Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Red Flag and the F-35 Kill Ratio Is 15:1
The much maligned F-35 did very well at the February 2017 Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, Nevada. In fact the F-35 dominated the skies. When paired with F-22 the kill ratio may have been as high 17:1.
In the past few months reading through news stories about the F-35 I wondered why the F-35 was denigrated in the US, but Australians and Europeans were so impressed by this aircraft. The F-35 is available for purchase by American allies, the F-22 is not. The Red Flag exercises provided the answers to that question.
In the first day of sorties during Red Flag not a single F-35 was lost to “enemy action”, and not one F-35 was grounded to mechanical or electronic malfunctions. Throughout the exercise the operational ability to keep the F-35 flying was approximately 92%.
What this means to NATO is that the Russians would not be able to support ground troops and it would allow NATO to dominate the sky. The Russian Air Force would not be able to protect Russian armored or infantry units. The Russian Air Force would have to sit on the ground, or risk being destroyed in a very short time, or confined to Russian airspace.
Published in MilitaryRunning from January 23 to February 10, this year’s Red Flag involves more threats to pilots than ever before, including surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), radar jamming equipment, and an increased number of red air, or mock enemy aircraft. Against the ramped-up threats, the F-35A only lost one aircraft for every 15 aggressors killed, according to Aviation Week.
The F-35 Lightning II’s advanced avionics software was the star of the show, as multiple F-35s successfully compiled data into a detailed layout of the battlefield with each individual threat pinpointed. The stealthy aircraft could then slip into weak spots in the defensive layout and take out SAM targets, opening up the space for follow-on forces of legacy fighters. Even when the F-35s ran out of munitions, F-22 and fourth-generation fighter pilots wanted the aircraft to remain in the combat zone, soaking up data and porting target info to the older fighters.
Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles—we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out, Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander, told Aviation Week. Now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time.
The F-35 and the F-22 Raptor pair up to make a particularly deadly team, according to the pilots. The Raptor uses its advanced air maneuverability to shield the F-35 from airborne threats while the F-35 relays data to the F-22 to paint a clear picture of the battlefield. Once the duo of fifth-generation fighters take out an initial wave of ground and air targets, F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s bring up the rear to provide support, all receiving target data from the F-35s in the field.
We may get to see how the Israeli Air Force will use their F-35’s. The Israeli Defense Minister has recently warned Syria that Israel will destroy Syria’s air defense system, not just one site, the entire system. The Russians seem to be that taking that threat seriously, as they should because the Israeli’s do not make idle threats.
It has long been public knowledge that certain types of early warning radars can detect stealth aircraft, because stealth aircraft are generally optimized against the X-band and to a lesser extent the L- and S-bands. While this may be useful for knowing when to turn on a SAM radar or where to vector interceptors, the point of modern stealth designs is to prevent those systems from being able to acquire and target the stealth jets with more accurate, shorter wavelength radars and launch missiles.
Also note the size of the aperture of that radar (3×3 meters). It requires its own dedicated 3-axle flatbed truck. Such systems are on near the tippy top of the SEAD/DEAD target list and are vulnerable to long-range precision strike weapons like cruise missiles or anti-radiation missiles.
UAV fleets are great. However, if you run with a man in the loop, you need a close platform. No one can handle air-to-air over our current system – there is just too much lag inherent in sending a signal through the satellite network. If you operate without a man in the loop, you have an automated killing machine. Who is going to be accountable when it blows up an airliner? You also drastically underestimate the complexity of air combat. Have you read about the early Vietnam doctrine and decision to go to purely long range missile trucks? The modern aviation culture is shaped by that.
Now, if you wanted to send drones in to carry ordnance for fighters, launching on the pilot’s orders, I would be completely in favor of that. Similarly, I think drones could help with in-flight refueling.
I did not start throwing around personal accusations on the subject:
When dealing with military procurement there often is deliberate sabotage. Sometimes for foolish reasons (the concept of export-quality stealth harkens back to other follies such as the F-20 and F-16/79); sometimes corruptness (the folly of passing off the Super Hornet as just an improved Hornet after the A-12 fiasco while sabotaging its performance by making it look like a Hornet); sometimes more malign (stalking horse tactics by Democrats pushing a defective program to cancel a superior one so that they then can attack the defective program on the merits).
