Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 13:26:02


Post by: KTG17


So I have been following the development of this fighter since the beginning with a mix of excitement and dismay. We’ve all heard the negatives about this aircraft: it can’t fly, limited internal hardpoints, too expensive, jack of all trades yet superior in nothing, etc etc. Nevermind the way the US military acquired the early models. A lot of people have something to gain from the jet either failing or succeeding, so you really have to consider the source when reading the reviews. And while I was apprehensive about the F-35, it looks like it’s going to turn out to be a pretty amazing component in the US military system. Keep in mind nothing operates in a void anymore. Everything is connected and the most important weapon in the tool box is information, and this jet will not only be able to acquire it, but also help manage it and take action with it. I am starting to believe this is a really revolutionary aircraft not necessarily for what it specifically can do, but it will lay the template down for what all US aircraft will do for the foreseeable future.

I think there are rightfully some concerns, many actually, but those will be worked out. What is of great concern is how the production and assembly was divided up between multiple countries, which I think will actually play a part in how long this jet remains in service in the US military, since I have no doubt that stealing everything that makes this jet tick will be pretty easy. Eventually the Chinese and Russians will duplicate much of it. The US is already in the early stages of developing the next air superior fighter to replace the F-22, and much of the technology for that will come from what has been developed and learned from the F-35. My neighbor works for Centcom, and knows a lot about this jet, and says over all it’s an ok aircraft, maybe even a little bit of a disappointment as it won’t be everything that sold it, but the tech in it is pretty amazing.

For those that don’t know, the aircraft is still going through improvements and the software block that really unleashes the aircraft comes out next year. The frame has been built for 9gs and Lockheed has deliberately been holding it back while it continues to work out the kinks. I saw a video last night that caught my eye:




3:50 mark. That hard left turn where the plane looks like it skids, and you can see the software work the flaps before it starts going vertical is pretty cool. And this is still with the software deliberately limiting what the pilot can do. Everyone knocks this plane as one that won’t be able to dog fight, but since the pilot can see through the plane in his helmet and launch a missile at a target in another direction, I don’t think this plane will have to do that for some time. The 9gs will prob come in handy more for dodging attacks than making them.

I am all for being skeptical, but I guess more credit should have been given to Lockheed than initially was. For a company that has produced the U2, SR71, Nighthawk, and the F-22, they have a pretty impressive track record. I do think trying to build 3 jets in one design does hurt the overall design and was probably too ambitious and even foolish, but I don’t doubt the US military is going to do some impressive things with this jet. But what is going to be even more impressive is when they take everything they learned between this and the F-22 and build something really scary.

I have read they have a SR72 waiting to be built, so one can only imagine what they have lined up 20 years out. Keep in mind Have Blue flew in 77. I imagine if Kelly Johnson were still alive today, he’d have some pretty insightful thoughts on aircraft design that would still be relevant today.

EDIT: And this won’t seem like much, but using the same airframe, the F-35B comes by to say hi. To me the slowing down and hovering isn’t so much the big deal, but going back into fighter mode and flying off is pretty cool. Even tho it’s this function that has held back the plane’s overall performance.




The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 13:47:44


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


Any good as part of a naval airwing? Asking for a friend.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 13:56:42


Post by: KTG17


 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Any good as part of a naval airwing? Asking for a friend.


I haven't followed the C version that much if that is what you are asking about, but I did read of a Super Hornet pilot who flew the F-35 say he wouldn't care if he ever flew the Hornet again. But I wouldn't know personally. The C is for the large US carriers, but I think the UK is getting the B version. So are the US Marines who operate out of the smaller carriers we have. If the C version has any issues, its a larger wing which it needs at slower speeds when coming in for a landing. And it doesn't have an internal gun. Neither does the B. Speaking of the gun, the ammo is insane. A single bullet is a combination of tracer, armor piercing, incendiary, and explosive all in one. The cost? Pretty ridiculous. But back in the day a belt of ammo would have a tracer round like every 4 rounds, but this bullet will do it all.

I think part of the problem with this jet is that it is so different than everything before it that pilots are learning to fly all over again. The younger pilots are having an easier time learning what it can do because they are not restricted by the way older pilots learned to fly older aircraft.

Some details on the helmet:



Pretty sci-fi. The helmet doesn't sit directly on the pilot's head. I didn't know this till my neighbor explained it, but a cap is fitted over the pilots head and the helmet rests on that. I thought each helmet was fitted to a pilot and therefore wouldn't be inter-changable between pilots without having to go through all sorts of refitting, but that is not the case. However, if I lose the cap I am in trouble, But this means most of the time anyone can grab any helmet and run with it, or if one helmet isn't working you just transfer the cap piece to another helmet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The next big revolution in helmets/visors/information will come in the form of ground troops. The guys who develop the display for the F-35 helmet are working on developing the same kind of thing for troops. So right in their visor they will get information from each other or other sources on where a target it, or specific location they are looking for, and so on. Much of that tech is available on other devices, but the next big leap is for the soldier's eyewear.

I can't understand how that isn't information overload, or even distracting, but I guess we'll see where it goes.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 14:26:37


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


The joke is that our brand new aircraft carrier has no planes ( ignoring helicopters and it's current non permanent airwing) and is supposedly getting some f-35's as it's main armament. So hopefully it's quite good for the price and not something that BAE could have knocked together for cheaper ( in that they would't have had to pay shipping costs etc due to some MOD muppet having signed a contract saying that we'll use them no matter what).


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 14:30:04


Post by: Vaktathi


Characterization is spot on, it's a really neat tech platform that will be great for future aircraft to build on, the integrated helmet targeting system in particular is a neat one, but for what it's actually being built for and replacing it appears to be coming up short in many respects (particularly ordnance capacity) and a total project cost exceeding the GDP of the Russian Federation, coupled with legendary project management problems between Lockheed and the DoD during '06-11.

New aircraft platforms taking advantage of these things is likely to be relatively far in the future. The RFP for the F22 came out in the mid 80's and took 20 years before it entered service, the F35 started design in something like 1994 and still hasn't been finished. Noises on 6th generation aircraft just started in the last couple of years, so I wouldn't expect to see any deployable aircraft out of those until probably near 2040 if the project timelines of the F22 and F35 are anything to go by. Retrofitting some technology to existing aircraft is likely to be a possibility though.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 14:33:41


Post by: Iron_Captain


"Eventually the Russians and Chinese will duplicate it?" They already have! The F-35 has been in development for so long that both Russia and China have already started on their own programs incorporating the same or similar technologies.

It is a great looking plane though. I saw them in action during an airshow here a few years back. Awesome aircraft.
And yeah. Criticising a modern fighter jet for not being able to dogfight is kinda like criticising a modern warship for not being able to ram the enemy. It is an outdated method of aerial warfare. Modern aircraft can engage each other before they even get in visual range.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 14:50:26


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:
"Eventually the Russians and Chinese will duplicate it?" They already have! The F-35 has been in development for so long that both Russia and China have already started on their own programs incorporating the same or similar technologies.


You know, its not just them. But by spreading the tech between the allies, Lockheed has essentially given its competitors knowledge how to build many of these components. So its not just for the US military sake, but for Lockheed's as well. If the EU gets together to build their own version of the F-35, like the tempest, then they will need less F-35s. I think its just bad for business.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Modern aircraft can engage each other before they even get in visual range.


Well they have been able to do this for awhile, but even in Desert Storm, US pilots were required to get visual confirmation of their targets, usually involving a merge, before combat started. The F-35 uses data files of all existing aircraft in the world loaded into its software so that its sensors can identify what the other plane is, but to be honest I am not sure how reliable that will be. I think those that think there will be some kind of merge or line up of opposing forces before combat starts are the ones concerned about dogfights. Its just with the sensors and the helmet, you don't have to get the nose of the plane on target anymore. You can look through the bottom of the plane, see the target, and fire a missile from the helmet. So with that I think even if the f-35 can't keep up with certain aircraft, the sensor and targeting tech def levels out the playing field. And then there is the issue of stealth. Many of the exercises at Red Flag are ending before the victim knows there is an F-35 in the area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
The joke is that our brand new aircraft carrier has no planes ( ignoring helicopters and it's current non permanent airwing) and is supposedly getting some f-35's as it's main armament. So hopefully it's quite good for the price and not something that BAE could have knocked together for cheaper ( in that they would't have had to pay shipping costs etc due to some MOD muppet having signed a contract saying that we'll use them no matter what).


I think the difficult thing with keeping up with the US on designs like these is how massive the project is. It isn't about designing a plane anymore. Its a fusion of so many things, especially software. If it wasn't for the software in the F-35, this jet would have been completed and finished production already. But giving a frame capability that a pilot cannot fly without the aid of a computer, then tying in not only weapon systems but all of the sensors, and plugging it all into a jack that a pilot can read through his helmet, is quite a project. That's why I think the criticism of the F35 program is a little harsh. They are really developing three different planes who share some common designs but are all using the same software, even if they plane doesn't even have the components for it. Its pretty sick.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 14:55:28


Post by: MDSW


It will only have to dogfight if the aliens invade and start shooting that green **** at them.

All kidding aside, the tech is what makes aircraft advance and this has been true for nearly every jet since the F-14 - being able to track and target multiple targets in the air well beyond visual range.

I spent over 20 years in the Navy, albeit not in the air side of things, but my middle son is currently a pilot in the Navy and keeps me updated - there are some pretty amazing tech advances from one air frame to another - and yes, even the helmets are more advanced than any sci-fi writer could ever dream up.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 15:06:52


Post by: Captain Joystick


People bring up dogfighting because it conjures that romantic fighter-jock pushing their machine and their imagination in a desperate air battle; Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbour type stuff. Its so ingrained into the imagination that a hundred years from now people will still wonder how well the latest cutting edge fighter can dogfight.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is a great looking plane though.


I would disagree.

Everything else about it, the feature bloat, the setbacks, the way it's pioneering so much advanced tech that might as well have been refined backstage for the next generation of fighter instead, all of that can be argued about until the cows come home. But it is not a pretty plane.

It looks like a beached fish.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 15:24:02


Post by: KTG17


 Captain Joystick wrote:

I would disagree.

Everything else about it, the feature bloat, the setbacks, the way it's pioneering so much advanced tech that might as well have been refined backstage for the next generation of fighter instead, all of that can be argued about until the cows come home. But it is not a pretty plane.

It looks like a beached fish.


Really?







I do think the F-35 is def cooler looking, but this is a pretty cool looking frame. Especially for a single engine plane.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 15:27:40


Post by: whembly


Lotsa cool techs in that bird.

I wonder if we're putting too many of our "eggs" in one stealthy platform (F-35 & F-22)...

There's rumblings for a new, cheaper plane:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/

The F-15X (or similar upgraded F-16) seems to make sense logistically, as an evolved version of an older fighter with plenty of trained ground crews, spares, etc. Using techs developed for F-35s (not the stealthy techs of course)

It also probably makes sense as as “second day” asset. That is, the F-15X would perform ongoing missions on the second or third day of a major conflict, after the stealthier (but more maintenance-heavy) F-22s and F-35s completes the initial operations.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 15:31:14


Post by: KTG17


 Captain Joystick wrote:

Everything else about it, the feature bloat, the setbacks, the way it's pioneering so much advanced tech that might as well have been refined backstage for the next generation of fighter instead, all of that can be argued about until the cows come home.


 whembly wrote:
Lotsa cool techs in that bird.

I wonder if we're putting too many of our "eggs" in one stealthy platform (F-35 & F-22)...

There's rumblings for a new, cheaper plane:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/

The F-15X (or similar upgraded F-16) seems to make sense logistically, as an evolved version of an older fighter with plenty of trained ground crews, spares, etc. Using techs developed for F-35s (not the stealthy techs of course)

It also probably makes sense as as “second day” asset. That is, the F-15X would perform ongoing missions on the second or third day of a major conflict, after the stealthier (but more maintenance-heavy) F-22s and F-35s completes the initial operations.


Actually my neighbor (I know I bring him up a lot but he is in the know), says there will probably be some movement for less tech designs. The problem with all this high-tech is cost, and in a war with China we'll need numbers. So the idea is to complement the F-35 with cheaper but capable fighters where the F-35 manages the airspace so to speak. I am doubtful that will happen, because at the end of the day, you are stating that you are setting out to build aircraft with less capability for the sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and uncles and aunts who serve in the US military and that is a hard pill to swallow. I just am not sure that will survive scrutiny. I am sure the same debate went on in Canada in regards to replacing the Hornet. The Canadians are concerned with a single engine failing over the vastness of Canada, and they are def in their right to be concerned with that, but the Hornet will be obsolete so why buy them. I think in time Canada will eventually go 100% F-35 or something else rather than stick with buying older aircraft. I think the same will apply in the US.

2nd and 3rd day does make sense though. But then you are also re-introducing a crap load of parts and necessary knowledge into the supply system. I think that is one reason why the Air Force hates operating the A-10. It chews up a lot of their budget and its a legacy aircraft. I do not think the F-35 is the best replacement for the A-10 though, but there have been valid arguments that the A-10's service life was only extended because of Afghanistan. Apparently they took a lot of damage moving in close enough to use their guns in Desert Storm and so on up against well protected targets that they only started dropping bombs and missiles. So if you are only going to do that then I guess you can use something else not built around that big gun. But then I am not sure how many US aircraft can loiter overhead like the A-10 can.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 16:05:55


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
"Eventually the Russians and Chinese will duplicate it?" They already have! The F-35 has been in development for so long that both Russia and China have already started on their own programs incorporating the same or similar technologies.


You know, its not just them. But by spreading the tech between the allies, Lockheed has essentially given its competitors knowledge how to build many of these components. So its not just for the US military sake, but for Lockheed's as well. If the EU gets together to build their own version of the F-35, like the tempest, then they will need less F-35s. I think its just bad for business.

Actually its good for business. The F-35 is very expensive for Europe considering its likely use and European alternatives. Giving European allies that limited manufacturing capability pulled a lot of buyers across the line. Its better for business, worse for a hypothetical Europe becomes enemies of the US which is very unlikely. If the EU actually gets more unified in weapons development it unlikely they buy american anyway and will fund national defense industries to produce more or negotiate better prices with US maufacturers. This is the better business alternative, sell them with an incentive and they are less inclined to develop their own expensive models, especially outside of the three big nations here.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 16:20:53


Post by: KTG17


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually its good for business. The F-35 is very expensive for Europe considering its likely use and European alternatives. Giving European allies that limited manufacturing capability pulled a lot of buyers across the line. Its better for business, worse for a hypothetical Europe becomes enemies of the US which is very unlikely. If the EU actually gets more unified in weapons development it unlikely they buy american anyway and will fund national defense industries to produce more or negotiate better prices with US maufacturers. This is the better business alternative, sell them with an incentive and they are less inclined to develop their own expensive models, especially outside of the three big nations here.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/uk-tempest-fighter-jet-typhoon-farnborough-airshow

I am sure some of the tech in the F35 is going to end up in the Tempest.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 16:31:36


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 KTG17 wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually its good for business. The F-35 is very expensive for Europe considering its likely use and European alternatives. Giving European allies that limited manufacturing capability pulled a lot of buyers across the line. Its better for business, worse for a hypothetical Europe becomes enemies of the US which is very unlikely. If the EU actually gets more unified in weapons development it unlikely they buy american anyway and will fund national defense industries to produce more or negotiate better prices with US maufacturers. This is the better business alternative, sell them with an incentive and they are less inclined to develop their own expensive models, especially outside of the three big nations here.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/uk-tempest-fighter-jet-typhoon-farnborough-airshow

I am sure some of the tech in the F35 is going to end up in the Tempest.

Sure, but can the UK compete in price with the F-35 for example? The UK, Germany and France (others to a lesser extent) all try to produce their own hardware which has never been a secret. But other European countries don't buy European because its European, they are pragmatic, they tend to buy US material for plenty of aspects and the F-35 is the competitive choice, its here now at the end of life of the F-16 and includes a good deal on top. When it that Tempest going to be finished? Once everyone who wanted to upgrade bought their F-35s? From a business perspective Lockheed Martin made the right choice to draw bigger buyers, instead of scaring them off to cheaper competitors that provided enough of what buyers were looking for. The risk in not doing this is also driving European defense industries because the US is pricing itself out of the market with a rigid approach. Its a fine line. Besides, China already stole everything not nailed down about the F-35, at least we pay for it


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 16:37:39


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is a great looking plane though.


I would disagree.

Everything else about it, the feature bloat, the setbacks, the way it's pioneering so much advanced tech that might as well have been refined backstage for the next generation of fighter instead, all of that can be argued about until the cows come home. But it is not a pretty plane.

It looks like a beached fish.

Nah, it looks sleek and future-y, like a space fighter! A lot better than planes like the F-18 or F-15 which are just flying metal boxes. Not as pretty as planes like the F-16, SU-30/35 or the Rafale. Basically, I like rounded and angular shapes on planes, but dislike more square shapes.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 16:54:15


Post by: Warpig1815


KTG17 wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually its good for business. The F-35 is very expensive for Europe considering its likely use and European alternatives. Giving European allies that limited manufacturing capability pulled a lot of buyers across the line. Its better for business, worse for a hypothetical Europe becomes enemies of the US which is very unlikely. If the EU actually gets more unified in weapons development it unlikely they buy american anyway and will fund national defense industries to produce more or negotiate better prices with US maufacturers. This is the better business alternative, sell them with an incentive and they are less inclined to develop their own expensive models, especially outside of the three big nations here.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/uk-tempest-fighter-jet-typhoon-farnborough-airshow

I am sure some of the tech in the F35 is going to end up in the Tempest.


I'm certain it will. I've been interested in the F-35 since it's inception, although I won't claim I know the ins-and-outs of it, and I'm sure that a good chunk of the Electronics Warfare suite was developed by BAE, alongside alternate helmet systems. Although the alternate system wasn't used as far as I know, you can bet that it served as the test-bed for systems that will be incorporated into the Tempest's virtual cockpit (Which, to a layman, seems terrifyingly perilous - talk about putting all eggs into one basket...) .

As for the F-35, even should it prove to be a 'disappointment' now, I can see that in 20-30 years time, when the next truly great aircraft comes into service, it will have it's roots in the tech developed and implemented in the F-35.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 17:13:06


Post by: vonjankmon


 Captain Joystick wrote:
People bring up dogfighting because it conjures that romantic fighter-jock pushing their machine and their imagination in a desperate air battle; Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbour type stuff. Its so ingrained into the imagination that a hundred years from now people will still wonder how well the latest cutting edge fighter can dogfight.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is a great looking plane though.


I would disagree.

Everything else about it, the feature bloat, the setbacks, the way it's pioneering so much advanced tech that might as well have been refined backstage for the next generation of fighter instead, all of that can be argued about until the cows come home. But it is not a pretty plane.

It looks like a beached fish.


People bring up dog fighting because the last time the US thought it was done with dog fighting and that missiles would make it irrelevant the decision to not give the Phantom other weaponry was quickly regretted as pilots ran out of missiles and just had to fly away rather than being able to engage the remaining enemy fighters.

May we have finally reached the point where dog fighting is irrelevant but given the focus on stealth technology I would not bet on it.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 19:28:32


Post by: Peregrine


Opinion? It seems like a lot of money to be spending on a tech development platform that will spend 99.999999% of its time dropping expensive smart weapons on one guy with a rusted-out AK-47. It should have been cancelled a long time ago in favor of cheaper options, with possibly a small number of prototypes funded to continue the tech development work, but at this point fatigue life on older aircraft is accumulating too much and we're committed to F-35 replacements so I guess we just have to eat the cost of the whole debacle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 KTG17 wrote:
and in a war with China we'll need numbers.


There will be no war with China.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 19:52:17


Post by: KTG17




I assume you mean if the Chinese invade Taiwan, or flares pop up between them and Japan or the Philippines over disputed islands who we all have defense treaties with, we'll just sit it out? Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan.





The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 19:58:19


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 KTG17 wrote:


I assume you mean if the Chinese invade Taiwan, or flares pop up between them and Japan or the Philippines over disputed islands who we all have defense treaties with, we'll just sit it out? Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan.

Yes, required by law to defend Taiwan, back in 1979. Any potential conflict will be avoided by both sides, this is why neither the US or China use force in the SCS even though they both pretend they can. Both sides know the consequences and China won't provoke it in the lifetime of the F-35 and why would the US? Nuclear weapons are still too big of a factor to wage a direct war right next to the heart of China.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 20:13:22


Post by: Jazzpot1707


 Peregrine wrote:
Opinion? It seems like a lot of money to be spending on a tech development platform that will spend 99.999999% of its time dropping expensive smart weapons on one guy with a rusted-out AK-47. It should have been cancelled a long time ago in favor of cheaper options, with possibly a small number of prototypes funded to continue the tech development work, but at this point fatigue life on older aircraft is accumulating too much and we're committed to F-35 replacements so I guess we just have to eat the cost of the whole debacle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 KTG17 wrote:
and in a war with China we'll need numbers.


There will be no war with China.


Can't help but agree.
The F35 is a fantastic plane but it really isn't needed for anytime soon, and by the time it is needed, if it ever is, it will be up against disposable drone tech, which is coming on in leaps and bounds.
The main problem is the pilot not being able to match the tech. anymore, and the fact that any war between major players would result in nuclear armageddon, or financial ruin.
The F16 was designed for a shooting war (where we lost large numbers) it's cheap but effective and relatively quick to build, unlike the F35. We would be better off just sending
F15's, 16's and 18's ETC. with our most advanced air to air missiles in that sort of war.
It is an incredibly expensive plane carrying increasingly expensive armaments that can be fired way out of the range of medium air defenses (look at what happened to Syria recently)
Or if it's taking on other planes in air to air, it's amazing, but a modern plane with advanced radar, and modern missiles could do just as well but cheaper.

In my opinion the B model is the worst it doesn't have the range necessary, It's weapons might, so why spend so much on such a platform?.

Oh i also much prefer the F22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor[url]


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 20:52:18


Post by: Captain Joystick


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nah, it looks sleek and future-y, like a space fighter!


A space fighter that eats cake for breakfast.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A lot better than planes like the F-18 or F-15 which are just flying metal boxes. Not as pretty as planes like the F-16, SU-30/35 or the Rafale. Basically, I like rounded and angular shapes on planes, but dislike more square shapes.


Nah man. The only fighter we puny humans ever made that deserved to fight in space was the Grumman F-14.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 21:59:57


Post by: cuda1179


Isn't Iran the only country that still tries to operate the F-14? They got some from us a LONG time ago, and have had to jerry-rig in a bunch of replacement parts because we stopped giving them proper replacement parts.


As for the F-35, I feel like they tried too much in one basket. I think the better option would have been to develop two planes together(the Air Force and Navy version), and then have a third, separate plane (that still used the engine, landing gear, and other common parts) that was VTOL.

I do however feel that the VTOL version is better than the Harrier it is replacing, and that the Harrier is well past its prime.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/01 22:18:25


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


Harrier was past it's prime forever ago, there just wasn't a really viable STOVL replacement, I'd have liked to see the eurofighter get a naval version though.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 00:06:06


Post by: Iron_Captain


 KTG17 wrote:


I assume you mean if the Chinese invade Taiwan, or flares pop up between them and Japan or the Philippines over disputed islands who we all have defense treaties with, we'll just sit it out? Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan.




According to the US, Taiwan is not even an official country. They are not required by law to do anything regarding Taiwan. Any treaty with a government that is not a recognised state is only as valid as the signing party wants it to be.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 00:29:20


Post by: Vulcan


 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is a great looking plane though. I saw them in action during an airshow here a few years back. Awesome aircraft.
And yeah. Criticising a modern fighter jet for not being able to dogfight is kinda like criticising a modern warship for not being able to ram the enemy. It is an outdated method of aerial warfare. Modern aircraft can engage each other before they even get in visual range.


Gee, where did I hear that before? I think it was in the 1960s, when the F-4 Phantom replaced the F-8 Crusader. "Guns and dogfighting are outdated now, missiles are the way of the future." This lead to the F-4 being built without a gun... and winding up in dogfights with MiG-17s and MiG-21s at a significant disadvantage.

I'd also bet the Russian military does not agree with your assessment, given the supermaneuverability capabilities of the latest Russian fighters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Lotsa cool techs in that bird.

I wonder if we're putting too many of our "eggs" in one stealthy platform (F-35 & F-22)...

There's rumblings for a new, cheaper plane:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/

The F-15X (or similar upgraded F-16) seems to make sense logistically, as an evolved version of an older fighter with plenty of trained ground crews, spares, etc. Using techs developed for F-35s (not the stealthy techs of course)

It also probably makes sense as as “second day” asset. That is, the F-15X would perform ongoing missions on the second or third day of a major conflict, after the stealthier (but more maintenance-heavy) F-22s and F-35s completes the initial operations.


Reagan called it a 'high-low' acquisition policy. You buy a limited number of really high-capacity, high cost platforms (in Regan's case, the F-15 and F-117), and back it up with larger quantities of smaller, somewhat less capable but more affordable platforms (the F-16 and A-10) so you're not continuously risking lots of expensive platforms to operational loss while still covering the needs of a large military force.

It's why you would, for example, send an F-35 in to recon a CAS situation, and deal with the local anti-air defenses as a wild weasel, and then once the way is clear you bring in the A-10s to do the heavy lifting.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 06:12:21


Post by: jouso


 Vulcan wrote:

Reagan called it a 'high-low' acquisition policy. You buy a limited number of really high-capacity, high cost platforms (in Regan's case, the F-15 and F-117), and back it up with larger quantities of smaller, somewhat less capable but more affordable platforms (the F-16 and A-10) so you're not continuously risking lots of expensive platforms to operational loss while still covering the needs of a large military force.

It's why you would, for example, send an F-35 in to recon a CAS situation, and deal with the local anti-air defenses as a wild weasel, and then once the way is clear you bring in the A-10s to do the heavy lifting.


The Russians seem to be heading that way as they won't be building (at least for the time being) more of the super-expensive stealth-ish Su-57, and will leave 4th gen fighters to do the work.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 17:19:45


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:


I assume you mean if the Chinese invade Taiwan, or flares pop up between them and Japan or the Philippines over disputed islands who we all have defense treaties with, we'll just sit it out? Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan.




According to the US, Taiwan is not even an official country. They are not required by law to do anything regarding Taiwan. Any treaty with a government that is not a recognised state is only as valid as the signing party wants it to be.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis

Last time things flared up there was in 1996. US sent a pretty strong show of force to show support for Taiwan. What happened after? China embarked on its strategy on building up its Naval forces and island building to limit the US's ability to, in part, come to Taiwan's aid. China doesn't need its military might in the South China sea to beat Vietnam, the Philippines, or Indonesia. It had that taken care of long ago. There will be a point when the China feels embolden to ferry troops across the Straight, which it still can't do today.

Don't be so assured the US and China wont clash in the region. Especially if a Chinese paramiltary unit that accompanies the fishing fleets does something. There might not be a full out war, but neither was Operation Praying Mantis, and that did the job.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 17:36:22


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:


I assume you mean if the Chinese invade Taiwan, or flares pop up between them and Japan or the Philippines over disputed islands who we all have defense treaties with, we'll just sit it out? Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan.




According to the US, Taiwan is not even an official country. They are not required by law to do anything regarding Taiwan. Any treaty with a government that is not a recognised state is only as valid as the signing party wants it to be.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis

Last time things flared up there was in 1996. US sent a pretty strong show of force to show support for Taiwan. What happened after? China embarked on its strategy on building up its Naval forces and island building to limit the US's ability to, in part, come to Taiwan's aid. China doesn't need its military might in the South China sea to beat Vietnam, the Philippines, or Indonesia. It had that taken care of long ago. There will be a point when the China feels embolden to ferry troops across the Straight, which it still can't do today.

Don't be so assured the US and China wont clash in the region. Especially if a Chinese paramiltary unit that accompanies the fishing fleets does something. There might not be a full out war, but neither was Operation Praying Mantis, and that did the job.

This does nothing to disprove what Iron Captain (and myself) have said in regard to you saying the US has a legal obligation. Sure, the US has an interest, but no legal obligation. Its pretty likely that if China ever wanted Taiwan, the US would just be presented with a fait accompli. Why set the world on fire over Taiwan? The US hasn't been willing since 1979. The TTSC is an entirely different context and time than any potential future actual attempt.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 19:02:20


Post by: KTG17


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This does nothing to disprove what Iron Captain (and myself) have said in regard to you saying the US has a legal obligation. Sure, the US has an interest, but no legal obligation. Its pretty likely that if China ever wanted Taiwan, the US would just be presented with a fait accompli. Why set the world on fire over Taiwan? The US hasn't been willing since 1979. The TTSC is an entirely different context and time than any potential future actual attempt.


'Legal' is certainly a loose term. The US is not obligated to send troops to Europe if Russia invades either despite NATO (all it calls for is that it would provide assistance), yet it is assumed it would happen. Nor are any other NATO members obligated to send troops to the US if the US was invaded, just 'assistance'. So you can bend arguments all around you want, but the point is that you guys say the US wouldn't militarily support Taiwan when it already recently has shown that it would, despite the wording of their agreement.

What did Taiwan have back in 1996 anymore than it does now? Nothing. Neither does Japan, South Korea, the Philippines. And China isn't going to set the world on fire for Taiwan anymore than the US would. It will be a air/naval campaign. Once China realizes that it cannot physically seize Taiwan the conflict will end. If China wanted to obliterate Taiwan into submission, they could also do that now. And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.

So no, one is going to set the world on fire for Taiwan.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 19:21:33


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 KTG17 wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This does nothing to disprove what Iron Captain (and myself) have said in regard to you saying the US has a legal obligation. Sure, the US has an interest, but no legal obligation. Its pretty likely that if China ever wanted Taiwan, the US would just be presented with a fait accompli. Why set the world on fire over Taiwan? The US hasn't been willing since 1979. The TTSC is an entirely different context and time than any potential future actual attempt.


'Legal' is certainly a loose term. The US is not obligated to send troops to Europe if Russia invades either despite NATO (all it calls for is that it would provide assistance), yet it is assumed it would happen. Nor are any other NATO members obligated to send troops to the US if the US was invaded, just 'assistance'. So you can bend arguments all around you want, but the point is that you guys say the US wouldn't militarily support Taiwan when it already recently has shown that it would, despite the wording of their agreement.

What did Taiwan have back in 1996 anymore than it does now? Nothing. Neither does Japan, South Korea, the Philippines. And China isn't going to set the world on fire for Taiwan anymore than the US would. It will be a air/naval campaign. Once China realizes that it cannot physically seize Taiwan the conflict will end. If China wanted to obliterate Taiwan into submission, they could also do that now. And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.

So no, one is going to set the world on fire for Taiwan.

But NATO is an actual legally binding treaty, even though article 5 is pretty vague on what needs to be committed. Taiwan has had nothing since 1979. The issue we took is that you said "Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan." Now you're trying to bend the argument into "oh the US will militarily support Taiwan" which is entirely different from being legally obligated to do so, which again the US is not. Why the US would want to is obvious, letting China just take Taiwan has serious implications both in the region and the wider world, which is why the US still sends over a boatload of weapons. No, China would be stupid to provoke a war now. It needs to build up significantly more if it would. With a more advanced military in a few decades Taiwan's lifespan during an invasion might be as little as a few days if China is going to invest enough to get up to par with the US. Of course this is all just guess work as we have no idea what developments will happen in the future. The only way China will try is if it can end it fast enough before the US intervenes or the US no longer cares/is distracted. But as you say, China has no interest in obliterating Taiwan. A war is extremely unlikely to ever happen.

 KTG17 wrote:
And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.

This is actually false, any hostile action by China against the US in East Asia isn't covered by NATO:

Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to
include an armed attack:
• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian
Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of
any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories
or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were
stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or
the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Even Hawaii falls outside of article 5 technically speaking. Europe might be pushed to do Korea 2.0


The F-35 @ 2018/08/02 19:23:39


Post by: Kilkrazy


 KTG17 wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This does nothing to disprove what Iron Captain (and myself) have said in regard to you saying the US has a legal obligation. Sure, the US has an interest, but no legal obligation. Its pretty likely that if China ever wanted Taiwan, the US would just be presented with a fait accompli. Why set the world on fire over Taiwan? The US hasn't been willing since 1979. The TTSC is an entirely different context and time than any potential future actual attempt.


'Legal' is certainly a loose term. The US is not obligated to send troops to Europe if Russia invades either despite NATO (all it calls for is that it would provide assistance), yet it is assumed it would happen. ... ... .


Regardless of the legal terminology, the USA has large numbers of troops in Europe. It's a strong "boots on the ground" demonstration that the USA would fulfil its treaty obligations in the highly unlikely event of an invasion by some 3rd party.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 01:02:52


Post by: KTG17


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[But NATO is an actual legally binding treaty, even though article 5 is pretty vague on what needs to be committed. Taiwan has had nothing since 1979. The issue we took is that you said "Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan." Now you're trying to bend the argument into "oh the US will militarily support Taiwan" which is entirely different from being legally obligated to do so, which again the US is not.


* The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee the USA will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, it primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities". However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity" and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC. *

This is all you need for a President to go to war to defend Taiwan.

Right from James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2004 - "Viewing any use of force against Taiwan with grave concern, we will maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan. " in political speak means we will go to war to defend Taiwan.

I brought up Clinton sending two carrier battlegroups during the Taiwan Straight Crisis, but even Bush confirmed US support when he said has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan in 2005.

Just because the treaty doesn't specify that the US will send X troops to Taiwan in an invasion (as the NATO treaty doesn't either), it lays out clearly that it gives the President power to do so and as he sees fit, by Congress. All NATO's article 5 states is that the members will provide assistance as they each see fit, which is really no difference than that the Taiwan Relations Act essentially does. In both cases where the US could be dragged into a war, our contribution could be as little as sending a postcard saying 'Hang in there' to fully committing to the war with boots on the ground. That is a fact. Now, if you want to argue and say well of course the US would defend the Netherlands, fine, but don't think the US wouldn't do the same for Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act is a carefully worded document basically saying to the Chinese, back off from invading Taiwan, and we won't promote their independence. So long as they do not and do not attack the mainland, we will defend them.

 KTG17 wrote:
And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.

This is actually false, any hostile action by China against the US in East Asia isn't covered by NATO:


I didn't say attack 'the US in East Asia'. I cannot find the article I read some time ago, but when the Chinese approached a US diplomat in regards to what the US response would be if China went to war with Taiwan, and got a carefully worded response, meaning that the US would defend Taiwan so long as they were not the aggressor, to which a Chinese General asked even if it meant the destruction of L.A., and he said yes.

So in this case, it would be in North America, and the US would rope in NATO. And I hardly think the Chinese wouldn't try to attack the US mainland in some way if we were hitting targets in mainland China. This is why Putin himself stated that a war in North Korea would lead to another third world war, as it would only be a matter of time before NATO got involved. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the consences if China got involved defending North Korea.

I'll try to find the article about the exchange with the US diplomat, but it was pretty eye opening. And part of the reason we did the 60-40 pivot to Asia under Obama.

And considering I have included a few Presidents here, you can add up that its essentially a policy, and not some knee jerk reaction to the threat that pops up every now and then.

EDIT: Found something like that article:

In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/washington/world/chinese-general-threatens-use-of-abombs-if-us-intrudes.html


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 06:11:02


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 KTG17 wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[But NATO is an actual legally binding treaty, even though article 5 is pretty vague on what needs to be committed. Taiwan has had nothing since 1979. The issue we took is that you said "Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan." Now you're trying to bend the argument into "oh the US will militarily support Taiwan" which is entirely different from being legally obligated to do so, which again the US is not.


* The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee the USA will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, it primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities". However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity" and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC. *

This is all you need for a President to go to war to defend Taiwan.

Right from James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2004 - "Viewing any use of force against Taiwan with grave concern, we will maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan. " in political speak means we will go to war to defend Taiwan.

