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."
When reading articles about the F-35, you have to remember that the term "Fourth Generation" and "Fifth Generation" are terms that Lockheed Martin came up with to provide some marketing cachet for the F-22 and F-35.
There is no strong definition for the term and the best description that I seen is that "Fifth Generation" fighters employ stealth and undetectable communications. This definition is used with the F-35 to indicate that it will sneak up to enemy aircraft and launch missiles before the enemy aircraft know that it is there - the F-35 doesn't have the dog fighting capabilities of the F-22 or that of other fighters.
People seem to forget that the F-35's capabilities were first defined after the first Gulf War in which F-16s and other fighter-bombers could not detect Scud missile launchers or approach ones that were detected by other platforms before being detected and the launchers moved out of harm's way or camouflaged in such a way that they couldn't be detected. Then deciding that the basic platform could be extended to a SVTOL for the Marines and a carrier aircraft further doomed it's ability to maneuver effectively against other aircraft that were designed for air-air combat.
Unfortunately, the US(AF) has put all its eggs into the F-35 basket. I don't see there being a lot of opportunities to order more F-16s or F-15s (with the F-22 line shut down).
This means that in future conflicts, the US may lose the "air dominance" that has been used in war planning over the last fifty years.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
So they did their thrust/weight and wing loading comparison by loading all jets with 50% of internal fuel.
This comparison favours planes with small internal fuel tanks.
F-35 has huge internal fuel tanks, it can fly much longer with internal fuel than most other jet fighters (which need external fuel tanks, which are NOT calculated in these numbers) to fly as far.
Load all jets with amount of fuel that makes them fly about equally far and the numbers switch considerably, on favour of F-35.
I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight. That is the metric upon which it is being judged here.
Similarly, an ICBM is a poor tool to handle smugglers off the coast of the US. You can judge the concept of a fighter plane as irrelevant in 2015-2037 (the period over which they are being delivered), but your initial statement, "Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?" can be simplified down to, "Why is aerial combat a parameter in assessing a plane intended for the role of aerial combat?"
The answer to that simplified question is: Because that's the slot of functionality it is intended for.
But you probably meant to ask, "Why are we making 5th generation fighters anyway?" That's a good question, but I'd suspect that the answer is primarily because they are still used worldwide today in shows of force and occasional engagement. They are scrambled now when commercial jetliners go radio silent, ever since they were used as weapons on US soil.
Another aspect is that military forces are intended to be functional -- but also showy, so they can be used to intimidate. And intimidation is a tool of emotion, not logic. There are strange quasi-engagements between many countries on their borders to show intent to defend, and fighter planes are often used in that capacity. Being intimidating also helps your own forces. Fighter pilots are perceived as badasses, and a young person's gut instinct is to want to have the badasses on your side when you're being ordered to throw your body into armed conflict.
This is also related to why all branches still have swords as a ceremonial part of their formal uniforms, and they are used in situations like honor guards and events of historical or great personal importance. Military might is not a video game or board game with simple stats. It's sloppy and human, and involves more diplomats and mistakes affecting it than simple white room simulations tend to account for.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
TFA actually does state the RCS for the F117 (it's about 30x larger than the F35)
And most F35s are not VTOL, few are. Still, damage to the stealth coating will reduce stealtiness, so operating out of primitive conditions will degrade the aircraft's capabilities, what with gravel chewing up the paint (or ingesting the gravel into the engine)
What is the price per unit of an F22 v F35, and annual operating cost of an F22 v F35?
It would have been cheaper to navalize the F22 and expand production, leaving the F35 for only the Marines There's the FB22 proposal
F-35 is not meant to be a mission-specific airplane. It's meant to do many different things, and do each one of them very poorly in the name of saving cost.
Oh wait... it doesn't save cost either. In fact it is orders of magnitude more expensive than 4th gen fighters. But, look at the bright said, at least it's an economic boon for certain well-connected congressional districts.
I don't think anybody in the AF believes that F-35 seriously replaces the A-10. It was just an excuse to get rid of A-10. The Air Force simply wants out of CAS business, hoping that the Army helicopters and precision strike from fighter-bomber jets will be good enough.
Even though AF's main job for the last 20 years was about trucking the American troops and equipment back and forth to the site of deployment as well as providing CAS operations, the Air Force generals hate to be seen that way. Their minds are flying in the blue skies, where the non-existing glorious dog fights will be happening between super duper high tech fighter jets. That's why they spend their brain power so much on procuring those fighter jets, even though those are the least likely AF aircraft to see any real action.
The whole anti-F35 argument rests on the report that one (1) F117 was shot down by Serbian forces using VHF technology. Otherwise, they are only talking about the possibility of long range tracking... not fire control radar. And in the case of that F117, there was no mention of the effective RCS.
I'm afraid what happened in Serbia is only one example, and it is something that really should never have happened. The radar used there was not particularly sophisticated. If anyone knows they can track a F-35 or F-22 right now then they are going to keep their cards close to their chest.
It gets worse for stealth though. In any major conflict radar and detection systems regularly get updated. The only way to respond to that with an aircraft that relies on stealth features is to take it out of service and change its shape and materials. That just isn't acceptable.
The arguments about dependency on forward bases is destroyed by VTOL capability, a fact that was not even touched on in the discussion.
Because it is totally irrelevant. VTOL in the F-35 is an even bigger joke because it had made an already ineffectual plane a sitting duck by making it even bulkier, less aerodynamic and heavier.
