I guess I'm missing the point of the column where he doubts the performance because of a lack of data to prove what was said.
Its a hot air column.
Look, they said the F-35 performed well, but I don't know if its true because of a lack of full data on my desk.
Did the F-35 shoot down the planes themselves or did they use their data integration systems to assist other planes in shooting them down. I don't know if that matters all that much because that's the point of the f-35 that it coordinates with everything from ships to tanks to troops to other planes to effectively control the combat space.
I tend to think that this is the important mission statement for the excersize
Quote:
“Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out—now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time. Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor we are able to geolocate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized. It’s a whole different world out there for us now...When you pair the F-22 and the F-35 like together with the fourth-generation strikers behind us, we’re really able to dominate the airspace over the Nellis test and training range.”
The F-35A also stayed around after their munitions were dropped to soak up electronic intelligence on the enemy, a role the aircraft is especially adept at.
|
In terms of NATO, Norad and even UN missions this is ideal. For Canada only its still ideal except that your using the F-35 for both scout and strike which means that your not using 4th generation assets to followup 5th generation scouting. But it also means that the planes can pinpoint for artillary or standoff weapons use.