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.
Peregrine wrote: If things are getting to a point where war looks likely the warships (along with other assets) are going to be deployed to the region to minimize delays in getting into action.
Peregine, when was the last time that the US spent more than a month planning and prepping for a war before it was already on them? WW1? Spanish American war? Let's say that War looks likely and they do that. The war would have broken out, and possibly be over, before the monitor ever gets there. You really seem to not understand how slow these things are.
Pick up your sofa and walk across the living room, and you'll probably outrun a monitor traveling the same distance at cruising speed. It takes them YEARS to get places. Even newer ones.
And you'll have spent vastly more money getting it there than a battleship would ever use, since it would take a tag team of oilers to keep it moving forward.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you wanted to build a modern monitor ship, you could build it with fast engines.
Kill, I'm not even sure where to start.
Monitors, in the modern sense, sacrifice fuel storage, speed, room for supplies, and sea worthiness, to carry the weapons, munitions and armor required. For the monitor to be small, the engines must be small. Once you start talking 30+knts you're talking a battleship, because the engines to push the monitor's mass are over four stories high themselves, on their own. Effectively, for a monitor to keep up, you've converted it from a good monitor to a bad battleship.
It's certainly possible to build an armoured ship with six to eight heavy guns and a speed of over 30 knots, because that's what a WW2 heavy cruiser was, and displaced about 10,000 tons which is similar to a large modern destroyer. You could call a heavy cruiser a bad battleship, but against anything similar except a real battleship, they did good service.
Ketara's idea, which I have adopted and adapted, is for a ship of probably about 6,000 to 8,000 tons, with four heavy guns as main armament, with the purpose of supporting landings.
I'm not sure it needs armour. I'm sure it's possible to build better armour using modern materials, but it probably isn't realistic to armour a ship well enough to withstand modern weapons, or navies would be doing it already.
Such a ship could be just as fast as a modern destroyer, and carry defensive systems like chaff, etc. It wouldn't carry heavy missiles because that's not what it's for.
Sure, that's the whole point, all they really need to do is stay at cruising speed, they don't need that extra speed to maneuver.
The problem is again that a monitor's cruising speed makes horse and buggy look swift. Think the bad old days before clipper ships. (or sails, for that matter, a trireme could run these down... and now for some reason the image of Kim Jung Un beating a drum as slaves man the oars is stuck in my head) Six months from San Diego to Tokyo. Are you getting the idea yet? and that's for the monitors that were built for WW2, not the ancient coal plants of yore like HMAS Cerberus..
You're making a really major assumption here. That they will be as slow as they were in WW2 and prior. I think in advances in tech mean that will not be the case.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I'm not sure it needs armour. I'm sure it's possible to build better armour using modern materials, but it probably isn't realistic to armour a ship well enough to withstand modern weapons, or navies would be doing it already.
We're talking about a fleet that can't even line up plumbing on it's ships anymore, and has aircraft designers trying to build ships. Rational and sensible will not be back in vogue until someone sinks something big. It's happened over and over, idiocy reigns until soemone starts sinking gak, and then people go 'OH, Maybe we should have done X".
Again, ships that dissolve in sea water, stealth ships big as battleships, and ships that are literally self sinking.
No, missiles will continue to rule so that Admirals can retire to cushy jobs at Lockheed, Концерн Радиоэлектронные технологии, BAE systems, Oto, and any number of other contractors. Right up until someone sinks something big. And then the ass covering parade will start and people will start putting armor on ships again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think in advances in tech mean that will not be the case.
The Brazilians upgraded their monitors in 1990's. They still only get 12 knts. So you'll need to change that to 'The Gulf War and prior'. It's a matter of physics, not technology. You're not going to get 150k shaft horsepower out of an engine only 20 feet long.
Such a ship could be just as fast as a modern destroyer, and carry defensive systems like chaff, etc. It wouldn't carry heavy missiles because that's not what it's for.
I linked a document earlier with post shot analysis of how effective this is in combat compared to a battleship. IIRC the relevant chart is on page 14.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/08/19 21:04:16
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Baron, I think you're getting too hung up on the term 'Monitor' with regards to KK. What he's describing is essentially a heavy cruiser, which would be a feasible enough class of ship. An upgunned Des Moines class would do the job. You don't need something with battleship calibre armour anymore; on account of the fact that such armour was designed to take hits from 16 inch guns (which no navy packs anymore). Reasonable plating to ensure it can endure some counter-fire, yes; 10 inches of fully cemented? Not so much.
