F-35 Scores Impressive 15:1 Kill Ratio at Red Flag War Games

[Xenryusho]

Only problem is - those 15 shot down, probably only equal the development/running cost of one F-35.....

But the targets those 15 were defending are not. The F35 isn't going to be sent out for the sake of slowly whittling down the enemies finances.

[Easo]

But but but mah shiet plaaaneeeee....
Can you please stop it already? F-35 is real and working, get over it already. Armchair generals, ffs...

[Gref]

it was nice reading all. Waste of money one might think and in every related topic I repeat myself; This is how we will reach the levels of "Macross".

Also, I laughed so hard on 2 points;
1- Trump
2- Serbs shooting down F117.

Number 1 is a troll attempt I believe but still all hail god emperor trump nonetheless.
Number 2 however is typical putin typer.

[Elim Garak]

You think we hand the keys to an F22 to someone that doesn't eat sleep and breathe the red white and blue?

So basically to anyone from these countries:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...blue_and_white

[Kellhound]

So basically to anyone from these countries:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...blue_and_white

No, no, THE Red, White, and Blue, not just red, white, and blue.

[Ulmita]

But but but mah shiet plaaaneeeee....
Can you please stop it already? F-35 is real and working, get over it already. Armchair generals, ffs...

No one said otherwise. What we said is that is an overpriced and extremely expensive weapon system, that will only be used against opponents who aren't even able to deal with non stealth airplanes like the A-10. You basically spent a shiton of money, to bomb in style people with AK-47s.

[Mavett]

No one said otherwise. What we said is that is an overpriced and extremely expensive weapon system, that will only be used against opponents who aren't even able to deal with non stealth airplanes like the A-10. You basically spent a shiton of money, to bomb in style people with AK-47s.

Expensive is a relative thing, look at the Russian jets in Syria for example their cost given the state of the Russian economy is considerable (from 25 up to 60 million USD per unit) and all they do is bomb people armed with AK-47's and riding Toyota pickups.

[Kellhound]

No one said otherwise. What we said is that is an overpriced and extremely expensive weapon system, that will only be used against opponents who aren't even able to deal with non stealth airplanes like the A-10. You basically spent a shiton of money, to bomb in style people with AK-47s.

Yet the US has, in the past 20 years, gone against several adversaries armed with mobile radar guided air defense systems.

And FYI, there are few real AK-47s left out there. They were replaced in production by the AKM in 1959, and weapons modeled after the AK-47 but not manufactured by Tula or Izhmash are also not AK-47s.

- - - Updated - - -

Expensive is a relative thing, look at the Russian jets in Syria for example their cost given the state of the Russian economy is considerable (from 25 up to 60 million USD per unit) and all they do is bomb people armed with AK-47's and riding Toyota pickups.

Yes, but they save money by using unguided weapons and just not caring about collateral damage.

[Mavett]

Yet the US has, in the past 20 years, gone against several adversaries armed with mobile radar guided air defense systems.

And FYI, there are few real AK-47s left out there. They were replaced in production by the AKM in 1959, and weapons modeled after the AK-47 but not manufactured by Tula or Izhmash are also not AK-47s.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, but they save money by using unguided weapons and just not caring about collateral damage.

I actually saw a legit one two months ago (type 2 production) in pristine condition, must have been kept around as trophy from one of the Arab-Israeli wars.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet the US has, in the past 20 years, gone against several adversaries armed with mobile radar guided air defense systems.

And FYI, there are few real AK-47s left out there. They were replaced in production by the AKM in 1959, and weapons modeled after the AK-47 but not manufactured by Tula or Izhmash are also not AK-47s.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, but they save money by using unguided weapons and just not caring about collateral damage.

Well he didn't argue the costs of the munitions used, but the cost of the platform itself.

[Kellhound]

I actually saw a legit one two months ago (type 2 production) in pristine condition, must have been kept around as trophy from one of the Arab-Israeli wars.

Those were only made for 4-5 years, but were perhaps the best ones, for being the crude weapon the entire Kalashnikov family was. A rare trophy indeed.

