USAF F-35A - spencerhughes2255
|
ALEX
LOCKIE JAN 11, 2019, 03.59 AM
- President Donald Trump's acting Pentagon chief reportedly hates the F-35, and he joins a long list of prominent people who consider the $1 trillion jet program a waste of money.
- A former US Navy commander, Chris Harmer, told Business Insider what the US could have built beside the F-35: A revamped fleet of legacy fighters with fifth-generation technology delivered at a fraction of the cost.
- F-35 pilots tell Business Insider the combination of stealth and sensor capabilities make the jet indispensable to the US military, and the Pentagon's top brass has placed a big bet on the jet's success.
- But Harmer and others have a different philosophy of modern warfare that gives less credit toexpensive stealth jets and seeks to offload some of the F-35's workload onto cruise missiles and radar jammers.
Acting Secretary of Defense
Patrick Shanahan, who took over after President Donald Trump accepted the
resignation of Jim Mattis, reportedly hates the most expensive weapons system
of all time, the F-35.
Shanahan worked for 31 years at
Boeing, the F-35 maker Lockheed Martin's main industry rival, and has
reportedly said his old firm would have done a better job on the new stealth
fighter.
A
former senior Defense Department official told Politico that Shanahan described the F-35 stealth
fighter as "f---ed up" and said its maker, Lockheed Martin,
"doesn't know how to run a program."
While
some may suspect Shanahan may be committing an ethical breach by speaking in
favor of his former employer, others have also raised concerns with the F-35
program, which will cost taxpayers $1 trillion over the life of the program.
But instead of simply handing
over the construction of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant as a single
stealth fighter/bomber with 3 variants for ground launch, carrier launch, and
short or vertical takeoff, others have proposed a radically different approach.
What
the US could have built instead
Former
US Navy commander and aviator Chris Harmer gave Business Insider an idea of
another such approach in 2016.
"The
F-35 is very capable in a very specific way," Harmer said. "The only
thing it does that legacy can't do is stealth."
The
US's F/A-18, F-15, and F-16 families of fighter aircraft, all Boeing products,
bear the name of "legacy" aircraft, as they were designed during the
Cold War before in a simpler time for aerial combat.
The F-35's low observability
and integrated stealth design are central to the plane's mission and tactics.
Throughout its development, the F-35 notoriously lost to older
legacy fighters in up-close dogfights.
Defense
officials never planned for the F-35 to revolutionize dogfighting,
however; they instead wanted to change aerial combat as a whole. The F-35, nearly impossible for enemy aircraft to spot, is designed to
shoot down foes from long distance before they're ever close enough to really
dogfight.
But Harmer suggested that instead of building
the F-35, the US simply should have updated existing aircraft, like the F-15,
the F-16, and the F/A-18.
"For a fraction of the
cost for F-35 development, we could have updated legacy aircraft and gotten a
significant portion of the F-35 capabilities,"
Harmer said. The F/A-18
carrier-based fighter, for example, has already undergone extensive reworkings,
and the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which is 25% larger than the original F/A-18, has
a smaller radar cross-section than its predecessor and is one of the US's cheaper planes to buy and operate.
F-35 pilots and military experts have told
Business Insider that the F-35's advantages include its advanced array of
sensors and ability to network with other platforms.
Combined with its stealth
design, an F-35 can theoretically achieve a synergy as a sensor/fighter/bomber
that operates deep within enemy territory in ways that legacy aircraft never
could.
But Harmer, and other F-35 detractors
including legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager, still think the F-35 was a waste
of money. According to Harmer, proven legacy fighters could be retrofit with
the advanced avionics and helmet for targeting that fighters out of Russia have
long used.
An F-15, the Air Force's air-superiority
fighter, with fifth-generation avionics and targeting capability, still lacks
the integrated stealth design of an F-35. Stealth must be worked into the
geometry of the plane and simply won't do as an afterthought. In today's
contested battle spaces, a legacy fighter, no matter how you update it, still
lights up brightly and clearly on enemy radar and is therefore less survivable
to the pilots - something US military planners have refused to accept.
"The only advantage of the F-35 is to go
into highly contested airspace," Harmer said, adding that the US had
"literally never done that."
Plus,
the US already has another fifth-generation aircraft with even better stealth
in its inventory: the F-22. In fact, when the US does discuss operations in the
world's most contested airspaces, it's the F-22 it talks about sending.
The
Pentagon believes in stealth and wants you to too
"There
are other, less expensive ways to address highly contested airspace - cruise
missiles, standoff weapons, radar jamming," Harmer said. The F-35 does
radar jamming, or electronic warfare, but the same electronic attacks could
theoretically be delivered by a cruise missile.
Even Trump publicly weighed abandoning the
F-35C, the carrier variant of the jet, for the F/A-18, the US's current naval
fighter/bomber. Ultimately, Trump seems to have landed in favor of the stealth
jet, which he now routinely claims is invisible.
Harmer's view of an alternate path to the F-35
represents a different military philosophy than what the Pentagon has accepted
since 2001, when it launched the F-35 program.
But today the F-35's problems are mostly
behind it, and operators of the next-generation aircraft have told Business
Insider they're supremely confident in the plane's ability to fight and win
wars in the toughest airspaces on earth.
Source: www.businessinsider.in
Lockheed Martin wins $712 million U.S. defense contract: Pentagon
F-35 Lightning II: Details
No comments:
Post a Comment