Replies

Another cherry-picked hit piece from the War is Boring crowd.

Some of the scenarios described in after-action report are completely unrealistic. Gun track? I don’t think there has been an air-to-air kill using a gun since the Vietnam War; in that conflict, we discovered that a gun was still useful because the reliability of air-to-air missiles (particularly the AIM-7) was poor. On several occasions, F-4 pilots had to transition to a maneuvering, WVR engagement because their AIM-7s failed to guide on the target.

Since then, the reliability of our AAMs (particularly AMRAAM variants and the AIM-9X) have improved dramatically. So, the vast majority of future engagements will be fought in the beyond visual range (BVR) arena, and that’s where the F-35 should have an advantage.

The key is situational awareness—preventing the other guy from jumping you and establishing a turning, within-visual-range (WVR) fight from the onset. And once again, the War is Boring gang cherry picks their info.

Flying in a many-v-many exercise like Red Flag (or actual combat), the F-35 is going to be networked into a vast array of sensors, like the F-22. The data gives them a “God’s-eye view” of the fight, with various tracks color-coded as friendly, hostile or unknown. By comparison, the JTIDS data link (and AWACS/Rivet Joint radio calls) used by the F-15 and F-16 are helpful, but they don’t have the big picture view you get in F-35 cockpit. That information helps the pilot assess the tactical environment and make the right decisions.

To be fair, the F-35 has its deficiencies; many of the planned upgrades that will further improve combat capabilities won’t occur until later production blocks, early in the next decade. And it’s very obvious that we made a huge mistake in limiting F-22 production to 187 aircraft. You’ll recall that critics said the Raptor was too expensive and didn’t deliver enough bang for the buck.

Now, it’s hard to find someone who won’t sing its praises, loud and long. As one USAF aggressor pilot told The Atlantic a few years ago, “I saw a Raptor just the other day; it was passing overhead, just after it called me dead.”

I’m waiting for War is Boring to post the results of the F-35 versus F-16, with the Lightning II in full stealth mode, and both carrying AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs. Then, let’s see what the kill ratio is...

Another cherry-picked hit piece from the War is Boring crowd. Some of the scenarios described in after-action report are completely unrealistic. Gun track? I don’t think there has been an air-to-air kill using a gun since the Vietnam War; in that conflict, we discovered that a gun was still useful because the reliability of air-to-air missiles (particularly the AIM-7) was poor. On several occasions, F-4 pilots had to transition to a maneuvering, WVR engagement because their AIM-7s failed to guide on the target. Since then, the reliability of our AAMs (particularly AMRAAM variants and the AIM-9X) have improved dramatically. So, the vast majority of future engagements will be fought in the beyond visual range (BVR) arena, and that’s where the F-35 should have an advantage. The key is situational awareness—preventing the other guy from jumping you and establishing a turning, within-visual-range (WVR) fight from the onset. And once again, the War is Boring gang cherry picks their info. Flying in a many-v-many exercise like Red Flag (or actual combat), the F-35 is going to be networked into a vast array of sensors, like the F-22. The data gives them a “God’s-eye view” of the fight, with various tracks color-coded as friendly, hostile or unknown. By comparison, the JTIDS data link (and AWACS/Rivet Joint radio calls) used by the F-15 and F-16 are helpful, but they don’t have the big picture view you get in F-35 cockpit. That information helps the pilot assess the tactical environment and make the right decisions. To be fair, the F-35 has its deficiencies; many of the planned upgrades that will further improve combat capabilities won’t occur until later production blocks, early in the next decade. And it’s very obvious that we made a huge mistake in limiting F-22 production to 187 aircraft. You’ll recall that critics said the Raptor was too expensive and didn’t deliver enough bang for the buck. Now, it’s hard to find someone who won’t sing its praises, loud and long. As one USAF aggressor pilot told The Atlantic a few years ago, “I saw a Raptor just the other day; it was passing overhead, just after it called me dead.” I’m waiting for War is Boring to post the results of the F-35 versus F-16, with the Lightning II in full stealth mode, and both carrying AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs. Then, let’s see what the kill ratio is...

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 many 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 etc 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: 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 187 (since one crashed), 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.

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). 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.

Thus, the F-35 will go down as a great fighter.