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

[ItachiZaku]

Russia will only catch up when their gamers switch to military. Putin needs to recruit gamers.

[Skroe]

Russia will only catch up when their gamers switch to military. Putin needs to recruit gamers.

They'll just get educated and leave the country for a better life in the West, like the rest of the Russians worth anything.

[caervek]

Russia will only catch up when their gamers switch to military. Putin needs to recruit gamers.

Having played a significant amount of World of Tanks I can safely say that if Russia's security was entrusted to their gamers then NATO would win by default after everyone in the Russian army got mad at everyone else not doing what they wanted and started shooting each other.

[ItachiZaku]

Having played a significant amount of World of Tanks I can safely say that if Russia's security was entrusted to their gamers then NATO would win by default after everyone in the Russian army got mad at everyone else not doing what they wanted and started shooting each other.

NO, fuck YOU, comrade!!

[Kellhound]

I don't really care about your armchair opinion on Russian tech mate. You are in the american patriot mode now.


Yeah because you aren't going to own the new things you are building. Because since they are new they are more delicate and thus more expensive to own, you don't need that, right?

Projected costs are projected. I have no trouble seeing navy padding the sheets in favor of building the NEW ones.

You are just demonstrating my point. You built expensive Ohio class in the first place. Why? Because you needed it be 100% right then, no matter the cost. You compare the individual costs of two subs and say the new one is cheaper, while I see that if you had built the first one properly - you wouldn't need to build two different subs and it would've been even more cheap and you would've had MORE subs.


As you would know, lol. Who needs F-22/35 stuff in Russian jets? No one. Russia has its own stuff that fits just fine. Yes Russia took Su-27 and turned it into Su-35. Because, hey if the hull works, why build a knew one? Jets are not exactly cutting edge technology. it's the insides - that's the meat. Like you don't need F-35, you could just upgrade F-22. Well you could if you designed F-22 with such capability that is. Did you?


Yeah yeah, the Titanic is still afloat, so everything's fine.

Here's the thing, Russia wins fighter sales based on one of two things, cost or availability. They dont win based on performance.

If you really want to compare ballistic missile boat success based on number of classes, Russia/USSR loses miserably. USSR/Russia: 13 classes USA: 6 classes
Number of SLBM models: USSR/Russia: 11 USA: 4 It would seem the US did a better job of getting it right the first time.

You do know that a lot of buyers of Russian jets request a sizable amount of Western avionics despite they higher costs?

- - - Updated - - -

In fairness there is a bit of an asterisk there, Soviet hardware was very rugged and very reliable. The issue is (A) that most of the countries who bought the export models didn't maintain them properly, and (B) Russia and Ukraine went bankrupt after the USSR fell so they couldn't maintain theirs either.

Generally speaking anything is unreliable when not maintained properly, I.E Iran's F-14s haven't had a decent mission capable rate in decades.

Many countries that even maintained their Soviet fighters properly found they didnt hold up well to constant use like Western fighters. The Soviet/Russian concept is easy to maintain over a short combat life, but not intended for constant use.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not just money. It's intrinsic to the designs. Russian jet engines, for example, even properly maintained have far higher failure rates then Western counterparts.

They have a shorter specified lifespan as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't even know what you are on about anymore. Are those 15 warheads are in fact just 1 warhead that splits into 15 deliverables to increase penetration thru possible enemy counter-measures? And what-based should they be if land is what Russia consists of?


Oh please, if anything, reliable and durable is what always have been said about Russian military equipment. American being too delicate for field repairs and environments it is used in. How do you like them sands? expensive is about right when it comes to US tech. 100% solution when you'd be fine with 50%. Soon to be replaced by another 100% solution.


Oh really? I didn't know that if you use something 1 year more you pay for it 1 year more. Now I get it, you need to build new things to not use old things even 1 year more. It's cheaper that way, right? New things are free to use any number of years, until they are old.


