Support NeoGAF

[Wyndstryker]

The jack of all trades is the achilles heel of the F-35. That airframe is trying to outdo every specialist plane and thats the problem.

This is a scenario where the rivals can build "good enough" and get away with it.

 

[Dead Man]

I thought that was pretty much an independent decision; the Howard, Rudd and Gillard government were all on board with the F35 program and were committed to buying the planes at some point. I don't think their horrendous cuts to important things were directly because of the F35 procurement program.

Not directly, no. But one of the justifications for those cuts was a budget emergency and huge deficit. If there is a huge budget emergency then the planes should be cut first. In the Liberals way of thinking, those were cut so they could have more important things, like these planes.

 

[commedieu]

The jack of all trades is the achilles heel of the F-35. That airframe is trying to outdo every specialist plane and thats the problem.

This is a scenario where the rivals can build "good enough" and get away with it.

That and China/Russia all use radar that can see it as clear as day. Such a waste of all of our money. Such a waste.

 

[Mistel]

How effective would a F-35 be against say a MIG-31 or Su-35?

 

[Defenestrated Donut]

Question for everyone stating it is not worth continuing with the F-35 program:

What would you suggest is a worthy alternative for the USAF today to maintain its edge over geopolitical rivals?

Abolish the Air Force, assign its space based tasks to the Navy, give everything else to the Army.

After you've done that let Army Air Corps and Navy each develop a plane suited to their needs.

 

[Architect]

Making the F-35s won't let the U.S. Air Force maintain its edge and there's probably no alternative today that lets them maintain their edge either; they've backed themselves into a corner. I would think the least bad option is to cancel the F-35, and ride out on more F-22s and F-15/16s for the near future while multiple new designs are made to replace individual planes.

Building more F-22s is, as you're aware, more expensive in the long run. This is especially a problem because replacement fighters would take quite some time to be designed, built, tested and put in operation.

On the other hand maintaining a fleet of mostly 40 year old F-15/16s for the medium term would leave the USAF at risk of not only losing its edge, but becoming significantly inferior to PLAAF and Russian Air Force during the 2020s, emboldening the latter to a dangerous point.

Drones. They are far cheaper to engineer since you don't need all the safety equipment.

And since they can pull as many Gs as the equipment can handle (the pilot is the limiting factor on a manned plane), they can be made far superior.

In theory that would be a great option to have. In practice, what drone from which maker is a real alternative that can replace the roles of the F-35?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

That and China/Russia all use radar that can see it as clear as day. Such a waste of all of our money. Such a waste.

Do you have a source? "F35 stealth is useless" would be pretty big, I imagine?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

There's so much hyperbole surrounding this plane it's unreal. The fact of the matter is though is that the yanks are indeed galaxies ahead of anyone else in computerisation and stealth technology, manufacturing, and maintenance expertise.

There's no doubt in my mind that whatever pieces of the shit the chinese or russians are working on won't even come close in that regard and will be distinctly second rate.
They'll have to make up for it in conventional flight characteristics.

 

[Elfforkusu]

No, it's not worth it.

If you're going to spend big money on cutting edge shit with tenuous purpose beyond pushing the cutting edge...

...it should go to human space exploration.

 

[Defenestrated Donut]

Do you have a source? "F35 stealth is useless" would be pretty big, I imagine?

Pierre Sprey (Sprey has his detractors, to be fair)

Aviation Week

 

[commedieu]

Do you have a source? "F35 stealth is useless" would be pretty big, I imagine?

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4

This was in the April 28 issue of Aviation Week:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-jamming-needed-against-agile-radar-threat

and what China's been working on since 2011.

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/stealth-tech-obsolete/

Other older info on the subject;
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/03/is-stealth-dead/

The f35 has a ton of problems, and we wasted money on it when we are on the verge of pilotless craft. Such a monumental waste. Im sure it will be more than the trillion stated after all is said and done.

 

[Wyndstryker]

How effective would a F-35 be against say a MIG-31 or Su-35?

If the F-35 radar is on, it'll get first shot. However that first shot MUST hit.