A trio of heavy cruisers (I'd stick ten inch guns on them personally) displacing 10-12,000 tons dispersed amongst the American Navy's various fleets would do just fine for themselves. I think the traditional 'battleship/battlecruiser' is obsolete by sheer virtue of the fact that (a) a large proportion of its job has been stolen by subsurface and aerial, and (b) Nobody else uses them (meaning you don't require your own ones for a hard counter). Building a 45,000 ton ship with six 16 inch guns would just be excessive.
The heavy cruisers though? Well, any effective military should have a toolkit approach. Not every solution requires airpower, or can be best achieved by it, and not every situation which might require a solution is forseeable. Nobody saw the Falklands coming, if you get my drift. Heavy Cruisers have sufficient battlefield utility in their own right to not be a burden on a fleet, and would be a small enough drop in the vast American naval budget that if they turned out to not be needed in a given scenario, it wouldn't be a tragedy.
One lesson that military history does tend to illustrate is that those who focus on one arm/scenario to the exclusion of all else are rarely well prepared for anything they didn't see coming.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/19 23:41:07
The problem is again that a monitor's cruising speed makes horse and buggy look swift. Think the bad old days before clipper ships. (or sails, for that matter, a trireme could run these down... and now for some reason the image of Kim Jung Un beating a drum as slaves man the oars is stuck in my head) Six months from San Diego to Tokyo. Are you getting the idea yet? and that's for the monitors that were built for WW2, not the ancient coal plants of yore like HMAS Cerberus..
Which is why most of us are discussing battleships and/or heavy cruisers and not monitors. Most of us get that there is a legitimate 'need for speed'.
Ketara wrote: Building a 45,000 ton ship with six 16 inch guns would just be excessive.
Personally I'd build a 100,000 ton one with 18" guns and at least 5 separate Mk41's with 120 cells port and starboard and 120 cells aft. single three gun gunhouse turrets forward and aft, to lower the chance of a magazine hit, and a low profile super structure, with the bridge buried in the center someplace. and lots of duel purpose guns and CIWS
Internal armor belts for a spaced armor effect with enough armor to withstand at very least Granit, which is an inshore threat and DOES have penetration power at least comparable to 16" guns, though not equal to.
In theory though something like a Deutschland-class could, conceivably work, but I'd still be reluctant to put something so lightly armored in the path of the sort of firepower you'd get hit with in a close support role.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 01:21:03
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
BaronIveagh wrote: You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.
That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.
Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.
Please outline a realistic scenario for a war where gun-armed ships are useful at all and a ship moving at half the speed of the rest of the fleet can't get there in time. Please remember that shore bombardment assets are not relevant in a defensive war, and the invasion troops that are required to make shore bombardment relevant in an offensive war will take a lot of time to organize and deliver.
The age of the big gun battlewagons may be long over with, but there is still some use for guns on modern warships. That's why modern U.S. Naval vessels have 5-inch guns, CIWS, and 25mm Bushmasters. Missiles are not the end-all, be-all of modern naval warfare.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The age of the big gun battlewagons may be long over with, but there is still some use for guns on modern warships. That's why modern U.S. Naval vessels have 5-inch guns, CIWS, and 25mm Bushmasters. Missiles are not the end-all, be-all of modern naval warfare.
Well yes, when I say "gun armed" I'm talking about a ship with big guns as its primary weapon not the token 5" gun on a ship armed with a bunch of missiles as its primary weapon.
No practical amount of armor can survive nuclear weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/22 08:22:15
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I'm guessing....modern warships? Though the title had me fooled.
I know, its a riot. Don't care tho. I am not one of those types to ask peeps to keep on topic.
My uncle was a Lt. Colonel in the air force and flew F-16s. I have a pic of me as a kid sitting in the cockpit of his fighter at McDill Airforce Base way back in the day. I hit him with all sorts of questions growing up. He was always like, "How do you even know about this stuff?"
