Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I'm not really hyped about this plane as many others, I guess. Especially for our comparably small army, compared to the bigger nations. Spending enormous amounts of money for maybe 20 planes that might just as well be shot down in the first days of a larger war by some new-tech missile or simply due to bad planning and bad luck, and then we have a Luftwaffe without planes anymore? These small numbers, regardless of how great the plane is supposed to be, just sound really dangerous to me.
Get those high-tech planes, alright, but perhaps have a second-line wave of MUCH cheaper, older-generation fighters ready, with enough trained pilots as well. World War II saw 20,000 Spitfires and 30,000 BF 109s alone in the European theater, and nowadays we bumble about with just enough planes to fill one large hangar? And when they get shot down or just killed on the ground by long-range missiles we can wait for a few years before they are replaced? None of this sounds sustainable.

Yeah I sympathize. I think most countries buying the F-35 will never get out of the plane what some of the few do. Part of the problem is that over the last 50 years all these companies have been merging and there are far fewer competitors around now. Also, as you can see with the tech that they are putting into the F-35, that you either have it or you don't. It takes some crazy resources to take on a project like the F-35, which many would argue, was too big anyway. But given the limited number of options out there, do you want to tell your military and people that you are settling for lower rate planes or do you want to show your military is keeping up and has the latest. Its a hard pill to swallow either way.

But given the number of planes they are making, and the number of countries buying them, its probably safe to say that this plane will be around for a couple of decades. But in the case of Germany, if they can barely afford spare parts for their fighters now, I highly doubt they will have many of the F-35 air worthy in 10 years.

I do believe though, that as time goes by, the cheaper options are going to be dominated and wacked by the more expensive ones. And its just not about the plane anymore, its how it fits into the system. And if you don't have a system that the F-35 is designed to fit in with, then its even more money that is going to waste.

I honestly do not know the answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do miss competition though. Remember all the crazy ideas from the 50s on? Guys like these:





The face only a mother could love. But I like it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Getting back to the F-35 we had it's first combat missions with the US on Thursday, and first crash today. That was quick.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45688255

Mark my words, this will go down as pilot error. They always do. Even when its not.

I have a funny story about how they used to determine this but its too long to tell at the moment. Will post the story later.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

People do care about killing infants though, so that is not an option. Not unless you want to deal with massive local resistance, political fallout at home and an entire world including your allies who hate you. In other words, a smart military uses smart bombs.

Anything I say on this subject could be construed as a insult directed at Peregrine. I think the idea that victory would only be possible through war crimes is absurd, and that he should be ashamed of himself. But I think it'd take 12 officers to convince him.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Anything I say on this subject could be construed as a insult directed at Peregrine. I think the idea that victory would only be possible through war crimes is absurd, and that he should be ashamed of himself. But I think it'd take 12 officers to convince him.

No, of course war crimes are not necessary for victory. The point is nobody is going to give a about war crimes in the kind of war where an autonomous drone swarm is useful. There are two key facts:

1) A drone swarm is only necessary or useful in a major war between peer-level states. In the sort of "kill a bunch of guys with AK-47s and suicide bombs" wars that we're currently fighting you don't need them. The extended endurance of a remotely operated drone is useful, but you can afford to have multiple pilots and analysts for each drone and take your time with identifying a potential target. Nothing gets time-critical because nothing is shooting back, the worst that can happen is that you can't confirm your target and have to destroy it later. Where the autonomous swarm becomes useful is when you need to put a large number of planes in the air at once in a high-threat environment. IOW, for things like air superiority missions, defense suppression, etc, where you're facing a suicide mission that must be completed. The drone swarm gives you the sheer numbers to engage that many targets at once, and it ensures that your only losses are to expendable munitions instead of human pilots. But that kind of situation only exists against peer-level states, whatever ISIS re-brands itself as next isn't going to come anywhere close to that kind of threat.

