Why aren't missiles more important than fighter jets?

The new F-35 has a much smaller weapons capacity than most previous fighters. This is because all weapons are stored internally (external weapons make a difference in the jet’s radar signature. )

The most important pieces of this new plane are it’s helmet, and advanced radar,and weapons communication systems. The jet is designed to use ground, and /or ship based weapons more than its own. This helps offset the lower weapons capacity, but is designed to make the jet a formidable opponent. It’s designed to maybe not even have to use its own weapons.

Air superiority with the F-35 will be done in conjunction with surface to air missiles. It is designed to be almost invisible on radar, but it is capable of detecting other jets before it can be seen, and using ground or ship based missiles, take out the enemy fighter before it even has a chance to engage the F-35.

So. In a sense, missiles are the most important part of air security. But they don’t have the versatility of an aircraft, which can carry out sorties, and be a visible deterrent.

There’s a reason that America has fighters fly over big sporting events. It projects great power. Each modern fighter usually carries enough firepower to severely damage a large city.

4 or 5 fighters flying in formation is a show of force. If 4 or 5 missiles went over the Super Bowl, it wouldn’t be as impressive.

In addition, there are several advanced missile defense systems in operation around the world. Israel’s Iron Dome (I think that’s what it’s called) has all but stopped the threat of missiles fired out of the Gaza Strip. Such systems are quite effective against most missiles.

The Chinese have developed a relatively new anti ship missile, which is said to be designed to take out US Aircraft Carriers,despite all the Carrier’s impressive defense systems.
They new that they are decades behind in Carrier technology, and training. So they (wisely ) did the next best thing.

So. Using missiles isn’t a new idea for defense. However, modern military thinking is that missiles alone, are not ideal.

The F-35 is designed to be the best plane, AND use all the best missiles, in the smartest most effective way.

Four or five missiles streaking over the Superbowl would be the very picture of a major disaster, aside from whatever “show of force” they were intended to demonstrate. And it’s not Superbowl fans who may ever need to see the show of force demonstrated by a USAF / Navy flyover. That’s PR and recruitment only.

Air superiority of a battlefield or “battle space” is required because air forces can’t win wars – yet – on their own. That feat has been attempted without success since the introduction of fighting air forces during World War 1 and in every conflict since then. All wars that have been fought to a conclusion have eventually been won, by one military force or another, by “grunts on the ground”. But in order for them to prevail, generally air superiority has been an absolute necessity. Vietnam is the only major conflict that I can recall since WW II which has gone against this common knowledge. The USAF had near complete control of the air during that war, but since it was not “total war” in the same way that WW II was fought, the overwhelming air superiority enjoyed by the US forces did not translate into victory on the ground. However, that’s still the way to bet.

Since modern warfare is dependent upon air superiority, it is incumbent upon military planners, in planning for “the next war”, to attempt to define the mission to be fought in the next five to twenty-five years, to determine who the allied and enemy forces might be, to predict where the majority of the battles will be fought (that is “where on the globe” and “over what kind of battlefield”, which could be desert, mountain, marine, forested or agricultural plain, etc.) and what the procurement chain will be for the weapons systems. The F-35 cannot be a one-off, existing all by itself. It has to work within an entire system of deployments by the allied Air Forces, carrier-based Navies, forward-based Marines and whatever other plans are envisioned for it, and it has to work among all of the other allied aircraft which supply it, refuel it in midair and work alongside as primary attack aircraft (bombers) and strict fighters, as well as communications jammers and even rescue helicopters.

In addition to all of the other aircraft it has to fly and fight with – and the missiles that it will deploy with other aircraft carrying missiles – it also has to have a wide range of communications capabilities to coordinate attacks (or call off attacks in some cases) with ground and naval forces, as well as coordinate with “eye in the sky” aircraft that massively coordinate large attack formations and individual sorties.

Missiles can’t do any of that, and they especially can’t be recalled or – yet – have their minds changed to call off or refocus an attack that has been launched. They also don’t have VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) capability, and more than anything else they can’t be “landed” safely and they certainly can’t be reused. They absolutely have a place, but the aircraft (manned aircraft, that is) have a place in the modern battle plan that can’t yet be overlooked.

There may be a time when drones are the way to go, and even then they’ll still be a primary platform for launching missiles (because ground-based missile launchers are far more vulnerable because of reduced mobility, even though even those still have a place).

I have yet to be convinced that the F-35 is “the way to go”, because it still seems too much like a plane designed by a committee to “do everything”, which means that it won’t do anything especially well. But I would imagine that over time the major problems will be worked out or worked around. My biggest fear is that this overpriced (and for that reason to-be-under-deployed) monstrosity will be hyped as some kind of major success story … and the next generation manned fighter / attack aircraft will be even worse.

I think drones will take over the bulk of the war fighting aerial capability within my lifetime, with manned missions becoming the one-off and odd event. That can’t come soon enough, I think.

Rail guns, and lazers will have a role in replacing missiles.

The F-35 can be custom ordered to fit a multi role stealth fighter. It is incredibly expensive. But is conceivably VERY formidable ,and an asset in wartime with other planes it would potentially be matched against.

I hope drone strikes lessen, but they won’t….

Ground-based missiles may be efficient, but they aren’t air superiority because they aren’t air, they’re anti-air.

Ground-based anti-air is ground-based. It doesn’t move very fast. It can’t shoot down at things. It can’t travel rapidly over vast regions the way aircraft can, striking all sorts of targets and gathering information and denying the enemy the ability to do those things.

For what?

if the question is posed as “more important?” then the obvious question is – for what purpose?

Each of those weapons has its own particular use case. Drones are used, generally, where a human pilot might be in too much danger. A missile is used where accuracy is important but the danger to aircraft or drone is greater – missiles are less detectable and usually fly faster than either drones or warplanes.

But for certain use cases, a human pilot in a fast plane, on scene, can make better judgments about what and when to attack.

The bottom line is that each weapon has its place, and the situation is what defines the better weapon.