Russia flunks on stealth

Several years ago I was watching a program about the F-16 Fighting Falcon Viper that included talking with some USAF pilots and Boeing execs.

The interviewer asked a pilot what he had to say: "Best place to be when you're getting shot at."

Boeing exec said AF came up with the Fighting Falcon several years on while Boeing added the Viper nick relatively recently. Asked why 'Viper' the exec said, "It's what the pilots call it."

Cool and nasty at the same time it is.

Oozlefinch said:

Sorry, ain't buying it.

First thing I noticed, is that there is no mention at all of which F-35 is involved in the test. SO I decided to do a little research of my own.

AF-02 is the second AF-35A delivered for testing to the Air Force. They accepted it in 2010, and other than being the first aircraft to be tested with a drogue chute is pretty much untouched from when it was delivered. Just like AF-01, it is an early test version. And it remains at Edwards Air Force Base as part of their permanent test unit.

And that "paperwork" looks like no military paperwork I have ever seen.

So sorry, am calling BS on that report. Of course, the report is also comparing the F-35A (which is a multi-role fighter), and comparing it's capabilities when compared to the F-16 (which is a dedicated air superiority fighter). So yea, of course it is not going to do as well.

Click to expand...

The F-35 has over 800 outstanding problems on its fixit list, including fixing the 500 fighters already produced (e.g. inaccurate and malfunctioning gun). More importantly, to my knowledge there is no fix for its lower thrust engine and high wing loading. No matter what software adjustments are made, it's a "dog" in a dog-fight compared to legacy aircraft.

No one disputes the test pilot report as anything but authentic (and regrettably he could not report on "classified" problems). None the less, the opening observations are more than enough to give a fair reader a pause:

The energy for maneuvering is much lower than that of an F-15, with a smaller wings, 15,000lbs less afterburner thrust, but similar weight. Even at high angle's of attack the energy bleed was so great that none was left for maneuvering against an F-16. It was a distinct energy disadvantage in every engagement with the f-16.

It's pitch rate sucked, making it unable to use its gun effectively by allowing the enemy to jinx away before a firing solution was available. At high angles of attack it was worse, bleeding airspeed.

No effective gun defense was found, regardless of numerous tactics tried. The slow pitch and attitude response rate kept the F-35 in the enemy pipper.

The F-35 has made improvements in software, software flight control limits, etc. It remains a formidable aircraft because of its outstanding situational awareness, ease of flying, and stealth. However, unless and until the engine/wing loading shortcomings are fixed and replaced (if that is possible) it is a weak dog-fighter, almost certain to lose in visual range combat with an equally skilled SU-35 pilot.

It can't climb, it can't turn, can't shoot, and can't run. And its protector, the F-22 is in very short supply (thanks to Obama).

How big a disaster the F-35 will turn out to be is unknown - at least not as bad as the other "do-it-all" travesty the F-111. But let's face it, in visual range engagements its a bow-wow.

~ Seems like Russia is a big exporter of BS ...:doh

usaf77 said:

In the best of times Russia has a defense budget the size of Australia's and they have had serious problems developing a stealth fighter from the beginning. The oil war was crushing their economy and military budget even before Corona. Also China is reliant on Russian made engines for their stealth planes so Russia's problem is China's problem. Neither have a export market, Russia couldn't give these things away, India canceled their involvement in the project. China is still having issues with its J20 stealth fighter, mush of it due to engine problems and IR signatures but also inferior avionics, performance, and all aspect stealth. It looks like America will be the main stealth player for the foreseeable future. Russia's Su-57 Stealth Fighter Has Problems: Engines, Oil, and Weak Adversaries | The National Interest

Click to expand...

"" Putlerstan (Muscovy , " Russia") in Numbers :


The territory of Russia is 17.075.260 square meters. km and mainly lies north of 55 ° N.
Approximately 85% of the territory is not suitable for permanent comfortable living of the population. permafrost (areas of Siberia and the Far East) occupies 60% of the territory of Russia, swamps and wetlands almost 22%, rivers and lakes about 4%. Another part of the land is periodically flooded, part is occupied by mountains and forests, a little under ravines, part under deserts and solonchaks.

