Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,688
736
France
Finding something the size of an S-400 with modern satellites and JSTARS isn't easy? Fall asleep.
all the US forces was searching the SCUD lauchers in the irakien desert.... with low results.
And JSTARS was on duty then. As special forces from US, GB, maybe more... The all under a heavy air superiority. So it's not a easy sport.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
Naturally. It's just a handful of trucks going around the battlefield. Locating a moving SAM unit is extremely difficult to the point that it's rarely attempted. Rather they wait for it to light up.



Yeah, lol, okay.



The USAF themselves say the F-22 won't be competitive with the Su-57 and J-20. Read their Air Superiority 2030 document.
It's not difficult at all, there's an overlay for Google Earth that shows the position of every SAM in Russia right now.

Seriously, no large SAM system could operate within many hundreds of km of frontline artillery and that's only going to get worse in the future with LCMM, the 1000nm cannon and 1400nm range MRBMs in development. They're cheap munitions that can be used to take out a relatively expensive SAM radar and a shedload of very expensive SAMs. The only SAMs that can operate near frontline tanks are the very small one with mobile firing capability.

It's always best to be pessimistic and develop better stuff. Funny how in another thread you were saying that the EU could take on Russia alone.
It is maybe less stealthy than F22, but you can't imagine russian to be idiot so as not to rely on stealth for a last gen fighter (SU35 is enough then). Probably they are not relying to stealth at such USAF level.
Just as US navy : they prefer SH18 to F35, and are continuing to produce non specialy stealthy destroyers as the Burke class is.

It's just a low end argument to ask for more money for another superiority fighter (once the F22 line is closed).
It's better than an Su-35 but it isn't a stealth aircraft. The US has a lot of money in EW right now too (i.e. NGJ pod) and it's known that the F-22 and F-35 radars can double-up for EA.


Exactly.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,125
6,745
India
It's not difficult at all, there's an overlay for Google Earth that shows the position of every SAM in Russia right now.

That's the location of "every" fixed SAM site, not the SAMs themselves. Did you forget SAMs are on trucks and wheels?

Seriously, no large SAM system could operate within many hundreds of km of frontline artillery and that's only going to get worse in the future with LCMM, the 1000nm cannon and 1400nm range MRBMs in development. They're cheap munitions that can be used to take out a relatively expensive SAM radar and a shedload of very expensive SAMs. The only SAMs that can operate near frontline tanks are the very small one with mobile firing capability.

Yeah, dude, reality is something else entirely. Why waste time with stealth when you have artillery?

It's always best to be pessimistic and develop better stuff. Funny how in another thread you were saying that the EU could take on Russia alone.

That's actually what I'm saying. The SH and its nuke is not going to get anywhere near any Russian ground force. The Germans need to induct better stuff.

And naturally, the EU, after pooling resources, will be able to take on Russia alone since they will be able to develop better stuff with French help. Since only the French in the EU have the technology that will allow them to take on the Russians.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
That's the location of "every" fixed SAM site, not the SAMs themselves. Did you forget SAMs are on trucks and wheels?



Yeah, dude, reality is something else entirely. Why waste time with stealth when you have artillery?



That's actually what I'm saying. The SH and its nuke is not going to get anywhere near any Russian ground force. The Germans need to induct better stuff.

And naturally, the EU, after pooling resources, will be able to take on Russia alone since they will be able to develop better stuff with French help. Since only the French in the EU have the technology that will allow them to take on the Russians.
Nope, it shows all S-300/400 batteries. They're massive, very easy to see, even with commercial, non-military tech satellites.

Stealth is for interdiction and air-to-air and SEAD at range. SRBMs are to prevent SAMs setting up near the frontline.

Except it will though.

Better stuff than the US? The EU? :ROFLMAO:
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,125
6,745
India
Nope, it shows all S-300/400 batteries. They're massive, very easy to see, even with commercial, non-military tech satellites.

Stealth is for interdiction and air-to-air and SEAD at range. SRBMs are to prevent SAMs setting up near the frontline.

Except it will though.

So basically you are saying stealth is obsolete. Artillery is the future.

