ricnunes wrote:with all these facts at hand you still claim that the F-35 is an "inferior aircraft"
When you say "with all these facts", you are not aware of what information I have access to. There are many things as I have covered and informed you on that make the F-35 an inferior aircraft to the Typhoon and will be for a long time to come,the gap will become even larger once the red tape is cut on Captor-E, since sensors is one thing the Typhoon is not quite close to matching on the F-35, which is why the F-35 is an excellent sensor support plane to the Typhoon combat capability. This support is true for the F-22 that fly alongside F-35's and enjoy the force multiplier advantage.
All these companies are trying to beat
They are developing a later generation craft that has future next generation capabilities beyond both the Typhoon AND F-35/F-22 in terms of weapons (DEW), sensors, emerging technology (potentially nano healing composites, drones and artificial intelligence etc) and kinematic performance. There would be little use in developing yet another stealthy legacy air-frame when a lot of those nations, including the UK have already bought some.
I think the true reason you seem to want to claim these 6th generation projects are only 5th gen is national pride, knowing full well that the UK and Europe may be closer to high end 6th generation aircraft long before the US. Indeed, looking at recent projects the US may take another decade to even match Meteor as an air to air missile. Course everyone in the know understands why in military circles, Lockheed has a silver tongue. You can see it in the F-35, a mostly low spec aircraft that has now swallowed up a huge portion of the US spending (not to mention other failed US projects) while maintaining a fleet of legacy aircraft that should have been retired a decade ago. This has strangled the US capability in warfare which is sad to see.
It's funny to see/read people mentioning that UAVs will be used as the "definitive" targeting platform against Air-Defense systems but they forget that UAVs are far more vulnerable to these same Air-Defense systems compared to STEALTH manned aircraft (such as the F-35).
Since were sharing our humors what I find very funny is that some people make excessive comments about cost effectiveness yet apparently do not appreciate the loss of a relatively cheap unmanned vehicle is far better than the risk of losing a Jet, pilot and all that goes with it. That and by firing on it the SAM has kind of given itself away and expended a potentially large/expensive SAM in the process. Again, this is just a case of some people here not understanding how military warfare works, the use of UAV's etc. Fortunately those people will never be in a command position or leading ops
If you want to believe in BS such as the F-35 was designed having 90's requirement
Bear in mind the US does not know exactly what capability next generation systems have. Stealth is a new technology and is in its infancy, you have to walk before you can run. bear in mind even the F-22 (a higher spec plane) is still requiring updates every few years to keep up to date, but what you cannot so easily update is stealth. Which I was telling you earlier, the capabilities to defeat stealth are far easier to develop than the stealth itself. In both time, cost effectiveness, R&D etc.
NO other nation has managed to reach and develop aircraft
There is nothing wrong with being proud in a nations accomplishments but this;
In the end putting into question the role of Stealth nowadays would be akin to putting into question the role of the Jet Engine in the late 1940's
Is quite absurd. You seem to have been convinced stealth is quite special but it is no more unique than the weapons/protection development cycle that has been going on for decades and is no more unique than the change explosive reactive armour made to armoured warfare, which was quickly countered by tandem charges and so on. Stealth is merely the counter to radar, which is in turn being countered by developing Radar, IRST and other radar band systems and stealth has a cost in limitations, as the F-35 and F-22 have shown us.
I understand your rage at your nation having slipped a few with its military developments. The rest of the world has continued in other directions, e.g. missile and naval technologies where the US is still in the late 90's early 2000's and is a good decade or so behind Europe, and at this stage is behind the east in many ways as well. This is mostly because of how the defence industry in the US works, not based on operational capability but political needs. The system that gets the brunt of the US budget is the one that has the best sales pitch, not the one that is most capable. It is why the former US isolationist approach of not buying from outside the US has failed it, and is now why it is, more and more looking to Europe to defend it with higher end technologies. Mostly thanks to BAE and its subsidiaries but others too. Maybe the US will be modernized eventually but it has a long way to go.
just like playing a Wack-a-Mole game
Check your form Ricnunes, just slandering people because they are trying to inform you of something that you probably know (but hate to admit) is right is not going to help you. You should not turn down free education. Military discussion may be casual fun to some but its a serious business to the personnel who have to be on the line. Every suggestion that you make that seems to dismiss the use of other assets just because you want to continue the claim that the F-35 is somehow undetectable and that pilots should be sent without consideration into the weapon ranges of even the latest SAM's/aircraft with despite inherent limitations that are known even to you (despite what you claim to belive) proves you are not discussing realistic warfare scenarios.
Can be deployed in 15 minutes
As per the rest of your post, I didn't even bother reading it.
If you had, you would have seen I covered the potential set down times of an S-400. And how 15+ minutes is not enough. It would need to be able to set down and move free from the area (all systems, as any being knocked out could render the complex less effective, if not mostly neutralize it) in minutes.
