1. Start with a profile of what kind of missions are run and which planes do them best.
2. Identify any overlaps to spot consolidation opportunities that don't increase risk with "jack of all trades, master of nothing" results (eg F-35).
3. With or without consolidation, invest money in each plane that proved most effective in the field and simply upgrade it.
Last test I saw with F-35's vs F-16's saw the F-16's win. So, apparently it wouldn't have taken many upgrades. ;) I'd upgrade our top interceptor (eg F-15/F-16), multi-mission (esp F-18 Super Hornet), anti-vehicle (esp A-10), recon (eg U-2 or drones), and ECM craft for starters. Those would be volume while we invest some into improving premium aircraft we use in lower volumes such as F-117, F-22, and B-2.
I'd say this would be a nice start. At ten billion into each, it still wouldn't touch the F-35 program in expense despite offering way more in results.
That was not a dog fighting test. It was a test of F-35 flight controls. The F-16 was only present to provide a visual reference to maneuver with respect to. This is the kind of misconception that arises from David Axe's failure to properly understand his sources.
Ok. Let's assume your right, he's misreporting things, and work from there. I'm interested in your assessment of its dogfighting capabilities based on that test or others.
1. Can a F-35 pilot visually track whats around them as well as a pilot of F-16's or Russian/Chinese hardware?
2. Can the craft turn as well as a F-16 or Russian/Chinese current gen fighter?
3. Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs?
If any of these is no, then Axe is on point in terms of his conclusions. He's wrong if they're all Yes's and you can back that with testing results.
My assessment of dogfighting capabilities would be my own personal assessment. That would not be worth sharing, because it's not backed up by testing. The government is conducting operational testing now, but all you'll see made public is encapsulated here: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-d...
More developmental testing will occur over the coming years. But I have nothing public to share with you.
To answer your questions:
1) What do you mean by "visually track"? If you mean "with the good old Mark 1 Eyeball", no. The F-35 doesn't have the cockpit visibility of an F-16 or something like an Su-27/35. Now, if you mean, with avionics, then yes, far better. Check out this video on the EODAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY Spotting things hundreds of miles away is very realizable with this system.
2) Can the craft turn as well as an F-16?
Well, what kind of F-16? A clean F-16? That's going to be hard to beat even by a lot of combat UAVs. An F-16 with a usable combat load of bombs and A2A missiles? Yes, the F-35 has comparable maneuverability to this configuration of F-16, AND it carries all that ordnance and fuel internally, maintaining stealth. Check out the maneuverability section of this excellent resource for more info: https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/
3) Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs?
In ground tests, yes, it does well. The first in aircraft test was done last month (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HJjcVIuJg). It fired 10 rounds without problems. More testing to come in the future.
Basically, he has an idea of the plane in his head -- like you seem to have -- and he's bending all the facts to this narrative. It's a thing that humans do. But all this reads very differently to someone who looks at this stuff every day.
1. EODAS looks pretty good for long-range encounters and assisting short-range. Video avoids dogfight discussion past tracking and questionable assumption that enemies are always one missile away from defeat. Guess I'll just have to wait to see how it pans out with guns.
2. That's a good situation. The DAS and HMDS are pretty badass so long as they work as advertised. You didn't mention the top Russian and Chinese planes. How does it compare to a Su-35, for instance?
3. I meant pilots hitting what they aim at with acceptable spread. Daily Beast reported it had software issues. Since it's Daily Beast... I want see testing before I'll buy their claim and there should be some for an A-10 replacement.
So, you've given me some good information to work with. Appreciate it. Your last sentence is interesting. What are the "real problems on the flight line" for F-35?
I don't mention those planes because I honestly don't know anything about them beyond what you can read on Wikipedia.
Real problems I will not comment on, but if you so desire, you can fish around in reports by the undersecretary for defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics. That's the position that the current SecDef (Ashton Carter) held until he became SecDef. It's all there in significant detail, should you desire to read it. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/dod/2014f35js... There's the latest one.
Plenty of internal redundancy can be reduced by sharing components and some interfaces. However, it's not redundant if it's a necessary part of solving several different problems. We don't count as redundant buying different hardware for embedded, mobile, laptop, and servers even though they might use same ISA and Linux.