The Mig-31 is ancient, it's dead. It's stupidly fast but thats it. The Mig-29 is a far better opponent and the upgrade to the Mig-35 makes it a gen 4++. Aka a mini-Su-35

The Su-35 is a gen 4++ plane with some gen 5 tech in it. It'll be able to defeat the missile kinetically with it's jamming and manueverability. By then the Su-35 should be able to get squak on the F-35 since it was using radar to lock/fire that missile. In a dogfight it's a tough call.

If the F-35 is in a S-300 or S-400 field, then radar on at all is suicide since those SAM's are absolute beasts. It'll need AWAC's support but the AWAC's will most probably be detected before the F-35 so it's a moot attempt. So the F-35 can't even try to get close to break a heavy S-300 or S-400 field. Even if it takes one out the others will take the plane out.

If the F-35 is engaged against a PAK FA, for the most part both planes aren't going in with the radar on but with passive sensors and IRST. Long range missiles are by default radar guided missiles, so using long range stuff is moot. Thats going into a dogfight that the F-35 ain't going to win.

The Chinese J-20 is most probably not a fighter but a strike aircraft, it's stupidly large and a lot of speculation is going to it being a carrier hunter.

The Chinese J-31, aka the F-35 clone, is pretty much taking out the jack-of-all-trades problem and making it a dedicated air superiority fighter. Not much info out on this but in a nutshell it should be decent at least.

 

[luckygodzilla]

That and China/Russia all use radar that can see it as clear as day. Such a waste of all of our money. Such a waste.

Oh goodie, another person who is convinced that L-Band radars are the death of stealth.

Listen, when it comes to L-Band radars, due to their longer wavelength they will reflect more energy off of a target. These are mostly used in IFF or early warning radars. The downsides of L-Band are size (as the wavelength is 10x longer than x-Band then you need an antenna 100x larger in area to have the same gain) and accuracy (even the best Early Warning radars have an accuracy of "it's over there somewhere") and as such they cannot be used by a fighter aircraft to detect, Track, ID, and guide weapons to a VLO aircraft. the array size of fighter borne L-Band arrays is 24 TR modules (compared to 1200-2200 for X-band) on new AESA arays. Large ground based radars (which are also immobile) are easy targets and will be among the first things picked off during SEAD. Hell you don't even need fighters, the installations for L-Band radars are fucking massive, so all you need is a handful of cruise missiles. By the way if the return by a VLO target is 10X stronger then so is the return by a non VLO target.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

What a waste. Can't believe people have the nerve to complain about spending money on social welfare programs or universal health care while those same people in a lot of cases either ignore or even support this ridiculous military spending.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

It's a huge waste of money and this is coming from a huge aviation buff.

The money could have easily been spent on updates to older airframes.

The F-14 for example.

It's not like our curent fleet of aircraft were falling behind in air superiority. There are only a few countries that are even close.

Russia, China, The EU

Sigh.. What I would give to see that budget go to social programs and space exploration.

 

[commedieu]

Oh goodie, another person who is convinced that L-Band radars are the death of stealth.

Listen, when it comes to L-Band radars, due to their longer wavelength they will reflect more energy off of a target. These are mostly used in IFF or early warning radars. The downsides of L-Band are size (as the wavelength is 10x longer than x-Band then you need an antenna 100x larger in area to have the same gain) and accuracy (even the best Early Warning radars have an accuracy of "it's over there somewhere") and as such they cannot be used by a fighter aircraft to detect, Track, ID, and guide weapons to a VLO aircraft. the array size of fighter borne L-Band arrays is 24 TR modules (compared to 1200-2200 for X-band) on new AESA arays. Large ground based radars (which are also immobile) are easy targets and will be among the first things picked off during SEAD. Hell you don't even need fighters, the installations for L-Band radars are fucking massive, so all you need is a handful of cruise missiles. By the way if the return by a VLO target is 10X stronger then so is the return by a non VLO target.

You don't have to condescend to me.

