F/A-18E vs. F-35C

[PR3D4TOR]

I predict that the era of active detection systems is just about over, and that passive detection capabilities will be the main focus of future development. Just like active sonar for a sub, using active radar will be tantamount to suicide in the future. After all, its like a soldier searching for the enemy at night with a flashlight. 

[bozon]

You're thinking in an old fashioned way. Even with non-stealthy aircraft we have less numbers being just as effective... What used to take 1000 bomber raids in WW2 can be done with 1 flight of 4 (or even less) in a Gulf War setting... What used to take millions of millions of bombs to take out (an industrial complex) now takes 1 plane with 1 bomb. Nothing like guiding an LGB through an air vent on a roof for maximum devastation vs carpet bombing a city, right?

On top of that, we have a large selection of ELINT and jammer craft that can interfere with AAA when really needed, and on top of THAT stealth negates most of the AAA. Baghdad F-117s proved that much. Only 2% of the entire combined air force was F-117s, but they dropped something like almost HALF of all the ord dropped in the conflict, and had over 80% success on those drops.

So, yes... Better planes CAN replace more and more planes of lesser capabilities. This has been proven throughout aviation history.

Otherwise the Soviet Union never would have been invaded by the Germans, because they had tens of thousands of obsolete planes defending their nation.

F-35 will not carry any weapon that cannot be installed on previous generation aircraft. The only advantage is the platform itself. Electronic warfare is a big unknown. Everyone keep their abilities highly classified, so the real effectiveness is not clear, unless we are talking about obsolete equipment that has been studied and tested thoroughly, so the counter measured could be highly optimized against them. The effect of EW against new equipment is not something that you want to bet your life on.

"Stealth" currently means just radar. There are already all aspect IR missiles that can reach 10-15 miles. It is true that without a radar lock the acquisition will be difficult in less than favorable conditions, but still. I do not underestimate it. As I said in my first post two pages ago, stealth can be the added value that will justify a new generation of fighters, but it will be decided by points, not by KO.

The F-117 example does not teach us much. Could the US and allies achieve the striking goals with other planes? I bet that the answer is a big YES. But sure, if you already invested the money and equipped yourself with a better aircraft with lower loss-rates, it would be stupid not to use it to the max. What I claim is that whether or not F-117 existed made near zero difference in the tactical sense. It makes a huge difference to public opinion and support of the war if you do not loose planes+pilots,  even if you can tactically afford it.

The comparison to WWII is also irrelevant. We are not talking top notch vs. obsolete - we are comparing superior equipment (upgraded F-15,16,18) to even more superior equipment (F-22,35). In WWII terms, the comparison will be the Russian  front of 1942: history vs. the scenario in which the Germans had 109K, 190D and Me262 in 1942 - would it make a tactical difference when the LW had complete dominance already?

Another WWII example is the F4U vs. F6F in the navy. The F4U was clearly the better performer of the two. BUT the F6F was better in every aspect that has nothing to do with flight - in particular (but not only), it was cheaper, produced MUCH faster and easier to maintain (in a navy full of Grummans). While inferior to the F4U, the Hellcat was still superior to the opposition. The Navy could have equipped a small number of squadrons with F4U, or equip the entire navy with "inferior" F6Fs - they wisely chose the latter.
The best performer is not always the best choice, especially if it is an over-achiever.

[Tank-Ace]

Well. look at it this way; we're not even using a fraction of the output we would have in a wartime situation (and I mean legitimate wartime, as in a major war against another country, not 'war on terror'). And yet we still maintain effective numbers of superior equipment.

Our M1A2 which is armed with a 120mm L/44 could quickly be upgunned with a more powerful 120mm L/55.
If we need numbers and need them now, we could built a horde of strikers with 105mm L7 guns and press those into service as high-speed tank destroyers.

We could built a swarm of F-16's if we needed more numbers.



So you're comparing the USA at its current production of military equipment, that ranges from half-assed to non-existant, to some other country going full-out. And even then, its not at all clear we would lose a fight.

[Mace2004]

Well. look at it this way; we're not even using a fraction of the output we would have in a wartime situation (and I mean legitimate wartime, as in a major war against another country, not 'war on terror'). And yet we still maintain effective numbers of superior equipment.

Our M1A2 which is armed with a 120mm L/44 could quickly be upgunned with a more powerful 120mm L/55.
If we need numbers and need them now, we could built a horde of strikers with 105mm L7 guns and press those into service as high-speed tank destroyers.

We could built a swarm of F-16's if we needed more numbers.



So you're comparing the USA at its current production of military equipment, that ranges from half-assed to non-existant, to some other country going full-out. And even then, its not at all clear we would lose a fight.

Unfortunently, things don't work that way anymore.  The idea of ramping up production to produce vast numbers of modern fighters is a pipe dream.  I had a discussion years ago with some very senior Grumman reps while I was doing F-14D OPEVAL and asked them how quickly they could build more F-14's at war time.  There answer was that they could double their production in the second year.  The first year would be the 12 already contracted for and under construction, the second year 24 and the third year maybe a few more but that was about it.  This is because of the long-lead-time items like titanium and the ability of their sub-contractors to build their parts.  When Grumman was building F4Fs and F6Fs they built everything but the engines and guns but now everything comes from other places and they only built the airframes.  For instance, Hughes made the APG-71 but also made the F-15's APG-70, the F-18's APG-65 and others.  Hughes didn't have the production capacity to significantly increase their production rates.  Same for the engines (GE), ejection seats (Martin Baker) and hundreds upon hundreds of other parts.  The complexity of a modern fighter is only outstripped by the complexity of building them.

[Bodhi]

Mace,
You might be surprised, but the number of GFE items in WW2 US aircraft was actually quite high.  Not the level of today, but it was very high.  I learned that when he restored our first B-25.  That was bad, but fighters seemed almost worse.

[Tank-Ace]

I think you would be supprised Mace, in WWII, even a bombed out, material starved Germany was able to produce over 1000 Me-262's in less than a year, which were extremely complex and difficult to manufacture for the time. Now granted that an F-14 or an F-16 is significanly more complex than a 262, I'm still sure we would be able to get our yearly production up into the triple didit ranges if we go flat out.

[Stoney]

One of my favorite examples along these lines (other than the F-117 shootdown) is the Argentine Air Force during the Falklands.  They did what no one in the Royal Navy (or the world for that matter) thought they could do with their obsolescing aircraft and weaponry, and that's sink a lot of British shipping.  Would have been even worse, if the accounts I've read are correct, if they'd had the proper fuzes for the iron bombs they were hitting the ships with.

The F-117 got shot down because we got sloppy and overly reliant on the technology, rather than sound tactics.  Furthermore, the same thing caused the death of around 150 Kosovar Albanians, in two separate incidents, when our FAC(A)s mis-identified refugee convoys as Serbian army formations trying to V-ID vehicles from extreme altitudes, relying on technology rather than sound tactics.  Its also the reason why 17 Marines got killed in An Nasariya by USAF A-10s in March 2003.  I could go on and on here.  Bottom line, and this was my original point that kind of got lost in the discussion, is that its not the tools, but how you use them that make the difference.

We built something like 44,000 Sherman tanks during WWII.  The Germans built something like 1,400 Tigers.  I don't know how many T-34s the Russians built, but it was close to the Sherman numbers.  Now, I've never heard a German tanker complain about the Tiger, much the opposite really.  But, ultimately, that type of production and fielding disparity was decisive, rather than the quality of the weapons.  If we can't afford to buy enough F-22/F-35 to persist in the air in a high-intensity environment, that's a problem in my opinion.  The Osprey is another aircraft I have similar feelings about, but since we're getting them in quantities for a one-to-one swap for the Frog, I don't have as much heartburn about them.  Its not about the length of development, or the cost of development, per se, but the ability of the aircraft to operate continuously in a high-threat environment during sustained operations.  Are we gonna have enough of them after a few get shot down, some are lost due to non-combat operational losses, and after the wear and tear of high-intensity operational tempo starts to impact our ability to maintain them in sufficient numbers.  Maybe we will, but my gut tells me that we're getting close to a point with these two aircraft where top technology is too expensive to be cost-effective.

[PR3D4TOR]

Germany produced 50,439 tanks in WWII. Of these 2,027 were Elefant and Tiger I and II, 6,557 Panthers, 13,522 Panzer IV and 16,409 Panzer III.

Germany lost the war because they were fighting the whole world except Italy and Japan. They lost on a strategic level, but without allied air supremacy Operation Overlord would have failed completely. Allied tactical air power, and air interdiction of German supply in particular,  was the only factor that prevented the Germans from throwing the allied armies back into the English Channel. One third of the German tanks in France were destroyed by their own crews when they ran out of supplies and had to buggy on foot. Still allied tank losses were so bad that the allied crews had all but lost hope of surviving. Nevertheless, Germany would still have lost the war in the east where the war in Europe was really decided. For all its Hollywood glamour the war in Western Europe was a sideshow.

