Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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

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.

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.