In this five-page report, a JSF program tester allegedly declared the F-35A's inadequacy in dogfighting against an F-16, a light fighter designed for air superiority, but used as a fighter-bomber, as was the case for the F -15. The fourth generation fighter that entered service in the late 70s would have literally slaughtered the fifth generation fighter not yet in service in close combat.
It should be remembered that the F-35 was not designed for air superiority. It would be fair to point out that everything is still being said about the F-35, the $ 1500 billion project. The F-35 is designed to excel in contexts that emphasize Beyond Visual Range (BVR), in networked information-intensive environments. If they perform as promised, the aircraft's capabilities will be truly remarkable.
History teaches. The success of combat aircraft sometimes transcends their real project. In fact, designers and politicians are rarely able to speculate on the operational demands of the war that will or will be needed in the 2040 a fighter hunt. That is why, in times of peace, to imagine a platform of the future is a very difficult task.
The F-35 was not designed on the failures of previous fighters (as happened for the post-war Vietnam production), but to operate in a context that does not yet exist. The F-35 was designed for the war of the future, but it will probably be used in roles that its designers don't even imagine. Today it is a plane built in peacetime, but designed for tomorrow's fights.
The F-35 will have a future, but it would be appropriate to understand the role it will have in future strategic assets. The ideal operational theater of the F-35, in fact, does not yet exist and probably will still be a few decades before it takes shape, but the hunt could be decisive and represent that coveted "Game Changer".
The Lightning-II version with short take-off and vertical landing could really be a plus point in the supersonic fighter scene. The thought goes to the Falklands war and the role played by the Harriers.
But considering all the problems of the F-35, it would be advisable to also evaluate the advantages that such an asset will receive. In fact, even if China and Russia have increased their capacity to dispose of specialized personnel, it is unlikely that it will match that of the United States in recruiting and training pilots. Great pilots can make discrete cells into superb aircraft. No country in the world, then, can compete, military history teaches, with the logistic genius of the United States.
Despite the complexity of the F-35, the fighter can always count on a sublime logistic apparatus. Wherever in the world it will be deployed, the F-35 will always have equipment, spare parts, maintenance and crews.
Finally, a common mistake is to evaluate the F-35 (we are always talking about what will fly for the USA) as a single platform. The American F-35, on the other hand, was designed to close the circle that started with the Raptor. The JSF, in fact, should be seen in a large system consisting of F-22, B-2 (and future bombers), the Zumwalt classes and numerous other combat platforms.
The European F-35 Lightning II, on the other hand, will fly with Typhoons and Rafales, for the next 50 years. The die is now drawn. Too much money invested by the United States to cancel the program and, probably, this is a lesson that must be kept in mind for the next generation bombers or other programs already contracted by the US Defense.
After this opportune premise, we analyze yesterday's news. An F-16D Block 40 with sub-wing tanks, in close combat overcomes an F-35A in a clean configuration. Power and aerodynamic problems would have sanctioned the defeat of Lockheed's supercaccia. But few remember that the F-35 is a tactical fighter, a multi-role fighter-bomber.
The defeat in the air combat that took place last January, was in some ways easily imaginable for a simple design concept: the F-35 is designed to hit enemies beyond the visual range, in a system made up of various platforms. And protected by pure fighters: F-22 for Americans, EFA 2000 for Europeans.
So, recapitulating. The JSF was designed to hit the enemy beyond the visual range and for a war of the future that does not yet exist. But ignoring the past is not a good starting point. To consider dogfight as an obsolete combat as an expression of a "barbarian" period would be a big mistake.
The experience of Vietnam, when it was decided not to install the cannon on the F-4 Phantom because it was considered outdated and irrelevant in the fighting of the future, made everyone think again. The problem is that you should not put on line a fighter designed exclusively for the contexts that will come, otherwise you risk rewriting the entire strategy for a fighter that is not able to meet the current operational needs.
But let's try to be even more precise, leaving aside the offensive capabilities of the F-35. Let's ask ourselves a question: is it conceivable that at least once, between the 2016 and the 2070, could a Marine F-35B find itself in close combat, after having already launched its two internal missiles that hit the enemy beyond the visual range?
It is possible to imagine that at least once in the course of its operational life, the F-35B can be found in a clean configuration with only two internal missiles already launched (we also think of Close Air Support), to engage the enemy in a fight close up or do we really think the 2030 or 2040 or 2050's enemy has to fight with that level of technology?
Beyond the proclamations of a certain sensationalist press, the real question to be asked is this. If in 50 years of service even an old style combat happens, what will happen to the F-35?
So the conceptual problem returns: having claimed a platform capable of supplanting various fighters with specific roles. It will never happen (we don't believe it), but if in a remote region of the globe, in a crisis scenario, an F-35B after eliminating two fighters (because the internal missiles will be two, we always remember the tactical support) should you find yourself fighting against the Mig-29 without any support from the F-22 or the EFAs, what would happen?
Perhaps, thinking in hindsight, the United States would have had to focus on the Raptor fleet and not limit itself to those exemplary 167 by virtue of a world stability that has proved too far down.
Franco Iacch
(photo: Lockheed Martin / US Air Force)