2) Wars between peer-level states are an avoid at all costs situation. No sane person wants a war with Russia or China, and no sane person on the other side wants a war with the US or its close allies. Such a war is likely to be obscenely destructive even if it doesn't go nuclear, and has a terrifyingly high risk of going nuclear and ending civilization as we know it. The potential price of such a war is almost certainly more than any possible gain from it, which means that short of our current "president" starting a war over twitter everyone involved is going to do everything they can to avoid it. If we're shooting at Russia or China it's a desperate "survival of the nation" kind of situation, and nobody is going to have time to worry about a hypothetical war crimes trial. If a SAM site happens to be close to a bunch of innocent babies, well, nobody is going to bother paying attention to what is nearby. As soon as that fire control radar is identified an anti-radar missile or GPS-guided bomb is on its way. It doesn't matter if a human pilot or a drone gives the launch command, the only thing anyone is paying attention to is winning the war by destroying the enemy's ability to fight.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Anything I say on this subject could be construed as a insult directed at Peregrine. I think the idea that victory would only be possible through war crimes is absurd, and that he should be ashamed of himself. But I think it'd take 12 officers to convince him.

No, of course war crimes are not necessary for victory. The point is nobody is going to give a about war crimes in the kind of war where an autonomous drone swarm is useful. There are two key facts:

1) A drone swarm is only necessary or useful in a major war between peer-level states. In the sort of "kill a bunch of guys with AK-47s and suicide bombs" wars that we're currently fighting you don't need them. The extended endurance of a remotely operated drone is useful, but you can afford to have multiple pilots and analysts for each drone and take your time with identifying a potential target. Nothing gets time-critical because nothing is shooting back, the worst that can happen is that you can't confirm your target and have to destroy it later. Where the autonomous swarm becomes useful is when you need to put a large number of planes in the air at once in a high-threat environment. IOW, for things like air superiority missions, defense suppression, etc, where you're facing a suicide mission that must be completed. The drone swarm gives you the sheer numbers to engage that many targets at once, and it ensures that your only losses are to expendable munitions instead of human pilots. But that kind of situation only exists against peer-level states, whatever ISIS re-brands itself as next isn't going to come anywhere close to that kind of threat.

And pray tell, why in this scenario are you wasting an expensive drone instead of a cheap cruise missile? We don't need unmanned aircraft for suicide missions in high-threat environments. We already have them. They are called missiles.

They are good way to transfer tax payer money elsewhere

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And pray tell, why in this scenario are you wasting an expensive drone instead of a cheap cruise missile? We don't need unmanned aircraft for suicide missions in high-threat environments. We already have them. They are called missiles.

Two reasons:

1) Endurance and response time. A drone can hold in a standby position for an extended period of time and then quickly deliver a strike once it is needed. A cruise missile can not do the same without becoming a drone in all but name. So yeah, the missile is great for destroying known targets in the opening minutes of a war and lots of missiles will be used for that purpose, but the drone swarm will still be needed to eliminate targets as they appear. Consider the difference between a fixed SAM site in permanent bunkers vs. a truck-mounted system that can pop up anywhere and open fire.

2) Air superiority. It's a suicide mission in a peer-state war, and drones can do it. Cruise missiles can't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And pray tell, why in this scenario are you wasting an expensive drone instead of a cheap cruise missile? We don't need unmanned aircraft for suicide missions in high-threat environments. We already have them. They are called missiles.

Two reasons:

1) Endurance and response time. A drone can hold in a standby position for an extended period of time and then quickly deliver a strike once it is needed. A cruise missile can not do the same without becoming a drone in all but name. So yeah, the missile is great for destroying known targets in the opening minutes of a war and lots of missiles will be used for that purpose, but the drone swarm will still be needed to eliminate targets as they appear. Consider the difference between a fixed SAM site in permanent bunkers vs. a truck-mounted system that can pop up anywhere and open fire.

2) Air superiority. It's a suicide mission in a peer-state war, and drones can do it. Cruise missiles can't.

