In a dogfight I do not think that there is an aircraft on this planet that can compete against an F-22. The F-35 is no slouch, either, but the F-22 is the alpha predator.
That would be…impressive, actually. But I doubt any variant of the F-35 has demonstrated takeoff, vertical or otherwise, without fuel, though I suppose if you were extremely generous with your definition of “takeoff”, the F-35C might be able to, given its CATOBAR capability.
The F-35B is STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing), not VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY
Lockheed Martin says of the video: "An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance."
The F-35 comes with a bunch of other technology that make it truly formidable. The cost has also come down substantially, so it’s probably the cheapest option out there as well.
Mind you, eventually this will be correct... just it's been declared prematurely for 60 years and so this still may not be the correct moment to say so.
> The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on.
Missile performance won't be equal in this case; if the enemy can launch missiles with higher pkill, well..
The enemy COULD pop out from just behind the mountain/hill in front of you, and force you to have to resort to short ranged (FOX 2) missiles or even guns.
Still, though, this is not enough to prioritize extreme agility over stealth today. The F35 is more than agile enough for the few times this occurs, especially if there is a wingman around.
I remember reading an interview with a pilot who flew in the Iraq war after major hostilities were over. He described a situation, iirc, where he got a radar contact. He notified his superiors (can't remember the exact term he used) and they said they no friendlies should be flying there. It was ok for him to shoot it down. Something felt off and decided to try to id the plane first. It turned out to be a civilian plane carrying contractors or dignitaries (can't remember which).
I can try to find the article again if necessary. The main point is that there are some cases where you do need to "ask questions first" (ie. id the plane) and then shoot.
My understanding is that the "dogfighting is over" rhetoric stopped being proven wrong during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iraqi fighters started mysteriously exploding in the sky during operations.
If you can safely entirely rely upon on IFF and deconfliction, all is great.
If you ever have to close to identify targets, then you might end up with some significant maneuvering, etc. Of course, the F-35 isn't terrible at this, and stealth and efficiency lets it better choose the terms of this engagement.
A naval variant capable of carrier landings of the F-22 was considered by the US Navy but was ultimately not adopted. The airframe is definitely capable of it, if given sufficient military and political will.
For example, lets see what Bayraktar MIUS will be doing.
Someone will eventually produce an aircraft to rival the 5th gen capabilities of the US, but it hasn’t been done yet. Every competitor so far has been theater. Meanwhile, the US is actively developing and testing 6th gen combat aircraft.
But aircraft tech, yes - absolutely. The US knows how to build impressive planes. But stand-off ballistics and drones are now the better bang for the buck.
What do you mean “ballistics”? Ballistic missiles? If so, then, sure, Russia has much longer range conventional SRBMs than the US (though that should change this year, with the PrSM coming online), which has largely (until comparatively recently) focused on manned aircraft abd cruise rather than ballistic missiles for the same use.
> But stand-off ballistics and drones are now better bang for the buck.
In the specific tacrical environment of the Ukraine war, they may be, given the inability of either side to achieve reliable air superiority. Certainly, as terror weapons against civilian populations it is true.
More generally, that's less clear.
Ukraine is not the United States military, and is not being armed with its full complement of weapons for very specific diplomatic reasons. Whereas Russia has been free to unload all it's conventional weapons as it sees fit.
The problem is: what exactly do you bomb? I.e. what is the battle-related purpose of this machine?
Bombing tank formations would, of course, make sense, let's say if you encounter a formation of 10-15 tanks a F-35 sortie would make sense. But then the enemy adapts and starts only using tanks in "solitary", so to speak, or at most in "pairs". Does it make economic and operational sense to fly and risk a F-35 just to destroy two tanks? I don't know.
The same goes for enemy artillery. Does it make economic sense to risk a F-35 sortie just to try and take out howitzers scattered over the entire front line? I think it doesn't, for example the Russians have been reasonably good at taking NATO-sent M777s just by using counter-artillery or Lancet suicide mini-drones (orders of magnitude cheaper than a F-35, excluding the opportunity costs of losing an airplane pilot's life).
Of course, F-35s would be best in destroying civilian infrastructure related to the enemy's war effort behind the front-lines, stuff like power transmission units, bridges, railways etc, meaning what NATO did in Serbia in 1999 and what the Allies tried to do against Germany in WW2. But, again, it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles (the Russians have also proved that that is doable during the current war in Ukraine), ignoring the fact that it might not work (the Germans carried out producing war stuff until the early months of 1945, despite the very heavy aerial bombings).
I think the US military has been the victim of its own success in the first Gulf War, when indeed air superiority allowed them to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait with almost no losses on the US side. But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.
You then use your vast fleet of less capable planes to ramp up sorties, provide air support during combined arms operations, etc. You can still use your magic airplane for protection of those assets during sorties, and for strike missions on high-value, high-threat targets.
