3 ms·

4th generation platforms like Grippen are not survivable in a modern air defense environment without complementary 5th generation platforms to establish air sup

4th generation platforms like Grippen are not survivable in a modern air defense environment without complementary 5th generation platforms to establish air superiority. You can't avoid having a fleet of something like F-35 to gain control of the airspace.

sofixa 8mo ago
> modern air defense environment Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower.
- XorNot 8mo ago
  Presuming that state of affairs will persist though is fraught. It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
  - sofixa 8mo ago
    > It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough. > WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun. But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human.
    - XorNot 8mo ago
      Define cheap and multiply by thousands. Ukrainian front line drones stopped being DJIs years ago. They're now much closer to $3000 USD+ at the low end for an ISR vehicle. $8000+ for the more capable FPV kamikazes is the estimate for Russian models. Which is comparable to a 155mm artillery shell. But with a lot less payload. There's already literally millions of drones being produced and used per year in that conflict - and they've made a big impact, but the stability of the frontline also reveals that the impact of "swarms" is hardly overpowering (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together).
      - sofixa 8mo ago
        > overpowering As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure. > "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together) On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar.
        XorNot 8mo ago
        Right - until anti-air measures designed to deal with voluminous relatively low performance threats get deployed. There's a reason Ukraine has been rolling out old school anti-aircraft and flak guns, and the modern variants are now starting to be produced - i.e. area effect microwave weapons and high energy lasers. Systems which aren't very useful if your adversary is highly capable, but which are effective if your adversary is relatively fragile. Again: volume turned out to be relatively useless in WW1 when the adversary had well placed machine guns. But it's also an apples to oranges comparison: THAAD is in no way designed to intercept drone threats. The story here is closer to the US started a fight without actually investing in the sort of defenses which would deal with it - i.e. with a rack of Ukranian interceptor drones as part of the air defenses, the THAAD radar likely makes it.
- greedo 8mo ago
  4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. The losses of aircraft in Ukraine on both sides are horrifying. The only reasons the Ukrainians persist is because they have no choice. The Russians can sit outside of the Ukrainian engagement range and lob semi-smart bombs, or air to air missiles at any Ukrainian aircraft that show up on their radar. The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal.
  - sofixa 8mo ago
    > "modern combat" > have no choice That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base. Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran).
  - lukan 8mo ago
    "4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. " But isn't that true of the F35 as well? On it's own, I doubt it would survive much longer on the eastern front in Ukraine. In Iran the F-35 also did not fly around freely while the ground radars were active. They had to be taken out first. For that stealth was probably useful (and in general it is). But it is not making them invisible - and cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. Because sensors and analysis will get better over time and sensors also better and cheaper. But the stealth will remain largely the same. It cannot really be upgraded for existing jets.
    - dylan604 8mo ago
      > cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. The burning question is what decision would AI make in Pearl Harbor. Would it have said flock of birds? Would it be keying in on flocks of birds instead?
- slaw 8mo ago
  Russia/Ukraine war shows that 4th generation jets are not survivable in any current as of 2026 air defense environment.
  - bigyabai 8mo ago
    4th generation jets are not designed to survive denied airspace. They're still useful; both sides in Ukraine are using 4th gen jets for air patrol, SEAD, escorts, intercepts and standoff munition launches.
    - slaw 8mo ago
      Nothing that makes them jet fighters is used. Propeller planes with launchers could do the same.
      - bigyabai 8mo ago
        Putting flares, chaff and ECM onto a propeller plane doesn't leave much takeoff weight for AASMs and KEPD munitions.
jandrese 8mo ago
There is an argument that all manned fighters are already obsolete thanks to the proliferation of cheap drones and that establishing air superiority is a very different task now.
- nradov 8mo ago
  There is no such argument among people who actually know how this stuff works. Cheap drones might work pretty well for trench warfare in Ukraine but it's impossible to build a cheap drone that would be effective in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The distances alone mean that aircraft must be large just to get there, and thus not cheap regardless of whether there's a crew onboard. Autonomous flight control software is still only able to handle the simplest missions. Maybe that will change in a few years but for now anything complex requires a remote pilot, and those communication links are very vulnerable.
- bigyabai 8mo ago
  That's really just X/Twitter conjecture. We don't see this argument substantiated in any modern air combat anywhere in the world.
- edgyquant 8mo ago
  There really is not, this argument was a total discredit of Elon Musks opinions on anything military. Case in point, Iran has been a major user of these drones yet they’ve been out of the game against an enemy with a real air force
- mrguyorama 8mo ago
  No one worth listening to makes that argument. Torpedo boats didn't make Battleships obsolete. Aircraft carriers did. Because they could do the same role but better. AntiTank rifles didn't make tanks obsolete. Neither did anti-tank mines. Nor anti-tank rocket launchers, nor anti-tank artillery, nor really freaking good anti-tank missiles, nor anti-tank helicopters etc etc. Turns out, putting a box of steel around soldiers is pretty much always better. IFVs are even less survivable than a tank in all cases and they have only become more important and prominent because what capability they provide is what matters. Artillery and Air power did not make the army obsolete. Air power did not make Artillery obsolete though the USA wanted that reality. Submarines didn't make any boat obsolete. SAM systems did not make planes obsolete. Hell, America decided the solution to missiles aimed at your planes was fly planes at the missile launcher! And it works because war is stupid. "Cheap drones" only work against things that haven't yet adapted to cheap drones in the exact same way that Navy had to adapt to anti-ship missiles. With EW, those "cheap" drones get less cheap. With any sort of advancement in protection, those drones get less cheap. War is about achieving physical control, and you can't really do that with cheap drones. There's always back and forth in weapons systems. We still use bayonets in the right circumstances! Cheap drones cannot establish air superiority, and certainly not air supremacy. Actual air combat drones are far more expensive, involved, and in development than quadcopters. The primary power drones bring is ISR, making the entire battlefield utterly transparent, including at nighttime. That's insane, and really really bad for any of us who might be forced to fight in the future, as lethality to the average soldier is likely to go up.

sofixa 8mo ago

> modern air defense environment Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower.

XorNot 8mo ago
Presuming that state of affairs will persist though is fraught. It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
- sofixa 8mo ago
  > It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough. > WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun. But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human.
  - XorNot 8mo ago
    Define cheap and multiply by thousands. Ukrainian front line drones stopped being DJIs years ago. They're now much closer to $3000 USD+ at the low end for an ISR vehicle. $8000+ for the more capable FPV kamikazes is the estimate for Russian models. Which is comparable to a 155mm artillery shell. But with a lot less payload. There's already literally millions of drones being produced and used per year in that conflict - and they've made a big impact, but the stability of the frontline also reveals that the impact of "swarms" is hardly overpowering (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together).
    - sofixa 8mo ago
      > overpowering As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure. > "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together) On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar.
      - XorNot 8mo ago
        Right - until anti-air measures designed to deal with voluminous relatively low performance threats get deployed. There's a reason Ukraine has been rolling out old school anti-aircraft and flak guns, and the modern variants are now starting to be produced - i.e. area effect microwave weapons and high energy lasers. Systems which aren't very useful if your adversary is highly capable, but which are effective if your adversary is relatively fragile. Again: volume turned out to be relatively useless in WW1 when the adversary had well placed machine guns. But it's also an apples to oranges comparison: THAAD is in no way designed to intercept drone threats. The story here is closer to the US started a fight without actually investing in the sort of defenses which would deal with it - i.e. with a rack of Ukranian interceptor drones as part of the air defenses, the THAAD radar likely makes it.
greedo 8mo ago
4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. The losses of aircraft in Ukraine on both sides are horrifying. The only reasons the Ukrainians persist is because they have no choice. The Russians can sit outside of the Ukrainian engagement range and lob semi-smart bombs, or air to air missiles at any Ukrainian aircraft that show up on their radar. The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal.
- sofixa 8mo ago
  > "modern combat" > have no choice That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base. Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran).
- lukan 8mo ago
  "4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. " But isn't that true of the F35 as well? On it's own, I doubt it would survive much longer on the eastern front in Ukraine. In Iran the F-35 also did not fly around freely while the ground radars were active. They had to be taken out first. For that stealth was probably useful (and in general it is). But it is not making them invisible - and cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. Because sensors and analysis will get better over time and sensors also better and cheaper. But the stealth will remain largely the same. It cannot really be upgraded for existing jets.
  - dylan604 8mo ago
    > cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. The burning question is what decision would AI make in Pearl Harbor. Would it have said flock of birds? Would it be keying in on flocks of birds instead?
slaw 8mo ago
Russia/Ukraine war shows that 4th generation jets are not survivable in any current as of 2026 air defense environment.
- bigyabai 8mo ago
  4th generation jets are not designed to survive denied airspace. They're still useful; both sides in Ukraine are using 4th gen jets for air patrol, SEAD, escorts, intercepts and standoff munition launches.
  - slaw 8mo ago
    Nothing that makes them jet fighters is used. Propeller planes with launchers could do the same.
    - bigyabai 8mo ago
      Putting flares, chaff and ECM onto a propeller plane doesn't leave much takeoff weight for AASMs and KEPD munitions.

jandrese 8mo ago

There is an argument that all manned fighters are already obsolete thanks to the proliferation of cheap drones and that establishing air superiority is a very different task now.

nradov 8mo ago
There is no such argument among people who actually know how this stuff works. Cheap drones might work pretty well for trench warfare in Ukraine but it's impossible to build a cheap drone that would be effective in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The distances alone mean that aircraft must be large just to get there, and thus not cheap regardless of whether there's a crew onboard. Autonomous flight control software is still only able to handle the simplest missions. Maybe that will change in a few years but for now anything complex requires a remote pilot, and those communication links are very vulnerable.
bigyabai 8mo ago
That's really just X/Twitter conjecture. We don't see this argument substantiated in any modern air combat anywhere in the world.
edgyquant 8mo ago
There really is not, this argument was a total discredit of Elon Musks opinions on anything military. Case in point, Iran has been a major user of these drones yet they’ve been out of the game against an enemy with a real air force
mrguyorama 8mo ago
No one worth listening to makes that argument. Torpedo boats didn't make Battleships obsolete. Aircraft carriers did. Because they could do the same role but better. AntiTank rifles didn't make tanks obsolete. Neither did anti-tank mines. Nor anti-tank rocket launchers, nor anti-tank artillery, nor really freaking good anti-tank missiles, nor anti-tank helicopters etc etc. Turns out, putting a box of steel around soldiers is pretty much always better. IFVs are even less survivable than a tank in all cases and they have only become more important and prominent because what capability they provide is what matters. Artillery and Air power did not make the army obsolete. Air power did not make Artillery obsolete though the USA wanted that reality. Submarines didn't make any boat obsolete. SAM systems did not make planes obsolete. Hell, America decided the solution to missiles aimed at your planes was fly planes at the missile launcher! And it works because war is stupid. "Cheap drones" only work against things that haven't yet adapted to cheap drones in the exact same way that Navy had to adapt to anti-ship missiles. With EW, those "cheap" drones get less cheap. With any sort of advancement in protection, those drones get less cheap. War is about achieving physical control, and you can't really do that with cheap drones. There's always back and forth in weapons systems. We still use bayonets in the right circumstances! Cheap drones cannot establish air superiority, and certainly not air supremacy. Actual air combat drones are far more expensive, involved, and in development than quadcopters. The primary power drones bring is ISR, making the entire battlefield utterly transparent, including at nighttime. That's insane, and really really bad for any of us who might be forced to fight in the future, as lethality to the average soldier is likely to go up.