7 ms·

Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. It could cement lockheeds future for the next 50 year

Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. It could cement lockheeds future for the next 50 years, or put them in hot water. I might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability.

badosu 9y ago
> Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. > I might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability. I am very fond of military technology, as it usually pushes a lot of boundaries, but I'd rather having it as a deterrent instead of put to use.
- SllX 9y ago
  Depends on your perspective. From an American perspective, our Fighters are half of the reason our carrier strike groups are so lethal, and our carrier strike groups are lethal enough to topple a small country. They have to be lethal too. They're not just enforcing American law, they're enforcing International order by keeping shipping lanes open and international waters, well, international. Admittedly this capability is being challenged in the South China Sea right now, but it's important to keep the lifeblood of international trade flowing (shipping!) and America is pretty much the only player on this front.
  - JosephRedfern 9y ago
    I took badosu's comment to mean that farseer's comment of "Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters" is in bad taste, and that nobody should want for anyone to have to be engaged in (likely lethal) combat. IMO it's pretty fucked up to be eagerly awaiting killing of others, regardless of reason. It may, in this world, be deemed "necessary" by politicians and generals etc, but to derive pleasure and eagerly wish for it to happen really doesn't sit at all well with me.
    - SllX 9y ago
      To the leadership class of the countries of the world, that kind of engagement is necessary for proving a point. The point being "mine is bigger, faster and stronger than yours". Soldiers are a sacrifice they are willing to make to prove that point, particularly as war becomes less about the soldiers and more about the equipment the soldiers operate. Actually let me take that back, war has always been about the equipment that soldiers operate, from spears to guns, from trebuchets to tanks, and from ballistae to ICBMs. The soldiers serve two important roles here: 1. to operate the piece of equipment they are charged with effectively to accomplish their roles within a mission environment and 2. to occupy a piece of dirt with their continued, loyal and obedient, presence until their CO tells them to move along to the next piece of dirt down the road. Until war is obsolete, so until life comes to an end on Earth basically, there are going to continue to be people eagerly awaiting the next battlefield to prove their points.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    >carrier strike groups are lethal enough to topple a small country. The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years; therefore they're only ever useful for policing actions - not full, symmetric war.
    - hospes 9y ago
      >> Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years Just curious what kind of tech you are referring to?
      - badosu 9y ago
        Assuming there are no capable laser and railgun interceptors deployed and detection/jamming tolerance, probably ASBMs [0]. Or ASMs [1] if carrier air or seaspace is breached, carriers are heavily escorted though. If nuclear deterrence (god forbid) is broken, then I guess aircraft carriers are pretty much sitting ducks. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile
        weberc2 9y ago
        Even without nuclear weapons, I've got to think that countermeasures are easily overwhelmed, and the cost of a few dozen long-range anti-carrier missiles must be negligible compared to the advantage of incapacitating a carrier (at least for a top-tier adversary like China or Russia), right?
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        I'm not sure. Throwing a few dozen missiles from long range against a carrier group, complete with airplanes, may not work very well. They'll have a few dozen fighters, multiple Phalanx guns, shipboard missiles, and a lot of electronic counter-attacks. I think they will only be "easily" overwhelmed if they've got an attack method that is hard for the carrier group to counterattack. That is harder than it looks.
Accipitriform 9y ago
I have very little doubt the F-35s will excel in combat, largely based on this article: https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-experienced-usmc-f-35b-pilots-speak-about-their-aircraft-and-they-say-its-exceptional/ https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-exper... I think this quote from a Marine F-35B pilot regarding an exercise pretty well says it all: "I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s. We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out. All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well. Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there." The F-35B in particular is an amazing piece of engineering, and a vast improvement over any other STOVL aircraft.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  "against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s" is the important part here.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > "against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s" is the important part here Pardon me for my ignorance, why is that important? (My impression was "4th Gen adversaries" characterizes most, if not all, of the F-35's present adversaries.)
    - justicezyx 9y ago
      He is talking about China and Russia.
    - jessriedel 9y ago
      I'm not sure, but the idea might be that tests against (current gen) Russian and Chinese fighters are more important than tests against other American fighters. The F-35 has presumably had much more experience with the latter during development.
  - 9y ago
junkscience2017 9y ago