That is why it is not a problem to have 'few' expensive magic planes. The US only had a hand full of U2's and SR71's, because you're not doing spying runs over Russia 10x a day.
That works for a very short war, like those in Iraq/Kuwait in 1990-1991 and in Serbia in 1999 happened to be, meaning it was cost effective to have invested so much money in the far more superior US planes because the wars in themselves were short (so the US got a good ROI out of using those advanced planes).
But what to do in case of a war that spans over an entire year or more? (like the current war in Ukraine). The marginal utility of those first debilitating air strikes carried out by advanced planes goes down quite rapidly, nobody cares after 12 months of intense on-the-ground war if some airfields behind the front have been blasted just as the war started, most probably those airfields have already been repaired.
And there's also the opportunity costs. The money spent on developing a very advanced plane like the F-22 could have been put to better use by investing in the US's artillery shells-making industry (of which the West has not enough of right now), artillery shells which provide a much better ROI during a 12-month land-war compared to an advanced plane.
It's all a matter of what future wars the US plans to get into and how it thinks those wars will actually develop.
If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield, maybe preventing the us' billions in fighters from doing things?
If I were an accountant for the US military, yes, I would do that. But, of course, things are a lot more complicated, because if they have built it they'll have to use it, you can't go in front of a Congressional budget commission and say that it doesn't make sense to use a F-35 when the F-16 can do the job just as fine, because they'll furiously ask you why did you need all that money for the F-35 in the first place.
> If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield
Could be. Either way, I think we haven't reached the "maximum" when it comes to the use of aerial drones in modern warfare, not by a long shot. Partly also because of institutional reasons, when you've spent so much money on a project like the F-35 you don't ask your best military minds to think too much about drones so that you could best employ them on the battlefield, you ask those bright minds to put the F-35 to use (because a general's future career prospects depend on it). This would only get alleviated by the US having to fight a real war, when, supposedly, those institutional motives would be overcome by the reality of war.
About a possible US war against China I can't comment much because I don't know the situation in that geographic area all too well. It is my understanding though that the US is preparing for a war over the vast area of the Pacific, a repeat of their WW2-campaign if you wish, but I'm not sure China will fall into that trap. But this is pure unsubstantiated speculation from me, time will tell.
Then you've already won. Tanks are by far most useful on offense when concentrated. Individual tanks can not break through infantry lines, if the infantry has any amount of anti air weaponry attached.
> The problem is: what exactly do you bomb?
F35's main responsibility would be to ensure air superiority, by keeping the air free of enemy aircraft (including any medium to large drones) and by supressing and finally destroying enemy air defences.
Once that is achieved, they can be used for any kind of traditional CAS or go hunting enemy artillery positions. When on the defensive, aircraft are superb at limiting enemy mobility, by attacking trains, convoys bridges and rail heads.
Also, and espeicially in large wars where satellites are likely to be shot down, having aircraft over a warzone provides a huge intelligence advantage. Even when out of bombs, the aircraft can use cameras and data links to send coordinates for enemy artillery, bunkers and tanks back to HQ or to friendly forces.
And obviously, once air supremacy has been achieved, all the 4th gen aircraft can also join in the CAP/Ground Attacks/Interdiction missions.
> it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles
This is not true. Cruise missiles are quite expensive when compared to bombs. A tomahawk missile costs $2M per unit. By comparison, a JDAM bomb costs about $25K. Even when including aircraft maintainance, fuel, etc, bombs are an order of magnitude cheaper than cruise missiles.
> But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.
The second gulf war was primarily a TV war for public opinion. The best approach to wars where you're not willing to use the amount of force necessary to win it, is to not fight it.
fwiw, if you're looking for a particular kind of strike target, the F-35 is widely regarded as the USAF's most credible SEAD/DEAD platform. It's suitable for a wide range of other roles, but SEAD really sets it apart.
The F-35 was designed to be a mass produced aircraft that (1) could be exported widely without risk of leaking too many secrets and (2) reduced absolute performance and features based on a more pragmatic cost-benefit analysis where it only needed to be good enough and not the best possible. Economies of scale factored greatly into its design.
Most nations want to hang onto that technological edge as long as feasible.
The F-22 can go faster and further than the F-35. It's also more maneuverable and a touch stealthier. (The F-35 has better tech, is cheaper to build and operate and can carry more armament.)
Than the F-22??
It's also unlikely the projected numbers are ever going to be acquired simply due to the fact that projected budgets and reality don't usually agree.
Particularly during R&D you can kick and scream as much as you want to deny reality about things. At some point it will set in that while the F-35 does in fact exist as an aircraft, it isn't practical, meets none of it's objectives and may actually be operationally inferior to existing aircraft.
If you don't believe me read any of the DOT&E reports on the F-35. Even they mention that for things to work out would require the F-35 program to suddenly go from never meeting any of their own objectives to meeting 100% of them for the forseeable future.
