Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

F-16 Beats F-35 in Mock Dogfight

The US military appears to have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a new aircraft that is inferior in combat to an aircraft designed forty years ago and built in the 1990s. A test pilot report discussed a mock dogfight held in January between a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a two-seated F-16D. In the report, the pilot reports that the F-35 did not perform as well as the F-16D in close-range combat maneuvers. The facts show that the F-35 is a lousy use of defense dollars and that further spending on it will actually endanger American fighter pilots.

David Axe, a journalist who covers the US military, got hold of the report, but he has not yet published it in full. He has written a piece, "Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight," that states "The pricey new stealth jet can't turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy's own gunfire."

Moreover, this was a test rigged in favor of the F-35. While it engaged in the dogfight in a "clean" configuration (no weapons in its bomb bay nor under the wings and fuselage), the F-16 had extra fuel tanks under its wings. This means the F-35 was at its aerodynamic best, and the F-16 was not. The F-16 still won.

That the F-35 has trouble doing its job is not news. It has suffered cost over-runs, technical glitches and schedule delays. This is not out of the ordinary for weapons systems, and the more complicated the system, the more likely problems are to arise. However, if it were a world-beater, this might be worthwhile. The fact that it isn't should give the Pentagon pause.

Part of the problem is that the aircraft was deliberately designed for as a multipurpose plane. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a plane that can engage enemy fighters, deliver bombs and offer air-support to ground forces. However, by asking any tool to do more than one job, one will find it inferior to a tool devised specifically for one job when it comes to doing that job. If one can produce four multipurpose aircraft for the same amount of money and resources as it does to produce three single purpose planes, clearly the multipurpose program makes perfect sense. If only two can be produced, it is probably a poor choice.

Another issue that the Pentagon rarely addresses is the threats that the nation faces. One has no doubt that the American military as it is constituted this morning could readily defeat any combination of other powers. Moreover, that victory would begin with establishing air superiority. Therefore, one must ask whether it is prudent to built fifth-generation aircraft like the F-35 when the current air fleet can achieve what needs doing. Naturally, one wants to send pilots up with the best plane possible, but as Mao observed, quantity is a quality in its own right. The Nazis had the most sophisticated aircraft in the world with the Messerschmidt 242 jet, and the Allies bombed Germany at will from 1943 on. The Germans could not produce enough jets to tip the balance in the sky.

The people who are attacking Americans and American interests today are not other nations. They are gangsters with a religious ideology. Al Qaeda, ISIS and their fellow travelers don't have air assets worth mentioning. They lack naval strength, and there is little in their arsenal in the way of armored vehicles like tanks. More advanced weapons platforms in greater numbers might not actually make a difference against them. Churchill had it right when he noted that after a certain point more bombs only make the rubble bounce. Putting a Sopwith Camel or Fokker Triplane in the sky against them would establish air superiority.

The F-35 is just one example of the procurement process failing the American people and their military. More submarines and aircraft carriers are of doubtful utility when the enemy lurks in the deserts of the Maghreb and in the Fertile Crescent. Drones may be morally and legally questionable, but at least, they are technologically appropriate for the fight. In the current fight, special forces have seen and will continue to see more combat than regular combat units. That is where the money and the research need to go.

© Copyright 2015 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home