1) Modern cruise missiles can already hold, change target and hover in standby position. Besides, it is much faster to launch a missile than it is to send a drone to its target, unless the drone already happens to be in the area. Which of course leaves the drone very vulnerable to being taken out by the SAM system it is after. Cruise missiles can also be deployed from aircraft who could be at standby way out of range of enemy air defenses yet still be close enough to ensure a very fast response time.
But most importantly, when the missiles are done flying there won't be a drone swarm anymore. Drones would have to be located on an airbase, which as a high priority target would have been destroyed in the opening minutes of the war. Realistically, any war between states with expansive missile arsenals is going to be fought without much in the way of air assets at all (at least in fixed-wing aircraft). Drones will be mostly useless in a war between peer-level states. Such a war would be immensely destructive in the opening hours, your drone assets are unlikely to survive, and they are too expensive and complicated to quickly rebuild. The most useful systems in such a conflict (aside from simply getting more missiles) are ones that are simple yet effective and can be produced in a short timeframe to overwhelm the enemy while he is still reeling from the initial onslaught. Basically, the state who can rebuild its military the fastest will win the war.
Where drones do excel is in low-intensity conflicts that drag on a long while, where the lower operating costs of a drone can save money in the long run and you do not risk losing public approval because of the slow but constant trickle of casualties, and where cruise missiles and ICBMs are generally too expensive and destructive to use.

2) There is no such thing as an air superiority suicide mission. If an air superiority mission is a suicide mission than it is counterproductive to the goal of establishing air superiority, which requires you to take out enemy air assets without losing your own. Also, cruise missiles can do it. Enemy air assets are dependent on infrastructure. Goodbye airbases, goodbye air force.

 Iron_Captain wrote:


2) There is no such thing as an air superiority suicide mission. If an air superiority mission is a suicide mission than it is counterproductive to the goal of establishing air superiority, which requires you to take out enemy air assets without losing your own. Also, cruise missiles can do it. Enemy air assets are dependent on infrastructure. Goodbye airbases, goodbye air force.

Unless, of course, the airforce in question is built around the assumption that the airbases are the first targets to go and plan around it accordingly, investing in aircraft that can land on random country roads and hide in the woods while refuling and rearming.

Shameless national plug.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

1) Modern cruise missiles can already hold, change target and hover in standby position. Besides, it is much faster to launch a missile than it is to send a drone to its target, unless the drone already happens to be in the area. Which of course leaves the drone very vulnerable to being taken out by the SAM system it is after. Cruise missiles can also be deployed from aircraft who could be at standby way out of range of enemy air defenses yet still be close enough to ensure a very fast response time.

Actually no. We haven't seen a war between similarly advanced rivals using this technology yet, but in the case of the US military, there is a lot of stalking that goes on before the shot is fired. Sometimes days. A cruise missile can't do that. There are drone pilots operating out of containers who are suffering from PTSD from becoming so familiar with a target, sometimes with a family around, that its starting to affect them when they kill them. And many drive home to their families after their shift has ended that is the crazy part. 'Honey how was your day?'

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525413427/for-drone-pilots-warfare-may-be-remote-but-the-trauma-is-real

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html

BTW I dated a girl once who was in Iraq that did the very type of work that Kimi did in the first story, and she told me who she would put together packets for the strikes together. She often did some of the interrogating too. This girl couldn't have weighed more than 105, was a cute little southern girl, and not anywhere near the type of person you would envision doing that kind of work. It was crazy.

I also dated another who was also in the air force in Afghanistan and did the weather reports. There was a lot of pressure because if they sent up a drone in the wrong kind of weather and anything happened to it, heads would roll. So if she was off she would get blasted for it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Unless, of course, the airforce in question is built around the assumption that the airbases are the first targets to go and plan around it accordingly, investing in aircraft that can land on random country roads and hide in the woods while refuling and rearming.

Shameless national plug.

Actually this is very legit. All US air force bases begin the day sweeping the air strips for little debris like small stones to prevent them getting sucked into intakes. A russian pilot visiting a US base stated he didn't think that would be possible in war time situations, and that jets have to be rugged enough to handle things like that, and to some extend he has a point. But for the most part the US is going to act as the aggressor anyway and more than likely is going to chose the time and where the battles occur. Not to say that an airbase in South Korea wouldn't be impacted, but I don't worry about the ones in Missouri.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

1) Modern cruise missiles can already hold, change target and hover in standby position. Besides, it is much faster to launch a missile than it is to send a drone to its target, unless the drone already happens to be in the area. Which of course leaves the drone very vulnerable to being taken out by the SAM system it is after. Cruise missiles can also be deployed from aircraft who could be at standby way out of range of enemy air defenses yet still be close enough to ensure a very fast response time.

