American F-351 vs Russian S300

[TM7]

Jerusalem - Israel’s defense minister has given the go-ahead to a $4 billion purchase of advanced American F-35I fighter jets.


Ehud Barak’s office says Barak approved the purchase of the stealth fighters along with spare parts and services. Military officials said Israel would purchase around 20 of the Lockheed Martin jets. The F-35I is also known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the deal were not made public.

Israel’s government is expected to approve the deal soon. The purchase will be funded by U.S. military aid to Israel.<<Okay, TM

The F-35I can avoid enemy radar systems. Analysts suggest that could help Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In a statement Sunday, Barak said the plane will allow Israel to maintain its “aerial supremacy.”

[I guess we're supposed to be happy the country we give 10 million a day to are going to buy our long range bombers to get us bogged down in their next war...but will we see a dollar in payment?].

Meanwhile in Iran and Ossetia Russian S300 are being deployed to deter surpise attacks on Iranian facilites from northern routes:

Iran says Moscow could soon start supplying it with the Russian S-300 missile air defence system. The announcement was made by Iran's Defence Minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, who was speaking to the Fars news agency.

He said the contract for the system was signed a few years ago.

Vladimir Sotnikov from the Institute of World Economy and International Relations said some S-300 anti-missile systems had already been delivered to Tehran.
 
“This was probably a part of past agreements between the Russian government and the government of Iran,” Sotnikov said.

The S-300 targets planes, helicopters and incoming missiles. It is not banned by any international conventions.

Moscow has yet to confirm the terms of the deal.

[The S300 PMU2 uses new 48N6E2 missiles, which weigh 1,800 kilograms and are 7.5 meters long. After a catapult "cold" start in the upright position, the 48N6E2 accelerates up to 1,900 meters a second in 12 seconds, and then hits the target from above. The 48N6E2 differs from the older 48N6E in having a new warhead designed for destroying ballistic missiles, with a warhead weight of 145 kilograms versus 70-100 kilograms. The S300 PMU2 can engage targets flying at altitudes ranging from 10 meters to 27 kilometers at a speed of up to 10,000 kilometers per hour.]


fyi...TM7
.

[MGMorden]

The F-35 isn't a wholly American project.  It was developed with heavy input from the British military as well.  Lockheed designed this plane as an export model to sell to other countries, so selling to Israel (and other nations) is fully expected.

The F-35 is a good little plane though.  It's essentially setting itself up to be the workhorse fighter of the armed forces.  The F-22 is technically superior, but costs several times as much, leading to it's virtual abandonment.  F-35 is the budget fighter so we can afford to buy lots more of them .

[Swampman]

I'm not impressed with the F-35.  The upside is that Israel will improve the F-35 a hundred fold and we'll get to take advantage of the technology.  That's what they did with the F-15 and F-16.

[MGMorden]

I'm not impressed with the F-35.  The upside is that Israel will improve the F-35 a hundred fold and we'll get to take advantage of the technology.  That's what they did with the F-15 and F-16.

What exactly isn't impressive about it?  Most of it's limitations are related to it's stealth (no external ordinance so lower capacity), or it's purpose as a budget fighter (no thrust vectoring, single engine).  It's all about tradeoffs.  If we wanted a better fighter we have one - the F-22.  The F-35 does 75% of what the F-22 does though and at around 15% of the cost, so it's merely a matter of efficiency (the F-35 costs between $28 million and $38 million each depending on the config chosen - USAF config being cheapest with USN being most expensive - the F-22 costs nearly $200 million each).
 
In today's economic climate we have to accept that having the best at all costs isn't always wise, ESPECIALLY when most of our fighter jets currently don't have a real war to fight (we haven't really fought an enemy with true air to air capability similar to our own since WW2).  Do the research, get the specs for the big daddy plane if we need to ramp it up (the F-22), but let the almost as good but cheap ones (F-35) patrol the skies.

[Swampman]

I was a jet engine mechanic for 10 years.  The F-22 is about 100 times better IMO it can shoot down 7 F-15s without them even seeing it.  The Chinese & the Russians aren't asleep.

We don't need the econo model.

[MGMorden]

I was a jet engine mechanic for 10 years.  The F-22 is about 100 times better IMO it can shoot down 7 F-15s without them even seeing it. 

Yes, but that's due mostly to the F-22's stealth - the F-35 has stealth capabilities too, and between an F-15 and a F-35 my money is on the JSF.

China has a huge ground force but their aviation sector isn't exactly thriving.  Russia isn't much of a threat anymore, because they bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the US during the Cold War - a fate that we'll likely encounter ourselves if we pursued things like the F-22 en masse.

Time has basically proven that you can do almost ANYTHING if you throw enough money at it - just look at WW2 when we were coming out with new models of fighter several times per year rather than every few decades.  The thing is, in today's climate we have to stop and think: just because we CAN build something this awesome, do we need to right now?  If the answer is no, then we have to temper our military spending with a bit of realism thrown in. 

We'll still have "a few" (187 planned - at $200 million a pop just do the math and wince even at that many) F-22's just in case, but the F-35 will make up the bulk of the fleet, just as the F-15 despite being the technically superior aircraft, was still outnumbered nearly 4:1 by the F-16 because the 16 cost half as much.

[Swampman]

I'd as soon keep the F-16s.  It may be ok for the Navy & the Marines but I'm not impressed.

[Graybeard]

I seriously doubt anyone in DC is trying to impress you. 

[mcwoodduck]

I'd as soon keep the F-16s.  It may be ok for the Navy & the Marines but I'm not impressed.

My mother's Father was the project manager on the F-16 and the F-1 Toranado for General Dynamics.
My Step Mother's Baby brother is on the F-35 project and
The F-16 was sold as a 2 for 1 project.
The airforce could buy 2 F-16's for the price of 1 F-15 and looking at large losses against the Russians that were building the Mig 29 at the time and no one was sure what it could do at the time it made sense to have more planes.
Looking at the roll of the F-16, F-15,& F-18 all have the same roll of figher bomber.
In teaching the guys to fly the new plane my uncle had to fly the 15, 16, 18 and the F-1 to have a frame of referance.  He said hands down the F-35 is more than up to the task of the older planes with added features.
In the 60's we tried to pick one plane that all branches could adopt.  It was the F-4 Phantom.  I lacked a few things like a gun.
The F-35 JSF program goes back to those roots.  The navy and air force have different versions but the major compnets are the same.
so forward bases can steal spare parts from Air craft carriers and vise versa.
The hat I have from the project has 9 flags on it.
USA, England, Australia, Canada, Norway, Italy, Sweeden, Turkey, and Not sure it is a Red Stripe on a white stripe on a Blue stripe.
Like all of our advanced weapons the Isrealis get them to test them in comat for us.
The Isrealis do not take our weapons and make them better they ask for a few options they want based on proformance and since thye do not have a greedy congress that needs to make a desicion on what plane or version to buy they can order what they want. 
With most of Nato accepting the same plane it will be like the M-16.  All of Nato has to have a rifle the A- takes the 5.56 round and B- use the M-16 Mag.  And the mass produced componets make the plane cheaper for all.  With many countries accepting them it will be alot of work for assembly, testing, training and spare parts.

[Swampman]

Whatever you say.  Been working with these planes my entire life.  Many of our mods were developed by the Israelies.

[beerbelly]

We have tried the one fighter fits all thing before, it didn't work then and won't work now. Going on the cheap with weapons systems is guaranteeing failure! You win air wars by having the best.
    Just look at the recent word from Gates, the democrats are slashing the military budget. Obama wants us to be a third rate power and we are rapidly getting there.

[mcwoodduck]

Whatever you say.  Been working with these planes my entire life.  Many of our mods were developed by the Israelies.

I always find your responses when History and facts ruin your opinions interesting.
I'm sure your father or grandfather said similar things about Jets when the P-51 and P-38 were such great planes.
And if you look at history, the US offered the P-51 to England and the problems it had in Combat made the changes that made it the great plane it was.  Same with the F-15, and F-16 with the Isreali as they were using them to fight Soviet Migs and Yaks in the hands of the Arabs. 

