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.

I say we just order Sabb Gripens for the Air Force and the Dassault Rafale for the Navy. That will teach Lockhead to make an aircraft on budget and time.

 guardpiper wrote:
I say we just order Sabb Gripens for the Air Force and the Dassault Rafale for the Navy. That will teach Lockhead to make an aircraft on budget and time.

God, no.

 Ketara wrote:
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.

So you'd be telegramming US military intelligence and making sure they know where to point their satellites. Good to know

Besides just numbers of airfields won't help much, especially for large airborne refuelers, those bad boys need big freaking runways, big gas farms to drink from so they can top off the fighters and bombers, fortified shelters to attempt to prevent bombing raids from shredding their fragile skins and airframes... it's not a small operation by any extent.

Didn't look at the whole thread, did we cover the part where the USN has to design a whole new class of ships for resupply because the CATOBAR version's engines can't be carried by existing transport (supposedly) or that it has to go back to the factory because only the most basic repairs can be done in the field?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Didn't look at the whole thread, did we cover the part where the USN has to design a whole new class of ships for resupply because the CATOBAR version's engines can't be carried by existing transport (supposedly) or that it has to go back to the factory because only the most basic repairs can be done in the field?

No, because those are both misleading or inaccurate.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
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.

So you'd be telegramming US military intelligence and making sure they know where to point their satellites. Good to know

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
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.

So you'd be telegramming US military intelligence and making sure they know where to point their satellites. Good to know

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Besides just numbers of airfields won't help much, especially for large airborne refuelers, those bad boys need big freaking runways, big gas farms to drink from so they can top off the fighters and bombers, fortified shelters to attempt to prevent bombing raids from shredding their fragile skins and airframes... it's not a small operation by any extent.

To emphasise my original statement somewhat

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.

If the Chinese decide to nail Taiwan and raze it with missiles and bombs, they will do it. The US will not have the quantities of munitions and aircraft in the area straight off the bat to stop, or even delay them especially. Talking about how the awesome US planes will just swoop in and blow up their airfields to ground/blow up the Chinese airforce (whilst high fiving each other and sipping cool aid no doubt) is just daft and unrealistic.

The Chinese have anti-air ground based defences. The Chinese have their own fighter jets. The Chinese have the capacity to build multiple airfields and concealed launch sites, should they be planning this more than a few days in advance. The Chinese have the labour force necessary to repair the small amounts of damage that could be brought to bear straight off the bat. And China is a really BIG place, where you can stash all kinds of planes/airfields. Satellites cannot cover all of China 24/7 and pick up on all construction work.

I'm pretty certain that the US could establish air superiority over China eventually, but it would take at least a week or two to bring the necessary resources to bear in the area to begin contesting it, and it would be hard slogging even then.

Logistics people. It wins wars.

 Ketara wrote:
To emphasise my original statement somewhat

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.

If the Chinese decide to nail Taiwan and raze it with missiles and bombs, they will do it. The US will not have the quantities of munitions and aircraft in the area straight off the bat to stop, or even delay them especially. Talking about how the awesome US planes will just swoop in and blow up their airfields to ground/blow up the Chinese airforce (whilst high fiving each other and sipping cool aid no doubt) is just daft and unrealistic.

You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce

 Ketara wrote:
The Chinese have anti-air ground based defences. The Chinese have their own fighter jets.

And how effective are they? How well trained are they? Have they experienced combat? Have their instructors experienced combat? Are their armaments comparable to their adversary's? What about their electronic warfare capabilities?

 Ketara wrote:
The Chinese have the capacity to build multiple airfields and concealed launch sites, should they be planning this more than a few days in advance. The Chinese have the labour force necessary to repair the small amounts of damage that could be brought to bear straight off the bat. And China is a really BIG place, where you can stash all kinds of planes/airfields. Satellites cannot cover all of China 24/7 and pick up on all construction work.

Satellites don't need to cover every inch of China. Just the parts within range of Taiwan that are showing unusual activity such lots of civilians being bused in and set to work, and lots of construction in a short time during a military build up. Especially when that construction is fixed to flat land, and what is being built looks like a road that connects to nothing and goes nowhere.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm pretty certain that the US could establish air superiority over China eventually, but it would take at least a week or two to bring the necessary resources to bear in the area to begin contesting it, and it would be hard slogging even then.