According to the State Statistics Committee's report for 2005, in Russia 2.2 million square meters of agricultural land are cultivated or used in agriculture. km, of which only 1.2 million for arable land, 0.2 million square kilometers are occupied by settlements of all types in the country. km, for industrial facilities and for military purposes 0.2 million, for other 0.1 million.
For a happy life, the Russians still have 2.561.289 square meters. km.
This is 15% of the territory ie. real Russia is slightly larger than Sudan, but less than Kazakhstan.
Average temperatures in January, in different regions, from 0 to -50 ° C, in July from 1 to 25 ° C, precipitation falls from 150 to 2000 mm per year.
At temperatures below -5 ° C, the maintenance costs of the infrastructure with each degree below zero increase exponentially.
Snow removal in the thickness of 40 cm in St. Petersburg takes more than 30 days.


Russia accounts for less than 2% of global GDP. The main export items (according to the Federal Customs Service) are gas and oil (70%), primary metals (15%), roundwood (10%), everything else, including equipment, weapons and technology - less than 5%.

According to soil scientists, 17.8% of agricultural land is subject to water erosion, 8.4% of wind erosion, 12.3% of wetlands and wetlands occupy wetlands and wetlands, and saline soils - 20.1%.
The land, not subject to all these misfortunes, in Russia is only 0.91 million square meters. km.
The agricultural season in most of Russia is 2-3 months (in Europe or the US 8-9 months). The average annual yield of cereals in Russia (on non-chernozems) is about 17 centners, in Germany, France and Great Britain (on nonchernozem) - 70 quintals per hectare, in Sweden - 60, in Ireland - 85, in Ukraine (on chernozems) - 24 in all.

The Russian state border stretches for 58,322 km and has 424 border crossings.
The total number of settlements is 157.895, of which more than 30.000 are still without telephone communication.
Most of the 39,000 abandoned villages and settlements are in the Central Federal District, the Northwest, the Far North, Siberia and the Far East.
In Russia only 65% of housing has been gasified.
Up to 75% of Russia's food needs are covered by imports.
78.7% of Russians consider cooperation with law enforcement bodies as unacceptable.
Russia consumes more than 20% of all heroin produced in the world.
The volume of the Russian market of heroin alone is estimated at $ 13 billion annually.
Every day in Russia, 100 people die because of a drug overdose.

In 2009, 786 terrorist acts were committed in Russia. Since the beginning of 2010, already 427.
The flying time of NATO strike aviation from the borders of Estonia and Latvia to St. Petersburg does not exceed 4 minutes, to Moscow - no more than 18.

Life in Russia is satisfied with two categories of people: those who are not in the know and those who are in the share.

63% of Russians with incomes above the national average would like their children to study and work abroad.
35% want their children to live abroad permanently.
At 2.000 vacancies for janitors opened in St. Petersburg in early 2010, there were fewer than 10 applicants.
The proposed salary is 12.000 rub / month.
The increase in the cost of travel in the St. Petersburg metro since 2003 is 35% per year.
Last year, more than 50 tons of explosives were seized at Russian airports.

LosAngelesAngel said:

~ Seems like Russia is a big exporter of BS ...:doh

Click to expand...

yes, you are right
"The average Russian consumes 18 liters of alcohol per year. According to the conclusion of UN experts, the annual consumption of 8 liters of alcohol per capita leads to a serious degradation of the population.
In Russia, a pack of cigarettes can be bought for 30 cents, a bottle of beer, which can be bought at every corner 24 hours a day, is cheaper than a bottle of drinking water.
Only 1% of the water consumed by Russians meets the world quality standards.
in Russia there are 51,230 people who were exposed to radiation as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

The State Duma and the Federation Council meet 12 billionaires, whose overall condition is estimated at 41 billion dollars.
Russia has 62 billionaires with a combined capital of $ 297 billion. Russian billionaires pay the lowest taxes in the world (13%) that their colleagues in France and Sweden (57%), in Denmark (61%) or Italy (66%) %).
26% of Russians have an outstanding loan.
143,000 people were deprived of the right to travel abroad due to problems with their debts.

According to the Rosgosstrakh CSR, in Russia the annual income is more than $ 1 million from 160,000 people, the annual income of more than $ 100,000 has 440,000 families""

LosAngelesAngel said:

~ Seems like Russia is a big exporter of BS ...:doh

Click to expand...

Pavlov's Posters.

Wuff to the Russia threads they go.

Regularly, consistently, routinely just like clockwork and where they squat.

Indeed and as the well known has been noted already, the aerial dogfight is the equivalent of flying dinosaurs.

