The US's Stealth Fighter (F-35) Is Too Heavy and Slow

Vice.com ^ | Adam Clark Estes

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Pentagon's pursuit of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet has been a heartbreaking one. If you're a tax payer, the program's estimated $1 trillion price tag probably breaks your heart a little bit. If you're an aviation enthusiast, the constant whittling away of the do-it-all aircraft's features, which in many cases actually amounts to adding weight and taking away maneuverability, must hurt a little bit, too.

If you're just an everyday American, though, you should be downright shattered that after a decade and a fortune spent, the F-35 will actually be more vulnerable than the aircraft it's replacing. At this point, the Pentagon is literally rewriting its rulebook so that the dumbed-down super jet will pass muster.

The Defense Department's annual weapons testing report reveals that the military actually adjusted the performance specifications for the consistently-underperforming line of F-35 fighter jets. In other words, they couldn't get the jets to do what they were supposed to do, so they just changed what they were supposed to do.

[donmeaker]

Look at the wing loading of the F-35 and you will note that it is darned similar to the F-105.

But without the top end speed (which is worthless now because of improvement in IR missiles) and with a lot more non-sustained maneuverability to give a first look first shot capability from long range.

If you can get him to miss that shot, you could close and do him some damage with superior maneuverability, perhaps.

Or he could shoot you again....

[GeronL]

I understand all that, but I hope they start improving the US versions sooner rather than later.

[af_vet_rr]

Contrast with the F22, which performs way over spec. And which Obama killed.

The F-35 is performing way over spec - it feels like it was designed to spread a lot of taxpayer money around and make a lot of folks rich, and it appears to be doing just that. Sure, on paper, it started out as a great aircraft, but then a lot of people began dipping their hand into the recipe, adding a little of this, taking out a little of that, and before you know what, we get this monstrosity jack of all trades, master of none.

Mission creep, it's what's for dinner.

[haole]

they should cancel the pig and buy SU35s, probably can get them for a good price. the navy went for 2 seaters and got a pig, the F4, and kept the great F8 around for fighter escort, a truly classic design. they bought F18s to replace the Ao6, A7s, and the f18 can do neither role.
the F111, even in the F model never came close to meeting range and perf goals. they loaded up anF111 with4 multi ejector racks of iron bombs, and said it could carry the same load as teh B52, but ALSO do M2.0. macnamara was a real piece of shit.
stealth is a first wave threat. the later waves can be less stealthy and use drop tanks, wing mounted stores. the stealths are always payload limited by their internal capacity, small. the A12 fisaco tried to solve that with a huge delta wing that would have made it nearly impossible to land on the carriers it was supposed to operate out of.

[GeronL]

have you guys ever heard of the proposed B-1R?

it would follow F-22’s into combat and let the F22’s use the B-1 radar and fire the 20 AMRAAM missles the B-1R would carry from long range. It’d be a missile truck.

Too bad this ability wasn’t included in the US versions of the F35, as far as we know anyways

[cunning_fish]

>>>>The US’s Stealth Fighter (F-35) Is Too Heavy and Slow<<<<

It is not surprising considering a fact that JSF was based on a Russian platform (Yak-141) rejected by Soviet Navy for exactly same reason in late 1980s. LM has bought this technology from bankrupt Russian company in earlier 1990s.

[CharlesWayneCT]

You have to wonder how some blogger posting on blogspot managed to get top-secret plane specifications, and leak them without anybody noticing.

[cunning_fish]

>>>>they should cancel the pig and buy SU35s, probably can get them for a good price. the navy went for 2 seaters and got a pig, the F4, and kept the great F8 around for fighter escort, a truly classic design. they bought F18s to replace the Ao6, A7s, and the f18 can do neither role.<<<<

Su-35 is an overpriced badly finished aircraft too. Perfornance is pretty impressive but manufacturing quality is way below Western standard and a price of 85 million a pop. It makes sense for communist nations who can’t get the best from the Free World which is the latest F-15.

