All American F-35s grounded worldwide

[LeGenD]

The SU-35 backed by A-100 and carrying a VLRAAM would be a nightmare for the F-35. This threat has worried USAF commanders even.

Similarly, the S-400 has been designed specifically for any A2G threats.

The real threat posed by the USAF is that they simply keep coming at you until they overwhelm you. But in the case of Russia, there will be carnage on both sides.

F-35 have potent EW capabilities and top-of-the-line low-observable characteristics, to make it impractical for Russian assets to engage them from afar in a reliable manner. Russians have failed to develop anything on the level of F-35 in low-observable aspects, so how would they find reliable ways to defeat these aircraft? We need to ask this question.

FYI: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...y-it-produced-training-challenges-pilot-says/

Conversely, F-35 would detect SU-35 and Beriev A-100 from afar, and can be armed with AIM-120D AMRAAM to engage them from considerable distances.

I believe that Americans are in a better position to develop potential counters to top-of-the-line stealthy products because they have such products in the first place, and can experiment with them. For instance, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye can reportedly detect J-20 but technicalities are largely classified.

Beriev A-100 is a great addition to Russian Air Force, and can [in theory] make it possible for SU-35 to engage F-35 outside IRST envelope, but performance parameters are unknown. In this respect, full range of VLRAAM becomes irrelevant.

And - if you consider entire USAF - then no contest. USAF is much bigger and well-equipped than Russian Air Force. The latter also have significant shortcomings in Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).

 

[CriticalThought]

F-35 have potent EW capabilities and top-of-the-line low-observable characteristics, to make it impractical for Russian assets to engage them from afar in a reliable manner. Russians have failed to develop anything on the level of F-35 in low-observable aspects, so how would they find reliable ways to defeat these aircraft? We need to ask this question.

FYI: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...y-it-produced-training-challenges-pilot-says/

I believe that Americans are in a better position to develop potential counters to top-of-the-line stealthy products because they have such products, and can experiment with them. For instance, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye can reportedly detect J-20 but technicalities are largely classified.

Beriev A-100 is a great addition to Russian Air Force, and can [in theory] make it possible for SU-35 to engage F-35 outside IRST envelope, but performance parameters are unknown. In this respect, full range of VLRAAM becomes irrelevant.

And - if you consider entire USAF - then no contest. USAF is much bigger and well-equipped than Russian Air Force. The latter also have significant shortcomings in Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).

The lack of Russian stealth aircraft should not be taken as a sign of their inability to understand or counter stealth. According to a very famous scandal, the computer simulations for US stealth designs got outsourced to Russian programmers!!! The real reason for a lack of Russian stealth is a different philosophy. Per Russian philosophy, stealth can be overcome with enough power. Hence, instead of reaching a compromise between maneuverability and stealth, take maneuverability to the extreme and apply stealth where it doesn't compromise performance. It doesn't matter if a stealth jet can detect and track you, it still needs missiles to attack you. Instead of trying to jam the stealthy jet, just jam the incoming missiles, or evade them through maneuvers, or strike from a very long range.

Imagine a SU-35 that has a height advantage over even the F-22 in a given combat situation. The AMRAAM needs to cover distance + gain height. Whereas the Flanker will use higher speed to increase the range and impact energy of the missile. And the Flanker carries a bigger load and actually fires multiple missiles with multiple types of warheads (IR + radar) at the Raptor. The Raptor cannot simply run away from the fight, or disappear into the ether. In addition to the formidable Zhuk radar, it is being tracked by the A-100 as well. Now if we bring F-35 into such a scenario, given the top speed of F-35... well it won't even be a fight.

 

[gambit]

Offtopic: @gambit i would like your input as well. What is the difference between the USAF as a force and the airforce wing of the US Navy?

Excellent question. It does take the issue to the philosophical/conceptual level. So here goes...

When the aircraft was invented, the idea of weaponizing the new invention was not dismissed. In fact, the idea of a 'combat aircraft' was quite immediate once the heavier than air flying contraption was proven to be inevitable.

https://thewrightbrothersstore.com/first-military-aviation-contract/

Signal Corps Specification, No. 486 was issued on December 23, 1907.

Dirigibles and gliders do not have the level of situational (re: tactical) controls, speed, and flexibility like a fully manned and powered aircraft would.

Now for the army...Any army...Not just the US Army...

