
The F-35 Can’t Fight at Long Range, Either - mulander
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd
======
hyperion2010
A good time to repost this classic:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA)

~~~
anotherangrydev
Haha, thanks for the laugh.

I do research on molecular biology, you could say that every meeting with our
project leaders goes like that.

Specially that part like:

"Why did you do X?"

"(I didnt' wanted to but...) As per your request, you said it was a really
important feature."

"No way, scrap it, how come you thought X was a good idea! Come on!"

------
adventured
This is a horribly unscientific article. It reads mostly like a 'because I say
so' hit piece.

"Instead, modern planes in a high-tech war would probably rely on their
undetectable, “passive” infrared sensors"

Probably? That's all you've got backing up such a significant claim?

"Remember, the F-35 has one huge and very hot engine. True, Lockheed designed
the JSF’s fuel tanks to help sop up some of the extra thermal energy the plane
generates. But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. ..."

Oh, it's round. Great, now prove your important claim with actual science,
field data, etc.

"Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes"

Oh, it could? More of the same empty statements, with absolutely nothing
backing them up.

"Using these radars, earthbound spotters could point warplanes toward incoming
F-35s"

Could? Again, empty.

The article relies on Sprey, who himself is well known for _half-cranked_
attacks on the F35:

[http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-dia...](http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665)

This entire article reads in the same style: here is something I claim, it's a
very important claim, and I'm not going to actually support any of it.

------
pcrh
When I read lines such as:

>"But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy
planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine
nozzles "

I really doubt the credibility of the author; as if engineers would overlook
such a basic factor if it was that crucial.

~~~
nether
The round nozzle is a tradeoff for weight. It's a single powerplant aircraft
so the IR signature was probably considered satisfactory versus twin
rectangular nozzles. The T-50 (prototype aircraft that Russia can't afford to
further develop) and the Su-35 he brought up for comparison use two round
nozzles, but he somehow neglected to factor that into his comparison.

The rest of the 20 different systems he compares the F-35 to either would
bankrupt Russia if they were to ever put them into mass production, or the
comparisons themselves isolate one feature of the F-35 against some long-shot
(probably exaggerated) capability of such-and-such Russian system. I could say
that the F-35 could use its low-observable phased array radar to detect the
Su-35 from twice the distance of the latter without triggering the enemy's
RWR, fire off an AIM-120 and turn around before the Su-35 detected it. And
pretty much every shortcoming for the F-35 (sensors, supercruise, stealth) he
brought up is far worse for the F-16, A-10, and AV-8B which the F-35 is
intended to replace.

~~~
icanhackit
_the F-35 could use its low-observable phased array radar to detect the Su-35
from twice the distance of the latter without triggering the enemy 's RWR,
fire off an AIM-120 and turn around before the Su-35 detected it_

Right, when people complain about the F-35, for all its shortcomings, they
look at it as though it should be a "faster horse" (it's an apocryphal
anecdote but makes a good point) rather than a whole new weapons platform.

The USAF clearly wants something that doesn't engage in close combat, so it's
about superior sensors and long range/precision air-to-air and air-to-ground
weaponry. I think the biggest shortfall of the F-35 though is its close air
support capabilities. The USAF just want to have the target marked by ground
forces and for the F-35 to drop small precision munitions on the area, but a
big part of CAS is psychological - when you hear that 30mm cannon burp and the
A-10's engines loitering in the background, you feel safe while your enemy is
terrified. Plus a loitering A-10 is more useful than an F-35 with an ephemeral
presence.

Solution: give the Army the ability to provide CAS so they can purchase the
A-10's from the USAF. The USAF can play with their fancy spaceships while the
Army can have its flying gun.