F-18 is a dog as well. I think it was a first of both sides killed in air-to-air combat during the Gulf War. It was punked by a 1960s Mig.

[MHalblaub]

The F-35 has been on the drawing board for over a decade (IIRC). It took 27 months to go from a paper napkin to an operation craft called the SR-71.

At that time engineers don't use CAD and weren't forced to make Power Point progress reports.
Most important: the man in charge did listen to the engineers.
Example for not listening: STS-51-L

[MHalblaub]

Then why is carbon what's left over when I have a camp-fire?

Because your fire wasn't well. Charcoal is unburnt wood. Ash from a good fire won't contain carbon. Burnt carbon is CO2 or carbon dioxide.

[MHalblaub]

Something more to read:

“F-35’s air-to-air ability limited”
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.de/2013/06/f-35s-air-to-air-ability-limited.html

[spetznaz]

Good point Donmeaker. Over the last couple of decades, weapons and systems that were created with the perspective of facing off agaisnt a near-peer adversary, in that case the Soviet Union, generally found themselves employed solely against what you termed as 'colonial wars' against the likes of Grenada, Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Bosnia, etc. The closest it ever came to a real peer-on-peer was via a proxy war - the Korean War when Americans flying early generation jets faced off against Soviets flying earely generation jets. In virtually every other case it was weaponry intended for use against a formidable, technologically-capable adversary, going against a foe that was at one of two levels. The first 'colonial' level was that of an adversary at the level of blindly firing Kalashnikovs and hoping Allah guided the bullets, with good examples here being Afganistan, Somalia, and Iraq after the fall of Saddam. Whereby there was absolutely no threat to the US apart from threats to infrantry on the ground and infantry mobility augmentation ...e.g. say IEDS taking out HMMWVs or a golden-shot RPG clipping a helicopter. Apart from firefights with infantry, and IEDs/golden shots, there was absolutely no risk at all to the other major arms of the military, for example the airforce, navy, etc. The second type of 'colonial' event was against a third-world country with some capability, but none that would cause any real concern to the likes of the US. A good example is Iraq before the fall of Saddam, which had a good SAM system that did succeed at bringing down a number of coalition planes before it was finally taken out. The problem with that system - called KARI - was that it was originally meant to prevent a limited strike, similar to the ones from Israel and Iran targeted against Iraqi nuclear sites. Thus, it had no chance whatsoever to begin with.

Anyways, my point is this. While it is ok (very good actually) to use weapons intended for near-peer superlative enemies against people relying on Allah-guided-bullets, it is a whole other story when there is a shift towards weapons intended for a low-intensity environment in the event of the rise of a near-peer potential foe like China.

I may be very well wrong, but I fear that the huge success of platforms like the F-15 and Abrams against the likes of Iraq and Bosnia may have convinced some that there is no need for advanced capability since, honestly, upgraded F-4s and juiced M-60 Pattons would have been sufficient. More than sufficient. Hence, why bother with advanced capability when wheeled vehicles like the Stryker and Predator/Reaper evolutions will suffice. On FR I've read posters say the A-10 is all that is needed, when the truth is that the Warthog can only survive in sanitized airspace and against a near-peer wouldn't (I've said enough times about the bet between Apache and Warthog pilots on who would die first if the Soviets ever crossed the Fulda).

Most fights (all fights?) the US has ever been involved in over the last four decades have been against 'colonial' level threats. Thus, it can be assumed that there is no need for advanced capability. The only problem is that it is not a given that there will not be a near-peer, eg China or Russia, that decides to act the fool. Then what? Already the South China Sea is totally off bounds to the US, with only the Virgnia and SeaWolf SSNs, and the Ohio SSBNs and SSGNs, capable of operating there. Surface ships would be risking it, and even the vaunted F-22 couldn't (according to Darpa, since the Chinese would only need to target refueling planes to have the Raptors say hi to Davy Jones once their fuel ran out - even assuming 100% Raptor lethality to the last bullet and 0% Raptor losses).

Past US successes using superlative equipment against third-world foes may make some believe they can have future US success using 'acceptable' equipment against near-peer adversaries.