Anyway, I asked him one day if the Navy was as useless as I thought, given the tech advances in fighters and missiles and so on, and just thought in this day and age that air power would wreck any fleet, and he surprised me and said no. He said that while taking on an individual warship wouldn't be difficult, taking on a fleet and their combined system would be another matter. This convo was about 20 years ago, so not sure if that still holds true. I know the British navy took a little bit of a beating in the Falklands war, and I think that was due to where they anchored their ships. The surrounding islands killed the range of their radar and the Argentinians were able to approach low to the water with little warning to the ships. I guess those loses had more to do with the British tactics than the technology. So over open ocean, where there is no place to hide, the navy would be much better.
But with stealth now... makes me question how vulnerable those ships are.
Ketara wrote: Building a 45,000 ton ship with six 16 inch guns would just be excessive.
Personally I'd build a 100,000 ton one with 18" guns and at least 5 separate Mk41's with 120 cells port and starboard and 120 cells aft. single three gun gunhouse turrets forward and aft, to lower the chance of a magazine hit, and a low profile super structure, with the bridge buried in the center someplace. and lots of duel purpose guns and CIWS
Internal armor belts for a spaced armor effect with enough armor to withstand at very least Granit, which is an inshore threat and DOES have penetration power at least comparable to 16" guns, though not equal to.
In theory though something like a Deutschland-class could, conceivably work, but I'd still be reluctant to put something so lightly armored in the path of the sort of firepower you'd get hit with in a close support role.
This sounds like something a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks I'll be honest. It's like those "Ratte with two Maus turrets for short ranged defense" Wherb BS.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I always have been a bit perplexed on what the need is for the F-35.
I did some digging into the stats for comparative planes.
I could easily state that the F-35A is a direct replacement for the F-16 Falcon with the much needed stealth.
See the two stats for both craft:
Spoiler:
Specifications (F-16C Block 50)
For measure of stealth in RCS = 5m^2
Crew: 1
Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204 root and tip
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,570 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)
Internal fuel: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)[3]
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F110-GE-129 (for F-16C/D Block 30-40-50) or Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220/220E afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf (127 kN)
Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)[71]
At altitude: Mach 2[3] (1,320 mph; 2,120 km/h) clean configuration
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi; 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 nmi (2,620 mi; 4,220 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[3] (15,240+ m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)[271]
Maximum g-load: +9.0 g
Guns: 1 × 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon, 511 rounds
Hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores
Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
Now the F-35B is a hard one since it is trying to be a Harrier.
This has been the thorn in the side in the development.
See both below:
Spoiler:
Specifications (AV-8B Harrier II Plus)
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 46 ft 4 in (14.12 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 4 in (9.25 m)
Height: 11 ft 8 in (3.55 m)
Wing area: 243.4 sq ft (22.61 m²)
Airfoil: supercritical airfoil
Empty weight: 13,968 lb (6,340 kg)
Loaded weight: 22,950 lb (10,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: ** Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
Vertical: 20,755 lb (9,415 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408 (Mk 107) vectored-thrust turbofan, 23,500 lbf (105 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 0.9 (585 knots, 673 mph, 1,083 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km)
Combat radius: 300 nmi (350 mi, 556 km)
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km)
Rate of climb: 14,700 ft/min (75 m/s)
Wing loading: 94.29 lb/(sq ft) (460.4 kg/m²)
Guns: 1× General Dynamics GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 5-barreled Rotary cannon mounted under-fuselage in the left pod, with 300 rounds of ammunition in the right pod
Hardpoints: 6× under-wing pylon stations holding up to 9,200 lb (4,200 kg) of payload
Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
Then we have the F-35C taking on the role of the F-18:
Spoiler:
Specifications (F/A-18C/D)
For measure of stealth in RCS = 1m^2
Crew: 1 (C)/2 (D - pilot and weapon systems officer)
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.1 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 4 in (12.3 m) with AIM-9 Sidewinders on wingtip LAU-7 launchers
Width: 32 ft 7 in (9.94 m) wing folded
Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.7 m)
Wing area: 410 sq ft (38 m2)
Aspect ratio: 4
Airfoil: root:NACA 65A005 mod.; tip:NACA 65A003.5 mod.
