Yesterday’s discussion was lively and (most of the time) informed, so I wanted to get this update posted right away (since these facts have already crept into the last post’s comments). Here’s the salient truths currently in Military.com’s headlines:
“The accident investigation board president (Wignall) found, by clear and convincing evidence, the cause of this accident was a failure of the upper right longeron, a critical support structure in the F-15C aircraft,” the report says.
About 20 minutes after takeoff from an airfield near St. Louis on Nov. 2, the forward fuselage of Maj. Stephen Stilwell’s $42 million F-15C Eagle shook violently and then broke apart 18,000 feet above the ground. Stilwell, his left shoulder dislocated and his left arm shattered, barely had time to safely eject as pieces of his aircraft tumbled from the sky over the Missouri countryside.
More troubling, however, are the results of a parallel examination finding as many as 163 of the workhorse aircraft also have flawed support beams, or longerons. The aircraft remain grounded as the Air Force continues to search for how serious the problem is and whether extensive, costly repairs are needed. Another 19 of the aircraft have yet to be inspected and also remain grounded.
Nearly 260 of the A through D model F-15s, first fielded in the mid-1970s, were returned to flight status Tuesday following fleet-wide inspections.
Kudos to the Air Force investigators for finding the problem in a hurry. At the same time, these amazing fighters aren’t getting any younger. There’ll be more groundings to come, no doubt; hopefully they won’t be as a result of a mishap.
– Ward
Get them back into service ASAP. Its good the AF didnt screw around and got this looked at in a hurry. We need them back into serice at their bases so Russia and everyone knows we have a force to escort their bombers. Thanks to Canada for covering Alaska for us in our F-15 absence.
While I like the F-22 I still think we should just order more F-15s or 16s or 18s instead of pushing so hard for F-22’s. F-22’s are great but they are like taking a sledge hammer after a tack. With budget poblems we should just get more F-15s that can serve for years to come and take over for old F-15s that have just been worn out.
Poskiki,
I disagree with you assesment of the F-22. You forget that the F-22 is not just replacing the F-15, but also the F-117.
We need 360 F-22s. We can then remove the F-15Cs from service. But we don’t need the F-35, period. Use that money to buy more F-22s and recapitalize the F-16 fleet.
Can I say this enough on these boards?
And my apologies Ward for raining on your parade.
DC2
I said the other day I thought the percentage of problems like 2 to 10 percent and this article says 163 problems and 260 were OK and 19 are yet to be inspected. Sounds like “many,” was an apt word because that is more like 30–40 percent of the older ships as all Es were OK. I assume a certain number of the 163 will get a replacement part or two in an upgraded quality and even more will return to service.
does the civilians who build these aircraft destroy the tooling and one of a kind machinery needed to build the aircraft.why not build replacements.f-15s are a lot cheaper than the f-22s.they could be produced as a stopgap until the inventory of eagles are restocked.just curious.
This is a stupid conversation. How in god’s green earth can the Air Force keep building more and more expensive vehicles. For a long time, the cost of a B1 kept them from any operational employment. Clearly, when what used to be a ‘big check’ becomes a small investment, we can think about using them in action.
When we will start to think about the terms of trade we incur by spending hundreds of thousand of $$ to Hellfire one or two poor schmucks trying to lob some mortars into a US FOB.
Don’t need the F-35? That is not logical. DC2 the F-35 in addition to being superior to the F-15 or anything else except the F-22 in the airsuperiority role is designed to perform a whole variety of missions the F-22 cannot do. Not buying it would cripple the USN, USAF and USMC.
The F-15 fleet still has a lot of useful life, exceeds the capabilities of any advesary and is undergoing modernization and does not need to be completely replaced for 10 to 20 years.
A good well rounded USAF tactical fighter fleet would be 200 Raptors, 250 F-15Es(and some modernized F-15Cs), and 1200 F-35s and 300 to 400 A-10Cs with inventories reaching these levels as F-15A-D and F-16C are retired.
OK its official…the Dept of the Air Force seriously needs its ass kicked. To not have rushed details of the pilots injuries out to the public, for its clumsy handling of this issue to make speculation about this being a ruse to gain additional funding seem plausible and for being a general collection of dummies–they need a foot inserted deep in ass. The USAF definitely needs to be ALOT more forth coming in the future.
