Hacker News Reader

My understanding is that dogfighting shouldn’t be a thing with the F-35. It’s not like in Top Gun where the pilot needs to align the plane with its target to shoot it down. The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on. That means they can shoot down someone that’s behind them. No acrobatics needed.

The F-35 comes with a bunch of other technology that make it truly formidable. The cost has also come down substantially, so it’s probably the cheapest option out there as well.

We keep saying missiles are great and dogfighting is over, and we keep being proven wrong.

Mind you, eventually this will be correct... just it's been declared prematurely for 60 years and so this still may not be the correct moment to say so.

> The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on.

Missile performance won't be equal in this case; if the enemy can launch missiles with higher pkill, well..

Dogfighting has been over for advanced militaries for a couple decades now. It isn’t the 1970s. The BVR kill probabilities are approaching unity.

I agree with your main sentiment. There are niches for WVR combat, though, such as in mountainous terrain or in areas with massive amounts of SAM assets.

The enemy COULD pop out from just behind the mountain/hill in front of you, and force you to have to resort to short ranged (FOX 2) missiles or even guns.

Still, though, this is not enough to prioritize extreme agility over stealth today. The F35 is more than agile enough for the few times this occurs, especially if there is a wingman around.

Ukraine is proving this. The Ukrainian airforce is slowly being attrited through hypersonic BVR (beyond visual range) R37 and R77 missiles launched by Migs that aren't even flying over Ukraine. They're firing those missiles from the safety or Russia, 100km away from the border. And because they're hypersonic reaction times are short (they have a top speed of about Mach 5).

> We keep saying missiles are great and dogfighting is over, and we keep being proven wrong.

My understanding is that the "dogfighting is over" rhetoric stopped being proven wrong during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iraqi fighters started mysteriously exploding in the sky during operations.

The thing that's complicated is rules of engagement.

If you can safely entirely rely upon on IFF and deconfliction, all is great.

If you ever have to close to identify targets, then you might end up with some significant maneuvering, etc. Of course, the F-35 isn't terrible at this, and stealth and efficiency lets it better choose the terms of this engagement.

> the F-35B (this one can do VTOL)

The F-35B is STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing), not VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing).

The F-35B is capable of vertical takeoff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY

Lockheed Martin says of the video: "An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance."

This is not a combat functionality and would never be used in actual combat environment. F-35 is explicitly not a VTOL aircraft any more than a baseball is.

So you agree with Lockheed Martin. Super.

F35B also has the hover capability. Its focus is to support in CAS (Close Air Support) roles, not necessarily doing hover support like helicopters, but STOVL capability needed to be stationed on temporary smaller airfields. AFAIK it's main use-case is to support the Marines.

>carrier landings for the Navy (F-22 cannot),

A naval variant capable of carrier landings of the F-22 was considered by the US Navy but was ultimately not adopted. The airframe is definitely capable of it, if given sufficient military and political will.

I’m 90% certain the airframe needs modification to support naval operations. The modification is so costly and difficult that Navy saw no reason to buy F22.

There are yet to exist, but I bet in a dogfight with AI armed drones, which don't have a human to suffer from G impact on crazier manouvers, it might end in another way.

For example, lets see what Bayraktar MIUS will be doing.

The F-22 replacement, already well into development, is explicitly designed to operate in this world.

Ah, the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), thanks for pointing it out.

As is the naval 6th gen project (confusingly, both projects are named “Next Generation Air Dominance”, but they are separate projects.)

There is no variant of the F-35 that can do VTOL. Apparently they did a test and got some prototype to take off vertically with no fuel and nothing else on board. But it is not a VTOL aircraft.

> Apparently they did a test and got some prototype to take off vertically with no fuel

That would be…impressive, actually. But I doubt any variant of the F-35 has demonstrated takeoff, vertical or otherwise, without fuel, though I suppose if you were extremely generous with your definition of “takeoff”, the F-35C might be able to, given its CATOBAR capability.

Okay smartypants, I'm sure they meant a minimal amount of fuel.

And also the cost: F-35 sacrifices some stealth technologies (in comparison with F-22) in favor of a lower cost

The SU-57 would give an F-22 a real run for its money. But there’s only a handful of them.