Better stuff than the US? The EU? :ROFLMAO:

Of course. The problem for them is scale. They can't scale up like the US can because they do not fund their military or R&D at that level. France's defence budget is a measley €70B. But one can imagine what it will be like if the EU pooled their resources. Combined Germany and France would be 150B. Combine that with Italy and Spain, we are talking over 200B. All of the EU would take it to €300-350B. R&D for big ticket items can be pooled for maximum effect.

For example, only France operates nuke subs, but imagine if all the main 4 EU countries decided to buy 2 or 3 SSNs each at the minimum. Or if the Big 4 of the EU decide to buy 1 or 2 carriers each from France. Germany alone can easily afford 2 carriers and 6 SSNs. Then we are talking of a force with at least 5-6 carriers and about 15 SSNs at the minimum. That's not enough to challenge Russia?
 
  • Love
Reactions: JustCurious

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
So basically you are saying stealth is obsolete. Artillery is the future.



Of course. The problem for them is scale. They can't scale up like the US can because they do not fund their military or R&D at that level. France's defence budget is a measley €70B. But one can imagine what it will be like if the EU pooled their resources. Combined Germany and France would be 150B. Combine that with Italy and Spain, we are talking over 200B. All of the EU would take it to €300-350B. R&D for big ticket items can be pooled for maximum effect.

For example, only France operates nuke subs, but imagine if all the main 4 EU countries decided to buy 2 or 3 SSNs each at the minimum. Or if the Big 4 of the EU decide to buy 1 or 2 carriers each from France. Germany alone can easily afford 2 carriers and 6 SSNs. Then we are talking of a force with at least 5-6 carriers and about 15 SSNs at the minimum. That's not enough to challenge Russia?
Artillery definitely is changing the game for sure. It will force back the distance that double-digit SAMs can be fielded from the frontline. Certainly in a stand-off you would be a damn fool to leave an S-400 parked 200km from the front, it will just get a shower of hell.

There would be too much arguing over work share, refugees for work share scandals etc. Germany is a signatory to the NPT but I don't see them buying 6 SSNs ever.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,125
6,745
India
Artillery definitely is changing the game for sure. It will force back the distance that double-digit SAMs can be fielded from the frontline. Certainly in a stand-off you would be a damn fool to leave an S-400 parked 200km from the front, it will just get a shower of hell.

Yeah, bro, good luck targeting some 20-30 trucks with artillery from 200Km away.

There would be too much arguing over work share, refugees for work share scandals etc. Germany is a signatory to the NPT but I don't see them buying 6 SSNs ever.

Common Defence will take care of that. EU will basically become a country when it comes to foreign policy and defence.

Regardless funds can be managed in such a way that France can end up procuring and operating all the subs, and lease it to other countries like what Russia and India did, but in a no-profit, no-loss system. So France continues to be the owner while other countries can operate the subs and carriers.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
Yeah, bro, good luck targeting some 20-30 trucks with artillery from 200Km away.



Common Defence will take care of that. EU will basically become a country when it comes to foreign policy and defence.

Regardless funds can be managed in such a way that France can end up procuring and operating all the subs, and lease it to other countries like what Russia and India did, but in a no-profit, no-loss system. So France continues to be the owner while other countries can operate the subs and carriers.
They're guided, how can they miss?

Which means every country handing its sovereignty to Brussels, it'll never happen.

So France becomes the sole supplier at the expense of other national defence industries. :ROFLMAO:
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,125
6,745
India
They're guided, how can they miss?

Guided with what? An aircraft that's within range? Special forces? I would recommend making sense. Artillery needs spotters. Spotters need to get close to the target, which implies either physical presence within LoS using infantry or aircraft, or using satellites. But spotting with satellites during war is extremely difficult to downright impossible, considering satellites are even alive when the war has reached the point of using nukes, whereas going 200Km deep behind enemy lines with infantry to find a SAM site that's always moving is simply a stupid suicide mission, and aircraft, lol, that's what the SAM is meant to stop, from twice the distance it itself will get detected.

Which means every country handing its sovereignty to Brussels, it'll never happen.

Not at all. I've mentioned it before. Security can be handled by some sort of a council where the big countries call most of the shots, like they do in the UNSC. I suppose France and Germany will lead here.