It's hilarious to see Pavlov's Posters take a combat attack aircraft such as the F-35 designed to take out targets on the ground and list the hundreds of (design) reasons it hasn't any aerial dogfighting capacity / capability. It's sort of like taking a USN destroyer and cuss at it while hollering off all the reasons it can't submerge and launch torpedoes. And catch fish.

maxparrish said:

It was a distinct energy disadvantage in every engagement with the f-16.

Click to expand...

Except repeated testing has shown the F-16 getting trounced by the F-35 time and time again.

Why the F-35 once lost to F-16s, and how it made a stunning comeback - Business Insider

It remains a formidable aircraft because of its outstanding situational awareness, ease of flying, and stealth.

Click to expand...

All of which have shown to be vital to survival in a modern air war.

And its protector, the F-22 is in very short supply (thanks to Obama).

Click to expand...

We have more F-22s than other nations have stealth fighters period.

How big a disaster the F-35 will turn out to be is unknown - at least not as bad as the other "do-it-all" travesty the F-111. But let's face it, in visual range engagements its a bow-wow.

Click to expand...

Your obsession with dog fighting and insistence that the F-35 will be screwed against a Su-35 is laughable.

Sure, if you stuck a F-35 within visual range of a Sukhoi it'd probably be in trouble. Just like if you stuck the 1st Guards Tank Army right outside DC the Old Guard would be in trouble. Both are stupid scenarios though because they deliberately avoid all the context and other factors that would have to be taken into consideration.

maxparrish said:

The energy for maneuvering is much lower than that of an F-15, with a smaller wings, 15,000lbs less afterburner thrust, but similar weight. Even at high angle's of attack the energy bleed was so great that none was left for maneuvering against an F-16. It was a distinct energy disadvantage in every engagement with the f-16.

Click to expand...

And once again, comparing a multi-role fighter against a dedicated Air Superiority fighter. Both the F-15 and F-16

Against an aircraft designed for the Air Superiority role, any multi-role fighter is going to come up second best. I do not care which multi-role aircraft you are comparing against it, there will be no comparison because they were never intended to be equal.

That is like taking a Toyota Tacoma, and saying it does not perform as well as a Ford F-350 pickup. Well of course not, other than 4 wheels and a truck bed their intended purpose and roles are completely different.

The F-15 (and 16) were both designed from the start to be air superiority fighters. It was only later as other aircraft were retired and modifications and improvements made that they transitioned into multi-role fighters. But at their heart is still an aircraft with air-superiority as it's main goal. They just added capabilities to fire air-to-mud weapons in addition to the air-to-air ones.

Jredbaron96 said:

Except repeated testing has shown the F-16 getting trounced by the F-35 time and time again.

Why the F-35 once lost to F-16s, and how it made a stunning comeback - Business Insider

Click to expand...

The excuse makers for the F-35 have one thing in common, they dodge the specifics. When the test pilot five page report hit the public (or the rand finding) a flurry of military-industrial excuses and beside-the-point accolades followed. The lines went something like this "The F-35 is super duper, its the best there is, its modern, it can do backflips standing still" - all of which is beside the point of answering the question of "can it dog-fight and win all other things being equal?"

When pressed for specifics to prove that , the excuse makers will ignore its undisputed and fundamental poor wing-loading and insufficient engine power (technical facts) and focus on how changing the handling software will help and or talk about someone has discovered a way to have it do circus tricks at speeds so slow that while its putting on a show a missile hits the relatively stationary target (or a gun blast).

Finally, there is the always the non-explanatory press release that asserts a "wow" fact without a snippet of supporting evidence. A 15-1 kill ratio sounds impressive until someone tries to find out how that was computed, and what that ratio really represents. In contrast to the breezy and superficial article (and its link) you gave as "evidence" of it besting legacy aircraft, the following link actually provides a thoughtful and skeptical debunking:

Let’s Talk About Those F-35 Kill Ratio Reports From Red Flag - The Drive

This is not the first time a small amount of unexplained air combat data was put forward as proof that a fighter aircraft was trouncing the competition, and especially for the F-35. Red Flag in particular has had its share of controversy surrounding the issue in the past. So sure, 15:1 kill ratios make for catchy headlines, I think this one is my favorite so far, but without more data to back and explain such claims, those headlines are naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Click to expand...

We have more F-22s than other nations have stealth fighters period.

Click to expand...

Whoopy doo. That's like saying the enemy has 1600 Zeros and we have 1510 Wildcats and 90 Hellcats. You think you can makeup for 1510 markedly inferior aircraft with a handful of later generation Hellcats?

Your obsession with dog fighting and insistence that the F-35 will be screwed against a Su-35 is laughable.

Sure, if you stuck a F-35 within visual range of a Sukhoi it'd probably be in trouble. Just like if you stuck the 1st Guards Tank Army right outside DC the Old Guard would be in trouble. Both are stupid scenarios though because they deliberately avoid all the context and other factors that would have to be taken into consideration.

Click to expand...

You mean if you have to now protect the F-35 with handful of big brother F-22s and supporting aircraft then its a great investment? The fallback position for a deficient dog-fighter is not a feature, its a fault.

As the F-35 intentionally developed as a dog-fighter only second to the F-22, whose survivability had to be satisfactory on two or four plane patrols (as it will be in the Navy version) then its going to suffer. And the F-22 production was stopped precisely because it was supposed to be cheaper and still provide the fighter air dominance of the F-22.

It doesn't. Just as in Vietnam, the Syrian-Lebanese air war, the few fighter encounters in the Iraq wars, the encounter off Libya...there will be lots of visual range instances that an F-22 won't be around. The "bomber-fighter" F-35 has its advantages, but they are not in mixing it up with 4.5 generation enemy aircraft (or perhaps 4g legacy aircraft).

The US has a habit of never learning its lessons from the last war, and making assumptions that are laughable in the next one. For those of us who are familiar with the very successful "red flag" equivalent exercises before pearl harbor, the current claims and excuses are not persuasive.

maxparrish said:

The excuse makers for the F-35 have one thing in common, they dodge the specifics. When the test pilot five page report hit the public (or the rand finding) a flurry of military-industrial excuses and beside-the-point accolades followed. The lines went something like this "The F-35 is super duper, its the best there is, its modern, it can do backflips standing still" - all of which is beside the point of answering the question of "can it dog-fight and win all other things being equal?

Click to expand...

If you had actually read the report rather than just suck up whatever David Axe and Pierre Sprey regurgitate you'd learn that the overwhelming issue with the F-35 early on was the unfamiliarity pilots had with it, and their attempts to utilize maneuvers that they were more familiar with other aircraft.

It's particularly telling that you continue to rely on the 5 year old statements of a single pilot and then refuse to acknowledge far more recent statements all confirming that the F-35 can dogfight very effectively. Instead you rely on testing that was done before flight science testing was complete, before control laws were complete and therefore the F-35s had many artificial limits, and while many pilots were still getting used to operating the aircraft.

A 15-1 kill ratio sounds impressive until someone tries to find out how that was computed, and what that ratio really represents.

Click to expand...

Rogoway's entire argument basically boils down to the idea that because the F-35 didn't directly shoot down 15 aircraft to one therefore it's performance is bunk, but even he admits that it's a stretch to say that the F-35 didn't perform well.

Whoopy doo. That's like saying the enemy has 1600 Zeros and we have 1510 Wildcats and 90 Hellcats. You think you can makeup for 1510 markedly inferior aircraft with a handful of later generation Hellcats?

Click to expand...

Except the F-35 isn't markedly inferior.

You mean if you have to now protect the F-35 with handful of big brother F-22s and supporting aircraft then its a great investment?

Click to expand...

You mean we don't throw in squadrons of single type aircraft piecemeal into combat? You are demonstrating very little understanding of how air campaigns work.

These are the same types of arguments that get trotted out every time the Air Force wants to retire the A-10 and people scream that it's a perfectly good airplane and can't be beat, even though everything about modern warfare tells us not to use it.

usaf77 said:

In the best of times Russia has a defense budget the size of Australia's and they have had serious problems developing a stealth fighter from the beginning. The oil war was crushing their economy and military budget even before Corona. Also China is reliant on Russian made engines for their stealth planes so Russia's problem is China's problem. Neither have a export market, Russia couldn't give these things away, India canceled their involvement in the project. China is still having issues with its J20 stealth fighter, mush of it due to engine problems and IR signatures but also inferior avionics, performance, and all aspect stealth. It looks like America will be the main stealth player for the foreseeable future. Russia's Su-57 Stealth Fighter Has Problems: Engines, Oil, and Weak Adversaries | The National Interest

Click to expand...

