4th generation platforms like Grippen are not survivable in a modern air defense environment without complementary 5th generation platforms to establish air superiority. You can't avoid having a fleet of something like F-35 to gain control of the airspace.

▲

jandrese 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is an argument that all manned fighters are already obsolete thanks to the proliferation of cheap drones and that establishing air superiority is a very different task now.

	▲	nradov 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There is no such argument among people who actually know how this stuff works. Cheap drones might work pretty well for trench warfare in Ukraine but it's impossible to build a cheap drone that would be effective in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The distances alone mean that aircraft must be large just to get there, and thus not cheap regardless of whether there's a crew onboard. Autonomous flight control software is still only able to handle the simplest missions. Maybe that will change in a few years but for now anything complex requires a remote pilot, and those communication links are very vulnerable.

▲

sofixa 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> modern air defense environment

Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower.

▲

greedo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. The losses of aircraft in Ukraine on both sides are horrifying. The only reasons the Ukrainians persist is because they have no choice. The Russians can sit outside of the Ukrainian engagement range and lob semi-smart bombs, or air to air missiles at any Ukrainian aircraft that show up on their radar.

The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal.

▲

lukan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. "

But isn't that true of the F35 as well?

On it's own, I doubt it would survive much longer on the eastern front in Ukraine.

In Iran the F-35 also did not fly around freely while the ground radars were active. They had to be taken out first. For that stealth was probably useful (and in general it is).

But it is not making them invisible - and cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. Because sensors and analysis will get better over time and sensors also better and cheaper. But the stealth will remain largely the same. It cannot really be upgraded for existing jets.

	▲	jandrewrogers a few seconds ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The F-35 is one of the most advanced EW platforms currently flying. That’s the main reason everyone wants it. It has an exceptional ability to detect modern threats and self-protect against them. By all accounts the F-35 did fly freely over Iran but the weaponry for killing ground radars are all long-range stand-off weapons so that 4th gen aircraft can use them. Many times those weapons are cued by stealth aircraft within range of the ground radars but launched by 4th gen carrying them from farther away. This is pretty standard US doctrine. The F-35 specifically was designed for environments like Ukraine. The combat there is shaped by the lack of capability like that from either side.
	▲	dylan604 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. The burning question is what decision would AI make in Pearl Harbor. Would it have said flock of birds? Would it be keying in on flocks of birds instead?

▲

sofixa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> "modern combat"

> have no choice

That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base.

Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran).

▲

slaw 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Russia/Ukraine war shows that 4th generation jets are not survivable in any current as of 2026 air defense environment.

▲

XorNot 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Presuming that state of affairs will persist though is fraught.

It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy.

WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.

▲

sofixa 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy.

That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough.

> WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.

But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human.

▲

XorNot 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Define cheap and multiply by thousands. Ukrainian front line drones stopped being DJIs years ago.

They're now much closer to $3000 USD+ at the low end for an ISR vehicle. $8000+ for the more capable FPV kamikazes is the estimate for Russian models.

Which is comparable to a 155mm artillery shell. But with a lot less payload.

There's already literally millions of drones being produced and used per year in that conflict - and they've made a big impact, but the stability of the frontline also reveals that the impact of "swarms" is hardly overpowering (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together).

	▲	sofixa 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> overpowering As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure. > "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together) On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar.