In a release posted today to Lockheed Martin's F-35 program website, a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin and the Department Of Defense's F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) responded to this week's media coverage of a leaked F-35 test pilot report. The test pilot's assessment of the performance of the F-35 in mock combat encounters with an F-16D in January, which was published by David Axe of War is Boring, was that the F-35 was at a distinct disadvantage against the F-16. This despite the F-16 carrying two wing fuel tanks that give it inferior aerodynamics.

The author of the Lockheed Martin/JPO response wrote that the War is Boring post "does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2 [the second F-35 airframe]...designed for flight sciences testing of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters."

The tests that the report was based on were intended "to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against," the response said. "While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading."

The explanations offered up in the release included that the AF-2 :

"Does not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area."

"Does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar."

"Is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target."

Of course, stealth coating and mission systems software are not as essential when combat happens in visual range. And given that the pilot reported having difficulty turning his head to track the F-16 during the mock dogfights because of the constraints of the F-35's canopy and the size of the helmet, the ability to "aim a weapon with the helmet" may not apply either.

But that's all fine because as the spokesperson noted, the F-35 isn't supposed to get into within-visual-range dogfights to begin with. "The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations," the spokesperson wrote. And in four-on-four mock battles between F-35s and F-16s, "the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology."

One should hope so, given that the F-16D's price tag was $18.8 million in 1998 dollars (about $27.3 million today when adjusted for inflation) and costs about $24,000 per flight hour to operate. By comparison, the current official unit cost of the F-35A is $98 million, and the cost per flying hour has been $31,900. Doing the math, perhaps a fairer matchup in financial terms would be four F-35As against a dozen F-16Ds. That number might be higher considering that the F-35 has a history of occasionally catching fire during take-off.

The Lockheed Martin/JPO response also noted that "the release of this FOUO report is being investigated," and "candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better. The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities."

Update: The mock combat between the F-35 and the F-16 was publicly reported by Aviation Week in April, at which time Lockheed Martin's F-35 lead test pilot David "Doc" Nelson told Aviation Week, "The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability." The combat maneuvers were the first time the F-35 was put into a dogfight-like situation. “When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits.' It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.”

F-35 program Director Rod Crieger told Aviation Week the flight "was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in the future. You can definitely tweak it—that's the option."