My personal projection is that acquisition is halted in the next few years and in less than 20 years the available aircraft will be in storage in Davis-Monthan or a similar facility.
"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu
For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).
Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles.
The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.
No it's not.
Modern US doctrine favors early detection and long range engagement by missiles.
What would a US carrier group do to stop a large group of Tu-160, Tu-22, Mig31 and similar aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, and some of which are supersonic or even hypersonic?
If the carrier is several 1000 kilometer from land, maybe F35's flying CAP + any additional scrambled fighters may provide enough protection.
But the closer the carrier gets to land, the more vulnerable they may be.
What kind of missile would you use against these bombers, and at what distance?
Now keep in mind that the enemy can stay in the air for a while far within their friendly airspace, and then suddenly start a dash towards you at a speed of Mach2.
In cases like this, I would believe that having a few F-22 around (possibly from land based air bases in the area) would be a good addition to the fighters on the carrier, simply because the F-22 could much more easily dance with the enemy bombers as they were repositioning.
What now? A Kinzhal will probably fly that far, but it won't hit a moving ship at that distance.
Kh-55 has a similar range, but lower speed (sea-skimming, though).
Then there is the Kh-32 with operational range stated as 600-1000km.
And then there are plenty of missiles of ranges from 300-1000km.
Also, China is actively developing similar systems.
I suppose it's classified at what ranges these systems would be able hit targets such as carriers. But if they're able to at all, it would be at rangers much beyond what you can defend against with aim120/aim160 missiles.
RIM 161/SM3 would provide some protection, but they are probably not very accurate at the extreme ranges, especially if targetting supersonic attackers.
Which means that interceptors may be the best option. Against large groups of enemies, the speed of the interceptor is still relevant, and there are certainly some in the Navy that worries about the loss of the F14, in particular in the Pacific.
For now, I suppose it makes sense to have some F22's and F15's in the general area where such conflicts could take place.
Which may be true in a land attack role, but is obviously not the case in an anti-ship role (if that capability really exists at all!).
Realistically, you'll be very happy if you hit a target 300km away with current anti-ship missiles.
If it has any kind of ability to home in on the ship based on radar, sattelite or similar, it shouldn't matter much if it's fired from 200km or 2000km. And even less if it carries a nuke. Even at 40kn, a ship doesn't go THAT far in 3 minutes.
Of course, if it's not performing per specification, it wouldn't be the first time for a Russian weapon system. So it makes sense to take the claims with a grain of salt.
The main point, though, is that in some places, it's hard to protect important assets from all angles against enemies that are a lot faster. This may not be all that important in Eastern Europe. It might be more important in the Arctic, Middle Eastern or Pacific theatres, though.
At the very least, speed allows each plane to patrol a larger area in relatively remote places.
The F22 is an air-superiority fighter. To quote Wikipeda interceptor role is mostly dead:
> the strategic threat moved from bombers to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Dedicated interceptor designs became rare, with the only widely used examples designed after the 1960s being the Panavia Tornado ADV, Mikoyan MiG-25, Mikoyan MiG-31, and the Shenyang J-8.
I'd note the most recent of any of those is the Mig31 (operational since 1981, production finished in 1994). It's worth reading combat reports from Ukraine against the Mig31 - where it is being used in an air-superiority role. There the big advantage of the Mig31 is its R-37 missile (range 200+ miles).
The "multi-role" thing is what made developing and debugging the F-35 such a pain.
However, that seems to be paying off as now it gets manufactured in more and more volume.
Not so much the multi role part as the fact that it's really 3 different aircraft that they tried to make as similar as possible.
Had they only made the F35A, with the rules of F35B and C covered by other planes, then it would probably be either cheaper or more capable in some ways.
Supersonic flight without afterburners (supercruise). In theory, at least, that should be a huge advantage on either side of an interception scenarios.
Using F-16 the baseline, Rafale is 30x smaller, F-35 is 600x smaller and F-22 is 6000x smaller. So there's a factor 10 in favor of the F-22 when compared to the F-35. On top of that F-22 is said to be more optimized in all directions, while for the F-35 the focus was more on the frontal RCS, so the F-22 overall average RCS is probably even better.
Europeans will note that in terms of RCS, the 4.5 Gen moniker of Rafale/EF is well deserved: halfway between an F-16 and an F-35...
[1] Figures gathered from this thread: http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/20630-rafale/page/202...
When it WAS in production, it was 2 decades ahead of anything else. Had it been the F35 in production at that time, it too would be illegal to export.
Would an f-35 with awacs support beat an f-22 with awacs support in Beyond visual range combat?