I posted information, as well as information that the F35 does in fact lack the electromagnetic covering that their growlers offer. Granted, its the competition. But surely this, combined with the fact that China has been working on radar systems specifically for American threats, and have debuted their new destroyer that is boasting just that; http://news.usni.org/2014/05/14/can-chinas-new-destroyer-find-u-s-stealth-fighters

Its just yet another wasted opportunity to spend money on a coherent project.

We can arm chair general and talk down to people all day. But, the information is out there and there is concern about its stealth, with enough information to cite concern as someone bankrolling the thing. Not just one side that clearly knows more than Boeing\China\Russia, posting in this thread.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/07/boeing-growler-eclipses-f35s-stealth-advantage.html

Boeing: Growler Eclipses F-35's Stealth Advantage

 

[luckygodzilla]

It's not like our curent fleet of aircraft were falling behind in air superiority. There are only a few countries that are even close.

They're not falling behind, they're falling apart. The F-16 and A-10 are both in their 40's, the harrier is 30, and the legacy hornet is 36 (it's important to keep in mind that carrier planes age much faster than their air force counterparts). We're begging to reach the point where it is more expensive to keep these planes flying than it would be to replace them with brand new fighters. And while I have no doubt our legacy platforms will maintain their edge in thought this decade, past that I'm not so certain.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

The jack of all trades is the achilles heel of the F-35. That airframe is trying to outdo every specialist plane and thats the problem.

This is a scenario where the rivals can build "good enough" and get away with it.

The beauty of a multi-role platform is that instead of say, 50 airplanes that can bomb stuff really well and 50 airplanes that can shoot stuff down really well, you can have 100 (actually more for a given cost given the economies of scale) that can do either pretty well.

So in a conflict like Afghanistan where there is zero need for fighters, you can utilize all your aircraft for bombing stuff. The opposite is true if you're in a conflict with somebody like Russia, which actually has an air force. It's a trade-off betting that numbers will overcome any lack of advantages from specialization, which technology has minimized the need for anyway.

How effective would a F-35 be against say a MIG-31 or Su-35?

Very. There's a lot of fanboyish skepticism about "stealth" being useless against magic Russian/Chinese radars/infra-red sensors/dowsing rods but you just have to look at Russians and Chinese fighter prototypes to get an idea of how valid they consider any anti-stealth techniques to be. There are also big problems in practical applications of a lot of the long-wave radars that get brought up a lot (not precise enough for actual targeting, super huge, easy to see and jam). IR range is limited by the atmosphere.

Outside of stealth technology, the US has a pretty massive lead in radar (LPI AESA) among other things so it's doubtful either would even know they were being targeted by an F-35. If you can't see your opponent but they can see you, well...

Really, all of this has been discussed to death on military specific forums, and the one I like (pro-F-35 nexus to be fair) is F-16.net: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=65&sid=0c38abac3a102711dbb1dd6325662a04

 

[Mistel]

Snip

Ah thanks for that. That was very interesting considering other than V bombers and their armaments(like the blue steel missle). I'm only really interested in the engines within fighters, shame I cant be left to my own devices to take one apart and see it.

 

[luckygodzilla]

You don't have to condescend to me.

I posted information, as well as information that the F35 does in fact lack the electromagnetic covering that their growlers offer. Granted, its the competition. But surely this, combined with the fact that China has been working on radar systems specifically for American threats, and have debuted their new destroyer that is boasting just that; http://news.usni.org/2014/05/14/can-chinas-new-destroyer-find-u-s-stealth-fighters

Its just yet another wasted opportunity to spend money on a coherent project.

We can arm chair general and talk down to people all day. But, the information is out there and there is concern about its stealth, with enough information to cite concern as someone bankrolling the thing. Not just one side that clearly knows more than Boeing\China\Russia, posting in this thread.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/07/boeing-growler-eclipses-f35s-stealth-advantage.html

From the link about the destroyer "it is not clear if such claims have any validity." And I'm inclined to disbelieve those claims, as the effective range of the radar is 108nmi, so claiming you can see a stealth fighter out to 189nmi reeks of propaganda. Also when one considers that the JSM has a range of 151 nmi, I think the JSF will be fine against these destroyers.