So you didn't really need them in the long run, just like I said.

That's an untested claim. 100% solutions will be your downfall. But I guess when you finally get bitten in the ass by 100% solutions you will change your preferences.


You can replace F-22 internals with better ones. You have the technology damn it. The rest of F-22 will work just fine and you won't have to retrain the pilots much. And you would've achieved the same goals. But of course it's not about goals, it's just corruption.

Each MIRV is a warhead, legally and practically. Putting that many warheads into a small number of fixed (and well known) launch sites is not really operationally sound, though it is cheaper.

Again, thats because Soviet/Russian equipment is crude and not intended for prolonged active use. Once countries starts to use Russian equipment as extensively in peace time as Western gear was designed for, the "durability" of all but the most crude systems evaporates.

"1 year more" for a ship in the USN is really "3+ years more and a yard date". Unlike the Russian Navy, the USN doesnt like to send broken down rust piles out to sea on a normal basis (hence why US carriers dont need a fleet tug with them at all times).

The Ohios replaced SSBNs that had reached the end of their service lives and could not handle the upcoming SLBM design. It also allowed the US to go from 41 SSBNs to 18 SSBNs.

[Easo]

Oh, the news I have learned in this thread!!!
If West spends tens of millions USD, thats expensive, if Russia does the same, its cheap!
Rubots, never change...
P.S.
Skroe, you are right and yet wrong about reliability of soviet/russian stuff.
It can have fascinating durability and it can break down miserably too, it all depends on how it was made and who is operating it, though usually simpler stuff like truck cars, for example, were better (and often unkillable on offroads or in winter) than higher class advanced stuff. A lot of issues were because of the famous mentality of not giving a f..., due to lack of qualified workforce, etc. Be it for personal gain, because of lazyness, because f... the system, and so on.
I am from Eastern Europe, trust me, I know.
But keeping the old crap? Well, they have started to learn a bit, for example, getting rid of everything older than T-72, if news were right.
USSR was trying to be fancy though and keep three separate lines of tanks alive at the same time, even when borders between them were becoming kinda blurred due to all the upgrades and new versions being made - T-64, 72 and 80. T-90 might have joined them as 4th, if the union didnt fall. They let the factories compete to the level which I would say was detrimental to state, Uralvagonzavod vs Malyshev vs Omsktransmash (IIRC this was the third).

[Mafic]

Ok so the sales pitch is we won't use it exclusively but our older aircraft benefits greatly from it being in the air? Which solves the cost issue of it by not buying in large numbers? Great marketing write up from popular mechanics. I kinda want one now.

It is garbage.

A stealth plane that isn't a front line fighter/bomber but for "support".

If the F35 needs air superiority to operate then why do you need the F35? But Mafic you can use the F35 deep into enemy territory...actually no...you establish air superiority first with F22's which renders the F35 redundant and unneeded once the F22's do all the work.

[Kellhound]

It is garbage.

A stealth plane that isn't a front line fighter/bomber but for "support".

If the F35 needs air superiority to operate then why do you need the F35? But Mafic you can use the F35 deep into enemy territory...actually no...you establish air superiority first with F22's which renders the F35 redundant and unneeded once the F22's do all the work.

The F-22 isnt a fighter bomber, it is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is a fighter bomber. They have different mission profiles, though the F-35 is fully capable of defending itself against any current airborne foe.

[Gref]

well i was just reading wikipedia page for f-35 and I saw turkey will earn an estimated 12 billion us dollars for licensed production of f-35. 12 billion. sweet. i dont care if it flies actually, I can produce all day for that price.

[Blobfish]

Still cannot beat the F-22 Raptor

They are in Darwin..my home town now

They landed in the Darwin NT Rain

[Skroe]

well i was just reading wikipedia page for f-35 and I saw turkey will earn an estimated 12 billion us dollars for licensed production of f-35. 12 billion. sweet. i dont care if it flies actually, I can produce all day for that price.

A big reason Turkey is interested in the F-35 is to gain industrial experience through it's production / maintenance to put to use one day for an Turkish indigenous air superiority fighter. It's been a long term ambition.

The problem though is that Fifth generation fighters have proven absurdly expensive and complex. The United States has two in the F-35 and F-22. Russia and China have fifth generation fighters in name only (they're really fourth generation fighters in fifth generation fighter costumes, pretty much). Japan is working on their F-15 successor which is really interesting. But everybody else mostly just has CG art and paper programs.

The complexity of fifth generation platforms makes it doubtful that middle income countries can afford to full implement the fifth generation set of technologies. Even with the US, it was able to produce just 187 F-22s, out of planned 700, before it canceled production.

So it's good Turkey is participating, but in terms of what it'll get out of it towards it's ultimate ambition? That's really dubious. The US drops about $10 billion a year on the F-35. That's a sum only a few countries can really afford.

- - - Updated - - -

Still cannot beat the F-22 Raptor

They are in Darwin..my home town now

They landed in the Darwin NT Rain

F-22's are technological dinosaurs compared to the F-35 man. This has been discussed like 18 times.

F-22s are easily the best air superiority fighters by far, and certainly "sexier" looking compared to the F-35. But in terms of technology, the F-35 runs circles around the F-22. It isn't even close.

The Cray Supercomputers at the heart of the F-22 operate at 25mhz. It's does not have F-35 leve sensors. It relies on flyby wire and hydralics. It's skin is maintenance intensive. It's system software is programmed in poorly documented Ada, whose complexity is so bad it's delayed weapons integration (such as the AIM-9X) by years because it's so hard to program for.

By contrast the F-35 features a PowerPC-based integrated processing unit that runs the Integrity Real Time Operating System. It's software is programmed in C++ and is designed around plug-and-play extensibility. It has an API that allows for addon modules and weapons to be "modded" into it the same way a gamer mods a video game. It has a fly-by-light (fiber optic) control system that relies on a distributed network of motors and sensors rather than hydraulics. It features artificial intelligence and sensor fusion well beyond what the F-22 is capable of. And that's just the start.

Program difficulties and airframe shape aside, the F-35 is a technological marvel.

The absolute Best Fighter the US could possibly build, today, for air superiority purposes, would be essentially an F-35's guts in an F-22 airframe, without the F-22's thrust vectoring. The F-22 was a technological marvel... 15 years ago. Today, it's a mature platform, unrivaled in terms of capability, but a distant second compared to the F-22 in terms of technological sophistication.

[Blobfish]

A big reason Turkey is interested in the F-35 is to gain industrial experience through it's production / maintenance to put to use one day for an Turkish indigenous air superiority fighter. It's been a long term ambition.

The problem though is that Fifth generation fighters have proven absurdly expensive and complex. The United States has two in the F-35 and F-22. Russia and China have fifth generation fighters in name only (they're really fourth generation fighters in fifth generation fighter costumes, pretty much). Japan is working on their F-15 successor which is really interesting. But everybody else mostly just has CG art and paper programs.

The complexity of fifth generation platforms makes it doubtful that middle income countries can afford to full implement the fifth generation set of technologies. Even with the US, it was able to produce just 187 F-22s, out of planned 700, before it canceled production.

So it's good Turkey is participating, but in terms of what it'll get out of it towards it's ultimate ambition? That's really dubious. The US drops about $10 billion a year on the F-35. That's a sum only a few countries can really afford.

- - - Updated - - -



F-22's are technological dinosaurs compared to the F-35 man. This has been discussed like 18 times.

F-22s are easily the best air superiority fighters by far, and certainly "sexier" looking compared to the F-35. But in terms of technology, the F-35 runs circles around the F-22. It isn't even close.

The Cray Supercomputers at the heart of the F-22 operate at 25mhz. It's does not have F-35 leve sensors. It relies on flyby wire and hydralics. It's skin is maintenance intensive. It's system software is programmed in poorly documented Ada, whose complexity is so bad it's delayed weapons integration (such as the AIM-9X) by years because it's so hard to program for.

By contrast the F-35 features a PowerPC-based integrated processing unit that runs the Integrity Real Time Operating System. It's software is programmed in C++ and is designed around plug-and-play extensibility. It has an API that allows for addon modules and weapons to be "modded" into it the same way a gamer mods a video game. It has a fly-by-light (fiber optic) control system that relies on a distributed network of motors and sensors rather than hydraulics. It features artificial intelligence and sensor fusion well beyond what the F-22 is capable of. And that's just the start.

Program difficulties and airframe shape aside, the F-35 is a technological marvel.

The absolute Best Fighter the US could possibly build, today, for air superiority purposes, would be essentially an F-35's guts in an F-22 airframe, without the F-22's thrust vectoring. The F-22 was a technological marvel... 15 years ago. Today, it's a mature platform, unrivaled in terms of capability, but a distant second compared to the F-22 in terms of technological sophistication.

Seems ok then that the Australian Airforce has bought a lot of F-35s from the US then.

We heard bad things about the F-35s from the media, here in Australia. Saying that they where a waste of money.

[Deleted]

The F-35 does very well at a test largely tailored to show off the F-35's capabilites, how shocking :P


I mean yeah, in the test as described the F-35 is gonna be great when it can concentrate on its superior software; target tracking etc and when it has other planes to control and direct to make up for its shortcomings.

The F-35 is probably gonna end up as a nice addition to the USAF, but only to the USAF. Because no other western air force has the ability to fly both the F-35 AND several other fighter-bombers. The F-35 is not that great for multirole mission capability when it has no backup.

Considering the EU forces are still using Tornado, their military will jizz in their pants when the F-35 are finally delivered.

Yes the F-35 are costly, but they are a big leap 35 years ahead in tech, and have much lower maintenance costs.

- - - Updated - - -

We heard bad things about the F-35s from the media, here in Australia. Saying that they where a waste of money.

Nothing easier for the masses than shouting "too much military spending!".

[Skroe]

Seems ok then that the Australian Airforce has bought a lot of F-35s from the US then.

We heard bad things about the F-35s from the media, here in Australia. Saying that they where a waste of money.

That has more to do with history, budgeting and aerospace philosophy than anything else.

When the F-16 was created, it was viewed as a compliment for the very expensive F-15. 700 big, fast, dual engine F-15As would be assisted by 2500 lightweight fighters with a single... super agile and only carrying two missiles (one each on it's wing tip). And only capable of daylight warfare. The F-16 was meant to give the US "quantity" that complimented the F-15's "quality". The F-16 also evolved a bunch of technology that was inherited from the F-15. While the F-15 used fly-by-wire and hydralics, the F-16 used full fly-by-wire (and hydraulics for different things). The design also, turned out to be extremely aerodynamic and manueverable. Famously so. Part of this is history: pre-F-16, US fighters had gained a somewhat deserved reputation for gigantic, very unmanuverable platforms... more akin to high speed interceptors than air superiority fighters as we know them today. The F-16 was a kind of revolution in that respect (but a prejudicial one, because that history isn't entirely accurate).

What the F-16 became however, was never intended from the outset. While the F-16 is indeed manueverable, and it's bubble canopy provided excellent visibility, it was at a fundamental energy disadvantage against any aircraft it went up against with two powerful engines. Engines = Energy, and in Air Combat at the time, energy was everything. An F-16, while aerodynamic, would struggle against an F-15, or any number of dual-engine fighters in Europe. That isn't to say it is a poor air superiority platform... it just isn't an ideal one.

What it is though, is affordable. If you buy 100 F-16s, you bough 150 engines for them (1 for each, plus 50 spares). if you bought 100 F-15s, you bought 300 engines (2 for each, plus enough spares for 50 aircraft). And these engines cost pretty much the same. This is why you saw the F-15 only really ever serve in richer countries.

The F-16, as an air superiority fighter, was "good enough" for the cost. Furthermore, as it evolved into a strike platform over the years, which became it's primary role (especially as the dual engine Eurofighter was introduced in Europe), it's utilization as an air superiority platform became somewhat depreciated. With additional pods and support for Precision bombs, it became really, a light bomber. And again, this was highly economical for most countries, that retired their older, heavier, larger, expensive "bombers" around the time the F-16 entered the prime of its life.

Basically the F-16 did everything, economically, good enough. It was a jack of (many) traits, and a master of none, but that was fine, because it didn't cost an arm and a leg and was far better than what the Soviets/Russians/Chinese/Iranians/Iraqis had.

But looking back on history, how was the F-16 really used? As a light bomber. That's the truth. While any F-16 could be outfitted with AIM-9Ms and ge a great and manueverable air superiority fighter, most air forces nowdays have another aircraft do that role. The F-16 is their economical bomb wagon.

The F-35 is the F-16s successor program by design. In Europe and America, our F-16s are aging out all at once, so unlike the F-16, which became an historic export success story years later, the F-35 was designed to replace the F-16, world wide, among early and middle F-16 adopters, all at once, so our old aircraft can be disposed of. It's noteworthy who generally isn't buying the F-35: countries which bought the newest models of the F-16 (more advanced than the US's) in the last 15 years.

The fact that the F-35 represents how the F-16 has actually been used, rather than as it was imagined (a supermanuverable lightweight fighter) has been very controversial, because an F-35 can never maneuver as well as an F-16 that has only two Sidewinder missiles on it (though it manuevers far better than an F-16 that is fully loaded). But that is also how the F-16 hasn't really been used, so from a practical perspective, there is no point.

This is supported by the fact that missiles have gotten so good in the last 20 years, that Beyond Visual Range combat is what Air Forces are most likely to face, and at that, the F-35 may be even better than the F-22. The F-35's sensor systems are vastly superior to the F-22s, and most everything else out there. With regards to the US, the current general "tactic" is to have F-35s with long range AIM-120D AMRAAMs use their sensors and stealth to pick off enemy aircraft at extreme range (outside the range of enemy missiles), and then have F-22s armed with short/medium range AIM-9x charge in to "clean up". This is notable because the F-35 already has long range AIM-120 support, but has only minimal (and only external) support for the AIM-9. really, the F-35 will almost never carry the AIM-9X. That's a job for the F-22, F-15 and Eurofighter. And similarly, weapons integration on the F-22 has been focused on the AIM-9X, and not the AIM-120D (it is AIM-120C compatible).

So again, the F-35 plays to the strengths of how the F-16 was actually used, as opposed to envisioned, and meshes well with dual engine aircraft.

Australia's problem is that it has no real compliment to the F-35 in the form of the F-22 or Eurofighter, except for potentially buying more Super Hornets, but the two kind of occupy the same multi-role niche (despite having two engines, Super Hornet performance is far from that of an F-15). Maybe Australia could buy the latest F-15 (the F-15SG, likely the final F-15 generation, is a huge evolution of the F-15E). Maybe it could buy the Eurofighter. But these are very expensive options.

The question of "waste of money" is also political. The F-35 is a stealth fighter. It is less stealthy than the F-22, but more so than any other manned aircraft not named B-2 and F-22. Stealth is largely offensive. The USAF and USN want stealth to be able to strike in defended enemy airspace. Around the world though, there has been years of historic concern about the implications of defense forces buying a technology that is designed around chiefly attack. If Australia isn't going to be attacking anybody, what's the point of stealth? What's the point of all the sophisticated electronic attack technology in the F-35? That's where that argument comes in.

The answer is of course, this is what the US has on the market to replace it's current generation of aircraft because this is what the US needs. If Australia wants to not spend that money, there are other options, but the modest premium you spend on the F-35 gets you a lot more technically advanced aircraft.

