7 ms·

Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' If the answer isn't another expensive fighter plane, e.g. a drone

Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' If the answer isn't another expensive fighter plane, e.g. a drone or flock of drones, then those future opponents may have an economic advantage, especially if resources are dwindling. I'm just recycling an old notion; at one time, fighters and bombers were much cheaper than the things they were attacking [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell

gaius 9y ago
Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' Attacking ALIS. Or denying the maintenance regime - you could ground the RAF easily simply by knowing that they have to do engine maintenance on the opposite side of NATO in Turkey. That’s a long way to go for repairs if you’ve got no air superiority. Block that and just wait...
- pjmorris 9y ago
  Absolutely. I'd originally thought about writing 'attacking a (flying) F-35', as I'm predisposed to thinking that it can barely carry its own weight in terms of the expense of keeping it flying.
  - gaius 9y ago
    The Israelis proved that the best way to destroy another airforce is on the ground
richmarr 9y ago
Well, if nothing else, the Chinese J-31 would probably do the job. It's an F35 with a bunch of the crippling design compromises removed. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-35-after-new-specs-chinas-copycat/121859/ https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-...
- jotm 9y ago
  Aren't their engines terrible?
  - Retric 9y ago
    Top speed is not very useful in modern air combat. F-35 does something like Mach 1.6 where the F-15 Eagle hit ~Mach 2.5 and F-14 Tomcat hit ~Mach 2.4. That's not because we can't make a much faster jet, just other compromises are vastly more useful.
    - cameldrv 9y ago
      Top speed matters a lot in modern air combat, maybe more than ever. With modern fire and forget, datalinked missiles, the shooter aircraft can often immediately turn around after firing and run away from the missile coming at him. An F-15 can turn tail and run at Mach 2.5. If the AAM has a speed of Mach 4, the missile closes at Mach 1.5. Against the F-35, it’s closing at Mach 2.4. This means that the enemy’s AAMs have an effective range about 70% higher against the F-35 than the F-15. Now, this is of course dependent on being able to maintain long range tracking of the F-35, but my understanding is that against a high-end opponent, stealth is not a panacea.
      - Retric 9y ago
        You can't turn very quickly at high Mach. So, depending on range and heading it can make things worse. Remember, aircraft don't turn by hitting reverse if you are going east a Mach 2 (686 m/s) you can't just subtract 98 m/s in a 10g you need to go through a curve in the air taking a lot longer than 7 seconds to stop going east. Start combat at lower speeds and it's going to take even longer to hit high Mach. Which is not to say it's useless, just not as useful relative to other tradeoffs.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        F-35 as a plane is mediocre compared to say Su-57. I'm willing to grant that if Su-57 is to challenge F-35, F-35 loses. The thing is F-35 carried through wont be challenged by Su-57 as F-35 is a basically a flying platform. Where Su-57 is optimized for single unit operation ( and Soviets and Russians absolutely excel in that ), F-35 is optimized to be able to operate in a diverse group. What it sees, C&C sees. Until Russia or China get there, F-35 will be massively superior to anything else. For F-35 all fighting is supposed to be BVR.
jotm 9y ago
Seems like air superiority is today's "Ship of the line superiority" or "Dreadnought superiority". Won't be long before the most expensive jets are brought to their knees by something like a swarm of drones, hypersonic missiles, lasers or something else.

gaius 9y ago

Seems to me that the strategic question is 'What is the cheapest means of attacking an F-35?' Attacking ALIS. Or denying the maintenance regime - you could ground the RAF easily simply by knowing that they have to do engine maintenance on the opposite side of NATO in Turkey. That’s a long way to go for repairs if you’ve got no air superiority. Block that and just wait...

pjmorris 9y ago
Absolutely. I'd originally thought about writing 'attacking a (flying) F-35', as I'm predisposed to thinking that it can barely carry its own weight in terms of the expense of keeping it flying.
- gaius 9y ago
  The Israelis proved that the best way to destroy another airforce is on the ground

richmarr 9y ago

Well, if nothing else, the Chinese J-31 would probably do the job. It's an F35 with a bunch of the crippling design compromises removed. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-35-after-new-specs-chinas-copycat/121859/ https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-...

jotm 9y ago
Aren't their engines terrible?
- Retric 9y ago
  Top speed is not very useful in modern air combat. F-35 does something like Mach 1.6 where the F-15 Eagle hit ~Mach 2.5 and F-14 Tomcat hit ~Mach 2.4. That's not because we can't make a much faster jet, just other compromises are vastly more useful.
  - cameldrv 9y ago
    Top speed matters a lot in modern air combat, maybe more than ever. With modern fire and forget, datalinked missiles, the shooter aircraft can often immediately turn around after firing and run away from the missile coming at him. An F-15 can turn tail and run at Mach 2.5. If the AAM has a speed of Mach 4, the missile closes at Mach 1.5. Against the F-35, it’s closing at Mach 2.4. This means that the enemy’s AAMs have an effective range about 70% higher against the F-35 than the F-15. Now, this is of course dependent on being able to maintain long range tracking of the F-35, but my understanding is that against a high-end opponent, stealth is not a panacea.
    - Retric 9y ago
      You can't turn very quickly at high Mach. So, depending on range and heading it can make things worse. Remember, aircraft don't turn by hitting reverse if you are going east a Mach 2 (686 m/s) you can't just subtract 98 m/s in a 10g you need to go through a curve in the air taking a lot longer than 7 seconds to stop going east. Start combat at lower speeds and it's going to take even longer to hit high Mach. Which is not to say it's useless, just not as useful relative to other tradeoffs.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      F-35 as a plane is mediocre compared to say Su-57. I'm willing to grant that if Su-57 is to challenge F-35, F-35 loses. The thing is F-35 carried through wont be challenged by Su-57 as F-35 is a basically a flying platform. Where Su-57 is optimized for single unit operation ( and Soviets and Russians absolutely excel in that ), F-35 is optimized to be able to operate in a diverse group. What it sees, C&C sees. Until Russia or China get there, F-35 will be massively superior to anything else. For F-35 all fighting is supposed to be BVR.

jotm 9y ago

Seems like air superiority is today's "Ship of the line superiority" or "Dreadnought superiority". Won't be long before the most expensive jets are brought to their knees by something like a swarm of drones, hypersonic missiles, lasers or something else.