Israel should reject the F-35 planes

The Problem with Stealth

By Ben Cohen, AMERICAN THINKER

The US Air Force intends to replace its current fleet of F-16’s and A-10’s with stealthier F-35’s, but aircraft expert Pierre Sprey thinks that’s a bad idea. While the F-35 is indeed stealthier than either of these planes, stealth is not the most important quality for the planes the F-35 is set to replace. The A-10 is built strictly to provide close air support on the battlefield where stealth would be irrelevant to its mission, since it flies at such a low altitude. The F-16 is designed to attack enemy planes and ground targets. To do this it has to be fast and maneuverable in order to dodge missiles, antiaircraft guns, or dogfight with other planes. Building a stealthier aircraft means sacrificing these other capabilities; the F-35 lacks the A-10’s thick armor and compliment of weapons, and it also lacks the F-16’s maneuverability. Because of this the F-35 is less capable than the fighters it is replacing, at least in the roles the air force intends it for.

As Sprey explains, in order to make the F-35 stealthier they had to change the shape in ways that reduced maneuverability. Stealth aircraft can still be seen visually and they do have a radar signature, albeit a smaller one. Stealth fighters are at a disadvantage in a dogfight or if they have to dodge missiles, because of the design compromises necessary to reduce their radar signature. It is also harder to train pilots on an F-35 because it requires more maintenance than an F-16. Pilots can’t practice flying when their plane is being worked on. The F-35 also costs ten times as much as the F-16, largely because of its stealth capability.

Replacing the A-10 Warthog with the F-35 is a particularly bad idea. The A-10 is a specialized aircraft designed for close air support. It is designed to fly at very low altitudes in support of ground troops, where the biggest threat is enemy soldiers shooting at it with machine guns and anti-aircraft artillery. To accomplish this task the A-10 is slow, heavily armored, and carries a large cannon. The F-35 has none of these capabilities; it also costs eighteen times as much as the A-10.

For the last decade the U.S has been engaged in fighting terrorists and guerillas armed with basic infantry weapons. U.S aircraft are used almost exclusively to support ground troops, something the A-10 is perfectly suited for and the F-35 is not. Replacing the entire fleet of F-16’s with stealth fighters would draw a considerable amount of resources away from the war on terrorism. It could also provoke a procurement war with China and Russia, which would draw even more resources away from the fight against terrorism, at a time whereterrorism is clearly a far greater threat than either Russia or China.

Stealth technology in aircraft represents a classic tradeoff. We can replace all of our current F-16’s and A-10’s with F-35 stealth fighters, but our fleet will be smaller, more expensive, and in some ways less capable. Considering the technical and economic tradeoffs involved, along with our likely enemies, is it worth the tradeoff?

September 8, 2013 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. @ Ted Belman:
    I did originally propose not to enter into that trap. The aircraft is a white elephant which cannot be maintained here, if the original agreement was not changed.
    I had connection with the F-117 and the ATF program, (advanced tactical fighter). The
    F-22 was the end result. The F-35 entered the picture due to special considerations never fully detailed. In the trade within the US DoD Military Avionics Programs where I was a Senior-Fellow Engineer, the dud was marked early as such. It is very expensive and run into an interminable sequel of systems problems.

  2. I posted this 3 years go and since most knowledgeable pundits have come to agree with me.

    Israel should reject the F-35…. But she won’t

    Posted by yamit82 @ 5:31 pm | 12 Comments »

    August 27, 2010

    Besides it being a Giant White elephant we can’t afford it ties Israel to Americans apron strings for the next 20-30 years which is why Barak and BB probably agreed to the deal.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some payola deal involved because for Israel it made no sense. Even less today.

  3. Israel has had to buy American planes because short-sighted Israeli officials concentrated on costs and canceled the Lavi project.

    Never mind the benefits for Israel’s economy, technological development and national independence.

    Here we are twenty years later and Israel still has no home-grown aircraft that can deal with the unique threat environment Israel has to confront. Sticking to a budget is important but some things are even far more important than saving money up front.

    Let’s hope that lesson has been learned in Jerusalem.