It is not good. Like it or not, this is the only alternative NATO has for the forceable future. The British Tempest and the French/German stealth fighter won’t be operational until 2035-2040
The only alternative are modernizes 4gen fighters which are very vulnerable to modern air defenses.
A ‘buggy’ F-35 might still be a better alternative.
Also the British are counting for the F-35 to equip its carriers.
I keep hearing concerns that modern radars may be able to defeat the F-35's stealth, or will be able to defeat it in the near future. I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms.
My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
>I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms.
Yes a sophisticated network of radars, sensors, and computers could potentially detect lower RCS aircraft from further away. But that problem would exist for larger RCS aircraft as well. Such a system is a prime target for first hour strike by cruise missiles as the radars required are very large and power intensive. It's not just about detection, but also being able to acquire a firing solution. A lower RCS plane is harder to track, easier to hide with jamming, and ultimately much more of a headache than a higher RCS plane.
>My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens.
F35's performance is superior to the planes it replaces while providing both greater range and payload. It's got very high AoA capabilities which only the F-22 can surpass. Even more impressively it is able to do maneuvers which other plans cannot do without thrust vectoring.[0]
>Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
Wrong. Lot 14 F-35A's cost $78M.[1] That's less than new Eurofighters and Dassault Rafale.
The F35 is the best thing currently in production. That's not to say it's perfect. The F-35's biggest flaws are not that of maneuverability or insufficient stealth. But of range. Despite improving on the airframes which it is replacing in range, it is not enough given the realities of Chinese A2/AD capabilities. The USAF needs a new fighter which is capable of significantly greater ranges as to not over stretch it's tanker network. The NGAD program hopes to address this.
> My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
First, "4th generation" can mean anything from an F-16A from 1978 to an F-16V of today. An F-16V is actually more expensive than an F-35A.
Second, if you take away the stealth of the F-35 it still has:
* A highly capable APG-81 radar with features like low-probability of intercept transmission modes, electronic attack (jamming) capability, multi-target track, ground moving target indication/track, synthetic aperture radar mapping, and passive (receive only) track capability
* Integrated electro-optical targeting pod with laser designator and range finder.
* Integrated software defined radio that can handle communications on UHF, VHF, Link-16, and inter-flight MADL
* 4 pi steradian awareness Distributed Aperture System that's a mid-wave IRST and missile launch/missile warning system
* Integrated Electronic Support Measures suite that provides Band 4/Band 5 detection and single ship rangefinding of incoming RF
F-16V has most of this same stuff or functional equivalents, but you pay tens of millions more to get it.
The solution to that problem is to have conventional non stealth aircraft or cruise missiles in your fleet. Detecting the F-35 might be possible with enough attention but if you detect a conventional fleet you are going to focus your attention on the low hanging fruit first.
They do, even if it's partially done via aid money. And again they could buy multiple F-16's for the price of a single F-35 through the same aid program.
You're exactly right. Not sure why you're downvoted. Not only is the F-35 a giant lemon, but US defense spending should be cut considerably.
The world is changing, air combat is changing, and the F-35 addresses none of those changes. The F-35 is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most DoD spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
Not only is the King Edward VII a giant lemon, but UK defense spending should be cut considerably.
The world is changing, naval combat is changing, and the King Edward VII addresses none of those changes. The King Edward VII is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most Royal Navy spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
</1904 naval commentator>
The Jeune Ecole never lasts. Combat changes, but it never changes as much as the detractors of the old school believe. It never stays as constant as the proponents of the old school believe either.
The only alternative are modernizes 4gen fighters which are very vulnerable to modern air defenses.
A ‘buggy’ F-35 might still be a better alternative.
Also the British are counting for the F-35 to equip its carriers.