Sunday, July 5, 2015

War Scenario Simulation: F-35 No Match Against China's Air Force


David Axe, War Is Boring: One Analyst Predicted the F-35's Dogfight Failure

John Stillion has some radical ideas about aerial warfare

During mock dogfights over the Pacific Ocean in January, a U.S. Air Force F-35 stealth fighter struggled to get a clean gun or missile shot at a 1980s-vintage F-16D, according to an official pilot’s report that War Is Boring obtained.

Turning the tables, the F-16 easily maneuvered behind the bulky F-35, even sneaking up on the radar-evading jet when its test pilot found his rearward view blocked by the plane’s poorly-designed canopy.

The obvious conclusion — America’s brand-new stealth fighter, which is on track to replace almost all of the Pentagon’s current fighters, is dead meat in a close air battle.

WNU Editor: The juicy part of this post by David Axe is the following ....

....  in August 2008, the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank, ran a simulated air war over the Taiwan Strait, pitting the Chinese air force against American F-22s and F-35s flying from Japan and Guam. Stillion — a former Air Force F-4 crewman — oversaw the “Pacific Vision” study along with co-author Harold Scott Perdue.

In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles.

That left 16 of the smaller F-35s to do battle with the Chinese. As they began exchanging fire with the enemy jets, the results were shocking.

The bulky, sluggish F-35s — over-designed in order to meet the demands of the Air Force, Navy and Marines—were no match Beijing’s warplanes. Despite their vaunted ability to evade detection by radar, the F-35s got blown out of the sky.

10 comments:

James said...

This guy has a different view point on this. I personally have little experience in air operations, so take it for what it's worth.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2015/07/dogfighting.html

Unknown said...

I'll bet this is misinformation I couldn't see all these country's buying f-35's if they are no good...

Becool0980 said...

Propaganda to disuading Americas allies from buying advanced aircraft... Although haven't. Heard of anyone want to retire the F15, the worlds best dog fighting warplane in the world. Im sure they would be in the trenches knocking the remainder out...

Anonymous said...

The F-35 is designed to kill from out of range while the F-22 is able to outmaneuver the enemy using vector thrust. So this scenario is the wrong way around. Best to keep upgrading our F15 and F16s F16s as in any scenario against China we would need quantity as well as quality.

B.Posting said...

I to have very limited experience with air operations. As such, what do we make of this? Is the F-35 doomed or is this an attempt at enemy propaganda to get America to stop working on this and to get "allies" to halt their purchase of these aircraft?

I certainly would not discount the possibility of anti-American propaganda. America's enemies are far better at using the media to get their message out than the American government or American corporations are. On the other hand, I do understand the ability of the American government to make spectacularly stupid decisions. Also, I do understand the part human nature that is reluctant to admit they've made a bad decision or a bad investment and the tendency to "double down" in the situations. I think most likely the situation is somewhere in between the two extremes of the F-35 being a complete and total bust and the next generation military aircraft. Perhaps the project could be salvaged into something useful.

Now with all of this said, what should we do? Given America's massive national debt, the worn down nature of its military from continuing operations around the world for going on 14 years, its lack of a viable industrial base, its crumbling infrastructure, its shortage of scientific and industrial knowhow, and the inability to address any of these in the short to mid term, the best approach is probably going to be cancel the F-35 and focus on platforms that are more realistic given our limited capabilities and the need to defend America.

Essentially a weapons system platform designed to confront China or Russia is not going to be realistic for us. Russia and China are the most powerful military forces on earth and there's no realistic chance of us being able to challenge this in the short to mid term.

Now as for "allies" who invested in this, they never really were allies anyway as America has none except for perhaps Israel. As such, to lose them costs nothing and may result in gain as money no longer needs to be spent towards them. Additionally, I once read the words of an elderly lady who was in excess of 100 years old when she said, to paraphrase, "sometimes in life we make bad decision." With regards to the investment in the F-35 these "allies" might do well to heed these words, learn from them, and be prepared to move on.

While my analysis might not be totally correct, if it is, at least regarding the F-35, the decision to scrap the project would seem a sound one. As far as the people who have worked on this, be prepared to grant these people dignified retirements.

B.Poster said...

War game scenarios whereby the United States fights China or Russia in air to air dogfights do not seem the way to go for US military planners. Russia and China are the most powerful military forces on earth and there's little possibility of the US to alter this. As such, one would expect them to win these fights quite easily. Furthermore to do so would place our country's already precarious situation with regards to its survival in an even more precarious position.

Better approaches would to focus on how to counter an all out nuclear attack by Russia against the United States, a Russian invasion of the United States very likely involving assistance of China and other BRICS. and an attack on the US mainland by Islamic terrorists very likely involving the use of suitcase nuclear weapons and "dirty bombs" detonated simultaneously across multiple American metropolitan areas.

With regards to a Russian and/or allied invasion of the United States it seems unlikely we could actually win but there is a possibility we could make such an invasion so costly either with our conventional response or a viable nuclear response that they would not consider such an invasion. In any event, continuing to invest in the F-35 would seem counterproductive.

Caecus said...

B.Poster I can't tell if you are serious or not. Russia or China would have a hard time invading Japan, let alone the US mainland.

B.Poster said...

Caecus,

At least they are in a good position to be able to defend their countries. At this point, it is going to be problematic, at best, for the US to defend the American mainland let alone challenge Russia in Eastern Europe or China in the South China Sea. As such, war gaming for such things is a waste of time, energy, and resources. A far better approach is going to be to war gaming for the defense of America.

Any attack would probably be preceded by cyber attacks against US installations that would mitigate a military response. While the invasion would be hard, the Russians and Chinese would likely have the upper hand. I suspect, at this point, they have not done so because they feel it would be more difficult than they'd like at present.

In answer to the question of am I serious, yes. I take American national security very seriously. If America is going to survive, let alone thrive, America's leaders from the elected ones to the military officials are going to need to start taking this seriously as well.

Misguided approaches that challenge China in the South China Sea and Russia in Ukraine are not likely to end well. These are the most powerful countries militarily on earth. As I've stated here and elsewhere many times, policies that risk animosity with the most powerful actors are not a good way to run any organization let alone a country.

Anonymous said...

While I'm not a fan of the F-35, I do agree that this report is short-sighted. As James said, the F-35 was meant to engage targets beyond visual range -- it wasn't meant to get in close and dogfight.

Just like the F-15 would be shot out of the sky by the F-35 before it even sees the fighter, the F-35 would be easy bait for an F-15 who manages to get within dogfighting range.

However, logically, the F-35's "beyond-visual-range" capabilities are a distinct advantage over the F-15's; the F-15 would have to travel through the F-35's "kill-zone" before it would even have a chance to get in close and engage the F-35 on its turf... and chances are, the F-15 would be knocked out of the sky before it gets into its preferred closing distance.

Jay Farquharson said...

When originally "sold", and even as late as 2008, the F-35 was touted by the Program and it's supporters, to be as good or better "dog fighter" than a late Block F-16.

For Nations like Canada, Australia, The Netherlands, this should "end" the F-35 program, but it won't. Lockheed Martin has thrown too much money around.