Broccoli
Senior Member
How has war in Ukraine shown that most 4th gen fighters in Europe aren't match for Su-35? Su-35 tech is in same level with upgraded "Legacy" Hornet and maybe Mirage 2000.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
How has war in Ukraine shown that most 4th gen fighters in Europe aren't match for Su-35? Su-35 tech is in same level with upgraded "Legacy" Hornet and maybe Mirage 2000.
So you think a high power phased array (PESA) radar like the one in the Su-35 is similar in capacity to the ancient low power pulse doppler on the Mirage 2000? Seriously?
The Mirage 2000 radar is even worse than the radar on Ukrainian Soviet era Su-27Ps.
USN is not responsible for anything wrong with F-35 because USN was forced to participate in the program.
The most important thing that everyone needs to understand whenever commenting on F-35 is that JSF was never about delivering what any of the services wanted. JSF was Lockheed's strategy to corner the fighter market. Every problem in the program stems directly from there.
That strategy became a priority for Lockheed when reviews in the 1990s first ended B-2, A-12 and NATF and then reduced number of F-22 planned from 750 to 648 in 1990 to 442 in 1993 to 381 in 1994 to 339 in 1997 etc. Lockheed went deep into debt to acquire necessary capabilities for F-22 including GD's F-16 production line and F-35 was its de facto lifeline. Any cuts to F-35 like it happened to F-22 would kill Lockheed due to incurred financial liabilities. What most people tend to forget is that in the 1990s it was in no way obvious that 2000s would involve return to increased defense spending, because both Democrats and Republicans broadly approved of "peace dividend". Even after 2001 majority of additional funding went to finance military operations and procurement very quickly was forced to focus on those needs and those were very different from what was planned in the 80s.
I don't have the article at hand but it described how all the defense companies managed their post-1990 strategies and Lockheed was the only one which relied on exceedingly aggressive debt-financed acquisitions to generate profits in the long term through market control. All the other companies had more conservative strategies.
But even so the very inception of the program was not rational either.
JSF started with F-35B which was a study by Skunk Works and would be completely unworkable unless USN or USAF covered the development cost. Ut wouldn't be possible otherwise. So F-35B evolved into F-35A which ensured that USMC really paid only for the VTOL R&D. If USAF rejected JSF concept it would never happen beacuse USMC didn't have the funds. USN didn't matter for funding but if it remained outside of the program with Super Hornet in production then Pentagon politics could trigger cuts to either F-35B or F-35A due to the size of the order that would be "safe for the program". For Congress "program" means jobs and the jobs would be held regardless of who ich company was taking over. And that was a risk that Lockheed couldn't take so F-35C was forced on USN to safeguard Lockheed's interest.
It was largely an obstruction with an intention to get kicked out from the program. USN didn't want the F-35C. Period. Any money spend on C was money not spent on things USN used or needed.
F-35C is nowhere near what USN wanted in terms of performance. For its constituent tasks USN wanted NATF and A-12 and for GWoT they preferred the cheaper and more practical SuperHornet. The primary metric for carrier fighters is plane reliability and maintenance turnaround. SuperHornet excels in both, while F-35C is a nightmare.
This is why USN restructured its air wings to 3 squadrons of 10-12 Super Hornets (2 with E, 1 with F) and 1 squadron of 10-12 and up to 24 F-35Cs. There is never more than one squadron of F-35C onboard. Since squadrons are responsible for mission logistics this structure demonstrates Navy's confidence in both aircraft. USN could easily put two squadrons of 10 and keep 4 in reserve but they don't want to because the aircraft is a logistical burden.
USN continues to operate under the same guidelines as developed in the 60s/70s for North Atlantic theater. It includes maintaining a perimeter of air defense that is sufficient for protecting of CSG assets against saturation attacks. This was first achieved with F-14 and AIM-54 and later expanded with AEGIS ships. The deciding factor was missile technology that would determine threat parameters.
F-14 was countering Kh-22 launched by Tu-95s and Tu-22Ms. NATF would go against more capable threats. A-12 was the consequence of that defensive perimeter because it needed to be able to strike targets from a distance sufficient to protect the CSG.
