some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

And like I mentioned earlier, their mission profile (as well as countermeasures) have changed considerably since their inception.

We won't be seeing these bombers striking at targets en-masse anymore. Additionally, free-fall bombs is no longer a primary warload, either. Nowdays, it's smart-bombs, cruise-missiles and other stand-off ordnance.

In a modern conflict, we'll see a composite effort, where, for example, the F-35 will eliminate AAA & SAM sites while the F-22 maintains top cover, followed by elements such as the B-2 for precision target elimination - once the lead elements have successfully neutralized threats, then the B-52 will conduct deep cleaning.

And to be entirely honest, the B-17, B-24 and B-29 operated in hostile airspace and still acheived success. There was a price to be paid, of course but again, that was a different time and a different strategy.
 

The only way the older aircraft will survive to be used as a standoff delivery vehicle or as a bomb truck will only after there is complete control of the air and a reduced possibility of MANPADs and other portable anti-air weapons. Decades ago my CV participated in a two CV COMPTUEX that utilized the predecessor of the current cooperative engagement capacity. Using "rings" (Think of Okinawa Radar Pickets.) we killed the B-52 and B-1's that were targeted against us. And, please consider that the last major upgrades have mostly been airframe/weapons integration, with the upgrades over the last few decades mostly geared towards airframe modernization.

Based on the results of a decades old exercise and the current state of the B-52 stand-off systems? IMO, any type of layered/defense in depth deployed to defend a target that can reach out to a point more than 90 NM (Conservatively small distance.) from the intended impact point will put a B-1 at risk and will most likely kill a B-52. (Also, consider that any continuous use of a B-52 at low altitude with wartime loadouts will probably render any surviving aircraft structurally unairworthy within a few weeks. (That might as well be a shoot-down.)

The problem with the enmasse bombing compared to today is that each "Strategic Bomber" has become a "Strategic Asset" almost as valuable as a CV.
 
... all true but our current PM CAMPAIGNED against the F-35 in 2015 and then further muddied the procurement picture by declaring war on Boeing over the Bombardier Regional Jet, having just announced that the PM's gov't was prepared to buy SuperHornets from Boeing, full, un-negotiated price, which was then cancelled in favor of well-used RAAF Hornets.

IMO, when acquiring weapons there is really only one competition that matters .... WINNING with them.
 
Last edited:
Digging around the 72 pages and couldn't find what I was looking for - so just reposting:
 

Attachments

  • Operational-Assessment-of-the-F-35A.pdf
    325.9 KB · Views: 119

Yeah...saw this and really laughed at some of the points being made. For example "The Luftwaffe without F-35s would be hard-pressed to fight alone in a contested air environment." Where on earth would the Luftwaffe ever go it alone? I mean, really? For decades after WW2, Germany was prohibited from operating overseas. Now there are (rightly, IMHO) calls for Germany to be more active militarily on the world stage. But does anyone seriously envisage Germany "going it alone" anywhere in the world?

Unsurprisingly, the article is written by 2 Americans and, frankly, I'd have expected better analysis from 2 alleged experts. Sadly, this just reads like a sales job on behalf of Lockheed Martin (shades of the F-104 sales pitches of the past, perhaps?).
 

Users who are viewing this thread