5 ms·

"It's a great plane. The best multirole fighter any airforce can procure, by far." I think for national armies which are funded by tax payer money the total co

by fsloth 9y ago

"It's a great plane. The best multirole fighter any airforce can procure, by far." I think for national armies which are funded by tax payer money the total cost of ownership should be a significant factor when considering what to buy. And should factor in the definition of "best". I don't know much about aerial warfare. Aren't fighter jets just glorified missile launching platforms nowadays, especially for defensive purposes? What does the extra cost buy for the end user in terms of actual features they are going to use? I suppose the keyfactor of a multirole aircraft is radar that allows tracking and fire control for both aerial and ground targets and a selection of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles that go with it. What am I missing?

josefresco 9y ago
> Aren't fighter jets just glorified missile launching platforms nowadays This is one of the huge strengths of this platform. The ability manage a battlefield, including other fighters/bombers/ground troops as well as remote forces.
varjag 9y ago
If cost is the core objective, consider having no military expenditures at all. All military gear is expensive, depreciating assets not contributing to productivity and tying up resources that can be used elsewhere. Ukraine did just that prior to 2014. Otherwise, your weapons should be a practical deterrent to an aggressor.
- fsloth 9y ago
  I wholly agree on requiring a deterrent, but the total operative capability of the defensive force is much more important than individual hardware components. I wasn't claiming a modern fighter is not a critical part of this equation. I was merely asking what does actually "best" mean in this case. If I get you on my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both fire missiles, it seems to me the missile and the radar is far more important part of this equation than the avionics platform where they are. So, practical tactical features...
  - varjag 9y ago
    > If I get you on my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both fire missiles What happens is F-35 lets you fire missiles a lot earlier than your opponent. If they see you at all. The 'lock on radar' part is what all Russian missiles struggle with currently, a situation they hastily attempt to remedy.
    - fsloth 9y ago
      "What happens is F-35 lets you fire missiles a lot earlier than your opponent. If they see you at all." Thanks, that's a fairly critical feature.
    - thesz 9y ago
      >The 'lock on radar' part is what all Russian missiles struggle with currently, a situation they hastily attempt to remedy. Can I humbly ask you for citation?
      - varjag 9y ago
        http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-300-s-400-s-500-vs-americas-f-35-f-22-who-wins-20095 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-300-s-40...
- erispoe 9y ago
  Deterrence is very different than ability to project operations around the globe. I'm not sure that the Swiss Air Force, or air forces of smaller countries in general, is an effective deterrent. As it stands right now, the Swiss Air Force is a 9 to 5 operation, and they operationally can't answer threats at night. Not sure that fancy F-35s would change that...
  - varjag 9y ago
    Perhaps it's not a priority for Switzerland. It is a priority for Norway, which has land, sea and air border with Russia.

by fsloth 9y ago

josefresco 9y ago

> Aren't fighter jets just glorified missile launching platforms nowadays This is one of the huge strengths of this platform. The ability manage a battlefield, including other fighters/bombers/ground troops as well as remote forces.

varjag 9y ago

If cost is the core objective, consider having no military expenditures at all. All military gear is expensive, depreciating assets not contributing to productivity and tying up resources that can be used elsewhere. Ukraine did just that prior to 2014. Otherwise, your weapons should be a practical deterrent to an aggressor.

fsloth 9y ago
I wholly agree on requiring a deterrent, but the total operative capability of the defensive force is much more important than individual hardware components. I wasn't claiming a modern fighter is not a critical part of this equation. I was merely asking what does actually "best" mean in this case. If I get you on my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both fire missiles, it seems to me the missile and the radar is far more important part of this equation than the avionics platform where they are. So, practical tactical features...
- varjag 9y ago
  > If I get you on my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both fire missiles What happens is F-35 lets you fire missiles a lot earlier than your opponent. If they see you at all. The 'lock on radar' part is what all Russian missiles struggle with currently, a situation they hastily attempt to remedy.
  - fsloth 9y ago
    "What happens is F-35 lets you fire missiles a lot earlier than your opponent. If they see you at all." Thanks, that's a fairly critical feature.
  - thesz 9y ago
    >The 'lock on radar' part is what all Russian missiles struggle with currently, a situation they hastily attempt to remedy. Can I humbly ask you for citation?
    - varjag 9y ago
      http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-300-s-400-s-500-vs-americas-f-35-f-22-who-wins-20095 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-300-s-40...
erispoe 9y ago
Deterrence is very different than ability to project operations around the globe. I'm not sure that the Swiss Air Force, or air forces of smaller countries in general, is an effective deterrent. As it stands right now, the Swiss Air Force is a 9 to 5 operation, and they operationally can't answer threats at night. Not sure that fancy F-35s would change that...
- varjag 9y ago
  Perhaps it's not a priority for Switzerland. It is a priority for Norway, which has land, sea and air border with Russia.