Besides claiming the growler as a viable alternative is stupid, not even the U.S Navy is trying to do that and they are the guys who have the coldest feet when it comes to the JSF. Sure jamming might make targeting specific planes hard, but it also basically lights up a beacon screaming "here I am, all my air assets are located here!" Jamming signals work like any other electronic emission, and is basically begging to have a salvo of ARM's crammed down your throat.

The whole point of buying more Growlers is to keep the Super Hornet fleet viable, while also complimenting the F-35's inherent stealth advantage. Not to replace the F-35.

 

[Wyndstryker]

To keep it simple, the only airforce that would put up a real challenge is the Russians. And it'll be messy. And the US would utilize way more than the F-35 against the Russians.

So the F-35 can be a viable aircraft and might even do quite well. It'll be good for the majority of conflicts except against China and Russia. Those two will require completely different strategies as they themselves would probably have methods for the F-35.

Never underestimate an enemy, doing so will lead to your downfall.

edit:

If there was ever a conflict directly involving China/Russia, it's going nuclear. Aircraft will be moot, and SAM networks are the only things that can MINIMIZE the damage. But either or, no one is coming out of that conflict without a few craters. So the F-35 is going to do well regardless since the only opponents it'll most probably encounter won't have a 5th gen aircraft.

 

[Trey]

looks pretty badass, though.

 

[commedieu]

From the link about the destroyer "it is not clear if such claims have any validity." And I'm inclined to disbelieve those claims, as the effective range of the radar is 108nmi, so claiming you can see a stealth fighter out to 189nmi reeks of propaganda.

Besides claiming the growler as a viable alternative is stupid, not even the U.S Navy is trying to do that and they are the guys who have the coldest feet when it comes to the JSF. Sure jamming might make targeting specific planes hard, but it also basically lights up a beacon screaming "here I am, all my air assets are located here!" Jamming signals work like any other electronic emission, and is basically begging to have a salvo of ARM's crammed down your throat.

The whole point of buying more Growlers is to keep the Super Hornet fleet viable, while also complimenting the F-35's inherent stealth advantage. Not to replace the F-35.

Sure, it may be propaganda, like the F35's entire program is seeming to be, but China has been making efforts to combat American stealth technology. Its an entire scenario around stealth technology in 2014 that is painted when everything is taken into account. The effort being put into the detection tech, and the lacking performance of the f35. Again, its hard to just say its all lies, considering how abundantly repugnant the development of the F35 has been.

Someone asked what the deal is with the F35's stealth issues, and it definitely seems that there is enough to look into. Boeing was suggesting also, t hat the F35 does not have as thorough stealth systems which would mean it would be more vulnerable than if it did have them. If that makes a better plane, and a living pilot that gets to come home, its another blunder on the F35.

all in all, much like the F35, we will have to actually see these things going head to head to know if either technology works as advertised. But, it can't just be shrugged off. Imo.

Considering China is handing us our asses when it comes to weaponizing space, its safe to say that there is some room for concern about their technological abilities and claims.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Boeing was suggesting also, t hat the F35 does not have as thorough stealth systems which would mean it would be more vulnerable than if it did have them. If that makes a better plane, and a living pilot that gets to come home, its another blunder on the F35.

"Coca-Cola tastes like distilled Taco Bell farts"

-PepsiCo

 

[commedieu]

"Coca-Cola tastes like distilled Taco Bell farts"

-PepsiCo

Which would be cute, if only it was Boeing saying it.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Considering China is handing us our asses when it comes to weaponizing space, its safe to say that there is some room for concern about their technological abilities and claims.

Pardon?

 

[-COOLIO-]

400 billion dollars?

you idiots.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Which would be cute, if only it was Boeing saying it.

Who else is, actually? The Russians and Chinese, who are building their own stealth aircraft anyway? Or bloggers who are regurgitating statements from the above?

 

[commedieu]

Pardon?

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping urged the air force to adopt an integrated air and space defence capability, in what state media on Tuesday called a response to the increasing military use of space by the United States and others.