As for the F-35. It is a good plane, and will be great once the bugs are worked out. However, this will be primarily against the likes of Iran, which is basically at the place Iraq would have been had they been allowed to develop for 20 years after the First Gulf War. Iran has a good integrated air defense network that is better than the Iraqi KARI, and the F-35 would be good in such an event since it has better penetrative abilities than the F-117, and can face off against any jet the Iranians have. It will be great against the Iranians or other similar countries ...such as Egypt for instance, or other countries that have evolved capabilities. And if it will be great against such then it will be bottled magic against the likes of Somalia, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, etc. It might as well be a Genie from some long lost tale.

However, against a near-peer like China and Russia, who according to the Pentagon and Darpa are rapidly developing stealth and (more importantly) counter-stealth technologies, the F-35 may be in for a more even match. I would risk saying that as it currently stands the F-35 is already obsolete against those two countries (and I believe the Chinese managed to hack and get a lot of information on the F-35).

Originally the F-35 was supposed to be a low-end mate to the high-end F-22, but it seems things changed.

I hope that the US always continues facing off against 'colonial' threats, because I fear the first time it faces off against a near-peer will be a shocker. Not that the US will be defeated, but rather that the events of Pearl Harbor will get a more recent refresher.

[GBA]

Past US successes using superlative equipment against third-world foes may make some believe they can have future US success using 'acceptable' equipment against near-peer adversaries.

Sad to say it, but that statement highlights the best weapon any potential foe has for the US of A.

With Pearl Harbor, we could blame isolation and our ignorance of a great many things.

With the next one, and there is always a "next one", we will have only our arrogance and stupidity.

Not to worry. Our P-51s will be more than enough.

[taildragger]

The more I think of it, revisting this baby may have more merit than we realize..

I.E. the proposed Delta Wing Variant for the Israeli's of the F-16.

Think about it.

* Upgrade with the F-119 engine with Supercruise Capability.
* Thrust Vectoring if you want it, possibily.
* Add a robust landing gear like the Swede's and the Ruskie's used to, perhaps the F-18 or A-10 gear for unimproved fields and or maybe even off the carrier deck.
* Speaking of which add a folding wing Option, Carrier Style fold up, not back.

A penny for your thoughts, Fighter Jock and Arm-Chair Aero-Enganeer Freepers....

[GBA]

I think the F-16XL would have been an interesting version. For some reasons, they chose not to develop it.

[MHalblaub]

For some reasons, they chose not to develop it.

The reason is money. Some people can drain more money out of the system with a F-35 than with a F-16XL.

[11th Commandment]

From what I can tell, even if the F-35 isn't hitting the top design wishes, it is still a top aircraft. The concept of the F-35 is difficult because it wants to be all things to all people. The hope is to save money on training and part, and improve battle readiness. The downside of this strategy instead of a fleet concept is you build a Space Shuttle which ultimately only success was when returned to earth and did not kill everyone aboard.

So one would expect so trade-off in design efficiency in an all purpose aircraft. So I am not surprised it can't go toe-to-toe with an F-18 in a dogfight or good as an A-10.

[GBA]

Could be. I thought it was impressive. Still do. Not sure what it would be up against now. There are a lot of F-16s out there. Never know, might make a comeback.

[Redleg Duke]

Like the Osprey, which since it went operational, has dropped off the media radar screen.

The media hates success!

[GBA]

Not only that, most of them will want one of the civilian versions of the V-22's tech. The models in development are sexy, fast and capable. I definitely want one!

By the same token, fly by wire scared everyone, then fly by light scared everyone, and, of course, composite airplanes scared people.

Now, each and all, are accepted and common place in our lives and the formerly fearful are some of their biggest advocates.

There was an incredible amount of education, engineering, testing and money for those things to happen, but good ideas often find a way. This is indeed the age of miracles, just as promised.

Give them their dues, the critics have a place in that process. But you're right, for some reason the media hates our nation's success and a lot of people fall for it and join in.