What would a modern Wargame be like?

What is your job, if I may ask?

Overpaid burden on the taxpayer's dime. Let's leave it at that.

My own opinions of the F-35 are formed by talking to personnel in a number of air forces that will receive the F-35 so I might be biased since they're ground level who will receive the F-35.

See here's the problem with that - the peeps on the ground rarely have the 'bigger picture' and many of them simply don't understand what aircraft do what and how they do it. I know, I used to do it too, and I worked alongside people who didn't even really know anything about different weapons systems that the aircraft they worked on itself carried.

The F-35 is a bit of a maintenance turkey right now, but it's also not even combat operable and still has years of software upgrades to iron out, tuning and bugfixing, and many systems aren't even turned on yet. So keep in mind that that too is going to sour impressions of the aircraft.

I wasn't aware the F-35 was purpose built for DEAD. I was always under the impression it was a multirole aircraft to replace the F-16, F-18 and AV-8B Harriers.

'Purpose built' might be a bit of a misnomer, but here's the logic - the F-35 is replacing the F-16 completely. That means it's also replacing the venerable yet outdated AGM-88 and HTS, neither of which the F-35 utilizes. It's also important to realize that the F-16 is not a DEAD aircraft, it's SEAD. The AGM-88 is not very good at destroying targets, but it's there to scare them into not operating.

While the F-35 is multirole, yes, it has been designed from Day 1 to perform DEAD missions. We have other aircraft that can truck bombs and shoot missiles, the F-15E and F-22 do that respectively far better than the F-35 ever could. What we don't have is a replacement Wild Weasel aircraft. The F-15E can do DEAD (and did so in Bosnia with AGM-130 / GBU-15s and DLPs, you can find Youtube videos of these, they're pretty awesome. The guidance method is linked to a camera in the nose of the weapon!) but it's a large target and requires supporting SEAD aircraft to provide EW capabilities. The F-22 could do DEAD, but it's simply too expensive and valuable an asset to risk, and remember that it's also somewhat old - the F-35 and F-22 are Lockheed's babies, so a lot of the F-22 was improved upon to make the F-35.

So the result is a multirole aircraft that is purpose-built to perform DEAD missions.

Nor was I under the impression that it was specifically designed to take out the S-300.

Again, I think you're reading too much into what I said. The SA-10 has represented the biggest air defense threat since before the Berlin Wall came down, especially now considering Russia is trying to sell them to everyone who has a bank account. As a strategic air defense system, it's also the most important one to strike. The F-35 doesn't have any special super-secret 'anti-SA-10' technology I'm alluding to - rather, in order to do a DEAD mission against countries that are acquiring SA-10s, it will need to be able to face the SA-10.

See, the thing you're forgetting is that combat airpower isn't just about the airframe, it's about the weaponry. SDB-II and the JSOW are the two primary standoff armaments the F-35 can use in its weapon bays, neither of which existed 'back in the day'. Like I said, the point of stealth is that you can get much closer, release your weapon, and then egress the area. The SDB-II and JSOW have extremely impressive ranges and thus are far more capable at destroying something like the S-300.

That said, I wouldn't want to be flying one being sent against an SA-10, personally. More than likely, any mission where an SA-10 is a threat will be accomplished by simply flying around the SAM site. S-300s are not exactly quick.

But don't the F-117, B-2 and F-22 all take measures to cool their exhaust?

Both the B-2 and F-117A (this is going off of just what I've picked up here and there - those aircraft kind of predate me...) channel their exhaust out in flatter shapes, presumably to allow it to more rapidly mix with cooler air. That's great and all, but it also means a lot of airframe has to be dedicated to the extra size it takes to do that. It also means you can't have an engine of any serious power - neither the B-2 nor F-117A were known for their performance.

That also doesn't really do anything for the airframe itself. The B-2s engines are mounted on top and aren't visible from below, so presumably it's less of a problem, but the F-22 and F-35 are conventionally-designed fighters. Regardless of whatever trickery you try to do with the exhaust, it won't matter much because the engine itself is pumping out tons of heat into the surrounding structure. And nothing will matter if you ever have to crack burner - no technology on the planet could hide that. Considering IR missiles are a short-range threat, honestly I think the idea is that if you're close enough for IR weapons to be effective, you should just give up any pretense of being stealthy at that point.

Considering there are Russian AA systems that use infrared tracking, is it really non-relevant?

Everyone has IR missiles - SHORAD, MANPAD, SRAAMs - they just aren't effective at long ranges. There's some hybrid weapons out there I think the Russians have, but radar guidance has always been required for long-range missile engagement because an IR signature is too unreliable at long ranges. What good does a missile do that's defeated by clouds if you're shooting at something dozens of miles away? It also becomes much easier to spoof an IR missile with certain countermeasures at longer ranges, because it has a harder time discerning which is the real target.

That aside, it goes without saying that the real-life rock-paper-scissors game between missile technology and missile defense is extremely classified. I won't say much more on the topic than that.

The engine in the F-35 is a beast by all accounts. Surely, it must output a great deal of heat?

All these engines do.

/r/wargame Thread Parent