When the United States government awarded the contract for the F-35 to Lockheed-Martin in 2001, it was with the understanding that the aircraft would be capable of serving as a replacement for multiple aircraft currently in service with several branches of the United States military. Instead, what’s emerged has been an incredibly expensive, badly underperforming aircraft with massive cost overruns, critical design failures, and reduced operational capacity. The latest headache for the $130 million jet is its inability to match the forty year-old F-16 in a dogfight.
The report, courtesy of War is Boring, describes a January 15 encounter between a single-seat F-35A in an older configuration and an F-16D Block 40. The Block 40 variant of the F-16 is newer than stock model, but still dates to 1989 — not exactly a spring chicken. The test in question was designed to measure the F-35’s ability to dogfight at high angles of attack and with aggressive maneuvering. The F-35 was flying clean, with no weapons in its bomb bays or mounted on the fuselage, while the F-16 was carrying a pair of external fuel tanks. This significantly impacts drag and limits the airplane’s overall maneuverability.
Despite these limitations, the report notes that the F-35 lost to the F-16, and lost badly. The report states that ““Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.” The report (text available here) also notes that “The most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability.”
The report continues, in damning tones.
“No effective guns defense was found during this test.” (Translation: Aircraft cannot avoid incoming fire from the more agile F-16).
“The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” (Self-explanatory)
“Whenever the helmet was pinned against the canopy, the pilot continued to strive to turn his neck resulting in the symbology no longer being in front of his eyes.” (Translation: In attempting to view enemy bogey, the poor helmet design causes the pilot to lose track of the rest of the in-helmet display).
“Pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons.” (The F-35 can’t punish a target for achieving a lock and it can’t prevent the lock from taking place).
And finally: “Though the aircraft has proven it is capable of high AOA flight, it wasn’t effective for killing or surviving attacks due to a lack of energy maneuverability.”
This is bad. Very bad.
The F-35 is still expected to officially replace the F-15, F-16, F-18, and Harrier jump jet. That’s despite the fact that the GAO (General Accountability Office) has now found that it would’ve been cheaper to build three planes instead of one. Operating costs for the F-35 are expected to be 79% higher than the aircraft it replaces, and the F-35 is expected to be operational for much less time per year (250 hours of flying time vs. 316 hours for an F-16). Acquisition costs have exploded past original estimates, with the entire fighter program now expected to cost more than $400 billion for aircraft that are slower, less available, more expensive, and less capable than what they’ll replace.
Edit: The question of whether the F-16 or F-35 has better acceleration is more contested than I initially realized. Depending on how you configure the planes and which Blocks you use, one plane or the other has an advantage. The F-16’s official maximum speed of Mach 2+ is higher than the official rating on the F-35 (Mach 1.6).
Many of the problems that have bedeviled the plane can be laid at the feet of concurrency. Concurrency is an utterly insane US military philosophy (detailed at FoxTrot Alpha) that mandates the simultaneous development and deployment of military technologies. Think about how much you hate the idea of being a forced beta tester for an operating system, game, or other software product. Now imagine you were required to do the same thing, except while flying at Mach 1.6.
It’s an insane idea. It assumes that incredibly complex aircraft can be built correctly from the ground up the very first time, or that the solutions to various problems can be seamlessly incorporated into already-built aircraft. The US missile defense systems designed using concurrency haven’t lived up to expectations and the F-35 hasn’t either.
The US government’s response
The government and Lockheed-Martin have responded with what they claim is a refutation of the issues raised by the F-16 / F-35 report. It notes that the F-35 in question lacked the long-range detection systems mounted on later versions of the aircraft, the stealth coating that makes the plane hard to track on radar, and the weapons and software packages that allow the pilot to lock on target without needing to point the nose of the aircraft at its target.
These are all true points. Left unsaid is the fact that the F-16 also lacks all of these systems, yet handily won the dogfight. To this, the government says: The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations.”
Again — this is the aircraft expected to replace the F-15, F-16, and F-18, all of which include some provision for visual dogfighting and air superiority. Perhaps more to the point, current rules of engagement prohibit the kind of long-range kills that the F-35 is supposed to excel at delivering. Pilots generally aren’t allowed to fire without confirming their targets, which means the F-35 will be closing to the kind of visual dogfighting range its proponents argue its designed to avoid.
Despite design flaws, cost overruns, and concerns about every aspect of the jet’s performance, the F-35 continues to be presented as the future of American air superiority. Hopefully we won’t be called upon to test it at any point in the near future. Drones are looking better all the time.