So France becomes the sole supplier at the expense of other national defence industries. :ROFLMAO:

SSN is just one type of weapon. The same with a carrier with nuclear reactors. All other countries can pitch in everywhere else that doesn't require nukes, like fighter jets, SSKs, ships, SAMs, tanks, helicopters, APCs, IFVs, vehicles, small arms etc. A "nation" like the EU would require at least 2-3 types of fighter jets, at least 4 or 5 types of helicopters, 3 or 4 types of transports, at least 2 types of tanks, 2 types of IFVs for different terrains etc. There's plenty of space for cooperation with all countries participating in the R&D and production run, with states even competing to get a piece of the pie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
GPS from satellite, terminal homing also becoming available. Drones. How do you think Chinese AShBMs work. A ship is more mobile than a large SAM too.

And what if the council disagree, or rather when they disagree?

Give us a bell when it happens. I'll fall asleep until then.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
At the beginning of Airbus, Boeing said the same thing.
Commercial and military are two completely different things. There are issues of national security and national interests. Even defence work within Airbus is segregated by nation.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,125
6,745
India
GPS from satellite, terminal homing also becoming available. Drones. How do you think Chinese AShBMs work. A ship is more mobile than a large SAM too.

All of those are after you find the target.

Even the Chinese AShBM is fired after the target is found, not before.

Someone has to spot the target.

And what if the council disagree, or rather when they disagree?

Sure, nothing wrong with that. People are going to have to be on the same page. Parliaments function the same way.

Give us a bell when it happens. I'll fall asleep until then.

Maybe it's already begun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
All of those are after you find the target.

Even the Chinese AShBM is fired after the target is found, not before.

Someone has to spot the target.



Sure, nothing wrong with that. People are going to have to be on the same page. Parliaments function the same way.



Maybe it's already begun.
The satellite spots the target, you think China has frogmen everywhere spotting targets? :ROFLMAO:

That won't work when defence of overseas territories come into question.

Yeah, course it has. Meanwhile, real news.

 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,125
6,745
India
The satellite spots the target, you think China has frogmen everywhere spotting targets? :ROFLMAO:

That won't work when defence of overseas territories come into question.

Yeah, dude, okay. Suddenly from German SHs dropping nukes on Russian advancing troops, you've switched gears to American carriers in the Pacific.

Yeah, course it has. Meanwhile, real news.


Not enough for the UK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,726
2,185
France
transition.wifeo.com
Yeah, course it has. Meanwhile, real news.

Yes, but even with this budget increase the UK has to make choices and reduce some long-planned spending:
15. The Department told us that its intention to buy 138 aircraft was based on its original plan that there would always be four operational squadrons and both carriers operating. The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Reviews altered this expectation, and the Department now regards Carrier Strike’s full operating capability as being two UK Lightning II squadrons (up to 24 jets) operating from one of the carriers. It aims to achieve this by the end of 2023. The Department assured us that having 48 aircraft by 2025 would be adequate to deliver two squadrons in normal circumstances. However, it acknowledged that the attrition rate in a high-intensity war would mean it could not sustain two squadrons, which would very much reduce a carrier’s utility.

The Department said that if it is to deploy one carrier at a time it would not need all 138 aircraft. It acknowledged, however, that it will need more than 48 Lightning II jets to sustain Carrier Strike operations through to the 2050s and beyond.41 It told us that the decision about how many more jets it would need had not yet been made.

Page 12
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

Hydra

Well-Known member
May 19, 2020
1,074
496
Mumbai
I find it pretty stupid that the French did not offer an alternative with the Rafale+ASMP or Rafale+new gravity nukes to replace the American nuclear arsenal in Europe. The same could have been repeated all over Europe. If French laws prevented such a deal, then I'd say the French are being shortsighted. The same for the Germans if they chose the Americans over a French offer, if the French did make such an offer.

Now the Germans are gonna operate two types of jets that won't be able to penetrate Russian defences anyway.
Funny, a do french have that much resources to provide a nuclear cover Europe? Do they have multi megaton hydrogen bombs? Do they have weapon delivery choices like Americans?
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,920
1,383
Yeah, dude, okay. Suddenly from German SHs dropping nukes on Russian advancing troops, you've switched gears to American carriers in the Pacific.



Not enough for the UK.
Yes, because you talked about S-400s operating in range of PrSMs.

A lot more than France.