Comment by pqtyw
11 hours ago
Well in Ukraine both sides are generally too afraid to get their jets anywhere near the frontline and just use them to launch long range cruise missiles and such from a safe distance.
Air defences are just too effective and modern jets are so expensive that nobody can really afford to risk losing them.
Maybe F-35 could change that, it seemed very efficient in Iran. But AFAIK Iran didn't have anything better than the S-300 so it wasn't exactly a fair fight...
F35 main advantage is basically being able to target things provided by other assets.
For active homing missiles, the aircraft tells the missile approximately where the plane is, then the missile only activates tracking once its close. Obviously this can be defeated if the plane manages to get out of the scan range of the missile before it switches to homing mode.
Semi active homing is a bit more reliable, as it relies on the launching aircraft to track the target, but obviously aicraft needs to be in closer range to track.
With F35, you can have AWACS or ground radar or whatever else continuously updating information on where the target is, and the active homing missile can reliably navigate and switch to homing.
Without the network, F35 is as good as pretty much any other jet, with the exception that its somewhat stealth. But not against modern heatseekers.
In Iran, did the F35 got deep and low, like an A10 would? Were they used as B2 would, high altitude bombers? Or did they stayed at the border and were used as mobile EW planes to coordinate/acquire targets? Because I've read about 2 and 3, and too much internet almost made be believe 1, so I'm asking here where someone who actually know something might answer.