I will just say that your definition of sabotage is not consistent with mine or most of the world. What you describe might be misfeasance, but not malfeasance. You may disagree with reducing aircraft cost by exporting it to foreign nations, but that is a perfectly legitimate choice to make, especially when considering the massive cost of the aircraft.
And I stand by that assessment.
Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!
By what evidence? I actually have a financial interest in the F-35. I show my utter lack of respect for the reach of Ricochet by providing honest experience-based opinions that are contrary to that interest.
I remember this, but differently. Reporting on 60 Minutes about how F5 aggressor pilots were “foiling” fancy F15 radars by purchasing commercial radar detectors. The F5 not having that native capability.
That never gets old!
That’s how I recall it too. The point is the game was not set up to duplicate even a near peer threat.
ct,
Do you have a specific critique of the Feb 2017 Red Flag exercise with F-35?
Regards,
Jim
I have strong suspicions based upon the incompleteness of the reports (e.g., on exact threat simulated) and past experience such as that discussed.
And confirmed.
ct,
Your objection is much more schooled than mine. I am generally suspicious because of the timing of events. The F-35 situation has gone on for a very long time. Trump makes what may be a bluff that the program is in jeopardy because of no demonstrated ability to produce. Suddenly in February 2017, we get a performance test that we would assume could have been done long ago.
I am willing at this point to assume the targeting capability of F-35 is real and that used in conjunction with other aircraft (F-22 & A10) would be a major asset. However, I remain skeptical of granting credence to any additional capabilities of the aircraft. Given all this, the idea of putting all of one’s trust in a single hyper-expensive mostly unproven aircraft is completely wrong.
I think Trump is having a good effect here. We have something to consider rather than just vaporware claims and a huge bill$. I think moving forward but just one step at a time is in order.
Regards,
Jim
How?
Interesting concept that the UK is a former first world country.
When the Conservatives took over the government they looked at changing the carriers to arrestor cables and catapults. The cost was estimated at $1.5B for each carrier. Given the austerity program the Brits were, and still are, running this was just a bit too much at that time.
Can anyone comment on F35 from a NORAD perspective (ie. against Russian Fighters and bombers)
Not sure I trust it, but:
https://warisboring.com/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd#.ib61wiu5t
From a NORAD point of view, lack of speed and missile range seem noteworthy. The latter is a generic problem the US has in terms of a lack of long range air-to-air missiles. We’ve stretched the legs of the AMRAAM quite a bit, but all our likely adversaries will have longer range missiles.
The Canadian government has I believe deferred on the decision to buy the F-35. If it is a matter of cost there will be some incentive to rethink the decision. The F-35 will cost approximately 85M, which is close to the cost of reworked 4th generation fighters. The cost was coming down long before the famous Tweet of Donald Trump, a renowned aviation expert and military strategist..
Here’s why Canada is likely out for good.
The F-35 would have replaced the entire Canadian Hornet fleet and its support infrastructure.
Once it buys Super Hornets, Canada will temporarily strain itself to maintain parallel support infrastructures for the Super Hornet and the Hornet.
Assume they keep their 40 best Hornets flying until the mid 2020s and are faced with replacing them with F-35. Rather than maintain parallel support infrastructures for the Super Hornet and the F-35, there will be pressure to just get more Super Hornets with the savings from killing off the Hornet infrastructure (even if out of USN stocks as USN Super Hornets begin to be replaced with F-35C).
Recall the argument the USAF made that it had to kill the A-10 in order to free up the support infrastructure footprint for the F-35.
If Canada starts thinking about replacing the Super Hornets well post 2030, it likely will be looking at a 6th generation aircraft.
Doug,
I really wasn’t implying that Donald Trump was either an aviation expert or military strategist. However, I suspect he has had plenty of experience with smoke & mirrors employed by contractors who want to drag out a long project, make a huge profit, and avoid all responsibility for the end results.
Let me translate. DJT gave F-35 a swift kick in the pants which it had earned about 5 times over. I suspect things won’t really be worked out until they are given but another swift kick. Of course, I’m no expert either but I am a good guesser.
Regards,
Jim
The reason that Denmark and the Netherlands are purchasing F-35’s is a commonality of communication and threat communication. Coordination in combat with not only their own forces is possible, but with US forces as well. The F-35 is not a close in dogfighter. It is designed to hit aircraft and SAM sights before the enemy can find the F-35. It is not an A-10.
