I hear you
We don't even know if its intent is more of a fighter or a bomber. Is it directed at us or a solution to the Indian PakFA? Even if it's high heading toward an F-35, it does not mean it can see the F-35 or successfully lock on to it, especially if it is being jammed and there are other decoys out and about. It's more likely focused on some distant larger radar target AWACS or an F-15 Golden Eagle or F-18E/F with upgraded AESA when it gets an AMRAAM from an unseen F-35 or F-22.Originally Posted by carl
But for the same money, we can build a lot more nearly as good F-35s and sell others to allies to keep the price even lower. Plus the F-35 splits up our fighter eggs, and gets them closer to the threat so we don't overcongest Guam.The ability to afford something is a decision as to where you want to put your resources. We have enough resources to build lots of F-22s but we choose to put those resources elsewhere. If the Chinese make the decision to build lots of J-20s, they can. They will just have to give up something else. That is easier to do in a totalitarian society.
Indians and Chileans? Wargames where we couldn't use all our capabilities of newest assets?The F-35 will be no compromise at all if all it can do is look at a J-20 and use that vaunted computing power to calculate exactly when the missile will hit. Our pilots are experienced, but that doesn't mean the other fellow can't think up something nasty for us. The Indians and the Chileans have both done us the favor of showing us up in the past. They weren't experienced. The J-10 first flew in 1998. The Chinese have been working on this stuff for decades. Besides, they may have every bit of data from our decades of work via their internet espionage work.
Backward engineering is (I suspect) hard enough when you have the actual item let alone when you have drawings of something small and complex and no means of duplicating that item in quality mass production, and no current sample of the material helping making it low observable.
And meanwhile their oil is getting blockaded in the Straits of Mallaca and railways leading to air bases are getting bombed. Commuter rails are hit so millions of Chinese are stranded and a few good bomb hits on highways creates month long trafffic jams for both military and civil traffic.Would there be enough of those things to shut down hardened bases, if the opponent chose to harden bases, for a long time? Would they have bases close enough that survive long enough to do any good? I don't know.
Of course we want them on our side but it is their war and threat to their homeland...not ours, and if the Chinese attack them as well as Taiwan, then they get more allies involved. I'm sure we are more than willing to sell them F-35s just as they sell us their goods.I am not so sure we can be so easily dismissive of Japan, Korea and Australia. We could not afford not to have them in it with us.
We have decoys (MALD) and means of jamming their data links too, I suspect. Folks forget that as we are running out of naval and shore SAMs, they are running out of aircraft. 100 quality aircraft with a 10:1 (and submit it would be more like 40:1 against most) air-to-air loss-exchange means we may lose 100 aircraft, but they will lose 1000 lesser quality and far fewer quality aircraft, plus whatever number are killed by the Navy and Patriots. Meanwhile, we still have lots of F-35s and more SAMs on the way.Shore based SAMS are only good near the shore or a little beyond. Way out to sea, not so much. Ship based SAMS are only good if there is a ship there and you can run them out of missiles. (I know there is a version of the Mk. 41 VLS that can be reloaded at sea but is that version on any of our ships?) I read too there is a shortage of naval missiles. Let's say you made each one of those old Chinese airplanes a drone and pointed them toward an American ship. They wouldn't have any warhead or terminal guidance. They wouldn't need it. Each would have to be engaged because they might be able to hurt you. Pretty soon, poof! No more missiles.
Somebody will come back and say we should not lose any aircraft and our pilots need every asymmetric and numbers advantage. But recall that $13 miilion (in TODAY'S dollars) F-4A in the early 1960s. Can we afford to pay for excessive numbers of today's stealthy fighters that cost ten times as much? That is not a realistic outlook when 100 lost planes means nowhere near 100 lost pilots...a number surpassed by ground troops every few months in conflicts with a 100% probability (Afghanistan/iraq), not a .1% probability against China or Russia. Iran and North Korea are probably 5% probability conflicts and we have more than sufficient stealth jets for those adversaries.
Bookmarks