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-president-xi-urges-greater-military-space-022504986--sector.html

http://www.space.com/24317-china-hypersonic-missile-weapons-test.html

http://gizmodo.com/why-is-china-testing-satellite-hijacking-space-weapons-1440744006

Last week, China tested out a satellite that's capable of grabbing and capturing other satellites as they orbit the Earth. This normally wouldn't be such a big deal, except that it amounts to China conducting a weapons test in space. And that's worrisome—especially to the Pentagon.

Who else is, actually? The Russians and Chinese, who are building their own stealth aircraft anyway? Or bloggers who are regurgitating statements from the above?

Col Michael W. Pietrucha, USAF

The Air Force has proven consistent in the pursuit of fifth generation fighters as an essential war-fighting requirement. One of the shortcomings of this presumption is that it is largely faith-based in two respects. Firstly, despite the history of the F-35 program, it presumes that the capabilities we expect will be delivered. Secondly, it is based on a belief that radar low observability will remain effective against future air defense threats. Notably, that presumption of stealthiness rests on shaky ground. Although true for the f-117 against Iraq's Kari system in 1991, stealthiness is unlikely to remain so against an adversary that has had two decades to prepare for US stealth fighters, which have much higher infrared, visual, and emitter signatures than did the f117. Only eight years later, the latter aircraft proved vulnerable to a surface to air missile system that had reached initial operational capability in 1959, and we should not presume that Russian and Chinese radar developers have wasted the intervening decades since the Gulf War. --- More.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/article.asp?id=204

 

[Dead Man]

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-president-xi-urges-greater-military-space-022504986--sector.html

http://www.space.com/24317-china-hypersonic-missile-weapons-test.html

http://gizmodo.com/why-is-china-testing-satellite-hijacking-space-weapons-1440744006

How is that in any way China handing anyone their ass? Looks more like China is worried they are falling behind, as are the Pentagon. Everyone is doing fuck all with weaponising space but wants to be doing more.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Who else is, actually? The Russians and Chinese, who are building their own stealth aircraft anyway? Or bloggers who are regurgitating statements from the above?

I don't think it's controversial to say that electronic warfare equipment is an important part of modern warfare. Thing is, they already have EAW aircraft, including something like 80-100 Growlers and almost 200 of the Growler's predecessors (still in active service). Beoing are just lobbying for them to buy even more of them.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

I don't think it's controversial to say that electronic warfare equipment is an important part of modern warfare. Thing is, they already have EAW aircraft, including something like 80-100 Growlers and almost 200 of the Growler's predecessors (still in active service). Beoing are just lobbying for them to buy even more of them.

It's not, and that wasn't my point. Boeing is essentially going to make the F-35 sound as terrible as they can get away since it's in direct competition for funding with their products. You wouldn't trust Burger King to tell you how many Chicken McNuggets you should buy to feed your kids because the obvious answer is those kids should be cramming Whopper Sandwiches (tm) into their mouths at the speed of light.

 

[diehard]

How effective would a F-35 be against say a MIG-31 or Su-35?

Fantastic , but thats mainly because of the advantage's the U.S. has in BVR combat. I don't believe any other country has missiles that can come close in that regard.

 

[Hari Seldon]

In theory that would be a great option to have. In practice, what drone from which maker is a real alternative that can replace the roles of the F-35?

The drones that we have now are pretty stealthy. What is better in a fight, 10 1 million dollar dones firing the most advanced missiles at a single target or 1 highly advanced manned fighter?

In a modern air combat, the missiles do 99% of the work anyway. This isn't Vietnam where the guidance system in missiles was working off of analog relay logic. The opening salvos in a war are missiles fired from ships, because we don't want to risk the precious pilots in a hostile environment that hasn't been cleansed first. Meanwhile we send the grunts in with vehicles with canvas doors.

Put all the money into unmanned air-to-air missile platforms. Let the silicon do all of the work. The air force will become, within 20 years, nothing but maintenance crews for drones. Pilots are an endangered species.

 

[commedieu]

The drones that we have now are pretty stealthy. What is better in a fight, 10 1 million dollar dones firing the most advanced missiles at a single target or 1 highly advanced manned fighter?

