Debate F/A-18 Super Hornet vs F-35 Lightning II

[MAKO69 186]

Interesting watch.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zB0ZxBurRc

[MigBuster 2,875]

You could expect Boeing employees to try and save their jobs despite sounding a tad desperate - "ours has a HMS too" ! 

 

Australia has actually committed to 72 - probably because after seeing the far superior capability and relative combat performance over the SH you would never go back.

 

 

 

http://https://airforce.gov.au/Technology/Future-Acquisitions/F-35A-Lightning-II/?RAAF-ZRnYQhJUh1u0e44uR32olOT1rt+Ym4K3

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-23/australia-commits-to-buying-58-more-f-35-joint-strike-fighters.html

[JediMaster 451]

Here's my main question: Does anyone at Boeing really know what the F-35 can do? Sure, they know the requirement it was built to originally, but they lost the competition a decade ago and as has been noted before, there have been changes to the contract and such in that time.

 

So do Boeing people really know all the classified abilities of the F-35 to compare to, or are they banking on the fact that most people do NOT know, so they can just go on and on about the respective unclassified abilities and no one who knows different can prove otherwise without breaking the law!

[SFP1Ace 33]

Me thinks that such a debate has same merit as a F-4 Phantom vs F-14 Tomcat...

[MAKO69 186]

Me thinks that such a debate has same merit as a F-4 Phantom vs F-14 Tomcat...

Apples and Oranges. The F-14 was the F-4s replacement, the Super Hornet and F-35 are contemporary strike fighters competing for the same slots in air arms around the world. The F-35 has had several teething issues and should have been in front line service just a few years after the Superhornet.

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

 “They are expensive but the fact that America’s key, modern allies are on board is telling: they are convinced they have to have them.”

 

lol

 

That is marketing.

The F-35 is a new kind of weapon, far more effective than anybody can imagine.

 

Poors Boeing employees, they're only making a plane that flies well...

 

Pretty close to the F-104 :

The lastest novelty, a real rocket no-one could catch up (and that was true) and they SOLD it.

 

EDIT : please be sure to find a minimum of irony while reading this... (the whole post)

thx

 

EDIT 2 : to ease the reading, the unironical parts had been highlighted in blue ; )

Edited May 28, 2014 by Cliff7600

[Toryu 156]

 

The F-35 is a new kind of weapon, far more effective than anybody can imagine.

 

Depends on the actual mission. For bombing a tent/ camel, the SH is way more bang per buck than an F-35.

For scaring off some other self-proclaimed wannabe-superpower, a bag of F-35 is more convincing. 

 

One could actually argue the good old "F-105 vs. F-4" argument over and over again.

[SFP1Ace 33]

Apples and Oranges. The F-14 was the F-4s replacement, the Super Hornet and F-35 are contemporary strike fighters competing for the same slots in air arms around the world. The F-35 has had several teething issues and should have been in front line service just a few years after the Superhornet.

 

Contemporary? Isn't the F-35 replacing the Super Hornets in the (further) future? Just like it took some time for F-14 to replace F-4? And didn't the F-14 also have some teething issues?

[MAKO69 186]

Contemporary? Isn't the F-35 replacing the Super Hornets in the (further) future? Just like it took some time for F-14 to replace F-4? And didn't the F-14 also have some teething issues?

The F-35 was due to replace the Harrier, F/A-18 legacy hornets, F-16, A-10. The super bugs where already being developed to possibly replace the legacy hornets and  F-14. The cancelled MD A-12 was to replace A-6, EA-6 and A-7 platforms. With no other indigenous design the F/A-18 Legacy and Super Hornets filled the gap for all of the above in Navy and USMC service. The F-35 depending on what you read is between 5 and 7 years behind schedule. The RAF and RN retired their Harriers as planned, the F-35 was to be ready to go and filling squadrons as aircraft were retired. The RAF has the typhoon coming on line strong and a handful of tornados left, but they have no harriers, and the Royal Navy has been without a strike/fighter since 2011. The F/A-18 legacy and super hornet is a proven platform. The F-35 has only proven that it is going to take more time and a lot more money to complete. The Iraq and Afghan Wars has put a toll on both legacy and super hornets. The F-35 if and when they come online will replace the tired timed out and trapped out airframes of the hornets (this is already a problem with many legacy and some of the original production run super hornets now) and the older USAF F-16s, A-10s, and if it takes longer possibly some of the older F-15Es. With less F-35 that are going to be built as originally planned (US Navy cut their order by half other air arms have reduced numbers also) less of the afore mentioned aircraft will be replaced, with the inevitable reduction of strike fighter squadrons in all branches of service. It takes time to replace aircraft because they can only build so many a month/year so yes it takes about a decade to fully transition into a new aircraft give or take a few years depending on the platform and upgrades that may come along a with possible retro refits. All aircraft have teething issues, don't compare the tomcats maiden flight of 1970 to front line service deployment in 1974 to the F-35 ludicrous going on 14 years of development and over budget by almost 100 billion US dollars. The F-35 should already be here in decent numbers, the F-35 if and when it finally gets here will be a great plane. Boeing is going to capitalize on the F-35s development issues, can't blame them. Boeing has designed a weapons pod that makes the plane extremely stealthy.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN8zSrr8OA

