[greedo]

And here come the F-35 haters...

The F-35 is fine. It's designed to be a replacement to the F-16 with a good level of stealth. NO fighter is 100% immune to SAMs, but the F-35 can survive on the modern battlefield against S300/S400 etc just fine. It would be cleaning up in Ukraine right now as long as the airbases it flew from were protected.

And what "unmanned fighters" are out there right now? Some low performance drones? Sure. But unmanned fighters that can engage in A2A combat are non-existent. Most current drones have the performance of a Cessna 172.

[kcb]

There's some silly idea that it's just a numbers game and 20 Cessna 172s would be able to take out an F-35.

[yobbo]

> 20 Cessna 172s would be able to take out an F-35

No, they would not. I believe they would seem easy-mode target practice for the cannon.

[sofixa]

How many AA missiles does an F-35 hold, 10? 20 Cessnas would certainly be able to take down a lone F-35 in favourable conditions. Quantity has a quality of it's own.

[greedo]

This is ridiculous. A Cessna 172 might be able to suicide into a parked F-35, but the idea that 20 would be able to engage it in a dogfight and win just shows a complete lack of aerospace knowledge.

[sofixa]

Dogfighting is a thing of the past. 20 Cessnas approaching from different directions, with decently ranged AA missiles ( which is the point of the discussion, OP compared drone performances to a Cessna, and everyone is going in on the allegory, but the real question is if slow drones would be able to tackle an F-35, and the answer is it will depend on their armament, but probably) could overwhelm an F-35.

[greedo]

Slow drones won't be able to engage an F-35 in A2A combat because that's primarily determined by energy state. A Cessna 172 can carry about 100lbs of weapons after taking fuel and pilot into consideration. A Stinger weighs about 30 lbs or so, so three could be carried. Range of the Stinger is about 5 miles, so still sounds plausible.

So your cloud of Cessnas could conceivably carry 60 Stingers. How will they detect a fighter flying at 30K? A 172 can only get to about 15K in perfect conditions. It flies at like 100mph compared to a Mach 2 F-35.

Again, short of being a suicide bomber trying to kill an F-35 on the ramp, this idea is ludicrous.

[kcb]

To add, the primary advantage that A2A missiles have over SAM systems is that the missiles dont have to fly up 10s of thousands of feet to hit their target. Modern "dogfighting" is about achieving optimal launch conditions(Altitude, speed, heading) for your missile against the target. So even if a Cessna could detect the F-35 and carry the most advanced A2A missiles it would still be thoroughly ineffective.

To create a drone capable of threatening an F-35 requires creating something very similarly capable in all ways but without the pilot. This may exist one day but it isn't going to come at a discount.

[yobbo]

> with decently ranged AA missiles

Those missiles are not cheap, and it would be unlikely for cheap Cessnas to get in range of an F-35. At long range the F-35 is difficult to observe by sensors that fit inside a Cessna.

I believe it is possible to shoot down low-radar-crossection aircraft if the missiles are spotted/guided by other sensor networks, but that is not easy, cheap, or mobile. And land based radars are sitting ducks.

[zip1234]

Favorable conditions such as the F-35 being parked on the ramp and the Cessna crashes into it?

[sofixa]

> but the F-35 can survive on the modern battlefield against S300/S400 etc. just fine

I don't think you could possibly know this. NATO countries have S-300s and the F-35 was probably tested against it, but it's highly unlikely it was tested against an actual latest gen S-400 in fighting condition ( if such a thing even exists, Russian military readiness is dubious at best).

[greedo]

Any SAM can shoot down any stealth fighter or bomber given the right conditions. Stealth isn't 100% invisibility. The US lost an F-117 in Bosnia due to both poor operational tactics and a clever foe.

You do realize that the S400 is just an upgraded S300, right? Hence it's original name of S300 PMU-3?