Similarly, while it was mentioned that the F18 could drop external fuel tanks in combat, no mention was made of the fact that the F35 could drop (or fire) external munitions in a similar situation.
The F-35 can carry less payload. It's as simple as that.
Similarly, while it was mentioned that the F18 could drop external fuel tanks in combat, no mention was made of the fact that the F35 could drop (or fire) external munitions in a similar situation.
The F-35 can carry less payload. It's as simple as that.
I should clarify this and say that if the F-35 carries external munitions it completely loses any stealth advantage it has. So, you have an inferior aircraft that has lost its supposed primary advantage that it almost solely relies on. Not great.
It's apples and oranges; the F35 and F22 were built to do two different jobs. The F22 is a no-compromises air superiority fighter with very limited (initially *no*) ground attack capabilities. The F35 is supposed to be a versatile multi-role workhorse that can attack ground targets and defend itself on its way to and from those targets. The role for the F22 is to sweep the skies of enemy aircraft at the start of a conflict, after which they have limited utility; you only need so many of them.
So you can't substitute the F22 for the F35, although if the F35 had lived up to its hype you could go the other way. The F22 could be adapted to *some* of the F35's roles, but that wouldn't save money. The F22 costs more than most WW2 aircraft carriers did, even adjusting for inflation.
What's more the F22 simply can't be adapted for the Marine Corps's needs. They need a modern, stealthy replacement for the Harrier jump jet that can be operated from amphibious assault ships (aka "helicopter carriers") and hastily improvised forward air bases.
Here's a crazy scenario: suppose you decide to invade Iran. You can't just sail your carrier up to the northern end of the Persian Gulf to support your drive to Tehran, the way we did on the way to Baghdad. You'd have to sail that carrier past 300 miles of Iraqi shoreline dotted with advanced anti-ship defenses in waters crawling with mini-subs. And it's a long, long way over rough terrain to get from the Gulf of Oman to Tehran in the extreme north of the country. Imagine fighting your way from New York City to Chicago, only the terrain in between was all mountains. So you land a Marine expeditionary force at the Gulf of Oman that fights its way northwest along the Persian Gulf. After they capture the shore batteries, you bring in your destroyers to clear out the mini-subs and then bring in your carriers.
Now that expeditionary force needs close air support and ground attack capabilities, and it needs to have them in an environment where the enemy has extensive, state of the art anti-aircraft missile installations. The logic for a Marine stealth jump jet in this scenario is compelling; what's questionable is trying to make that aircraft work for everyone else.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Imperial is a matter of debate.
Are you saying that these forces are hostile to local population. Are they conquering troop? That is a defining characteristic of imperial.
Would you rather move to (or have grown up in) North Korea (which stayed free from American Imperialism) or move (or have grown up in ) South Korea? You know, according to you, a country under the boot of American Imperialism?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
You are stepping close to the "dirty little secret" of the USAF, that the F15 on up they have had to put limiters on the planes lower than its real abilities because the simple fact is the planes can pull off moves that will kill the pilot, the meatsack behind the stick just can't handle what the plane is actually capable of.
This is why building new planes (instead of simply building more of the teen series) is not only wasteful its pointless, the planes we have now can already do more than any human body can take. instead of pissing more money down a rathole for the F35 we should simply buy more of the teen series and if the fighter jocks still want their 1980s "stealth" tech? Just buy the F15 Silent Eagle which the last numbers I saw showed you could buy 3 of them for less than the cost of a single F35 and still have change left over.
And am I the only one who feels like we are taking pages from the playbook of the Axis in WWII and making the same dumb moves? Instead of building affordable planes we keep sinking billions into "wonder weapons" that have the exact same outcome as the 262 and Panther in that they 1.- Cost too much per unit, 2.- Are VERY prone to breakdown so 3.- They spend more time in the shop than they do in battle so 4.- The enemy will always outnumber them by dozens if not hundreds to one. We have gotten lucky that the only ones we have been fighting are goat herders, because if we fought somebody like Russia or China with an abundance of fourth gen fighters? Our new toys would be facing 20+ to 1 odds and probably get spanked right out of the sky.
With modern combat the way it is, it is very difficult for rising brass to make a name for themselves. In WWII, Korea, even Vietnam, very heavy air- to air combat and massive bombing campaigns allowed officers to build reputations and further their careers. Commanding a squadron with a couple aces in it will fasttrack you for promotion, so will orchestrating the logistics of a 6-month bombing campaign. Hell, even running a bunch of successful Wild Weasel type attacks will get you medals and promotions real quick. But strafing missions against a convoy of technicals or dropping a couple bombs on some mortar or rocket positions, what does that get you? These days, the only way to boost a career and get your name out there is to get it attached to a major acquisition program. What's a couple billion dollars in tax payer money wasted if it gets you an extra star on your collar, makes you powerful friends on Capital Hill, and secures you a good consulting job after you retire?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Stealth was a great idea. It was conceived to provide first strike capability to nuclear bombers in the face of comprehensive air defence networks. That niche was short term, until ballistic missiles took over, the stealth tech didn't have to face a drawn out war where the enemy could innovate (he got one look at the bombers on radar, then boom) and it didn't have to be perfect, it just had to increase the number of planes that could get through.
It's not a horrible idea for an interceptor like the F-22, or a specialized first strike attack jet like the F117. Making serious compromises for stealth in your workhorse fighter? That doesn't seem so smart.