It's not going to have next-generation stuff like Multifunction Advanced Data Link. I assume that's because of its older avionics, and because it has been deemed not worth upgrading. [0]
It's not my area of expertise but it's probably accurate to say that the F-22 is stronger than anything at its specialized, traditional air superiority mission but it will be left behind when it comes to flying alongside drones and other interceptors. The F-15EX and F-35, along with unmanned drones, will be able to do amazing things in concert by communicating with one another over their network. That is a different paradigm.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunctional_Information_Di...
That's a big factor for countries that can't afford BOTH air superiority and ground support craft.
F-35 is just... a pretty good airplane for a pretty good price.
It's still probably the Ultimate Fighter.
Also, it's not operating alone. Wherever there is an F22, you should expect to also find other assets, including the F35. The F22 is just the tip of the spear, to be committed when it's speed or manouverability is required.
The F-22 was a pretty radical departure from what came before it, and I think it served as a prototype for all the subsequent next generation platforms from which many things were learned. As good as it was, you aren't going to get everything right the first time and technology progresses.
You might think history proved Gates wrong, but no air power can compete with what the US has now, sans the F-22, and it would have been very expensive.
For example, a war with China, if it happened, would be most expected around Taiwan; how would F-22's reach the fight? There are no airbases nearby, except on Taiwan which would be innundated with missile attacks. The F-22 doesn't fly from aircraft carriers (which are imperiled by China's missiles regardless). The US needs a longer-range fighter in the Pacific, to cover the vast territory without bases.
Also, the F-22 afaik doesn't integrate with the new network-oriented joint force, where every asset is a sensor and node on the network, all sharing and a view of the battlefield. It doesn't integrate with 'wingman' drones, now the concept for at least part of the Air Force, where human-piloted planes control several drones.
Instead, the US spent that money elsewhere at the time, getting a better return on investment, remains in the lead now (with F-35's), is building a bomber for the China contest (B-21's), and designing a new fighter.
True, same with the Seawolf-Class Sub's, just too expensive for the "now"-state. However i think with china, the US has to go back to the far-ahead-tec doctrine....fast...
The only thing the F-35 has a decisive advantage in is STOVL capability. Everything else is compromised to achieve the "one plane fits all" vision; the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none.
F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times.
The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding.
You don’t seem to understand the criteria against which military aircraft are judged.
FYI your argument was going so well until you employed this fallacy. What GP does or doesn't understand is entirely irrelevant, not to mention that mind-reading is forbidden, not really, but it is also fallacy. Only what is stated is relevant. Now if you'll just accept this, I actually do not want to argue. I was hoping you would not mind answering my questions, because I do not understand.
> It would get wrecked against any modern air defense environment.
Obviously, we have a modern air defense, and the F-35 and F-22, among other elements, are a part of it. Who else does? Russia? North Korea? China? I'm just curious who threatens our 50 year old technology. IOW, besides our allies, who has 4th and/or 5th gen aircraft that we need to shore up against and not let them wreck our jalopies?
> The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times.
same question, who, other than our allies, is operating 5th gen aircraft that we should be concerned about? I'm not making any point. I really don't know. Appreciated.
In the specific case of the A-10, it was designed for a world that had extremely primitive sensor systems that couldn’t even reliably lock onto a plane when looking straight at it. We aren’t in that world anymore. Not only is the terminal guidance sophisticated and reliable but the warheads are designed specifically to destroy aircraft like the A-10. Everyone has had 50 years to work on that problem.
Modern Russian and Chinese systems effortlessly deal with an A-10; it lacks the power systems to support modern counter-measures against modern systems. It isn’t upgradable like that because that wasn’t a design objective.
Modern military aircraft like the F-35 have critical combat roles that don’t involve dogfighting. Their sensor suites and processing capabilities are at least as important as any other particular feature, and other aircraft don’t have that. Their systems can measure and exploit their environment to an astonishing degree.
The Ukrainian air force with mostly su-24's and su-27's should not exist or even be able to operate against Russia's supposed air defense capabilities(s-400, s-300, Tor, manpads) but war is almost always a battle of information and the stealth and network capabilities the F-35 has puts it a league of its own. One which only the f-22 could transcend but the raw number of F-35's being pumped out negates that advantage to a degree
one side has untouchable radars and AWACS.
At what altitude? Earth isn't flat, so even at 20km and superb electronics you don't see what happens near the ground.
Though probably someone already published their routes, but I too lazy to check, honestly. Still my point stands - As can be downed (and everyone would clap, especially in the US) while Es "NO YOU DONT THATS ARTICLE 5"
Over distances of 600km the vertical offset due to earth's curvature is about 20km. If it flies at it's operational ceiling of 14km, it can offset most of that but wouldn't have direct line of sight on planes at extreme range flying below 6km. If it has over the horizon capability though, which honestly seems highly likely for a recently updated system, then it should be able to compensate for the remaining shadow with some loss of resolution. Which I'm guessing is why it's estimated range is considered 600km. I'm sure the military analysts making those estimates know about these effects.
