TR Turkiye's F-35 Project and Discussions

[Lool]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430571119413764103

Another proof that the F35 project isnt complete, didnt reach the intended target, was a waste of trillions of dollars as well as 10 years of time
It was the right choice to leave this program; although, we would have gained some nice bucks from it
IMO, Turkey should convert Hurjet into a 5th low cost fighter configuration. Something akin to the Russian Checkmate but with better avionics and EW

 

[RogerRanger]

Another proof that the F35 project isnt complete, didnt reach the intended target, was a waste of trillions of dollars as well as 10 years of time
It was the right choice to leave this program; although, we would have gained some nice bucks from it
IMO, Turkey should convert Hurjet into a 5th low cost fighter configuration. Something akin to the Russian Checkmate but with better avionics and EW

I am British and for the British its a god send, we have now the most capable carrier borne aircraft in the world capable of EW and AAW, its a bit crap as sea-strike and grand-attack. However in the future any nation with a carrier without the F-35 will be at a huge disadvantage.

In terms of the air force, it doesn't matter much. Because air forces are mostly defensive and stealth has a limited use in air defence. I would much rather Britain put is money into an air defence network with ships, mobile launchers and radars and static radars/launchers. This is the main weakness Britain has, no air defences at all.

For Turkey you are in a difficult strategic environment. You have Russia/Ukraine/ Syria/Greece/Israel around you. I would have have stayed in the F-35 program. The problem is the US congress is only interested in milking the F-35 for their donors to get rich, so they make changes all the time to push costs up. There is no doubt at this point like the F-22 the F-35 is the best jet in the world. Now you have drone swarms, you have the S-400 and S-500 of the Russians which will be able to shot them down. However no other aircraft is close them.

 

[RogerRanger]

I have a question, why doesn't anyone build a specialist air-defence fighter?

The F-16 was meant to be that, but got bastardized and turned into a multi-role thing. The same happened to the Typhoon, which was meant to be the best air defence fighter in the world, got pogged into grand-attack role. I annoy's me because this drives up prices and then running costs, and the two most important things in air defence air pilots and numbers of air craft. They you layer them into an integrated air defence network and job's a good one.

No needs for all they expensive avionics, extra-long range AAW missiles, stealth which drive up prices and limits pilot training. This is all basic stuff, why aren't air forces built like this anymore?

 

[Zafer]

I am British and for the British its a god send, we have now the most capable carrier borne aircraft in the world capable of EW and AAW, its a bit crap as sea-strike and grand-attack. However in the future any nation with a carrier without the F-35 will be at a huge disadvantage.

In terms of the air force, it doesn't matter much. Because air forces are mostly defensive and stealth has a limited use in air defence. I would much rather Britain put is money into an air defence network with ships, mobile launchers and radars and static radars/launchers. This is the main weakness Britain has, no air defences at all.

For Turkey you are in a difficult strategic environment. You have Russia/Ukraine/ Syria/Greece/Israel around you. I would have have stayed in the F-35 program. The problem is the US congress is only interested in milking the F-35 for their donors to get rich, so they make changes all the time to push costs up. There is no doubt at this point like the F-22 the F-35 is the best jet in the world. Now you have drone swarms, you have the S-400 and S-500 of the Russians which will be able to shot them down. However no other aircraft is close them.

F35 is a boon when you don't have a full blown AC but if you have catapults and planes you are better off.

 

[Ardabas34]

I am British and for the British its a god send, we have now the most capable carrier borne aircraft in the world capable of EW and AAW, its a bit crap as sea-strike and grand-attack. However in the future any nation with a carrier without the F-35 will be at a huge disadvantage.

In terms of the air force, it doesn't matter much. Because air forces are mostly defensive and stealth has a limited use in air defence. I would much rather Britain put is money into an air defence network with ships, mobile launchers and radars and static radars/launchers. This is the main weakness Britain has, no air defences at all.

For Turkey you are in a difficult strategic environment. You have Russia/Ukraine/ Syria/Greece/Israel around you. I would have have stayed in the F-35 program. The problem is the US congress is only interested in milking the F-35 for their donors to get rich, so they make changes all the time to push costs up. There is no doubt at this point like the F-22 the F-35 is the best jet in the world. Now you have drone swarms, you have the S-400 and S-500 of the Russians which will be able to shot them down. However no other aircraft is close them.

I just dont see a scenario where Turkey would enjoy its advantages. I get that it is the most technologically advanced out there but for what good?
Sometimes having your weapon so advanced is a disadvantage for the maintenance and take off cost and the risk that you take by possessing it.

