The F-35 versus X numbers comparision

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post07 Jun 2017, 04:20

jessmo111 wrote:The problem is that the F-35 has a qualitative, and quantitative advantage.

No denying that the F-35 would be superior in the air. But it has zero advantage on the ground.
jessmo111 wrote:If your going to sends swarms of mig clones at it. You may as well send, sopwith Camels

In the case of China, that’s exactly what they'll send. Mig-19 UCAVs. Lots of them, among other things. At the F-35s on the ground. A Mig-19 can travel at 700+ kts, a sopwith camel at ~100 kts. That means 7 times less warning time.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 Jun 2017, 11:43

weasel1962 wrote:The F-22s can’t do sqwart on the ground and that’s where it will be if the enemy successfully targets the tankers and AWACs that support it. Standoff PGMs and cluster munitions are no longer the sole property of the USAF. That’s going to be even more challenging to handle when the enemy ingress is increasingly stealthy in both aircraft and munition design. Potential aggressors don’t even need to rely on aircraft anymore. Potential munitions include TBMs and UCAVs with all airbases within range mapped out.

Reminds me of how the Germans in WW2 used to think their tanks were superior to everyone and they were. Achieved a high kill rate against American tanks. Highly lethal but built in small numbers. Didn’t help them win the war. Costly to take out but the Americans had numbers and ingenuity on their side.


I don't think killing tankers and AWACS would be easy when F-22s and F-35s will be protecting them along with F-15, F-16, Super Hornets etc. Besides, those support assets are kept back in relative safety and just going in killing them is not easy at all. What aircraft could potential enemy use in such attacks and how many they have now or in the foreseeable future? How many aircraft they would lose in each attack and how many tankers and AWACS aircraft does USA have? I think the numbers are very clearly on US side against anybody.

Standoff PGMs and other advanced weapons are not the sole property of USAF/USN/USMC, but they have by far the best weapon inventory in the world in both quality and numbers. It's not even close and US companies could easily produce far more if needed.

I also think your German tank analogy is really flawed. Germans only got superior tanks very late into war. Most of the time they had very similar or even inferior tanks to Allied tanks. Their later super tanks were unreliable and were produced in very low numbers. USAF/USN/USMC enjoy clear numerical and technical advantage against all potential threat nations combined. With F-22 and F-35 those advantages are growing even wider. F-35 is cheap for all the insane capabilities it brings and it seems to be extremely reliable. Those are qualities no German super tank ever had. Btw, I think Soviets and Brits did pretty equal amount of work against German super tanks as US forces.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2505
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Jun 2017, 14:31

hornetfinn wrote:Those are qualities no German super tank ever had. Btw, I think Soviets and Brits did pretty equal amount of work against German super tanks as US forces.


As an aside, I believe it was the Brits that really bought into that high velocity 76mm gun on the Sherman which was renamed the Firefly. It was quiet effective at dispatching the Tigers and Panthers. So much so that the Germans always looked for and killed it first. The longer gun tube and more angular turret made it (somewhat) easier to identify.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5554
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Jun 2017, 15:38

arian wrote:China's entire military budget is smaller than the procurement segment in the US military budget.


1. Uh, no. In 2016s China's military budget (that they tell the world) was $145 billion. Procurement in the US in 2016 was $119 billion.

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense-Spending.html

2. A dollar buys a HELL of a lot more in China than it does in the US.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1272
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post07 Jun 2017, 17:56

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:China's entire military budget is smaller than the procurement segment in the US military budget.


1. Uh, no. In 2016s China's military budget (that they tell the world) was $145 billion. Procurement in the US in 2016 was $119 billion.

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense-Spending.html

2. A dollar buys a HELL of a lot more in China than it does in the US.


As we see with many countries, (ex: some Arab countries) You can buy a thousand pieces of equipment (ships,tanks,planes) and you will not have anything, until you raise up skilled Majors and senior Sergeants (O4/5- E6/7s) It takes at least 10 (more like 20) years to get your training corps ready to start the 15 year journey to having that infrastructure. If you have an aircraft carrier and 100 fighters, they are worthless without pilots and sailors who know what they are doing.

You don't just hand a 17 year old kid off the street an M-16! Ok maybe that's a bad example. I used to say the best thing about the security surrounding the SR-71 on the ramp, was teenagers with automatic rifles. That is just down right terrifying if you think about it. :shock: :shock:

MHO
BP
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post07 Jun 2017, 23:59

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:China's entire military budget is smaller than the procurement segment in the US military budget.


1. Uh, no. In 2016s China's military budget (that they tell the world) was $145 billion. Procurement in the US in 2016 was $119 billion.

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense-Spending.html

2. A dollar buys a HELL of a lot more in China than it does in the US.


Do tell, what is the purchasing power parity conversion for....military technology?

It's not the same as PPP conversion for the overall economy. That's based on a basket of good the average person buys. The average person isn't buying jet engines.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 00:06

weasel1962 wrote:The F-22s can’t do sqwart on the ground and that’s where it will be if the enemy successfully targets the tankers and AWACs that support it. Standoff PGMs and cluster munitions are no longer the sole property of the USAF.


These tankers and AWACS seem to be so vulnerable. They are always easily and quickly destroyed in every internet scenario. I wonder if the USAF knows this.

And standoff PGMs were never the sole property of the USAF. The Soviets had plenty of stand-off and otherwise PGMs during the Cold War as well. The problem was, as with almost everything, the actual amount, capabilities, tactics and ability to use. Look at the Russians in Syria today: they have plenty of PGMs and all sorts of advanced weapon designs. Yet, 99% of their sorties are still done with dumb bombs. Why? They have so few PGMs, and so few aircraft capable of delivering them, and so few crews capable of doing so, and tactics that do not allow for their effective use.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 05:25

arian wrote:These tankers and AWACS seem to be so vulnerable. They are always easily and quickly destroyed in every internet scenario. I wonder if the USAF knows this.


Of course the USAF knows this especially when the only major tanker recapitalization in the works is the KC-46.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... -commander

arian wrote:And standoff PGMs were never the sole property of the USAF. The Soviets had plenty of stand-off and otherwise PGMs during the Cold War as well. The problem was, as with almost everything, the actual amount, capabilities, tactics and ability to use. Look at the Russians in Syria today: they have plenty of PGMs and all sorts of advanced weapon designs. Yet, 99% of their sorties are still done with dumb bombs. Why? They have so few PGMs, and so few aircraft capable of delivering them, and so few crews capable of doing so, and tactics that do not allow for their effective use.


Sure, but same reason why desert storm only featured 10% PGMs of which mostly were LGBs, low cost GPS guidance kits really only took off post 1990. See what happened to GLONASS? See what happens today with Beidou. Totally different story. Same thing from LGBs with the development of 40K lasers. Today, PLAAF aircraft are being seen with laser pods. The difference again is that the Chinese espionage bears a lot more fruit than the russkis, partly thanks to the Israelis and Pakistanis.

Same reason why the Chinese eventually abandoned Russian sukhoi assembly to go for their own avionics. Russki avionics focused on A2A. The Chinese wanted multi-role.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 06:54

NAVSTAR was much delayed by the Challenger space shuttle tragedy. Full Operational Capacity (FOC) wasn't achieved until 1995. So during GW1, GPS was still in develop.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 08:02

weasel1962 wrote:The F-22s can’t do sqwart on the ground and that’s where it will be if the enemy successfully targets the tankers and AWACs that support it. Standoff PGMs and cluster munitions are no longer the sole property of the USAF. That’s going to be even more challenging to handle when the enemy ingress is increasingly stealthy in both aircraft and munition design. Potential aggressors don’t even need to rely on aircraft anymore. Potential munitions include TBMs and UCAVs with all airbases within range mapped out.

Reminds me of how the Germans in WW2 used to think their tanks were superior to everyone and they were. Achieved a high kill rate against American tanks. Highly lethal but built in small numbers. Didn’t help them win the war. Costly to take out but the Americans had numbers and ingenuity on their side.



Sigh. You can't "human wave attack" aircraft vs aircraft. It doesn't work.

I'm glad you picked the Germans In ww2 and not the many many times where the side with fewer people but more advanced weapons annihilated the people relying on cheap larger numbers. In fact that would seem to be the rule rather than the exception and the Germans lost world war 2 for dozens and dozens of reasons but you're taking one element and not only misapplying it in other contexts, but In it's own context as well.
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 11:13

XanderCrews wrote:Sigh. You can't "human wave attack" aircraft vs aircraft. It doesn't work.


Swarm technology is actually being researched for A2A UCAV as we speak.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... ng-drones/

Nevertheless, that was not what I was proposing. I would have thought "on the ground" was plain English but...

Yes, saturation attacks against fixed ground targets is definitely possible.

XanderCrews wrote:I'm glad you picked the Germans In ww2 and not the many many times where the side with fewer people but more advanced weapons annihilated the people relying on cheap larger numbers. In fact that would seem to be the rule rather than the exception and the Germans lost world war 2 for dozens and dozens of reasons but you're taking one element and not only misapplying it in other contexts, but In it's own context as well.


