F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 13:43

euromaster wrote:The F-35 seems more of a sensor/force multiplier plane than a warrior. I would not put it up against any other plane in an Air to Air role, unless it sacrifices its primary ace (Stealth) it limps along with only a couple of the old AMRAAM (Meteor still not fitted in the UK, not until the 20's last I looked) on its own. Sending pilots against other aircraft with only 2-4 missiles is going to get pilots killed. Especially if the adversary has IRST/modern developing radars. Besides, the F-35 has about the kinematic performance of a 3rd gen air-frame. Its low/slow flight makes it better for strike against undefended targets while higher performance aircraft such as Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 (if flying still) would be taking the shots at long stand-off range (meteor).



Virtually everything you just said is wrong, especially regarding kinematics. Please do some more research.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

euromaster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2009, 15:42

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 13:57

But that one doesn't need to be a completely different type of arsenal plane, it can be another F-35 - with different config if necessary.


Well sure, if you have nothing better.

Virtually everything you just said is wrong


It was not, and I have quite a lot of research under my belt thank you :wink: maybe kinematic is the wrong term but essentially what I was saying it has no place as an airframe in a contest against the higher/faster birds such as the F-22, Typhoon etc. Although I realize the Rafale is not quite in their ballpark either I was speaking of the F-35 generally. If your just taking on an equal number of Gen 4 MiG/SU's you may do ok. (so long as you bring some "arsenal" planes though. )
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 14:05

euromaster wrote:You would not send any plane into that environment, there is no real need. Just launch a stand-off weapon beyond their effective range. Anything in the 450-500km+ class will do. Flying any aircraft including a F-35 or F-22 in range of such missiles is a risk.

Unless you can miraculously know the location of all SAM site before the mission even started, launching extremely long range cruise missile is simply not a practical option in most case. What we have learned from Viet Nam and Serbia war is that SAM site location aren't fixed, they change all the time and very well camouflage. In most case, you can't find them at extended range, carrying a missile with 500 km range doesn't mean you can engage from that distance. Being VLO give the pilot the option to detect the SAM site before they are detected themselves.
Furthermore, able to get to closer range without being shot down mean you can attack your adversary with shorter range weapons, shorter range weapons are smaller can be carried in higher number and therefore are better at overwhelming IADS, you can either use Typhoon and launch 2 Storm shadow or use F-35 to get close and launch 8 SPEAR.


euromaster wrote:Yes but meanwhile were still stuck with just a couple of missiles and the later block launcher is still limited in what it can carry. The F-35 will still be poorly armed. Hence, it will rely on better armed fighters.

The max internal load out is less than the max external load out of say for example an Eurofighter, but the vital issue is: F-35 can survive to launch these small load out that it carry while the Eurofighter won't be. The extra missiles won't be useful if you either to busy dodging SAM or get hit by SAM.


euromaster wrote:Well sure but then the F-35 is still stuck with a lower/slower air-frame than higher end jets like the Typhoon, F-22 etc and limited ammo carriage. The difference is newer sensors and weapons can counter/mitigate stealth more cheaply while the small weapons bay limits all future weapons in both capacity and capability.

The slower airframe issue is mitigate by missiles such as JNAAM, METEOR, AIM-260, LREW ..etc all have longer kinematic distance than detection/tracking range between LO and VLO assets
Small bay is mitigated by side kick internal launcher and small missiles such as MSDN or SACM.
On the other hand, newer sensor doesn't mitigate stealth more cheaply, take for example: a new radar that can detect stealth fighter from longer distance will detect and track a conventional aircraft from even further. A jammer that can reduce tracking range of radar will be a thousand times more effective on a VLO airframe.
Pretty much what you can put on a conventional aircraft , you can put on a stealth fighter for better result.



euromaster wrote:No they are waiting for the next gen CAPTOR-E AESA, the goal post's for its capability keep getting pushed back, the MoD wants more and more from it before they cut the red tape. I guess its a toss up to see if the Typhoon gets its AESA before the F-35 gets the Block 4 update and can carry half a decent weapons load. :D

Doesn't change the fact that all current Eurofighter in service still use mechanical radar, which is a far worse issue than the current limited missiles load of F-35


euromaster wrote:I was refering to what Jonathan Greenert (Chief of naval operations 2015) said;
https://news.usni.org/2015/03/27/navy-a ... -and-fa-18
Which makes sense. If your making a 6th gen may as well improve on what the 5th gen struggled with.

