13 ms·

One thing that has often puzzled me is the effectiveness of an expensive fighter jet against inexpensive adversaries in a face to face dogfight. For example F-3

One thing that has often puzzled me is the effectiveness of an expensive fighter jet against inexpensive adversaries in a face to face dogfight. For example F-35 costs in upwards of $90 Million per unit. Chinese J-10 or JF-17 are $20 or $25 Million per unit. That's 3 fighters for one F-35. So is one expensive F-35 capable enough of taking on 3 cheaper (yet sophisticated enough jets read up on JF-17 recent achievements)? Granted pilots and ground crew on both sides are equal match in skills.

e1ven 8y ago
It's not just about raw effectiveness per dollar. Lost lives hurt morale quite a bit, and play badly on domestic news.
- mcny 8y ago
  >> Lost lives hurt morale quite a bit, and play badly on domestic news. I don't follow military news but even I know that US military lagged YEARS behind private contractors in adding ground transport for troops that were safer against road-side bombs during the first few years of the Iraq War starting in 2003.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  Plus they used to say it takes cca 1 million $ to train a fighter pilot from scratch properly, and god knows how long. this was quite some time ago, so I expect both cost and duration of training must be higher/longer now
duxup 8y ago
I wonder the same. Also the price means you have fewer jets. If there is a tech flaw and handful get shot down... you're really low on jets. I can't imagine we 100% know how effective all this tech is. We've seen how much ground warfare changed where the Humvee was found to be severely lacking, the US found that lots of high explosive bombs were less desirable now and very low explosive accurate bombs were needed. I almost wonder if a two tiered system would be better. Top of the line, then high volume lower line where tech trickles down over time. This would especially be handy in situations where you have air superiority and ... now still have a lot of work in the air to do, don't need expensive planes to do it, and really just want high volume coverage.
- bdamm 8y ago
  Boeing is making good business doing just this with their F-18 line. The market for new F-18s is strong.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I was thinking of the F16 myself but yeah any proven air-frame would work, even if possible refined it to cut some costs / options. My understanding was the F-16's goal was initially to have a lower cost plane compared to the F-15 with some other goals that I think were regarding matching Soviet single engine aircraft's maneuverability and etc.
- kaizendad 8y ago
  This was the idea behind the late-Cold War "high/low" concept that gave us the F-15/F-16 in the US Air Force, and F-14/F-18 in the US Navy. Initially the F-35 was supposed to be the "low" companion to the "high" F-22, but, with the end of the Cold War, that changed. One major issue that the US has run into with deploying that strategy, in the absence of great power opponents, is that the largest long-term costs are not the airframes, but pilots and pilot training. An F-16 pilot isn't cheaper than an F-15 pilot, and getting hours for an F-16 pilot isn't cheaper than getting hours for an F-15 pilot, other than the lower fuel cost for the F-16. That said, the F-15X that the USAF is procuring is basically going to be used as a lower-cost-than-F-35 "missile truck," so not incompatible with what you suggest.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    There is one other factor here along with the cost of pilot training, and that is maintenance. The F-22 (like the B-2 and F-117) was originally a beast to maintain. The RAM coatings had to be reapplied with extreme precision, along with RAM tape along seams. At first this was a manual process, then mechanized, but still expensive in terms of money and downtime for the aircraft. The one really good thing to come out of the F-35 program has been fiber mat RAM. No need to reapply paint and tape, the RAM is integrated into body panels. Of course this should have been applied along with improved 3D thrust vectoring to a new block of F-22’s, but that doesn’t satisfy the Military Industrial Complex’s desire for endless money, and congresses insatiable need for pork barrel projects. Plus you have the usual pissing contests and budget infighting between services, all of whom basically want their own customized air force.
Mikeb85 8y ago
In a dogfight an F-35 has an advantage but not a 3-1 advantage. BVR it might. The real issue however is that it won't be long before nations like Russia and China will be able to reliably get a weapons-grade lock on the F-35. Some people even think Russia already has this capability (and it's very realistic to think that they do). Electronic warfare is progressing very quickly and might render stealth completely useless long before the next generation of planes is built.
- aurailious 8y ago
  Can Russia build 3000 Su-57?
  - Mikeb85 8y ago
    The Su-57 definitely isn't at a disadvantage compared to the F-35. Also, let's face it, Russia hardly projects power. Any conflict with the west would likely be the US attacking Russia. Hence why Russia is putting so much effort into systems like the S-500.
    - seppin 8y ago
      > Also, let's face it, Russia hardly projects power. Um, what?
      - Mikeb85 8y ago
        The US has invaded and occupied several countries on the other side of the world in the last few decades. Russia's conflicts have been limited to their periphery and Syria, where they've always had a base.
        seppin 7y ago