[Vargur]

nothing Trump did has an effect on the games, literally years of R&D doesn't get done because a twit rant.

On topic its nice to see positive results on a program that is far overbudget and past due, it will be interesting if the new data tech can be expanded into more areas, naval or even ground recon

I'm also curious how he got Trump and science linked together, whereas "it" has nothing to do with the event in question.

[Ulmita]

Expensive is a relative thing, look at the Russian jets in Syria for example their cost given the state of the Russian economy is considerable (from 25 up to 60 million USD per unit) and all they do is bomb people armed with AK-47's and riding Toyota pickups.

All planes were old (decades old) besides the SU-35s which where used to provide air support to the bombers. Also your argument makes zero sense. I'd say the same exact thing for the Russians as well if for example they developed T-50 to bomb middle east.

[Kellhound]

All planes were old (decades old) besides the SU-35s which where used to provide air support to the bombers. Also your argument makes zero sense. I'd say the same exact thing for the Russians as well if for example they developed T-50 to bomb middle east.

You seem to have forgotten the Su-34s they used.

[Ulmita]

You seem to have forgotten the Su-34s they used.

Is this a new plane? Do you know when did they start developing that? Also its price is what? 1/5th - 1/6th of an F-35A?

[Mormolyce]

Looks like Trump lit a fire under these guys.

You really don't have to help Trump take credit for things he didn't do, he's more than capable of doing that himself.

[Mavett]

All planes were old (decades old) besides the SU-35s which where used to provide air support to the bombers. Also your argument makes zero sense. I'd say the same exact thing for the Russians as well if for example they developed T-50 to bomb middle east.

The age of the platform is irrelevant,they are still expensive platforms being used to bomb people that have no effective means to counter them.

[Elim Garak]

The age of the platform is irrelevant,they are still expensive platforms being used to bomb people that have no effective means to counter them.

The age of platform is not irrelevant when you talk about costs of using it. If platform is very old it means it's already "paid off" any expenses made to create it so now it's only a matter of consumables needed to use it: fuel, repairs and ammunition.

[Skroe]

Is this a new plane? Do you know when did they start developing that? Also its price is what? 1/5th - 1/6th of an F-35A?

Su-34s are one of those "long burn" projects like everything else Vladmir Putin has crapped upon the world recently. It was a late Soviet Union project that flew in 1990, but was put on hold (sound familiar) for 24 years until it's 2012 production and 2014 introduction. At a cost of $40 million.

For Russia' it's a very pricey aircraft. But it's also an antique.

[Kellhound]

Is this a new plane? Do you know when did they start developing that? Also its price is what? 1/5th - 1/6th of an F-35A?

Is it a new plane? Yes it is. "Production" started in 2006 and "IOC" was 2011. Production is ongoing. Yes its cheaper, about 1/3rd the price. Of course that buys you a Russian aircraft with no stealth, 1/2 the sensor capability (at best) of the F-35, and long term reliability and cost of ownership Russia really doesnt like to talk about. And at the end of the day, its still basically performs on par with a 1960s F-111 for ground attack.

- - - Updated - - -

The age of platform is not irrelevant when you talk about costs of using it. If platform is very old it means it's already "paid off" any expenses made to create it so now it's only a matter of consumables needed to use it: fuel, repairs and ammunition.

It also usually means it costs a hell of a lot more to keep it flying and/or its a deathtrap.

[Skroe]

The age of platform is not irrelevant when you talk about costs of using it. If platform is very old it means it's already "paid off" any expenses made to create it so now it's only a matter of consumables needed to use it: fuel, repairs and ammunition.

Ummmm, the Pentagon would like a word with this BS logic.

The driving economic case behind all of their procurement and all of their retirement is life-of-the-platform costs. This thing you came up with "paid off" is a fiction. You never "pay off" a platform because you have an army of maintainers and a standing industrial base all to support the continued use of the platform. You need to keep supliers active and producing, facilities open and logistics organized.

I'm going to give two examples. You probably don't care but it will be educational to others.

Example #1 is the Los Angeles class attack submarine. The 1970s/1980s-era submarine is being rapidly retired (36 active and 26 retired). The last one was built in 1996, and while a late-Cold War design, remains fairly modern. Now the Los Angeles class could be kept in service for decades to come. Every one of them could be cut open and have their nuclear cores refueled. They all could be modernized and overhauled. Many are even being retired a decade or more early. Why is this happening? The Navy wants to make room on their budget for faster Virgina-class procurement, to transition to the more advanced Virgina class sooner, rather than later. That design incorporates new technologies and a hull much more advanced than the Los Angeles class. While the Los Angeles class could provide benefit if numbers is the priority, in terms of the finances of paying for a Navy on an annual basis, it is better to have ONE attack sub class and paying for ONE cost and ONE industrial base, rather than two.

Example #2 is the Spruance class Destroyer. These late Cold War destroyers shared much in common with the Ticonderoga class cruiser and predated the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They also were not designed with the Aegis Combat System integrated into it, and instead were modified after the fact with an Aegis-like combat system (that wasn't Aegis). But as the Arleigh Burkes entered service and the benefits of an all-Aegis large surface fleet became clear, the Spruances were rapidly retired, and then in my favorite political move by the Navy ever, quickly sunk in life fire tests, in order to prevent a future President from "reactivating" legacy ships like Reagan did. The Spruances had decades more life left to them - they could have easily served late into this decade or into the 2020s with modifications. But the cost-of-the-fleet in having one, far more capable class of destroyer rather than two made an unbeatable case for retirement.

Ironically, what you're describing is Russia's greatest problem. It hangs on to shit years after it should. By comparison the US Armed Forces is relentless in retiring systems whose cost-effectiveness going forward becomes questionable.

Here's two things you can expect to see in years ahead.

First, as the B-21 raider is introduced in large numbers and denuclearized, expect to see the B-2 retired and destroyed. Don't believe for a second the pronouncements that the B-21 and B-2 will serve deep into 2050. The B-21 is in many ways, a B-2 restart / successor more than anything else, and the cost benefits of keeping the B-1Bs and B-52s in the fleet, with the growing B-21 fleet, will quickly make the hugely expensive B-2 fleet uneconomical. Furthermore the B-21 and B-52 will fill niches the B-21 doesn't, whereas the B-2 and B-21 have significant overlap. But this makes a huge amount of sense. The B-2 is too big, and too expensive compared to what the B-21 is intended to be. If ditching it means more B-21s, it should be enthusiastically done.

Secondly, the 183 airframe F-22 fleet will go the way of the dodo the second it's successor is introduced in large numbers, just as the F-117 was retired years early, especially if that successor shares technology with the F-35 and the F/A-18 replacement. If it no longer economically fulfills a niche, why pay for the standing army of maintainers and support, when all of that can be redirected to the new platform?

To be fair, if the US wants to achieve its 350 - 414 ship Navy in any reasonable time table, it will have to refuel and modernize the late build Los Angeles class, keep the USS Nimitz around longer (2024 retirement date), and maybe even keep the Ohio-class SSGN. But that will be a momentary departure to bulk up fleet size with platforms that would otherwise be retired rather early to free up budgetary space. But the US shaking off legacy platforms is how it prevents the Russian Armament Conundrum. Again, one just has to look at how many classes of Submarine and how many different (and unique) weapons they carry, to see that problem up close.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus points for mentioning the Gripen. Shoulder clap, third class with muffins or someting.

The Gripen's internal configuration is historically significant.

Legacy US aircraft like the F-16 and F-15 were designed first and foremost, for the USAF. Their export potential came later. As a result, they were designed with the USAF in mind: they would be maintained by highly trained aircrews at dedicated air fields. They're complex machines, as is the F/A-18.

The Gripen, meanwhile, was designed entirely around being able to be maintained by two conscripts working out of improvised air fields. This led to decisions about maintenance access and molecularity that drove the most efficient servicabile design of it's generation. Unsurprisingly, the Gripen's combat readiness rate is very high.

While SAAB was not involved in the F-35 program, the Gripen is well known enough that it informed design decisions on it, and other post-2000 aircraft.