F-35 News

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.

**Andrew1975**

No, VLO is great, the f18 is considered VLO, its not true stealth but its not bad. It doesn't need special coatings that wear off or need repaired every mission. Strike craft are going to take hits, thats all there is too it. The only way to stop that is to take out the air defenses, which is not an easy task, you have to know where they are first and they can be mobile. We destroyed the Iraqi Air defense which was pretty formidable while taking minimal losses. Air defense technology has gotten better, but so has our ability to avoid and destroy it.

Ground attack strike fighters have historically been cheap, tough airframes with lots of redundant systems. Multirole craft like the f18 and f16, yeah not so much. However anything with a stealth coating is going to be a hanger queen once you start using it as a general strike bomber.

**Seaward**

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, VLO is great, the f18 is considered VLO, its not true stealth but its not bad. It doesn't need special coatings that wear off or need repaired every mission. Strike craft are going to take hits, thats all there is too it. The only way to stop that is to take out the air defenses, which is not an easy task, you have to know where they are first and they can be mobile. We destroyed the Iraqi Air defense which was pretty formidable while taking minimal losses. Air defense technology has gotten better, but so has our ability to avoid and destroy it.

The Super Hornet has RCS-reducing features, but it is not VLO. The F-35 will offer massive RCS improvements, considerable air-to-air improvements, better survivability against SAMs, better range...I mean, I could keep going. It's a long list.

I like the Rhino, but the Lightning's a better strike fighter. It's a better strike aircraft. It's a better fighter. That's why the Navy opted for it rather than pursuing Block III Rhinos.

**Jehan-reznor**

On paper the F-35 looks great, but in practice?
This is a beancounter plane not designed by people in the field, It has the same mark as the Bradly Fighting vehicle all over it except, the issues are ignored or swept under the rug.
I wonder what those who drew up the F-35 will say when the F35 will get shot down by "inferior" 5th generation planes made by other countries

**Seaward**

Jehan-reznor wrote:
On paper the F-35 looks great, but in practice?
This is a beancounter plane not designed by people in the field, It has the same mark as the Bradly Fighting vehicle all over it except, the issues are ignored or swept under the rug.
I wonder what those who drew up the F-35 will say when the F35 will get shot down by "inferior" 5th generation planes made by other countries

The only other 5th gens on the table are the PAK FA and the J-20. The PAK FA's huge, and is going to have a considerably inferior avionics suite. The J-20 is even bigger, and has some compromises in its very low observability strategy and does not appear to be designed as anything remotely resembling an air superiority fighter, anyway. Both result in aircraft that will be seen long before they can see the F-35, and will consequently be out-fought.

Pilots love the F-35. Civilians hate it. On and on we go.

**Mr. Burning**

More good news for the F-35?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24236981

South Korea restarts fighter jet tender
A F-15 plane
Boeing's bid to supply F-15 jets was being seen as a favourite to win the contract
Continue reading the main story
Aerospace and Defence

Chinese airlines order Airbus A320s
Air France plans to cut 2,800 jobs
Daily Mail settles Ryanair libel
£40m contract for helicopter bases
South Korea has decided to restart the tender process for a multi billion-dollar fighter jet contract.

The move is a blow for Boeing, seen as a favourite to win the initial bidding after rival bids by Lockheed and EADS exceeded Seoul's budget of 8.3 trillion won ($7.7bn; £4.5bn).

Boeing had bid to supply F-15 jets, but authorities said they were looking to acquire more advanced planes.

The new tender process is likely to take one year to complete.

"Our air force thinks that we need combat capabilities in response to the latest trend of aerospace technology development centered around the fifth generation fighter jets and to provocations from North Korea," defence ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok said.

According to report in various media, 15 former air force chiefs had signed a petition earlier this month urging the government not to opt for the Boeing bid.

Boeing said in statement that it was disappointed with the move.

"We await the details from the Defense Acquisition Program Administration on its basis for the delay while evaluating our next options," it added.

Advantage Lockheed?
Lockheed Martin had bid to supply its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while EADS had pitched the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Analysts said that the decision to restart the tender process had made Lockheed's F-35 plane the front runner in the race to win the contract.

"I'm very surprised - everyone, from Boeing down, was looking forward to a selection today," James Hardy, editor of IHS Jane's Defence Weekly was quoted as saying by the Financial Times.

"The fact they've decided to reopen it is a big statement: basically, it means the F-35 is the only aircraft they want."

The F-35 jet, despite being plagued by schedule delays and cost overruns, is widely regarded as a much more advanced and capable aircraft than its predecessors.

Japan, Italy and Britain are among the countries that have placed orders for F-35 jets.

"We will continue to support the US government in its offer of the F-35A to Korea," Lockheed Martin's South Korean representative said after the decision.

Despite being a fan of the Typhoon their is really only one winner here.

**Ketara**

Andrew1975 wrote:

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

In other news, the RAF wheel out their new upgraded 5th generation fighter, Because as everyone knows, if all you need to make a better fighter is to bolt on a modern electronics suite to an old design......

Spoiler:

**Nevelon**

Ketara wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

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

In other news, the RAF wheel out their new upgraded 5th generation fighter, Because as everyone knows, if all you need to make a better fighter is to bolt on a modern electronics suite to an old design......

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

**Mr. Burning**

Silly Ketara - You know that any external ordnance will just increase its RCS!

**Ketara**

Pssh. Everyone knows that a good wood varnish is the best way of making an aircraft undetectable!

Funnily enough, the fact that the Sopwith Camel is made almost totally out of wood and wires, combined with the fact it flies really slowly and low to the ground, means that it would be exceedingly difficult for any kind of modern aircraft to hit it.

**Ratbarf**

They wouldn't have to, just flying semi close to the thing would see the jet's backwash take out the camel.

**Ouze**

Ketara wrote:
Funnily enough, the fact that the Sopwith Camel is made almost totally out of wood and wires, combined with the fact it flies really slowly and low to the ground, means that it would be exceedingly difficult for any kind of modern aircraft to hit it.

SIMPSONS DID IT!

**Andrew1975**

That's pretty funny Ketra. Maybe you should look up the difference between a f-18 hornet and an f-18 Superhornet. Its hardly the same aircraft. Pretty much completely redesigned specifically to fit better package upgrades, however because the shape is proven and basically the same it was possible to save quite a bit of r&d money in the process, while not having stupid issues like the f35 is having. Its one thing when you have teething issues with new technology, its another when BASIC stuff which has been done for 50 years is not working.

Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.

**Ketara**

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.

And that's precisely why we should go back to the Sopwith Camel. The things only cost ten grand or so build (at today's prices), which could probably be dropped considerably when produced en masse. Cheap, proven, and perfect for dropping bombs on mud huts!

**Mr. Burning**

We could go back to the good old days and have co pilots lofting bombs out of heir cockpits. Small diameter bombs should be okay for the purpose.

Slow, low flying, bombs, It's perfect for close support missions!

But, To carry more ordnance you would need to beef the structure up, doing that would require a new power plant, maybe re designed lifting surfaces. Add some armour, self sealing fuel tanks, that would up weight again. Additional kit would certainly alter the aerodynamics a fair bit, so a redesign may be in order to stuff everything you want in.....

I could do with some extra help to tackle any bad guys in planes who might bother me. That nice Mr Mitchell has a rather spiffing idea.

**Ketara**

Mr. Burning wrote:

But, To carry more ordnance you would need to beef the structure up, doing that would require a new power plant, maybe re designed lifting surfaces. Add some armour, self sealing fuel tanks, that would up weight again. Additional kit would certainly alter the aerodynamics a fair bit, so a redesign may be in order to stuff everything you want in.....

Don't be absurd! All you need is more rivets and and a good welder! After all, everyone knows that you can just bolt bits on for a fighter upgrade.

**Kilkrazy**

Ketara wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.

And that's precisely why we should go back to the Sopwith Camel. The things only cost ten grand or so build (at today's prices), which could probably be dropped considerably when produced en masse. Cheap, proven, and perfect for dropping bombs on mud huts!

The Bristol Fighter would be a better choice. More payload.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Just dig some P-47s out of the mothballs.

**Tibbsy**

I really want the RAF to go back to the Spitfire

**Andrew1975**

Ketara wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

Yes its great to have the super duper fancy toys, but they come with a super duper price tag, which for the most part we don't need when we are dropping bombs on mud huts.

And that's precisely why we should go back to the Sopwith Camel. The things only cost ten grand or so build (at today's prices), which could probably be dropped considerably when produced en masse. Cheap, proven, and perfect for dropping bombs on mud huts!

Yeah, I just don't see those being very accurate. Well unless you got snoopy to fly them.

**Kovnik Obama**

Spartak wrote:

Logistically China cant invade Taiwan and won't be able to for some time, at least not conventionally. The Chinese lack the ability to project their force over any real distance due to (primarily but not exclusively) their almost total lack of air refueling capability.

Hum. Kinmen, the first Taiwanese outpost, is in swimming distance from China's shore. You saying China can't project force that far?

**djones520**

The Chinese has been expanding their aerial refueling capabilities. While it's no where near as extensive is ours, they do have capabilities. They currently have about 15 home grown tankers, and they just bought 8 Russian tankers.

Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, given that Taiwan is well within the combat radius of the J-10 and SU-30, it's not as big of a deal that they have Aerial Refueling for that particular mission. Where it becomes an issue is in any possible future conflicts in the S. China Sea, with Japan per say.

**Ketara**

djones520 wrote:

Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.

The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.

Considering China's size and the vast amount of pure labour they can call on, I would not wish to attempt such a thing.

**djones520**

Ketara wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.

The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.

Considering China's size and the vast amount of pure labour they can call on, I would not wish to attempt such a thing.

Building a runway that a C-130 can take off on is a lot different then building a runway that an aerial refueler can take off on. Dependent on the damage we caused, it would take days/weeks/months to get it right.

**Ketara**

djones520 wrote:
Ketara wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Right now, these probably wouldn't be to helpful in a Taiwanese invasion, cause I can just about gaurantee they'd be one of our first target. They have low numbers of them, in mostly centralized locations, so they'd be easy targets. Even if we can't hit them directly, we could probably easily take out the runway they'd operate on effectively grounding them.

The problem with planning to take out enemy runways, is that you have to faster at destroying them in hostile airspace, than the opposition is at building them.

Considering China's size and the vast amount of pure labour they can call on, I would not wish to attempt such a thing.

Building a runway that a C-130 can take off on is a lot different then building a runway that an aerial refueler can take off on. Dependent on the damage we caused, it would take days/weeks/months to get it right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a runway (as the name would imply) simply a flat line of tarmac/concrete/varying materials of a certain length?

I mean, I could be wrong on this, but I've never heard of modern runways needing to be made out of pure rubber, or having catapults and arrestor wires.

**djones520**

And laying a 1.5 mile long strip of asphalt thats 150' wide, after it's had numerous 6' craters punched into it is anything but an easy task, no matter how many chinese men you can shove into the holes.

The time spent repairing those runways, air superiority will already be established.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
And laying a 1.5 mile long strip of asphalt thats 150' wide, after it's had numerous 6' craters punched into it is anything but an easy task, no matter how many chinese men you can shove into the holes.

The time spent repairing those runways, air superiority will already be established.

Isn't thats what the cluster bomb were originally designed to do?

Don't we have them on cruise missiles? If so... yo runwayz belongz to uz!

**djones520**

I don't know about originally, but here's a blurb about how anti-airfield cluster bombs work.

the cratering effect is achieved through the use of a two-stage warhead that combines a shaped charge and a conventional bulk explosive charge. The shaped charge penetrates the surface of the runway while the bulk explosive charge detonates under the surface which makes the crater bigger. This explosion also shatters the surface, this effect combined with the anti-personnel mines which may be deployed in addition to the Anti-runway can make repairs more difficult.

**Ketara**

djones520 wrote:
I don't know about originally, but here's a blurb about how anti-airfield cluster bombs work.

the cratering effect is achieved through the use of a two-stage warhead that combines a shaped charge and a conventional bulk explosive charge. The shaped charge penetrates the surface of the runway while the bulk explosive charge detonates under the surface which makes the crater bigger. This explosion also shatters the surface, this effect combined with the anti-personnel mines which may be deployed in addition to the Anti-runway can make repairs more difficult.

I'm not disputing that it can be destroyed. But if it's just a case of using shovels to remove debris, transporting in earth to fill in the craters, and then pouring asphalt/concrete, that can be done in a day regardless of the amount of damage, simply by increasing the size of the workforce. It simply isn't skilled labour, and it doesn't require rare raw materials. It also means that one could feasibly lay dozens of new runways in a day or two whilst repairing the other ones.

**whembly**

Ketara wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I don't know about originally, but here's a blurb about how anti-airfield cluster bombs work.

the cratering effect is achieved through the use of a two-stage warhead that combines a shaped charge and a conventional bulk explosive charge. The shaped charge penetrates the surface of the runway while the bulk explosive charge detonates under the surface which makes the crater bigger. This explosion also shatters the surface, this effect combined with the anti-personnel mines which may be deployed in addition to the Anti-runway can make repairs more difficult.

I'm not disputing that it can be destroyed. But if it's just a case of using shovels to remove debris, transporting in earth to fill in the craters, and then pouring asphalt/concrete, that can be done in a day regardless of the amount of damage, simply by increasing the size of the workforce. It simply isn't skilled labour, and it doesn't require rare raw materials. It also means that one could feasibly lay dozens of new runways in a day or two whilst repairing the other ones.

You're forgetting the tactical sense here...

It's used to ground the planes while YOU begin your attack.

If you destroy the runway... now, YOUR planes can bomb the feth out the planes on the ground. Then there's no need to fix the runway when all their planes are destroyed.

BUT... Runways meant for constant takeoff/landing can't be made in a day or two, except for very few planes.

**Ketara**

Strategical considerations pre-empt tactical ones.

If I were China and knew I was going to be at war with the US over Taiwan in a week, I would be ordering the construction of as many airfields as I could at that end of the country, and setting up as many camoflauged sites as I could.