Who needs stealth when you are building a doomsday machine to extort the world?



Putin’s Doomsday Machine – Foreign Policy

Jredbaron96 said:

If you had actually read the report rather than just suck up whatever David Axe and Pierre Sprey regurgitate you'd learn that the overwhelming issue with the F-35 early on was the unfamiliarity pilots had with it, and their attempts to utilize maneuvers that they were more familiar with other aircraft.

It's particularly telling that you continue to rely on the 5 year old statements of a single pilot and then refuse to acknowledge far more recent statements all confirming that the F-35 can dogfight very effectively. Instead you rely on testing that was done before flight science testing was complete, before control laws were complete and therefore the F-35s had many artificial limits, and while many pilots were still getting used to operating the aircraft.

Click to expand...

What report, other than the ones I provided: test pilot results (or the powerpoint) that I provided? You've given public relations hyperbole by Business Insider, that has a link Business Insider, that has a link to a pay walled Aviation Week. Those aren't official "reports", "studies", memoranda, or anything remotely similiar

And what just what is it in those couple of articles that are so convincing; it can't be the unsupported sales superlatives and "trust me" assurances from a few authority figures that all is well - is it?

Rogoway's entire argument basically boils down to the idea that because the F-35 didn't directly shoot down 15 aircraft to one therefore it's performance is bunk, but even he admits that it's a stretch to say that the F-35 didn't perform well.

Click to expand...

Rogway's argument, salted with copious links is that the military and manufacturer refuse to, or can't, directly provide evidence that the aircraft can hold its own in visual range combat.

Ya know, like a similar exercise to the one in 2015 where the plane is pitted against a legacy aircraft and mostly wins - e.g. another test pilot report that the pitch rate is fixed, that it can track its nose, that high AOA engagement no longer a concern, that it (rather than the enemy) can jinx off an enemies pipper...or escape...or turn away.

Apparently it still can't.

Except the F-35 isn't markedly inferior.

Click to expand...

In visual range it doesn't even have the few advantages that the wildcat had over the zero; it can't dive away (to the right), use a superior roll rate to enter a split-s to escape, and doesn't have superior armor. Ya...its markedly inferior.

You mean we don't throw in squadrons of single type aircraft piecemeal into combat? You are demonstrating very little understanding of how air campaigns work.

These are the same types of arguments that get trotted out every time the Air Force wants to retire the A-10 and people scream that it's a perfectly good airplane and can't be beat, even though everything about modern warfare tells us not to use it.

Click to expand...

I am demonstrating that I know the history of actual combat, from WWII to the latest gulf wars. Visual range combat is the norm, with one on one action no matter how short or long.

And the A-10? Well, its time may be done BUT it its obituaries have repeatedly been premature.

maxparrish said:

What report, other than the ones I provided: test pilot results (or the powerpoint) that I provided?

Click to expand...

You've given a report by RAND who's conclusions were ridiculous. Do you really think that the PLAAF losing 48 fighters for a handful of supporting aircraft is counts as a victory?

And what just what is it in those couple of articles that are so convincing; it can't be the unsupported sales superlatives and "trust me" assurances from a few authority figures that all is well - is it?

Click to expand...

There are quotes by pilots and veterans in there. Since you seem to have ignored them, I'll repeat:

"That's not to say the F-35 was a perfect aircraft that was simply misunderstood in 2015. Flatley said he did approach Lockheed Martin to suggest changes to the jet after its poor run against legacy aircraft.

One attribute the F-35 has that, counterintuitively, helps it in dogfights is its ability to slow down during a turn, but it was during these slow turns that pilots weren't able to control the plane how they were used to.


Basically, the engineers at Lockheed Martin built the F-35's flight controls with an incredible amount of automation, which Flatley said could make the jet "feel like it was fighting you," or "feel like the hand of god pushing you in certain directions."

Rogway's argument, salted with copious links is that the military and manufacturer refuse to, or can't, directly provide evidence that the aircraft can hold its own in visual range combat.

Ya know, like a similar exercise to the one in 2015 where the plane is pitted against a legacy aircraft and mostly wins - e.g. another test pilot report that the pitch rate is fixed, that it can track its nose, that high AOA engagement no longer a concern, that it (rather than the enemy) can jinx off an enemies pipper...or escape...or turn away."