Just so I’m clear, here, since it’s been mentioned twice:
What bombers are we talking about? Do you actually suppose that if a TU-95 weren’t escorted by the USAF that it might, alone, turn toward some US city and drop a nuke? Do you really think they’re carrying nukes anyway? Or that they have the authorization codes to arm them in the unbelievably unlikely prospect that they are? Or that the Russian government is going to launch a preemptive nuclear strike?
The whole thing is a game played by the air forces. Bits and pieces of intelligence are picked up here and there. But there is *zero* threat. Except for the pilots who can’t seem to keep from actually striking the aircraft they’re escorting.
Darth,
You are wrong my friend. The F-35 will not be the second best air superiority fighter around. It is being built as a multi-role aircraft, but primarily a bomb truck to replace the F-16 and A-10. It does not even have thrust vectoring.
And it is something we don’t need, with maybe the exception of the USMC. The Navy would much rather have more ships that F-35s. And they are very happy with the F-18E/F.
Everyone else here that thinks there are no other adversaries out there: you plan for the unexpected. With your thinking we should get rid of the Navy completely and remove all M-1s from service. You guys are starting to think like our wonderful former SecDef. That type of thinking has already caused the Navy to get rid of most of it’s ASW capabilities. Which was all fine and dandy until a Chinese sub pops up next to the Kitty Hawk during a fleet exercise.
DC2
@Darth
Yeey, go ahead, let the USAF buy its F-22s and 1200 (???) F-35s. Then, you can feel high, mighty and secure in the knowledge the US Air Force is the strongest, most gadget-equipped air force.
Two remarks, though.
* [amazement]Twelvehundred F-35’s? [/amazement] Who are you planning on attacking? China? My goodness, be a bit more modest. Or invest in better rifles for your foot soldiers, they get used a lot more.
* All those hi-tech toys your boys and girls get to play with makes them dependant on electronics to fight for them. One day one of your Land Warrirs will be so busy playing with all his buttons and dials he won’t notice the old, wrinkled man with a Very Big Club, standing behind a tree.
Conclusion: build your airforce from F-16s (yuck) and F-14s (beautiful plane), modern versions. Those few F-22s could then be formed into a technologically advanced Agressor squadron, sort of air special forces. Keep building better planes but use what you need.
PS Darth, why am I even talking to you? You’ve always been a troll. Go back to StrategyPage.
By the way — (still amazed by those 1200 –TWELVEHUNDRED– F35s) — who is going to pay for ‘em? The First Bank of Chine?
…fantasies of grandeur…
Solomon,
Do you know anything about a USAF accident investigation? I’ve seen the insides of a “class A” ground accident investigation (That didn’t involve an aircraft) and they pick through EVERYTHING. They aren’t forthcoming about facts to the public because the accident investigators talk to everyone even remotely involved with the accident, and don’t want the witnesses contaminated by the media.
Learn something before you speak up.
> The Navy would much rather have more ships that
> F-35s. And they are very happy with the F-18E/F.
While I think the Navy wants as many ships as possible, Every naval aviator that I have talked to in the last 5+ years has been very adaiment about getting a LO aircraft. That in conjucture with the range/payload limitations of the SuperHornet leaves me scratching my head when you make this statement. I just dont buy it.
And BTW, which former SecDef wanted to get rid of the M-1?
NTV,
How many armored divisions are there in the Army these days? I’m speaking of Rummy boy. He was all for the lighter and faster mentality. He also cancelled the Crusader artillery system because it was too big for him.
The F-18E/F has LO features, even though it isn’t truly stealthy. If the Super Hornet has range payload limitations, then why are they using the E models as aerial tankers? I haven’t checked, but I would guess the F-35 (especially the B model) has about the same range and less payload as it needs to be carried internally.
Oh, and I wanted to clarify some information we discussed in the past posts. Tomahawks VLS can be reloaded at sea. With a couple of ships full of these, you don’t need stealth aircraft.
