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.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 13:44:23
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.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 14:21:47
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).
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.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
"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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 14:41:21
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 15:18:58
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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 15:14:44
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-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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 15:41:40
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.
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.
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.
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
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 16:43:19
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 16:42:04
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 19:29:38
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 19:59:31
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
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.
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?.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 22:00:32
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 22:18:59
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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 03:24:45
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 17:38:01
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