I brought up Clinton sending two carrier battlegroups during the Taiwan Straight Crisis, but even Bush confirmed US support when he said has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan in 2005.

Just because the treaty doesn't specify that the US will send X troops to Taiwan in an invasion (as the NATO treaty doesn't either), it lays out clearly that it gives the President power to do so and as he sees fit, by Congress. All NATO's article 5 states is that the members will provide assistance as they each see fit, which is really no difference than that the Taiwan Relations Act essentially does. In both cases where the US could be dragged into a war, our contribution could be as little as sending a postcard saying 'Hang in there' to fully committing to the war with boots on the ground. That is a fact. Now, if you want to argue and say well of course the US would defend the Netherlands, fine, but don't think the US wouldn't do the same for Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act is a carefully worded document basically saying to the Chinese, back off from invading Taiwan, and we won't promote their independence. So long as they do not and do not attack the mainland, we will defend them.

The Taiwan Relations Act does not have a legal obligation for the US president to defend Taiwan. That wikipedia quote(?) Even says so. Furthermore the President needs approval of Congress in the case of Taiwan as stated in Article 3 section C:

(c) The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.


But again, I never denied that the US has convincing reasons in the international system to defend Taiwan. What I took issue with is you stating the US was legally obligated, which it hasn't been since '79, when the defensive treaty got replaced by the relations act. NATO on the other hand is a clear defensive alliance that never clarified what you're expected to send over to help. The Taiwan Relations Act lacks both of those parts as well as US troops on the island.

 KTG17 wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:
And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.

This is actually false, any hostile action by China against the US in East Asia isn't covered by NATO:


I didn't say attack 'the US in East Asia'. I cannot find the article I read some time ago, but when the Chinese approached a US diplomat in regards to what the US response would be if China went to war with Taiwan, and got a carefully worded response, meaning that the US would defend Taiwan so long as they were not the aggressor, to which a Chinese General asked even if it meant the destruction of L.A., and he said yes.

So in this case, it would be in North America, and the US would rope in NATO. And I hardly think the Chinese wouldn't try to attack the US mainland in some way if we were hitting targets in mainland China. This is why Putin himself stated that a war in North Korea would lead to another third world war, as it would only be a matter of time before NATO got involved. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the consences if China got involved defending North Korea.

I'll try to find the article about the exchange with the US diplomat, but it was pretty eye opening. And part of the reason we did the 60-40 pivot to Asia under Obama.

And considering I have included a few Presidents here, you can add up that its essentially a policy, and not some knee jerk reaction to the threat that pops up every now and then.

EDIT: Found something like that article:

In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/washington/world/chinese-general-threatens-use-of-abombs-if-us-intrudes.html

This is where we get into fantasy land. If China nukes LA (the only way they have to reach the US mainland) then NATO doesn't matter anymore because about 6 hours later we're all piles of radioactive ash. The Korea example is doubtful, Putin says a lot but much of it is hyperbole. Yes China finds NK useful, but useful enough to risk itself over? 1950 was an entirely different situation for China, war has become much more risky there are better alternatives for China, plus the idea that the US will go to war is also highly doubtful given that it risks immense devastation to allies. Any NATO involvement would be up to the willingness of individual states to go along as they did in Iraq.

The Asia Pivot under Obama made geopolitical sense. It was already on the works for a while because the US knew after 1991 China was going to be the next happening thing. GW Bush damaged the approach by his singleminded focus on the War on Terror, losing sight of the overal geopolitical situation. China made a lot of soft power gains in the Bush presidency which is why in part Obama officially announced the geopolitical pivot in part as a signal in the region. Obama fixed some of Bush's neglect, Xi's elephant in a China shop destroyed a lot of Hu's soft power gains and Trump is a bit wishy washy on continuing the coherent Obama era policies. Luckily for the US (and Trump) Xi is behaving so badly that East Asia can overlook Trump being wishy washy, but Trump really needs to get his diplomatic ducks in a row, because we're looking at another potential 8 year Bush like diplomacy gap.

As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 13:22:38


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.

If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 14:23:21


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.

If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.

That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 18:15:15


Post by: ScarletRose


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.

If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.

That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.


I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).

if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 18:22:08


Post by: feeder


I don't know enough to comment about the cost vs usefulness. But it is an ugly plane. Looks like an F-18 that really let itself go.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 18:50:18


Post by: Xenomancers


This project was a huge waste of funds. For it's cost we could have built a few thousand f-22's. Some models of f-35's cost as much as an f-22!

We only built about 200 f-22 because they are "so expensive". At least with the f-22 you know you have the most superior aircraft in the world. The F-35 - you have an under-powered / unreliable / low yield aircraft / with a much larger radar signature. It can do a lot of jobs and perform in many arenas so it will be a good fit for armies with small air-forces - but for the US - it's a freaking disaster project. I hope we just sell them all off put all that money into drones.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 18:50:30


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 ScarletRose wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.

If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.

That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.


I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).

if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.

Pro-PRC in the context of an invasion like Crimea. Just because they stand positively towards the PRC doesn't mean they are going to favor the PRC during an invasion of China. That's a soft power approach, good will easily squandered with a hostile invasion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This project was a huge waste of funds. For it's cost we could have built a few thousand f-22's. Some models of f-35's cost as much as an f-22!

We only built about 200 f-22 because they are "so expensive". At least with the f-22 you know you have the most superior aircraft in the world. The F-35 - you have an under-powered / unreliable / low yield aircraft / with a much larger radar signature. It can do a lot of jobs and perform in many arenas so it will be a good fit for armies with small air-forces - but for the US - it's a freaking disaster project. I hope we just sell them all off put all that money into drones.

But what is the point of having thousands of F-22s when they are designed as an air superiority fighter? The F-35 is meant for an entirely different role.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 19:09:51


Post by: Xenomancers


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 ScarletRose wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.

If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.

That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.


I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).

if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.

Pro-PRC in the context of an invasion like Crimea. Just because they stand positively towards the PRC doesn't mean they are going to favor the PRC during an invasion of China. That's a soft power approach, good will easily squandered with a hostile invasion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This project was a huge waste of funds. For it's cost we could have built a few thousand f-22's. Some models of f-35's cost as much as an f-22!

We only built about 200 f-22 because they are "so expensive". At least with the f-22 you know you have the most superior aircraft in the world. The F-35 - you have an under-powered / unreliable / low yield aircraft / with a much larger radar signature. It can do a lot of jobs and perform in many arenas so it will be a good fit for armies with small air-forces - but for the US - it's a freaking disaster project. I hope we just sell them all off put all that money into drones.

But what is the point of having thousands of F-22s when they are designed as an air superiority fighter? The F-35 is meant for an entirely different role.

Technically it is an air superiority fighter. It can carry all sorts of load-outs though. Aircraft's abilities are pretty much only limited by what kinds of weapons they can carry.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 20:01:55


Post by: Spetulhu


Have they actually ironed out the problems already? IIRC as late as 2015 the F-35 project was mentioned to have massive maintenance and support problems with contractors said to use "unacceptable shortcuts" to get the things in the air at all. A fighter that is as likely (or more) to kill your pilot as the enemy isn't really a good thing even if you look at it just from the point of fighting morale.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 20:29:10


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Xenomancers wrote:
Technically it is an air superiority fighter. It can carry all sorts of load-outs though. Aircraft's abilities are pretty much only limited by what kinds of weapons they can carry.

Practically speaking it is as well, the F-22 was never adapted for either carrier use or air support. The F-35 is made carrier capable and can carry more ordinance. The F-22 production was stopped because it was getting way too expensive for ac more niche aircraft, with production costs still higher than that of the F-35. Programs to adapt the F-22 were cancelled because of the projected costs. Its no less likely the F-22 would have ended up an expensive mess if it needed to fulfill all the roles the F-35 has to. Plus you can actually sell the F-35.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 21:01:37


Post by: Vulcan


 ScarletRose wrote:

I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).

if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.


The fun part is, if China really wants Taiwan back this is the way for them to do it. Play the long game (and the Chinese play the long game like no one else in the world) and make the prospect of reunification a pleasant one.

I think that a lot of the Chinese rhetoric about Taiwan is just that - rhetoric. They'll talk about Taiwan being part of China because they want it back, and they don't want anyone encouraging Taiwan to go their own way. But the real goal seems to be voluntary reunification, not conquest.

Which isn't to say America should not keep a close eye on things. If China thinks they can conquer Taiwan without destroying it (why kill the goose that lays golden eggs?) they'll do it in a heartbeat. But they can read the balance of power just as well as we and the Taiwanese can, and as things stand for the immediate future, conquest will not get them what they want and they know it.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 21:09:38


Post by: Togusa


 KTG17 wrote:
So I have been following the development of this fighter since the beginning with a mix of excitement and dismay. We’ve all heard the negatives about this aircraft: it can’t fly, limited internal hardpoints, too expensive, jack of all trades yet superior in nothing, etc etc. Nevermind the way the US military acquired the early models. A lot of people have something to gain from the jet either failing or succeeding, so you really have to consider the source when reading the reviews. And while I was apprehensive about the F-35, it looks like it’s going to turn out to be a pretty amazing component in the US military system. Keep in mind nothing operates in a void anymore. Everything is connected and the most important weapon in the tool box is information, and this jet will not only be able to acquire it, but also help manage it and take action with it. I am starting to believe this is a really revolutionary aircraft not necessarily for what it specifically can do, but it will lay the template down for what all US aircraft will do for the foreseeable future.

I think there are rightfully some concerns, many actually, but those will be worked out. What is of great concern is how the production and assembly was divided up between multiple countries, which I think will actually play a part in how long this jet remains in service in the US military, since I have no doubt that stealing everything that makes this jet tick will be pretty easy. Eventually the Chinese and Russians will duplicate much of it. The US is already in the early stages of developing the next air superior fighter to replace the F-22, and much of the technology for that will come from what has been developed and learned from the F-35. My neighbor works for Centcom, and knows a lot about this jet, and says over all it’s an ok aircraft, maybe even a little bit of a disappointment as it won’t be everything that sold it, but the tech in it is pretty amazing.

For those that don’t know, the aircraft is still going through improvements and the software block that really unleashes the aircraft comes out next year. The frame has been built for 9gs and Lockheed has deliberately been holding it back while it continues to work out the kinks. I saw a video last night that caught my eye:




3:50 mark. That hard left turn where the plane looks like it skids, and you can see the software work the flaps before it starts going vertical is pretty cool. And this is still with the software deliberately limiting what the pilot can do. Everyone knocks this plane as one that won’t be able to dog fight, but since the pilot can see through the plane in his helmet and launch a missile at a target in another direction, I don’t think this plane will have to do that for some time. The 9gs will prob come in handy more for dodging attacks than making them.

I am all for being skeptical, but I guess more credit should have been given to Lockheed than initially was. For a company that has produced the U2, SR71, Nighthawk, and the F-22, they have a pretty impressive track record. I do think trying to build 3 jets in one design does hurt the overall design and was probably too ambitious and even foolish, but I don’t doubt the US military is going to do some impressive things with this jet. But what is going to be even more impressive is when they take everything they learned between this and the F-22 and build something really scary.

I have read they have a SR72 waiting to be built, so one can only imagine what they have lined up 20 years out. Keep in mind Have Blue flew in 77. I imagine if Kelly Johnson were still alive today, he’d have some pretty insightful thoughts on aircraft design that would still be relevant today.

EDIT: And this won’t seem like much, but using the same airframe, the F-35B comes by to say hi. To me the slowing down and hovering isn’t so much the big deal, but going back into fighter mode and flying off is pretty cool. Even tho it’s this function that has held back the plane’s overall performance.




I just don't understand, does the EA-18G do everything this plane does, at half the cost? And, I believe the EA-18G is actually flight tested and in limited service now, in fact about the only thing it can't do is match the payload of the F-35, but then again, the EA-18G has full spectrum radar jaming capabilities and the F-35, as I understand it only has single spectrum.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 21:15:25


Post by: Vulcan


Of course, if you load the F-35 up with more than four small-diameter weapons it's no longer stealthy....


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 21:18:01


Post by: whembly


 Vulcan wrote:
Of course, if you load the F-35 up with more than four small-diameter weapons it's no longer stealthy....


Yeah... but, by then any anti-aircraft assets would be destroyed by the time the F-35s are loaded up with munitions.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 21:30:07


Post by: Vulcan


 whembly wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
Of course, if you load the F-35 up with more than four small-diameter weapons it's no longer stealthy....


Yeah... but, by then any anti-aircraft assets would be destroyed by the time the F-35s are loaded up with munitions.


At which point why bother sending an F-35? Send an A-10 or F-16 or F-15E or even a BUFF, and carry a lot more ordinance for significantly less operational cost per ton delivered.

The F-35 - or something like it - is absolutely needed for dealing with air defenses. But once the air defenses are dealt with, non-stealthy bomb trucks are the way to go.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 21:38:13


Post by: Kilkrazy


Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/03 21:49:40


Post by: Co'tor Shas


As is tradition





The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 00:00:46


Post by: Vulcan


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 01:38:02


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 01:41:31


Post by: Peregrine


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


Yep. And in a world where the only plausible wars are ones against enemies with no AA defenses the A-10 is a valuable tool with much lower operating costs than the alternatives. If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 01:52:53


Post by: djones520


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.



That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.




Took 450 hits from an AA gun.



Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.

It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 01:55:27


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Peregrine wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


Yep. And in a world where the only plausible wars are ones against enemies with no AA defenses the A-10 is a valuable tool with much lower operating costs than the alternatives.
We aren't going to war with China anytime soon, but it's only a matter of time before out meddling in the middle east gets us involved in another war. in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down. Where as their ability to shoot them down has increased dramatically
If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 01:57:02


Post by: djones520


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
y
If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".


Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.


*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:00:09


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 djones520 wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.

Spoiler:


That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.




Took 450 hits from an AA gun.



Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.

It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.


It's tough, it ain't *that* tough. There's a reason it doesn't come out until after any enemy aircraft and SAM sites have been dealt with.

But regardless, why send a pilot, when a drone does just as good as job.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:01:10


Post by: Peregrine


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
We aren't going to war with China anytime soon, but it's only a matter of time before out meddling in the middle east gets us involved in another war. in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down. Where as their ability to shoot them down has increased dramatically.


Another war, but against who? Who in the middle east has a sufficient air defense network to survive the initial air strikes targeting it and continue to operate through the years of mopping up random "military age males" with AK-47s and suicide bombs? We've already seen how this works, the high-intensity fighting lasts for a few days until the organized military is destroyed and then we spend years pretending to be a police force with bigger guns against targets that can't shoot back.

Also, a whole five planes? TBH, who cares? That's five people dead, at most. Cost of doing business, there's no point in spending obscene piles of cash to save that few lives. Throw a bunch of expendable A-10s or A-10 equivalents at the problem and accept the losses.

You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".


They don't need to, but they certainly want to, or at least the slow part. Going fast costs money, both in initial purchase price and operating costs. The viable replacement for the A-10 is the various cheap and simple turboprop aircraft with a couple of hardpoints bolted on, not a supersonic fighter jet with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ costs attached.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:02:44


Post by: djones520


Syria has got the best anti-air network in the middle east. We see how much Israel cares about it.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:06:12


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 djones520 wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
y
If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".


Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.


*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.

F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.

Also pretty funny because multi-role fighters preforms 80% of the CAS today.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:09:40


Post by: djones520


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.

Spoiler:


That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.




Took 450 hits from an AA gun.



Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.

It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.


It's tough, it ain't *that* tough. There's a reason it doesn't come out until after any enemy aircraft and SAM sites have been dealt with.

But regardless, why send a pilot, when a drone does just as good as job.


The A-10 was used to destroy many dedicated anti-air sites in the initial stages of the air war in Desert Storm. So... no clue where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong. There was also only 4 A-10's shot down in Desert storm. Out of 8,100 combat sorties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
y
If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".


Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.


*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.

F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.

Also pretty funny because multi-role fighters preforms 80% of the CAS today.


F-15E buddy. F-15C was the air superiority fighter. The E model was a multi-role strike fighter, just like the F-16. I'm only a 17 year veteran of the Air Force who has spent his entire career in aviation operations, for both the Air Force, and Army. I might know a thing or two on these topics.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:12:09


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Peregrine wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
We aren't going to war with China anytime soon, but it's only a matter of time before out meddling in the middle east gets us involved in another war. in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down. Where as their ability to shoot them down has increased dramatically.


Another war, but against who? Who in the middle east has a sufficient air defense network to survive the initial air strikes targeting it and continue to operate through the years of mopping up random "military age males" with AK-47s and suicide bombs? We've already seen how this works, the high-intensity fighting lasts for a few days until the organized military is destroyed and then we spend years pretending to be a police force with bigger guns against targets that can't shoot back.
Funny you say that, Iran bought and setup a whole SAM system from Russia. And China has been making a killing on selling military tech.
Also, a whole five planes? TBH, who cares? That's five people dead, at most. Cost of doing business, there's no point in spending obscene piles of cash to save that few lives. Throw a bunch of expendable A-10s or A-10 equivalents at the problem and accept the losses.
Heres the thing. Why not no deaths? Why not just use fast planes with precision guided weapons that we do for most CAS missions?


They don't need to, but they certainly want to, or at least the slow part. Going fast costs money, both in initial purchase price and operating costs.
That's the most slowed thing I've heard in a while.
The viable replacement for the A-10 is the various cheap and simple turboprop aircraft with a couple of hardpoints bolted on, not a supersonic fighter jet with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ costs attached.
Which is why the AF is going for the LAAR program. To replace the A-10 in areas with no AA presence, the only place where the A-10 is really useful.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:21:00


Post by: Peregrine


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Funny you say that, Iran bought and setup a whole SAM system from Russia. And China has been making a killing on selling military tech.


How many sites? How many missiles total? How are they defended against attacks from F-22s/B-2s/cruise missiles/etc? How will Iran be expected to keep them intact after the initial invasion so they can remain a threat during the years/decades of occupation?

Heres the thing. Why not no deaths? Why not just use fast planes with precision guided weapons that we do for most CAS missions?


Because "zero deaths" is a ridiculous goal and well past the point of diminishing returns. Look at the statistics posted: four losses out of over 8,000 sorties flown. That's a 0.05% loss rate. Can you get that to zero? In theory maybe, if you're willing to spend billions of dollars. But you'd probably get a better return on your investment by spending that money hiring designated drivers to wait outside all of the bars near our military bases and prevent our soldiers from driving drunk.

That's the most slowed thing I've heard in a while.


That's some impressive ignorance there. Look at the operating costs per hour for the A-10 and F-35, and the initial purchase price. Speed is expensive, in fuel burn, in maintenance, and in initial build cost.

Which is why the AF is going for the LAAR program. To replace the A-10 in areas with no AA presence, the only place where the A-10 is really useful.


If/when that program produces a viable replacement in sufficient numbers to do the A-10's job we can talk about retiring it. Not until then.

And it's kind of misleading to talk about "the only place where the A-10 is really useful" when that place consists of the overwhelming majority of combat operations the US is involved in. Only being useful 99% of the time is not a heavy burden to carry.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 02:22:11


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 djones520 wrote:
The A-10 was used to destroy many dedicated anti-air sites in the initial stages of the air war in Desert Storm. So... no clue where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong.
This might surprise you but we've had several other wars since the 90s.

There was also only 4 A-10's shot down in Desert storm. Out of 8,100 combat sorties.
6 actually. 5 hit with outdated SAMs (outdated for 1991 SAMs, as in the newest one used was 10 years old at the time), one hit and crash-landed killing the pilot. And this was nearly 30 years ago. Iran just got a shiny new Russian SAM system, and China has been selling military tech like hotcakes

F-15E buddy. F-15C was the air superiority fighter. The E model was a multi-role strike fighter, just like the F-16.
Then specify. But if you want to bring that up, 80% of CAS missions are preformed by those sorts of planes. so I guess some people disagree with you there..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Funny you say that, Iran bought and setup a whole SAM system from Russia. And China has been making a killing on selling military tech.


How many sites? How many missiles total? How are they defended against attacks from F-22s/B-2s/cruise missiles/etc? How will Iran be expected to keep them intact after the initial invasion so they can remain a threat during the years/decades of occupation?

I think the point here is to be able to use CAS in the initial stages of the war, without having to put our pilots in unnecessary danger.


Because "zero deaths" is a ridiculous goal and well past the point of diminishing returns. Look at the statistics posted: four losses out of over 8,000 sorties flown. That's a 0.05% loss rate. Can you get that to zero? In theory maybe, if you're willing to spend billions of dollars. But you'd probably get a better return on your investment by spending that money hiring designated drivers to wait outside all of the bars near our military bases and prevent our soldiers from driving drunk.
Or you can use drones for dirt cheap and not have any life risked ever. Hmm I wonder.


That's some impressive ignorance there. Look at the operating costs per hour for the A-10 and F-35, and the initial purchase price. Speed is expensive, in fuel burn, in maintenance, and in initial build cost.

You may have heard of these fancy new things called "drones" that cost about a 10th to operate as an A-10 and we are already using for CAS.


If/when that program produces a viable replacement in sufficient numbers to do the A-10's job we can talk about retiring it. Not until then.

Here's the thing, it ain't a replacement for the A-10.

And it's kind of misleading to talk about "the only place where the A-10 is really useful" when that place consists of the overwhelming majority of combat operations the US is involved in. Only being useful 99% of the time is not a heavy burden to carry.
This might surprise you but having CAS 100% of the time is necessary. And when you have things that do it better for no risk, why not.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 04:22:25


Post by: Iron_Captain


 djones520 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.



That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.




Took 450 hits from an AA gun.



Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.

It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.

A single missile or a single AA gun aren't real anti air defenses though. AA defenses are meant to be layered, deployed in batteries integrated at brigade and battalion levels as well as in dedicated units, ideally creating an integrated air defense system covering the entire zone of operations. The A-10s in the pictures survived because they faced foes that do not possess enough equipment to mount a real anti air defense.
The A-10 is a very-well armoured aircraft (not many aircraft can take such big hits and still stay in the sky), and excellent in its role of BRRRRRRRRRRRTing the hell out of ground targets, but you don't want to send it out against when a SAM or AA-gun battery is operating in the area. But that goes for any non-stealth aircraft really, and even stealth aircraft are still at risk. That is where anti-radar missiles, artillery and cruise missiles, jamming and other tools to deal with AA come in. Ideally, you want to take care of AA before sending in any aircraft on other missions at all. Operation Instant Thunder is a great example of a capable, well-equipped military putting this in action. Because Iraqi air defenses were very outdated, they could cripple the entire Iraqi air defense system using mostly specialised aircraft while taking only minimal losses. Against a better equipped opponent, the idea is much the same, except that you would rely more on ground-based and naval assets rather than just air-based, as aircraft would be expected to suffer heavy losses (and you want to preserve them for later stages of the war).


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 06:10:39


Post by: Kilkrazy


To put another case, the USA would not want to fight the kind of anti-insurgency operations seen in Afghanistan and Iraq using only aircraft as expensive as the F35.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 06:35:11


Post by: Ouze


I can't believe some of you guys are actually crap talking the greatest CAS aircraft that ever has been or ever will be instead of everyone's least-favorite boondoggle.

It's the only thing Canadians fear, and hence the only thing standing in the way of Justin Trudeau sending his frozen legions southward to turn these United States into a hellhole of socialized medicine, poutine, and hockey.





The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 12:22:06


Post by: Spetulhu


Drones have their uses, but the operator sits behind about 500ms latency and is totally reliant on the info he gets from the drone and/or the ground presence in the area. The A10 can some in low and slow, with a pilot who decides what to shoot now. A drone capable of replacing it would need to be autonomous, and we're still not quite comfortable with giving machines the go-ahead to kill people on their own.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 15:54:42


Post by: Crazyterran


 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe some of you guys are actually crap talking the greatest CAS aircraft that ever has been or ever will be instead of everyone's least-favorite boondoggle.

It's the only thing Canadians fear, and hence the only thing standing in the way of Justin Trudeau sending his frozen legions southward to turn these United States into a hellhole of socialized medicine, poutine, and hockey.





We'd also send some French Canadian girls, if that makes you feel better.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 19:13:34


Post by: whembly


 Crazyterran wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe some of you guys are actually crap talking the greatest CAS aircraft that ever has been or ever will be instead of everyone's least-favorite boondoggle.

It's the only thing Canadians fear, and hence the only thing standing in the way of Justin Trudeau sending his frozen legions southward to turn these United States into a hellhole of socialized medicine, poutine, and hockey.





We'd also send some French Canadian girls, if that makes you feel better.

Throw in some maple syrup and I think we can work something out!

Also... A-10 is the most practical, effective and cheapest CAS asset we have... and of course, the industrial military complex want it replaced.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 19:24:53


Post by: Kilkrazy


It doesn't make sense for CAS aircraft to be stealthy. Their role is to fly around above ground forces closely engaged with the enemy and zap them. They are going to be seen and heard.

CAS aircraft need a good pilot view, long loiter time, a large and various weapon load, and high survival rates against light anti-aircraft fire.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 21:23:26


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't make sense for CAS aircraft to be stealthy. Their role is to fly around above ground forces closely engaged with the enemy and zap them. They are going to be seen and heard.

CAS aircraft need a good pilot view, long loiter time, a large and various weapon load, and high survival rates against light anti-aircraft fire.

Most CAS actions are done with laser guided bombs and missiles you know. And stealth isn't about "not being seen or heard" it's so that enemy air defenses (SAMs, Manpads, other planes, ect) can't pick them up on RADAR.

And why do they need a long loiter time? When the A-10 was built this was true. That's the whole reason it's so slow. That's the reason we were using the Skyraider 'till the 70s. But advances in sensor and tracking technologies, as well as guided munitions have made that no longer true.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 22:05:05


Post by: Vulcan


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.


In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?


Since you are an expert, you are doubtless aware the A-10 was designed with several features to defeat battlefield AA defenses - which are optically or IR guided - and the F-35 lacks all of those features leaving it just as naked to attack as the A-10... but far less able to survive that fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down.


On the other hand, the F-35 will be a lot better at finding and killing those air defenses that put the A-10 at serious risk. Once they're dealt with, we're back to the position where the A-10 can bring more ordinance to the fight with less risk to the airframe.

Besides, the Air Force loses five aircraft a year in a good year of peacetime flying. It's called operational losses. What do you want to lose more of to operational losses - $20 million updated legacy aircraft, or $200 million F-35s?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.


I'm guessing you missed the announcement of the F-15E Strike Eagle program...


The F-35 @ 2018/08/05 23:27:39


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Vulcan wrote:


Since you are an expert, you are doubtless aware the A-10 was designed with several features to defeat battlefield AA defenses - which are optically or IR guided - and the F-35 lacks all of those features leaving it just as naked to attack as the A-10... but far less able to survive that fire.

The whole point is the F-35 won't be in the position to have Manpads and 35mm AAA shooting at them in the first place, not that we even put the A-10 in positions where those are even an danger to it these days. Anything more than a few guys with AKs we bring out other stuff.


On the other hand, the F-35 will be a lot better at finding and killing those air defenses that put the A-10 at serious risk. Once they're dealt with, we're back to the position where the A-10 can bring more ordinance to the fight with less risk to the airframe.
Sure, there's a reason we aren't just stopping all use of the machine. Their retirement plan is to slowly reduce usage, not just take a hacksaw to the lot. The retired birds will serve as spare parts for those still in service, further reducing costs, and eventually (I think the plan is like 2040) we will stop usage of them after slowly cutting numbers.

Besides, the Air Force loses five aircraft a year in a good year of peacetime flying. It's called operational losses. What do you want to lose more of to operational losses - $20 million updated legacy aircraft, or $200 million F-35s?
"Those planes would have crashed on their own anyway" really isn't the most compelling argument I've ever heard, I'll be honest. As far as I know we've lost one F-35 to an engine fire (pilot landed the plane, but it was decided to be too costly to fix). And that's it.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 02:40:21


Post by: BaronIveagh


Well, when current gen MIGs spanked it's ass in testing, despite Lockheed's bragging about how no current gen could touch it, the response was that it wasn't meant for dogfighting anyway.

Then the a-10 spanked it's ass in close air support. So did the Bronco. It's that bad.

Since this flying turkey is supposed to replace both specialized air superiority and close air support platforms, how the hell is this a step forward?

Or will this be like the Zumwalt's where we admit after buying three that they not only don't work, but COULD NEVER WORK?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 02:48:55


Post by: Jihadin


We had F/A-18's and F15's provide CAS in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take the A10 hands down for CAS. They can loiter a damn long time over an area where they are needed and have a huge selection of CAS weapons and the capability of carrying a nice size payload to assist us on the ground. Yes it might be slow and low but to PBI's on the ground its the added insurance of steel on target for maximum effect.

The F35 is design to maintain air supremacy with a capability for CAS. I much rather have the A10 as the CAS and the F35 to protect all of us from eventual enemy attempt to control to control the skies over US/Allies forces. The F35 I believe does not have a freakling bathtub of titanium to protect the pilot like the A10 has.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 03:05:34


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, when current gen MIGs spanked it's ass in testing, despite Lockheed's bragging about how no current gen could touch it, the response was that it wasn't meant for dogfighting anyway.
This is also true of the F-22. Would you say the F-22? is a bad plane. They are't made for dogfighting because they don't have to
instead they are stealthy. This was a pretty big deal.

Then the a-10 spanked it's ass in close air support. So did the Bronco. It's that bad.
In environments where there were no active AA threat. Which is the whole point. It was testing to see if the LAAR program could work in those environments. And that's why we are moving ahead with it. And we have other stuff for environments where there is active AA threat. Not just guys in wooded huts with AKs.

Since this flying turkey is supposed to replace both specialized air superiority and close air support platforms, how the hell is this a step forward?
I think that's bingo.
Also what air superiority platform is it supposed to replace again?


Or will this be like the Zumwalt's where we admit after buying three that they not only don't work, but COULD NEVER WORK?
What? The issue with the Zumwalt class was that it was too expensive for the benefits over more conventional DDGs like the Burkes. They work fine, just aren't worth the cost. And the change from wanting land attack to focusing on the Aegis system (a much better choice IMO). Zumwalts were a fethup, but a cost and usefulness fethup, not a "doesn't work" fethup.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 18:07:09


Post by: Agiel


The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 20:03:47


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

Yeah the tech behind it is very solid. But we just don't need any sort of strike craft right now or in the foreseeable future. And our current Burkes to better as just a flexible machine. Hopefully we see that tech put into replacing our rapidly aging Ticos though.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 21:00:21


Post by: Xenomancers


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
y
If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".


Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.


*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.

F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.

Also pretty funny because multi-role fighters preforms 80% of the CAS today.

It has a ground attack varient. F-15E.

It really is silly to even talk about aircraft classes. All jets can do anything. Their performance overall as an air superiority fighter actually makes ground attack easier.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 21:10:26


Post by: Iron_Captain


Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that, and the additional capabilities the Zumwalt offers over other ships does not justify the massive increase in costs. The F-35 in that regard offers more usefulness, which apparently is enough for many militaries to swallow the high costs.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 21:17:23


Post by: Agiel


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.


Ahem.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 22:08:13


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
. They are't made for dogfighting because they don't have to
instead they are stealthy. This was a pretty big deal.


Not an F22 pilot so not qualified to say. The issue with F-35 is that it's stealth goes out the window when it actually engages targets, and it cannot be repaired in the field if it suffers any serious breach of it's fuselage. The Australians proved that current gen Russian and Chinese fighters could find and kill it under real world conditions.


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
.
In environments where there were no active AA threat. Which is the whole point. It was testing to see if the LAAR program could work in those environments. And that's why we are moving ahead with it. And we have other stuff for environments where there is active AA threat. Not just guys in wooded huts with AKs.


Well, yes, only in situations where the AA was simulated rather than actual, but the A-10 spanked it again there, which is why the airforce suddenly decided to keep it 'for now'. And you're Moving ahead with it because it's become so expensive that to NOT move ahead with it, heads would roll.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
.
Also what air superiority platform is it supposed to replace again?


Specifically the F-16 is being replaced by the F-35A, and most likely also replacing the short lived F-22 (since they stopped buying those at about 200 units).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

]What? The issue with the Zumwalt class was that it was too expensive for the benefits over more conventional DDGs like the Burkes. They work fine, just aren't worth the cost. And the change from wanting land attack to focusing on the Aegis system (a much better choice IMO). Zumwalts were a fethup, but a cost and usefulness fethup, not a "doesn't work" fethup.


https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/04/19/advanced-gun-system-was-holding-back-the-navys-new-stealth-destroyer/

According to testimony in Congress, no, the AGS did not work. Even with the million dollar plus LRLAP it failed to meet it's targets. In more ways than one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that, and the additional capabilities the Zumwalt offers over other ships does not justify the massive increase in costs.


According to the Navy's own numbers, it takes about 15-20 Zumwalts to equate the firepower of one Iowa class battleship. The Iowa cost about a billion dollars, adjusted for inflation, the Zumwalt costs 3-4 billion. Iowa takes a staggeringly higher amount of firepower to mission kill compared to a Zumwalt.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 22:27:39


Post by: Agiel




Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 23:05:56


Post by: BaronIveagh


Agiel wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).


And, according to Congressional testimony is where it failed, it's range was nothing like the numbers the Navy had targeted. It's effective range was not actually significantly greater than the 16"/50.

Also, C-802 can be carried by aircraft, however, given it's characteristics as a kinetic penetratior, and the fact it aims for the waterline, an Iowa class is effectively immune to it. Only a Granit has a screaming prayer, among anti ship missiles, of penetrating an Iowa where her belt's thickest, and even it's a bit iffy. Remember battleships are, in theory, armored against their own weapons. A 16"/50 firing a super heavy round can pen 30 feet of concrete. The next highest, Granit, can pen about 20 feet and only recently have the Russians refitted heavy bombers to carry a single missile aloft. It's THAT big.

Many current Gen Anti ship missiles would struggle with the configuration of Iowa's armor, with an internal belt and outer skin. This effectively acts as spaced armor, and most antiship missiles depend on a shaped charge to get the missile into the ship, so...

However, even a pop up that drops the missile on deck would find issues with a battleships bomb deck. (Remember many BBs were built to take hits from plunging shots and bombs, so there's a space where, in theory, even an AP bomb would explode.) Bombings were attempted against Tirpitz, but only succeeded when they missed, hydro-static shock from a bunker buster buckling the hull.

Remember that Roma, the only battleship killed with a precursor to smart bombs, actually died from an electrical failure that shut off all firefighting gear and set every magazine on fire. And, before you say 'that was X years ago' the Iraqis tried Silkworm on Mighty Mo. It didn't work.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 23:16:50


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:


Not an F22 pilot so not qualified to say. The issue with F-35 is that it's stealth goes out the window when it actually engages targets, and it cannot be repaired in the field if it suffers any serious breach of it's fuselage. The Australians proved that current gen Russian and Chinese fighters could find and kill it under real world conditions.
Again, not really. This is literally the same gak that goes on with the F22. They are stealth fighters, they are disigned to kill enemy fighters from standoff range before maneuvering even becomes relevant. And it's worked quite well on the F22.


Well, yes, only in situations where the AA was simulated rather than actual, but the A-10 spanked it again there, which is why the airforce suddenly decided to keep it 'for now'. And you're Moving ahead with it because it's become so expensive that to NOT move ahead with it, heads would roll.

The air-force is doing exactly what it is allowed to do with the A-10. Which is to say, slowly bringing down numbers until they retire it fully (in about 2040).

Specifically the F-16 is being replaced by the F-35A, and most likely also replacing the short lived F-22 (since they stopped buying those at about 200 units).

F-16 is mutli-role, same as the F-35 mate. Also it isn't replacing the F-22 by a longshot, I agree we should get some more of them, but they will be serving for years.



https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/04/19/advanced-gun-system-was-holding-back-the-navys-new-stealth-destroyer/

According to testimony in Congress, no, the AGS did not work. Even with the million dollar plus LRLAP it failed to meet it's targets. In more ways than one.