No one gives any credibility to the capabilities of the SU-57, lack of ability to produce them aside. Close up photos of the aircraft show that elementary features of a 5th generation aircraft are not implemented at all. It is basically a 4th gen aircraft dressed in 5th gen clothing. Its lack of stealth, for example, is well-known; it may be better than prior Soviet aircraft but orders of magnitude less stealthy than e.g. an F-35.

Someone will eventually produce an aircraft to rival the 5th gen capabilities of the US, but it hasn’t been done yet. Every competitor so far has been theater. Meanwhile, the US is actively developing and testing 6th gen combat aircraft.

Russian aircraft have never been focused on stealth.

They have poor sensor suites too. If everyone can see you before you can see them, you’re not going to survive no matter what other advantages you think you have.

Yep, while Russia is good at engine and airframe design they are behind in terms of optics and stealth. But their are other advantages like maneuverability maintainability and cost to manufacture.

Literally all irrelevant if you get taken out in a BVR engagement by a less maneuverable plane you can't see (or by a missile coming off an F-15EX you do see, being spotted by the F-35 you don't).

As history has show, russian tech is inferior to western by a magnitude.

I know it feels good to imagine otherwise but Russia is objectively ahead (at the moment) in terms of ballistics and air defense.

But aircraft tech, yes - absolutely. The US knows how to build impressive planes. But stand-off ballistics and drones are now the better bang for the buck.

> I know it feels good to imagine otherwise but Russia is objectively ahead (at the moment) in terms of ballistics and air defense.

What do you mean “ballistics”? Ballistic missiles? If so, then, sure, Russia has much longer range conventional SRBMs than the US (though that should change this year, with the PrSM coming online), which has largely (until comparatively recently) focused on manned aircraft abd cruise rather than ballistic missiles for the same use.

> But stand-off ballistics and drones are now better bang for the buck.

In the specific tacrical environment of the Ukraine war, they may be, given the inability of either side to achieve reliable air superiority. Certainly, as terror weapons against civilian populations it is true.

More generally, that's less clear.

It's not clear Russia is better at any of that, it's that Russia has land-based launch systems they can use in the war they started, whereas the US can't easily loan Ukraine an entire sea or air-launched system (particularly because the current logic still tends towards "no weapons which could hit Moscow easily).

Ukraine is not the United States military, and is not being armed with its full complement of weapons for very specific diplomatic reasons. Whereas Russia has been free to unload all it's conventional weapons as it sees fit.

> It is designed more for ground assault type work, bombing runs, etc.

The problem is: what exactly do you bomb? I.e. what is the battle-related purpose of this machine?

Bombing tank formations would, of course, make sense, let's say if you encounter a formation of 10-15 tanks a F-35 sortie would make sense. But then the enemy adapts and starts only using tanks in "solitary", so to speak, or at most in "pairs". Does it make economic and operational sense to fly and risk a F-35 just to destroy two tanks? I don't know.

The same goes for enemy artillery. Does it make economic sense to risk a F-35 sortie just to try and take out howitzers scattered over the entire front line? I think it doesn't, for example the Russians have been reasonably good at taking NATO-sent M777s just by using counter-artillery or Lancet suicide mini-drones (orders of magnitude cheaper than a F-35, excluding the opportunity costs of losing an airplane pilot's life).

Of course, F-35s would be best in destroying civilian infrastructure related to the enemy's war effort behind the front-lines, stuff like power transmission units, bridges, railways etc, meaning what NATO did in Serbia in 1999 and what the Allies tried to do against Germany in WW2. But, again, it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles (the Russians have also proved that that is doable during the current war in Ukraine), ignoring the fact that it might not work (the Germans carried out producing war stuff until the early months of 1945, despite the very heavy aerial bombings).

I think the US military has been the victim of its own success in the first Gulf War, when indeed air superiority allowed them to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait with almost no losses on the US side. But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.

so we send f16s and f15s as appropriate for those tasks for which the risk is there for the f35?

If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield, maybe preventing the us' billions in fighters from doing things?

> so we send f16s and f15s as appropriate for those tasks for which the risk is there for the f35?

If I were an accountant for the US military, yes, I would do that. But, of course, things are a lot more complicated, because if they have built it they'll have to use it, you can't go in front of a Congressional budget commission and say that it doesn't make sense to use a F-35 when the F-16 can do the job just as fine, because they'll furiously ask you why did you need all that money for the F-35 in the first place.

