>The US doubts whether it is expedient to further develop F-35 fighters, as the aircraft has essential deficiencies.
>The forecast says the Su-35 is expected to be able to shoot down 2.4 F-35s for every Su-35 lost.
>Submission No. 5: Review of the Defense Annual Report 2010-2011
So, literally we have been scammed by Lockmart into buying an incredibly expensive lame duck that cant even achieve a positive K/D ratio against upgraded 4.5 Gen fighters?
>click on report
>It cites ausairpower as a source
Surely the Australian government can do better than this?
People read SNAFU?
Putting in their own personal estimates of what they thought the plane would perform like; rubbish in, rubbish out.
The USAF did it's own simulations in 2008, using actual pilots flying simulated JSFs and 4.5th gen fighters. Their results showed a 6:1 kill ratio in favour of the F-35.
The Su-35 keeps evading the F-35's missiles with its superb maneuverbility and ECM systems, while the F-35 gets shreked by the Su-35's BVRAAM due to its inability to turn and to run, as well as having crappy self-defense ECM systems.
When I was a kid, the Soviets fielded a new sub. It was named "Typhoon". Just one of these things could flatten half a continent. They were huge. News programs and military journals were populated with tales of fleets of Typhoons streaming out into the world's oceans and vaporizing everything we loved with minutes' warning.
Only, it never happened. As it turns out, the Typhoon was enormously expensive, enormously loud and enormously unfit for war. Most of them never even went anywhere important. Considering that they had missiles on part with land-based ICBMs, the Typhoons were no more dangerous at sea than they were in their berths. Most of the time, they just hung out under the Arctic or Kara seas. And that's when they weren't simply plugged in at the dock.
But few people knew this. The Navy knew this. So did the intelligence services. And so did the journalists reporting the story. The journalists could have told us how benign the threat really was, but nobody really listens to journalists who tell us benign things. People listen to journalists who tell us the world is on fire. So that's what journalists tell us. That the word is on fire. Because we listen to that.
Signed, an Oldfag
Yes, it's entire ECM is basically its radars and they can only jam towards the front. There's an official acknowledgement of that fact by lockmart even.
Or it can, you know, carry pods. Outside
Is this an actual military simulator or a video game? If the makers are not familiar with the capabilities of the F-35, then it does not have any bearing on reality any more than ace combat.
Crappy scenario - the Su-35s were headed towards the F-35's airbase, the F-35s were scrambled (somehow there's nothing else in the air already) and then the F-35s decide to fly directly at the Su-35s, looking for them with their radar and supposedly allowing the Sukhois to detect them at 200km. They then just smoosh into each other because BVR tactics totally aren't a thing.
It can only jam towards the front, but it can jam with 80% of the output power of the EA-6B and it's systems. There's then also it's deception jamming capabilities.
A game (it comes with models that are based on estimates) but militaries use similar things with their own classified data put into it.
Leave it to Lockheed to drag out, complicate, kill fighter programs. F-22 lost to cash for clunkers, this F35 is way overdue, way overweight, and way not needed anymore. Vanity doesn't win a war
I don't understand why people will praise the F-22 and then accuse the F-35 of being a scam when they're made by the exact same people.
LM would have gladly sold more F-22's if the us government had wanted to buy more, and if they hadn't been barred from exporting it. The F-22 was definitely superior overall but the F-35 has its own merits like a cheaper unit cost and cheaper maintenance cost, plus a far more advanced sensor package.
The great irony of advancing age is that you see an old perspective in the face of new data and most people trust new data over old perspective.
There will never again be a Great War. I knew men who fought in the Great War. It was a horror. Three of my great grandfathers fought that war and I knew two. My grandather, three of his brothers and five other relatives I've known fought in the second World War.
That will never happen again. Not ever. No nation with an industrial capacity to fight a global war will ever fight another nation with a capacity to fight a global war because no nation with that capacity is presently without nuclear weapons. We could arm our military with paper airplanes and so long as we kept the nuclear forces untouched, the outcome would not vary.
But, nobody wants to hear that. People want to hear that the world is burning. And they listen to little else. So the journalists who report on the word and who want to keep their jobs report that the world is burning. Because that is what we listen to.
I'm not much of an aviator fag, but wouldn't the russians have seen the missiles coming on a radar or whatever their craft have equipped?
You seem to be under the illusion OP's article had any valid arguments or claims.
For their reading:
Because having an option between "do nothing and pray the scary people go away" and "push the button, send the balloon up and watch the world burn" is a totally awful idea, right?
No one ever needs to settle something with less force than the threat of a nuclear strike or an actual nuclear strike, right?
How are you as old as you claim to be yet carry such ill-considered beliefs?
Pierre pls go.
Slavshit is yesterday's news.
He is basically right, though. We compare the F-22/F-35 against Russian/Chinese fighters for the purpose of dick-measuring but let's face it that's not what the jets are really for. It is impossible for the US to fight either Russia or China without it escalating into a nuclear war. Thus, the F-22/F-35 are really just tools used by the United States to bully various smaller, non-nuclear countries around the globe.
>something is impossible because it hasn't happened yet and seems unlikely
>makes perfect sense to never prepare for that possibility
>or any other conventional power projection, economic interest protection, sea lanes clearing or peacekeeping power
>because having only the most massive hammer possible and nothing else never ended poorly for anyone in history
Anon. Jesus. Read a fucking book.
Kind of hilarious how quickly fucking idiots forget about Korea or Vietnam in their race to come up with a new genius radical geopolitical theory and then vomit it all over everyone they run across like autistic severe weather sirens.
I've heard this theory so many fucking times on /k/ now, and it only gets stupider with every iteration.
Can you perhaps name a few scenarios where the US could actually exchange blows with Russia/China without the conflict turning nuclear? I mean, sure, people wouldn't launch nukes immediately, but when one side or the other feels cornered it will be inevitable.
That's two major wars fought in part head to head but mostly through proxy in the only 71 years since nuclear weapons, and both of those conflicts involved all three countries you mention.
is /k/ really so dumb as to not realize there's been just as much conflict since nuclear weapons as before? maybe not on the same scale as a WW, but it's hard to find two contiguous years where at least two of the nuclear powers were not involved in a war.
>That's two major wars fought in part head to head
Korea was before China had nukes. There was no threat that they could retaliate. Now they can. Thus the US, for all its dick-waving, will never actually provoke China to war, or vice versa. At absolute most, there could be a very limited exchange.
And Russian soldiers never fought American soldiers in the Vietnam War. Neither side wanted to escalate the conflict that much.
What the fuck are you even trying to say? Do you actually think that there will ever be another world war that ISN'T nuclear? It simply cannot happen, and screaming at me doesn't change that you fucking retard.
I'm sure the F-22/F-35 have plenty of work ahead of them, but it won't be a war against Russia or China.
>Korea was before China had nukes
Yet we were head to head with Soviet pilots in MiG alley, and they most certainly did have nukes. Read a fucking book.
>At absolute most, there could be a very limited exchange.
Only because the best China can do is lob a handful of nukes at the west coast and glass Hawaii.
>And Russian soldiers never fought American soldiers in the Vietnam War
Jesus fuck. Read a fucking book, you ignorant nigger. It is depressing how many asshats on /k/ these days feel the need to flap their cockhosters as if they knew jack or shit when just HALF of that effort in actual research would ACTUALLY make them experts.
>Do you actually think that there will ever be another world war that ISN'T nuclear?
71 years since the world went nuclear. Just off the top of my head, at least 14 serious conflicts involving one or more of those powers. None of them nuclear. Your question, if you had half a fucking brain, should be "WILL THERE EVER BE A WAR THAT IS NUCLEAR?"
>And Russian soldiers never fought American soldiers in the Vietnam War.
Holy uneducated dipshit, batman.
>Russian veterans have gathered to mark the anniversary of America’s withdrawal from the Vietnam War. More than 3,000 Soviet soldiers fought in the conflict despite years of government denials that they were ever involved.
Even Russia Today reports it as fact. It's time to stop posting.
>What the fuck are you even trying to say? Do you actually think that there will ever be another world war that ISN'T nuclear? It simply cannot happen, and screaming at me doesn't change that you fucking retard.
Okay. First you have to prove that a war WOULD go nuclear.
>the vietnam war qualifies as an actual war between the US and Russia
>if you don't believe this you are a retard
>proxy wars are not a head to head conflict between world powers to assert their interests/dominance/projected power in a certain region
>if you don't believe this you are a retard
>Why is America invading Russia?