 

The F-22 has cabinet space for war computer software upgrades, and can and has carried mud moving gear in its belly, and if needed there are hard points on the wings to hang some more mud moving gear. I think what we will see is a combo of the Gen 4 and 4+ planes fighting along side the JSF-35, and an F/A-22 in the future not a total replacement.

 

I'm not debunking the F-35 I am still pulling for the program, however I think that it's wishful thinking now. I'm  just coming to realize it may not be as big a part of the future then what was proposed.

[+Gunrunner 313]

I'm just waiting and grinning, the Lockheed bribery scandals will seem like the jolly good old times...

 

I'm not saying the F-35 is not a decent discrete bomb truck, that it is... but that it can fulfill effectively and cost-efficiently the air defense role for which most export customers intend to use it makes as much sense as using the F-104 as a fighter-bomber.

 

Oh right, "but it has a super secret feature that makes it a super weapon, it's so secret we can't even hint what it is", yeah riiiiiight...

[Evildeadmeat 153]

   It reminds me the end of the 90'. At that time, air war was supposed to be "one stealth beast carrying one deadly smart weapon to kill one high value target". Then, 9/11 came, followed by Afghan war. Since the Afghan war, the targets have changed. Aircraft are not ordered to kill high value asset or armored tanks. Their targets are trucks, cars, sometimes carrying a single machine gun, sometimes not. They have to shoot at people with assault rifle or RPGs. Aircraft are to be thought as a way to support ground squad tactics. That's why A-10 has so much success. It is the opposite of the F-22/35. It is tough, slow, simple, cheap, he carries whatever you need to carry without weapon bay.

   I mean, F-35 may be too ambitious for now, same for F-22. Both are amazing fighters, with amazing abilities but actually, they are not designed to face modern air war and a bunch of others (Rafale, JAS-39, Su-35, Typhoon, Qaher 313 ) are in the same problem. F-22s were supposed to replace F-15 but the Golden Eagle will go on flying until 2030, not because F-22 is a bad fighter, but because Eagle is not technologically obsolete. In a way, Super Hornet and F-35 are in the same circumstances (although I think, F-35 has to face much more problem than F-22). Why would you pay for a brand new machine which will cost one of your eye (or both) if you have something in store that does the job well?

[Toryu 156]

 

it makes as much sense as using the F-104 as a fighter-bomber.

 

So it makes a lot of sense?

[+daddyairplanes 9,272]

So it makes a lot of sense?

Only to the NATO users

[MAKO69 186]

   It reminds me the end of the 90'. At that time, air war was supposed to be "one stealth beast carrying one deadly smart weapon to kill one high value target". Then, 9/11 came, followed by Afghan war. Since the Afghan war, the targets have changed. Aircraft are not ordered to kill high value asset or armored tanks. Their targets are trucks, cars, sometimes carrying a single machine gun, sometimes not. They have to shoot at people with assault rifle or RPGs. Aircraft are to be thought as a way to support ground squad tactics. That's why A-10 has so much success. It is the opposite of the F-22/35. It is tough, slow, simple, cheap, he carries whatever you need to carry without weapon bay.

   I mean, F-35 may be too ambitious for now, same for F-22. Both are amazing fighters, with amazing abilities but actually, they are not designed to face modern air war and a bunch of others (Rafale, JAS-39, Su-35, Typhoon, Qaher 313 ) are in the same problem. F-22s were supposed to replace F-15 but the Golden Eagle will go on flying until 2030, not because F-22 is a bad fighter, but because Eagle is not technologically obsolete. In a way, Super Hornet and F-35 are in the same circumstances (although I think, F-35 has to face much more problem than F-22). Why would you pay for a brand new machine which will cost one of your eye (or both) if you have something in store that does the job well?

