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.

No amount of retrofitting is going to lower the RCS of the F16 - especially once you start hanging gak off the pylons - so the entire idea is a total nonstarter for domestic use, period.

 Ouze wrote:
No amount of retrofitting is going to lower the RCS of the F16 - especially once you start hanging gak off the pylons - so the entire idea is a total nonstarter for domestic use, period.

I wouldn't agree with that entirely. I think you could probably do much the same with the F-16 as Boeing did with the Advanced Super Hornet, which, between the signature reduction measures and the "stealth" weapon pod, managed to knock the RCS down considerably.

The trouble is, it only knocked it down to about 0.5 meters squared, whereas the F-35 sits at a pretty comfortable 0.005.

 Peregrine wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I like this analogy, a lot actually, but then I'm forced to point out something like Eve Online, a game originally developed 11 years ago which is still kicking today, that has been continually upgraded (both hardware and software wise) since it was first released, and functions and behaves absolutely nothing like it did when it first came to existence. Despite those upgrades, and the expectation of resulting code bloat, the code remains relatively streamlined, in fact some of the upgrades actually resulted in a DECREASE in code complexity while still enhancing game performance and capabilities, etc. Yes, there are still some issues in the game, a few of which, for the time being at least, have no readily apparent workarounds and which the game developers (and thus the players) are apparently stuck with.

Actually, EVE is a pretty good example but for the exact opposite reason. They've had a lot of problems with trying to make new features work with the existing code, and in at least one case they had to admit that it couldn't be done because nobody understood how the relevant stuff worked anymore. And this is after spending a vast amount of effort on upgrades, probably to the point where they could have made an entirely new game if their customers had been willing to accept no updates for a while in exchange. So, like trying to upgrade an F-16 endlessly, it's a case of the existing stuff imposing some real limits on what you can do and how much it will cost. The main difference is that EVE is just a game, so if a feature can't be done or isn't practical then you just have some possibly unhappy customers, not a dead pilot.

Source for this please? I've been playing eve since pretty much the start and I don't recall this ever being the case. The only thing that comes close is the whole lag issue caused by the server load of ship inventory, player skills, implants, etc. and their database structure, which isn't a case of them not understanding, rather that being an element of the core game engine which they cannot undo without a complete overhaul. Other than that, the only real issue they've had making a new feature work is the whole walking in stations thing which consumed a lot of resources and nobody really wanted in the first place (and has turned out to be a complete dud).

1) You're spending a considerable fraction of the cost of a new F-35 to get your upgraded F-16, especially if you consider the cost of the additional R&D work to make a new F-16 upgrade (something that is already done for the F-35). Would you consider it a reasonable decision if you spend 90% of the cost for 70% of the plane? If the budget is your primary concern then you cut something else and buy good fighters, you don't settle for awful performance-per-dollar ratios just to save a little money on the total cost.

You're not going to spend 90% for 70% though, it would be more like 50% for 70%, particularly as the systems which you would be porting over to the legacy airframe have already been largely paid for (and will presumably be re-used/upgraded in future airframes as well) as part of the F-35 project, so theres a bit of a sunk cost fallacy in this argument.

2) You're still stuck with the problem of limited upgrade potential. Even if your engineers work a miracle and manage to cram everything you wanted into the F-16 despite thinking it had reached its limits you're going to have serious problems with the next round of upgrades. The F-35 will have upgrade potential available and can probably take most of it without many problems, while you're right back to a choice between buying new F-35s and spending a huge amount of money trying to upgrade your F-16s again while the performance gap gets even bigger. If you're going to have to buy the F-35s anyway (and it's really unlikely that you'll make it to the F-35's successor without needing a new fighter) you might as well do it now and avoid throwing away money on F-16 upgrades with a limited useful life.

Scrapping the F-35 and recapitalizing the existing fleet has a two-fold advantage. 1. It stops (and if you supplement with new-build fighters it actually reverses) the growing USAF fighter gap (which the F-35 won't be able to do for almost another 10 years, assuming the most recent project schedule holds true). 2. It buys us time to re-evaluate our needs

Here's a civilian example I'm more familiar with: you can get an old Cessna 150 for about $15k. It's a pretty low-end plane, but it gets the job done if you just want to fly for fun without spending too much money. Or you could get a new plane for $1-200k that will be much nicer, have much better performance, modern LCD-screen instruments, etc. But that's kind of expensive, so let's buy an old 150 and upgrade it. $10k for new instruments (and a new panel to hold them, new electrical wiring, etc), $10k to overhaul the engine (which is getting kind of old), labor costs to install everything, etc. Oh, and we don't want to be embarrassed when we take our friends flying, so let's buy a new interior and some new paint. Congratulations, now we've managed to drive up the cost to pretty close to that brand new plane, except it's still slower, only has one and a half seats, and you'd better hope your passenger is under 170 pounds or you're going to be lucky if you can carry enough fuel to make a trip around the traffic pattern. Still think it's a good idea to try to make that cheap plane into a nice one?

So heres the thing, civilian/general aviation aircraft don't have that big a difference in performance within the same general 'category'/'performance bracket' So assuming that we're comparing a stock 150 (because there are a LOT of modifications, upgrades, and variants available) to a new 162:
The 162 will have a cruise speed approx. 5 knots faster than the 150, but the 150 has a higher maximum. (112 vs 107, 118 vs 141)
The 162 will have a max takeoff weight 300 lbs less than the 150, although the same useful load. (1600 vs 1320)
The 162 will have a wing loading of 1 lb/ft^2 greater than the 150. (11 vs 10)
The 162 will have a service ceiling 1500 ft higher than the 150 (15500 vs 14000)

The main substantial difference is that the 162 has a much greater range and a much better rate of climb (both of which have been dramatically improved in 150s via some of the aforementioned upgrades, etc.). Despite this the 150 is still considered by most to be an easier aircraft to operate and fly than the 162, so while it is 'better' in terms of performance criteria, it isn't necessarily a 'better' aircraft to own, and that old beater of a 150 (assuming it still has a healthy amount of time left on it, lets assume it does to keep the analogy apples to apples) is more than 'good enough' for many peoples needs.

Now lets look at the upgrades you mentioned there... aside from the fact that most of them aren't really necessary, nor do they improve the general performance of the aircraft, a lot of the 'equivalent' upgrades for the USAF fighter fleet have already been performed (glass cockpit, engine upgrades, etc.). In other words, we've already paid for those things, and thus already have them.

Sure, but that's because the original plane had upgrade potential remaining, and they used it well. The point is that there's a limit to how long you can keep doing that and still have a viable alternative to buying a whole new plane, and there's a pretty convincing argument that we've either reached that point now or will reach it soon enough that we might as well just buy the F-35s now instead of throwing money at trying to delay the inevitable.

Except they're not the same plane, and I mean that in every sense of the term. The Superhornet is derived from the Hornet and all its associated R&D work, etc. but they have very little in common beyond a simple cosmetic similarity, and even then the Superhornet is considerably larger in every way. Regardless of the fact that it *IS* a different plane, the fact that it was derived from the Hornet meant that its development and production costs were DRASTICALLY lower than simply starting over from scratch (ala the F-35).

Beyond that, I think you underestimate the potential that existing designs have. The F-15 for example, is capable of being upgraded with thrust vectoring (see also: F-15 ACTIVE and F-15 IFCS) as well as STOL capabilities (F-15 STOL/MTD). Then theres the F-15E (which as I understand it has no replacement yet), which the Koreans upgraded to the F-15K Slam Eagle which has a rather impressive suite of features, as well as the F-15SE Silent Eagle which features low observable/stealth shaping and RAM technologies to reduce its RCS dramatically (comparable to the F-35 in its front aspect, but otherwise clearly inferior from the sides/rear/above/below, although this is claimed to be as a result on export limitations imposed by Congress, and theoretically this aspect can be improved as well), as well as the same AESA radar, datalink, and electronic warfare suite as the F-35. Oh, and (compared to the F-15E) its also lighter, faster, more fuel-efficient, has an increased range, vastly improved avionics, and an increased payload. Unfortunately, the estimated pricetag of the aircraft, although still lower than the F-35s by a good bit, is presently too high to make it attractive, although Boeing has stated that the price would drop dramatically if there was increased interest in the plane.

And then the F-16... there is the new F-16E/F block 60 which have some pretty damned impressive improvements (many of which were derived from the F-35 program), and while the USAF doesn't fly them, the ones in use by the UAE are noted to be markedly superior to previous iterations of the aircraft in both performance and capability, and actually outperformed both the F-15 and Dassault Raffaels that they were pitted against in fly-off competitions during their acquisition process), oh and those cheeky bastards have decided to upgrade them EVEN FURTHER STILL. The cost per unit (including both development and production costs, paid for entirely by the UAE)? $37.5 million, which is still 1/3rd the price of the lowest (and IMO most unrealistic) estimates of the F-35. And yes, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the Block 60 IS superior to the F-16s in the USAF inventory, and some claim it superior to even our F-15s.

Beyond the Block 60s theres also the research/test prototypes like the F-16XL (delta wing, high-efficiency supercruise, high low-speed maneuverability, 2x the payload 1.5x the range), F-16 SFW (swept forward wing), F-16 VISTA/MATV (multi-axis thrust vectoring, also btw, the basis for many of the technologies used in the F-35), F-16X Falcon 2000 (cheaper than a Superhornet, longer legs, bigger payload, higher speed, more maneuverable), F-16 LOAN (testbed for LO nozzles used on the F-35), F-16IN (more advanced than even the Block 60), etc.

Then the Superhornet, which besides NOT being replaced with the F-35, continues to be acquired by the Navy, particularly the Growler variant which has extremely advanced EWAR features beyond those of even the F-35. Theres also the Advanced Super Hornet that Seaward just mentioned, though I admittedly don't know much about.

And just for gaks and giggles, the F-4 Phantom had a couple proposed 'super' variants. One of which was the F-4X/Peace Jack which offered performance comparable to the SR-71 with the added advantage of an offensive capability that rivaled even the F-15, so much so that the USAF killed the program because of the threat it presented to the F-15 program. Another, the IAI F-4-2000 Super Phantom which could supercruise, exceeded the Hornets flight performance and capability in every way, and was similarly scrapped because it endangered sales of the F/A-18.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You're not going to spend 90% for 70% though, it would be more like 50% for 70%, particularly as the systems which you would be porting over to the legacy airframe have already been largely paid for (and will presumably be re-used/upgraded in future airframes as well) as part of the F-35 project, so theres a bit of a sunk cost fallacy in this argument.

You very well could end up spending 90%. The F-35 is going to wind up cheaper than a lot of 4.5 gen options once it hits full production.

Scrapping the F-35 and recapitalizing the existing fleet has a two-fold advantage. 1. It stops (and if you supplement with new-build fighters it actually reverses) the growing USAF fighter gap (which the F-35 won't be able to do for almost another 10 years, assuming the most recent project schedule holds true). 2. It buys us time to re-evaluate our needs

That's an extremely temporary advantage that comes at the expense of a long-term solution.

And we don't need to reevaluate. We know what our needs are.

Beyond that, I think you underestimate the potential that existing designs have. The F-15 for example, is capable of being upgraded with thrust vectoring (see also: F-15 ACTIVE and F-15 IFCS) as well as STOL capabilities (F-15 STOL/MTD).

We could've built the F-35 with thrust vectoring. We chose not to. Thrust vectoring's a nice but essentially cosmetic feature. Post-stall maneuverability isn't something that's worth designing for. It was in the '80s, when the F-22 was designed, before the AIM-9X and its ilk came along, but it's not anymore.

Then theres the F-15E (which as I understand it has no replacement yet), which the Koreans upgraded to the F-15K Slam Eagle which has a rather impressive suite of features, as well as the F-15SE Silent Eagle which features low observable/stealth shaping and RAM technologies to reduce its RCS dramatically (comparable to the F-35 in its front aspect, but otherwise clearly inferior from the sides/rear/above/below, although this is claimed to be as a result on export limitations imposed by Congress, and theoretically this aspect can be improved as well), as well as the same AESA radar, datalink, and electronic warfare suite as the F-35. Oh, and (compared to the F-15E) its also lighter, faster, more fuel-efficient, has an increased range, vastly improved avionics, and an increased payload. Unfortunately, the estimated pricetag of the aircraft, although still lower than the F-35s by a good bit, is presently too high to make it attractive, although Boeing has stated that the price would drop dramatically if there was increased interest in the plane.

Nah. Whoever claims the Silent Eagle's frontal RCS would be comparable to the F-35's is trying to sell you something. And if we want to play the estimated price tag game, go look at the F-35's estimated price tag before it entered LRIP, and compare that to the Silent Eagle's.

The Silent Eagle's found no buyers. That's pretty strange, if it's just as good as the F-35 and significantly cheaper.

And then the F-16... there is the new F-16E/F block 60 which have some pretty damned impressive improvements (many of which were derived from the F-35 program), and while the USAF doesn't fly them, the ones in use by the UAE are noted to be markedly superior to previous iterations of the aircraft in both performance and capability, and actually outperformed both the F-15 and Dassault Raffaels that they were pitted against in fly-off competitions during their acquisition process), oh and those cheeky bastards have decided to upgrade them EVEN FURTHER STILL. The cost per unit (including both development and production costs, paid for entirely by the UAE)? $37.5 million, which is still 1/3rd the price of the lowest (and IMO most unrealistic) estimates of the F-35. And yes, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the Block 60 IS superior to the F-16s in the USAF inventory, and some claim it superior to even our F-15s.

There isn't much if anything on Block 60 F-16s that can be traced back to the F-35, I don't think.

There are some other relevant statistics to consider when comparing the two, though:

The F-35 has roughly 1/1000th the RCS of the F-16 Block 60.
The F-35 has better flight performance when loaded than the F-16 Block 60 does.
The F-35 has far better avionics/situational awareness aids.
The F-35 is capable of carrying a heavier payload, and carrying it farther and faster.
And the list actually does go on.

Then the Superhornet, which besides NOT being replaced with the F-35, continues to be acquired by the Navy, particularly the Growler variant which has extremely advanced EWAR features beyond those of even the F-35. Theres also the Advanced Super Hornet that Seaward just mentioned, though I admittedly don't know much about.

The only reason the Super Hornet isn't being replaced by the F-35 is that it's slated to be replaced in 2035 at the end of its service life by whoever comes out on top of the Next Generation Air Dominance program. If NGAD gets canceled, then F-35's will absolutely replace it. We won't be SLEPing the Super Hornet.

As for what you need to know about the Advanced Super Hornet: it's the best attempt to provide an alternative to the F-35, using the newest 4.5 gen fighter we have, and it's still solidly inferior to the F-35.

And just for gaks and giggles, the F-4 Phantom had a couple proposed 'super' variants. One of which was the F-4X/Peace Jack which offered performance comparable to the SR-71 with the added advantage of an offensive capability that rivaled even the F-15, so much so that the USAF killed the program because of the threat it presented to the F-15 program. Another, the IAI F-4-2000 Super Phantom which could supercruise, exceeded the Hornets flight performance and capability in every way, and was similarly scrapped because it endangered sales of the F/A-18.

Yeah, I'd take a lot of that sort of stuff with a grain of salt. Nearly every aircraft we've ever retired has had some "Super" variant proposed by its maker. There was the Super Tomcat, the next-generation A-6, the 15-odd theoretical F-16 variants you mentioned above, etc.

We rarely go for them. Not because we're idiots, but because spending a lot of money on designs that have been stretched to the absolute limits of what they're capable of doing is a dumb move when you can buy new aircraft with plenty of room to grow that, even in their infancy, still exceed the capability of the upgraded alternatives.

Here's the bottom line: there is no 4th gen aircraft, flying or on the proposal table, that can hold a candle to the F-35.

 Seaward wrote:


Here's the bottom line: there is no 4th gen aircraft, flying or on the proposal table, that can hold a candle to the F-35.

In a sick and twisted sort of way, I'm actually really hoping/really looking forward to that turning out to be false.




My cynicism is totally going to cause dementia... feth.

@Seaward: Assuming CF-18 end of service life is now, does it still make sense to early-adopt F-35 at present costs, or purchase Super Hornet as a stopgap and transition to F-35 like Australia?

Our gov't is stubbornly (some might say with willful stuidity)pegging fly away cost at $75M/plane.

chaos0xomega wrote:In a sick and twisted sort of way, I'm actually really hoping/really looking forward to that turning out to be false.

That's weird. It's making me wonder if I need to go back to basics and explain how radars work, why small radar cross section is better than large, etc.

keezus wrote:@Seaward: Assuming CF-18 end of service life is now, does it still make sense to early-adopt F-35 at present costs, or purchase Super Hornet as a stopgap and transition to F-35 like Australia?

Our gov't is stubbornly (some might say with willful stuidity)pegging fly away cost at $75M/plane.

$75M flyaway might be accurate by 2022 or whenever you guys plan to acquire them.

And no, I don't see the Super Hornet making a lot of sense if you're going with the F-35 eventually. You'd be buying it for ten years.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Source for this please?

Don't really feel like digging for old forum threads, but at least one current one is the problem of off-grid boosting. CCP devs have said that they think it's a problem and would really like to limit it to on-grid only, but the fleet bonus system is a mess and they can't figure out a way to impose the restriction. At least one "nobody understands it" thing was the billboards next to the stargates, any suggestions for changes were answered with "sounds cool, but the guy who wrote that code doesn't work here anymore and nobody knows how it works". Could they make it worth with an unlimited budget? Sure, but in the real world it's a very relevant problem.

You're not going to spend 90% for 70% though, it would be more like 50% for 70%, particularly as the systems which you would be porting over to the legacy airframe have already been largely paid for (and will presumably be re-used/upgraded in future airframes as well) as part of the F-35 project, so theres a bit of a sunk cost fallacy in this argument.

Argue about the exact percentages, but the basic point remains: the upgraded F-16s are cheaper per-plane, but you're overpaying for something that gives you way less plane-per-dollar than spending that money on F-35s.

And no, you can't re-use the old airframes because of serious fatigue life issues (as in past X flight hours you start to have fun things like in-flight structural failures). The decision is between new super-F-16s and new F-35s, not putting some new electronics into all the old fighters we already have.

1. It stops (and if you supplement with new-build fighters it actually reverses) the growing USAF fighter gap (which the F-35 won't be able to do for almost another 10 years, assuming the most recent project schedule holds true).

No it doesn't, unless your plan is to spend all of the money you'd spend on F-35s on buying new upgraded F-16s or whatever, in which case you're not fixing the budget issue. If you want to save money you're going to be buying the same number of fighters, the only question is which fighters they will be.

(And, again, using the existing airframes is not an option. They're going to the scrap yard soon no matter what new planes you buy.)

2. It buys us time to re-evaluate our needs

It buys us time, but at what cost? If the conclusion is "buy F-35s" then all we've done is spend a bunch of money on planes we don't want. Buying time only makes sense if the old planes will be good enough to reach the point where the F-35's successor is available, and that doesn't seem like a very convincing argument when that hypothetical replacement hasn't even moved beyond the "here's some CGI pictures of a cool plane" stage.

So assuming that we're comparing a stock 150 (because there are a LOT of modifications, upgrades, and variants available) to a new 162:

Actually my comparison was between the 150 and a new 172 (or similar plane from another manufacturer), which is a whole new class of plane. It's faster, much more comfortable, and can actually haul a passenger and bags along with enough fuel for legitimate travel instead of just flying around the local area. The 162 is a light sport plane with severe performance limits imposed by the FAA, and not really a fair comparison.

and that old beater of a 150 (assuming it still has a healthy amount of time left on it, lets assume it does to keep the analogy apples to apples) is more than 'good enough' for many peoples needs.

Yes, which is the whole point. The old 150 is a great purchase if you want to fly occasionally for fun and budget is an issue. But it's a great purchase because it is cheap. Dumping a bunch of money into upgrades turns it into an expensive plane that still has the same limits, and completely negates the reason why anyone would want to buy one.

It's the same with fighters: if all you want is some cheap fighters to pretend that you have a relevant air force then sure, buy some F-16s. But if you want top-end performance then you buy F-35s, you don't desperately attempt to cram all the new hardware into your old F-16s.

Biggest advantage of the F 35 is the passive IR search and track. That is the true stealth feature, not the marginal x band protection it has, primarily in the forward aspect. Being able to passively track a bogey without radiating anything or using GCI/AWACS cuing is a monster advantage. Especially for the CVN since the Hawkeye emission is like a megaphone yelling OH HAI GUYS THE CARRIER IS THIS WAY. Getting a rough hack from the SLQ 32s on the pickets, maybe a few SPY sweeps then getting vectors for a favorable WVR intercept is mean. Especially given the Russian/Chinese aversion to WVR knife fighting.

Still, let's all agree that the Marines have to sit quietly outside next time the adults are laying down new fighter requirements. Someone should have slapped the vice commandant who said OO what about a supersonic stealth jump jet? Right guys? Guadalcanal!

Still, let's all agree that the Marines have to sit quietly outside next time the adults are laying down new fighter requirements. Someone should have slapped the vice commandant who said OO what about a supersonic stealth jump jet? Right guys? Guadalcanal!

I think everyone is in agreement on this, right gents? Common ground? lol

 Seaward wrote:
$75M flyaway might be accurate by 2022 or whenever you guys plan to acquire them.

Original projection was purchase in 2016. It will likely be later now, since the public raised significant furror in 2012 that the $75M price appeared grossly inaccurate, despite gov't claims that our price would be fixed by the time of purchase. Since then, the sole source plan was scrapped in favor of a new process (which again slants the requirements towards the F-35).

I used to be of the opinion that Canada doesn't stuff to counter our supposed enemies' top-end stuff since it is unlikely that any beligerent nation would actually attack us "nice guys", since our gov't (prior to 2006) was internationally known for being generally even handed and our military was usually used internationally for humanitarian / peacekeeping missions or UN sanctioned actions. Of course, in a post 9-11 world, there's always terrorists and nutters, but they would be attacking using methods which high-tech military equipment can not combat. These days, with our govt's more aggressive stance - it seems to makes sense to buy more advanced equipment that can perform in a strike role, but I can't shake the feeling that we may be sacrificing quantity of airframes for seldom used strike capability due to the overal numbers in the planned purchase (65). IMHO, I think that our monies would be better served buying drones for sovereignty and spend some money replacing our coastal search and rescue aircraft.

I'm obviously not in the military, so I may be talking out my arse.

Just because I like this kind of discussion...

Has anybody seen this yet?

http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is

 whitedragon wrote:
Just because I like this kind of discussion...

Has anybody seen this yet?

http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is

Can you post the article... for some reason digg is workblocked for me. :/

Saw it, havent watched, been too busy, videos are inconvenient :C

Though based on previous discussion, Seaward considers Pierre to be a washed-up has been know nothing (or something like that), since he's still thinking in terms of the 'last generation' and has no actual combat aviation experience himself.... or something like that...

 whitedragon wrote:
Just because I like this kind of discussion...

Has anybody seen this yet?

http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is

I'm Sorry but Pierre sprey gets paid to say bullgak about anything.

He compaired the M1A2 Abrams to the m48 patton and had the patton better in every category compaired to the abrams (Except for Combat maneuverability which was a "Tie")

 whembly wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:
Just because I like this kind of discussion...

Has anybody seen this yet?

http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is

Can you post the article... for some reason digg is workblocked for me. :/

Unfortunately its a video, and I can't find a transcript in my cursory search.

Check this link though:
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:
Just because I like this kind of discussion...

Has anybody seen this yet?

http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is

I'm Sorry but Pierre sprey gets paid to say bullgak about anything.

He compaired the M1A2 Abrams to the m48 patton and had the patton better in every category compaired to the abrams (Except for Combat maneuverability which was a "Tie")

Well thats a perverse twist on what he actually said, why dont you tell us how you really feel?

What he actually said is that the Abrams is too big, slow, and unwieldy to effectively support the infantry and are only really useful for fighting off a soviet tank horde in the fields of eastern europe... which is for the most part true.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Saw it, havent watched, been too busy, videos are inconvenient :C

Though based on previous discussion, Seaward considers Pierre to be a washed-up has been know nothing (or something like that), since he's still thinking in terms of the 'last generation' and has no actual combat aviation experience himself.... or something like that...

I think he's not the designer of the F-15, for one thing.

He had a hand in the F-16, because he believed that all that fancy radar and medium-range AAM capability and ECM stuff that went into the F-15 was a waste of time and no match for a tiny fighter with a gun.

He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.

chaos0xomega wrote:
He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.

Yeah. As I said, he's not the designer of the F-15. He's barely the co-designer of the F-16.

And he and Boyd were wrong. F-16s are meat on the table for F-15s. There's a reason the F-15 has the best air-to-air kill ratio of any aircraft in history (something like 250/0); it turns out maneuverability and energy retention aren't all you need to be an effective air superiority aircraft. Avionics and BVR weapons systems play a huge role.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Well thats a perverse twist on what he actually said, why dont you tell us how you really feel?

What he actually said is that the Abrams is too big, slow, and unwieldy to effectively support the infantry and are only really useful for fighting off a soviet tank horde in the fields of eastern europe... which is for the most part true.

Abrams is 1 foot longer and wider than an M48 patton

Without the governor the Abrams can reach a top speed of 105 mph, With it it tops out on road at 45 mph. 15mph faster than the patton
During desert storm the Abrams crews were told to slow down because they were outpacing their supply chain.

The purpose of any MBT is to engauge other Tanks...

This is not WW2 the main weapon is not the machinegun anymore.

effectively support the infantry

I'll take What is an IFV? for 200

Lets continue Pierre sprey compairsons with our own versions

Lets do a Aichi D3A vs F22 in destorying enemy ships

VS.

Anti-ship weapons:

Aichi D3A
550 LB bomb

F22 Raptor
None

Winner Aichi

combat maneuverability

Aichi D3A is able to dive towards enemy ships to enure the highest accuracy.

The F22 cannot Dive Bomb effectively

Winner Aichi

Cost

F22 Costs 150 million per play

You could buy about 15 thousand Aichi D3a for that much

Winner: Aichi

Survivability

The Aichi has take hits from .50 cals and 40mm boffors. Some people have survived these hits

The Raptor has yet to be hit with any Anti-air weapon

Winner: Aichi

Fire power

The Aichi carries 1,500 rounds of machinegun ammo

the F22 raptor only carries 480

Winner: Aichi

From these reports its clear that the Aichi d3a is a superior plane....

That is how all of his arguments go.

 Jihadin wrote:
Ensis I believe is a drone pilot. That multiple screen for a 360 view is distracting. Seaward the pilot for fix wing and I was a crew chief for rotary. I rather have unrestricted view instead of the "break" between screens. I want to go with two maybe three more generation of computerization to get the effect of a total cockpit screen one can sit in at a desk with no lag from aircraft to pilot on ground

Also Ensis I'm calling you out. Have you looked into USAjob. If not I come down from Gig Harbor and nut check you

Actually no... Not a "UAS Operator" (they strongly disliked my name for them of "RC enthusiast"), I was a 33W, so I fixed all manner of radio, computer/networking gear and electronics for everyone BUT the UAV guys

And I do have a pretty damn good job thus far, selling health and supplemental insurance



One question that I do have on the F-35/F-22 and the Air Force's haste to distance itself from one of it's greatest assets ever.... Do we know, as in real life actions, whether either one of these extremely expensive planes can handle the physical punishment as an A-10 has in combat, and still make it home?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One question that I do have on the F-35/F-22 and the Air Force's haste to distance itself from one of it's greatest assets ever.... Do we know, as in real life actions, whether either one of these extremely expensive planes can handle the physical punishment as an A-10 has in combat, and still make it home?

Nah. There's nothing in the air that can endure the punishment an A-10 can endure.

But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down. We've not used it due to concerns about it getting tagged an awful lot over the past ten years.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One question that I do have on the F-35/F-22 and the Air Force's haste to distance itself from one of it's greatest assets ever.... Do we know, as in real life actions, whether either one of these extremely expensive planes can handle the physical punishment as an A-10 has in combat, and still make it home?

Nah. There's nothing in the air that can endure the punishment an A-10 can endure.

But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down. We've not used it due to concerns about it getting tagged an awful lot over the past ten years.

It'll be a tough sell for me to want another aircraft flying over me to provide air support

 Seaward wrote:

But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down. We've not used it due to concerns about it getting tagged an awful lot over the past ten years.

I seem to recall it actually getting used a bunch in OIF, as well as Desert Storm/Shield.

The A-10 gets used a ton. Despite making up about 10% of the USAF's CAS capable inventory, they've flown 20% of the missions for OIF and OEF.

It just lingers there. Waiting for the call of some grunts wanting to have their own version of Shoot an Insurgent Day that coincides with the Insurgents Shoot an American Day.

 Jihadin wrote:
It just lingers there. Waiting for the call of some grunts wanting to have their own version of Shoot an Insurgent Day that coincides with the Insurgents Shoot an American Day.

Wouldn't you rather have Spooky Gunship loitering around?

Flies to high

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I seem to recall it actually getting used a bunch in OIF, as well as Desert Storm/Shield.

Once the air was sanitized, yes. We could'v used old A-1 Skyraiders to the same effect. (And we more or less will be, once the Light Air Support program and the A-29 get back on track.)

 djones520 wrote:
The A-10 gets used a ton. Despite making up about 10% of the USAF's CAS capable inventory, they've flown 20% of the missions for OIF and OEF.

I think that number's a little high, but even if not, I think it does a good job of illustrating that we can get by without the A-10. 80% of the mud-moving was done by something else; the plane can't be that crucial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Flies to high

Yeah, but with ROVER getting more common, even the "flies too high" argument is losing steam.