In a modern air combat, the missiles do 99% of the work anyway. This isn't Vietnam where the guidance system in missiles was working off of analog relay logic. The opening salvos in a war are missiles fired from ships, because we don't want to risk the precious pilots in a hostile environment that hasn't been cleansed first. Meanwhile we send the grunts in with vehicles with canvas doors.

Put all the money into unmanned air-to-air missile platforms. Let the silicon do all of the work. The air force will become, within 20 years, nothing but maintenance crews for drones. Pilots are an endangered species.

Thats what is probably going to happen. The drones are smaller, and can pack a significant punch. But the question is, who will we be fighting a war with? As we sell our drones... as do most large arms dealers. Just seems like its all so ridiculous. A few submarines could take care of most problems.. imo.

How is that in any way China handing anyone their ass? Looks more like China is worried they are falling behind, as are the Pentagon. Everyone is doing fuck all with weaponising space but wants to be doing more.

Well, call it what you want... But, China is making progress.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Col Michael W. Pietrucha, USAF


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/article.asp?id=204

Unfortunately the scenario he cites had some very specific circumstances involving some good luck on one side and spectacularly bad tactics on the other, among other things that aren't terrifically relevant to the F-35. He also has a few pet projects that the F-35 threatens... which is no surprise given that neither aircraft he has experience with has/had the same role as the F-35. Citing the Comanche as a positive example of development is very interesting considering what an astounding non-success it ended up being.

 

[Kogepan]

They're not falling behind, they're falling apart. The F-16 and A-10 are both in their 40's, the harrier is 30, and the legacy hornet is 36 (it's important to keep in mind that carrier planes age much faster than their air force counterparts). We're begging to reach the point where it is more expensive to keep these planes flying than it would be to replace them with brand new fighters. And while I have no doubt our legacy platforms will maintain their edge in thought this decade, past that I'm not so certain.

US could be replacing these with new F-16/F-18 airframes with updated avonics suites/stealth packages for ALOT less the than F-35.

 

[Kogepan]

Thats what is probably going to happen. The drones are smaller, and can pack a significant punch. But the question is, who will we be fighting a war with? As we sell our drones... as do most large arms dealers. Just seems like its all so ridiculous. A few submarines could take care of most problems.. imo.



Well, call it what you want... But, China is making progress.

China is still light years behind. They're just being propped up by as a 'legitimate' threat so that Lockheed Martin can do their 400 billion in sales.

 

[darkwing]

How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane.

LOL even the Chinese clone is better

 

[commedieu]

Unfortunately the scenario he cites had some very specific circumstances involving some good luck on one side and spectacularly bad tactics on the other, among other things that aren't terrifically relevant to the F-35. He also has a few pet projects that the F-35 threatens... which is no surprise given that neither aircraft he has experience with has/had the same role as the F-35. Citing the Comanche as a positive example of development is very interesting considering what an astounding non-success it ended up being.

Yep, theres definitely sides to the F35's failure/abilities.

China is still light years behind. They're just being propped up by as a 'legitimate' threat so that Lockheed Martin can do their 400 billion in sales.

Source? And Im sure thats why we too took out one of our own satellites after china. Their intent is pretty clear on getting space militarized, and taking out satellites / sat-to-sat hacking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012300114.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/

 

[PdotMichael]

The F-35 is a pretty good deal compared to the Comanche, Zumwalt-class destroyers, Seawolf-class submarines or the XM2001 Crusader.

It's just that the American companies do have a history of overselling features as gamechangers. Stealth is a nice idea for Tom Clancy romans but it's already rendered inefficient by IRST systems and L-band radars + missiles with active seekers.

Though it doesn't change that the F-35 with it's ~1500 TR modules radar, advanced sensor package and EW suit will eat American 4gen aircraft for breakfast, although several subsystems are state-of-the-art but aren't the non-plus ultra anymore - GaN modules of the new bunch of European radars are a generation ahead.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Source? And Im sure thats why we too took out one of our own satellites after china. Their intent is pretty clear on getting space militarized, and taking out satellites / sat-to-sat hacking.