I mean it did work (although it took some fiddling), we just stopped developing ammunition for it, and aren't producing any new. But this is also a non-issue. Because the Vcells and stealth are the whole point of the ship.

Also LRLAP was fine, just (again) canceled because it wasn't worth the cost.


According to the Navy's own numbers, it takes about 15-20 Zumwalts to equate the firepower of one Iowa class battleship. The Iowa cost about a billion dollars, adjusted for inflation, the Zumwalt costs 3-4 billion. Iowa takes a staggeringly higher amount of firepower to mission kill compared to a Zumwalt.


This is true of *every single naval vessel still active* other than CVNs. What it does have is much longer range and accuracy. You know, the whole reason we stopped putting massive guns on ships anymore. Unless you are suggesting


The F-35 @ 2018/08/06 23:40:30


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

F-16 is mutli-role, same as the F-35 mate. Also it isn't replacing the F-22 by a longshot, I agree we should get some more of them, but they will be serving for years.


Not originally, and not in certain configurations. Hence the 'F' rather than 'F/A'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I mean it did work (although it took some fiddling), we just stopped developing ammunition for it, and aren't producing any new. But this is also a non-issue. Because the Vcells and stealth are the whole point of the ship.

Also LRLAP was fine, just (again) canceled because it wasn't worth the cost.


While the AGS did shoot, it did not out-range a standard 155 without LRLAP, falling Grossly short of the Navy and Congress' requirements for the program. The LRLAP also did not meet the range requirements of the program, as stated under oath.

And the 'whole point of the ship' was to provide an alternative to battleships for NGS for the marines. Not to create worlds most expensive anti-aircraft destroyer. In fact, it was the Navy's big excuse to allow them to pull battleships from active duty.


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

This is true of *every single naval vessel still active* other than CVNs. What it does have is much longer range and accuracy. You know, the whole reason we stopped putting massive guns on ships anymore. Unless you are suggesting


Apparently it does not have longer effective range (and, just, fyi, I'll draw your attention to Bull's 16"/100 that managed a 280km shot on the whole big gun thing) because it was specifically brought up in testimony. The cost of the shells was being driven up for the same reason the ship itself was, more development had to be done to try and make it meet the target requirements, With fewer and fewer being bought to deal with rising development costs per round.

The reason that big guns are not put on ships anymore is that the Navy effectively murdered 42 men to make damn sure o it.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:06:27


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).


Yeah and they canceled it *during dev* because it was too expensive. Again it was cost cutting. Each round cost roughly $1M a piece. We elected to instead just use Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost as much as 2 rounds.



Also, C-802 can be carried by aircraft, however, given it's characteristics as a kinetic penetratior, and the fact it aims for the waterline, an Iowa class is effectively immune to it. Only a Granit has a screaming prayer, among anti ship missiles, of penetrating an Iowa where her belt's thickest, and even it's a bit iffy. Remember battleships are, in theory, armored against their own weapons. A 16"/50 firing a super heavy round can pen 30 feet of concrete. The next highest, Granit, can pen about 20 feet and only recently have the Russians refitted heavy bombers to carry a single missile aloft. It's THAT big.

Many current Gen Anti ship missiles would struggle with the configuration of Iowa's armor, with an internal belt and outer skin. This effectively acts as spaced armor, and most antiship missiles depend on a shaped charge to get the missile into the ship, so...
I mean when you can just fling 80 rim-66s and watch it die in fire, with no possible counter attack. Or 80 Tomahawks. Turns out VLS is sort of OP.


However, even a pop up that drops the missile on deck would find issues with a battleships bomb deck. (Remember many BBs were built to take hits from plunging shots and bombs, so there's a space where, in theory, even an AP bomb would explode.) Bombings were attempted against Tirpitz, but only succeeded when they missed, hydro-static shock from a bunker buster buckling the hull.

Sorry to break this to you mate but Tallboys aren't AP bombs

Remember that Roma, the only battleship killed with a precursor to smart bombs, actually died from an electrical failure that shut off all firefighting gear and set every magazine on fire. And, before you say 'that was X years ago' the Iraqis tried Silkworm on Mighty Mo. It didn't work.


Roma died from a direct hits first to her boilers and then to her engine room and forward magazine. No battleship is surviving that. I sort hate to break it to you, but most ships sunk during WWII didn't get hit then explode. They sunk because the crews couldn't put fires under control or contain flooding and scuttled the ships. This was a very normal way for a ship to die from AP bombs. The only difference is these were glide bombs, and thus were able to do it despite the extreme range preventing the Roma from actually using it's AAA in defense.

Also the missile didn't even hit the Missouri, it was taken down by her escort, while she continued to do jack gak but look pretty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

F-16 is mutli-role, same as the F-35 mate. Also it isn't replacing the F-22 by a longshot, I agree we should get some more of them, but they will be serving for years.


Not originally, and not in certain configurations. Hence the 'F' rather than 'F/A'.

Not the one it's replacing though.


IWhile the AGS did shoot, it did not out-range a standard 155 without LRLAP, falling Grossly short of the Navy and Congress' requirements for the program. The LRLAP also did not meet the range requirements of the program, as stated under oath.
No it didn't reach range requirements. This is quite a bit different than "didn't work". And they canceled further developemnt because they decide d it wasn't worth the cost.

And the 'whole point of the ship' was to provide an alternative to battleships for NGS for the marines. Not to create worlds most expensive anti-aircraft destroyer. In fact, it was the Navy's big excuse to allow them to pull battleships from active duty.
What? The last iowa class was retired more than 10 years before any work began on the ship. Hell the BBs were retired before the program that led to the Zumwalt program. And it was a failure from an economic standpoint, we've been over this. That's why further development was canceled. Also the fact that that sort of fire support has been superseded by aircraft and DDGs. Hell even back in WWI, marines working through the islands in the pacific much preferred destroyers and light cruisers as support. They were more accurate at short ranges, much faster to respond, and allowed for much closer direct support.


Apparently it does not have longer effective range (and, just, fyi, I'll draw your attention to Bull's 16"/100 that managed a 280km shot on the whole big gun thing) because it was specifically brought up in testimony. The cost of the shells was being driven up for the same reason the ship itself was, more development had to be done to try and make it meet the target requirements, With fewer and fewer being bought to deal with rising development costs per round.

The testimony stated it did not reach range requirements (80 mi). A little research is that it got a range of 68 mi. Still way beyond the 24 mi maximum range of 16"/50 on the iowa. And even more specifically, well beyond the effective maximum range. Just because you can fire your gun at a 45 degree angle doesn't mean you can hit a damn thing at that range. The longest hit with a naval gun ever was 14 mi. The 16in iowa guns had a hitrate against a broadside target at 11 mi of 10%. A tomahawk has a hitrate of about 90% at up to 1500 mi.



The reason that big guns are not put on ships anymore is that the Navy effectively murdered 42 men to make damn sure o it.


What? Do explain?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:30:41


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean when you can just fling 80 rim-66s and watch it die in fire, with no possible counter attack. Or 80 Tomahawks. Turns out VLS is sort of OP.


I'm a bit curious how you think either of those would even disable it RIM-66 is just going to detonate on the surface. Tomahawks with submunitions might seriously damage it's antenna arrays, but since it's guns can fall back to the optical and calculated fire, it's only reducing it's accuracy.

Battleships in combat with destroyers and cruisers might be hit hundreds of times by non penetrating shots.


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Roma died from a direct hits first to her boilers and then to her engine room and forward magazine


Incorrect. The first hit was between frames 100 and 108 and penetrated the ship entirely, exploding under her keel, and caused flooding in her aft engine room and two boiler rooms. The second hit landed between frames 123 and 136 hitting the forward engine room. This started, among other things, an electrical fire in turret 2's magazine, which then detonated, blowing turret 2 completely off the ship. Which then sank, for obvious reasons. I refer you to the findings following her loss and the discovery of the wreck.

Further, the fritz X was unusual in that it had a remote control system so the bombardier could guide it to the target. It was not 'just' a glide bomb.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:31:42


Post by: Xenomancers


 BaronIveagh wrote:
Agiel wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).


And, according to Congressional testimony is where it failed, it's range was nothing like the numbers the Navy had targeted. It's effective range was not actually significantly greater than the 16"/50.

Also, C-802 can be carried by aircraft, however, given it's characteristics as a kinetic penetratior, and the fact it aims for the waterline, an Iowa class is effectively immune to it. Only a Granit has a screaming prayer, among anti ship missiles, of penetrating an Iowa where her belt's thickest, and even it's a bit iffy. Remember battleships are, in theory, armored against their own weapons. A 16"/50 firing a super heavy round can pen 30 feet of concrete. The next highest, Granit, can pen about 20 feet and only recently have the Russians refitted heavy bombers to carry a single missile aloft. It's THAT big.

Many current Gen Anti ship missiles would struggle with the configuration of Iowa's armor, with an internal belt and outer skin. This effectively acts as spaced armor, and most antiship missiles depend on a shaped charge to get the missile into the ship, so...

However, even a pop up that drops the missile on deck would find issues with a battleships bomb deck. (Remember many BBs were built to take hits from plunging shots and bombs, so there's a space where, in theory, even an AP bomb would explode.) Bombings were attempted against Tirpitz, but only succeeded when they missed, hydro-static shock from a bunker buster buckling the hull.

Remember that Roma, the only battleship killed with a precursor to smart bombs, actually died from an electrical failure that shut off all firefighting gear and set every magazine on fire. And, before you say 'that was X years ago' the Iraqis tried Silkworm on Mighty Mo. It didn't work.

More or less the fact that it "failed" is probably a lie. A weapon with 80nm range is a lot more effective if your opponent doesn't think you have one. Do you really think they went through the process to create a ship around a weapon system if the weapon didn't work? I don't buy that.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:33:59


Post by: Iron_Captain


Agiel wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.


Ahem.

Do you know how much those munitions cost? As much as a cruise missile, making them utterly useless. The only advantage that gun artillery has over missile artillery is supposed to be the low costs. If you take that only advantage away... Well, the US Navy came to the predictable conclusion and scrapped the munitions.
So yeah. The Zumwalt could have bombarded shore-based targets. But other ships can do that just fine as well using their cannon and cruise missiles. The Zumwalt might have been a bit better at it, but it's increase in capability would not be all that stellar, and to me definitely not justifying the crazy costs, especially considering how rare naval artillery bombardments are. Considering how much the ammo for the Zumwalt's cannons cost, it is cheaper for the Navy to just use cruise missiles instead. And now with the ammo gone, the Zumwalt's guns are useless, leaving it even worse at shore bombardment than say an Arleigh Burke-class. The US military has evidently realised this as well considering they abandoned the Zumwalt in favour of re-starting Arleigh Burke production.

To be honest, if they wanted a ship for bombarding shore targets, I believe they should have focused on that, and leave out all of the stealth stuff (which on a thing as big, slow, and obviously visible as a destroyer that fires really big guns and is stuffed full of electronics and incredibly powerful radar is of questionable utility in the first place). The Zumwalt is a classic victim of overengineering. They wanted too many things from a ship, resulting in a ship that can do lots of things but none of them good. Well, except winning prizes in a "ugly ship" contest maybe.

Agiel wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).

A ship is big, a ship is slow. A ship is highly visible. It will always be tracked by satellites. Meaning that if you face an enemy with a radar that can pick up the Zumwalt's radar signature, they will already know that said small radar signature is not a fishing trawler at all. Not to mention that a warship, being a warship, is jammed full of incredibly powerful radars which will make it light up as a very bright beacon to anti-radiation missiles anyway. Basically, there are a myriad ways to track and target something as big as a destroyer beyond radar. That is why the whole idea of a "stealth destroyer" is kinda silly, and why navies across the world use submarines instead if they want stealth.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:36:48


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

What? Do explain?


Iowa's turret no 2 explosion.


As far as the timeline for the Zumwalt, you might want to read the laws passed regaurding the decomissioning of the Battleships. Effectivly, the Navy was required to produce, within a certain amount of time, a replacement.

Iowa and Wisconsin were kept until 2005 until being decommissioned in favor of DDX.

Also, I think you have a typo, you probably meant WW2. And boy do I recommend the study done on the effectiveness of BBs vs Cruisers in gunfire support roles that was done in Korea.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:38:11


Post by: thekingofkings


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Agiel wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.


Ahem.

Do you know how much those munitions cost? As much as a cruise missile, making them utterly useless. The only advantage that gun artillery has over missile artillery is supposed to be the low costs. If you take that only advantage away... Well, the US Navy came to the predictable conclusion and scrapped the munitions.
So yeah. The Zumwalt could have bombarded shore-based targets. But other ships can do that just fine as well using their cannon and cruise missiles. The Zumwalt might have been a bit better at it, but it's increase in capability would not be all that stellar, and to me definitely not justifying the crazy costs, especially considering how rare naval artillery bombardments are. Considering how much the ammo for the Zumwalt's cannons cost, it is cheaper for the Navy to just use cruise missiles instead. And now with the ammo gone, the Zumwalt's guns are useless, leaving it even worse at shore bombardment than say an Arleigh Burke-class. The US military has evidently realised this as well considering they abandoned the Zumwalt in favour of re-starting Arleigh Burke production.

To be honest, if they wanted a ship for bombarding shore targets, I believe they should have focused on that, and leave out all of the stealth stuff (which on a thing as big, slow, and obviously visible as a destroyer that fires really big guns and is stuffed full of electronics and incredibly powerful radar is of questionable utility in the first place). The Zumwalt is a classic victim of overengineering. They wanted too many things from a ship, resulting in a ship that can do lots of things but none of them good. Well, except winning prizes in a "ugly ship" contest maybe.


Not everyone can be as sexy as the Kirov, lets not hull-shame.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:42:53


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean when you can just fling 80 rim-66s and watch it die in fire, with no possible counter attack. Or 80 Tomahawks. Turns out VLS is sort of OP.


I'm a bit curious how you think either of those would even disable it RIM-66 is just going to detonate on the surface. Tomahawks with submunitions might seriously damage it's antenna arrays, but since it's guns can fall back to the optical and calculated fire, it's only reducing it's accuracy.

Battleships in combat with destroyers and cruisers might be hit hundreds of times by non penetrating shots.

This is hilariously false. I mean if they fire only into the belt amour sure. In actuality they fire into the superstructure causing ammunition fires, destoyering communications, and generally ruining eveyrones day. Just ask the Hiei what dealing with destroyers is like.



Incorrect. The first hit was between frames 100 and 108 and penetrated the ship entirely, exploding under her keel, and caused flooding in her aft engine room and two boiler rooms. The second hit landed between frames 123 and 136 hitting the forward engine room. This started, among other things, an electrical fire in turret 2's magazine, which then detonated, blowing turret 2 completely off the ship. Which then sank, for obvious reasons. I refer you to the findings following her loss and the discovery of the wreck.

incorrect. The hit to the boiler room was caused by an underwater explosion, this is still a hit to the boiler room. Electical fires were caused in the rear of the ship. It was the forward magazine that exploded caused by the forward engine fire.

Further, the fritz X was unusual in that it had a remote control system so the bombardier could guide it to the target. It was not 'just' a glide bomb.
That's *literally* what a glide bomb is mate.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:44:17


Post by: Iron_Captain


 thekingofkings wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Agiel wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.


Ahem.

Do you know how much those munitions cost? As much as a cruise missile, making them utterly useless. The only advantage that gun artillery has over missile artillery is supposed to be the low costs. If you take that only advantage away... Well, the US Navy came to the predictable conclusion and scrapped the munitions.
So yeah. The Zumwalt could have bombarded shore-based targets. But other ships can do that just fine as well using their cannon and cruise missiles. The Zumwalt might have been a bit better at it, but it's increase in capability would not be all that stellar, and to me definitely not justifying the crazy costs, especially considering how rare naval artillery bombardments are. Considering how much the ammo for the Zumwalt's cannons cost, it is cheaper for the Navy to just use cruise missiles instead. And now with the ammo gone, the Zumwalt's guns are useless, leaving it even worse at shore bombardment than say an Arleigh Burke-class. The US military has evidently realised this as well considering they abandoned the Zumwalt in favour of re-starting Arleigh Burke production.

To be honest, if they wanted a ship for bombarding shore targets, I believe they should have focused on that, and leave out all of the stealth stuff (which on a thing as big, slow, and obviously visible as a destroyer that fires really big guns and is stuffed full of electronics and incredibly powerful radar is of questionable utility in the first place). The Zumwalt is a classic victim of overengineering. They wanted too many things from a ship, resulting in a ship that can do lots of things but none of them good. Well, except winning prizes in a "ugly ship" contest maybe.


Not everyone can be as sexy as the Kirov, lets not hull-shame.

Nonsense. With enough practice, dedication, workouts and our trademarked Russian diet, any ship can become sexy like Comrade Kirov.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 00:54:38


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:


Iowa's turret no 2 explosion.

Are you actually blaming that on the Navy? Also that's 47 not 42.

As far as the timeline for the Zumwalt, you might want to read the laws passed regaurding the decomissioning of the Battleships. Effectivly, the Navy was required to produce, within a certain amount of time, a replacement.

Iowa and Wisconsin were kept until 2005 until being decommissioned in favor of DDX.

No, they were decommissioned much earlier. They just weren't struck from the list until later. At which time they had already been replaced by ship launched guided missiles and airstrikes.



Also, I think you have a typo, you probably meant WW2. And boy do I recommend the study done on the effectiveness of BBs vs Cruisers in gunfire support roles that was done in Korea.

I do mean WWII, and link this study if you have it.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 15:22:16


Post by: KTG17


I think the US Navy is having a bit of an identity crisis. Even if the Zumwalt was going to be successful deploying railguns, how often was it going to be used in the role it was specified. And for the cost of the thing and how few there were just seems like a ridiculous idea. The same goes for the littorals. So what if they are fast. They have no armor and little firepower, yet 'can deploy in shallow water and drop SEAL teams off'. Are you kidding me?

I am all for proof of concepts and pushing the envelope on design, but it just seems the Navy has lost sight of what their #1 job is: dominate other Navies. The Zumwalt pitch just seems ridiculous because if we were even in a situation where we were going to have marines storm a beach somewhere, we'd have to have a bunch of other things happen prior to that, like air supremacy and area of control around whatever they were storming. And if you had that, then you certainly could just bomb the gak out of the area or even launch rockets from a variety of platforms.

I do not see whats been occurring in the world the last 20 years for the Navy to think they needed that design. It wasn't going to help them in Afghanistan or Iraq, and if they were worried about Chinese islands in the South China Sea, there are a whole bunch of Chinese ships to worry about. The Navy should be focused on ship killing first and foremost. Maybe they feel they have that all wrapped up I do not know. I feel our older cruisers and destroyers are looking rather dated. I know they are all part of a system and shouldn't be judged individually, but still. Shelling out so much money on 3 ships with no guns and these stupid littoral ships sees like a real waste.

I am curious how the US Navy will look in 50 years. Probably a lot of drone ships.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 15:49:50


Post by: whembly


Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 16:12:31


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.


They're ridiculously vulnerable to torpedoes, and you wouldn't have to sink them with cruise missiles to mission kill them. There'd have to be a more reliable anti-missile system than what currently exists to build them, and even then a smaller ship could carry the same missiles and defense system for less of the cost.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 16:24:52


Post by: Iron_Captain


 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.

No, they have no place in a modern navy, except in a niche role as mobile artillery platforms.
Whether they can survive modern anti-ship weapons depends on what kind of weapon you are talking about, considering anti-ship weapons range from small autocannons designed for destroying small attack craft to massive nuclear anti-ship missiles that can blow an entire fleet out of the water.
They are pretty massive ships, so I'd say that their bulk gives them above-average survivability. However, modern anti-ship weapons can be extremely destructive when they hit, so modern warships instead of trying to be good at tanking hits with big bulk and armour try to avoid getting hit at all in order to stay afloat. And I figure those old battleships just do not have the countermeasure systems in place that would allow them to survive in a modern naval combat environment. And upgrading those old hulls with modern systems is going to be really expensive (not to mention that the maintenance costs of such ships), so it is probably cheaper to just design a new ship instead. And it would not be battleship-sized, simply because such big ships have become unnecessary. A battleship would just be extra expensive and offer no additional capabilities over a cruiser.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 18:36:09


Post by: Xenomancers


Anyone seen these supersonic torpedos? They are basically underwater missiles. They create and air bubble in front of them due to the speed that they travel. It almost seems that ships are going to be very unsafe places to be. Intercepting things in water is a lot harder than in the air.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 18:45:31


Post by: Kilkrazy


How fast is the speed of sound in water?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 18:54:04


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Kilkrazy wrote:
How fast is the speed of sound in water?

In sea water at room temperature, 1531 m/s.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 19:05:38


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


They wouldn't even be supersonic in air, but they do around 370 km/h and are more or less impossible to intercept.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 19:06:45


Post by: Xenomancers


 Kilkrazy wrote:
How fast is the speed of sound in water?

Wikipedia claims these "supercavitating" torpedos have a max speed of 250-300 knots currently. So far from supersonic in water. Though in the documentary I was watching on nuclear submarines - they were very concerned about these torpedos being undetectable until it was to late. I guess if their speed starts to increase with further development - these weapons would be almost invisible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
They wouldn't even be supersonic in air, but they do around 370 km/h and are more or less impossible to intercept.

It's possible the documentary I was watching was talking about a potential supersonic weapon developed from these ideas. I don't remember exactly. Though - it certainly seems within the realm of possibility that these weapons could reach much higher speeds.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 19:16:37


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Certainly possible, but they're not there yet and they don't have very long range.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/07 22:30:12


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Are you actually blaming that on the Navy? Also that's 47 not 42.


Yes, i do actually. The navy remixed older powder (and I mean 1942 old) in the bags, creating a situation where one bag in six in the Iowa's magazines was sensitive to over-ram.

Scandia's final report
https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/214716.pdf


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

No, they were decommissioned much earlier. They just weren't struck from the list until later.


Apologies, you're correct on that, but the navy had to maintain them in a state of readiness after that point under the law for near immediate recommissioning, should the event arise.


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I do mean WWII, and link this study if you have it.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/756950.pdf

I reccomend page 14. Compared to other forms of gunfire used, the 16" gun proved to have the highest rate of success compared to other naval gunfire observed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

This is hilariously false. I mean if they fire only into the belt amour sure. In actuality they fire into the superstructure causing ammunition fires, destoyering communications, and generally ruining eveyrones day. Just ask the Hiei what dealing with destroyers is like.


Love that you picked a WW1 battlecruiser that got uparmored in an attempt to turn it into a battleship as your example. (The steering hit was a design flaw in all the Kongo class, and in one example they filled part of the steering room with cement in order to try and correct it) And, I'll also point out that despite the best efforts of several cruisers, destroyers, and carriers, Hiei was scuttled rather than sunk.

Also, despite bomb hits and torpedo hits, Hiei was hit 85 times with 'smaller' caliber guns (most likely the bulk being Atlanta's six inch guns) and 50 times with 'larger' caliber guns.

And remained afloat and operational. It was only the continued harassment by US carrier aircraft and a full on B-17 raid on her that caused the commander to decide that withdrawal was impossible and to sink the ship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
weirdly can't seem to edit the above post.

But Hiei was hit 85 times with smaller guns, 50 times with 'larger' guns, and remained operational save the loss of steering. Continued harassment from Carrier aircraft led the CO to decide to scuttle her. Despite the best efforts of the US navy, Hiei lost about 200 men out of around 1500, which was bad, but not a crippling loss.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/08 00:25:50


Post by: Vaktathi


 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.
The issue with a Battleship type vessel is that you don't need something that big, that heavily armored, and that complex to be a missile barge. A Battleship exists to get into direct combat with other surface vessels at relatively close ranges by modern standards, almost the equivalent of melee range by modern standards really.

The armor would make one harder to kill than most modern vessels, but not in any really meaningful way. Having a big thick armor belt is great against naval gunfire that's most likely going to impact directly against that belt, not so much against missiles or aircraft bombs that will be hitting under the waterline beneath the belt or down through the deck from above or a torpedo that breaks its spine from below, especially in an age of where targeting is vastly improved. I think it'd probably be hard to sink one, but not harder to soft-kill (remove from the fight) than most anything else really. I don't think you could sufficiently armor something that big against all those threats and still have it be functional and economical to produce and operate. The Soviets made the Kirov class Battlecruisers as giant missile barges, but AFAIK they don't have armor any thicker than about 3" or so.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/08 00:44:01


Post by: BaronIveagh


 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.


My view is 'yes, but'.

It's useful in several conceivable situations, but the main issue is that battleships cost a lot to operate and maintain. And, unlike a carrier, it's less useful when you're not fighting a major war than a carrier is.

It's a 'very' useful platform in say, a forced entry scenario, as it frees up aircraft and missiles for targets further inland (pesky things like airfields and C&C). New Jersey demonstrated this in Vietnam. Moreover, it can serve as an evac point for wounded while simultaneously providing heavy fire support for longer than most comparable systems.

For some idea of just what I'm talking about, here's Texas' handiwork at Normandy, now, almost 80 years later:





The F-35 @ 2018/08/08 01:24:00


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:


Yes, i do actually. The navy remixed older powder (and I mean 1942 old) in the bags, creating a situation where one bag in six in the Iowa's magazines was sensitive to over-ram.

Scandia's final report
https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/214716.pdf

That's a more reasonable explanation, the way you stated it sounded like you were saying that they did it on purpose.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/756950.pdf

I reccomend page 14. Compared to other forms of gunfire used, the 16" gun proved to have the highest rate of success compared to other naval gunfire observed.


Thak you. I won't proport to being an expert on post war combat, I'm a WWII guy. But the marines in the pacific found that smaller cruisers and destroyers could respond much faster to fire support requests, and far more accurately, and their small size allowed them to operate much closer to the action. As well as the smaller impacts of their rounds meant that they could fire much closer to friendly troops.


Love that you picked a WW1 battlecruiser that got uparmored in an attempt to turn it into a battleship as your example. (The steering hit was a design flaw in all the Kongo class, and in one example they filled part of the steering room with cement in order to try and correct it) And, I'll also point out that despite the best efforts of several cruisers, destroyers, and carriers, Hiei was scuttled rather than sunk.

Also, despite bomb hits and torpedo hits, Hiei was hit 85 times with 'smaller' caliber guns (most likely the bulk being Atlanta's six inch guns) and 50 times with 'larger' caliber guns.

And remained afloat and operational. It was only the continued harassment by US carrier aircraft and a full on B-17 raid on her that caused the commander to decide that withdrawal was impossible and to sink the ship.

In almost all instances with CV and BB loss the IJN scuttles the ships to prevent capture and search by Americans before the ship sunk on it;s own. And despite not being sunk, it was hardly operable. It was dead in the water after the hits, and the fires caused by the CL and DD hits made it unable to operate at all. The same would happen to the Iowa class.

Also in this instance the armour belt difference is meaningless, because they fired at the superstructure. The uparmoured and up-gunned Kongou class were very formidable for their time, and it's belt armour was more than enough to stop small cruiser and destroyer guns. But you can render a battleship useless without touching their belt armour. Unforturently there aren't many instances in WWII of battleships being harassed by small ships in that sort of situation. You have the British battleship and cruiser force spanking the hell out of the Bisko, Yamashiro being killed by a smattering of gun hits, but mostly taken down by torpeodes, and Kirishima being taken down by the SD. Otherwise, like battleships as a concept, they were sunk by aircraft and submarines.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/08 21:40:07


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

In almost all instances with CV and BB loss the IJN scuttles the ships to prevent capture and search by Americans before the ship sunk on it;s own. And despite not being sunk, it was hardly operable. It was dead in the water after the hits, and the fires caused by the CL and DD hits made it unable to operate at all.


That does not quite jive with any of the AARs I've read on the sinking of Hiei. According to the Japanese report, and the men of the USS Aaron Ward, the Hiei was still quite lively, and, despite being stripped of almost all her directors, and antennae, and her pagoda set on fire, Hiei still straddled the Ward with her main batteries before being distracted by the more pressing concern of American aircraft.

Here's a fairly accurate summery of the Night battle...

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/night-battle-the-barroom-brawl-off-guadalcanal/




 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also in this instance the armour belt difference is meaningless, because they fired at the superstructure. The uparmoured and up-gunned Kongou class were very formidable for their time, and it's belt armour was more than enough to stop small cruiser and destroyer guns. But you can render a battleship useless without touching their belt armour. Unforturently there aren't many instances in WWII of battleships being harassed by small ships in that sort of situation. You have the British battleship and cruiser force spanking the hell out of the Bisko, Yamashiro being killed by a smattering of gun hits, but mostly taken down by torpeodes, and Kirishima being taken down by the SD. Otherwise, like battleships as a concept, they were sunk by aircraft and submarines.


You left out the battle off Samar. But since it does not support your hypothesis, well..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That's a more reasonable explanation, the way you stated it sounded like you were saying that they did it on purpose.


I honestly suspect they did. Iowa's orders for test firing read like a list of what NOT to do if you are firing a 16"/50. The crew filed an official protest but were told to go ahead and do it anyway. Then the navy tried to pin the whole thing on one of the dead crewman supposedly being in secret gay love triangles and accused him of deliberately bombing the ship.. The guy who then managed to save the ship from a magazine explosion got promoted to Antarctica. Dig into it, it's really fethed up.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/09 00:17:07


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.


My view is 'yes, but'.

It's useful in several conceivable situations, but the main issue is that battleships cost a lot to operate and maintain. And, unlike a carrier, it's less useful when you're not fighting a major war than a carrier is.

It's a 'very' useful platform in say, a forced entry scenario, as it frees up aircraft and missiles for targets further inland (pesky things like airfields and C&C). New Jersey demonstrated this in Vietnam. Moreover, it can serve as an evac point for wounded while simultaneously providing heavy fire support for longer than most comparable systems.

For some idea of just what I'm talking about, here's Texas' handiwork at Normandy, now, almost 80 years later:

Spoiler:



A battleship would be even less useful in a major war than in a smaller one, since in a major war against a modern military a WW-2 era battleship would be sunk before being able to launch a single shot. Really big and slow + no countermeasures = missile magnet. And furthermore, there is nothing a battleship can do that modern destroyers can't do cheaper. Battleships and even cruisers went out of fashion for good reasons. Too much cost for not enough increase in capability.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

In almost all instances with CV and BB loss the IJN scuttles the ships to prevent capture and search by Americans before the ship sunk on it;s own. And despite not being sunk, it was hardly operable. It was dead in the water after the hits, and the fires caused by the CL and DD hits made it unable to operate at all.


That does not quite jive with any of the AARs I've read on the sinking of Hiei. According to the Japanese report, and the men of the USS Aaron Ward, the Hiei was still quite lively, and, despite being stripped of almost all her directors, and antennae, and her pagoda set on fire, Hiei still straddled the Ward with her main batteries before being distracted by the more pressing concern of American aircraft.

Here's a fairly accurate summery of the Night battle...

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/night-battle-the-barroom-brawl-off-guadalcanal/

Considering Hiei took out three destroyers and a cruiser, killed two US admirals and soaked up fire from pretty much the entire US fleet before being finally crippled by aircraft I'd say that is indeed more of an example of why destroyers should not try to take on battleships unless they have a death wish. Of course, that was back in WW2 when cannons were still the main ship weapons. Nowadays a destroyer would just launch a missile from beyond the horizon powerful enough to cripple a battleship with a single hit. Modern naval warfare is all about speed and countermeasures rather than armour and big guns.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/09 07:40:59


Post by: Vulcan


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:


Since you are an expert, you are doubtless aware the A-10 was designed with several features to defeat battlefield AA defenses - which are optically or IR guided - and the F-35 lacks all of those features leaving it just as naked to attack as the A-10... but far less able to survive that fire.

The whole point is the F-35 won't be in the position to have Manpads and 35mm AAA shooting at them in the first place, not that we even put the A-10 in positions where those are even an danger to it these days. Anything more than a few guys with AKs we bring out other stuff.


On the other hand, the F-35 will be a lot better at finding and killing those air defenses that put the A-10 at serious risk. Once they're dealt with, we're back to the position where the A-10 can bring more ordinance to the fight with less risk to the airframe.
Sure, there's a reason we aren't just stopping all use of the machine. Their retirement plan is to slowly reduce usage, not just take a hacksaw to the lot. The retired birds will serve as spare parts for those still in service, further reducing costs, and eventually (I think the plan is like 2040) we will stop usage of them after slowly cutting numbers.

Besides, the Air Force loses five aircraft a year in a good year of peacetime flying. It's called operational losses. What do you want to lose more of to operational losses - $20 million updated legacy aircraft, or $200 million F-35s?
"Those planes would have crashed on their own anyway" really isn't the most compelling argument I've ever heard, I'll be honest. As far as I know we've lost one F-35 to an engine fire (pilot landed the plane, but it was decided to be too costly to fix). And that's it.


And how many combat sorties has the F-35 flown? A big fat "ZERO", if I'm not mistaken. Yet they've already managed to lose one. What's the loss rate per combat mission of the A-10? Four out of thousands?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/09 09:43:26


Post by: Disciple of Fate


The Israelis have started flying combat missions with the F-35. Accidents can always happen, the A-10 also suffered some losses to accidents before going into combat service. Yes the F-35 has issues, but 1 loss isn't solid proof of it being worse.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/09 22:46:38


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you really think they went through the process to create a ship around a weapon system if the weapon didn't work? I don't buy that.


Welcome to government procurement. They don't wait for development to finish before they start building. Which is why the plumbing on the carrier George H W Bush doesn't work properly, for example.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nowadays a destroyer would just launch a missile from beyond the horizon powerful enough to cripple a battleship with a single hit. Modern naval warfare is all about speed and countermeasures rather than armour and big guns.


No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that. And battleships are more than fast enough to keep pace with carriers, which dictate the over all fleets speed, no matter what speed a destroyer can hit.

And, I'll point out that passive old armor is an excellent counter for the increasingly faster, lighter, smaller, and less powerful anti ship missiles that look to be the current trend. You just have to find the point where missile performance is degraded enough by the need to penetrate armor that it become vulnerable to active CIWS.

However, as I said, the battleship still has it's niche, but you might note that I did not say that it's a good fleet on fleet weapon. However, for gunfire support, it knows no equal, and is quite capable of taking hits and not ceasing to be operational. Which is the major issue with every single alternative that has been put forward. LCS program ships can barely make it from port to port without breaking down, and Zumwalt is every bit as massive as an old Mississippi class battleship, but depends on stealth and firing at extreme long range.


Getting back to the F-35s, anyone know if they've fixed the gun pod not being able to hit a target yet? I know it erases it's stealth capabilities, but I'm curious if it still shoots to the right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Israelis have started flying combat missions with the F-35. Accidents can always happen, the A-10 also suffered some losses to accidents before going into combat service. Yes the F-35 has issues, but 1 loss isn't solid proof of it being worse.


How about the part where the A-10 can hit targets with it's gun, and the F-35 can't?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/09 22:52:24


Post by: Vulcan


True enough.

There's an easy, though expensive, way to solve this. Drone-rig an F-35 and an A-10 and fly them in CAS missions against life-fire battlefield antiaircraft defenses. See which one can survive the mission, deliver sufficient ordinance sufficiently quickly with sufficient accuracy, and determine how long necessary repairs (if any) will delay subsequent sorties.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/09 23:38:39


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Vulcan wrote:
True enough.

There's an easy, though expensive, way to solve this. Drone-rig an F-35 and an A-10 and fly them in CAS missions against life-fire battlefield antiaircraft defenses. See which one can survive the mission, deliver sufficient ordinance sufficiently quickly with sufficient accuracy, and determine how long necessary repairs (if any) will delay subsequent sorties.


Well, that last one the A-10 would win hands down. She can be repaired in the field, generally. The F-35 has to be sent back to Lockheed if it suffers any significant damage.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/09 23:51:24


Post by: djones520


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you really think they went through the process to create a ship around a weapon system if the weapon didn't work? I don't buy that.


