Defending the F-35

am tired of hearing the endless rhetoric about Canada's purchase of the F-35, so let's talk straight. John Lameck's recent letter, "Single engine, single-minded," attempts to disparage Canada's choice of the F-35 with some criticisms that are patently false.

He seems to suggest that Russian radars "see" in the millimetric range, enabling them to discern the size of aircraft. In fact, I believe the radars to which he is referring actually "operate" in the millimetric band of the radio frequency spectrum; their ability to discern the size of an object is more a consequence of the radar's design than its operating frequency.

Moreover, Mr. Lameck's statement that the RCAF has operated nothing but twin-engine fighter aircraft since the 1950s is also entirely wrong. The Canadair CF-104 Starfighter was in service with the RCAF for over 25 years, ending in 1986, and it is a single-engine fighter that has been described as one of the most successful fighters to serve Canada's Air Force. The F-35 is certainly not above reproach, but any criticisms should be fact-based, not myth-based. So, here are some facts:

First, Canada has an absolute requirement to maintain a fleet of combat aircraft that support the defence of Canada, her sovereignty, her interests, her citizens, her soldiers and, importantly, allied operations. Second, Canada's fleet of CF-18 fighter jets is nearing, or may already have reached, the end of its operational life span. A new fleet of fighter jets is an absolute necessity.

Third, Canada cannot possibly afford to maintain multiple fleets of single-role fighter aircraft, so a multi-role (strike) fighter is the only option available to her.

Well worth the read. Thanks.

When I think about the F-35 I remember so many aircraft that had major issues at first, but eventually became irreplaceable. Both the Chinook and the Osprey come readily to mind. But heck, in the Chinook’s case, that turned out to be one of the most reliable helicopter designs in history, and is still used a lot. (Once a week or more, JASDF Ch-47Js goes thumping right over my building. I love that sound.)

As for the Osprey, that bird was so close to dead so many times I lost count. I don’t know how many there are in service these days, but I haven’t heard of them having any more problems recently, so I am guessing they worked out the bugs.

Hopefully, and I am reasonably certain they will, the genius boffins will work out all the bugs in the F-35 — but given the magnitude of complexity involving all the new technology, and the expenses related to fixing problems, there is no doubt that the process is going to be more financially painful than earlier programs.

And, the author’s point was well made on the need for new strike aircraft as well — and I am talking about us. Hey, I love the F-22 and I certainly wish we had built more of them, but air to air is just one of the missions, and the Navy and Marines are going to need new carrier capable aircraft that can drop low-tech iron bombs as well as shoot fancy missiles. That’s going to have to be the F-35, although I don’t know how much hardware their going to be able to hang outside. The Super Hornet is doing the job now, but that design is getting long in the tooth.

Plus, the Marines definitely need the B to operate off the new America class LHAs.

That's the thing about the F-35. I was also a critic of the platform until I read something a year or so ago that showed the F-35 as a system in play with other systems rather than as a platform being compared with other platforms. The difference is that, as a platform, the F-35 has attributes that appear to be less than those of other platforms (e.g. its stated maneuverability, its speed, its altitude). However, those demerits are not necessarily disadvantageous. Take maneuverability for example ...while it will never have the agility of a Raptor or PakFa, the F-35 with an internal load is supposed to be as maneuverable as a clean F-16. That may not be as good as a Raptor, but it is not at all shabby. Particularly once you add in the F-35's DAS slaved to the HMDS that gives the pilot spherical awareness.

However the primary area of enlightenment for me was in regards to the F-35 being part of a system rather than a platform facing off against another platform. For instance, there will never be a situation where one F-35 faces off against one SU-35, even though most articles (from the ludicrous to the serious) criticizing the F-35 tend to show exactly such a scenario. In real life it will be several F-35s, using their co-operative data-link networks to communicate with one another, operating as part of a far greater system that includes AWACS and other distributed sources of information (and that may include Raptors even), against an enemy that is already being saturated with electronic attack as well as having possibly suffered a cruise missile attack (basically an enemy that has suffered degraded defenses and/or ability to attack/counter-attack). It will never be some chap in a super-sukhoi fighting against some chap in a JSF like some modernized jousting contest in the sky. It will be a battle of systems fighting for supremacy rather than a clash of one machine versus another.

Furthermore, another consideration would be to look at the history of who the US has been engaged in fights with. It has never been against a near-peer adversary (apart from some cases of 'assistance' during the Korea war and Viet Nam). It has always been against countries that cannot be able to give true defense, both from a qualitative as well as quantitative aspect. Take Iraq for example, during GW 1 when it was at its strongest. Its air-defense system was the KARI system, which was a mix of Soviet/French/British systems that were cobbled together a decade before with the intention of stopping a) a repeat of the Israeli strike at Osirak; and b) an Iranian air-attack. Such a system was next to useless against a major Western attack. Or other countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, the Balkans, Grenada, Panama, etc. No real threats, and if that pattern continues to hold the F-35 is far far far more than enough. Obviously there is the possibility of facing off against a near-peer adversary (e.g. the Bear or the Dragon), but if that comes about the point of it being a system vs system rather than the performance of one F-35 vs one J-20/PakFa/SU-35 still holds water.

This doesn't mean I think the F-35 is absolutely perfect. But then again, no new system is. It also has some genuine issues, especially weight for one of the variants. There is also the fact that the concept was originally supposed to operate in tandem with the Raptor (the ATF kicking the door down, and the JSF coming in after). Then there is the issue of costs and the F-35 slowly creeping up in cost to (potentially) end up rivaling that of the Raptor (although I doubt it will get there). That is an interesting area that is similar to how the Virginia SSN was supposed to be a cheaper more cost-effective alternative to the Sea-Wolf SSN, but eventually ended up being the same cost (if not slightly more).

But anyways, the F-35 has its issues. However, when looked at from the perspective that it is part of a system and not a reincarnation of a one-on-one joust, and that its 'deficiencies' are only so when compared to planes like the Raptor, and taking into consideration the likely types of threats it will face (an Iran at the high end rather than a China or Russia proper), then the F-35 is more than good enough.

With that said I hope the next president re-opens the Raptor lines. Apparently the last one is currently flight-testing.

A fine post over-all. I have one minor criticism. There is a double-edge sword driving the cost up. The system’s teething pangs/canceling the build schedule. They go hand-in-hand. The cost estimates were the development cost divided by the total number of aircraft. When you lower the number of aircraft purchased - the price/aircraft goes up.

Just as the F22 was wrought with development issues - so has the F35. Lockheed claimed that the F22 learning experience would make the F35 go smoothly. Hasn’t turned out that way.

Never the less - as others have pointed out. EVERY military system has teething pangs. Remember the F-111? It was deployed to Vietnam early - and the squadron record was a disaster! Yet it became a reliable work-horse for both us an the Australians! How about the M1A1 - and all the dire predictions about it never having seen combat, that the turbine engines would overheat in the desert (forgetting that the National Training Center is in the desert). (Spetznaz - this last wasn’t aimed at you...just adding wood to the fire. ) Point being that there are ALWAYS critics and they are nominally WRONG!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.