F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,183
Reaction score
3,671
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,333
Reaction score
4,914
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
It happens every God damned time they try to make a fighter into a friggin Swiss army knife. A jack of all trades and master of none. They need to tell all the gererals to shut the fuck up about aircraft design and leave it to those who know WTF they're doing. Even when they do manage to get a great airplane perfectly suited to task like the A10 the fucking fools try to kill it. For now I'd rather be sitting in an F22 if the shit hit the fan and I was a pilot with my ass on the line. Failing that an F15 maybe.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,333
Reaction score
4,914
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
The a10 is specifically designed for ground support missions not an air superiority fighter, dumbass. Ask a marine or ground pounder which they'd rather show up to save their ass.
 

Silver Cat

Silver Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
289
Points
90
Location
Absaroka
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs. These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks. It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision. Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert. All with the same Bird.
But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.

And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.
J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".
You still don't get it, each and every F-35 has a set of maps already installed. While GPS is the preferred method, if GPS is lost, the F-35 (like the Tomahawks do) reverts back to the maps pre installed. No, the F-35 can't have the entire world mapped out in it's memory to the detail it needs but when it goes into an area, the specific maps are preloaded into it's database. While GPS is nice, it's not needed.
First - when you use your radar for navigation - you are not stealth anymore. Second even if radar&INS accurancy is good enough to find for example the way home, it is not good enough to guide bombs.
IMG_2020-02-19_182817_HDR_1582142083064.jpg

That's why it is clearly written: "There is no practical workaround for launch aircraft GPS denial". " "Choose another weapon".
Isn't it clear enough?

As for the ranges of the enemies missiles, it's a pretty forgone conclusion that when even dealing with Gen4 Fighters, you are going to have to be a hell of a lot closer than your maximum range to tally that kill. You are going to be more likely to have to be within 30 miles or so to get a Radar Kill while a Heat Seeker is going to be not much more than normal visual range. The advantage the F-35 has is that he's going to be guiding in his missiles without using any guidance that the bad guys can detect until that missile is well within the kill range. At that point, the F-35 doesn't go active, the Missile goes active. While the kill rate for that missile is still only going to be right around 20%, the workaround is the F-35s outnumber you and they fire in 6 into your flight. One will get through and one kill will happen. Whatever brilliant plan you had just went to hell in a hand basket. And you didn't have a clue until your wingman went up in a fireball. I don't care how well trained you are, an unseen enemy will cause you to change your tactics fast. You will be worried about the next volley and will it be YOU that runs out of luck.
Really? Ok. Let's play the game. Year is 2021, and there is a war against China. Serious amount of sattelites (including GPS-ones) is already destroyed. There is a squadron of B-52's going to bomb China, and there are (you don't know where exactly) two squadrons of PLA's J-20 with PL-21 (effective range 400 km against large and slow targets like B-52). How many F-35 you need to protect those B-52 from a sudden attack of J-20?
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
33,179
Reaction score
9,420
Points
1,340
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
1. so you are saying FK the military---who cares about their lives--we care about cost
2.. the A10 cost a lot less than the new ones
???? they would spend LESS $$$$ with more A10s
3. the US has the $$$$......it's just a matter of what the NEED is....and juggling what should be built
4. post links to the costs problems of different air frames
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
33,179
Reaction score
9,420
Points
1,340
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,183
Reaction score
3,671
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs. These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks. It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision. Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert. All with the same Bird.
But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.

And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.
J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".
You still don't get it, each and every F-35 has a set of maps already installed. While GPS is the preferred method, if GPS is lost, the F-35 (like the Tomahawks do) reverts back to the maps pre installed. No, the F-35 can't have the entire world mapped out in it's memory to the detail it needs but when it goes into an area, the specific maps are preloaded into it's database. While GPS is nice, it's not needed.
First - when you use your radar for navigation - you are not stealth anymore. Second even if radar&INS accurancy is good enough to find for example the way home, it is not good enough to guide bombs.
View attachment 408643
That's why it is clearly written: "There is no practical workaround for launch aircraft GPS denial". " "Choose another weapon".
Isn't it clear enough?