Empty weight: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg)
Gross weight: 36,970 lb (16,769 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 51,900 lb (23,541 kg)
Fuel capacity: 10,860 pounds (4,930 kg) internally
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F404-GE-402 afterburning turbofan engines, 11,000 lbf (49 kN) thrust each dry, 17,750 lbf (79.0 kN) with afterburner
Maximum speed: 1,034 kn (1,190 mph; 1,915 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8
Cruise speed: 574 kn; 1,062 km/h (660 mph)
Range: 1,089 nmi (1,253 mi; 2,017 km)
Combat range: 400 nmi (460 mi; 741 km) air-air mission
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,071 mi; 3,334 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 93 lb/sq ft (450 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.96 (1.13 with loaded weight at 50% internal fuel)
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan nose mounted 6-barrel rotary cannon, 578 rounds
Hardpoints: 9 total: 2× wingtips missile launch rail, 4× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 13,700 lb (6,200 kg)
Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
Now for giggles I was looking at the F-22 and that guy still looks like the king of the hill as a stealth interceptor:
Spoiler:
Specifications (F-22A)
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.0001m^2
Crew: 1
Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.92 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A?05.92 root, NACA 64A?04.29 tip
Empty weight: 43,340 lb (19,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 64,840 lb (29,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
Fuel capacity: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally, or 26,000 lb (12,000 kg) with two external fuel tanks
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis
Dry thrust: 26,000 lb (116 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: >35,000 lb (>156 kN[N 5][276]) each
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h) [estimated][116]
Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,960 km/h)[116]
Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat radius: 460 nmi (with 100 nmi in supercruise) clean[277][N 6] (529 mi, 852 km)
Ferry range: 1,740 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
Service ceiling: >65,000 ft (20,000 m)
Wing loading: 77.2 lb/ft² (377 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.08
Maximum design g-load: +9.0/−3.0 g[116]
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon in right wing root, 480 rounds
Hardpoints: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 U.S. gallon (2,270 L) drop tanks or weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,270 kg).
Specifications (F-35, A CTOL, B STOVL, C CATOBAR) Default values are the A type.
A is normal landing field, B is vertical takeoff and land, C is carrier based short land and takeoff)
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
For measure of stealth in RCS = 0.005m^2
Crew: 1
Length: (A) 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m) (B) 50.5 ft (15.4 m) (C) 50.8 ft (15.5 m)
Wingspan: (A) 35 ft[c] (10.7 m) (B) 35 ft (10.7 m) (C) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[d] (4.33 m)
Wing area: (A) 460 ft²[85] (42.7 m²) (B) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) (C) 620 ft² (57.6 m²)
Empty weight: (A) 28,999 lb[488] (13,154 kg) (B) 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) (C) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,441 lb[62][e][489] (22,426 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: (A) 70,000 lb[f] (31,800 kg) (B) 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class (C) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) class
Internal fuel capacity: (A) 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[487][g] (B) 13,326 lb (6,045 kg) (C) 19,624 lb (8,901 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[490][h] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[490][491] (191 kN)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[79][492] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[224]
Range: (A) >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel (B) >900 nmi (1,700 km) (C) >1,200 nmi (2,200 km)
Combat radius: (A) 669 nmi[493] (1,239 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[494] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration (B) 505 nmi (935 km) (C) 670 nmi (1,241 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[495] (15,240+ m)
Wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft² (525 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: (A) 0.87 (B) 0.90 (C) 0.75
With 50% fuel: (A) 1.07 (B) 1.04 (C) 0.91
Maximum g-load: 9 g[i]
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[j][79]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[79][85] and two internal bays with a capacity of up to 5,700 lb (2,590 kg);[85] total weapons payload is 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
I think the thing that stands out is the F-22 has 1/50th the radar signature of the F-35.
I believe it is compared to the radar reflective size of golf ball vs a bumble-bee so it may be splitting hairs in the non-detection end of things.
I suppose having a commonization for multiple roles should keep parts and maintenance at least with some measure of standardization.
I had read no end of woes with the B version of the 35 with the harrier-like vertical take-off.
There were and are quite a few issues with the heads-up helmet and still some complaints for visibility for checking the six or seeing past the seat (complaint with the F-18 dogfight practice runs).
I had pretty much written-off this jet a long time ago but with a bit of research on this topic I think the A and C models should do well, the B however... I think it will not "take-off".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/22 21:11:37
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
This sounds like something a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks I'll be honest. It's like those "Ratte with two Maus turrets for short ranged defense" Wherb BS.
Actually it's a modernization of this paper project:
This sounds like something a twelve year-old would draw in the margins of his school notebooks I'll be honest. It's like those "Ratte with two Maus turrets for short ranged defense" Wherb BS.
Actually it's a modernization of this paper project:
