No, the F-35 Can’t Fight at Long Range, Either

The Pentagon’s new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is dead meat in a close battle against even a dated two-seat F-16D fighter jet, according to a scathing test pilot report War Is Boring obtained.

Don’t sweat it, JSF-maker Lockheed Martin responded. “The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances,” Lockheed’s F-35 team wrote in a press release on July 1.

My views on the F-35 (that I had posted on another thread).

It's difficult for me to post on any thread relating to the F-35. For one, I always strive to cut through bias and evaluate something on merit (based on available information, of course), and that is definitely a difficult task when it comes to the F-35.

Why?

Well, in quick-point form:

1) The F-35 as a great plane: The F-35 will 100% guaranteed be a great plane, but with a very important caveat. That the US continues to engage the countries it has fought against militarily in the last three and a half decades. The likes of Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, etc. In essence, nations that really do not have advanced technological ability (or even anything close to parity - e.g. B-1B bombers sending JDAMs against Taliban positions in what may as well have been evil magic to the Tallies), have a qualitative mismatch (e.g. the NATO forces in the Balkans), have a quantitative mismatch (e.g. the Allied forces, which had a multitude of countries, including little Niger, against Iraq), a total dominance of situational awareness (looking at Iraq again, the Iraqi MiGs didn't even have radar-warning-receivers, and they were up against allied AWACS), proper battle strategy, etc. If the US/West continues to engage such countries, then the F-35 will have a superlative record and will be an amazing plane. Goodness, even an upgraded F-4 Phantom would be a wonderful platform in such a case! Thus, that is the F-35 as a great fighter, and as I mentioned, I 100% guarantee that as long as that caveat is maintained.

2) The F-35 as a great fighter that was betrayed by reality, time and cost: What do I mean here? Well, simply put, the JSF project that gave birth to the F-35 has to be looked at as originally envisioned. What was the original plan? Well, you would have the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter, which gave birth to the YF-22/23 competition that was won by the F-22) breaking down doors and destroying any advanced opposition, and the ATF would be supported by the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter, which gave birth to the X-32/35 competition that was won by the F-35). Thus, it was envisioned to have hundreds of ATFs supported by thousands of JSFs. Reality? The F-22 numbers were decimated from over 800 to less than 183-187 (due to crashes), and now the JSF (F-35) has to cover roles that were intended for the ATF (F-22) such as air-dominance. Now, there is a reason the ATF had a long list of attributes requested ...such as supercruise, high stealth, maneuverability etc, because it was meant to be the absolute best bar none. The JSF, on the other hand, was to have relatively good stealth, a great sensor suite, and be able to support the ATF. Now, the JSF project also has to be the ATF project as there are not enough F-22s. This means that the F-35 is being judged against something it was not meant to cover had reality not changed ...it is like a top NFL team being asked to play at the Soccer World Cup. They can do the job, but they will never be super. Maybe a better analogy would be comparing an F1 car (Raptor) go a Nascar vehicle (35). Both fast vehicles, but a Nascar vehicle would never do well in a F1 race (too slow and not maneuverable enough). The attributes that make it work for Nascar are punitive for F1.

3) The F-35 as a dog: Finally, the F-35 as a dog. There are two ways of looking at this:

a) the first is the program itself, and I will channel a FReeper called PukinDog who (a DECADE AGO) listed all the issues the F-35 is facing today. The program has been a failure in terms of meeting its targets ranging from systems/avionics to weight management. And then there is budget, which is sad considering one of the reasons the F-22 was cancelled was cost ... Also, apparently they have had to shift their judgement metrics several times for the F-35 to 'pass,' and I suspect that the fact the (clean configuration) F-35 was fighting against a F-16 with fuel tanks attached was another example of 'fudging' the test. Anyways, the program has encountered a lot of difficulty, which is something many military systems go through ...but the F-35 (as opposed to other systems, like the Abrams tank, Seawolf sub, and even F-22, that had difficulties as well) is having its difficulties in fundamental areas, which is the main difference from the three I have mentioned. That is troubling.

b) the second issue is how the F-35 will fare against top-level global threats. I am not talking about the usual Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya hammering, but rather a war against a near-peer adversary that actually has working sh!t. For example, a war with China or Russia. Those are countries that will have working systems and that have been working towards an anti-US solution. Now, I know on FR many are quick to say that the US would 'crush' China/Russia (and I believe the US would win btw, just that it would not be easy), but ask yourself if that is the case then why is the US so hesitant at 'smacking' the likes of Iran, north Korea and Pakistan? Yes, I know ...they have nuclear weapons would be the most likely response (even though it ignores that China/Russia have more than those three countries combined, but this is not the place to discuss lack of logical congruence). But Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons currently, so why not go in and 'smack' them? Because they have a military that the US could quickly dismantle, but at cost. It is never as simple as what people in forums think! The Gulf War turkey shoot that had the Allied forces hammer Saddam's forces still left 75 Allied aircraft (including 52 fixed wing aircraft) shot down, and that was against an Iraq that had a SAM system that was created to prevent a small-scale attack from Iran and/or Israel. Now, imagine the Chinese integrated air-defense system. Simply put, the only fighter jet currently known to be flying that can survive a Chinese IADS is the F-22, and even then it would be at the edge of the IADS engagement envelop. Sure, war is never about one asset ...it is an integrated system, and the US military machine would have launched hundreds of tomahawks to degrade the IADS, launched all sorts of cyber attacks to cripple the network, etc etc etc ...if we know this China knows this as well. It would never be that easy, and the F-35 acting as both JSF and ATF would have a hard time to put it mildly.