As for the ranges of the enemies missiles, it's a pretty forgone conclusion that when even dealing with Gen4 Fighters, you are going to have to be a hell of a lot closer than your maximum range to tally that kill. You are going to be more likely to have to be within 30 miles or so to get a Radar Kill while a Heat Seeker is going to be not much more than normal visual range. The advantage the F-35 has is that he's going to be guiding in his missiles without using any guidance that the bad guys can detect until that missile is well within the kill range. At that point, the F-35 doesn't go active, the Missile goes active. While the kill rate for that missile is still only going to be right around 20%, the workaround is the F-35s outnumber you and they fire in 6 into your flight. One will get through and one kill will happen. Whatever brilliant plan you had just went to hell in a hand basket. And you didn't have a clue until your wingman went up in a fireball. I don't care how well trained you are, an unseen enemy will cause you to change your tactics fast. You will be worried about the next volley and will it be YOU that runs out of luck.
Really? Ok. Let's play the game. Year is 2021, and there is a war against China. Serious amount of sattelites (including GPS-ones) is already destroyed. There is a squadron of B-52's going to bomb China, and there are (you don't know where exactly) two squadrons of PLA's J-20 with PL-21 (effective range 400 km against large and slow targets like B-52). How many F-35 you need to protect those B-52 from a sudden attack of J-20?
As of Mod 4, when a F-35 goes into an area, they load up tactical maps specific to that area. Like the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, it will use GPS when available. When GPS is unavailable, it uses the internal maps for targeting. There is nothing there to jam. It's all internal. And NO Radar needed. The targeting information can come from another AC, a Drone or a Sat either electronically or visually. You won't know the F-35s are there until your radar sites begin blowing up. And then you won't know from what vector.

Meanwhile, the Buff hasn't even launched yet or is many hundred miles away in a holding pattern. The F-22, B-2 and F-35 changed how air war and ground war is to be fought. It ain't the 20th century anymore.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,183
Reaction score
3,671
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
1. so you are saying FK the military---who cares about their lives--we care about cost
2.. the A10 cost a lot less than the new ones
???? they would spend LESS $$$$ with more A10s
3. the US has the $$$$......it's just a matter of what the NEED is....and juggling what should be built
4. post links to the costs problems of different air frames
We have about 150 of A-10s left. There is a reason that new A-10s are not being even considered. The reason for that is that an A-10, no matter how you fly it, is suseptible to AA and SA, it's also vulnerable to manpads unless it uses it's standoff weapons. At that point,almost any fighter or bomber can do that job. Using standoffs, the Buff can actually do a much better job. There is a pilot that the US has spent millions in training. Aircraft can be easily replaced but Pilots cannot. You see, it's not just on the human loss, it's on the cost of training loss as well. The A-10 requires a battleground free of AA, SA and Manpad resources. And in that environment, an AC-130 is much more effective and cheaper to operate. The AC doesn't care about Manpads since his altitude is beyond where any can reach. And many of the so called A-10 Vids turns out to be the AC instead. When you have special forces support, it's almost never an A-10 but almost always an AC-130.

Today, even against the Syrians, the chances of having a clean battlefield where an A-10 can operate in is almost zero. Even the F-16s are having losses. If you don't believe me, ask the Israelis.

The Ground Systems have outgrown the 4th gen aircraft. But they haven't outgrown the true 5th gen aircraft. And the only true 5th gen birds out there are the F-22, B-2 and the F-35. The F-35A has become more a 5+ gen while the F-22 and the B-2 are true 5th gen. Meanwhile, the other 5th gen are more 5- gen aircraft.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,183
Reaction score
3,671
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
31% of all initial attacks on Bagdad were done by the F-117. And the F-117 continued until Bagdad fell with zero losses. The F-117 was used to take out Radar Sites and Command Posts primarily. Meaning 4th Gen Fighters and Bombers could operate in areas the F-117 had cleared out keeping the losses of ALL generation AC for the Coolition to a minimum. The US and Israel know how to do this because they have done it and have the tools to keep doing it.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,183
Reaction score
3,671
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
789
Reaction score
777
Points
883
Location
Arizona
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
33,179
Reaction score
9,420
Points
1,340
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
hahahahhah???? and??? what's your point?!!??
...I guess you didn't understand the point = I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was comparable to NATO--especially all except East Germany and Russia--like the Syrians were not comparable to the Israelis
---you said PEER--and that's the first word in my post...and then you say they had greater numbers = that isn't what peer means and/or the context...

