There's No Way The F-35 Will Ever Match The Eurofighter In Aerial Combat

[gambit]

it brought down a stealth............ back than F117 was pride of USAF

One. The F-117 flew over 800 sorties. And we lost just one.

Stealth is over hyped it might be useful against a rag tag army but not a professional one

Then why are the Russians and the Chinese are building their own versions of 'stealth'? Do you even think through your argument?

OTH radars,space based assets, air defence assets....... Even only the preparations of an air attack would be observed at 5000-7000 km of distance or directly from space, since minute one

I doubt you have a clue of what those things are. You are just spouting words and phrases you picked up from the Internet.

We know the F-22 is not invisible in the visible light wave range because we can see it.

Wow...That is amazing...I never thought about that before...

I ignore ur last comment.

And people who have been reading my explanation on radar detection and 'stealth' pretty much ignore you.

 

[gambit]

What about B-2 Missuri?
After 1999 Missuri does not exist in US air force.

Yeah...Sure...For people like you, no amount of evidence will be enough. A B-2 was shot down? We would think that by now, pieces of it would turn up on ebay, right?

 

[gambit]

@gambit
Is there some kind of data available on BVR kill ratio . I mean in terms "number of launch and number of actual kills" .

Not really. Air to air combat between fighters have been rare since the end of the Vietnam War. In that conflict, the most famous air-air combat between fighters was Operation Bolo.

Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That fight used AIM-9s.

The few AIM-7s shots are not enough to establish any kind of statistical analyses so we have to resort to essentially guessing -- probability of kill or 'pk', and that came from test ranges, including from the Russians.

If you want to read a recent air-air combat account, see this article...

The Last Ace - Mark Bowden - The Atlantic

 

[ANPP]

Yeah...Sure...For people like you, no amount of evidence will be enough. A B-2 was shot down? We would think that by now, pieces of it would turn up on ebay, right?

One question about your glorified stealth

F117 was developed in decade of 80s, it was, so called stealth undetected a/c, but what happen when it meats to SAMs of era of 60, just downed. Although stealth provide huge benefit to system but upto what level.............

Now you are climing about B2 & F22; and I am sure they will able to take it down, but what will happen when they are going to face same era of SAMs means formidable enemy.

 

[janon]

One question about your glorified stealth

F117 was developed in decade of 80s, it was, so called stealth undetected a/c, but what happen when it meats to SAMs of era of 60, just downed. Although stealth provide huge benefit to system but upto what level.............

Now you are climing about B2 & F22; and I am sure they will able to take it down, but what will happen when they are going to face same era of SAMs means formidable enemy.

His point which has been repeated so many times is that only ONE F117 was downed in that entire war, although they flew hundreds of sorties. Stealth doesn't make the plane invincible, just a lot harder to down.

Non stealth aircrafts are much more vulnerable to detection and downing. An F-35 will have a much better chance of flying into hostile airspace than a 4th gen fighter.

Yes, modern SAM systems are excellent. But they are effective against non stealth aircrafts as well, in fact a lot more so.

In a war, if we have to fly hundreds of sorties in enemy airspace, say Pakistani or Chinese, a few stealth aircrafts would be more successful than a few legacy ones. And a war is going to be like that - hundreds (if not more) of sorties by hundreds of aircrafts. Not just one lone aircraft flying once.

What would you prefer - hundred aircrafts flown, one or two destroyed by SAMs, or hundred aircrafts flown, 20 or 30 destroyed by SAMs? For the former, we would need stealth fighters.

That is why the rest of the world is trying to catch up with americans, with expensive stealth programs of their own. That is why India is spending a whopping 35 billion dollars to team up on the PAKFA/FGFA project, despite having bought the Rafales or MKIs.

@gambit:

Do you think that USA's decision to cap the number of F-22s at 189 was wise? Is there any chance that they will make more F-22s in future? Also, instead of spending so much on the development cost of F-35, would it have been more prudent to utilize some of that money into producing more F-22s, so that the program acquisition cost per F-22s would come down? Including the development costs, is the F-35 good value for money?

 

[Esc8781]

it brought down a stealth............ back than F117 was pride of USAF

Stealth is over hyped it might be useful against a rag tag army but not a professional one

OTH radars,space based assets, air defence assets....... Even only the preparations of an air attack would be observed at 5000-7000 km of distance or directly from space, since minute one

Aircraft, in a full scale conflict between world level powers would be probably the assets less likely to get any chance to come into play (probably even if the conflict would be limited to conventional means), the reason is that airfields are,by far, the most easy fixed targets among any others military target ;moreover show an horrible "combination" of the worse elements codifying for great susceptibility to destruction :

1) a very high density of very soft, frail vehicles (aircraft)
2) a strong concentration of an immense amount very flammable fuel
3) high spatial concentration of bombs and missiles .