Solomon: sanctimonious? That is an awfully big word for a jarhead. You must have heard that word while speaking with a squid. Oh, and your shoes are almost ready.
DC2
DC2–
There are as many armored divisions now as there where in 2000. The big cuts came in the 90’s before Rummy was on board. Yes, he was big on faster and lighter, and yesin many cases, a fast light force is what you need. As for the crusader, there was one weapon system we could do without. If I recall he did want to cut the stryker as well, but after the Crusader and Commanche, he had to throw the Army a bone.
With all due respect, I know LO I worked with LO and the F-18 is not LO. No way no how.
The F-18 uses large external tanks to refuel other ac. GlobalSecurity lists a 600nm Combat radius for the F-35C and a 390 nm radius for the F-18E/F.
I would be intersted in reading about loading Tomahawks at sea, I could not find any refrences that said it could be done. Furthermore, TLAMS are not capable of destroying all types of targets. Its warhaed is not capable of takeing out hardened targets, not to mention deeply buried targets. Lastly a 40 AC strike with F-35’s armed with 8 SDB’s can hit 320 targets, while 320 TLAMS would deplete a strike groups missiles, and the F-35’S can regenerate for a new strike in 6–8 hours. Your gonne run out of TLAMS real fast, even if they are reloaded at sea.
NTV,
Just out of curiosity where are you going to use a strike package that big unless we’re fighting China? Second, the US Navy states that the F/A-18E-F are not stealth aircraft but have stealth “features” built into their design. Third, I hate getting figures for aircraft performance from third parties and not the actual operators of the vehicles in question. For example is the F-35 range clean or does it have ordinance hanging? Is the range cited for the F/A-18 for a strike mission? Lastly the use of TLAMs is for use against high value, time sensitive targets. Again the only way that even one Burke Class Cruiser would use all its missiles (in my mind) would be total unrestrained warfare. Its as implausible as your mythical 40 plane strike. Oh and yeah DC2, I just got my new dictionary in the mail–got to put it to use.
Way to go Ward, you stirred the pot, got me and everybody else to bite and got us all lathered up. You are an evil little b#@%@*& aren’t you?
Sol–
Yes, it is a big strike package, but 300+ aim points aint that far out.
The Navy can state what they want about “stealthy features”, but I stand by my statement 110%.
Yes, you are correct, its hard to know exactly what the source is saying, but go to GlobalSecurity.org and check it out, both ranges where “strike” profiles, hi-low-hi. I dont know if the F-35 is clean, but if its not some of its external load could be fuel, thus increasing the range.
I know what TLAM’s are used for, and I agree that unloading a Burke is unlikely, others here disagree. I was makeing a comparison in a high intensity war situation. BTW I dont think a 40 plane strike is mythical. Some hypothetical stikes that will need at least 40 planes. North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, Syria.
Solomon:
Evil? Arguably. Little? By most standards 6’4″ and 220 lbs. isn’t little.
Little? What was I thinking!
The Tomcat was a big airplane. Now an A-4, that’s was a different story.
Ward,
So what is your take on the Navy’s need for the F-35? Should they just buy more F-18E/Fs instead?
And I find it amazing that you fit in an F-14 too.
DC2
Ward,
So what is your take on the Navy’s need for the F-35? Should they just buy more F-18E/Fs instead?
And I find it amazing that you fit in an F-14 too.
DC2
The USN absolutely needs the F-35C or an equivilent LO strike-fighter compliment to the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is and awesome plane but is does not have the range of an F-35C or the same level of built-in survivability.
–DA
DA,
The number of airframes the Airforce is to purchase has been reduced from the number you indicate due to cost issues (around 1000). And there are rumors on the web that the number will be further reduced.
You are right, the F-18E/F has a range of 1275 nm according to navy.mil. The F-35C has a range of 1400nm as designed according to globalsecurity.org. 125 nm is a really long way and I’m sure justifies the purchase of this aircraft.
It seems the E/Fs did just fine in Afghanistan. You know, the country where the Air Force could not provide fighter cover but the Navy did using E/Fs.
