Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Not being an expert I find it quite amuzing following the debate.

Both side are arguing their point. And the point that I like to make is that both sides are debating an unfinished product with NO proven track record. And also both sides assume that the other party in the debate is stupid and has no merit.

I will sit on the fence and wait for an actual fly off between the parties and than let the best man win. Unfortunately for the USA all there eggs are in 1 basket that is not allowed to fail AT ANY COST. Let's hope that they get it to work before it is obsolete (just being sarcastic).

Pitty to see all that money squandered away on stuff to kill each other, depite that all this technology is very interresting.

F-16.net Sponsor

hb_pencil wrote:

Oh god.

They finally combined forces.

Hehe, after the highly embarrassing and credability destroying stomping that APA recently had from the Oz Airforce i'd say it's a good thing B.S has teamed up with APA as that way people can see with more clarity what he really is - a biased hack of a journalist. I'm off to fix those melted decks Laughing

Sweetman & Copp infers that stealth technology will be countered by radar and other countermeasures. Why then, are the Russians and Chinese developing their own stealth aircraft Question

aceshigh wrote:

Sweetman & Copp infers that stealth technology will be countered by radar and other countermeasures. Why then, are the Russians and Chinese developing their own stealth aircraft Question

Yep, stealth will only be useful for 10 more years. Cool

aceshigh wrote:

Sweetman & Copp infers that stealth technology will be countered by radar and other countermeasures. Why then, are the Russians and Chinese developing their own stealth aircraft Question

Its very amusing isn't it. As I mentioned just a second ago in another thread its due to those critics being so emotionally distraught at the thought of the F-35 succeeding they'll say pretty much anything to try and run it down and as such all logic gets thrown straight out the window. Laughing

If the Russians and the Chinese build aircraft to counter the F-22 and the F-35, they are more stupid as I thought.

Let the fighters play their game.
WHO in the world cares about fighters any more??

WARS are won or lost by bombers these days.

Yeah, yeah, clear the airspace during the first days of the conflict. And then go and win the war with your bombers.

First some cruise missiles to take out their electronics, radar, comms etc.
Then some fighters to take out their airforce. (I would be far more worried about "number of airplanes" then I would be about what kind of airplanes).
And I think we do not have to worry about neither.

And then go in to do, and finish, the job with bombers.

vilters wrote:

If the Russians and the Chinese build aircraft to counter the F-22 and the F-35, they are more stupid as I thought.

Let the fighters play their game.
WHO in the world cares about fighters any more??

WARS are won or lost by bombers these days.

Yeah, yeah, clear the airspace during the first days of the conflict. And then go and win the war with your bombers.

First some cruise missiles to take out their electronics, radar, comms etc.
Then some fighters to take out their airforce. (I would be far more worried about "number of airplanes" then I would be about what kind of airplanes).
And I think we do not have to worry about neither.

And then go in to do, and finish, the job with bombers.

Are you overlooking the fact that, these days (and all the way back to WWII, actually), the fighters are the bombers.

aceshigh wrote:

Sweetman & Copp infers that stealth technology will be countered by radar and other countermeasures. Why then, are the Russians and Chinese developing their own stealth aircraft Question

Because they're not stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket even if stealth has a limited shelf life.

I enjoy the idea that they are going to deploy missiles that cost upwards of several million dollars apiece. Missiles that large and complex are expensive to maintain. More power to them for choosing their own poison.

count_to_10 wrote:

Are you overlooking the fact that, these days (and all the way back to WWII, actually), the fighters are the bombers.

Don't tell that to the B-1, B-2, and B-52 pilots - some of whom have been flying tacair missions over Afghanistan.

The historical record for SAMs and flak isn't very good.

Before every war it's stated that x number of shells or missiles are needed to down a plane. In the war, it takes 10x or more shells or missiles.

If SAM's are used to try and get planes to abort missions, then what sense does it make to build SAM's that cost a lot more than a mission does?

Also, how many SAM's are going to kill decoys, chaff, and photons?

I also question the mobility of the SAM sites.

I have another question, that won't be answered on a forum but it goes like this. If tracking ships originated in WW1 and has been practiced ever since, then couldn't an air force apply the same techniques to every double digit SAM site in an enemy inventory? This would have obvious issues in a mainland China scenario but in any scenario where Red has to move mobile missiles into position, it should work. It won't get them all but it could get a lot of them.

About the cost of SAMs: the SAMs that protect the F-35s at US airbases will cost ~3 - 8 million; so I wouldn't go knocking Russian SAMs for being so expensive just yet.

Shingen; about tracking enemy SAMs, what happens if they happen to build a couple of decoys and move those around / hide the SAMs in garages? Its a lot easier to hide a vehicle than a ship. Furthermore, the US cannot reliably get continuous intelligence coverage over mainland China, hence the Chinese will be able to move / disperse their SAMs before any conflict. (Satellites probably won't count, as everyone knows where they are / when they make a pass over a particular site).

Finally, Handyman wins the thread. Russia and China are pursing different tracks to ensure that they can contest control over the air. The US has wedded itself to the F-35, to the exclusion of quite a few other possibilities. (The F-22 for one; and probably a proper replacement for the A-6 and/or the F-14). In 10 years, those countries will have a much more balanced air force and air posture compared to the US. That, in my opinion, is the biggest flaw with the F-35; it has become the Leviathan that dominates all US air power purchases, thus making the USAF much closer to a single point failure force.

shingen wrote:

The historical record for SAMs and flak isn't very good.

In Vietnam and Yom Kippur it was 1 kill to 60 missiles. That's declined since. In Kosovo it was 1 out of 170 or so... then again its against single digit systems. I fully expect if we go up against an effective opponent, it will return to 1 out of 60 launches. If not less. However I really really really doubt its nearly as effective as certain parties would like to claim it would be, particularly given the robust funding for SEAD/DEAD in the US.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Finally, Handyman wins the thread. Russia and China are pursing different tracks to ensure that they can contest control over the air. The US has wedded itself to the F-35, to the exclusion of quite a few other possibilities. (The F-22 for one; and probably a proper replacement for the A-6 and/or the F-14). In 10 years, those countries will have a much more balanced air force and air posture compared to the US. That, in my opinion, is the biggest flaw with the F-35; it has become the Leviathan that dominates all US air power purchases, thus making the USAF much closer to a single point failure force.

I'm sorry, the Russian air force isn't going to have a "balanced air force and air posture." They barely have enough funds to replace airframe attrition, speak nothing of rust out issues. Between 2008 and 2015, the Russian federation will only produce 98 fighters for their own use... almost all of which are Su-27 derivatives. That's less than all of the F-35s produced during that period, speak nothing of the F/A-18Es.

hb_pencil wrote:

I'm sorry, the Russian air force isn't going to have a "balanced air force and air posture." They barely have enough funds to replace airframe attrition, speak nothing of rust out issues. Between 2008 and 2015, the Russian federation will only produce 98 fighters for their own use... almost all of which are Su-27 derivatives. That's less than all of the F-35s produced during that period, speak nothing of the F/A-18Es.

Quite right, the Russian ariforce is in a pityful state and nothing looks to be changing either. I don't think any war planners in the Pentagon even care about Russia anymore, I mean whats the threat consist of, a handful of broken Migs, 3 Su-35's and 9 or 10 working bombers. all of which have barely trained crews.
China is, or rather will be the only peer rival to America in the forseable future, nuclear war aside of course.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Russian (Missiles) For Countering Stealth