Anyway, southern Ukraine can be directly radar imaged from over Crimea so it's really not an issue.
Yet we keep flying it in the face of repeated attempts to retire it, with the USAF even going on the record that the A-10 will be kept in inventory "indefinitely"[1]. The A-10 is clearly not obsolete and continues to proudly serve the USA and its friends and allies, and enjoys much adoration from its pilots, mechanics, infantrymen, and civilian fans.
>F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times.
The F-15 has suffered no airframe loss to enemy combat action in its entire service history, that is a feat not easily met. The USAF even went as far as to procure new F-15s, the -EX model, because F-35 production wasn't keeping up.
As for the F/A-18, the Hornet boasts superior flight range and payload capacity besides being significantly cheaper, to say nothing of its proven air superiority and multirole capabilities.
>The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding.
That is patently false. The F-35 must sacrifice what little stealth it has to carry more payload, otherwise it can only carry a small handful within its internal weapon bays. Even accounting for carrying payload on its wing pylons, it still can't hold a candle to the other fighters; the F-15EX in particular can carry patently ridiculous payloads.
As for range, it pales in comparison to air superiority fighters (eg: F-15C/D/E/EX, F-22) or 4th gen naval fighters (the F/A-18C/D/E/F).
[1]: https://archive.ph/20170912212105/http://www.theaustralian.c...
Is that the reason? I thought it was the need to counter the Chinese strategy of mass producing fighters with an idea of overwhelming western fighters through sheer weight of number. F35 is weak on per hour running cost and uptime per unit, and loses to the F15 variant if you are looking to scale.
The f35 can operate in a similar role to an e8 alongside a mix of cheaper aircraft.
>Adding new F-15s was not an Air Force idea, but instead came out of the Pentagon’s Cost and Program Evaluation office, or CAPE, and was endorsed by former Defense Secretary James Mattis. While the Air Force’s long-held position has been to invest only in fifth generation fighter technology, it has defended the plan to buy new F-15s as a way to maintain fighter capacity, given the aging of the F-15C fleet and the slow pace of F-35 acquisitions.
>While the Air Force is adamant that buying F-15EXs will not reduce the requirement to build 1,763 F-35s, history and the Air Force’s own budget request suggests otherwise. The 2020 budget submission shows the Air Force buying 24 fewer F-35s over the next five years compared to last year’s plan.
Further reading: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/f-15ex-vs-f-35a/
> F-15EX in particular can carry patently ridiculous payloads.
But also this. Which touches on F35 being very complicated to develop for, and taking ages to integrate weapons vs F15s. And some operational considerations like not wanting to retrain F15 pilots.
Look at USAF 4+1 for next 15 years of procurement. Basically F35A, F15EX, F16CD, A10s and +1 being F22s that will be replaced by NGAD.
Read between the line consideration is F35/F22 was made for Europe/RU theatre, lacks range in PRC theatre without tanking, which are vunerable to J20s with longer range and air to air. Hence NGAD being mid sized bomber, and acquiring 100 B21s that cost as much as 1000 F35s.
Because the US has, in the past decades, not waged a war against a near-equal opponent who could have held together any kind of air force or air defenses for at most the first few days of a US invasion. In all of the US wars since the A-10 might have been obsolete against a near-equal opponent, it was more advanced than the mass of opposing tech, and could be used well. For counterinsurgency, the cost of actually modern tech is more of a problem, given that the cheap old stuff is still far superior to anything a Taliban commander can put in the field, and given that guerilla warfare has as it's aim not tactical victories, but increasing the cost to the bigger party into politically untenable regions.
It is very much obsolete in the sense that the US also requires air capabilities for large, near-equal conflicts, and there is no unsurprising way for A-10s to be useful there. In summary: keep enough A-10s around for CAS against outclassed opponents, but don't plan on having enough to take on China, seems like a wise strategy.
It's like you give zero credit for either stealth or that fancy radar, which are pretty important in a modern air superiority role.
The only nation that is a realistic threat to Finland, is Russia, and against Russia, the F-35 is a near-perfect aircraft.
By having F35, Finland also has much improved capabilities to interoperate with Nato nations. If the US needs to reinforce Finland's air bases, US planes can be serviced locally. Or if Finland is being overwhelmed, their fighters can fall back to Norway, Denmark or Germany.
Apart from operating costs, there are very few disadvantages to the F-35.
If the F-35 has any of its weapons though, then the F-16 gets pasted by a missile the F-35 fires whenever it wants because it can essentially shoot behind itself.
In reality the F-16 gets killed without ever knowing it's being tracked.
The A-10 is better at close air support
That doesn't leave you with many viable use cases.
But yeah... if you've wiped out your enemy's air defenses (or they never had them) including man-portable rocket launchers and all they've got left is a column of unarmored trucks then absolutely, the A-10 going to be devastating.