        "Russia invades neighbors" is worse, as they intend to occupy and annex. America invades with some idiot idea of democracy or projecting hard power, only to leave. Russia invaded far off lands when they had the capacity, don't think they wouldn't do it again if their economy and population weren't shrinking.
spectramax 8y ago
F-35 can vertically takeoff, can support carriers and has smaller and stealthier radar signature than cheaper planes. Fighter airplanes have many roles, dogfight being one of them. US also has cheaper F-14s, F-15s and F-16s to match.
- SteveCoast 8y ago
  The F-14 was retired a long time ago and the other two are aging out right now.
  - seppin 8y ago
    A large order of F-15(x) was just made.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > can support carriers If the planes are there to support the carrier then why is the carrier there? You’ve got the whole concept backwards - the carrier is there to support the planes.
  - kickopotomus 8y ago
    If you are getting attacked, the planes are there to support the carrier. Carriers aren't meant to really "support" anyone in a combat role.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > the planes are there to support the carrier But why do you think the carrier is there in the first place? It's to support the planes. The planes are the whole point. If they could do without a carrier and just have the planes they would.
      - 8y ago
aurailious 8y ago
Do those price differences account for purchasing power? I am sure wages and materiels in China cost less than in the US. Since the US will build major military systems domestically its going to be much more expensive. And what is the alternative? Build less effective fighters just to match the cost? Either way I know the major benefits of the F-35 and US fighters in general are data sharing and pilot skill. The F-35s greatest strengths lean into this.
kbenson 8y ago
Or twenty drones with fairly modern radar and air-to-air armaments. Or if they're cheap enough, 45-90 drones... There are downsides to drones (loss of control is a worry), but without the need for a cockpit, you can make the plane much smaller with a much better thrust to weight ratio, and also capable of pulling off maneuvers that would render a pilot unconscious.[1] Quantity has a quality all it's own. I would bet against a F-35 even if it was up against 30-40 P-51 Mustangs from WWII. The sheer amount of lead they could fill the sky with (for a short time) is daunting. 1: I remember 5-6 years ago someone on HN commenting that an F-16 (I think?) was capable of enough forces exerted on a pilot to easily break their neck, and was limited.
- notfromhere 8y ago
  planes don't dogfight, they lock-in targeting from miles away and fire missiles
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Yes. But does an F-35 have 20-30 missiles? If not, then it's incapable of dealing with a swarm of 20-30 different adversaries. There's then the option to close and attempt to take out more with the built in 25mm guns, or retreat. If attacking, it could definitely circumvent older planes (but newer drones, maybe not so much). If defending against an attacking force, it doesn't seem all that effective.
    - uncoder0 8y ago
      It's all about selecting the right tool for the job. You use the F-35's, F-22's and your long range stand off weapons from bombers to clear Surface to air threats and then use your F-15's, F-16's and F-18's which in some configurations can carry up to two dozen AA missles to clean up the low tech adversaries. If you're interested in getting a hang of how to deploy these weapons I recommend the Korean Missle Crisis scenario in Command. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/681/details/Command.Live:.Korean.Missile.Crisis http://www.matrixgames.com/products/681/details/Command.Live... Warning: Command is less of a game and more of a battlefield simulator and has a very steep learning curve if you're not used to the systems and tactics required to deploy modern combat power. I've been 'playing' it for years and without my background I'd have a very tough time. I can still only really play NATO scenarios as I'm not familiar enough with Chinese or Russian systems to use them effectively.
nradov 8y ago
That's not the right question to ask. Fighter jets don't just line up face to face and start shooting. That approach has been obsolete for decades. A more likely scenario is that one side's aircraft are destroyed on the ground using stand-off munitions. Or they get ambushed in the air and never knew what hit them.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  Not necessarily. The US had the capability to destroy every N Vietnamese runway in the country and didn’t for political reasons, resulting in lots of US casualties. No reason it couldn’t happen again.
thunderbird120 8y ago
The advantage a stealth fighter such as the F-22 or F-35 has against non-stealthy fighters such as the J-10 and JF-17 really is difficult to overstate with k/d ratios in exercises being roughly 15:1[1]. Being extremely difficult to detect while also being outfitted with very high end sensors makes it almost certain that F-22s and F-35s are able to engage enemies on their own terms. A better comparison would be with China's new stealthy J-20s but we really don't have any concrete information about how good their stealth really is so it's hard to even speculate. [1]https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/red-flag-2019-first-great-power-air-war-test-in-years/ https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/red-flag-2019-first-grea...
- hongseleco 8y ago