There would be a lot less of a "debate" in the US regarding the F-35, if we had procured 400 F-22s as intended compared to the 183 we actually did, because here, militarily, it's accepted the entirely different niches they occupy. But around the world, the cost of the F-35 compared to what it used to cost them to buy an F-16, coupled with the question of "do we need this offensive edge?" is driving questions as to why countries are participating.

Canada is an excellent example. It's legacy CF-18 are first generation-derived Hornets... basically F/A-18As. They need to replace them, and will likely be buying (or will be), some Super Hornet F/A-18Es, which are considerably different and more advanced than the CF-18's they own. But the Hornet pales in comparison to the F-35. But does Canada need the F-35? Well it uses the CF-18 mostly for territorial defense. It really doesn't strike anybody from the air. But at the same time, the F/A-18E isn't that much less. It's a question of "what do you want" and "what do you use it for".

If you want to slice through the question, the rest of the F-35 partners need to look to the British, who figured this out over a decade ago years ago. The UK's defense doctrine is, officially, it will never go to war ever again unless it is fighting alongside either (or both with) the US and / or France. And it has (nominally) built it's defense forces around that assumption. The UK itself is tightly integrated into US defense organization. So with that, ask yourself this question: do you see a situation where, in the next 30 years, your countries will fight in an offensive manner, alongside the US in a military conflict? If yes, buy the F-35. If no, probably not. And choose carefully, because fourth generation platforms have about 10 years of usefulness left to them. Russia and China are intentionally spreading their anti-aircraft systems around the world as a form of asymmetric warfare. In 10 years, those F-16s will require extremely long ranged missiles and or stealthy spoters to be useful.

[caervek]

In 10 years, those F-16s will require extremely long ranged missiles and or stealthy spoters to be useful.

Why? Will ISIS have actually got its MiG-21's running by 2027? :P

[Deleted]

Still cannot beat the F-22 Raptor

They are in Darwin..my home town now

They landed in the Darwin NT Rain

The F22 is still king of the skies. Too bad the policy is not to sell them (which I can understand).

I also love the French Rafale Dassault, even though it's not as stealthy.

[Mafic]

The F-22 isnt a fighter bomber, it is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is a fighter bomber. They have different mission profiles, though the F-35 is fully capable of defending itself against any current airborne foe.

I already explicitly stated F22 is an air superiority fighter. As for the F35s as fighter-bombers...hahahahaha it can't carry the payload to get the job done as other traditional figthter-bombers. Plus, once the F22 establishes air superiority you don't need a stealth plane for the fighter bomber role.

[Kellhound]

I already explicitly stated F22 is an air superiority fighter. As for the F35s as fighter-bombers...hahahahaha it can't carry the payload to get the job done as other traditional figthter-bombers. Plus, once the F22 establishes air superiority you don't need a stealth plane for the fighter bomber role.

The standard load out for an F-16 conducting an interdiction strike is 2 AAMs and 4 1000lbs JDAMs. The standard loadout for an F-35 conducting an interdiction strike is 2 AAMs and 4 1000lbs JDAMs. Maximum ordnance load of F-16: 17,000lbs. Max ordnance load of F-35: 18,000lbs. (and for reference the A-6 (a medium attack aircraft) had a max payload of 18,000lbs). The days of loading up 4-5 MERs with Mk-82s are gone, now missions run with just a few precision weapons.

Also, achieving air superiority is really a local thing unless you totally outgun the opposition, and there are still ground based defenses.

[Deleted]

Russia will only catch up when their gamers switch to military. Putin needs to recruit gamers.

No you cant bot and hack in the real world as in a game and get a advantage. Why has this stupid real life sight not wallhack or aimbot installed?

[Elim Garak]

No you cant bot and hack in the real world as in a game and get a advantage.

Hillary disagrees.