4 ms·

I'm not trying to say that f35s are immune to modern chinese technology, I'm trying to say they're immune to previous generation stuff. They don't need to be li

I'm not trying to say that f35s are immune to modern chinese technology, I'm trying to say they're immune to previous generation stuff. They don't need to be literally invisible, you can know where they are all you want if you can't actually hit them with a missile. There's a lot of things that complicate actual fights, people get lucky, people get unlucky, you do clever things like predict incoming sortie directions and saturate that area, but while the f35 is not produced in the same numbers as say, the p51, it's not "the last starfighter" either, the opponent has to get lucky a whole bunch of times before their ability to resist has been removed.

fooker 6mo ago
> I'm trying to say they're immune to previous generation stuff S400 works just fine for detecting F-35s.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  For certain definitions of "works". They don't seem to have fared all that well against US/Israeli F-35s in Iran, and seem to struggle in Ukraine against far less sophisticated opponents.
  - fooker 6mo ago
    > seem to struggle in Ukraine against far less sophisticated opponents Yes, that's the recurring theme in modern warfare. Cheap mass produced shit makes sophisticated tech struggle. The US is now going to be immune from this, especially since we have stopped mass producing anything for thirty years. Ukraine used cheap drones to destroy a few S400 setups.
    - wredcoll 6mo ago
      The previous poster was claiming that not only can the S400s not detect f35s, they can't adequately combat previous generation stuff either. I can't comment on how accurate that is, but as for "cheap mass produced shit", I refer you to both times the US invaded iraq. Kill ratios on the order of literally 100 to 1. This is the point at which you can't actually overwhelm better technology with quantity. Wars are, of course, incredibly more complicated than just measuring kill ratios and highscores as if it were a video game. There's usually multiple factions involved, all with differing objectives and those factions and objectives can change and mutate during the course of the war anyways. If we look at a war the US unequivocally lost, defending south vietnam from the north vietnam invasion, there are a whole bunch of factors but exactly none of them involved some kind of "high tech too advanced" weapon system being defeated by "lower tech but more mass produced" systems. Doing some incredibly basic research shows that the actual dollar cost of the vietnam war was, relative to the american economy and so on, pretty small, and not a major factor in the ultimate result of the war. Producing fighter jets or whatever that were 10% cheaper doesn't seem like it would have made much of a difference. This actually kind of proves my point, we can "go to war" with iraq or iran and as long as we're not implementing literal conscription, the US is willing to maintain those wars for a very long time. There's a gigantic difference in public response between "2 pilots died when f35s were ambushed" and "10,000 american soldiers died in this month's battles around Baghdad". One of those gets you some headlines and a few protests, the other gets you voted out of office.
- angry_octet 6mo ago
  Practically speaking there are between 0 and 1 S-400 systems to worry about, and they will be one of the very first targets. Prompt global strike, JASSM-ER/LR, Tomahawk, AARGM-ER, JATM, even AIM-174B and 260s, they're all coming for it, and all the lesser S-300 (SA-10) / HQ-15, HQ-16/FK-3s etc. The S-300 systems in Iran were completely ineffective against IDF F-35s. Doubtful they even got a detection.
  - fooker 6mo ago
    S300 and S400 are a bit different

fooker 6mo ago

> I'm trying to say they're immune to previous generation stuff S400 works just fine for detecting F-35s.

ceejayoz 6mo ago
For certain definitions of "works". They don't seem to have fared all that well against US/Israeli F-35s in Iran, and seem to struggle in Ukraine against far less sophisticated opponents.
- fooker 6mo ago
  > seem to struggle in Ukraine against far less sophisticated opponents Yes, that's the recurring theme in modern warfare. Cheap mass produced shit makes sophisticated tech struggle. The US is now going to be immune from this, especially since we have stopped mass producing anything for thirty years. Ukraine used cheap drones to destroy a few S400 setups.
  - wredcoll 6mo ago
    The previous poster was claiming that not only can the S400s not detect f35s, they can't adequately combat previous generation stuff either. I can't comment on how accurate that is, but as for "cheap mass produced shit", I refer you to both times the US invaded iraq. Kill ratios on the order of literally 100 to 1. This is the point at which you can't actually overwhelm better technology with quantity. Wars are, of course, incredibly more complicated than just measuring kill ratios and highscores as if it were a video game. There's usually multiple factions involved, all with differing objectives and those factions and objectives can change and mutate during the course of the war anyways. If we look at a war the US unequivocally lost, defending south vietnam from the north vietnam invasion, there are a whole bunch of factors but exactly none of them involved some kind of "high tech too advanced" weapon system being defeated by "lower tech but more mass produced" systems. Doing some incredibly basic research shows that the actual dollar cost of the vietnam war was, relative to the american economy and so on, pretty small, and not a major factor in the ultimate result of the war. Producing fighter jets or whatever that were 10% cheaper doesn't seem like it would have made much of a difference. This actually kind of proves my point, we can "go to war" with iraq or iran and as long as we're not implementing literal conscription, the US is willing to maintain those wars for a very long time. There's a gigantic difference in public response between "2 pilots died when f35s were ambushed" and "10,000 american soldiers died in this month's battles around Baghdad". One of those gets you some headlines and a few protests, the other gets you voted out of office.
angry_octet 6mo ago
Practically speaking there are between 0 and 1 S-400 systems to worry about, and they will be one of the very first targets. Prompt global strike, JASSM-ER/LR, Tomahawk, AARGM-ER, JATM, even AIM-174B and 260s, they're all coming for it, and all the lesser S-300 (SA-10) / HQ-15, HQ-16/FK-3s etc. The S-300 systems in Iran were completely ineffective against IDF F-35s. Doubtful they even got a detection.
- fooker 6mo ago
  S300 and S400 are a bit different