Struck by Lightning
For years I’ve watched from a distance as our military services struggled to bring forth a 5th Generation, Joint Strike Fighter. As with all new major weapons developments this one has had plenty of naysayers and numerous setbacks during its creation. Most of the criticism has come from former military pilots who could not envision any aircraft being able to successfully meet the needs of their own service while simultaneously doing so for the other two military services. I confess to having joined that chorus of critics when the air Force announced it would be sending the A-10 Warthog to the barn once the F-35 was fully operational. Like most who read here, my criticism was born out of a very limited knowledge of the F-35’s battle space role and capabilities. We grunts complained that we didn’t need a high tech fast burner covering our butts, we need something low and slow with a fearful strafing cannon like the Hog.
Well our complaints were heard and DoD put a hold on the Hog killers, ensuring it’s continued protective presence over our ground forces in current combat areas around the globe for a few more years while the developing Lightning II gets refitted to handle a strafing cannon. In the meantime the Air Force, Navy and Marines have continued to build their operational F-35 squadrons with those birds now rolling off the production line. Because the Lightning II is such a complex weapons platform, all three services are staffing those squadrons with their very best pilots and it is their evaluations of this aircraft that I have been waiting to hear. They are now speaking up, to the extent the government will allow them and what they are saying is that while there are still bugs to be worked out, this is the most amazing aircraft they’ve ever flown.
Back in February the Air Force hosted Red Flag 17-1, their hyper-realistic combat flying exercise at Nellis AFB in Nevada (I had a friend fly his plane into the ground when he became too engrossed in a dog fight). For the first time, the Lightning II was a participant and aviator eyes all around the world were fixed on the exercise to see whether they were right or wrong about this much maligned aircraft. Well, if they bet on the bird, they made some bucks. The actual performance numbers vary but only in a good sense. The worst I’ve read anywhere is that the Lightning’s kill ratio was 14 to 1in air to air combat while the official report is 20 to 1. Those air combat kills were accomplished while the F-35’s and their pilots were also managing the battle space for far greater numbers of F-15’s, F-16’s, F-22’s and even close air support aircraft of various types. I don’t know if A-10’s were involved but common sense dictates they should be.
And therein lies the rub, as they say. I think most of us ground-pounders envisioned the F-35 as just another fast burner with minimal capabilities in CAS. At Red Flag, due to their ability to fly undetected by the very realistic anti-air defenses set up at Nellis, they were the lead aircraft to enter the battle space where they destroyed virtually ALL the air defense positions, freeing the battle space of threats to the sorties of other aircraft following. Then, due to their ability to see the entirety of that battle space to a far greater distance and in far greater detail, the F-35’s were able to take stand-off positions where they successfully directed the other friendly aircraft to their targets while maintaining a protective air cover. The pilot interviews are universally positive, informative and reinforcing of my growing opinion that we just may have developed a winner here despite all the critics. I was particularly struck by a pilot from one of the two operational squadrons at Hill AFB, UT, who flew in RF 17-1, where he revealed that he and his amazed fellow pilots are continuously learning even greater capabilities of the aircraft as their leadership frees them to explore just what it can do. As those constraints are lifted, they are finding more and more to like.
The Marine version of this aircraft will be of particular benefit because of its vertical take-off and landing capabilities which allow it to be carried aboard amphibious assault ships and other smaller craft that transport Marine expeditionary units. Even if there is no carrier task force in range, any Marine landing force will have state-of-the-art air cover in the F-35B sitting right offshore no matter how remotely deployed they may be.
The more I learn about this aircraft, particularly from the young men whose lives will depend on its performance in combat, the more confidence I have that we birthed a wonder and not a boondoggle as the critics contend. Yes, it’s damned expensive but the unit costs decline substantially with mass production and at this time several governments other than the U.S. have committed to orders that could come to 700 aircraft in the next few years, and that’s in addition to the almost 2500 the United States intends to purchase. One nation’s imprimatur that impresses me is that of Israel, which already owns a handful of F-35’s and intends to buy a total of 50, and, no, I’m not Jewish. I do, however, have great respect for their military acumen and their pilots refer to the Lightning II as “awesome.”
Like me, I think they’ve been struck by lightning.
Category: Politics
I’ll make 4 observations, PT.
1. Taking out enemy AD sites isn’t CAS, PT. It’s SEAD.
2. Air to air combat isn’t CAS.
3. Freeing up other aircraft to fly deeper strike missions isn’t CAS.
4. Zoomies can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think CAS is typically in play much if at all at Red Flag. Thus the F-35’s CAS role (which even the USAF admits is nowhere near ready now) hasn’t been tested.
