5 ms·

Yet for some weird reason this plane is still one of the 4 plains in the running to replace the old FA-18 in the Swiss air force.

strictnein 6y ago
Which plane, exactly, is superior to the F-35?
- slac 6y ago
  I think the cost is one of the deciding factors...
  - lsllc 6y ago
    They'll just keep upgrading the F-18 design, new avionics, better engines, airframe tweaks. Way cheaper than the F-35. The B-52's are still in service after 60+ years, with pretty much everything upgraded several times over.
    - strictnein 6y ago
      You can't make the F-18 a stealth fighter. But those planes will still be used for a long time. The F-15 may even be making a small comeback: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26413900/air-force-buying-new-f-15/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26413900...
      - lsllc 6y ago
        No, but probably 95% of air combat operations don't need stealth (well, as long as you have air superiority).
- bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
  Pretty much anything from the last generation. Embarrassingly the F-16 beat it in combat, for example. For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior. The F-35 is an employment program like the TSA.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    > Embarrassingly the F-16 beat it in combat, for example. What kind of combat? If an F-35 actually makes it to a merge somethings gone wrong, and reports vary wildly https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beaten-flatley-comeback-2017-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beat... Ultimately a lot of F-35 hysteria seems to derive from it being the first US aircraft developed entirely post-internet where news travels quickly - i.e. If your projects early tests and teething problems were being reported on publicly by everyone you'd probably look fairly bad too. That's not to say the F-35 is flawless in any way, but these conversations usually end up in a reductive cycle of arguments we can't know the answer too without security clearance.
  - laverya 6y ago
    > For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior. Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS, let alone a modern air defense network or their own air force, perhaps. But the argument is that the US military should be designed for fighting the biggest plausible enemy, and that's Russia or China, not goat herders in Afghanistan. A major inefficiency in counterinsurgent air support is expensive and survivable, using A-10s against a major threat isn't.
    - souprock 6y ago
      MANPADS are not the end of the A-10. The A-10 was designed with them in mind. Note how the strange tail wraps around the engine exhaust. That is a tiny bit of stealth, blocking the IR seekers from seeing the engines from most angles. Other factors also reduce vulnerability. MANPADS are essentially never radar-seeking for reasons of physics; they do not have a large enough diameter to carry a proper forward-looking antenna at radio frequencies. The A-10 has some redundancy and armor, and the MANPADS have very small payloads, so hitting a single engine isn't going to doom the aircraft. The A-10 is normally flown in a way that avoids dangerous exposure, with complicated undulating movement that would break an IR seeker lock. (now you see the engines... and now you don't) The A-10 doesn't have to fly alone against an enemy. Pairing it with the EA-18G Growler would be a decent idea. Once you consider the enemy to be an advanced country, the standards for acceptable losses change. You're speaking of World War III. Look back to the bomber pilots of World War II to see what is accepted. At times, typical survival for a pilot was a month. In war with an advanced country, 1:1 loss ratios are to be expected.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Arguably nothing at the moment, at least for the role the F-35 is designed for. Realistically for Switzerland these aircraft are basically 9/11 prevention and national penis-enlargers, so any modern jet would do the trick (subject to politics i.e. no Sukhois).
- rch 6y ago
  An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight, but that's irrelevant given the anti-access/area denial strategy evolving in e.g. Crimea and the South China Sea.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    > An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight If by "unmanned combat aerial vehicle" you mean a missile, maybe. Up to a point fighter planes get faster as they get larger. Any "drone" that could go toe-to-toe with the F-35 is going to be around the same size and look roughly the same. But more significantly, the F-35 is a stealth fighter that serves primarily as a sensor platform for long-range weaponry. The premise that it would find itself in a dogfight is not realistic.
    - rch 6y ago
      I'm referring to a specific class of drone, e.g.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie I agree that dogfighting is irrelevant and unrealistic.
  - chipsa 6y ago
    Almost all (if not all) UCAVs are for "strike", at this point in time. Which is to say, they drop bombs or missiles on ground targets. The control loop has too much latency for air to air combat right now. Closest that is likely in the near future is robot wingmen, where the UCAV is under the control of a nearby stealthy fighter.
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  Isn't the Sukhoi Su-57 pretty evenly matched with the F-35? Idk if it can hover but it looks pretty awesome.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    It's seriously inferior in most ways.
    - arthurcolle 6y ago
      Like what? Not knowledgeable at all, so just curious to hear in what ways!
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Almost certainly weaker stealth, weaker radar, in some categories weaker weapons, and weaker avionics in general. That said, it's kinematically and aerodynamically superior, but that's not very important nowadays.