[Stoney]

Germany produced 50,439 tanks in WWII. Of these 2,027 were Elefant and Tiger I and II, 6,557 Panthers, 13,522 Panzer IV and 16,409 Panzer III.

Germany lost the war because they were fighting the whole world except Italy and Japan. They lost on a strategic level, but without allied air supremacy Operation Overlord would have failed completely. Allied tactical air power, and air interdiction of German supply in particular,  was the only factor that prevented the Germans from throwing the allied armies back into the English Channel. One third of the German tanks in France were destroyed by their own crews when they ran out of supplies and had to buggy on foot. Still allied tank losses were so bad that the allied crews had all but lost hope of surviving. Nevertheless, Germany would still have lost the war in the east where the war in Europe was really decided. For all its Hollywood glamour the war in Western Europe was a sideshow.

You are missing my point.

[Krusty]

The lone F-117 shootdown has been attributed to piss-poor mission planning, where they had the SAME plane on the SAME mission passing over the SAME anti-air defenses... 4 times! On the 4th pass they had enough practice and with the good ol'e mk1 eyeball shot it down with the right amount of lead.

Not a detriment to the plane itself, IMO.

[Bodhi]

The lone F-117 shootdown has been attributed to piss-poor mission planning, where they had the SAME plane on the SAME mission passing over the SAME anti-air defenses... 4 times! On the 4th pass they had enough practice and with the good ol'e mk1 eyeball shot it down with the right amount of lead.

Not a detriment to the plane itself, IMO.

You are full of crap Krusty and using excuses.  The DoD has propagated that myth all along as they did not want the world to know that the F117 was trackable.  That plane was "seen" by the Serbs archaic radar and the missile tracked and killed it.  So much for the total reliance on stealth.

[Noir]

cold war low frequency radar rigged with barb wire > high tech stealth   

[Krusty]

(soon to be skuzzified)

No, you sir are exactly what you described.

Maybe I was wrong on some of the details -- I did a little checking. I don't know if it was the same mission or multiple missions, but they had F-117s flying over the same defensive batteries repeatedly on the same flight plan. The SAMs that took it down were most likely optically-guided in nature, according to a snippet from a NATO loss report I found online. The retired AF general said there was 50/50 chance the plane was going down before it even took off. The Serbian General even made a comment that can be taken as surprise at the fact they did it.

A fairly consistent telling of what I can find is here, for those who don't have closed minds (including a few details about how the missiles were fired, etc):
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-58606.html

[Bodhi]

No, you sir are exactly what you described.

Maybe I was wrong on some of the details -- I did a little checking. I don't know if it was the same mission or multiple missions, but they had F-117s flying over the same defensive batteries repeatedly on the same flight plan. The SAMs that took it down were most likely optically-guided in nature, according to a snippet from a NATO loss report I found online. The retired AF general said there was 50/50 chance the plane was going down before it even took off. The Serbian General even made a comment that can be taken as surprise at the fact they did it.

A fairly consistent telling of what I can find is here, for those who don't have closed minds (including a few details about how the missiles were fired, etc):
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-58606.html

Crying to Skuzzy because you were called on crap?  You are too much.  It makes me think of that old photo that Furball made of you. 

As for the Serbian who commanded the battery that shot down the F117, Col. Zoltan, he stated that he modified the radar to track the F117 by studying available information on the aircraft.  His battery was 13 KM from the F117 when he got it.  Many reports stipulate that after hitting the aircraft with the fragmenting warhead of the SA-3, AAA opened up on the now very visible aircraft, ensuring it's demise.  Further, Zoltan was repeatedly moving his radar and launching sites as Wild Weasels were actively searching for the sites and he needed to move to stay alive.  He estimated that they moved 100 thousand kilometers in road miles during the 78 day campaign. 

Lastly, many experts dismiss the official US account especially after considering that an admission of the aircraft's stealth being compromised would be a very embarrassing situation for high level personnel. 

[Krusty]

Your OCD need to spew insults is why you'll get skuzzified. Don't blame me for that.


What you describe doesn't seem to conflict with the link I posted. They used what they knew and rigged up a system to get a SAM into the same spot as the F-117. SAM, Flak, AAA, if you have a fair course/plot on the target you can shoot something to where it'll be in X time at Y distance. It's how submarines did it in WW2, also.

Oh, and for the record I'm not saying it was undetectable. The radar signature was so reduced to be impossible to lock on, but it wasn't gone. It was so small it blended in with background noise and so forth. I never said it was as good as the USAF claimed and I don't pretend to support the propoganda they might use to cover it up. It was, however, a blunder of planning. The same mission at night, for example, would have been better.