I dont think anyone is willing to see whether their stealth is useful against S-400s neither.

In terms of power projecting, yes they are useful at that but it is not an urgency for Turkey at the moment.

I may have swallowed some government propaganda for saying this but indeed it seems like keeping the air contested enough and going for the drone swarms with cheap but plenty systems sound like the ideal strategy.

The only bad I see is our fellow Greek neighbours having the advantage in Aegean but again, they wont be able to take off those F-35s as much as we do due to money.

For the proxy wars vs terrorist groups, having to take off F-16 for each convoy was already a pain for the price and the pilot. F-35 would be a setback on that problem as well.

Also the biggest problem was the potential kill switch and having to be accessed by the Americans to use the plane. Turkey is a country that was and is under American embargo.

 

[500]

I just dont see a scenario where Turkey would enjoy its advantages. I get that it is the most technologically advanced out there but for what good?
Sometimes having your weapon so advanced is a disadvantage for the maintenance and take off cost and the risk that you take by possessing it.

I dont think anyone is willing to see whether their stealth is useful against S-400s neither.

In terms of power projecting, yes they are useful at that but it is not an urgency for Turkey at the moment.

I may have swallowed some government propaganda for saying this but indeed it seems like keeping the air contested enough and going for the drone swarms with cheap but plenty systems sound like the ideal strategy.

The only bad I see is our fellow Greek neighbours having the advantage in Aegean but again, they wont be able to take off those F-35s as much as we do due to money.

For the proxy wars vs terrorist groups, having to take off F-16 for each convoy was already a pain for the price and the pilot. F-35 would be a setback on that problem as well.

Also the biggest problem was the potential kill switch and having to be accessed by the Americans to use the plane. Turkey is a country that was and is under American embargo.

Why do you need S-400? I would chose a squadron of F-35 over S-400 anyday.

F-35 can be effectively used in:

1) DCA - defensive counter air
2) OCA - offensive counter air
3) CAS - close air support
4) DAS - Deep Air Support (aka Air Interdiction)
5) SEAD - suppression of enemy air defenses
6) DEAD - destruction of enemy air defenses

S-400 has limited DCA (low flying targets are limited by ~40 km radius). Very poor OCA. It cant do 3,4,5,6 at all. S-400 can be easily destroyed by one cruise missile strike.

 

[Jacop]

Why do you need S-400? I would chose a squadron of F-35 over S-400 anyday.

F-35 can be effectively used in:

1) DCA - defensive counter air
2) OCA - offensive counter air
3) CAS - close air support
4) DAS - Deep Air Support (aka Air Interdiction)
5) SEAD - suppression of enemy air defenses
6) DEAD - destruction of enemy air defenses

S-400 has limited DCA (low flying targets are limited by ~40 km radius). Very poor OCA. It cant do 3,4,5,6 at all. S-400 can be easily destroyed by one cruise missile strike.

I think the reason for this insistence is political. Math doesn't lie

 

[mulj]

Why do you need S-400? I would chose a squadron of F-35 over S-400 anyday.

F-35 can be effectively used in:

1) DCA - defensive counter air
2) OCA - offensive counter air
3) CAS - close air support
4) DAS - Deep Air Support (aka Air Interdiction)
5) SEAD - suppression of enemy air defenses
6) DEAD - destruction of enemy air defenses

S-400 has limited DCA (low flying targets are limited by ~40 km radius). Very poor OCA. It cant do 3,4,5,6 at all. S-400 can be easily destroyed by one cruise missile strike.

You forget to mention most important feature, kill switch and operational control. No serious state will buy that kind of airframe unless it is firmly under usa umbrella

 

[Yasar_TR]

@Jacop & @500 , I agree with your S400 statements. Purchasing them was unnecessary and political at the time. Even though they are very potent defence systems, they should never have been bought. Our own layered air defence structure we are building at the moment, is going to be much more effective than S400.
Regarding the F-35 planes; Unless you have these planes under the same conditions as IAF has, they are useless. You are tied to US. ALIS is a disaster. Not being able to reach source codes and not being able to integrate your own weapon systems are important drawbacks. I am not going to go in to the problems with the engines!

 

[Jacop]

@Jacop & @500 , I agree with your S400 statements. Purchasing them was unnecessary and political at the time. Even though they are very potent defence systems, they should never have been bought. Our own layered air defence structure we are building at the moment, is going to be much more effective than S400.
Regarding the F-35 planes; Unless you have these planes under the same conditions as IAF has, they are useless. You are tied to US. ALIS is a disaster. Not being able to reach source codes and not being able to integrate your own weapon systems are important drawbacks. I am not going to go in to the problems with the engines!

Turkey is a NATO member and familiar with western systems. Russian systems are simple and inexpensive. When I say simple and cheap, I'm not insulting. I mean at an acceptable level for the relatively rich and non-modern african, middle eastern countries. But they are not enough for the modern NATO army.

 

[Jacop]

If I were in a war, I would prefer the unproven Turkish Sam to the Russian Sam. This is because they have modern western subsystems.

 

[Yasar_TR]

If I were in a war, I would prefer the unproven Turkish Sam to the Russian Sam. This is because they have modern western subsystems.

Exactly. Also as it is an unknown entity, your enemy won’t know how to defend against it.
Look what a joke, Harop and TB2 made, out of Russian air defence systems in Azerbaijan.

 

[mulj]

If I were in a war, I would prefer the unproven Turkish Sam to the Russian Sam. This is because they have modern western subsystems.

You can look also this way, if i go in war i would rather fly zeppelin then air fighter that can be switched of in pentagon. It is not that simple, it migut fit israel needs but it is not universal for others

 

[Jacop]

You can look also this way, if i go in war i would rather fly zeppelin then air fighter that can be switched of in pentagon. It is not that simple, it migut fit israel needs but it is not universal for others

that is my opinion. Im sure the Turks have more opinions than I have

 

[Gamal]

turkish industry is rising. Why did they need a Russian ?

 

[500]

You forget to mention most important feature, kill switch and operational control. No serious state will buy that kind of airframe unless it is firmly under usa umbrella

Every complex weapon will became useless very fast without proper maintenance.

 

[Ardabas34]

Why do you need S-400? I would chose a squadron of F-35 over S-400 anyday.

F-35 can be effectively used in:

1) DCA - defensive counter air
2) OCA - offensive counter air
3) CAS - close air support
4) DAS - Deep Air Support (aka Air Interdiction)
5) SEAD - suppression of enemy air defenses
6) DEAD - destruction of enemy air defenses

S-400 has limited DCA (low flying targets are limited by ~40 km radius). Very poor OCA. It cant do 3,4,5,6 at all. S-400 can be easily destroyed by one cruise missile strike.

1 and 2 against whom? Greece? Whose all the air ports are within the range of our missiles?
3 and 4 too expensive. Why wouldnt we rely on our drones?
5 and 6 too risky. Why would we use F-35s to take out enemy air defenses? We use electronic warfare systems and cheap drones to get rid of Russian trash.

''S-400 has limited DCA (low flying targets are limited by ~40 km radius). Very poor OCA. It cant do 3,4,5,6 at all. S-400 can be easily destroyed by one cruise missile strike.''
Thats because those arent its purpose. You need to use multiple systems together.

Also like Yasar said people often ignore the almost as important part of the criterias. The politics. There is a huge distrust between USA(and EU by extension) and Turkey right now and this led to Turkey and Russia getting closer. Germany too refused to modernise our tanks because we used them against PKK. S-400 was the crowning of this developments. It was a political ''fuck you!'' to the US. Same US that supports YPG despite Turkey and Gulenists and Greek claims in Eastern Mediterranian. Same US that has put Turkey in CAATSA list. CAATSA literally stands for ''Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act''. They literally declared Turkey an adversary.

Now how smart is it to use a fighter jet that has a kill switch controlled by an adversary?

 

[Zafer]

Why do you need S-400? I would chose a squadron of F-35 over S-400 anyday.

F-35 can be effectively used in:

1) DCA - defensive counter air
2) OCA - offensive counter air
3) CAS - close air support
4) DAS - Deep Air Support (aka Air Interdiction)
5) SEAD - suppression of enemy air defenses
6) DEAD - destruction of enemy air defenses

S-400 has limited DCA (low flying targets are limited by ~40 km radius). Very poor OCA. It cant do 3,4,5,6 at all. S-400 can be easily destroyed by one cruise missile strike.

You can only make that decision when you are the maker of the F35 or any equivalent plane.
F35 is somebody else's plane so it is not our call.

 

[Glass🚬]

Primary reason for the S-400 is indeed political and its primarily the support of the americans for the PKK. F-35 might be a good jet but it comes at massive costs both financially and politically- where the S-400 seems like a better option, for now.

 

[Ryder]

Dont know why but I have a love and hate relationship with the F35.

You love it and hate it at the same time.