Replies

The future is hard to predict.

The A-10 was designed for the rudders to hide the exhaust... but better infra-red guided missiles came out soon after, and the newer ones could lock onto the aircraft inlets.

There are two kinds of wars. One is against a near peer competitor. Think WWI, WWII, and perhaps Korea after the ChiComs got in with Russians flying the Nork planes.

Then there are the colonial wars, against (as Black Adder put it) natives armed with sharp pieces of melon.

A lot of systems are designed for the first, but end up getting quite a following when they perform well against the second.

“When all else fails,
We have got
The Maxim Gun,
And they have not.”

The F22 has supercruise which help protect it from heat seekers, the F35 doesn’t and will light up the sensors in after burner. The F-35 probably should have been a smaller, single-engine version of the F22 IMO, with vectored thrust and all the goodies.

Good point Donmeaker. Over the last couple of decades, weapons and systems that were created with the perspective of facing off agaisnt a near-peer adversary, in that case the Soviet Union, generally found themselves employed solely against what you termed as 'colonial wars' against the likes of Grenada, Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Bosnia, etc. The closest it ever came to a real peer-on-peer was via a proxy war - the Korean War when Americans flying early generation jets faced off against Soviets flying earely generation jets. In virtually every other case it was weaponry intended for use against a formidable, technologically-capable adversary, going against a foe that was at one of two levels. The first 'colonial' level was that of an adversary at the level of blindly firing Kalashnikovs and hoping Allah guided the bullets, with good examples here being Afganistan, Somalia, and Iraq after the fall of Saddam. Whereby there was absolutely no threat to the US apart from threats to infrantry on the ground and infantry mobility augmentation ...e.g. say IEDS taking out HMMWVs or a golden-shot RPG clipping a helicopter. Apart from firefights with infantry, and IEDs/golden shots, there was absolutely no risk at all to the other major arms of the military, for example the airforce, navy, etc. The second type of 'colonial' event was against a third-world country with some capability, but none that would cause any real concern to the likes of the US. A good example is Iraq before the fall of Saddam, which had a good SAM system that did succeed at bringing down a number of coalition planes before it was finally taken out. The problem with that system - called KARI - was that it was originally meant to prevent a limited strike, similar to the ones from Israel and Iran targeted against Iraqi nuclear sites. Thus, it had no chance whatsoever to begin with.

Anyways, my point is this. While it is ok (very good actually) to use weapons intended for near-peer superlative enemies against people relying on Allah-guided-bullets, it is a whole other story when there is a shift towards weapons intended for a low-intensity environment in the event of the rise of a near-peer potential foe like China.

I may be very well wrong, but I fear that the huge success of platforms like the F-15 and Abrams against the likes of Iraq and Bosnia may have convinced some that there is no need for advanced capability since, honestly, upgraded F-4s and juiced M-60 Pattons would have been sufficient. More than sufficient. Hence, why bother with advanced capability when wheeled vehicles like the Stryker and Predator/Reaper evolutions will suffice. On FR I've read posters say the A-10 is all that is needed, when the truth is that the Warthog can only survive in sanitized airspace and against a near-peer wouldn't (I've said enough times about the bet between Apache and Warthog pilots on who would die first if the Soviets ever crossed the Fulda).

Most fights (all fights?) the US has ever been involved in over the last four decades have been against 'colonial' level threats. Thus, it can be assumed that there is no need for advanced capability. The only problem is that it is not a given that there will not be a near-peer, eg China or Russia, that decides to act the fool. Then what? Already the South China Sea is totally off bounds to the US, with only the Virgnia and SeaWolf SSNs, and the Ohio SSBNs and SSGNs, capable of operating there. Surface ships would be risking it, and even the vaunted F-22 couldn't (according to Darpa, since the Chinese would only need to target refueling planes to have the Raptors say hi to Davy Jones once their fuel ran out - even assuming 100% Raptor lethality to the last bullet and 0% Raptor losses).

Past US successes using superlative equipment against third-world foes may make some believe they can have future US success using 'acceptable' equipment against near-peer adversaries.

As for the F-35. It is a good plane, and will be great once the bugs are worked out. However, this will be primarily against the likes of Iran, which is basically at the place Iraq would have been had they been allowed to develop for 20 years after the First Gulf War. Iran has a good integrated air defense network that is better than the Iraqi KARI, and the F-35 would be good in such an event since it has better penetrative abilities than the F-117, and can face off against any jet the Iranians have. It will be great against the Iranians or other similar countries ...such as Egypt for instance, or other countries that have evolved capabilities. And if it will be great against such then it will be bottled magic against the likes of Somalia, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, etc. It might as well be a Genie from some long lost tale.

However, against a near-peer like China and Russia, who according to the Pentagon and Darpa are rapidly developing stealth and (more importantly) counter-stealth technologies, the F-35 may be in for a more even match. I would risk saying that as it currently stands the F-35 is already obsolete against those two countries (and I believe the Chinese managed to hack and get a lot of information on the F-35).

Originally the F-35 was supposed to be a low-end mate to the high-end F-22, but it seems things changed.

I hope that the US always continues facing off against 'colonial' threats, because I fear the first time it faces off against a near-peer will be a shocker. Not that the US will be defeated, but rather that the events of Pearl Harbor will get a more recent refresher.