Were the F-22 and F-35 a mistake?

Pretty good article:
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-militarys-big-mistake-putting-so-much-faith-the-f-22-20049?page=1

How can U.S. doctrine adapt to this challenging scenario?

Already, many theorists believe that carriers would be forced to remain far away from hostile shores. The survivability of airbases in the event of a mass surface-to-surface missile attack is also open to question. One possibility is that no large-scale air battles would materialize.

The two key limitations are logistical: lack of internal fuel to operate without support, and insufficient missiles to tackle superior numbers. For the time being, there is no obvious fix to the fuel problem: the latest U.S. fighters, the F-22 and F-35, are simply going to depend on tankers. Some suggest that the Navy should deploy light-weight low-observable drones from carriers that could potentially operate further afield.

What about increasing missile capacity?

The U.S. military is a big proponent of networked warfare. In theory, if one airplane detects an enemy, it could pass on that data to friendly ships and aircraft—and through Cooperative Engagement Ability, even potentially allow those friendlies to shoot at that target from far away. One potential tactic is to use a vanguard of stealthy fighters to identify incoming enemy aircraft and send targeting data to ships or non-stealth fighters, which can carry heavier weapons loads. The F-35’s excellent sensors and datalinks could make it effective in this role.

There is even an idea being kicked around to mount large numbers of missiles on a B-1 or B-52, which would be fired off hundreds of kilometers away from the battle. Of course, such an “arsenal plane” would be vulnerable if enemy fighters broke through the accompanying line of F-22s and F-35s. The tactic would likely require even longer-range missiles than the U.S. currently employs.

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com.au/amp/www.popsci.com/amp/ai-pilot-beats-air-combat-expert-in-dogfight
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

f22s are an (((expensive))) meme

Russia's superior Sukhoi master race aircraft could easily drop that piece of shit, especially the PAK FA

>Already, many theorists believe that carriers would be forced to remain far away from hostile shores.

Naval doctrine is that the carriers are sovereign US territory, no different than a state. They are even admitted as such by law. Naval doctrine also states the only thing that could sink a carrier is a nuke. Even if a nuke isn't used, the Navy is meant to treat any destruction of a carrier as a nuclear attack on... sovereign US soil.

The Navy's response to this, as a result, and commanded with the full authority of the letter of the law is to respond with a nuclear strike upon the presumed belligerents.

This is why the Navy swaggers around with a big dick, and doesn't give two fucks about chinks in diesel subs, or NK midget subs. You want to attack a carrier battlegroup? Fine, go ahead. Assuming you can get past the combat ships to strike at the carrier, you are going to try and sink the carrier. It's the only reason why you'd attack the carrier. However in attacking the carrier you automatically lose.

Cry about it all you want, this is how the Navy would respond to losing a carrier.

>Naval doctrine also states the only thing that could sink a carrier is a nuke.
Not according to new weaponry with new anti-ship missiles and submarines.

anything that isn't a missile is a meme if we're talking about a war between two nuclear powers, anything else is good for herding niggers/sandniggers only

>f22 & f35 a mistake
Tomcat brought back into service when?

And what about snowniggers?

You are missing the point you retarded Slav rape baby.

The Navy has decided unilaterally that the only thing that can sink a carrier is a Nuke. It doesn't matter how you sink it, the Navy is to treat any sinking of a carrier as a nuclear strike on sovereign US soil.

Do you understand now?

If you don't, I will put it to you another way.

This would be like the Army saying the only thing that can destroy an Abrams is a direct nuclear strike, and that every Abrams is part of Montana, and as a result the Army can hit anyone they want with nuclear weapons that happens to destroy an Abrams. It doesn't matter if there's weapons other than Nukes that can do this. All that matters is doctrine.

If doctrine says 2+2=5, guess what? It equals fucking five.

>Germany
>nationalinterest
>sage

>Were the F-22 and F-35 a mistake?
Yes, but only because they are ugly and planes are supposed to be sexy.

I'm talking international conflicts, not insurgencies

But this is not sexy it looks like a duck or some
other wildlife shit.

Not a chance in real life. As if US would launch a nuclear war for a ship. This can only deter third world country.

If China sink a carrier, it sinks. And that is it.

Doctrine is the right term : theory which does not apply as far as reality is concerned.

