Most TAH readers have heard about that new F-35 “Lightning II” that DoD insists will be ready for prime time “real soon now”. (Yeah, I know the USMC has accepted it and declared it “operational” – but I won’t consider it truly “ready for prime time” until it can perform its Close Air Support [CAS] role too. And as I’ll discuss below, right now the F-35 simply can’t do that.)
Well, it seems that there’s another little minor issue with the platform that’s been made public.
Jonn’s written previously about how the F-35 is less maneuverable in a dogfight than one of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16. Others have written elsewhere about the fact that the F-35 will be far less effective at the Close Air Support (CAS) role than the A-10 – if for no other reason than the F-35 is only designed to carry between 15.5% (USAF model, 182 rounds) and 18.7% (USN/USMC model, 220 rounds) as much cannon ammunition as the A-10 can carry (1,174 rounds).
But it will certainly be better air-to-air against the current aircraft it might face from Russia or China, right? Well, in a word – no.
Turns out that the F-35 will also likely be less maneuverable than the current aircraft from Russia and China it’s expected to face. So it will likely be worse than those aircraft in an air-to-air role, too.
Yeah, the analysis was done by a progressive think tank. So? Remember: they are capable of telling the truth on occasion, too. (smile)
Gee, what a surprise. I mean, the program has been an unmitigated success so far, right?
So, to recap: the F-35 is hugely expensive – several times more expensive than the aircraft it replaces. It’s worse as a CAS platform – and, by the way, it won’t even be available for that role for at least 4 years, as performing that role isn’t possible until gun control software which is projected to be available in 2019 is delivered (and only then if that gun control software works correctly). It is less maneuverable than the F16 it replaces in a dogfight. And it’s also less maneuverable than the foreign aircraft it may have to face in air-to-air combat.
So . . . what’s not to like?
Folks, we’ve seen this “movie” once before. Specifically, we saw it early in Vietnam – when US aircraft, designed not for maneuverability and depending solely on air-to-air missiles to take out enemy aircraft – got absolutely savaged by more maneuverable Soviet designs. (The air-to-air loss ratio early during the Vietnam War was about 1-to-1.) Plus, those aircraft kinda stunk when performing a CAS role, too.
The “movie” absolutely sucked then. There’s a damn good chance we’ll see a modern-day sequel if we continue down this path – and it will suck just as badly as the original.
We learned from that earlier fiasco, though. The result was a new generation of US military aircraft that took those lessons to heart. Those aircraft were the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and the A-10.
The F-35 is a turkey. We need to admit that fact, pull the plug on it, and go back to the drawing board. Yesterday.