  >Being extremely difficult to detect while also being outfitted with very high end sensors makes it almost certain that F-22s and F-35s are able to engage enemies on their own terms. Agreed, and it's also very likely that the F-35 and F-22 would be leading and providing high quality targeting data to F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, carrying dozens of long range air-to-air missiles. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22355833/boeing-new-f-15x/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22355833... https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-t...
ben7799 8y ago
Internet bench racing of aircraft always focuses on "dogfighting". Dogfighting has no purpose in in winning the war. Striking the enemy ground targets without engaging in dogfights is successful. Do that and pretty soon there won't be any enemy fighters in the air to worry about. Modern combat is not at all the same thing as WWI/WWII "turn and burn" stuff or what gets depicted in Star Wars. "Turn and Burn" was already out of favor with US pilots in WWII. If the F-35 enters into a turn-and-burn in a 3-1 situation the pilot has already failed.. if he gets out of the situation alive he's getting chewed out. They have all kinds of training & procedures around different scenarios and those don't involve flying straight at the enemy and then getting into a turning match. We haven't seen the deployment of a drone which can threaten manned aircraft yet. That's going to be fascinating to watch. I'd envision "kamikaze" drones being the most feasible thing to be effective first. Basically much smarter missiles. A vision of a swarm of something that looks like a DJI phantom threatening fixed wing aircraft is pretty much fantasy right now though. Too slow, not enough weight capacity, range & loitering time & service ceiling too low, etc.. the only way I seem them being useful is 1000 of them in a dense cloud around a target.. like stationary mines in the sky hoping to be struck by attackers like a bird strike.
- asdf21 8y ago
  Drones + miniguns.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Machine guns on aircraft are like pistols to an infantryman. They're an emergency backup if you've used up your primary ammo or someone jumps you at close range. Modern aircraft cannons have an effective range of less than a mile; the Sidewinder, our standard short-range air-to-air missile, can hit at 22 miles.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Modern combat is not at all the same thing as WWI/WWII "turn and burn" stuff..."Turn and Burn" was already out of favor with US pilots in WWII. In WWII, F4 Wildcat pilots soon learned not to get into turning contests with Mitsubishi Zeros. Instead, they maintained altitude and speed, using their advantage in a dive to execute "slashing" attacks. something that looks like a DJI phantom...the only way I seem them being useful is 1000 of them in a dense cloud around a target.. like stationary mines in the sky hoping to be struck by attackers like a bird strike. Those drones are plenty fast enough for tanks. Why not a tank equivalent of an aircraft carrier? The tank would act as a mobile charging station and command center. Most modern tanks could be severely disabled by a shaped charge placed directly onto the barrel of the main gun, or directly onto the tread mechanism. The machine guns and targeting systems are also quite vulnerable, the loss of which would also severely degrade the tank's combat power. Tanks have acquired countermeasure systems like Trophy, but those could be overwhelmed through saturation attacks and on current tanks, they are externally mounted and themselves vulnerable.
cjonas 8y ago
Which jet would you rather go into combat in? Adding more less capable jets would ultimately result in more casualties of fighter pilots.
smhinsey 8y ago
The F-35 isn't a dogfighter in the WW2 mold of the P-51 Mustang, etc. The F-35 was conceived of for a different kind of fight, more like a contest of swarms than a series of related but independent jousts. The F-35 is formidable because it works better in a pack than anything else out there. For example, it can fly out ahead of a mass of 4th generation fighters into an environment they couldn't survive and remain there, low-observable, long enough to feed targeting data back to the swarm who can launch a salvo of missiles from over the horizon, out of harm's way. As the article explains, stealth isn't about remaining 100% invisible, which is impossible, rather it's about preventing anyone from shooting while you get the first shot off instead. Whether or not the F-35 lives up to this hope is another thing, but it was never conceived of as primarily a dominant dogfighter so it's fun but maybe not hugely relevant to stack it up against planes that were designed to win that fight. The F-35 seeks to win it before it even starts, instead. It remains to be seen if anything was learned from the F-4's introduction and if all of this works against peer states, but this is the idea behind it.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The F-35 isn't a dogfighter in the WW2 mold of the P-51 Mustang, etc. Actually, a lot of the WWII fighters used their advantages in flight ceiling, armor, and speed, instead of getting into turning fights. (Though the later allied fighters could also turn.) The Japanese even made a fighter that deliberately sacrificed turning for speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-44
Zigurd 8y ago
The price of readiness is high, too. It is proportional to the number of planes and pilots. That could wash out the price difference in planes.
ringaroll 8y ago
In Pakistan's recent case, its wasn't JF-17 that was superior but the pilot. I was surprised when I read read that Pakistan Airforce has 2nd largest amount of trainer aircraft in the world, next only to the U.S. [0] [0] https://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total-trainers.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total-trainers.asp
starpilot 8y ago
