Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jesus... that was intense...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Is this even remotely plausible? I mean, aside from the question of whether or not anyone is going to commit political suicide by starting yet another war when they can't even get support for a much more limited attack on Syria, what does anyone have to gain here? Last I heard China doesn't have a navy capable of transporting enough troops over to do anything, and I can't see them giving up their biggest trading partner over an irrelevant point of pride like Taiwan.

China has been spending a lot of money upgrading that Navy. We wouldn't start that fight, for sure, but should China pull the trigger, we will get Taiwans back. It's unlikely we'll ever see that conflic, but it's one of the more real threats out there, so we have to be prepared for it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, I'm not disputing that we need that ability. My question is how much of it do we really need? Is there a plausible enemy with air defenses that can't be handled by stealth bombers/over-the-horizon cruise missiles/F-22s with bombs/expendable drones/etc? How many F-35s do we need to accomplish this goal before we're back to Iraq/Afghanistan-style wars where a 737 with bomb racks would be a viable option (and hey, awesome endurance!).

Sure, any smartly-run AD network isn't going to be taken out day one by over-the-horizon strikes. Look at the Serbs, for example. Mobile sites that were never in the same place twice, switching on only for a few seconds at a time to get a glance, and then switching back off unless they had an immediate target. Managed to down an F-117 (which was outdated stealth tech at the time, admittedly) and some F-16s. Didn't stop us from doing what we were there to do, but they weren't really trying to stop everything moving from dropping bombs, just trying to shoot down enough to get us to figure it wasn't worth it and leave. And they preserved their AD net while doing it.

Is this even remotely plausible? I mean, aside from the question of whether or not anyone is going to commit political suicide by starting yet another war when they can't even get support for a much more limited attack on Syria, what does anyone have to gain here? Last I heard China doesn't have a navy capable of transporting enough troops over to do anything, and I can't see them giving up their biggest trading partner over an irrelevant point of pride like Taiwan.

Is it plausible within the next 30 years? Sure, probably. Likely? No.

If China decides it wants to obliterate Taiwan and massacre the populace, they can probably do it before the US can stop them. They wouldn't be able to hold it, but if everything there is smoking rubble, they probably wouldn't want to.

Of course, then the US has the fun of conducting a war against China. In which case that F-35 will probably come in handy.

At the risk of dragging the topic at hand OT. If China were to invade Taiwan then the US has got to use all of its gak hot wonder weapons to prevent a sizeable landing.

Once the Chinese get ashore, and dig in, all The F-35's in the world are not going to be worth a damn. But then, A-10s aren't really going to help either.

Maybe a GAU-8 armed Lightning II IS the answer.......

 Mr. Burning wrote:
At the risk of dragging the topic at hand OT. If China were to invade Taiwan then the US has got to use all of its gak hot wonder weapons to prevent a sizeable landing.

Once the Chinese get ashore, and dig in, all The F-35's in the world are not going to be worth a damn. But then, A-10s aren't really going to help either.

Maybe a GAU-8 armed Lightning II IS the answer.......

Give it a T-Rex Pilot, and I'll buy 2 of them.

As an engineer that supported aspects of both the F-22 and F-35, to include AESA capability. I totally agree with SEAWARD. There are aspects to the design that make the F-35 and F-22 ( in laymans terms) similar to the conquistadors with their armor and steel swords vs the native indians who were basically naked and armed with wooden clubs.

These two aircraft are hands down the best of the best in anyones airforce.

There can be something said to the rushed engineering, but that will happen with any new program. There will always be engineering challenges to overcome, and program managers that make unrealistic promises that put unfortunate pressure on engineers.

I think we need to continue to develop the capability, but I question the need for massive build ups.

GG

 Mr. Burning wrote:
At the risk of dragging the topic at hand OT. If China were to invade Taiwan then the US has got to use all of its gak hot wonder weapons to prevent a sizeable landing.

Once the Chinese get ashore, and dig in, all The F-35's in the world are not going to be worth a damn. But then, A-10s aren't really going to help either.

Maybe a GAU-8 armed Lightning II IS the answer.......

Logistically China cant invade Taiwan and won't be able to for some time, at least not conventionally. The Chinese lack the ability to project their force over any real distance due to (primarily but not exclusively) their almost total lack of air refueling capability. While they may have hundreds of aircraft, they can only sustain combat operations with a small number at any given time, at any real distance from their bases of operation. Any attempted landing is going to be without any real air support and consequently is a pretty bad idea. The Chinese government/military are well aware of this.