...I don't think the WP had the quality of training/men/aircraft/etc that NATO had.
...NATO ESTIMATED--estimated--like they estimated the MIG 25 a serious threat -and it wasn't

what does this quote mean?
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
33,179
Reaction score
9,420
Points
1,340
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
The thing is the USAF had good reasons for opposing supporting the Army. We had come out of the Vietnam War when the overwhelming majority of USAF aircraft that were lost were downed while attacking ground targets which is what prompted part of the design consideration for the F-15 "Not a pound for air to ground".

Air Force officers had seen how in the Vietnam War vast numbers of their aircraft which had been designed for nuclear warfare suddenly adopted for the conventional ground attack missions. From B-52s to F-105s.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,978
Reaction score
21,576
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
The thing is the USAF had good reasons for opposing supporting the Army. We had come out of the Vietnam War when the overwhelming majority of USAF aircraft that were lost were downed while attacking ground targets which is what prompted part of the design consideration for the F-15 "Not a pound for air to ground".

Air Force officers had seen how in the Vietnam War vast numbers of their aircraft which had been designed for nuclear warfare suddenly adopted for the conventional ground attack missions. From B-52s to F-105s.




Yeah, but most were lost up North. Not in CAS attacks.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,183
Reaction score
3,671
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
hahahahhah???? and??? what's your point?!!??
...I guess you didn't understand the point = I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was comparable to NATO--especially all except East Germany and Russia--like the Syrians were not comparable to the Israelis
---you said PEER--and that's the first word in my post...and then you say they had greater numbers = that isn't what peer means and/or the context...

...I don't think the WP had the quality of training/men/aircraft/etc that NATO had.
...NATO ESTIMATED--estimated--like they estimated the MIG 25 a serious threat -and it wasn't

what does this quote mean?
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones
The warsaw pact had a huge superiority in numbers while the Nato had a small superiority in quality. These figures are what would be in theater at the beginning. Moving the US Forces from Asia and thee US to Europe doesn't have anything to do with "Beam me up, Scotty". And in 1980, there was only one forward operating base with the F-15 and another was just coming online with the F-16. The Primary frontline fighters for Nato would still be 1960s vintage AC which would NOT have the technical superiority over the Warsaw Pact.

And before you discount the Mig-25, the 25 only loses in a dogfight. But in a Radar world, short of the F-14, it was the best. In a fight, teamed up with the Mig-21 using it as it's long ranged radar, those two would equal any combination save a flight of F-14s and I doubt if one carrier group with 20 F-14s would make much of a difference.

The primary AC used by Nato would be the F-4 and the F-104. The Mig-25, Mig-23BM and the Mig-21BIS are easy matches. You keep giving Nato AC that are a few years away. Yes, maybe there might have been a couple of hundred F-15As and a couple of hundred F-16As but they would have been stateside and it would take weeks to get them to England. The War would have been over in 2 weeks.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,978
Reaction score
21,576
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
hahahahhah???? and??? what's your point?!!??
...I guess you didn't understand the point = I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was comparable to NATO--especially all except East Germany and Russia--like the Syrians were not comparable to the Israelis
---you said PEER--and that's the first word in my post...and then you say they had greater numbers = that isn't what peer means and/or the context...

...I don't think the WP had the quality of training/men/aircraft/etc that NATO had.
...NATO ESTIMATED--estimated--like they estimated the MIG 25 a serious threat -and it wasn't

what does this quote mean?
In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones
The warsaw pact had a huge superiority in numbers while the Nato had a small superiority in quality. These figures are what would be in theater at the beginning. Moving the US Forces from Asia and thee US to Europe doesn't have anything to do with "Beam me up, Scotty". And in 1980, there was only one forward operating base with the F-15 and another was just coming online with the F-16. The Primary frontline fighters for Nato would still be 1960s vintage AC which would NOT have the technical superiority over the Warsaw Pact.

And before you discount the Mig-25, the 25 only loses in a dogfight. But in a Radar world, short of the F-14, it was the best. In a fight, teamed up with the Mig-21 using it as it's long ranged radar, those two would equal any combination save a flight of F-14s and I doubt if one carrier group with 20 F-14s would make much of a difference.

The primary AC used by Nato would be the F-4 and the F-104. The Mig-25, Mig-23BM and the Mig-21BIS are easy matches. You keep giving Nato AC that are a few years away. Yes, maybe there might have been a couple of hundred F-15As and a couple of hundred F-16As but they would have been stateside and it would take weeks to get them to England. The War would have been over in 2 weeks.






If it were that cut and dried the Soviets would have attacked. Considering that they didn't they were nowhere near as confident as you.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top