Actually no. We haven't seen a war between similarly advanced rivals using this technology yet, but in the case of the US military, there is a lot of stalking that goes on before the shot is fired. Sometimes days. A cruise missile can't do that. There are drone pilots operating out of containers who are suffering from PTSD from becoming so familiar with a target, sometimes with a family around, that its starting to affect them when they kill them. And many drive home to their families after their shift has ended that is the crazy part. 'Honey how was your day?'

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525413427/for-drone-pilots-warfare-may-be-remote-but-the-trauma-is-real

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html

BTW I dated a girl once who was in Iraq that did the very type of work that Kimi did in the first story, and she told me who she would put together packets for the strikes together. She often did some of the interrogating too. This girl couldn't have weighed more than 105, was a cute little southern girl, and not anywhere near the type of person you would envision doing that kind of work. It was crazy.

I also dated another who was also in the air force in Afghanistan and did the weather reports. There was a lot of pressure because if they sent up a drone in the wrong kind of weather and anything happened to it, heads would roll. So if she was off she would get blasted for it.

That is for low-intensity conflicts though where the US wants to avoid collateral damage as much as possible. Hence the stalking to make sure they have the right guy, and if possible to look for a moment to blow him up without his entire family. In a total war scenario there is no time nor need for that. Which, while much more destructive, I can imagine is actually less emotionally taxing for the people pulling the trigger, since you do not get face to face with your victims. That is why for example Allied strategic bomber crews from WW2 could do what they did, even though what they did was in practice usually little more than mass-murdering innocent kids and other civilians. But if those same people had been asked to kill the exact same kids through more personal means (like just shooting them) they would undoubtedly have refused. It is because they never saw their victims that they could disconnect themselves from it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Unless, of course, the airforce in question is built around the assumption that the airbases are the first targets to go and plan around it accordingly, investing in aircraft that can land on random country roads and hide in the woods while refuling and rearming.

Shameless national plug.

The Swedes do build great, practical aircraft though.

 KTG17 wrote:
Actually this is very legit. All US air force bases begin the day sweeping the air strips for little debris like small stones to prevent them getting sucked into intakes. A russian pilot visiting a US base stated he didn't think that would be possible in war time situations, and that jets have to be rugged enough to handle things like that, and to some extend he has a point. But for the most part the US is going to act as the aggressor anyway and more than likely is going to chose the time and where the battles occur. Not to say that an airbase in South Korea wouldn't be impacted, but I don't worry about the ones in Missouri.

But what good will a base in Missouri do you when the conflict is in Korea?

Well, for one, our Stealth Bombers typically launch from there. But just making the point that the trade off for high tech, and maybe more fragile weapons pays off when most of our opponents can't strike most of the sources they are coming from. So we can still walk the strips looking for pebbles.

 KTG17 wrote:
Well, for one, our Stealth Bombers typically launch from there. But just making the point that the trade off for high tech, and maybe more fragile weapons pays off when most of our opponents can't strike most of the sources they are coming from. So we can still walk the strips looking for pebbles.

But states that can match the US militarily such as Russia and China can destroy those bases in Missouri with trivial ease. Even North Korea may get the capability to hit Missouri not far into the future. And what are those stealth bombers (assuming they somehow survive the destruction of the base) going to do then? It is not like they are able to take off from any muddy field. Destroy its base, and any aircraft becomes useless.
Well unless you are smart like the Swedes and build your aircraft with that in mind.

High tech is great for proxy wars, low intensity conflicts and invading places without nasty missiles or other means to hit your homeland and infrastructure. But for taking on a really big enemy you want something that is simple, reliable and can be built and operated even after you got hit right in the face and your country is in ruins.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Well, for one, our Stealth Bombers typically launch from there. But just making the point that the trade off for high tech, and maybe more fragile weapons pays off when most of our opponents can't strike most of the sources they are coming from. So we can still walk the strips looking for pebbles.

But states that can match the US militarily such as Russia and China can destroy those bases in Missouri with trivial ease. Even North Korea may get the capability to hit Missouri not far into the future. And what are those stealth bombers (assuming they somehow survive the destruction of the base) going to do then? It is not like they are able to take off from any muddy field. Destroy its base, and any aircraft becomes useless.
Well unless you are smart like the Swedes and build your aircraft with that in mind.