Why not replace it with drones? I thought the writing was on the wall for fighter jets and bombers and in 5-10 years they can operate autonomously just as well as your average pilot can fly them. Since there is no human in them, they can be smaller, fly faster and tolerate stronger G-forces. If a manned plane is shot down, the US public gets upset but if it is a drone, no one cares. Hell, even losing two dozen drones would hurt less than a single F-35.
You seem to know a lot about aviation so I wonder why you don't think drones are a viable replacement?
They are not as of this very moment a viable total replacement. A valuable supplement to manned aviation, yes, drones are already doing this. In a few decades, who is to say? I don't know enough to even hope to make a prediction.
So these are problems that exist now:
The data link between the drone operator and drone is a weak link. It can be intercepted, studied, and even broken. Again, the Iran RQ-170 incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid... This is not an insurmountable problem, but it means that drones are not an end-all solution at this time.
Drones are not cheap themselves. The X-47 program cost is over 800 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B Now most of that is R&D, and should the type be produced in significant numbers, expect costs per unit to be much much lower, but doing some rough figuring, I doubt that costs will ever be much below $20 million per copy. Simply based on the sensor packages that would be installed.
First of all, manned fighter planes are dinosaurs. No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone.
Secondly, there are existing designs that I'm sure could be refreshed for a lot less than $1.5 trillion dollars. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them -- reboot them with new electronics, better materials, etc. They'd still be far better than what anyone but maybe the Russians or the Chinese have -- and they're probably also moving to drones quickly.
Manned planes will fly for several decades still, and even upcoming generations will most likely be optionslly manned rather than unmanned. The line will blur between manned and unmanned however.
Today's "drones" have more pilots than the manned craft! Often 4-5 for even a short mission. There is no autonomous flying. Quickly reacting autonomous fighters is still sci-fi.
The problem with the F-35 project is mostly that it somehow was decided to replace the Harrier. Replacing the F-15/16/18 isn't a problems. Replacing the harrier with the same craft is an engineering nightmare.
Upgrading old platforms is done continuously, up to a point where an upgrade would be so expensive/radical that a new design is better. Sticking more electronics in an old plane isn't easy, the power and cooling requirements can require big redesigns, for example.
The planes it replaces are certainly near the end of their lifespans and have been upgraded a lot over several decades.
What they should have done is not make just one plane. A replacement for the F-15/16/18 would have been much easier.
> Replacing the harrier with the same craft is an engineering nightmare.
This is another misconception. The F-35 emerged from a DARPA study in the 80s to create a stealthy STOVL aircraft. The F-35 as designed started with the F-35B. The other two variants were created through modifications to this design.
Drones can be jammed and even stolen (Iran did this a few years ago). And those existing designs have had refreshes and continual improvements. Look at a Block 60 F-16 and compare it to the first F-16s. But those designs have little room for growth.
Boeing has even tried to create a stealthy version of the F-15, but has found no buyers, because even that aircrafts capabilities do not compare favorably to the avionics present in the F-35.
No country is even remotely close to totally supplanting its air force with drones entirely. You speak as of these things are happening at a greater pace than they are.
You do realize that an F-16 mission is flown by 1 pilot, and a drone mission is flown by 3-5 staff? It's not just manned flight it's 3-5x more manned than conventional craft, just from the ground.
2. Identify any overlaps to spot consolidation opportunities that don't increase risk with "jack of all trades, master of nothing" results (eg F-35).
3. With or without consolidation, invest money in each plane that proved most effective in the field and simply upgrade it.
Last test I saw with F-35's vs F-16's saw the F-16's win. So, apparently it wouldn't have taken many upgrades. ;) I'd upgrade our top interceptor (eg F-15/F-16), multi-mission (esp F-18 Super Hornet), anti-vehicle (esp A-10), recon (eg U-2 or drones), and ECM craft for starters. Those would be volume while we invest some into improving premium aircraft we use in lower volumes such as F-117, F-22, and B-2.
I'd say this would be a nice start. At ten billion into each, it still wouldn't touch the F-35 program in expense despite offering way more in results.