This is fine Ricnunes I am not sure your quite on my level of knowledge to discuss or understand this subject. As such unless you post something interesting I will not waste either my time responding or indeed your time pretending to have read my posts.
Fact is, the F-35 is seen as a disgrace of an aircraft by ex-serviceman and all those who are in the know. Not just the F-35 but a lot of the newer US developments in other services, e.g. Zumwalt, Littoral combat ship (navy) and the older hellfire missile that has not seen a replacement for the army. These projects have to put it bluntly ignored national interest or military effectiveness for the sake of, well you know what, I am not interested in discussing US politics and how their defense industry treats your budget. The US has a budget larger than those of the next few developed nations combined yet instead of being ahead it sits as if it lost its teeth after the cold war and just wants to rock on the porch. Its too much when claims that other NATO nations are not pulling their weight come out then you look to the US and its a decade behind almost every developed system UK and even Europe has brought to the table. Its embarrassing and frightening that the US, which is the largest western economy may not have a military to match eastern aggression that may crop up over the next decade.
juretrn wrote:One loss
I would not parade about that. Out of the very few aircraft actually lost in that campaign one of them was a stealth aircraft. It does not say much for stealth honestly.
Publicly published numbers imply an F-35 will be able to get within say SDB-II / JSOW / AARGM range even when faced with the latest and greatest (HQ-9 or S-400) without getting detected.
This is not the case because I know for a fact the F-35/F-22 are not cleared to travel into those threat zones. Its simply not the case as I have stated several times and I have no idea what sales pitch may be the "publicly published" information but I suspect at best it is merely vague jargon to confuse those not in the know into supporting the F-35.
I tell you what the US has taught the military environment to its own cost is that stealth is not sustainable currently. The F-22 has sat in hangars atrophying for years, licking its lips hungrily at other raptors, its become quite the cannibal and has had to to survive. After countless embarrassing issues with this project and the F-35 and the mass unrest to the program that some on here may have been too young to witness before a lot of censure was put in place its surprising the F-35 survived at all. It is supposed to be the low spec equivalent to the "high cost/low cost" approach to its air-force the US doctrine follows, like the F-15 to the F-16. Yet it turned out through all its issues to reach a colossal scale in costs and the US air-force of the future will have extremely limited air-frames that do not share parity with even legacy systems in many cases and that rely on stealth.
Which for the record is not useless, no more so than explosive reactive armour was useless when it first developed as I mentioned earlier. And yet, was cheaply countered. Thing is, ERA to continue with this analogy is still relatively cheap to develop, while stealth is not. Radar/IRST and software that enhances the effectiveness of even older systems to search for Stealth aircraft and their emissions (as all planes have) is cheaper still (just code, if anyone has little clue of military software its no different from modern software in computing, you can get a new development every month).
The biggest impact of stealth on an aircraft at this stage can be seen by everyone, atrophy and maintenance costs that can twist the arm and bend the back of even the US logistics to the limit of breaking. Most F-22's have sat in hangars since their inception, struggling to operate at even 50% or above, often in single digits. The F-35 has not seen much better, as is inherent in stealth designs the coating, skins and parts are extremely costly to replace/repair. Sometimes days per flight hour in maintenance, not hours.
This is not new information, the US itself knows this, hence why as I said quite correctly although stealth will play a role, it will play second fiddle to other capabilities in the next generation (if and when the US gets there, maybe the UK will tell them about it, we have a special relationship after-all). We should not be fighting folks, you cannot let media fanfare and sales pitches to come before American lives. And, in the future, the Freedom of western states what with the growing eastern (mostly Chinese) capabilities.
Currently China is perhaps 10-15 years behind the west in many systems (stealth, electronic maturity/miniaturization, sonar capability and almost 20 years behind in submarine quietness) but its economy is building fast and the sleeping dragon will likely awaken over the next years. Its no good just the UK and some European nations being on the technology cutting edge, building 2020's and beyond technology to outperform China if the US pours its income into Lockheeds coffers while fielding tech 10 years behind Europe.
southerncross wrote:Well, we are in a forum so excuse me for thinking this is a place for opinions exchange. If disagreeing is perceived as trolling just let me know, I don't have the slightest interest in bothering you or losing my time with futile discussions either.
Do not take it personally, you only have to read a few of his previous posts to know he does not take the "courtesy" guideline of the forum to heart and seems to have an emotional investment in the F-35.
12 Aug 2019, 17:50
concur. I almost replied a few times but the bottom line is the core statements of euromaster (F-35 not a multi role fighter, only safe targets, need support aircraft or not, etc.) are in error, so everything else is a worthless discussion. This and other debates belong elsewhere.