Why do people talk about the F35 program like it is in question? the US is committed, many NATO countries are committed...one way or another the F35 is going to play a major role in NATO deterrence models. It's not just air forces that are committed...both the US and UK navies have new carriers for which the F35 is the only realistic future option If there are bugs, they will have to be ironed out. The costs are insane, but developing a new competitor at this stage would be even more outrageous Keep in mind that unlike Russia, NATO can deploy planes in volume, staff the support, keep a parts supply chain, keep training with them regardless of costs. People will compare the F35 to a Russian jet on a 1-1 basis but the reality is a Russian fighter has a lower chance of even being combat ready, and if it did, it would be outnumbered by NATO fighters probably 5-1. I question if the Russian air Force can even realistically secure it's own borders
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Until china/Russia start selling to terrorists or rogue states (or an Iraq-like situation happens again), we will probably never get a chance to find out what is better. More to the point, many of the capabilities and their effectiveness of each fighters on both sides are probably shroud in secrecy. Engagement would reveal a lot of secrets between both sides, so they are likely to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.
mullen 9y ago
The F-16 was shot down with an anti-aircraft gun with old skool iron sights. No one will ever develop a technology to defeat that.
- Balero 9y ago
  Plenty of tactics have been developed to minimise it. Plus increasing speed.
dogma1138 9y ago
The F35 has already been used in theater by the Israeli's as for the F16I downing it seems that they just assumed that they would not be fired upon they were flying at high altitude exactly in the sweet spot of the Iranian and Syrian AA deployed in the region which is what happens when you fly for nearly 30 years with impunity. The F16I was shot down over Israel not over Syria despite Syria having the capability to shoot down aircraft over the entire territory of Israel pretty much except for it's most southern parts it was always assumed that they would never fire at Israeli jets inside Israel's territory. Last time when Syria fired at Israeli jets within Syrian territory Israel has uses it's missile defense system to shoot down the Syrian AA missiles however it seems that this time it didn't happen, likely due to the positioning of the jets within Israel. So for the most part what would happen is that Israel would start taking evasive measures when flying combat sorties even in it's territory, likely go back to the same path it used to take which is fly low over the med then cross into Syria from it's coastline or through Lebanon via the Baalbek valley. Israel would also likely push more ABM/AM batteries into it's northern parts to provide additional cover to it's air assets as well as potentially start using it's ground based standoff weapons rather than relying solely on air deployed munitions.
solatic 9y ago
The Israeli media reported that the IAF finished their investigation and blamed the crash on the pilot prioritizing target destruction over survivability, and that a different decision by the pilot would have prevented the loss of the plane. https://www.timesofisrael.com/misjudgment-not-negligence-behind-downing-of-f16-report/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/misjudgment-not-negligence-beh... That's not a decision which implies a tactical switch to the F-35 for that sort of mission.
mmjaa 9y ago
>>Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. It could cement lockheeds future for the next 50 years, or put them in hot water. Its equally disturbing to those of us who detest war, and war machines, and their 'glorious application' towards inhuman goals. Honestly, its repulsive to have to deal with the notion of 'shiny death machines being pit against each other for fun and profit', and not let a protest be said, in kind. For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Just think, in the future, these shiny war machines will be fully autonomous. Their only remaining purpose is to kill enemy shiny war machines, destroy the ability to make more shiny war machines, and to kill civilians either inadvertently or intentionally. Of course they will be much more efficient shiny war machines because they won't have the same human limits of G-forces, heat, oxygen, etc.
- Accipitriform 9y ago
  "For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery." We've done that for decades with North Korea, and you see the result: North Korea armed with thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach most of the world. Human nature, and competition for resources, guarantee war for the foreseeable future. Sorry to say, a strong deterrent is the only way to preserve the peace.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    We have not done that in North Korea. The argument "food doesn't work, so we'll just kill them" is heinous. Not gonna bother with your other points for that reason.
    - Accipitriform 9y ago
jacquesm 9y ago
I wonder if you would be so eager if you were on the receiving side.
morsch 9y ago
You are "eagerly waiting" for a combat engagement between a close ally of the US and Russia or China? Are you insane? This is how world wars start.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  Agreed. Let's hope that the people running our military have a more reasonable mindset...
  - mr_spothawk 9y ago
    as long as we're "hope"-ing... I hope they all get a heroic dose of the sorts of psychedelics that are good for putting an end to warmongering. fuck the motherfuckers who think any of this is good, and fuck what they stand for. murder subjugation and all the rest of the shit is what humans have been up to forever, and I think we should stop. alternatively, somebody comes up with a valid reason why it's good for us... then maybe we all agree to start doing it intentionally, and vigorously, and ceaselessly... and we achieve the final solution for all humanity.
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    Are you talking about the president?

badosu 9y ago

> Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. > I might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability. I am very fond of military technology, as it usually pushes a lot of boundaries, but I'd rather having it as a deterrent instead of put to use.

SllX 9y ago
Depends on your perspective. From an American perspective, our Fighters are half of the reason our carrier strike groups are so lethal, and our carrier strike groups are lethal enough to topple a small country. They have to be lethal too. They're not just enforcing American law, they're enforcing International order by keeping shipping lanes open and international waters, well, international. Admittedly this capability is being challenged in the South China Sea right now, but it's important to keep the lifeblood of international trade flowing (shipping!) and America is pretty much the only player on this front.
- JosephRedfern 9y ago
  I took badosu's comment to mean that farseer's comment of "Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters" is in bad taste, and that nobody should want for anyone to have to be engaged in (likely lethal) combat. IMO it's pretty fucked up to be eagerly awaiting killing of others, regardless of reason. It may, in this world, be deemed "necessary" by politicians and generals etc, but to derive pleasure and eagerly wish for it to happen really doesn't sit at all well with me.
  - SllX 9y ago
    To the leadership class of the countries of the world, that kind of engagement is necessary for proving a point. The point being "mine is bigger, faster and stronger than yours". Soldiers are a sacrifice they are willing to make to prove that point, particularly as war becomes less about the soldiers and more about the equipment the soldiers operate. Actually let me take that back, war has always been about the equipment that soldiers operate, from spears to guns, from trebuchets to tanks, and from ballistae to ICBMs. The soldiers serve two important roles here: 1. to operate the piece of equipment they are charged with effectively to accomplish their roles within a mission environment and 2. to occupy a piece of dirt with their continued, loyal and obedient, presence until their CO tells them to move along to the next piece of dirt down the road. Until war is obsolete, so until life comes to an end on Earth basically, there are going to continue to be people eagerly awaiting the next battlefield to prove their points.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  >carrier strike groups are lethal enough to topple a small country. The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years; therefore they're only ever useful for policing actions - not full, symmetric war.
  - hospes 9y ago
    >> Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years Just curious what kind of tech you are referring to?
    - badosu 9y ago
      Assuming there are no capable laser and railgun interceptors deployed and detection/jamming tolerance, probably ASBMs [0]. Or ASMs [1] if carrier air or seaspace is breached, carriers are heavily escorted though. If nuclear deterrence (god forbid) is broken, then I guess aircraft carriers are pretty much sitting ducks. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile
      - weberc2 9y ago
        Even without nuclear weapons, I've got to think that countermeasures are easily overwhelmed, and the cost of a few dozen long-range anti-carrier missiles must be negligible compared to the advantage of incapacitating a carrier (at least for a top-tier adversary like China or Russia), right?
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        I'm not sure. Throwing a few dozen missiles from long range against a carrier group, complete with airplanes, may not work very well. They'll have a few dozen fighters, multiple Phalanx guns, shipboard missiles, and a lot of electronic counter-attacks. I think they will only be "easily" overwhelmed if they've got an attack method that is hard for the carrier group to counterattack. That is harder than it looks.

Accipitriform 9y ago

I have very little doubt the F-35s will excel in combat, largely based on this article: https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-experienced-usmc-f-35b-pilots-speak-about-their-aircraft-and-they-say-its-exceptional/ https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-exper... I think this quote from a Marine F-35B pilot regarding an exercise pretty well says it all: "I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s. We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out. All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well. Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there." The F-35B in particular is an amazing piece of engineering, and a vast improvement over any other STOVL aircraft.

rbanffy 9y ago
"against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s" is the important part here.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > "against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s" is the important part here Pardon me for my ignorance, why is that important? (My impression was "4th Gen adversaries" characterizes most, if not all, of the F-35's present adversaries.)
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    He is talking about China and Russia.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    I'm not sure, but the idea might be that tests against (current gen) Russian and Chinese fighters are more important than tests against other American fighters. The F-35 has presumably had much more experience with the latter during development.
- 9y ago

junkscience2017 9y ago

Why do people talk about the F35 program like it is in question? the US is committed, many NATO countries are committed...one way or another the F35 is going to play a major role in NATO deterrence models. It's not just air forces that are committed...both the US and UK navies have new carriers for which the F35 is the only realistic future option If there are bugs, they will have to be ironed out. The costs are insane, but developing a new competitor at this stage would be even more outrageous Keep in mind that unlike Russia, NATO can deploy planes in volume, staff the support, keep a parts supply chain, keep training with them regardless of costs. People will compare the F35 to a Russian jet on a 1-1 basis but the reality is a Russian fighter has a lower chance of even being combat ready, and if it did, it would be outnumbered by NATO fighters probably 5-1. I question if the Russian air Force can even realistically secure it's own borders