Impossible to compare costs without adjusting for purchasing power. Chinese workers are paid lower wages that support lower standards of living, so everything made in China is cheaper. If you built the F-35 in China, every carbon fiber panel to spec, it'd probably cost that much too! Even then the accounting is complex, because sometimes the unit cost can include training and maintenance, see: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-of-a-modern-jet-fighter https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-of-a-modern-jet-fight...
openasocket 8y ago
A dogfight scenario is exactly the point where the f-35 loses it's primary advantage, stealth is meaningless in these close range fights. An f-35 wanting to take out 3 J-10s would use its superior sensors to locate and get within range of the J-10s and fire off some AMRAAMs without the enemy knowing they are even there until the missiles are closing in on them. Even if the missiles don't manage to take out the planes, they will be too busy trying to evade to try to locate the F-35, allowing it to slip away. At least that's the theory. ADDENDUM: this is a somewhat related article https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-developing-fight-for-tactical-air-control/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-developing-fight-for-t... that talks about the comparison between a bunch of cheap drones vs. a single F-35 in terms of combat capabilities.
philwelch 8y ago
> So is one expensive F-35 capable enough of taking on 3 cheaper (yet sophisticated enough jets read up on JF-17 recent achievements)? Granted pilots and ground crew on both sides are equal match in skills. According to most simulations and exercises--yes. The F-35 absolutely wipes the floor against cheaper adversaries.
caymanjim 8y ago
Dogfights don't happen anymore and never will again. Modern aircraft would shoot missiles at each other from many miles away, and even that is highly unlikely. The biggest threat to any aircraft is a surface-to-air missile. The Air Force still does dogfight training, and we all grew up on Top Gun so we love to fantasize about it, but it's simply not a concern in modern warfare.
stoolpigeon 8y ago
This is a marketing video but shows the idea that deals with what you propose - https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ?t=122 https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ?t=122 I think the whole video is interesting but I've set it to the piece dealing with hostile aircraft.
notatoad 8y ago
If you really need three (or even two) JF-17s to counter one F-35, that makes the F-35 seem like a pretty good deal to me. That means you have to maintain and store 1/3 as many jets, train 1/3 as many pilots, burn 1/3 the fuel. Those are not insignificant costs to having an air force, and skilled pilots are a very limited resource.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  > and skilled pilots are a very limited resource. This gets under-appreciated. One of the big reasons the Battle of Midway was such a turning point, wasn't mainly the destruction of ships, but the loss of so many well-trained Japanese carrier pilots. Over time, the American advantage in trained carrier pilots paid very huge dividends: 1) Because of better pilots, the American carriers were at an advantage over Japanese carriers. 2) Because there were already a large cadre of trained carrier pilots already, the US pilot schools could afford to spend more time training the student pilots before they ever got into combat. In Japan, the carrier pilots were rushed out as as fast as possible to meet the demand.
- obmelvin 8y ago
  And on top of that, if you read what pilots have to say about the F-35 [1], the flight systems are powerful enough that they enhance a pilots ability so less skilled pilots are able to pull of particular maneuvers. 1 - https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-mos... (was posted here in the past couple days)
hongseleco 8y ago
You have a few F-35s and F-22s relaying high quality targeting information back to F-18s, F-15s and F-16s, which the US has more of, that carry lots of long range air-to-air missile against adversarial aircraft, and more of those same planes carrying anti-radiation missiles(ARM) and other stand-off weapons for suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). And just for fun, you might have EA-18G and EC-130 raising the noise floor and other cool electronic warfare techniques to hide your LO and non-LO aircraft, AND further deny, deceive, and degrade the adversary's RADARs and communications. The F-35s and F-22s can get up closer to the adversarial aircraft and air defense than non-LO (Low Observable) aircraft (B-1s, B-52s, F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s). A lot has been invested in the interfaces and data-links for F-35 and F-22 pilots to relay information to other platforms (Land, Sea, and Air) The key is to get better stand-off range and higher resolution targeting data for your non-LO aircraft to minimize risk and maximize hitting air and land targets. My overall opinion of the F-35 is that it's not really a fighter, but more like an EA-35, because it has a very capable electronic warfare suite (AN/ASQ-239), and it has the ability to take that suite and collect data passively up close and personal with lower risk of detection, and can transmit a lot of high quality intel very quickly, while keeping great emission control (EMCON) with directional antennas and near-noise floor communications. It's also the only LO aircraft that can take-off a carrier. The capability to carry these towed decoys only adds more tricks and tools to the EW suite. I don't have a very high opinion of it's air-to-air combat performance, but it definitely has it's place as a great EW/SIGINT/COMINT platform.