~~~
remarkEon
I keep hearing this argument more and more often. What is prohibiting this
from happening? Are there legal issues?

~~~
kjs3
Well for one thing the armchair airwar blog...er..."experts" keep pretending
that with modern, portable anti-aircraft systems the A-10 is a survivable
platform long term. Ignore that minor detail and sure it's the answer to all
your CAS needs.

------
hardwaresofton
Is there any reason the F-35 is receiving this much scrutiny versus other
military vehicles? Maybe it's just that it's the information age, or that
there are more public people reviewing government action, but there's been a
certain fascination with this F-35 that makes me suspicious.

Surely the F-35 isn't the first bad military vehicle the government has/will
purchase...

~~~
twerkmonsta
Maybe it's the $1.5 TRILLION price tag for the program so far?

$1.5 trillion / 318.9 million people in the USA = $4,703.67 per person!

I want a refund!

~~~
adventured
The program has not cost $1.5 trillion so far.

The Pentagon is spending about $11 billion on the F35 for the entire fiscal
year (2% of its budget).[1] About ~$30 per tax payer.

$1.5 trillion is the 55 year projection on the total cost of the program over
that time frame. Including purchase, operation and upkeep. Or $27 billion per
year for everything.

It has cost roughly $100 billion so far over 20 years.

[1] [http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/02/Pentagon-s-Too-
Big-...](http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/02/Pentagon-s-Too-Big-
Fail-F-35-Gets-Another-106-Billion)

------
melling
We can't be more than a decade away from autonomous drones becoming the
fighter of choice. Shouldn't they be able to outmaneuver a human? If they are
built cheaply enough, wouldn't a larger number overwhelm a conventional air
force?

~~~
tadfisher
They could, but the primary limiting factor of maneuverability is the
integrity of the airframe, not the human inside.

~~~
krschultz
Are you sure the integrity of the airframe isn't build to a particular
strength due to the limitations of humans? Why carry extra weight for
structure if the pilot can't handle those turns?

I doubt it's a fundamental limitation of materials or physics, just of the
constraints given to the designers of the aircraft.

~~~
jacquesm
Safety margins dictate that the airframe should be substantially stronger than
the occupants maximum tolerance.

~~~
tadfisher
No, safety margins are implemented by a computer limiter and are often set far
below the occupants' maximum tolerance.

~~~
jacquesm
Engineering safety margins, not occupants safety margins.

~~~
tadfisher
Yes. For example, the F-16 was fitted with a 9G limiter for symmetric
maneuvers (zero roll and sideslip). A structural check was mandated if the HUD
indicated 9.8G was hit during flight.

------
waffle_ss
I wonder how any of the new fighter jets would fare against a modern attack
helicopter?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH)

~~~
trhway
say, helicopter is behind the hill and waits until a fighter passes low over
the hill, and after that the helicopter shoots into the tail of the fighter?
well, i think no fighter would fare well :) On the other side :

"The official report details how the F15 was able to lock on to the
helicopters around 64 km. However did not get visual ID till 6-9 km.(Beyond-
visual range combat wasn't practiced at this typical exercise) "

But why would fighter fly low? It would just shoot a missile from 10km height
- unreachable height for helicopter and for many anti-aircraft missiles.

------
eridius
As I recall, when the last HN story came out about the F-35 not doing well in
short-range combat, there was a rebuttal that basically said that the test run
was not designed to accurately simulate short-range combat, and that in
particular the F-35 was missing the expected software suite that significantly
augments its navigation and dogfighting capabilities.

I didn't follow the story after that, so I don't know if there were any
counter-arguments made. But if that was true, might there also be some similar
mitigating factors that apply to this story?

~~~
Laforet
The only counter-argument I am aware of is that "It will get better as
software and training improve." I don't doubt the veracity of this statement,
however with the whole JSF fighter project falling this far behind schedule
there is just too much uncertainly in how long it is going to take it to "get
better" and how far you can push the airframe which is, as everybody can agree
with, somewhat mutilated from the beginning.

~~~
engi_nerd
I do not agree at all. Mutilated? Explain how. Your hubris in assuming that
everyone agrees with you is rather irritating.

