F-35 Goes Defensive

I've written about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) before. My last article about it is one of our most-read pages. An article by Eric Torbensen of the Dallas Morning News lead me to look into a fight about the plane that flared up in September.

It started when a pair of defense industry experts wrote a pretty inflammatory article criticizing the F-35. One of the authors, Pierre Sprey, helped design the A-10 and F-16...two of the aircraft that the F-35 is supposed to replace. He and co-author, Winslow Wheeler, presented a strong case against the F-35 and even agreed with some of the points I've made in the past. In response, Lockheed Martin put out a pair of press releases.

The first press release maintains that the F-35 is fulfilling it's promises. It specifically defines the F-35's role as penetrating an enemy's surface-to-air defense network and attacking ground targets while retaining the ability to defend itself against the world's top air threats. Surprisingly, it makes no mention of Close Air Support (CAS.) The F-35 is supposed to replace the A-10 who's primary mission is CAS, though Sprey and Wheeler suggest that the F-35 would be ineffective as a replacement for that mission.

Lockheed's second press release addresses Sprey and Wheeler's comments specifically and tries to deny all accusations.

It seems to be a case of one side's word against the other. One side claims that the F-35 can't match the performance numbers of current 4th generation fighters, the other says it can. One side points out that the program costs are soaring and that the time line is slipping while the other says things are going great. It may come down to interpretation on a lot of the issues. However, if it can only carry a couple bombs in stealth mode, it won't matter how far the F-35 can penetrate into enemy airspace. It needs to pack a punch as well. If it isn't an effective CAS platform, the USAF will need to stop claiming the plane can replace the A-10 and re-evaluate their long term plans for both aircraft based on that.

If both these facts are true, I have to keep asking the question I've asked before: what capabilities will the F-35 bring to the fight several years down the road valuable enough that it's a better choice than an upgraded 4th generation fighter that could be rolling off the line today at only a fraction of the cost? Unless there is a strong and significant answer to that, might it not be worth taking a hard look at the F-35 program altogether?

What do you think?