e1ven 8y ago

It's not just about raw effectiveness per dollar. Lost lives hurt morale quite a bit, and play badly on domestic news.

mcny 8y ago
>> Lost lives hurt morale quite a bit, and play badly on domestic news. I don't follow military news but even I know that US military lagged YEARS behind private contractors in adding ground transport for troops that were safer against road-side bombs during the first few years of the Iraq War starting in 2003.
saiya-jin 8y ago
Plus they used to say it takes cca 1 million $ to train a fighter pilot from scratch properly, and god knows how long. this was quite some time ago, so I expect both cost and duration of training must be higher/longer now

duxup 8y ago

I wonder the same. Also the price means you have fewer jets. If there is a tech flaw and handful get shot down... you're really low on jets. I can't imagine we 100% know how effective all this tech is. We've seen how much ground warfare changed where the Humvee was found to be severely lacking, the US found that lots of high explosive bombs were less desirable now and very low explosive accurate bombs were needed. I almost wonder if a two tiered system would be better. Top of the line, then high volume lower line where tech trickles down over time. This would especially be handy in situations where you have air superiority and ... now still have a lot of work in the air to do, don't need expensive planes to do it, and really just want high volume coverage.

bdamm 8y ago
Boeing is making good business doing just this with their F-18 line. The market for new F-18s is strong.
- duxup 8y ago
  I was thinking of the F16 myself but yeah any proven air-frame would work, even if possible refined it to cut some costs / options. My understanding was the F-16's goal was initially to have a lower cost plane compared to the F-15 with some other goals that I think were regarding matching Soviet single engine aircraft's maneuverability and etc.
kaizendad 8y ago
This was the idea behind the late-Cold War "high/low" concept that gave us the F-15/F-16 in the US Air Force, and F-14/F-18 in the US Navy. Initially the F-35 was supposed to be the "low" companion to the "high" F-22, but, with the end of the Cold War, that changed. One major issue that the US has run into with deploying that strategy, in the absence of great power opponents, is that the largest long-term costs are not the airframes, but pilots and pilot training. An F-16 pilot isn't cheaper than an F-15 pilot, and getting hours for an F-16 pilot isn't cheaper than getting hours for an F-15 pilot, other than the lower fuel cost for the F-16. That said, the F-15X that the USAF is procuring is basically going to be used as a lower-cost-than-F-35 "missile truck," so not incompatible with what you suggest.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  There is one other factor here along with the cost of pilot training, and that is maintenance. The F-22 (like the B-2 and F-117) was originally a beast to maintain. The RAM coatings had to be reapplied with extreme precision, along with RAM tape along seams. At first this was a manual process, then mechanized, but still expensive in terms of money and downtime for the aircraft. The one really good thing to come out of the F-35 program has been fiber mat RAM. No need to reapply paint and tape, the RAM is integrated into body panels. Of course this should have been applied along with improved 3D thrust vectoring to a new block of F-22’s, but that doesn’t satisfy the Military Industrial Complex’s desire for endless money, and congresses insatiable need for pork barrel projects. Plus you have the usual pissing contests and budget infighting between services, all of whom basically want their own customized air force.

Mikeb85 8y ago

In a dogfight an F-35 has an advantage but not a 3-1 advantage. BVR it might. The real issue however is that it won't be long before nations like Russia and China will be able to reliably get a weapons-grade lock on the F-35. Some people even think Russia already has this capability (and it's very realistic to think that they do). Electronic warfare is progressing very quickly and might render stealth completely useless long before the next generation of planes is built.

aurailious 8y ago
Can Russia build 3000 Su-57?
- Mikeb85 8y ago
  The Su-57 definitely isn't at a disadvantage compared to the F-35. Also, let's face it, Russia hardly projects power. Any conflict with the west would likely be the US attacking Russia. Hence why Russia is putting so much effort into systems like the S-500.
  - seppin 8y ago
    > Also, let's face it, Russia hardly projects power. Um, what?
    - Mikeb85 8y ago
      The US has invaded and occupied several countries on the other side of the world in the last few decades. Russia's conflicts have been limited to their periphery and Syria, where they've always had a base.
      - seppin 7y ago
        "Russia invades neighbors" is worse, as they intend to occupy and annex. America invades with some idiot idea of democracy or projecting hard power, only to leave. Russia invaded far off lands when they had the capacity, don't think they wouldn't do it again if their economy and population weren't shrinking.

spectramax 8y ago

F-35 can vertically takeoff, can support carriers and has smaller and stealthier radar signature than cheaper planes. Fighter airplanes have many roles, dogfight being one of them. US also has cheaper F-14s, F-15s and F-16s to match.

SteveCoast 8y ago
The F-14 was retired a long time ago and the other two are aging out right now.
- seppin 8y ago
  A large order of F-15(x) was just made.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 8y ago
> can support carriers If the planes are there to support the carrier then why is the carrier there? You’ve got the whole concept backwards - the carrier is there to support the planes.
- kickopotomus 8y ago
  If you are getting attacked, the planes are there to support the carrier. Carriers aren't meant to really "support" anyone in a combat role.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > the planes are there to support the carrier But why do you think the carrier is there in the first place? It's to support the planes. The planes are the whole point. If they could do without a carrier and just have the planes they would.
    - 8y ago

aurailious 8y ago

Do those price differences account for purchasing power? I am sure wages and materiels in China cost less than in the US. Since the US will build major military systems domestically its going to be much more expensive. And what is the alternative? Build less effective fighters just to match the cost? Either way I know the major benefits of the F-35 and US fighters in general are data sharing and pilot skill. The F-35s greatest strengths lean into this.

kbenson 8y ago

Or twenty drones with fairly modern radar and air-to-air armaments. Or if they're cheap enough, 45-90 drones... There are downsides to drones (loss of control is a worry), but without the need for a cockpit, you can make the plane much smaller with a much better thrust to weight ratio, and also capable of pulling off maneuvers that would render a pilot unconscious.[1] Quantity has a quality all it's own. I would bet against a F-35 even if it was up against 30-40 P-51 Mustangs from WWII. The sheer amount of lead they could fill the sky with (for a short time) is daunting. 1: I remember 5-6 years ago someone on HN commenting that an F-16 (I think?) was capable of enough forces exerted on a pilot to easily break their neck, and was limited.

notfromhere 8y ago
planes don't dogfight, they lock-in targeting from miles away and fire missiles
- kbenson 8y ago
  Yes. But does an F-35 have 20-30 missiles? If not, then it's incapable of dealing with a swarm of 20-30 different adversaries. There's then the option to close and attempt to take out more with the built in 25mm guns, or retreat. If attacking, it could definitely circumvent older planes (but newer drones, maybe not so much). If defending against an attacking force, it doesn't seem all that effective.
  - uncoder0 8y ago
    It's all about selecting the right tool for the job. You use the F-35's, F-22's and your long range stand off weapons from bombers to clear Surface to air threats and then use your F-15's, F-16's and F-18's which in some configurations can carry up to two dozen AA missles to clean up the low tech adversaries. If you're interested in getting a hang of how to deploy these weapons I recommend the Korean Missle Crisis scenario in Command. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/681/details/Command.Live:.Korean.Missile.Crisis http://www.matrixgames.com/products/681/details/Command.Live... Warning: Command is less of a game and more of a battlefield simulator and has a very steep learning curve if you're not used to the systems and tactics required to deploy modern combat power. I've been 'playing' it for years and without my background I'd have a very tough time. I can still only really play NATO scenarios as I'm not familiar enough with Chinese or Russian systems to use them effectively.

nradov 8y ago

That's not the right question to ask. Fighter jets don't just line up face to face and start shooting. That approach has been obsolete for decades. A more likely scenario is that one side's aircraft are destroyed on the ground using stand-off munitions. Or they get ambushed in the air and never knew what hit them.

merpnderp 8y ago
Not necessarily. The US had the capability to destroy every N Vietnamese runway in the country and didn’t for political reasons, resulting in lots of US casualties. No reason it couldn’t happen again.

thunderbird120 8y ago

The advantage a stealth fighter such as the F-22 or F-35 has against non-stealthy fighters such as the J-10 and JF-17 really is difficult to overstate with k/d ratios in exercises being roughly 15:1[1]. Being extremely difficult to detect while also being outfitted with very high end sensors makes it almost certain that F-22s and F-35s are able to engage enemies on their own terms. A better comparison would be with China's new stealthy J-20s but we really don't have any concrete information about how good their stealth really is so it's hard to even speculate. [1]https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/red-flag-2019-first-great-power-air-war-test-in-years/ https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/red-flag-2019-first-grea...

hongseleco 8y ago
>Being extremely difficult to detect while also being outfitted with very high end sensors makes it almost certain that F-22s and F-35s are able to engage enemies on their own terms. Agreed, and it's also very likely that the F-35 and F-22 would be leading and providing high quality targeting data to F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, carrying dozens of long range air-to-air missiles. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22355833/boeing-new-f-15x/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22355833... https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-t...