The US demonstrating their ASAT capability was in direct response to the Chinese test, kind of a "yeah, we've been able to do that for decades, here let me show you". Killing satellites in highly predictable orbits isn't exactly rocket science. Well it is, but you know. Every country capable of launching rockets and putting things into orbit is capable of replicating that feat with relatively minimal investment.

 

[PdotMichael]

The US demonstrating their ASAT capability was in direct response to the Chinese test, kind of a "yeah, we've been able to do that for decades, here let me show you". Killing satellites in highly predictable orbits isn't exactly rocket science. Well it is, but you know. Every country capable of launching rockets and putting things into orbit is capable of replicating that feat with relatively minimal investment.

Well, that's not accurate. China is the only country that destroyed a satelite in polar orbit, while the American SM3 intercepted the target at a way lower altitude - something something 800km vs 250km.

Right now there is no evidence that the USA would be able to destroy Chinese satelites which operate at a way higher altidude than American satelites.

 

[Karakand]

I'm glad someone is holding LM accountable, a (not the only) reason they won the JSF competition was that they had little else in the pipeline and could have gone bust without the contract. (Unlike Boeing.)

 

[luckygodzilla]

US could be replacing these with new F-16/F-18 airframes with updated avonics suites/stealth packages for ALOT less the than F-35.

If it was that easy we would have done it. Revolutionary avionics upgrade (ala F-35) do not come cheap, and would be hampered greatly by having to squeeze themselves into an airframe designed for previous generation avionics.

And this says nothing of the fact that if you are not VLO some 20 years from now, you're probably dead.

 

[Dryk]

If two F-35s get into a fight what happens?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Everyone who keeps suggesting drones, please shut the hell up right now. Our drones are vastly vastly VASTLY overrated compared to how they're presented in the media. The level of technology you would need to make drones replace fighter pilots (an absolutely fucking absurd notion no matter how you try to spin it) is essentially science fiction bullshit.

As for the -35, it would've been an absolutely fantastic plane had the Clinton administration in their infinite wisdom when they see cutting military spending decided to start a jsf program to make a one size fits all. You can't do that. Hell we even have historical precedent for this with the Vietnam war with F-111 and F-4. Had each branch gotten a different jet for a specific role and they had updated the A-10 extensively our fleet wouldn't be a big barrel of waste and contracted mess.

This is exactly why I think some defense corporations need to be nationalized like in Russia and China. Sure their budgets are lower, but their spending really is t comparable because a $ in china or Russia goes further than the US budget because contractors take advantage of a ridiculous amount of loopholes to get every dime from the government.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I think they should use drones to replace pilots.

 

[Wyndstryker]

If two F-35s get into a fight what happens?

Entirely depends on many factors which is how warfare actually works.

Are they cleared to shoot on sight? (Calling for firing clearance may require a merge, which means a dogfight instead of using long range weapons)
Whats the approach vector? (Forward 12 or sides like 9 or 3)
Whats the approach altitude? (12k ft vs 8k? Performance changes at different alts)
Whats the approach speed? (He who is faster has more energy to use in the engagement)
Fuel in the aircraft? (Affects weight, which affects mobility. Also affect how long a plane can stay in combat)
What arms are they carrying? (Sidewinders? Phoenix? AMRAAM? How many?)
What is the pilot training? (Combat Ace? New Pilot?)
Is there AWAC's support? (Will easily affect detection)
Is there SAM coverage? (Will also affect where the pilots may fly to)

This is the reality of combat, which is why just pitting fighter vs fighter isn't a real testament to what actually happens. A fighter can have all the bells and whistles but isn't practical in an actual combat scenario.

Sorry I find it impossible to believe that china has gone from zero to overtaking the US in fighter design in basically 10 years, I'd rather be in any front line western fighter than any of theirs.

I think anyone would be a complete idiot if they assumed such a thing. However the catchup game has been made extremely quick due to espionage and other methods. It's way easier to play catchup than to stay in the lead. Save a ton of money and effort too.

 

[Rourkey]

Sorry I find it impossible to believe that china has gone from zero to overtaking the US in fighter design in basically 10 years, I'd rather be in any front line western fighter than any of theirs.