The Gun [1] penetrates 76 mm armor at 300 m range, which would surely hurt a bit. I'm not sure how successive rounds interact with thicker armor, but would hate to be the one to find out on the ground. :/
I find it almost hard to believe that it can fire 65 rounds per second, where each round weighs almost 400 g, and all of that while flying. It's an incredible piece of Very Angry Engineering.
The US Army is even on the record that they would fly the A-10 themselves if the USAF retired them[1], which played in to USAF keeping the A-10 "indefinitely".
>Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.[1]
The A-10 is adored and respected by our service members, so it's absolutely not obsolete and not retiring any time soon.
[1]: https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com...
Thinking of it, do yoi think attavk helicopters are obsolete as well? Or MBTs? Just because there arebportable missiles out there that can hurt those?
The answer? Don't use fighters vulnerable against modern AA against modern AA.
Benefit of the A-10? Lower speed, longer loitering in CAS, something quite valuable in combined arms. And faster than attack helicopters, so A-10s can move faster between mission sites.
It is almost as if certain tools have certain use cases.
And tgat an organization as large as the US military
might what to have those tools for all the use cases
they might run into.
So people who point out the A-10's weaknesses aren't saying the A-10 has literally no value at all, because it clearly does. They're questioning the cost vs. the alternatives.
Benefit of the A-10? Lower speed, longer loitering in CAS,
something quite valuable in combined arms. And faster than
attack helicopters, so A-10s can move faster between mission sites.
1. Are willing to challenge the US military in direct combat
2. Can't scrape together $100K for a rocket launcher
3. Don't have sympathetic allies that will be happy to give them rocket launchers for free in order to harass the US by proxy
USAF already investigated and answered that question: The F-35 was slated to replace the A-10, but the plan was axed in favor of keeping the A-10 indefinitely upon finding the operational risks and costs of flying the F-35 for CAS missions were not feasible.
Among the problems noted were: More dollars spent per flight hour, higher airframe cost (both in dollars and potential technology leakage) assuming an airframe loss, inferior protections afforded to the pilot, inferior airframe robustness and sturdiness, inferior payload, inferior flight range (and thus loitering time), and too fast minimum airspeed.
In fact, the F-35 was slated to replace the A-10, F-15C/D and potentially -E, F-16C/D, F/A-18C/D/E/F, F-22, and AV-8. The only aircraft the F-35 has thus far successfully replaced is the AV-8 owing to STOVL being a unique and niche capability. In all other cases the F-35 has at best complimented the preceding aircraft, and at worst failed as their replacement.
Yes, the A-10 is insanely superior for CAS, for all of the reasons you mentioned. If your enemy is so impoverished and cut off from allies that it doesn't have dirt cheap MANPADs or anything else from the last several decades of anti-aircraft technology.
There are of course mitigation strategies for AA. Combined arms are a thing. SEAD is a thing. Utilizing weather/darkness/terrain is a thing. Cutting your enemies off from arms shipments is a thing. Hammering them with CAS until they have proven they can actually thwart it is a thing.
It's just that a lot of those mitigations start to break down when your foe's AA is "a dude carrying a cheap, essentially fire-and-forget portable weapon who can duck back into a cave, a house, or a literal hole in the ground and instantly blend back in with the populace or otherwise become effectively invisible."
This isn't theory.
You can see countless examples for yourself of Russian choppers and slow (but faster than A-10, I think) Su-25 getting absolutely wrecked in Ukraine in exactly the manner I have described. As a result, the fight has largely turned into a ground war with Russia chucking missiles at Ukraine but only from safely within Russian airspace. And this is Russia's military we're talking about; they have copiously demonstrated that they're not particularly concerned about the casualties they're racking up. The US tends to be far more conservative and risk-averse.
You can say that the US would utilize combined arms, SEAD, etc more effectively than Russia. I'd agree; it'd be hard to do much worse. But the fundamental reality is that AA (particularly against unstealthy foes) has gotten really good, really cheap, really portable, and much harder to suppress.
F-15E Strike Eagles, F-16C/D Fighting Falcons, F/A-18C/D/E/F Hornets and Super Hornets, B-1B Lancers, B-2 Spirits, and US Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles among others are perfectly capable of performing the alpha strikes necessary to severely damage and destroy enemy defences and infrastructure and clear the way. A-10s along with other "vulnerable" CAS assets like the AC-130 Spooky and US Army AH-64 Apache then perform their missions with impunity.
It could be, if necessary, spun back into production. It would be very expensive and take time, at least $50B to produce 200 more and a few years to get restarted, but it's not like it would need to be designed again. We know how to make them. The issue seems to be the concern that future threats will make F-22 a poor match, and that it will compete financially against new programs that may be a better match. But who really knows what the threat will be in 2035? Maybe the F-22 is just right, and if it is and we need more, we'll make more.