ben7799 8y ago

Internet bench racing of aircraft always focuses on "dogfighting". Dogfighting has no purpose in in winning the war. Striking the enemy ground targets without engaging in dogfights is successful. Do that and pretty soon there won't be any enemy fighters in the air to worry about. Modern combat is not at all the same thing as WWI/WWII "turn and burn" stuff or what gets depicted in Star Wars. "Turn and Burn" was already out of favor with US pilots in WWII. If the F-35 enters into a turn-and-burn in a 3-1 situation the pilot has already failed.. if he gets out of the situation alive he's getting chewed out. They have all kinds of training & procedures around different scenarios and those don't involve flying straight at the enemy and then getting into a turning match. We haven't seen the deployment of a drone which can threaten manned aircraft yet. That's going to be fascinating to watch. I'd envision "kamikaze" drones being the most feasible thing to be effective first. Basically much smarter missiles. A vision of a swarm of something that looks like a DJI phantom threatening fixed wing aircraft is pretty much fantasy right now though. Too slow, not enough weight capacity, range & loitering time & service ceiling too low, etc.. the only way I seem them being useful is 1000 of them in a dense cloud around a target.. like stationary mines in the sky hoping to be struck by attackers like a bird strike.

asdf21 8y ago
Drones + miniguns.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Machine guns on aircraft are like pistols to an infantryman. They're an emergency backup if you've used up your primary ammo or someone jumps you at close range. Modern aircraft cannons have an effective range of less than a mile; the Sidewinder, our standard short-range air-to-air missile, can hit at 22 miles.
stcredzero 8y ago
Modern combat is not at all the same thing as WWI/WWII "turn and burn" stuff..."Turn and Burn" was already out of favor with US pilots in WWII. In WWII, F4 Wildcat pilots soon learned not to get into turning contests with Mitsubishi Zeros. Instead, they maintained altitude and speed, using their advantage in a dive to execute "slashing" attacks. something that looks like a DJI phantom...the only way I seem them being useful is 1000 of them in a dense cloud around a target.. like stationary mines in the sky hoping to be struck by attackers like a bird strike. Those drones are plenty fast enough for tanks. Why not a tank equivalent of an aircraft carrier? The tank would act as a mobile charging station and command center. Most modern tanks could be severely disabled by a shaped charge placed directly onto the barrel of the main gun, or directly onto the tread mechanism. The machine guns and targeting systems are also quite vulnerable, the loss of which would also severely degrade the tank's combat power. Tanks have acquired countermeasure systems like Trophy, but those could be overwhelmed through saturation attacks and on current tanks, they are externally mounted and themselves vulnerable.

cjonas 8y ago

Which jet would you rather go into combat in? Adding more less capable jets would ultimately result in more casualties of fighter pilots.

smhinsey 8y ago

The F-35 isn't a dogfighter in the WW2 mold of the P-51 Mustang, etc. The F-35 was conceived of for a different kind of fight, more like a contest of swarms than a series of related but independent jousts. The F-35 is formidable because it works better in a pack than anything else out there. For example, it can fly out ahead of a mass of 4th generation fighters into an environment they couldn't survive and remain there, low-observable, long enough to feed targeting data back to the swarm who can launch a salvo of missiles from over the horizon, out of harm's way. As the article explains, stealth isn't about remaining 100% invisible, which is impossible, rather it's about preventing anyone from shooting while you get the first shot off instead. Whether or not the F-35 lives up to this hope is another thing, but it was never conceived of as primarily a dominant dogfighter so it's fun but maybe not hugely relevant to stack it up against planes that were designed to win that fight. The F-35 seeks to win it before it even starts, instead. It remains to be seen if anything was learned from the F-4's introduction and if all of this works against peer states, but this is the idea behind it.

stcredzero 8y ago
The F-35 isn't a dogfighter in the WW2 mold of the P-51 Mustang, etc. Actually, a lot of the WWII fighters used their advantages in flight ceiling, armor, and speed, instead of getting into turning fights. (Though the later allied fighters could also turn.) The Japanese even made a fighter that deliberately sacrificed turning for speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-44

Zigurd 8y ago

The price of readiness is high, too. It is proportional to the number of planes and pilots. That could wash out the price difference in planes.