Apparently it still can't.

In visual range it doesn't even have the few advantages that the wildcat had over the zero; it can't dive away (to the right), use a superior roll rate to enter a split-s to escape, and doesn't have superior armor. Ya...its markedly inferior.

Click to expand...

See above. Your claims of inferiority are dated and have been proven false.

I am demonstrating that I know the history of actual combat, from WWII to the latest gulf wars. Visual range combat is the norm, with one on one action no matter how short or long.

Click to expand...

The F-35 demonstrated numerous times now it can compete within visual range combat. You are pushing a narrative that has been prove false.

And the A-10? Well, its time may be done BUT it its obituaries have repeatedly been premature.

Click to expand...

It was outdated the year it came out.

maxparrish said:

Ya know, like a similar exercise to the one in 2015 where the plane is pitted against a legacy aircraft and mostly wins - e.g. another test pilot report that the pitch rate is fixed, that it can track its nose, that high AOA engagement no longer a concern, that it (rather than the enemy) can jinx off an enemies pipper...or escape...or turn away.

Click to expand...

A legacy aircraft that was specifically designed with the express purpose of shooting down other aircraft.

The F-35 is an all-purpose conglomeration 5th Generation Fighter. It is designed from the ground up as a multi-role fighter. And as such it suffers from the same problems that all "Jack of all trade - master of none" aircraft.

It is not as good of an air to air fighter as a dedicated 4th generation air superiority fighter, it is not as good as air to ground as a 4th generation ground attack aircraft. And it can do some bombing missions, but it is nowhere near as good as even a 3rd generation dedicated bomber.

You can not compare the F-35 to a 4th generation dedicated fighter, that is not even close to a fair comparison. That would be like taking a Fiat X-19, and trying to compare it to a Mustang or a Trans Am. Yes, all are "sports cars", but from the very inception they are very different in their designs and concepts.

So why you insist over and over again to compare it to an aircraft it is not even close to I have no idea. To be accurate, the military (specifically the Air Force) is trying to return to the way it was done before. A dedicated Air Superiority Fighter (F-22), and a multi-role fighter to take over ground attack roles, and to do 2nd line air superiority and combat against lesser equipped forces.

After all, what competition would the F-35 have had in fighting in Afghanistan? Or Grenada? Or Panama? Not every potential enemy has the capabilities of Russia, or even Iraq.

Dayton3 said:

The United States only attacks people and countries that was damned well justified in attacking.

Click to expand...

Q: What's the difference between a terrorist training camp and a Pakistani wedding ?

A: You don't know ?
Don't worry, neither does the USAF.

Rich2018 said:

Q: What's the difference between a terrorist training camp and a Pakistani wedding ?

A: You don't know ?
Don't worry, neither does the USAF.

Click to expand...

Even the most competent, skilled, and professional military makes lethal mistakes against civilians. It is inevitable.

Jredbaron96 said:

It was outdated the year it came out.

Click to expand...

Depends what you think its role was supposed to be. It wasn't conceived of as an anti armor close air support aircraft.

Dayton3 said:

Depends what you think its role was supposed to be. It wasn't conceived of as an anti armor close air support aircraft.

Click to expand...

The A-10 was built to provide close-air support for ground forces, and at the time was designed to protect against anti-aircraft artillery, aka flak, because at the time of design the bulk of WARPAC ground forces relied on those kinds of weapons for tactical air defenses.

But by the time the A-10 entered service, Soviet forces had switched to utilizing more surface-to-air missiles in their tactical air defenses, which the A-10 wasn't protected against. The "Titanium bathtub" would have done well against 23mm shells, but it offers no protection against SAMs.

Hence the reason the Air Force want's to get rid of it. Modern air defenses can only be beaten by through three means; flying very fast, flying very high/low, or being stealthy. The A-10 is none of those things.

Jredbaron96 said:

Hence the reason the Air Force want's to get rid of it. Modern air defenses can only be beaten by through three means; flying very fast, flying very high/low, or being stealthy. The A-10 is none of those things.

Click to expand...

The USAF always wants to get rid of aircraft that suffer from very high accident rates. A-10s have always had a tendency to run into the ground during low level training missions.

And A-10s have survived being hit by SAMs before IIRC.

