Add Category
In the spotlight ... The capabilities of the controversial F-35 Strike Fighter has once again been called into question. Source: Lockheed Martin Source: Supplied
THE manufacturer of the $1 trillion F-35 Strike Fighter has leapt to its product’s defence — insisting a test pilot’s damning report ‘doesn’t tell the entire story’.
It’s supposed to be all things to all people: An interceptor. An air superiority fighter. A fleet defence fighter. A ground-support jet. A tactical bomber.
It’s ended up being the most expensive weapons system in US military history. It’s also one of the most delayed.
It’s also attracting an increasing amount of flak.
An F-35A Lightning II’s test pilot report of the next-generation combat jet’s performance against a 40-year-old F-16D Falcon was picked up by the War is Boring blog earlier this week.
RELATED: Crunch time for the F-35 Stealth Fighter
The report highlighted the test pilot’s apparently damning comments about the aircraft’s lack of power, manoeuvrability and ability to “see†what was going on behind it.
But Lockheed Martin and the Joint ProjectOffice (JPO) were quick to issue a joint press release to the media, denying the significance of the outcome.
It argues the F-35A used for the combat test was not representative of the type as a whole, being instead built for ‘flight sciences testing’.
“It is not equipped with a number of items that make today’s production F-35s Fifth Generation fighters,†the JPO portion of the statement reads.
Tight constraints ... Concerns over the F-35’s structural integrity have seen strict limitations placed on its combat manoeuvrability. Source: Lockheed Martin Source: Supplied
Gadget deprived
The F-35A used for the flight testing was built specifically to test the aircraft’s ability to dogfight. It was fitted with a suite of sensors to measure the stresses placed on the airframe as the fighter was thrown about in high-stress combat situations.
But supporters argue the F-35 stealth fighter is not intended to be a dog fighter: It’s not supposed to get into the close one-on-one situation the testing entailed.
RELATED: Is the F-35 already obsolete?
“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting†situations,†a statement released on behalf of the F-35 Joint Project Office overseeing the contract.
Problematic software intended to allow the F-35 to see an enemy aircraft long before it is itself seen was also not installed in the test aircraft, the statement says. The test aircraft also did not have the “special stealth coating†designed to make the aircraft invisible to radar, nor did it have the specialist weapons and software intended to let the pilot simply to look at a target and shoot.
Interestingly, the 100 or so production models already completed — including those being delivered to the US Marines’ first ‘combat capable’ F-35 squadron this month — also do not have fully functional versions of these features either.
“There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship (formation) of F-35s has engaged a four-ship (formation) of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology,†the JDO reports.
FULL REPORT: The F-35 Test Pilot’s full dogfight report, here
But is keeping at a safe distance a real option for an aircraft that is supposed to fill every known role a combat jet faces? How about defending a US Marine bridgehead or a supercarrier fleet? How about reacting to intercept an attacking force of enemy stealth jets?
Lockheed Martin remained upbeat about its product’s marketability: “When a fourth generation fighter encounters the F-35 in a combat scenario, the fourth generation fighter dies,†a Lockheed Martin statement reads. “The F-35 gives the US and its allies a qualitative edge in combat capability for decades to come.â€
Testing times ... Two F-35s prepare for takeoff as an F-16 lifts into the air. Source: USAF Source: Supplied
War games
Each of the F-35’s three models — the air force’s “Aâ€, the navy’’s “C†and the Marine Corps’ “B†STOVL variant- have been undergoing a string of flight tests in recent months as its first ‘combat capable’ deployment approaches.
It has been landed on amphibious assault ships. It has been launched from ski-ramps, such as those fitted to the bows of Australia’s newest warships — HMAS Canberra and Adelaide.
It’s also recently participated in the recent Green Flag defence exercise in California. It was a two-week long mock combat pitting 5000 US Army troops against every conceivable opponent.
A small force of two F-35s were tasked with providing close air support for the troops — a role currently occupied by specialist A-10 Thunderbolt tank busters, F-15 Strike Eagle and F-16 attack aircraft.
The F-35 did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,†the US Air Force stated.