ringaroll 8y ago

In Pakistan's recent case, its wasn't JF-17 that was superior but the pilot. I was surprised when I read read that Pakistan Airforce has 2nd largest amount of trainer aircraft in the world, next only to the U.S. [0] [0] https://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total-trainers.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total-trainers.asp

starpilot 8y ago

Impossible to compare costs without adjusting for purchasing power. Chinese workers are paid lower wages that support lower standards of living, so everything made in China is cheaper. If you built the F-35 in China, every carbon fiber panel to spec, it'd probably cost that much too! Even then the accounting is complex, because sometimes the unit cost can include training and maintenance, see: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-of-a-modern-jet-fighter https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-of-a-modern-jet-fight...

openasocket 8y ago

A dogfight scenario is exactly the point where the f-35 loses it's primary advantage, stealth is meaningless in these close range fights. An f-35 wanting to take out 3 J-10s would use its superior sensors to locate and get within range of the J-10s and fire off some AMRAAMs without the enemy knowing they are even there until the missiles are closing in on them. Even if the missiles don't manage to take out the planes, they will be too busy trying to evade to try to locate the F-35, allowing it to slip away. At least that's the theory. ADDENDUM: this is a somewhat related article https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-developing-fight-for-tactical-air-control/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-developing-fight-for-t... that talks about the comparison between a bunch of cheap drones vs. a single F-35 in terms of combat capabilities.

philwelch 8y ago

> So is one expensive F-35 capable enough of taking on 3 cheaper (yet sophisticated enough jets read up on JF-17 recent achievements)? Granted pilots and ground crew on both sides are equal match in skills. According to most simulations and exercises--yes. The F-35 absolutely wipes the floor against cheaper adversaries.

caymanjim 8y ago

Dogfights don't happen anymore and never will again. Modern aircraft would shoot missiles at each other from many miles away, and even that is highly unlikely. The biggest threat to any aircraft is a surface-to-air missile. The Air Force still does dogfight training, and we all grew up on Top Gun so we love to fantasize about it, but it's simply not a concern in modern warfare.

stoolpigeon 8y ago

This is a marketing video but shows the idea that deals with what you propose - https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ?t=122 https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ?t=122 I think the whole video is interesting but I've set it to the piece dealing with hostile aircraft.

notatoad 8y ago

If you really need three (or even two) JF-17s to counter one F-35, that makes the F-35 seem like a pretty good deal to me. That means you have to maintain and store 1/3 as many jets, train 1/3 as many pilots, burn 1/3 the fuel. Those are not insignificant costs to having an air force, and skilled pilots are a very limited resource.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
> and skilled pilots are a very limited resource. This gets under-appreciated. One of the big reasons the Battle of Midway was such a turning point, wasn't mainly the destruction of ships, but the loss of so many well-trained Japanese carrier pilots. Over time, the American advantage in trained carrier pilots paid very huge dividends: 1) Because of better pilots, the American carriers were at an advantage over Japanese carriers. 2) Because there were already a large cadre of trained carrier pilots already, the US pilot schools could afford to spend more time training the student pilots before they ever got into combat. In Japan, the carrier pilots were rushed out as as fast as possible to meet the demand.
obmelvin 8y ago
And on top of that, if you read what pilots have to say about the F-35 [1], the flight systems are powerful enough that they enhance a pilots ability so less skilled pilots are able to pull of particular maneuvers. 1 - https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-mos... (was posted here in the past couple days)

hongseleco 8y ago

You have a few F-35s and F-22s relaying high quality targeting information back to F-18s, F-15s and F-16s, which the US has more of, that carry lots of long range air-to-air missile against adversarial aircraft, and more of those same planes carrying anti-radiation missiles(ARM) and other stand-off weapons for suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). And just for fun, you might have EA-18G and EC-130 raising the noise floor and other cool electronic warfare techniques to hide your LO and non-LO aircraft, AND further deny, deceive, and degrade the adversary's RADARs and communications. The F-35s and F-22s can get up closer to the adversarial aircraft and air defense than non-LO (Low Observable) aircraft (B-1s, B-52s, F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s). A lot has been invested in the interfaces and data-links for F-35 and F-22 pilots to relay information to other platforms (Land, Sea, and Air) The key is to get better stand-off range and higher resolution targeting data for your non-LO aircraft to minimize risk and maximize hitting air and land targets. My overall opinion of the F-35 is that it's not really a fighter, but more like an EA-35, because it has a very capable electronic warfare suite (AN/ASQ-239), and it has the ability to take that suite and collect data passively up close and personal with lower risk of detection, and can transmit a lot of high quality intel very quickly, while keeping great emission control (EMCON) with directional antennas and near-noise floor communications. It's also the only LO aircraft that can take-off a carrier. The capability to carry these towed decoys only adds more tricks and tools to the EW suite. I don't have a very high opinion of it's air-to-air combat performance, but it definitely has it's place as a great EW/SIGINT/COMINT platform.