6 ms·

Edit: I realised you're probably being tongue in cheek here and I completely missed it. That's not quite how it works. It's not like a game of Civilization II

Edit: I realised you're probably being tongue in cheek here and I completely missed it. That's not quite how it works. It's not like a game of Civilization II where stealth beats SAM. The problem modern stealth aims to defeat is that radar capabilities are networked with high speed processing. Rolling a single S-400 into enemy territory doesn't suddenly make even mig-29s obselete. Similarly an F-117 couldn't fly over even a S-125 with absolute safety.

oblio 4y ago
Russia or similar invaders didn't roll a "single S-400" into Ukraine. Nor would they in any similar invasion. They'd bring in the whole shebang. So my rhetorical question to you would be: why would you not buy a system with a reduced radar footprint, advanced avionics, advanced weapons control systems and advanced networking? Even if it's only for defensive purposes. Heck, even if it's for flying strictly over territory you control. Advanced radars cover hundreds of kilometers as do modern anti-air missiles. They can shoot you down without even going near their direct airspace. That's what Russia is doing right now, they're taking down Ukrainian aircraft at no risk to themselves launching a bunch of R37s from deep in their territory (50-100km) from Migs Ukraine can't reach or even see.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  I'm not disagreeing at all. It's just that being in with NATO is more important than equipment case in point Ukraine. F-35 is designed for ingress into densely covered enemy territory. The stealth allows more flexibility in approach it stops jets being scrambled along the route, it stops assets being moved in to hangars and otherwise hidden. It means you're less likely to be flying through a valley of manpads. Who were all warned of impending jets coming in. Flying into an enemy carrier group with airborne radar being pinged from every direction. These are the missions Israel runs against Iran and Syria (not the carrier group) or the US may theoretically run against Russia in a world war situation (during conflict it's likely the US would be protected by heavy ECW from growlers not just stealth). This is not within Finland's likely missions unless it's acting with NATO. If you don't need that then there are many cheaper, easier to run alternatives. So does Finland want an F-35 or a bunch of gripen and hundreds of manpads and ATGMs? Ukraine has repelled Russia very effectively with just manpads, ATGMs and NATO intelligence. All things being equal that would be preferable. If buying US weapons NATO becomes more protective then the calculus changes.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > This is not within Finland's likely missions unless it's acting with NATO. It's a lot less likely now, but Russia could have very well tried the exact same thing against Finland, in which case Finland for sure would have been running the exact same missions against Russia. Suppress Russian threats in Russia itself to protect Finnish territory. And Finland isn't in NATO, yet. Though their luck will probably be that Russia won't be able to do anything else major for at least a decade.
  - baybal2 4y ago
    > Ukraine has repelled Russia very effectively with just manpads, ATGMs and NATO intelligence. Ukraine has effectively repelled Russia because it's the second biggest military in Europe after Russia, and second strongest air defence in Europe after Russia. This is the sole biggest factor without saying which, everything else is meaningless.
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      I'm not so convinced. It's mainly because the attrition rate should have entirely depleted the S-300 system in the first 6 months (2-3 per week during the main phase). Ukraine is a big country and there were loads of missile attacks to defend. It's very unlikely it was able to move S-300s continuously into needed areas compared with manpads. Yet it would have been a PR disaster if NATO admitted to supplying weapons to Ukraine before the invasion started. So MANPADs are implied to have sprouted like mushrooms in Ukraine...
      - dboreham 4y ago
        Supposedly RAF flew many C-17s of light weapons into Ukraine immediately before the invasion.
        yobbo 4y ago
        There were even news articles with pictures.
      - 4y ago
- rswskg 4y ago
  Would they even bring it in? They could just move it closer to the border and cover alot of airpsace like that.
  - yobbo 4y ago
    They try to put them anywhere they can, as close as they can get. Numbers and distance seem to matter. They might also be counting on losing a number of them. It's also rumoured that some large portion of Russian losses are due to their own anti air. So coordination is difficult.
fnrslvr 4y ago
It's about a combination of stealth and the sensor/avionics package -- the ability to detect and identify SAM radar systems and launchers, and chart a path which minimizes likelihood of detection, aided by the aircraft's low radar signature, while enabling strike operations to take place. If you're arguing that the F-35 is not invisible, then you're attacking a strawman. The F-117 was central to SEAD operations during Desert Storm, and the F-35 is regarded as the most credible SEAD platform in the USAF inventory today.

oblio 4y ago

Russia or similar invaders didn't roll a "single S-400" into Ukraine. Nor would they in any similar invasion. They'd bring in the whole shebang. So my rhetorical question to you would be: why would you not buy a system with a reduced radar footprint, advanced avionics, advanced weapons control systems and advanced networking? Even if it's only for defensive purposes. Heck, even if it's for flying strictly over territory you control. Advanced radars cover hundreds of kilometers as do modern anti-air missiles. They can shoot you down without even going near their direct airspace. That's what Russia is doing right now, they're taking down Ukrainian aircraft at no risk to themselves launching a bunch of R37s from deep in their territory (50-100km) from Migs Ukraine can't reach or even see.

psychphysic 4y ago
I'm not disagreeing at all. It's just that being in with NATO is more important than equipment case in point Ukraine. F-35 is designed for ingress into densely covered enemy territory. The stealth allows more flexibility in approach it stops jets being scrambled along the route, it stops assets being moved in to hangars and otherwise hidden. It means you're less likely to be flying through a valley of manpads. Who were all warned of impending jets coming in. Flying into an enemy carrier group with airborne radar being pinged from every direction. These are the missions Israel runs against Iran and Syria (not the carrier group) or the US may theoretically run against Russia in a world war situation (during conflict it's likely the US would be protected by heavy ECW from growlers not just stealth). This is not within Finland's likely missions unless it's acting with NATO. If you don't need that then there are many cheaper, easier to run alternatives. So does Finland want an F-35 or a bunch of gripen and hundreds of manpads and ATGMs? Ukraine has repelled Russia very effectively with just manpads, ATGMs and NATO intelligence. All things being equal that would be preferable. If buying US weapons NATO becomes more protective then the calculus changes.
- oblio 4y ago
  > This is not within Finland's likely missions unless it's acting with NATO. It's a lot less likely now, but Russia could have very well tried the exact same thing against Finland, in which case Finland for sure would have been running the exact same missions against Russia. Suppress Russian threats in Russia itself to protect Finnish territory. And Finland isn't in NATO, yet. Though their luck will probably be that Russia won't be able to do anything else major for at least a decade.
- baybal2 4y ago
  > Ukraine has repelled Russia very effectively with just manpads, ATGMs and NATO intelligence. Ukraine has effectively repelled Russia because it's the second biggest military in Europe after Russia, and second strongest air defence in Europe after Russia. This is the sole biggest factor without saying which, everything else is meaningless.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    I'm not so convinced. It's mainly because the attrition rate should have entirely depleted the S-300 system in the first 6 months (2-3 per week during the main phase). Ukraine is a big country and there were loads of missile attacks to defend. It's very unlikely it was able to move S-300s continuously into needed areas compared with manpads. Yet it would have been a PR disaster if NATO admitted to supplying weapons to Ukraine before the invasion started. So MANPADs are implied to have sprouted like mushrooms in Ukraine...
    - dboreham 4y ago
      Supposedly RAF flew many C-17s of light weapons into Ukraine immediately before the invasion.
      - yobbo 4y ago
        There were even news articles with pictures.
    - 4y ago
rswskg 4y ago
Would they even bring it in? They could just move it closer to the border and cover alot of airpsace like that.
- yobbo 4y ago
  They try to put them anywhere they can, as close as they can get. Numbers and distance seem to matter. They might also be counting on losing a number of them. It's also rumoured that some large portion of Russian losses are due to their own anti air. So coordination is difficult.

fnrslvr 4y ago

It's about a combination of stealth and the sensor/avionics package -- the ability to detect and identify SAM radar systems and launchers, and chart a path which minimizes likelihood of detection, aided by the aircraft's low radar signature, while enabling strike operations to take place. If you're arguing that the F-35 is not invisible, then you're attacking a strawman. The F-117 was central to SEAD operations during Desert Storm, and the F-35 is regarded as the most credible SEAD platform in the USAF inventory today.