The army have a limited view of combat. Am not saying that as an insult or even as an insinuation about the army's intelligence. What I mean is that for ground forces, the enemy is always immediately in front, meaning within visual range. Sure, the enemy maybe behind the hills or just a few day's march behind the mountains, but essentially, the enemy is always in view or very soon to be in view. Further, the enemy will be fully formed, meaning the combatants, whether they are human soldiers or tanks or trucks, are fully weaponized and readied to fight.

So if air power is available and under army control, air power will be equally limited in scope in terms of philosophy of combat and war doctrines. The aircraft's deployment will be limited to the front lines. It is not that the army's leadership are ignorant of factories that builds tanks or oil refineries that provides fuel that support the enemy. It is just that for all of man's military history, war have always been 2 dimensional (flat) and at best a few days in the future in terms of planning.

Air power proponents realized the philosophical/conceptual limits that ground forces placed upon the aircraft and fought for institutional severance, not merely organizational autonomy.

The US Air Force is an institution.

The US Army Air Corps is an organization. Even though throughout WW II the airmen were free to plan and fight as they see fit, the 'Army' in USAAC clearly commanded the viewer to note who is the final authority of US air power: The US Army.

If warfare is to be expanded into the third dimension, air power must be allowed to be institutionally free to develop its own war doctrines. The capability is already apparent. It is to attack the enemy behind the front lines and in ways that would both distract and deprive him of his resources. The question is how far behind the lines and how far into the future.

It takes about one week to turn crude oil into quality gasoline, then a few more days or even weeks to supply the enemy's ground forces. So if the refinery is destroyed, we are looking at affecting the course of the war in terms of months or even yrs into the future. Not only that, if the enemy country is defeated, the course of relations to that country will be affected for decades. Air power must be institutionally independent to develop its own methodologies, technology, and war doctrines to achieve goals that far into the future. Philosophically speaking, air power ranks up there with the horse and the wheel, far above the bow and arrow or the machine gun or artillery, in terms of affecting how wars and battles are planned and engaged.

Naval aviation is organizational, not institutional, and subordinate to sea power goals, the same ways the USAAC was subordinate to the US Army. Naval aviation depends on the navy while the air forces are independent. This does not mean naval aviation is any less important regarding contribution to the war effort. It only mean that the exploitation of air power must be appropriate to the character of the service and its goals.

Hope that helped.

 

[CriticalThought]

Excellent question. It does take the issue to the philosophical/conceptual level. So here goes...

When the aircraft was invented, the idea of weaponizing the new invention was not dismissed. In fact, the idea of a 'combat aircraft' was quite immediate once the heavier than air flying contraption was proven to be inevitable.

https://thewrightbrothersstore.com/first-military-aviation-contract/

Dirigibles and gliders do not have the level of situational (re: tactical) controls, speed, and flexibility like a fully manned and powered aircraft would.

Now for the army...Any army...Not just the US Army...

The army have a limited view of combat. Am not saying that as an insult or even as an insinuation about the army's intelligence. What I mean is that for ground forces, the enemy is always immediately in front, meaning within visual range. Sure, the enemy maybe behind the hills or just a few day's march behind the mountains, but essentially, the enemy is always in view or very soon to be in view. Further, the enemy will be fully formed, meaning the combatants, whether they are human soldiers or tanks or trucks, are fully weaponized and readied to fight.

So if air power is available and under army control, air power will be equally limited in scope in terms of philosophy of combat and war doctrines. The aircraft's deployment will be limited to the front lines. It is not that the army's leadership are ignorant of factories that builds tanks or oil refineries that provides fuel that support the enemy. It is just that for all of man's military history, war have always been 2 dimensional (flat) and at best a few days in the future in terms of planning.

Air power proponents realized the philosophical/conceptual limits that ground forces placed upon the aircraft and fought for institutional severance, not merely organizational autonomy.

The US Air Force is an institution.

The US Army Air Corps is an organization. Even though throughout WW II the airmen were free to plan and fight as they see fit, the 'Army' in USAAC clearly commanded the viewer to note who is the final authority of US air power: The US Army.

If warfare is to be expanded into the third dimension, air power must be allowed to be institutionally free to develop its own war doctrines. The capability is already apparent. It is to attack the enemy behind the front lines and in ways that would both distract and deprive him of his resources. The question is how far behind the lines and how far into the future.