The F-35 may well turn out to be a good aircraft in spite of it’s multiple design compromises. (Whether it’s the “best bang for the bucks spent” is another matter entirely.) However, I don’t believe it will ever be as good at the CAS role as the A-10. It has less loiter time, carries maybe 20% as much ammo (max), and flies too fast. It also appears to be far less capable of sustaining damage and returning safely. It simply won’t be able to get in an “mix it up” with the enemy at close range as well as the A-10 can.
The latter is exactly what CAS often requires.
I think the point Poetrooper was trying to make is that the A-10 and other legacy aircraft cannot survive in a modern integrated air defense environment without something like the F-35 to clear the way. It doesn’t matter how good the A-10 is at CAS if it gets shot down well before ever reaching the FLOT.
Bingo!
True, but that still is not CAS.
Another point, Hondo, is that if the F-35 is as good at taking out ground targets like ADA, reported as being 100% at RF 17-1, then enemy artillery and armor are vulnerable. Small enemy troop formations can be detailed to gunships and UAV’s. My feeling, though is that the entire role for the F-35 is being reprogrammed to include aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 (and perhaps the A-10 as well) which it originally was being designed to replace.
Go read some of those RF 17-1 reports, especially the pilots’ comments. Those young men are astounded at what they can do with that aircraft with regard to controlling the battle space. Those discoveries are in turn causing Air Force tacticians to rethink the manner in which they intended this aircraft to fight. This may well be one of those situations where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
In the real aerospace domain, our adversaries have already developed electromagnetic and cyber countermeasures that are very likely to relegate 5th generation systems to 4th generation capability.
But the real disadvantage of the F35 lies in its cost. China, Russia, and likely everyone else will simply skip this dollar hog and go straight to less sophisticated drones that can be massed into swarms and simply use the equivalent of a brute force attack to negate all advantages.
The cost of the F35 means we cannot afford to lose any, and the cost of the drone means they can afford to lose all of them every day. I believe that the F35 delivers less capability than previous systems simply because we won’t be in a position to afford to lose them.
PT: did some further checking, and it appears that Red Flag exercise play does NOT include ground units requiring CAS (that’s exercised/trained during the Green Flag exercise series). So the recent Red Flag exercise played to what the F-35 can do well – not what it likely can’t. Indeed, one could wonder whether the exercise scenario was deliberately shaped to do exactly that, given that it was doubtless prepared while the USAF was still hell-bent on killing the A-10. The A-10’s CAS ability is still untested and thus unknown. Hell, If I recall correctly the USAF says that capability won’t even be available for testing for a year or two. Regarding the A-10 and a high-ADA-threat environment: the A-10 was designed primarily for CAS against Warsaw Pact forces. Just what kind of environment do you think was that with respect to ADA threat – permissive? No. For its day, the Warsaw Pact scenario was indeed THE existent high-ADA-threat environment. That’s also why HARM missiles and SEAD tactics were developed and/or refined during the 1970s well beyond what we had during Vietnam (and why the F-117 was developed). Even then, it was recognized that major ADA suppression would be required before something like the A-10 (or the F-15/16) could properly execute their roles successfully – as the Yom Kippur War and the Israeli-Syrian dust-up in Lebanon in the 1982 collectively showed. The former showed what happened to an air force when it attacked in a high-ADA-threat environment without SEAD; the latter, with. The F-35 may be intended to fill a necessary role, and it may well be “good enough” today at some of the multiple roles it’s designed to perform (though I’d take the results of a single Red Flag exercise that was possibly structured to highlight the aircraft’s strong points with a HUGE grain of salt). But like any “Swiss Army knife” design (AKA “multi-role”), it’s a design compromise – and thus won’t do any of those roles as well as an aircraft optimized for a particular role otherwise could. The Pentagon were fools to “drink the Kool-Aid” on that… Read more »
C’mon Hondo, you know that $300 million figure is developmental cost not production costs which are slated to drop to under $100 million which is still high I grant you. That is probably why the Air Force is emphasizing this new tactical doctrine for the F-35 of being the stand-off battle space controller and protector. You saw my comments re the Israeli evals which I believe will lead to other countries following through on their commitments to purchase, thus dropping those unit costs.
As for CAS, I’m in complete agreement with you on the A-10. If the Air Force continues to develop this new F-35 stand-off combat doctrine then they may also see the value of including the low, slow, deadly and CHEAP Warthog. Talk about a perfect combo for clearing the battlefield of threats against our ground forces!
BTW, forgot to mention but read somewhere that Navy plans to employ the stand-off tactic as well with carriers having two to three squadrons of FA-18 Super Hornets augmented by one squadron of F-35C’s. This will be their aerial warfighting doctrine well into the 2040’s.
