In a bit of a carryover from the A-10 thread, a couple items caught my eye recently regarding the F-35.
First, John McCain calls the F-35 one of the "great national scandals" of American history.
Senator John McCain wrote:Days after the U.S. Defense Department signaled an improving relationship with Lockheed Martin Corp. over the cost of the F-35 fighter jet, Sen. John McCain called the program “one of the great national scandals.”
McCain, a Republican from Arizona and the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was speaking during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to consider the nominations of several White House appointments, including Deborah Lee James to become the next secretary of the Air Force.
McCain criticized the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as the government’s first trillion-dollar acquisition program (including sustainment costs). Its repeated cost overruns “have made it worse than a disgrace,” he said. Despite recent efforts to reduce prices on the next batch of aircraft, “it’s still one of the great, national scandals that we have ever had, as far as the expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars are concerned,” he said.
McCain, who also noted that the Navy’s new USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier is more than $2 billion over budget, was responding to James’ comment that the current budget environment is “chaotic” and makes planning difficult.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who oversees the F-35 program, this week said the relationship between the service and Lockheed — the plane’s manufacturer and the world’s biggest defense contractor — along with engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, part of United Technologies Corp., is “orders of magnitude” better than it was a year ago.
“I’m encouraged by where we are today,” he said Sept. 17 at the Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition at National Harbor, Md. “I’d like to be a little further along.”
The comments were a stark contrast to those Bogdan made at the same forum last year, when he called the relationship the “worst I’ve ever seen.” This year, Bogdan indicated his previous remarks were deliberate. “I threw a hand grenade into the crowd … that was intended,” he said.
New York Times wrote:PARIS — The Dutch defense ministry said on Tuesday that it had selected the F-35 fighter jet from Lockheed Martin to replace its aging fleet of F-16s, bringing an end to years of uncertainty over the Netherlands’ commitment to a program that has been plagued by technical delays and mounting development costs.
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the Dutch defense minister, proposed to Parliament the purchase of 37 F-35s — far fewer than the 85 planes initially envisioned before the financial crisis put a squeeze on military budgets across the region.
The plan sets a budget of 4.5 billion euros, or $6 billion, for the aircraft and a further 270 million euros a year for maintenance and operating costs — equivalent to the annual operating costs of the current F-16 fleet. It also builds in a “contingency reserve” of 10 percent to account for any unforeseen rise in the final cost.
Deliveries of the first planes are expected to begin in 2019 and be completed by 2023, when the F-16 fleet will be discontinued.
“The cutbacks in defense budgets which many NATO member states, including the Netherlands, are facing demand careful consideration and astute choice,” the defense ministry said in a statement. “Above all, opting for a modest number of the best aircraft attests to a sense of reality.”
Well John's right. The F-35's a good plane, the F-35B is a pretty great plane, BUT there are plenty of places in it that are imho kinda fethed up. So the 35B is replacing our (the Marine Corp's) Harrier jump jets, this is excellent. We /really/ need the replacement and the 35B is an absolutely massive improvement for us. However, we use our jump jets primarily as CAS and battlefield CAP to keep rude strangers from harassing our advancing armor and infantry, this makes me question the usefulness on the very expensive stealth elements included on the 35B as defensive mechanism as opposed to powerful radar jamming units and other defenses. So maybe some change needs to be saved there.
At this point with the massive sunk cost in this program the solution is NOT to abandon the JSF program, what we do need to do is a total picture evaluation (maybe by a combined IG task force) to figure out what exactly happened to cause this, so we can make changes to the R&D process to keep it from happening again.
Lastly we should remove John McCain from Congress for unrelated reasons.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well John's right. The F-35's a good plane, the F-35B is a pretty great plane, BUT there are plenty of places in it that are imho kinda fethed up. So the 35B is replacing our (the Marine Corp's) Harrier jump jets, this is excellent. We /really/ need the replacement and the 35B is an absolutely massive improvement for us. However, we use our jump jets primarily as CAS and battlefield CAP to keep rude strangers from harassing our advancing armor and infantry, this makes me question the usefulness on the very expensive stealth elements included on the 35B as defensive mechanism as opposed to powerful radar jamming units and other defenses. So maybe some change needs to be saved there.
At this point with the massive sunk cost in this program the solution is NOT to abandon the JSF program, what we do need to do is a total picture evaluation (maybe by a combined IG task force) to figure out what exactly happened to cause this, so we can make changes to the R&D process to keep it from happening again.
Lastly we should remove John McCain from Congress for unrelated reasons.
I'll say, because I've seen it publicly speculated upon elsewhere and thus I'm not revealing anything classified that I may or may not know, that some people believe the F-35's going to have about 85% of the EA-18G Growler's electronic warfare capability. Which is pretty amazing for a standard, non-EW variant.
You're right, though, that the Marines don't need its low observability. One of the many reasons why "three services, one airframe," was a bad idea that I hope we never, ever repeat.
As for what happened, we basically know. We chose a really, really risky program strategy - design it, then go into production and testing at the same time, rather than testing it before producing - and didn't ride Lockheed Martin with much of any oversight at all.
I hadn't heard that about the 35's EW capacity. If true that's fething incredible. It kinda reminds me of what happened with the C-130J model though, to balance that aircraft they had to add a 500lb weight to nose because when they replaced the ancient electrical and computer systems with a modern set up the nose was too light to balance for. I'm guessing a similar thing came up with the 35. We can literally fit that much powerful gear in the relatively small space of a 35 airframe now.
In management accounting terms, the key point of sunk costs is you cannot recover them and should therefore ignore them for the purpose of evaluating the termination of a project.
That said, how much would it cost in money and delay, to switch horses in mid-stream? Is there even a different horse available?
Kilkrazy wrote: In management accounting terms, the key point of sunk costs is you cannot recover them and should therefore ignore them for the purpose of evaluating the termination of a project.
That said, how much would it cost in money and delay, to switch horses in mid-stream? Is there even a different horse available?
Switch to what? There isn't an alternative that offers anywhere near the capability. The French like to push the Rafale, but it's a 4.5 gen fighter at best, and it's got rather limited strike capability. The Canadians are making noise about looking into it and the Eurofighter, but neither are viable options.
The Canadians will likely do whatever they're told sadly. Lockheed's running adds on our transit here in the capital trying to drum up support for this piece of gak. We don't want it, don't need it, the price has ballooned up to insanity, but sadly the consesrvatives are in charge and apparently no ammount of scandal will make thier regime fall.
Kilkrazy wrote: In management accounting terms, the key point of sunk costs is you cannot recover them and should therefore ignore them for the purpose of evaluating the termination of a project.
That said, how much would it cost in money and delay, to switch horses in mid-stream? Is there even a different horse available?
Switch to what? There isn't an alternative that offers anywhere near the capability. The French like to push the Rafale, but it's a 4.5 gen fighter at best, and it's got rather limited strike capability. The Canadians are making noise about looking into it and the Eurofighter, but neither are viable options.
Go for the Swedish JAS 39 Griffon - just like Windows, it crashes regularly.
Crablezworth wrote: The Canadians will likely do whatever they're told sadly. Lockheed's running adds on our transit here in the capital trying to drum up support for this piece of gak. We don't want it, don't need it, the price has ballooned up to insanity, but sadly the consesrvatives are in charge and apparently no ammount of scandal will make thier regime fall.
Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.
Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.
Crablezworth wrote:The Canadians will likely do whatever they're told sadly. Lockheed's running adds on our transit here in the capital trying to drum up support for this piece of gak. We don't want it, don't need it, the price has ballooned up to insanity, but sadly the consesrvatives are in charge and apparently no ammount of scandal will make thier regime fall.
I'm genuinely interested as to why you think it's a piece of gak. I think part of the F-35's problem is that so much of what makes it amazing is extremely difficult to explain to people who don't fly fighters for a living.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Go for the Swedish JAS 39 Griffon - just like Windows, it crashes regularly.
I'm not a big fan of the Euro canard jets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote: Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.
Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.
I'm genuinely interested as to why you think it's a piece of gak. I think part of the F-35's problem is that so much of what makes it amazing is extremely difficult to explain to people who don't fly fighters for a living.
You mean like the fact that the naval variant can't successfully land on an aircraft carrier?
The aircraft is a victim of trying to do too much with a single airframe. Some peanut counter thought it would be a great savings...it was a terrible idea.
Andrew1975 wrote: You mean like the fact that the naval variant can't successfully land on an aircraft carrier?
The aircraft is a victim of trying to do too much with a single airframe. Some peanut counter thought it would be a great savings...it was a terrible idea.
The C's certainly in bad shape, but last I heard the hook problem's still pretty much been fixed. It's still likely to be a pain in the ass to land on a deck, simply due to how close the hook is to the main gear, but we've had ensign eliminators before and done alright.
Plus, we're the only ones even considering purchasing the C; Canada would be picking up the A.
Fafnir wrote: Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.
Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.
Your CF-18s are getting awfully old.
Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.
Fafnir wrote: Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.
Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.
Your CF-18s are getting awfully old.
Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.
Yeah, no need to provide for our own defense, when we've got America to do it for us.
Fafnir wrote: Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.
Man, I hope you're not one of those guys who complains about our defense budget.
Fafnir wrote: Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.
Man, I hope you're not one of those guys who complains about our defense budget.
I'd argue that the US probably spends too much on its defense budget, but that a lot that might have to do with your offensive operations.
Fafnir wrote: Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.
I'm not really sure having all of your best hockey players entertain the twenty or so of us who actually like hockey is really a fair trade for covering your air defense.
Fafnir wrote: Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.
I'm not really sure having all of your best hockey players entertain the twenty or so of us who actually like hockey is really a fair trade for covering your air defense.
Might have something to do with having all those natural resources just locked away for a rainy day up here in the pantry.
Yeah, no need to provide for our own defense, when we've got America to do it for us.
Maybe we should just bill you guys?
Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.
All trade agreements and such are a two way street. It's not as if your getting nothing in return already. 75% of your exports are to the US while only 19% of ours is to you, so again the relationship is rather lop sided. Sure, we receive a lot of benefits from you guys being on friendly terms, but you guys receive much more from the deals.
Fafnir wrote: Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority.
It's not a question of technology, it's a question of how many pilots you want to kill when your planes start breaking up in midair. There's a limit on how many hours of abuse you can put on a fighter before you start to get structural failures and/or maintenance costs reach unsustainable levels. And at that point you either buy new planes, or give up on having an air force.
Our country has the population of mexico city and is spread out over the second largest landmass after russia. The concept of defending ourselves in any meaningful way is a bad joke. I could give a feth if we have an air force.
As for the f35 being a giant piece of gak and how I personally came to said conclusion, I won't bother with the details as they are unlikely to alter your perspective. I've had fun in the past pointing out just what a huge piece of gak the f35 is but in truth it’s performance is irrelevant. I see no value in it.
My plan for replacing the F18's is not replacing them. Dissolve the "royal" canadian air force and while we're at it we should also leave nato.
Seaward wrote: So it's a giant piece of gak, but you can't explain why?
Fair enough, I guess.
It could be the greatest combat aircraft in existence and I would still think it's a waste of money, but it just so happens that in addition to me seeing no value in purchasing new fighter aircraft, it just so happens this particular aircraft is a giant piece of crap by just about any metric.
Crablezworth wrote: It could be the greatest combat aircraft in existence and I would still think it's a waste of money, but it just so happens that in addition to me seeing no value in purchasing new fighter aircraft, it just so happens this particular aircraft is a giant piece of crap by just about any metric.
I'd disagree quite strongly with that. It's going to end up with a performance envelope similar to a legacy Hornet's, which gets pretty impressive when you factor in that said envelope won't adjust much when it's fully loaded, unlike everything else (other than the F-22) out there.
It doesn't play by the old, "survive to the merge, then win the turning battle and get nose on," rules. It completely changes them. The EODAS allowing you to cue up over-the-shoulder shots alone is going to be a thing of beauty.
Fafnir wrote: But it doesn't change the fact that there's no point in Canada actually buying any of them.
If you guys don't want to have anything resembling a military, there is no point. But as was pointed out, your current AF is old, and will start falling apart, costing more money to maintain then replace.
Maybe you're cool with playing "Lets leech off the American's", but your government, and I'd wager your citizenry at large, isn't.
djones520 wrote: But as was pointed out, your current AF is old, and will start falling apart, costing more money to maintain then replace.
Maybe you're cool with playing "Lets leech off the American's", but your government, and I'd wager your citizenry at large, isn't.
We'll invest the savings into education. This one's on the house:
than
/T͟Han/
Conjunction
1.Introducing the second element in a comparison: "he was smaller than his son"; "Jack knows more than I do".
2.Used in expressions introducing an exception or contrast: "he claims not to own anything other than his home".
then
/T͟Hen/
Adverb
1.At that time; at the time in question: "I was living in Cairo then"; "by then I was exhausted"; "Adams, the then president".
2.After that; next; afterward: "she won the first and then the second game".
To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.
So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?
Ketara wrote: To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.
So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?
It is worth noting that the US has a large part of the responsibility for the original cancellation of Canada's original attack aircraft, the Avro Arrow (one of the most advanced fighters of its era).
Fafnir wrote: It is worth noting that the US has a large part of the responsibility for the original cancellation of Canada's original attack aircraft, the Avro Arrow (one of the most advanced fighters of its era).
You're bringing up an issue with something from 50 year ago? Well, I'm sorry our air industry produced 3 comparable aircraft at the same time, and we didn't buy yours. Businesses don't always succeed though. Avro tried to butt in on a business that already had several giants, and it got squashed. Happens all the time.
It wasn't a matter of aircrafts being bought or sold. It's a matter of the US pushing for their own military presence in Canada, as opposed to our own. The mindset of "America will protect us if someone gives us a strange look" is one that America itself has opted to encourage from over 5 decades ago.
It's hardly as simple as that. Canada and the US created NORAD, and with it came standardized nuclear defense systems. The budget associated with this cut into the Arrows production, and then the Arrow was unable to work with the new nuclear missile system to be used. That is why your Defense Minister made the decision to cancel the project and go with cheaper US aircraft.
It was hardly a "US didn't want Canada not buying our stuff." thing.
Fafnir wrote: Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.
I'm not really sure having all of your best hockey players entertain the twenty or so of us who actually like hockey is really a fair trade for covering your air defense.
Hey now, we also provide employment for your football players who aren't good enough for your NFL!
Ketara wrote: To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.
So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?
A 4 year old article about russian planes entering our airspace? They can enter all they want, I don't give a feth. Hell they can have the north, nothing but a barren hellscape up there anyway.
Ketara wrote: To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.
So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?
A 4 year old article about russian planes entering our airspace? They can enter all they want, I don't give a feth. Hell they can have the north, nothing but a barren hellscape up there anyway.
Well of course you'd say you don't care. You don't even feel the need for a military, so why would you care? Others do though.
Guys, we are allies. Lets not bicker and argue about stupid ego-centric "my country is better than yours" crap. Lets stick to the subject. The F-35 is the classic case of trying to do too much. Every service branch and every country involved in the project keeps adding design specifications that not only balloon the costs but delay it further and further. With our glorious leader effectively shutting down the F-22, the F-35 was our only hope to replace the airframes we are currently using...that were designed during the Vietnam war. Somebody mentioned changing horses. The problem is there are no other horses to change to. If we scrap the F-35, it will be another decade before another design is even considered. I hate to say it, but its the F-35 or keep having our current planes fall out of the sky due to fatigue.
I suppose the opposition to this plane comes from the belief there will be no more war between developed nations. I mean, a drone can annihilate a goatherder with an AK just as easily as an F-35 can, and a lot more cheaply and safely, too.
As long as there is no more war between developed nations.
feeder wrote: I suppose the opposition to this plane comes from the belief there will be no more war between developed nations. I mean, a drone can annihilate a goatherder with an AK just as easily as an F-35 can, and a lot more cheaply and safely, too.
As long as there is no more war between developed nations.
We had the war to end all wars already. It was shortly followed by the largest war in history.
And from vietnam onwards the us has been fething the dog, what's your point? That whole mutually assured destruction thing keeps the big boys from playing in eachother's sandbox.
Who's going to invade us? By that extremely flawed logic, why have a military at all...especially since the world is at peace? An air force is vital for a combined arms. The real world is not like WH40K, you can't do anything with just a ground force.
It's also the one thing you really can't get more of quickly. You can raise infantry regiments in a matter of months with a draft, ditto armor and artillery with preset stockpiles, but pilots and complex aircraft are things that take years to train and build. Same deal with a Navy. Blue forces are not something to be cut or ignored lightly.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's also the one thing you really can't get more of quickly. You can raise infantry regiments in a matter of months with a draft, ditto armor and artillery with preset stockpiles, but pilots and complex aircraft are things that take years to train and build. Same deal with a Navy. Blue forces are not something to be cut or ignored lightly.
Unless you want to show the world that you don't know your a** from a hole in the ground
Ketara wrote: To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.
So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?
Note the use of the word 'invade' in my original statement.
And the Russians do flyby's of just about everyone from time to time. I have a sneaky suspicion half the time it's just the pilot leaning on the joystick whilst reaching for another crisp, and jerking the plane over the airspace border by accident.
Seriously, Canada doesn't currently need armed forces, unless the US is planning on subsuming them. Which wouldn't be the first time I suppose.
The reason they keep them is because a) armed force is a Government's final resort to impose its will on the population in case of civil unrest, b) because it lets them join in on our commonwealth and UN excursions from time to time, and c) because everyone else has one and you don't look like a proper country if you choose to pass.
Andrew1975 wrote: You mean like the fact that the naval variant can't successfully land on an aircraft carrier?
