Trump calls for F-18 run off against F-35

a reply to: Fools


When it comes to the F-35 preformance against Russian ground to air defence's, it becomes a unknowen when it comes to the capability of the S-350, S-300, S-400, S-500 and the Pantsir S1/S2 and TOR's capability to protect the main russian air defence systems.


Detection range compare to striking range becomes a issue, at least when it comes to the F-35. The unknown is at what range Wold the Russian radars be capable of detecting US stealth?


Many People get the wrong idea when it comes to how the F-35 detects radar signature when looking at these YouTube videos. The F-35 will never be able to detect the radius of multiple radar bubles that are overlaped or spaced out byond the rach of the F-35 sensors. And the F-35 will not detect radar signatures that does not Reach it. The F-35 will not make a assumption of where these ground radars are unless they emitt a signal that it is capable of detecting and doing something With. If the radar signature is unknown to the F-35 data brain. The F-35 would not know what to do With it.

Even if the F-35 is capable of targeting these air defences the missiles and bombs would still have to Reach their targets.

Russian radars are capable of interacting With air to air and air to ground missles and goided bombs deployed from the US air fleet. That means Russia can deflect these missiles and guided bombs away from their target. This also implies withing air to air Battles. Russia can also shoot them Down before they Reach their target.

The best way to take out these ground targets would be With a massive attack of ordinates. This would implay that one would have to use a large portion of resourses to attack just one or two ground unites to be sure that it would be completely taken out.



I dont think one should assume that it would be a one shoot kill to take out the Russian defence.

a reply to: spy66

Which makes me happy that Obama and Clinton are going bye bye. Those guys are nuts about provoking Putin. Must be their CIA buddies planning more "parties".

Anyway, I know a few people that love to defend Russian capabilities. Personally I admire their technology, but I see some reports that they aren't as well ahead in technology as their admirer's want everyone to believe.

a reply to: Fools

Yes, but the B-52 brings a huge standoff capability to the field. If they can't get through the defenses, they can stay well outside them and launch flights of cruise missiles from a safe range. The A-10 brings nothing of the sort to the field.

I love the A-10 and had fun working on them when they'd come through, but other than a low intensity conflict, or after the defenses have been beaten down enough, the A-10 won't even be able to deploy to the area, for danger of being caught on the ground waiting to be able to do anything.

a reply to: Fools

The Navy had a chance for a stealthy long range recon/strike platform in UCLASS. They dicked around for years, changing requirements every six months, and finally announced they were canceling UCLASS and building an unmanned tanker, to take over the role from their Super Hornets.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

The Navy had a chance for a stealthy long range recon/strike platform

What about the A12 whose legal career lasted longer than its development run. Granted that wasn't cancelled because the Navy dicked about with specs (although they may have set unachievable ones with the technology and materials of the time) but they've accepted for a long time they needed something else, they just don't want to/can't afford what they're after

a reply to: Donkey09

The Navy has had almost zero interest in unmanned, or even stealthy platforms. They did a study about converting the F-117 into a navalized platform, and decided corrosion was going to be a major factor, and pretty much lost interest. They've basically gone with an unmanned platform because they were told they were getting it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

...other than a low intensity conflict, or after the defenses have been beaten down enough, the A-10 won't even be able to deploy to the area, for danger of being caught on the ground waiting to be able to do anything.

Exactly. The A-10 homers know nothing of it's original role.

It is armored for a reason. It was designed to be a speed bump for armored columns coming down the Fulda Gap. Their life span would have been measured in minutes if the balloon went up. It was expected that ALL A-10 pilots be dead within two weeks. I know the 7 losses per 100 sorties is the average, but the numbers I heard (back then) was that up to 21% causalities were expected in the first 24 hours (and a lifespan of 10 min. in combat)!

It was designed to be tough because it's mission profile was suicidal. And even with all of it's armor for many pilots day one was a one way trip.

Cold War planners expected to lose up to 60 A-10s a day.

F-35 is still kind of garbage. It is outdated. The world should scrap all the #ty fighter jets on Earth and starting building interceptors in space.

Them aliens make a fool out of us.

a reply to: makemap

Because we have that kind of technology just laying around to go with our giant space battleships no one can see from the ground.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Dibs on the deathstar

a reply to: Bfirez

I'd rather have a space fighter.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeh, space fighters are unlikely to have faulty trash compactors. Might be safer overall.

a reply to: Bfirez

They also don't have open exhaust ports that go straight to the core.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Major flaw.

...and the second one was, if anything worse. Letting 'em fly into the structure--admittedly unfinished, but still. I'd have been a bit more concerned with having the structural stuff done, then the honkin' big space gun working.

Hybrid air breathers/space engine thingies...Id still rather a Vf-1

Jumping back in to F-18 vs F-35.

F-18 is actually a good design. Have they not thought of redesigning the F-18 and call it F-28. Making it slightly bigger and have all the weapons inside like the Raptor?

The whole reason F-18 is outdated is because of the stuff sticking out making it slower.

a reply to: makemap

Because then you have an even bigger F-18, which means fewer on a carrier deck, it won't be stealthy, and will still have all the drawbacks of a fourth generation fighter in a fifth generation combat arena.

The whole reason the F-18 is outdated is because it's short legged, non-stealthy, and going up against combat systems that will snack it out of the sky in a peer or near peer war situation.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You could say we have TIE fighters😕

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: makemap

Because then you have an even bigger F-18, which means fewer on a carrier deck, it won't be stealthy, and will still have all the drawbacks of a fourth generation fighter in a fifth generation combat arena.

The whole reason the F-18 is outdated is because it's short legged, non-stealthy, and going up against combat systems that will snack it out of the sky in a peer or near peer war situation.

Who said it won't be stealthy? F-18 isn't stealthy because it doesn't used the newer F-35 airframe, or tech. You should get that off the list of argument. When it comes to redesigning you give it newer tech.

No your not using the old ass F-18 airframe. It is called building from scratch with new technology.

a reply to: makemap

Because the F-18 shape doesn't lend itself to being stealthy. Aspects of it maybe, but not the overall airframe. You can't just build it out of new materials and magically make it stealthy on the order of an F-35.

If you're not using the F-18 airframe, it's no longer an F-18, and you're building an entirely new aircraft, which means hundreds of billions in cost.