Support NeoGAF

[Delta Assault]

I think they should use drones to replace pilots.

Drones don't replace pilots. Drones shift pilots out of the plane cockpits and into drone control cockpits.

And how sure are you that nobody's ever going to figure out a way to jam signals from a command base to the drone? What happens then? All your prized drones are suddenly braindead and fall out of the sky.

 

[luckygodzilla]

Well, that's not accurate. China is the only country that destroyed a satelite in polar orbit, while the American SM3 intercepted the target at a way lower altitude - something something 800km vs 250km.

Right now there is no evidence that the USA would be able to destroy Chinese satelites which operate at a way higher altidude than American satelites.

Well considering how basically every military communication and GPS satellite is in medium earth orbit, which puts them at an altitude of around 20,000km, I'd say most military planners aren't sweating the idea of Chinese rockets blowing our satellite network out of the sky.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Drones don't replace pilots. Drones shift pilots out of the plane cockpits and into drone control cockpits.

And how sure are you that nobody's ever going to figure out a way to jam signals from a command base to the drone? What happens then? All your prized drones are suddenly braindead and fall out of the sky.

The drones could have robot pilots with advanced AI.

 

[Delta Assault]

The drones could have robot pilots with advanced AI.

Might end up with a worse problem than just some military expenditure overruns...

 

[Dryk]

Sorry I find it impossible to believe that china has gone from zero to overtaking the US in fighter design in basically 10 years, I'd rather be in any front line western fighter than any of theirs.

The scenario where they manage to level the playing field re: stealth and you're stuck with a less capable plane isn't very likely today but the planes are expected to be in service for a long-arse time. Whether it plays out that way or not, the whole thing smacks of the same flavour of arrogance that lead to the F-4 being designed without guns.

 

[GaimeGuy]

and yet if Russia starts getting more aggressive and say venture more into NATO space, everyone's all like, thank god we got that

The cold war ended 23 years ago.

 

[GaimeGuy]

If two F-35s get into a fight what happens?

 

[Delta Assault]

The cold war ended 23 years ago.

Tell that to Putin.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The cold war ended 23 years ago.

Ukraine will be relieved to know that Russia is a friendly and prosperous capitalist democracy.

 

[luckygodzilla]

The scenario where they manage to level the playing field re: stealth and you're stuck with a less capable plane isn't very likely today but the planes are expected to be in service for a long-arse time. Whether it plays out that way or not, the whole thing smacks of the same flavour of arrogance that lead to the F-4 being designed without guns.

Because clearly the US and its allies never upgrades their fighters.

And hey, show some respect to the double ugly. The F-4 was actually fantastic for the role it was designed for (interceptor). Problem was, our airmen loved to fly it like it was a mig-21, couple that with virtually nonexistent training for ACM and you have yourself a recipe for disaster.

Well that and missiles of that era sucked balls.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Well, that's not accurate. China is the only country that destroyed a satelite in polar orbit, while the American SM3 intercepted the target at a way lower altitude - something something 800km vs 250km.

Right now there is no evidence that the USA would be able to destroy Chinese satelites which operate at a way higher altidude than American satelites.

Every country has satellites at a variety of orbital inclinations and altitude. It depends on what the mission is. GPS satellites for example are 20,000+ km (Geosynchronous would be ~36,000km). The hardest part is getting your kill vehicle up there; otherwise satellites tend to be pretty defenseless.

We blew up a satellite from a boat with some hasty mods on operational gear, the Chinese test was merely proof they could do what others have been able to do for a while. We also shot down a satellite from an F-15 in the 80s. I'm sure we'll do one from a train next, just because.

Meanwhile, we have a unmanned mini-space shuttle wandering around up there for the third time:http://www.space.com/25611-x37b-military-space-plane-500-days.html. Conceivably it could do what the Space Shuttle was also originally supposed to be able to do: steal satellites.

 

[Delta Assault]

Funnily enough, the F-35 doesn't contain an internal gun on 2 of its 3 variants.

History has a funny way of repeating itself.

 

[Architect]

Ukraine will be relieved to know that Russia is a friendly and prosperous capitalist democracy.

Thank you for the laugh, sir.

 

[mrklaw]

Worth it or not worth it, it's awfully late to pull the plug now or all that money already spent on the aircraft would be thrown away. Besides, the USAF actually does need a new fighter. Need I remind you that the F-16, which the F-35 is supposed to replace, is actually a 40 year old aircraft?