Today we know that USN was correct because anyone can compare distances in WestPac against PLA asset ranges but in the 1990s Lockheed wasn't worried about PLA but about whatever other three-letter agency manages corporate bankruptcies and mergers.
How with all that "factual" knowledge did you ever forget that F-35 replaces both F-16 and F-15E?
USAF was the primary driver behind the plane's MTOW because USN requirements were always conditional on its participation which wasn't guaranteed in the 1990s. USAF requested higher MTOW because performance of F-16s in Iraq demonstrated viability of light fighters in the role of primary strike aircraft and the main difference between F-16 and F-15E for USAF is not payload but effective combat radius. The additional mass that F-15E can carry over F-16 is for spare fuel tanks necessary for lo-lo-lo's and not bombs.
What the conflict really showed is that Su-35 are staying within Russian controlled airspace despite Ukraine having no air force in practical terms and GBAD relying on S-300P and Buk M1.
Su-35s flying alone would be torn to shreds by F-16A MLUs with AIM-120s and supported by ground IADS and guided by an outdated AWACS like NATO E-3A. Anything newer or better has an easier job doing the tearing. And Su-35s can only be flying alone outside of Russian airspace because VKS has only a handful of A-50s and ground radars don't have sufficient reach to stay out of range of missiles.
Without proper situational awareness even a 4th gen like MiG-29 can shoot down a Su-35 but you likely can't even visualise the tactical scenario where that happens.
Besides Su-35S is nothing special. It's late 90s/early 00s level of digital technology with an overclocked Bars radar fitted with a PESA array to brute-force returns from LO/VLO RCS so that Flankers with huge RCS can attempt to see targets sufficiently far away.
When in 2022 Poland began transferring MiG-29s to Ukraine the MoD requested F-16C as replacement to complement the existing fleet and after US refused it ordered FA-50 Block 20. This is how afraid we are of Su-35S or Su-30SM2.
Current production order is sufficient for 36 for Eastern and 36 for Western MD and 4 for test units. So far 10-12 delivered. At this rate half of it will be fully combat ready by 2030. Rest of VKS will be over 600 planes of gen 4/4+ most of which entered service in 2010s. 5gens are cleaerly not necessary vs Russia but just in case we already have orders for over 400 F-35s by 2035.
In 2030 the Flankers delivered in early 2010s will be 20y.o. In 2040 - 30 y.o. Peak production rate of Su-30/35/34 in 2010s was ~45 planes total. After revision of State Armaments Program it fell to ~25. Unless Russia manages to increase Su-57 production to 30+ per year by 2030 it won't have the ability to replace obsolete aircraft fast enough to maintain a plausible deterrent.
Now take your fantasies to proper threads. This one is for F-35.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really. The Su-35 can outspot the F-16 MLU and it also has the R-37M. The F-16 has no equivalent long range missile.
The Su-35 has roughly similar RCS to the F-16 MLU and a much more powerful radar. The RCS of both aircraft is similar, despite the Su-35 being much larger, because the Su-35 is heavily made of composites unlike 1980s aircraft like the F-16. The Su-35 also has MAWS and the F-16 MLU has no such thing.
There is also no big deal with the AIM-120C6 which the US would provide. The Russians have the R-77-1 which isn't inferior. It is highly unlikely the US would send more modern AIM-120 missiles because of risk of technology leakage and lack of stockpiles. And even if they did they would still be outranged by the R-37M.
The fact is the Su-35 does not have to go into Ukrainian territory in the first place. They can just fire long range missiles from the Russian lines. And most Su-35 pilots likely do not train for ground attack missions, so only rarely will they do those, mostly reserved for the Su-34.
The original MiG-29 couldn't even win decisively against the original Su-27 in the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Pray tell me how many wins against the Su-35 did it have in Ukraine.
Poland has also ordered the F-35. From what I understand the F-16 order was replaced with that. As for buying the FA-50, I would have to assume they plan to use them as ground attack aircraft to replace the Su-22. Romania also recently switched their acquisition from the F-16 to the F-35.