You as well as others mention LO for the reason to purchase this aircraft. Check out this website which clearly indicates LO features were incorporated into the design of the F-18E/F:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef.htm
It might not look all that stealthy, but it apparently does have features.
The ends do not justify the means here. I would rather have a new ASW aircraft on my carrier than the F-35C. Because it does not matter how stealthy the plan is when it does not have a deck to land on.
DC2
DC2,
GlobalSecurity.com lists the F-18E/F comabt radius at 390 nm. The F-35C’s Combat radius is listed at >600nm. Altough I would expect at this time the F-35 number is probably subject to change. As it stands though a +200 nm stike range is significant. Check out the links.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm
Yes, the E/F models did fine in Afghanistan, There was no air or surface threat to deal with.
As for LO features being incorporated into the design of the F-18E/F. Let me just say that putting $1000 of makeup on a pig doesnt cchange thefact that its still a pig. True LO aircraft like the F-117, B-2, F-22 and ACM(so long good buddy) are built from the ground up with LO technology. Every part of the aircraft is built so that the RCS is minimized, furthermore the EO and IR siginature is minimized as well. Taking a pre-existing non-LO plane and retrofiting it to optimize its LO capabilities does not make it LO. Thats just not how things work.
NTV,
Because combat raius is abstract I decided to go with pure range instead. The range info on the F-35C I got from global security. The range info for the F-18E/F I got for navy.mil. But both ranges are based on clean configuration so I feel it is more apples to apples.
I spoke with some people a while back there were on the E/F design team. They told me the whole “based on the F-18C/D” approach was strictly for procurement purposes only. The basically took some central nut and built a new plane around it that looked like a larger F-18. Based on my reading, the E/F is the best LO aircraft that doesn’t have the name “stealth” on it.
My reference to Afghanistan was for endurance purposes and not the threat encountered. In fact, it was pilot fatigue that was the issue for the aircraft and not range. Now I also understand that air to air refuelings occurred during that time too.
I find it hard to believe that the F-22 and especially the F-35 have any IR suppression. To do that would affect the performance of the jet and that is why this type of suppression has been relegated to the bombers. Besides, the F-35 engine outlet looks no different than any other traditional aircraft. With that said, the only passive way of detecting oncoming aircraft is through IR or detection of the other aircraft’s electronic emissions. Most aircraft these days, soon to include the E/F, have IRST system installed just for this purpose.
And I again focus on the Tomahawk as an addtional asset the Air Force really does not have. The latest Block IV version can loiter over the battlespace and wait for targets to be sent to it via satellite link. Or target locations can be changed in mid flight. Granted it still can’t hit moving targets, but isn’t that what we have stealth bombers for?
DC2
>But both ranges are based on clean configuration so I feel it is more apples to apples.
Clean configurations on both ariplanes are not aplles to apples. A F-18 flying clean is useless for wageing war, since it carries no ordinace except 20mm cannon shells. Whereas the F-35 flying clean carries its ordance inside the airplane. It that clean configuration that allowsit tobe truelly LO and offer a long range. Furthermoer the F-35 carries 2000kg more fuel internally than the F-18/F.
The F-18E/F may be the best non-LO LO aircraft in the world but it is still NON-LO. Compareing it to a true LOaircraft is laughable.
Although you do bring up an intersting situation. When the A-12 was cancelled, the Navy was in deep sh*t because the A-6 needed to be replaced, and fast. The Navy led through their teeth to get the Super Hornet in an expidited manner without a fly-off. No one seemed to have a problem with the fact that the A-6 was an old aircraft with fatigue problems. Now, compare that situation to the current F-15 situation. It isnt exactly an even comparison, but mamy people sure seem mad that the AF is trying to get new planes out of thedeal. BTW whats the cost comparison between an A-6 and a F-18E/F?
Yes, the F-18’s could loiter over the battlefield in Afghanistan, but they where doing that with tanker(USAF at that) support. Andthose tankers arent going to be flying anywhere near threats. If there where threats in Afghanistan the F-18 would not have had tanker support.
The F-22 and F-35 dont have the IR suppression that the B-2 and F-117 do, but it is there. In both cases the engines are designed with lower IR signature, also where the engine is in the body of the aircraft is important.
