3 ms·

> They are at most used to lob gliding bombs from far behind the front lines. You write that, and literally quote my point about F-35 making deep strikes again

by varjag 6mo ago

> They are at most used to lob gliding bombs from far behind the front lines. You write that, and literally quote my point about F-35 making deep strikes against dense air defense possible in the very next sentence.

cyberax 6mo ago
It remains to be seen how well F-35s actually perform in that role against an adversary with modern anti-air defense and with modern drone-based tactics. Both Russia and Ukraine learned to avoid concentrating forces, so what are you going to strike? Use an F-35 to attack a single Jeep with a mounted machine gun? F-35 has limited range and carries very limited armament, so you can't just carpet-bomb everything. At some point, you'll need to use much less survivable heavy bombers.
- nradov 6mo ago
  Strike the stuff that can't move: government offices, factories, bridges, dams, power plants, ports, logistics hubs. The heavy B-2 bombers are themselves quite survivable, and were in fact used in the initial strikes.
  - cyberax 6mo ago
    Government offices are hardened against strikes, and they are going to be located beyond the reach of F-35s anyway in case of a war with Russia or China. > bridges, dams, power plants A war crime, btw. Bridges and dams are also notoriously hard to destroy. > The heavy B-2 bombers are themselves quite survivable They are, but less so compared to lighter aircraft.
- greedo 6mo ago
  F-35s have done pretty well in both Israeli and US hands against the Russian supplied SAM systems. And if these vaunted Russian IADs can't stop Ukrainian drones with a RCS the size of a barn, they stand little chance against a stealth fighter.
  - cyberax 6mo ago
    _All_ the classic anti-air is useless against drones, as the US also found out. It can be easily saturated, and ground-hugging drones are not a good target for missiles anyway. Ukraine is now using interceptor drones for this reason. The issue with stealth fighters is that they have nothing to do. The enemy can launch barrages of drones from hundreds of kilometers away, outside the F-35's effective range. Or if you're moving ground forces, they'll be attacked by mobile units armed with short-range drones, also making F-35 less than useful. That's also the reason why Russia right now is at a full stalemate. Its only semi-working strategy is to filter infantry through killzones that can be tens of kilometers in depth. Russia can easily bomb Ukrainian positions with gliding bombs or missiles like S-300. But there's just nothing to bomb, Ukrainian army is spread out.
    - panick21_ 6mo ago
      The US has not found that out, they knew it, that's why things like lasers and other systems have seen so much development. Yes the war showed some new aspects, but relentless low capability drone attacks is not the same as flying an F-35 into enemy air space and bombing their critical resources with high accuracy thanks to sensors. Mass manaufacture and drones and such need to be take into account in the future, but when it comes to what is easer to counter, mass drone attacks or F-35, ill be money on the mass drones being countered first. There are already many system that can deal with drones quite well. Old school FLAC with improved sensors, fast shooting system, even cheaper drones as counters and of course lasers and so on in the future. Yes S-300 doesn't deal with drones either, but its pretty clear what to develop to counter-them, how to counter F-35s is not nearly as easy. > The enemy can launch barrages of drones from hundreds of kilometers away, outside the F-35's effective range. If they are doing that these drones are no longer as cheap and if you fly against modern anti drone weapon that have costs of a few $ per shot down drone, the economics is no longer in your favor.
      - cyberax 6mo ago
        > The US has not found that out, they knew it, that's why things like lasers and other systems have seen so much development. Yes, the US was not prepared. The laser systems were nowhere to be seen, and there are no interceptor drones on the field right now. Or at least not in the quantity needed to protect valuable targets (like AWACS planes). Also, lasers are just a waste of resources anyway. They only work when the LoS is available, and tracking a small target over large distances requires highly precise machinery. Exactly something that you want on a battlefield. > Yes the war showed some new aspects, but relentless low capability drone attacks is not the same as flying an F-35 into enemy air space and bombing their critical resources with high accuracy thanks to sensors. F-35 is not designed to bomb critical resources. It's a fighter jet. > Yes S-300 doesn't deal with drones either, but its pretty clear what to develop to counter-them, how to counter F-35s is not nearly as easy. It's not the point. The enemy doesn't need to suppress F-35s to keep launching salvos of hundreds of Shaheed drones into YOUR critical infrastructure that you can't protect. That's the whole point of the article.
- varjag 6mo ago
  Oh I love shopping lists, let's see. The FSB HQ, SVR HQ, Rosgvardiya HQ; tens of Army offices across the city. Roscosmos HQ, listening stations for the satellite network. Precision mechanics, optics and electronic foundries manufacturing sites in Khimki, Lubertsy, Lytkarino, Krasnogorsk and Zelenograd. Kosmos concert hall on Militia Day. Am sure there's more good spots along Rublevskoye highway too. And if there are still some GBUs left after all that, the Kremlin and even the bloody Mausoleum.

by varjag 6mo ago

cyberax 6mo ago

It remains to be seen how well F-35s actually perform in that role against an adversary with modern anti-air defense and with modern drone-based tactics. Both Russia and Ukraine learned to avoid concentrating forces, so what are you going to strike? Use an F-35 to attack a single Jeep with a mounted machine gun? F-35 has limited range and carries very limited armament, so you can't just carpet-bomb everything. At some point, you'll need to use much less survivable heavy bombers.

nradov 6mo ago
Strike the stuff that can't move: government offices, factories, bridges, dams, power plants, ports, logistics hubs. The heavy B-2 bombers are themselves quite survivable, and were in fact used in the initial strikes.
- cyberax 6mo ago
  Government offices are hardened against strikes, and they are going to be located beyond the reach of F-35s anyway in case of a war with Russia or China. > bridges, dams, power plants A war crime, btw. Bridges and dams are also notoriously hard to destroy. > The heavy B-2 bombers are themselves quite survivable They are, but less so compared to lighter aircraft.
greedo 6mo ago
F-35s have done pretty well in both Israeli and US hands against the Russian supplied SAM systems. And if these vaunted Russian IADs can't stop Ukrainian drones with a RCS the size of a barn, they stand little chance against a stealth fighter.
- cyberax 6mo ago
  _All_ the classic anti-air is useless against drones, as the US also found out. It can be easily saturated, and ground-hugging drones are not a good target for missiles anyway. Ukraine is now using interceptor drones for this reason. The issue with stealth fighters is that they have nothing to do. The enemy can launch barrages of drones from hundreds of kilometers away, outside the F-35's effective range. Or if you're moving ground forces, they'll be attacked by mobile units armed with short-range drones, also making F-35 less than useful. That's also the reason why Russia right now is at a full stalemate. Its only semi-working strategy is to filter infantry through killzones that can be tens of kilometers in depth. Russia can easily bomb Ukrainian positions with gliding bombs or missiles like S-300. But there's just nothing to bomb, Ukrainian army is spread out.
  - panick21_ 6mo ago
    The US has not found that out, they knew it, that's why things like lasers and other systems have seen so much development. Yes the war showed some new aspects, but relentless low capability drone attacks is not the same as flying an F-35 into enemy air space and bombing their critical resources with high accuracy thanks to sensors. Mass manaufacture and drones and such need to be take into account in the future, but when it comes to what is easer to counter, mass drone attacks or F-35, ill be money on the mass drones being countered first. There are already many system that can deal with drones quite well. Old school FLAC with improved sensors, fast shooting system, even cheaper drones as counters and of course lasers and so on in the future. Yes S-300 doesn't deal with drones either, but its pretty clear what to develop to counter-them, how to counter F-35s is not nearly as easy. > The enemy can launch barrages of drones from hundreds of kilometers away, outside the F-35's effective range. If they are doing that these drones are no longer as cheap and if you fly against modern anti drone weapon that have costs of a few $ per shot down drone, the economics is no longer in your favor.
    - cyberax 6mo ago
      > The US has not found that out, they knew it, that's why things like lasers and other systems have seen so much development. Yes, the US was not prepared. The laser systems were nowhere to be seen, and there are no interceptor drones on the field right now. Or at least not in the quantity needed to protect valuable targets (like AWACS planes). Also, lasers are just a waste of resources anyway. They only work when the LoS is available, and tracking a small target over large distances requires highly precise machinery. Exactly something that you want on a battlefield. > Yes the war showed some new aspects, but relentless low capability drone attacks is not the same as flying an F-35 into enemy air space and bombing their critical resources with high accuracy thanks to sensors. F-35 is not designed to bomb critical resources. It's a fighter jet. > Yes S-300 doesn't deal with drones either, but its pretty clear what to develop to counter-them, how to counter F-35s is not nearly as easy. It's not the point. The enemy doesn't need to suppress F-35s to keep launching salvos of hundreds of Shaheed drones into YOUR critical infrastructure that you can't protect. That's the whole point of the article.
varjag 6mo ago
Oh I love shopping lists, let's see. The FSB HQ, SVR HQ, Rosgvardiya HQ; tens of Army offices across the city. Roscosmos HQ, listening stations for the satellite network. Precision mechanics, optics and electronic foundries manufacturing sites in Khimki, Lubertsy, Lytkarino, Krasnogorsk and Zelenograd. Kosmos concert hall on Militia Day. Am sure there's more good spots along Rublevskoye highway too. And if there are still some GBUs left after all that, the Kremlin and even the bloody Mausoleum.