First off a disclaimer - I'm not American. I'm actually Swedish so I have a natural bias for the Saab Gripen which is a competitor to the F-35. I'm not a big fan of the F-35 either way - for most countries it's excessively expensive to both buy and maintain, especially since few actually need 5th gen aircraft.

Even so I think it would be incredibly foolish of the US to pull the plug on the F-35 because it leaves you with three options: either start another expensive tender that will likely take 10-15 years, restart the production line for the F-22 which is even more expensive and poorly suited for anything but air superiority or drop the F-35 without a replacement tender for the F-16 which is absolutely insane - doing that is essentially turning the USAF into a second rate air force and forfeiting the air power game entirely to Russia, China and anyone else who buys Russian or Chinese 5th gen aircraft after 2020-2025 at the latest.

So unless you'd like to dissolve NATO and become isolationist again, you guys are stuck with the F-35 for now. Don't feel too bad - it's a perfectly capable aircraft. You, along with the rest of the partners, are just going to have to pay more than expected for them.

EDIT: Oh, and as for "limited usability" - you're not thinking every conflict from hereon out is going to be like Afghanistan, right? Unless you haven't noticed, Russia and China have begun to flex their muscles quite a bit lately. The post-cold war lull is over. Hell, the one with Russia is practically back on now that even cooperation around GPS and the ISS have been put on the line. If you want the US Military to remain a credible deterrent that means they need 5th gen fighters and the F-35 is your only choice right now.

What do you really need for an air superiority fighter, other than a flying platform for long range missiles? How many encounters are really going to require close-in gun use? You'll stand off and deal with things from range.

 

[Dryk]

Because clearly the US and its allies never upgrades their fighters.

And hey, show some respect to the double ugly. The F-4 was actually fantastic for the role it was designed for (interceptor). Problem was, our airmen loved to fly it like it was a mig-21, couple that with virtually nonexistent training for ACM and you have yourself a recipe for disaster.

Well that and missiles of that era sucked balls.

Oh I have no doubt that the F-35 will be a good asset, and I know that after being fixed the F-4 did a lot of jobs very well. I'm just cynical whenever I hear the USAF declare "We're going all in on BVR warfare, it's definitely going to work/be relevant this time" because they keep jumping the gun on it.

 

[DieH@rd]

YouTube video of the entire article in OP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq7i68jrzDo

 

[Ovek]

What do you really need for an air superiority fighter, other than a flying platform for long range missiles? How many encounters are really going to require close-in gun use? You'll stand off and deal with things from range.

That's the same thing they said in Vietnam, sadly they were very wrong and it cost many pilots lives. Believing that the "long range" air to missiles would live to to spec (gotta love the American military complex over charging and under delivering) was a colossal fuck up and is the reason the airforce/navy insist on a close range dog fighting capability in there aircraft.

 

[Randam]

Last i heard they were having issues flying them in the rain.

Lol.
Really?

 

[Dead Man]

What do you really need for an air superiority fighter, other than a flying platform for long range missiles? How many encounters are really going to require close-in gun use? You'll stand off and deal with things from range.

Given the very restrictive rules of engagement that exist in most air combat scenarios, visual ID is not going to be a rare situation.

 

[Masquerader]

Do F-22s even get that much use?

Starscream regretted taking the form of a jet that no-one ever uses and therefore instantly stands out.

 

[Ovek]

Lol.
Really?

Yeah the radar skin/paint had or still has some real issues. From what I can remember reading it could absorb rain which "broke" the stealth on the plane, it wasn't just rain though. Any repairs needed to the skin requires the plane to be out of service for well over 24 hours for it to dry and requires specialist equipment and hanger to do.

It wasn't the just the skin either the radar absorbing canopy only lasts 18 months before it needs to be replaced and that canopy is not cheap at around $130,000 each.

Oh and the wings could fall off due to problems with titanium booms and Boeing being Boeing instead to doing the right thing and shutting down production until it was fixed, they came to a "deal" with the airforce to check them more often, something the airforce has to pay for.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Am I correct in assuming modern fighter planes rarely commit to dogfights where they dodge machine guns and lock-ons in close combat (like in anime/movies) and instead it's all about blocking/jamming radar from afar and homing missiles etc.?

 

[Delta Assault]

Yeah the radar skin/paint had or still has some real issues. From what I can remember reading it could absorb rain which "broke" the stealth on the plane, it wasn't just rain though. Any repairs needed to the skin requires the plane to be out of service for well over 24 hours for it to dry and requires specialist equipment and hanger to do.