Furthermore, detecting IR hotspots in a big sky is daunting, even with more advanced IR detectors coming on line.
> And I again focus on the Tomahawk as an
> addtional asset the Air Force really does not have
Ahh, are you forgetting the CALCM? and maybe coming soon the C-ACM?? They dont have inflight retargeting, but then the TLAM cant take out burried targets either.
> Any target that needs stealth can be covered by either the B-2 or Tomahawk.
The problem is the B-2 is a limited asset. Consider we have 20 B-2’s, with a 70% mission readiness rate. This gives 14 B-2 to use at any one time, If none are in long term maintance. Now, of the 14 bombers some of those will be held in strategic reserve, espically if we are hitting Ira, Pakistan, or China. A mission to and from Pakistan or Iran would be 35–40 hours from Whitmann. The trip to China would be less, and hangers in Guam and Diego Garcia can cut down mission time. Now with regenration times we would only have 2 B-2’s available each day. In the end the B-2 can only hold a limited number of targets at risk.
> And they are not a central part of strike
> operations for the Air Force as the are for the
> Navy.
Not to be snarky, but thats because the AF has aircraft that are capable of doing the job, where the Navy’s AC are not as capable.
Yes, the F-35 is just a spec, but it cuts both ways, and things might change, but they could change in other ways as well. The F-35 can carry 4,000 lbs of bombs internally, but I dont think it can carry two 1,000 lb’ers in each bay. Since they are internal they have less drag, which would allow longer radius. Also, since the weapons are internal and the plane is LO it can operate at alltitude, it doesnt have to go to low alltitude to attack and thus giving it a bigger radius.
> And the F-35C is not cleared to date to carry
> the most important weapon any Navy aircraft
> should carry: AGM-84 Harpoon.
But, Hey its just a spec. I would be that at some point in time that it will gain that capability.
> You cannot tell me the F-35 engines are
> designed for low IR signature.
You cant tell me that it isnt. Have you looked at it?
Snarkyness aside, I know that minimizing the IR signature is important to LO aircraft and building it in from day 1 is key to succesfully building a LO plane. One way of doing it is reduceing the IR signature from the engine itself, I dont know the engineering of it but it is possible to do so while still haveing a capable fighter. In the end the heat might not be reduced as much as in a B-2.
Guys a few things real quick.
1. The F/A-18E does have significant survivability improvements over any other non LO aircraft in terms or survivability. But it is not in the class of a true LO design with internal weapons.
2. B-2 and TLAM cannot by themselves cover all stealth strike requirements for several reasons.
3. F-22 and F-35 have significant IR stealth features which of course are classified. If you want to read references look into the LOAN program.
More later, duty calls…
–DA
NTV,
My point with the F-35s two internal hard points is that it can carry only two bombs internally. So you would need almost a squadron of F-35s to accomplish the same mission one B-2 could (2 PGMs vs. 16 PGMs). Any more than that and they have to be slung externally.
I don’t think the specifications will get better on the F-35C. There are already weight issues with the C variant. If anything, they will get worse.
The Navy uses the TLAM as part of their doctrine not because of the type of aircraft they have. They use the TLAM because of the quantity of aircraft they have. There are four strike fighter squadrons on a Nimitz class carrier with a total of 48 aircraft. If the Navy is lucky, they may be able to have four carriers on station for a total of 192 planes or roughly the total number of F-22s we will be purchasing. That is why we use TLAMs and not because of any capability issues. It makes more sense to hit critical, well defended targets with the correct munition.
And I want you to tell me how the F-35 in full afterburn can reduce it’s IR signature to a point that it cannot be detected.
DC2
> My point with the F-35s two internal hard
> points is that it can carry only two bombs
> internally. So you would need almost a squadron
> of F-35s to accomplish the same mission one B–
> 2 could (2 PGMs vs. 16 PGMs).
Yes, I understand that, but the F-35 isnt flying round trip from the central CONUS to strike targets. The F-35’s will be flying shorter missions, and they will have shorter regen times. So while they can carry less, they can generate more missions.
> I don’t think the specifications will get
> better on the F-35C. There are already weight
> issues with the C variant. If anything, they
> will get worse.