Thus, what's my conclusion?

Simply that the F-35 was intended to be a great plane as originally envisioned, it has been let down by reality (cancellation of continued ATF production) and rising costs/weight/timelines. However, even though the F-35 would have a difficult time in Russian or Chinese airspace, it WILL BE a great fighter due to the simple reason that it will be used against the likes of Libya, Afgahnistan and Iraq, countries that at most need a B-52H, and at worst need an F-15 with supporting F-16 Wild Weasel support and an occasional smattering of Tomahawks.

Interesting.

Not a great fighter, agree, but unlike you I don't think it ever will be, given its flaws and multi-mission requirements (replacing the A-10 for CAS? Replacing the F-18? Talking about replacing the F-15E. Replacing the Harrier. Etc.. .). It's the F-111 all over again.

Interesting issues you bring up and I see one other program that experienced similar issues: the F-22 (”not a pound for a/g”).

The F-22 is THE premiere A/A fighter and can perform a limited stand-alone strike using internal weapons.

Like the JSF, the F-22 fell victim to cancellation of the original number of buys and caused significant increases in cost, not degradation in capability.

So, I think the existing issues of the JSF, especially CAS issues where it is ineffective if it carries a standard CAS load (JDAMS, SDBs, whatever) because that requires external loads and loss of 5th generation capability (L/O).

Can't carry inrtwernally enough to perform anything other than limited strike unless it carries external. That means like CAS, loss of LO and 5th Gen capability.

Pukin had it right, over-weight, over-sized, under-powered and over-promised.

Thing is, it will never be effective as it was promised but we have invested too much economic and political capital in the jet that we can't let it fail. And that goes for JSF partner nations as well.

Just MHO. . .

Pukin Dog was either a prophet (and with a 100% success record), or he was somehow involved in the program and knew the deficiencies were nigh-insurmountable. I believe he is/was a pilot too (I use 'was' because he disappeared during one of those regular 'purges' FReerepublic used to go through many years back ...I hope the man is okay wherever he is).

Anyway, Pukin Dog was 100% on the mark! He went out on a limb and made a lot of assertions that at the time had nothing to back them up, and ten years (10 years!) later his statements then have come true.

Amazing man!

As for the F-35, I still say it will be a success. For the simple reasons I made, particularly my first point. That it will be used against nations that an upgraded F-4 Phantom uses JDAM-kitted bombs and SDBs would be able to effectively engage and terminate. Add to that the quantitative and qualitative advantage that would be brought against such countries (i.e. the likes of Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, etc), and the layered situational awareness and materiel available, the F-35 will be more than a match for any of those countries.

Not only that, it would even be extremely effective even against an attack on the likes of Iran and/or Pakistan (I include Pakistan as it is a significantly greater threat than Iran no matter what the media says). Iran and Pakistan have more advanced IADS than Iraq had at the peak of Saddam's reign (both in terms of extent of coverage, potency of threat, and advancement of radars/missiles), but the F-35 would still be very effective against those two nations. Again, it has to be considered that it will not be operating by itself. After the cruise missile and electronic attacks, and the B-2s and F-22s with SDBs taking out any 'hard/dangerous' targets, the F-35 will be more than enough to take any F-14s/MiGs Iran may have, or any F-16s/FC-1s Pakistan may have, and pound ground targets.

Easily.

Thus, unless F-35s are used against the likes of China or Russia, which will NEVER happen, then it will go down as a success. Even with all its various flaws, in a real war, rather than a one-on-one fight, there is nothing that the likes of Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, Panama, etc field that stands a chance against a US attack that includes, among a LOT of other assets, F-35s. Simply nothing. Not in terms of air-to-air (a top-of-spear comprised of F-16s, SU-27s and MiG-29s will not work against a US air-campaign that includes F-35s, among other planes), and the most advanced IADS of the bunch is probably the Pakistani IADS, and it got spooked like a joke during the Osama raid (according to some sources it got turned off and 'they didn't know how').

The F-35 will be a 'success,' regardless of its many faults.

Now, if there is ever a US/Japan attack against Beijing, or a NATO thrust against Moscow, then it will get interesting. But that will never happen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.