Continuous criticism of the F-35 from the military and the media, as well as its inconsistency with modern philosophy of air combat, are forcing the US Air Force to consider the option of resuming production of 40-year-old F-15 and F-16 fighters. Is the F-35 really that bad? It's just that its creators made the same mistake as Beria.
Since the First World War, the actions of fighters were built according to the scheme most clearly formulated by the Soviet ace Alexander Pokryshkin during the Second World War: "height - speed - maneuver - fire." This formula was, in turn, based on the principle "a bullet is a fool, an airplane is a fine fellow."
“What about the vaunted US air superiority and the need for 21st century superplanes to contain China? Well, we could have had such a plane, but we do not have it."
In other words, the emphasis was on the fact that the fighter could catch up with the enemy, get close to the distance of a cannon shot or the distance of an air-to-air missile, and in the case of a maneuverable air battle, surpass the enemy in aerobatic qualities. However, starting with the third generation of fighters, designers are beginning to move away from the “bullet is a fool” principle, making the aircraft's armament more and more intelligent. There are missiles with an infrared guidance head and pulse radars. Airborne equipment with a more advanced guidance system allows you to hit targets that are out of sight. Typical representatives of this generation are the American F-104 Starfighter and F-4 Phantom, the Soviet MiG-19 and MiG-21. The trend of intellectualization of fighter weapons was entrenched and intensified in the aircraft of the fourth and fifth generations.
Cost-effective versatility
The designers of the F-35 had to solve the dilemma "platform versus dog dump." The "classic" fighter was traditionally built under Pokryshkin's formula, but the creation of intelligent, long-range weapons, the F-35 designers believed, would reduce the aircraft's functions to a simple computerized platform. The task of which is to be a "launching pad" for these funds and at the same time the center of their control. It is not without reason that the term "complex" is increasingly used in relation to modern combat aircraft, emphasizing the integration of the "intelligence" of weapons into the "intelligence" of the aircraft.
Imagine now that this platform will not only be able to avoid entering the enemy's air defense zone, but it also will not have to catch up with the enemy, or hide from him, or conduct a maneuverable air battle with him, which is also called a "dog dump." A missile launched from a long distance will find the target itself long before it can dodge the impact.
And if the plane has to solve combat missions in the sky controlled by the enemy, then the emphasis in defense will be on systems capable of confusing the missile. And it is better to do so that the enemy simply does not see you, so the creators of the F-35 paid great attention to its radar stealth.
Highly intelligent equipment and weapons are not the only distinguishing feature of the F-35. Military officials decided to make a unified aircraft for the three branches of the US armed forces - the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. In fact, why waste energy and money on the creation of three different types of aircraft, when you can build one with minor (as they thought) modifications? This explains the paradox: why, already having a 5th generation fighter of the F-22 type, the United States began to create the F-35. The F-22 is a vehicle designed primarily for aerial combat. He can strike at ground targets, but his main task is to destroy enemy aircraft. The F-35 is a "multipurpose" aircraft in which, depending on the modification, the bombing of ground targets and direct support on the battlefield play the same important role as the fight against enemy aircraft.
"Turkey", embodying Beria's mistake
One of the main designers of the F-16 fighter Pierre Spray in an interview with the American Internet resource Digg.com called the F-35 "turkey". In America, the turkey is one of the symbols of a hybrid of stupidity and satiety. According to Spray, any attempt to create a versatile aircraft such as the F-35 is doomed to failure. Take, for example, the F-35 vertical takeoff designed for the Marine Corps. The massive propulsion system "eats up" a significant part of the aircraft's carrying capacity, and the relatively small wings do not provide it with the necessary maneuverability either for air combat or for direct support of ground forces. The same lack of maneuverability is characteristic of the options developed for the Air Force and Navy. The maximum speed of the F-35, which is Mach 1, 6, is also unlikely to amaze the imagination, given that this figure for modern fighters in Russia, Europe and the United States, including the F-15 and F-16, either reaches or exceeds 2 Mach.
As for the "invisibility" of the F-35, then, according to the American Internet resource Fool.com, this invisibility can only be ensured if it carries all its bombs and missiles inside itself, and this is only 17% of its capabilities. If something is on external suspensions, this aircraft becomes as noticeable as conventional winged aircraft.
In this regard, one involuntarily recalls the story told by the former deputy general designer of aircraft of Andrey Tupolev, Leonid Kerber, in his memoirs "Tupolevskaya Sharaga". Even before the war, Lavrenty Beria tried to convince Stalin to build a superbomber. Tupolev, on the other hand, proposed building a medium front-line dive bomber, which was destined to go down in history under the name Tu-2.
“I told your proposals to Comrade Stalin,” Beria told Tupolev. - He agreed with my opinion that what we need now is not such an aircraft, but a high-altitude, long-range, four-engine dive bomber, let's call it PB-4. We are not going to inflict pin pricks (he disapprovingly pointed at the drawing of ANT-58 [which was later named Tu-2]), no, we will smash the beast in his den!.. Take action (nod to the prisoners, among whom was Tupolev) so that they would prepare proposals for PB-4 in a month. Everything!"
This "technical task" can hardly be called anything other than delusional. High-altitude means a pressurized cockpit, that is, a limited view, and a dive bomber who takes aim with his aircraft needs an excellent view. Four-engine, long-range, therefore heavy. Since during a dive the PB-4 would have been subjected to much greater overloads than during bombing from level flight, it had to have a much stronger structure, and this, in turn, led to a further increase in weight. In addition, diving involves striking targets from a low altitude, and the four-engine giant is an excellent target for anti-aircraft gunners. Finally, a dive bomber needs agility at the level of agility, but where can one get it from such a heavy truck?