The plane is around 60,000 lb max takeoff. A few thousand more pounds isnt going to significantly effect the range. The main reason the range is so good is that the airplane can operate clean.
> It makes more sense to hit critical, well
> defended targets with the correct munition.
But the TLAM is limited in what sort of targets it can do damage against. Not to mention its a one shot weapon. I think CM’s are usefull weapons, but they arent difference makers.
> And I want you to tell me how the F-35 in full
> afterburn can reduce it’s IR signature to a
> point that it cannot be detected.
Now your just putting words in my mouth. I dont know the full capabilities of the F-35’s engine. I do know that the F-22 can super cruise without it afterburner so it can have low IR signitaure. Super Cruise is not a reqt. for the F-35> So I would guess that the doctrine would be to not use the burner when trying to stay stealthy. Its possible to reduce the IR signature, they dont necisarily have to reduce it all the way.
The thing is IR detectors are point source detectors and thus their area search capability is limited.
NTV,
The B-2 does not have to fly from CONUS either. They have portable shelters and fixed shelters in Guam. The issue with the F-35C is availability for sortie regneration on a carrier. You can launch and land only so many aircraft over a 24 hour period.
A few thousand more pounds of weight isn’t a big issue if you are landing on a 5,000 ft runway. It is different on a carrier. That is why the F-18C/D now has to jettison fuel and stores before it lands on a carrier.
We have used the TLAM in every major conflict the US has participated in since 1991. The only missions it is not capable of being utilized in are moving and deep buried targets. That is where the B-2 comes into play. We used this formula against the largest and most integrated air defence networks installed (Kosovo and Iraq) and the strategy worked pretty well I would say.
This question you have not answered: where is the F-35 going to land if the carrier is sunk or is badly damaged by an enemy submarine? ASW isn’t as glamorous these days as bombing the enemy, but it is just as important when facing enemies such as Iran and China. We no longer have a fixed wing ASW platform in the fleet. Of course, I guess we could just strap some sonobouys to the F-35.
DC2
DC2–
> The B-2 does not have to fly from CONUS either.
> They have portable shelters and fixed shelters
> in Guam.
Yes, I know that, I mentioned that in my earlier comment.
”
The trip to China would be less, and hangers in Guam and Diego Garcia can cut down mission time.
”
The problem is still that the B-2’s can only hit so many targets in a set time span. This is of course true for any plane. The F-35 used in conjunction with the B-2 offers more flexability and more capability, its not an either or issue.
> A few thousand more pounds of weight isn’t a
> big issue if you are landing on a 5,000 ft
> runway. It is different on a carrier. That is
> why the F-18C/D now has to jettison fuel and
> stores before it lands on a carrier.
That may be so, but the isuue was range/combat radius, and my point still holds. If the Super Hornet can drop gas/ordance to land so can the F-35.
> most integrated air defence networks installed (Kosovo and Iraq)
Seriously, you consider Kosovo and Iraq to have the most integrated air defence networks? They arent even close to what NK, Iran, Syria, and China have. Not to mention we had beat up the Iraq Air Defenses for 10 years. It turns out the Yougoslavs where quite adept at keeping their SAM’s and Radars from getting blown up.
As for the ASW question, I agree the Navy needs to rebuild its ASW force. I dont know the best solution, but I doubt the money needed to do is going to cut into the F-35 budget. BTW, havent the new “more quite” desiel/electric subs been able to slip past the passive detectors? Isnt the Navy seriously looking into using more active sonar to detect the newer more capable subs?
NTV & DA,
I got this blurb from Defense Industry Daily showing what a wonderful aircraft the F-35C will be:
The F-35C carrier-based fighter features 30% more wing area than other designs, with larger tails and control surfaces plus wingtip ailerons. These changes provide the precise slow-speed handling required for carrier approaches. The F-35C’s internal structure is strengthened to withstand the punishment dished out by the catapult launches and controlled crashes of carrier launch and recovery, and an arrester hook is added to the airframe. The US Navy gave up the internal gun, and the aircraft will be restricted to 7.5g maneuvers. The F-35C will be the last variant designed; it passed its Critical Design Review in June 2007, and the first production version is scheduled to fly in January 2009. Initial Operational Capability is currently scheduled for 2014.
