5 ms·

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 kno

by 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.
  - greedo 11y ago
    I agree with everything you wrote except for the strike part. The idea that the F-35 needs to be a mini F-22 is one I don't understand. It's designed to be a striker, to replace the F-16, the Harrier, and to help the CVW get a survivable striker with longer range than the Super Bug, and a bit of self-defense capability. Just as the F-16 isn't tasked very often with CAP, same with the F-35. I think the F-35 will excel at strike

by poof131 11y ago

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.
- greedo 11y ago
  I agree with everything you wrote except for the strike part. The idea that the F-35 needs to be a mini F-22 is one I don't understand. It's designed to be a striker, to replace the F-16, the Harrier, and to help the CVW get a survivable striker with longer range than the Super Bug, and a bit of self-defense capability. Just as the F-16 isn't tasked very often with CAP, same with the F-35. I think the F-35 will excel at strike