“In a word,” Kerber recalled, “there are a lot of“against”and not a single“for”, except for a primitive thought: since the Germans and Americans already have single-engine dive bombers, we must surpass them and create no longer a“tsar bell”, but“tsar -dive bomber "!"
On reflection, Tupolev decided that it was possible, but not necessary, to make such a "universal" monster. He insisted on his point of view, as a result of which the Soviet pilots received one of the best bombers of the Second World War, the Tu-2. Obviously, the creators of the F-35 did not take into account the experience of the Tupolevites, and most likely simply did not know about it.
Only "old men" go into battle - and they win
The American magazine Popular Mechanics called the F-35 "an impressive misfortune", and in the opinion of one of the test pilots of this machine, it is "not worth a penny" in aerial combat. At the same time, the magazine referred to a declassified report on the tests of the F-35, which hit the pages of the American Internet resource War is Boring. This report contained information on test dogfights conducted between the F-35 and the F-16, which has been in service with the US Air Force for over 40 years. Despite the fact that the F-35 flew in the most lightweight version, and the F-16 "dragged" fuel tanks under its wings, the "old man" demonstrated much better fighter qualities in these battles. Even the famous $ 400,000 F-35 pilot's helmet, which provides the pilot with all the necessary operational and tactical information and allows the pilot to see "through the cockpit", turned out to be "too bulky" to allow unhindered looking back. Interestingly, the developer of the new fighter, Lockheed Martin, did not dispute the pilot's conclusions, noting only that "the F-35 is designed to destroy an enemy aircraft before the start of a maneuvering battle."
Apparently, these test battles became, in addition to the prohibitive cost of the F-35, one of the reasons why the Pentagon, according to the American Internet resource Aviation Week, began to seriously consider the issue of additional purchase of 72 multi-role fighters of the F-15, F-16 and even F / A-18. These machines were developed 40 and more years ago. Of course, we are talking about the acquisition of deeply modernized fighters, which, together with the also modernized 300 F-16 and F-15 fighters, "will be able to strengthen the F-35 and F-22 in intense air combat." According to the Pentagon's plans, the F-15 and F-16 will remain in service until at least 2045. This means that the "old" will outnumber the F-22 and F-35 at least until the end of the 2020s.
A matter of will
The US Department of Defense intends to purchase 2,547 F-35 aircraft by 2038. The total cost will exceed $ 400 billion, making this military program the most expensive in US history. For comparison: the cost of the entire Apollo lunar program, taking into account inflation, as of 2005 did not exceed $ 170 billion. If you add to the purchase price of the F-35 and the cost of their operation until the last aircraft of this type is decommissioned, then the F-35 will cost US taxpayers $ 1 trillion or even more. And this despite the fact that this machine does not live up to the hopes placed on it.
How the military potentials of Russia and NATO compare
According to the British magazine The Week, "the time has come to put an end to this." “The only reason it hasn't been done so far is because of the money already spent on this program. Many military experts agree that combat aircraft would be able to better solve their tasks using the F-16 and F-18 than the prohibitively expensive F-35,”the author of the publication believes.
“What about the vaunted US air superiority and the need for 21st century superplanes to contain China? He asks. - Well, we could have had such a plane, but we do not have it. And the best incentive for military contractors to produce good equipment is to show that Washington can "shoot down" a non-working $ 1.3 trillion program that is in flight. Does Washington have enough political will to do this?"
A victim of a contrived doctrine
So what happened to the F-35? The same as with the Soviet MiG-3 fighter, created on the eve of World War II. Its appearance was determined by the doctrine popular at that time that the upcoming air battles would take place at high altitudes and speeds. But, as it turned out, the Luftwaffe pilots were not going to compete with Soviet fighters in flight speed and altitude, but preferred to fight at low and medium altitudes, and not always at full throttle. As a result, a good MiG-3 at high altitudes turned out to be heavy, clumsy and not fast enough at small and medium ones, was withdrawn from the "first line" units and was used only in air defense units.
Like the MiG-3, the F-35 fell victim to a doctrine that did not quite match the modern tactical realities of air warfare. Recall that, according to its creators, "the F-35 is designed to destroy an enemy aircraft before the start of a maneuvering battle." But, as it turned out during the tests, the characteristics of the F-35 do not give it a guaranteed opportunity to do so. This means that with a high degree of probability he will not avoid the "dog dump" in which the Russian MiGs, Su and Chinese fighters designed on their basis have a clear advantage over the F-35 in terms of maneuverability.
Perhaps the situation with the F-35 would not have seemed so dramatic in the United States if the Yeltsin-Clinton era of "strategic partnership" between Russia and the United States continued. Then the United States would not have to worry about possible skirmishes in the foreseeable future between Russian and American fighters.
But times have changed - Moscow has begun to actively pursue a policy in the international arena that sometimes runs counter to Washington's interests, and the events in Syria have demonstrated the quality of Russian military aviation. The prospect of an armed clash between Russia and NATO forces, alas, is now more real than 20 years ago, and therefore the United States needs to think about how to oppose the Russian Su and MiGs. And the deeply modernized "old" F-16 and F-15, in terms of their agility and dynamic characteristics, seem to be better suited for this role than the ultra-modern F-35.