It wasn't the just the skin either the radar absorbing canopy only lasts 18 months before it needs to be replaced and that canopy is not cheap at around $130,000 each.

Oh and the wings could fall off due to problems with titanium booms and Boeing being Boeing instead to doing the right thing and shutting down production until it was fixed, they came to a "deal" with the airforce to check them more often, something the airforce has to pay for.

There was also that whole going-unconscious-from-lack-of-oxygen thing...

 

[TacticalFox88]

There was also that whole going-unconscious-from-lack-of-oxygen thing...

That was the pilots g suits. Not the planes. The Air Force was giving its pilots faulty valve systems.

I'm not even sure which is worse

 

[Dastardly Jerks]

Another reason why "Fuck the Australian Prime Minister"

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Am I correct in assuming modern fighter planes rarely commit to dogfights where they dodge machine guns and lock-ons in close combat (like in anime/movies) and instead it's all about blocking/jamming radar from afar and homing missiles etc.?

That has been the theory since the Vietnam war and it was always proven false.

 

[Larogue]

The F-35 is way better than the current F-15 F-17 etc.

Maybe the pilots haven't got used to it yet. but its way more advance and should be superior to anything but the F-22.

The F-22 is the most advance fighter on the planet, and its exclusive for the US Air Force. Its not meant to be shared with anyone else.

The F-35 shares a lot of the advanced technology in the F-22. The F-35 is about 70% the power of an F-22. And is gonna be produced commercially and be sold to US-Allies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuD8KXPD3HI

 

[mcz117chief]

The F-35 is way better than the current F-15 F-17 etc.

F-17, or rather YF-17 never made it past the experimental stage.

 

[Farks!]

To the people saying that a "jack of all trades" aircraft doesn't work, have you ever heard of the Gripen and Rafale?

The Gripen has been in service for 17 years and hasn't underperformed in any of its roles.

 

[Dougald]

The US and Britain learnt from their mistakes with the F22 and the Eurofighter, by pooling their resources to make one big white elephant instead of two. At least the Americans are footing most of the bill.

 

[mcz117chief]

To the people saying that a "jack of all trades" aircraft doesn't work, have you ever heard of the Gripen and Rafale?

Great examples, but they are your standart multirole fighters which have been around since WWII. They are not stealth fighters nor vtols (Gripen also isn't a carrier jet) or any other of the "un-necessary" things the F-35 tries to be.

Both Gripen and Rafale can be easily compared to F-18 which is also an excellent multirole fighter.

 

[Farks!]

Great examples, but they are your standart multirole fighters which have been around since WWII. They are not stealth fighters nor vtols (Gripen also isn't a carrier jet) or any other of the "un-necessary" things the F-35 tries to be.

Both Gripen and Rafale can be easily compared to F-18 which is also an excellent multirole fighter.

Not exactly. The Gripen and the Rafele are also capable of reconisance togheter with their fighter/bomber capacity, all in the same flight if necessary. They're also lighter and more manuverable than the F-18, which of course is very important in the air-to-air role.

 

[mcz117chief]

Not exactly. The Gripen and the Rafele are also capable of reconisance togheter with their fighter/bomber capacity, all in the same flight if necessary. They're also lighter and more manuverable than the F-18, which of course is very important in the air-to-air role.

Ok, thank you for the clarification. So the F-18 can't conduct reconnaissance and would fall prey to both Gripen and Rafele in a dogfight situation ?

 

[Setsuna]

That has been the theory since the Vietnam war and it was always proven false.

Not really only the aim 4 had trouble but as soon as they switched to side winders things turned around

 

[PdotMichael]

Well considering how basically every military communication and GPS satellite is in medium earth orbit, which puts them at an altitude of around 20,000km, I'd say most military planners aren't sweating the idea of Chinese rockets blowing our satellite network out of the sky.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-china-space-report-idUSBREA2G1Q320140317

The important fact about the Chinese missile test was that the satellite was residing in an orbit of 845 km, while the interception of the spy sattelite with a SM3 was basically an expensive PR stunt.

To the people saying that a "jack of all trades" aircraft doesn't work, have you ever heard of the Gripen and Rafale?

Gripen NG is still unfinished. And Rafale completly lacks the air superiorty/air defence component at the moment with MICA as only air-to-air missile - a non BVR missile. Buying and operating a Rafale also means you're stuck with French weapons and support forever.

 

[Farks!]

Ok, thank you for the clarification. So the F-18 can't conduct reconnaissance and would fall prey to both Gripen and Rafele in a dogfight situation ?