One other observation: the initial production for the B-2 was projected at 132 airframes. Didn’t happen – we produced about 20. Unit cost for the B-2 ended up being $2B.
Ditto for the F-22. Current production is WAY smaller than was originally projected – and unit cost is also huge as a result (total production cost of $342M each).
There’s no guarantee that the F-35 will ever see 700 aircraft produced. And if it doesn’t we’ll be stuck with yet another weapons platform that’s too expensive to use effectively because the loss of one would be a fiscal calamity.
I do hope I’m wrong here. But history argues we’re setting ourselves up to experience both serious fiscal and tactical pain here. Again.
Go read what the Israeli pilots had to say about the aircraft. Their initial experiences have them salivating to get their hands on the full fifty they intend to buy. While most of them would never admit it, a lot of countries pay close attention to what the Israelis say and do when it comes to warfare.
Fifty F-35’s in the hands of the Israeli Air Force must be giving the Iranians some very vivid nightmares.
Actually, I was low with that 50 figure; other sources say 75 aircraft for Israel.
A drone can perform CAS and not risk a pilot. A really big drone can do it really well.
True. And in theory, a drone can do air-to-air combat better than a manned platform, too. Unmanned platforms can be designed to perform (and survive) aerial maneuvers that would subject a pilot to G-forces that would disable or kill a human.
Good luck selling either idea to the USAF – which is run by pilots.
They seem to have come up with this idea all on their own a while back:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support
Didn’t see a single mention of using RPVs (“drones”) for CAS in that entire article. (Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think I did.) Rather, it seemed to be about a 1000-word propaganda piece justifying the decision to retire the A-10.
You sure you posted the correct link?
Any single-purpose aircraft will tend to out-fight a multi-role aircraft in the “speciality” area. The initial F-15 was “not a pound for air to ground”nan became a brilliant fighter. It was later ret-conned into the highly capable Strike Eagle.
The F-35 is a compromise aircraft, on the game plan of “do everything adequately”. Thus, it is unlikely to do anything -brilliantly-. The degree of compromise is also impactful: “Oh, yeah, CAS too” is not likely to beat “dedicated tank killer and mud-mover, extra tough survivable”.
If we built the “Warthog II” today, with all the tech goodies, dedicated to killing things dirtside, it would be a -monster- of it. F-22s (and their older kin) would keep it out of the claws of other raptors.
Sadly, the track record of multi-role is “We want to stick with fighters, but if we simply -must- do anything else, we will do so with multi-role -fighters-.”
That is a heck of a different thing from “We are overhead. Where do you want the pain delivered? We have lots of pain to deliver, and all day to do it.”
One other point, about the Red Flag exercise: Those were US Air Defenses, and US operators, and US doctrine, right? Maybe those three playing Soviet/Chinese for the day? Is that really a valid test? (How realistic is red flag on threat tech? I don’t know.) The F-35 will -never- be called upon to penetrate that US environment in a real combat situation.
Can it go downtown in an all-up real-threat environment? Did we reasonably replicate -that-? Did anyone test the F-35 on antique vacuum-tube analog radars? (Like many low-tech places still use – NK for example)
Red Flag has been going on for decades and in that time they have tried to make it as hyper-realistic as possible either using or emulating Russian/Chinese aircraft and air defenses employing Russian/Chinese tactics.
As I said to Hondo above, go read some of those RF 17-1 reports, especially the pilots’ comments. Those young men are astounded at what they can do with that aircraft with regard to controlling the battle space. Those discoveries are in turn causing Air Force tacticians to rethink the manner in which they intended this aircraft to fight. This may well be one of those situations where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Your contention that, “Any single-purpose aircraft will tend to out-fight a multi-role aircraft in the “speciality” area,” may get stood on its ear by the F-35. Ask the pilots of those single specialty planes that fell victim to that 15-1 and 20-1 kill rate if they still believe that.
Red Flag doesn’t seem to include much if any CAS play. See my comment above.
I would expect the single-purpose F-22 to out dogfight the multi-role F-35. (keeping it approximately apple to apple)
You are correct in that the F-22 can outmaneuver the F0-35 but the problem is getting within range. With its 5G radar and sensor array, the F-35 pilot can destroy the F-22 before the F-22 pilot even knows he’s there. That’s how the F-35 got those 20-1 kill ratios at Red Flag, and there were F-22’s flying against them there
Do some Googling and see what the F-22 pilots who’ve flown against the F-35 say. Better yet, see what the former F-22 pilots now flying the F-35 have to say. Every account I’ve read so far is full of praise for the F-35’s capabilities
Isn’t the F-22 also a stealth aircraft? I am a bit skeptical that the F-35 can detect it “before the F-22 pilot even knows it is there.” Particularly since it would be limited to passive sensors to maintain its own stealth properties.
