
U.S. Air Force Requires Airmen to Praise F-35 - RachelF
http://warisboring.com/articles/u-s-air-force-requires-airmen-to-praise-troubled-stealth-fighter/
======
TheMagicHorsey
I'm not sure about the other capabilities of the F-35, but judging a modern
war plane based on its ability to dogfight is like judging a modern ship based
on its ability to ram other ships.

Dogfighting just isn't going to happen anymore in a battlefield where smart
munitions are relatively cheap, plentiful, smart, and getting smarter every
year.

We are talking about skies that will soon be filled with extremely agile
drones and missiles. In that environment, a manned fighter, that cannot pull
high-G maneuvers (because the human pilot will pass out) cannot beat a
supersonic missile or drone.

We should not build planes to perform well in dogfights in the style of the
Korean and Vietnam war. Stealth or unmanned is the way to go.

Having said that, the Chinese long-term strategy of developing high
performance drones to saturate the battlespace is probably the smartest idea
of all. I don't think any stealth technology remains very "stealthy" for very
long, in this era of software processing.

~~~
dkbrk
All your points are well-made and I believe you are mostly correct. However, I
wouldn't be so quick to entirely dismiss dogfighting as something that "just
isn't going to happen anymore".

Nobody knows exactly what combat would look like with modern weapons between
actual adversaries; which weapons would would be ineffective; which
countermeasures would succeed. The possibility that two aircraft could get
close enough that it would become a dogfight should always be accounted for.

Munitions could be expended to the point where no long-range missiles remain.
An enemy aircraft could use terrain masking in mountainous terrain to get
close; no radar can detect an aircraft through half a kilometer of rock. How
about the effects of inclement weather? Or, perhaps, some F-35s are themselves
using terrain masking on a ground-attack mission due to enemy SAM presence and
are surprised by an enemy squadron.

The point is, there is always a way things can go wrong. Ignoring that gets
people killed. That said, it has been accounted for in the F-35; the
Distributed Aperture System along with off-boresight missiles could actually
make the turning battle of a dogfight obsolete... until the F-35 expended all
its missiles.

Of course a UAV could be much better than any manned aircraft in a dogfight;
but battles aren't always picked, one must always be prepared for a battle to
be forced under less than optimal circumstances.

------
titzer
Well, an obvious step after putting all your eggs in one basket is to silence
criticism of that basket. This is just one more reason why the Air Force's
decision to reduce diversity in weapons systems is a bad idea. Not only do
they become too big to fail, they become too big to criticize.

------
fiatmoney
I can personally say that the F-35 is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most
wonderful plane I've ever known in my life.

------
omalleyt
For anyone interested in the dynamics of the Air Force that explain the
abysmal performance of the F-35, and why the F-16 can beat it in a dogfight
despite being commissioned 40 years ago, look up John Boyd or read "Boyd: The
Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of War." The Air Force is structured to
enable and shelter operational failures such as the F-35

~~~
nickff
Though I agree with you that all government agencies are political machines
which have evolved to protect their bureaucrats; the F-35 was simply not
designed to be a lightweight low-cost fighter. Comparing the F-35 to the F-16
is about as useful as comparing the F-105 to the F-86 (, which is to say not
very informative).

Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized (and he may have
been correct).

~~~
herdrick
> Boyd thought that even the F-16 was overweight and over-sized

... compared to what it could have been, and would have been, had he somehow
completely gotten his way, sure. It was a disappointment to him, but it's
still pretty good in energy–maneuverability theory terms.

And it's worth comparing the F-105 to the F-86 in dogfighting because
dogfighting just keeps happening in wars, decades after it was predicted to
cease.

~~~
varjag
Curious, what was the last time anyone scored with a cannon on a modern jet
fighter vs another jet fighter?

~~~
dmoy
Maybe one of the air-to-air kills in the Eritrea-Ethiopia war was cannon?
idk...

------
davetheradish
I spoke to an RAAF test pilot a few weeks ago who confirmed the stories that
this plane is an absolute lemon. It's trying to be too many things and failing
at all of them.

~~~
zobzu
I spoke to a USAF pilot and he said the F-35 is a decent plane, easy to fly,
well equipped even thus no match for specialized fighters its decently good at
everything.

Here's the problem though. None of your comment or these article bring any
proof and is more of a click-bait than anything else. It's trendy to hit on
them, that's all really.

Also, I did actually talk to that pilot and a few others from other aircrafts
as its actually an easy thing to do in the US so easy to do/verify on your own
for many of us:

since many HN readers are in the bay area, just visit the boats for SF's Fleet
week - it's free, and there's always marine pilots of all kinds onboard
(mainly heli, but also a few F-35, harrier and osprey pilots.

~~~
neurotech1
I concur. The F-35 is a decent aircraft performance wise. It might not be
quite as agile as an F-16 in airshow configuration, but when carrying a combat
load, the F-35 has the edge.

When it comes to the F-35 sensor package, its a huge leap beyond the F-16.

~~~
titzer
Not for the price. $1 trillion is a really step price tag for a "decent
aircraft". As for the sensor package and stealth, I'm not entirely sure that
suitable upgrades to the F-16 and F-18 series wouldn't have been a better
option. Besides, for $1trillion, it should be possible to develop three or
four different aircraft with specialist capabilities and use them together.

~~~
zobzu
i agree, albeit by that rationale you'd better get a Rafale - its the same
kind of plane as the F35, minus a few nice features but much cheaper. Which is
exactly why the only nations getting an F35 are US allies not making their own
aircrafts. others either:

-make their own (Eurofighters, SU35S, PAK, etc.)

-get get older planes (F15s in particular)

-French Rafales.

------
neurotech1
The USAF requires Airmen not to criticize USAF or Pentagon policy. If a 4-Star
General publicly criticizes policy of the Petagon, it could end their career.

This post by David Axe is complete rubbish.

------
zobzu
The comment on the blog seems about right so ill copy:

"Lets see David Axe the nonstop liar that wrote this used the words
“commands”, “requires”. and “demands” when referring to the document in
question. No where in the document cited are any of those things. This author
constantly takes any accusation about F35 and exaggerates it to the ridicules
level. He uses thinly sourced quotes and seems to have a vivid imagination.
WiB should be embarrassed to have such a talent-less hack writing this drivel…
do you guys even have an editor?"

~~~
beedogs
A poorly-written nitpick about the choice of words used "seems about right" to
you?

