Slashdot Mirror
F-35 Might Be Outperformed By Fourth-Generation Fighters
savuporo writes: Defensetech.org posted a story relaying a report from National Security Network titled "Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program". According to the story, F-35 is outperformed or showing only slight advantages in simulations and limited real-life tests by decades old 4th-generation fighters like F-16 and F18, but also MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, that are of course made by Russia and latter also produced in China.
The story also refers back to earlier report last month of F-35 performing poorly in dogfights. "In one simulation subcontracted by the RAND Corporation, the F-35 incurred a loss exchange ratio of 2.4–1 against Chinese Su-35s. That is, more than two F-35s were lost for each Su-35 shot down."
Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?
It's like saying my car sucks because I can't use a crank to start the engine like the old cars could.
"Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
Actually they do. It was called the F-22. It was killed in favor of the (supposedly cheaper and as effective) F-35.
Of course the problem with both jets is that they're way too expensive compared to earlier jets the US already has. Plus the F-22 only works in clear, cloudless skies (rain ablates the stealth paint) and only if you never cross the International Date Line.
So while there was a 5th generation jet that could take on 4th generation jets, it was killed due to be an overpriced boondoggle. Its replacement is a new overpriced boondoggle that doesn't even manage to fill the role it was supposed to.
My personal favorite F-35 issue is that the F-35B model can't fly in areas where it might be struck by lightning, because that could cause the fuel tanks to explode.
I'm not sure the Joint Strike Fighter is designed for dog fights in the first place. I think they're conceived to engage enemy aircraft beyond visible range and function more as a networked fighter platform. In a lecture on flying the F-35, David Berke made the point that to be tactically successful in an F-35 he had to change his approach to combat flying versus his previous experience flying Hornets. He described the learning curve as: 1 month loving it because it was new, followed by 6 months hating it because he felt like he didn't know what he was doing anymore, followed by another 6 months during which he got the hang of the new approach.
There's also talk that the F-35 could be getting a new engine in the 2020s which will improve its performance.
The F-22 wasn't "killed". They just decided not to make as many as they originally intended. That happens with every big ticket military program - they always pad the numbers so they can divide out the development costs over more units to make it look cheaper than it really is.
The F35 is a merely a demonstration of the fallacy that combining everything into a single platform or department reduces costs or makes things more efficient.
Often things work better broken up with different things specializing in different things.
A tank, that is also an artillery piece, that is also a troop carrier, that is also a scout, that is also... its going to be shitty at everything and very expensive.
What killed the F35 was the inclusion of two very difficult features.
Stealth and VTOL. both of these things make a plane slower, less maneuverable in dog fights, and able to carry less weaponry.
The F35 should have been about five or six different airplanes.
First, the value of the stealth appears to be debatable. If the F15 eagle can see the F35 and engage it then where is the stealth? The need for that feature in a work horse is debatable in and of itself.
Second, the only people that care about VTOL are the marines and the british navy.
So those are two separate planes. Have a stealth plane for stealth stuff. Have a VTOL workhorse for the marines and the brits. I think Boeing was pitching one as a replacement to the harrier.
We go on from there. But the notion that you save money by having one plane is false. Look at the old Vietnam era planes. They are relatively cheap to maintain, cheap to replace if we want to do that, still very effective, and each one only suffers attrition when it is employed in what it does best. Which means the plane suffers LESS attrition than a generalized plane because a specialized plane is designed to take certain threats. A warthog is going to take more punishment than an F35 before being dropped by ground fire.
So yeah... split the plane up. Realize what we need version of... because a lot of our old hardware is actually fine. And then do the thing we need a new version of.
The big thing of US military doctrine is getting air superiority. We get that, its game over. Our old heavy ground support planes can come in and just pound the shit out of the ground targets with impunity. And while that's happening our armor rolls in if required... not confronting enemy armor, but largely disorganized ground troops.
The focus should be on getting air superiority. That's where you need the high tech hardware. After that... the enemy is meat.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No F35 variant is VTOL. One variant is STOVL, but they scrapped the VTOL idea early on because the engineering costs were prohibitive.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
And that's the point that's being missed in this discussion, the fact that the US hasn't really gone up against anyone in head-to-head air combat since the Vietnam War
You mean except for the first Gulf War? While it was a huge mismatch the Iraqi air force had plenty of Mig-29, Mig-25, Mig-23 and Mirage F1 fighters which were reasonably modern at the time of the conflict. 36 Iraqi aircraft were shot down in aerial combat. That counts as going head to head even if the outcome was decidedly lopsided.
Honestly there are only a handful of countries that really could go head to head with US airpower and have a prayer of not getting massacred and even then it would really only be over their home country or close to it. The US has more planes, (generally) better planes and pilots as well trained as any in the world PLUS better infrastructure like AWACS and refueling, not to mention exactly half the worlds supply of aircraft carriers.
Nonsense. The US spends over $600 billions/year on military. China spends only 216 and Russia 84. The US could still have the most powerful military on earth while cutting the budget by half. France and the UK both have a great military with only 60 billions/year. Last I checked they weren't using slingshots.
No F35 variant is VTOL.
Well... except for the STOVL variant. It's not normally used, but it is most definitely capable of VTOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Um, you realize that the USAF intentionally equips its stealth aircraft with devices that will make them visible to radar when they perform in airshows and participate in international war games, right? This is not only done for safety reasons, but also to make sure that foreign nations can't get a look at the true radar signature of the aircraft.
That's not to say that American stealth aircraft can't be tracked by radar, because they can. But normally they're not tracked well enough for a weapons release quality lock, or they don't detect them until they're close enough to be killed first.