The US Navy Has Already Stopped Believing in the JSF
Published in NRC Handelsblad
(Netherlands) on 5 March 2015
by Christ Klep (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 5 March 2015
by Christ Klep (link to original)
Translated from
by Jess Gibbs.
Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
Rapid developments in sensor technology will undermine the Joint Strike Fighter's stealth technology. Drones are the future, says military historian Christ Klep.
We have reached the final phase (the "D phase"). The political decision to purchase the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has now been made. All that remains is the actual purchase. In the meantime, the United States is sending mixed messages. Everything will be just fine, insists the manufacturer Lockheed Martin, despite major delays and cost overruns.
Critics occupy the other side of the spectrum. They are repeatedly bombarded with the JSF supporters' mantra: “You have no understanding of it,” accompanied by the remark: "If only you knew what the JSF is capable of!" Agreed. So let's bring in a respected expert, Jonathan Greenert. He is not just any admiral. He is the chief of naval operations of the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy has a solid reputation. Do you remember Tom Cruise as a flamboyant pilot in the epic film “Top Gun”? That's the naval air force we're talking about.
The U.S. Navy is a bastion of specialist knowledge. Admiral Greenert is the Navy’s leader for the operational deployment of ships and aircraft. His opinion should therefore be taken seriously. What, then, does his opinion boil down to? Greenert has set out his vision of the Joint Strike Fighter in articles and speeches, which barely received any attention in the Netherlands. His message is as follows: Stealth – a crucial selling point for the JSF – is overrated. Stealth does not make aircraft invisible, but it does make them more difficult for radars to detect.
However, according to Greenert, rapid developments in sensor technology and electronic warfare will begin to undermine stealth. "You know that stealth may be overrated," Admiral Greenert recently said. "Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat — I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable." Greenert's comments fit with the classic competition between the "hiders" and "seekers" on and above the battleground. Greenert is not sure that stealth will (still) make a difference in a few years' time.
It is not for nothing that the U.S. Navy is in the process of adjusting its procurement plans. For 2015, only a handful of F-35s have been ordered. The plans for 2016 include four F-35s. Not exactly confidence-building numbers. At the very least, it seems like the U.S. Navy wants to leave another option open, that of "platforms" (including drones), which can carry large numbers of long-distance weapons effectively and, with the help of strong jammers, are even better at making the enemy electronically "blind" than the F-35. Why risk pilots' lives when you can fire from a distance? The U.S. Navy has always preferred to have a twin-engine aircraft. That's what happens when you often fly over water. It seems as though the Navy is already looking beyond the F-35 toward a new generation of fighter planes.
If the U.S. Navy does indeed opt for fewer aircraft, it would have inevitable consequences for the whole F-35 program, including the unit price. And that for what is already the most expensive weapons program that the Pentagon has ever undertaken. The estimates range from $1 to 1.5 billion for the entire life span of the program. But you didn't get these ideas from me. You got them from Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations of the U.S. Navy.
We have reached the final phase (the "D phase"). The political decision to purchase the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has now been made. All that remains is the actual purchase. In the meantime, the United States is sending mixed messages. Everything will be just fine, insists the manufacturer Lockheed Martin, despite major delays and cost overruns.
Critics occupy the other side of the spectrum. They are repeatedly bombarded with the JSF supporters' mantra: “You have no understanding of it,” accompanied by the remark: "If only you knew what the JSF is capable of!" Agreed. So let's bring in a respected expert, Jonathan Greenert. He is not just any admiral. He is the chief of naval operations of the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy has a solid reputation. Do you remember Tom Cruise as a flamboyant pilot in the epic film “Top Gun”? That's the naval air force we're talking about.
The U.S. Navy is a bastion of specialist knowledge. Admiral Greenert is the Navy’s leader for the operational deployment of ships and aircraft. His opinion should therefore be taken seriously. What, then, does his opinion boil down to? Greenert has set out his vision of the Joint Strike Fighter in articles and speeches, which barely received any attention in the Netherlands. His message is as follows: Stealth – a crucial selling point for the JSF – is overrated. Stealth does not make aircraft invisible, but it does make them more difficult for radars to detect.
However, according to Greenert, rapid developments in sensor technology and electronic warfare will begin to undermine stealth. "You know that stealth may be overrated," Admiral Greenert recently said. "Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat — I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable." Greenert's comments fit with the classic competition between the "hiders" and "seekers" on and above the battleground. Greenert is not sure that stealth will (still) make a difference in a few years' time.
It is not for nothing that the U.S. Navy is in the process of adjusting its procurement plans. For 2015, only a handful of F-35s have been ordered. The plans for 2016 include four F-35s. Not exactly confidence-building numbers. At the very least, it seems like the U.S. Navy wants to leave another option open, that of "platforms" (including drones), which can carry large numbers of long-distance weapons effectively and, with the help of strong jammers, are even better at making the enemy electronically "blind" than the F-35. Why risk pilots' lives when you can fire from a distance? The U.S. Navy has always preferred to have a twin-engine aircraft. That's what happens when you often fly over water. It seems as though the Navy is already looking beyond the F-35 toward a new generation of fighter planes.
If the U.S. Navy does indeed opt for fewer aircraft, it would have inevitable consequences for the whole F-35 program, including the unit price. And that for what is already the most expensive weapons program that the Pentagon has ever undertaken. The estimates range from $1 to 1.5 billion for the entire life span of the program. But you didn't get these ideas from me. You got them from Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations of the U.S. Navy.
Previous article![]( "Crucial Week for Iran Nuclear Talks")
