Replies

None of this ultimately proves the F-35 is a good program, or that the Air Force is in good shape. It is a question of whether Spinney and Sprey got it right this time after getting it wrong so many other times, and when they give no credit to the RMA capabilities of this system. Instead, they analyze it strictly according the criteria of visual range dogfighting with guns, as if that were the entire air combat envelope.

I agree with all that, especially check out this video here.

Nonetheless, the point about the fog of war meaning we still CAN'T TOTALLY rely on missiles (AMRAAM or not)...especially if you run out of them...and need to be able to truly dog fight...with guns... is one I am taking seriously. I think we all know Boyd and his "fighter mafia" would be taking a dim view of these negatives in the F-35.

We most likely are going to continue to see this chestnut pop up from the West Australian:

The West Australian reported this month that RAND gave a presentation to a secret military exercise in Hawaii last month that workshopped how the US and other nations would respond should China attack Taiwan. RAAF personnel took part.
The presentation said the JSF was "double inferior relative to modern Russian-Chinese fighter designs in visual range combat", had "inferior acceleration, inferior climb (and) inferior sustained turn capability" and that it "can't turn, can't climb, can't run".

Fortunately RAND denied it all. But there is a a whiff of smoke here...and where there is smoke...

That was a very interesting video. “Let the missiles do the turning.”

The other night the Military Channel had their show about the top ten tanks. The discussion of the German Tiger tank in WWII was reminiscent of this discussion. It was by far the technical superior of any other vehicle at the time, but was so heavy and so expensive and hard to make that they couldn’t make enough of them - an historical example supporting the “Reformers” position.

Regards,