If you look at how the USAF have utilised their stealthy assets in the past this is exactly what has happened. Apaches struck the initial S&T Iraqi radars prior to F-117 insertions in 1991. The one technology that we know has drastically improved since that time is EM detection and processing, and in the case of the future operators of the JSF their nations have spent an awful lot more on ELINT & Digital C3 than any supposed opposition has. “A Force multiplier” may be a nasty buzzword but its hard to deny that the current NATO methods have proved very effective

Agreed, good post.

@ Obligatory-

an EA-6B support
jammer that was said to have been operating not only too far away
from the F-117 (80 to 100 miles) to have been of much protective
value, but also out of proper alignment with the offending threat
radars, resulting in inefficient jamming.

– is there any reason you left out the word “alleged” from the above quote. Reading the whole article, several things become clear: While you are using the article to support the idea that a jamming aircraft needs to x distance away from the targeting radar, the article gives no such evidence. The article does give a clear picture to cascade of failures that led to the shootdown.
Second, the lessons from Kosovo do not necessarily instruct how the F-35, F-22 et al. would be employed in future conflicts. The Serb air defenses were more concerned with survival and representing a threat in being, than denial of airspace. They were popping up for short periods of time to avoid becoming a target. The article refers to the EA-6b being 80 miles away and therefore unable to offer protection. Did it occur to you that with a popup threat like that SA-3 battery, the EA-6B had no time to react, or fire a HARM that would have forced the battery to shut down, therefore it was too far away to protect the F-117. Modern LO aircraft have integrated defensive avionics that update the pilot on detection ranges from threat emitters, and mission planning goes into avoiding those threats.

@Msphere

When the F-35 get operational, it WILL be implemented together with Growler NGJ on any mission that would be required, bar bombing Cavemen in Iraq and Stan. Most likely there was even Growler involved in Syria recent.

– why wouldn’t they use Growlers, MALD-J, and hopefully the NGJ (barring budget nix)? It is just sensible to protect assets and pilots in a combat situation. (Apologize if this was your point)

@ Snafu

The F35 can’t operate effectively without ECM support either.
What was your point again?

– why because you read an online commentary that VHF radars make stealth obsolete?

Those claiming the F-35 can’t operate without ECM support are making a generalization that somehow this diminishes the value of said aircraft. First of all, it would depend on the target and the threat would it not? Second, ECM support would be of greater benefit for F-35 with it’s already reduced detectability ( and freedom of action), than for say, an F-15E which would still be vulnerable. Lastly, that is not at all the lesson from Kosovo.

TVIP – In the case of the USAF (and everyone except the USN), what giant fleet of supporting assets are you talking about? The EF-111 and F-4G have been gone for a while, in case you hadn’t noticed, and the USAF has not even bought into AGM-88E for its remaining F-16CJs.

That’s one reason why the Growlers are tabbed as a shared asset by USN and USAF. It is also why the USAF was looking to put Air Force EWO in backseats of EA-18’s. http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123261853
And one of the arguments Boeing made for continued Growler production. Realistically, is there a situation where the USAF would be involved in an air campaign without Navy assets? The sharing of assets and joint operations are at the very heart of AirSea Battle doctrine.

Thanks, Spudman that was the point I was making. Your short sentence and chart did a better job than my three posts.

They have? Evidence please.

Well, lets start with the trillion dollar costs estimated in 2012, then revised to 857 billion in 2013.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0GM1OP20130821
other estimates:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/dod-says-f-35-costs-drop-but-hill-aide-predicts-rise-peo-slams-pratt-whitney/

Lets look at lots 6,7. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/28/lockheed-inks-two-more-f-35-contracts/

That’s just two examples from five minutes of google. The issue with the GAO reports in regard to predicting F-35 costs is that the numbers they use are already old or obsolete by the time the reports are issued.

Here is the full report for Sept 2014:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652948.pdf

One possible reason for this:
I guess that could be such reason for this Western Intelligence agencies would have been keeping distance from this BUK M1 subject, after all this subject could be almost equivalent to a singularity (black hole) in terms of the Intelligence Agencies, since this approach there is no escape, so the farther it is better.
I even make a wild guess that those Intelligence agencies could have been advising their respective governments that nobody should makes a request for an audit of the SAM BUK M1 under the supervision from NATO, in order to confirm that none unit of the BUK M1 from Ukraine Army would be missing.
Despite everything those Western agencies could not have this information in precise order about how many units from SAM BUK M1 had remained in Ukraine after the dissolution from Soviet Union.
However Russia must know the number and would be eager to see the result of such audit in reason of the War in 2008 against Georgia.

Here is the question in the end, there is no rational person who could argue that there was not material aid from Russia to the rebels. It happened, the Russian military did supply arms to the rebels to some degree. If those arms included the BUK system in question (which is hard to prove for obvious reasons, it was supposed to be), then that is the issue at hand. There was not a phantom jet firing rounds into an airliner, that is an absurd conclusion based on air that does not hold up to the smell test. What is difficult to grasp is the apologist theories that absolve the rebels from culpability based on some posters worldview. Would it matter if it were a Russian airliner downed by Ukrainian forces as it was flying westward? Would those on that flight be any less dead? Yet the attitude of some would have you believe that the rebels were justified in pulling the trigger because the “West” kills people in airstrikes all the time. How about the fact that the action itself was negligent? Was KAL 007 a culpable act by the west due to surveillance by spy planes?

ook, western countries never operate covertly anywhere, ever. Only the bad Russians do that.

Bad bad Russians.

Nic

Here is the problem with that attitude, there is no moral difference. Killing civilians is wrong, period. There is no bad West or bad Russians, in war mistakes are made, bad policy decisions are made. The worst mistake is trying to cover it up with excuses and twisted logic. There is a very alarming attempt to make a comparison with actions of the U.S et al. with Russia and others to justify actions taken which don’t deserve explanations. Nations act on self-interest, it is not always pretty.