What does Russia or China have that can hit the mainland US, especially a central state like Missouri, without starting a nuclear war? At which point it isn't about the stealth bombers, but all the ICBM silos and nuclear equipped subs.

Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Well, for one, our Stealth Bombers typically launch from there. But just making the point that the trade off for high tech, and maybe more fragile weapons pays off when most of our opponents can't strike most of the sources they are coming from. So we can still walk the strips looking for pebbles.

But states that can match the US militarily such as Russia and China can destroy those bases in Missouri with trivial ease. Even North Korea may get the capability to hit Missouri not far into the future. And what are those stealth bombers (assuming they somehow survive the destruction of the base) going to do then? It is not like they are able to take off from any muddy field. Destroy its base, and any aircraft becomes useless.
Well unless you are smart like the Swedes and build your aircraft with that in mind.

What does Russia or China have that can hit the mainland US, especially a central state like Missouri, without starting a nuclear war? At which point it isn't about the stealth bombers, but all the ICBM silos and nuclear equipped subs.

You can't hit a state like the US, Russia or China and get away without retaliation. That is the point I was making earlier about how good equipment for a total war scenario is easy to produce and operate, and drones would be worthless because they are the exact opposite.

 Vulcan wrote:
Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

No, some of us will still be alive and envy the dead.


I'll point out once again the flaws with some of these arguments:
Stealth aircraft arn't.

Let me show you how to beat the F-35 in three easy steps that any half assed warlord can afford, let alone a 'peer'.

One, buy all the 'inferior' 4th gen fighters that are up for fire sale you can. Buy old, soviet era long wave radar systems.
Two: When something plane ish turns up in an area,, sorty about 50 faster, more mobile, more heavily armed 'junk' aircraft for every contact.
Three Wipe floor with F-35s before they can run away.

 Vulcan wrote:
Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

Far from all of us. Many would die in such a war, without a doubt. But there would still be loads of people left as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

No, some of us will still be alive and envy the dead.


I'll point out once again the flaws with some of these arguments:
Stealth aircraft arn't.

Let me show you how to beat the F-35 in three easy steps that any half assed warlord can afford, let alone a 'peer'.

One, buy all the 'inferior' 4th gen fighters that are up for fire sale you can. Buy old, soviet era long wave radar systems.
Two: When something plane ish turns up in an area,, sorty about 50 faster, more mobile, more heavily armed 'junk' aircraft for every contact.
Three Wipe floor with F-35s before they can run away.

I'd like to see the half assed warlord who can afford 50 4th gen jet fighters.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

Far from all of us. Many would die in such a war, without a doubt. But there would still be loads of people left as well.

Sure, there would be small bands of survivors. There wouldn't be anything left with which to support even WWII aircraft for very long, much less repair and maintain stealth aircraft and/or drones and missiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

No, some of us will still be alive and envy the dead.


I'll point out once again the flaws with some of these arguments:
Stealth aircraft arn't.

Let me show you how to beat the F-35 in three easy steps that any half assed warlord can afford, let alone a 'peer'.

One, buy all the 'inferior' 4th gen fighters that are up for fire sale you can. Buy old, soviet era long wave radar systems.
Two: When something plane ish turns up in an area,, sorty about 50 faster, more mobile, more heavily armed 'junk' aircraft for every contact.
Three Wipe floor with F-35s before they can run away.

I'd like to see the half assed warlord who can afford 50 4th gen jet fighters.

I'm sure the Soviets would have used exactly this method, saving their more advanced aircraft (and more experienced pilots) for offensive operations.

Although if you really want to down the F-35 for a reasonable cost, you track it and avoid it (long-wave radar is plenty good enough for this)... and sent those fifty fighters after the KC-10 or KC-135 supporting it. No refueling and those F-35s don't come back.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

Far from all of us. Many would die in such a war, without a doubt. But there would still be loads of people left as well.

Sure, there would be small bands of survivors. There wouldn't be anything left with which to support even WWII aircraft for very long, much less repair and maintain stealth aircraft and/or drones and missiles.