It takes about one week to turn crude oil into quality gasoline, then a few more days or even weeks to supply the enemy's ground forces. So if the refinery is destroyed, we are looking at affecting the course of the war in terms of months or even yrs into the future. Not only that, if the enemy country is defeated, the course of relations to that country will be affected for decades. Air power must be institutionally independent to develop its own methodologies, technology, and war doctrines to achieve goals that far into the future. Philosophically speaking, air power ranks up there with the horse and the wheel, far above the bow and arrow or the machine gun or artillery, in terms of affecting how wars and battles are planned and engaged.

Naval aviation is organizational, not institutional, and subordinate to sea power goals, the same ways the USAAC was subordinate to the US Army. Naval aviation depends on the navy while the air forces are independent. This does not mean naval aviation is any less important regarding contribution to the war effort. It only mean that the exploitation of air power must be appropriate to the character of the service and its goals.

Hope that helped.

Thanks. But more questions. I can see how this doctrine can be executed with B-2s, B-52s etc. But what about the thousands of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and soon F-35s? These don't have the long legs to go behind enemy lines against Russia and China, for example. So are they solely for homeland defence? Or will they be deployed by asking an ally for an airbase and either flying them along with refuellers to said airbase, or getting transport on an aircraft carrier?

 

[alimobin memon]

The lack of Russian stealth aircraft should not be taken as a sign of their inability to understand or counter stealth. According to a very famous scandal, the computer simulations for US stealth designs got outsourced to Russian programmers!!! The real reason for a lack of Russian stealth is a different philosophy. Per Russian philosophy, stealth can be overcome with enough power. Hence, instead of reaching a compromise between maneuverability and stealth, take maneuverability to the extreme and apply stealth where it doesn't compromise performance. It doesn't matter if a stealth jet can detect and track you, it still needs missiles to attack you. Instead of trying to jam the stealthy jet, just jam the incoming missiles, or evade them through maneuvers, or strike from a very long range.

Imagine a SU-35 that has a height advantage over even the F-22 in a given combat situation. The AMRAAM needs to cover distance + gain height. Whereas the Flanker will use higher speed to increase the range and impact energy of the missile. And the Flanker carries a bigger load and actually fires multiple missiles with multiple types of warheads (IR + radar) at the Raptor. The Raptor cannot simply run away from the fight, or disappear into the ether. In addition to the formidable Zhuk radar, it is being tracked by the A-100 as well. Now if we bring F-35 into such a scenario, given the top speed of F-35... well it won't even be a fight.

There has been many times in history where what is sought to be the a innovative and advanced way of fighting an enemy is actually not as effective as sought to be. I still do not think any stealth jet has gone on a air to air war against the latest non us planes.

 

[gambit]

Thanks. But more questions. I can see how this doctrine can be executed with B-2s, B-52s etc. But what about the thousands of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and soon F-35s? These don't have the long legs to go behind enemy lines against Russia and China, for example. So are they solely for homeland defence? Or will they be deployed by asking an ally for an airbase and either flying them along with refuellers to said airbase, or getting transport on an aircraft carrier?

The individual platforms are tools/executors of air power. The overall concept that I conveyed was that in order for air power to be an effective contributor to the arts and crafts of war in general and to the country in particular, the air force must be an independent branch of service. No country is the same as its neighbor, so if air power is always subordinate to ground forces' doctrines, wars will always be 2 dimensional and protracted. If there was no independent air power in WW II, that war would have lasted longer and bloodier. Air power that struck at strategic centers shortened the war.

 

[randomradio]

The latter also have significant shortcomings in Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).

No, the Russians have some very good CEC capability. The S-400 in particular can accept surveillance and targeting data from a whole host of other radars, including AWACS.

Once upgraded, even the MKIs will be capable of providing fire control to the S-400.

These don't have the long legs to go behind enemy lines against Russia and China, for example.

The LRS-B and PCA should take care of this problem.

 

[CriticalThought]

No, the Russians have some very good CEC capability. The S-400 in particular can accept surveillance and targeting data from a whole host of other radars, including AWACS.

Once upgraded, even the MKIs will be capable of providing fire control to the S-400.



The LRS-B and PCA should take care of this problem.

My question was more about how current inventory would be used by the airforce in a foreign war.

 

[randomradio]

My question was more about how current inventory would be used by the airforce in a foreign war.

Refuelers. Lots and lots of refuelers.