> If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield

Could be. Either way, I think we haven't reached the "maximum" when it comes to the use of aerial drones in modern warfare, not by a long shot. Partly also because of institutional reasons, when you've spent so much money on a project like the F-35 you don't ask your best military minds to think too much about drones so that you could best employ them on the battlefield, you ask those bright minds to put the F-35 to use (because a general's future career prospects depend on it). This would only get alleviated by the US having to fight a real war, when, supposedly, those institutional motives would be overcome by the reality of war.

About a possible US war against China I can't comment much because I don't know the situation in that geographic area all too well. It is my understanding though that the US is preparing for a war over the vast area of the Pacific, a repeat of their WW2-campaign if you wish, but I'm not sure China will fall into that trap. But this is pure unsubstantiated speculation from me, time will tell.

You use the F22 (and stand-off munitions) to obtain air superiority at the opening of hostilities. Bombing airstrip, C&C infrastructure, SAM suppression, etc.

You then use your vast fleet of less capable planes to ramp up sorties, provide air support during combined arms operations, etc. You can still use your magic airplane for protection of those assets during sorties, and for strike missions on high-value, high-threat targets.

That is why it is not a problem to have 'few' expensive magic planes. The US only had a hand full of U2's and SR71's, because you're not doing spying runs over Russia 10x a day.

> to obtain air superiority at the opening of hostilities

That works for a very short war, like those in Iraq/Kuwait in 1990-1991 and in Serbia in 1999 happened to be, meaning it was cost effective to have invested so much money in the far more superior US planes because the wars in themselves were short (so the US got a good ROI out of using those advanced planes).

But what to do in case of a war that spans over an entire year or more? (like the current war in Ukraine). The marginal utility of those first debilitating air strikes carried out by advanced planes goes down quite rapidly, nobody cares after 12 months of intense on-the-ground war if some airfields behind the front have been blasted just as the war started, most probably those airfields have already been repaired.

And there's also the opportunity costs. The money spent on developing a very advanced plane like the F-22 could have been put to better use by investing in the US's artillery shells-making industry (of which the West has not enough of right now), artillery shells which provide a much better ROI during a 12-month land-war compared to an advanced plane.

It's all a matter of what future wars the US plans to get into and how it thinks those wars will actually develop.

The purpose of the air force is to stop the war becoming 12 months of intense ground fighting, isn't it? What would the early days of the war in Ukraine have looked like if Russia had access to a USAF-level strike capability?

Thing is, the front itself will likely be in a very different place depending on whether those initial strikes were successful or not

> But then the enemy adapts and starts only using tanks in "solitary", so to speak, or at most in "pairs".

Then you've already won. Tanks are by far most useful on offense when concentrated. Individual tanks can not break through infantry lines, if the infantry has any amount of anti air weaponry attached.

> The problem is: what exactly do you bomb?

F35's main responsibility would be to ensure air superiority, by keeping the air free of enemy aircraft (including any medium to large drones) and by supressing and finally destroying enemy air defences.

Once that is achieved, they can be used for any kind of traditional CAS or go hunting enemy artillery positions. When on the defensive, aircraft are superb at limiting enemy mobility, by attacking trains, convoys bridges and rail heads.

Also, and espeicially in large wars where satellites are likely to be shot down, having aircraft over a warzone provides a huge intelligence advantage. Even when out of bombs, the aircraft can use cameras and data links to send coordinates for enemy artillery, bunkers and tanks back to HQ or to friendly forces.

And obviously, once air supremacy has been achieved, all the 4th gen aircraft can also join in the CAP/Ground Attacks/Interdiction missions.

> it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles

This is not true. Cruise missiles are quite expensive when compared to bombs. A tomahawk missile costs $2M per unit. By comparison, a JDAM bomb costs about $25K. Even when including aircraft maintainance, fuel, etc, bombs are an order of magnitude cheaper than cruise missiles.

> But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.

The second gulf war was primarily a TV war for public opinion. The best approach to wars where you're not willing to use the amount of force necessary to win it, is to not fight it.

These are some weird takes. Saying that the F-35 is built for ground strike roles doesn't mean that there's no need for ground forces or infantry, or that other capabilities won't ever be more suitable for certain strike operations, or that people have WWII-era strategic bombing campaigns in mind.

fwiw, if you're looking for a particular kind of strike target, the F-35 is widely regarded as the USAF's most credible SEAD/DEAD platform. It's suitable for a wide range of other roles, but SEAD really sets it apart.