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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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?

If DOD refuted every claim made about the F-35 from people outside the program, they'd spend all their time doing exclusively that. We know the F-35's been doing Mach 1+ trials, so presumably it was never an actual issue to begin with, or has since been fixed.

And it has comparatively little fuel compared to what? It'll have more internal gas than the Super Bug. Cruises more efficiently, too.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

Sorry, but this just stinks of the sort of thing first year War Studies undergraduates do. They compare two aeroplane or tank specifications and then declare one inherently superior to the other. Whilst entirely failing to realise that being lower tech or even worse trained does not necessarily equate to one side winning or losing a combat situation.

There are always gaps in both side's newest technology that nobody noticed until that point (e.g the first torpedoes the British subs used in WW1 naturally undershooting targets), technology that can be adapted unexpectedly (e.g. the German 88m anti air gun being used as an anti-tank weapon in WW2), blindspots in tactical doctrine, and so on. 'Better trained' does not always mean 'better motivated' or 'knows the local ground better', or even ultimately, 'better commanded'.

And then you always have pure blind chance to throw a spanner in the works.

But please. Use your detailed in depth knowledge of the latest Chinese stealth fighter and suchlike to tell me how the American planes will just swing by all the Chinese bases, despite being heavily outnumbered far into hostile airspace, and blow everything up,

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.

I'm sorry. In a thousand square miles of mainland China (seriously, go look at a map), you claim that not much land could be used runways?. That's practically as far back as Chengdu for Christ sake. That sort of space is bigger than most countries. Considering all you need for an airstrip is a stretch of ground so long that happens to be flat, and enough storage buildings for the planes and maintenance bays, I'm quite certain that China could find the space.

And even if they couldn't? There's been this wonderful invention called landscaping. When you have a large enough labour force, moving, flattening, and shaping earth is really not the hardest of things to do. If you planned it beforehand, and timed it with the simultaneous throwing up of prefab temporary storage buildings and warehouses, it would take literally about three days at the most.

US Intelligence is not omniscient. They cannot cover all construction within China. To even attempt targeted surveillance on the level you are suggesting would require literally hundreds(if not thousands) of analysts sifting through images from just about every satellite the US could muster. Without even questioning the physical capability to identify all potential construction efforts as airfields on short notice, the manpower requirements for processing and analysis alone is simply staggering.

This is of course, presuming China is levelling Taiwan without thinking the US will intervene.

This is the assumption, yes.

If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan

Then you'd have shifted the goalposts to entirely different hypothetical situation.

more assets would need to be moved into place and resources stockpiled, which would be somewhat more obvious.

No doubt.

The US military intelligence doesn't need to be in Chinese bases.

No, but it helps. If the majority of your intelligence gathering capabilities reside in orbital photography and reading the Chinese newspapers, you're going to find things a damn sight harder than if you have a mole inside the base or an agent on the ground.

What you outlined in the first paragraph above waves more than enough red flags for anyone paying attention.

I should hope so, your original proposition was ludicrous.

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.

Oh, I see.

Not only have the goalposts now been moved to 'spotting the signs of a war planned with the US' instead of just 'razing Taiwan', you've shifted the burden of watching for a military buildup onto tracing oil shipments.

Interesting, but impractical except in general terms. China consumes such a large quantity of oil that unless this surprise war with the US was being planned completely on the hoof, they could easily order slightly more for a period of time (say, a year or two), and it would appear relatively unsuspicious. China has a lot of industry that consumes the stuff after all.

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,

In the original scenario, this is to bomb Taiwan right? In which case, it's more or less just their airforce. There won't be tens of thousands of soldiers being moved to staging areas, or tanks mustered in highly visible locations.

the fabrication of ammunition in the quantities required for training and the operation,

I would imagine that the people who fly their aircraft might have had just a little bit of training in doing it beforehand.

Otherwise I concede the earlier point wholeheartedly. If their entire airforce is suddenly being trained to fly and shoot missiles in the week beforehand, then yes, the US probably would win that one.