------
snowwrestler
> While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates the APG-81 can
> detect an aircraft with a radar cross-section of three square meters—a
> MiG-29, for example—just over 100 miles away. Russian radar-maker Tikhomirov
> claims the Su-35’s Irbis-E can spot a similar-size target at greater than
> twice that distance.

So, we're comparing some blogger's estimate of the F-35 radar, to the
unverified claims of a Russian radar-maker. This does not seem like the
firmest ground upon which to base an argument.

------
geoffsanders
This and similar criticisms of the F-35 are just silly. I can take any other
aircraft in the U.S. inventory and put it in situations where it will lose
engagements against other domestic or foreign aircraft and systems. Multi-role
fighters like the F-35, Rafale, Viper, Hornet, and Gripen aren't meant to be
dominant in any one specific area. They're meant to be flexible platforms that
can be tailored for different operations and flight packages based on the
needs of the mission at the time, and like most multi-role fighters, they each
tend to be a little better at certain roles than others.

Additionally, most of these criticisms act as if the F-35 will be acting alone
on these missions, and don't take into account the fact that other aircraft,
radars, and offensive/defensive systems are meant to be utilized alongside the
F-35. Such a micro view doesn't adequately account for the actual theater of
war these aircraft will take part in.

Is the JSF program enormously expensive? Yes. Is it unnecessary? Maybe.
However, expensive and unnecessary are separate issues from whether or not
this is a capable aircraft, of which it empirically is. Does it have kinks to
work out? Definitely, but this aircraft is still in testing phases, and like
all other aircraft, it will go through iterations and variations. In time, as
systems mature, bugs are fixed, and pilots become more experienced, we can be
sure that the F-35 will at least be a capable tool to warfighters.

Argue the cost, argue the need, but making the argument that the folks at
Lockheed all of a sudden forgot how to build capable fighter aircraft is
absurd.

------
codeshaman
Seems to me this F-35 is the pacifist's wet dream. It can't fight long or
short range and even if it could, it can't kill because it's too slow. It
doesn't respond to violence with violence, hence - pacifist.

For ultimate peace making, they should equip it with pigeons and let the birds
loose over the enemy territory, sending out love letters to everyone.

Also balloons and candy for the enemy children would be appropriate.

------
exar0815
In the 1960s, we had some kind of the same fuckup in Germany, twice. Once the
STarfighter/Lockheed affair
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Ger...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#German_service)

And at the moment basically the whole Bundeswehr in general. Google either:
A400M, G36, Eurocopter Tiger...

Edit: And the Eurofighter

------
mirimir
It was arguably designed when radar stealth was a key advantage. But other
detection technologies have since matured. And the Russians and Chinese have
redesigned faster, perhaps relying on stolen plans and test results.

So maybe it's time to drop the F-35, and copy Russian and Chinese designs.

~~~
engi_nerd
Look at this image: [http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Photo-
compa...](http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Photo-comparison-
of-the-U.S.-F-35-left-and-Chinese-J-20.-China-obtained-F-35-design-data-
in-2007-through-cyberespionage.-Chinese-Internet.jpeg)

F-35 on the left, Chinese J-20 on the right. We don't have to copy Chinese
designs, they already copied ours.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, that's well known.

But maybe, in addition to copying many features, the Chinese tweaked other
stuff. Maybe they tweaked heat management, agility, IR etc sensors, and so on.
And maybe they also hacked the Russians and Japanese, and combined best
features. Overall, maybe the J-20 looks a lot like a F-35a might look.

That's a lot of "maybes", I admit. But it would be foolish to ignore the
possibilities, no?

~~~
engi_nerd
Well, a certain degree of paranoia about these things is healthy. So I will
not dismiss your scenario, though I believe it is unlikely.

