Pentagon: F-35 won't have a chance in real combat

Post Reply New Topic

Yet another white elephant courtesy of the American and British taxpayer. Better not plan on starting any wars with China soon.

http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-f35-report-combat-012/

And that is part of the reason why the program got cancelled. That and they cost so damn much.

The Russian SU-47 Berkut which is a naval ready next generation fighter will be likely sold to America's enemies.

If the US and its allies dont have an answer its going to have a problem fighting naval aerial wars in the future.

They are a huge waste of money, the modern battlefield isn't going to be fought with fighter jets and we are already literally decades ahead of any other country in the world that could threaten us. The cold war is over and China and Russia aren't a threat to our national security. We could spend a fraction of what we spent here on things like cyberwarfare and our defense against it but generals always seem to be fighting the last war.

North Korea's oh so scary nuke, a nuke that they have no delivery system for and has about a 1/3rd of the yield of the bombs we dropped on Japan in 1945. Maybe Iran will someday be able to accomplish what the US accomplished 70 years ago.

I think NATO should also be concerned about the T-50 PAK FA.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnUC3A835Do[/youtube]

How many Aircraft Carriers are operated outside of NATO and South America? If there's no deck space to carry a plane, it really does'nt matter what sort of technology is on said plane.

That would make 3..... The Pacific Ocean's a big place, and the US has been working with carrier group operations since the late 1930s. There is a learning curve when it comes to conducting complex operations, and I can think of few things more complicated than running a floating military air base.

For that matter, look at the experence of the UK and France in maintaining aircraft carriers. When counting the technological and economic support of Germany (through EADS/Airbus), you have a combined economy well over 13 digits, and some of the most advance technology in the world. I don't think any one would say that operating a carrier group is easy, even with a massive economy.

If the Cold War and the cost of nukes is anything to go by the lesson is "whoever goes broke first loses."

American made and designed fighters have a very good chance because American pilots are the best trained in the world.

Imagine what a country the U.S. would be if the same amount of time and money were devoted to teaching young children to read, write and think as well as are pilots are trained to fly and fight.

ruveyn

Eh, I'm trying to remember the last time US manufactured and supported aircraft went up against anyone else without AWACS, Overhead intellegence, and preliminary strikes. October 1973 most likely (1982 was with AWACS and some early UAV capacity). The F-4 did'nt do too well against the SA-7, but that changed once the surprise factor was gone.

That said, what's the point? Modern aircraft are so expensive that they are like pre-WW2 warships, too expensive for peacetime, and too complex to manufacture during a conflict.

Even if you assume a more dangerous world, there are only a handful of countries with the logistics capacity to project power beyond their own borders. All of them are on at least reasonable terms with all of the other ones. To avoid upsetting anyone, I am not naming names.

I'm not preaching a happy world of peace and sunshine, only pointing out that with the exception of countries that need the ability to punch through conventional opposition (which is about 7 or so), it's fairly pointless to maintain a top-tier strike force. Those countries would remain interested in that capacity, but for everyone else....what's the point? A few C-130s/(airbus version) are more valuable than F-35s.

As for the remaning 7, look at the determination made during the cold war. It is impossible to maintain a working economy against a modern top-tier opponent, period. War is too expensive, and while the "last resort of kings" has a history of blunders, I doubt we're going to see 2 top-tier powers going at it anytime soon. Leave that to the computer game makers.

Old thinking, and planned for hanging around till 2050?

Science is moving much too fast to make long range plans, and the defense seems to be getting ahead. You can make them sneeky, but a fleet of cheap drones is going to spot their heat trails, and a missle from behind is hard to evade or defend from.

Fleets have a satellite problem, they are under constant watch. A 4" steel bar traveling ten times the speed of sound will sink a ship.

Ships, planes, have lost the advantage.

High flying drones that use solar power and stay up for years take one guy to run, swarms of drones can mob attack, very cheaply.

AI and a neural net, you pass a few coming in, then one comes through the windshield.

Then one guy can run a swarm of a hundred, and losses do not count.

In a reverse of sneeky, radar magnifiers, making the target look huge. A small drone looking like a B 52, would be hard to hit. If it draws fire surprise is lost, second line is waiting.

Once they know where you are and where you are going, you will not make it.

On the ground, we cannot hold the Mexican Border. No invasion fleet would make it, and the anti personal drone is here. Six foot wingspan, box fed small arms, thermal targeting from above, the ground would be no place to be.

War will become impossible, till Skynet becomes selfaware.