Of course, it's not easy to balance the commentary when Lockheed Martin declines to publicly defend the F-35's dogfighting skills, presumably out of concern that a good word for the F-35 could undermine the case to save the F-22.
But here's a new analysis by Heritage Foundation analyst Ariel Cohen, which ranks the F-35 as a clear winner against even the MiG-35 and Su-35.
Stealth is a major discriminator between a 5G fighter like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and "Gen 4 plus plus" competitors like the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker that are essentially modernizations of their respective progenitors, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 and the Sukhoi Su-27. No operational Soviet or Russian stealth aircraft has ever been reported to have entered service.
A U.S. analyst who requested anonymity said that while the Russians have some good specific system technologies, their ability to effectively integrate them often lags behind that of the West, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter takes integration of off-board intelligence to a step well beyond proven Russian capabilities.
I looked forward to reading that link, as I wanted to read up on the specifics about what the F-35 delivered, that would make it a counter to the Su-27 derivatives, for those nations unable to purchase the F-22.
I was dissapointed.
The only facts presented were:
(1) The F-35 has a tiny altitude advantage.
(2) The F-35 has shorter range. (But with what payload? Other sources seem to indicate that the F-35 is not that bad in practice.)
(3) The F-35 is lightweight due to "advanced design and materials". But the resulting (light) weight is already factored into all the power / weight / wing area analysis that people are doing...
(4) Russia suffers from poor avionics.
Maybe I am missing something fundamental here? (Please enlighten me if so!)
It is a no-brainer that the US will purchase the F-35 to opperate in tandem with the F-22, they have no alternative. So (surely?) the only purpose of such analysis is to evaluate the F-35 for use by other nations?
These other nations are not going to be fighting Russia. So the state of Russia's maintenance, updates, training, etc. is moot.
What would be interesting is a comparision of the F-35, when used by non-US forces, (expeditionary and/or small nation,) against the latest internationally marketed hardware.
Does anyone know of a good analysis of this?
Think it'll get as much press as the F-35 bashing pieces? Nah, I didn't think so either.
It's the Heritage Foundation who did the study.
Even more than the other right wing think tanks, they are a wingnut welfare outfit, and I would not take them particularly seriously. (Full disclosure, they fired a friend of mine for having cancer.)
His arguments seem either in error or just plain silly:
Shame on Flight for even posting this "analysis". This is pure drivel from a Russian and Eurasian studies PHD. Not sure this guy has ever been in an aircraft and highly doubt he's had anything to do with designing, making, or employing tactical aircraft. Please stick to credible sources on this important topic.
On air power issues, the writer was way out of his depth.
This is unfortunate - I was hoping for something substantial but the content is all vapor. It's nothing more than a puff piece, probably written for the benefit of those who would prefer to plug their ears and hear the bad news.
I'm not reflexively anti-JSF, but articles like this one seem to only underscore the buffoonery to which the JSF partisans will go to whitewash what is becoming pretty clearly a very bad deal.
Wow a Ph.D. (in what I wonder?) and senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies and international energy security. I'd better pay attention with those credentials in understanding tactical millitary aircraft. Reading the "analysis" you can clearly tell that the author has no background in military avaiation. This drivel is not worthy or print or publication.
Please Flight, we expect posted articles to be from credible sources.