I know the Gripen has at least performed very well in the Red Flag exercises against F-15's and F-16's. I don't know if it has gone up against F-18's though, but if the RF results are an indicator my guess is that the outcome would be similair.

 

[DBT85]

Anyone who is interested in thee things should read Skunk Works. Facinating read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0751515035/

Regardless of it all, I'm looking forward to seeing some F35s parked on the lid of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Wales (which hopefully will actually be called HMS Ark Royal). That is assuming they ever get to the finish line.

 

[Farks!]

Gripen NG is still unfinished. And Rafale completly lacks the air superiorty/air defence component at the moment with MICA as only air-to-air missile - a non BVR missile. Buying and operating a Rafale also means you're stuck with French weapons and support forever.

Gripen NG is unfinished yes, but the first gen versions that have been operational since 1997 are fully capable in all three roles it's meant to serve. The Rafale might lack BVR armament at the moment, but it's still technically capable in all three roles as well.

My point is that these aircraft proves that multi-roles work in practice and it's problary not what's holding back the F-35.

 

[Theonik]

and yet if Russia starts getting more aggressive and say venture more into NATO space, everyone's all like, thank god we got that

And yet NATO will still continue twiddling their collective thumbs fearing starting another world war.

 

[Hurricane_Chris]

Seems like a total waste of money. After all, didn't Bruce Willis teach us that these things have several critical weaknesses?

Spoiler

McClane beat one of these bad boys on foot, with a pistol, his wits, and plot armour in DieHard 4.0

 

[kmag]

Fantastic , but thats mainly because of the advantage's the U.S. has in BVR combat. I don't believe any other country has missiles that can come close in that regard.

I thought the ramjet powered European Meteor was considered the gold standard in current BVRAAM missile technology. Certainly the UK MOD turned down an obscenely good deal from Raytheon for joint FMRAAM (a ramjet powered variant of the AIM-120D) development and production (the MOD was offered 62% of the jobs and production of the initial batch and 50% share in US sales), they ended up going with the Meteor basically due to it's capability even though less of the components would be built in the UK. The Meteor is quicker, has a bigger NEZ zone and packs more of a punch, the AIM has a larger range in theory but as the Meteor has more power it can turn more and still have effective range, if the AIM turns it's effective range is drastically limited.

There's actually a bit of a gap in US BVRAAM development since the cancellation of JDRADM and the presumed shelving of FMRAAM

 

[old]

If it was on time and within its original, budget, yes. But at this point, no.

Congress needs to fund these projects in a different manner. You can't just right a blank check and keep rewarding them with more money for going over budget.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Can you really put a price on war though?

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

I think they should use drones to replace pilots.

Well going by some drone documentary on tv I caught a few months back,
There are already more drone pilots than all actual pilots in the US Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force combined.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

As much as I love the design of the F-35, why do we even need it when we have F-15's still in service?

The F-15E can do almost everything the F-35 it just has lesser stealth tech and outdated hardware but that's what the Silent Eagle program was for wasn't it? Honestly I don't think there is a legitimate reason for the F-35 at the moment, if it had been on time and on budget then 100% yes but now?

Yeeesh.

 

[TacticalFox88]

As much as I love the design of the F-35, why do we even need it when we have F-15's still in service?

The F-15E can do almost everything the F-35 it just has lesser stealth tech and outdated hardware but that's what the Silent Eagle program was for wasn't it? Honestly I don't think there is a legitimate reason for the F-35 at the moment, if it had been on time and on budget then 100% yes but now?

Yeeesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(SAM)

 

[Fuchsdh]

My question is how much of this would have happened if Boeing's concept fighter was picked. As I recall it was less sexy and faced some difficulties in testing, but it was also a far less complex design.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(SAM)

Wait is the problem against these lack of stealth on the F-15E or lack of speed?

 

[TacticalFox88]

My question is how much of this would have happened if Boeing's concept fighter was picked. As I recall it was less sexy and faced some difficulties in testing, but it was also a far less complex design.

If you thought LM's -35 design was garbage holy FUCK, the X-32 was absolutely dreadful.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

of course, it's all kind of a moot point because i would wager that the odds of entering an outright war with a nation that has an advanced air force is next to nil. the money should have been dumped into space exploration or something. we'd have sent astronauts to mars by now.

The best way to prevent another nation from starting a war with you is to be very scary in a possible fight. Having advanced fighter jets as a deterrent is less likely to result in the annihilation of humanity like nuclear weapons during the Cold War at least.