F-35: Critics still don't realize that F-35 isn't just a newer 4th gen fighter

Sometimes you stumble across something written that is so poorly done that you have to respond on the off chance that someone would actually take it seriously.  That would be the case with a piece done by someone named David Axe at a site entitled "War is Boring" (Axe tells us he "goes to war so we don't have to", when in fact he goes and watches war, so we don't have to.  It's a bit like a baseball fan claiming he goes and plays baseball when his participation is limited to sitting in the stands watching). 

I've mentioned on numerous occasions how thin the gruel is that critics are offering these days.  Well in the case of Mr. Axe, he's managed to redefine "thin".

His bias is apparent from the beginning and it is also apparent, as one reads further into his article, that he, like many critics, has decided that the F-35 is simply a newer version of the F-16 or F/A 18.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  But it is from this false premise that he and other critics base their criticism.  They seemingly have no concept of what the F-35's advanced capabilities bring to the 5th generation or how it will change the concept of the role of future fighters and shape our future strategy.  None.

As a consequence, you get 4th generation thinking that blurts out silliness like this:

Owing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better. In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.

Face it, when you're reduced to quoting Winslow Wheeler as a major source, you've effectively screwed any credibility you might have had.  Wheeler is a budget guy.  He knows about as much concerning fighter aircraft and design as does Axe.  And if you remember correctly, Wheeler said that we'd not see reductions in the price of the F-35 in future orders.  He was wrong.  If he can't even get it right in the area of his supposed expertise, why in the world would one even bother listening to him when he spouts off about things he knows little to nothing about?

Axe then compounds the crediblity problem by introducing another "source" which he obviously wants you to believe is credible as well:

“The Harrier was based on a complete lie,” said Pierre Sprey, an experienced fighter engineer whose design credits include the nimble F-16 and the tank-killing A-10. “The Marines simply concocted it because they wanted their own unique airplane and wanted to convert amphibious ships into their own private carriers.”

Pierre Sprey has never "designed" any fighter aircraft.  Ever. He was a PA&E guy. He has no credibility whatsoever to those who actually know his background:

While working on the F-X, Boyd met Pierre Sprey, a weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff, whose background was similar to [Alain] Enthoven’s but much less distinguished. By his own account, Sprey was a dilettante with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of. 

Or, essentially, ignore whatever the man says.  He has no experience to back his pontifications.  And, as in the case of the M1 tank, of which he was also a critic, his criticisms were essentially unfounded.

So what is it these people and others like them don't seem to get?  This isn't a fighter like any other fighter we've ever built.  It isn't an evolutionary fighter, it's a revolutionary fighter.   And the missing piece that the critics never mention is well defined here:

The principle of operational versatility applies in spades when it comes to the F-35. The F-35 is wrongly thought of as a strike-fighter replacement for the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B Harrier II. It is that, but also much more—its advanced sensors, when networked together, will eventually substitute for the Navy and Air Force fleets of very expensive (and very in-demand) surveillance and reconnaissance and command and control aircraft. When used in combination with munitions-carrying drones, small formations of F-35s will be able to conduct large-scale strikes that remain the purview of large, manned bombers.

And much more, like the ability to integrate with the Aegis system:

Of central relevance not only to the program but to global security, Aegis coupled with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will provide unprecedented modular flexibility at sea for U.S. command authority and our allies as they shape responses to inevitable future crises.

Yes, that's right, Aegis.  Axe relies on a limited and outdated RAND simulation in 2008 on which to base his conclusion that the F-35 is a dog.  Of course, the simulation apparently never considered this:

Upcoming tests will support a launch/engage-on-remote concept that links the Aegis ship to remote sensor data, increasing the coverage area and responsiveness. Once this capability is fully developed, SM-3 missiles––no longer constrained by the range of Aegis radar to detect an incoming missile––can be launched sooner and therefore fly farther to defeat the threat.

Imagine this capability linked to an F-35, which can see more than 800 miles throughout a 360-degree approach. U.S. allies are excited about the linkage prospects and the joint evolution of two highly upgradable weapon systems. Combining Aegis with the F-35 means joining their sensors for wide-area coverage. Because of a new generation of weapons on the F-35 and the ability to operate a broad wolfpack of air and sea capabilities, the Joint Strike Fighter can perform as the directing point for combat action. Together, the F-35 and Aegis greatly expand the defense of land and sea bases. 

Name a 4th gen fighter which has these capabilities?  There are none.  Had this capability been mirrored in the 2008 RAND simulation, what would have been the outcome?  Probably much different that the claimed outcome.

When you consider these sorts of capabilities, suddenly "can't climb, can't turn, can't accelerate",  even if true,  seems relatively unimportant, doesn't it?   This isn't a 4th generation fighter operating on its own and it isn't going to be engaging in classic dog fights.  In fact, it will be the fighter, given its capabilities, which will likely get the first shot (or Aegis will) regardless of whether it can climb, turn or accelerate.  And in modern aerial combat, that's usually the decider. 

I'll be looking at a few of Axe's arguments, such that they are, over the next couple of days.  But suffice it to say, the gruel critics are passing out now is even more thin than it has been in the past.

Graff