Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?
We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.
What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?
We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.
I wonder what the threat driving American defence policy is nowadays. China? Russia? I still believe that the F-15 flown by USAF is still a match for any Flanker. Although any loss ratio could be about 1 for 1.
Finally, we must not forget the human element. Even UAVs are not robots - the USAF is now using the term RPV for Remotely Piloted Vehicle. The West maintains a significant qualitative advantage when it comes to training of its personnel, both aircrew and groundcrew, which ensures we can continue to win force-on-force contests. The biggest threat is from reduced defence budgets which, by necessity, tend to get focussed on the current war(s), which are counter-insurgent based, and not the next war which might be more traditional, force-on-force but I doubt it.
Really?
IAF Sukhoi Su-30s soundly defeated F-15Cs (9:1) in joint exercises a few years back - although there were some restrictions on both sides - the F-15s weren't fitted with the latest radars or AMRAAMs and were outnumbered 3:1, though the Su-30s didn't use their radars either.
If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?
On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?
Modern military aircraft are designed to high high levels of reliability and maintainability requirements that have been validated in recent conflicts. There is no doubt the F-22 will meet those requirements, although with some expensive parts.On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?
There are those who won't confirm or deny this capabilityMy understanding is that the F-35 cannot supercruise. The F-22 is currently the only aircraft in service with that ability, with the Su-35 getting a limited supercruise ability in the near future. The PAK-FA, and its Indian equivalent, and the Chinese J-20 will have supercruise. The PAK-FA is expected to begin entering service around 2015.
The F-35 is supposed to replace all 3, no?If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?
Losing to the Sukhoi in a non-realistic training scenario is surely no indication of how the F-15 would perform in combat against them. Also, although the F-15 lost to the Indian Sukhois (remember, the F-15 also lost to the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in exercises in the 1980s), the opportunity for F-15 drivers to see how their potential adversary was likely to perform in combat first hand would have been extremely valuable to them.
Regarding the F-35 and its relevancy, it is most certainly relevant. I've never thought much of that old chestnut that states the F-35, the Eurofighter and the F-22 were no longer relevant because the Cold War has ended for the following reason. A country's armed forces is like an insurance policy; you sure as hell hope you don't have to use it, but its there just in case you need it. Like insurance policies, when situations change and what went before becomes obsolete, the old stuff needs to be replaced and the new stuff designed to meet the requirements of the new situation. The B-1 is a classic example, it was designed as a high altitude supersonic bomber, but because philosophies changed, so did it. Its combat record has proven its worth.
From an engineering persepctive, aircraft design is incorporating more and more avionics and non metallic structures that engineers need to become trained in new disciplines; black handers are learning avionics and composite repair, and this isn't just happening in military aircraft either. Therefore, the justification for maintaining the development of Cold War era combat programmes is advancing technology that came about as a result of the Cold War. Even if the first marks of the F-35 prove to be troublesome, the US are going to throw money at the aircraft until it gets better, as they did with the F-111 and B-1. It has to work; they've put some much into it and so much is riding on its success.
I don't know much about the performance of modern combat aircraft, but regarding the F-35 being inferior in capability to the F-111 its replacing, show me an aircraft in service today that has the performance and capability of the F-111. There isn't. It was unmatched and superbly suited to the Australian environment. It's highly unlikely that an aircraft that could match or outperform the F-111 will be developed within the expected lifespan of the F-35 in RAAF service.
At least the F-16 and F-18. the A-10 may hold out according to what I have heard through sources at work.The F-35 is supposed to replace all 3, no?
Su-24/Su-34?
Xian JH-7?
Tornado?