Speaking of the A-10 I disagree with John McCain on many issues, but not the efforts he and Martha McSally made to keep the A-10 flying. Polish pilots are being trained on the A-10 here in Arizona, as are pilots of other nations.
A little late to this conversation, but I still have to chuckle about how self-confident some armchair experts can be about complex military affairs.
I probably know less than anyone in this conversation about the capabilities and design of the F-35, but I have both a cousin and close friend who fly/have flown the F-18 (including in Red Flag exercises in the past), and conversations with them have confirmed what should be common sense:
I have no evidence that the exercise was actually rigged or biased in any way, but I think the notion that we should take an exuberant press release by a biased party at its face value is somewhat naive.
And in any case, who cares?
If ever there was an example of What difference, at this point, does it make? the F-35 is it. It’s literally the only new tactical airplane in the development pipeline for our entire armed services. Would we really cancel the entire program if it didn’t perform as well at Red Flag as hoped? And then what? Keep pumping out airplanes designed in the 1960s until the sun cools?
With time, we’ll find out more about how well the F-35 really performs. But whether it meets expectations or not, we’re stuck with it.
Actually, it was designed to keep the AF, Navy, and Marines all in aviation big time. Actual capabilities were secondary.
There was a huge risk that with the obsolescence of the Harrier the Marine Corps would lose its fixed wing aviation component. There was no way a dedicated replacement for the Harrier would be funded.
Then both the AF and Navy felt themselves at risk of taking a big hit. The Navy had put us through the A-12 fiasco and then the Super Hornet fiasco. They’ve done a good job of hiding the latter, but it was a scam. Essentially the full cost of an all-new fighter but only a small fraction of the benefit. The Navy quite probably would not get a replacement for the Super Hornet.
The AF was at risk of having the F-22 in a perceived cost spiral a la the A-12. It needed a Plan B. And thus, we got the JSF. The Marine Cops, Navy, and AF protected their turf.
Just some sarcasm on my part. There is no doubt that the F-35 had a very rocky start. It was common knowledge and Lockheed has always acknowledged that. The price was dropping long before President Trump’s famous Tweet.
Denmark is going to purchase approximately 20 F-35’s. As more countries purchase the F-35 the price will drop further. What should be of interest is that countries on much tighter budgets than ours is the military benefit they see in the F-35. Properly used the F-35 can be very effective.
At some point the 6th generation of combat aircraft might be drones. They would have to be big drones to carry big payloads.
This is the most frustrating thing. Up here in the Great White North, our primary need is for a very long-range interceptor to head off Russian flights over the Arctic. A single-engine aircraft is sub-optimal for that mission.
I happened to attend a dinner last night with an Air Force F-35 test pilot and had the opportunity to ask him several questions related to this thread. He’s a former Eagle driver (F-15C) who became a test pilot and has flown over 30 different airframes, and has had a very prominent role in the F-35 test program. Although he’s in the Air Force, his squadron is responsible for testing all three variants and he flies all three. My admittedly subjective impression was that he spoke freely and offered his own opinions as opposed to toeing a party line. Here’s a quick summary:
If I remember any others over the course of today I’ll post them.
Doug,
I am all for F-35 getting its price down. I am all for a broad coalition deriving benefit from F-35. However, the most disturbing thing about this whole affair is the attempt to destroy both F-22 and A10. We are in immediate need of both weapons. They are our prime platforms to answer any immediate threat. With lunatics like Kim Jong Un and the Iranians running loose we will never know exactly when we will be forced to use them. It isn’t even clear just when we will be able to move past both systems. I have experience selling process control and it is always far more difficult to emulate much less replace a human actor than at first assumed. A10 is a brutal weapon that men must fly. Yet ISIS is a horrible brutal enemy that has earned the destruction that would be rent upon it. With a Russian or Chinese enemy, we must let them know that we mean business and have the tools available to do the job. With N. Korea and Iran, we have the unknowable factor of an irrational enemy. In short, let’s knock off the crap that F-35 can do every role because it can’t. After that, I am more than interested in its new capabilities and a broad coalition that can make use of them.
Regards,
Jim
PS One more thing. This morning I threw my pants up in the air and jumped into them with both feet at the same time. Anybody who believes me would believe that F-35 can do every role and we can just scrap everything else. Oy Vey.