You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Look Out, Mad Mullahs! Here Comes the F-35!
2021-04-01
[National Interest] Given the range and fidelity of its sensors, coupled with its threat library database able to verify targets, the F-35 jet might be ideally suited to provide close air support for advancing armored forces as well as respond quickly to attack new enemy targets once they are discovered.

While Iran’s military might not present what U.S. military planners refer to as a pressing or major-power, near-peer kind of threat, the country’s existing force is nevertheless taken quite seriously at the Pentagon for a number of reasons. After all, Iran has an emerging nuclear weapons threat, regional territorial ambitions, support and funding for anti-U.S. terrorist groups, alliances or cooperative relationships with U.S. adversaries and conducts overt maneuvers to intimidate or threaten safe maritime passage in the Strait of Hormuz.

Clearly, any successful military campaign against Iran would of course rely almost entirely upon an ability to quickly achieve air superiority, something which would require the destruction of Russian-built S-300 and S-400 air defenses. These weapons, of course depending upon the extent to which they have been modernized, present very serious threats as they are increasingly networked with faster digital processors, wider radar apertures and much longer ranges.

One immediate factor might be the F-35 stealth fighter jet, simply because any kind of air supremacy would first need to be established before a fourth-generation aircraft or less stealthy airplanes to strike. The F-35 jet might prove to be a particularly relevant choice given that the Russian-built S-400 missile system is road-mobile and can therefore easily reposition. A high altitude bomber, while likely fully undetectable, might greatly benefit from the lower altitude, yet still stealthy, highly maneuverable F-35 jet able to track and shoot down moving air defense targets. The combination of speed, computer processing and sensor range and fidelity give the F-35 jet a unique and potentially unparalleled ability to destroy a mobile S-400 missile system.
More at link, of course. A lot of big words, for a civil engineer.

So, just who is this author? Wikipedia sez -

Kris Osborn (born May 16, 1969) is a journalist, military expert, and former news anchor. He worked at CNN Headline News from 2001 to 2004 as an anchor, and specialized in military issues. He has worked as a reporter for KSTP-TV in Minneapolis and a correspondent for Entertainment Tonight. He has written articles for the Washington Times and reported for KO NewsMachine, an independent news-content company. He has appeared as an expert military guest on MSNBC and Fox News.


Nice resume. A "military expert" because he says he is.

Posted by:Bobby

#10  /\ EF-111A Raven, that was a pretty plane.
Posted by: magpie   2021-04-01 15:48  

#9  /\ "#6 Tell me again the cost-benefit analysis of the worlds best CAS aircraft (A-10), and the F-35..."
The bean counters are considering the cost-effectiveness of the "strike package" not just the aircraft. With The Magic of Stealthâ„¢ the F-35 doesn't (supposedly) need EF-11a/EA-6B for ECM/SEAD, F-16/F-15 for fighter "top cover", E3 AWACs for coordination, and KC-135 to keep fuelling them so they don't fall out of the sky. "Supposedly". Then the bean counters decide we can do The Missionâ„¢ with fewer airframes on inventory until we reach the fallacy of "nine pregnant women can give birth to a baby in one month" type of statistical idiocy.

The F-35 has some valid points as an *cough* "A"-35 light bomber *cough*. The madness comes when they decide it has enough multi-role magic to replace everything in the inventory at the same time.
Posted by: magpie   2021-04-01 15:47  

#8   every time they do the Arabs get burned.

A couple times a week for a while. I suspect the thing in Damascus the other day that the Israeli papers didn’t even bother to report was another one. I have to imagine that a war against Iran will involve destroying most of their air force on the ground, followed by their infantry on the roads as we did in Iraq. Meanwhile Israel can go after Hezbollah and Gaza missile stores, also on the ground/underground.
Posted by: trailing wife   2021-04-01 13:44  

#7  Clearly, any successful military campaign against Iran would of course rely almost entirely upon an ability to quickly achieve air superiority, something which would require the destruction of Russian-built S-300 and S-400 air defenses.

I'm no expert but IIRC the IAF has gone against these systems several times with older planes and every time they do the Arabs get burned.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2021-04-01 13:03  

#6  Tell me again the cost-benefit analysis of the worlds best CAS aircraft (A-10), and the F-35:
a quantitative analysis comparing the Warthog’s performance and costs with those of its intended replacement, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, shows that retiring the Warthog would be operationally unsound and fiscally imprudent. The rationale for the replacement is that it would increase airpower capability while controlling costs. That rationale does not withstand scrutiny."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis/article/abs/thunder-versus-lightning-a-performance-and-cost-analysis-of-the-a10-warthog-versus-the-f35-joint-strike-fighter/55538E18C047A3F69DAE6BA6E17B904B
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2021-04-01 13:01  

#5  ^ Yeah Baby!
Posted by: Warthog   2021-04-01 10:15  

#4  Put it in a real world troops on the ground needing cover NOW and see how it does when bad guys are shooting at it. Then have it land, reload and do it again. Then toss in an A-10 and then query the troops. My money's on the Warthog
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2021-04-01 09:59  

#3  Mike Kozlowski it was the same with the F-117. It was not a fighter. I know an Air Force pilot who has flown both the F-22 and F-35. Told me the F-22 is better.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2021-04-01 07:57  

#2  ...I think this backs up something I've said for a long time about the -35: it's NOT an F-series fighter, it's a light bomber with a really robust air-to-air capability. Trouble is that for political reasons (especially with the Allies) it couldn't be given a B-series number, and the USAF leadership would have committed hari-kiri before giving it an A-series number.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2021-04-01 04:36  

#1  I'd give this little credibility, but with one proviso: if anyone can polish that turd "Fat Amy" (USAF unofficial nickname for F-35A -- given by F-16 and F-22 pilots) into a highly combat effective deep strike aircraft, it is the Israeli Air Force.
Posted by: These Forkbeard7574   2021-04-01 01:49  

00:00