The aircraft is a victim of trying to do too much with a single airframe. Some peanut counter thought it would be a great savings...it was a terrible idea.
The C's certainly in bad shape, but last I heard the hook problem's still pretty much been fixed. It's still likely to be a pain in the ass to land on a deck, simply due to how close the hook is to the main gear, but we've had ensign eliminators before and done alright.
Plus, we're the only ones even considering purchasing the C; Canada would be picking up the A.
The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.
Andrew1975 wrote: The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.
No, the F-35's shortcomings are extant, but widely misunderstood by the general public. There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.
What's going on with the F-35 is, to use an analogy, a little like what would happen if you tried to show a B-29 to a World War I pilot. He'd go, "You idiots! You forgot to allow the canopy to open so the pilot can throw bombs out!" because, hey, that's the way they were used to doing it.
Andrew1975 wrote: The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.
No, the F-35's shortcomings are extant, but widely misunderstood by the general public. There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.
What's going on with the F-35 is, to use an analogy, a little like what would happen if you tried to show a B-29 to a World War I pilot. He'd go, "You idiots! You forgot to allow the canopy to open so the pilot can throw bombs out!"
Seaward wrote: So it's a giant piece of gak, but you can't explain why?
Fair enough, I guess.
The F-35 program has received an enormous amount of bad press up here, for reasons I and most likely all the other canadians here aren't exactly capable of evaluating. It could be nothing else than ''Cons spending that much money on the military while in recession/bad economy'' is just such an easy target for Libs and everyone else. Of course, the fact that the bill more than doubled since the start of the program doesn't help. I also recall that for the longest time it was doubtful weither the F-35 electronics could sustain some of the low temperatures we have up north. From what I've read, a cold temperature upgrade package would be rolled out a couple of years after the plane.
One of my best friends works in research for the opposition party, and did a document to summarize the negative aspects of the program. I'm not sure he'll be allowed to release it, and most of it will be about the economic side of things anyway, but I'll ask him.
As far as the 'we just don't need an airforce' argument, well, I sometimes feel that sadly, there's a point to it. At home, our airforce has one purpose ; to enforce the canadian sovereignty over the North and oppose the Ruskies. Maybe you'll be able to tell me ; how long do you suppose our measly fleet of 103 CF-18 could hold on against the 355 SU-27 variants, 14 SU-30, 15 SU-35 and 275ish MiG-29 variants (to only count their fighters) they have on the commie side? How long after we add, what, 10 F-35 (and they add 46 SU-30 and 30 SU-35)?
To all those saying we were fine with the CF-18, all I have to say is ; 17 crashes since 1984. 17 crashes. Not a single one in combat situations too!
Still, got to wonder if those 71 billions (worst case scenario) would've been better spent on the Rafale? Given the risk of the program, the small number of planes added to our fleet, wouldn't we have gained more bang for our buck?
Kovnik Obama wrote: Still, got to wonder if those 71 billions (worst case scenario) would've been better spent on the Rafale? Given the risk of the program, the small number of planes added to our fleet, wouldn't we have gained more bang for our buck?
Eh. I doubt you'd save much if any money, really. F-35 cost is going to come down as production gets on track, and the Rafale doesn't carry a lot of what's in your arsenal. You'd either need to buy enough French weapon systems to replace what you've got, or else pay out for some pricey reconfiguration. You'd also be getting a 4.5 gen jet instead of a 5th.
Electronic warfare capabilities are part of it, under the umbrella of advanced avionics in general, but it'd also include very low observability (stealth), battlefield networking capability, high maneuverability, etc.
All of which apparently is super important for defending a barren hellscape no one give a gak about. Apparently stealth is super important in a dog fight.
Crablezworth wrote: All of which apparently is super important for defending a barren hellscape no one give a gak about. Apparently stealth is super important in a dog fight.
Hard to defend anything if the aggressors shoot you down before you're even capable of knowing they're there. Stealth isn't important in a dogfight, no. The last time anybody had one of those was 1982, however. Stealth's designed to help ensure you never get to the merge. If I can see you (thanks, AESA) and you can't see me (thanks, VLO), then who has an advantage?
If dogfighting's your real concern, though, AIM-9X Block IIIs and EODAS will have you covered.
But let's not talk solely about defense. Do you believe the Rwandan genocide should've been stopped, out of curiosity? If so, you believe in the need for at least some military power.
Andrew1975 wrote: The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.
No, the F-35's shortcomings are extant, but widely misunderstood by the general public. There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.
What's going on with the F-35 is, to use an analogy, a little like what would happen if you tried to show a B-29 to a World War I pilot. He'd go, "You idiots! You forgot to allow the canopy to open so the pilot can throw bombs out!"
I like that analogy.
Yeah, its a fun analogy......but it is completely inaccurate.
The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
Range and payload are also less than the fighters it is scheduled to replace.
And testing really hasn't even started yet. Really the plane has issues popping up all over the place and it hasn't even been pushed to the limits.
AND ITSTILL CANT LAND ON CARRIERS!
Not sure how any of the equates to your analogy?
And yes I know there are always going to be teething problems.This is much more than that, this project was promised as the future in aircraft development, 1 airframe for all roles, which anybody that knows anything about aircraft means just tons of compromise in a combat system that functions best when it does not compromise. The development was supposed to be cheaper because it was being built and tested using computer simulation. That has crapped out as we have found issues with the basic structural integrity of the airframe during testing.
Yeah, its a fun analogy......but it is completely inaccurate.
The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
And testing really hasn't even started yet. Really the plane has issues popping up all over the place and it hasn't even been pushed to the limits.
AND ITSTILL CANT LAND ON CARRIERS!
You're quoting a lot of outdated issues that have been resolved, and some of it was outright misleading when it was first claimed. Even still, that would all be problematic on an operational aircraft, which the F-35 is not. It's got three more years before it's operational.
And yes I know there are always going to be teething problems.This is much more than that, this project was promised as the future in aircraft development, 1 airframe for all roles, which anybody that knows anything about aircraft means just tons of compromise in a combat system that functions best when it does not compromise. The development was supposed to be cheaper because it was being built and tested using computer simulation. That has crapped out as we have found issues with the basic structural integrity of the airframe during testing.
There's no question that a bad development path was chosen for the F-35, but it doesn't follow that a chaotic and costly development necessarily leads to a bad product. If my days of slamming aircraft onto pitching decks in bad weather at night were ahead of me instead of behind me, I'd have no qualms at all about flying operational F-35s.
And again, I can't say enough that I think the F-35's main problem is that too many of its advantages, while incredible, are a little too esoteric for anyone but pilots to understand. The general public understands speed. They understand Flankers doing Cobras at air shows. They don't understand sensor fusion or clean vs. loaded performance envelopes or over-the-shoulder AMRAAM cuing.
So basically, it's like saying a bunch of people on the internet are debating the merits of new brain surgery techniques. They may understand some basics of it, but in the end the only people who really know whats going on is brain surgeons.
As a member of the AF who works in operations, and is required to have a decent understanding of aircraft, I agree with your assesment on that. Many of particulars of fighter aircraft are greek to me, and I spent nearly 5 years working directly with F-16's. What I do know though is that I've yet to hear of a single pilot whose worked with the F-35 who hasn't liked it, and what it's going to bring to the fight.
Seaward wrote: Do you believe the Rwandan genocide should've been stopped, out of curiosity? If so, you believe in the need for at least some military power.
Seeing as members of our armed forces would have to hold their collective thumbs out on the side of the road to get there, I'm firmly in the "it's not our problem" camp. Our ability to contribute to nato is somewhere between adorable and cute. We'll never totally rid ourselves of our military, it's an important make work project.
And as for the inference that we're all too dumb to be able to assess what makes a good combat aircraft, I can assure no one gives a gak. To me it's like a middle class family being told they're too stupid to understand how much they truly need a farrari by a ferrari salesman.
I'll be sure to tell all non-medical people to just shut up because they don't know what they are talking about in any future ObamaCare threads if that is how we are going to play around here now...
Seaward wrote: There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.
So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?
Seaward wrote: There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.
So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?
The problem with ferrari's is you start to wrorry about'm gettin dinged up or scratched. It was too "precious" to use in combat. But it looks really cool in bad summer blockbusters.
Seaward wrote: There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.
So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?
I have seen some things that say some of the things the F-35 will be bringing are more advanced then the F-22. It won't be obsolete, just like the F-16 didn't make the F-15C obsolete.
Peregrine wrote: So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?
It's very far from obsolete, and it'll remain the premier air superiority fighter for the foreseeable future, long after the introduction of the JSF. The JSF has a lot of nifty tricks that'll potentially put it on an equal footing, at least defensively, with the F-22, though. I'd describe it as the F-22 ending up a little better at shooting down, and the JSF ending up a little better at not being shot down.
Though, again, the F-22 really needs helmet-mounted cuing. Off-boresight missiles have pretty much rendered traditional dogfighting tactics obsolete.
Seaward wrote: It's very far from obsolete, and it'll remain the premier air superiority fighter for the foreseeable future, long after the introduction of the JSF. The JSF has a lot of nifty tricks that'll potentially put it on an equal footing, at least defensively, with the F-22, though. I'd describe it as the F-22 ending up a little better at shooting down, and the JSF ending up a little better at not being shot down.
Though, again, the F-22 really needs helmet-mounted cuing. Off-boresight missiles have pretty much rendered traditional dogfighting tactics obsolete.
When did we realize this? Maybe I'm completely wrong on this, but I thought the whole idea was that the F-22 would be the "elite" super-plane capable of effortlessly dominating everything, while the F-35 had the role of being a cheaper "everyday" plane that could make up the required total fighter numbers without destroying the budget or giving the F-22 to anyone else.
d-usa wrote: I'll be sure to tell all non-medical people to just shut up because they don't know what they are talking about in any future ObamaCare threads if that is how we are going to play around here now...
Yeah, that's always the balancing act in democracy. Because we can't just accept the military (or whatever other industry) gets to tell everyone what they want and how much it has to cost because they have greater expertise, but at the same time you have to recognise they are worth listening to.
And in this instance, when you've got a guy who says he flies in the military and seems to know what he's talking about, and some other folk who seem to be coming in with knowledge gleaned from some military blogs, I think the military guy is probably worth listening too.
I mean, when the military says 'this new thing is pretty good' just be grateful they're not asking for a more expensive toy
Peregrine wrote: When did we realize this? Maybe I'm completely wrong on this, but I thought the whole idea was that the F-22 would be the "elite" super-plane capable of effortlessly dominating everything, while the F-35 had the role of being a cheaper "everyday" plane that could make up the required total fighter numbers without destroying the budget or giving the F-22 to anyone else.
I doubt there's anything that can effortlessly dominate anything else, in the modern realm of 4th/5th gen fighters, there's just stuff that's going to have advantages, however significant, over the competition. The F-22's an amazing aircraft, and will remain one, but there are ways to defeat it, and always will be. (My avatar's a screen cap of a Super Hornet getting a gun kill on a Raptor over Langley, for example.) Same goes for anything else, including the F-35.
The F-22 was designed as an air superiority fighter, and the F-35 was designed as a multirole. The F-22's going to be a better "pure" fighter than the F-35 simply by merit of range, payload, and speed. The gap may close a little due to the planned upgrade path for the F-22 getting altered due to sequestration. The Air Force was working on a helmet cuing system for AIM-9X integration before it hit, and last I heard, they canceled it for the time being, because the reality is that we're the only guys with 5th gen fighters in the air, and that's going to remain the case until 2020 at the earliest. The F-22 doesn't need HOBS capability to defeat 4th gen fighters the majority of the time, so we can wait on the capability. That lack of capability, however, would make it a little more vulnerable to the F-35 if they ended up dogfighting. Wouldn't affect BVR, which is really where the Raptor makes its bones, anyway. I said I figured the F-22 and the F-35 would end up about equal in the BVR department because I don't actually know what the F-35's radar cross section's going to end up (as that's pretty highly classified), but I assume it probably won't be significantly worse than the F-22's, so they're about as stealthy as each other, as far as I know, which is what counts (at least initially) in beyond visual range engagements.
The F-22's got a little more flexibility for avionics upgrades as well, due to not being as weight-constrained as the F-35. What makes a modern fighter superior to another is, largely, the ability to spot the other guy before he spots you, so being able to cram a more power-hungry radar into the F-22 will make a difference down the line. For a bird that was designed to have a couple AMRAAMs headed your way before you knew it was even there, that's pretty crucial. When it all shakes out and we're comparing them in 2025, the F-22'll probably have an edge in that department.
So if the major difference in capability is which plane gets priority for electronics work was cutting F-22 production in favor of more F-35s (and more F-35 upgrades) the correct decision? Should the F-22 have been abandoned earlier and replaced entirely with the F-35?
Seaward wrote: The F-22's got a little more flexibility for avionics upgrades as well, due to not being as weight-constrained as the F-35. What makes a modern fighter superior to another is, largely, the ability to spot the other guy before he spots you, so being able to cram a more power-hungry radar into the F-22 will make a difference down the line. For a bird that was designed to have a couple AMRAAMs headed your way before you knew it was even there, that's pretty crucial. When it all shakes out and we're comparing them in 2025, the F-22'll probably have an edge in that department.
Being the air superiority fighter, it should be better in those regards.
Peregrine wrote: So if the major difference in capability is which plane gets priority for electronics work was cutting F-22 production in favor of more F-35s (and more F-35 upgrades) the correct decision? Should the F-22 have been abandoned earlier and replaced entirely with the F-35?
The F-35, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have a post-operational upgrade path marked out yet, but we've never not upgraded our air assets throughout their life cycle, so I'm sure they'll both get appropriate upgrades as time goes by.
As for the question, I think the answer depends mostly on if you believe in the possibility of us ever going to war with another major power. The F-35's more versatile, and makes more sense in asymmetric stuff like we've been doing for the past decade. It wouldn't be a slouch in conventional air warfare, either, but it's very much a strike fighter, not necessarily an air superiority fighter. The F-22 has some strike capabilities, sure, but it's a thoroughbred air superiority plane. A lot of people would argue pure air superiority fighters no longer have a mission. I'm not sure I agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Being the air superiority fighter, it should be better in those regards.
Should be and probably will be, but I don't know if it's guaranteed. The F-22's rooted in the '80s, after all, and a lot of what we learned on the F-22 went into the F-35.
If they ever get in a pure gun fight, F-22's gonna smoke the F-35 without much trouble.
Seaward, you and I don't always see eye to eye on a lot of things discussed around here. But as a naval specialist with only the faintest idea of modern aircraft and their workings, I'd just like to say that I appreciate you breaking down the F-35 in discussion in the way you're doing.
Ketara wrote: Seaward, you and I don't always see eye to eye on a lot of things discussed around here. But as a naval specialist with only the faintest idea of modern aircraft and their workings, I'd just like to say that I appreciate you breaking down the F-35 in discussion in the way you're doing.
No problem. I stopped flying and went to work in the private sector a couple years ago, but I still love rambling about this stuff for hours at a time.
Seaward wrote: I said I figured the F-22 and the F-35 would end up about equal in the BVR department because I don't actually know what the F-35's radar cross section's going to end up (as that's pretty highly classified), but I assume it probably won't be significantly worse than the F-22's, so they're about as stealthy as each other, as far as I know, which is what counts (at least initially) in beyond visual range engagements.
I need to revise this statement. I checked, just on the off-chance that the DOD had ever released anything regarding comparative radar cross sections, and it turns out they did, back in 2005. The F-22 has a (frontal) RCS roughly equivalent to a marble at 0.0001~0.0002 m2, while the F-35 was projected to have an RCS roughly the size of a golf ball (0.0015m2). The F-35 was stated to have exceeded that expectation when they began testing it, so it's better than projected, but not quite as stealthy as the F-22, in all likelihood, and the F-22 probably has better all-aspect stealth.
So, to sum up, billions will be wasted on a jet that will probably have a glorious military service of doing nothing more than bombing empty tents and camels in the middle east.
You may disagree, but I can't see the US military (and depressingly, Britain as well) doing anything else for the next 10 years.
It's high time America got its priorities right and spent the money on developing decent bread and cheese, instead. And beer...definitely need good beer!
I've read it. It gets some stuff wrong, but it' offers good insight as to why concurrent design/testing/production's a bad idea that we'll hopefully not do again.
In March 2013 USAF test pilots noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[185] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[186] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):
Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
The radar performs poorly or not at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
Maintenance tools do not work.[187]
The JPO responded that more experienced pilots would be able to safely operate the aircraft and that procedures would improve over time.[188]
Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.[189]
This is from Wikipedia. The pilots I work with seem to have very positive view of the F22 and think the F35 is a load of high priced gak. I don't really have an opinion as I'm not a pilot and I haven't done a ton of research on that airframe.
My experience as a government contractor tells me that just about anything produced in the current era of "pay us and we will build it" as opposed to a company building a product then trying to sell it, is going to be a gakky product AND/OR cost WAY more than it should.
Spartak wrote: In March 2013 USAF test pilots noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[185] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[186] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):
Eh, that's a tad misleading. It was one Air Force pilot in one report. And he's right, as far as I can tell; aft visibility isn't great, but EODAS is designed to make up for that.
There's a decent argument to be made, of course, that if EODAS goes down, the plane's fethed, and it's probably true to a large extent.
Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Unsure what this refers to. We're flying them, currently.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
That's not F-35 specific. Any ejection seat can fail, and if it does, you're dead.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
Haven't heard anything about that myself, but sounds like an iPad-level fix.
The radar performs poorly or not at all.