With regards to ammunition, that's an interesting one. But unless US intelligence has moles inside Chinese armaments productions firms highly enough placed to be able to see a bigger picture of increased production, or lots of lesser ones (either is possible), it would be difficult/impossible to monitor.

war material movements, equipment movements,

With regards to aircraft, the fact that the area in which they can be flown from is so large, that no movement may even be necessary initially. Any planes they want flown in from outside that area, can easily do so within half a day of the operation beginning.

as well as the construction of temporary airfields by forced civilian labour is pretty risible.

Who mentioned forced labour? If you have some bizare Soviet-esque picture of chain gangs with pickaxes in striped unforms, then I hate to disabuse you, but China has a lot of building firms with modern construction equipment and machinery. And believe it or not, they even have experience working with materials like concrete!

I don't think any military force operates a JIT policy for armaments.

These groups love having lots of ammo and ordnance ready and waiting!

The F-35 is a steep upgrade to the Harrier and the C compares pretty nicely or out does the Hornet without much trouble. Question I don't know the answer to, are external racks a possibility? Or is it all internal weapons all the time?

 Ketara wrote:
**snip**

Ok we're done. I've tried to put forward clear logical arguments that you've ignored in favour of accusations of acting in bad faith, distortions, and twisting my words claiming that I'm shifting the goal posts when I have been consistent.

When you learn to play the ball and not the player I'll take you seriously


**edit**
Multi-tasking fail. But seeing as it's been responded to no sense in pulling it

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
**snip**

Ok we're done. I've tried to put forward clear logical arguments that you've ignored in favour of accusations of acting in bad faith, distortions, and twisting my words claiming that I'm shifting the goal posts when I have been consistent.

When you learn to play the ball and not the player I'll take you seriously

Works for me.

On reflection, I probably could have been a little less sarcastic, but if you classify your arguments as clear and logical, then there's been some genuine breakdown of communication here.

Sorry to disappoint you - I had multiple windows open and clicked post under the wrong one

 Ketara wrote:
But please. Use your detailed in depth knowledge of the latest Chinese stealth fighter and suchlike to tell me how the American planes will just swing by all the Chinese bases, despite being heavily outnumbered far into hostile airspace, and blow everything up,

You're the one making vast claims on behalf of the PLA's airforce, I eagerly await your substantiation of such claims

 Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry. In a thousand square miles of mainland China (seriously, go look at a map), you claim that not much land could be used runways?. That's practically as far back as Chengdu for Christ sake. That sort of space is bigger than most countries. Considering all you need for an airstrip is a stretch of ground so long that happens to be flat, and enough storage buildings for the planes and maintenance bays, I'm quite certain that China could find the space.

I'm well aware of the size of China thank you, I'm also aware that runways need a be a certain length, require a certain soil type for stability, and must be a certain range from their target. Again, this narrows down the variables.

 Ketara wrote:
And even if they couldn't? There's been this wonderful invention called landscaping. When you have a large enough labour force, moving, flattening, and shaping earth is really not the hardest of things to do. If you planned it beforehand, and timed it with the simultaneous throwing up of prefab temporary storage buildings and warehouses, it would take literally about three days at the most.

And, as mentioned previously, all that activity throws up a lot of red flags for intelligence agencies

 Ketara wrote:
US Intelligence is not omniscient. They cannot cover all construction within China. To even attempt targeted surveillance on the level you are suggesting would require literally hundreds(if not thousands) of analysts sifting through images from just about every satellite the US could muster. Without even questioning the physical capability to identify all potential construction efforts as airfields on short notice, the manpower requirements for processing and analysis alone is simply staggering.

No one claimed that they were omniscient. What I have said, and consistently said, is that there are a number of indicators that intelligence agencies can concentrate one - especially when there is a build up in military activity and rhetoric.

 Ketara wrote:

If they were planning an open war with the US timed simultaneously with the strike on Taiwan

Then you'd have shifted the goalposts to entirely different hypothetical situation.

That's a nice slight of hand....but that quote you are objecting to is your own By all means object to my arguments, but don't object to your own and claim that I made it

 Ketara wrote:
No, but it helps. If the majority of your intelligence gathering capabilities reside in orbital photography and reading the Chinese newspapers, you're going to find things a damn sight harder than if you have a mole inside the base or an agent on the ground.