That is not impossible actually. If they switched both the Su-35 and Su-30 lines to produce the Su-57 they could do it. But by 2030 the Su-75 will likely be in production so the Russians do not need to just rely on Su-57 production. Also, for whatever reason some people think that Russian orders for aircraft cannot be increased, but the Russians do that all the time. Production is expected to increase after the Su-57M passes trials. What Russia won't do is produce hundreds of aircraft which can only be used for training like the US did with the F-35 Blocks 1 and 2.
Isn't the implication here that buying a bunch of F-35s is a waste when you could just invest into much cheaper air defence if your primary opponent is Russia? I agree that VKS has been remarkably constrained by fairly old air defence.
400 F-35s sounds like a massive waste, to the point of being a disguised subsidy for the US MIC. Reminds me of AUKUS.
If cold war SAM can stop SU-35, then F-35 can also be stopped by 2035 SAM. Seems like he is learning all the wrong lessons from the war.
That is not to say F-35 is a bad plane, but he is using the wrong reason to justify it.
What does Russia have to do with F-35? When F-35 was being developed Russia was viewed in Europe as a potential future partner.
Repeat after me: F-35 is not a fighter jet but a jobs program in the US and an industry support in Europe.
For partner countries buying the aircraft was necessary to gain entry into the largest international industrial cooperation in history and gaining a share in production of the 2443 F-35s ordered by the US military. At the time of joining the program all European Tier 1/2/3 partners combined planned to order only ~454 aircraft (UK:138, Italy:131, Netherlands:85, Norway:52, Denmark:48) and those orders were subsequently cut after 2008 to about 271, including the first order from the UK. That's respectively 18,5% and 11% of the number ordered by the US not counting other foreign sales which only increased.
Once F-35 entered production it began to accrue orders simply by the virtue of being the only new fighter jet with guaranteed sustainment until the 2060s and all countries which already used F-16 or any other US jet were more likely to buy another US jet because of the inter-dependency of systems and parts as well as the extensive influence networks that American industry develops among military cadres flying American planes.
| country | UK | ITA | NED | DEN | NOR | BEL | FIN | SUI | POL | GER |
| status | tier 1 | tier 2 | tier 2 | tier 3 | tier 3 | FMS | FMS + cooperation | FMS + cooperation | FMS | FMS |
| plan | 138 | 131 | 85 | 48 | 52 | - | - | - | - | - |
| order | 48 | 90 | 54 | 27 | 52 | 34 | 64 | 36 | 32 | 35 |
| F-16 user | no | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | no | no | yes | no |
| replacing US plane | no | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | no |
Germany is the only country which bought F-35 for military reasons alone, those being NATO nuclear sharing mission which could in theory be performed by Eurofighters but it would require release of proprietary information and technology to US government and US industry which the Eurofighter consortium refused to do. So Germany had the option of either buy American aircraft certified for nuclear mission like F-18 or F-35 or leave NATO nuclear sharing program, which was seen by both US and Germany as undesirable since Poland was seen as substitution with too much risk involved.
None of the former WarPac countries are buying F-35 because of Russia but because of
- Lockheed which wants to close F-16 production and refuses to accommodate any requests for F-16 from countries seen as potential F-35 clients due to e.g. NATO.
- Pentagon which uses F-35 purchase as a force multiplier both due to necessary adaptations of infrastructure which enable long-term stationing of US F-35s as well as greater inter-operability with other US assets in theater.
Russia is an afterthought because Russia's inability to keep up in technology or numbers was obvious already in 2010s when the State Armaments Program 2011-2020 we being implemented, even before 2014.
It's a subsidy for domestic industry because there is currently no alternative to F-35 and almost all European countries which bought F-35s negotiated industrial cooperation as part of the order.
In comparison buying Rafale means subsidizing French industry. Buying Eurofighter means subsidizing German, Italian, British and Spanish industry. Buying Gripen means subsidizing Swedish, British and American industry. Orders of all three could entail industrial cooperation but that would have to be additionally paid for. On the other hand F-35 is maintaining scale and with Turkey out of the program as well as continuing delays it has options to add partners without excessive cost. The F-35 is also cheaper per plane and not significantly more expensive than the other three in maintenance cost - thanks to the scale of the program.
