A good time to repost this classic: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA</a>
This is a horribly unscientific article. It reads mostly like a 'because I say so' hit piece.<p>"Instead, modern planes in a high-tech war would probably rely on their undetectable, “passive” infrared sensors"<p>Probably? That's all you've got backing up such a significant claim?<p>"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. ..."<p>Oh, it's round. Great, now prove your important claim with actual science, field data, etc.<p>"Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes"<p>Oh, it could? More of the same empty statements, with absolutely nothing backing them up.<p>"Using these radars, earthbound spotters could point warplanes toward incoming F-35s"<p>Could? Again, empty.<p>The article relies on Sprey, who himself is well known for <i>half-cranked</i> attacks on the F35:<p><a href="http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665" rel="nofollow">http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia...</a><p>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.
When I read lines such as:<p>>"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 "<p>I really doubt the credibility of the author; as if engineers would overlook such a basic factor if it was that crucial.
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.<p>Surely the F-35 isn't the first bad military vehicle the government has/will purchase...
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?
I wonder how any of the new fighter jets would fare against a modern attack helicopter?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH</a>
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.<p>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?
> 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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>Also balloons and candy for the enemy children would be appropriate.
In the 1960s, we had some kind of the same fuckup in Germany, twice.
Once the STarfighter/Lockheed affair
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#German_service" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Ger...</a><p>And at the moment basically the whole Bundeswehr in general. Google either:
A400M, G36, Eurocopter Tiger...<p>Edit: And the Eurofighter
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.<p>So maybe it's time to drop the F-35, and copy Russian and Chinese designs.
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."<p>I feel a lot of the reasoning seems a little dubious.<p>> 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 ...<p>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, <a href="http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html</a>).<p>> 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,<p>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?<p>> Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes ... “You can’t stealthify against long-wavelength radars”<p>Sure, but this affects every airplane, it's not a weakness of the F-35.<p>> The F-35’s limited weaponry was one of the major problems that a controversial simulation highlighted back in 2008.<p>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."(<a href="http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/" rel="nofollow">http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-cap...</a>). In particular, they concluded that the F-22 would also be completely outgunned, despite being indisputably the best air superiority fighter right now.<p>The <i>War is Boring</i> 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.
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.<p>Comparison with the F-22 (<a href="http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml</a>).
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
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).