[no guns here]

First - F35 is NOT a "long range bomber".  It is a multi-role fighter.  Hence the "F" designation, if it were a bomber, the designation would be a "B".  It's purpose is much like the current F-16.  Second, though classified as a "stealth" aircraft, it is not in the same class of "stealth" as the F-22.  The F22 is classified as an "air-superiority fighter".  The F22 has super-cruise capability, the F35 does not.  It is designed to clear the skies of the enemy so the F35 can do it's job.  It's the operational successor to the F15C.  The F35 was developed by and intended for sale to a group of international "partners".  I believe, among others; England, Belgium, Netherlands, and Israel were included from the beginning.  Though they are both superior aircraft, the difference lies in the doctrine and tactics with which they are employed.  The F15 will still be capable of maintaining local air superiority due to it's method of employment.  The F22 is capable of gaining and maintaining air superiority almost any time and any where and of working in a completely different framework of doctrine and tactics.  The combination of an F15/16 threat and an unseen "hammer" is enough to destroy any adversary.  The F35 is nearly as capable stealthwise, but with out the range and speed of the F22.

I'm tired of this...


NGH

[no guns here]

Of course we have "stuff" to deal with this.  Of course even with the best "stuff", there is an element of risk.  You can't hit what you can't see.  You can't defend if you can't talk to your units.  You can't defend without power.  You can't defend without radar.  It's a coordinated, planned offensive action.  Much like Desert Storm.  Heavy jamming.  The radar sites were taken out by unstealthy helicopters flying to low to be picked up by radar.  Another option would be GPS bombs from a B2, or cruise missiles from a B52.  Nearly simutaneously you also hit C2 (command and control) systems.  These are mapped out before hand electronically.  This is what the heavy ordinance and bunker busters are for.  Drop the power in key areas with metal chaff or conventional HE.  The enemy becomes "blinder and dumber" by the second.  Many of the local units are relatively unaffected but they don't have any ability to coordinate with each other or to receive orders.  You don't necessarily have to kill the enemy... you just have to create a certain effect.  The effect may be that the radar system is down for long enough for a strike package to pass through.  The effect may be that radio systems are down.  The effect may be that they don't have electrity or that their ships can't leave port. 

The US is the master at operational, joint and combined arms, effects-based warfare.  We can create  (nearly at will) many of the effects necessary to enable our forces to conduct their missions.  Nothing about warfare is clean or neat.  Crap happens.  Can Israel strike Iran, yes.  Can they do it cleanly and surgically, probably not any more.  If we help them?  That would increase the probability but also would probably create a regional conflict.  Then it would get messy.  Oh, we would destroy every force in the region, that is not a given but military victory would be a near certainty.  Iran has the only credible military in the region and they believe in the concept of mass.  In the beginning we would destroy them in whole units.  Our technology and abilities have progressed far past Desert Storm.


but I digress... and ramble....


NGH

[Catus Magnus]

First - F35 is NOT a "long range bomber".  It is a multi-role fighter.  Hence the "F" designation, if it were a bomber, the designation would be a "B". 

true, re: the F35... but re: the "F" designation, may I submit... F-111?

[Swampman]

I always find your responses when History and facts ruin your opinions interesting.

Still waiting for that to happen.

The B-2s & B-52s should be scrapped.  We don't fight those kinds of wars anymore.  This from bomber pilots.

[MGMorden]

I always find your responses when History and facts ruin your opinions interesting.

Still waiting for that to happen.

The B-2s & B-52s should be scrapped.  We don't fight those kinds of wars anymore.  This from bomber pilots.

While that may be true, the most effective plane in the types of wars we've been fighting lately are the attack helicopters and aircraft like the A-10 Warthog, not the uber-sophisticated fighters.  We haven't fought an enemy that could strain our air superiority in a LONG time. 

[Swampman]

Actually the F-15E and the C-130 Gunship is doing the bulk of the work.

[mcwoodduck]

I always find your responses when History and facts ruin your opinions interesting.