 

[LeGenD]

The lack of Russian stealth aircraft should not be taken as a sign of their inability to understand or counter stealth. According to a very famous scandal, the computer simulations for US stealth designs got outsourced to Russian programmers!!! The real reason for a lack of Russian stealth is a different philosophy. Per Russian philosophy, stealth can be overcome with enough power. Hence, instead of reaching a compromise between maneuverability and stealth, take maneuverability to the extreme and apply stealth where it doesn't compromise performance.

Can you provide some information in regards to that scandal?

There is no substitute for access to actual hardware, my friend; any genuine engineer or scientist will tell you as much.

Numerous elements - when put together - define Low-Observable (LO) performance of an aircraft such as minimum protrusions in the structure (smooth surface and shape), composition of RAM coating, LO characteristics of the sensor suite, LO characteristics of the engine, LO-compliant internal power management, LO-compliant communication techniques, LO-compliant armament techniques (i.e. internal storage spaces), type of bolts used, and positioning of the bolts. F-35 have full-spectrum LO characteristics in short.

Russian failure in creating a combat aircraft with full-spectrum LO characteristics on the level of F-35, is due to lack of budget. Theoretical knowledge base is useless if massive funds are not available to conduct relevant experiments (I am speaking with experience in this respect). There are things which you learn in the development phase, and not otherwise. Secondly, aviation expertise is not uniform across all countries. Without any doubt, SU-57 was a valuable learning enterprise for Russia but not good enough.

Beriev A-100 might enable SU-35 to detect SU-57 from unspecified distance - this is the maximum we can expect from Russia at the moment. Meaningful hint from an F-35 pilot: https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-russia-china-radar-counter-stealth-2017-5

It doesn't matter if a stealth jet can detect and track you, it still needs missiles to attack you. Instead of trying to jam the stealthy jet, just jam the incoming missiles, or evade them through maneuvers, or strike from a very long range.

Imagine a SU-35 that has a height advantage over even the F-22 in a given combat situation. The AMRAAM needs to cover distance + gain height. Whereas the Flanker will use higher speed to increase the range and impact energy of the missile. And the Flanker carries a bigger load and actually fires multiple missiles with multiple types of warheads (IR + radar) at the Raptor. The Raptor cannot simply run away from the fight, or disappear into the ether. In addition to the formidable Zhuk radar, it is being tracked by the A-100 as well. Now if we bring F-35 into such a scenario, given the top speed of F-35... well it won't even be a fight.

Russian EW capabilities have produced mixed results in recent conflicts (Ukraine and Syria). Russian EW was effective in Ukraine because Ukrainian hardware is similar to Russian in design and capabilities on average. Russia is also in the position to closely study Ukrainian developments due to close proximity in geography (neighbors).

However, Russian EW capabilities failed to undermine American military operations in Syria. American attacks on Syrian regime in spite of Russian opposition are very telling.

FYI: http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...ess-against-tomahawk-cruise-admit-experts.htm

Although Russians acquired spent components of Tomahawk cruise missiles from American strikes on Syrian regime in 2018, and claim that these components will enable them to develop new generation of EW systems, but this is a dubious claim at best. Spent components do not tell much.

AIM-120D AMRAAM is also designed to operate in EW environment. It feature two-way data-link, HOBS, and activate its primary seeker when really close to its target, and it has home-on-jam capability to make sure that it collides with the target at the last moment.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that SU-35 is equipped with KNIRTI jamming pod, and arguably stand a chance in defeating an AIM-120D AMRAAM. Americans are known to employ salvo shots at potential targets (shoot-see-shoot strategy) and an F-35 might subject each SU-35 to two AIM-120D AMRAAM. One is already difficult to jam; salvo shot is likely to work. For the sake of argument, if a few SU-35 get through the initial salvo, then F-35 can employ AIM-9X against them and this missile is reportedly immune to EW. Evading these missiles is not an easy task either; depends when SU-35 will see them which will not be very soon.

Check the response of an Indian here: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-an-SU-35-can-easily-jam-an-AMRAAM-120D-AIM9X-making-an-F-35’s-BVR-capabilities-less-effective

Indians operate SU-30 MKI and understand Russian aircraft very well.

See first and Shoot first doctrine is not obsolete. Squadrons of F-35 can achieve wonders in the battle-space by themselves. Bring entire USAF into the picture and nothing can compete.

USAF might suffer some casualties in a major clash with Russian Air Force but there is no doubt about the eventual outcome.