Is the F-35s apparent lack of close-in aerial combat capability concerning?

JPO counters media report that F-35 cannot dogfight

The Joint Program Office (JPO) for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has taken the unusual step of publicly defending the aircraft's air-to-air capabilities following a damning media report that called into question its ability to 'dogfight' with even today's generation of jets.

In a response to the article, which appeared on the War is Boring website, the JPO said its account of a mock aerial combat sortie conducted in January in which a 'clean' F-35A was defeated by an F-16D carrying drop-tanks "[did] not tell the entire story", and that the engagement was not indicative of the mission for which the fifth-generation JSF was designed.

"The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat manoeuvres to stress the system and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to manoeuvre against," said the JPO statement, issued on 1 July.

"While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to manoeuvre to the edge of its limits without exceeding them and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations."

In its 29 June article that led to the JPO's rebuttal, War is Boring reported the experiences and opinions of the test pilot of the F-35A aircraft (AF-2) following the combat manoeuvring engagements with the F-16. In its piece, the site noted the pilot's opinion that the F-35 had a distinct energy disadvantage against the F-16, being unable to turn its nose fast enough to successfully engage the adversary aircraft at close range. This was true for either attempted short-range missile or gun kills, with the F-35 pilot having to perform manoeuvres that caused his aircraft's energy to bleed away at an unsustainable rate to stand any chance of success.

Further to this, the pilot (who is reported to have previous operational experience on the F-15E Strike Eagle) reportedly said some of the F-35 cockpit's ergonomic features (an over-large helmet for the relatively small cockpit and a lack of rearwards vision) make dogfighting difficult.

As well as being unable to shoot down the F-16 at close quarters, the pilot of the F-35 was unable to prevent himself being shot down when the tables were turned during the exercise, according to the article.

In its response, the JPO said the F-35 used in the trial was one of the oldest in the fleet and had been designed for flight sciences (aircraft handling) testing and not air-combat manoeuvring.

"Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And, third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target," said the JPO.

"There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship 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 JPO added that it was investigating the leak of the 'For Official Use Only' report that led to the article.

COMMENT
As with most issues related to the F-35, this latest controversy has split observers down the middle, with the aircraft's advocates and detractors taking diametrically opposed views - and with the truth probably somewhere in the middle.

The War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.

For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.

However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.

Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so.

With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20. This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not.

http://www.janes.com/article/52715/jpo-counters-media-report-that-f-35-cannot-dogfight