Are any of the F-35s opponents in RF stealth aircraft?
Like I said, Time, go read what the F-22 pilots have to say.
Ground pounder here, I don’t know if they solved the fuel issue where warm fuel was an issue causing shutdowns. They ended up painting the fuel trucks white, which wouldn’t be a problem in Alaska, but anywhere else… http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/555558/luke-afb-changes-refueling-truck-color-mitigates-f-35-shutdowns/
I heard the 35 has the capability to carry 7 Mavericks, has 2 GAU-8s, 2400 pounds of titanium to protect the pilot AND drops espresso shots to the Gound guys.
I swear the zoomies want to change the laws of physics to get rid of the A-10 because it ain’t cool enuf.
I don’t mind the 35 program but ffs, it’ll NEVER replace the ‘Hog. Never.
(I say this in the shadow of Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford)
Agreed, Dog, but it can sure guarantee the Hog’s safety from enemy aircraft while the Hog does the scut work down below. We’ve become spoiled at not having to worry about any real enemy air threat in our last few wars. That could change quickly in Korea for instance.
Also, the F-35’s incredible sensor array can make the Hog more effective in spotting targets.
Air superiority in Korea? Any flyboy eggheads want to chime in here?
Back of the envelope math, or what my little Infantry brain thinks is math, I’m saying two weeks tops.
The Gulf War was started on the 17th of January and was pretty wrapped up by the commencement of ground ops on 23 FEB. The composition of the planes is about the same, we have F-22s and better AA missles.
I think there was an honest attempt at ensuring the Russians at the time that the liberation of Kuwait would be a limited air campaign, we didn’t even bring up B-1s or B-2s that may be required in a regime change in NK.
Marines moved an F-35 squadron to Iwakuni earlier this year. Even though the Norks are flying Soviet era aircraft, they have a shitload of them and you know for sure they’ll be flying heavy cover for that initial ground assault against our defenses.
F-35’s will likely play the F-117 role going deep to take out all the air defenses then stand off in a protective/battle space control role role while the FA-118’s, F-15’s, F-16’s and the Hogs go downtown.
Do those incredible sensors include the ability to see through heavy vegetation and terrain features? Passively, of course.
You can be as smug as you want to, Time, but as I’ve said repeatedly now, go read or listen to what the pilots who are flying it or who have flown against it have to say.
Bet you won’t be so smug then…
It sounds like the F-35 is doing wonderfully at air supremacy and theoretically can shut down the battlefield peripherals like air defense… but not one word of the above says to me it can take OVER the CAS. The mistake the Air Force made was touting it as a replacement for the A-10: per the above it should coordinate with the A-10, help prep the area for the A-10, then get the hell out of the way..
That would be optimal. Unfortunately, the USAF is heavily invested in the theory that the F-35 can “do it all”.
They’ll try again to retire the A-10, probably in a year or two. Bet on it.
The A-10 fleet is aging, and the USAF does need a replacement aircraft. But IMO the F-35 simply isn’t it.
“They’ll try again to retire the A-10, probably in a year or two. Bet on it.”
Maybe not if they continue to develop this synergistic role between the F-35 and older aircraft in CAS. If the F-35 potentiates the killing efficiency of those aircraft, it may keep them around longer than has been recently planned. The Marines have already decided to keep some of their Harriers and retire some fast-burners instead.
The AF is also, if I remember correctly, touting the B-1 as a CAS aircraft. Was it last year they managed to bomb our own troops?
How’s this for a headline, smartass:
A-10 warplane tops list for friendly fire deaths
That’s from USAToday; Go read it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/
I am pleasantly surprised every time a huge defense department no-bid contract doesn’t turn into a more expensive and compromised version of the tool it was replacing.
USS Zumwalt, Osprey, Stryker (MGS in particular) come to mind.
re the MGS, 60% of the time, it works every time.
That thing was not built for tankers!
I sure hope this is real and not a bunch of smoke blowing.
Air superiority I can see. CAS … I SERIOUSLY doubt.
Now, a Thunderbolt III (ie, a Warthog II) would be awesome, too!
I’m gonna read the RF 17-1 reports tonight and see what they have to say.
F35, the new and improved F111.
It’s like the Bass o’Matic and New Shimmer floor wax/desert topping all rolled up in one bright shiny package
How much “battle space” is that F-35 pilot going to control all by himself? AWACS is obsolete? FACs are obsolete?
Let’s also not forget that a large portion of the world is not flat, open, desert with essentially unlimited lines of sight.
You’re showing your ass, Time. I’m not trying to be ugly but you obviously haven’t researched the aircraft at all or you wouldn’t be popping off like this.
You really should do some Googling before you’re so quick to criticize.