Jredbaron96 said:

The A-10 was built to provide close-air support for ground forces, and at the time was designed to protect against anti-aircraft artillery, aka flak, because at the time of design the bulk of WARPAC ground forces relied on those kinds of weapons for tactical air defenses.

But by the time the A-10 entered service, Soviet forces had switched to utilizing more surface-to-air missiles in their tactical air defenses, which the A-10 wasn't protected against. The "Titanium bathtub" would have done well against 23mm shells, but it offers no protection against SAMs.

Hence the reason the Air Force want's to get rid of it. Modern air defenses can only be beaten by through three means; flying very fast, flying very high/low, or being stealthy. The A-10 is none of those things.

Click to expand...

Ya, that's why they were completely ineffective and were decimated in the Persian Gulf war and the Iraq-US war, why the A-10 hangers are all empty. Right?

Those idiot army soldiers on the ground are imagining things when they see A-10s wipe out the enemy, so is it any wonder those deluded fools luv those planes and pilots? They need to be more skeptical of their lying eyes.

maxparrish said:

Specifically, in 2008 Rand did a study with a simulated engagement of a "Red Team" and "Blue Team" engagement over the Tiawanese-Pacific theater. For a combination of logistical and quantitative reasons the Blue Force (F-22, F-35A, and F18E) were overwhelmed and badly beaten.

As you might imagine the F-22 did well. However, the much inferior air-air weapons load of the blue team was overwhelmed by the Red Team (Soviets-Chinese) missile salvos. And after the BVR engagement ended and visual range combat began the F-35s were found wanting.

The study itself, as far as I know, remains classified. However, the Power-Point Presentation is available. Here is a slide from that PPP:

View attachment 67276671

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

The slide is near the end, should you wish to scroll through the lengthily presentation. Since then the F-35 debate has continued with Lockheed Martin stoutly defending the plane and lots of others (including some pilots) having a much more negative view.

My take: in a full scale multi-aircraft team engagement the F-35 is going to suffer, badly. In a 'one on one' engagement beyond visual range, it should do okay.

Click to expand...

The F-35's aren't really supposed to engage in air superiority missions in a conventional nature. They are basically for lack of better terminology a glorified forward air control and mini awacs and communications hub amalgamation. They are going to basically direct the drone swarms and missile salvos. We already have proven UCAV technology going as far back as the mid 90's with Boeing and the X-45 series drones. Those tests were very successful. This technology has matured since and is being incorporated into new designs. There are also several new kids on the block competing with Boeing for the new drone contracts. We also have a restricted intelligence that is very good at maneuvering and directing any number of drones of any kind on an ordinary PC no less.

Dayton3 said:

The USAF always wants to get rid of aircraft that suffer from very high accident rates. A-10s have always had a tendency to run into the ground during low level training missions.

And A-10s have survived being hit by SAMs before IIRC.

Click to expand...

They have come back missing half a wing and or tail.

PirateMk1 said:

The F-35's aren't really supposed to engage in air superiority missions in a conventional nature. They are basically for lack of better terminology a glorified forward air control and mini awacs and communications hub amalgamation. They are going to basically direct the drone swarms and missile salvos. We already have proven UCAV technology going as far back as the mid 90's with Boeing and the X-45 series drones. Those tests were very successful. This technology has matured since and is being incorporated into new designs. There are also several new kids on the block competing with Boeing for the new drone contracts. We also have a restricted intelligence that is very good at maneuvering and directing any number of drones of any kind on an ordinary PC no less.

Click to expand...

The Chinese will disrupt the data links first thing....this has been rather obvious for awhile....the plan will fail and it will fail fast.

Hawkeye10 said:

The Chinese will disrupt the data links first thing....this has been rather obvious for awhile....the plan will fail and it will fail fast.

Click to expand...

Uh no. You dont know what the capabilities are of our current radars and communications equipment do you? To Jam or Interfere with communication or radar you have to know the frequency or at least the generally vicinity of the frequency of said equipment. Modern equipment doesn't work on one band it works across a spectrum and randomly skipping across frequencies. Modern radar and communications doesn't have to be high powered anymore because instead of general high powered distinct signals, specific encrypted and shaped lower power signals are sent out that resemble background radiation noise so they are very difficult to even detect let alone jam. LPI, low probability of intercept. To be able to successfully jam such systems requires more power and equipment than most nations including China have. The datalinks we have are very robust and fail softly, they simply degrade rather than fail catastrophically.