Logistics people. It wins wars.

How long does it take the Chinese to mobilise their relatively untested military, and deploy it? How long will there be any provocative statements and sabre rattling from either Taiwan or China which would give the US time to move its carriers into range and start their own mobilisations?
You talk of logistics from only the US side, completely ignoring the signals that the Chinese will be broadcasting when they start their mobilisation.

 Seaward wrote:

No, because those are both misleading or inaccurate.

Ok, how about the following issues identified by the air force and DOD?


If the Integrated Caution Advisory Warning System does not adequately convey warning and caution information to the pilot in a fashion that permits recognition in sufficient time to take
actions, flight essential cues may be missed or misinterpreted with a potential for loss of aircraft/aircrew.

The F-35 US-16 E-21 ejection seat and -1 Transparency Removal System (TRS), as installed on low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft 2 & 3, have not completed full qualification testing.
In addition, the F-35 canopy panel fly-away model has not been validated. If there is an unknown failure mode due to incomplete qualification testing and/or invalid fly-away model results, then there is potential for loss of aircrew.

LRIP 2 & 3 aircraft do not include the Martin Baker water activated release system (MWARS). Without a water activated release system, there is a risk of drowning for the unconscious crewmember post ejection.

The F-35 fuel system design’s lack of a double barrier, when coupled with inadequate leak detection and capability for visual examination of the seals, can result in fuel leakage and potential fire leading to loss of aircraft/aircrew.

Delayed, incorrect, or untimely aircrew response during a timecritical task will result in a potential error and Class A mishap. The F-35A has documented deficiencies in PVI (Helmet-Mounted Display, Pilot Checklist, Communication, Head-Down Display). A comprehensive Human Systems Integration (HSI) assessment has not been completed. Therefore, there is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely. If current PVI deficiencies are not corrected immediately, then risk will increase as capability/functionality is added to future LRIP Blocks.

F-35A aircraft do not have a qualified lightning protection system. Without a qualified lightning protection system, a lightning strike could result in loss of aircraft/aircrew.

The F-35 design does not incorporate the necessary process rigor for safety critical systems and software, including test.
Consequently, safety critical systems/software may not operate correctly, resulting in loss of aircrew/aircraft.

Poor aft visibility compared to other aircraft was mentioned by all test and training pilots.


Granted, most of these are issues with the initial production, but...

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, how about the following issues identified by the air force and DOD?

Depends on the date..

If that's all the Air Force has to gripe about in an unclass report, though, I'd say it's in amazing shape.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce

Sadly, due to the number of runways involved, this is impractical. Egypt it was possible due to the low number of strips.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And how effective are they? How well trained are they? Have they experienced combat? Have their instructors experienced combat? Are their armaments comparable to their adversary's? What about their electronic warfare capabilities?

Largely unknown. China is very good at keeping this sort of thing close to the vest.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Satellites don't need to cover every inch of China. Just the parts within range of Taiwan that are showing unusual activity such lots of civilians being bused in and set to work, and lots of construction in a short time during a military build up. Especially when that construction is fixed to flat land, and what is being built looks like a road that connects to nothing and goes nowhere.

"In range of Taiwan" is most of Southern China.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How long does it take the Chinese to mobilise their relatively untested military, and deploy it?

Unknown, but likely on the order of hours. Remember that an attack on Taiwan would benefit from the fact that it's something the Chinese have had 50+ years to prepare for.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How long will there be any provocative statements and sabre rattling from either Taiwan or China which would give the US time to move its carriers into range and start their own mobilisations?
You talk of logistics from only the US side, completely ignoring the signals that the Chinese will be broadcasting when they start their mobilisation.

Actually China is bad when they stop talking. You'd have a sudden silence from Beijing to cause uncertainty in the US government. Depending on what, where and how, the Chinese could conceivably mobilize without moving large bodies of troops at all. What might be a signal is an increase in Chinese amphib construction, as China has a relatively low number of amphib troop transports. (IIRC they can only land about a division at a time atm) But this might not be an issue if they intend to start off by flattening the place. You are also forgetting that the logistics to do such an invasion have long been in place. It's just a matter of activation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, how about the following issues identified by the air force and DOD?

Depends on the date..

If that's all the Air Force has to gripe about in an unclass report, though, I'd say it's in amazing shape.

Feb of this year. And that wasn't all of it, that was just the training end of it. The Air Force response was... pithy to say the least. If pilots are worried about being shot down, we can have them transferred to Cargo Aircraft, to paraphrase the general in charge.

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf for the report.

Admiral Moore on the Navy's end was more interesting:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-works-through-f-35c-air-ship-integration-issues-377171/

"Further, there is no intermediate level of maintenance on the F-35. Therefore, frontline maintenance will be done on the carrier while more complicated maintenance will be done by the original equipment manufacturer, Moore says. While there might be some maintenance facilities needed specifically by the F-35, there will not be specialized facilities needed for low observables repairs. If there is a major defect in an F-35C's coatings, the aircraft will have to be returned to Lockheed for repairs."

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Feb of this year. And that wasn't all of it, that was just the training end of it. The Air Force response was... pithy to say the least. If pilots are worried about being shot down, we can have them transferred to Cargo Aircraft, to paraphrase the general in charge.

I think I know where you're getting your analysis if not your info now, at least.

Anyway, no. Aft visibility won't be an issue with EODAS.

Admiral Moore on the Navy's end was more interesting:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-works-through-f-35c-air-ship-integration-issues-377171/

"Further, there is no intermediate level of maintenance on the F-35. Therefore, frontline maintenance will be done on the carrier while more complicated maintenance will be done by the original equipment manufacturer, Moore says. While there might be some maintenance facilities needed specifically by the F-35, there will not be specialized facilities needed for low observables repairs. If there is a major defect in an F-35C's coatings, the aircraft will have to be returned to Lockheed for repairs."

I'm not entirely sure why people view this as significant. You can do a lot on the boat with current gen aircraft, but major work is major work. Birds go down, you cannibalize 'em for spares and fly what's up. We're not doing SLEP or major airframe refreshing or whatever else on Rhinos in the hangar deck, and there's stuff they need to hit the beach for.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce

.......Firstly if the US are at war with China and there's only one or two carrier groups sitting off the coast, the odds are pretty good that those carrier groups are going to be having a very unhappy and busy time of things. Mainly because they're within the range of the entire Chinese airforce and missile network. Even assuming that their gear is a lot better than anything the Chinese can throw at them(far more likely than not), I would not personally wish to be aboard those vessels.

Submarines are a different kettle of fish, but I really, REALLY doubt that the US will have enough submarine based missiles within range in the 24-48 hours, and the intelligence necessary to shut down the Chinese airforce. And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

And how effective are they? How well trained are they? Have they experienced combat? Have their instructors experienced combat? Are their armaments comparable to their adversary's? What about their electronic warfare capabilities?

You tell me.

Satellites don't need to cover every inch of China. Just the parts within range of Taiwan that are showing unusual activity such lots of civilians being bused in and set to work, and lots of construction in a short time during a military build up. Especially when that construction is fixed to flat land, and what is being built looks like a road that connects to nothing and goes nowhere.

.....You REALLY need to look at how big China is, the range of the aircraft, and how far away Taiwan is. And that's just nailing Taiwan, if you're throwing stuff over there to bomb mainland airfields, then Chinese assets further back in China come into play.

How long does it take the Chinese to mobilise their relatively untested military, and deploy it? How long will there be any provocative statements and sabre rattling from either Taiwan or China which would give the US time to move its carriers into range and start their own mobilisations?
You talk of logistics from only the US side, completely ignoring the signals that the Chinese will be broadcasting when they start their mobilisation.

Presuming they're levelling Taiwan, probably about three days to a week. That would involve distributing the previously prepared attack plans for Taiwan (which they will have), stockpiling munitions in forward staging areas, prepping missiles for launch, doing technical checks on aircraft, moving pilots to forward bases and so on. They wouldn't need to move any planes up to the forward airbases until the last 12 hours (an aircraft can be flown, landed, re-checked, refueled, and have pilots swapped within that timeframe).

US intelligence is not this omniscient being that sees into all that occurs in Chinese military bases. They'd probably know something was up a few days beforehand, but I doubt they'd know exactly what it was until the munitions started landing on Taiwan.

This is of course, presuming China is levelling Taiwan without thinking the US will intervene. If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan, more assets would need to be moved into place and resources stockpiled, which would be somewhat more obvious.

I suggest you seriously go and look at how big China actually is. Taiwan is barely a hundred miles off the coast of China. Without even considering in flight refueling, most of their aircraft have a combat range of ten times that at the least. If you honestly think that the US is capable of watching all potentially war-related construction work within a thousand square miles of mainland China, and hitting stuff they dislike, well.....

We're not doing SLEP or major airframe refreshing or whatever else on Rhinos in the hangar deck, and there's stuff they need to hit the beach for.

Yes, we do not do major work in the carriers. Is re-coating a stealth aircraft major repairs? If so then those strike fighters are going to get one or two runs at the most, before they have to fly to a base for repairs. Strike aircraft frequently take hits for AA that scratch the paint.

You really are begging to sound like an apologist. Just admit that there are problems, the program is massively behind schedule, and over budget. We were supposed to have fully functioning aircraft by this date, as of yet we have nothing and most of the features that make the 35 so advanced don't work....at all. Not only that, but simple things that we know how to do and have done in the past, BASIC features don't work. It's shotty work.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, we do not do major work in the carriers. Is re-coating a stealth aircraft major repairs? If so then those strike fighters are going to get one or two runs at the most, before they have to fly to a base for repairs. Strike aircraft frequently take hits for AA that scratch the paint.

You're confusing the F-22's stealth coating with the F-35's. They're different. The F-35's is a lot less maintenance-intensive, and should only need to head back to LM in the event of major damage or defect.

The F-22's coating is fine for the Air Force, but the Navy doesn't baby its birds. If the plane couldn't stand up to the rough use that carrier-based aircraft eat up as routine, it wouldn't have been bought. You want to see dings and damage, try carrier ops.

You really are begging to sound like an apologist.

If you say so. I prefer to think I have enough firsthand experience to know that most of the drek I read about the F-35 ain't worth the paper it's printed on, but if you're willing to get your information about military aircraft from inexperienced bloggers and the sort of journalists who believe all pistols are Glocks and all rifles are AKs, be my guest.

Just admit that there are problems, the program is massively behind schedule, and over budget.

Yes, it is. The procurement path's a massive issue.

We were supposed to have fully functioning aircraft by this date, as of yet we have nothing and most of the features that make the 35 so advanced don't work....at all. Not only that, but simple things that we know how to do and have done in the past, BASIC features don't work. It's shotty work.

What's so amusing about that is that if you looked back at the development of any given plane for the military, you'd see a lot of the same issues. The "basic" stuff that we've done in the past? We feth it up all the time in development. What we haven't really done before is concurrent production and testing, which is why you're hearing about it on the F-35 instead of, say, the Super Hornet or the Strike Eagle, and because it's such an expensive system, it's more of a story when something doesn't work right.

Exactly none of this is, "Oh my God, the sky is falling!" territory on a new plane that hasn't been operationally cleared yet.

The F-35's stealth coating is woven into the structure. It isnt a paint for a tile or a 'coating'.

Stealth should be a lot easier to maintain than with early generation RAM coated airframes.

 Ketara wrote:
Submarines are a different kettle of fish, but I really, REALLY doubt that the US will have enough submarine based missiles within range in the 24-48 hours, and the intelligence necessary to shut down the Chinese airforce. And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Why are we assuming that China is going to start a war out of nowhere with only 24-48 hours warning? This isn't a video game where countries decide to randomly bomb each other back to the stone age just because they can, any plausible war is going to be preceded by escalating conflict that will give everyone time to prepare.

Also, why are we assuming that China's plans consist of bombing Taiwan into rubble? Don't real countries usually have an objective in their wars besides "kill everyone just for the sake of killing them"?

The reality is that whilst we see Taiwan as independent China sees Tawian as...Chinese.

It is another China and cause enough for China to at least sabre rattle.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The F-35's stealth coating is woven into the structure. It isnt a paint for a tile or a 'coating'.

Stealth should be a lot easier to maintain than with early generation RAM coated airframes.

Yes, and this super strong stealth "coating" Still melts anytime the craft goes supersonic.......and they can't repair that on the carrier? Sounds great!

Yes, it is. The procurement path's a massive issue.

See, its not just the procurement path. Its the whole development of the project from the capabilities and concept to the final product. The whole process is a mess, it was supposed to make building aircraft faster and cheaper, it is doing the complete opposite. All it did was limit competitive pressure, which has allowed Lockheed to slack and drive up prices. In a competitive environment Lockheed and General Dynamic would still be trying to earn a contract as the f35 in not even in condition to participate in the standard trials done to win a contract.

 Seaward wrote:

You're confusing the F-22's stealth coating with the F-35's. They're different. The F-35's is a lot less maintenance-intensive, and should only need to head back to LM in the event of major damage or defect.

Yeah, about that. Lockheed has opened their mouths and claimed that surface wear and defects will actually make it stealthier over time, unlike, say, every other stealth aircraft that there has ever been. That same coating, in a Nov 2011 report was found to have a tendency to peel off. While hopefully this has since been remedied, no further information is available.

 Seaward wrote:

The F-22's coating is fine for the Air Force, but the Navy doesn't baby its birds. If the plane couldn't stand up to the rough use that carrier-based aircraft eat up as routine, it wouldn't have been bought. You want to see dings and damage, try carrier ops.

No, they don't baby them, but we also know the Navy occasionally makes bad choices, particularly when told 'it's this or nothing' by Congress. Remember that the whole F35 thing came about to have one airframe across all branches. Frankly this is a really bad idea, just because of the differences in mission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Why are we assuming that China is going to start a war out of nowhere with only 24-48 hours warning?

China would not 'start the war out of no where' but it might seem like it to external observers. Remember that most of the impetus to retake Taiwan is from internal politics within the Party. That rarely even makes the news in China.

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, why are we assuming that China's plans consist of bombing Taiwan into rubble? Don't real countries usually have an objective in their wars besides "kill everyone just for the sake of killing them"?

Well, 'bomb it into rubble' is to allow the next part which is 'land troops'. Though not as evident now as it used to be, Taiwan has quite a large number of bunkers and strongpoints and fortified areas, starting at Kinmen island and heading into the main island. China's most likely to succeed scenario is to basically blitz them, which means a whole lot of firepower raining down followed by ground troops.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yes, and this super strong stealth "coating" Still melts anytime the craft goes supersonic.......and they can't repair that on the carrier? Sounds great!

No, it doesn't. It had an issue with peeling near the engine when the afterburner was in use.

See, its not just the procurement path. Its the whole development of the project from the capabilities and concept to the final product. The whole process is a mess, it was supposed to make building aircraft faster and cheaper, it is doing the complete opposite. All it did was limit competitive pressure, which has allowed Lockheed to slack and drive up prices. In a competitive environment Lockheed and General Dynamic would still be trying to earn a contract as the f35 in not even in condition to participate in the standard trials done to win a contract.

There is no standard condition to win a contract. We always buy new aircraft based on prototypes.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yeah, about that. Lockheed has opened their mouths and claimed that surface wear and defects will actually make it stealthier over time, unlike, say, every other stealth aircraft that there has ever been. That same coating, in a Nov 2011 report was found to have a tendency to peel off. While hopefully this has since been remedied, no further information is available.

See above. Also a perfect example of what I've been saying. This gak pings back and forth between the blogs and the aviation rags, getting more and more distorted by the extended game of Telephone every time.

No, they don't baby them, but we also know the Navy occasionally makes bad choices, particularly when told 'it's this or nothing' by Congress. Remember that the whole F35 thing came about to have one airframe across all branches. Frankly this is a really bad idea, just because of the differences in mission.

Can you point to a fighter that we've procured in the last forty years that was a bad choice? I can't.

We're getting an aircraft that's better in almost every way than what's currently on our flight deck. I'm pretty happy about that.

 Ketara wrote:
.......Firstly if the US are at war with China and there's only one or two carrier groups sitting off the coast, the odds are pretty good that those carrier groups are going to be having a very unhappy and busy time of things. Mainly because they're within the range of the entire Chinese airforce and missile network. Even assuming that their gear is a lot better than anything the Chinese can throw at them(far more likely than not), I would not personally wish to be aboard those vessels.

Submarines are a different kettle of fish, but I really, REALLY doubt that the US will have enough submarine based missiles within range in the 24-48 hours, and the intelligence necessary to shut down the Chinese airforce. And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

It really helps if you read what I write, and not respond to what you think I wrote

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You also ignore cruise missiles launched from submarines that could very easily help cripple the Chinese airforce by targeting their runways. But please don't let that stop you from your daft "high fiving each other and sipping cool aid" image. Israel managed to cripple the Egyptian airforce by targeting their runways. There certainly is precedent for it. A carrier group and submarine launched cruise missiles could certainly do a lot to frustrate the Chinese airforce

The only person talking in absolutes is you

 Ketara wrote:
You tell me.

Seeing as you can't answer it, you're showing that you may not have the greatest understanding - They aren't effective. They do not have the same training, the same experience the same weapon systems, or the same capabilities

 Ketara wrote:
.....You REALLY need to look at how big China is, the range of the aircraft, and how far away Taiwan is. And that's just nailing Taiwan, if you're throwing stuff over there to bomb mainland airfields, then Chinese assets further back in China come into play.

And how much of that land is suitable for runways? How much of that land could support the infrastructure required to facilitate combat aircraft missions? Short answer - not a lot. Targeted intelligence based on key factors such as what I have already outlined makes monitoring possible construction easy.

 Ketara wrote:
Presuming they're levelling Taiwan, probably about three days to a week. That would involve distributing the previously prepared attack plans for Taiwan (which they will have), stockpiling munitions in forward staging areas, prepping missiles for launch, doing technical checks on aircraft, moving pilots to forward bases and so on. They wouldn't need to move any planes up to the forward airbases until the last 12 hours (an aircraft can be flown, landed, re-checked, refueled, and have pilots swapped within that timeframe).

US intelligence is not this omniscient being that sees into all that occurs in Chinese military bases. They'd probably know something was up a few days beforehand, but I doubt they'd know exactly what it was until the munitions started landing on Taiwan.

This is of course, presuming China is levelling Taiwan without thinking the US will intervene. If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan, more assets would need to be moved into place and resources stockpiled, which would be somewhat more obvious.

I suggest you seriously go and look at how big China actually is. Taiwan is barely a hundred miles off the coast of China. Without even considering in flight refueling, most of their aircraft have a combat range of ten times that at the least. If you honestly think that the US is capable of watching all potentially war-related construction work within a thousand square miles of mainland China, and hitting stuff they dislike, well.....

The US military intelligence doesn't need to be in Chinese bases. What you outlined in the first paragraph above waves more than enough red flags for anyone paying attention. China may be big, but that doesn't matter, when you're looking for certain select things it reduces the search criteria significantly.
China is the second largest importer of oil, all those aircraft aren't going to run on good will. Aircraft fuel for military use will need to be purchased in vast quantities and it's movement and storage can be tracked easily. And lets not forget that the US has a lot of allies in oil producing countries.
Military build ups do not happen quickly, or without notice. The fact that you think that a nation that has not waged a modern war can somehow manage to conceal obvious troop movements, the fabrication of ammunition in the quantities required for training and the operation, war material movements, equipment movements, shift in training schedules, increase in sorties flown by the Chinese, as well as the construction of temporary airfields by forced civilian labour is pretty risible.


Any serving/former military members think that a country can conceal indicators of military action as well as Ketara seems to think?

There is no standard condition to win a contract. We always buy new aircraft based on prototypes.

Yes, and most times those prototypes are pretty near finished as in the famous f-16 vs f-18 trials and the f-22 vs f-23 trials. Its funny how competition tends to do that. While finishing work needed to be done in both cases, the prototypes were able to demonstrate functionality much more than the f-35 has.

No, it doesn't. It had an issue with peeling near the engine when the afterburner was in use.

Melting off, peeling off from heat; Potato, Patato. Has the issue been fixed?

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, and most times those prototypes are pretty near finished as in the famous f-16 vs f-18 trials and the f-22 vs f-23 trials. Its funny how competition tends to do that. While finishing work needed to be done in both cases, the prototypes were able to demonstrate functionality much more than the f-35 has.

Ah, but there were, indeed, JSF competitions. Boeing (and I believe McDonnell Douglas) submitted a prototype as well. Lockheed Martin's was better.

Melting off, peeling off from heat; Potato, Patato. Has the issue been fixed?

Believe so, but I could be wrong. Does it matter? It's got two years before it's operational with the Marines (who've said they'll declare it operational whether it's ready to go or not), and four to six years before it's for-real operational with the Navy and Air Force. I'm sure it will be fixed by then.

Other stuff might not be, though. That's the way it goes. It might suffer from something like the F-22's penchant for poisoning (and in some cases, killing) its pilots - unclear whether or not that's been totally fixed at present. It might suffer from something like the F-14's susceptibility to potentially catastrophic compressor stalls if the intake didn't get air exactly as it wanted it - not fixed until the D. It might suffer from the Hornet's (both legacy and Super) criminal under-thrusting issues, which never got fixed and now never will be. It might suffer from worldwide grounding of the entire fleet, as happened with F-15s back in the mid-2000s when one broke in half in mid-air due to an out-of-spec part that turned out to affect more than just that plane. Or it could have a more mundane problem like the F-16 - great aft visibility, but a seat reclined too far to take advantage of it comfortably.

We haven't built a perfect plane yet. We never will, because every design is a compromise, and because manufacturing multi-million dollar aircraft isn't easy. The F-35 will be no different. It'll have issues after it's operational, as every single fighter in our air has had at one time or another, or still has. But it'll be a significant upgrade, which is why we and a lot of others bought it.

Not even close, especially not on the scale of the PLA doing a full mobilization to hit Taiwan, because they KNOW we'll be kicking them in the soft bits in the immediate future if not immediately depending on when our SSGNs that belong to PACFLT are at the time.

 Seaward wrote:

See above. Also a perfect example of what I've been saying. This gak pings back and forth between the blogs and the aviation rags, getting more and more distorted by the extended game of Telephone every time.

I can dig up the original interview with the VP of Lockheed. He does in fact claim that erosion of the coating will only make the plane more stealthy because the surface becomes smoother. Whether this is PR man BS or a genuine claim from their tech guys is up to speculation.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I can dig up the original interview with the VP of Lockheed. He does in fact claim that erosion of the coating will only make the plane more stealthy because the surface becomes smoother. Whether this is PR man BS or a genuine claim from their tech guys is up to speculation.

Go right ahead. I have no idea how the stealth "coating" works - my understanding is it isn't a coating to begin with - which is why I wasn't speaking to whether or not it'll get "stealthier" with erosion, but instead referencing its tendency to "peel off" being one of those bs rumors that picked up speed due to their being a lot of various cabals interested in seeing the F-35 get canceled and a lot of reporters/bloggers interested in page views.

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I can dig up the original interview with the VP of Lockheed. He does in fact claim that erosion of the coating will only make the plane more stealthy because the surface becomes smoother. Whether this is PR man BS or a genuine claim from their tech guys is up to speculation.

Go right ahead. I have no idea how the stealth "coating" works - my understanding is it isn't a coating to begin with - which is why I wasn't speaking to whether or not it'll get "stealthier" with erosion, but instead referencing its tendency to "peel off" being one of those bs rumors that picked up speed due to their being a lot of various cabals interested in seeing the F-35 get canceled and a lot of reporters/bloggers interested in page views.

"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours."

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx


As far as it being a coating:

http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm

Pics from F16.net

Uncoated



Coated

Okay.

So, once again we're back to me asking about the peeling issue that gets widely claimed but never verified outside of edging around the engine after reheat.

 Seaward wrote:
Okay.

So, once again we're back to me asking about the peeling issue that gets widely claimed but never verified outside of edging around the engine after reheat.

From what I've been amble to find the claim originally appears in Aviation week following the first supersonic flight demo, after which the entire fleet is limited to mach 1. Sweetman states that there was bubbling and peeling of the coatings following that. However I have not been able to find the original article online to post, just references to it. This issue could be one of the discovered problems obliquely referred to in this DOD report.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf

If Sweetman was wrong, you'd expect the DoD or Lockheed to refute it but so far, a big silence.



One thing that I've been pondering myself: THe primary mission of marine aircraft is air support. Which means loitering a lot. The F35 has comparatively little fuel and is light on actual armament. How is it superior to forth gen again?