I think in reality spinning up production again would essentially be a new fighter based on the same core design, maybe reusing a lot of the parts.
The Eurofighter could of course carry and drop US nukes. The issue is that it would need US cwrtification to do so, and for rather obvious reasons that certification was close to impossible to get.
Again, the F-35 is a great plane. There are reasons so why it is not not even for the USN and USAF, only one.
Edit: The reason for the outcry over French nukes is not that they are French, but rather the need to change the laws around nuclear participation to allow the switch. And that legislative changes would lead to a ton of public debate everyone wants to avoid, as this debate would kill nuclear participation in general. So nobody in governmant wants to take this risk, hence the procurement of a US platform to replace the aging Tornado fleet as a carrier of US nukes.
And the French, which excluded their nukes from NATO oversight, might actually be reluctant to share them with Germany. Using Rafales insteads of Eurofoghters might helo, but then Germany is in the same position it is with the F-35. With the added "benefit" of a potentially hurtful public debate.
But German defense policy is built around self-defense and coalition defense: NATO, EU, UN. Nuclear weapons are opposed by Germany, and it's only because NATO is viewed as essential that nuclear sharing is accepted. Most Germans don't know about it though. A bilateral (FR-GE) extension of nuclear policy would be politically unacceptable to Germany, and require extensive legal change.
I think the German acquisition of F-35s is a bit subtle. The Luftwaffe always wanted to buy F-35. I suspect they stalled the subject of the Eurofighter nuclear certification (which would take a good ten years) to force the German government to buy F-35s to keep its commitment to nuclear sharing. The whole thing happened at a time where the ministry of defence seemed disorganized and plagued by scandals. To be coherent with the Eurofighter policy, nuclear certification should have been a top priority ten years ago...
The relationship between the German government, the Luftwaffe, the US industry (and Lockheed...) and the German aerospatial industry has always been complex, and Germany has often been keen to use allied programs to avoid internal defense industry problems, with more or less success. See the Starfighter article on Wikipedia for the most egregious example.
With the German industry stalling the French-German-Spanish fighter project, I also suspec
The main pain point in all those large European defence programs is industrial workshare, especially between France and Germany and within Airbus between various sites.
You need an extensive set of avionics to control and arm the nuke in the plane which add substantial cost and aren't designed for/integrated into all aircraft.
Which begs the question, why didn't Germany collaborate with France on nukes where they could be a more or less equal partner, compared to the US where they would always be the subservient party with little to no control?
De Gaulle wanted sovereign control of any French nuclear deterrent and did not trust that, if it came to it, the US would put itself on the line for Europe: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_139272.htm - presumably, for similar reasons he did not want any dependence on allies, even ones closer in location and likely part of the same conflict.
The US did actually help the French nuclear programme once it started going, under the reasoning that multiple nuclear-armed NATO members is better than one.
I presume that they require US launch codes (and the F35 has a kill switch?). So what is the use for Germany?
The fear in Europe (confirmed by Westpoint graduate Mearsheimer long before the Ukraine war) is that if Russia strikes a single city in Europe, the US will get second thoughts and not retaliate. Germany then cannot retaliate either, so what is the point?
This is the reason for France to have its own nuclear arsenal and fighters.
The deal does mention "opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35..." which I'm not sure exactly what it is. I thought the US and Lockheed were extremely reluctant to this kind of transfer.
In addition, this is an F35A vs Gripen E, so the Gripen has a better STOL capability, likely better radar (rotating GaN), more mature avionics link, supercruise, similar RCS (apart from frontal, it's likely to be smaller, red flag exercises hinted that they were not really detectable) and faster software updates.
WRT stealth, if you want to be stealthy you can't use active radar, only passive. As such having IRST capability in addition to a good datalink is extremely useful to detect other aircraft. The F22 has no IR capability so is at a disadvantage in BVR from that, similar for the F35 which (I think) only has a downward targeting IR.
From a reliability perspective, the Gripen is a long way ahead, the duty availability F35s is probably 70% at best by now (2019 figure was 50% https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-16/q...) mainly due to parts shortage. The F35 still can't fly in stormy weather due to lightning strikes etc.
I've no doubt the F35 can be a capable aircraft, just not compared to it's competitors. The decision, as usual, is more a political one.
The Austrian Eurofighters can fly and operate without those keys, they just won't be able to join NATO Link-16 networks or other encrypted NATO communications or navigation networks. This is standard practice for all modern combat aircraft, incidentally, as encryption keys are rotated on a regular basis and need to be loaded into the aircraft's onboard systems before flight. The data can also include additional interoperability elements such as TDMA slice allocations in the case of Link-16.
The reason it has to be done by the unnamed contractor is because Austria is not a member of NATO, so it can't be given control over key handling. The same is true for Sweden & Switzerland.