It doesn't matter. You asked for a scenario where a war might turn nuclear. And if the US went crazy and tried to take over Russia, nukes would fly.
>Proxy wars count as actual wars between nations
Then I suppose the US is literally at war with Russia right now.
>And if the US went crazy and tried to take over Russia, nukes would fly.
So, what you're saying is this improbable scenario (since it hasn't happened in 71 fucking years of more or less direct, indirect and proxy warfare) requires an entire nation to go insane, act as far against self interest as possible and then act completely without regard of the obvious response. All of this just for your little fantasy scenario to work. Gee. I guess we better go cancel the entire conventional military tomorrow. You're a total genius.
How did you get wheels AND a rocket engine on that goalpost?
Grow the fuck up, accept that your idea is retarded and read a fucking book about the real world. Stop playing so much vidya.
>I guess we better go cancel the entire conventional military tomorrow.
Where did I advocate this?
You agreed, with your post here >>28625726
>He is basically right, though.
with this >>28624800 anon's post where he specifically said
>We could arm our military with paper airplanes and so long as we kept the nuclear forces untouched, the outcome would not vary.
Did you forget that all the dumb shit you just got done writing literally just requires scrolling up?
>It doesn't matter. You asked for a scenario where a war might turn nuclear. And if the US went crazy and tried to take over Russia, nukes would fly.
No, I asked for you to prove that any war between the US and Russia was guaranteed to go nuclear. Not only did you fail to do that, you even failed to quote me entirely.
Literally anything that is not a direct invasion of either power.
In any event, china has a nuclear arsenal purely for deterrence, or to achieve the upper hand in a conventional war-it is totally incapable of MAD.
Even between Russia and the US, conventional forces would still survive and likely be VERY interested in slaughtering the opposing nation.
>It simply cannot happen
Yeah, and they called world war one the war to end all wars.
...then the monuments got fucking bombed in the second one, withe veterans from the first doing everything from fighting on the front lines to leading belligerent nations.
You don't know anything. Stop deluding yourself.
Welcome to the Russian Airforce.
Also, the bird the Turks potted with an early 90's vintage radar missile fired by an old as Moses block F-16 was "completely modernized" (including RWR) according to the Russians, yet never even saw it coming.
Makes you wonder about all the other "modernized" "Russian" (not Soviet, of course) designs.
It is all highly speculative since no one shows his EW cards in peace time
In the case of F-35 it doesn't even exist operationally at this time
I'd love for them to do simulations of Israel - Egypt air battles based on information what was then available. I wonder how accurate they would be.
>Ignoring a highly-qualified thinktank's literature entirely simply because it has shitty ethics and godawful biases
Nah. Just acknowledge the biases and pay attention to how and when the facts are twisted, and there's still plenty that can be learned from Ausairpower.
F-35 is in trouble if it gets swarmed.
Low payload. Low speed.
Half a dozen aircraft carriers, nearby airbases, chains of tankers, etc. NATO / the US would have the ability to sustain their logistics operations via Australia, Japan / South Korea and South East Asian countries that aren't happy with China's territorial claims.
Regarding the closure of the F-22 line, I think it's unfortunate that we will never see a Strike Raptor analogous to the Strike Eagle. I suppose LRSB will fill that role tho
>Why is America invading Russia?
Because we at world war.
>Why would Russia launch nukes about it?
Because it is in their doctrine, to launch nukes if their territorial or political integrity is at risk.
>In the event that nukes are used, are they used as purely tactical weapon?
Depends on the circumstances. Escalation until threat (read US) is neutralised.
>Sergei; Obama totally just embarrassed Lord Putin, launch the nukes
>escort carriers & another 1000 f-35b's
Imagine those providing cover for an expeditionary group operating out of an LHA. Add some kind of helo/Osprey AEW and LAMPS helos too.
I'm also old enough to remember the typhoon scare. Turns out they are only a revenge weapon and not suitable for first strike which is kindd of weird if you think about from cold war perspective but now that soviet archives have been opened it turns out that soviets lacked the necessary capsbilities to sufficiently strike first so their nuclear arsenal was built with vengence in mind. They always thought (thanks to soviet propagandized school system) that it is going to be the western "imperialists" that are going to strike first. Just like the west always thought that the genocidal commies will be the first to strike.