Thank you Captain Obvious

 Ketara wrote:

Oh, I see.

Not only have the goalposts now been moved to 'spotting the signs of a war planned with the US' instead of just 'razing Taiwan', you've shifted the burden of watching for a military buildup onto tracing oil shipments.

Interesting, but impractical except in general terms. China consumes such a large quantity of oil that unless this surprise war with the US was being planned completely on the hoof, they could easily order slightly more for a period of time (say, a year or two), and it would appear relatively unsuspicious. China has a lot of industry that consumes the stuff after all.

No goalposts have been moved, except by you. What I said was that intelligence agencies can trace a number of things that would indicate a military build up - that includes aviation fuel. And as China is a net importer, and the US has allies in oil producing countries then keeping track of said fuel is easier.
And speaking of goalpost moving, I specifically mentioned aircraft fuel - not just plain old oil aircraft fuel is a different beast. The Chinese will need to buy a lot more of it for training, and the operation itself. All of which will, yet again, throw up big flags for any intelligence agency.

 Ketara wrote:
In the original scenario, this is to bomb Taiwan right? In which case, it's more or less just their airforce. There won't be tens of thousands of soldiers being moved to staging areas, or tanks mustered in highly visible locations.

The only person giving a figure of " tens of thousands of soldiers being moved to staging areas, or tanks mustered in highly visible locations" is you. I said a military build up - airbases need base security, logistics, engineers, support staff, comms, AAA defense systems. That is military build up - and that can be traced.

 Ketara wrote:

I would imagine that the people who fly their aircraft might have had just a little bit of training in doing it beforehand.

Otherwise I concede the earlier point wholeheartedly. If their entire airforce is suddenly being trained to fly and shoot missiles in the week beforehand, then yes, the US probably would win that one.

With regards to ammunition, that's an interesting one. But unless US intelligence has moles inside Chinese armaments productions firms highly enough placed to be able to see a bigger picture of increased production, or lots of lesser ones (either is possible), it would be difficult/impossible to monitor.

And you'd be correct that they may have had a little training before. But that does not take away from the fact that prior to operations being launched the training tempo ramps up. More munitions are expended to ensure that the pilots are confident in what they are doing, and how to operate their weapon systems. Those expended munitions need replaced.

 Ketara wrote:
ith regards to aircraft, the fact that the area in which they can be flown from is so large, that no movement may even be necessary initially. Any planes they want flown in from outside that area, can easily do so within half a day of the operation beginning.

And everything else that is needed aside from planes? Comm equipment? Rations? Ammunition? Barracks? Fuel storage? Munitions storage? etc.



Oh and as far as

 Ketara wrote:
On reflection, I probably could have been a little less sarcastic, but if you classify your arguments as clear and logical, then there's been some genuine breakdown of communication here.

You could have tried reading and responding to the actual arguments put forth. Not what you thought I put forth, but thank you for showing that I can comfortably ignore your opinions now The only breakdown in communication was the breakdown between what I actually said, and what you thought I said

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The F-35 is a steep upgrade to the Harrier and the C compares pretty nicely or out does the Hornet without much trouble. Question I don't know the answer to, are external racks a possibility? Or is it all internal weapons all the time?

It can use external hardpoints. So, purely internal weapons for penetration strikes, and get the wings and belly loaded up with external stores for mudhut CAS bombing.

Well then that's my only concern as a jarhead covered.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you - I had multiple windows open and clicked post under the wrong one

You could have tried reading and responding to the actual arguments put forth. Not what you thought I put forth, but thank you for showing that I can comfortably ignore your opinions now The only breakdown in communication was the breakdown between what I actually said, and what you thought I said

I'll respond to your post as soon as I get home (about to go off to work).
However, firstly I'd like to note that to be frank, this is turning into something of a rude/unpleasant discussion now. I won't deny my part in helping it turn that way, but it does take two to tango. How about we both step back from the keyboard a notch and tone down the sarcasm/general nastiness? Otherwise this is leading nowhere productive. If I've been perceived as rude (or indeed, actually been rude), I apologise for that.

So. We can carry on in a more mature/friendly fashion, or we should probably leave it there. I'll leave it up to you. Sound cool?

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you - I had multiple windows open and clicked post under the wrong one

You could have tried reading and responding to the actual arguments put forth. Not what you thought I put forth, but thank you for showing that I can comfortably ignore your opinions now The only breakdown in communication was the breakdown between what I actually said, and what you thought I said

I'll respond to your post as soon as I get home (about to go off to work).
However, firstly I'd like to note that to be frank, this is turning into something of a rude/unpleasant discussion now. I won't deny my part in helping it turn that way, but it does take two to tango. How about we both step back from the keyboard a notch and tone down the sarcasm/general nastiness? Otherwise this is leading nowhere productive. If I've been perceived as rude (or indeed, actually been rude), I apologise for that.

So. We can carry on in a more mature/friendly fashion, or we should probably leave it there. I'll leave it up to you. Sound cool?

Turning into? It reached that way a few posts back. I won't deny my part in it, but I will say that it was not I who threw the first stone. I only responded in kind.

I always thought that you were usually pretty sensible, and that even if you didn't see eye to eye that you could at least respectfully agree to disagree. Your level of snarkiness, distortion, and bad faith is making me re-assess that.

 Seaward wrote:

And it has comparatively little fuel compared to what? It'll have more internal gas than the Super Bug. Cruises more efficiently, too.

Only with the inerting and other safety systems removed. It also currently accelerates like a bus, taking 43 seconds longer than F16 Falcon block 60 to exceed Mach 1.

I looked into it, and the B and C variants have had their Mach 1 restriction lifted (not so on the As) and have been flying test off the Wasp. Even with all that lightening, the pilots report running low on fuel attempting to reach mach1+.


Here's the problems the pentagon is willign to admit are problems:


The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.


While supposedly the issue of the airframe cracking under less than 8k hours regular flight time has been addressed, the fact that it got that far at all...

This bird is an expensive boondoggle, and the only reason it has not been cancelled is that Lockheed spent more than a billion dollars lining the pockets of almost every Congressman running last election.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Only with the inerting and other safety systems removed.

In-co-rrect.

It also currently accelerates like a bus, taking 43 seconds longer than F16 Falcon block 60 to exceed Mach 1.

The C does, yes. Because it has a larger wing and thus more transonic drag. It accelerates faster than the Super Hornet, however, so let's compare apples and apples and look at the C vs. the legacy F/A-18 and the A vs. the F-16. Hint: the respective models beat the planes they're replacing in most metrics.

I looked into it, and the B and C variants have had their Mach 1 restriction lifted (not so on the As) and have been flying test off the Wasp. Even with all that lightening, the pilots report running low on fuel attempting to reach mach1+.

Oh, God. We covered this earlier, during the discussion of the alleged "supersonic mating dance."

Here's the problems the pentagon is willign to admit are problems:


The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.

While supposedly the issue of the airframe cracking under less than 8k hours regular flight time has been addressed, the fact that it got that far at all...

And I see we're back to where we were several pages ago in general. I could go through and point-by-point address this stuff again, but why bother? Someone else will inevitably not read it and post this list or something like it in another few posts.

This bird is an expensive boondoggle, and the only reason it has not been cancelled is that Lockheed spent more than a billion dollars lining the pockets of almost every Congressman running last election.

It's over budget and behind schedule, but that hardly makes it a boondoggle. It's an incredible advance in our air power. Pilots (including this one) like it immensely for what it brings to the table.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Turning into? It reached that way a few posts back. I won't deny my part in it, but I will say that it was not I who threw the first stone. I only responded in kind.

I always thought that you were usually pretty sensible, and that even if you didn't see eye to eye that you could at least respectfully agree to disagree. Your level of snarkiness, distortion, and bad faith is making me re-assess that.

I see. Well, in that case, I won't force you to interact with me further. I know, at the least, that I apologised for my part in it. Conscience is clear, and all that.

Beyond that then, we'll let sleeping dogs lie.