Welcome to government procurement. They don't wait for development to finish before they start building. Which is why the plumbing on the carrier George H W Bush doesn't work properly, for example.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nowadays a destroyer would just launch a missile from beyond the horizon powerful enough to cripple a battleship with a single hit. Modern naval warfare is all about speed and countermeasures rather than armour and big guns.


No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that. And battleships are more than fast enough to keep pace with carriers, which dictate the over all fleets speed, no matter what speed a destroyer can hit.

And, I'll point out that passive old armor is an excellent counter for the increasingly faster, lighter, smaller, and less powerful anti ship missiles that look to be the current trend. You just have to find the point where missile performance is degraded enough by the need to penetrate armor that it become vulnerable to active CIWS.

However, as I said, the battleship still has it's niche, but you might note that I did not say that it's a good fleet on fleet weapon. However, for gunfire support, it knows no equal, and is quite capable of taking hits and not ceasing to be operational. Which is the major issue with every single alternative that has been put forward. LCS program ships can barely make it from port to port without breaking down, and Zumwalt is every bit as massive as an old Mississippi class battleship, but depends on stealth and firing at extreme long range.


Getting back to the F-35s, anyone know if they've fixed the gun pod not being able to hit a target yet? I know it erases it's stealth capabilities, but I'm curious if it still shoots to the right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Israelis have started flying combat missions with the F-35. Accidents can always happen, the A-10 also suffered some losses to accidents before going into combat service. Yes the F-35 has issues, but 1 loss isn't solid proof of it being worse.


How about the part where the A-10 can hit targets with it's gun, and the F-35 can't?


Our new LRASM has more then double the explosive power of the Harpoon, so I'd say at least in US regards, we're focussing on more punch with our missiles, instead of less.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 00:37:07


Post by: BaronIveagh


 djones520 wrote:

Our new LRASM has more then double the explosive power of the Harpoon, so I'd say at least in US regards, we're focussing on more punch with our missiles, instead of less.


The same one that is already getting ditched in favor of the again much lighter Joint Strike Missile? Or has already been ditched in favor of the NSM, which only has a 150kg ish warhead (IIRC)? That one?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 01:13:57


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:

No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that. And battleships are more than fast enough to keep pace with carriers, which dictate the over all fleets speed, no matter what speed a destroyer can hit.

And, I'll point out that passive old armor is an excellent counter for the increasingly faster, lighter, smaller, and less powerful anti ship missiles that look to be the current trend. You just have to find the point where missile performance is degraded enough by the need to penetrate armor that it become vulnerable to active CIWS.

However, as I said, the battleship still has it's niche, but you might note that I did not say that it's a good fleet on fleet weapon. However, for gunfire support, it knows no equal, and is quite capable of taking hits and not ceasing to be operational. Which is the major issue with every single alternative that has been put forward. LCS program ships can barely make it from port to port without breaking down, and Zumwalt is every bit as massive as an old Mississippi class battleship, but depends on stealth and firing at extreme long range.

Baron, you might want to take a look at modern destroyers and anti-ship missiles. The average modern anti-ship missile carries a warhead between 150-500kg, and there is even frigates carrying 500kg warheads around, and even tiny corvettes carry missiles with 300 kg nuclear warheads (a single Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate can carry 16 anti-ship missiles with 300kg thermonuclear warheads for example, or an equal number of missiles with 200kg armour-piercing warheads or 500kg warheads, not to mention torpedoes and a large amount of shorter-ranged missiles). That is more than enough to take out, if not completely demolish an old battleship in a single strike. Especially if the hit is on the superstructure, which it likely will be. WW2 era armour is nothing but steel. It offers little protection against modern weapons. Destroyers carry even more missiles than frigates. And without countermeasures, the enemy can just hit the battleship with as many missiles as he likes. A battleship can take hits, but not that many. Even light Exocet missiles will take out a battleship with sufficient hits. Not to mention that to offer gunfire support, a battleship has to get close to shore, exposing itself to heavy land-based missiles and enemy aircraft. Basically, a battleship on a modern battlefield against a modern army is dead. In every scenario. It is just too slow, does not have countermeasures, and with the accuracy and power of modern missiles the time of battleships just tanking hits is over. That time is long over already, since WW2. Aircraft literally and figuratively sank the battleship as a viable class of warship. Cruise missiles are like aircraft on steroids. They are even faster and harder to intercept. If a battleship can't handle attack from aircraft, what on God's green Earth makes you think it could handle an attack with cruise missiles? Battleships look cool, but their time as a viable weapon is long past, just like cavalry or zeppelins.
Also, not every fleet has a carrier, and a fleet that has carriers should not contain battleships considering that battleships want to get close to shore to be in range with their cannons, while aircraft carriers want to be as far away from shore as possible to stay out of range from enemy land-based defenses, while its aircraft give it the range to strike targets even from very far away.
And if cruise missiles alone are not enough to convince you, modern torpedoes or ICBMs could also take out a battleship with ease. Not to mention submarines, which would be undetectable by the battleship's outdated equipment.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 01:33:03


Post by: thekingofkings


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:

No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that. And battleships are more than fast enough to keep pace with carriers, which dictate the over all fleets speed, no matter what speed a destroyer can hit.

And, I'll point out that passive old armor is an excellent counter for the increasingly faster, lighter, smaller, and less powerful anti ship missiles that look to be the current trend. You just have to find the point where missile performance is degraded enough by the need to penetrate armor that it become vulnerable to active CIWS.

However, as I said, the battleship still has it's niche, but you might note that I did not say that it's a good fleet on fleet weapon. However, for gunfire support, it knows no equal, and is quite capable of taking hits and not ceasing to be operational. Which is the major issue with every single alternative that has been put forward. LCS program ships can barely make it from port to port without breaking down, and Zumwalt is every bit as massive as an old Mississippi class battleship, but depends on stealth and firing at extreme long range.

Baron, you might want to take a look at modern destroyers and anti-ship missiles. The average modern anti-ship missile carries a warhead between 150-500kg, and there is even frigates carrying 500kg warheads around, and even tiny corvettes carry missiles with 300 kg nuclear warheads (a single Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate can carry 16 anti-ship missiles with 300kg thermonuclear warheads for example, or an equal number of missiles with 200kg armour-piercing warheads or 500kg warheads, not to mention torpedoes and a large amount of shorter-ranged missiles). That is more than enough to take out, if not completely demolish an old battleship in a single strike. Especially if the hit is on the superstructure, which it likely will be. WW2 era armour is nothing but steel. It offers little protection against modern weapons. Destroyers carry even more missiles than frigates. And without countermeasures, the enemy can just hit the battleship with as many missiles as he likes. A battleship can take hits, but not that many. Even light Exocet missiles will take out a battleship with sufficient hits. Not to mention that to offer gunfire support, a battleship has to get close to shore, exposing itself to heavy land-based missiles and enemy aircraft. Basically, a battleship on a modern battlefield against a modern army is dead. In every scenario. It is just too slow, does not have countermeasures, and with the accuracy and power of modern missiles the time of battleships just tanking hits is over. That time is long over already, since WW2. Aircraft literally and figuratively sank the battleship as a viable class of warship. Cruise missiles are like aircraft on steroids. They are even faster and harder to intercept. If a battleship can't handle attack from aircraft, what on God's green Earth makes you think it could handle an attack with cruise missiles? Battleships look cool, but their time as a viable weapon is long past, just like cavalry or zeppelins.
Also, not every fleet has a carrier, and a fleet that has carriers should not contain battleships considering that battleships want to get close to shore to be in range with their cannons, while aircraft carriers want to be as far away from shore as possible to stay out of range from enemy land-based defenses, while its aircraft give it the range to strike targets even from very far away.
And if cruise missiles alone are not enough to convince you, modern torpedoes or ICBMs could also take out a battleship with ease. Not to mention submarines, which would be undetectable by the battleship's outdated equipment.



A single krivak IIO or Grisha would destroy a battleship, the kirov, sovremennyy, and such not would have little trouble either, especially the pytor veliky. thats before worrying about akulas or oscar class.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 03:42:59


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that.


Only because nobody currently uses battleships that would require a heavier missile. If battleships come back then bolting on some heavier missiles in box launchers is much easier than designing a new battleship. And there's always escalation to nuclear weapons, in the safest possible situation to use them*. Once the nukes start flying it doesn't matter how much armor your battleship has, one missile slips through your interceptors and the entire carrier group is dead.

*Clearly identifiable military targets with no civilians anywhere nearby.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 04:33:26


Post by: Witzkatz


 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that.


Only because nobody currently uses battleships that would require a heavier missile. If battleships come back then bolting on some heavier missiles in box launchers is much easier than designing a new battleship. And there's always escalation to nuclear weapons, in the safest possible situation to use them*. Once the nukes start flying it doesn't matter how much armor your battleship has, one missile slips through your interceptors and the entire carrier group is dead.

*Clearly identifiable military targets with no civilians anywhere nearby.


About that...yes, it seems intuitive, but the last test runs with nuclear weapons against dummy ship targets has been a while ago, no? I'm not sure if the ships were destroyed by the fireball or toppled by the sea, in any case, is there a chance that modern damage control systems and different materials might have given newer ships some benefits in this area that could result in some ships of the carrie group (possibly the ones further away from the center, obviously) might survive to some degree in smaller nuclear missiles?

I'm mostly asking because I just remembered a field test the Australians did with an older Centurion tank they kept running and dropped a nuke a hundred yards in front of it - when they came back later, the tank was mostly intact and had simply run out of fuel, meaning the blast didn't even impair the engine operation. (Effects on crew could, of course, not be tested...) I'm aware most ships won't have that raw armor, though.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 05:37:55


Post by: Peregrine


 Witzkatz wrote:
About that...yes, it seems intuitive, but the last test runs with nuclear weapons against dummy ship targets has been a while ago, no? I'm not sure if the ships were destroyed by the fireball or toppled by the sea, in any case, is there a chance that modern damage control systems and different materials might have given newer ships some benefits in this area that could result in some ships of the carrie group (possibly the ones further away from the center, obviously) might survive to some degree in smaller nuclear missiles?


Survive? Maybe. Remain combat-effective? Not likely. Too many things (radar antennas, gun barrels, etc) have to be outside the armor to function, which means getting burned off by a nuke. So maybe you can tow the useless hulk back and repair it someday, but it's out for the duration of any plausible modern war. You'd have to disperse the ships pretty far out to have some of them survive, which means a significant drop in defensive effectiveness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Witzkatz wrote:
I'm mostly asking because I just remembered a field test the Australians did with an older Centurion tank they kept running and dropped a nuke a hundred yards in front of it - when they came back later, the tank was mostly intact and had simply run out of fuel, meaning the blast didn't even impair the engine operation. (Effects on crew could, of course, not be tested...) I'm aware most ships won't have that raw armor, though.


The important part there is the very low yield on the nuke (and the distance was 500 yards, not 100), the warheads on anti-ship missiles are orders of magnitude more powerful.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 05:53:37


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Peregrine wrote:
 Witzkatz wrote:
I'm mostly asking because I just remembered a field test the Australians did with an older Centurion tank they kept running and dropped a nuke a hundred yards in front of it - when they came back later, the tank was mostly intact and had simply run out of fuel, meaning the blast didn't even impair the engine operation. (Effects on crew could, of course, not be tested...) I'm aware most ships won't have that raw armor, though.

The important part there is the very low yield on the nuke (and the distance was 500 yards, not 100), the warheads on anti-ship missiles are orders of magnitude more powerful.

The other important part was that while the tank survived, the calculation was that the crew wouldn't have survived the blast wave. If a ship stays afloat but most, if not all, the crew is dead then that nuke did its job just as well.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 10:16:10


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


And this is just discussing missiles. A nuclear torpedo isn't survivable due to the laws of physics. Gravity's a bitch.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 14:03:46


Post by: djones520


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 djones520 wrote:

Our new LRASM has more then double the explosive power of the Harpoon, so I'd say at least in US regards, we're focussing on more punch with our missiles, instead of less.


The same one that is already getting ditched in favor of the again much lighter Joint Strike Missile? Or has already been ditched in favor of the NSM, which only has a 150kg ish warhead (IIRC)? That one?


They are replacing an air launched missile with a surface launched missile?

Yeah... don't think so.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 22:48:21


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baron, you might want to take a look at modern destroyers and anti-ship missiles. The average modern anti-ship missile carries a warhead between 150-500kg, and there is even frigates carrying 500kg warheads around, and even tiny corvettes carry missiles with 300 kg nuclear warheads (a single Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate can carry 16 anti-ship missiles with 300kg thermonuclear warheads for example, or an equal number of missiles with 200kg armour-piercing warheads or 500kg warheads, not to mention torpedoes and a large amount of shorter-ranged missiles).


And you area aware that some of the last BBs into the water were designed to take 1300kg hits, right?

Ok, let me start by making some things clear, because I see a lot of the same tired arguments being trotted out again and again.

1) Battleships have been upgraded since WW2. Go visit one, you might be surprised at some of the modern hardware they carry. Unlike Russia, the US did upgrade it's BBs with fighting platforms like Kirov in mind.

2) A single Iowa class can carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group combined, in conjunction with modern VLS systems AND 16" guns, if the six inch guns are reduced to six 127mm otos, whose long range munitions DO work and cost less than the rest of the ship. The Navy has reviewed this plan in 1958, 1963, 1975, 1981, 1991, and 2006. It was shot down due to requiring too much manpower. Seems that battleships do not do 'optimal crewing'.

3) NUKES!


That object in the Wilson cloud? That's USS Arkansas, a pre-WW1 Wyoming class battleship being flipped over by a 70kt nuke nearly directly under it. Arky was a fraction of the size of an Iowa, but i'll admit that a direct nuclear hit would probably kill everyone on board, and may heavilly damage the ship. While I grant that Status Six would kill a battleship (and the rest of the fleet, and everything else for 75 miles,having a 100mt warhead) the little W23 equivalents that Sizzler could, probably, mount (being that all we know is that it can be nuclear armed, but given the warhead it's designed to carry, it's most likely in the range of a US W23) on Gorshkov don't have a big enough yield to do what you see in the above picture.

I've gone over the BoS reports on each battleship post Baker and the majority of them were actualyl in good shape, save the Navy tried to 'clean' the radiation off the ships by pouring contaminated material on them. The reasons this did nto work should be pretty obvious, and made the issue much worse. As far as crew survival goes, it's questionable due to the Navy's post shot procedures muddying the waters.

But, once you're broken out nukes, the sort of role that a battleship would play in a modern navy is probably off the menu anyway at that point. You're unlikely to be invading anyplace that's lobbing nukes at you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:

They are replacing an air launched missile with a surface launched missile?

Yeah... don't think so.


LRASM was up for the LCS program to be their missile, it lost to the NSM. If you don't believe me, feel free to go look.

JSM is an Air to Ground version of NSM. Also, feel free to go look.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/10 23:56:40


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


The Centurion survived a nuke,it's nothing special


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 04:18:38


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
2) A single Iowa class can carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group combined

This is a weird thing to say honestly. Because it's not like we couldn't fit more on our ships. A Ford has 3 of them, plus a couple of SEARAMs. A Burke has 2 of them. And a Ford for reference weighs more than 100 times as much. Yeah if you stick CIWS literally everywhere they could have more than a carrier group. But so could your average sized barge.


(besides I'd say that seasparrow equipped VLS and SEARAMs are a way more useful method, CIWS are very much last resort.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 05:50:45


Post by: Witzkatz


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
2) A single Iowa class can carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group combined

This is a weird thing to say honestly. Because it's not like we couldn't fit more on our ships. A Ford has 3 of them, plus a couple of SEARAMs. A Burke has 2 of them. And a Ford for reference weighs more than 100 times as much. Yeah if you stick CIWS literally everywhere they could have more than a carrier group. But so could your average sized barge.


(besides I'd say that seasparrow equipped VLS and SEARAMs are a way more useful method, CIWS are very much last resort.


And this is an interesting thing to me - I'm aware guided anti-missile defense systems are more modern than the usual CIWS guns, but keeping in mind that incoming salvoes of enemy missiles are the ONE thing modern ships have to fear, I'm wondering why they don't slap at least a few more CIWS on most ships. Maybe because it's a relative peacetime right now and they keep some possible slots free for quick upgrades on these larger ships?

I'm just thinking of these early destroyers of the 1920s and 1930s where the navies apparently thought "Oh, let's have a single flak gun for the entire ship, that'll work out" - and at the end of WW2 they were literally sticking guns pointing upwards wherever it was humanly possible. Against aircraft, not missiles, of course, but I'm wondering if we will see the same uptick in CIWS and similar installations once the first destroyer-or-bigger ship gets killed by a missile salvo overwhelming its defences. Because even if they are a last resort, I can't imagine that they are so expensive it wouldn't make sense to have, I dunno, at least eight per larger ship.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 11:56:05


Post by: Mr. Burning


 Witzkatz wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
2) A single Iowa class can carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group combined

This is a weird thing to say honestly. Because it's not like we couldn't fit more on our ships. A Ford has 3 of them, plus a couple of SEARAMs. A Burke has 2 of them. And a Ford for reference weighs more than 100 times as much. Yeah if you stick CIWS literally everywhere they could have more than a carrier group. But so could your average sized barge.


(besides I'd say that seasparrow equipped VLS and SEARAMs are a way more useful method, CIWS are very much last resort.


And this is an interesting thing to me - I'm aware guided anti-missile defense systems are more modern than the usual CIWS guns, but keeping in mind that incoming salvoes of enemy missiles are the ONE thing modern ships have to fear, I'm wondering why they don't slap at least a few more CIWS on most ships. Maybe because it's a relative peacetime right now and they keep some possible slots free for quick upgrades on these larger ships?

I'm just thinking of these early destroyers of the 1920s and 1930s where the navies apparently thought "Oh, let's have a single flak gun for the entire ship, that'll work out" - and at the end of WW2 they were literally sticking guns pointing upwards wherever it was humanly possible. Against aircraft, not missiles, of course, but I'm wondering if we will see the same uptick in CIWS and similar installations once the first destroyer-or-bigger ship gets killed by a missile salvo overwhelming its defences. Because even if they are a last resort, I can't imagine that they are so expensive it wouldn't make sense to have, I dunno, at least eight per larger ship.


I think that there are diminishing returns from point defence. If missiles are getting through to larger vessels then I'm afraid the battle is probably lost.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 13:59:46


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baron, you might want to take a look at modern destroyers and anti-ship missiles. The average modern anti-ship missile carries a warhead between 150-500kg, and there is even frigates carrying 500kg warheads around, and even tiny corvettes carry missiles with 300 kg nuclear warheads (a single Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate can carry 16 anti-ship missiles with 300kg thermonuclear warheads for example, or an equal number of missiles with 200kg armour-piercing warheads or 500kg warheads, not to mention torpedoes and a large amount of shorter-ranged missiles).


And you area aware that some of the last BBs into the water were designed to take 1300kg hits, right?

Ok, let me start by making some things clear, because I see a lot of the same tired arguments being trotted out again and again.

1) Battleships have been upgraded since WW2. Go visit one, you might be surprised at some of the modern hardware they carry. Unlike Russia, the US did upgrade it's BBs with fighting platforms like Kirov in mind.

2) A single Iowa class can carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group combined, in conjunction with modern VLS systems AND 16" guns, if the six inch guns are reduced to six 127mm otos, whose long range munitions DO work and cost less than the rest of the ship. The Navy has reviewed this plan in 1958, 1963, 1975, 1981, 1991, and 2006. It was shot down due to requiring too much manpower. Seems that battleships do not do 'optimal crewing'.

1. I'd love to visit USS Missouri or some other massive battleship. Truly awe-inspiring vessels. But it hasn't been upgraded since the 1980's, and its antiquated CIWS systems and radar aren't worth much against the latest generation of missiles. The Kirov-class battlecruiser was designed to take on entire carrier groups with all their defense systems, its Granit missiles would have no trouble defeating an Iowa-class battleship with its old Phalanx systems. I mean, that is obvious. They are completely different ships with completely different purposes. A Kirov is a purpose-built capital ship killer. An Iowa is a floating artillery barge.
Of course, you could strip out all of an Iowa's weapons and replace them with modern weapons and systems. But you'd still have that massive, unnecessarily big hull that makes the ship really expensive in maintenance and crew requirements and overall provides a lot of disadvantages. Given the massive cost of such an upgrade and maintenance, you are better off using a couple of destroyers, who do everything better and are more resilient than a single battleship, simply because they are more ships. Like you could turn a battleship in a CIWS barge, you could make it carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group (it currently does not, it carries just 4 Phalanx CIWS systems), but that would come at the cost of it not being able to do other missions as well anymore, and multiple destroyers would still provide better coverage for overall lesser money. There are plenty of reasons the US Navy has shut down this idea so many times. Battleships just are not worth the effort. They cost too much money and do not provide anything significant that makes them worth using over a cheaper, more versatile destroyer.
Also, just to let you know, Russia does not have battleships. The Kirov-class battlecruiser comes close in size and armament, but it is no true battleship. It is however excessively large and expensive like a battleship, so they are probably the last class of large warships the world is going to see. The Russian navy will keep them until they reach the end of their service life, but you can be sure they will be replaced with destroyers or light cruisers after at. The cost and destructiveness of modern warfare just favours smaller, lighter vessels.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
3) NUKES!

That object in the Wilson cloud? That's USS Arkansas, a pre-WW1 Wyoming class battleship being flipped over by a 70kt nuke nearly directly under it. Arky was a fraction of the size of an Iowa, but i'll admit that a direct nuclear hit would probably kill everyone on board, and may heavilly damage the ship. While I grant that Status Six would kill a battleship (and the rest of the fleet, and everything else for 75 miles,having a 100mt warhead) the little W23 equivalents that Sizzler could, probably, mount (being that all we know is that it can be nuclear armed, but given the warhead it's designed to carry, it's most likely in the range of a US W23) on Gorshkov don't have a big enough yield to do what you see in the above picture.
No, but they will still kill everyone aboard the ship and tear off the superstructure at least. Unlike the bomb used in the test you are showing, a cruise missile would impact a ship directly rather than explode somewhere high in the air or underwater like in the tests. So it does not need those high yields to deal massive damage. And anyways, a battleship without crew is as good as sunk, and the test you showed sunk two battleships (Arkansas and Nagato), with Arkansas being a total loss and Nagato sinking later from damage sustained.
And a Kalibr cruise missile would mount a nuclear warhead quite a bit heavier than a W23 artillery shell. The entire W23 shell weighs 680kg. The Kalibr's conventional warhead alone weighs 500kg, with the entire missile weighing up to 2300kg.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I've gone over the BoS reports on each battleship post Baker and the majority of them were actualyl in good shape, save the Navy tried to 'clean' the radiation off the ships by pouring contaminated material on them. The reasons this did nto work should be pretty obvious, and made the issue much worse. As far as crew survival goes, it's questionable due to the Navy's post shot procedures muddying the waters.

But, once you're broken out nukes, the sort of role that a battleship would play in a modern navy is probably off the menu anyway at that point. You're unlikely to be invading anyplace that's lobbing nukes at you.

Spoiler:

In good shape? Here in the spoiler is USS Nevada after the ABLE test, which had an airburst bomb miss it and go off more than a kilometer away. It is all mangled up and while it remained afloat, it is clearly in anything but 'good shape'.
And an enemy that is not lobbing nukes at you would be an inferior enemy, and you are unlikely to need a battleship to provide fire support since you almost certainly will have aerial superiority already. The only countries against which an US invasion force would not be able to gain aerial superiority are those that would also be lobbing nukes (China, Russia). CAS Aircraft are able to provide more precise support, while bombers are more destructive than a battleship in tackling strategic targets. A battleship does have niche utility, but it is such a small niche that it does absolutely not justify the massive costs of a battleship.
But go ahead, write the US Navy with your amazing idea of the battleship in the 21st century. Tell all the admirals that they are wrong. Evidently, you are much more knowledgeable on 21st century naval warfare than they are.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 14:57:00


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:
And an enemy that is not lobbing nukes at you would be an inferior enemy, and you are unlikely to need a battleship to provide fire support since you almost certainly will have aerial superiority already. The only countries against which an US invasion force would not be able to gain aerial superiority are those that would also be lobbing nukes (China, Russia). CAS Aircraft are able to provide more precise support, while bombers are more destructive than a battleship in tackling strategic targets. A battleship does have niche utility, but it is such a small niche that it does absolutely not justify the massive costs of a battleship.
But go ahead, write the US Navy with your amazing idea of the battleship in the 21st century. Tell all the admirals that they are wrong. Evidently, you are much more knowledgeable on 21st century naval warfare than they are.


Actually, I don't need to tell the Admirals they're wrong, they've already determined that. Nothing I've posted has not come up before in Proceedings or any number of tests.

More interestingly they already know there's a problem with how they're going about gunfire support. Two whole programs have gone belly up pursuing this. All sorts of ideas have been fielded, including battleships, putting reactive armor on the Burke class, unmanned drone boats, etc etc etc. Trillions have been spent trying to find a working alternative TO battleships, which is the major sticking point to battleships making a return, as well as the perception that Congress is unlikely to approve a cruiser, let alone a battleship. (Hence why Zumwalt is a 'destroyer').

And, frankly, I'll point to one field of operation that, and again this has been pointed out before, battleships would be superior at: FONOPs. Since the entire point of that is to be big, scary, and most importantly, seen. Which you know, takes a ship capable of taking a hit since, you know, stealth is counter-productive here, and carriers probably should not be sailing in sight of potentially hostile shores.

And, as I pointed out earlier, a battleship frees up aircraft (and long range missiles) to hit targets key to air superiority or prevent enemy reinforcements from reaching the landing zone. A lot of people seem to think that one replaces the other rather than compliments it.


 Iron_Captain wrote:

In good shape? Here in the spoiler is USS Nevada after the ABLE test, which had an airburst bomb miss it and go off more than a kilometer away.


Read the structural damage report, it's not actually bad and did not overly impact the ship's ability to engage in it's primary mission. The radiation that came in through the WW1 era ventilation systems was actually what would have killed Nevada.

Battleships can have big nasty holes right through them and not actually impact their fighting ability.

Here's a damage assessment of the USS South Dakota following Guadalcanal (since that got trotted out earlier):

Spoiler:


http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis_Introduction.pdf

Here's BuShips report that above slams as being pretty incomplete, but does include some nice pictures of damage.

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB57/1942DamageReport/GuadalcanalDamageRpt.html

Most of the damage was repaired at sea, the rest when she returned to port in New York for an overhaul.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 15:13:22


Post by: whembly


...battleships would be superior at: FONOPs....

That's actually a very great point, especially in light of the island building shenanigans by China and Iran's threatening to shut down the straight of Hormuz.

The F-35s (and the like) job is to NOT be seen in their operations... having a big mofo battleships to "patrol" these areas independent of carrier groups does make a ton of sense.

Please oh please let's build a modern Montana-class battleship! How many gunz can we stick it on this thing?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 16:34:03


Post by: BaronIveagh


 whembly wrote:

Please oh please let's build a modern Montana-class battleship! How many gunz can we stick it on this thing?


Fewer than I think you'd like. Ideally you'd have to replace the X and Y turrets with VLS (and we're talking 'macross missile massacre' levels of VLS) and then most of the secondaries with either duel purpose guns or CWIS systems (and possibly even more missiles in the form of SeaRAM) I'm fond of the 127mm Oto for this, as it's very versatile.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 18:28:25


Post by: thekingofkings


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baron, you might want to take a look at modern destroyers and anti-ship missiles. The average modern anti-ship missile carries a warhead between 150-500kg, and there is even frigates carrying 500kg warheads around, and even tiny corvettes carry missiles with 300 kg nuclear warheads (a single Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate can carry 16 anti-ship missiles with 300kg thermonuclear warheads for example, or an equal number of missiles with 200kg armour-piercing warheads or 500kg warheads, not to mention torpedoes and a large amount of shorter-ranged missiles).


And you area aware that some of the last BBs into the water were designed to take 1300kg hits, right?

Ok, let me start by making some things clear, because I see a lot of the same tired arguments being trotted out again and again.

1) Battleships have been upgraded since WW2. Go visit one, you might be surprised at some of the modern hardware they carry. Unlike Russia, the US did upgrade it's BBs with fighting platforms like Kirov in mind.

2) A single Iowa class can carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group combined, in conjunction with modern VLS systems AND 16" guns, if the six inch guns are reduced to six 127mm otos, whose long range munitions DO work and cost less than the rest of the ship. The Navy has reviewed this plan in 1958, 1963, 1975, 1981, 1991, and 2006. It was shot down due to requiring too much manpower. Seems that battleships do not do 'optimal crewing'.

1. I'd love to visit USS Missouri or some other massive battleship. Truly awe-inspiring vessels. But it hasn't been upgraded since the 1980's, and its antiquated CIWS systems and radar aren't worth much against the latest generation of missiles. The Kirov-class battlecruiser was designed to take on entire carrier groups with all their defense systems, its Granit missiles would have no trouble defeating an Iowa-class battleship with its old Phalanx systems. I mean, that is obvious. They are completely different ships with completely different purposes. A Kirov is a purpose-built capital ship killer. An Iowa is a floating artillery barge.
Of course, you could strip out all of an Iowa's weapons and replace them with modern weapons and systems. But you'd still have that massive, unnecessarily big hull that makes the ship really expensive in maintenance and crew requirements and overall provides a lot of disadvantages. Given the massive cost of such an upgrade and maintenance, you are better off using a couple of destroyers, who do everything better and are more resilient than a single battleship, simply because they are more ships. Like you could turn a battleship in a CIWS barge, you could make it carry more CIWS than an entire carrier group (it currently does not, it carries just 4 Phalanx CIWS systems), but that would come at the cost of it not being able to do other missions as well anymore, and multiple destroyers would still provide better coverage for overall lesser money. There are plenty of reasons the US Navy has shut down this idea so many times. Battleships just are not worth the effort. They cost too much money and do not provide anything significant that makes them worth using over a cheaper, more versatile destroyer.
Also, just to let you know, Russia does not have battleships. The Kirov-class battlecruiser comes close in size and armament, but it is no true battleship. It is however excessively large and expensive like a battleship, so they are probably the last class of large warships the world is going to see. The Russian navy will keep them until they reach the end of their service life, but you can be sure they will be replaced with destroyers or light cruisers after at. The cost and destructiveness of modern warfare just favours smaller, lighter vessels.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
3) NUKES!

That object in the Wilson cloud? That's USS Arkansas, a pre-WW1 Wyoming class battleship being flipped over by a 70kt nuke nearly directly under it. Arky was a fraction of the size of an Iowa, but i'll admit that a direct nuclear hit would probably kill everyone on board, and may heavilly damage the ship. While I grant that Status Six would kill a battleship (and the rest of the fleet, and everything else for 75 miles,having a 100mt warhead) the little W23 equivalents that Sizzler could, probably, mount (being that all we know is that it can be nuclear armed, but given the warhead it's designed to carry, it's most likely in the range of a US W23) on Gorshkov don't have a big enough yield to do what you see in the above picture.
No, but they will still kill everyone aboard the ship and tear off the superstructure at least. Unlike the bomb used in the test you are showing, a cruise missile would impact a ship directly rather than explode somewhere high in the air or underwater like in the tests. So it does not need those high yields to deal massive damage. And anyways, a battleship without crew is as good as sunk, and the test you showed sunk two battleships (Arkansas and Nagato), with Arkansas being a total loss and Nagato sinking later from damage sustained.
And a Kalibr cruise missile would mount a nuclear warhead quite a bit heavier than a W23 artillery shell. The entire W23 shell weighs 680kg. The Kalibr's conventional warhead alone weighs 500kg, with the entire missile weighing up to 2300kg.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I've gone over the BoS reports on each battleship post Baker and the majority of them were actualyl in good shape, save the Navy tried to 'clean' the radiation off the ships by pouring contaminated material on them. The reasons this did nto work should be pretty obvious, and made the issue much worse. As far as crew survival goes, it's questionable due to the Navy's post shot procedures muddying the waters.

But, once you're broken out nukes, the sort of role that a battleship would play in a modern navy is probably off the menu anyway at that point. You're unlikely to be invading anyplace that's lobbing nukes at you.

Spoiler:

In good shape? Here in the spoiler is USS Nevada after the ABLE test, which had an airburst bomb miss it and go off more than a kilometer away. It is all mangled up and while it remained afloat, it is clearly in anything but 'good shape'.
And an enemy that is not lobbing nukes at you would be an inferior enemy, and you are unlikely to need a battleship to provide fire support since you almost certainly will have aerial superiority already. The only countries against which an US invasion force would not be able to gain aerial superiority are those that would also be lobbing nukes (China, Russia). CAS Aircraft are able to provide more precise support, while bombers are more destructive than a battleship in tackling strategic targets. A battleship does have niche utility, but it is such a small niche that it does absolutely not justify the massive costs of a battleship.
But go ahead, write the US Navy with your amazing idea of the battleship in the 21st century. Tell all the admirals that they are wrong. Evidently, you are much more knowledgeable on 21st century naval warfare than they are.


I was able to tour several Russian combatants in the past and the ones that truly were impressive to me was the Slava "Varyag". The Udaloy not so much. The Granit missile is impressive for its range and potential payload, but the real ship killers are the ones we call "sizzler" and "switchblade", I think those are called Klub and Kalibre to you? I believe though that the main carrier and battleship killing platforms would have been the backfires, not ships or subs at all, though akula and oscar are pretty good for that.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 21:20:50


Post by: Vulcan


I agree that an UNREFITTED WWII battleship would be pretty useless in a modern naval engagement.

But I've never seen anyone here propose bring back unrefitted WWII battleships either.

If you refit an Iowa class with modern electronics (granted, with some heavy-duty shock absorbing technology) you'd free up quite a bit of space for modern active and passive countermeasures...


The F-35 @ 2018/08/11 23:37:50


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Vulcan wrote:
I agree that an UNREFITTED WWII battleship would be pretty useless in a modern naval engagement.

But I've never seen anyone here propose bring back unrefitted WWII battleships either.

If you refit an Iowa class with modern electronics (granted, with some heavy-duty shock absorbing technology) you'd free up quite a bit of space for modern active and passive countermeasures...


Yeah, the shock of the 16"/50 firing was an issue even after the refit in the 1980's that brought it up to snuff then.

You want to hear one of the biggest costs for a refit currently, according to GAO? Separate bunks, restrooms, and showers for men and women.

GAO did an estimate on bringing the BBs up to snuff. For the entire Iowa class it was about 250m each (IIRC), including repairs to no2 Turret on Iowa and some minor armor refits.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 00:28:50


Post by: whembly


Is it wrong to think that 250m each seems like a cost effective way to modernize these ships? o.O

With research/development/longterm support, isn't each of the new carriers something like 3 billion per ship?

EDIT: Mods, should we consider changing the title of the thread to include "all things" military? This is a fun thread...


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 01:55:13


Post by: kestral


I love battleships and always enjoy the battleships in the present debate, but really I think it comes down to too many eggs in one basket (lives), too narrow a mission to justify it.. A battleship can do some serious damage to targets within, what, 150Km in the time that aircraft can strike anywhere in the world given refueling. What enemy is really going to stand still and let a battleship steam up to them in the modern battle sphere? What enemy could really defend its entire coastline against the US so well that a battleship was needed to pound shore defenses? As has been pointed out I think, if you have air superiority you don't need a battleship, if you don't have it your battle ship is doomed unless point defense is better than the Harpoon Wargame taught me it is.... : )


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 02:07:44


Post by: BaronIveagh


 kestral wrote:
What enemy is really going to stand still and let a battleship steam up to them in the modern battle sphere? What enemy could really defend its entire coastline against the US so well that a battleship was needed to pound shore defenses?