“Fourteen days of manoeuvring against adversaries in vast desert mountain ranges makes Green Flag a test of the mind and body alike. But when help from the air was called upon, F-35 pilots from the 31st TES communicated and used their systems with precision. They created strategic effects that left troops on the ground largely unaware and unconcerned of what airframe they might be using — seamless integration at its finest,†the 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs statement reads.
Aviation Week reported neither of the two F-35s were “shot down†at any point during the trial run. Several ground-attack A-10s and F-16 were, it reports.
But the validity of the aircraft’s simulated performance during the Green Flag military exercise is being questioned, given the long list of problems the aircraft faces.
Dodging a bullet ... Lockheed Martin states the F-35 ‘testbed’ so comprehensively beaten by an F-16 during dogfighting trials was not representative of the stealth fighter’s capabilities. Source: Lockheed Martin Source: Supplied
Flight test
January’s mock combat between the F-16D and F-35A was intended to test the ability of the stealth fighter to engage in basic fighter manoeuvres.
His single seat, single-engine F-35 A had been pitted against a two-seat, single engine F-16D. The stealth fighter only carried internal munitions — the F-35 loses its stealth advantage if missiles or bombs are carried under its wings. The F-16D was hobbled by two external fuel tanks.
The 40-year-old Falcon remains a highly manoeuvrable aircraft, even though outclassed by modern Russian and Chinese machines. It is one of many aircraft intended to be replaced by the F-35.
RELATED: The worrisome woes afflicting the West’s next generation aircraft carriers
The F-16 Falcon design emerged from a 1970s project to produce a cheap, lightweight fighter to supplement its force of more expensive F-15 Eagles.
It was initially the same intention for the F-35, back when the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter was expected to be the much more expensive aircraft.
January’s dogfight trials were likely conducted at various heights, in a variety of preset positions, to test defensive and offensive manoeuvres.
In some scenarios the F-35 would start behind the F-16. In others their positions would be reversed. The final test would be to simply bundle the aircraft into the same area to see what happened.
SAFETY RISKS: Reports identify F-35’s key problems
A victory would be awarded each time an aircraft obtained a valid position for a gun or missile “shotâ€.
The test pilot’s report suggests the heavier, draggy F-35A came out the loser more often than not.
And his complaints were not restricted to the F-35’s dogfighting abilities: The bulk of the virtual reality helmet meant the pilot could not turn his head to see what was happening behind his aircraft. “Lose sight, lose the fight†is the first lesson drummed into a fighter pilot’s head.
Sales talk ... Defence Minister Kevin Andrews inspects a simulated cockpit of the F-35 Lightning II. Source: Defence Source: Supplied
Trace the development of the modern jet fighter from the multi-national, multi-purpose, multi-service F-4 Phantom to today's highly specialised fighters.
Virtually reality
The hyper-expensive, extensively delayed F-35 remains problematic.
It has no operational gun. It is limited to carry only two JDAM (guided) bombs. It also has a string of restrictions on manoeuvres to reduce strain on its airframe following a devastating engine fire late last year.
And despite being dismissive of the F-35’s inability to dogfight, an aircraft’s manoeuvrability is of extreme importance in another arena — dodging incoming missiles.
The fleet of incomplete F-35s currently being delivered to the US air force, navy and Marine Corps — as well as nations such as Australia — also has flight navigation software patched with “workaround†fixes to enable it to fly safely.
HYPOTHETICAL: Can Australia fight the next war?
It also can’t fly within 40km of a thunderstorm as the necessary equipment needed to negate the impact of lightning has been dropped as a weight-saving measure.
The $US400,000 virtual reality helmets are in their third generation already, but remain problematic — both in terms of reliability and “sensor fusionâ€, the ability to integrate the information fed to it by the fighter’s sensors.
Once a helmet “crashedâ€, the F-35’s poor “real live†visibility makes the aircraft much harder to fly.
But it’s time for the F-35 program, already delayed by up to 10 years, to deliver.
It’s about to be made ‘combat capable’ by the US Marine Corps, even though the service has already stated the aircraft will only operate in restricted roles.