I admit I'm not an airpower technology guy. So maybe it is no big deal that the F-35 is a flying computer, as this article states.
But as a history guy, this Lockheed Martin position (and Air Force position, at this point, I assume) is worrisome:
"When I flew, it was 'speed is life,'" said O'Bryan. "In today's fifth generation (aircraft), it's 'information is life.'"
He said the old days of aerial dogfighting are over. If an F-35 pilot is ever actually seen by an enemy, he or she has done something wrong. There's no need to ever get that close.
"It's probably less romantic," O'Bryan said, "but I never met a fighter pilot who wanted a fair fight."
Is dogfighting really over? That's been my worry:
I'm nowhere near close enough of an expert on airplanes to really judge this claim, but 40 years ago, we thought dogfighting was obsolete with air-to-air missiles in our arsenal until cheap enemy fighters over the skies of North Vietnam disabused us of that notion. Forty years is a long time, of course, and times change. Perhaps no enemy can get close to us again to shoot us down with old-fashioned cannons or shorter-range missiles.
The technology that supposedly makes maneuver irrelevant does seem impressive ...
Will an enemy really be unable to come up with counter-measures that degrade our visual-range envelope? Will there always be natural conditions that don't allow an enemy to close with our F-35s and engage us first? I'm not really qualified to judge these claims.
I guess I know enough air power history to be nervous about the claim, however.
Oh. And about that technology that makes dogfighting obsolete? Some has already been stolen before the plane is operational.
Our enemies don't want a fair fight in the air, either. I sure hope we're right about who is on the unfair end of this deal.
UPDATE: Oh, and I recently commented on the stealth aspects of a plane that is supposed to fly for 50 years.