>planes are supposed to be sexy.
#AllPlanesAreBeautiful

Nice exposed Engines Ivan, would be a shame if someone locked on to them

We're buying f-16 s. Are they any good?

It looks like the retarded child of an F-111 and Su-27

For bombing 'moderate rebels' playing in the sand? Sure, we still use them.

They absolutely would.

It's been drilled into the head of every sailor, and every Admiral says as much. Do you know how much money a single carrier is worth? I am not just talking about the ship itself, but rather also all of the planes and munitions on board?

A single Nimitz (by itself) costs 4.5 billion dollars and almost ten years to make, with nearly a hundred aircraft on board, and populated by 5 to 6 thousand people. That is just one ship. We are literally talking about something worth north of 10 billion dollars. Forget about the loss of life.

Imagine if ten skyscrapers in New York just vanished, and you get some idea of the accounting, and investment the Navy has put into each one of these fucking things.

Sorry, but no, the Navy will not allow the destruction of a carrier (or an entire battlegroup for that matter) go unanswered. You would be fucked ten ways till Sunday for having even conceived of doing something so retarded.

its true, missiles fuck everything, one modern missile sub could take out a carrier battlegroup on its own

which yeah makes carriers redundant in a war that isnt bombing the shit out of some 3rd world army

F22 is unbeatable you dumb faggot kiwi

Nobody cares. Your gay ass navy doesn't have authority to release nuclear weapons on their own. It will remain fundamentally a political decision. Go put some more seamen in your poop deck.

Making something in the SHAPE of our planes means nothing.

>go apocalyptic over 4 billion dollars

kek

they would just launch missiles at chinese military assets, no nukes involved

WOW, Sound good, how many of this "f-22 killers' in service? how many squadrons deployed in Russia?

>F22 is unbeatable
Keep a few thousand microdrones(invisible to the eye and sensors)floating about your skies and you can kiss your engines goodbye. Especially if they carry tiny explosive charges.

>What is targeting range.

An F-22 would be dropped before it could even detect a T-50 desu senpai baka

>It's a Sup Forums F-35 thread

Seriously how embarrassing must it be to be Russia about now. They're "Next Gen" aircraft are on part with the F-18 and people try to compare them to the F-22 / F-35, It's cringe worthy

F-22? FUCK no.

F-35? Mmm.. I don't think it should be the 'go-to' plane, rather us fix up another F-22 or maybe use the F-15SE.

Also, flocks of birds work too. For low-flying craft.

Lol, no it won't.

Every Admiral in the US Navy would be calling for blood. If you don't think someone would commit treason over the sinking of a carrier, you're deluded. It is the equivalent of the destruction of a small town in terms of life, and the destruction of several city blocks in terms of cost.

I am going to tell you right now, a nuclear response would occur. It almost happened in Vietnam over a fucking hill for Christ's sake, and the only thing that stopped it from happening was that the hill wasn't deemed worth taking. It also almost happened in Korea. Belgium, we literally had one of America's greatest military leaders dismissed because he tried to use nukes by going behind the President's back.

The Navy would not allow for anything other than a nuclear response. It almost happened before over trifles by comparison.

China is already making a cheaper Alternative as the J-31 (as an export fighter) and its own use J-20 (as a long range fighter)

They are aiming for both jets to be superior to the fourth gen, but just only somewhat comparable to american 5th gens, think like how sure, the T-34 could crush panzer 3s, but were no match for tigers or panthers etc etc

There is NO aircraft as beautiful as Su-30 MKI

>those curves

HNNNNNG

can't disagree pajeet

>tfw no harrier

It isn't merely the fiscal cost, I am just trying to give you something tangible. You're a Brit, the closest thing to the destruction of carrier would be the sinking of the HMS Hood. You should know how the Hood was seen as being undefeatable, and then was promptly sunk by next to nothing. That's how the Navy treats their carriers. They're shining, invincible platforms. To do anything to this image would be of the highest form of insult.

The biggest design flaw is the pilot.

Aircraft are now capable of moving in directions producing high-G effects that people cannot with stand.

To progress we need pilotless systems.

>increase missile capacity
why not increase warhead yield?

You are indeed correct.
Sailors are fiercely loyal to their ships.

STOP BLOWING HOLES IN MY SHIP!

>what is undetectable stealth technology

>The two key limitations are logistical: lack of internal fuel to operate without support, and insufficient missiles to tackle superior numbers

F-22 and F-35 carry more internal fuel than traditional fighters. And can always put more missiles on pylons if that's necessary.

Real life is not a video game. Planes don't need to shoot down 10 enemies per mission. Even the greatest WW2 aces usually got one kill per mission.

this was the most aesthetically pleasing A/C imho

Just as new anti-ship missiles appear new anti-missile missiles appear. It's a neverending race.

And soon laser CIWS will be a thing.

>we literally had one of America's greatest military leaders dismissed because he tried to use nukes by going behind the President's back
That should tell you your own nation takes political control very seriously, not that "we can do what we want". I get that your esprit de corps is very high, but leave it out of serious geopolitical discussion please.

Sinking a carrier would have serious consequences, but not because navy butthurt. Rather, it would signal either the opening strike of a broader war, or an immense power shift. That would trigger a politically calculated and controlled reaction, of varying intensity. Some internal considerations would be at play, like navy butthurt, but it is not the end all be all.

They only make you believe that so you would have the morale needed to fight to the death.

>mfw we are still stuck with f-16 and Su-25

It's just pyschological deterrence and, at most, a matter of principles. But no military would a priori build a strategy based on a given material losses. It is not dynamic nor flexible to wage a war. You don't build an entire strategy based on a predetermined tactic loss.

A carrier is expensive. But Los Angeles is way more expensive. Escalate for escalation sake would only make sense if the US were sure to achieve a complete victory against an opponent. That is a regional power.

not ass embarrassing as posting a thumbie

(You)
>Muh stealth shape & tech

It's not infallible. It only has a small shadow on radar if both aircraft are head on. From the side it will still be detectable. detection.

you still have fleets of f-15c,f-15e,f-18 super hornets,no biggie

cringe

>ramp-coping

>T-50
>muh non-deployed prototypes

purely speculative fiction

You are missing the point.

The carriers represent the backbone of the Navy. If you can threaten the carriers, you are doing irreparable damage to not just the morale but also the planning and procedures of the Navy. Do you think the Navy is retarded? Of course they know other shit can destroy a carrier, that's why they literally foam at the mouth when people mention cavitation weapons and other shit.

You put them in a corner by demonstrating you have the ability to destroy a carrier by means other than a Nuke, but this is also why they say only a Nuke can destroy a carrier - so that legally a nuclear counter-attack can be initiated.

If a nuclear counter-attack doesn't occur, expect to see the Admiralty collectively lose their fucking minds. It's petty and petulant, but it also shows a remarkable amount of foresight and self-preservation.

I agree with the notion that we should shift away from carriers. 100%. But that isn't going to happen in the next half century unless some idiot gets the bright idea to start sinking them en mass. At that point, then you absolutely can expect to see nukes fly.

>The Navy has decided unilaterally that the only thing that can sink a carrier is a Nuke.

but thats wrong you fucking retard

>muh intangibles

fuck off back to your crumpets and tea

>. It's petty and petulant, but it also shows a remarkable amount of foresight and self-preservation.

elaborate please

It isn't my dude. The Navy is full aware that other threats exist, but the only thing that they will admit to being capable of destroying a carrier is a nuke. The Navy also claims to be able to refloat a sunk carrier multiple times. The veracity of these claims is questionable at best, but that doesn't stop them from saying it.

why do you think the navy splits them up into strict single carrier groups oceans apart lol

they will never focus strength as in WW2 specifically because the other carriers provide the deterrent against sinking one

The problem with the f35s and the f22 is that they're expensive investments with relatively short operating lives. In 10 to 15 years, generation 5 stealth fighters will be considered outdated with advances in AI systems . There are already AI pilot programs that can beat profession fighter pilots

google.com.au/amp/www.popsci.com/amp/ai-pilot-beats-air-combat-expert-in-dogfight

They could theoretically just retrofit AI systems in gen 5 stealth fighters, but the problem is that the these fighters won't be able to take full advantage of these AI systems since Lockheed martin designed every component in the gen 5 fighters with human physical limits in mind.

Tbh even WW2 era battle ships took 2 nukes to sink.

