13 ms·

Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist. Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are a

by greedo 11y ago

Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist. Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are a significant portion of the cost. And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. Even the F-22 has old, decade old CPUs. The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly. Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s. Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.

pippy 11y ago
>Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground. Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources. Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  The F35 is supposed to eventually have some amazing capabilities, but CAS isn't one of them. It can't do CAS, and it will never be able to.
- greedo 11y ago
  How is it unfair? The Syrians had plenty of time to prepare for the battle, they had Soviet weapons and advisors, their SAMs were excellent, they just got waxed by better planes, better command and control, better pilots. The F-15 and F-16, combined with the E-2 were so far better than the Mig-21bis and Mig-23 that the Syrians were flying, that the outcome was almost pre-determined once the Syrians started moving SA-6 units into the valley. And the Super Tucano? WTH. The USAF accepted 20, temporarily, before transferring them to the Afghan AF. The USAF has no squadrons that utilize this airframe, and no intentions to. It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    > It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all. Seeing as how the last time the USAF operated in seriously contested airspace was forty years ago, this is perhaps not as big a problem as it would seem.
    - greedo 11y ago
      The military needs to plan for the worst case scenarios, not the best. Ask the Ukrainians how it feels to be on the short end of the stick. The Russians are doing a bang up job with ECM/ECCM and denying them any airspace to fly in. The US doesn't need to plan on fighting tribesman in the Hindu Kush. Almost any aircraft can do that. It needs to plan to fight peers.
engi_nerd 11y ago
>And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. People don't realize this. Your smartphone is vastly more powerful than pretty much any single CPU found in the avionics of a fighter. If you really dig around old press releases you can figure out some of what these aircraft use, but I'd rather not specify. But, think about when the F-35 systems were largely designed: the period from 2000 to 2005.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The fighter avionics computer isn't running Java and 20 layers of poorly optimized cruft though.
  - jmnicolas 11y ago
    Reading the article you would think it's the case though ;-)
mjewkes 11y ago
(for those unfamiliar) With roughly even strength, Isreal destroyed 82 Syrian aircraft + 30 SAM batteries while suffering only 2 damaged aircraft (that flew home). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Batt...
poof131 11y ago
Yeah, but if I bring a fleet of trucks launching SA-20s [1] or a fleet of Mig-21s (and drones) with advanced upgrades [2] functioning as missile trucks, who knows. You’re really battling the missiles and BVR targeting capabilities. The plane is increasingly a delivery platform and missiles are far cheaper then jets. I agree with the parent in that a diversified set of aircraft focused on specific missions and more easily produced and upgraded with new tech is critical (no ones saying build bi-planes). And sure we can say 4th-gen beats 3rd-gen and now 5th-gen beats 4th-gen, unfortunately adversaries often don’t follow the script. F-35 seems to be more a danger to national security than a help. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) [2] http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-still-unpleasant-surprise-at-Cope-India-exercise-how-so http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-...
- greedo 11y ago
  S-300s can't target an F-35 according to unclassified reports. It might be able to target them if they're hanging ordnance on their external pylons, but not if they're using internal carriage. S-400? Sure, those might be able to eventually. Depends on if their search radars can maintain a lock. A fleet of Mig-21s, even upgraded, would be no match for F-35s. Even using Su-30s as a mini AWACs, the F-35s wouldn't be detected on radar. So the F-35s could wax the Sukhois, and then take on the blind Fishbeds with ease. It would be like what the F-22 pilots call it when they went up against 4th Gen fighters; clubbing baby seals. Fishbeds are decent jets in terms of speed and agility, but they're not dogfighters; they have horrible visibilty, they bleed energy in turns (delta wings), and they have limited weapons carriage.
  - poof131 11y ago
    F-22 pilots are definitely clubbing baby seals when fighting 4th gen. I've been the baby seal. But I also call BS on the full invisibility people selling these platforms are trying to claim. If they are wrong (which I believe they are) and next generation missiles can track, we are in a bad spot. I like the F-22 for Air-to-Air. I think the F-35 is probably okay, just not remotely worth the money. But I think our "all in" on a single do-it-all, super-expensive fighter-bomber is a huge risk and the wrong direction. We need a mix of assets. And unfortunately, the F-35 just eats up the whole budget so we can't afford anything else. It definitely shouldn't be doing CAS, and strike is probably best performed by other assets too. Trying to merge AF, Navy, and Marine planes into one super plane is bad for so many reasons. The whole plan seems incapable of taking on serious adversaries and incredible overkill for insurgency operations. A no man's land of happy defense contractors and bad military strategy.
jfoutz 11y ago
That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35. i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range. Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4. You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.
- outworlder 11y ago
  While I happen to share the sentiment(re. the numbers game), how wise would be to deploy a massive amount of remote-controlled weaponry against a developed nation?
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue. I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff. I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
    - nether 11y ago
      What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.
neurotech1 11y ago
The "supercomputer" claim is based on the F-35 having a multi-processor avionics system. A good example of the "cheap" fighter is the Korean F/A-50. This jet has some of the Beyond Visual Range capability of the F-16, at 1/3 the cost. It doesn't have the range or the weapons capacity. A well trained T-38/F-5 aggressor pilot can nail an F-16 or F-22 in a dogfight, within visual range. The Stealth F-35 will have the ability to engage an enemy aircraft without ever being detected, and that "minor" detail justifies the cost. In previous conflicts, once the opposing aircraft locate each other on radar, the adversaries would be forced into the merge, or risk being shot down at long range.