North Korea immediately sprang to mind on these. It's not that any given target couldn't be pounded with air power, it's that there are so damn many of them. China is unlikely to aid the US even if it stood back and allowed a war with NK, and crossing the DMZ is for all intents even worse than forcing a landing someplace else.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 02:21:19


Post by: kestral


Pretty sure air power would clear as many beaches as were needed in that scenario. Also, in most wars we can imagine in the present, the USA is not in a hurry. If you need a beach cleared, TOMORROW a battleship would be great... ...if you happened to have it there by some chance. If you've got a week, why not just surgically hammer the poor shleps from the air?

It seems to me that far more wars have been lost by nostalgia for past weapon systems and doctrines than by pushing forward too rapidly with development. Or at least that is my reading of military history.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 02:53:24


Post by: BaronIveagh


 kestral wrote:
Pretty sure air power would clear as many beaches as were needed in that scenario. Also, in most wars we can imagine in the present, the USA is not in a hurry. If you need a beach cleared, TOMORROW a battleship would be great... ...if you happened to have it there by some chance. If you've got a week, why not just surgically hammer the poor shleps from the air?


NK has been digging in for fifty years+. If you think US air power alone will clear out those defenses, in any reasonable amount of time, I hope you're in the first wave ashore. No invasion has 'a week'. You DO NOT want ot give them time to prepare for your push inland. Unless you want ot go back to the part where they also buy purple hearts in bulk

The reason for having a battleship there is so that you CAN hammer them surgically from the air, and don't have aircraft tied up hammering the beach.

Maybe a greater explanation is required: the typical US attack to invade someplace usually involves every single ship and plane launching as many cruise missiles and TALDs as they can to swamp air and missile defense systems so that targets get hit. Stealth bombers try and pick off what they can, but the real work of the whole thing falls to non-stealth aircraft. Even the F-35 when fitted out to hit ground targets is big as a barn on radar due to what exterior weapons mountings do to radar cross section.

Battleship close fire support means that instead of having to use aircraft to deal with hardened beach defenses, they can focus on runways, hangers, SAM sites, C&C, and all the stuff that has to blow up behind the enemy lines to keep US Marines unperforated.

There was a report put out back in the 1980's with the estimated difference in plane and pilot losses in Vietnam if the New Jersey had been allowed to continue to provide fire support.

Over 1,000 men might have come home who didn't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kestral wrote:

It seems to me that far more wars have been lost by nostalgia for past weapon systems and doctrines than by pushing forward too rapidly with development. Or at least that is my reading of military history.


If that were true, the Infantryman would have been done away with the moment cavalry rode along. Also, if you're into readings of military history, I suggest that you examine the tank actions before Cambrai. They generally show that underdeveloped doctrines and technology rushed into service prematurely get men killed and equipment lost needlessly.

And, the point is that you keep a system until you find something better. You don't just throw it at your ass because something is newer. The knife, for example, still has a place on the battlefield, ten thousand years on. It might have changed in that time. But even still, there it is.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 07:17:08


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
If you think US air power alone will clear out those defenses, in any reasonable amount of time


But why do you need to do it in a "reasonable amount of time"? North Korea has zero force projection ability outside of the fact that Seoul is right next to their border. They have zero modern weapons or AA defenses. If you somehow magically prevent North Korea from shelling their hostage off the map the moment you take aggressive action towards them you can bomb them into submission at your leisure. All they can do is sit there passively and take losses until you decide you've killed enough people to start landing troops. It just comes back to the fatal problem with battleships: you don't need them against the enemies they can hope to successfully engage, and any enemy that can't be bombed into submission at your leisure is probably going to turn that battleship into nothing more than an expensive target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Is it wrong to think that 250m each seems like a cost effective way to modernize these ships? o.O


Not really, when it's 250m thrown in the trash. Even if it's arguably a small total amount relative to the bloated obscenity of the US military budget as a whole it's still not getting much in return, especially compared to an aircraft carrier. And that 250m number seems rather optimistic for a comprehensive refit when the steel is the cheap part of a ship and all of a WWII battleship's systems would have to be torn out and replaced. It's just laughable that the highest cost in all of that would be putting "men" and "women" signs on some doors.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 12:45:21


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Peregrine wrote:
They have zero modern weapons or AA defenses.


A reasonable amount of time being one where they don't have time to fix it again before the troops arrive. That's the problem with any prolonged aerial campaign is that you can't hit every single target every single day. and if there's one thing a NK invasion would have it's targets in numbers the likes of which have not been seen since WW2. They spend 25% of their entire GDP on their military, and have a larger force of reserves than the US, China, India and Russia combined. Their entire military haws been planning with the single assumption: that the US will attack them, and every war the US has fought between here and there has been studied quite closely.

We know frankly bupkis about current NK weapons systems in this field, since we haven't had a defector to question who'd have knowledge since the 1990's. It is known that modern AA systems have been found on occasion being smuggled in. How many they have, no one knows. Do they have any home grown variants based on Russian or Chinese tech? No one knows that either. What we do know, is that they have almost as many AA gunner and SAM launcher personnel as the US Marines have men entirely, and lots of surplus Russian MANPADs.

The US will run out of missiles long before the North Koreans run out of men and defensive positions. So every missile that isn't wasted is a victory. If other weapon systems can take over from bombs and missiles, then it's best they do. Further, close support with anything besides aircraft will come under rather intense bombardment due to the sheer number of artillery pieces they have trained on their boarders. So whatever you bring into play is going to need to withstand hits and remain operational. Which neither LCS nor the Burkes are going to pull off.




 Peregrine wrote:
And that 250m number seems rather optimistic for a comprehensive refit when the steel is the cheap part of a ship and all of a WWII battleship's systems would have to be torn out and replaced. It's just laughable that the highest cost in all of that would be putting "men" and "women" signs on some doors.


Thank you, Peregrine for showing that you know absolutely NOTHING about this subject matter. You do realize that the 'WW2 Systems' that would need replacing already have been, right? The Iowa's haven't been just sitting mothballed since the Second World War, they got overhauled in the 1960's, 1980's, and 1990's.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 13:49:44


Post by: Spetulhu


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
They have zero modern weapons or AA defenses.


A reasonable amount of time being one where they don't have time to fix it again before the troops arrive. That's the problem with any prolonged aerial campaign is that you can't hit every single target every single day. and if there's one thing a NK invasion would have it's targets in numbers the likes of which have not been seen since WW2. They spend 25% of their entire GDP on their military, and have a larger force of reserves than the US, China, India and Russia combined. Their entire military haws been planning with the single assumption: that the US will attack them, and every war the US has fought between here and there has been studied quite closely.


It's funny how people like to throw out that 25% every time they need to show NK is dangerous, yet conveniently forget to mention that thanks to NKs weak GDP the real amount of money is barely more than such global powerhouses as Norway and Pakistan spend. South Korea alone spends over five times more money while only using 2,6% of their GDP on it...

The real problem in a NK campaign would be to find worthwhile targets. Kim has lots of rusty Soviet gear and lots of men, but very little worth spending an expensive bomb on.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 14:01:11


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


How much GDP adjusted for PPP does NK spend though?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 14:06:55


Post by: BaronIveagh


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How much GDP adjusted for PPP does NK spend though?


It depends on who you ask, but it varies from 5-40 billion a year in military expenditures. Like many things about NK there's no straight answer. Even the 25% number is a guess. Some sources claim as high as 40%.

Spetulhu wrote:

The real problem in a NK campaign would be to find worthwhile targets. Kim has lots of rusty Soviet gear and lots of men, but very little worth spending an expensive bomb on.


Yeah, they'll all be home by Christmas.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 14:50:11


Post by: Mr. Burning


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How much GDP adjusted for PPP does NK spend though?


It depends on who you ask, but it varies from 5-40 billion a year in military expenditures. Like many things about NK there's no straight answer. Even the 25% number is a guess. Some sources claim as high as 40%.

Spetulhu wrote:

The real problem in a NK campaign would be to find worthwhile targets. Kim has lots of rusty Soviet gear and lots of men, but very little worth spending an expensive bomb on.


Yeah, they'll all be home by Christmas.


In 5 pages this thread has gone from.
1. Original topic
2. Bring back the Iowa and Missouri.
3. Mission Accomplished.





The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 14:54:47


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Mr. Burning wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How much GDP adjusted for PPP does NK spend though?


It depends on who you ask, but it varies from 5-40 billion a year in military expenditures. Like many things about NK there's no straight answer. Even the 25% number is a guess. Some sources claim as high as 40%.

Spetulhu wrote:

The real problem in a NK campaign would be to find worthwhile targets. Kim has lots of rusty Soviet gear and lots of men, but very little worth spending an expensive bomb on.


Yeah, they'll all be home by Christmas.


In 5 pages this thread has gone from.
1. Original topic
2. Bring back the Iowa and Missouri.
3. Mission Accomplished.


A new BB would do, too.

That siad, the fact is that the F-35 has issues that make it unfit for service, and they have not really gone away.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/12 23:42:02


Post by: Vulcan


 whembly wrote:
Is it wrong to think that 250m each seems like a cost effective way to modernize these ships? o.O

With research/development/longterm support, isn't each of the new carriers something like 3 billion per ship?

EDIT: Mods, should we consider changing the title of the thread to include "all things" military? This is a fun thread...


No, the most recent Nimitzes were around $3 billion per.

The Ford was $13 billion... and I don't see how one Ford is better than FOUR Nimitzes, or an entire fully loaded Nimitz task force.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/13 07:44:48


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
A reasonable amount of time being one where they don't have time to fix it again before the troops arrive.


There's no "fixing it" when a B-52 squadron reduces the entire area to rubble. Structures take time to rebuild, fuel and weapon stockpiles take time to manufacture, etc.

We know frankly bupkis about current NK weapons systems in this field, since we haven't had a defector to question who'd have knowledge since the 1990's. It is known that modern AA systems have been found on occasion being smuggled in. How many they have, no one knows. Do they have any home grown variants based on Russian or Chinese tech? No one knows that either. What we do know, is that they have almost as many AA gunner and SAM launcher personnel as the US Marines have men entirely, and lots of surplus Russian MANPADs.


The kind of serious AA defenses that can threaten a US attack are not easy to hide. MANPADs and guns are worthless, you need heavy SAMs that require significant infrastructure and advanced technology. And I seriously doubt anyone is selling them to North Korea. Russia and China may find North Korea a useful pawn in political games against the US, but nobody wants North Korea to have a relevant military and start getting ideas about being more than a pawn.

The US will run out of missiles long before the North Koreans run out of men and defensive positions. So every missile that isn't wasted is a victory. If other weapon systems can take over from bombs and missiles, then it's best they do. Further, close support with anything besides aircraft will come under rather intense bombardment due to the sheer number of artillery pieces they have trained on their boarders. So whatever you bring into play is going to need to withstand hits and remain operational. Which neither LCS nor the Burkes are going to pull off.


Missiles are cheap. Ships are not cheap. And North Korea's artillery will either be disabled as soon as the war begins or the US loses the war. If their artillery is intact long enough to matter Seoul no longer exists and it's hard to imagine any possible victory being worth that cost.

And, again, you're ignoring the threat of disabling a battleship without killing it. A missile platform can make over-the-horizon attacks from far beyond the range of that massive horde of artillery, a battleship has to come within range. And even if the shells don't reliably penetrate its belt armor they can still tear apart all the external stuff. What good is a battleship with its fire control radar blown off, its communications limited to portable radios, its damage control teams dealing with flooding in areas outside the main armor, etc? The ship itself might survive and protect most of its crew, but if it has to go back to port for months of repairs it might as well be destroyed. This isn't WWII, a war isn't going to last long enough to repair ships that are disabled and forced to retreat.

Thank you, Peregrine for showing that you know absolutely NOTHING about this subject matter. You do realize that the 'WW2 Systems' that would need replacing already have been, right? The Iowa's haven't been just sitting mothballed since the Second World War, they got overhauled in the 1960's, 1980's, and 1990's.


Whatever. 1990s technology might as well be 1950s at this point, if it's even still intact enough to use. It's utter lunacy to suggest that the biggest difficulty and expense is going to be putting "men" and "women" signs on the bathrooms.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/13 19:27:11


Post by: whembly


Heard on radio that Trump just signed a Defense budget...

Of which, we're getting 77 new F-34 (no idea which variant).

13 new battleships (wut? heavy breathing intensifies)

Additional (4th?) Ford super carrier.

More attack submarines.

Oodles of equipment for Army.





The F-35 @ 2018/08/13 19:51:26


Post by: simonr1978


 whembly wrote:


13 new battleships (wut? heavy breathing intensifies)



I'm going to go out on a limb and say they probably meant warships rather than battleships, since outside of specialist defence correspondents hardly anyone in the media seems to understand the difference.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/13 20:04:22


Post by: whembly


 simonr1978 wrote:
 whembly wrote:


13 new battleships (wut? heavy breathing intensifies)



I'm going to go out on a limb and say they probably meant warships rather than battleships, since outside of specialist defence correspondents hardly anyone in the media seems to understand the difference.


Looks like you're right.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/401624-trump-signs-717b-annual-defense-policy-bill-into-law
...for Navy ships, authorizing a total of 13 new vessels.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/14 01:59:02


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Vulcan wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Is it wrong to think that 250m each seems like a cost effective way to modernize these ships? o.O

With research/development/longterm support, isn't each of the new carriers something like 3 billion per ship?

EDIT: Mods, should we consider changing the title of the thread to include "all things" military? This is a fun thread...


No, the most recent Nimitzes were around $3 billion per.

The Ford was $13 billion... and I don't see how one Ford is better than FOUR Nimitzes, or an entire fully loaded Nimitz task force.

Most of it was just tech upgrades and automation, so the Ford can operate with a much smaller crew (almost 2K less crew complement and the ability to operate on on a much smaller one). Plus all the later upgrades to the Nimitzs which added cost onto the $4.5B inital construction cost of the Nimitz. Now is that worth it who knows. But if we're wasting money on the military I'd rather waste it on the Navy.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/14 10:46:40


Post by: Ketara


To weigh in on the battleship scenario:-

1. Battleships still have a use in that they're honking great artillery platforms capable of lobbing honking big shells. Artillery is useful, and I don't think anyone would deny that.

2. Battleships are more cost effective than missiles and more easily able to deliver a sustained barrage than aircraft can. There's a reason the WW2 ships kept getting reactivated.

3. Battleships are bloody expensive to run in terms of crew costs. It should be recognised however, that this is in reference to a WW2 chassis. Modern automation and ship design could reduce manning costs considerably in a new design.

4. Battleships are no more vulnerable than a carrier to getting hit by enemy aircraft or missiles or torpedoes and considerably more durable.

I consequently think a class of two pocket battleships to a completely modern design would be of use to the US Navy. I think they'd be expensive, but given the number of carriers currently deployed by the American Navy and their funding levels? A pair of battleships deployed as part of a fleet would not be particularly excessive or vulnerable; at least, no more so than any other ship in the American arsenal.

If given the choice between carrier or battleship, the carrier has infinitely more utility. But when you're throwing around cash for a dozen supercarriers, the wasp class and more, you could easily divert a small portion of the budget into a pair of pocket battleships instead and end up with an enhanced rather than compromised operational capability.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/14 11:26:34


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Carriers are less vulnerable by virtue of having longer threat range though, no?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/14 11:39:37


Post by: Ketara


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Carriers are less vulnerable by virtue of having longer threat range though, no?


If your goal is to sit several dozen miles away from the target, then the battleship will be no more vulnerable than the carrier is (both being part of a fleet deployment). The battleship won't be able to hit things as far away as the carrier can, but you know? Apples and oranges. Aircraft do long distance bombardment than guns, missiles do longer distance bombardment than aircraft. You wouldn't say that aircraft are made obsolete by missiles, and aircraft don't make guns obsolete. It's a question of mission type and field of engagement.

Better to have a two pocket battleships and ten supercarriers, than a dozen supercarriers and no battleship (or equivalent). It gives you flexibility rather than only leaving you with the 'several dozen miles away super expensive less effective bombardment' strategy. Which is a great strategy, but not always what's wanted (as evidenced by the continual reactivation of the WW2 ships).


The F-35 @ 2018/08/14 11:47:48


Post by: Kilkrazy


There are two sides to vulnerability.

One is the ability to push the enemy far enough away that he actually can't attack you. This is where a carrier full of planes has an advantage over a battleship.

The other is the ability to resist an attack once it actually reaches you, by deflecting, destroying or resisting the incoming shots (missiles, bombs, shell, torpedoes.) This is where a battleship, with much bigger defensive short range armament, heavy armour, and better sub-division of the internal space, has an advantage over a carrier.

Of course in reality, neither a carrier nor a battleship is supposed to wander around by itself, hoping to avoid trouble. In reality they are always central elements of a battle group with destroyers, frigate and nuclear submarines to provide additional protection of the central asset.

I find Ketara's argument about a small class of essentially bombardment battleships quite interesting. The heaviest tube artillery in common use is 203mm (8-inch). You can see that a 16-inch gun will have dramatically greater range and hitting power. A modern pocket battleship with two twin-16-inch turrets, could be a very useful unit to support beach assaults.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/14 12:01:24


Post by: Ketara


The Zumwalt class was essentially an attempt to make a battleship/cruiser ship with the range to match the carriers. Which would have been great if it could be pulled off at a reasonable cost; you'd have had the option of sticking one of them in with a carrier fleet and engaging with multiple weapons at extreme range.

The result has been a ship that almost displaces as much as the original HMS Dreadnought, costs more than the spanking new HMS Queen Elizabeth to build, the rounds cost a million apiece (the same as many missiles), etcetc. Essentially, they've built a long range gun platform without the durability or cost effectiveness of a battleship.

Was it worth it? Well....maybe? Hard to tell. But given the immense experimental costs involved, I'm not sure it was the best procurement decision to have taken. Given they've since cancelled buying any rounds for the Zumwalt class due to the cost, it would seem to have been a backward step.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/14 21:42:35


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ketara wrote:
The Zumwalt class was essentially an attempt to make a battleship/cruiser ship with the range to match the carriers. Which would have been great if it could be pulled off at a reasonable cost; you'd have had the option of sticking one of them in with a carrier fleet and engaging with multiple weapons at extreme range.

The result has been a ship that almost displaces as much as the original HMS Dreadnought, costs more than the spanking new HMS Queen Elizabeth to build, the rounds cost a million apiece (the same as many missiles), etcetc. Essentially, they've built a long range gun platform without the durability or cost effectiveness of a battleship.

Was it worth it? Well....maybe? Hard to tell. But given the immense experimental costs involved, I'm not sure it was the best procurement decision to have taken. Given they've since cancelled buying any rounds for the Zumwalt class due to the cost, it would seem to have been a backward step.


To be honest I'm surprised that no one seems to go back to HARP and the 180km shot by a double length 16" gun. The US and Canadian militaries developed extreme long range artillery in the 1960's for tiny fractions of what modern missiles cost.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 00:47:57


Post by: Vulcan


 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are two sides to vulnerability.

One is the ability to push the enemy far enough away that he actually can't attack you. This is where a carrier full of planes has an advantage over a battleship.

The other is the ability to resist an attack once it actually reaches you, by deflecting, destroying or resisting the incoming shots (missiles, bombs, shell, torpedoes.) This is where a battleship, with much bigger defensive short range armament, heavy armour, and better sub-division of the internal space, has an advantage over a carrier.

Of course in reality, neither a carrier nor a battleship is supposed to wander around by itself, hoping to avoid trouble. In reality they are always central elements of a battle group with destroyers, frigate and nuclear submarines to provide additional protection of the central asset.

I find Ketara's argument about a small class of essentially bombardment battleships quite interesting. The heaviest tube artillery in common use is 203mm (8-inch). You can see that a 16-inch gun will have dramatically greater range and hitting power. A modern pocket battleship with two twin-16-inch turrets, could be a very useful unit to support beach assaults.


Better yet, using modern knowledge about muzzle brakes to reduce recoil, you could mount those guns on a considerably smaller ship than you'd require without muzzle brakes... and reduce self-inflicted shock damage to it's electronics as well.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 00:50:03


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
The Zumwalt class was essentially an attempt to make a battleship/cruiser ship with the range to match the carriers. Which would have been great if it could be pulled off at a reasonable cost; you'd have had the option of sticking one of them in with a carrier fleet and engaging with multiple weapons at extreme range.

The result has been a ship that almost displaces as much as the original HMS Dreadnought, costs more than the spanking new HMS Queen Elizabeth to build, the rounds cost a million apiece (the same as many missiles), etcetc. Essentially, they've built a long range gun platform without the durability or cost effectiveness of a battleship.

Was it worth it? Well....maybe? Hard to tell. But given the immense experimental costs involved, I'm not sure it was the best procurement decision to have taken. Given they've since cancelled buying any rounds for the Zumwalt class due to the cost, it would seem to have been a backward step.


To be honest I'm surprised that no one seems to go back to HARP and the 180km shot by a double length 16" gun. The US and Canadian militaries developed extreme long range artillery in the 1960's for tiny fractions of what modern missiles cost.

Emphasis being here: "in the 1960's". You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea. The shells ended up costing more than modern missiles (although the Harpoon is actually far from modern anymore to be honest). Another important fact is that those HARP munitions were never meant as weapons. When firing real munitions, those same 16" guns had a range of 'only' 40km.

Big guns simply are no match for missiles when it comes to long-range artillery. Missiles win out on every field. If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 01:20:31


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Ketara wrote:
To weigh in on the battleship scenario:-

1. Battleships still have a use in that they're honking great artillery platforms capable of lobbing honking big shells. Artillery is useful, and I don't think anyone would deny that.

Artillery is useful, and a great thing about it is that you can mount it on a platform that is far more cost-effective than a battleship.

 Ketara wrote:
2. Battleships are more cost effective than missiles and more easily able to deliver a sustained barrage than aircraft can. There's a reason the WW2 ships kept getting reactivated.
A battleship armed with guns is not more cost-effective than using cruise missiles. If you want to have your guns with similar range to a missile, you run into the problems the Zumwalt ran into. Firing a gun with such long range is just as, if not more expensive than using a cruise missile. With the missile of course having the benefits of versatility (different warheads) and more destructive power. And that is before going into the massive design, build, operating and maintenance costs of a battleships. And if you have a gun with range that is much less than that of a missile, your battleship will be blown to bits by coastal defenses before it can fire a single shot. You would need to send in aircraft or longer-ranged ships to take out anti-ship defenses first, which also massively increases the costs of deploying the battleship and also calls into question the usefulness of the battleship in the first place. The goal of artillery is to suppress enemy positions or destroy key targets. And if your battleship can't do that as well as your aircraft and other ships, while it is still more expensive, why use it?

 Ketara wrote:
3. Battleships are bloody expensive to run in terms of crew costs. It should be recognised however, that this is in reference to a WW2 chassis. Modern automation and ship design could reduce manning costs considerably in a new design.

Which is equally true for cruisers, destroyers and frigates, so nothing really changes. Battleships would still be bloody expensive to run compared to other ships, and the design, build and maintenance costs of a battleship would also be far higher. And what does a battleship offer in return for that over a cruiser or even a destroyer? If you really want big guns, why not mount them on a cruiser?

 Ketara wrote:
4. Battleships are no more vulnerable than a carrier to getting hit by enemy aircraft or missiles or torpedoes and considerably more durable.
A carrier stays far away from the action to reduce the chance of getting hit, and has an entire fleet surrounding it that is dedicated to ensuring the carrier does not get hit, not to mention it fields a contingent of aircraft to protect itself. A battleship needs to get really close (especially if it is armed with guns), and will not have a fleet or a small air force dedicated to protecting it, meaning it has only a fraction of the defenses that a carrier has. If you do send a fleet along to protect the battleship, the costs of deploying the battleship rise so astronomically that it is simply not worth it for a simple artillery platform. Carriers are worth their massive deployment costs because they offer amazing utility and strike power. Battleships offer no utility beyond their very niche role as large gun artillery barges.
Furthermore, a battleship is more durable, but modern anti-ship weapons are incredibly destructive. A ship can't afford to tank hits anymore, which is why all modern ship defense systems focus on avoiding getting hit, rather than tanking the hits. A battleship would be able to sustain some hits, but if a missile hits the superstructure in the wrong spot, it is just as much out of action as a frigate would be. And when my ship can get taken out in a single hit, I'd rather have it be a frigate than a massively expensive battleship.

 Ketara wrote:
I consequently think a class of two pocket battleships to a completely modern design would be of use to the US Navy. I think they'd be expensive, but given the number of carriers currently deployed by the American Navy and their funding levels? A pair of battleships deployed as part of a fleet would not be particularly excessive or vulnerable; at least, no more so than any other ship in the American arsenal.

If given the choice between carrier or battleship, the carrier has infinitely more utility. But when you're throwing around cash for a dozen supercarriers, the wasp class and more, you could easily divert a small portion of the budget into a pair of pocket battleships instead and end up with an enhanced rather than compromised operational capability.

Yeah, a carrier indeed has infinitely more utility. Ergo the US Navy is better off just using it funds to build even more carriers. It was carriers, not battleships that won the naval conflicts of WW2, and it was carriers that allowed the US to establish its world hegemony. Now, and in the future, that won't change. The battleship is a relic of a time before aircraft and missiles. It is best left to museums.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 01:24:39


Post by: Vulcan


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Emphasis being here: "in the 1960's". You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea. The shells ended up costing more than modern missiles (although the Harpoon is actually far from modern anymore to be honest). Another important fact is that those HARP munitions were never meant as weapons. When firing real munitions, those same 16" guns had a range of 'only' 40km.

Big guns simply are no match for missiles when it comes to long-range artillery. Missiles win out on every field. If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.


So tell me, when did the Russian Army trade in all it's tube artillery for missiles?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 01:44:01


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea.


The same idea, yes, but a totally different technology.

In the 1980's the Navy developed a longer range HC round based on the Mark 8 AP that reached 46km when test fired from existing 16"/50 guns.

Also i nthe 1980's, the Navy created the HE-ER Mark 148 projectile which was a 11"submunition with sabot that extended the range to 64km(ish) but they never went into production.

As far as HARP goes, Bull's 16" guns at Yuma and Barbados were tested using a 338 kg 'real' munition that achieved 76km, under the auspices of Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station. The cost of it was about 20k dollars, adjusted for inflation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.


Sounds like you're making excuses for the Kirov 'super heavy battlecruiser' (Because the Navy fears to use the word 'battleship')

Still mad they reactivated the Iowa's to deal with that?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 02:02:35


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Vulcan wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Emphasis being here: "in the 1960's". You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea. The shells ended up costing more than modern missiles (although the Harpoon is actually far from modern anymore to be honest). Another important fact is that those HARP munitions were never meant as weapons. When firing real munitions, those same 16" guns had a range of 'only' 40km.

Big guns simply are no match for missiles when it comes to long-range artillery. Missiles win out on every field. If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.


So tell me, when did the Russian Army trade in all it's tube artillery for missiles?

Long-range artillery The Russian (or US) Army's howitzers and other tube artillery are short-range artillery, for which guns are more cost-effective than missiles considering the relatively tiny cost of a howitzer or mortar. Good luck putting a howitzer on a ship. There is quite a lot of difference between the short-ranged artillery of an army and the long-ranged artillery of a navy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea.


The same idea, yes, but a totally different technology.

In the 1980's the Navy developed a longer range HC round based on the Mark 8 AP that reached 46km when test fired from existing 16"/50 guns.

Also i nthe 1980's, the Navy created the HE-ER Mark 148 projectile which was a 11"submunition with sabot that extended the range to 64km(ish) but they never went into production.

As far as HARP goes, Bull's 16" guns at Yuma and Barbados were tested using a 338 kg 'real' munition that achieved 76km, under the auspices of Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station. The cost of it was about 20k dollars, adjusted for inflation.

Even if that is true, than that is still nowhere near the range provided by missiles, and a a 338 kg munition is nowhere near the weight of actually used munitions, even in smaller guns, who usually weigh somewhere between 800-1000 kg.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.


Sounds like you're making excuses for the Kirov 'super heavy battlecruiser' (Because the Navy fears to use the word 'battleship')

Still mad they reactivated the Iowa's to deal with that?

I am making no excuses for the Kirov. They are wasteful ships, much bigger and much more expensive than it needs to be. Putting so many missiles on a single ship is total overkill, not to mention it is putting all your eggs in a single basket. A basket with a massive crosshair painted on it that is.
Nor am I mad that the Iowa's were re-activated because the US was afraid of the Kirov. Not mad at all, given that the Iowa would have been completely useless in facing a Kirov. Making the US waste a lot of money on keeping ancient battleships in service actually is probably the biggest contribution any Soviet ship has made since the end of WW2. Re-activating the Iowa was nothing but empty political symbolism from the side of the US.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 22:18:14


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Even if that is true, than that is still nowhere near the range provided by missiles, and a a 338 kg munition is nowhere near the weight of actually used munitions, even in smaller guns, who usually weigh somewhere between 800-1000 kg.


A 12" gun fired a shell about 390kg. An 8" gun fired a shell comming in around 150kg. So this would be a 16" sabot round, with the sub munition somewhere in the 11-10 inch ballpark. Which makes sense. The actual munition is smaller than the sabot.



 Iron_Captain wrote:

Nor am I mad that the Iowa's were re-activated because the US was afraid of the Kirov. Not mad at all, given that the Iowa would have been completely useless in facing a Kirov. Making the US waste a lot of money on keeping ancient battleships in service actually is probably the biggest contribution any Soviet ship has made since the end of WW2. Re-activating the Iowa was nothing but empty political symbolism from the side of the US.


I would think that the Project 205 class being the single most built, and lost, surface combatant since WW2 would hold that honor. I mean, if you want to see how missile ships can fail utterly, observe the battle of Baltim. By your logic, the much longer range Termit should have annihilated the Israeli fleet. I mean, hell, The Gabriel missile's range was only 20km compared to Termit's 40km.

Instead, what happened was that the Russian missiles failed to hit, due to chaff rockets, and the Osa's were forced to withdraw, due to being out of missiles, and the Israelis closed and and maintained an effective combination of 76mm guns and missiles, which led to only one Egyptian ship making it back to Alexandria.

This loss prompted the addition to Russia's Project 1241 corvettes of 76mm guns.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 22:56:44


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Even if that is true, than that is still nowhere near the range provided by missiles, and a a 338 kg munition is nowhere near the weight of actually used munitions, even in smaller guns, who usually weigh somewhere between 800-1000 kg.


A 12" gun fired a shell about 390kg. An 8" gun fired a shell comming in around 150kg. So this would be a 16" sabot round, with the sub munition somewhere in the 11-10 inch ballpark. Which makes sense. The actual munition is smaller than the sabot.

A 16" shell for the Iowa weighed anywhere from 1228 to 680 kg, depending on the exact shell and source.



 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Nor am I mad that the Iowa's were re-activated because the US was afraid of the Kirov. Not mad at all, given that the Iowa would have been completely useless in facing a Kirov. Making the US waste a lot of money on keeping ancient battleships in service actually is probably the biggest contribution any Soviet ship has made since the end of WW2. Re-activating the Iowa was nothing but empty political symbolism from the side of the US.


I would think that the Project 205 class being the single most built, and lost, surface combatant since WW2 would hold that honor. I mean, if you want to see how missile ships can fail utterly, observe the battle of Baltim. By your logic, the much longer range Termit should have annihilated the Israeli fleet. I mean, hell, The Gabriel missile's range was only 20km compared to Termit's 40km.

Instead, what happened was that the Russian missiles failed to hit, due to chaff rockets, and the Osa's were forced to withdraw, due to being out of missiles, and the Israelis closed and and maintained an effective combination of 76mm guns and missiles, which led to only one Egyptian ship making it back to Alexandria.

This loss prompted the addition to Russia's Project 1241 corvettes of 76mm guns.


The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles. The Israeli ships had much better countermeasures than the Egyptian ships (which had none), and therefore they won (also because they outnumbered the Egyptians quite a bit). Had both sides not had countermeasures the Egyptians might have won because of their range. The Isreali guns accomplished little, the Egyptians ships were sunk by missiles. Not to mention they could only use their guns because they were faster and the Egyptian missile boats had run out of missiles (and even then they only did it because they themselves had run out of missiles). This is only possible because both sides only employed small missile boats, which are very fast and can carry only 2-4 missiles.
The addition of the gun to the Project 1241 has little to do with this incident. Rather, they were added because of another incident that highlighted the need for additional air defense, which is the role those guns usually serve.
In other words, just because at some point some small boats fired at each other using their small guns, doesn't mean that big ships need big guns. In a modern naval combat environment, guns are generally only useful as defense against aircraft, missiles, and small boats. Therefore, almost every ship carries several guns. However, these are small guns very much unlike the massive calibers you would find aboard a traditional battleship or cruiser, which serve no real purpose in a modern naval combat environment outside of the very rare scenario where a ship can approach the coast for a naval bombardment.
Additionally, the Osa missile boats and their missiles were plenty effective in many other wars.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/15 23:59:03


Post by: Vulcan


 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles.


Yes, now why do you think a modern battleship - or even a refitted old one - would NOT include a hefty helping of modern countermeasures?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 01:37:55


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Vulcan wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles.


Yes, now why do you think a modern battleship - or even a refitted old one - would NOT include a hefty helping of modern countermeasures?

They would. But countermeasures do not make a ship immune to missiles, they just increase the survivability. Modern missiles themselves have countermeasures against countermeasures, and capital ship killers generally carry enough missiles to overwhelm even the best countermeasure systems. In which case it is better you lose a destroyer or even a cruiser rather than a battleship, especially considering a battleship isn't going to be any more useful that destroyer. Certainly, a modern battleship could carry even more missiles, but at that point it is overkill. You don't need that many missiles on a single platform, and you are putting a lot of expensive eggs in a single expensive basket. That is why it is better to use those funds to build 4 destroyers or 2 cruisers instead of a battleship. They carry enough missiles (or other systems, depending on their role) to get the job done. can be in more places at the same time, and are more difficult for an enemy to neutralise (taking down 4 ships is a lot more difficult than taking out one, even if that one ship is bigger).


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 01:42:42


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

A 16" shell for the Iowa weighed anywhere from 1228 to 680 kg, depending on the exact shell and source.


Well, as they say on the Internet, pics or it didn't... oh,wait, here's a pic!



From left to right: Front Rider, supporting sabot, 280 mm (11") projectile and obturator.

Cap, did you learn NOTHING from the Russian tank discussion with me?


 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles. The Israeli ships had much better countermeasures than the Egyptian ships (which had none),




What's that there, sitting on the deck of that Osa? A 30mm Ak-230 close in weapon, able to shoot down missiles? Let me ask, cap, what politburo says it's not there? My lying eyes must be deceiving me.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Isreali guns accomplished little, the Egyptians ships were sunk by missiles.


Might want to check your AARs there cap, after action reports say that the guns did quite a bit.



 Iron_Captain wrote:

Additionally, the Osa missile boats and their missiles were plenty effective in many other wars.


Specifically the India Pakastan war, where they proved expertly able to hit ships at anchor in harbors. Not always the correct ships, but ships all the same.

War in the middle east in particular seemed somewhat hard on them. They lost HOW many in the Iran/Iraq war? The Israelis sunk them in wars with both Egypt AND Syria without taking appreciable losses?

Because those were pretty much it for them fighting in actual wars.


 Vulcan wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles.


Yes, now why do you think a modern battleship - or even a refitted old one - would NOT include a hefty helping of modern countermeasures?


He already knows they do, and did in the Gulf War. The Silkworms fired at Mo ran into issues with Chaff too.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 03:28:11


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
The Silkworms fired at Mo ran into issues with Chaff too.


Which is a comforting thought if you ever have to go up against 1960s anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately it's 2018 now, and countries still dependent on such obsolete weapons are little more than bombing ranges to train our pilots on.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 04:35:04


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

A 16" shell for the Iowa weighed anywhere from 1228 to 680 kg, depending on the exact shell and source.


Well, as they say on the Internet, pics or it didn't... oh,wait, here's a pic!



From left to right: Front Rider, supporting sabot, 280 mm (11") projectile and obturator.

Cap, did you learn NOTHING from the Russian tank discussion with me?

What Russian tank discussion? The one where I showed you pictures of random tank monuments and you knew where they were? We've had lots of discussions, so I don't remember everything. But that one was fun.
Anyways, I don't see any weight in that picture, or any other context for that matter. If that is a 16'' shell, it has got to be the smallest I have ever seen (that, or the writing on it is huge).
For comparison, these are the 16" shells that the Iowa used to fire:




 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles. The Israeli ships had much better countermeasures than the Egyptian ships (which had none),




What's that there, sitting on the deck of that Osa? A 30mm Ak-230 close in weapon, able to shoot down missiles? Let me ask, cap, what politburo says it's not there? My lying eyes must be deceiving me.

Can an AK-230 shoot down a missile? Probably, in perfect conditions during a controlled test. But it is not an anti-missile weapon. Its rate of fire is too low and its tracking systems not efficient enough. It is an anti-aircraft gun. The Osa never had an effective anti-missile system installed such as the AK-630, and its vulnerability to ECM (with which its missiles couldn't really deal) and gunboats (once its missiles were gone) were known weaknesses. It was still a very good design that performed admirably in most conflicts it was used in, but those were some glaring shortcomings that were resolved in the project 1241.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Isreali guns accomplished little, the Egyptians ships were sunk by missiles.


Might want to check your AARs there cap, after action reports say that the guns did quite a bit.
Define "quite a bit".

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Additionally, the Osa missile boats and their missiles were plenty effective in many other wars.


Specifically the India Pakastan war, where they proved expertly able to hit ships at anchor in harbors. Not always the correct ships, but ships all the same.

War in the middle east in particular seemed somewhat hard on them. They lost HOW many in the Iran/Iraq war? The Israelis sunk them in wars with both Egypt AND Syria without taking appreciable losses?

Because those were pretty much it for them fighting in actual wars.

Well, wars against Israel are unfair, since there you have one of the world's most highly trained and experienced navies going up against a bunch of untrained yokels who barely know what a boat is. Ok, that is a bit harsh maybe, but the Egyptian or Syrian navies are just really badly trained and led compared to Israel's. Same goes for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, but at least there they faced an equally incompetent opponent. The Iraqis lost 5 missile boats in 8 years of war. With the action the boats saw, that is somewhat impressive.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 09:07:58


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Anyways, I don't see any weight in that picture, or any other context for that matter. If that is a 16'' shell, it has got to be the smallest I have ever seen (that, or the writing on it is huge).


Cap, you do understand how a sabot round works, right? A smaller shell is placed in a bigger sabot, that discards as the shell exits the barrel. In this case, the sub caliber flight projectile is an 11" round with a sabot to be fired from a 16" gun. Thus the lower weight. it was a 'real' muinition that was developed, but it never saw use outside testing, due to New Jersey being withdrawn from service again (over the protests of the Marines and Airforce) so the project got dropped.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 16:29:31


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Anyways, I don't see any weight in that picture, or any other context for that matter. If that is a 16'' shell, it has got to be the smallest I have ever seen (that, or the writing on it is huge).


Cap, you do understand how a sabot round works, right? A smaller shell is placed in a bigger sabot, that discards as the shell exits the barrel. In this case, the sub caliber flight projectile is an 11" round with a sabot to be fired from a 16" gun. Thus the lower weight. it was a 'real' muinition that was developed, but it never saw use outside testing, due to New Jersey being withdrawn from service again (over the protests of the Marines and Airforce) so the project got dropped.

I know, but even with the sabot it looks waaay too small to be able to physically fit into a 16" barrel. Again, the picture does not show any scale, so maybe the writing on the shell is just really big and the items pictured are in fact bigger than they appear. But even though with a sabot you could have a battleship fire lighter projectiles, it'd be quite useless. Again, a battleship is artillery. Sabot shells are great for armour piercing (which a modern battleship does not need, since the chance it will ever face an opposing battleship in gun range is effectively zero), but not so great for artillery support. You don't want sabot shells on your battleship. I mean, you can use HE sabot shells for artillery support, but it just isn't going to have the same kind of impact as a 16" shell. At which point again, you might as well be using a cruiser or destroyer with smaller guns anyway.
Also, according to my sources, the Mk 148 sabot shell was 13", not 11".


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 21:43:40


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:
You don't want sabot shells on your battleship. I mean, you can use HE sabot shells for artillery support, but it just isn't going to have the same kind of impact as a 16" shell. At which point again, you might as well be using a cruiser or destroyer with smaller guns anyway.
Also, according to my sources, the Mk 148 sabot shell was 13", not 11".


Incorrect, because that 8 inch cruiser gun is not going to go as far. One of the things about a sabot round is that it increases muzzle velocity. A 300kg 11" HE shell typically didn't get beyond 35km (based on the German 28 cm/52 (11") SK C/28). As a sabot round from a 16" gun it seems to approach twice that.


The picture above is not the MK 148 but rather the round developed by Indian Head in the 1960's that was tested with HARPs 16" guns at Barbados and Yuma. The MK 148 also used a different type of sabot.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 21:59:00


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
You don't want sabot shells on your battleship. I mean, you can use HE sabot shells for artillery support, but it just isn't going to have the same kind of impact as a 16" shell. At which point again, you might as well be using a cruiser or destroyer with smaller guns anyway.
Also, according to my sources, the Mk 148 sabot shell was 13", not 11".


Incorrect, because that 8 inch cruiser gun is not going to go as far. One of the things about a sabot round is that it increases muzzle velocity. A 300kg 11" HE shell typically didn't get beyond 35km (based on the German 28 cm/52 (11") SK C/28). As a sabot round from a 16" gun it seems to approach twice that.


The picture above is not the MK 148 but rather the round developed by Indian Head in the 1960's that was tested with HARPs 16" guns at Barbados and Yuma. The MK 148 also used a different type of sabot.

No, it is not going to go as far. But both aren't going very far in the first place. So if you are already putting yourself within range of enemy aircraft and missiles, you may as well do it with a platform that you can actually afford to lose.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/16 22:58:30


Post by: Vulcan


At a billion dollars a pop for an Arleigh Burke, I don't think America can really afford to lose any...

At any rate, with muzzle brakes you can probably mount good heavy naval artillery to support amphibious landings on quite a bit smaller ship than the old WWII battleships. And having one or two of those in the inventory (especially if they get rid of the USELESS Littoral "Combat" Ships we pay far too much for) we'll have plenty of missile boats for long-range bombardment to back them up.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/17 06:19:57


Post by: Kilkrazy


It's called a monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)


The F-35 @ 2018/08/17 16:07:39


Post by: Agiel


A useful video to help inform the CAS debate:




The F-35 @ 2018/08/17 16:44:24


Post by: Xenomancers


 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
The Silkworms fired at Mo ran into issues with Chaff too.


Which is a comforting thought if you ever have to go up against 1960s anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately it's 2018 now, and countries still dependent on such obsolete weapons are little more than bombing ranges to train our pilots on.

Cold - but true.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/17 23:32:37


Post by: BaronIveagh




The issues with what you and Vulcan are suggesting are... many, but the biggest is that Monitors have traditionally run into serious issues with speed, seakeeping,etc. Someone once compared monitors to a fully armored knight riding a donkey. It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship. The US Missisippi class is a good example of how making smaller battleships can be bad. It's performance was SO poor that it became the only entire CLASS of battleships to be put on the auction block,virtually brand new.

Where monitors have historically performed well is riverine operations. Even ones that went poorly like operations around Archangel fighting alongside the White Russians they still had a positive impact.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 00:00:07


Post by: Vulcan


I would expect we've learned a thing or two since the Mississippi class....


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 00:06:55


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.


Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 00:47:05


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.


Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

And speed isn't really a factor in modern surface combat anymore, at least not tactically. There's a reason out modern DDGs are slower then a lot of WWII DDs. Hell even the OHPs get just over 30Kn. Our old Fletchers went 36 Kn. And the IJN got the Shimakze at ~41 Kn, and the French had some in excess of 35 Kn back in the 30s.
00s.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 01:47:31


Post by: BaronIveagh


Vulcan wrote:I would expect we've learned a thing or two since the Mississippi class....


Yes, one would expect that.... but the US tossed out everything they learned about shipbuilding since 1905 and are trying to create ships that dissolve in sea water, use tumblehome hulls, and all sorts of other highly obvious mistakes.

Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.


Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

And speed isn't really a factor in modern surface combat anymore, at least not tactically. There's a reason out modern DDGs are slower then a lot of WWII DDs. Hell even the OHPs get just over 30Kn. Our old Fletchers went 36 Kn. And the IJN got the Shimakze at ~41 Kn, and the French had some in excess of 35 Kn back in the 30s.
00s.


The most modern monitor produced was the Roberts class (IIRC), which managed a whopping 12 knts. The First modern battleship, HMS Dreadnought, managed 21 knts, in 1906.

Let me put it this way: she'd be outrun by the US Navy of the 1840's as well as the USN of the 1940's.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 01:50:26


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
The most modern monitor produced was the Roberts class (IIRC), which managed a whopping 12 knts. The First modern battleship, HMS Dreadnought, managed 21 knts, in 1906.

Let me put it this way: she'd be outrun by the US Navy of the 1840's as well as the USN of the 1940's.


And? What exactly is this speed necessary for on an (effectively) stationary bombardment platform? How does being limited to 12kts limits its ability to fill the shore bombardment role?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 01:54:23


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
The most modern monitor produced was the Roberts class (IIRC), which managed a whopping 12 knts. The First modern battleship, HMS Dreadnought, managed 21 knts, in 1906.

Let me put it this way: she'd be outrun by the US Navy of the 1840's as well as the USN of the 1940's.


And? What exactly is this speed necessary for on an (effectively) stationary bombardment platform? How does being limited to 12kts limits its ability to fill the shore bombardment role?


You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.

That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.

Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 02:51:43


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.

That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.

Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.


Please outline a realistic scenario for a war where gun-armed ships are useful at all and a ship moving at half the speed of the rest of the fleet can't get there in time. Please remember that shore bombardment assets are not relevant in a defensive war, and the invasion troops that are required to make shore bombardment relevant in an offensive war will take a lot of time to organize and deliver.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 05:17:32


Post by: Iron_Captain


Agiel wrote:
A useful video to help inform the CAS debate:



Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.

Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.


Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

What kind of enemy would you expect to need such artillery support for? The kind of enemy that hides in coastal bunkers and doesn't have anti-ship missiles? This isn't WW2 anymore. Aircraft can handle any targets ahead of an invasion, and if they are in a situation where they can't than you are fighting either the US, Russia or China and those are not the kind of places you should be thinking about invading at all.
Artillery shells may be cheaper than missiles or bombs, but a ship-based platform can't hit targets further inland so you are going to be deploying those aircraft anyway, and since you are already deploying them anyway it is cheaper to let them handle coastal targets as well rather than design, build, crew, arm, supply, maintain, deploy and protect a special platform for that niche task only.


Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.


Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

And speed isn't really a factor in modern surface combat anymore, at least not tactically. There's a reason out modern DDGs are slower then a lot of WWII DDs. Hell even the OHPs get just over 30Kn. Our old Fletchers went 36 Kn. And the IJN got the Shimakze at ~41 Kn, and the French had some in excess of 35 Kn back in the 30s.
00s.
Speed is still important. Speed translates to a massive strategic advantage, which in turn translates to tactical advantages. Modern ships aren't that much slower all around than ships back in WW2, while have gotten a lot heavier (that OHP for example weighs twice as much as an old Fletcher, despite the OHP being merely a frigate while the Fletcher was a destroyer). Their top speeds may be less, indeed because with the introduction of guided missiles, those few extra knots won't make any difference on a tactical level, but the cruising speed is still the same.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 10:17:45


Post by: Ketara


 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.

That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.

Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.


Please outline a realistic scenario for a war where gun-armed ships are useful at all and a ship moving at half the speed of the rest of the fleet can't get there in time. Please remember that shore bombardment assets are not relevant in a defensive war, and the invasion troops that are required to make shore bombardment relevant in an offensive war will take a lot of time to organize and deliver.


It's a basic question of fleet cohesion. Your fleet can only move as fast the slowest ship in it. If your gun platform only moves at a handful of knots, you're reduced to three choices.

(i) Your gun platform has to function in a solo capacity. With the advent of airpower and quieter submersibles, this isn't really an option for any ship of any real value or worth.
(ii) You don't have a gun platform and leave port without it.
(iii) Your entire fleet now has to crawl along excessively slowly. This makes it easier to predict location, strike it with missiles and torpedoes, cripples movements when under attack, lengthens deployment time excessively, and so on.

It would be better not to have a gun platform than attempt to place a monitor in a modern fleet. Monitors are for port defence, striking at other ports within short range of the home one, going up rivers where larger ships with equivalent armament can't go, or finally, shore bombardment in a scenario where control of the local sea and sky is already a foregone conclusion (enabling it to operate independently).


The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 21:10:07


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.


And yet for some reason, he thinks that battleships will automatically lose due to range differences with missiles. Yet the things the Shilka will win despite range differences with missiles.

Please pick one.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Aircraft can handle any targets ahead of an invasion, and if they are in a situation where they can't than you are fighting either the US, Russia or China and those are not the kind of places you should be thinking about invading at all.
Artillery shells may be cheaper than missiles or bombs, but a ship-based platform can't hit targets further inland so you are going to be deploying those aircraft anyway, and since you are already deploying them anyway it is cheaper to let them handle coastal targets as well rather than design, build, crew, arm, supply, maintain, deploy and protect a special platform for that niche task only.


On the first point: actually a lot of places have heavy beach defenses that would need taken out WHILE the aircraft are busy securing and ensuring that air superiority and disrupting C&C. You only have SO many aircraft and there are many, many targets.

Depends what you mean by 'further inland'. A country with a lot of objectives along the coast, and a battleship is going to be hitting your home runs, and be able to provide almost continuous fire support. If doesn't have to loiter over the battlefield, and no amount of chaff, flares, or EWAR is going to divert that projectile from it's course. As a warship in the South China sea conducting FONOPs it's ideal, for support, or even just harassment, off North Korea, again, ideal.

And, why not, they train, equip, and pay men, and infantry has been out of date as a concept since the time of the pharaohs. Just because an idea is old, does not mean it's inferior. Just ask Ma Duce.





The F-35 @ 2018/08/18 23:37:48


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.


And yet for some reason, he thinks that battleships will automatically lose due to range differences with missiles. Yet the things the Shilka will win despite range differences with missiles.

Please pick one.

Are you seriously implying naval and aerial combat are the same thing? I had expected better. The crucial differences are of course in the low amount of missiles carried by an aircraft vs the many missiles carried by larger warships, the difficulty of detecting an AA gun on land vs the ease of detecting a large ship at sea, and of course the fact that a light aircraft is hell of a lot more vulnerable than a large warship. In ideal circumstances, an aircraft with anti-radiation missiles will win a confrontation with an AA gun all the time due to the difference in range. But if that aircraft is on a CAS mission and unexpectedly runs into a previously undetected AA gun (or even a heavy machine gun, light aircraft are vulnerable) it is going to be in big trouble. That is why dedicated CAS aircraft have heavy armour. To survive unexpected encounters like that (who are going to happen, even with great intelligence) and still come out on top. It is also why sending a really light aircraft on a CAS mission is a really stupid idea that is generally only done in cases where a military doesn't have any better planes available.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Aircraft can handle any targets ahead of an invasion, and if they are in a situation where they can't than you are fighting either the US, Russia or China and those are not the kind of places you should be thinking about invading at all.
Artillery shells may be cheaper than missiles or bombs, but a ship-based platform can't hit targets further inland so you are going to be deploying those aircraft anyway, and since you are already deploying them anyway it is cheaper to let them handle coastal targets as well rather than design, build, crew, arm, supply, maintain, deploy and protect a special platform for that niche task only.


On the first point: actually a lot of places have heavy beach defenses that would need taken out WHILE the aircraft are busy securing and ensuring that air superiority and disrupting C&C. You only have SO many aircraft and there are many, many targets.

Depends what you mean by 'further inland'. A country with a lot of objectives along the coast, and a battleship is going to be hitting your home runs, and be able to provide almost continuous fire support. If doesn't have to loiter over the battlefield, and no amount of chaff, flares, or EWAR is going to divert that projectile from it's course. As a warship in the South China sea conducting FONOPs it's ideal, for support, or even just harassment, off North Korea, again, ideal.

And, why not, they train, equip, and pay men, and infantry has been out of date as a concept since the time of the pharaohs. Just because an idea is old, does not mean it's inferior. Just ask Ma Duce.




It is way too expensive for that. You don't need a freaking battleship to run one of those silly FONOPs or to harass North Korea. The Navy and Airforce have dedicated aircraft to fulfill the air superiority role, leaving other aircraft free to engage ground targets. Also, you secure aerial superiority before an invasion, not during, so you have all the time you need to hit your targets. The invasion should only go ahead when all enemy threats to the landing troops have been eliminated. We don't live in 1944 anymore where we expect infantry to carry out a suicide charge on a heavily fortified beach (against which, I may recall, naval artillery bombardments by battleships accomplished little, leaving even that last purported utility of a battleship in modern combat in question). Well, to be fair they did not expect that back in 1944 either, they tried very hard to eliminate threats to the landing troops beforehand, but they failed in many areas because of how ineffective artillery is in suppressing dug-in positions, and because of how inaccurate mid-20th century bomber aircraft were. Missiles and guided bombs have solved both of those problems.
And no, no place has beach defenses. At least not the kind you'd take out with an artillery bombardment. Those kind of static defenses became outdated with the advent of missile warfare, just like most static defenses. What is the use in spending a ton of money on a fortification that can be destroyed simply with a missile? Modern coastal defense systems are generally mobile (see the Japanese Type-88 or the Russian K-300 systems for example). Static defenses (like Utyos near Sevastopol) are few and far between and only located near ports. You don't need to construct a massively expensive battleship to deal with that.
Also, infantry is the backbone of any army, in our time just as much as in the time of the pharaohs. Infantry is anything but outdated. You simply can't hold ground without infantry.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 00:55:37


Post by: Vulcan


Ah... the U.S. Navy got rid of it's last dedicated interceptor (the F-14) a few years back, and now makes do with multirole F/A-18s. For that matter, all the dedicated ground attack aircraft are gone too. It's just F/A-18s and, in the near future, the F-35s which are not dedicated air-superiority aircraft either. The F/A-18s are quite good dogfighters, the F-35s less so but they have stealth (until they load up a decent amount of munitions, anyway).

The problem being, every one of those you need to dedicate to air superiority is one less attack aircraft. If you need to repel a big air raid, there goes all air support until you get the aircraft back onboard and reloaded.

In contrast, a battleship is there to provide fire support 24/7 even if all the F/A-18s and F-35s are busy dealing with enemy air strikes.

While North Korea might have static shore defenses, that's certainly the only country crazy enough to do so. However, the wonderful thing about naval bombardment is that you aren't restricted to shooting at stationary targets any more than your traditional land-based artillery is. What naval bombardment does is - as has been stated already - provide artillery support for the infantry so they can secure the ground for their own artillery.

Thinking about it, you probably don't need a full-bore battleship with 16" guns anymore. The ground troops make do with modern 150mm and 200mm guns (6-8") that have nearly as long a range as the old 16"ers. A ship in the heavy cruiser range would do just as well. Quite a bit cheaper, certainly won't be any slower than the fleet speed. The Pentagon may be a pack of idiots at times, but they already know how to build a heavy cruiser...

In the meantime, the other ships of the fleet can do what they were designed for, and indeed newer missile ships can dispense with the less-effective 5" and 3" guns in favor of a larger missile load. Specialization works wonders, after all...


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 01:57:56


Post by: Spetulhu


 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is why dedicated CAS aircraft have heavy armour. To survive unexpected encounters like that (who are going to happen, even with great intelligence) and still come out on top. It is also why sending a really light aircraft on a CAS mission is a really stupid idea that is generally only done in cases where a military doesn't have any better planes available.


Aye, kind of like Count von Rosen and his "Biafra babies", volunteers flying small trainer aircraft with some rocket launchers bolted on against the Nigerians. Biafra had nothing else, and Nigeria (while having to hire merc pilots) at least had some Mig-17s until they were blown up on the ground by those trainers with rockets. Biafra predictably lost the war but none of their five little aircraft. ;-)

That was back in 1969, against an opponent that had little AA capacity beyond infantry filling the air with lead from their rifles. One imagines it wouldn't work as well today.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 02:04:44


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... the U.S. Navy got rid of it's last dedicated interceptor (the F-14) a few years back, and now makes do with multirole F/A-18s. For that matter, all the dedicated ground attack aircraft are gone too. It's just F/A-18s and, in the near future, the F-35s which are not dedicated air-superiority aircraft either. The F/A-18s are quite good dogfighters, the F-35s less so but they have stealth (until they load up a decent amount of munitions, anyway).

The problem being, every one of those you need to dedicate to air superiority is one less attack aircraft. If you need to repel a big air raid, there goes all air support until you get the aircraft back onboard and reloaded.

In contrast, a battleship is there to provide fire support 24/7 even if all the F/A-18s and F-35s are busy dealing with enemy air strikes.

While North Korea might have static shore defenses, that's certainly the only country crazy enough to do so. However, the wonderful thing about naval bombardment is that you aren't restricted to shooting at stationary targets any more than your traditional land-based artillery is. What naval bombardment does is - as has been stated already - provide artillery support for the infantry so they can secure the ground for their own artillery.

Thinking about it, you probably don't need a full-bore battleship with 16" guns anymore. The ground troops make do with modern 150mm and 200mm guns (6-8") that have nearly as long a range as the old 16"ers. A ship in the heavy cruiser range would do just as well. Quite a bit cheaper, certainly won't be any slower than the fleet speed. The Pentagon may be a pack of idiots at times, but they already know how to build a heavy cruiser...

In the meantime, the other ships of the fleet can do what they were designed for, and indeed newer missile ships can dispense with the less-effective 5" and 3" guns in favor of a larger missile load. Specialization works wonders, after all...

Interceptors are not air superiority fighters. Interceptors have a different role entirely, which is that of defending against incoming hostile aircraft, especially bombers. To this end, they are light aircraft with short range but very high speed. Air superiority fighters meanwhile are designed to enter hostile airspace and wrest away control over it. They are heavy aircraft, sacrificing speed for range, maneuverability and lots of weapons. Dedicating aircraft to air superiority duty is not such a big drain, since pure air superiority fighters aren't as good at attacking ground targets anyway, because they lack the armour and defensive countermeasures that ground attack aircraft have (they may also not be able to mount the needed weapons). Now many, if not most modern aircraft are multirole, and the distinction between interceptor, fighter and bomber has blurred, but that still does not lead to problems in availability since these different missions usually take place at different times during an operation. You have to secure air superiority first before you can effectively attack other ground targets (or you risk losing most of your air force). Meaning that by the time you start attacking secondary targets such as anti-ship missiles and artillery batteries, most of the aircraft that were on air superiority duty have finished their missions and are available again. These threats need to be taken out before you can send in a battleship (or else it will be sunk by a hail of anti-ship missiles and artillery shells), meaning that by the time the battleship gets into the fray, there is actually little left for it to shoot at. And because of that, you indeed do not need a battleship, but can make do with cruisers and destroyers to provide further support for the landing troops.
Also, you really want to have aircraft to deal with highly mobile threats such as self-propelled artillery batteries and mobile missile launchers. Using artillery is relatively ineffective since these targets will relocate when detected, meaning that by the time the shells hit the ground, the target is likely to be already gone. And if it is a really expensive battleship with a massive crew that you are risking because maybe those anti-ship missiles got away, you really don't want that kind of uncertainty. That is why aircraft are so commonly used to suppress mobile enemy defences (well, there is more reasons, but this one of them).

North Korea probably has static shore defenses, but that is a unique case since their entire country is basically stuck forever in the 1950's.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 02:07:17


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Agiel wrote:
A useful video to help inform the CAS debate:



Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.
The whole point is to operate in areas with little to no anti air threat (the places where we use out A-10s these days). You don't need that much defense against a few guys with AKs.



Speed is still important. Speed translates to a massive strategic advantage, which in turn translates to tactical advantages. Modern ships aren't that much slower all around than ships back in WW2, while have gotten a lot heavier (that OHP for example weighs twice as much as an old Fletcher, despite the OHP being merely a frigate while the Fletcher was a destroyer). Their top speeds may be less, indeed because with the introduction of guided missiles, those few extra knots won't make any difference on a tactical level, but the cruising speed is still the same.

Sure, that's the whole point, all they really need to do is stay at cruising speed, they don't need that extra speed to maneuver.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 03:32:56


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:
. It is also why sending a really light aircraft on a CAS mission is a really stupid idea that is generally only done in cases where a military doesn't have any better planes available.


Really? Because it's been fairly effective for at least 15 years now. The Super Tucano has, as an example, been in service since 2003 in some airforces. I'm sure you'll arrogantly dismiss them as idiots and amateurs, but it does actually work. In fact, several mercenary groups, including Blackwater, have made a point to acquire them. The USAF has been playing with the idea of buying some since 2008. They've been increasing in popularity in warzones where cost is an issue ever since they melted the faces of some Shilka's that Russia has NO IDEA how they fell in to the hands of FARC terrorists in Colombia. Clearly the armor just washed up on the beach one day along with the rest of their gear.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
.
The Navy and Airforce have dedicated aircraft to fulfill the air superiority role, leaving other aircraft free to engage ground targets.


Actually almost everything they have has been converted to multi-role if it was not that to begin with. Particularly in the Navy. Please point me to something that is still currently an air superiority fighter besides a rapidly diminishing number of unconverted F-15's, since F-22s are in such small numbers they're nearly irrelevant.

And when done properly air superiority is seized an hour or two before the invasion, since you want as little time for them to prepare as possible. Usually your runways and SAM sites exploding is a big tip off that something is up. If you also have ot knock out 50k artillery sites, then you're stretching your supply of aircraft rather thin.


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Sure, that's the whole point, all they really need to do is stay at cruising speed, they don't need that extra speed to maneuver.


The problem is again that a monitor's cruising speed makes horse and buggy look swift. Think the bad old days before clipper ships. (or sails, for that matter, a trireme could run these down... and now for some reason the image of Kim Jung Un beating a drum as slaves man the oars is stuck in my head) Six months from San Diego to Tokyo. Are you getting the idea yet? and that's for the monitors that were built for WW2, not the ancient coal plants of yore like HMAS Cerberus..


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 04:12:19


Post by: Peregrine


 BaronIveagh wrote:
Six months from San Diego to Tokyo.


Who cares? Getting any kind of invasion force together is going to take a lot of time, giving the monitors a head start, and wars don't usually happen out of nowhere. If things are getting to a point where war looks likely the warships (along with other assets) are going to be deployed to the region to minimize delays in getting into action. Nobody is deciding "hey, let's have a war with North Korea this week" out of nowhere.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 06:03:09


Post by: Kilkrazy


If you wanted to build a modern monitor ship, you could build it with fast engines.

The argument is that a ship with a heavy gun armament could be useful for supporting a beach assault type of operation.

Modern ships tend to have one, or maybe two, four- to six-inch calibre guns. They are rapid firing but the shells are relatively light.

It seems fairly obvious that a few "micro battle ships" with four 8-inch guns each, would be useful for attacking dug-in defenders in that kind of situation.

The trick would be not to make them hyper-expensive, which seems to be a problem for the US armed forces.

To go off on a tangent, the UK's Queen Elizabeth carrier is off to the US to collect its first batch of F-35 aircraft.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 09:21:04


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Peregrine wrote:
Nobody is deciding "hey, let's have a war with North Korea this week" out of nowhere.


Well, you say that....


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 17:35:51


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Peregrine wrote:
If things are getting to a point where war looks likely the warships (along with other assets) are going to be deployed to the region to minimize delays in getting into action.


Peregine, when was the last time that the US spent more than a month planning and prepping for a war before it was already on them? WW1? Spanish American war? Let's say that War looks likely and they do that. The war would have broken out, and possibly be over, before the monitor ever gets there. You really seem to not understand how slow these things are.

Pick up your sofa and walk across the living room, and you'll probably outrun a monitor traveling the same distance at cruising speed. It takes them YEARS to get places. Even newer ones.

And you'll have spent vastly more money getting it there than a battleship would ever use, since it would take a tag team of oilers to keep it moving forward.


 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you wanted to build a modern monitor ship, you could build it with fast engines.


Kill, I'm not even sure where to start.

Monitors, in the modern sense, sacrifice fuel storage, speed, room for supplies, and sea worthiness, to carry the weapons, munitions and armor required. For the monitor to be small, the engines must be small. Once you start talking 30+knts you're talking a battleship, because the engines to push the monitor's mass are over four stories high themselves, on their own. Effectively, for a monitor to keep up, you've converted it from a good monitor to a bad battleship.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 17:55:51


Post by: Gitzbitah


Hmmm... looks like the Vietnam era brown water monitors were retrofit from landing craft- and the Marines Wasp vessels can carry 3 LCACs, which are 87 feet long, as opposed to the Vietnam monitor which had a 40 mm gun.

How big of a gun could someone cram onto an 80 foot long parasite monitor, intended to be deployed from a Wasp carrier to support a landing? Looks like they squeezed an 8inch 55 caliber onto the DD Hull, at 400 feet, but it had a host of secondary weapons. If one only wanted a mobile vessel with a long ranged primary- could it be done?

Carry 3 of those into range of the combat zone, plaster the landing area, if not needed, leave them home and bring more landing craft.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 18:13:13


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Gitzbitah wrote:
Hmmm... looks like the Vietnam era brown water monitors were retrofit from landing craft- and the Marines Wasp vessels can carry 3 LCACs, which are 87 feet long, as opposed to the Vietnam monitor which had a 40 mm gun.


Riverine monitors are effectively unarmored and the biggest weapon IIRC they carried was a 105mm howitzer, which is way too small.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 18:31:24


Post by: simonr1978


Peregine, when was the last time that the US spent more than a month planning and prepping for a war before it was already on them?


For a much more recent example the planning and preparation for Operation Desert Storm certainly took longer than that, the US led coalition took around 6 months getting troops into the region. I'd also be amazed if there weren't some pretty advanced preliminary plans for an invasion of Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom that hadn't been made years before the 2003 invasion.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 18:41:28


Post by: Gitzbitah


Ah, gotcha. thanks for the clarification!


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 19:50:35


Post by: Kilkrazy


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
If things are getting to a point where war looks likely the warships (along with other assets) are going to be deployed to the region to minimize delays in getting into action.


Peregine, when was the last time that the US spent more than a month planning and prepping for a war before it was already on them? WW1? Spanish American war? Let's say that War looks likely and they do that. The war would have broken out, and possibly be over, before the monitor ever gets there. You really seem to not understand how slow these things are.

Pick up your sofa and walk across the living room, and you'll probably outrun a monitor traveling the same distance at cruising speed. It takes them YEARS to get places. Even newer ones.

And you'll have spent vastly more money getting it there than a battleship would ever use, since it would take a tag team of oilers to keep it moving forward.


 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you wanted to build a modern monitor ship, you could build it with fast engines.


Kill, I'm not even sure where to start.

Monitors, in the modern sense, sacrifice fuel storage, speed, room for supplies, and sea worthiness, to carry the weapons, munitions and armor required. For the monitor to be small, the engines must be small. Once you start talking 30+knts you're talking a battleship, because the engines to push the monitor's mass are over four stories high themselves, on their own. Effectively, for a monitor to keep up, you've converted it from a good monitor to a bad battleship.


It's certainly possible to build an armoured ship with six to eight heavy guns and a speed of over 30 knots, because that's what a WW2 heavy cruiser was, and displaced about 10,000 tons which is similar to a large modern destroyer. You could call a heavy cruiser a bad battleship, but against anything similar except a real battleship, they did good service.

Ketara's idea, which I have adopted and adapted, is for a ship of probably about 6,000 to 8,000 tons, with four heavy guns as main armament, with the purpose of supporting landings.

I'm not sure it needs armour. I'm sure it's possible to build better armour using modern materials, but it probably isn't realistic to armour a ship well enough to withstand modern weapons, or navies would be doing it already.

Such a ship could be just as fast as a modern destroyer, and carry defensive systems like chaff, etc. It wouldn't carry heavy missiles because that's not what it's for.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 20:35:59


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Sure, that's the whole point, all they really need to do is stay at cruising speed, they don't need that extra speed to maneuver.


The problem is again that a monitor's cruising speed makes horse and buggy look swift. Think the bad old days before clipper ships. (or sails, for that matter, a trireme could run these down... and now for some reason the image of Kim Jung Un beating a drum as slaves man the oars is stuck in my head) Six months from San Diego to Tokyo. Are you getting the idea yet? and that's for the monitors that were built for WW2, not the ancient coal plants of yore like HMAS Cerberus..

You're making a really major assumption here. That they will be as slow as they were in WW2 and prior. I think in advances in tech mean that will not be the case.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 20:48:08


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Kilkrazy wrote:

I'm not sure it needs armour. I'm sure it's possible to build better armour using modern materials, but it probably isn't realistic to armour a ship well enough to withstand modern weapons, or navies would be doing it already.


We're talking about a fleet that can't even line up plumbing on it's ships anymore, and has aircraft designers trying to build ships. Rational and sensible will not be back in vogue until someone sinks something big. It's happened over and over, idiocy reigns until soemone starts sinking gak, and then people go 'OH, Maybe we should have done X".

Again, ships that dissolve in sea water, stealth ships big as battleships, and ships that are literally self sinking.

No, missiles will continue to rule so that Admirals can retire to cushy jobs at Lockheed, Концерн Радиоэлектронные технологии, BAE systems, Oto, and any number of other contractors. Right up until someone sinks something big. And then the ass covering parade will start and people will start putting armor on ships again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think in advances in tech mean that will not be the case.


The Brazilians upgraded their monitors in 1990's. They still only get 12 knts. So you'll need to change that to 'The Gulf War and prior'. It's a matter of physics, not technology. You're not going to get 150k shaft horsepower out of an engine only 20 feet long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Such a ship could be just as fast as a modern destroyer, and carry defensive systems like chaff, etc. It wouldn't carry heavy missiles because that's not what it's for.


I linked a document earlier with post shot analysis of how effective this is in combat compared to a battleship. IIRC the relevant chart is on page 14.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 23:32:23


Post by: Ketara


Baron, I think you're getting too hung up on the term 'Monitor' with regards to KK. What he's describing is essentially a heavy cruiser, which would be a feasible enough class of ship. An upgunned Des Moines class would do the job. You don't need something with battleship calibre armour anymore; on account of the fact that such armour was designed to take hits from 16 inch guns (which no navy packs anymore). Reasonable plating to ensure it can endure some counter-fire, yes; 10 inches of fully cemented? Not so much.

A trio of heavy cruisers (I'd stick ten inch guns on them personally) displacing 10-12,000 tons dispersed amongst the American Navy's various fleets would do just fine for themselves. I think the traditional 'battleship/battlecruiser' is obsolete by sheer virtue of the fact that (a) a large proportion of its job has been stolen by subsurface and aerial, and (b) Nobody else uses them (meaning you don't require your own ones for a hard counter). Building a 45,000 ton ship with six 16 inch guns would just be excessive.

The heavy cruisers though? Well, any effective military should have a toolkit approach. Not every solution requires airpower, or can be best achieved by it, and not every situation which might require a solution is forseeable. Nobody saw the Falklands coming, if you get my drift. Heavy Cruisers have sufficient battlefield utility in their own right to not be a burden on a fleet, and would be a small enough drop in the vast American naval budget that if they turned out to not be needed in a given scenario, it wouldn't be a tragedy.

One lesson that military history does tend to illustrate is that those who focus on one arm/scenario to the exclusion of all else are rarely well prepared for anything they didn't see coming.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/19 23:53:28


Post by: Vulcan


 BaronIveagh wrote:

The problem is again that a monitor's cruising speed makes horse and buggy look swift. Think the bad old days before clipper ships. (or sails, for that matter, a trireme could run these down... and now for some reason the image of Kim Jung Un beating a drum as slaves man the oars is stuck in my head) Six months from San Diego to Tokyo. Are you getting the idea yet? and that's for the monitors that were built for WW2, not the ancient coal plants of yore like HMAS Cerberus..


Which is why most of us are discussing battleships and/or heavy cruisers and not monitors. Most of us get that there is a legitimate 'need for speed'.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/20 01:18:42


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ketara wrote:
Building a 45,000 ton ship with six 16 inch guns would just be excessive.


Personally I'd build a 100,000 ton one with 18" guns and at least 5 separate Mk41's with 120 cells port and starboard and 120 cells aft. single three gun gunhouse turrets forward and aft, to lower the chance of a magazine hit, and a low profile super structure, with the bridge buried in the center someplace. and lots of duel purpose guns and CIWS

Internal armor belts for a spaced armor effect with enough armor to withstand at very least Granit, which is an inshore threat and DOES have penetration power at least comparable to 16" guns, though not equal to.

In theory though something like a Deutschland-class could, conceivably work, but I'd still be reluctant to put something so lightly armored in the path of the sort of firepower you'd get hit with in a close support role.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/21 19:35:39


Post by: oldravenman3025


 Peregrine wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.

That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.

Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.


Please outline a realistic scenario for a war where gun-armed ships are useful at all and a ship moving at half the speed of the rest of the fleet can't get there in time. Please remember that shore bombardment assets are not relevant in a defensive war, and the invasion troops that are required to make shore bombardment relevant in an offensive war will take a lot of time to organize and deliver.




The age of the big gun battlewagons may be long over with, but there is still some use for guns on modern warships. That's why modern U.S. Naval vessels have 5-inch guns, CIWS, and 25mm Bushmasters. Missiles are not the end-all, be-all of modern naval warfare.




The F-35 @ 2018/08/21 20:44:28


Post by: KTG17


What the heck are we talking about?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/22 02:38:35


Post by: BaronIveagh


 KTG17 wrote:
What the heck are we talking about?


I made a comparison between the F-35 and Zumwalt and an extended digression on Naval Gunfire Support began.



 oldravenman3025 wrote:

The age of the big gun battlewagons may be long over with,


And on the cusp of returning, once rail guns become viable weapons.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/22 02:39:27


Post by: oldravenman3025


 KTG17 wrote:
What the heck are we talking about?



I'm guessing....modern warships? Though the title had me fooled.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/22 08:21:08


Post by: Peregrine


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The age of the big gun battlewagons may be long over with, but there is still some use for guns on modern warships. That's why modern U.S. Naval vessels have 5-inch guns, CIWS, and 25mm Bushmasters. Missiles are not the end-all, be-all of modern naval warfare.


Well yes, when I say "gun armed" I'm talking about a ship with big guns as its primary weapon not the token 5" gun on a ship armed with a bunch of missiles as its primary weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
enough armor to withstand at very least Granit


No practical amount of armor can survive nuclear weapons.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/22 17:38:59


Post by: KTG17


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:
What the heck are we talking about?


I'm guessing....modern warships? Though the title had me fooled.


I know, its a riot. Don't care tho. I am not one of those types to ask peeps to keep on topic.

My uncle was a Lt. Colonel in the air force and flew F-16s. I have a pic of me as a kid sitting in the cockpit of his fighter at McDill Airforce Base way back in the day. I hit him with all sorts of questions growing up. He was always like, "How do you even know about this stuff?"

Anyway, I asked him one day if the Navy was as useless as I thought, given the tech advances in fighters and missiles and so on, and just thought in this day and age that air power would wreck any fleet, and he surprised me and said no. He said that while taking on an individual warship wouldn't be difficult, taking on a fleet and their combined system would be another matter. This convo was about 20 years ago, so not sure if that still holds true. I know the British navy took a little bit of a beating in the Falklands war, and I think that was due to where they anchored their ships. The surrounding islands killed the range of their radar and the Argentinians were able to approach low to the water with little warning to the ships. I guess those loses had more to do with the British tactics than the technology. So over open ocean, where there is no place to hide, the navy would be much better.

But with stealth now... makes me question how vulnerable those ships are.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/22 18:24:46


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Building a 45,000 ton ship with six 16 inch guns would just be excessive.


Personally I'd build a 100,000 ton one with 18" guns and at least 5 separate Mk41's with 120 cells port and starboard and 120 cells aft. single three gun gunhouse turrets forward and aft, to lower the chance of a magazine hit, and a low profile super structure, with the bridge buried in the center someplace. and lots of duel purpose guns and CIWS

Internal armor belts for a spaced armor effect with enough armor to withstand at very least Granit, which is an inshore threat and DOES have penetration power at least comparable to 16" guns, though not equal to.

In theory though something like a Deutschland-class could, conceivably work, but I'd still be reluctant to put something so lightly armored in the path of the sort of firepower you'd get hit with in a close support role.


This sounds like something a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks I'll be honest. It's like those "Ratte with two Maus turrets for short ranged defense" Wherb BS.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/22 21:10:35


Post by: Talizvar


I always have been a bit perplexed on what the need is for the F-35.
I did some digging into the stats for comparative planes.

I could easily state that the F-35A is a direct replacement for the F-16 Falcon with the much needed stealth.
See the two stats for both craft:
Spoiler:
Specifications (F-16C Block 50)
For measure of stealth in RCS = 5m^2
Crew: 1
Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204 root and tip
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,570 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)
Internal fuel: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)[3]
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F110-GE-129 (for F-16C/D Block 30-40-50) or Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220/220E afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf (127 kN)
Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)[71]
At altitude: Mach 2[3] (1,320 mph; 2,120 km/h) clean configuration
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi; 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 nmi (2,620 mi; 4,220 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[3] (15,240+ m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)[271]
Maximum g-load: +9.0 g
Guns: 1 × 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon, 511 rounds
Hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores

Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
Now the F-35B is a hard one since it is trying to be a Harrier.
This has been the thorn in the side in the development.
See both below:
Spoiler:
Specifications (AV-8B Harrier II Plus)
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 46 ft 4 in (14.12 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 4 in (9.25 m)
Height: 11 ft 8 in (3.55 m)
Wing area: 243.4 sq ft (22.61 m²)
Airfoil: supercritical airfoil
Empty weight: 13,968 lb (6,340 kg)
Loaded weight: 22,950 lb (10,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: ** Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
Vertical: 20,755 lb (9,415 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408 (Mk 107) vectored-thrust turbofan, 23,500 lbf (105 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 0.9 (585 knots, 673 mph, 1,083 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km)
Combat radius: 300 nmi (350 mi, 556 km)
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km)
Rate of climb: 14,700 ft/min (75 m/s)
Wing loading: 94.29 lb/(sq ft) (460.4 kg/m²)
Guns: 1× General Dynamics GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 5-barreled Rotary cannon mounted under-fuselage in the left pod, with 300 rounds of ammunition in the right pod
Hardpoints: 6× under-wing pylon stations holding up to 9,200 lb (4,200 kg) of payload

Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
Then we have the F-35C taking on the role of the F-18:
Spoiler:
Specifications (F/A-18C/D)
For measure of stealth in RCS = 1m^2
Crew: 1 (C)/2 (D - pilot and weapon systems officer)
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.1 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 4 in (12.3 m) with AIM-9 Sidewinders on wingtip LAU-7 launchers
Width: 32 ft 7 in (9.94 m) wing folded
Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.7 m)
Wing area: 410 sq ft (38 m2)
Aspect ratio: 4
Airfoil: root:NACA 65A005 mod.; tip:NACA 65A003.5 mod.
Empty weight: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg)
Gross weight: 36,970 lb (16,769 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 51,900 lb (23,541 kg)
Fuel capacity: 10,860 pounds (4,930 kg) internally
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F404-GE-402 afterburning turbofan engines, 11,000 lbf (49 kN) thrust each dry, 17,750 lbf (79.0 kN) with afterburner
Maximum speed: 1,034 kn (1,190 mph; 1,915 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8
Cruise speed: 574 kn; 1,062 km/h (660 mph)
Range: 1,089 nmi (1,253 mi; 2,017 km)
Combat range: 400 nmi (460 mi; 741 km) air-air mission
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,071 mi; 3,334 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 93 lb/sq ft (450 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.96 (1.13 with loaded weight at 50% internal fuel)
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan nose mounted 6-barrel rotary cannon, 578 rounds
Hardpoints: 9 total: 2× wingtips missile launch rail, 4× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 13,700 lb (6,200 kg)

Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
Now for giggles I was looking at the F-22 and that guy still looks like the king of the hill as a stealth interceptor:
Spoiler:
Specifications (F-22A)
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.0001m^2
Crew: 1
Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.92 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A?05.92 root, NACA 64A?04.29 tip
Empty weight: 43,340 lb (19,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 64,840 lb (29,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
Fuel capacity: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally, or 26,000 lb (12,000 kg) with two external fuel tanks
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis
Dry thrust: 26,000 lb (116 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: >35,000 lb (>156 kN[N 5][276]) each
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h) [estimated][116]
Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,960 km/h)[116]
Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat radius: 460 nmi (with 100 nmi in supercruise) clean[277][N 6] (529 mi, 852 km)
Ferry range: 1,740 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
Service ceiling: >65,000 ft (20,000 m)
Wing loading: 77.2 lb/ft² (377 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.08
Maximum design g-load: +9.0/−3.0 g[116]
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon in right wing root, 480 rounds
Hardpoints: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 U.S. gallon (2,270 L) drop tanks or weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,270 kg).


Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
I think the thing that stands out is the F-22 has 1/50th the radar signature of the F-35.
I believe it is compared to the radar reflective size of golf ball vs a bumble-bee so it may be splitting hairs in the non-detection end of things.

I suppose having a commonization for multiple roles should keep parts and maintenance at least with some measure of standardization.
I had read no end of woes with the B version of the 35 with the harrier-like vertical take-off.

There were and are quite a few issues with the heads-up helmet and still some complaints for visibility for checking the six or seeing past the seat (complaint with the F-18 dogfight practice runs).
I had pretty much written-off this jet a long time ago but with a bit of research on this topic I think the A and C models should do well, the B however... I think it will not "take-off".


The F-35 @ 2018/08/22 21:22:16


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

This sounds like something a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks I'll be honest. It's like those "Ratte with two Maus turrets for short ranged defense" Wherb BS.


Actually it's a modernization of this paper project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_A-150_battleship

Effectively it was intended to be an even larger, but tactically more flexible, Yamato.

It also was proposed to carry some of the most ludicrous guns ever designed, the 45 caliber Type 98 51 cm Gun.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 01:55:06


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

This sounds like something a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks I'll be honest. It's like those "Ratte with two Maus turrets for short ranged defense" Wherb BS.


Actually it's a modernization of this paper project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_A-150_battleship

Effectively it was intended to be an even larger, but tactically more flexible, Yamato.

It also was proposed to carry some of the most ludicrous guns ever designed, the 45 caliber Type 98 51 cm Gun.

As I said, something that a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 09:14:57


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

As I said, something that a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks.


Ehhh......



Ok, in certain context you may have a point there.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 15:10:10


Post by: whembly


https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-maker-of-the-ak-47-unveils-robot-straight-out-of-aliens-2018-8

Eh... really??

I think the F-35s can find those...


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 15:14:15


Post by: KTG17


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

As I said, something that a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks.


I used to do this!!!


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 15:35:23


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 whembly wrote:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-maker-of-the-ak-47-unveils-robot-straight-out-of-aliens-2018-8

Eh... really??

I think the F-35s can find those...


Straight out of Aliens if Aliens had the art direction of a 50s B-movie, they mean.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 16:00:03


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

As I said, something that a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks.


Ehhh......

Spoiler:

[spoiler]
Ok, in certain context you may have a point there.


Hey man you have a better choice there



The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 16:03:26


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Are those women massive or are the battleships tiny?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 16:04:17


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Little bit of column A, little bit of column B.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 18:03:55


Post by: BaronIveagh


 whembly wrote:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-maker-of-the-ak-47-unveils-robot-straight-out-of-aliens-2018-8

Eh... really??

I think the F-35s can find those...


Well, the US and Japan are both heavily invested in giant robots and mech suits, so it was only a matter of time.

Personally I think the Japanese one has a better aesthetic:






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Hey man you have a better choice there
Spoiler:


Yes, yes I do.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 19:36:58


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Oh great, now I've got that opening theme stuck in my head.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 20:01:32


Post by: Captain Joystick


Sarabaaa chikyuu yooo...


The F-35 @ 2018/08/23 23:14:11


Post by: AlmightyWalrus




...uchū senkan YA-MA-TO!


...perhaps we should get back on topic, whatever that is?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/24 01:12:24


Post by: Vulcan




There's a topic to this thread?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/24 14:37:01


Post by: whembly


It should be renamed as "F-35, battleships and MOAR!"


The F-35 @ 2018/08/24 15:58:42


Post by: Crispy78


So, um, does Trump think the F35 is literally invisible, or what?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/does-trump-even-know-what-stealth-means/


The F-35 @ 2018/08/24 16:28:43


Post by: KTG17


GOD DAMN IT YOU JUST MENTIONED TRUMP AND NOW THE THREAD WILL GET LOCKED!

What if Trump's DNA was spliced with Boris Johnsons? Not even sure that face would be one only a mother could love.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/24 23:33:13


Post by: Vulcan


Crispy78 wrote:
So, um, does Trump think the F35 is literally invisible, or what?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/does-trump-even-know-what-stealth-means/


It's amazing how many people think stealth is a magic cloak of invisibility, even if it only works on radar.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/25 00:32:18


Post by: djones520


Crispy78 wrote:
So, um, does Trump think the F35 is literally invisible, or what?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/does-trump-even-know-what-stealth-means/


Considering most combat is planned to take place BVR now a days, he's not wrong. It's pretty damn near invisible to enemy sensors. Of course, we can always just take everything he says at his literal word, and never try to read into the context of what's actually being discussed, to help score political gotcha points, cause what fun would things be if we didn't?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/25 10:17:17


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


The same way the border wall was only metaphorical and obviously not something Trump wanted to do for real?

EDIT: We're veering into politics, better stop.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/25 14:53:38


Post by: KTG17


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The same way the border wall was only metaphorical and obviously not something Trump wanted to do for real?

EDIT: We're veering into politics, better stop.


Okay, you can't take a dig at Trump, then remind everyone we can't talk about Trump, in hopes of moving on without any retort. That's just not cool.





The F-35 @ 2018/08/25 18:33:15


Post by: BaronIveagh


 djones520 wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
So, um, does Trump think the F35 is literally invisible, or what?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/does-trump-even-know-what-stealth-means/


Considering most combat is planned to take place BVR now a days, he's not wrong. It's pretty damn near invisible to enemy sensors. Of course, we can always just take everything he says at his literal word, and never try to read into the context of what's actually being discussed, to help score political gotcha points, cause what fun would things be if we didn't?


Planned is the problem. and exterior weapons make an aircraft's stealth non-existent. So how does the F-35 work again? It's exterior gun pod for close fire support makes it's stealth go away, so this is a workable plan... how?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/25 23:55:59


Post by: Vulcan


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
So, um, does Trump think the F35 is literally invisible, or what?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/does-trump-even-know-what-stealth-means/


Considering most combat is planned to take place BVR now a days, he's not wrong. It's pretty damn near invisible to enemy sensors. Of course, we can always just take everything he says at his literal word, and never try to read into the context of what's actually being discussed, to help score political gotcha points, cause what fun would things be if we didn't?


Planned is the problem. and exterior weapons make an aircraft's stealth non-existent. So how does the F-35 work again? It's exterior gun pod for close fire support makes it's stealth go away, so this is a workable plan... how?


It's not.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 00:02:56


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Vulcan wrote:


It's not.


Exactly, but no one will admit it until they lose a bunch of them.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 00:17:54


Post by: Vulcan


Which is why there needs to be a live-fire test on drone-rigged aircraft to find out whether the F-35 can survive the battlefield anti-air environment.

They'll never do it, of course; they'll do their live-fire test in combat and, as you say, lose a bunch of F-35s to learn the lesson.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 00:27:25


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
So, um, does Trump think the F35 is literally invisible, or what?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/does-trump-even-know-what-stealth-means/


Considering most combat is planned to take place BVR now a days, he's not wrong. It's pretty damn near invisible to enemy sensors. Of course, we can always just take everything he says at his literal word, and never try to read into the context of what's actually being discussed, to help score political gotcha points, cause what fun would things be if we didn't?


Planned is the problem. and exterior weapons make an aircraft's stealth non-existent. So how does the F-35 work again? It's exterior gun pod for close fire support makes it's stealth go away, so this is a workable plan... how?

Why the feth would it be using a 25mm backup gun for close fire support. When it has guided bombs and A2G missiles. It ain't the 80s anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vulcan wrote:
Which is why there needs to be a live-fire test on drone-rigged aircraft to find out whether the F-35 can survive the battlefield anti-air environment.

They'll never do it, of course; they'll do their live-fire test in combat and, as you say, lose a bunch of F-35s to learn the lesson.

Stealth has worked out alright for the F22, and the F22 has a larger cross section than the F35. :


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 02:09:28


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Why the feth would it be using a 25mm backup gun for close fire support. When it has guided bombs and A2G missiles. It ain't the 80s anymore.




Ask the military. Particularly the Marines, but also the Navy and Airforce. Remember that, if given their way, two out of three branches of the military would have turned down this plane. But were basically told they had no choice.

Truth be told, your question reminded me a similar sentiment from the airfroce back i nthe 1960's. Though then that it wasn't the 40's anymore, then they made the Phantom II without one and discovered in combat that they really fething needed that.


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Stealth has worked out alright for the F22, and the F22 has a larger cross section than the F35. :


True but the F-22 mostly has everything internal, F-35 also makes use of external weapon mounts.



Behold, the 'stealth' F-35 and it's many, many stealth reducing hard points. With all this external BS on, a dirigible is stealthy by comparison.




To make things worse, the F-35C has half the range and payload of not only it's contemporaries, but it's predecessors.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 04:56:59


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 BaronIveagh wrote:
Spoiler:


Ask the military. Particularly the Marines, but also the Navy and Airforce. Remember that, if given their way, two out of three branches of the military would have turned down this plane. But were basically told they had no choice.

Truth be told, your question reminded me a similar sentiment from the airfroce back i nthe 1960's. Though then that it wasn't the 40's anymore, then they made the Phantom II without one and discovered in combat that they really fething needed that.

There may be some confusion, I thought you were talking about it using it's gun for CAS. But regardless:
A. tech has advanced since then
and
B. it does have an internally mounted 25mm rotary cannon, same thing was on the F22. It has the option to have external mounted guns, yes, but those would not be used in an Air Superiority mission (and the F-35 would serve to compliment our F22s in that case anyway.


True but the F-22 mostly has everything internal, F-35 also makes use of external weapon mounts.

Spoiler:

It can mount them, it doesn't use them in instances where stealth is required. In fact I'm not sure it used them for actual combat at all. And it's nowhere as good as an air superiority fighter as the F22, but that's because it does everything else as well.


Behold, the 'stealth' F-35 and it's many, many stealth reducing hard points. With all this external BS on, a dirigible is stealthy by comparison.


Spoiler:
Again, not really it is still plenty stealthy, just less so with the hard-points, and that's why they are working on ones that do conserve the stealth .

To make things worse, the F-35C has half the range and payload of not only it's contemporaries, but it's predecessors.
Well A, it's replacing the old f-18s (not, I should add, the Super Hornets, those are staying in service), and they have a very similar range of just over 1000 nautical miles. F35 actually has a bit more at approximatly 1200. And when using external stores (where the F35 is still a bagillion times stealthier than a hornet) they have the same number of hardpoints that can fit A2A missiles, 6. Now the storage in the internal bay is lacking, I agree, but it stll puts it at match with the things it's replacing and it's other strengths help it preform where it should. And both pale in comparison to the F22s 12 though, which is why we need more of those IMO, but that's another topic.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 13:45:08


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Now the storage in the internal bay is lacking, I agree, but it stll puts it at match with the things it's replacing .


Not even close, as the planned load out for 'high threat' environments requires them to use ZERO external mounts. Meaning the only thing she's got is two Air to Air missiles and then it's time to run like hell because she can't dogfight for gak.



As far as developing stealth external weapon mounts, I think their success is unlikely. The reason that I say this is that the current weapon mounts shape is what causes the issue. However, they're shaped like that to keep the weapon mounts from being torn off by drag when the plane goes super sonic.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 14:06:36


Post by: Kilkrazy


I can imagine a stealthy external weapon mount which is a bulge enshrouding the weapon itself.

Something a bit like the F15's Sparrow missiles or the F14's Phoenix missiles, which were faired into the underside of the fuselage, but mounted on the wing. It could actually go a step further and effectively be a completely enclosed weapon bay mounted on the wing instead of the fuselage.

The obvious disadvantage is extra drag and the need for different shape shrouds for different types of weapons.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 15:26:48


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can imagine a stealthy external weapon mount which is a bulge enshrouding the weapon itself.

Something a bit like the F15's Sparrow missiles or the F14's Phoenix missiles, which were faired into the underside of the fuselage, but mounted on the wing. It could actually go a step further and effectively be a completely enclosed weapon bay mounted on the wing instead of the fuselage.

The obvious disadvantage is extra drag and the need for different shape shrouds for different types of weapons.


Not just drag but mass on the wings. The further out you put greater mass, the more likely you are to tear off the wing in high speed maneuvers. Also, it's not the aerodynamics of it but the fact that the weapon hardpoints form right angles, increasing radar reflection. the weapon adds to this, but it's not 'just' the weapon.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 15:35:10


Post by: Kilkrazy


I'm imagining a lightweight pod, probably made of composite materials, shaped like a papaya or perhaps a sea squirt, which would be non-radar reflective and would enclose the weapon and pylon.

To put it another way, the pod would be like a mini-fuselage bomb bay, wrapped around the weapon, mounted on the wing.

It would add a little bit of weight, but the main problem would be drag.

In a computer controlled plane, the flight management system could be programmed to minimise the additional stress on the wongs.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 15:41:58


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Kilkrazy wrote:
which would be non-radar reflective.


I imagine wrapping myself in Brazilian supermodels. The laws of physics say mine is more likely.

Things like Iron ball paint, etc, can REDUCE radar signature, but there's no actual thing that's 'non-radar reflective'. If there was, we'd use it.

The other issue is that you're weakening the wing if you try to make an internal mount, and have to work your flight control surfaces around that. Never mind that the wings are nowhere near as thick as the ordinance they'd have to contain.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 15:52:27


Post by: Kilkrazy


What I mean is the skin material and shape of the F35 is non-reflective or at least minimally reflective, so as to give the airplane its stealth quality.

This type of skin prevents the internal weapons, engine and so on, from showing through, too, or it would be relatively useless.

Therefore it should be possible to shroud the wing pylons, using the same concept of skin design for the pod, to minimise radar signature and hide the internal components.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 16:10:55


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Kilkrazy wrote:
What I mean is the skin material and shape of the F35 is non-reflective or at least minimally reflective, so as to give the airplane its stealth quality.

This type of skin prevents the internal weapons, engine and so on, from showing through, too, or it would be relatively useless.

Therefore it should be possible to shroud the wing pylons, using the same concept of skin design for the pod, to minimise radar signature and hide the internal components.


We can barely keep that material on the plane. It's the main reason that the F-35 cannot be repaired in the field, as it is, because that material can't be applied in the field. it has to be sent back to Lockheed every single time there's a significant breach in the materiel. The Navy is building a whole new class of ship who's only job is to transport these suckers back and forth.

So every time you have a sortie, you'd have to fly back to Lockheed for maint if you tried that.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 17:06:06


Post by: Iron_Captain


Stealth is often overrated anyways. For one, it doesn't actually make you invisible or anything, not even to radar. It just reduces your radar signature so that it looks like something smaller than a big-ass fighter jet (such as a flock of birds). Which means the enemy could still lock onto you if they see through your ruse (like when they know there is supposed to be a stealth aircraft in the area, which is how that F-117 was shot down by Serb nationalists in the 90's) And as baron validly points out, it would be very hard to maintain in a combat environment. Stealth is nice to have as a bonus on an aircraft, but it is not the end all be all. An aircraft's non-stealth characteristics like speed, maneuverability, weapons load etc. are still way more important.
The question for any stealth aircraft should be: Is it still a good aircraft without its stealth?


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
. It is also why sending a really light aircraft on a CAS mission is a really stupid idea that is generally only done in cases where a military doesn't have any better planes available.


Really? Because it's been fairly effective for at least 15 years now. The Super Tucano has, as an example, been in service since 2003 in some airforces. I'm sure you'll arrogantly dismiss them as idiots and amateurs, but it does actually work. In fact, several mercenary groups, including Blackwater, have made a point to acquire them. The USAF has been playing with the idea of buying some since 2008. They've been increasing in popularity in warzones where cost is an issue ever since they melted the faces of some Shilka's that Russia has NO IDEA how they fell in to the hands of FARC terrorists in Colombia. Clearly the armor just washed up on the beach one day along with the rest of their gear.
Actually, I was going to say that in these particular circumstances, a light attack aircraft could be really useful. When you are fighting an enemy that has virtually no anti-air defenses whatsoever, it doesn't matter much what you mount your weapons on and you can go for the cheapest platform. You might as well mount them on an ultralight (ok, maybe not that). Also, I can find nothing for the FARC having Shilkas, and I would question the usefulness of such a weapon in a dense jungle. Anyways, the FARC got most of its weapons through Venezuela. Last and off-topic, the FARC weren't terrorists any more than the Columbian government or the US were terrorists. Both sides resorted to terrorism.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
.
The Navy and Airforce have dedicated aircraft to fulfill the air superiority role, leaving other aircraft free to engage ground targets.


Actually almost everything they have has been converted to multi-role if it was not that to begin with. Particularly in the Navy. Please point me to something that is still currently an air superiority fighter besides a rapidly diminishing number of unconverted F-15's, since F-22s are in such small numbers they're nearly irrelevant.

And when done properly air superiority is seized an hour or two before the invasion, since you want as little time for them to prepare as possible. Usually your runways and SAM sites exploding is a big tip off that something is up. If you also have ot knock out 50k artillery sites, then you're stretching your supply of aircraft rather thin.
What kind of hint would runways and SAM sites exploding give that a massive US carrier fleet heading for your coast hasn't already given? You can't prepare such a big invasion in secrecy anyways. Not with satellites constantly watching you. As with the Gulf War, you can take plenty of time to knock out targets before sending in the troops. Because once you have air superiority and have knocked out their air defenses, the enemy will have a hard time preparing and mobilising to defend against your ground assault.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 17:56:50


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:
What kind of hint would runways and SAM sites exploding give that a massive US carrier fleet heading for your coast hasn't already given? You can't prepare such a big invasion in secrecy anyways. Not with satellites constantly watching you.


Cap, ships are easy to miss even today. In the last six months ships the equivalent displacement of an entire carrier group have vanished. Sometimes they show up as drifting hulks, others with the crew frozen in the freezer at a Chinese wreckers yard.

Unless said carrier's sailors are stupid enough to turn on their cell phones, you will be in range of them long before you see them.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 19:04:45


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
What kind of hint would runways and SAM sites exploding give that a massive US carrier fleet heading for your coast hasn't already given? You can't prepare such a big invasion in secrecy anyways. Not with satellites constantly watching you.


Cap, ships are easy to miss even today. In the last six months ships the equivalent displacement of an entire carrier group have vanished. Sometimes they show up as drifting hulks, others with the crew frozen in the freezer at a Chinese wreckers yard.

Unless said carrier's sailors are stupid enough to turn on their cell phones, you will be in range of them long before you see them.

Seriously?
A lone rickety old freighter in the middle of nowhere doesn't get nearly the same attention from surveillance satellites as a carrier group. Ships aren't easy to miss at all, they are big, shiny and leave a giant wake in the water.
Ships go missing because they aren't being watched constantly, but once they start searching for them it is usually only a matter of days before they are found (presuming that the ship hasn't sunk, obviously. Finding something underwater is quite a bit harder).
And no, contrary to what you are saying, it is incredibly rare for ships to vanish. Pulling up a quick statistic from Google, over a period of 11 years from 2002 to 2013, only 7 ships have actually disappeared without known cause. All other ships that are 'lost', are lost to a known accident. Those drifting hulks don't come about because ships and crews mysteriously vanish, but because the crew thinks the ship is going to sink and abandons it, while in fact the damage to the ship is not actually enough to fully sink the ship. Another cause for them are accidents that kill the crew (fire, explosion) but do not cause enough structural damage to sink the ship. At any rate, most of these drifting ships are known and tracked in case they drift into busy shipping lanes.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 22:00:52


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

A lone rickety old freighter in the middle of nowhere doesn't get nearly the same attention from surveillance satellites as a carrier group.


Nor it seems do brand screaming new ones, anchored in Malaysia.



 Iron_Captain wrote:

Ships aren't easy to miss at all, they are big, shiny and leave a giant wake in the water.


Try it sometime. Even in the Great Lakes.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Ships go missing because they aren't being watched constantly, but once they start searching for them it is usually only a matter of days before they are found (presuming that the ship hasn't sunk, obviously. Finding something underwater is quite a bit harder).


Yes, yes it is, though it's actually slightly easier from the oil slick and debris that gives the occasional hint.


 Iron_Captain wrote:

And no, contrary to what you are saying, it is incredibly rare for ships to vanish. Pulling up a quick statistic from Google, over a period of 11 years from 2002 to 2013, only 7 ships have actually disappeared without known cause.


About 'known cause': read that in many cases as 'we guess'. or, rather frequently in certain areas 'we think pirates but'. Rather frequently the 'known cause' comes about to settle the insurance claim. It's led to a brisk business in hidden satellite transponders attached to the ship someplace.

There have been 191 attacks against large ships since January this year. It's been a slow year.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

All other ships that are 'lost', are lost to a known accident. Those drifting hulks don't come about because ships and crews mysteriously vanish, but because the crew thinks the ship is going to sink and abandons it, while in fact the damage to the ship is not actually enough to fully sink the ship. Another cause for them are accidents that kill the crew (fire, explosion) but do not cause enough structural damage to sink the ship. At any rate, most of these drifting ships are known and tracked in case they drift into busy shipping lanes.


Or Chinese military ships kill the crews and pilot the ship to a wreckers yard where they don't ask too many questions. Australia is still a bit pissed with China about that. Not just the incursion into Australian waters by the PLAN, but the piracy as well.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/26 23:16:53


Post by: Vulcan


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Which is why there needs to be a live-fire test on drone-rigged aircraft to find out whether the F-35 can survive the battlefield anti-air environment.

They'll never do it, of course; they'll do their live-fire test in combat and, as you say, lose a bunch of F-35s to learn the lesson.

Stealth has worked out alright for the F22, and the F22 has a larger cross section than the F35. :


Which has what to do with IR and optically aimed and guided antiair defenses?


The F-35 @ 2018/08/27 03:19:04


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

A lone rickety old freighter in the middle of nowhere doesn't get nearly the same attention from surveillance satellites as a carrier group.


Nor it seems do brand screaming new ones, anchored in Malaysia.

[insert vague allusion that does not actually say anything here]

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Ships aren't easy to miss at all, they are big, shiny and leave a giant wake in the water.


Try it sometime. Even in the Great Lakes.

I'd love to. But unfortunately I don't have a state of the art military surveillance satellite. I know people who do, and I guess I could ask them really nicely if I could use their satellite for a bit, but they would obviously say no.

[
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Ships go missing because they aren't being watched constantly, but once they start searching for them it is usually only a matter of days before they are found (presuming that the ship hasn't sunk, obviously. Finding something underwater is quite a bit harder).


Yes, yes it is, though it's actually slightly easier from the oil slick and debris that gives the occasional hint.
Oil slick and debris usually only hint at "something has sunk, somewhere". Due to water currents and the wind oil and debris tend to spread out over a large area.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

And no, contrary to what you are saying, it is incredibly rare for ships to vanish. Pulling up a quick statistic from Google, over a period of 11 years from 2002 to 2013, only 7 ships have actually disappeared without known cause.


About 'known cause': read that in many cases as 'we guess'. or, rather frequently in certain areas 'we think pirates but'. Rather frequently the 'known cause' comes about to settle the insurance claim. It's led to a brisk business in hidden satellite transponders attached to the ship someplace.

There have been 191 attacks against large ships since January this year. It's been a slow year.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

All other ships that are 'lost', are lost to a known accident. Those drifting hulks don't come about because ships and crews mysteriously vanish, but because the crew thinks the ship is going to sink and abandons it, while in fact the damage to the ship is not actually enough to fully sink the ship. Another cause for them are accidents that kill the crew (fire, explosion) but do not cause enough structural damage to sink the ship. At any rate, most of these drifting ships are known and tracked in case they drift into busy shipping lanes.


Or Chinese military ships kill the crews and pilot the ship to a wreckers yard where they don't ask too many questions. Australia is still a bit pissed with China about that. Not just the incursion into Australian waters by the PLAN, but the piracy as well.

Well, yeah. If a ship is lost with all hands it is of course difficult to establish the exact cause why a ship has sunk. But the ship never actually vanishes. The fact that it has sunk and the location where will be known.
I have never heard about the Chinese Navy attacking Australian (or any) ships. I am sure that story would have made the news. If you have a source, I would love to hear.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/27 03:46:52


Post by: Grey Templar


You're kinda underestimating how dang big the ocean is. Sure, if you are constantly tracking a ship with a satellite you can keep and eye on it if you know where it is right now. But as soon as you get a cloudy day that ship is going to disappear from your satellite photos and you're going to have an impossible task of finding it again, especially if it doesn't want to be found. And cloudy days happen all the time out on the ocean. Plus even if you do see a ship it can be tough to tell if its the same ship. Most cargo ships are going to look similar when viewed from above.


Back to the merits of stealthy aircraft,

Stealth is fine for an opening engagement or a hit and run attack where you are trying to covertly destroy a few key things but aren't going to have a prolonged engagement.

What the US could really use is a non-stealth fighter that is optimized for operating in a hot combat zone. Something that could be deployed in numbers, while fragile stealth aircraft operate in a support role where they can maximize their advantages. A mutually beneficial support structure. The Stealth aircraft aren't expected to dogfight where they would lose their advantages, while the conventional aircraft would be both a distraction and a hammer. So the enemy has to deal with stealth aircraft nipping their vulnerable spots while also being hit by a main force of obviously visible combat aircraft.

In many ways, having some visible aircraft also makes the stealth aircraft more stealthy. Because if you are monitoring a radar screen and see just a few tiny blips you might pay more attention to those tiny blips. But if you see several obvious blips, the tiny blips of the stealth aircraft will be more likely not to be noticed. So in many ways by only using stealth aircraft we are making it easier to detect those aircraft, because everybody knows what we use and that they should pay attention to those tiny blips.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/27 04:53:50


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Which is why there needs to be a live-fire test on drone-rigged aircraft to find out whether the F-35 can survive the battlefield anti-air environment.

They'll never do it, of course; they'll do their live-fire test in combat and, as you say, lose a bunch of F-35s to learn the lesson.

Stealth has worked out alright for the F22, and the F22 has a larger cross section than the F35. :


Which has what to do with IR and optically aimed and guided antiair defenses?
\
Can't shoot at what you don't know is there. And how does a non-stealthy vehicle deal with those any better? F22>all


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
You're kinda underestimating how dang big the ocean is. Sure, if you are constantly tracking a ship with a satellite you can keep and eye on it if you know where it is right now. But as soon as you get a cloudy day that ship is going to disappear from your satellite photos and you're going to have an impossible task of finding it again, especially if it doesn't want to be found. And cloudy days happen all the time out on the ocean. Plus even if you do see a ship it can be tough to tell if its the same ship. Most cargo ships are going to look similar when viewed from above.


Back to the merits of stealthy aircraft,

Stealth is fine for an opening engagement or a hit and run attack where you are trying to covertly destroy a few key things but aren't going to have a prolonged engagement.

What the US could really use is a non-stealth fighter that is optimized for operating in a hot combat zone. Something that could be deployed in numbers, while fragile stealth aircraft operate in a support role where they can maximize their advantages. A mutually beneficial support structure. The Stealth aircraft aren't expected to dogfight where they would lose their advantages, while the conventional aircraft would be both a distraction and a hammer. So the enemy has to deal with stealth aircraft nipping their vulnerable spots while also being hit by a main force of obviously visible combat aircraft.

In many ways, having some visible aircraft also makes the stealth aircraft more stealthy. Because if you are monitoring a radar screen and see just a few tiny blips you might pay more attention to those tiny blips. But if you see several obvious blips, the tiny blips of the stealth aircraft will be more likely not to be noticed. So in many ways by only using stealth aircraft we are making it easier to detect those aircraft, because everybody knows what we use and that they should pay attention to those tiny blips.

It's a bit more complicated than that honestly. Even with US tech we can only detect our own fething planes via AWACs systems. And the AWACs just lets them know vaugly that there is a stealth fighter there. So every single little blip, little smidge must be that aircraft. There's a really interesting article on it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-effect-f-35-stealth-legacy-fighter-2017-5


"I remember indelibly the moment in which the AWAC (airborne early warning and control plane) called out to me that there was a Raptor [an F-22 stealth fighter] in front of me at very close range that made me uncomfortable," Flatley told Business Insider in a phone interview.

"I had no way of targeting him, no way of defending myself."

Despite years of training to stay focused and level headed under the extreme pressures of air-to-air combat, a sense of dread set in.



Legacy jets, with the help of AWACs "may have a general idea that there's an F-35 out there, but they don't know exactly where we are," said Flatley.

The distinct information disadvantage causes pilots to get tunnel vision, according to Flatley.

"Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there," said Flatley. "Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle."



I do agree on not putting all our eggs in one basket though, having a fighter, with stealth elements, but more focused on dog-fighting would be a good backup. And building more F22s. And modernising our current F-22s. And finally lifting that fething trade embargo so we can sell some to our allies.

The JASDF originally wanted to buy F22s but that was blocked by congress to protect the stealth tech. But now they have got their hands on F35s that tech is already out there. So the F22J idea that was floated (F22 with the F35s more advanced electronics and 3d thrust vectoring engines) would be a nice fit for both them and us.
https://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-to-offer-japan-stealthy-hybrid-of-f-22-and-f-35-fighter-jets-2018-4


The F-35 @ 2018/08/27 06:36:24


Post by: Kilkrazy


All large ships are constantly tracked using similar technology to the trackers in aircraft.

That's how that big study on fishing fleets was done. They analysed the tracker data over time against other factors such as seasonality.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43169824

I doubt military ships will go around with their trackers on if they want to be stealthy.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/27 22:27:25


Post by: Vulcan


 Grey Templar wrote:
You're kinda underestimating how dang big the ocean is. Sure, if you are constantly tracking a ship with a satellite you can keep and eye on it if you know where it is right now. But as soon as you get a cloudy day that ship is going to disappear from your satellite photos and you're going to have an impossible task of finding it again, especially if it doesn't want to be found. And cloudy days happen all the time out on the ocean.


Which is why the Soviets had radar satellites in orbit designed to track naval targets.... RORSATS, I think they were called.

It's not terribly hard to put a radar into orbit, after all. Powering it is a bit trickier, but doable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Which is why there needs to be a live-fire test on drone-rigged aircraft to find out whether the F-35 can survive the battlefield anti-air environment.

They'll never do it, of course; they'll do their live-fire test in combat and, as you say, lose a bunch of F-35s to learn the lesson.

Stealth has worked out alright for the F22, and the F22 has a larger cross section than the F35. :


Which has what to do with IR and optically aimed and guided antiair defenses?
\
Can't shoot at what you don't know is there. And how does a non-stealthy vehicle deal with those any better? F22>all


Battlefield anti-air defenses - the type fired at close support aircraft and helicopters - are mostly IR and optically guided. The Stinger and the Strela (and it's successors) are IR guided, after all, and most gunfire is optically aimed.

Yes, they'll see the F-35 when it's doing close air support. It's a big black spot in the sky, and (if you've seen the IR video kicking around the internet of the test of the F-35 hovering) you already know it's HIGHLY visible in IR. RADAR stealth does exactly diddly-squat against OPTICAL and IR GUIDANCE.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/27 22:58:20


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Grey Templar wrote:
You're kinda underestimating how dang big the ocean is. Sure, if you are constantly tracking a ship with a satellite you can keep and eye on it if you know where it is right now. But as soon as you get a cloudy day that ship is going to disappear from your satellite photos and you're going to have an impossible task of finding it again, especially if it doesn't want to be found. And cloudy days happen all the time out on the ocean. Plus even if you do see a ship it can be tough to tell if its the same ship. Most cargo ships are going to look similar when viewed from above.
Ships carry satellite tracking systems, as well as automatic identification, radar, navigation and communication systems, all of which can be detected/tracked. Modern ships can be detected and tracked in so many ways, if you have the right equipment, the chance of losing track of one is zero. you are probably overestimating how big the ocean is, since most all traffic on it goes along established shipping lanes, and not just through the middle of nowhere. Not to mention that ships tend to travel on a set course (which in 90% of cases is a straight line), so all you would need to do to find one back is to look further down its estimated course. Besides that, there is only a limited amount of ports, therefore a limited amount of potential destinations and therefore a limited amount of courses. When watching a ship's course, its final destination usually becomes clear very easily. But this discussion is getting sidetracked. Originally we were discussing carrier groups and other naval task forces. In addition to all the things that make cargo ships so easy to track (although they obviously turn off their automatic identification system during wartime), a naval task force is a big group of big ships that are evidently not cargo ships, so they really stand out, and their potential destinations are even more limited. And being targets of special interest from foreign powers, they are going to be under close surveillance all the time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Stealth is fine for an opening engagement or a hit and run attack where you are trying to covertly destroy a few key things but aren't going to have a prolonged engagement.

What the US could really use is a non-stealth fighter that is optimized for operating in a hot combat zone. Something that could be deployed in numbers, while fragile stealth aircraft operate in a support role where they can maximize their advantages. A mutually beneficial support structure. The Stealth aircraft aren't expected to dogfight where they would lose their advantages, while the conventional aircraft would be both a distraction and a hammer. So the enemy has to deal with stealth aircraft nipping their vulnerable spots while also being hit by a main force of obviously visible combat aircraft.

In many ways, having some visible aircraft also makes the stealth aircraft more stealthy. Because if you are monitoring a radar screen and see just a few tiny blips you might pay more attention to those tiny blips. But if you see several obvious blips, the tiny blips of the stealth aircraft will be more likely not to be noticed. So in many ways by only using stealth aircraft we are making it easier to detect those aircraft, because everybody knows what we use and that they should pay attention to those tiny blips.

Aye. Stealth aircraft are great for first strikes and surprise attacks. Which makes them a great fit for the US military, since 'surprise attack on poor middle eastern country' is the most common combat scenario that the US has had to deal with since the end of the Cold War, and this is likely to continue to be so for the near future, given how volatile the Middle East is and the relatively stable status of military parity between the US and its main rivals (which means that large-scale conventional conflicts remain unlikely for the time being). But yeah, in longer or repeat engagements stealth aircraft lose their advantages. In which case I suppose swarming enemy air defenses with easier, more obvious targets would be an effective way to keep the expensive stealth aircraft from being picked off.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 00:22:35


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Vulcan wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
You're kinda underestimating how dang big the ocean is. Sure, if you are constantly tracking a ship with a satellite you can keep and eye on it if you know where it is right now. But as soon as you get a cloudy day that ship is going to disappear from your satellite photos and you're going to have an impossible task of finding it again, especially if it doesn't want to be found. And cloudy days happen all the time out on the ocean.


Which is why the Soviets had radar satellites in orbit designed to track naval targets.... RORSATS, I think they were called.

It's not terribly hard to put a radar into orbit, after all. Powering it is a bit trickier, but doable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Which is why there needs to be a live-fire test on drone-rigged aircraft to find out whether the F-35 can survive the battlefield anti-air environment.

They'll never do it, of course; they'll do their live-fire test in combat and, as you say, lose a bunch of F-35s to learn the lesson.

Stealth has worked out alright for the F22, and the F22 has a larger cross section than the F35. :


Which has what to do with IR and optically aimed and guided antiair defenses?
\
Can't shoot at what you don't know is there. And how does a non-stealthy vehicle deal with those any better? F22>all


Battlefield anti-air defenses - the type fired at close support aircraft and helicopters - are mostly IR and optically guided. The Stinger and the Strela (and it's successors) are IR guided, after all, and most gunfire is optically aimed.

Yes, they'll see the F-35 when it's doing close air support. It's a big black spot in the sky, and (if you've seen the IR video kicking around the internet of the test of the F-35 hovering) you already know it's HIGHLY visible in IR. RADAR stealth does exactly diddly-squat against OPTICAL and IR GUIDANCE.

This misunderstands the whole point of long range precision weaponry. You shoot and scoot. Literally how our other high speed strike aircraft have been doing for a while now. Except this one you don't know it's coming on RADAR before hand. Literally all of this applies to *all* strike aircraft so I fail to see the issue? Also there's a reason we have countermeasures in planes to stop IR guided missiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Yeah I think Russia, and more importantly China, have a pretty good rough idea where out carrier groups are at all times. That's why we have layers of air and submarine defenses around them at all times, plus the capabilities of the carriers themselves.

It should also be pointed out that the F22 isn't shabby at dog-fighting or anything. Not quite as nimble as say, an Su-27 but more than nimble enough to fight them. Su-57 might be intersting but it's Russia, their big scary T14 turned out to be nothing but a fart in the wind. Doesn't matter how good a tank is if you can't build any of them.

I'm more worried about the J-20 than anything else. Despite it's shaky start, that boy is looking pretty good. Might finally kick the Pentagon into taking things a tad more seriously when it comes to dedicated air superiority fighters. Instead of shifting the funds that were to go to F22 production over to make a new bomber that nothing has appeared of (or maybe that's the pioint ).


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 03:52:55


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:


Yeah I think Russia, and more importantly China, have a pretty good rough idea where out carrier groups are at all times. That's why we have layers of air and submarine defenses around them at all times, plus the capabilities of the carriers themselves.

It should also be pointed out that the F22 isn't shabby at dog-fighting or anything. Not quite as nimble as say, an Su-27 but more than nimble enough to fight them. Su-57 might be intersting but it's Russia, their big scary T14 turned out to be nothing but a fart in the wind. Doesn't matter how good a tank is if you can't build any of them.

I'm more worried about the J-20 than anything else. Despite it's shaky start, that boy is looking pretty good. Might finally kick the Pentagon into taking things a tad more seriously when it comes to dedicated air superiority fighters. Instead of shifting the funds that were to go to F22 production over to make a new bomber that nothing has appeared of (or maybe that's the pioint ).

Indeed, and that is why you see why US Navy ships are often very defensive in nature. Most US destroyers and frigates only mount minimal actual weapons (just enough to retaliate against attackers) and instead are loaded up very heavily with countermeasures, radars, utility and defense systems. They really have been designed with protecting aircraft carriers as their primary purpose. If you compare them to Russian destroyers and frigate you will see that a single one of those often carries more firepower than an entire US fleet, but is much lighter on countermeasures, defense and general utility systems, usually only enough to provide protection to the ship itself. They have been designed as pure ship-killers and are meant to operate alone or in small groups rather than in bigger task forces. The US and Russian navies serve very different purposes to their country. I haven't studied the Chinese navy very thoroughly, but I expect it takes a lot after the Russian one, and not just because it relies heavily on Russian technology, but also because it faces the same rival as Russia does, so they will naturally build a navy to counter the US and vice versa.

Anyway, in a F-22 vs Su-27 fight my money is on the F-22 because of its stealth capabilities, unless the Su-27 can pinpoint the F-22 (perhaps with the aid of a powerful ground radar) in which the Su's nimbleness would give it the upper hand. The F-22 is king of the skies, at least until Russia and China finish their next-gen fighter programs (which funnily enough have hit the same kind of set-backs that plagued the US program). The biggest problem that the F-22 has however is the same one you bring up for the T-14 tank. It has a ridiculous price tag and is therefore only available in smaller numbers. Speaking of the T-14, it is much more than a fart in the wind. Sure, its price means it will never replace the T-72 and T-80 based platforms as Russia's primary main battle tank (which given the massive number of tanks Russia maintains would probably be beyond the financial capabilities of even the US budget), but concentrated in smaller areas or spearheading divisions of lighter tanks it will still be pretty fearsome. And since anything short of a war with NATO doesn't require entire divisions of tanks, the T-14's small numbers don't actually hurt that much. Besides, even beyond its combat utility, the technology created in the development of the T-14 will be useful in future projects (indeed the T-14 platform already serves as the basis for several new vehicles). And finally, there is the prestige of having built the best tank in the world. Russia has always been crazy for tanks, and showing the world that it definitely is the best when it comes to tanks helps to improve the image of the Russian military and its morale, which after the disastrous fall of the Soviet Union and the all-time lows that were hit in the resulting chaos during the 1990's is very valuable as well. The biggest issue that has plagued the Russian military after the 1990's never was a lack of training or equipment, but a lack of discipline and morale. And many of Russia's actions in the past decade have been aimed primarily at restoring that morale.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 03:55:33


Post by: KTG17


Hey remember that vid I shared earlier of the F-35 making that sick turn? Check out the F-22 doing it around the 8:50 mark:




Lol I can only imagine what that has to feel like in the cockpit.

For all the criticisms of the F-35, I am still doubtful we’ll lose many in combat. I don’t see anyone keeping up with us. It’s almost as if the US is literally accelerating in advances while everyone is slowing down. Most of that is probably because the sheer costs of it, and quite frankly the lack of need.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 04:32:13


Post by: Iron_Captain


 KTG17 wrote:
Hey remember that vid I shared earlier of the F-35 making that sick turn? Check out the F-22 doing it around the 8:50 mark:




Lol I can only imagine what that has to feel like in the cockpit.

For all the criticisms of the F-35, I am still doubtful we’ll lose many in combat. I don’t see anyone keeping up with us. It’s almost as if the US is literally accelerating in advances while everyone is slowing down. Most of that is probably because the sheer costs of it, and quite frankly the lack of need.

That is a nice turn.
But can it do Pugachev's Cobra?



Also, other countries are anything but slowing down. Quite the contrary actually. Russia has emerged from stagnation during the 90's and early 2000's to make pretty revolutionary advancements in missile technology in the past decade, it has been the first to design and build a next-gen tank and IFV, and it is working on a next-gen fighter jet that looks very impressive (although the high price tag will really limit its deployment), while China is advancing with leaps and bounds in all areas, although they had of course a long way to catch up. The US is definitely advancing rapidly as well, but only in some areas (mostly the Air Force). In other areas (especially the Army), the US military has really stagnated. A lot of US Army equipment still dates back all the way to the 1980's for example, and the similarly the US Navy has not seen a new class of destroyer since the 1980's (not counting the floating waste of money that was the Zumwalt). European countries meanwhile, are making some pretty nifty advances of their own as well, which, due to the close cooperation, feeds back to the US and vice versa (like how the F-35 was a multinational program). Overall, the US has led technological innovation since the fall of the Soviet Union and continues to do so today. But other countries are definitely accelerating as well.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 07:44:36


Post by: Peregrine


 KTG17 wrote:
For all the criticisms of the F-35, I am still doubtful we’ll lose many in combat.


Well yeah, of course we won't lose many in combat when the most plausible wars are bombing helpless countries with no meaningful air defense capability. I'm sure the next round of ISIS is not going to be shooting down many aircraft no matter what we bomb them with.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 13:23:40


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:

But can it do Pugachev's Cobra?


That is of course, a nice stunt maneuver but completely useless in any combat situation. The amount of time it takes to gain speed again would be long enough for an opponent to fly circles around it.

Also, other countries are anything but slowing down. Quite the contrary actually. Russia has emerged from stagnation during the 90's and early 2000's to make pretty revolutionary advancements in missile technology in the past decade, it has been the first to design and build a next-gen tank and IFV, and it is working on a next-gen fighter jet that looks very impressive (although the high price tag will really limit its deployment), while China is advancing with leaps and bounds in all areas, although they had of course a long way to catch up. The US is definitely advancing rapidly as well, but only in some areas (mostly the Air Force). In other areas (especially the Army), the US military has really stagnated. A lot of US Army equipment still dates back all the way to the 1980's for example, and the similarly the US Navy has not seen a new class of destroyer since the 1980's (not counting the floating waste of money that was the Zumwalt). European countries meanwhile, are making some pretty nifty advances of their own as well, which, due to the close cooperation, feeds back to the US and vice versa (like how the F-35 was a multinational program). Overall, the US has led technological innovation since the fall of the Soviet Union and continues to do so today. But other countries are definitely accelerating as well.


The difference between the US and the rest is that it has had continuous experience using its systems while most of the others have not, and those who have used some have not used them in any global capacity. I hate some of the decisions that have been made too, but remember nothing the US does is in a void. Its all connected. So having a great missile here, or a nice tank there is besides the point, it will be one system against another.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 14:11:13


Post by: Iron_Captain


 KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

But can it do Pugachev's Cobra?


That is of course, a nice stunt maneuver but completely useless in any combat situation. The amount of time it takes to gain speed again would be long enough for an opponent to fly circles around it.
It is a very niche dogfighting maneuver. It can be used when pursued at close range. The sudden loss of speed will cause the attacker to overshoot and place the defended in ideal position to attack. In a dogfight, speed is actually often a bad thing because you usually want to be slower than your opponent (so you can stay on their tail). That said, the F-22 is apparently the first-ever US-built craft capable of executing Pugachev's Cobra, as well as the Kulbit, another Russian dogfighting maneuver. Apparently the US Air Force has finally come to see the obvious utility of supermaneuverability in fighter jets, something which the Soviets had been implementing in their aircraft since the 80's:


Now that is some sick turns... That must be an awful lot of G-force.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 17:26:53


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Yeah the F22 is crazy maneuverable. And it only has 2d thrust vectoring as well. Just imagine the same thing with 3d thrust vectoring.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 19:10:31


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is a very niche dogfighting maneuver. It can be used when pursued at close range. The sudden loss of speed will cause the attacker to overshoot and place the defended in ideal position to attack. In a dogfight, speed is actually often a bad thing because you usually want to be slower than your opponent (so you can stay on their tail). .


No, no, no. Bleeding energy in a dogfight situation is the worst possible thing you can do, especially at the speeds modern combat is fought. Not to mention pulling the nose of your aircraft up, losing sight of you opponent, and taking a huge amount of time in a combat situation to get going again. No one is going to be pulling any Pugachev maneuvers in combat unless they are looking to get shot down. Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move. Slowing down in hopes an opponent shoots over you is one thing, going to a near stop is another.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 21:22:29


Post by: BaronIveagh


 KTG17 wrote:
. Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move.


And yet he just posted video of an F22 doing it...




I think the F-35 won't be a real threat to even the French if they don't get around the issue where it's either 'Stealth but too few missiles to matter' or 'Visible but enough firepower to be a legitimate threat'


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 22:18:10


Post by: Iron_Captain


 KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is a very niche dogfighting maneuver. It can be used when pursued at close range. The sudden loss of speed will cause the attacker to overshoot and place the defended in ideal position to attack. In a dogfight, speed is actually often a bad thing because you usually want to be slower than your opponent (so you can stay on their tail). .


No, no, no. Bleeding energy in a dogfight situation is the worst possible thing you can do, especially at the speeds modern combat is fought. Not to mention pulling the nose of your aircraft up, losing sight of you opponent, and taking a huge amount of time in a combat situation to get going again. No one is going to be pulling any Pugachev maneuvers in combat unless they are looking to get shot down. Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move. Slowing down in hopes an opponent shoots over you is one thing, going to a near stop is another.

There is plenty of situations where bleeding energy is exactly what you want to do in a dogfight. There is definitely such a thing as too much energy in a dogfight. I may not be a fighter pilot, but I have played enough simulators to know that
The high speeds at which modern dogfights are fought is exactly what makes moves like the Cobra and the Kulbit so effective. You suddenly bring your aircraft from high speed to a near stop, which means that your opponent is going to overshoot you 100% of the time, because he will be going so fast he won't be able to react until he has already overshot you (unless he has like crazy reflexes and can do a move like a high yo-yo or a kulbit in time to prevent overshooting you). And an enemy that has overshot you is a harmless enemy. Aircraft have their weapons mounted to the front, so in order to be able to target you again, the enemy aircraft will need to make a full turn, which will take a lot more time than it will take you to recover from your maneuver. And all that time is time that your enemy won't be able to do anything to you but you can freely open fire on him. Basically, if you are being attacked in a dogfight, a maneuver like the Cobra can reverse the roles of attacker and defender.

Also, every Russian 4th and 5th generation interceptor and fighter jet can do these moves. So that is planes like the Su-27, Su-35, MiG-29 etc. Apart from Russian jets, there is also a few Western jets who can do it. These include the British Harrier, and the Swedish Saab Draken, Viggen and Gripen. The US built several experimental supermaneuverable jets, but it abandoned the concept because it believed that most aerial combat was going to take place beyond visual range anyway and that dogfights were a thing of the past (the same belief led them to forego guns entirely on fighter jets for a while, until it turned out that the missiles of the day were not reliable enough). The F-22 seems to be evidence that the US Air Force top brass has finally abandoned this belief, it being the first US supermaneuverable production jet that excels at dogfighting both beyond and in visual range. And the more I look at the F-22, the more I am starting to love it. It may not be as graceful in appearance as Russian jets or the F-16, but it looks sleek and future-y and the technology in it is just so exciting.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 22:20:15


Post by: War Drone


You three are sooooo cute


The F-35 @ 2018/08/28 22:29:32


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Iron_Captain wrote:


There is plenty of situations where bleeding energy is exactly what you want to do in a dogfight. There is definitely such a thing as too much energy in a dogfight. I may not be a fighter pilot, but I have played enough simulators to know that
The high speeds at which modern dogfights are fought is exactly what makes moves like the Cobra and the Kulbit so effective. You suddenly bring your aircraft from high speed to a near stop, which means that your opponent is going to overshoot you 100% of the time, because he will be going so fast he won't be able to react until he has already overshot you (unless he has like crazy reflexes and can do a move like a high yo-yo or a kulbit in time to prevent overshooting you). And an enemy that has overshot you is a harmless enemy. Aircraft have their weapons mounted to the front, so in order to be able to target you again, the enemy aircraft will need to make a full turn, which will take a lot more time than it will take you to recover from your maneuver. And all that time is time that your enemy won't be able to do anything to you but you can freely open fire on him. Basically, if you are being attacked in a dogfight, a maneuver like the Cobra can reverse the roles of attacker and defender.

Also, every Russian 4th and 5th generation interceptor and fighter jet can do these moves. So that is planes like the Su-27, Su-35, MiG-29 etc. Apart from Russian jets, there is also a few Western jets who can do it. These include the British Harrier, and the Swedish Saab Draken, Viggen and Gripen. The US built several experimental supermaneuverable jets, but it abandoned the concept because it believed that most aerial combat was going to take place beyond visual range anyway and that dogfights were a thing of the past (the same belief led them to forego guns entirely on fighter jets for a while, until it turned out that the missiles of the day were not reliable enough). The F-22 seems to be evidence that the US Air Force top brass has finally abandoned this belief, it being the first US supermaneuverable production jet that excels at dogfighting both beyond and in visual range. And the more I look at the F-22, the more I am starting to love it. It may not be as graceful in appearance as Russian jets or the F-16, but the technology in it is just so exciting.


The tech behind the F22 is absolutely amazing. It's by far my favorite modern fighter. Packed with some of the the most advanced air to air missiles around. It's only issues right now is that it's electronics are getting a bit dated (which is to say they are no longer the very best around) and, imo, we don't have enough of them. But the funds that were to go to producing them got shunted over to the B-21 program.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 01:11:20


Post by: Vulcan


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Also there's a reason we have countermeasures in planes to stop IR guided missiles.


True. But the A-10 has a two significant countermeasures against IR guided missiles that the F-35 does not.

#1 is the engine placement relative to the tail surfaces. From below and behind (the best aspect for using an IR guided missile) the A-10's tail surfaces block LOS to the engines, preventing an IR-guided missile from locking onto them.

#2 is, of course, being heavily armored with two engines. An A-10 can land with one engine shot out... and several have not only done so, but gone out to fight again the next day after repairs. An F-35 that loses an engine is a very expensive brick, and even if it did miraculously make it back it would have to be sent back to Northrup for repairs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Aircraft have their weapons mounted to the front, so in order to be able to target you again, the enemy aircraft will need to make a full turn, which will take a lot more time than it will take you to recover from your maneuver. And all that time is time that your enemy won't be able to do anything to you but you can freely open fire on him. Basically, if you are being attacked in a dogfight, a maneuver like the Cobra can reverse the roles of attacker and defender.


Then why did the Soviet - and later the Russian - military spend so much time, effort, and treasure developing dogfighting missiles with off-bore sighting capabilities and the helmet-mounted sights to go with them? And why are the NATO powers working so hard to copy it?

If you bring your aircraft to a near-stop in midair in a dogfight and I've got just such an off-bore capability, the only reflex that matters is how fast I can launch such a missile at my newly-stationary target....


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 01:46:11


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Also there's a reason we have countermeasures in planes to stop IR guided missiles.


True. But the A-10 has a two significant countermeasures against IR guided missiles that the F-35 does not.

#1 is the engine placement relative to the tail surfaces. From below and behind (the best aspect for using an IR guided missile) the A-10's tail surfaces block LOS to the engines, preventing an IR-guided missile from locking onto them.

#2 is, of course, being heavily armored with two engines. An A-10 can land with one engine shot out... and several have not only done so, but gone out to fight again the next day after repairs. An F-35 that loses an engine is a very expensive brick, and even if it did miraculously make it back it would have to be sent back to Northrup for repairs.

It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.

Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 14:03:15


Post by: KTG17


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:
. Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move.


And yet he just posted video of an F22 doing it...


Sorry, meant that only modified Russian jets within the Russian air force could do it, not their production versions. At least, they couldn't. If they added that feature to everyone its a waste.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 14:56:01


Post by: Iron_Captain


 KTG17 wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:
. Especially since only specially modified russian jets sent to air shows can even do the move.


And yet he just posted video of an F22 doing it...


Sorry, meant that only modified Russian jets within the Russian air force could do it, not their production versions. At least, they couldn't. If they added that feature to everyone its a waste.

Russian production jets have been able to do it since the 80's. The MiG-29 was the first Russian production jet with supermaneuverability, and since then all Russian interceptors and fighter jets have had these capabilities (with the Su series of jets having improved a lot on the MiG). So not just those sent to airshows, but all aircraft in service. It is not a special modification, it is part of their design. It is not really a waste. The cobra is just one very basic move a supermaneuverable jet can do, beyond that there is a whole lot of moves and options that are open to a supermaneuverable jet that a normal jet is just not agile enough for, giving supermaneuverable jets massive advantages in dogfights.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 19:50:35


Post by: Vulcan


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.

Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.


You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.

They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 20:08:41


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.

Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.


You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.
No. but that only really helps when the target is below you. To either side they are exposed as any other.



They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.


And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.



The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 20:58:51


Post by: Peregrine


If altitude and smart bombs are all that matter why do you need a fighter? Load up a freighter 747 with laser guided bombs and be done with it. You only need a fighter platform if you're going to be taking it in low where AA defenses are a threat.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 21:07:21


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.

Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.


You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.
No. but that only really helps when the target is below you. To either side they are exposed as any other.



They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.


And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.


It will have to be low and slow if it wants to use it gun to strafe ground targets. Dropping bombs is all fine and good, but those are expensive and can only be used once. For close air support, sometimes a gun is what you need. And as far as I know, that is the reason why the F-35 isn't going to be replacing the A-10. The F-35 can do close air support, but it simply is not as versatile and capable in that role as the A-10 is. The A-10 is probably the best ground attack aircraft in the world.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 21:23:47


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.


There's a big difference between the point where an A-10 has lost a critical number of control surfaces and when the F-35 has...

You can lose something like 20% of an A-10 and it will stay airborn. If you lose the mass of a beer can worth of the F-35, it's 'adios'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.


So, strapping guns for strafing to all three versions of it indicates that it will stay high and fast? Methinks that Uncle Sam and you have wildly different ideas of the purposes this aircraft will be put to.

Edit: Nuts, Iron Cap ninja'd me.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 21:27:45


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It only blocks LOS from directly below, which isn't actually that usefully And the whole point is that they will be attacking from standoff range. They aren't so slow and have the sensor tech that they have to be directly on top of the target like the A-10. And the A-10s poor performance at altitude means it almost has to stay low, where the F35 can just hit people with laser guided bombs from 30K feet and be out of the area before the bomb even hits.

Also, you massive underestimate the avionics on the F-35. They are fething ridiculous.


You need to go take a closer look at the A-10, because your statement that the tail surfaces only block the view of the engine exhausts from directly below in not correct. It was carefully designed to shield the engines from an oblique angle, which is why the engines are IN FRONT OF the tail surfaces, not on top of them.
No. but that only really helps when the target is below you. To either side they are exposed as any other.



They said the same thing about the avionics and radar on the F-4, add that guns were a thing of the past now that missiles and radar were 'so good'. We know how that turned out. Sometimes the boffins get a little too enthusiastic with their toys and forget this is going to be used in BATTLE, and there's no good time in battle for an avionics failure if you have no backup.

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.


And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.


It will have to be low and slow if it wants to use it gun to strafe ground targets. Dropping bombs is all fine and good, but those are expensive and can only be used once. For close air support, sometimes a gun is what you need. And as far as I know, that is the reason why the F-35 isn't going to be replacing the A-10. The F-35 can do close air support, but it simply is not as versatile and capable in that role as the A-10 is. The A-10 is probably the best ground attack aircraft in the world.


You don't really need a gun for ground attack, the A-10 is sort of unique in that regard. The F-35 has a 25mm cannon for self defense. It's not using that to strafe ground targets.Most things will die when hit with a 1000 lb laser guided bomb. Or a JSOW if you are feeling cheeky.

What the A-10 does have is that it's cheap and useful against enemies with no applicable air defense (i.e. most of what we fight right now), which is why the A-10 will be around 'till at leas 2030 by the current plan (IIRC). Basically we'll be using them as a cheap alternative until the light attack aircraft program is able to replace it. So we have one group of air-frames dedicated to work against people with nothing more than AKs (A-10 and eventually the light attack aircraft) and one for when we are fighting someone who is an actual threat (F-35).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.


There's a big difference between the point where an A-10 has lost a critical number of control surfaces and when the F-35 has...

You can lose something like 20% of an A-10 and it will stay airborn. If you lose the mass of a beer can worth of the F-35, it's 'adios'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.


So, strapping guns for strafing to all three versions of it indicates that it will stay high and fast? Methinks that Uncle Sam and you have wildly different ideas of the purposes this aircraft will be put to.

Edit: Nuts, Iron Cap ninja'd me.

The 25mm cannon is for self defnse against fighters, not ground attack. 180 rounds of 25mm ain't enough to use for even one strafing run. It's literally 3 second of continuous fire at most.

Also any real proof on that top one or just the old "it's new so it's crap" syndrome? If it's that bad why is everyone and their mother trying to buy these instead of getting their hands on A-10s. Or I guess you've discovered the one problem that 10 other militaries haven't?


Edit: as far as tactics, here's some quote that took like two seconds to find.

But Wood offered what could turn out to be a preview of the test’s result — that both the F-35 and A-10 can do close air support. But they would do it differently , especially against a well-armed foe with radars and air-defense missiles.

The slow, non-stealthy A-10 flies very low — down to 100 feet — in order to avoid detection by enemy sensors. “A-10 guys don’t like radar threats,” Wood said. “We enjoy the tactics that they force, being down at 100 feet, but when you pop over that ridgeline and you’re exposed, you are just sitting there trundling towards the target thinking, ‘Don’t find me. Don’t find me. Don’t find me. Okay, good. Bombs are off. Let’s get the Hell out of here.’”

With its speed and stealth — especially compared to the A-10 — the F-35 can come in high. “I am able to locate and plot the threat relative to the target and can assess whether an attack is tactically feasible or not. If it is, I can take out the target without the threat knowing I’m there and egress without being targeted.”


"The F-35 will not do close air support mission the same way the A-10 does. It will do it very differently. The A-10 was designed to be low, and slow, and close to the targets it was engaging, relatively speaking," Frank Kendall III, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate panel Tuesday. "We will not use the F-35 in the same way as the A-10.."
"We're going to let the F-35 pilots take advantage of the systems on that aircraft ... and see how well the missions are carried out in terms of the ability to strike targets in a timely manner and accurately, and then report on that," Gilmore said.


It's quite clear that they aren't using th same tactics


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 22:05:00


Post by: Peregrine


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The F-35 has a 25mm cannon for self defense. It's not using that to strafe ground targets.Most things will die when hit with a 1000 lb laser guided bomb. Or a JSOW if you are feeling cheeky.


Firepower is not the only thing that matters. A gun is useful in some situations because it is less powerful, allowing air support to attack targets in close proximity to civilians or friendly units without just annihilating everything in the blast radius.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/29 22:11:34


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's not using that to strafe ground targets.


And yet this:

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/f-35-problems-late-iote-f-35a-gun-inaccurate-f-35b-tires-threat-data-cyber/

Huh, F-35 failing strafing tests still, gun-pod hooks to the right, built in version shoots long and to the right.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/30 21:26:49


Post by: Vulcan


 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.


Try again. Quite a few came back quite severely shot up... and were flying again the next day.

And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.


Until some part of that magnificent avionics package goes down, or the datalinks to the ground forces are jammed, or until someone realizes that with only two bombs the F-35 has to REALLY make their shots count...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
If altitude and smart bombs are all that matter why do you need a fighter? Load up a freighter 747 with laser guided bombs and be done with it. You only need a fighter platform if you're going to be taking it in low where AA defenses are a threat.


Or a B-52 for that matter. If your avionics allows you to hand-place bombs from 30,000 feet, well, any avionics you can cram into an F-35 can be placed into a BUFF with room to spare, and it has a HECK of a lot better payload and loiter time.

Use the F-35 to go hunt SAM sites, which it should excel in, and let other platforms better designed for the job take care of CAS.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/30 23:01:57


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Vulcan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.


Try again. Quite a few came back quite severely shot up... and were flying again the next day.
Not when their control surfaces fail though
As you can probably imagine, flying an airplane without controls is kinda... difficult.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/30 23:38:52


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Not when their control surfaces fail though
As you can probably imagine, flying an airplane without controls is kinda... difficult.


One way is to adjust thrust between the engines but an F-35 can't steer that way. (It's not perfect but it can work. It definitely beats falling out of the sky or being unable to turn at all.)

BTW: the reason, according to all asked, that the gun is still a thing for close support is that vaporizing your own troops in a danger close situation is a negative outcome.


The F-35 @ 2018/08/31 01:57:39


Post by: Iron_Captain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Not when their control surfaces fail though
As you can probably imagine, flying an airplane without controls is kinda... difficult.


One way is to adjust thrust between the engines but an F-35 can't steer that way. (It's not perfect but it can work. It definitely beats falling out of the sky or being unable to turn at all.)

BTW: the reason, according to all asked, that the gun is still a thing for close support is that vaporizing your own troops in a danger close situation is a negative outcome.

Not if you have reserves...
Killing your own troops is perfectly fine as long as their sacrifice allows you to take out a greater number of enemy troops as well. See? Playing all those strategy video games paid off after all. Now I only need to convince someone to put me in charge of an actual military.