via The Province.com
Gen. Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S., said the F-35 is critical for the future of that country’s air force. But in an interview with the Air Force Times, published in February, Hostage pointed out the F-35 needs to work hand-in-hand with the F-22.Read the entire article here.
“The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” Hostage said. “It needs the F-22.”
The U.S. Air Force is upgrading the F-22, which officers see as essential. Without the upgraded F-22s, “the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant,” Hostage said.
The question becomes simple. If the F-35 is not an air superiority platform then what good is it to Canada, Japan, and a whole host of other countries?
If the F-22 is needed to make the F-35 relevant then what good is it to the USMC or the USN?
This is what happens when you go off script and start telling the truth.
Is that the vaporware Cuda missile in the weapons bays or SDB II on BRU-61a racks?
ReplyDeleteif i remember correctly its the vaporware.
DeleteThose are SDB2s.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of “not built for air superiority”, neither was the F-16 yet it fills this role well in every country in which it fly’s, including the US.
Context is everything.
Hostage is pushing for, and rightfully so, more upgrades for the F-22.
the F-16 was built as a supreme dogfighter. if thats not air superiority then what is?
Deleteon closer inspection (and a Google image search) they appear to be Spear3 missiles (from MBDA)
DeleteIt was billed as a WVR day fighter, certainly not in the then F-15 class of air-supeririority.
DeleteI am sure that pro F-15 Generals at the time said the same thing about the relationship between the F-15 and F-16.
Note also that the article says that without the F-22 upgrades, the F-35 is irrelevant. It's all about pushing the upgrades for his favorite program in teh context of the American mission.
SpudmanWP
DeleteThe whole idea was that the F-15 would engage Soviet Mig-25s, while the F-16 would engage Soviet nuclear bombers in WW3.
Then why build F-16 with maneuverability as a KPP (or whatever they called it then?) The F-16 is not a bomber interceptor like F101/106 - it was meant as an air superiority dogfighter armed with heaters to fill out numbers needed to achieve and maintain air supremacy.
DeleteThe 16 was purpose built to supersede the 15, in a way... See: "BOYD, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" for some examples. The book gives you a good perspective of the FX/LFX projects, among other things. The Viper was designed to out maneuver ANYTHING on the skies! Including the 15. Now you have the 22, which can pretty much out maneuver anything in the skies, it can shoot BVR, go BFM if needed... Burn holes in the sky and make craters on the ground. Which begs the question....what is the point of the F-35? And why do we need to "die in a ditch" to keep this project alive. Tie a tourniquet on it, and cut that limb off! The 16 is one of the best fighters ever designed! (shameless Viper plug)
DeleteThat is pretty much what I expected it to be, if it was an air superiority fighter then Britain wouldn't bother with them since they've got Typhoons. They're taking the role of the Tornado and I think they're suited to that quite well, fast and maneuverable bomb trucks. Not sure about their low speed performance so I guess they may spell the end of 100ft passes over Ullapool annoyingly.
ReplyDeleteThe Tornado can be used as a fighter but it's not the best at it, it can take out Johnny Foreigner's MiGs or A-4s without much trouble but it'll struggle against Sukhois and more modern jets. Hopefully the F-35B will do a little better than that but it should still be good enough for what we need it to do,
i didn't list the UK because i was aware of how they view things. Italy too. but Canada and Japan...the Netherlands and a few others need credible fighter airplanes that can fight.
DeleteI'm under the impression that the Italian situation is pretty similar if not identical to the British one, replacing Tornadoes and Harriers in the strike role with Typhoons for AS.
DeleteAnyway, even if it's not the best one going it's still going to be better equipped and flown than the majority of it's opponents, and the strike capabilities will hopefully be helpful to our guys on the ground.
If our politicians are putting the money on the table to get these things then the least we can do is try to make the best of the situation.
I would say with the F-22 around the F-35 will be irrelevant. You could use any other fighter to finish the job.
ReplyDeleteWhich F-22 can?
DeleteFly from a CVN
Fly from austere basing
Fly from a LHD/A
Carry a 2 k bomb
Carry a glide bomb, cruise missile, etc
Designate precision targets (no LGB)
Is easily upgraded
Is built in any reasonable numbers
Can be exported
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete- No it can't fly from a CVN but neither can the F35 at the moment and if the F35C ever does fly from one it will be rather useless and expensive.
Delete- Flying from austere bases with STOVL is overrated, expensive and complex and rarely used.
- Flying from a LHD is also expensive and complex and is only being pushed by Marine Aviation to keep they're own air wing without losing it to the Navy which is simpler and cheaper and lets be honest, more effective and efficient.
- No she can't carry a 2K JDAM or cruise missile internally but on wing points she could. Besides this point, the F22 can carry a 1k JDAM internally which for most missions will be more than sufficient.
- The F22 could be easily fitted with the EOTS under the chin and designate precision targets.
- She was also built with upgradeability in mind
- Sure the F22 hasn't had many built but at least she works extremely well and is operational. One could always restart the production line again with lessons learned and technology gained from the JSF program and inject them into the F22 while having exportability in mind.
The F-16 was never an air-superiority fighter in the sense of the F-15. The F-15 had was the premier fighter of the USAF with unrivaled performance at the time. It had high-altitude and high-speed performance that the F-16 couldn't match, a much superior radar, and came with BVR capability from the start. Of course it had the price tag to match these capabilities.
DeleteThe F-16 started life as a cheap lightweight fighter intended to counter the hordes of Soviet MiG-21s and the like. The USAF also decided it would serve as a light fighter-bomber. Initially it had no BVR capability and in an air-to-air configuration would only have the gun and two or four Sidewinders. It had no "all-weather" capability and could only use dumb general purpose and cluster bombs. Gradually it became the true multi-role fighter it is today.
It is USAF policy to say whatever is necessary to get funding. The F35 will be portrayed as a wonder weapon only until it is cancelation proof, which it is now. Now we'll start hearing about F35 limitations, first a little when they want F22 upgrades and then a lot when they decide it's time to shovel a whole new pile of dollars into the lockmart money pit for the ”6th gen" fighter. The main lesson that the USAF took from the B2 and F22 deployment debacles was the need for a constant barrage of lies to overwhelm any analysis of their procurement incompetence and this is just part of that strategy, not any real commentary on aircraft capabilities.
ReplyDelete