The vast majority of the world population would survive actually. Assuming a war between the US and Russia or China, even most of the population in those countries would survive unless either one of the warring parties is stupid and decides to blow their entire arsenal in one go (which would leave them very vulnerable to future attacks), and even then there would be lots of survivors since neither of those countries has the nuclear arsenal to destroy every single city and town in the other country. Supporting WW2-style aircraft would certainly still be possible. It is quite easy to build those in a converted civilian factory. But yeah, stealth aircraft would be out of the question, which is the point I was making about how complicated designs are useless in total war.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Excellent point. If you're nuking Missouri, the world is fethed and no military capabilities matter anymore because we're all dead.

Far from all of us. Many would die in such a war, without a doubt. But there would still be loads of people left as well.

Sure, there would be small bands of survivors. There wouldn't be anything left with which to support even WWII aircraft for very long, much less repair and maintain stealth aircraft and/or drones and missiles.

The vast majority of the world population would survive actually. Assuming a war between the US and Russia or China, even most of the population in those countries would survive unless either one of the warring parties is stupid and decides to blow their entire arsenal in one go (which would leave them very vulnerable to future attacks), and even then there would be lots of survivors since neither of those countries has the nuclear arsenal to destroy every single city and town in the other country. Supporting WW2-style aircraft would certainly still be possible. It is quite easy to build those in a converted civilian factory. But yeah, stealth aircraft would be out of the question, which is the point I was making about how complicated designs are useless in total war.

If Russia or China launches a nuclear strike against the US, it also has to strike against every NATO country as the US has nuclear weapons in many of those countries, not to mention the countries own stockpiles. The US currently has around 1,800 strategic nuclear warheads currently deployed. The UK has around 120, France has between 200 and 300. Russia has around 1,600. Even without its allies, the US has Russia outgunned.

Also, nuclear war requires you to strike with everything you have, as there will not be the infrastructure in place to reliably launch a secondary wave of attacks except from autonomous delivery systems like submarines once your enemy retaliates with their own nuclear arsenal.

It's unlikely that, even in the event of a nuclear conflict that everything would actually get launched/implemented/used.

It is more likely the world would be heavily changed, but would continue to exist, even on fringes and in distant areas. We, as a race have already detonated 2200+ hydrogen/atomic/fusion/nuclear etc. weapons just in testing. The world still exists. I know there's a huge difference in tests and actual nuclear war - but it would take something special to actually eliminate the human race.

Now, ruining the entire world for thousands of years to come? Yes..that would happen for sure.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I'd like to see the half assed warlord who can afford 50 4th gen jet fighters.

Depends on where you buy. Flanker L, brand new and fully modernized will set you back about 10 million used or 30million new and 15,000 dollars an hour ish to fly, compared to the F-35's Debatable price tag (since it keeps changing) but around 100million to 120 million (though they swear it's gonna get cheaper) and 40,000 an hour to fly. meaning you can field 5 jets for the same cost as the F-35, which is still enough that the F-35 will run out of ammo before you run out of planes to throw at it.

Israel noted this issue with the F-35 when they dialed back their order recently in favor of the F-15, which they've announced plans to build up a huge force of instead.

Yep. The F-35 is going to be very good at what it does once they get the kinks worked out... but completely unaffordable as a major portion of your air force. The majority of the work is going to be done by legacy airframes, and upgrades thereof, because there will never be enough F-35s to go around.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I'd like to see the half assed warlord who can afford 50 4th gen jet fighters.

Depends on where you buy. Flanker L, brand new and fully modernized will set you back about 10 million used or 30million new and 15,000 dollars an hour ish to fly

I am going to assume that if you going to be bargain shopping, you'll have to assume that the quality of pilots and their training will be done at a bargain as well.

That is why I think the US is so far ahead and pulling out even further ahead of everyone else. Its not just the technology, but the fact that we've been at war for so long, and train longer and harder than everyone else. Its one thing to theorize what you might do with your forces, its another to execute it. The US has much more experience at executing than everyone else. So even if country X could load up on Flanker L's for cheap, it doesn't mean they would be able to use them to their full advantage. And chances are, its not going to be a F-35 versus the Flanker L on the Flanker L's terms. The Flanker is probably going to be a bit blind while the F-35 knows everything that is going on.

