Monday, September 16, 2013

F-35: Comparing future Russian and American fighter deployment

Matt, over at the American Innovation blog, begins a series of articles that looks at the future deployment of air assets, specifically the F-35.  He's doing it by comparing the Russian model to the likely American model.  He feels, rightfully so, that critics simply don't take into considerartion a lot of what makes the F-35 unique instead, as I've pointed out, using 4th generation criticism in a 5th generation world.  Or if you like a simpler analogy, comparing cow chips to anvils.

Says Matt:
This article will examine both the Russian and American solutions to maximize the effectiveness of their respective air forces given the variables listed above. From comparing these models, it becomes clear that each approach is uniquely tailored to the host country and calls to eliminate the JSF in favor of mass producing 4.5 generation aircraft, like the Russian model advocates, will be extremely detrimental to maintaining the technological and qualitative edge the USAF currently maintains over many of its competitors. A measure to replace the F-35 with existing 4.5 generation aircraft will not meet current American national security objectives, ignores the strengths and weakness of the American defense industry, and does not account for the robust pilot training programs and initiatives of the United States. Once pilot training, combat philosophies, and the broader combined arms approach is factored in, it becomes apparent that much of the criticism regarding the F-35 is unfounded.
As you might imagine, I agree.  I've pointed out many times that most of the critics, including those he sites, simply don't "get it" ... or don't want too.  That's not surprising in particular, but it is frustrating.  It becomes clear that in order to continue their line of criticism it is necessary for them to ignore what Matt points out.

Read the whole thing and stay tuned for the follow on info.  Matt does an excellent job with his research and narrative.

Graff

1 comment:

  1. I agree that Matt wrote an excellent article.

    ReplyDelete