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Until china/Russia start selling to terrorists or rogue states (or an Iraq-like situation happens again), we will probably never get a chance to find out what is better. More to the point, many of the capabilities and their effectiveness of each fighters on both sides are probably shroud in secrecy. Engagement would reveal a lot of secrets between both sides, so they are likely to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

mullen 9y ago

The F-16 was shot down with an anti-aircraft gun with old skool iron sights. No one will ever develop a technology to defeat that.

Balero 9y ago
Plenty of tactics have been developed to minimise it. Plus increasing speed.

dogma1138 9y ago

The F35 has already been used in theater by the Israeli's as for the F16I downing it seems that they just assumed that they would not be fired upon they were flying at high altitude exactly in the sweet spot of the Iranian and Syrian AA deployed in the region which is what happens when you fly for nearly 30 years with impunity. The F16I was shot down over Israel not over Syria despite Syria having the capability to shoot down aircraft over the entire territory of Israel pretty much except for it's most southern parts it was always assumed that they would never fire at Israeli jets inside Israel's territory. Last time when Syria fired at Israeli jets within Syrian territory Israel has uses it's missile defense system to shoot down the Syrian AA missiles however it seems that this time it didn't happen, likely due to the positioning of the jets within Israel. So for the most part what would happen is that Israel would start taking evasive measures when flying combat sorties even in it's territory, likely go back to the same path it used to take which is fly low over the med then cross into Syria from it's coastline or through Lebanon via the Baalbek valley. Israel would also likely push more ABM/AM batteries into it's northern parts to provide additional cover to it's air assets as well as potentially start using it's ground based standoff weapons rather than relying solely on air deployed munitions.

solatic 9y ago

The Israeli media reported that the IAF finished their investigation and blamed the crash on the pilot prioritizing target destruction over survivability, and that a different decision by the pilot would have prevented the loss of the plane. https://www.timesofisrael.com/misjudgment-not-negligence-behind-downing-of-f16-report/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/misjudgment-not-negligence-beh... That's not a decision which implies a tactical switch to the F-35 for that sort of mission.

mmjaa 9y ago

>>Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. It could cement lockheeds future for the next 50 years, or put them in hot water. Its equally disturbing to those of us who detest war, and war machines, and their 'glorious application' towards inhuman goals. Honestly, its repulsive to have to deal with the notion of 'shiny death machines being pit against each other for fun and profit', and not let a protest be said, in kind. For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery.

Clubber 9y ago
Just think, in the future, these shiny war machines will be fully autonomous. Their only remaining purpose is to kill enemy shiny war machines, destroy the ability to make more shiny war machines, and to kill civilians either inadvertently or intentionally. Of course they will be much more efficient shiny war machines because they won't have the same human limits of G-forces, heat, oxygen, etc.
Accipitriform 9y ago
"For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery." We've done that for decades with North Korea, and you see the result: North Korea armed with thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach most of the world. Human nature, and competition for resources, guarantee war for the foreseeable future. Sorry to say, a strong deterrent is the only way to preserve the peace.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  We have not done that in North Korea. The argument "food doesn't work, so we'll just kill them" is heinous. Not gonna bother with your other points for that reason.
  - Accipitriform 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

I wonder if you would be so eager if you were on the receiving side.

morsch 9y ago

You are "eagerly waiting" for a combat engagement between a close ally of the US and Russia or China? Are you insane? This is how world wars start.

Cyph0n 9y ago
Agreed. Let's hope that the people running our military have a more reasonable mindset...
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  as long as we're "hope"-ing... I hope they all get a heroic dose of the sorts of psychedelics that are good for putting an end to warmongering. fuck the motherfuckers who think any of this is good, and fuck what they stand for. murder subjugation and all the rest of the shit is what humans have been up to forever, and I think we should stop. alternatively, somebody comes up with a valid reason why it's good for us... then maybe we all agree to start doing it intentionally, and vigorously, and ceaselessly... and we achieve the final solution for all humanity.
- Koshkin 9y ago
  Are you talking about the president?