RDoug
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm no expert, and I've never played one on T.V. My only "fighter" experience was a little time in an F-111F simulator nearly forty years ago, and let's face it, the "F" in F-111F is a misnomer if ever I've heard one. But I have been reading several of the articles posted here. I found this one informative as well, Why the "F-35 v F-16" Article is Garbage.
All that being said, here's my opinion for whatever it's worth (which ain't much):
First of all, the main problem with this program as I see it — as with the aforementioned F-111 — is the "F" designation. The F-35 isn't a traditional fighter; it's a weapons delivery system masquerading as one. As such it should never have been given an "F" designation when in fact it's primarily an "A" aircraft in capabilities. True, it's an "A" that can launch air-to-air missiles with a great degree of effectiveness, but then it falls back upon "A" maneuverability after the offensive "F" stuff is launched. And relying solely upon air-to-air missiles strikes me as the same gross error in judgment that initially left guns off the F-4 when it was deployed. At some point an "F" had better be able to maneuver like an "F", and use close-in "F"-type weaponry (i.e., guns), or that "F" is likely to wind up a smoking crater in the ground in any theater where the U.S. does not clearly and decisively enjoy air superiority. Worse, air superiority is achieved with good "F" aircraft capable of flying "F" maneuvers backed up at some point by close-in "F" weaponry and a reputation to back up that "F" designation in the minds of an opposing "F" pilot. Reliance upon an "A" aircraft to obtain air superiority against a true "F"-equipped foe is just asking for problems. Problems that in the end will never grant to you even the illusion of air superiority in any truly contested theater of operations because once those initial air-to-airs are launched that same MiG pilot who might never even consider taking on a couple of F-16s isn't going to hesitate going in for the kill on two, three, four, or perhaps even more F-35s that are now depleted of their stand-off weapons capabilities and have to fall back on traditional fighter tactics.
Yes, it's still early in the program, but I'm not seeing how you're ever going to take what in reality is an "A" aircraft and use it with any degree of success in an "F" role no matter what tactics you devise. What I do see is an eventual reopening of production lines at General Dynamics and Boeing for the now inevitable F-16G and F-18H to cover for what the F-35 lacks. Otherwise you can forget ever achieving air superiority in any truly contested airspace.
But that's just my admittedly uninformed opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it.
All that being said, here's my opinion for whatever it's worth (which ain't much):
First of all, the main problem with this program as I see it — as with the aforementioned F-111 — is the "F" designation. The F-35 isn't a traditional fighter; it's a weapons delivery system masquerading as one. As such it should never have been given an "F" designation when in fact it's primarily an "A" aircraft in capabilities. True, it's an "A" that can launch air-to-air missiles with a great degree of effectiveness, but then it falls back upon "A" maneuverability after the offensive "F" stuff is launched. And relying solely upon air-to-air missiles strikes me as the same gross error in judgment that initially left guns off the F-4 when it was deployed. At some point an "F" had better be able to maneuver like an "F", and use close-in "F"-type weaponry (i.e., guns), or that "F" is likely to wind up a smoking crater in the ground in any theater where the U.S. does not clearly and decisively enjoy air superiority. Worse, air superiority is achieved with good "F" aircraft capable of flying "F" maneuvers backed up at some point by close-in "F" weaponry and a reputation to back up that "F" designation in the minds of an opposing "F" pilot. Reliance upon an "A" aircraft to obtain air superiority against a true "F"-equipped foe is just asking for problems. Problems that in the end will never grant to you even the illusion of air superiority in any truly contested theater of operations because once those initial air-to-airs are launched that same MiG pilot who might never even consider taking on a couple of F-16s isn't going to hesitate going in for the kill on two, three, four, or perhaps even more F-35s that are now depleted of their stand-off weapons capabilities and have to fall back on traditional fighter tactics.
Yes, it's still early in the program, but I'm not seeing how you're ever going to take what in reality is an "A" aircraft and use it with any degree of success in an "F" role no matter what tactics you devise. What I do see is an eventual reopening of production lines at General Dynamics and Boeing for the now inevitable F-16G and F-18H to cover for what the F-35 lacks. Otherwise you can forget ever achieving air superiority in any truly contested airspace.
But that's just my admittedly uninformed opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it.