> but the only thing that they will admit to being capable of destroying a carrier is a nuke.

well thats bullshit

i can think of plenty of munitions capable of penetrating 17-34 inches of steel with 2inch kevlar.

>>Hurrrr US military wasted shit tons of money on deploying giant tub boats that are literal sitting ducks in any real war

>>Huuurrrr how can US ever compete?

I got out of the Navy because I realized how retarded a carrier is when you can launch a missile that has a 2k mile range

>navy forced to allow fats to enlist due to HAES vote in congress
>new Ford class carrier sinks due to thousands of fatties overburdening it
>fat people are now considered nuclear weapons
>air-drop fats on Moscow and Beijing

You really don't need to destroy the carrier just disable the electronic equipment controlling the cooling pumps which would then lead to a nuclear meltdown.

Reminder that there is literally nothing wrong with extravagant and frivolous military expenditure.

The coping from countries trying to catch up on stealth is pathetic. SAD!

Your country should invest in some high precision tactical ballistic missiles, no one needs those more than you and Syria IMO. Do you have those?

nuclear deterrent man.
lets say i declared that if you destroyed my nice bike or wahtever i have every right to shot your dick off.
if i do anything less then what i said id do then i wouldn't be fully backing up my words, it could make me look weak
with that in mind would you or anyone ever want to fuck with my bike? no i could leave it unlocked outside in the rain if i wanted so long as i would know whos dick to shoot. in this way they can get like 20 fucking aircraft carriers and still no let one of them be truly threatened.

I smell a plot.

The mid-wing dihedral change they had to introduce against roll stability issues looks ugly though

Carriers are nothing but the launching platform for attack aircraft and a command HQ.
The real power, as far as the ships are concerned(and you know this if you were in the Nazy) are the guard ships and submarines in the fleet. Having a 2000-mile missile means nothing when you have satellite-backed countermeasures with pinpoint accuracy.

This is fact is why the carriers exist. If it were just about missiles we could launch missiles and be done with it. But we need fighters/attack craft/light bombers to get to internal targets. Submarine missile strike for example, are only really useful for sea/coastal targets.

>You don't build an entire strategy based on a predetermined tactic loss.

That's basically nuclear warfare in a nutshell though.

You use nukes on me (I am assuming we're going to lose /something/), and so I can use nukes on you. It's literally a hall pass to allow for a nuclear response. I am not saying I agree with any of this shit, but I do really feel the need to explain all of this because most people assume that a carrier is treated as just another ship, when it really isn't.

By doing all of the things I mentioned (making carriers sovereign US soil, etc.) it puts the Navy in an incredibly strong position, despite the inherent weaknesses presented by using naval that primary relies on its carriers to do the talking for them. We have shit loads of Destroyers, and Nuclear Subs. But the entire navy is built around one goal and one goal only: protect the carrier. That's why a disproportionate amount of ships and aircraft can form a battle group for a carrier. The carrier is everything.

However, since you put so much stock in your carriers, it means they are also your biggest weakness (by virtue of being the biggest target) and that losing them deals a massive blow to your offensive capabilities.

So the Navy figured out a long time ago that if they can convince the politicians to agree with them that only a nuclear weapon is capable of destroying a carrier, and a carrier is so important that it is literally a floating and moving piece of the United States, that it lends you a tremendous amount of latitude in both offensive and defensive responses.

Offensively it means that you can pretty much do anything you want, since only a retard would attack the carrier. You (as the attacker of the carrier) would have to be willing to wage nuclear war, implicitly. Defensively it means that if someone sinks your carrier, you can say they used nuclear weapons and hit them back with anything you feel like.

>you now realize that we have literally almost finished two (2?!) mid-size carriers that serve no purpose in modern war while the country is in a permanent recession

navies are trash desu, we could have just built a couple of dozen missile frigates for 1/10th the cost and been more effective

Wrong.

I think he said sink. But same thing.

The idea that a nuke is capable of destroying a carrier is absurd. Carriers in WW2 were about 1/3 as thicl, so just find a shape charge munition with +300% power as your average WW2 aerial bomb.


One hit to the ships magazine and its fireworks city.

Current stealth tech is already very close to obsolescence with the advent of passive and "quantum" radar. Take stealth away from the F-35 and it's a pretty mediocre aircraft.

What is aegis? What is stolen valor?

>nazy
lol
Surf Hiel!

the launch authority resides with the president

you are full of shit

everything youve said is complete bullshit.

>only nukes can take out carriers
>lower echelon have launch authority

kys my man

Explain?

You can't dickwave with missile frigates, idiot

sukhoi t-10 airframe is a stroke of genius

sure you can

its just lots of little dicks instead of two large dicks

top kek

Russians are 20 years behind Americans when it comes to building 5th generation fighters.

F-22s have lost in WVR combat against German air force Eurofighters. We don't yet know how powerful its BVR capabilities are since they're only used to bomb sandniggers.

>only nukes can take out carriers

I never said this was a fact, I am simply telling you that factually the Navy says this. Point of fact, the Navy knows it is a lie, but it doesn't matter.

>the launch authority resides with the president

In a very specific scenario, yes.

If the Black Devil were still alive, I wonder what he would say about our little technological terror.

Fake news.

>It looks like the retarded child of an F-111 and Su-27

From Russian point of view it is stepchild of Su-24 and Su-27, replacement for Su-24 and Tu-22M.

> implicitly. Defensively it means that if someone sinks your carrier, you can say they used nuclear weapons and hit them back with anything you feel like.

That is the bit i found interesting. ty.

>"Eurofighters"
>Literally just a reskinned EAP that euroturds are trying to take credit for
Fuck off Hans

>Point of fact, the Navy knows it is a lie, but it doesn't matter.
EVERYBODY knows its a lie. Thats why its fucking stupid to include it as a factor in any strategic decision.

>In a very specific scenario, yes.
in all scenarios where the POTUS is still in command

>EVERYBODY knows its a lie. Thats why its fucking stupid to include it as a factor in any strategic decision.

Tell the Navy and Cogress that then, not me.

Do you think I wasn't in the military or are you just trolling? I was the guy who ran and maintained the nuclear power stations, like every other nuclear station, you cut the power to the cooling pumps your reactor will then start over heating and when it boils off all the coolant it will cause a meltdown. Are you literally this retarded that you don't know that engines need coolant?

You don't think these aircraft were built with unmanned applications in mind... that's funny.

Also, the YF-23 was better in every way, but cost more so the YF-22 was the chosen platform(plus Lockheed is BFFs with the DOD).

It even looks better

>A pilot A.I. developed by a doctoral graduate from the University of Cincinnati has shown that it can not only beat other A.I.s, but also a professional fighter pilot with decades of experience. In a series of flight combat simulations, the A.I. successfully evaded retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Gene Lee, and shot him down every time. In a statement, Lee called it “the most aggressive, responsive, dynamic and credible A.I. I’ve seen to date.”
>And “Geno” is no slouch. He’s a former Air Force Battle Manager and adversary tactics instructor. He’s controlled or flown in thousands of air-to-air intercepts as mission commander or pilot. In short, the guy knows what he’s doing. Plus he’s been fighting A.I. opponents in flight simulators for decades.
>But he says this one is different. “I was surprised at how aware and reactive it was. It seemed to be aware of my intentions and reacting instantly to my changes in flight and my missile deployment. It knew how to defeat the shot I was taking. It moved instantly between defensive and offensive actions as needed.”
>The A.I., dubbed ALPHA, was developed by Psibernetix, a company founded by University of Cincinnati doctoral graduate Nick Ernest, in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory. According to the developers, ALPHA was specifically designed for research purposes in simulated air-combat missions.
>The secret to ALPHA’s superhuman flying skills is a decision-making system called a genetic fuzzy tree, a subtype of fuzzy logic algorithms. The system approaches complex problems much like a human would, says Ernest, breaking the larger task into smaller subtasks, which include high-level tactics, firing, evasion, and defensiveness. By considering only the most relevant variables, it can make complex decisions with extreme speed. As a result, the A.I. can calculate the best maneuvers in a complex, dynamic environment, over 250 times faster than its human opponent can blink.

I'm sure the best minds in engineering didn't think of any of this!
-(you)

>After hour-long combat missions against ALPHA, Lee says,“I go home feeling washed out. I’m tired, drained and mentally exhausted. This may be artificial intelligence, but it represents a real challenge.”

>I was just LARPING as someone who knows something about the navy or nuclear war