They are looking at improving the airframe as well doesn't mean stealth will take the back seat.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 432
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 14:06

F-22 and Typhoon certainly go higher and faster, but how much of an advantage (to eventual missile PK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_of_kill) they have is debatable. Missile type could matter more. Then there's the clear first shooter advantage of a stealth fighter. Or rather for the most part it chooses whether there is going to be a fight, trying to only attack from a position of unfair strength. Information advantage enables that. We can't assume that non-stealth fighter usually even gets to the point of having a "fair fight" where the differences in loads/kinematics would matter.

Besides, it's rather F/A-18C like in kinematics according to testimonials.
Last edited by magitsu on 09 Aug 2019, 14:13, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 14:13

If speed and altitude are the key then these euro canard are already obsolete, you need to look no further than Mig-31 or YF-12
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 875
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 15:45

"the F-35 has about the kinematic performance of a 3rd gen air-frame."

By 3rd Gen. you mean F4 and Mig21?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 875
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 15:48

Take note:

I strongly suspect a F-35A could out-accelerate a Typhoon in subsonic, given the performance written on Typhoon's advertising brochure.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4536
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 16:13

yes, tell me how many third gen naval aircraft could break Mach with six one ton bombs and four AAMs. The F-35 variant with the worst supersonic performance can still do that.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 20:08

garrya wrote:
euromaster wrote:You would not send any plane into that environment, there is no real need. Just launch a stand-off weapon beyond their effective range. Anything in the 450-500km+ class will do. Flying any aircraft including a F-35 or F-22 in range of such missiles is a risk.

Unless you can miraculously know the location of all SAM site before the mission even started, launching extremely long range cruise missile is simply not a practical option in most case. What we have learned from Viet Nam and Serbia war is that SAM site location aren't fixed, they change all the time and very well camouflage. In most case, you can't find them at extended range, carrying a missile with 500 km range doesn't mean you can engage from that distance. Being VLO give the pilot the option to detect the SAM site before they are detected themselves.
Furthermore, able to get to closer range without being shot down mean you can attack your adversary with shorter range weapons, shorter range weapons are smaller can be carried in higher number and therefore are better at overwhelming IADS, you can either use Typhoon and launch 2 Storm shadow or use F-35 to get close and launch 8 SPEAR.


Precisely!

And lets not forget that each of those long range cruise missiles such as the Storm Shadow are very expensive weapons (often surpassing the Million USD per unit/missile cost) and those same missiles can also be shot much more easily so when compared to a stealth aircraft like the F-35.

Yes, long range cruise missiles can be built by having a lower RCS in mind but that usually means an even higher cost per each missile. But then again they are quite big weapons and by having a considerable motor makes them easier to be spotted by a range of sensors such and namely as IR or even the good ole "MkI eyeball" and thus making them quite easier to be shot down by enemy defenses when compared to much smaller (and cheaper) weapons like the SDBII, SPEAR, etc...
Moreover if those long range cruise missiles are flying a low altitude profile (which they usually do) this means they could technically be shot down a wide array of weapons such as Assault Rifles, General Purpose Machine guns, Heavy machine Guns, MANPADS, and any other type of short, medium or long range air defense systems.

On the other hand you have the F-35 which can carry internally up to 8xSDBII/SPEAR (since when such payload is "small"?!) which are much less expensive than cruise missiles (like the Storm Shadow for instance) and have a much higher probability of finding and destroying that/those hidden SAM site(s) and at the same time are much harder to be shot down (since they are smaller and also have low RCS properties) and since they are much less expensive several of these weapons (SDBII/SPEAR/etc...) can be shot at a single target (and still be cheaper than shooting a single cruise missile at the same target) which means that even if one of these weapons is shot down it would never be as bad as one of those cruise missiles getting shot down.


garrya wrote:If speed and altitude are the key then these euro canard are already obsolete, you need to look no further than Mig-31 or YF-12


LOL! :mrgreen:

Moreover, in order for a Typhoon to be minimally effective in combat even during an Air-to-Air sortie it must carry external fuel tanks and even if a Typhoon carries supersonic external fuel tanks and semi-recessed fuselage mounted missiles (as its only missile weapon) then its speed would be limited at best to Mach 1.8 which isn't much faster than a F-35 flying at Mach 1.6
And please lets not get to the same and often repeated to death point of: "...but the Typhoon can drop its external fuel tanks..."
NO, it wouldn't drop its external fuel tanks unless it was some dire "life or death" situation (which the case/situation of simply trying of reach an enemy plane isn't accounted for). Again, external fuel tanks are quite expensive pieces of hardware so they are never dropped lightly! And I imagine that those supersonic external fuel tanks could be even more expensive then the other lets say "more regular" external fuel tanks.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

firebase99

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 03 May 2017, 21:47

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 21:21

Actual Typhoon pilots have stated even though they can physically SEE the F-22 through the canopy their jet was unable to put a weapons system on it. I expect the F-35 to be no different. How is that inferior?
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 22:04

euromaster wrote:
It was not, and I have quite a lot of research under my belt thank you :wink:


After reading your posts my only reaction to that claim is best summed up by this...

Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Aug 2019, 06:59

euromaster wrote:The F-35 seems more of a sensor/force multiplier plane than a warrior. I would not put it up against any other plane in an Air to Air role, unless it sacrifices its primary ace (Stealth) it limps along with only a couple of the old AMRAAM (Meteor still not fitted in the UK, not until the 20's last I looked) on its own. Sending pilots against other aircraft with only 2-4 missiles is going to get pilots killed. Especially if the adversary has IRST/modern developing radars. Besides, the F-35 has about the kinematic performance of a 3rd gen air-frame. Its low/slow flight makes it better for strike against undefended targets while higher performance aircraft such as Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 (if flying still) would be taking the shots at long stand-off range (meteor).

Thankfully, that seems to be the role most nations are going with the F-35, its more of a support/sensor plane to support more capable combat aircraft.

Pretty sure stealth is taking a back seat on 6th Gen fighter designs in lieu of weapons and speed/performance etc after seeing the limitations in those areas for Stealth aircraft. That and their maintenance issue.


The F-35 has equal or better kinematics to 4th generation jets. Not sure where you're getting your info,.but it's inaccurate to be polite. As for AAMs, the AIM-120D is hardly an antiquated missile. It's among the most sophisticated and capable in service anywhere. In the next few years, the AIM-260 will enter service (better than AIM-120D or Meteor), and the F-35 will carry 6 internally. Additionally, 2 more AIM-9X can be carried externally, while still maintaining a very low signature, bringing the load to 8. Once SACM enters service, the F-35 will be able to carry 12 AAMs internally. As for 6th gen skipping stealth, that's nonsense, too.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Aug 2019, 07:15

It's also nice to have this titbit for relevance. The fastest speed of a missile launch in anger, was by the M2.5 capable f-15, It was launched around the speed of M1.2. Google wasn't my friend when I tried to find the exact speed, it was under M1.3.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

euromaster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2009, 15:42

Unread post11 Aug 2019, 18:05

There seems to be some holes in the knowledge on this site and some erroneous comments. A lot of it looks like old information from the mid 90's that is either out of date or was just media fanfare which is fine I guess for casual/fantasy discussion which is not a problem but some of it seems to be taken literally. For example;

garrya wrote:Unless you can miraculously know the location of all SAM site before the mission even started, launching extremely long range cruise missile is simply not a practical option in most case. What we have learned from Viet Nam and Serbia war is that SAM site location aren't fixed, they change all the time and very well camouflage. In most case, you can't find them at extended range, carrying a missile with 500 km range doesn't mean you can engage from that distance. Being VLO give the pilot the option to detect the SAM site before they are detected themselves.


ricnunes wrote:Precisely!

And lets not forget that each of those long range cruise missiles such as the Storm Shadow are very expensive weapons (often surpassing the Million USD per unit/missile cost) and those same missiles can also be shot much more easily so when compared to a stealth aircraft like the F-35.



I thought I would reply to both of you here because you both, with respect seem to have a rather fantasy view of modern warfare or how an air arm would be used against integrated air defense of this level.

Just to be clear it is absolutely not the thinking of any military to send pilots in with short/med range weapons (60-100km range) to suppress IADS that include high end long range weapons such as S-400. No aircraft will be expected to travel potentially hundreds of kilometers within the radius of such a weapons capability of attack.

What's more, the question of cost is also nonsensical, The potential cost of losing an aircraft and its pilot is unfeasible compared to launching cruise missiles. The military has no qualms about firing hundreds of cruise missiles, I do not need to declassify anything, you can read up on Syria, Iraq war etc, cruise missiles were like candy even against limited air defense, let alone S-400 or better class IADS.

I will tell you what would happen, you would get intel either from satellite, UAV or on the ground, some other recce. Then cruise missiles, either from air or from the coast will be launched on que within a relatively short space of time between intel. Not everyone bears this in mind but there is a "command" layer that work closely with the tactical assets, you do not just have assets in a vacuum.

An F-35 would be even less likely to do this due to its general low performance air-frame, other high end aircraft like an F-22/Typhoon may be able to survive being spotted and be able to leave a hostile zone of control, while an airframe akin to a low end legacy aircraft air-frame such as the F-35 which has performance more like a carrier strike craft or bomb boat (somewhat like the Rafale actually) would not be able to out climb or outmaneuver an opposing high end aircraft.

It would also be vulnerable to lower end, low altitude air defenses, possibly even manpads on certain strike trajectories. Meanwhile aircraft that can travel to target at 50-60k feet or more are only vulnerable to the highest capability SAM's like the S-400+ itself.

An F-35 could be vulnerable to a large range of popup threats at its low altitude. So as cool as it would be for an F-35 to fly in invisible and bomb S-400's without the whole defense grid not having any idea like a hollywood movie (maybe our friend Maverick will do it :) ) this is not the reality.

garrya wrote:F-35 can survive to launch these small load out that it carry while the Eurofighter won't be.


This is not necesserily true, where F-35 has stealth in its tool box, Typhoon and other high end performance aircraft have speed and altitude. And like I said, you won't get aircraft doing any SAM dodging, there is absolutely no reason for them to get anywhere near high class SAM systems in modern war and unless someone messes up on a colossal scale even a stealth aircraft would not be sent into such a hot zone.

There is no use an F-35 going into a combat zone with only 4 or so missiles or less, maybe only 2 AA missiles and 4 bombs, taking out one low end/low altitude system such as a Buk launcher or equivalent and then getting pinged by the 3/4 nearby Buk's, manpads, S-400's etc, then getting run down by faster aircraft such as SU-35's, MiG-35's etc. Its just absurd and would not happen in todays information environment. Especially while it has legacy missiles. It may require 2-3 AMRAAM missiles to assure the defeat of a 4.5+ or 4.5++ gen aircraft.

Small bay is mitigated by side kick internal launcher and small missiles such as MSDN or SACM.


These are not true mitigation's. Your talking about future systems, especially with the SACM. By the time F-35 gets SACM, European aircraft may be flying with DEW's....and SACM is not =/= long range, high performance missiles. Their sorely needed for the F-35 to be a relevant combat platform I agree but your not there yet. The US is dragging its feet in missile design, its mostly in the post 90's era while everyone else is reaching out to the 2020's, even China.

Doesn't change the fact that all current Eurofighter in service still use mechanical radar, which is a far worse issue than the current limited missiles load of F-35


How exactly? This is factually incorrect, CAPTOR is a very capable radar, even more so than some of the early generation PESA and even AESA variants for what it wants to do and potential adversary aircraft do not use anything that actually "requires" the next gen AESA CAPTOR-E that may come out sooner (especially if in full war time) than Block 4, and certainly before F-35 has a viable combat load.

Meanwhile there is literally no example where having few missiles is a greater benefit, especially with low PK weapons like AMRAAM against later gen targets.

magitsu wrote:F-22 and Typhoon certainly go higher and faster, but how much of an advantage (to eventual missile PK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_of_kill) they have is debatable. Missile type could matter more.