strictnein 6y ago

Which plane, exactly, is superior to the F-35?

slac 6y ago
I think the cost is one of the deciding factors...
- lsllc 6y ago
  They'll just keep upgrading the F-18 design, new avionics, better engines, airframe tweaks. Way cheaper than the F-35. The B-52's are still in service after 60+ years, with pretty much everything upgraded several times over.
  - strictnein 6y ago
    You can't make the F-18 a stealth fighter. But those planes will still be used for a long time. The F-15 may even be making a small comeback: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26413900/air-force-buying-new-f-15/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26413900...
    - lsllc 6y ago
      No, but probably 95% of air combat operations don't need stealth (well, as long as you have air superiority).
bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
Pretty much anything from the last generation. Embarrassingly the F-16 beat it in combat, for example. For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior. The F-35 is an employment program like the TSA.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > Embarrassingly the F-16 beat it in combat, for example. What kind of combat? If an F-35 actually makes it to a merge somethings gone wrong, and reports vary wildly https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beaten-flatley-comeback-2017-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beat... Ultimately a lot of F-35 hysteria seems to derive from it being the first US aircraft developed entirely post-internet where news travels quickly - i.e. If your projects early tests and teething problems were being reported on publicly by everyone you'd probably look fairly bad too. That's not to say the F-35 is flawless in any way, but these conversations usually end up in a reductive cycle of arguments we can't know the answer too without security clearance.
- laverya 6y ago
  > For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior. Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS, let alone a modern air defense network or their own air force, perhaps. But the argument is that the US military should be designed for fighting the biggest plausible enemy, and that's Russia or China, not goat herders in Afghanistan. A major inefficiency in counterinsurgent air support is expensive and survivable, using A-10s against a major threat isn't.
  - souprock 6y ago
    MANPADS are not the end of the A-10. The A-10 was designed with them in mind. Note how the strange tail wraps around the engine exhaust. That is a tiny bit of stealth, blocking the IR seekers from seeing the engines from most angles. Other factors also reduce vulnerability. MANPADS are essentially never radar-seeking for reasons of physics; they do not have a large enough diameter to carry a proper forward-looking antenna at radio frequencies. The A-10 has some redundancy and armor, and the MANPADS have very small payloads, so hitting a single engine isn't going to doom the aircraft. The A-10 is normally flown in a way that avoids dangerous exposure, with complicated undulating movement that would break an IR seeker lock. (now you see the engines... and now you don't) The A-10 doesn't have to fly alone against an enemy. Pairing it with the EA-18G Growler would be a decent idea. Once you consider the enemy to be an advanced country, the standards for acceptable losses change. You're speaking of World War III. Look back to the bomber pilots of World War II to see what is accepted. At times, typical survival for a pilot was a month. In war with an advanced country, 1:1 loss ratios are to be expected.
mhh__ 6y ago
Arguably nothing at the moment, at least for the role the F-35 is designed for. Realistically for Switzerland these aircraft are basically 9/11 prevention and national penis-enlargers, so any modern jet would do the trick (subject to politics i.e. no Sukhois).
rch 6y ago
An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight, but that's irrelevant given the anti-access/area denial strategy evolving in e.g. Crimea and the South China Sea.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  > An unmanned combat aerial vehicle would probably win in a dogfight If by "unmanned combat aerial vehicle" you mean a missile, maybe. Up to a point fighter planes get faster as they get larger. Any "drone" that could go toe-to-toe with the F-35 is going to be around the same size and look roughly the same. But more significantly, the F-35 is a stealth fighter that serves primarily as a sensor platform for long-range weaponry. The premise that it would find itself in a dogfight is not realistic.
  - rch 6y ago
    I'm referring to a specific class of drone, e.g.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie I agree that dogfighting is irrelevant and unrealistic.
- chipsa 6y ago
  Almost all (if not all) UCAVs are for "strike", at this point in time. Which is to say, they drop bombs or missiles on ground targets. The control loop has too much latency for air to air combat right now. Closest that is likely in the near future is robot wingmen, where the UCAV is under the control of a nearby stealthy fighter.
arthurcolle 6y ago
Isn't the Sukhoi Su-57 pretty evenly matched with the F-35? Idk if it can hover but it looks pretty awesome.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It's seriously inferior in most ways.
  - arthurcolle 6y ago
    Like what? Not knowledgeable at all, so just curious to hear in what ways!
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Almost certainly weaker stealth, weaker radar, in some categories weaker weapons, and weaker avionics in general. That said, it's kinematically and aerodynamically superior, but that's not very important nowadays.