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.
Kilkrazy wrote: How many countries are there outside NATO and other allies with aerospace technology capable of seriously challenging the USA?
China Russia
In the next 20 years Brazil India
and of course Iran already has a stealth plane that can go into space and can shoot flying monkeys!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 15:25:36
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Hmm...since the British fleet is supposed to be using these when the carriers eventually become operational, I wonder if we'll be seeing any navalised Typhoons in the not too distant future?
Ensis- As an engineer, if I am told to develop something that does x, and what I deliver is not only years behind schedule and millions or billions over budget, but also doesnt do x well but does y and/or z kinda okayish, then i have failed as an engineer, and what I have delivered is a failed product, regardless of the fact that it can be utilized for something else. You can argue against that true but you have to face the reality that you will still need to introduce something that does x well, which means more money and a longer wait. And then when you consider the fact that your competitor IS producing something which ostensibly does x (better) for cheaper and they did it faster than you did... and they also have something that can do y better and for cheaper... and something that can also do z better and for cheaper... (again, ostensibly), then you REALLY have a failure on your hands.
As for spec ops aircraft, MC-130s and AC-130s are most certainly armed (and therefore combat aircraft), likewise are the blackhawks and several other helicopters utilized for insertion/extraction operations.
Whitedragon- the f-4 is an example of an excellent fighter plane program, yes, but not a fighter plane, there is a huge and distinct difference. The F-4 is hands down my (second, after the A-10) favorite combat aircraft, but it was never much any good at its original role of air to air combat. Beyond the lack of a gun, it simply wasnt maneuverable enough to engage another fighter successfully except at lower altitude and high speed (the sweet spot being at roughly 17,000 feet).
Generalgrog - I only partly agree with you. Yes we need to keep our edge, but we dont need thousands of 5th gen fighters when our rivals have none and our 4.5 gen stuff is more than a match for all else, especially when our rivals have a history of being more bark than bite.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OEasy E- that movie is responsible for a lot of people thinking the same (and rather erroneously). It was really an underpowered overweight pig of a plane, kinda like a mini F-111 although not quite as bad since it could actually maneuver against some opponents at certain points of its flight envelope.
Mega_bassist- the F-111 was originally conceived and designed as a front line air to air fighter (weird right?), it at until late in its development that it was rebilled as a bomber to save face and to prevent cancellation (after E-M theory demonstrated that even obsolete Soviet aircraft could outperform it at every altitude and speed in its flight envelope by a large margin).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 19:27:52
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2013/02/15 20:32:24
Subject: Re:The F-35 is still a massive clusterfeth
Whitedragon- the f-4 is an example of an excellent fighter plane program, yes, but not a fighter plane, there is a huge and distinct difference. The F-4 is hands down my (second, after the A-10) favorite combat aircraft, but it was never much any good at its original role of air to air combat. Beyond the lack of a gun, it simply wasnt maneuverable enough to engage another fighter successfully except at lower altitude and high speed (the sweet spot being at roughly 17,000 feet).
Since you started the thread about the F-35 program and its failures, the nature of the program is exactly what we are discussing. Thus your comment about the difference between a fighter plane and fighter plane program is irrelevant.
Hell, there isn't even enough real life flying data to make a distinction about the F-35's actual capabilities in the air one way or another yet.
Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.
The second part is undeniably true in terms of actual flight performance, however one only need to look at things such as range and certain other limitations to determine that this aircraft is bad news. I mean, theoretically, it would be an excellent aerospace defense fighter (i.e. an alert plane used to protect the US from foreign aggression), but its very expensive and unnecessarily over-engineered to fill that role (and at present the geopolitical situation doesn't necessitate that a specific aircraft be dedicated to that role), likewise its way too expensive and sophisticated to meet the roles of any of the low-intensity conflicts that we have recently involved ourselves in (even the A-10 is considered by many to actually be TOO advanced for our present situation, which prompted the Air Force and the Navy to start a program to develop/acquire a propeller driven light attack platform that was significantly cheaper to purchase, as well as to operate and maintain).... and it lacks the range needed to actually be utilized in any sort of meaningful manner against any of the likely near powers we may face off against (Russia/China specifically, I wouldn't classify Iran or N. Korea as near powers just yet).
In reference to your first point, fair enough, although I intended the jab at the F-4 to be more in reference to how the aircraft was designed with a very forward-thinking mindset, based around sophisticated technology that wasn't necessarily fully understood at the time (in terms of practical applications on the contemporary battlefield) and as a result its performance in its primary intended role suffered greatly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 20:55:08
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
LordofHats wrote: The funny thing KK is that the F-35 started out as an attempt to reduce the ever increasing costs of fighter aircraft. Turns out that didn't go as planned.
Well that was to be largely due to the overall compatibility with the F-22, Supposedly carrying many of the same parts. The general problem with our military is that we have way too many different aircraft that perform similar roles. The idea was borrowed from the humvee type which could be kitted out in various designs, someone felt "hey why cant jets do that?" which had been done in extremely limited capacity in the past.
@Kilkrazy: I think Israel can challenge us pretty well, but thats because we gave them the fighters to do so and their pilots look for any reason to be in the air. Otherwise we pretty much pick fights with people who equivelently throw rocks and shoot bows at us. So our budget is not even necessary. How can they tell me that an army that currently has air superiority over all others needs to spend 400 billion to advance vs 5 billion to maintain?
My question would be why the hell we committed to a plane that doesn't even work yet? We should have waited until it could actually take off vertically and I dunno, actually fire a weapon before saying "awesome! I'll take 3k of them!"
My guess is the geniuses at the Pentagon wanted to get as deep into the projects as possible before it was revealed how big of a clusterfeth it really is in order to limit cancellations/cut backs...
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
LordofHats wrote: The funny thing KK is that the F-35 started out as an attempt to reduce the ever increasing costs of fighter aircraft. Turns out that didn't go as planned.
Well that was to be largely due to the overall compatibility with the F-22, Supposedly carrying many of the same parts. The general problem with our military is that we have way too many different aircraft that perform similar roles. The idea was borrowed from the humvee type which could be kitted out in various designs, someone felt "hey why cant jets do that?" which had been done in extremely limited capacity in the past.
@Kilkrazy: I think Israel can challenge us pretty well, but thats because we gave them the fighters to do so and their pilots look for any reason to be in the air. Otherwise we pretty much pick fights with people who equivelently throw rocks and shoot bows at us. ...
...
The Israelis are very good, but looking at the overall situation it would be unrealistic to suppose they could ever pose any kind of a threat to NATO or the USA.
Apart from their being an ally, Israel is a very small country and fairly dependent on US aid for a lot of its military technology.
The countries we ought to worry about are China, Russia and the places they might sell stuff to.
We should worry about Israel too, they've shown they have no issues spying on us, stealing what military secrets we don't give them, interfering in our domestic politics, nor do they have any issues selling American military technology to the Chinese.
Not to mention their idiotic (and unverified) Samson option...
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
It would be slightly cheaper to just cut off the "foreign aid" rather than building a 6th generation fight in case Israel might declare war on the USA.
Easy E wrote: I watched TOP GUN I know that the F-14 wasn't a failure.
Exactly! Tom Cruise DOMINATED those "MiG 28s" without any problem! /thread
On-topic, Wasn't the F-111 a mid-range bomber? How did it manage to shoot down a F-22?
AS NOTED. IT DIDN'T. IT didn't go up against an F-22. It went up against an F-16 (lawn dart). The 22 wasn't in service yet and this was over a decade ago (and probably still in the late 90s). Also, it might be a mid range bomber, but it tended to have a wider role here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/16 07:11:36
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
chaos0xomega wrote: The F-111 and F-14 did not 'have the world change around them', unless you count the Russians developing 'superior' swing wing aircraft which scared us shitless until we realized that their performance was inferior to already inferior aircraft. Regardless of whether or not the aircraft is successful in other roles, it is still a failure if it fails at its INTENDED role. We are, after all, discussing the acquisitions process, and from the acquisitions perspective they were all failures: Behind schedule, overbudget, and failed to do what they were designed and purchased to do. In regards to the F-111 killing an F-22, cite your source as I have never heard that and could not find that anywhere. To my knowledge, the first kill of an F-22 was done by a US Navy EA-18G Growler, which is what i think you are confusing it for (as the EA-18 achieved the kill by accident as well, after the training exercise had ended).
In regards to the F-15 and F-16, the fighters were originally envisioned by Boyd solely as air to air combatants yes, but the Air Force had different plans from the get-go, and in any case, both ARE good at their intended roles dogfighting roles (and far and away better than the F-4, F-111, and F-14).
The F-14 wasn't built as a dogfighter. It was built as a carrier-based interceptor. You seem to be using a strange, "If it can't turn with the Viper, it's a failure," metric that just doesn't apply. The F-14 was remarkably successful, and truth be told, it's a pound-for-pound better aircraft than the Rhino. It was absolutely a maintenance hog, which is why it was retired. That does not make it a failure.
As far as the F-35 goes, it was a dumb idea from the start, but there really is no alternative at this point. We're pretty much committed to throwing money into it until it works.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/16 10:14:34
RossDas wrote: Hmm...since the British fleet is supposed to be using these when the carriers eventually become operational, I wonder if we'll be seeing any navalised Typhoons in the not too distant future?
chaos0xomega wrote: The F-111 and F-14 did not 'have the world change around them', unless you count the Russians developing 'superior' swing wing aircraft which scared us shitless until we realized that their performance was inferior to already inferior aircraft. Regardless of whether or not the aircraft is successful in other roles, it is still a failure if it fails at its INTENDED role. We are, after all, discussing the acquisitions process, and from the acquisitions perspective they were all failures: Behind schedule, overbudget, and failed to do what they were designed and purchased to do. In regards to the F-111 killing an F-22, cite your source as I have never heard that and could not find that anywhere. To my knowledge, the first kill of an F-22 was done by a US Navy EA-18G Growler, which is what i think you are confusing it for (as the EA-18 achieved the kill by accident as well, after the training exercise had ended).
In regards to the F-15 and F-16, the fighters were originally envisioned by Boyd solely as air to air combatants yes, but the Air Force had different plans from the get-go, and in any case, both ARE good at their intended roles dogfighting roles (and far and away better than the F-4, F-111, and F-14).
The F-14 wasn't built as a dogfighter. It was built as a carrier-based interceptor. You seem to be using a strange, "If it can't turn with the Viper, it's a failure," metric that just doesn't apply. The F-14 was remarkably successful, and truth be told, it's a pound-for-pound better aircraft than the Rhino. It was absolutely a maintenance hog, which is why it was retired. That does not make it a failure.
As far as the F-35 goes, it was a dumb idea from the start, but there really is no alternative at this point. We're pretty much committed to throwing money into it until it works.
If it couldnt turn with a contemporary MiG or Sukhoi (or even an F-15) it was a failure. As an interceptor it would need to engage more than just bombers , it was too reliant on missiles to do its job, which might have been less of an issue if visual confirmation wasnt required by policy. Most of its kills were against poorly trained enemy pilots that didnt understand the concept of maneuvering to engage, AARs show a disproportionate number of missile kills occurred while enemy aircraft wefe in straight level flight when they were well within visual range. Also most kills were against MiG-23s, easily a worse performing design otherwise similar to the F-14 and F-111.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I'm assuming they still haven't worked out a way to stop the thing melting the decks of the aircraft carriers?
American amphibs/carriers yes, from what i understand they have to recoat the deck in a new material and install large heatsinks below it for its entire length.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/16 14:23:02
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2013/02/16 15:24:10
Subject: Re:The F-35 is still a massive clusterfeth
chaos0xomega wrote: Ensis- As an engineer, if I am told to develop something that does x, and what I deliver is not only years behind schedule and millions or billions over budget, but also doesnt do x well but does y and/or z kinda okayish, then i have failed as an engineer, and what I have delivered is a failed product, regardless of the fact that it can be utilized for something else. You can argue against that true but you have to face the reality that you will still need to introduce something that does x well, which means more money and a longer wait. And then when you consider the fact that your competitor IS producing something which ostensibly does x (better) for cheaper and they did it faster than you did... and they also have something that can do y better and for cheaper... and something that can also do z better and for cheaper... (again, ostensibly), then you REALLY have a failure on your hands.
.
It's not an engineer problem per se...it's more of a management issue. In the modern culture of industry, and current economic situation, everything is "do more with less". And that's great in theory, but if you don't do the proper upfront planning, trying to do more with less, leads to the kind of issues you see with F-35 and others.
I.E. (as an example)a project that should have 20 engineers being done by 5, should take5 years to develop being condensed into 3, and things get missed, or just "pushed" out the door....to be fixed later.
Scott Adams was an engineer before cartooning, and Dilbert is scary accurate at times.
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/16 15:24:26
Compel wrote: I'm assuming they still haven't worked out a way to stop the thing melting the decks of the aircraft carriers?
American amphibs/carriers yes, from what i understand they have to recoat the deck in a new material and install large heatsinks below it for its entire length.
It's a shame we aren't just continuing to update the Harrier. Fantastic plane that does everything it says on the tin, has an established support/training/etc sector, a pool of trained pilots and support crew and is reasonably cheap to run.
Hell, even just redesigning the existing Harrier platform from the ground up to bring it "up to date" would have brought in orders flooding in from all over the world. Instead we scrap it without a replacement and buy into the fricking insane F35, a plane we don't need at a cost we can't afford...
RossDas wrote: Hmm...since the British fleet is supposed to be using these when the carriers eventually become operational, I wonder if we'll be seeing any navalised Typhoons in the not too distant future?
Actually I believe that was more your carriers changing then the fighters changing. You lot decided to keep with heli carriers without catapults instead of true carriers, so you can either go with a STOVL design or start building a ski jump like the Russians.
Mates on the Wasp said that the F-35B performed marvelously at it's sea trials, better then our old harriers any way.
Compel wrote: I'm assuming they still haven't worked out a way to stop the thing melting the decks of the aircraft carriers?
American amphibs/carriers yes, from what i understand they have to recoat the deck in a new material and install large heatsinks below it for its entire length.
It's a shame we aren't just continuing to update the Harrier. Fantastic plane that does everything it says on the tin, has an established support/training/etc sector, a pool of trained pilots and support crew and is reasonably cheap to run.
Hell, even just redesigning the existing Harrier platform from the ground up to bring it "up to date" would have brought in orders flooding in from all over the world. Instead we scrap it without a replacement and buy into the fricking insane F35, a plane we don't need at a cost we can't afford...
We could keep updating the Harrier, and the Hornet, and pretty much every aircraft, but it doesn't make the fact go away that many of our airframes in service world wide are at or well beyond their service life, and there's only so much you can do before they start literally falling apart from age.
It's also worth noting that they did not need to use heat sinks to compensate for the F-35B's exhaust, the Navy did work up a new coating called "Termiion" and reports from the 35's sea trials note that the material performed extremely well with no signs of heat stress.
KELLY: ..."My background is as a F-18 Hornet pilot which is on all accounts is an easier airplane procedurally to fly than the Harrier. I have found this airplane to be just a really nice airplane to fly in a shipboard environment.
From taxiing around the deck to short take-offs that we’re doing and even the vertical landings that we’re doing, it’s very natural to fly. Prior to two weeks ago, I had never landed or taken off from this type of ship. I had done it on a big deck carrier, of course.
One thing that a lot of the pilots were concerned about was, as different from the carrier, when you take off you need to keep the airplane going straight, even while you’re taking off. On a carrier with a catapult track you want to do the same. It’s really easier than we thought it was going to be.
On the landing side, again never having landed an airplane in the hover or to a ship before, it’s all very two hand. The throttle is always pulling back, the stick is always up and down and it’s really very two hand that the cues you have from a pilot’s perspective made it very easy to get the airplane on board. The challenge is not, am I going to get the airplane on board. The challenge becomes, can I put my nose tire in a one foot by one foot square box on the deck. And that’s really a testament to the flight controls and the tools that the pilot has to put the airplane right where he wants it on the deck."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/16 19:39:00
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
chaos0xomega wrote: If it couldnt turn with a contemporary MiG or Sukhoi (or even an F-15) it was a failure. As an interceptor it would need to engage more than just bombers , it was too reliant on missiles to do its job, which might have been less of an issue if visual confirmation wasnt required by policy. Most of its kills were against poorly trained enemy pilots that didnt understand the concept of maneuvering to engage, AARs show a disproportionate number of missile kills occurred while enemy aircraft wefe in straight level flight when they were well within visual range. Also most kills were against MiG-23s, easily a worse performing design otherwise similar to the F-14 and F-111.
It was "reliant on missiles" because it was designed to lug the Phoenix around. That's pretty much it. It was there to shoot down Bears from a hundred miles away. It wasn't designed to be a dogfighter. It proved to be a decent one, but that's not what it was designed to do. We've not fought anybody remotely close to us in terms of air power, and the "too close for missiles, switching to guns" aspect of air combat is largely a bygone.
The bottom line is, we traded combat range, speed, and overall effectiveness in ditching the Tomcat to go with the Rhino; we'll be doing the same going from the Rhino to the Lightning. It's a bad trend.
chaos0xomega wrote: If it couldnt turn with a contemporary MiG or Sukhoi (or even an F-15) it was a failure. As an interceptor it would need to engage more than just bombers , it was too reliant on missiles to do its job, which might have been less of an issue if visual confirmation wasnt required by policy. Most of its kills were against poorly trained enemy pilots that didnt understand the concept of maneuvering to engage, AARs show a disproportionate number of missile kills occurred while enemy aircraft wefe in straight level flight when they were well within visual range. Also most kills were against MiG-23s, easily a worse performing design otherwise similar to the F-14 and F-111.
It was "reliant on missiles" because it was designed to lug the Phoenix around. That's pretty much it. It was there to shoot down Bears from a hundred miles away. It wasn't designed to be a dogfighter. It proved to be a decent one, but that's not what it was designed to do.
Thats not all it was designed to do, it was meant to be a general air superiority platform as well, which it wasn't very good at (it never really proved to be a decent dogfighter, again a disproportionate number of its air-to-air kills did not come from an actual turning battle (i.e. dogfight).
We've not fought anybody remotely close to us in terms of air power, and the "too close for missiles, switching to guns" aspect of air combat is largely a bygone.
We thought the same 50 years back, it proved to not be the case, and the (Air Force) pilots I've met think its hilarious that anyone would ever think that missiles can replace guns, I haven't had the same conversation with Naval Aviators, but I know the Marines would agree with that statement (probably for different reasons) and I know a few Aviator trainees that I'm sure would agree as well. Besides that, the qualities that make for an effective dogfighter (primarily maneuverability) also make for a more survivable aircraft in missile engagement (flares/chaff aren't used to avoid a missile, they are used to confuse the missile and buy the pilot more time in which to out-turn or outmaneuver it). I would imagine that the fact that dogfighting is usually the end result of most simulated air combat exercises to be fairly indicative of what real modern day air combat would be if we were to go to war with someone actually willing to come out and play.
The bottom line is, we traded combat range, speed, and overall effectiveness in ditching the Tomcat to go with the Rhino; we'll be doing the same going from the Rhino to the Lightning. It's a bad trend.
I don't know about that... well the second half is true, but the trade-off from the Tomcat to the Rhino? Well, I'll give you range and speed, but overall effectiveness? The Super Hornet is a more maneuverable plane, and I'd say a superior air-to-air platform (realistically the F-14 would never actually be able to utilize the Phoenix at BVR, barring a change in policy or ROE, which would neutralize its biggest advantage/claim to fame), and came "out of the box" with superior air-to-ground capability (the Tomcat needed a few upgrades post IOC to reach that capability as I understand it). If nothing else, the EA-18G is DEFINITELY a superior plane (by virtue of its e-war capabilities) to the F-14, in air-air, air-ground, and as a utility/support/escort craft.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Seaward wrote: and the "too close for missiles, switching to guns" aspect of air combat is largely a bygone.
While I agree with you that the F-14 was a pretty good aircraft... I'm going to pick on you for this statement. This statement was made before... by the designers of the F-4 Phantom. Just in time for Vietnam to prove them wrong.
China is developing the economic base to one day be capable of matching the US in military might, if they choose to go that path (it is probable, especially if jobs growth tails off and the national government needs some kind of make work project to maintain stability).
Russia has a GDP only slightly bigger than Australia, so that's kind of hilarious. I mean, yeah, we all know for historical reasons they continue to develop some good high end military gear, but come on. Look at their actual force project capabilities. Look at their ability to sustain any kind of force overseas. It cost the US about a trillion dollars to invade Iraq. That's more than half the GDP of Russia.
In the next 20 years
Brazil
India
And now it looks like you're just listing countries considered likely big economic improvers in the next generation, and paying no attention at all to their ability to translate that likely economic growth into military capacity.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.