It's a logical tradeoff. Austria, Sweden, and Switzerland get access to encrypted NATO networks and can therefore interoperate seamlessly with NATO forces, but they're always free to opt-out. Sweden for instance has fall-backs to national data links and communications networks to which only it has the encryption keys.
STOL capabilities https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2020/august/gripen-des...
Radar, note that's I'd said it's an estimate, based on the fact that it's the first GaN radar and has a wider FOV https://www.saab.com/markets/india/gripen-for-india/technolo...
More mature here means has been around longer in one from or another, since the Viggen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
Supercruise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
RCS is an overall estimate, certainly not from the front as the F35 is designed as a strike fighter, but with a smaller plane, the RCS may well be similar elsewhere https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/01/07/gripen/
Fast software updates https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2021/january/gripen-so...
Anyway, this is missing the point, which that it's difficult to trust a platform that you don't have the source code to, have to use a parts management system that phones home, and a system that uploads flight data back home. Ownership in this case means having the ability to independently run the aircraft without reliance on other countries' benevolence. In that capacity, whether your adversary is Russia, or some other country is irrelevant.
>STOL capabilities https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2020/august/gripen-des...
Who really cares about STOL capabilities of the Gripen? Unless you're on a small island, you can build longer runways.
>Radar, note that's I'd said it's an estimate, based on the fact that it's the first GaN radar and has a wider FOV https://www.saab.com/markets/india/gripen-for-india/technolo...
Gripen E's radar being better than that of the F-35 is certainly an unique take. The AN/APG-81 has a 71.4% bigger aperture than the ES-05. While the ES-05 does benefit from reduced power consumption due to the GaN transistors, it still has significantly lower peak output power than the AN/APG-81.
Wider FOV is nice, but the AN/APG-81 can see further. AN/APG-81 is the better radar out of the two, and also offers better EW capabilities than the ES-05.
>More mature here means has been around longer in one from or another, since the Viggen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
I believe the word you're looking for is "older", even though "more mature" sounds nicer.
>Supercruise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
The Gripen E can only supercruise according to SAABs very own original definition of "supercruise", and so far there's been no indication that it can do so while carrying weapons.
>RCS is an overall estimate, certainly not from the front as the F35 is designed as a strike fighter, but with a smaller plane, the RCS may well be similar elsewhere https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/01/07/gripen/
If Gripen was as stealthy as you like to suggest, SAAB would be shouting it from the rooftops. Yet, they aren't.
>Fast software updates https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2021/january/gripen-so...
Meaningless marketing speak.
Anyway,
> Ownership in this case means having the ability to independently run the aircraft without reliance on other countries' benevolence.
Good luck operating Gripens without relying on the benevolence of the US, UK and Sweden.
As for the ownership question, why does it matter to Finland that have complete control over their aircraft? Why do they need to prevent flight data from being set back to the US? Most importantly, why do they need to be able to independently operate the aircraft? It's only purpose is to fight Russians, and now that they're joining NATO they would be fighting Russians alongside the US.
The article has: The principle is simple: Finland is to be able to keep the aircraft up in the air even if the borders are shut. To ensure that Finland will have an indigenous maintenance and repair capability for over 100 components (including parts of the fuselage and engine), which is based on the items covered by the industrial cooperation agreement. There will also be significant stockpiles of components that aren’t on the list of items which Finland can repair and overhaul organically (often parts with very long mean time between failures, and for which it aren’t economical to build up an independent repair capability). Notable is also that the Finnish organic repair capability is not just for domestic use, but is also part of the GSS (the global support solution) meaning that they will be used to maintain parts for the global spares pool.
Two major problems arise :
- the "aircraft carrier" or "tessarakonteres" problem : at some point your system (ship or aircraft) is too complex and costly to risk losing it in battle, even if it is supposedly very hard to defeat. And the slightest damage is very costly in terms of down time. This is amplified by the single-type problem.
- the F-35 kills your local industry and makes supply and maintenance chains complex and dependent upon US and Lockheed-Martin goodwill, including on the software side. This is one of the major points from critics, among them Boeing.
The Finland deal seems to address the last point, and seems much better than other F-35 deals with European countries.
That said, the F-35 is a revolution for US allies, even those who didn't buy it. The information flow in central to the aircraft like to no previous US fighter. A few years ago the French Rafale notably defeated every aircraft in air superiority games (draw against the theoretically much better F-22) because its information systems could be updated quickly to the local conditions.
Every US-allied Air force around the world acknowledges today that compatibility with the F-35 information systems will be the only way to carry out allied operations in the near future, like Link-16 today. If you can't do it, you'll have a very hard time showing up as a blue dot on the screen, let alone be efficient in combat. The easy solution is to buy Lockheed-Martin. However, I really think it's a bad thing in the long-term.
Even if there weren't a law still on the books banning the F-22's export, we don't have production and no one would buy one when they could have a still-in-production F-35.