No the advantage is always with the airframe unless there is a large disparity between missiles. E.g., the Rafale airframe although nothing like a Typhoon/F-22/F-35, high end flankers etc it carries Meteor which makes previous legacy missiles such as AMRAAM/R-77 obsolete in the same way AMRAAM made Sparrow seem dated. However, a Typhoon launching a Meteor with its two way data link at 60-65+k feet while supercruising at a higher degree will always offer greater energy and reach to the lower altitude bomb boat aircraft such as the F-35. And only the F-35 in UK service will get the Meteor unless the US wisely signs up for it and closes their generation gap disadvantage.

So "kinematics" will always matter.


magitsu wrote:Then there's the clear first shooter advantage of a stealth fighter. Or rather for the most part it chooses whether there is going to be a fight, trying to only attack from a position of unfair strength. Information advantage enables that. We can't assume that non-stealth fighter usually even gets to the point of having a "fair fight" where the differences in loads/kinematics would matter.


This is not always going to be the case. Its no different than saying a higher altitude fighter always chooses when to strike, this is often the case but not always. They are all different tools at the aircrafts disposal. A stealth aircraft may be found on IRST even beyond its own effective range. This is especially true with legacy missile equipped planes like US aircraft, most notably the F-35. The F-22 is not so beleaguered by this disparity thanks to its high end air-frame but an F-35 at low altitude against developed IRST's with low PK missiles even at level altitude targets? nobody wants to be that pilot.

The "fair fight" will never exist for the F-35 unless it is facing legacy aircraft or has support from better fighters.

gta4 wrote:By 3rd Gen. you mean F4 and Mig21?


I was exaggerating to outline the fact that the F-35 is essentially a legacy airframe with high levels of stealth which besides maybe its sensors is the only reason it has the label 5th gen (that and media/sales propaganda :D ). Its more of a stealth 4.5 gen at best, or a stealth legacy craft like I said, losing "points" for being a poor weapons package and more of a spy plane in terms of carriage.

firebase99 wrote:Actual Typhoon pilots have stated even though they can physically SEE the F-22 through the canopy their jet was unable to put a weapons system on it. I expect the F-35 to be no different. How is that inferior?


This sort of ties in to what I said in my opening about old information. This sounds like the same scene where the German pilots said they had Raptor salad for lunch. The only reason a Typhoon would not be able to "put a weapons system" on the F-22 is in very specific rules of engagement for the exercise. In reality a Typhoon pilot would just use the HMS and knock out the F-22 at high of-boresight where the F-22 cannot reach within seconds. Its stealth would have little to no impact at this range.

I suspect this particular scenario was a Typhoon pilot without HMS (or not allowed for the exercise) struggling to line up guns on an F-22 using its TV, however this sort of exchange is unlikely and not always energy efficient for the F-22.

wrightwing wrote:Not sure where you're getting your info,.but it's inaccurate to be polite.


I am glad your being polite about it, despite it being int he guidelines apparently courtesy is ignored by some users. But if you do not know where my info is from, saying its inaccurate is quite the leap I would say. How would you know that perhaps instead of my information being inaccurate, is actually simply better than what you have found/have access to?

As for AAMs, the AIM-120D is hardly an antiquated missile. It's among the most sophisticated and capable in service anywhere.


I would say "in the US inventory" rather than anywhere.

In the next few years, the AIM-260 will enter service (better than AIM-120D or Meteor),


This is for example factually incorrect. The AIM-260 is yet another missile to give the US aircraft a little extra legs, but does not compare to Meteor.The nearest equivalent the US has in development is the LREW but its unclear on what levels of development the missile is at and whether or not it will enter service. At the moment the US has a large gap in its air capability, especially in terms of missiles, in most of areas the US is behind be it Naval or Land systems but the air force is one area it should not be losing ground on.

The US is looking more and more to far more advanced UK developments, like those made by BAE and its subsidiaries such as Brimstone and Meteor. If the US considers Brimstone it may also consider a deal, if only a lease (if allowed) for meteor production which may allow the US to fill its 5-10 year generation gap which is extremely dangerous considering China may be closer to Europe in missile capability.

Once SACM enters service, the F-35 will be able to carry 12 AAMs internally.


