[WJW]

Are there any air superiority combat drones operational yet? I won't argue that it seems likely that manned dogfights are going to die eventually, but that moment also seems at least a decade away. Until then a F-35 with long range missiles seems to be one of the more lethal things in the air today, even if it is rather expensive. NATO has like 20x the defense budget compared to Russia though, so it's fine not to have the cheapest weapons available.

[formerly_proven]

F-35 unit prices are not high and keep getting lower due to the sheer scale of production. Many 4.5 gen fighters are actually more expensive yet less capable than the F-35. Most anti-F-35 arguments are "informed" by the likes of Pierre Sprey.

[hef19898]

Which systems are out there that are actually comparable to the JSF? Both the Eurofighter and the Rafale are one gen older (not sure if that actually matters that much so). Which leaves the Russian and Chinese planes, for which cost is hard to come by.

[greedo]

Chinese FC-31 is close to the F-35 (in design and theory, but who knows about actual performance), but it's not in production yet.

[yobbo]

Looking at pictures, it has two visible round jet nozzles which suggests it has much higher radar cross-section and IR-signature than F-35.

[greedo]

It's extremely difficult to evaluate RCS by looking visually at an aircraft. Who would have thought that the F-117 would be stealthy? And the reason the F-35 only has one engine is because it has a much higher thrust than the RD-93 on the FC31. This increase in thrust "might" increase its IR signature, and neither has any IR shielding like on the F-22.

[dghlsakjg]

Maybe the f-22, although that isn’t in production anymore

[alexvoda]

The usefulness of long range missiles depends on the rules of engagement.

If the F-35 will be allowed to shoot targets over the horizon based only on instruments, it will most probably work as intended.

If visual confirmation will be required, it will be a boondoggle.

[a_crc]

Could you expand on this? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where visual confirmation of a target would be a requirement. I also don't see why an F-35 is at a major disadvantage inside visual range of a target. (FYI Visual range is farther than short range air to air missiles and much farther than gun range.)

[throwawayffffas]

The AIM-54 Phoenix was used 2 times with exactly zero kills, because of ID concerns[1]. You don't just go around firing missiles to radar tracks you can't identify.

[1] by the US, Iran has used it more with more success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_exp...

[a_crc]

The article you linked makes it sound like sensor and rocketry failures on some platforms that were retired 15 years ago, nothing to do with a general fear of BVR missile use. Also I believe the willingness to engage unidentified radar tracks has more to do with the nature of the conflict. I doubt the same restraint would be shown in a war against a near peer foe.

[throwawayffffas]

The point was not the zero kills, the point is that the US navy decided to use them in only two occasions.

In the case of the US involved conflicts it was working with allies and fighters lacking modern IFF that made the likelihood of friendly fire or collateral losses unacceptable to them.

It's a matter of acceptable risks. The AIM-54 was designed with a world war III in mind, employed in the middle of the ocean in closed airspaces were unidentified contacts could be treated as hostile with minimum political consequences.

The point I was making is here is an example of a time a major force decided not to use their prime BVR missile because of target identification concerns.

[greedo]

The Phoenix was never the prime BVR for the US. It was a niche weapon for the USN, to combat the Backfire/Bear threat. Even for the USN, it wasn't the prime; the AIM-7 Sparrow was the primary AAM carried. Tomcats rarely carried Phoenix except when qualifying. It was too heavy, and the F-14 couldn't bring back all 6 to the carrier due to weight. If the Tomcat had stuck around longer, the AMRAAM would have been qual'd for it, and the Tomcat would probably have lost out to it.

And the reason it wasn't used much wasn't just ID issues, but cost. It was supremely expensive, in limited stocks. Why use it against an Su-22 in the Gulf of Sidra? Or waste it over Iraq?

[a_crc]

As a counter example, the US has continued to use the BVR AIM-120 even after accidentally shooting down one of their own helicopters in an IFF failure. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#United_States_o...

[hef19898]

Roughly, because the stealthier an aircraft is the less maneuverable it an be. Also, you need ammunition for a dog fight, which is mostly carried on the wings negating any stealth characteristics. And large internal bays make an aircraft less maneuverable.

[greedo]

AIM-9X has a 22 mile range...

[a_crc]

The horizon is hundreds of miles away at altitude. You have to consider that visual range includes optical enhancement (telephoto lens etc.)

[greedo]

IRST can help, but it's like viewing the world through a straw. It works best when cued by other systems. I'm unaware of any telephoto systems in use since the F-14 was retired (obviously excluding the few airframes Iran might still be using).

Unaided pilot vision is unlikely to spot a target at 22 miles without some type of guidance.

[a_crc]

True overall, (although don't discount the effect of a pair of binoculars in the cockpit) but in this case we're talking about intercepting a radar target for visual confirmation. If you have a radar track, by definition you would have the type of guidance you need to put other sensors on target.

[captainredbeard]

Air-to-air combat has been beyond visual range (BVR) for ages now.

[hef19898]

There was not a lot of air-to-air combat between near-peer air forces going on in the last decades, was there? What little air combat we had was between top notch fighters and crew, supported by AWACS and all the fancy stuff that comes with it, against badly trained and coordinated almost obsolete fighters. Anti-air systems were the main concern.

[throwawayffffas]

> Are there any air superiority combat drones operational yet?

From what I have seen reported every major player is working on "loyal wingmen".

Autonomous drones that would fly along manned aircraft. That way you supposedly get the best of both worlds, the situational awareness and judgement of a human along the expendability of a drone.

[WJW]

Yes I know everyone wants such drones, but AFAIK nobody has them other than a few prototypes. Developing a prototype far enough to get to an fully operational platform (including things like logistics, training the operators and mechanics, developing doctrines, etc etc etc) can take decades.