Might be why they designed the J-20 the way they did.

Aren't the their Flankers in range of Taiwan? Their main AA batteries, Sukhoi squadrons, SS missile battalions and some of their best navy units are spitting distance from Taiwan itself.

Their Navy can handle crossing the straights just fine. But I agree without a great blue water navy they would'nt stand a chance. hence their decades old programm to bring their assets up to scratch.

@SEAWARD. Isn't the J-20 supposed to be more of a Strike Bomber. I have read reports that it configuration would put in that role along with that of a pure non maneuvering interceptor such as the Mig 25?

Their are lots of rumors that planned Russian and Chinese developments in stealth aircraft will be to create types to take out force multipliers such as AWACS ,Tankers and other EW assets. I know a lot of speculation has gone on about the KH-55 missile being used against AWACs.

For the record for whoever was talking trash on the Osprey, it's speed, range and manuverability are fantastic upgrades in comparison to the Sea Knight helicopter it's replacing and it absolutely has delivered troops into combat. It's got one less machinegun then your average transport chopper, but we're looking at all sorts of fun modifications for that. (stealing the Apache's "look and shoot" nose gun for an example of one thing I've heard is being kicked around) it is not an expensive helicopter, it is an expensive plane with some very unique landing abilities. I got buddies who fly on those birds every day. It's a hell of a platform and a program I'm very disappointed I wasn't able to accept a position on.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Aren't the their Flankers in range of Taiwan? Their main AA batteries, Sukhoi squadrons, SS missile battalions and some of their best navy units are spitting distance from Taiwan itself.

Their Navy can handle crossing the straights just fine. But I agree without a great blue water navy they would'nt stand a chance. hence their decades old programm to bring their assets up to scratch.

@SEAWARD. Isn't the J-20 supposed to be more of a Strike Bomber. I have read reports that it configuration would put in that role along with that of a pure non maneuvering interceptor such as the Mig 25?

Their are lots of rumors that planned Russian and Chinese developments in stealth aircraft will be to create types to take out force multipliers such as AWACS ,Tankers and other EW assets. I know a lot of speculation has gone on about the KH-55 missile being used against AWACs.

It may be a long (ish) range fighter/bomber, its designation by the Chinese is as an air superiority fighter but there is a LOT of speculation on that. There is a lot of stuff in range of Taiwan, that doesn't mean you can sustain extended combat ops without the proper logistics.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
@SEAWARD. Isn't the J-20 supposed to be more of a Strike Bomber. I have read reports that it configuration would put in that role along with that of a pure non maneuvering interceptor such as the Mig 25?

From what little I know of it, it looks an awful lot like some sort of long-range VLO strike aircraft, yeah. It would not surprise me at all if the use they had in mind for it was as a maritime striker. It's very difficult to stop a carrier group, but using long-range stealth aircraft to hit us might be a way.

Hey, weather's important.

Oh its extremely important seeing as the f35 "Lightning" Can't fly within 25 miles of a storm! Oddly enough a p38 lighting can fly through a storm, but a f35 can not! This is not new technology, how did this get missed? Jets flying though storms is not something new!

No you can't, because fatigue is a very real problem, especially for a plane that gets abused by carrier operation. Military aircraft are built with a limited number of flight hours available before they're just a pile of very expensive scrap metal, and maintenance costs get really bad when you near the end of that life. At some point you have to buy new fighters anyway, so your choice is between buying new F-18s or buying new F-35s.

Right, im not saying use the same f-18s and f16s. Just build new ones and upgrade them. Tons cheaper than developing the f35. Hey it takes how long to change the engine on a f35?

The primary characteristic of a naval airplane is that it can get on and off carriers safely.

Is it? Well the f35 can't do that at all yet, and when it does eventually figure it out, it may be a widowmaker because the airframe just isn't cooperating with how tailhooks classically work. See usually a Naval aircraft is built with landing on a deck in mind, not as an afterthought. You can't just add a tailhook and really strong undercarriage, these kind of have to be designed into the airframe.

An plane that can perform effectively in multiple roles is extremely useful.

Yes and they already have those in spades, and they work pretty well.

There can be something said to the rushed engineering, but that will happen with any new program. There will always be engineering challenges to overcome, and program managers that make unrealistic promises that put unfortunate pressure on engineers.

Rushed engineering is one thing. Fixing obvious flaws before production starts is another. Setting realistic goals and expectations is another. When the government puts out a request for the miricle plane, it really is up to engineers to go, "Seriously? That's not possible" instead of "Give me all your money and we will throw something together"

I think we need to continue to develop the capability

Is this not what X series aircraft are for? You test before implementation!

For the record for whoever was talking trash on the Osprey, Snip

Yes it has its uses. But are those few times where they are really needed worth $35.6 Billion?

it absolutely has delivered troops into combat

No it hasn't, not in a hot Vietnam or Black hawk down situation. Yes it has been fired upon and people have taken pot shots at it, but it has not seen serious action....because it won't and shouldn't. Its basically defenseless. Yes it has a machine gun.....up it's ASS! GOD please don't arm or armor it. The cross section of an Osprey is f#&*$ gigantic, it is a giant target compared to even a blackhawk or a Shithook, not to mention it has giant hotspots that just scream for infra missles, yet because it is so F'ing Huge RPG's will do just as well. Did I mention its big, 32 troops big, plus crew. If anybody even thinks about putting one of those in serious harms way, they need to be sent home.

Thank God nobody has been lucky enough to hit one of those fully loaded. At least in a normal helicopter you can auto rotate and prey for a landing.

Again, the Osprey functions fine and does what was asked of it. I just think the money could have been spent better or not at all. It's mission is not crucial, yeah it may be convenient every now and then, but should we be spending 35 billion on convenience, when we can effectively complete the mission without it?

Some procurement guy comes up with some radical, complex idea and throws a bunch of tax payer money at it, of course contractors are going to take the money and deliver the product, then someone will find a way to shoehorn it in.

I would rather have seen Comanches get produced than Ospreys. 35 billion for taxis? Oh my head hurts. I swear these projects are passed by the same people "wouldn't it be neat" guys that directed ID4, yes cool factor is cool...but really?

I can't comment on most of that, but the weather aspect is definitely my field of expertise.

For not flying withing 25 miles of a storm, that's standard for all aircraft. Severe to extreme turbulence and icing are inherent risks with convective weather (thunder storms), plus the risk of being struck by lightning and hail.

We do not fly through convective weather. We fly around it. Doesn't matter if you are an F-22 or a C-130 (unless it's an HC-130, but that's a whole different beast).

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh its extremely important seeing as the f35 "Lightning" Can't fly within 25 miles of a storm! Oddly enough a p38 lighting can fly through a storm, but a f35 can not! This is not new technology, how did this get missed? Jets flying though storms is not something new!

It's also a pretty easy fix. The OBIGGS just needs to be tuned.

I'm glad to know Andrew that you're such an expert on how we use the Osprey and how useful they are. Enjoy your blogging.

P.S. it's not that much bigger then the CH-46 and it's no where near as large as a CH-53E Super Stallion both of which have, ONE MACHINE GUN



Still a valuable combat aircraft, that's in desperate need of replacement. There were fourth generation Sea Knight pilots man. That's an old freaking airframe, and in it's replacement we picked up a bunch of new, very useful capacities, including more legs, and more lift, getting troops, supplies and other vital equipment where planes can't go, and helos can't reach. That's awesome.

Continue to rave, especially when you bring up the down right useless comanche. I mean come on, that damn thing couldn't even lift itself with a combat load of equipment.

The bottom line is not every helo's a gunship, and we (being the Marine Corps) have a VERY vital use for so called "Taxis" to carry out our littoral control and strike mission. We need to put boots places faster, quicker and then with more support then the other guys. We live and DIE on our ship to shore "taxis". If the MV-22 can get in with the most reinforcements or supplies fastest and head back to the LHD or LPD with casulaties, again much faster then the other helo options, then you bet it was a good investment of 36 billion.

Do you not see how much bigger of a target that is? The Osprey is 45 ft wide, not counting the rotors blades which are truly big ass.. The Sea Stallion by comparison is 15 feet wide in most parts, 28 feet if you count the stubby wings. The surface area of a Osprey has to be at least twice possibly 3 times what a sea stallion is. That is one hell of an easy big target.

I know which one I would rather be in for a hostile insertion. Hell I'd rather be in a Pave low 53 than a Osprey. If I'm being shot at, put me in a Huey or a little bird, I want to be tiny and possibly survive if the craft gets hit.

Of course taxis are important. You want to know what vehicle was absolutely game changing in WW2? Studebaker trucks sent to Russia! I get it, but we have already have taxis.

Oh and I wssn't saying we need Comanches. The idea of armys of helicopters blowing up Russian tanks is dead. But a light, fast, stealthy, quiet, armed, recon helicopter would be pretty useful. However we can accomplish the same mission basically using what we have, just like the role of battle taxis or multi role fighters.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2011/08/f-35-maneuverability-woes.html Here is a good article discussing the f-35s maneuverability and what that could mean.

I finally got a chance to read through this, and there was a little nugget at the end of the blog whose importance can't be overstated.

In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 2009, Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed—a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s entire avionics system—engaged a mixed force of F-22s and Boeing F-15s and was able to locate and jam F-22 radars, according to researchers. - Aviation Week, 2011

I hadn't read that before. I've heard glowing reviews of the AN/APG-81 from insiders, but if that's truly the case, you could give me a jet with a top speed of 300 knots and the maneuverability of a hippo on roller skates and I'd take it, as long as it had that avionics package. The fact that the F-35's actually got better moves than a Viper at subsonic speed - where the fight happens, anyway - is just icing on the cake.

Which begs the point. What do we need the new airframe for? What appears to make the f35 so nasty is the package. Could that not be put in anything already existing?

We know very little about actual maneuverability of the f-35, what we do know is that is can't fly in inclement weather, it can't land on a carrier, and it melts its own skin off when it flies. Those are some pretty awful issues to have after how many years in development? Were they building this thing from scratch with absolutely no research?

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Which begs the point. What do we need the new airframe for? What appears to make the f35 so nasty is the package. Could that not be put in anything already existing?

Nope.

We know very little about actual maneuverability of the f-35, what we do know is that is can't fly in inclement weather, it can't land on a carrier, and it melts its own skin off when it flies. Those are some pretty awful issues to have after how many years in development? Were they building this thing from scratch with absolutely no research?

Well, we know a lot about its maneuverability. It can fly in inclement weather as soon as the OBIGGS system is fixed - a much smaller task than, for example, fixing the F-14's hydraulic system, or designing new engines to eliminate its nasty tendency to lose an engine to a compressor stall, something that wasn't truly solved until the D. The F-35B lands on STOVL carriers just fine, and is reportedly spookily good at it. The C needs a redesigned tailhook. Not the first plane with that issue, probably not the last.

Tons of research went into the F-35.

Maybe this is part of the future of aviation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24231077

Boeing has revealed that it has retrofitted retired fighter jets to turn them into drones.

It said that one of the Lockheed Martin F-16 made a first flight with an empty cockpit last week.

Two US Air Force pilots controlled the plane from the ground as it flew from a Florida base to the Gulf of Mexico.

Boeing suggested that the innovation could ultimately be used to help train pilots, providing an adversary they could practise firing on.

The jet - which had previously sat mothballed at an Arizona site for 15 years - flew at an altitude of 40,000ft (12.2km) and a speed of Mach 1.47 (1,119mph/1,800km/h).

It carried out a series of manoeuvres including a barrel roll and a "split S" - a move in which the aircraft turns upside down before making a half loop so that it flies the right-way-up in the opposite direction. This can be used in combat to evade missile lock-ons.

Boeing said the unmanned F16 was followed by two chase planes to ensure it stayed in sight, and also contained equipment that would have allowed it to self-destruct if necessary.

The firm added that the flight attained 7Gs of acceleration but was capable of carrying out manoeuvres at 9Gs - something that might cause physical problems for a pilot.

"It flew great, everything worked great, [it] made a beautiful landing - probably one of the best landings I've ever seen," said Paul Cejas, the project's chief engineer.

Lt Col Ryan Inman, Commander of the US Air Force's 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron, also had praise for how the test had gone.

QF-16 jet
Boeing said that this was the first time an F-16 jet had been flown without a pilot
"It was a little different to see it without anyone in it, but it was a great flight all the way around," he said.

Boeing said that it had a total of six modified F-16s, which have been renamed QF-16s, and that the US military now planned to use some of them in live fire tests.

However, a spokesman for the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots warned of the temptation to use them in warfare.

"I'm very concerned these could be used to target people on the ground," said Prof Noel Sharkey.

"I'm particularly worried about the high speed at which they can travel because they might not be able to distinguish their targets very clearly.

"There is every reason to believe that these so-called 'targets' could become a test bed for drone warfare, moving us closer and closer to automated killing."

A video of the test is available here - http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/09/bds_qf16_09_23_13.page

Yup. We've been turning mothballed planes into drones for decades. We've easily shot down more of our own F-4s than the North Vietnamese.

We have been remote contolling target f-4s for decades. You used to see them all the time in movies and TV. I remember seeing one blow up and thinking "Hey he wasn't flying an f4 a second ago".

Nope.

Could you elaborate?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Nope.

Could you elaborate?

I'm guessing two factors:

1) The older planes weren't designed for it. Unlike, say, a truck, a plane is extremely sensitive to weight and balance issues. The safe center of gravity range can be measured in inches, and if you leave that safe range the plane becomes dangerously unstable (if you can even fly it at all). You can't just bolt on new stuff anywhere you want, and it may be the case that the older planes simply don't have a good spot to put the new hardware. Or just that redesigning them to accommodate the new stuff would cost so much time and money that it gets too close to the price of just buying F-35s.

2) The fundamental principle of a modern fighter is "see them before they see you". Even if you can get the electronics into an older airframe you've still got the high radar cross section, which means the enemy is going to spot you first.

I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe. We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.

I like stealth for air superiority fighters, but not so much strike craft. There are plenty of ways to jam and defeat Air defenses without it. Strike Aircraft should always have escorts for defense against air to air. Yes we have lost a few craft to air defenses....but I don't know that stealth is really the answer for that anyway.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe.

Again, weight and balance.

We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.

And how much did we pay for that redesign, while still getting a less capable aircraft?

There are plenty of ways to jam and defeat Air defenses without it.

But all of them work even better when the plane is a difficult target to begin with. The point isn't that you fly your stealth strike fighter right through the middle of the SAM site's ideal engagement zone on the way to your real target, you use stealth to shrink that zone, open gaps in the defenses, and blow up the SAMs while staying safe from return fire.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe. We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.

Super Hornet was a brand new airframe, designed to incorporate the advances made.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I can't see why there would not be a way to put that technology in an upgraded or slightly modified airframe. We basically redesigned the F-18 awhile ago...its a much different aircraft, it could have been done again at a large savings.

Super Hornet was a brand new airframe, designed to incorporate the advances made.

Well it was a new airframe largely based on the lessons learned from the original. Its R&D costs were severely cut based on that fact. I see no reason why it can't be modified again.

And how much did we pay for that redesign, while still getting a less capable aircraft?

Less capable in what respects? Sure it doesn't have jump capabilities, but is that worth $1.5 trillion. The Super hornet is a very capable airplane. It's not stealth, but its pretty close, probably close enough for the couple of days we would be going into anyone's air defense.

We are still planning our battles based on going up against super capable advisories. While we need to have capabilities, we don't need them to this extent and we don't need expedited production of a fleet of aircraft that haven't even been tested yet. Exploring capabilities is one thing, shoehorning a project because we can and we had the spare money....at the time....is irresponsible.

We could have just made the B version of the raptor for far less.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't expect the A-10 to go anywhere. The Army has to much love for it, and they'll fight any talks of cutting it and replacing it with an untried system, kicking and screaming.

I'm not a plane guy, or a military guy, but I'd be kind of bummed if the A-10 was junked. It's just freaking cool.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I like stealth for air superiority fighters, but not so much strike craft. There are plenty of ways to jam and defeat Air defenses without it. Strike Aircraft should always have escorts for defense against air to air. Yes we have lost a few craft to air defenses....but I don't know that stealth is really the answer for that anyway.

I do. Stealth's very much part of the answer. EODAS is another. Considering that, since the end of World War II, we've lost far more aircraft to ground-based anti-air than we have had shot down in aerial combat, it makes a lot of sense to focus on defeating the stuff that actually manages to kill us now and then.

But if you're mandating VLO only for air superiority fighters, we're still in luck. Load the F-35 up with eight AMRAAMs on the dual internal racks they're designing for it, and you have arguably the best air superiority fighter in the world.