I am not sure if SACM will enter service, your looking quite far into the future there and another program may be considered politically more viable (if not operationally as is often the case in the US defense sector, hence why their so behind technologically) which may lead to it being canceled. SACM also seems less of a high end weapon system and more of another interim to try and make up for embarrassing carriage on the F-35, what it really needs is a big stick that can also fit in its bays in decent numbers. Sadly, I do not see this happening before the 30-40's, at which point DEW's and 6th gen may be not far from service.

To conclude the F-35 is what the US is stuck with due to costs of the program and the US defense industry effectively drags congress over its knee and slaps 10 shades of dollar out of them but anyone who assumes it is ideal for front line combat does not follow the program. There are some problems there, not just from airframe issues but also atrophy (just do some research on the F-22 and what has happened to it) of stealth aircraft and high maintenance costs/low combat readiness to consider, low carriage loads which are apparently 10-20 years or longer away from being rectified. This system is better than the US running its old legacy aircraft that should have been retired 10 years ago forever but the F-35 is the poor mans replacement and the US is not financially poor, just politically at a loss.

It would have been better off doing what the UK is doing and using a F-35/Typhoon combination, buying 600 or so Typhoons, even under lease with full meteor integration/Captor-E would have been dramatically more effective to work alongside 400 or so F-35's. Chuck in some Brimstone to get rid of its stocks of legacy medium range missiles like Maverick/Hellfire (they may do this) and you would have had a far more moddern/capable airforce.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Aug 2019, 21:35

@euromaster

Jezz, never I thought that someone could spell so many erroneous, just to not say nonsensical BS in a single (huge) post :doh:

I don't have either the time or patience to address all of what you said since again, it's a huge post where everything is just plain wrong that even hurts my eyes and moreover it's clear that you haven't paid a single attention to everything that was told to you.

I'll address only a few of the points that I was able to read:

euromaster wrote:There seems to be some holes in the knowledge on this site and some erroneous comments. A lot of it looks like old information from the mid 90's that is either out of date or was just media fanfare which is fine I guess for casual/fantasy discussion which is not a problem but some of it seems to be taken literally. For example;


You're must be looking at a mirror, right?
In case you haven't noticed it's you and only you who's basing "knowledge" (if we can call this "knowledge") on outdated "90's" info.
For instance you totally and completely fail to grasp the concept of Stealth and sensor fusion and how these alone make the F-35 a whole generation and new and much more advanced fighter aircraft than anything in existence today!


euromaster wrote:I thought I would reply to both of you here because you both, with respect seem to have a rather fantasy view of modern warfare or how an air arm would be used against integrated air defense of this level.


On the other hand I think you'll need to look yourself to at a mirror :roll:


euromaster wrote:Just to be clear it is absolutely not the thinking of any military to send pilots in with short/med range weapons (60-100km range) to suppress IADS that include high end long range weapons such as S-400.


Really?? Oh boy, those Americans, Israelis, British, Norwegians, Italians, Dutch, Danish, Belgians, South Koreans (am I forgetting someone?) must be really, really dumb! They should bow before your highness, the true bearer of military knowledge... :roll:

And you even have the nerve of saying that everyone here is basing their knowledge on outdated info, really :bang:
It's clear that you completely fail to grasp the modern concepts of modern warfare which STEALTH and SENSOR FUSION are an integral and vital part of it!


euromaster wrote:No aircraft will be expected to travel potentially hundreds of kilometers within the radius of such a weapons capability of attack.


Yes, they will. The F-35 has this page available to the pilot which shows how close it can get to a target without being detected by it.
But of course, someone who's access to modern data should be aware of this, no?


euromaster wrote:What's more, the question of cost is also nonsensical,


Really?? And how about the question of sustainability? Is it also "nonsensical"?' Good luck sustaining a conflict based on the success of cruise missiles against highly mobile targets such as modern air defenses and this even for a few weeks :doh:

euromaster wrote:The potential cost of losing an aircraft and its pilot is unfeasible compared to launching cruise missiles. The military has no qualms about firing hundreds of cruise missiles, I do not need to declassify anything, you can read up on Syria, Iraq war etc, cruise missiles were like candy even against limited air defense, let alone S-400 or better class IADS.