Still waiting for that to happen.

The B-2s & B-52s should be scrapped.  We don't fight those kinds of wars anymore.  This from bomber pilots.

Didn't we use both in the first gulf war?  The B-2 to take out command and control and the B-52 to shatter the Republican Guard bunkers and loggers.
Didn't we use the B-2 in the opening of second war with Iraq?
The B-52 is long in the tooth and some frames are older than the parents of the crews.
If we were to replace the B-52 with another area bomber I would like to see them take the C-17 frame and modify it to a bomber rather than designing a new one from the taxi way up. Sharing parts with the New Cargo plane makes sense.  And while we may not need them as much as we did in the 40, 50 and 60, the stratigic bomber still has a place in the inventory.  there is something about being able to project that much power across or around the globe.  Even if they are shooting cruise missles rathern than dropping payload.  And a Cargo plane can be fitted with a rear shooting Cruise missle pod That can take up the whole cargo area and the counter measures a modern bomber needs for AAA and SAMs.
And maybe we need to just use a few B-52's and just level taliban villages.  level a village in Irag that supports the terrorists.
Tell them it's comming like we did to Germany in WWII and just level whole sections of cities or wipe villages off the map.
By the way the AC-130 is the gun ship.  and it has undergones some cool upgrades.  Got a 25mm chain gun like on the Bradley IFV, replacing the Bofars 40mm and a few more SAM counter measures.  i saw a video from the first gulf war where an AC-130 crew hit an Iraqi jeep with the 105 mm howitzer mounted on the sled out of the back of the plane.

[Swampman]

I worked on the AC-130 Gunships for years.

We don't (and won't) do massive bombings any more, the use of the B-2 early in the war was to make the taxpayers feel like they got something for their money.

The F-15E does it all, and my son enjoyed flying it.

[beerbelly]

We did a hell of a lot of massive bombings in the gulf war. We were carpet bombing thier MLR 24/7. Those dude's were surendering muttering bombs , bombs. And the old B-52 was doing the job.

[scootrd]

As an absolute layman to Fighter Jets , though always fascinated by them growing up right next door to a Air national guard base.

I found this a good read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Says 3 versions ,

    * F-35A, conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant.
    * F-35B, short-take off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant.
    * F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant.

The F-35 is intended to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040, with close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor.[10]  The F-35 is required to be four times more effective than existing fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support.

Anyway I know nothing about Jets , but as a laymen found it a good read.

[Swampman]

We did a hell of a lot of massive bombings in the gulf war. We were carpet bombing thier MLR 24/7. Those dude's were surendering muttering bombs , bombs. And the old B-52 was doing the job.

Many years ago.  We don't do it that way now and we never will again.  If second best "American made" fighter is "good enough" then the F-35 is the right choice.

[mcwoodduck]

We did a hell of a lot of massive bombings in the gulf war. We were carpet bombing thier MLR 24/7. Those dude's were surendering muttering bombs , bombs. And the old B-52 was doing the job.

Many years ago.  We don't do it that way now and we never will again.  If second best "American made" fighter is "good enough" then the F-35 is the right choice.

Like everything else it is a trade off of how many and how much.
Do you buy the best made American rifle or buy two Remintons and ammo for the same price?

[Swampman]

If you buy the best firearm made period...it will be a Remington.  The Marines know that already.

[mcwoodduck]

If you buy the best firearm made period...it will be a Remington.  The Marines know that already.

Is that why their shotgun is a Mossberg? 

[Swampman]

You gotta wonder how they got stuck with that POS.  Somebody's pork barrel project I guess.

[scootrd]

I was enjoying the read on the jet .. wow , this thread has really strayed from OP.

[yellowtail3]

You gotta wonder how they got stuck with that POS.  Somebody's pork barrel project I guess.

Good line, that... I opted for an 870 for my last shotgun. Mossberg seemed a bit loose/rattly (not as much a a Benelli Nova, though)

[mcwoodduck]

You gotta wonder how they got stuck with that POS.  Somebody's pork barrel project I guess.

Again facts and history not getting in your way.