You keep thinking in terms of 1980s. Both the fighter market and the industry have changed irreversibly.
And let's not forget that European Union consists of 27 countries with 448 million people and nominal economy of ~$17,8 trillion. This gives you a single squadron of 14,8 planes per country and $44,5 billion of GDP per F-35 ordered. In PPP terms EU is comparable to the US which ordered over 2400 of them.
No EU country that can subsidise its own industry by buying domestically produced fighter jet will buy F-35. Those who do simply make an economically rational decision because buying American is simply cheaper over the course of the life of the jet because European aerospace industry is not competitive. It was in the 1980s but it was gutted in the 1990s and it can't deliver either in terms of sustainment or modernisation. Airbus performs because it has a market. There is no "market" for military aircraft in the EU and you won't understand it until you compare the numbers in 1989 and today.
And don't forget that Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen NG are still trying to compete with F-35 even though they don't have a viable product so a lot of the criticism is simply PR that may not be relevant in Europe, but can work outside of it - see all the recent orders for Rafale.
You have no idea what you're talking about but this is not the thread to write essays on Polish military procurement, because it's quite complex and politics as well as industrial lobbying play as much a role as military planning.
Let me just post this graph from LM's internal PR materials from 1998:
LoR was sent in 2018, DSCA posted aproval in 2019 and order was made in 2020 for about half of the number that initially planned.
The "Harpia" (Harpy) program which was the codename for F-35 purchase - although it was meant to be a competitive tender, not a political non-competitive decision as the current government did - was started around 2012 and initially was for ~64 planes, while the graph from 1998 indicates as many as 96. There's much more spicy stuff regarding Polish Air Force modernisation but this is not the thread.
Romania didn't change anything because they never had plans for purchase of new F-16s. There were talks about getting used F-16s from Poland in 2030s after we buy all 64 F-35s and upgrade F-16C to V as per MLU but war in Ukraine changed everything including financing options and likely that is why they're trying to get the approvals for F-35 now with full knowledge that the planes won't come until mid 2030s. What's going on in Romania is also interesting and spicy but this is also not the thread.
This is a topical forum and it says "F-35" in the thread title for a reason.
Do you mean that the F-35 has no value as a combat aircraft? Or that while it has some value, but it also is a "jobs program". Also, how many jobs are supported by the F-35 manufacturing base?
Which European 4th gens did su-35s went against?
What it did show was even in absence of Ukrainian AF, juts a half-decent SAM network can keep Su-35s from operating with impunity. At best they throw FABs at border areas from behind.
you are reversing cause and effect and also using the benefit of hindsight to equip lockheed Martin with a crystal ball where they knew all things that would happen, and they would win the JSF competition. as you point out the Navy failed to get NATF for themselves. very funny that if not for the F-35C the Navy would be effectively stuck with hornets forever while the little Marines and USAF would be upstaging them. the idea that "primary metric for carrier fighters is plane reliability and maintenance turnaround." while also mentioning the F-14 and god help us the A-12 and whatever NATF would have been has made my day with a fine laugh. good show!
and of course the navy has a 2 decade head start on super Hornets and of course its going to outnumber the F-35C. You also don't know about the big tug of wars between the Super Hornet and the JSF/F-35 that was going on throughout the 1990s apparently and how of course the USN "hated" the Super hornet, and everyone was angry about it. until of course they weren't because history is flexible!
Overall I give the post a 5/10. The effort is good. The connections that are not there are impressively noteworthy for the imagination even if they don't really work out in reality. The navy wanting only reliable and easy to maintain aircraft while maintaining the anti china super fleet is fascinating. its amazing how LM was able to convince the Navy to throw away the F-14, and fail out of other programs. I think they may have been behind the collapse of the USSR too. Once the wall came down the defense budget shrank leaving LM to get all the dividends.
when did the F-35 replace the F-15E?