You bring up valid points. The Stealth program was started back during the "Cold War" and a lot of those guys were still around when the A-12, F/A-18 Super hornet, F-22 and F-35 programs started. The need for a stealth aircraft is still needed, God forbid we don't  have them when we need them. Warfare is not Fair, therefore if one can cheat to get an advantage, well then take it. I want my soldiers wheather they are on the ground with a rifle or 10K above the battlefield in a strike/fighter to have every possible chance to succeed in their mission and go home. As for replacing the F-15s, F-16s not all of them are to old and with less F-22 and F-35s to be built, well its a numbers game not all F-15s and 16s will be replaced so they will truck on for more decades to come. As for the A-10s well that plane is running out of time fast due for retirement in the next 2-3 years. From the red headed step child to the fair haired prince in one felled swoop. The A-10 was the go to platform for the USAF since the GF1. Both good and bad, because now the planes are literally going to time out and have to be grounded and a small number with lower hours will be mothballed in a ready state of storage. Its all numbers, a single  F/A-18 Super hornet can carry 12+ smart bombs and destroy said number where 20+ years ago 6+ planes would launch to conduct t he same strike. One F-22 ( which is here now) can shoot down 6-8 F-15 or similar aircraft. The F-35 ( not here yet 2015+ before decent numbers are able to be deployed if there are no more issues) would be able to destroy aircraft and drop a sizable war load accurately. So we may not need the numbers of past to accomplish the missions of the future. Only time will tell. Keep your fingers crossed hopefully we will never have to use these weapons ever again.

Only to the NATO users

As it should be.

[SFP1Ace 33]

The F-35 was due to replace the Harrier, F/A-18 legacy hornets, F-16, A-10. The super bugs where already being developed to possibly replace the legacy hornets and  F-14. The cancelled MD A-12 was to replace A-6, EA-6 and A-7 platforms. With no other indigenous design the F/A-18 Legacy and Super Hornets filled the gap for all of the above in Navy and USMC service. The F-35 depending on what you read is between 5 and 7 years behind schedule. The RAF and RN retired their Harriers as planned, the F-35 was to be ready to go and filling squadrons as aircraft were retired. The RAF has the typhoon coming on line strong and a handful of tornados left, but they have no harriers, and the Royal Navy has been without a strike/fighter since 2011. The F/A-18 legacy and super hornet is a proven platform. The F-35 has only proven that it is going to take more time and a lot more money to complete. The Iraq and Afghan Wars has put a toll on both legacy and super hornets. The F-35 if and when they come online will replace the tired timed out and trapped out airframes of the hornets (this is already a problem with many legacy and some of the original production run super hornets now) and the older USAF F-16s, A-10s, and if it takes longer possibly some of the older F-15Es. With less F-35 that are going to be built as originally planned (US Navy cut their order by half other air arms have reduced numbers also) less of the afore mentioned aircraft will be replaced, with the inevitable reduction of strike fighter squadrons in all branches of service. It takes time to replace aircraft because they can only build so many a month/year so yes it takes about a decade to fully transition into a new aircraft give or take a few years depending on the platform and upgrades that may come along a with possible retro refits. All aircraft have teething issues, don't compare the tomcats maiden flight of 1970 to front line service deployment in 1974 to the F-35 ludicrous going on 14 years of development and over budget by almost 100 billion US dollars. The F-35 should already be here in decent numbers, the F-35 if and when it finally gets here will be a great plane. Boeing is going to capitalize on the F-35s development. Boeing has designed a weapons pod that makes the plane extremely stealthy.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN8zSrr8OA

 

The F-22 has cabinet space for war computer software upgrades, and can and has carried mud moving gear in its belly, and if needed there are hard points on the wings to hang some more mud moving gear. I think what we will see is a combo of the Gen 4 and 4+ planes fighting along side the JSF-35, and an F/A-22 in the future not a total replacement.

 

I'm not debunking the F-35 I am still pulling for the program, however I think that it's wishful thinking now. I'm  just coming to realize it may not be as big a part of the future then what was proposed.

 

Hey, thanks for such a detailed answer. I haven't been following the f-35 story really close so after reading  what you said the topic makes more sense to me now ;) . And I really hope F-35 will mature quickly enough and prove to be deadly and versatile platform! Especially since Polish MoD announced plans to purchase 64 (!) of them after 2020 (I think.)

[MAKO69 186]

Hey, thanks for such a detailed answer. I haven't been following the f-35 story really close so after reading  what you said the topic makes more sense to me now ;) . And I really hope F-35 will mature quickly enough and prove to be deadly and versatile platform! Especially since Polish MoD announced plans to purchase 64 (!) of them after 2020 (I think.)

We can only hope that the plane makes it to the finish line before it gets cut, because it is a vicious little plane that will be a great asset.

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

Yes I think the F-35 is a vicious little plane that will screw NATO users.

 

The F-104 had proven to be deadly (and versatile... as NATO air forces had to deal with what their governments had purchased)

 

The F-35 is a great asset to scare off enemies

 

...and I hope there will be some A-10s left to fight enemies.

or F-18 SB, at least in Australia

 

U-2 : fly so high that it couldn't be shot down

F-117 : Stealth fighter, can't be detected (flies like a stone)

both had be shot down by SAM over enemy territory.

 

SR-71 : great success!!!

but I don't know the cost of 1 flight hour, can somebody tell me?

 

All Lockheeds

 

(C-130, Neptune, F-94 : ok nothing to say...)

 

And I don't discuss the fact that all these planes are legendary planes.

There were skilled and brave crew members to fly them

Edited May 28, 2014 by Cliff7600

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

The 104 was "deadly" because it was a particularly demanding jet being used in a low altitude environment, performing a role it wasn't designed for, ie it was missused...* how precisley does any of that relate to the F-35... a jet which by all accounts just about flies itself and is primarily intended to be a bomb truck?

 

* Those countries that used it as intended, ie. as an interceptor/air superiority fighter (Spain 0 losses, Japan 3 lost with two in the same midair) had far better safety records than Germany and Canada. Lower loss of airframes due to being used in a more suitable environment, lower loss of crew as much more likely to be able to perform sucesssful ejection at altitude.

 

Craig

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

I agree 100% about the right use of the F-104, intercepts, and the safety records of spanish and japanese F-104s.

 

The relation is the sacrifices made to the stealth aspect of the plane, the F-35 (or F-117 designed something like 40 years ago), to make it a technological weapon, when to me it should be an aircraft that flies well enough, like the F/A-18 Super Hornet for instance, to perform military tasks airborne.

 

 

What if the plane is damaged by a bird strike?

What if the plane lost a wing tip, because of a midair collision or a SAM that has found its way...?

F-14 or F-15 had survived such situations.

A-10s had been damaged during Gulf war and made it to return safely, as it was designed.

 

F-35s won't fly as well as F/A-18s, like F-104s didn't fly as well as Mirage IIIs for example.

 

The F-35 is twice the price than a F/A-18 and surely doesn't fly as well as the F/A-18.

 

But air forces will have F-35 because it's the "new toy" and some people will have to pay for it $$$ £££ €€€

 

Several tons of metal flying can be sighted, heard, and shot down.

So there's no need to add small wings, small flaps, single engine, and electronic devices that could just failed, like the batteries in the Boeing Dreamliner : (

 

It's just a market thing, an economical battle.

 

F-104 won the battle against Mirage III in Europe.

F-35 will win the battle against F/A-18 in Canada

that's the relation...

 

Hey, it won't be the first time :

The CF-105 Arrow had been scrapped to rent some F-101B Voodoo, good deal!!!

Edited May 28, 2014 by Cliff7600

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

 

The relation is the sacrifices made to the stealth aspect of the plane, the F-35 (or F-117 designed something like 40 years ago), to make it a technological weapon, when to me it should be an aircraft that flies well enough, like the F/A-18 Super Hornet for instance, to perform military tasks airborne.

 

 

What if the plane is damaged by a bird strike?

What if the plane lost a wing tip, because of a midair collision or a SAM that has found its way...?

F-14 or F-15 had survived such situations.

A-10s had been damaged during Gulf war and made it to return safely, as it was designed.

 

F-35s won't fly as well as F/A-18s, like F-104s didn't fly as well as Mirage IIIs for example.

 

The F-35 is twice the price than a F/A-18 and surely doesn't fly as well as the F/A-18.

 

But air forces will have F-35 because it's the "new toy" and some people will have to pay for it $$$ £££ €€€

 

Several tons of metal flying can be sighted, heard, and shot down.

So there's no need to add small wings, small flaps, single engine, and electronic devices that could just failed, like the batteries in the Boeing Dreamliner : (

 

 

There are also F-14's and 15's that havn't survived bird strikes, mid airs or SAM's... any aircraft wil fall out of the sky if you hit it hard enough in a vulnerable spot.

It wont fly as well as an F/A-18... based on what?

I'll give you the cost, its ever so slightly out of hand....

Several tons of Super Hornet can also be seen and shot down,... far earlier and more easily than a VLO aircraft.

As for being single engined, that didn't seem to be too much of an issue for the A-4, A-7, F-8 or F-16 so I fail to see why its so catastrophic for the F-35.

 

As for paying for it, I'm from the UK, from where I sit it replaces the Harrier/Sea Harrier, no ifs ands or buts the F-35 is superior in every regard.

 

Craig

[MigBuster 2,875]

I agree 100% about the right use of the F-104, intercepts, and the safety records of spanish and japanese F-104s.

 

The relation is the sacrifices made to the stealth aspect of the plane, the F-35 (or F-117 designed something like 40 years ago), to make it a technological weapon, when to me it should be an aircraft that flies well enough, like the F/A-18 Super Hornet for instance, to perform military tasks airborne.

 

 

What if the plane is damaged by a bird strike?

What if the plane lost a wing tip, because of a midair collision or a SAM that has found its way...?

F-14 or F-15 had survived such situations.

A-10s had been damaged during Gulf war and made it to return safely, as it was designed.

 

F-35s won't fly as well as F/A-18s, like F-104s didn't fly as well as Mirage IIIs for example.

 

The F-35 is twice the price than a F/A-18 and surely doesn't fly as well as the F/A-18.

 

 

I wouldn't worry about how it flies  -  from what is publicly available the F-35 is very close to the FA-18 regarding flight performance. Like the FA-18 its only pitch unstable (not the case with the F-117) and is also dependent on computers to keep it flying.

 

 

Getting hit by a bird - well it would do damage depending where it was hit - be no different to any other Jet - apart from damaging any coating.

 

Could it survive damage - e.g. getting hit by a MANPAD? - sure depends where it hits not just the A-10 has made it back - but its also proven it only takes 1 to down any jet.

[Toryu 156]

 

The F-104 had proven to be deadly (and versatile... as NATO air forces had to deal with what their governments had purchased)

 

It wasn't particularily deadly. Even in Germany (where some people seem to consider the F-104's role to be the antichrist in person), the F-104 was safer than the aircraft it replaced.

 

In only 10 years, the aircraft that were replaced by the F-104 in the Luftwaffe (NOT including the Marine - the Seahawks were even more "deadly"...), had killed more pilots than the F-104 in 25 years, including the Marine Starfighters.

 

The loss-rate of early supersonic fighters was relatively stable: Roughly 30-40% accross all fleets.

 

If you want to see a "scary" aircraft, google for "F-100" - you may ask the Danes which aircraft they considered more dangerous, the Zipper or the Hun...

 

 

F-35s won't fly as well as F/A-18s, like F-104s didn't fly as well as Mirage IIIs for example.

 

What does "fly well" even mean? Got any more data on those assumptions?

 

 

 

@MB:

 

Doesn't the F-18 even have a mechanic back-up or electric direct-law in pitch? I'd have to dig into the books, but I vaguely remember having read something of the likes...

Edited May 28, 2014 by Toryu

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

 

What does "fly well" even mean? Got any more data on those assumptions?

 

 

 

@MB:

 

Doesn't the F-18 even have a mechanic back-up or electric direct-law in pitch?

 

I don't "worry"... I just don't believe and I'm not convinced.

About my assumptions, I speak my mind (and I'm done by now)

 

I don't pay, so if you're happy with F-35 that's cool.

 

Don't put F-35 and A-7 in comparison as they don't cost the same price, when things go wrong.

 

And talking about safety records of the F-104, in Germany or in Canada, or Spain or Japan, there were no war.

It's peace time safety records.

 

And If I'm right there were no F-104 loss during VietNam war and no F-117 loss during Gulf war (not sure about that)

 

EDIT : wrong about the F-104 : 5 losses for 15 F-104C operating during 8 months in 1965 at Da Nang.

It's the same ratio than German/Dutch/Belgian F-104G in Europe during total service time.

 

It's about buying F-35s instead of F/A-18s.

 

As Harriers and Sea Harriers had been scrapped they must be replaced, and no F/A-18 won't take the job...

(Buy F/A-18s and operate them from the Charles de Gaulle)

 

I don't have to google for F-100, there has been F-100s in french Armée de l'air and they have been quite well appreciated.

Main issue was the drag chute that sometimes cannot deploy at all, and french pilots were very aware of the "danger" of the aircraft

(damaged spare parts as an example)

but that's off topic.

 

out and thanks for reading.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Cliff7600

[+Gunrunner 313]

I think you are all missing the point about the F-104 (and possibly F-35) shortcomings, it's not about being a "bad" airplane or being a dangerous one to fly.

 

I once had an interesting discussion with former MFG F-104 pilots, to them, once you got the hang of it, it was a wonderful aircraft, when asked if it would have been able to perform it's task in combat situation, the answer was that, of course, it would have performed its duties, but the answer were already a bit less enthusiastic, and when asked if it was the plane they would have chosen for the task, none of them would have, one emphatically stating it was the last plane he would have chosen, and THAT is the damn point...

 

A combat aircraft that is considered by its pilots as a great aircraft but the last COMBAT aircraft they'd chose for the task at hand is certainly not a wise choice, a combat aircraft is not meant for being a joyride for pilots (not that it's how it was viewed by the pilots) but as a tool to fulfill a mission.

 

I feel the F-35 is the same thing, a compromise aircraft that is, indeed a great aircraft, and great in the limited role it was designed for, but a piss poor choice otherwise.

 

 

Let's see, in the US case, the use scenario in high threat (modern SAM, true C3I and a networked AF) scenario for the F-35 is the following :

 

Step 1 : The F-22 go in, get rid of scary SAM sites, C3I infrastructures and the bulk of the opposing Air Force.

 

Step 2 : The F-35 finally go in too, as a bomb truck and airspace policing plane, protected from the few surviving SAMs and lone enemy aircrafts by their limited stealth and number, still having the F-22 to cover the most dangerous tasks.

 

In that role the F-35 is perfectly adequate and will probably perform admirably.

 

 

Now, let's take a typical foreign customer which will use it not as the Low component of a High-Low mix, but as the only plane they have and for both air superiority, air policing and strike tasks.

 

As long as they face a low threat environment (little to no SAM, non-networked opposing air force, technologically inferior opposing aircrafts), they'll be king of the hill, nothing will touch them... just as would happen with modern F-16, F-18, Gripen, Rafale etc... for a fraction of the cost.

But low threat environment is not the reason why these countries buy the F-35, they buy it on the promise that it will perform in high-threat environments, now let's see how it performs in that context without US support...

 

Step 1 : The F-35 go in against modern SAM sites, a networked air force.

The limited stealth is mostly irrelevant against modern SAM, making the F-35 pay a high price to get rid of them.

The frontal stealth is next to useless against a networked enemy, making the F-35 no more dangerous to enemy aircrafts than an F-18 would have been, you don't obtain air superiority because most of your technological advantage is negated and you have less aircrafts than you should because of the unit cost.

 

Step 2 : There is no step 2, the F-35 is the only plane you had and you already lost most of them in Step 1, if you survived you don't have enough planes to pursue operations efficiently in an environment where you didn't get rid of SAMs entirely and never achieved air superiority.

 

 

 

The real operational danger of the F-35 is that it will give a sense of false security to the politics, to whom the plane has been sold as a golden bullet, and on that impression they might end up cutting military budgets to a point where a country is basically defenseless, or approve military interventions that puts them at a disadvantage, on the faith that their wonder plane will simply dominate the skies, when it will not.

[JediMaster 451]

Step 1 : The F-35 go in against modern SAM sites, a networked air force.

The limited stealth is mostly irrelevant against modern SAM, making the F-35 pay a high price to get rid of them.

The frontal stealth is next to useless against a networked enemy, making the F-35 no more dangerous to enemy aircrafts than an F-18 would have been, you don't obtain air superiority because most of your technological advantage is negated and you have less aircrafts than you should because of the unit cost.

 

Step 2 : There is no step 2, the F-35 is the only plane you had and you already lost most of them in Step 1, if you survived you don't have enough planes to pursue operations efficiently in an environment where you didn't get rid of SAMs entirely and never achieved air superiority.

 

Supposition. There is no proof of this. What stealth planes have performed against a modern SAM system in combat to date? If it has happened, no one is telling. So how can you sit there and say "this is what will happen"?

 

The F-117 shoot down is not relevant because it was an usual set of circumstances combined with poor planning and there are no other instances on unclassified record.

 

By your logic, no one ever need to go to war again because we can plot out on paper exactly how things will go, so when tensions rise one side can just say "hey, I clearly win" and call it a day. The US can just retire its entire military because we have the most money to spend and say "hey, should we fight you, we can afford to make more and better stuff, so just give up now" and the other side will obviously have no choice but to go along with this.