Actually, its an analogy and an accurate one at that. The facts were the 88mm (and in the case of the unsung 75mm L/43 and L/48) generally outgunned their opponents for a large part of the war. The Germans may have lost the war for various other reasons but it does not mask the fact that German tanks, tank gunnery, tank munitions, sloped armor (even if copied from the Russkis) etc pointed to a technological advantage. Just because the Germans lost the war does not in any way change the fact that their tanks did enjoy a technological advantage, not just an operational one. I could a lot of live examples of the above but I don't wish to turn this into a tank thread. If you still can't understand what the analogy was, can't help you there.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 11:35

arian wrote:Do tell, what is the purchasing power parity conversion for....military technology?

It's not the same as PPP conversion for the overall economy. That's based on a basket of good the average person buys. The average person isn't buying jet engines.


This is a very good point worth addressing. I would think the PPP for mil-tech would only be realised in combat and only when the US loses. For example, there is obviously no PPP ratio for Iraqi freedom or desert storm since the US overspends Iraq by a factor of 50-1 so how much of the win was quantitative and how much qualitative? Its not an issue when its 50-1 but is it an issue at 3-1?

Does the USAF want to risk finding out that the actual PPP only in combat or combat that issue even in peacetime? Ultimately, my point is when near peers appear, its not just about increasing military budgets but also getting the most bang for the buck. Are the Chinese getting the most bang out of their Yuans? Merely stating the obvious.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 15:56

weasel1962 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Sigh. You can't "human wave attack" aircraft vs aircraft. It doesn't work.


Swarm technology is actually being researched for A2A UCAV as we speak.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... ng-drones/

Nevertheless, that was not what I was proposing. I would have thought "on the ground" was plain English but...

Yes, saturation attacks against fixed ground targets is definitely possible.

XanderCrews wrote:I'm glad you picked the Germans In ww2 and not the many many times where the side with fewer people but more advanced weapons annihilated the people relying on cheap larger numbers. In fact that would seem to be the rule rather than the exception and the Germans lost world war 2 for dozens and dozens of reasons but you're taking one element and not only misapplying it in other contexts, but In it's own context as well.


Actually, its an analogy and an accurate one at that. The facts were the 88mm (and in the case of the unsung 75mm L/43 and L/48) generally outgunned their opponents for a large part of the war. The Germans may have lost the war for various other reasons but it does not mask the fact that German tanks, tank gunnery, tank munitions, sloped armor (even if copied from the Russkis) etc pointed to a technological advantage. Just because the Germans lost the war does not in any way change the fact that their tanks did enjoy a technological advantage, not just an operational one. I could a lot of live examples of the above but I don't wish to turn this into a tank thread. If you still can't understand what the analogy was, can't help you there.


I understand the analogy the issue is it's a poor one. Both horses and giraffes have hooves doesn't mean they are the same things. You are taking the similar and avoiding the difference. Can't help you there, it's simply a poor analogy. Does not apply. Especially considering that the West has been relying on quality over quantity especially in the air for decades upon decades.

People have been talking about catching US and NATO aircraft on the ground, and hunting out AWACs and tankers for about 40 years now. Again this is nothing new, the only "twist" is the uav swarm


But hey, you have an idea in your head, selectively applied, while ignoring the differences so keep running with it.

I remember having this conversation online a few years back, but instead of swarm UAVs it was swarm missile spam. The Us was helpless, awacs destroyed, CVNs sunk, airfields annihilated regardless of numbers, tactics, or aircraft type. I finally gave up and said if China was destined to pull this off it doesn't really matter if it's 100 F-35s destroyed or 1,000 F-4 phantoms since the outcome is so inevitable
Last edited by XanderCrews on 08 Jun 2017, 16:02, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5554
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 16:00

arian wrote:
sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:China's entire military budget is smaller than the procurement segment in the US military budget.


1. Uh, no. In 2016s China's military budget (that they tell the world) was $145 billion. Procurement in the US in 2016 was $119 billion.

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense-Spending.html

2. A dollar buys a HELL of a lot more in China than it does in the US.


Do tell, what is the purchasing power parity conversion for....military technology?


This might shock you but there is no such thing as, "military technology". One doesn't go to the local manufacturer and order up some, "military technology". If you want a ship it's made of raw materials that are, ta-da, cheaper in China than in the US. The ship is designed by engineers making FAR less than their counterparts in the US and assembled by workers making FAR less than their counterparts in the US. Any of this sinking in?

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/wage ... ufacturing

Hmmm. Average wages in manufacturing in China is ~60,000 Yuan/year. At $0.15 on the dollar that comes out to $9,000/yr. Same in US is $43,000/yr. That's a factor of almost 5 right there.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post08 Jun 2017, 23:50

sferrin wrote:This might shock you but there is no such thing as, "military technology".


This may shock you, but there is.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lipovitand and 5 guests