000 lbs, a significant increase over the current 43,000 lbs. We can assume, rather safely, that the F-35 will see additional thrust become available due to engine performance increases.

Reducing the wing loading of any available variant of the F-35 is difficult. The aircraft has already undergone severe weight reduction programs and it is unlikely that any more weight savings are to be had. That leaves us with increasing the available wing area in order to reduce wing loading. The F-35C variant for the USN has just such a wing with greater area. In order to reduce landing speeds aboard an aircraft carrier, the F-35C is fitted with a larger wing. It is also fitted with larger horizontal stabilizers and wingtip ailerons in order to improve low speed control and maneuverability. Unfortunately, the F-35C is limited to maneuvering limits 7.5g rather than the 9g of the smaller wing variants. The F-35C also carries a weight penalty in the form of the heavier landing gear, arrestor hook and other carrier specific equipment.

F-35 Variants. The larger flying surfaces of the F-35C are readily seen.

F-35 Variants. The larger flying surfaces of the F-35C are readily seen.

There is a possibility of creating an F-35D The hypothetical D model would combine the aerodynamic features of the F-35C, with the lighter airframe of the F-35A. This is not to say that we would simply attach an F-35C wing to an F-35A, although for testing purposes it just might be exactly that easy. As a finished design, we would hope for an F-35C sized and shaped wing that offered the 9g limits of the F-35A. Such an F-35D would offer wing loading advantages, but would suffer the drag disadvantages described above. If drag were offset by a more powerful F135 engine, the trade-off might create the most maneuverable variant of the Lightning II family.

I should note that this is hardly a new or revolutionary idea. Lockheed-Martin (builder of both the F-16 and the F-35) once devised a “big wing” F-16 to overcome weight growth in the F-16 series and meant to restore maneuverability. Northrup-Grumman once marketed a de-navalized version of the F-18, known as the F-18L. By removing the carrier specific features of the F-18 the F-18L would have gained a wing loading advantage and improved performance. The F-35 family offers a unique opportunity to increase maneuverability by reducing wing loading.

Only time will tell if something like the F-35D will come to pass.


15 year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces. I now write to let the thoughts in my head get out where I can see 'em. :)

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Canadian Forces, CDN POLI, RCAF, World Affairs
3 comments on “F-35 Musings, what’s Missing?
  1. I am wondering if ,at least in USAF service why it would be so important to increase the wing loading as the A/C will be used as a lead sled rather that a dogfighter. I presume that the ACM will for the most part be left to the F22 and that the ‘F’35 will be the ordnance delivery of choice. Wrong of me?


  2. Wing loading of the F-35 makes it likely that it will always have some disadvantage over it’s rivals. That’s why I concentrated on increasing available energy (thrust) and reduced wing loading. Remember, against a peer-level adversary such as Russia, the F-35 may well face aircraft with super-maneuverability. It will need every bit of performance it can wring out.


  3. kev says:

    From what ive been reading that wasnt the full aerodynamic performance of the jet, The leaked report even has the pilot mentioning “increasing” the performance and the fact that the aircraft wasnt at any max stress limits.

    Which means they just need to look at how the F-35 reacted here, tweak the FCS laws, and do it again until they eventually develop reliable dog fighting tactics for its strengths.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow DefenceMuse on WordPress.com
Canadian ~ American Strategic Review

CASR has announced that it will cease operations on 31/December/2016.

I have grateful to have been given the opportunity to write for them, and to repost my material on Defence Muse.

Previous Posts
July 2015
« Jun   Aug »
%d bloggers like this: