More F-35 “Good News”
Most TAH readers have heard about that new F-35 “Lightning II” that DoD insists will be ready for prime time “real soon now”. (Yeah, I know the USMC has accepted it and declared it “operational” – but I won’t consider it truly “ready for prime time” until it can perform its Close Air Support [CAS] role too. And as I’ll discuss below, right now the F-35 simply can’t do that.)
Well, it seems that there’s another little minor issue with the platform that’s been made public.
Jonn’s written previously about how the F-35 is less maneuverable in a dogfight than one of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16. Others have written elsewhere about the fact that the F-35 will be far less effective at the Close Air Support (CAS) role than the A-10 – if for no other reason than the F-35 is only designed to carry between 15.5% (USAF model, 182 rounds) and 18.7% (USN/USMC model, 220 rounds) as much cannon ammunition as the A-10 can carry (1,174 rounds).
But it will certainly be better air-to-air against the current aircraft it might face from Russia or China, right? Well, in a word – no.
Turns out that the F-35 will also likely be less maneuverable than the current aircraft from Russia and China it’s expected to face. So it will likely be worse than those aircraft in an air-to-air role, too.
Yeah, the analysis was done by a progressive think tank. So? Remember: they are capable of telling the truth on occasion, too. (smile)
Gee, what a surprise. I mean, the program has been an unmitigated success so far, right?
So, to recap: the F-35 is hugely expensive – several times more expensive than the aircraft it replaces. It’s worse as a CAS platform – and, by the way, it won’t even be available for that role for at least 4 years, as performing that role isn’t possible until gun control software which is projected to be available in 2019 is delivered (and only then if that gun control software works correctly). It is less maneuverable than the F16 it replaces in a dogfight. And it’s also less maneuverable than the foreign aircraft it may have to face in air-to-air combat.
So . . . what’s not to like?
Folks, we’ve seen this “movie” once before. Specifically, we saw it early in Vietnam – when US aircraft, designed not for maneuverability and depending solely on air-to-air missiles to take out enemy aircraft – got absolutely savaged by more maneuverable Soviet designs. (The air-to-air loss ratio early during the Vietnam War was about 1-to-1.) Plus, those aircraft kinda stunk when performing a CAS role, too.
The “movie” absolutely sucked then. There’s a damn good chance we’ll see a modern-day sequel if we continue down this path – and it will suck just as badly as the original.
We learned from that earlier fiasco, though. The result was a new generation of US military aircraft that took those lessons to heart. Those aircraft were the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and the A-10.
The F-35 is a turkey. We need to admit that fact, pull the plug on it, and go back to the drawing board. Yesterday.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Air Force, Marine Corps, Military issues, Navy
Don’t forget the F35 likes its fuel chilled not warm. If a fuel tanker sits in the sun to long and then fills an F35 the jet overheats and shut down on the spot. The brasses fix for that is paint the fuel trucks ice cream truck white and keep them parked in the shade until needed.
Here’s an interesting read on the heat / white fuel tank issue:
https://np.reddit.com/r/military/comments/3getln/f35_thread_bingo/ctxqbxr
Hey, it’s okay, Hondo. We have this guy on patrol.
https://youtu.be/IANwb_qT1gg
Bernastys flight school instructor I thought he died jumping out a basement window.
Squirrel’s a better pilot.
I thought that flight instructor just faked it and refused to answer phone calls.
Where is Bullwinkle?
He’s getting intel on Boris and Natasha’s latest scheme for Fearless Leader…
Kelly Johnson designed the original P-38 Lightning. He would want his name or legacy associated this this flying turd.
Sorry, “would not.”
My God, what is wrong with you people?
The reason for, “the F-35 is only designed to carry between 15.5% (USAF model, 182 rounds) and 18.7% (USN/USMC model, 220 rounds) as much cannon ammunition as the A-10 can carry (1,174 rounds)”, is to comply with the most recent EPA fuel economy standards!
Geeze!
To give some sense of perspective with the gun issue for those not familiar: If you squeeze the trigger as one would with a normal rifle or pistol, that’s about 50 rounds downrange. If a pilot holds the trigger for three seconds, his ammo load is gone. How in the world can they consider this a CAS aircraft?
In other words, the F-35 is a lemon.
A lemon? Yes, but a lemon that creates jobs in all 435 congressional districts. The air force learned that lesson on the B-2.
The Chineeze version is almost an exact copy of the F-33, carrys more ammo and is more maneuverable.
Probably because they had the drawings for years even before we went into production.
Seriously, I think just about any member of the EAA who constructs plans-built aircraft and flies them could do a better job of building a fighter plane than whoever put this overpriced lemon into existence.
Just because youse guys saw it in ‘Star Wars’, that don’t mean any of youse knows whatcher doin’.
Here’s one that works:
https://youtu.be/kNMH7NzL1D8
First, plot the number of air-to-air engagements per conflict (WW2 onward) on a graph.
The trend is sharply downward.
Now, subtract out the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements. You’ll find something interesting.
The last “dogfight” was in 1989. And that only came to pass because it was nominally peacetime and we were weapons tight through most of the engagement.
Dogfighting ability carries a price tag–it limits your fuel fraction, weapons load, and other capabilities needed for effective CAS. The F-16 is a less-capable CAS platform than it could be because it was designed to be a daytime ACM platform first.
The problem with the F-35 is that, in the USAF and USMC, it’s really an attack platform, not a fighter. But the USAF hates the letter “A” on their aircraft.
Now, about cannon….
Sorry, strafing runs are going away, sooner and not later. Strafing involves deliberately flying the aircraft into the sweet spot for a LOT of GBADs. In any but the most permissive environments, that’s going to equal lots of downed aircraft.
It’s a capability that only makes sense in a war of choice, where we’re enforcing imperial edicts on the wogs.
And that’s not going to happen after our imperial misadvetures in Mesopotamia and Trashcanistan. We’re ot doing that sort of thing again in my lifetime, my daughter’s lifetime, or the remaining fatigue lifetime of any aircraft in Uncle Sam’s inventory.
I suspect that, in the future, after the next big terror attack in America, the next President will simply order the Marines to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, ‘cuz it’ll be the only politically acceptable way to be sure.
Oh, we’ll get stupid and involved in a pissant war again. But your analysis of the F-35 and air to air and air to ground combat is spot on.
I may have an answer to solve the entire problem. Build an open-cockpit 2-seater. Here’s a demo of how it works.
https://youtu.be/E_iq0lKTCfU