 KTG17 wrote:

That is why I think the US is so far ahead and pulling out even further ahead of everyone else. Its not just the technology, but the fact that we've been at war for so long, and train longer and harder than everyone else. Its one thing to theorize what you might do with your forces, its another to execute it.

That's great, but according to the pentagon's own estimates for the sort of war everyone here is talking about, those experienced pilots will all be dead or otherwise incapacitated in the first six hours of the war. And that's the sunniest, most feel-good, numbers.

The side that wins is the side that can replace losses fastest.


Also, just, fyi: if how you think the US is ahead was how war worked, in a peer on peer sort of war, we'd all be living in a world where Nazi Germany and Japan won WW2.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. Germany and Japan's ability to strike the US was really limited. And today, the US can strike anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/09/28/with-historic-first-f-35b-landings-on-hms-queen-elizabeth-the-uk-is-back-in-the-saddle-of-carrier-aviation/

Anyone know why the Marines don't use ramps like the Brits and others do? I don't think the marines use catapults but I could be wrong. Seems like the ramps would help.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
That's great, but according to the pentagon's own estimates for the sort of war everyone here is talking about, those experienced pilots will all be dead or otherwise incapacitated in the first six hours of the war. And that's the sunniest, most feel-good, numbers.

Which is another argument in favor of drones. Drone spam allows you to very quickly increase your effective manpower by having a small number of human operators controlling a whole fleet of drones, and allows the vast majority of the first-six-hours losses to be taken by expendable munitions instead of experienced human pilots. Who cares if the drone fleet suffers 95% losses as long as it gets the job done.

The side that wins is the side that can replace losses fastest.

There is no such thing as replacing losses in a modern war between peer-level states. Modern aircraft simply take way too long to build and modern weapons are too destructive to allow a war to continue that long. And cheap WWII-level expendable replacement garbage is worthless. It doesn't matter how many P-51 equivalents you can build with your low-tech factories, a single surviving F-35 (or drone figher) can kill an infinite number of them with zero chance of getting shot down, limited only by its need to return to base and rearm for another attack. Once the initial massacre happens the winner is the side that still has surviving reserves. And that's an argument for building reserves up front (including hordes of expendable drones), not for some bizarre attempt to build primitive weapons mid-war.

 KTG17 wrote:
I don't think that is a fair comparison. Germany and Japan's ability to strike the US was really limited. And today, the US can strike anywhere.

And that has anything to do with anything I just said? Distance has nothing to do with anything, it's the ability to replace loses. The harder it is to replace a loss, the greater the disadvantage every single loss imparts. This is why a Sherman you can produce a thousand of, and replace a transmission by removing four bolts, is superior to a Tiger you can make one of, and that same damage sends it back to the factory because it can't be repaired in the field.

 KTG17 wrote:

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/09/28/with-historic-first-f-35b-landings-on-hms-queen-elizabeth-the-uk-is-back-in-the-saddle-of-carrier-aviation/

Anyone know why the Marines don't use ramps like the Brits and others do? I don't think the marines use catapults but I could be wrong. Seems like the ramps would help.

Because the Navy operates the Marines ships? Or possibly because the Wasp class double as helicopter carriers which don't require ski jumps?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Distance has nothing to do with anything, it's the ability to replace loses.

And distance is a huge factor in replacing losses. The US could easily replace all of its losses in WWII because its entire manufacturing industry was immune to attack. Germany and Japan could, at best, attempt to sink convoys carrying replacements to the battlefield. They couldn't do anything to slow the actual manufacturing of new equipment. The same is not true in a hypothetical modern war, Russia and China have the ability to destroy US industry.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
I don't think that is a fair comparison. Germany and Japan's ability to strike the US was really limited. And today, the US can strike anywhere.

And that has anything to do with anything I just said? Distance has nothing to do with anything, it's the ability to replace loses.

Correct, and neither Germany nor Japan could not impact the US's ability to manufacture tanks, ships, and airplanes, nor acquire natural resources, due to the distance involved. On the other hand, in the modern world, the US can strike anywhere on the planet in short notice.

Because the Navy operates the Marines ships? Or possibly because the Wasp class double as helicopter carriers which don't require ski jumps?

Jesus. Ok, why doesn't the navy use ski jumps on the amphibious assault ships, which have shorter decks like most of the world's navies who all seem to use them.