EDIT: And there's no "maybe" about if the J-20 resembles the F-35...

~~~
mirimir
Unlikely? Hard to say.

And yes, the J-20 closely resembles the F-35. There's no doubt about that.

But in any case, I do think that it could be a productive scenario for the US
military :)

~~~
engi_nerd
Yes, hard to say. That's why I said, "I believe"...gut feeling, no evidence
either way.

------
vilhelm_s
Who is this Joseph Trevithick guy anyway? His linked in profile says
"Journalist and researcher with experience using various open source and
public domain resources", "Acted as an on call military history consultant for
various miniatures gaming products."

I feel a lot of the reasoning seems a little dubious.

> Russian radars, such as the one on the new Sukhoi Su-35, at least match the
> JSF’s APG-81, according to data compiled by Carlo Kopp at Air Power
> Australia. While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates ...

Air Power Australia have a MASSIVE axe to grind when it comes to the F-35.
They also have a history of publishing things that look like F-22 fanfiction
(e.g. an article saying that navalizing the F-22 should be a piece of cake,
[http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-
NOTAM-230209-1.html](http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html)).

> But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy
> planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine
> nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes,

I think they are flat mostly to shape radar reflections. I think the fact that
the B-2 exhaust nozzle is on the upper half of the aircraft also is supposed
to help the IR signature, but does the flatness really affect anything?

> Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes
> ... “You can’t stealthify against long-wavelength radars”

Sure, but this affects every airplane, it's not a weakness of the F-35.

> The F-35’s limited weaponry was one of the major problems that a
> controversial simulation highlighted back in 2008.

Well, it was indeed controversial. As one article puts it "RAND’s core
conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It’s about the
theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics
conditions."([http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-
cap...](http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-
controversy-05089/)). In particular, they concluded that the F-22 would also
be completely outgunned, despite being indisputably the best air superiority
fighter right now.

The _War is Boring_ coverage of the F-35 in general strikes me as kindof
shoddy, it's like they decided that writing snarky anti-F-35 articles is now
part of their blog brand.

------
mckiddy
The missile argument is a bit of a stretch to me. The F-35 can carry way more
than four missiles if they're attached to the wings (like the Su-35 the author
compares it to), it will just destroy any semblance of stealth.

Comparison with the F-22
([http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml](http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml)).

------
curiousjorge
I feel that the f-35 was a great plane to start with but ruined by adding a
VTOL capabilities for the Marines. Why the hell does Marines Corp need fighter
jets? Doesn't the Navy already have it? Doesn't the Air Force? Does this mean
the Army will get it's own fighter jets? I don't understand why every branch
of the military in the US needs a jet apart from Navy and Air

~~~
bkohlmann
Much of this is rooted in history - namely Guadalcanal. The USMC was very
angry at Naval Aviation for "abandoning" them on the beaches without Close Air
Support while the Navy instead flew missions to protect their Fleet. The USMC
demanded an increased in their organic capabilities to support THEIR mission
-- boots on the ground.

------
ForHackernews
Who cares? Air-to-air combat is exceedingly rare these days, and in the very
near future no piloted aircraft will be able to keep up with a drone anyway
(smaller, lighter, able to pull G-forces that would black out or kill a human
pilot).

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
There is no "very near future" in military spending. It will take at least
five and probably ten years to get a working high-G drone design with
equivalent capability off the drawing board and into the air.

Meanwhile the F-35 is a fiasco for US and NATO force projection. The whole
point of modern weapons - ugly and expensive as they are - is that they're
supposed to be so intimidating you barely need to use them.

The F-35 fails to continue that tradition. The political consequences are
going to be a lot more significant than the military ones.

~~~
ForHackernews
> It will take at least five and probably ten years to get a working high-G
> drone design with equivalent capability off the drawing board and into the
> air.

Do you think we're going to have a shooting war with China or Russia before
2025? Because those are the only countries that can come close to challenging
US air superiority.

~~~
jacquesm
Before 2025 probably not, but a proxy war might be fought (say Pakistan/India
or Israel/some neighbours or North Korea/South Korea flare-up).

