[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Add to the arguments that the F-35 will lose its
justification for existence the moment that enemies develop a gizmo that
makes it possible to track them. That gizmo will end up costing a fraction
of an F-35 and once developed will be a very popular piece of equipment -
with its cost rapidly plunging thanks to economies of scale.]

A Simple Explanation of Why the F-35 Fighter Is Essential
(Source: Lexington Institute; issued January 19, 2012)
(See Editor’s Note at bottom)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132057/a-simpler-explanation-of-why-f_35-is-dispensable.html

Big weapons systems attract controversy, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
is no exception. Critics complain about many aspects of the program, but in
the political arena all these particulars boil down to one question: Is the
plane worth what the Pentagon proposes to pay for it?

The case for F-35 has to be compelling, because it will cost many times more
than any other weapon system the military is planning to buy through
mid-century. With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta expected to offer the
administration's latest endorsement of the F-35 at Patuxent River Naval Air
Station on Friday, now is a good time to recall what the bedrock rationale
is for buying 2,443 stealthy, single-engine fighters.

1. Air dominance is crucial to victory in modern warfare.
If you can't control the air space over contested territory, every facet of
warfighting is harder. Not only are friendly ground forces vulnerable to
attack from above, but the mobility, firepower, reconnaissance and resupply
they count on from aircraft may not be available. That is why the first move
in every recent U.S. military campaign has been to assure air dominance by
destroying enemy combat planes and suppressing air defenses. Air dominance
is the main reason why no U.S. soldier has been killed by hostile aircraft
since the Korean War. The F-35 was designed to assure American forces will
continue to have air dominance for the next 40 years, and to leverage that
dominance in carrying out a range of other missions such as precision
bombing and fire support of ground troops.

2. As threats evolve, air fleets must be modernized.
Technology does not stand still, especially in the information age. New
capabilities are continuously becoming available to potential adversaries,
such as agile missiles and radars that can counter the defenses of Cold War
fighters. Also, new sensors, datalinks and munitions are appearing that
potentially allow U.S. planes to accomplish vital missions more effectively.
However, the development of most planes in the joint fleet today predated
the advent of digital information systems and stealth technology. It
therefore is increasingly difficult for the joint force's industrial-age
aircraft to keep up with the proliferation of new capabilities in other
countries. The F-35 was designed to integrate all the technologies likely to
be relevant to future warfighting, with built-in potential for upgrades as
new innovations appear.

3. If America skips a generation of technology, it will lose its edge.
Politicians in both parties occasionally talk about "skipping a generation
of technology" as a way of avoiding the costs associated with developing
current military systems. Such talk is most common when threats are thought
to be receding. But that is not a practical alternative to purchasing the
F-35.
First, countries like India and China are already capable of defeating
existing U.S. combat aircraft, and many of those aircraft have grown
decrepit with age.
Second, there is no way of knowing when the next big threat will appear, but
being unprepared probably hastens its coming.
Third, the leap-ahead option for air power usually proposed is unmanned
aircraft, however they will lack the survivability, agility, versatility and
lethality to match manned fighters for decades to come. Thus, if F-35
development falters America is likely to lose its edge in the air fairly
quickly.

4. F-35 is the only affordable near-term solution available.
The reason the F-35 program looks so expensive is that it is developing a
family of planes with common features to replace the Cold War aircraft of
three different military services (and a dozen allies). If each of those
services was developing its own unique aircraft, the cost would be higher.
And if each service decided to keep upgrading the tactical aircraft it
already has for the period when F-35 is supposed to be operational, the cost
would be astronomical -- about $4 trillion over 50 years, using government
methodology. With production of the Air Force's F-22 fighter now canceled
and no survivable fighter other than F-35 under development in the West, the
Joint Strike Fighter is the only affordable option for modernizing air
fleets, consuming less than five percent of the Pentagon's budget in its
peak spending year. Losing a war for lack of adequate air power would incur
costs far beyond the Pentagon.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This “simple explanation” is not quite what the author would
have us believe: the first three points are true, but do not bolster the
F-35, while the fourth point, which does, is more than questionable. More
precisely:

1. No-one would dream of questioning that air dominance is vital. But the US
has enjoyed air dominance long before the F-35 came along, and will do so
long after it is retired because this rests on training and state-of-the-art
electronics much more than on airframe performance. Indeed, Lockheed-Martin
and the US Air Force already describe the F-22 as an air-dominance fighter,
so clearly the F-35 need not shoulder that responsibility just yet.

2. In much the same vein, no-one questions the need to modernize air fleets.
That is why Lockheed is making the F-16 Block 52 and Boeing the F-15SE,
three decades after these aircraft first entered service. Along with the
latest F-18E, these aircraft could quite satisfactorily upgrade the US air
combat fleet, for 20 years if not quite 40, but at a fraction of the cost of
the F-35.

3. Skipping a generation of technology is quite another kettle of fish. For
all the marketing hoopla, the F-35’s much touted “5th generation”
capabilities amount to little that current aircraft such as Eurofighter and
Rafale cannot do, with the notable exception of airframe stealth – if it
works.
With Chinese, Russian and Indian fighters also catching up, the most astute
course of action for the US would be to jump the F-35’s so-called “5th
generation” and focus its money and energy on developing a 6th generation of
combat aircraft that would conclusively out-perform its competitors in 20
years or so. That would truly maintain the US technological edge.
And the F-35 has nothing to do with America’s “edge in the air,” especially
as it is designed for air-to-ground (Joint Strike Fighter) and not for
air-to-air missions, something that its proponents tend to consistently
overlook.

4. Finally, what to make of the final argument, that the F-35 is the only
affordable near-term solution available? This is demonstrably false, as the
F-35 is neither the only option (see point 1 above) nor even remotely
affordable: its unit price for LRIP 5 batch aircraft is almost $160
million – and that’s without engines nor weapons.

So, by applying the same reasoning offered by the author, the only logical
course of action is to scrap the F-35 and concentrate on developing a
6th-generation fighter that will actually meet military specifications.

There is no way to explain why the F-35 is essential, because it isn’t –
except for Lockheed Martin and possibly, the Marine Corps, who can still
sell the idea of deploying STOVL aircraft in beachheads to justify the
continued existence of their large-deck amphibious ships.)