Hacker News Reader

Comment by varjag | Hacker News Reader

Norwegian pilots are quite positive about the first deliveries.

In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies.

Russia still has no meaningful way to interdict F-35. Their 5gen fighter is still early prototype, and the S-400 munition upgrade capable to tackle F-35 is still in development with multiple setbacks.

You may loathe American military industrial complex and point out the cost of the programme, sure, but it's the best aircraft in the skies for now. With some headroom.

View on HN

> In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies.

F-16s, sure, and we keep hearing about this, but I wonder how they fare against more modern fighters though, such as Rafale, Eurofighter, or whatever.

Rafale had the reputation to be an overpriced, goal-missing† multirole beast, but apparently the U.S.A would not let France take that crown for too long, and boy does it seem they beat the crap out of us on that front now.

† especially when it wasn't able to land on the Charles de Gaulle carrier in early years of development.

> In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies.

How many F-16's? And what block? In order to be great it has to shoot down a LOT of F-16's to motivate the cost. A problem with that being that it can only carry 4 radar guided missiles internally (so while remaining stealthy). If it carries more, then it's just a very expensive non-stealth fighter. If it carries just 4, it's rather vulnerable to

> but it's the best aircraft in the skies for now.

What's the "best aircraft" isn't really an interesting measure. What's most interesting to any buyer is for X billion dollars, and N years of flying, what capability can I get? In such a comparison you have to weigh in the per-hour flying costs, the cost to aquire and train, what investments you get locally (can you manufacture some part locally or would you have to buy from lockheed?) and so on and so forth.

First, let's clear the misconception of cost effectiveness. An F-35 shooting down a dingy Su-24 amortized way back in 1992 would be entirely worth it, if Su-24 was on a mission to strike your C&C centre or naval port. No different really than using a $50,000 guided bomb to destroy Taliban encampment with $800 worth of rusty AKs and a pick up truck. If it solves the military objective and you can afford it, it is a good solution.

Long term, strategically, cost is important, sure. Prolonged world war, major players scale. Short term, no. And in a conflict, minor players have short term only operational horizon at their disposal.

> What's most interesting to any buyer is for X billion dollars, and N years of flying, what capability can I get?

Norway found the cost manageable, in competition with other bidders. And for comparison, a municipal garage of the parliament in Oslo now stands at the cost of three F-35 acquisitions.

> First, let's clear the misconception of cost effectiveness. An F-35 shooting down a dingy Su-24 amortized way back in 1992 would be entirely worth it, if Su-24 was on a mission to strike your C&C

Not sure why that's an argument against the cost effectiveness of something? If you could do X for N dollars or 2xN dollars then it's more cost effective to do it for N dollars assuming the mission can be performed with either.

> Norway found the cost manageable, in competition with other bidders.

I think it's safe to say there was a "political cost" considered here too. That is, what would be the long term cost of not "helping" NATO allies and the other F-35 buyers by pushing the price down through larger sales.

This is up for debate:

"But while F-22 pilots are confident about the Raptor’s ability to defeat the S-300V4 and the S-400, the Air Force official acknowledged that the stealthy fifth-generation aircraft has never faced off against these next-generation Russian air defenses in actual combat before."

I would not bet my life on it that a current S-400 can't blow an F-35 out of the sky. And considering the Russian habit ob hiding or understating technology, in combination with old Soviet thinking stratagems like the "axe theory", I would say: good luck!

The new missile is called 40N6E, and is still in development.

The existing ones are unable to lock on F-22 or F-35. The ground stations under favourable circumstance can possibly see stealth aircraft, but S-300/400 family has active, missile-based guidance, and this is not compensated yet.

> old Soviet thinking stratagems like the "axe theory"

Made me look. Found http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/05.html

"""

The theory is known unofficially in the General Staff as the `axe theory'. It is stupid, say the Soviet generals, to start a fist-fight if your opponent may use a knife. It is just as stupid to attack him with a knife if he may use an axe. The more terrible the weapon which your opponent may use, the more decisively you must attack him, and the more quickly you must finish him off. Any delay or hesitation in doing this will just give him a fresh opportunity to use his axe on you. To put it briefly, you can only prevent your enemy from using his axe if you use your own first.

The `axe theory' was put forward in all Soviet manuals and handbooks to be read at regimental level and higher. In each of these one of the main sections was headed `Evading the blow'. These handbooks advocated, most insistently, the delivery of a massive pre-emptive attack on the enemy, as the best method of self-protection. This recommendation was not confined to secret manuals-non-confidential military publications carried it as well.

"""

No one in their right mind would risk such an expensive plane in a fight vs an inferior plane that costs 1/10 the amount. Tigers in the WW2 could blow Shermans up by the truckload but there were many trucks full waiting behind and the Tiger cost a fortune and made no difference in the war in the end. In any case there will never again be a war vs a country with a similar plane that doesn't turn nuclear first.

No, if you are invaded, you do with what you have. And it sure nicer to have F-35 than MiG-21 when the push comes to shove.

Depends who is invading. There is no chance the F35 will fly if the US invades you.

Iranian air force operates F-14 Tomcats still..

It better beat F-16s by a wide margin. The F-16 is 40 years old. It would blow a Spitfire (40 years older still) out of the skies, even if one had kept upgrading that Spitfire with new engines and weapons systems for 40 years.

F-16 is state of the art 4th generation fighter. It is just as good or better than various Su-27/3x variants in Russian AF fleet at the time.

State of the art, and (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16819684) ”In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies” ?

Yes, state of the art 4th generation interceptor that is blown out of the skies by 5th generation F-35. Is there something conceptually unclear?

Is this really true? If this were true, why are there no reports of Israel using its F-35s in operations over Syria? They lost an F-16 last month. Yet they flew it again into Lebanon/Syria just a few days ago.

Actually there was a report with a bit of an controversy according to official israeli one of the planes was damaged by a bird the other version is, it was almost hit by a SAM missile, search on google for details

What’s an “almost” SAM hit? Is that a thing?

One man's missed is another's almost hit.

(No idea if F-35 were deployed by Israel at all)

They’ve received a few. I’ve been waiting to hear about them being used in actual operations. Haven’t heard anything so far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com