by greedo 11y ago

pippy 11y ago

>Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground. Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources. Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
The F35 is supposed to eventually have some amazing capabilities, but CAS isn't one of them. It can't do CAS, and it will never be able to.
greedo 11y ago
How is it unfair? The Syrians had plenty of time to prepare for the battle, they had Soviet weapons and advisors, their SAMs were excellent, they just got waxed by better planes, better command and control, better pilots. The F-15 and F-16, combined with the E-2 were so far better than the Mig-21bis and Mig-23 that the Syrians were flying, that the outcome was almost pre-determined once the Syrians started moving SA-6 units into the valley. And the Super Tucano? WTH. The USAF accepted 20, temporarily, before transferring them to the Afghan AF. The USAF has no squadrons that utilize this airframe, and no intentions to. It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all. Seeing as how the last time the USAF operated in seriously contested airspace was forty years ago, this is perhaps not as big a problem as it would seem.
  - greedo 11y ago
    The military needs to plan for the worst case scenarios, not the best. Ask the Ukrainians how it feels to be on the short end of the stick. The Russians are doing a bang up job with ECM/ECCM and denying them any airspace to fly in. The US doesn't need to plan on fighting tribesman in the Hindu Kush. Almost any aircraft can do that. It needs to plan to fight peers.

engi_nerd 11y ago

>And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. People don't realize this. Your smartphone is vastly more powerful than pretty much any single CPU found in the avionics of a fighter. If you really dig around old press releases you can figure out some of what these aircraft use, but I'd rather not specify. But, think about when the F-35 systems were largely designed: the period from 2000 to 2005.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
The fighter avionics computer isn't running Java and 20 layers of poorly optimized cruft though.
- jmnicolas 11y ago
  Reading the article you would think it's the case though ;-)

mjewkes 11y ago

(for those unfamiliar) With roughly even strength, Isreal destroyed 82 Syrian aircraft + 30 SAM batteries while suffering only 2 damaged aircraft (that flew home). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Batt...

poof131 11y ago

Yeah, but if I bring a fleet of trucks launching SA-20s [1] or a fleet of Mig-21s (and drones) with advanced upgrades [2] functioning as missile trucks, who knows. You’re really battling the missiles and BVR targeting capabilities. The plane is increasingly a delivery platform and missiles are far cheaper then jets. I agree with the parent in that a diversified set of aircraft focused on specific missions and more easily produced and upgraded with new tech is critical (no ones saying build bi-planes). And sure we can say 4th-gen beats 3rd-gen and now 5th-gen beats 4th-gen, unfortunately adversaries often don’t follow the script. F-35 seems to be more a danger to national security than a help. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) [2] http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-still-unpleasant-surprise-at-Cope-India-exercise-how-so http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-...

greedo 11y ago
S-300s can't target an F-35 according to unclassified reports. It might be able to target them if they're hanging ordnance on their external pylons, but not if they're using internal carriage. S-400? Sure, those might be able to eventually. Depends on if their search radars can maintain a lock. A fleet of Mig-21s, even upgraded, would be no match for F-35s. Even using Su-30s as a mini AWACs, the F-35s wouldn't be detected on radar. So the F-35s could wax the Sukhois, and then take on the blind Fishbeds with ease. It would be like what the F-22 pilots call it when they went up against 4th Gen fighters; clubbing baby seals. Fishbeds are decent jets in terms of speed and agility, but they're not dogfighters; they have horrible visibilty, they bleed energy in turns (delta wings), and they have limited weapons carriage.
- poof131 11y ago
  F-22 pilots are definitely clubbing baby seals when fighting 4th gen. I've been the baby seal. But I also call BS on the full invisibility people selling these platforms are trying to claim. If they are wrong (which I believe they are) and next generation missiles can track, we are in a bad spot. I like the F-22 for Air-to-Air. I think the F-35 is probably okay, just not remotely worth the money. But I think our "all in" on a single do-it-all, super-expensive fighter-bomber is a huge risk and the wrong direction. We need a mix of assets. And unfortunately, the F-35 just eats up the whole budget so we can't afford anything else. It definitely shouldn't be doing CAS, and strike is probably best performed by other assets too. Trying to merge AF, Navy, and Marine planes into one super plane is bad for so many reasons. The whole plan seems incapable of taking on serious adversaries and incredible overkill for insurgency operations. A no man's land of happy defense contractors and bad military strategy.

jfoutz 11y ago

That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35. i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range. Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4. You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.

outworlder 11y ago
While I happen to share the sentiment(re. the numbers game), how wise would be to deploy a massive amount of remote-controlled weaponry against a developed nation?
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue. I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff. I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
  - nether 11y ago
    What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.

neurotech1 11y ago

The "supercomputer" claim is based on the F-35 having a multi-processor avionics system. A good example of the "cheap" fighter is the Korean F/A-50. This jet has some of the Beyond Visual Range capability of the F-16, at 1/3 the cost. It doesn't have the range or the weapons capacity. A well trained T-38/F-5 aggressor pilot can nail an F-16 or F-22 in a dogfight, within visual range. The Stealth F-35 will have the ability to engage an enemy aircraft without ever being detected, and that "minor" detail justifies the cost. In previous conflicts, once the opposing aircraft locate each other on radar, the adversaries would be forced into the merge, or risk being shot down at long range.