As it was already told you and apparently you chose to ignore is that Air Defence systems DO NOT STAY STILL ON THE SAME SPOT, capiche??
You many know where one of such systems is at an instance and shoot a missile 500km or so from it but the next thing that it will likely happen is that the Air Defense System isn't already on that spot when the cruise missile reaches that spot. Seems like you are clueless about another very important and vital concept of modern warfare, which is: MOBILITY

As such, it is likely that even if a cruise missile doesn't get shot down in its away against an air defense system/target that when it gets there it won't find anything - So in the end it's basically the same result as being shot down beforehand!

Moreover, cost again is really important! Not only because of sustainability (like I mentioned above) but also and since these (cruise missiles) are very and really expensive which means that:
- There are few Cruise Missiles available to go around. This is specially true in the event prolonged conflict. And its even more true considering that cruise missiles can be shot down, have a high chance of missing the target and in the event of actually hitting and destroying a component of an Air Defense System (a Radar or a Launcher for example) there's a very high chance that the cost of cruise missile is higher than any of the components that it can destroy.
This is why Cruise Missiles are usually used against Strategical Targets, such a factories, Command&Control nodes, Ammo Dumps, etc...) and never used to suppress air defenses and rarely used to destroy those same air defenses.


euromaster wrote:An F-35 would be even less likely to do this due to its general low performance air-frame, other high end aircraft like an F-22/Typhoon may be able to survive being spotted and be able to leave a hostile zone of control,


You have been informed with updated and most recent data that you're wrong about the F-35 "low performance". Actually what you're quoting is old and outdated and ultimately wrong data.


euromaster wrote:An F-35 could be vulnerable to a large range of popup threats at its low altitude. So as cool as it would be for an F-35 to fly in invisible and bomb S-400's without the whole defense grid not having any idea like a hollywood movie (maybe our friend Maverick will do it :) ) this is not the reality.


WTF are you talking about??


euromaster wrote:This is not necesserily true, where F-35 has stealth in its tool box, Typhoon and other high end performance aircraft have speed and altitude.


Yeah right, that's why the British are developing the Tempest while the French and Germans are developing the FCAS as a response to the F-35 and as a replacement to the Typhoon. The F-35 is so bad compared to the Typhoon that these countries are developing aircraft similar to the F-35 to replace the Typhoon. Go figure...


euromaster wrote:And like I said, you won't get aircraft doing any SAM dodging, there is absolutely no reason for them to get anywhere near high class SAM systems in modern war and unless someone messes up on a colossal scale even a stealth aircraft would not be sent into such a hot zone.


But who said something about dodging SAMs?! The F-35 won't be dodging SAM's. It will detect then first and shot at them without them realizing that they (Air Defense/SAMs) were shot at by a F-35!


euromaster wrote:There is no use an F-35 going into a combat zone with only 4 or so missiles or less,


Really?? How many Air-to-Air missiles does a F-16 brought to an ACTUAL combat zone? Let me give you a hint:
- It's a number between 3 and 5!

As it was told you, the F-35 will soon have the capability of carrying 6 Air-to-Air missiles and besides it can carry 2 more AIM-9X bring to a total of 8 Air-to-Air missiles and this while still have a much lower RCS than a Typhoon.

Moreover a F-35 with 4 Air-to-Air missiles will be far more effective than a Typhoon or any other 4th gen fighter aircraft with 6 or 8 Air-to-Air missiles but to its advantages that were already discussed to the death and should be already well known by now.


euromaster wrote:maybe only 2 AA missiles and 4 bombs, taking out one low end/low altitude system such as a Buk launcher or equivalent and then getting pinged by the 3/4 nearby Buk's, manpads, S-400's etc,


Please stop ignoring what was already told you. The F-35 can carry 2 Air-to-Air missiles and EIGHT (8) (and not 4!) Bombs in the form of SDBII or SPEAR.


euromaster wrote:then getting run down by faster aircraft such as SU-35's, MiG-35's etc. Its just absurd and would not happen in todays information environment. Especially while it has legacy missiles. It may require 2-3 AMRAAM missiles to assure the defeat of a 4.5+ or 4.5++ gen aircraft.


And again, it's you that completely fail to grasp the reality of MODERN aerial warfare:
- You can only pursuit and ultimately shot at what you can actually detect!


For the rest of your huge post (and my post is also getting huge, BTW), I'll let others reply although I'm having the impression that this will be a useless and futile exercise... :roll:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests