Should the F-35 be scrapped?

[makaya325]

If the F-35 goes, then i guess there will be no more advancements in any kind of air force technology

 

[egslim]

There's a lot more to aerial combat than being able to carry a missile.

Not against technologically inferior, weak opponents - their fighters get detected by AWACS, your fighter is pointed in the right direction, and basically functions as no more than a missile platform.

Airwar against a major power is a different matter, because they can negate the AWACS cover to some extent - by putting up their own AWACS, use of stealth, more advanced missiles and SAMs, etc.

But any such war will inevitably lead to a nuclear exchange, so then the airwar's outcome doesn't matter anyway. As Clauszewitz pointed out, a conflict between approximately equally matched opponents will escalate everytime one side faces the possibility of loss.

Reaper and Preadator class UAV's have no dash speed. Typical CAS vehicles do. Time, and response time, is a critical commodity on the modern battlefield.

On the other hand, since UAV's are much cheaper, you can use many more of them to provide broad cover.

Also, there's no inherent reason why UAV's should lack speed compared to manned aircraft. The only reason is because the jet-jocks who run the air force fear unmanned competition. Reminds me of the battleship-admirals of the 30's.

The most sensible approach would be to boost AWACS development and production, buy some more cheap F-15's and F-16's to tide everyone over until more kinds of UAV's are available. All mass-produced, big and small, fast and slow.

You could assign a small, slow and cheap UAV to every platoon in the field. With bigger and and faster models to dash in between. No need for the F-35, which is already expensive and will probably increase in price even further.

 

[egslim]

Nobody even bothers. Now. Because of this massive, decades-long effort by the US.

Rubbish. Nobody bothers, because WWI and WWII clearly demonstrated that all countries who take part in the brunt of the fighting lose. Even the 'winners'.

Gone are the days when warfare paid for itself through loot. Modern large scale, conventional warfare became too expensive already before he advent of nuclear weapons.

Even during the Cold War the West (including the US) lacked a sufficient number of (non-nuclear) missiles to fight a prolonged war against the Warsaw Pact. It's no different today. Modern militaries simply lack sufficient ammunition and other supplies to fight a WWII-style conflict. That's why even relatively small conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan expose shortages.

 

[richardm]

Wait a bit - on what evidence do you suppose the X-47 and X-45 are more prioritized for stealth than the F-35? Different looks don't exactly cut it.

http://www.mywire.com/a/AFP/Australia-concerned-latest-setback-to/1281226/

That article talks about how the F35's stealth capabilities have been downgraded from "Extremely low observable" to "Very low observable". Out of interest, how much of a difference is that? How much of the difference is attributable to the design not being as stealthy as hoped for, and how much is due to improvements in radar design while we've been waiting?

 

[Darth Rotor]

That article talks about how the F35's stealth capabilities have been downgraded from "Extremely low observable" to "Very low observable". Out of interest, how much of a difference is that? How much of the difference is attributable to the design not being as stealthy as hoped for, and how much is due to improvements in radar design while we've been waiting?

As time goes on, what was "stealth" a decade ago is a bit more observable now, and even moreso in ten year's time.

That's the tech improvement deal simply plugging along as it always does.

No knock on F-35, but it wasn't meant to be as comparatively stealthy as F-117 or B-2 were when they came out, so "low observable" and "low radar cross section" may be a more honest, and good enough, descriptive.

No magic bullets, no free lunch.

DR

 

[Sporanox]

How many Americans must die because socialized armies have to soldier on with inferior weapons not produced by the rigors of the free market?

Weapons are produced by private companies, you know. This is commonly known.

 

[WildCat]

Not against technologically inferior, weak opponents - their fighters get detected by AWACS, your fighter is pointed in the right direction, and basically functions as no more than a missile platform.

That's what the US thought going into Vietnam. Then for some reason all their planes kept getting shot down by a "technologically inferior, weak opponent". In dogfights.

 

[David Wong]

Weapons are produced by private companies, you know. This is commonly known.

And you believe this is how the free market works?

You should have no problem with a government option in health care then.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Weapons are produced by private companies, you know. This is commonly known.

I am not responsible for the stupidity of the argument I am parodying.

 

[GreyICE]

That's what the US thought going into Vietnam. Then for some reason all their planes kept getting shot down by a "technologically inferior, weak opponent". In dogfights.

Dumbass policies that required an absolute confirmed visual that the target was a MiG didn't help anything. Our missiles are a LOT better today (remember, those missiles didn't even have COMPUTERS in them).

Besides, if we ever need to dogfight, we deploy two wings of raptors, and call it a day. The F-35 is a joke next to those.

 

[WildCat]

Dumbass policies that required an absolute confirmed visual that the target was a MiG didn't help anything. Our missiles are a LOT better today (remember, those missiles didn't even have COMPUTERS in them).

Nope, turns out a nimble fighter can dodge a guided missile. The US fighter aircraft of the era didn't even have cannon, because it was thought cannon were obsolete in the missile era. Actual combat experience was a big eye-opener. This experience caused the Navy to form their Top Gun program, and all subsequent US fighters have cannon once again.

Besides, if we ever need to dogfight, we deploy two wings of raptors, and call it a day. The F-35 is a joke next to those.

You will have to have dogfights in areas where no Raptors are available, the enemy is funny that way.

 

[GreyICE]

Nope, turns out a nimble fighter can dodge a guided missile. The US fighter aircraft of the era didn't even have cannon, because it was thought cannon were obsolete in the missile era. Actual combat experience was a big eye-opener. This experience caused the Navy to form their Top Gun program, and all subsequent US fighters have cannon once again.

However, it is much harder to dodge a guided missile when you can fire at the limits of the missile's range. US fighters were limited to a definite visual confirmation before firing.

Modern aircraft are not so limited, and the missiles are far superior. The force a human body can take remains quite similar, and thus manned aircraft are no longer capable of dodging missiles. Flare and chaff are still techniques you can use, but modern computers put a large dent in the effectiveness of those.

You will have to have dogfights in areas where no Raptors are available, the enemy is funny that way.

Funny thing about Raptors. They're never quite where you expect them to be. Supercruise is cool like that.

I mean who is this hypothetical enemy? They have a surefire way to defeat our missile techniques, have no defined airfields, so we can't just monitor them and send Raptors to intercept any aircraft, they have a large and advanced enough force that we need F-35s to compete with them.

You do know GI Joe was a movie, right? We don't really need too many 'super advanced' aircraft.

 

[WildCat]

However, it is much harder to dodge a guided missile when you can fire at the limits of the missile's range. US fighters were limited to a definite visual confirmation before firing.

Modern aircraft are not so limited, and the missiles are far superior. The force a human body can take remains quite similar, and thus manned aircraft are no longer capable of dodging missiles. Flare and chaff are still techniques you can use, but modern computers put a large dent in the effectiveness of those.

It still boils down to the skill and training of the pilots. This is every bit as important as technology. One can't consistently win without the other.

Funny thing about Raptors. They're never quite where you expect them to be. Supercruise is cool like that.

You take calculated risks. It's a rare bird.

I mean who is this hypothetical enemy? They have a surefire way to defeat our missile techniques, have no defined airfields, so we can't just monitor them and send Raptors to intercept any aircraft, they have a large and advanced enough force that we need F-35s to compete with them.

Stealth is also handy in defeating radar-based ground air defense systems, not just in air-to-air combat. This makes the F-35 far superior to predecessors such as the F-16.

You do know GI Joe was a movie, right? We don't really need too many 'super advanced' aircraft.

And we don't, the F-22 is no longer being manufactured.

 

[daenku32]

Building 200 F-35s or whatever might bring down their per unit costs, but I don't see how we should have to do 200 unit runs just to keep the military R&D alive.

 

[WildCat]

Building 200 F-35s or whatever might bring down their per unit costs, but I don't see how we should have to do 200 unit runs just to keep the military R&D alive.

The US alone has 2,443 of them on order.

 

[daenku32]

The US alone has 2,443 of them on order.

Well that sucks.

 

[Travis]

Mark my words, America will end up in a shooting war with France sometime in the next two decades. When that happens, and the USMC is storming beaches, they should have some carrier based air support that can contend with the Rafale.

 

[Corsair 115]

No magic bullets, no free lunch.

What about free bullets and a magic lunch?

 

[WildCat]

Well that sucks.

Why?

 

[WildCat]

Mark my words, America will end up in a shooting war with France sometime in the next two decades. When that happens, and the USMC is storming beaches, they should have some carrier based air support that can contend with the Rafale.

It's not an air superiority fighter, it is a multi-role fighter much as the F-16 and F-18 (both of which are getting long in the tooth) are. Stealth will be very important in any future conflicts, whether it's taing out a N. Korean nuclear site or an Iranian submarine dock.