This one's just confusing. The AN/APG-81's an amazing radar, very likely the best we can field in a fighter. It specced very well out of design, and nobody thought it'd do what Northrop Grumman claimed - and then it exceeded expectations in operational testing.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
That needs to come down, but two hours is likely a pipe dream.
Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.
ROVER's the gak, but we'll likely just pod it, like we do with everything else it's deployed on. Won't be much of an issue, as I can't imagine you could come up with a scenario where we'd want to use it without air superiority, so the hit to RCS won't be a big deal.
This is from Wikipedia. The pilots I work with seem to have very positive view of the F22 and think the F35 is a load of high priced gak. I don't really have an opinion as I'm not a pilot and I haven't done a ton of research on that airframe.
This is the part I'm most interested in, to tell you the truth. Raptor pilots aren't sold on the F-35?
You're quoting a lot of outdated issues that have been resolved, and some of it was outright misleading when it was first claimed. Even still, that would all be problematic on an operational aircraft, which the F-35 is not. It's got three more years before it's operational.
Which would put it 7 years behind schedule, the navy is saying it may not be operational till 2019. To put that into perspective, it took less than 8 years to develop and produce most of the 4th gen fighters, and this one is potentially going to be 9 years behind schedule? Not to mention that there are whole squads on the tax payers dime who have been flying this thing for years, some pilots entire carriers are basically going to be taken up testing the same aircraft.
I know enough about aircraft, admittedly not as much as you, but I also know rose colored glasses when I see them. There are issues with the f35 that I'm not concerned with, like the fact that its basically a flying pig, current aircraft will be able to dance around it. As impressive as Russian airshows are, with pilots throwing planes around, its not really any use in combat especially against the impressive systems the f35 is supposed to pack. I know and understand this. I also know that we have made very similar and incorrect assumptions before. "Phantoms don't need guns!" "The days of dog fighting are over".
I hope they are right this time. If not, our pilots are going to be flying a brick with limited range and payload. In so many respects the f35 falls short of the aircraft it is replacing, yes theoretically it will be able to destroy most anything before those stats matter, but air combat history has a way of turning that theory on its head.
d-usa wrote: I'll be sure to tell all non-medical people to just shut up because they don't know what they are talking about in any future ObamaCare threads if that is how we are going to play around here now...
Eh... not quite "D".
Obamacare issues isn't medical at all... it's about the administration of the program.
Andrew1975 wrote: Which would put it 7 years behind schedule, the navy is saying it may not be operational till 2019. To put that into perspective, it took less than 8 years to develop and produce most of the 4th gen fighters, and this one is potentially going to be 9 years behind schedule? Not to mention that there are whole squads on the tax payers dime who have been flying this thing for years, some pilots entire carriers are basically going to be taken up testing the same aircraft.
I know enough about aircraft, admittedly not as much as you, but I also know rose colored glasses when I see them. There are issues with the f35 that I'm not concerned with, like the fact that its basically a flying pig, current aircraft will be able to dance around it. As impressive as Russian airshows are, with pilots throwing planes around, its not really any use in combat especially against the impressive systems the f35 is supposed to pack. I know and understand this. I also know that we have made very similar and incorrect assumptions before. "Phantoms don't need guns!" "The days of dog fighting are over".
I hope they are right this time. If not, our pilots are going to be flying a brick with limited range and payload. In so many respects the f35 falls short of the aircraft it is replacing, yes theoretically it will be able to destroy most anything before those stats matter, but air combat history has a way of turning that theory on its head.
Oh, it's definitely behind schedule, and I'll be the last person in the world to dispute that the procurement was mismanaged. It's been a dreadful process and could have been done much better. I'm not as concerned about the timeline, though, simply because even if the C - the last one to enter service - doesn't hit the fleet until 2019, we'll still be ahead of the Russians and the Chinese, the only other games in town as far as 5th gen fighters are concerned. And we've already got the Raptor up. We'll have two operational 5th gens before either of them have one, which isn't so bad. Also consider that the F-22 was born in the 80s, and didn't enter service until 2005, so in the scheme of 5th gen fighter gestation periods, the F-35 isn't doing horribly.
I'll also agree on the gun issue. I think it's a horrible decision to omit it from the B and C variants, and I'm also not wild about single engine aircraft for naval aviation. There were a lot of compromises, which prevent it from being anywhere near a perfect aircraft. It's still going to be a great one, though.
That said, the lack of a gun on the B and C isn't the end of the world. We've come a long way from Vietnam, where we were running missile systems in their infancy. The AIM-9X is impressive as hell, and we've been running it for a while now.
Pretty poor decision to omit the gun but if a -35 finds itself in a turning engagement something has gone very horribly wrong.
Will F-22s feature as heavily in US over seas deployments once the F-35 comes into service? I Still see a need for a pure Interceptor/air super type aircraft.
Spartak wrote: In March 2013 USAF test pilots noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[185] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[186] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):
Eh, that's a tad misleading. It was one Air Force pilot in one report. And he's right, as far as I can tell; aft visibility isn't great, but EODAS is designed to make up for that.
There's a decent argument to be made, of course, that if EODAS goes down, the plane's fethed, and it's probably true to a large extent.
Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Unsure what this refers to. We're flying them, currently.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
That's not F-35 specific. Any ejection seat can fail, and if it does, you're dead.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
Haven't heard anything about that myself, but sounds like an iPad-level fix.
The radar performs poorly or not at all.
This one's just confusing. The AN/APG-81's an amazing radar, very likely the best we can field in a fighter. It specced very well out of design, and nobody thought it'd do what Northrop Grumman claimed - and then it exceeded expectations in operational testing.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
That needs to come down, but two hours is likely a pipe dream.
Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.
ROVER's the gak, but we'll likely just pod it, like we do with everything else it's deployed on. Won't be much of an issue, as I can't imagine you could come up with a scenario where we'd want to use it without air superiority, so the hit to RCS won't be a big deal.
This is from Wikipedia. The pilots I work with seem to have very positive view of the F22 and think the F35 is a load of high priced gak. I don't really have an opinion as I'm not a pilot and I haven't done a ton of research on that airframe.
This is the part I'm most interested in, to tell you the truth. Raptor pilots aren't sold on the F-35?
Not Raptor pilots specifically, I'm talking about fighter pilots in general. I work for a RPA SQ and we pull pilots from all over the AF. It's a pretty interesting mix of people. Now a few years ago I wouldn't have valued their opinions very much as the unofficial AF policy was to pull pilots from the bottom of the barrel so to speak. As the RPA community has grown and become more mainstream it's done a full 180, SQ's are being forced to give up some of their best guys to come fly. (neither the flying SQ or the pilots are very happy about it) The general consensus is that the 22 is deadly, almost every guy I talk to has a "I was dead before I knew the 22 was in the area" story. No one has a positive story, firsthand or otherwise with the 35.
Spartak wrote: Not Raptor pilots specifically, I'm talking about fighter pilots in general. I work for a RPA SQ and we pull pilots from all over the AF. It's a pretty interesting mix of people. Now a few years ago I wouldn't have valued their opinions very much as the unofficial AF policy was to pull pilots from the bottom of the barrel so to speak. As the RPA community has grown and become more mainstream it's done a full 180, SQ's are being forced to give up some of their best guys to come fly. (neither the flying SQ or the pilots are very happy about it) The general consensus is that the 22 is deadly, almost every guy I talk to has a "I was dead before I knew the 22 was in the area" story. No one has a positive story, firsthand or otherwise with the 35.
Welp, I can say with a hundred percent certainty that at least one former naval aviator likes it, though I don't have firsthand experience with it. There's an extremely small number of guys who do.
Funny thing is? The F-35 might very well see the Raptor before the Raptor sees it. We'll just have to see where the F-35's RCS finally lands. It's definitely got the better AESA.
Mr. Burning wrote: Pretty poor decision to omit the gun but if a -35 finds itself in a turning engagement something has gone very horribly wrong.
Will F-22s feature as heavily in US over seas deployments once the F-35 comes into service? I Still see a need for a pure Interceptor/air super type aircraft.
I also am not to worried about the gun not being there, not so much because it doesn't need it, which in theory it shouldn't. I'm more worried that as far as a jet fighter the thing can't maneuver, so a gun wouldn't matter anyway. It really is a pig, it my be fast and have supercruise (once they can figure out how to keep it from melting...yeah that's right it melts), but it can't maneuver at all. The theory that it can knock enemies out of the sky before they even know its there better hold true, this aircraft is a big fat sniper, not a fighter.
Not to mention it is a horrible platform for any kind of CAS mission! Seriously remove the whole stealth part from the Marines version, they don't need it. Maybe the weight saved will let them carry more arms, currently as a strike fighter it can't carry much ordnance.
The issue is the "One plane to rule them all" idea. Anybody who knows anything about aircraft knows it just cant be done, well it can, but not very well. Plus trying to shoehorn planes to fit missions, costs a hell of a lot more in the long run. Aircraft are at their best as position players. Yes you can effectively mulit role....to a point, push that too far and you have mission capability problems and major cost issues.
The F-35 might very well see the Raptor before the Raptor sees it. We'll just have to see where the F-35's RCS finally lands. It's definitely got the better AESA.
Yes but f-35s signature is all over the place, nobody seams to know what it will be in the end, will it be a marble? or will it be a beach ball as some people say?
Look i think it will end up working out, it might be a good replacement for the f-16 and f-18 as a multi role utility vehicle. As a sniper it may be excellent, as a front line fighter, interceptor, I have concerns and the aircraft has issues. Aircraft get jumped, especially when performing certain missions. If a f35 gets jumped.....I think its lack of actual dogfighter DNA is going to get it killed.
Also as a main CAS platform its a complete waste, way too expensive, unmaneuverable and no payload. CAS aircraft take a beating from weapons that stealth is not going to mitigate, I have strong doubts that this aircraft can take a beating, not only that, it will be a hanger queen to repair even the smallest scratch on its stealth hide.
For the record (and Andrew in particular) the 35B outperforms the aircraft it's been replacing, the AV-8B Harrier II in payload, range, speed and just about everything else. It has been a goddamn FANTASTIC strike fighter in it's many long years of service and has done quite well by my fellow jarheads on the ground. It stacks up pretty nicely to the F-18 as well which is our OTHER CAS support. So... I'm just curious how much you (Andrew) know what you're talking about when it comes to CAS aircraft. The boys in the dirt love seeing Viper and Venom (the new block Super Cobra and Huey) come in to feth gak up, they carry significantly less payload then just a Harrier.
I haven't heard anything about the 35 being a brick, and have heard quite the opposite, Seaward, would you perhaps know someone who'd know more on that? Or have any info you'd already know?
It has been a goddamn FANTASTIC strike fighter in it's many long years of service and has done quite well by my fellow jarheads on the ground.
The f35 has not been used in combat yet. Do you know what you are talking about?
Are you referring to the harrier, which is a nice aircraft but nowhere near as capable as an f/a-18 ,f-16 or a-10 which the f-35 is also replacing. Jump jets are great for certain missions, but for the most part the extra weight is a limiting factor. Weight is always the most precious commodity of an airframe, it affects every aspect of performance; Speed, Range, Payload, Climb and Turn rate...basically everything, is affected by weight. The f-35 is heavy because it has too many roles, each requiring weight which is not needed for the other roles. Stealth on a CAS bird is as useful as tits on a bull, but I guarantee you that every time that coating gets scratched they are going to make it sit in a hanger and get repaired.
The sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter. On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.
Not withstanding talks of budget cuts, the A-10 is scheduled to be in service until 2040 at least, meaning the F-35 will not be replacing it anytime soon.
djones520 wrote: Not withstanding talks of budget cuts, the A-10 is scheduled to be in service until 2040 at least, meaning the F-35 will not be replacing it anytime soon.
Hmm, I don't know that you can even have a conversation right now that does not include budget cut considerations.
I don't expect the A-10 to go anywhere. The Army has to much love for it, and they'll fight any talks of cutting it and replacing it with an untried system, kicking and screaming.
It has been a goddamn FANTASTIC strike fighter in it's many long years of service and has done quite well by my fellow jarheads on the ground.
The f35 has not been used in combat yet. Do you know what you are talking about?
Are you referring to the harrier, which is a nice aircraft but nowhere near as capable as an f/a-18 ,f-16 or a-10 which the f-35 is also replacing. Jump jets are great for certain missions, but for the most part the extra weight is a limiting factor. Weight is always the most precious commodity of an airframe, it affects every aspect of performance; Speed, Range, Payload, Climb and Turn rate...basically everything, is affected by weight. The f-35 is heavy because it has too many roles, each requiring weight which is not needed for the other roles. Stealth on a CAS bird is as useful as tits on a bull, but I guarantee you that every time that coating gets scratched they are going to make it sit in a hanger and get repaired.
The sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter. On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.
Calm down sparky I was talking harriers, and if quoting random blogs is the end all be all of debate we all owe Whembly an apology. I was also one of the first to mention WE (as in the Marine Corps) don't really need the stealth crap for the CAS/CAP role we use our harriers in. Thanks for the reminder though.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I haven't heard anything about the 35 being a brick, and have heard quite the opposite, Seaward, would you perhaps know someone who'd know more on that? Or have any info you'd already know?
Its closest maneuverability analogue is going to be the legacy Hornet, with one important difference - its performance isn't going to go to hell when it's loaded for a strike, because the payload's internal rather than hanging off the wings.
That's something a lot of people overlook when comparing 4th gen and 5th gen fighters. 5th gen fighters fight clean. 4th gens fight with a lot of gak hanging off the wings that impact actual combat performance versus air show performance.
Andrew1975 wrote:Are you referring to the harrier, which is a nice aircraft but nowhere near as capable as an f/a-18 ,f-16 or a-10 which the f-35 is also replacing. Jump jets are great for certain missions, but for the most part the extra weight is a limiting factor.
Which isn't a big deal at all for the mission the Marines have in mind for it. B variants exist, as everything else in the Corps does, to support the rifleman. You don't need a full strike package load to run CAS. For the better part of a decade we've been shooting even Super Hornets off the deck with one or two JDAMs under the wing, max, because you're not going to get called in to hit multiple targets during your box hop, and if you head off loaded for bear, you're just going to be dumping a gakload of ordinance into the sea before you can get back aboard.
The sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C.
The sustained turn rates haven't been reduced to anything. The performance requirement set by the program office has been reduced. We have no idea what speed, altitude, bank angle, and weight they're using as a target for sustained g, so the lowering (or raising) of that requirement doesn't tell us much at all. It could be sea level, it could be 30,000 feet. There's no one 'maximum sustained g' rate for any given aircraft, because it depends on all the stuff I mentioned above.
The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter.
Well, why's an F-16 being compared to an F-35C? You'd want to compare the F-16 to an F-35A, because that's the Air Force variant. The C's going to be the slowest accelerator of the three, because it has a larger wing. There aren't a lot of aircraft designed for naval aviation that will out-accelerate landlubber fighters. As far as transonic acceleration goes, the F-35C has the Super Hornet beat, so if the F-35C's transonic acceleration ain't good enough, we better start retiring Rhinos.
Those "several fighter pilots" wouldn't work for Boeing, would they? Because Boeing has a lot of guys on the Block III Super Hornet/Advanced Super Hornet program trying to convince the Navy to ditch the C and go with yet another version of the Bug.
On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.
No. No, no, no, no, no. I've seen this one a lot lately, and it's one of the few claims that really make my blood boil.
What happened is a test pilot was talking about transonic testing, and described the courses they ran - accelerate up to Mach 1.2, turn, accelerate up to Mach 1.4, turn, accelerate up to Mach 1.6. Unfortunately, a large section of the blogosphere didn't consider that statement in context - namely, the context of the rather narrow confines of airspace over test ranges where you're allowed to go supersonic. The F-35 didn't need to turn to accelerate to its top speed (which would make zero sense, anyway); it needed to turn to stay inside the supersonic box. Unfortunately, a lot of people who didn't know what they were talking about read it and decided that it meant, no, in order to accelerate above Mach 1, the F-35 needs to perform some weird mating dance.
You're absolutely right about weight, though, and the potential folly of trying to cram three different services' requirements into one plane. It's full of compromises and stuff one service needs that another doesn't, or lacking in things that one service needs that another doesn't, but even as a horse built by committee, it wound up pretty damn good. Not great, not perfect, but very, very good.
Well and that is kind of the issue also. Nobody really knows what it is capable of yet and we are how many years and dollars in? Setting the bar at the performance rates of the planes you are replacing is pretty ....unimpressive. No doubt what makes the f-35 so potentially potent is its electronics. The performance of the airframe itself though is questionable, as it has mission bloat and with the requirements that were given it was always going to. The whole idea that one frame can do everything is pretty ridiculous.
I would not have a performance issue if this was just to be a multi role aircraft (I would still have a budgetary issue though). I think it may work well in that aspect, much like the f-16. The air force will have the f-22 for air superiority to fly cap for f-35s, I question the navy however not developing their own air superiority fighter in exchange for this. While I do like the super hornet, its not what is needed. What is needed is a navy air superiority/interdiction fighter with fleet defense capabilities. Unfortunately the f35 has eaten all available funding for the foreseeable future.
I only posted the other site because you had asked for some other opinions from people in the know. I honestly don't have any personal experience with the craft, but from what I have read, its not sounding promising.
The f35 comes from the same minds that brought us the Osprey. Which I still think was a terribly expensive and unnecessary project.
Andrew1975 wrote: Well and that is kind of the issue also. Nobody really knows what it is capable of yet and we are how many years and dollars in? Setting the bar at the performance rates of the planes you are replacing is pretty ....unimpressive. No doubt what makes the f-35 so potentially potent is its electronics. The performance of the airframe itself though is questionable, as it has mission bloat and with the requirements that were given it was always going to. The whole idea that one frame can do everything is pretty ridiculous.
Nobody in the general public knows what it's really capable of yet, true, but I doubt it's accurate to say the military doesn't have a good idea. A lot of its capabilities are classified, and are going to remain that way for a few years. The F-22, for example, still doesn't use everything it's got in mock engagements with our allies, because there's still some stuff about it that we keep classified.
I would not have a performance issue if this was just to be a multi role aircraft (I would still have a budgetary issue though). I think it may work well in that aspect, much like the f-16. The air force will have the f-22 for air superiority to fly cap for f-35s, I question the navy however not developing their own air superiority fighter in exchange for this. While I do like the super hornet, its not what is needed. What is needed is a navy air superiority/interdiction fighter with fleet defense capabilities. Unfortunately the f35 has eaten all available funding for the foreseeable future.
I'd be first in line for a 5th gen Navy air superiority fighter, but I have to admit I think we'll be able to get by without one until 6th gen, which is the first point the Navy's really looking at returning to the that type of aircraft.
I only posted the other site because you had asked for some other opinions from people in the know. I honestly don't have any personal experience with the craft, but from what I have read, its not sounding promising.
Well, I definitely hope you don't feel like I'm being confrontational or anything, or even belittling your opinion. Absolutely not my intent. I'm very interested in people's impressions of it, and if you don't buy into it, you don't buy into it. That's absolutely fair. I'm just trying to explain my perspective on the plane, and why I feel that certain ways of looking at it aren't necessarily as valid as others at getting the whole picture of what it'll actually bring to the table when it finally enters service. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if it were a Mach 2.5 panty dropper, but I have to admit I don't think it needs to be in order to be an effective strike fighter.
Oh not at all. I'm not military, but I grew up with it and was surrounded by it. I know how military people get when they get a new toy. Its always the best, and you never grumble in public.
There has been a lot of unnecessary toy buying lately. I wouldn't care if the toys were worth it, or even made sense. To me it seams like spending money just for spending moneys sake. Unfortunately there is a ton of politics that go into military contracts, I find it disgusting.
Take for example the Osprey. I don't get it. The little that it offers in capabilities, it eats in handicaps and costs. Lets break it down Its a very expensive helicopter. Yes it can goes quite a bit faster, but so what. Its not faster than cargo planes, and you are never taking an Osprey into a real combat zone, its defenseless, its a giant target, its expensive and when it does get hit it can't auto-rotate. I can't really think of a many missions where its job could not be done better and or cheaper using other means. Sure there may be very specific missions where it will be a little better, but was those missions are so rare, I have to ask is it really worth the cost.
Same with the f35. I don't see where it was needed. It doesn't replace top of the line air superiority aircraft, it was never really meant to, it's basically meant to be a multi role jack of all trades. The issue is that the Navy and Airforce already have very capable Jack of all trades aircraft. The f-18 and f-16 are very capable and will be for quite some time. Now they may not be super state of the art, but really multirole utility craft don't have to be. What is out there that we are actually likely to come into conflict with that is going to be able to kick f-16s and f-18s around....not much. Are we worried about T50s and J20s? Those should never really be a strike fighters concern. Strike f-16s with f22s flying CAP are a match for anything currently on the table and anything on the horizon.
If we had taken the money spent on the f-35 and created a Naval air superiority fighter we could have extended the f18s life into, well almost forever. We do not need anything better than this to drop bombs on 90% of the world. That other 10%, well we still have the strike fighters to do it, they just need great coverage from air superiority CAP.
Just think about that. The US uses some of the worlds most capable airframes as back up utility craft......and we want to replace them? I say get the most out of them. You pay Ferrari prices for Ferraris, not utility vehicles. Spend the money on a state of the art Naval Air superiority fighters. A role which the navy really has no plane for now and doesn't have anything on the drawing board as the f35 pretty much ate any chance of getting one.
djones520 wrote: I grumble in public all the time about our new toys. FMQ-19 is a piece of gak, and their trying to justify taking my job away because of it.
You are not seriously comparing a weather gathering station to high profile front line combat equipment are you? Mundane garbage always sucks in the military. Look at your food
The early m16 was state of the art tits in the military, the latest modern marvel in combat technology using new compounds, it was self cleaning and never jammed ..... until combat proved that it wasn't and it had to be reworked.
djones520 wrote: I grumble in public all the time about our new toys. FMQ-19 is a piece of gak, and their trying to justify taking my job away because of it.
You are not seriously comparing a weather gathering station to high profile front line combat equipment are you? Mundane garbage always sucks in the military. Look at your food
djones520 wrote: I grumble in public all the time about our new toys. FMQ-19 is a piece of gak, and their trying to justify taking my job away because of it.
You are not seriously comparing a weather gathering station to high profile front line combat equipment are you? Mundane garbage always sucks in the military. Look at your food
Foods honestly not that bad for us. My last deployment I got steak and lobster every sunday.
Now... when the Army guys came through Manas, it was a little surprising we didn't have some Blue on Blue moments, when they saw how we ate compaired to how they ate while in Afghanistan...
Hey, weather's important. If the tankers are late because of bad weather on their route in, then Ace Acerson the gak-hot Hornet driver's going to be getting a tie from Martin-Baker.
Seaward wrote: Hey, weather's important. If the tankers are late because of bad weather on their route in, then Ace Acerson the gak-hot Hornet driver's going to be getting a tie from Martin-Baker.
That's not all we do. It's just a shame you had to put up with AG's... those guys couldn't forecast their way out of a wet paper back with a map and a hammer.
Andrew1975 wrote: Same with the f35. I don't see where it was needed. It doesn't replace top of the line air superiority aircraft, it was never really meant to, it's basically meant to be a multi role jack of all trades. The issue is that the Navy and Airforce already have very capable Jack of all trades aircraft. The f-18 and f-16 are very capable and will be for quite some time. Now they may not be super state of the art, but really multirole utility craft don't have to be. What is out there that we are actually likely to come into conflict with that is going to be able to kick f-16s and f-18s around....not much. Are we worried about T50s and J20s? Those should never really be a strike fighters concern. Strike f-16s with f22s flying CAP are a match for anything currently on the table and anything on the horizon.
You're only thinking of the air-to-air threat, which has proven to be pretty tiny over the past 30 years. The F-35 isn't just better against air threats than F-16s and F-18s, it's also much better at defending against ground-based threats, which have been the cause of every fighter we've lost to a shoot-down since the Vietnam War, and remain the overwhelming majority of the threat we face in any given realistic future scenario.
If we had taken the money spent on the f-35 and created a Naval air superiority fighter we could have extended the f18s life into, well almost forever. We do not need anything better than this to drop bombs on 90% of the world. That other 10%, well we still have the strike fighters to do it, they just need great coverage from air superiority CAP.
I disagree strongly. Even tinpot states will have at least 1960's-era Soviet SAM sites here and there, and that technology's proven that it can shoot down both Hornets and Vipers.
Andrew1975 wrote: If we had taken the money spent on the f-35 and created a Naval air superiority fighter we could have extended the f18s life into, well almost forever.
No you can't, because fatigue is a very real problem, especially for a plane that gets abused by carrier operation. Military aircraft are built with a limited number of flight hours available before they're just a pile of very expensive scrap metal, and maintenance costs get really bad when you near the end of that life. At some point you have to buy new fighters anyway, so your choice is between buying new F-18s or buying new F-35s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I disagree strongly. Even tinpot states will have at least 1960's-era Soviet SAM sites here and there, and that technology's proven that it can shoot down both Hornets and Vipers.
Well, the question is how many of those tinpot states will have their SAM sites after the initial attack. Obviously we need the ability to destroy those defenses without zerg rushing a horde of expendable fighters at them, but let's be realistic here. Our recent wars have consisted of a few days of smashing stuff followed by years of fighting goat herders with AK47s that a 737 with bomb racks could handle.
The primary characteristic of a naval airplane is that it can get on and off carriers safely. That always compromises certain aspects of the design and makes it heavier than the land version of the plane.
Another problem facing carriers is lack of space to put aircraft. An plane that can perform effectively in multiple roles is extremely useful.
You can't complain about a naval fighter-bomber whose performance in air combat is slightly less than a land fighter.
Peregrine wrote: Well, the question is how many of those tinpot states will have their SAM sites after the initial attack. Obviously we need the ability to destroy those defenses without zerg rushing a horde of expendable fighters at them, but let's be realistic here. Our recent wars have consisted of a few days of smashing stuff followed by years of fighting goat herders with AK47s that a 737 with bomb racks could handle.
Which is why Super Hornets and Strike Eagles and the like aren't going anywhere for several decades. That doesn't negate the need for very low observable strike aircraft that can operate in a more conventional environment, however. If we ever do duke it out with China over Taiwan, for example, we're going to need stealthy strike fighters.
Or even just against Iraq analogues. Here's the the way things can go in not-very-low-observable strike packages over a "quantity over quality" air defense network, from 1991's Q-Package strike into downtown Baghdad. 2 minutes in is right before they start getting painted.
Seaward wrote: That doesn't negate the need for very low observable strike aircraft that can operate in a more conventional environment, however.
Sure, I'm not disputing that we need that ability. My question is how much of it do we really need? Is there a plausible enemy with air defenses that can't be handled by stealth bombers/over-the-horizon cruise missiles/F-22s with bombs/expendable drones/etc? How many F-35s do we need to accomplish this goal before we're back to Iraq/Afghanistan-style wars where a 737 with bomb racks would be a viable option (and hey, awesome endurance!).
If we ever do duke it out with China over Taiwan, for example, we're going to need stealthy strike fighters.
Is this even remotely plausible? I mean, aside from the question of whether or not anyone is going to commit political suicide by starting yet another war when they can't even get support for a much more limited attack on Syria, what does anyone have to gain here? Last I heard China doesn't have a navy capable of transporting enough troops over to do anything, and I can't see them giving up their biggest trading partner over an irrelevant point of pride like Taiwan.
Is this even remotely plausible? I mean, aside from the question of whether or not anyone is going to commit political suicide by starting yet another war when they can't even get support for a much more limited attack on Syria, what does anyone have to gain here? Last I heard China doesn't have a navy capable of transporting enough troops over to do anything, and I can't see them giving up their biggest trading partner over an irrelevant point of pride like Taiwan.
China has been spending a lot of money upgrading that Navy. We wouldn't start that fight, for sure, but should China pull the trigger, we will get Taiwans back. It's unlikely we'll ever see that conflic, but it's one of the more real threats out there, so we have to be prepared for it.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, I'm not disputing that we need that ability. My question is how much of it do we really need? Is there a plausible enemy with air defenses that can't be handled by stealth bombers/over-the-horizon cruise missiles/F-22s with bombs/expendable drones/etc? How many F-35s do we need to accomplish this goal before we're back to Iraq/Afghanistan-style wars where a 737 with bomb racks would be a viable option (and hey, awesome endurance!).
Sure, any smartly-run AD network isn't going to be taken out day one by over-the-horizon strikes. Look at the Serbs, for example. Mobile sites that were never in the same place twice, switching on only for a few seconds at a time to get a glance, and then switching back off unless they had an immediate target. Managed to down an F-117 (which was outdated stealth tech at the time, admittedly) and some F-16s. Didn't stop us from doing what we were there to do, but they weren't really trying to stop everything moving from dropping bombs, just trying to shoot down enough to get us to figure it wasn't worth it and leave. And they preserved their AD net while doing it.
Is this even remotely plausible? I mean, aside from the question of whether or not anyone is going to commit political suicide by starting yet another war when they can't even get support for a much more limited attack on Syria, what does anyone have to gain here? Last I heard China doesn't have a navy capable of transporting enough troops over to do anything, and I can't see them giving up their biggest trading partner over an irrelevant point of pride like Taiwan.
Is it plausible within the next 30 years? Sure, probably. Likely? No.
If China decides it wants to obliterate Taiwan and massacre the populace, they can probably do it before the US can stop them. They wouldn't be able to hold it, but if everything there is smoking rubble, they probably wouldn't want to.
Of course, then the US has the fun of conducting a war against China. In which case that F-35 will probably come in handy.
At the risk of dragging the topic at hand OT. If China were to invade Taiwan then the US has got to use all of its gak hot wonder weapons to prevent a sizeable landing.
Once the Chinese get ashore, and dig in, all The F-35's in the world are not going to be worth a damn. But then, A-10s aren't really going to help either.
Maybe a GAU-8 armed Lightning II IS the answer.......
Mr. Burning wrote: At the risk of dragging the topic at hand OT. If China were to invade Taiwan then the US has got to use all of its gak hot wonder weapons to prevent a sizeable landing.
Once the Chinese get ashore, and dig in, all The F-35's in the world are not going to be worth a damn. But then, A-10s aren't really going to help either.
Maybe a GAU-8 armed Lightning II IS the answer.......
As an engineer that supported aspects of both the F-22 and F-35, to include AESA capability. I totally agree with SEAWARD. There are aspects to the design that make the F-35 and F-22 ( in laymans terms) similar to the conquistadors with their armor and steel swords vs the native indians who were basically naked and armed with wooden clubs.
These two aircraft are hands down the best of the best in anyones airforce.
There can be something said to the rushed engineering, but that will happen with any new program. There will always be engineering challenges to overcome, and program managers that make unrealistic promises that put unfortunate pressure on engineers.
I think we need to continue to develop the capability, but I question the need for massive build ups.
Mr. Burning wrote: At the risk of dragging the topic at hand OT. If China were to invade Taiwan then the US has got to use all of its gak hot wonder weapons to prevent a sizeable landing.
Once the Chinese get ashore, and dig in, all The F-35's in the world are not going to be worth a damn. But then, A-10s aren't really going to help either.
Maybe a GAU-8 armed Lightning II IS the answer.......
Logistically China cant invade Taiwan and won't be able to for some time, at least not conventionally. The Chinese lack the ability to project their force over any real distance due to (primarily but not exclusively) their almost total lack of air refueling capability. While they may have hundreds of aircraft, they can only sustain combat operations with a small number at any given time, at any real distance from their bases of operation. Any attempted landing is going to be without any real air support and consequently is a pretty bad idea. The Chinese government/military are well aware of this.
Aren't the their Flankers in range of Taiwan? Their main AA batteries, Sukhoi squadrons, SS missile battalions and some of their best navy units are spitting distance from Taiwan itself.
Their Navy can handle crossing the straights just fine. But I agree without a great blue water navy they would'nt stand a chance. hence their decades old programm to bring their assets up to scratch.
@SEAWARD. Isn't the J-20 supposed to be more of a Strike Bomber. I have read reports that it configuration would put in that role along with that of a pure non maneuvering interceptor such as the Mig 25?
Their are lots of rumors that planned Russian and Chinese developments in stealth aircraft will be to create types to take out force multipliers such as AWACS ,Tankers and other EW assets. I know a lot of speculation has gone on about the KH-55 missile being used against AWACs.
For the record for whoever was talking trash on the Osprey, it's speed, range and manuverability are fantastic upgrades in comparison to the Sea Knight helicopter it's replacing and it absolutely has delivered troops into combat. It's got one less machinegun then your average transport chopper, but we're looking at all sorts of fun modifications for that. (stealing the Apache's "look and shoot" nose gun for an example of one thing I've heard is being kicked around) it is not an expensive helicopter, it is an expensive plane with some very unique landing abilities. I got buddies who fly on those birds every day. It's a hell of a platform and a program I'm very disappointed I wasn't able to accept a position on.
Mr. Burning wrote: Aren't the their Flankers in range of Taiwan? Their main AA batteries, Sukhoi squadrons, SS missile battalions and some of their best navy units are spitting distance from Taiwan itself.
Their Navy can handle crossing the straights just fine. But I agree without a great blue water navy they would'nt stand a chance. hence their decades old programm to bring their assets up to scratch.
@SEAWARD. Isn't the J-20 supposed to be more of a Strike Bomber. I have read reports that it configuration would put in that role along with that of a pure non maneuvering interceptor such as the Mig 25?
Their are lots of rumors that planned Russian and Chinese developments in stealth aircraft will be to create types to take out force multipliers such as AWACS ,Tankers and other EW assets. I know a lot of speculation has gone on about the KH-55 missile being used against AWACs.
It may be a long (ish) range fighter/bomber, its designation by the Chinese is as an air superiority fighter but there is a LOT of speculation on that. There is a lot of stuff in range of Taiwan, that doesn't mean you can sustain extended combat ops without the proper logistics.
Mr. Burning wrote: @SEAWARD. Isn't the J-20 supposed to be more of a Strike Bomber. I have read reports that it configuration would put in that role along with that of a pure non maneuvering interceptor such as the Mig 25?
From what little I know of it, it looks an awful lot like some sort of long-range VLO strike aircraft, yeah. It would not surprise me at all if the use they had in mind for it was as a maritime striker. It's very difficult to stop a carrier group, but using long-range stealth aircraft to hit us might be a way.
Oh its extremely important seeing as the f35 "Lightning" Can't fly within 25 miles of a storm! Oddly enough a p38 lighting can fly through a storm, but a f35 can not! This is not new technology, how did this get missed? Jets flying though storms is not something new!
No you can't, because fatigue is a very real problem, especially for a plane that gets abused by carrier operation. Military aircraft are built with a limited number of flight hours available before they're just a pile of very expensive scrap metal, and maintenance costs get really bad when you near the end of that life. At some point you have to buy new fighters anyway, so your choice is between buying new F-18s or buying new F-35s.
Right, im not saying use the same f-18s and f16s. Just build new ones and upgrade them. Tons cheaper than developing the f35. Hey it takes how long to change the engine on a f35?
The primary characteristic of a naval airplane is that it can get on and off carriers safely.
Is it? Well the f35 can't do that at all yet, and when it does eventually figure it out, it may be a widowmaker because the airframe just isn't cooperating with how tailhooks classically work. See usually a Naval aircraft is built with landing on a deck in mind, not as an afterthought. You can't just add a tailhook and really strong undercarriage, these kind of have to be designed into the airframe.
An plane that can perform effectively in multiple roles is extremely useful.
Yes and they already have those in spades, and they work pretty well.
There can be something said to the rushed engineering, but that will happen with any new program. There will always be engineering challenges to overcome, and program managers that make unrealistic promises that put unfortunate pressure on engineers.
Rushed engineering is one thing. Fixing obvious flaws before production starts is another. Setting realistic goals and expectations is another. When the government puts out a request for the miricle plane, it really is up to engineers to go, "Seriously? That's not possible" instead of "Give me all your money and we will throw something together"
I think we need to continue to develop the capability
Is this not what X series aircraft are for? You test before implementation!
For the record for whoever was talking trash on the Osprey, Snip
Yes it has its uses. But are those few times where they are really needed worth $35.6 Billion?
it absolutely has delivered troops into combat
No it hasn't, not in a hot Vietnam or Black hawk down situation. Yes it has been fired upon and people have taken pot shots at it, but it has not seen serious action....because it won't and shouldn't. Its basically defenseless. Yes it has a machine gun.....up it's ASS! GOD please don't arm or armor it. The cross section of an Osprey is f#&*$ gigantic, it is a giant target compared to even a blackhawk or a Shithook, not to mention it has giant hotspots that just scream for infra missles, yet because it is so F'ing Huge RPG's will do just as well. Did I mention its big, 32 troops big, plus crew. If anybody even thinks about putting one of those in serious harms way, they need to be sent home.
Thank God nobody has been lucky enough to hit one of those fully loaded. At least in a normal helicopter you can auto rotate and prey for a landing.
Again, the Osprey functions fine and does what was asked of it. I just think the money could have been spent better or not at all. It's mission is not crucial, yeah it may be convenient every now and then, but should we be spending 35 billion on convenience, when we can effectively complete the mission without it?
Some procurement guy comes up with some radical, complex idea and throws a bunch of tax payer money at it, of course contractors are going to take the money and deliver the product, then someone will find a way to shoehorn it in.
I would rather have seen Comanches get produced than Ospreys. 35 billion for taxis? Oh my head hurts. I swear these projects are passed by the same people "wouldn't it be neat" guys that directed ID4, yes cool factor is cool...but really?
I can't comment on most of that, but the weather aspect is definitely my field of expertise.
For not flying withing 25 miles of a storm, that's standard for all aircraft. Severe to extreme turbulence and icing are inherent risks with convective weather (thunder storms), plus the risk of being struck by lightning and hail.
We do not fly through convective weather. We fly around it. Doesn't matter if you are an F-22 or a C-130 (unless it's an HC-130, but that's a whole different beast).
Andrew1975 wrote: Oh its extremely important seeing as the f35 "Lightning" Can't fly within 25 miles of a storm! Oddly enough a p38 lighting can fly through a storm, but a f35 can not! This is not new technology, how did this get missed? Jets flying though storms is not something new!
It's also a pretty easy fix. The OBIGGS just needs to be tuned.
I'm glad to know Andrew that you're such an expert on how we use the Osprey and how useful they are. Enjoy your blogging.
P.S. it's not that much bigger then the CH-46 and it's no where near as large as a CH-53E Super Stallion both of which have, ONE MACHINE GUN
Still a valuable combat aircraft, that's in desperate need of replacement. There were fourth generation Sea Knight pilots man. That's an old freaking airframe, and in it's replacement we picked up a bunch of new, very useful capacities, including more legs, and more lift, getting troops, supplies and other vital equipment where planes can't go, and helos can't reach. That's awesome.
Continue to rave, especially when you bring up the down right useless comanche. I mean come on, that damn thing couldn't even lift itself with a combat load of equipment.
The bottom line is not every helo's a gunship, and we (being the Marine Corps) have a VERY vital use for so called "Taxis" to carry out our littoral control and strike mission. We need to put boots places faster, quicker and then with more support then the other guys. We live and DIE on our ship to shore "taxis". If the MV-22 can get in with the most reinforcements or supplies fastest and head back to the LHD or LPD with casulaties, again much faster then the other helo options, then you bet it was a good investment of 36 billion.
Do you not see how much bigger of a target that is? The Osprey is 45 ft wide, not counting the rotors blades which are truly big ass.. The Sea Stallion by comparison is 15 feet wide in most parts, 28 feet if you count the stubby wings. The surface area of a Osprey has to be at least twice possibly 3 times what a sea stallion is. That is one hell of an easy big target.
I know which one I would rather be in for a hostile insertion. Hell I'd rather be in a Pave low 53 than a Osprey. If I'm being shot at, put me in a Huey or a little bird, I want to be tiny and possibly survive if the craft gets hit.
Of course taxis are important. You want to know what vehicle was absolutely game changing in WW2? Studebaker trucks sent to Russia! I get it, but we have already have taxis.
Oh and I wssn't saying we need Comanches. The idea of armys of helicopters blowing up Russian tanks is dead. But a light, fast, stealthy, quiet, armed, recon helicopter would be pretty useful. However we can accomplish the same mission basically using what we have, just like the role of battle taxis or multi role fighters.
I finally got a chance to read through this, and there was a little nugget at the end of the blog whose importance can't be overstated.
In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 2009, Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed—a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s entire avionics system—engaged a mixed force of F-22s and Boeing F-15s and was able to locate and jam F-22 radars, according to researchers. - Aviation Week, 2011
I hadn't read that before. I've heard glowing reviews of the AN/APG-81 from insiders, but if that's truly the case, you could give me a jet with a top speed of 300 knots and the maneuverability of a hippo on roller skates and I'd take it, as long as it had that avionics package. The fact that the F-35's actually got better moves than a Viper at subsonic speed - where the fight happens, anyway - is just icing on the cake.
Which begs the point. What do we need the new airframe for? What appears to make the f35 so nasty is the package. Could that not be put in anything already existing?
We know very little about actual maneuverability of the f-35, what we do know is that is can't fly in inclement weather, it can't land on a carrier, and it melts its own skin off when it flies. Those are some pretty awful issues to have after how many years in development? Were they building this thing from scratch with absolutely no research?
Andrew1975 wrote: Which begs the point. What do we need the new airframe for? What appears to make the f35 so nasty is the package. Could that not be put in anything already existing?
Nope.
We know very little about actual maneuverability of the f-35, what we do know is that is can't fly in inclement weather, it can't land on a carrier, and it melts its own skin off when it flies. Those are some pretty awful issues to have after how many years in development? Were they building this thing from scratch with absolutely no research?
Well, we know a lot about its maneuverability. It can fly in inclement weather as soon as the OBIGGS system is fixed - a much smaller task than, for example, fixing the F-14's hydraulic system, or designing new engines to eliminate its nasty tendency to lose an engine to a compressor stall, something that wasn't truly solved until the D. The F-35B lands on STOVL carriers just fine, and is reportedly spookily good at it. The C needs a redesigned tailhook. Not the first plane with that issue, probably not the last.
Boeing has revealed that it has retrofitted retired fighter jets to turn them into drones.
It said that one of the Lockheed Martin F-16 made a first flight with an empty cockpit last week.
Two US Air Force pilots controlled the plane from the ground as it flew from a Florida base to the Gulf of Mexico.
Boeing suggested that the innovation could ultimately be used to help train pilots, providing an adversary they could practise firing on.
The jet - which had previously sat mothballed at an Arizona site for 15 years - flew at an altitude of 40,000ft (12.2km) and a speed of Mach 1.47 (1,119mph/1,800km/h).
It carried out a series of manoeuvres including a barrel roll and a "split S" - a move in which the aircraft turns upside down before making a half loop so that it flies the right-way-up in the opposite direction. This can be used in combat to evade missile lock-ons.
Boeing said the unmanned F16 was followed by two chase planes to ensure it stayed in sight, and also contained equipment that would have allowed it to self-destruct if necessary.
The firm added that the flight attained 7Gs of acceleration but was capable of carrying out manoeuvres at 9Gs - something that might cause physical problems for a pilot.
"It flew great, everything worked great, [it] made a beautiful landing - probably one of the best landings I've ever seen," said Paul Cejas, the project's chief engineer.
Lt Col Ryan Inman, Commander of the US Air Force's 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron, also had praise for how the test had gone.
QF-16 jet
Boeing said that this was the first time an F-16 jet had been flown without a pilot
"It was a little different to see it without anyone in it, but it was a great flight all the way around," he said.
Boeing said that it had a total of six modified F-16s, which have been renamed QF-16s, and that the US military now planned to use some of them in live fire tests.
However, a spokesman for the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots warned of the temptation to use them in warfare.
"I'm very concerned these could be used to target people on the ground," said Prof Noel Sharkey.
"I'm particularly worried about the high speed at which they can travel because they might not be able to distinguish their targets very clearly.
"There is every reason to believe that these so-called 'targets' could become a test bed for drone warfare, moving us closer and closer to automated killing."
We have been remote contolling target f-4s for decades. You used to see them all the time in movies and TV. I remember seeing one blow up and thinking "Hey he wasn't flying an f4 a second ago".
1) The older planes weren't designed for it. Unlike, say, a truck, a plane is extremely sensitive to weight and balance issues. The safe center of gravity range can be measured in inches, and if you leave that safe range the plane becomes dangerously unstable (if you can even fly it at all). You can't just bolt on new stuff anywhere you want, and it may be the case that the older planes simply don't have a good spot to put the new hardware. Or just that redesigning them to accommodate the new stuff would cost so much time and money that it gets too close to the price of just buying F-35s.
2) The fundamental principle of a modern fighter is "see them before they see you". Even if you can get the electronics into an older airframe you've still got the high radar cross section, which means the enemy is going to spot you first.
I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe. We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.
I like stealth for air superiority fighters, but not so much strike craft. There are plenty of ways to jam and defeat Air defenses without it. Strike Aircraft should always have escorts for defense against air to air. Yes we have lost a few craft to air defenses....but I don't know that stealth is really the answer for that anyway.
Andrew1975 wrote: I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe.
Again, weight and balance.
We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.
And how much did we pay for that redesign, while still getting a less capable aircraft?
There are plenty of ways to jam and defeat Air defenses without it.
But all of them work even better when the plane is a difficult target to begin with. The point isn't that you fly your stealth strike fighter right through the middle of the SAM site's ideal engagement zone on the way to your real target, you use stealth to shrink that zone, open gaps in the defenses, and blow up the SAMs while staying safe from return fire.
Andrew1975 wrote: I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe. We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.
Super Hornet was a brand new airframe, designed to incorporate the advances made.
Andrew1975 wrote: I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe. We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.
Super Hornet was a brand new airframe, designed to incorporate the advances made.
Well it was a new airframe largely based on the lessons learned from the original. Its R&D costs were severely cut based on that fact. I see no reason why it can't be modified again.
And how much did we pay for that redesign, while still getting a less capable aircraft?
Less capable in what respects? Sure it doesn't have jump capabilities, but is that worth $1.5 trillion. The Super hornet is a very capable airplane. It's not stealth, but its pretty close, probably close enough for the couple of days we would be going into anyone's air defense.
We are still planning our battles based on going up against super capable advisories. While we need to have capabilities, we don't need them to this extent and we don't need expedited production of a fleet of aircraft that haven't even been tested yet. Exploring capabilities is one thing, shoehorning a project because we can and we had the spare money....at the time....is irresponsible.
We could have just made the B version of the raptor for far less.
djones520 wrote: I don't expect the A-10 to go anywhere. The Army has to much love for it, and they'll fight any talks of cutting it and replacing it with an untried system, kicking and screaming.
I'm not a plane guy, or a military guy, but I'd be kind of bummed if the A-10 was junked. It's just freaking cool.
Andrew1975 wrote: I like stealth for air superiority fighters, but not so much strike craft. There are plenty of ways to jam and defeat Air defenses without it. Strike Aircraft should always have escorts for defense against air to air. Yes we have lost a few craft to air defenses....but I don't know that stealth is really the answer for that anyway.
I do. Stealth's very much part of the answer. EODAS is another. Considering that, since the end of World War II, we've lost far more aircraft to ground-based anti-air than we have had shot down in aerial combat, it makes a lot of sense to focus on defeating the stuff that actually manages to kill us now and then.
But if you're mandating VLO only for air superiority fighters, we're still in luck. Load the F-35 up with eight AMRAAMs on the dual internal racks they're designing for it, and you have arguably the best air superiority fighter in the world.
No, VLO is great, the f18 is considered VLO, its not true stealth but its not bad. It doesn't need special coatings that wear off or need repaired every mission. Strike craft are going to take hits, thats all there is too it. The only way to stop that is to take out the air defenses, which is not an easy task, you have to know where they are first and they can be mobile. We destroyed the Iraqi Air defense which was pretty formidable while taking minimal losses. Air defense technology has gotten better, but so has our ability to avoid and destroy it.
Ground attack strike fighters have historically been cheap, tough airframes with lots of redundant systems. Multirole craft like the f18 and f16, yeah not so much. However anything with a stealth coating is going to be a hanger queen once you start using it as a general strike bomber.
Andrew1975 wrote: No, VLO is great, the f18 is considered VLO, its not true stealth but its not bad. It doesn't need special coatings that wear off or need repaired every mission. Strike craft are going to take hits, thats all there is too it. The only way to stop that is to take out the air defenses, which is not an easy task, you have to know where they are first and they can be mobile. We destroyed the Iraqi Air defense which was pretty formidable while taking minimal losses. Air defense technology has gotten better, but so has our ability to avoid and destroy it.
The Super Hornet has RCS-reducing features, but it is not VLO. The F-35 will offer massive RCS improvements, considerable air-to-air improvements, better survivability against SAMs, better range...I mean, I could keep going. It's a long list.
I like the Rhino, but the Lightning's a better strike fighter. It's a better strike aircraft. It's a better fighter. That's why the Navy opted for it rather than pursuing Block III Rhinos.
On paper the F-35 looks great, but in practice?
This is a beancounter plane not designed by people in the field, It has the same mark as the Bradly Fighting vehicle all over it except, the issues are ignored or swept under the rug.
I wonder what those who drew up the F-35 will say when the F35 will get shot down by "inferior" 5th generation planes made by other countries
Jehan-reznor wrote: On paper the F-35 looks great, but in practice?
This is a beancounter plane not designed by people in the field, It has the same mark as the Bradly Fighting vehicle all over it except, the issues are ignored or swept under the rug.
I wonder what those who drew up the F-35 will say when the F35 will get shot down by "inferior" 5th generation planes made by other countries
The only other 5th gens on the table are the PAK FA and the J-20. The PAK FA's huge, and is going to have a considerably inferior avionics suite. The J-20 is even bigger, and has some compromises in its very low observability strategy and does not appear to be designed as anything remotely resembling an air superiority fighter, anyway. Both result in aircraft that will be seen long before they can see the F-35, and will consequently be out-fought.
Pilots love the F-35. Civilians hate it. On and on we go.
South Korea restarts fighter jet tender
A F-15 plane
Boeing's bid to supply F-15 jets was being seen as a favourite to win the contract
Continue reading the main story
Aerospace and Defence
Chinese airlines order Airbus A320s
Air France plans to cut 2,800 jobs
Daily Mail settles Ryanair libel
£40m contract for helicopter bases
South Korea has decided to restart the tender process for a multi billion-dollar fighter jet contract.
The move is a blow for Boeing, seen as a favourite to win the initial bidding after rival bids by Lockheed and EADS exceeded Seoul's budget of 8.3 trillion won ($7.7bn; £4.5bn).
Boeing had bid to supply F-15 jets, but authorities said they were looking to acquire more advanced planes.
The new tender process is likely to take one year to complete.
"Our air force thinks that we need combat capabilities in response to the latest trend of aerospace technology development centered around the fifth generation fighter jets and to provocations from North Korea," defence ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok said.
According to report in various media, 15 former air force chiefs had signed a petition earlier this month urging the government not to opt for the Boeing bid.
Boeing said in statement that it was disappointed with the move.
"We await the details from the Defense Acquisition Program Administration on its basis for the delay while evaluating our next options," it added.
Advantage Lockheed?
Lockheed Martin had bid to supply its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while EADS had pitched the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Analysts said that the decision to restart the tender process had made Lockheed's F-35 plane the front runner in the race to win the contract.
"I'm very surprised - everyone, from Boeing down, was looking forward to a selection today," James Hardy, editor of IHS Jane's Defence Weekly was quoted as saying by the Financial Times.
"The fact they've decided to reopen it is a big statement: basically, it means the F-35 is the only aircraft they want."
The F-35 jet, despite being plagued by schedule delays and cost overruns, is widely regarded as a much more advanced and capable aircraft than its predecessors.
Japan, Italy and Britain are among the countries that have placed orders for F-35 jets.
"We will continue to support the US government in its offer of the F-35A to Korea," Lockheed Martin's South Korean representative said after the decision.
Despite being a fan of the Typhoon their is really only one winner here.
Well it was a new airframe largely based on the lessons learned from the original. Its R&D costs were severely cut based on that fact. I see no reason why it can't be modified again.
In other news, the RAF wheel out their new upgraded 5th generation fighter, Because as everyone knows, if all you need to make a better fighter is to bolt on a modern electronics suite to an old design......
Well it was a new airframe largely based on the lessons learned from the original. Its R&D costs were severely cut based on that fact. I see no reason why it can't be modified again.
In other news, the RAF wheel out their new upgraded 5th generation fighter, Because as everyone knows, if all you need to make a better fighter is to bolt on a modern electronics suite to an old design......
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Hey, doesn't being made out of wood and canvas do good things for your RCS?
Pssh. Everyone knows that a good wood varnish is the best way of making an aircraft undetectable!
Funnily enough, the fact that the Sopwith Camel is made almost totally out of wood and wires, combined with the fact it flies really slowly and low to the ground, means that it would be exceedingly difficult for any kind of modern aircraft to hit it.
Ketara wrote: Funnily enough, the fact that the Sopwith Camel is made almost totally out of wood and wires, combined with the fact it flies really slowly and low to the ground, means that it would be exceedingly difficult for any kind of modern aircraft to hit it.
That's pretty funny Ketra. Maybe you should look up the difference between a f-18 hornet and an f-18 Superhornet. Its hardly the same aircraft. Pretty much completely redesigned specifically to fit better package upgrades, however because the shape is proven and basically the same it was possible to save quite a bit of r&d money in the process, while not having stupid issues like the f35 is having. Its one thing when you have teething issues with new technology, its another when BASIC stuff which has been done for 50 years is not working.
Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.
Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.
And that's precisely why we should go back to the Sopwith Camel. The things only cost ten grand or so build (at today's prices), which could probably be dropped considerably when produced en masse. Cheap, proven, and perfect for dropping bombs on mud huts!
We could go back to the good old days and have co pilots lofting bombs out of heir cockpits. Small diameter bombs should be okay for the purpose.
Slow, low flying, bombs, It's perfect for close support missions!
But, To carry more ordnance you would need to beef the structure up, doing that would require a new power plant, maybe re designed lifting surfaces. Add some armour, self sealing fuel tanks, that would up weight again. Additional kit would certainly alter the aerodynamics a fair bit, so a redesign may be in order to stuff everything you want in.....
I could do with some extra help to tackle any bad guys in planes who might bother me. That nice Mr Mitchell has a rather spiffing idea.
But, To carry more ordnance you would need to beef the structure up, doing that would require a new power plant, maybe re designed lifting surfaces. Add some armour, self sealing fuel tanks, that would up weight again. Additional kit would certainly alter the aerodynamics a fair bit, so a redesign may be in order to stuff everything you want in.....
Don't be absurd! All you need is more rivets and and a good welder! After all, everyone knows that you can just bolt bits on for a fighter upgrade.
Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.
And that's precisely why we should go back to the Sopwith Camel. The things only cost ten grand or so build (at today's prices), which could probably be dropped considerably when produced en masse. Cheap, proven, and perfect for dropping bombs on mud huts!
The Bristol Fighter would be a better choice. More payload.
Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.
And that's precisely why we should go back to the Sopwith Camel. The things only cost ten grand or so build (at today's prices), which could probably be dropped considerably when produced en masse. Cheap, proven, and perfect for dropping bombs on mud huts!
Yeah, I just don't see those being very accurate. Well unless you got snoopy to fly them.
Logistically China cant invade Taiwan and won't be able to for some time, at least not conventionally. The Chinese lack the ability to project their force over any real distance due to (primarily but not exclusively) their almost total lack of air refueling capability.
Hum. Kinmen, the first Taiwanese outpost, is in swimming distance from China's shore. You saying China can't project force that far?
The Chinese has been expanding their aerial refueling capabilities. While it's no where near as extensive is ours, they do have capabilities. They currently have about 15 home grown tankers, and they just bought 8 Russian tankers.
Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, given that Taiwan is well within the combat radius of the J-10 and SU-30, it's not as big of a deal that they have Aerial Refueling for that particular mission. Where it becomes an issue is in any possible future conflicts in the S. China Sea, with Japan per say.
Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.
The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.
Considering China's size and the vast amount of pure labour they can call on, I would not wish to attempt such a thing.
Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.
The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.
Considering China's size and the vast amount of pure labour they can call on, I would not wish to attempt such a thing.
Building a runway that a C-130 can take off on is a lot different then building a runway that an aerial refueler can take off on. Dependent on the damage we caused, it would take days/weeks/months to get it right.
Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.
The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.
Considering China's size and the vast amount of pure labour they can call on, I would not wish to attempt such a thing.
Building a runway that a C-130 can take off on is a lot different then building a runway that an aerial refueler can take off on. Dependent on the damage we caused, it would take days/weeks/months to get it right.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a runway (as the name would imply) simply a flat line of tarmac/concrete/varying materials of a certain length?
I mean, I could be wrong on this, but I've never heard of modern runways needing to be made out of pure rubber, or having catapults and arrestor wires.
And laying a 1.5 mile long strip of asphalt thats 150' wide, after it's had numerous 6' craters punched into it is anything but an easy task, no matter how many chinese men you can shove into the holes.
The time spent repairing those runways, air superiority will already be established.
djones520 wrote: And laying a 1.5 mile long strip of asphalt thats 150' wide, after it's had numerous 6' craters punched into it is anything but an easy task, no matter how many chinese men you can shove into the holes.
The time spent repairing those runways, air superiority will already be established.
Isn't thats what the cluster bomb were originally designed to do?
Don't we have them on cruise missiles? If so... yo runwayz belongz to uz!
I don't know about originally, but here's a blurb about how anti-airfield cluster bombs work.
the cratering effect is achieved through the use of a two-stage warhead that combines a shaped charge and a conventional bulk explosive charge. The shaped charge penetrates the surface of the runway while the bulk explosive charge detonates under the surface which makes the crater bigger. This explosion also shatters the surface, this effect combined with the anti-personnel mines which may be deployed in addition to the Anti-runway can make repairs more difficult.
djones520 wrote: I don't know about originally, but here's a blurb about how anti-airfield cluster bombs work.
the cratering effect is achieved through the use of a two-stage warhead that combines a shaped charge and a conventional bulk explosive charge. The shaped charge penetrates the surface of the runway while the bulk explosive charge detonates under the surface which makes the crater bigger. This explosion also shatters the surface, this effect combined with the anti-personnel mines which may be deployed in addition to the Anti-runway can make repairs more difficult.
I'm not disputing that it can be destroyed. But if it's just a case of using shovels to remove debris, transporting in earth to fill in the craters, and then pouring asphalt/concrete, that can be done in a day regardless of the amount of damage, simply by increasing the size of the workforce. It simply isn't skilled labour, and it doesn't require rare raw materials. It also means that one could feasibly lay dozens of new runways in a day or two whilst repairing the other ones.
djones520 wrote: I don't know about originally, but here's a blurb about how anti-airfield cluster bombs work.
the cratering effect is achieved through the use of a two-stage warhead that combines a shaped charge and a conventional bulk explosive charge. The shaped charge penetrates the surface of the runway while the bulk explosive charge detonates under the surface which makes the crater bigger. This explosion also shatters the surface, this effect combined with the anti-personnel mines which may be deployed in addition to the Anti-runway can make repairs more difficult.
I'm not disputing that it can be destroyed. But if it's just a case of using shovels to remove debris, transporting in earth to fill in the craters, and then pouring asphalt/concrete, that can be done in a day regardless of the amount of damage, simply by increasing the size of the workforce. It simply isn't skilled labour, and it doesn't require rare raw materials. It also means that one could feasibly lay dozens of new runways in a day or two whilst repairing the other ones.
You're forgetting the tactical sense here...
It's used to ground the planes while YOU begin your attack.
If you destroy the runway... now, YOUR planes can bomb the feth out the planes on the ground. Then there's no need to fix the runway when all their planes are destroyed.
BUT... Runways meant for constant takeoff/landing can't be made in a day or two, except for very few planes.
If I were China and knew I was going to be at war with the US over Taiwan in a week, I would be ordering the construction of as many airfields as I could at that end of the country, and setting up as many camoflauged sites as I could.
I say we just order Sabb Gripens for the Air Force and the Dassault Rafale for the Navy. That will teach Lockhead to make an aircraft on budget and time.
guardpiper wrote: I say we just order Sabb Gripens for the Air Force and the Dassault Rafale for the Navy. That will teach Lockhead to make an aircraft on budget and time.
If I were China and knew I was going to be at war with the US over Taiwan in a week, I would be ordering the construction of as many airfields as I could at that end of the country, and setting up as many camoflauged sites as I could.
So you'd be telegramming US military intelligence and making sure they know where to point their satellites. Good to know
Besides just numbers of airfields won't help much, especially for large airborne refuelers, those bad boys need big freaking runways, big gas farms to drink from so they can top off the fighters and bombers, fortified shelters to attempt to prevent bombing raids from shredding their fragile skins and airframes... it's not a small operation by any extent.
Didn't look at the whole thread, did we cover the part where the USN has to design a whole new class of ships for resupply because the CATOBAR version's engines can't be carried by existing transport (supposedly) or that it has to go back to the factory because only the most basic repairs can be done in the field?
BaronIveagh wrote: Didn't look at the whole thread, did we cover the part where the USN has to design a whole new class of ships for resupply because the CATOBAR version's engines can't be carried by existing transport (supposedly) or that it has to go back to the factory because only the most basic repairs can be done in the field?
No, because those are both misleading or inaccurate.
If I were China and knew I was going to be at war with the US over Taiwan in a week, I would be ordering the construction of as many airfields as I could at that end of the country, and setting up as many camoflauged sites as I could.
So you'd be telegramming US military intelligence and making sure they know where to point their satellites. Good to know
If I were China and knew I was going to be at war with the US over Taiwan in a week, I would be ordering the construction of as many airfields as I could at that end of the country, and setting up as many camoflauged sites as I could.
So you'd be telegramming US military intelligence and making sure they know where to point their satellites. Good to know
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Besides just numbers of airfields won't help much, especially for large airborne refuelers, those bad boys need big freaking runways, big gas farms to drink from so they can top off the fighters and bombers, fortified shelters to attempt to prevent bombing raids from shredding their fragile skins and airframes... it's not a small operation by any extent.
To emphasise my original statement somewhat
The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.
If the Chinese decide to nail Taiwan and raze it with missiles and bombs, they will do it. The US will not have the quantities of munitions and aircraft in the area straight off the bat to stop, or even delay them especially. Talking about how the awesome US planes will just swoop in and blow up their airfields to ground/blow up the Chinese airforce (whilst high fiving each other and sipping cool aid no doubt) is just daft and unrealistic.
The Chinese have anti-air ground based defences. The Chinese have their own fighter jets. The Chinese have the capacity to build multiple airfields and concealed launch sites, should they be planning this more than a few days in advance. The Chinese have the labour force necessary to repair the small amounts of damage that could be brought to bear straight off the bat. And China is a really BIG place, where you can stash all kinds of planes/airfields. Satellites cannot cover all of China 24/7 and pick up on all construction work.
I'm pretty certain that the US could establish air superiority over China eventually, but it would take at least a week or two to bring the necessary resources to bear in the area to begin contesting it, and it would be hard slogging even then.
Ketara wrote: To emphasise my original statement somewhat
The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.
If the Chinese decide to nail Taiwan and raze it with missiles and bombs, they will do it. The US will not have the quantities of munitions and aircraft in the area straight off the bat to stop, or even delay them especially. Talking about how the awesome US planes will just swoop in and blow up their airfields to ground/blow up the Chinese airforce (whilst high fiving each other and sipping cool aid no doubt) is just daft and unrealistic.
You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce
Ketara wrote: The Chinese have anti-air ground based defences. The Chinese have their own fighter jets.
And how effective are they? How well trained are they? Have they experienced combat? Have their instructors experienced combat? Are their armaments comparable to their adversary's? What about their electronic warfare capabilities?
Ketara wrote: The Chinese have the capacity to build multiple airfields and concealed launch sites, should they be planning this more than a few days in advance. The Chinese have the labour force necessary to repair the small amounts of damage that could be brought to bear straight off the bat. And China is a really BIG place, where you can stash all kinds of planes/airfields. Satellites cannot cover all of China 24/7 and pick up on all construction work.
Satellites don't need to cover every inch of China. Just the parts within range of Taiwan that are showing unusual activity such lots of civilians being bused in and set to work, and lots of construction in a short time during a military build up. Especially when that construction is fixed to flat land, and what is being built looks like a road that connects to nothing and goes nowhere.
Ketara wrote: I'm pretty certain that the US could establish air superiority over China eventually, but it would take at least a week or two to bring the necessary resources to bear in the area to begin contesting it, and it would be hard slogging even then.
Logistics people. It wins wars.
How long does it take the Chinese to mobilise their relatively untested military, and deploy it? How long will there be any provocative statements and sabre rattling from either Taiwan or China which would give the US time to move its carriers into range and start their own mobilisations?
You talk of logistics from only the US side, completely ignoring the signals that the Chinese will be broadcasting when they start their mobilisation.
No, because those are both misleading or inaccurate.
Ok, how about the following issues identified by the air force and DOD?
If the Integrated Caution Advisory Warning System does not adequately convey warning and caution information to the pilot in a fashion that permits recognition in sufficient time to take
actions, flight essential cues may be missed or misinterpreted with a potential for loss of aircraft/aircrew.
The F-35 US-16 E-21 ejection seat and -1 Transparency Removal System (TRS), as installed on low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft 2 & 3, have not completed full qualification testing.
In addition, the F-35 canopy panel fly-away model has not been validated. If there is an unknown failure mode due to incomplete qualification testing and/or invalid fly-away model results, then there is potential for loss of aircrew.
LRIP 2 & 3 aircraft do not include the Martin Baker water activated release system (MWARS). Without a water activated release system, there is a risk of drowning for the unconscious crewmember post ejection.
The F-35 fuel system design’s lack of a double barrier, when coupled with inadequate leak detection and capability for visual examination of the seals, can result in fuel leakage and potential fire leading to loss of aircraft/aircrew.
Delayed, incorrect, or untimely aircrew response during a timecritical task will result in a potential error and Class A mishap. The F-35A has documented deficiencies in PVI (Helmet-Mounted Display, Pilot Checklist, Communication, Head-Down Display). A comprehensive Human Systems Integration (HSI) assessment has not been completed. Therefore, there is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely. If current PVI deficiencies are not corrected immediately, then risk will increase as capability/functionality is added to future LRIP Blocks.
F-35A aircraft do not have a qualified lightning protection system. Without a qualified lightning protection system, a lightning strike could result in loss of aircraft/aircrew.
The F-35 design does not incorporate the necessary process rigor for safety critical systems and software, including test.
Consequently, safety critical systems/software may not operate correctly, resulting in loss of aircrew/aircraft.
Poor aft visibility compared to other aircraft was mentioned by all test and training pilots.
Granted, most of these are issues with the initial production, but...
You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce
Sadly, due to the number of runways involved, this is impractical. Egypt it was possible due to the low number of strips.
And how effective are they? How well trained are they? Have they experienced combat? Have their instructors experienced combat? Are their armaments comparable to their adversary's? What about their electronic warfare capabilities?
Largely unknown. China is very good at keeping this sort of thing close to the vest.
Satellites don't need to cover every inch of China. Just the parts within range of Taiwan that are showing unusual activity such lots of civilians being bused in and set to work, and lots of construction in a short time during a military build up. Especially when that construction is fixed to flat land, and what is being built looks like a road that connects to nothing and goes nowhere.
How long does it take the Chinese to mobilise their relatively untested military, and deploy it?
Unknown, but likely on the order of hours. Remember that an attack on Taiwan would benefit from the fact that it's something the Chinese have had 50+ years to prepare for.
How long will there be any provocative statements and sabre rattling from either Taiwan or China which would give the US time to move its carriers into range and start their own mobilisations?
You talk of logistics from only the US side, completely ignoring the signals that the Chinese will be broadcasting when they start their mobilisation.
Actually China is bad when they stop talking. You'd have a sudden silence from Beijing to cause uncertainty in the US government. Depending on what, where and how, the Chinese could conceivably mobilize without moving large bodies of troops at all. What might be a signal is an increase in Chinese amphib construction, as China has a relatively low number of amphib troop transports. (IIRC they can only land about a division at a time atm) But this might not be an issue if they intend to start off by flattening the place. You are also forgetting that the logistics to do such an invasion have long been in place. It's just a matter of activation.
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, how about the following issues identified by the air force and DOD?
Depends on the date..
If that's all the Air Force has to gripe about in an unclass report, though, I'd say it's in amazing shape.
Feb of this year. And that wasn't all of it, that was just the training end of it. The Air Force response was... pithy to say the least. If pilots are worried about being shot down, we can have them transferred to Cargo Aircraft, to paraphrase the general in charge.
"Further, there is no intermediate level of maintenance on the F-35. Therefore, frontline maintenance will be done on the carrier while more complicated maintenance will be done by the original equipment manufacturer, Moore says. While there might be some maintenance facilities needed specifically by the F-35, there will not be specialized facilities needed for low observables repairs. If there is a major defect in an F-35C's coatings, the aircraft will have to be returned to Lockheed for repairs."
BaronIveagh wrote: Feb of this year. And that wasn't all of it, that was just the training end of it. The Air Force response was... pithy to say the least. If pilots are worried about being shot down, we can have them transferred to Cargo Aircraft, to paraphrase the general in charge.
I think I know where you're getting your analysis if not your info now, at least.
Anyway, no. Aft visibility won't be an issue with EODAS.
Admiral Moore on the Navy's end was more interesting:
"Further, there is no intermediate level of maintenance on the F-35. Therefore, frontline maintenance will be done on the carrier while more complicated maintenance will be done by the original equipment manufacturer, Moore says. While there might be some maintenance facilities needed specifically by the F-35, there will not be specialized facilities needed for low observables repairs. If there is a major defect in an F-35C's coatings, the aircraft will have to be returned to Lockheed for repairs."
I'm not entirely sure why people view this as significant. You can do a lot on the boat with current gen aircraft, but major work is major work. Birds go down, you cannibalize 'em for spares and fly what's up. We're not doing SLEP or major airframe refreshing or whatever else on Rhinos in the hangar deck, and there's stuff they need to hit the beach for.
You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce
.......Firstly if the US are at war with China and there's only one or two carrier groups sitting off the coast, the odds are pretty good that those carrier groups are going to be having a very unhappy and busy time of things. Mainly because they're within the range of the entire Chinese airforce and missile network. Even assuming that their gear is a lot better than anything the Chinese can throw at them(far more likely than not), I would not personally wish to be aboard those vessels.
Submarines are a different kettle of fish, but I really, REALLY doubt that the US will have enough submarine based missiles within range in the 24-48 hours, and the intelligence necessary to shut down the Chinese airforce. And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
And how effective are they? How well trained are they? Have they experienced combat? Have their instructors experienced combat? Are their armaments comparable to their adversary's? What about their electronic warfare capabilities?
You tell me.
Satellites don't need to cover every inch of China. Just the parts within range of Taiwan that are showing unusual activity such lots of civilians being bused in and set to work, and lots of construction in a short time during a military build up. Especially when that construction is fixed to flat land, and what is being built looks like a road that connects to nothing and goes nowhere.
.....You REALLY need to look at how big China is, the range of the aircraft, and how far away Taiwan is. And that's just nailing Taiwan, if you're throwing stuff over there to bomb mainland airfields, then Chinese assets further back in China come into play.
How long does it take the Chinese to mobilise their relatively untested military, and deploy it? How long will there be any provocative statements and sabre rattling from either Taiwan or China which would give the US time to move its carriers into range and start their own mobilisations?
You talk of logistics from only the US side, completely ignoring the signals that the Chinese will be broadcasting when they start their mobilisation.
Presuming they're levelling Taiwan, probably about three days to a week. That would involve distributing the previously prepared attack plans for Taiwan (which they will have), stockpiling munitions in forward staging areas, prepping missiles for launch, doing technical checks on aircraft, moving pilots to forward bases and so on. They wouldn't need to move any planes up to the forward airbases until the last 12 hours (an aircraft can be flown, landed, re-checked, refueled, and have pilots swapped within that timeframe).
US intelligence is not this omniscient being that sees into all that occurs in Chinese military bases. They'd probably know something was up a few days beforehand, but I doubt they'd know exactly what it was until the munitions started landing on Taiwan.
This is of course, presuming China is levelling Taiwan without thinking the US will intervene. If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan, more assets would need to be moved into place and resources stockpiled, which would be somewhat more obvious.
I suggest you seriously go and look at how big China actually is. Taiwan is barely a hundred miles off the coast of China. Without even considering in flight refueling, most of their aircraft have a combat range of ten times that at the least. If you honestly think that the US is capable of watching all potentially war-related construction work within a thousand square miles of mainland China, and hitting stuff they dislike, well.....
We're not doing SLEP or major airframe refreshing or whatever else on Rhinos in the hangar deck, and there's stuff they need to hit the beach for.
Yes, we do not do major work in the carriers. Is re-coating a stealth aircraft major repairs? If so then those strike fighters are going to get one or two runs at the most, before they have to fly to a base for repairs. Strike aircraft frequently take hits for AA that scratch the paint.
You really are begging to sound like an apologist. Just admit that there are problems, the program is massively behind schedule, and over budget. We were supposed to have fully functioning aircraft by this date, as of yet we have nothing and most of the features that make the 35 so advanced don't work....at all. Not only that, but simple things that we know how to do and have done in the past, BASIC features don't work. It's shotty work.
Andrew1975 wrote: Yes, we do not do major work in the carriers. Is re-coating a stealth aircraft major repairs? If so then those strike fighters are going to get one or two runs at the most, before they have to fly to a base for repairs. Strike aircraft frequently take hits for AA that scratch the paint.
You're confusing the F-22's stealth coating with the F-35's. They're different. The F-35's is a lot less maintenance-intensive, and should only need to head back to LM in the event of major damage or defect.
The F-22's coating is fine for the Air Force, but the Navy doesn't baby its birds. If the plane couldn't stand up to the rough use that carrier-based aircraft eat up as routine, it wouldn't have been bought. You want to see dings and damage, try carrier ops.
You really are begging to sound like an apologist.
If you say so. I prefer to think I have enough firsthand experience to know that most of the drek I read about the F-35 ain't worth the paper it's printed on, but if you're willing to get your information about military aircraft from inexperienced bloggers and the sort of journalists who believe all pistols are Glocks and all rifles are AKs, be my guest.
Just admit that there are problems, the program is massively behind schedule, and over budget.
Yes, it is. The procurement path's a massive issue.
We were supposed to have fully functioning aircraft by this date, as of yet we have nothing and most of the features that make the 35 so advanced don't work....at all. Not only that, but simple things that we know how to do and have done in the past, BASIC features don't work. It's shotty work.
What's so amusing about that is that if you looked back at the development of any given plane for the military, you'd see a lot of the same issues. The "basic" stuff that we've done in the past? We feth it up all the time in development. What we haven't really done before is concurrent production and testing, which is why you're hearing about it on the F-35 instead of, say, the Super Hornet or the Strike Eagle, and because it's such an expensive system, it's more of a story when something doesn't work right.
Exactly none of this is, "Oh my God, the sky is falling!" territory on a new plane that hasn't been operationally cleared yet.
Ketara wrote: Submarines are a different kettle of fish, but I really, REALLY doubt that the US will have enough submarine based missiles within range in the 24-48 hours, and the intelligence necessary to shut down the Chinese airforce. And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Why are we assuming that China is going to start a war out of nowhere with only 24-48 hours warning? This isn't a video game where countries decide to randomly bomb each other back to the stone age just because they can, any plausible war is going to be preceded by escalating conflict that will give everyone time to prepare.
Also, why are we assuming that China's plans consist of bombing Taiwan into rubble? Don't real countries usually have an objective in their wars besides "kill everyone just for the sake of killing them"?
Mr. Burning wrote: The F-35's stealth coating is woven into the structure. It isnt a paint for a tile or a 'coating'.
Stealth should be a lot easier to maintain than with early generation RAM coated airframes.
Yes, and this super strong stealth "coating" Still melts anytime the craft goes supersonic.......and they can't repair that on the carrier? Sounds great!
Yes, it is. The procurement path's a massive issue.
See, its not just the procurement path. Its the whole development of the project from the capabilities and concept to the final product. The whole process is a mess, it was supposed to make building aircraft faster and cheaper, it is doing the complete opposite. All it did was limit competitive pressure, which has allowed Lockheed to slack and drive up prices. In a competitive environment Lockheed and General Dynamic would still be trying to earn a contract as the f35 in not even in condition to participate in the standard trials done to win a contract.
You're confusing the F-22's stealth coating with the F-35's. They're different. The F-35's is a lot less maintenance-intensive, and should only need to head back to LM in the event of major damage or defect.
Yeah, about that. Lockheed has opened their mouths and claimed that surface wear and defects will actually make it stealthier over time, unlike, say, every other stealth aircraft that there has ever been. That same coating, in a Nov 2011 report was found to have a tendency to peel off. While hopefully this has since been remedied, no further information is available.
The F-22's coating is fine for the Air Force, but the Navy doesn't baby its birds. If the plane couldn't stand up to the rough use that carrier-based aircraft eat up as routine, it wouldn't have been bought. You want to see dings and damage, try carrier ops.
No, they don't baby them, but we also know the Navy occasionally makes bad choices, particularly when told 'it's this or nothing' by Congress. Remember that the whole F35 thing came about to have one airframe across all branches. Frankly this is a really bad idea, just because of the differences in mission.
Why are we assuming that China is going to start a war out of nowhere with only 24-48 hours warning?
China would not 'start the war out of no where' but it might seem like it to external observers. Remember that most of the impetus to retake Taiwan is from internal politics within the Party. That rarely even makes the news in China.
Also, why are we assuming that China's plans consist of bombing Taiwan into rubble? Don't real countries usually have an objective in their wars besides "kill everyone just for the sake of killing them"?
Well, 'bomb it into rubble' is to allow the next part which is 'land troops'. Though not as evident now as it used to be, Taiwan has quite a large number of bunkers and strongpoints and fortified areas, starting at Kinmen island and heading into the main island. China's most likely to succeed scenario is to basically blitz them, which means a whole lot of firepower raining down followed by ground troops.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yes, and this super strong stealth "coating" Still melts anytime the craft goes supersonic.......and they can't repair that on the carrier? Sounds great!
No, it doesn't. It had an issue with peeling near the engine when the afterburner was in use.
See, its not just the procurement path. Its the whole development of the project from the capabilities and concept to the final product. The whole process is a mess, it was supposed to make building aircraft faster and cheaper, it is doing the complete opposite. All it did was limit competitive pressure, which has allowed Lockheed to slack and drive up prices. In a competitive environment Lockheed and General Dynamic would still be trying to earn a contract as the f35 in not even in condition to participate in the standard trials done to win a contract.
There is no standard condition to win a contract. We always buy new aircraft based on prototypes.
BaronIveagh wrote:Yeah, about that. Lockheed has opened their mouths and claimed that surface wear and defects will actually make it stealthier over time, unlike, say, every other stealth aircraft that there has ever been. That same coating, in a Nov 2011 report was found to have a tendency to peel off. While hopefully this has since been remedied, no further information is available.
See above. Also a perfect example of what I've been saying. This gak pings back and forth between the blogs and the aviation rags, getting more and more distorted by the extended game of Telephone every time.
No, they don't baby them, but we also know the Navy occasionally makes bad choices, particularly when told 'it's this or nothing' by Congress. Remember that the whole F35 thing came about to have one airframe across all branches. Frankly this is a really bad idea, just because of the differences in mission.
Can you point to a fighter that we've procured in the last forty years that was a bad choice? I can't.
We're getting an aircraft that's better in almost every way than what's currently on our flight deck. I'm pretty happy about that.
Ketara wrote: .......Firstly if the US are at war with China and there's only one or two carrier groups sitting off the coast, the odds are pretty good that those carrier groups are going to be having a very unhappy and busy time of things. Mainly because they're within the range of the entire Chinese airforce and missile network. Even assuming that their gear is a lot better than anything the Chinese can throw at them(far more likely than not), I would not personally wish to be aboard those vessels.
Submarines are a different kettle of fish, but I really, REALLY doubt that the US will have enough submarine based missiles within range in the 24-48 hours, and the intelligence necessary to shut down the Chinese airforce. And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
It really helps if you read what I write, and not respond to what you think I wrote
You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce
Seeing as you can't answer it, you're showing that you may not have the greatest understanding - They aren't effective. They do not have the same training, the same experience the same weapon systems, or the same capabilities
Ketara wrote: .....You REALLY need to look at how big China is, the range of the aircraft, and how far away Taiwan is. And that's just nailing Taiwan, if you're throwing stuff over there to bomb mainland airfields, then Chinese assets further back in China come into play.
And how much of that land is suitable for runways? How much of that land could support the infrastructure required to facilitate combat aircraft missions? Short answer - not a lot. Targeted intelligence based on key factors such as what I have already outlined makes monitoring possible construction easy.
Ketara wrote: Presuming they're levelling Taiwan, probably about three days to a week. That would involve distributing the previously prepared attack plans for Taiwan (which they will have), stockpiling munitions in forward staging areas, prepping missiles for launch, doing technical checks on aircraft, moving pilots to forward bases and so on. They wouldn't need to move any planes up to the forward airbases until the last 12 hours (an aircraft can be flown, landed, re-checked, refueled, and have pilots swapped within that timeframe).
US intelligence is not this omniscient being that sees into all that occurs in Chinese military bases. They'd probably know something was up a few days beforehand, but I doubt they'd know exactly what it was until the munitions started landing on Taiwan.
This is of course, presuming China is levelling Taiwan without thinking the US will intervene. If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan, more assets would need to be moved into place and resources stockpiled, which would be somewhat more obvious.
I suggest you seriously go and look at how big China actually is. Taiwan is barely a hundred miles off the coast of China. Without even considering in flight refueling, most of their aircraft have a combat range of ten times that at the least. If you honestly think that the US is capable of watching all potentially war-related construction work within a thousand square miles of mainland China, and hitting stuff they dislike, well.....
The US military intelligence doesn't need to be in Chinese bases. What you outlined in the first paragraph above waves more than enough red flags for anyone paying attention. China may be big, but that doesn't matter, when you're looking for certain select things it reduces the search criteria significantly.
China is the second largest importer of oil, all those aircraft aren't going to run on good will. Aircraft fuel for military use will need to be purchased in vast quantities and it's movement and storage can be tracked easily. And lets not forget that the US has a lot of allies in oil producing countries.
Military build ups do not happen quickly, or without notice. The fact that you think that a nation that has not waged a modern war can somehow manage to conceal obvious troop movements, the fabrication of ammunition in the quantities required for training and the operation, war material movements, equipment movements, shift in training schedules, increase in sorties flown by the Chinese, as well as the construction of temporary airfields by forced civilian labour is pretty risible.
Any serving/former military members think that a country can conceal indicators of military action as well as Ketara seems to think?
There is no standard condition to win a contract. We always buy new aircraft based on prototypes.
Yes, and most times those prototypes are pretty near finished as in the famous f-16 vs f-18 trials and the f-22 vs f-23 trials. Its funny how competition tends to do that. While finishing work needed to be done in both cases, the prototypes were able to demonstrate functionality much more than the f-35 has.
No, it doesn't. It had an issue with peeling near the engine when the afterburner was in use.
Melting off, peeling off from heat; Potato, Patato. Has the issue been fixed?
Andrew1975 wrote: Yes, and most times those prototypes are pretty near finished as in the famous f-16 vs f-18 trials and the f-22 vs f-23 trials. Its funny how competition tends to do that. While finishing work needed to be done in both cases, the prototypes were able to demonstrate functionality much more than the f-35 has.
Ah, but there were, indeed, JSF competitions. Boeing (and I believe McDonnell Douglas) submitted a prototype as well. Lockheed Martin's was better.
Melting off, peeling off from heat; Potato, Patato. Has the issue been fixed?
Believe so, but I could be wrong. Does it matter? It's got two years before it's operational with the Marines (who've said they'll declare it operational whether it's ready to go or not), and four to six years before it's for-real operational with the Navy and Air Force. I'm sure it will be fixed by then.
Other stuff might not be, though. That's the way it goes. It might suffer from something like the F-22's penchant for poisoning (and in some cases, killing) its pilots - unclear whether or not that's been totally fixed at present. It might suffer from something like the F-14's susceptibility to potentially catastrophic compressor stalls if the intake didn't get air exactly as it wanted it - not fixed until the D. It might suffer from the Hornet's (both legacy and Super) criminal under-thrusting issues, which never got fixed and now never will be. It might suffer from worldwide grounding of the entire fleet, as happened with F-15s back in the mid-2000s when one broke in half in mid-air due to an out-of-spec part that turned out to affect more than just that plane. Or it could have a more mundane problem like the F-16 - great aft visibility, but a seat reclined too far to take advantage of it comfortably.
We haven't built a perfect plane yet. We never will, because every design is a compromise, and because manufacturing multi-million dollar aircraft isn't easy. The F-35 will be no different. It'll have issues after it's operational, as every single fighter in our air has had at one time or another, or still has. But it'll be a significant upgrade, which is why we and a lot of others bought it.
Not even close, especially not on the scale of the PLA doing a full mobilization to hit Taiwan, because they KNOW we'll be kicking them in the soft bits in the immediate future if not immediately depending on when our SSGNs that belong to PACFLT are at the time.
See above. Also a perfect example of what I've been saying. This gak pings back and forth between the blogs and the aviation rags, getting more and more distorted by the extended game of Telephone every time.
I can dig up the original interview with the VP of Lockheed. He does in fact claim that erosion of the coating will only make the plane more stealthy because the surface becomes smoother. Whether this is PR man BS or a genuine claim from their tech guys is up to speculation.
BaronIveagh wrote: I can dig up the original interview with the VP of Lockheed. He does in fact claim that erosion of the coating will only make the plane more stealthy because the surface becomes smoother. Whether this is PR man BS or a genuine claim from their tech guys is up to speculation.
Go right ahead. I have no idea how the stealth "coating" works - my understanding is it isn't a coating to begin with - which is why I wasn't speaking to whether or not it'll get "stealthier" with erosion, but instead referencing its tendency to "peel off" being one of those bs rumors that picked up speed due to their being a lot of various cabals interested in seeing the F-35 get canceled and a lot of reporters/bloggers interested in page views.
BaronIveagh wrote: I can dig up the original interview with the VP of Lockheed. He does in fact claim that erosion of the coating will only make the plane more stealthy because the surface becomes smoother. Whether this is PR man BS or a genuine claim from their tech guys is up to speculation.
Go right ahead. I have no idea how the stealth "coating" works - my understanding is it isn't a coating to begin with - which is why I wasn't speaking to whether or not it'll get "stealthier" with erosion, but instead referencing its tendency to "peel off" being one of those bs rumors that picked up speed due to their being a lot of various cabals interested in seeing the F-35 get canceled and a lot of reporters/bloggers interested in page views.
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.
This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.
Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours."
So, once again we're back to me asking about the peeling issue that gets widely claimed but never verified outside of edging around the engine after reheat.
So, once again we're back to me asking about the peeling issue that gets widely claimed but never verified outside of edging around the engine after reheat.
From what I've been amble to find the claim originally appears in Aviation week following the first supersonic flight demo, after which the entire fleet is limited to mach 1. Sweetman states that there was bubbling and peeling of the coatings following that. However I have not been able to find the original article online to post, just references to it. This issue could be one of the discovered problems obliquely referred to in this DOD report.
If Sweetman was wrong, you'd expect the DoD or Lockheed to refute it but so far, a big silence.
One thing that I've been pondering myself: THe primary mission of marine aircraft is air support. Which means loitering a lot. The F35 has comparatively little fuel and is light on actual armament. How is it superior to forth gen again?
So, once again we're back to me asking about the peeling issue that gets widely claimed but never verified outside of edging around the engine after reheat.
From what I've been amble to find the claim originally appears in Aviation week following the first supersonic flight demo, after which the entire fleet is limited to mach 1. Sweetman states that there was bubbling and peeling of the coatings following that. However I have not been able to find the original article online to post, just references to it. This issue could be one of the discovered problems obliquely referred to in this DOD report.
If Sweetman was wrong, you'd expect the DoD or Lockheed to refute it but so far, a big silence.
One thing that I've been pondering myself: THe primary mission of marine aircraft is air support. Which means loitering a lot. The F35 has comparatively little fuel and is light on actual armament. How is it superior to forth gen again?
If DOD refuted every claim made about the F-35 from people outside the program, they'd spend all their time doing exclusively that. We know the F-35's been doing Mach 1+ trials, so presumably it was never an actual issue to begin with, or has since been fixed.
And it has comparatively little fuel compared to what? It'll have more internal gas than the Super Bug. Cruises more efficiently, too.
Seeing as you can't answer it, you're showing that you may not have the greatest understanding - They aren't effective. They do not have the same training, the same experience the same weapon systems, or the same capabilities
Sorry, but this just stinks of the sort of thing first year War Studies undergraduates do. They compare two aeroplane or tank specifications and then declare one inherently superior to the other. Whilst entirely failing to realise that being lower tech or even worse trained does not necessarily equate to one side winning or losing a combat situation.
There are always gaps in both side's newest technology that nobody noticed until that point (e.g the first torpedoes the British subs used in WW1 naturally undershooting targets), technology that can be adapted unexpectedly (e.g. the German 88m anti air gun being used as an anti-tank weapon in WW2), blindspots in tactical doctrine, and so on. 'Better trained' does not always mean 'better motivated' or 'knows the local ground better', or even ultimately, 'better commanded'.
And then you always have pure blind chance to throw a spanner in the works.
But please. Use your detailed in depth knowledge of the latest Chinese stealth fighter and suchlike to tell me how the American planes will just swing by all the Chinese bases, despite being heavily outnumbered far into hostile airspace, and blow everything up,
And how much of that land is suitable for runways? How much of that land could support the infrastructure required to facilitate combat aircraft missions? Short answer - not a lot. Targeted intelligence based on key factors such as what I have already outlined makes monitoring possible construction easy.
I'm sorry. In a thousand square miles of mainland China (seriously, go look at a map), you claim that not much land could be used runways?. That's practically as far back as Chengdu for Christ sake. That sort of space is bigger than most countries. Considering all you need for an airstrip is a stretch of ground so long that happens to be flat, and enough storage buildings for the planes and maintenance bays, I'm quite certain that China could find the space.
And even if they couldn't? There's been this wonderful invention called landscaping. When you have a large enough labour force, moving, flattening, and shaping earth is really not the hardest of things to do. If you planned it beforehand, and timed it with the simultaneous throwing up of prefab temporary storage buildings and warehouses, it would take literally about three days at the most.
US Intelligence is not omniscient. They cannot cover all construction within China. To even attempt targeted surveillance on the level you are suggesting would require literally hundreds(if not thousands) of analysts sifting through images from just about every satellite the US could muster. Without even questioning the physical capability to identify all potential construction efforts as airfields on short notice, the manpower requirements for processing and analysis alone is simply staggering.
This is of course, presuming China is levelling Taiwan without thinking the US will intervene.
This is the assumption, yes.
If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan
Then you'd have shifted the goalposts to entirely different hypothetical situation.
more assets would need to be moved into place and resources stockpiled, which would be somewhat more obvious.
No doubt.
The US military intelligence doesn't need to be in Chinese bases.
No, but it helps. If the majority of your intelligence gathering capabilities reside in orbital photography and reading the Chinese newspapers, you're going to find things a damn sight harder than if you have a mole inside the base or an agent on the ground.
What you outlined in the first paragraph above waves more than enough red flags for anyone paying attention.
I should hope so, your original proposition was ludicrous.
China may be big, but that doesn't matter, when you're looking for certain select things it reduces the search criteria significantly.
China is the second largest importer of oil, all those aircraft aren't going to run on good will. Aircraft fuel for military use will need to be purchased in vast quantities and it's movement and storage can be tracked easily. And lets not forget that the US has a lot of allies in oil producing countries.
Oh, I see.
Not only have the goalposts now been moved to 'spotting the signs of a war planned with the US' instead of just 'razing Taiwan', you've shifted the burden of watching for a military buildup onto tracing oil shipments.
Interesting, but impractical except in general terms. China consumes such a large quantity of oil that unless this surprise war with the US was being planned completely on the hoof, they could easily order slightly more for a period of time (say, a year or two), and it would appear relatively unsuspicious. China has a lot of industry that consumes the stuff after all.
Military build ups do not happen quickly, or without notice. The fact that you think that a nation that has not waged a modern war can somehow manage to conceal obvious troop movements,
In the original scenario, this is to bomb Taiwan right? In which case, it's more or less just their airforce. There won't be tens of thousands of soldiers being moved to staging areas, or tanks mustered in highly visible locations.
the fabrication of ammunition in the quantities required for training and the operation,
I would imagine that the people who fly their aircraft might have had just a little bit of training in doing it beforehand.
Otherwise I concede the earlier point wholeheartedly. If their entire airforce is suddenly being trained to fly and shoot missiles in the week beforehand, then yes, the US probably would win that one.
With regards to ammunition, that's an interesting one. But unless US intelligence has moles inside Chinese armaments productions firms highly enough placed to be able to see a bigger picture of increased production, or lots of lesser ones (either is possible), it would be difficult/impossible to monitor.
war material movements, equipment movements,
With regards to aircraft, the fact that the area in which they can be flown from is so large, that no movement may even be necessary initially. Any planes they want flown in from outside that area, can easily do so within half a day of the operation beginning.
as well as the construction of temporary airfields by forced civilian labour is pretty risible.
Who mentioned forced labour? If you have some bizare Soviet-esque picture of chain gangs with pickaxes in striped unforms, then I hate to disabuse you, but China has a lot of building firms with modern construction equipment and machinery. And believe it or not, they even have experience working with materials like concrete!
The F-35 is a steep upgrade to the Harrier and the C compares pretty nicely or out does the Hornet without much trouble. Question I don't know the answer to, are external racks a possibility? Or is it all internal weapons all the time?
Ok we're done. I've tried to put forward clear logical arguments that you've ignored in favour of accusations of acting in bad faith, distortions, and twisting my words claiming that I'm shifting the goal posts when I have been consistent.
When you learn to play the ball and not the player I'll take you seriously
**edit**
Multi-tasking fail. But seeing as it's been responded to no sense in pulling it
Ok we're done. I've tried to put forward clear logical arguments that you've ignored in favour of accusations of acting in bad faith, distortions, and twisting my words claiming that I'm shifting the goal posts when I have been consistent.
When you learn to play the ball and not the player I'll take you seriously
Works for me.
On reflection, I probably could have been a little less sarcastic, but if you classify your arguments as clear and logical, then there's been some genuine breakdown of communication here.
Sorry to disappoint you - I had multiple windows open and clicked post under the wrong one
Ketara wrote: But please. Use your detailed in depth knowledge of the latest Chinese stealth fighter and suchlike to tell me how the American planes will just swing by all the Chinese bases, despite being heavily outnumbered far into hostile airspace, and blow everything up,
You're the one making vast claims on behalf of the PLA's airforce, I eagerly await your substantiation of such claims
Ketara wrote: I'm sorry. In a thousand square miles of mainland China (seriously, go look at a map), you claim that not much land could be used runways?. That's practically as far back as Chengdu for Christ sake. That sort of space is bigger than most countries. Considering all you need for an airstrip is a stretch of ground so long that happens to be flat, and enough storage buildings for the planes and maintenance bays, I'm quite certain that China could find the space.
I'm well aware of the size of China thank you, I'm also aware that runways need a be a certain length, require a certain soil type for stability, and must be a certain range from their target. Again, this narrows down the variables.
Ketara wrote: And even if they couldn't? There's been this wonderful invention called landscaping. When you have a large enough labour force, moving, flattening, and shaping earth is really not the hardest of things to do. If you planned it beforehand, and timed it with the simultaneous throwing up of prefab temporary storage buildings and warehouses, it would take literally about three days at the most.
And, as mentioned previously, all that activity throws up a lot of red flags for intelligence agencies
Ketara wrote: US Intelligence is not omniscient. They cannot cover all construction within China. To even attempt targeted surveillance on the level you are suggesting would require literally hundreds(if not thousands) of analysts sifting through images from just about every satellite the US could muster. Without even questioning the physical capability to identify all potential construction efforts as airfields on short notice, the manpower requirements for processing and analysis alone is simply staggering.
No one claimed that they were omniscient. What I have said, and consistently said, is that there are a number of indicators that intelligence agencies can concentrate one - especially when there is a build up in military activity and rhetoric.
If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan
Then you'd have shifted the goalposts to entirely different hypothetical situation.
That's a nice slight of hand....but that quote you are objecting to is your own By all means object to my arguments, but don't object to your own and claim that I made it
Ketara wrote: No, but it helps. If the majority of your intelligence gathering capabilities reside in orbital photography and reading the Chinese newspapers, you're going to find things a damn sight harder than if you have a mole inside the base or an agent on the ground.
Not only have the goalposts now been moved to 'spotting the signs of a war planned with the US' instead of just 'razing Taiwan', you've shifted the burden of watching for a military buildup onto tracing oil shipments.
Interesting, but impractical except in general terms. China consumes such a large quantity of oil that unless this surprise war with the US was being planned completely on the hoof, they could easily order slightly more for a period of time (say, a year or two), and it would appear relatively unsuspicious. China has a lot of industry that consumes the stuff after all.
No goalposts have been moved, except by you. What I said was that intelligence agencies can trace a number of things that would indicate a military build up - that includes aviation fuel. And as China is a net importer, and the US has allies in oil producing countries then keeping track of said fuel is easier.
And speaking of goalpost moving, I specifically mentioned aircraft fuel - not just plain old oil aircraft fuel is a different beast. The Chinese will need to buy a lot more of it for training, and the operation itself. All of which will, yet again, throw up big flags for any intelligence agency.
Ketara wrote: In the original scenario, this is to bomb Taiwan right? In which case, it's more or less just their airforce. There won't be tens of thousands of soldiers being moved to staging areas, or tanks mustered in highly visible locations.
The only person giving a figure of " tens of thousands of soldiers being moved to staging areas, or tanks mustered in highly visible locations" is you. I said a military build up - airbases need base security, logistics, engineers, support staff, comms, AAA defense systems. That is military build up - and that can be traced.
I would imagine that the people who fly their aircraft might have had just a little bit of training in doing it beforehand.
Otherwise I concede the earlier point wholeheartedly. If their entire airforce is suddenly being trained to fly and shoot missiles in the week beforehand, then yes, the US probably would win that one.
With regards to ammunition, that's an interesting one. But unless US intelligence has moles inside Chinese armaments productions firms highly enough placed to be able to see a bigger picture of increased production, or lots of lesser ones (either is possible), it would be difficult/impossible to monitor.
And you'd be correct that they may have had a little training before. But that does not take away from the fact that prior to operations being launched the training tempo ramps up. More munitions are expended to ensure that the pilots are confident in what they are doing, and how to operate their weapon systems. Those expended munitions need replaced.
Ketara wrote: ith regards to aircraft, the fact that the area in which they can be flown from is so large, that no movement may even be necessary initially. Any planes they want flown in from outside that area, can easily do so within half a day of the operation beginning.
And everything else that is needed aside from planes? Comm equipment? Rations? Ammunition? Barracks? Fuel storage? Munitions storage? etc.
Oh and as far as
Ketara wrote: On reflection, I probably could have been a little less sarcastic, but if you classify your arguments as clear and logical, then there's been some genuine breakdown of communication here.
You could have tried reading and responding to the actual arguments put forth. Not what you thought I put forth, but thank you for showing that I can comfortably ignore your opinions now The only breakdown in communication was the breakdown between what I actually said, and what you thought I said
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The F-35 is a steep upgrade to the Harrier and the C compares pretty nicely or out does the Hornet without much trouble. Question I don't know the answer to, are external racks a possibility? Or is it all internal weapons all the time?
It can use external hardpoints. So, purely internal weapons for penetration strikes, and get the wings and belly loaded up with external stores for mudhut CAS bombing.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sorry to disappoint you - I had multiple windows open and clicked post under the wrong one
You could have tried reading and responding to the actual arguments put forth. Not what you thought I put forth, but thank you for showing that I can comfortably ignore your opinions now The only breakdown in communication was the breakdown between what I actually said, and what you thought I said
I'll respond to your post as soon as I get home (about to go off to work).
However, firstly I'd like to note that to be frank, this is turning into something of a rude/unpleasant discussion now. I won't deny my part in helping it turn that way, but it does take two to tango. How about we both step back from the keyboard a notch and tone down the sarcasm/general nastiness? Otherwise this is leading nowhere productive. If I've been perceived as rude (or indeed, actually been rude), I apologise for that.
So. We can carry on in a more mature/friendly fashion, or we should probably leave it there. I'll leave it up to you. Sound cool?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sorry to disappoint you - I had multiple windows open and clicked post under the wrong one
You could have tried reading and responding to the actual arguments put forth. Not what you thought I put forth, but thank you for showing that I can comfortably ignore your opinions now The only breakdown in communication was the breakdown between what I actually said, and what you thought I said
I'll respond to your post as soon as I get home (about to go off to work).
However, firstly I'd like to note that to be frank, this is turning into something of a rude/unpleasant discussion now. I won't deny my part in helping it turn that way, but it does take two to tango. How about we both step back from the keyboard a notch and tone down the sarcasm/general nastiness? Otherwise this is leading nowhere productive. If I've been perceived as rude (or indeed, actually been rude), I apologise for that.
So. We can carry on in a more mature/friendly fashion, or we should probably leave it there. I'll leave it up to you. Sound cool?
Turning into? It reached that way a few posts back. I won't deny my part in it, but I will say that it was not I who threw the first stone. I only responded in kind.
I always thought that you were usually pretty sensible, and that even if you didn't see eye to eye that you could at least respectfully agree to disagree. Your level of snarkiness, distortion, and bad faith is making me re-assess that.
And it has comparatively little fuel compared to what? It'll have more internal gas than the Super Bug. Cruises more efficiently, too.
Only with the inerting and other safety systems removed. It also currently accelerates like a bus, taking 43 seconds longer than F16 Falcon block 60 to exceed Mach 1.
I looked into it, and the B and C variants have had their Mach 1 restriction lifted (not so on the As) and have been flying test off the Wasp. Even with all that lightening, the pilots report running low on fuel attempting to reach mach1+.
Here's the problems the pentagon is willign to admit are problems:
The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
While supposedly the issue of the airframe cracking under less than 8k hours regular flight time has been addressed, the fact that it got that far at all...
This bird is an expensive boondoggle, and the only reason it has not been cancelled is that Lockheed spent more than a billion dollars lining the pockets of almost every Congressman running last election.
Only with the inerting and other safety systems removed.
In-co-rrect.
It also currently accelerates like a bus, taking 43 seconds longer than F16 Falcon block 60 to exceed Mach 1.
The C does, yes. Because it has a larger wing and thus more transonic drag. It accelerates faster than the Super Hornet, however, so let's compare apples and apples and look at the C vs. the legacy F/A-18 and the A vs. the F-16. Hint: the respective models beat the planes they're replacing in most metrics.
I looked into it, and the B and C variants have had their Mach 1 restriction lifted (not so on the As) and have been flying test off the Wasp. Even with all that lightening, the pilots report running low on fuel attempting to reach mach1+.
Oh, God. We covered this earlier, during the discussion of the alleged "supersonic mating dance."
Here's the problems the pentagon is willign to admit are problems:
The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
While supposedly the issue of the airframe cracking under less than 8k hours regular flight time has been addressed, the fact that it got that far at all...
And I see we're back to where we were several pages ago in general. I could go through and point-by-point address this stuff again, but why bother? Someone else will inevitably not read it and post this list or something like it in another few posts.
This bird is an expensive boondoggle, and the only reason it has not been cancelled is that Lockheed spent more than a billion dollars lining the pockets of almost every Congressman running last election.
It's over budget and behind schedule, but that hardly makes it a boondoggle. It's an incredible advance in our air power. Pilots (including this one) like it immensely for what it brings to the table.
Turning into? It reached that way a few posts back. I won't deny my part in it, but I will say that it was not I who threw the first stone. I only responded in kind.
I always thought that you were usually pretty sensible, and that even if you didn't see eye to eye that you could at least respectfully agree to disagree. Your level of snarkiness, distortion, and bad faith is making me re-assess that.
I see. Well, in that case, I won't force you to interact with me further. I know, at the least, that I apologised for my part in it. Conscience is clear, and all that.
Much appreciated
