_All_ the classic anti-air is useless against drones, as the US also found out. It can be easily saturated, and ground-hugging drones are not a good target for missiles anyway. Ukraine is now using interceptor drones for this reason.

The issue with stealth fighters is that they have nothing to do. The enemy can launch barrages of drones from hundreds of kilometers away, outside the F-35's effective range. Or if you're moving ground forces, they'll be attacked by mobile units armed with short-range drones, also making F-35 less than useful.

That's also the reason why Russia right now is at a full stalemate. Its only semi-working strategy is to filter infantry through killzones that can be tens of kilometers in depth. Russia can easily bomb Ukrainian positions with gliding bombs or missiles like S-300. But there's just nothing to bomb, Ukrainian army is spread out.

The US has not found that out, they knew it, that's why things like lasers and other systems have seen so much development.

Yes the war showed some new aspects, but relentless low capability drone attacks is not the same as flying an F-35 into enemy air space and bombing their critical resources with high accuracy thanks to sensors.

Mass manaufacture and drones and such need to be take into account in the future, but when it comes to what is easer to counter, mass drone attacks or F-35, ill be money on the mass drones being countered first.

There are already many system that can deal with drones quite well. Old school FLAC with improved sensors, fast shooting system, even cheaper drones as counters and of course lasers and so on in the future.

Yes S-300 doesn't deal with drones either, but its pretty clear what to develop to counter-them, how to counter F-35s is not nearly as easy.

> The enemy can launch barrages of drones from hundreds of kilometers away, outside the F-35's effective range.

If they are doing that these drones are no longer as cheap and if you fly against modern anti drone weapon that have costs of a few $ per shot down drone, the economics is no longer in your favor.

> The US has not found that out, they knew it, that's why things like lasers and other systems have seen so much development.

Yes, the US was not prepared. The laser systems were nowhere to be seen, and there are no interceptor drones on the field right now. Or at least not in the quantity needed to protect valuable targets (like AWACS planes).

Also, lasers are just a waste of resources anyway. They only work when the LoS is available, and tracking a small target over large distances requires highly precise machinery. Exactly something that you want on a battlefield.

> Yes the war showed some new aspects, but relentless low capability drone attacks is not the same as flying an F-35 into enemy air space and bombing their critical resources with high accuracy thanks to sensors.

F-35 is not designed to bomb critical resources. It's a fighter jet.

> Yes S-300 doesn't deal with drones either, but its pretty clear what to develop to counter-them, how to counter F-35s is not nearly as easy.

It's not the point. The enemy doesn't need to suppress F-35s to keep launching salvos of hundreds of Shaheed drones into YOUR critical infrastructure that you can't protect. That's the whole point of the article.

Not to argue with most of your points (which I agree with), but the F-35 is really meant to be more of a fighter-bomber than a true air-superiority fighter. It's not really in the same class as F-22/J-20/Su-30/F-15EX kinematically, and that's fine because counter-air really isn't its role.

> tracking a small target over large distances requires highly precise machinery. Exactly something that you want on a battlefield.

Lots of things on the battle field now, would have been considered highly precise in the past. The current generation is more relevant for ships.

> F-35 is not designed to bomb critical resources. It's a fighter jet.

No it isn't. That's complete nonsense.

> launching salvos of hundreds of Shaheed drones into YOUR critical infrastructure that you can't protect.

And my point that you ignored was that technology to do mass shoot-down of Shaheed is much more likely to exists then technology to prevent F-35.

If its a poor economic war the question is if your interceptor can be cheaper then what its preventing. And drones while cheap are not as cheap as, bullets, lasers or smaller drones.

And you say, 'launch from greater distances' that also comes with longer time to intercept because these things don't have radars and aren't that fast. Plus launching ever larger drones at longer range also increases the cost per drone.

But they can't do and F-35 can is that they can go in and take out exactly the vital air defense and other points so that your other aviation assets have an easier time.

Any conception that war in the future will just be two mass manufacturing lines splinting drones at each other is silly, technology and stealth have a major roll to play.

> That's the whole point of the article.

I think the point of the article likely is to convince people that drones should get more funding in the full knowledge of that F-35 wont go away.

Its funny how some of the people who know a lot about this stuff are still going forward with other next generation planes despite cheap drones existing.

Cheap drones are new part of the battle field, but just like with most weapons, the old stuff doesn't go away. Tanks and rifles are still useful. And so is the F-35 and stealth jets.