Practically any airfields ,except those placed in multi-layered, dense, and very extensive IADs (capable to neutralize or divert an enormous amount of cruise and ballistic missiles) would be reduced to a sprawl of smoking craters from hundreds or even thousands of Km of distances in a matter of minutes even before the logistical preparations for an air attack would be carried on.....

If we consider a thermonuclear scenario, obviously the role of aircraft such as F-22 or PAKFA become even more insignificant (all the conflict would be resolved ,in no more than 20-30 minutes, by ICBM, SLBM , ABM systems and space based systems of both sides ) moreover in this apocalyptical scenario several SAMs brigades in strategic positions would be quickly converted to nuclear warheads and ,as you well know, them would get an effective range more than doubled (not having any necessity to keep energy to manoeuvre in the terminal interception phase) and would need no more than the imprecise coordinates coming from an OTH radar for destroy enemy aircraft or group of cruise missiles ,considering that even only three of those thermonuclear missiles could obliterate an entire enemy air fleet outside the border of the nation in a kill radius of several dozen of kilometers !!!

Russian IRST technology or Russian IR guided AAM technology, S-300PM ,S-300VM ,S-400 , BUK-M1/2, Tor-M1/2, Tunguska-M1, Pantsir-S vs F35 or F22???????

even assuming the F-22 was totally invisible at any distance, the weapons it uses are not.

Those ideal Lockheed Martin RCS figures won't hold up very long when the aircraft is being engaged from many angles.

If a flight of four F-22s tried to engage a target protected by a battery of 6 Pantsir-S1s the SAMs would be able to engage 24 targets at a time, so even if all four aircraft released 5 weapons each, the battery would be able to deal with all the targets and the aircraft at once. The high speed of the missiles of the Pantsir-S1 system means that those targets would be rapidly engaged and a follow up engagement for another 24 targets would probably allow 2-3 engagements before any weapons from the F-22s could reach their targets... which means they probably wont.

Clearly one flight of 4 F-22s is not good enough in this case, so more would be needed.

Odds are there will be more Pantsir-S1 batteries than there will be F-22s.

We know the F-22 is not invisible in the visible light wave range because we can see it.

Russian optics makers have been experimenting with Image Intensification scopes with small computers in them for processing the light. It seems they have found a way to separate natural light from artificial light, so an object that is painted or dyed with artificial colours can be made to glow... put that in the nose of a missile and it can be used to shoot down F-22s all day and night.

Stealth can be dealt with effectively.

and the jet i was talking about is not european its Russian.

I ignore ur last comment.

You're just pulling these things out of your *** aren't you?

One question about your glorified stealth

F117 was developed in decade of 80s, it was, so called stealth undetected a/c, but what happen when it meats to SAMs of era of 60, just downed. Although stealth provide huge benefit to system but upto what level.............

Now you are climing about B2 & F22; and I am sure they will able to take it down, but what will happen when they are going to face same era of SAMs means formidable enemy.

Actually the earliest development of the F-117 was in the late 1970s. Search up Have blue and Senior Trend.

 

[gambit]

You're just pulling these things out of your *** aren't you?

Nope. He copied from others.

 

[ANPP]

His point which has been repeated so many times is that only ONE F117 was downed in that entire war, although they flew hundreds of sorties. Stealth doesn't make the plane invincible, just a lot harder to down.

Non stealth aircrafts are much more vulnerable to detection and downing. An F-35 will have a much better chance of flying into hostile airspace than a 4th gen fighter.

And how many SAMs sites were destroyed by them. What I am saying is effectiveness. The achievement of stealth on the sacrifice of maneuverability & sorties rate should not come. Stealth should be a imo feature of a/c not exclusive feature. F35 is your fighter your strategy. Go with it.


In era of 70s when A2A missiles were new concept, countries completely put there strategy on the use of them. They made very fast interceptor, who fly very high & very fast even a/c can be nearly invisible from ground radar(just like stealth). It will take out all others by radar lock-on & take them out by missiles.
But what happen in war, we all know. Although that increased interception quality of a/c, radar+missile do help these fighters but at last the one who stand as victorious was who also emphasis on conventional theory that is maneuverability.

You're just pulling these things out of your *** aren't you?

Actually the earliest development of the F-117 was in the late 1970s. Search up Have blue and Senior Trend.

SAMs were also of era of 70s.
And some Americans also claim that one more F117 was damaged (damage beyond repair) by SAM in Serbia.

 

[honorfreedom]

Yeah...Sure...For people like you, no amount of evidence will be enough.

I just said that is possible that was Yugoslavia shoted down a B2. Maybe that is true, maybe is not.

A B-2 was shot down? We would think that by now, pieces of it would turn up on ebay, right?

Hmmm, who knows maybe US goverment hiding losses.
At that time 1999, very few peoples in Serbia or Croatia had Internet, or mobile phone etc. etc.
That zone where is "shoted down" B2 is automaticly secured from civilan people.

If you lose something that making you proud, you will hide that.
US goverment don't recognize a loses, that is fact.(NO only US, all superrior countries)

 

[Esc8781]

SAMs were also of era of 70s.
And some Americans also claim that one more F117 was damaged (damage beyond repair) by SAM in Serbia.

Doesn't mean that the missile was on target. The F-117 dodged two out of three missiles that day. Spray n Pray technique.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

And how many SAMs sites were destroyed by them. What I am saying is effectiveness. The achievement of stealth on the sacrifice of maneuverability & sorties rate should not come. Stealth should be a imo feature of a/c not exclusive feature. F35 is your fighter your strategy. Go with it.


In era of 70s when A2A missiles were new concept, countries completely put there strategy on the use of them. They made very fast interceptor, who fly very high & very fast even a/c can be nearly invisible from ground radar(just like stealth). It will take out all others by radar lock-on & take them out by missiles.
But what happen in war, we all know. Although that increased interception quality of a/c, radar+missile do help these fighters but at last the one who stand as victorious was who also emphasis on conventional theory that is maneuverability.



SAMs were also of era of 70s.
And some Americans also claim that one more F117 was damaged (damage beyond repair) by SAM in Serbia.

back then F-11 time they relied heavily on stealth shaping than ram coating, today what we see in f22 is stealth shaping was compromised to achieve desired aerodynamic performance because ram materials has improved considerably well to compensate for the more aerodynamic shaping. it's all about keeping a balance, pakfa is even more balanced towards aero dynamic shaping and performance than f22 is. f35 is inferior to both these jets interms of aero dynamic performance.. I think it's more towards air to ground than air to air. these jets are not as maintenance friendly as 4th jets so untill they become more advanced and become easy to maintain they will be doing the missions like a special force.. regulars(4th gen ) will be doing the bulk of the job.

 

[gambit]

One question about your glorified stealth

Absolutely it is glorious.

F117 was developed in decade of 80s, it was, so called stealth undetected a/c, but what happen when it meats to SAMs of era of 60, just downed. Although stealth provide huge benefit to system but upto what level.............

Let us look at this again...

The F-117 flew over 800 sorties. One lost. If 'stealth' was so vulnerable to 'SAMs of era 60' that it was 'just down', then why only one lost? If whatever made the F-117 so vulnerable, then it should make ALL the other 'non-stealth' fighters even more vulnerable. Logical, no? Then why only one F-16 was lost?

Do you think through your argument?

Now you are climing about B2 & F22; and I am sure they will able to take it down, but what will happen when they are going to face same era of SAMs means formidable enemy.

The Russians and the Chinese were already vulnerable to the B-1 and even the old F-111. They stand little chance against the F-22 and B-2 and they know it.

 

[gambit]

@gambit:

Do you think that USA's decision to cap the number of F-22s at 189 was wise?

Financially, yes. We have only X amount of $$$ to allocate. That does not mean I approve of that decision at the personal level. I just understand that it had to be done.

Is there any chance that they will make more F-22s in future?

There is always a chance. The B-1 was cancelled by Carter and resurrected by Raygun. Of course, not many B-1s were built anyway and again, it was due to financial -- not technical -- reasons, that limited its second life. But the problem is that the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to resurrect the program, partly because of the fact that we are already on the way to replace the F-22.

Also, instead of spending so much on the development cost of F-35, would it have been more prudent to utilize some of that money into producing more F-22s, so that the program acquisition cost per F-22s would come down? Including the development costs, is the F-35 good value for money?

No. I understand the need for the greater quantity of the F-35. It is supposed to replace the F-16 and some roles of the F-15, as well as being exportable to allies.

 

[gambit]

I just said that is possible that was Yugoslavia shoted down a B2. Maybe that is true, maybe is not.

Yeah...It is possible that the Serbs could design and build their own 'stealth' fighter as well. Better get going...

Hmmm, who knows maybe US goverment hiding losses.
At that time 1999, very few peoples in Serbia or Croatia had Internet, or mobile phone etc. etc.
That zone where is "shoted down" B2 is automaticly secured from civilan people.

If you lose something that making you proud, you will hide that.
US goverment don't recognize a loses, that is fact.(NO only US, all superrior countries)

Right...

We lost one F-117 and it became big news, and you believe the loss of the larger and more expensive B-2 to be concealable from the American public?

When the F-117 was developed and later flew in secret, the USAF was more concerned with the technical details being exposed than its existence being speculated upon. We already knew that with all the thousands of people involved, there was no way that a 'radar evading fighter' -- a popular media term -- was going to be concealable for long. Then soon enough, speculations came even toy makers got into it.

 

[janon]

...that we are already on the way to replace the F-22.

With what? Unarmed drones? Or is there a 6th gen manned fighter in the works?