The F-35C is expected to be the US Navy’s high-end fighter, as well as a strike aircraft; this may be challenging, given the aircraft’s design goal of merely equaling the F-16 in air-air combat. Enemies flying the SU-30 series with canards and thrust-vectoring, the thrust-vectoring MiG-29OVT/-35, and even European designs like the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen, can be expected to become much more numerous during the F-35 family’s 2010–2045+ service period. Many of these aircraft will also carry, or upgrade to, options like AESA radars, long-range infared search & tracking, et. al. Since the F-35 relies on superior radars and electronics to offset comparatively inferior aerodynamic performance, a future of competitors with equalizing radar & electronic upgrades has serious implications for the US Navy’s future power projection capabilities.
Links is as follows:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f35-joint-strike-fighter-events-contracts-2007-updated-02992/#more
So it does not have an internal gun but can have a gun mounted on a “stealthy pod”. It is limited to 7.5g maneuvers. Can only carry two bombs internally. Has the same performance as the F-16 (and thus the F-18 even though both can do 9g). Yet it is better simply because it is more stealthy than the F-18E/F. That makes a lot of sense to me. Didn’t we learn that an internally mounted gun is a must in Vietnam? So instead of missiles being the savior we now are relying on stealth to prevent gunfights in the air.
Basically we are spending a ton of money on a stealthy bombtruck.
I’m sure Ward would love to be strapped into one of these things.
DC2
NTV,
Using B-2s and TLAMS is the best (and proven) way of doing it. You don’t need the F-35 with the existing combination.
I was referring to Iraqs air defenses prior to 1991. And the Serbs were good enough to down an F-117, which is probably more stealthy than an F-35. And Syria did really well protecting a prized nuclear facility from conventional F-16s.
I said F-18C/D has to dump, not the E/F. One reason why they built the thing.
You are correct about the passive sensors, those that are installed on ships and subs. That is why you have aircraft that drop active sonobouys. You start pinging and any sub within 1,000 miles will know your exact location. Subs will only use active sonar when they absolutely have to or know that a threat is not nearby.
DC2–
Good to see you reading up on the F-35,
> design goal of merely equaling the F-16 in air-air combat
The F-16 is a good air to air fighter, equaling it is aint a bad thing. Could it be better?? yes, but the F-18E/F aint exactlly the nimbelest of planes. I think the F-35 will be a better air to air machine the the E/F models.
Yes, BTW I do think “stealth” is plenty worth it. LO is a game changer, Cutting down detection distances by orders of magnitude is an ability worth spending money for.
> Using B-2s and TLAMS is the best (and proven)
> way of doing it. You don’t need the F-35 with
> the existing combination.
Yes, its a good a proven capability, but lkike I have said the number of B-2’s are limited and so are the TLAMS. In order to stike a large amount of targets as quick as possible more LO capable AC are needed. Our Doctrine calls for quick and decisive strkes in order to destroy the enemies C4ISR cpabilities. The TLAM/B-2 option limits our capabilities. This simply can not be argued.
> I was referring to Iraqs air defenses prior to 1991.
Yes, and how long was the air offensive in 1991? 30–40 days. In the future we will have much less time to achive our goals. We cant afford an extended air campaign.
> And the Serbs were good enough to down an
> F-117, which is probably more stealthy than an F-35.
Yes, they did, but the F-117 wasnt shot down through a fault with its LO capability, but with a tactics, and pilot problem. I belive the F-35 is considered at least equivolent to the F-117 as far a LO capability.
Lastly, it goes to show that even, lateinto an air campaign, there are still Radars and SAMS that can pose a problem. Legacy airplanes wont necisarily be in a risk free enviroment, that many claim.
As for the Syrian raid, I would wait a much longer period of time before determining the lessons. Since what actually happened there is still somewhat a mystery.
Well if the E/F doesnt have to dump then the F-35 which is cloase to it in weight wont have a problem then.
> You start pinging and any sub within 1,000
> miles will know your exact location
Thats the problem though. The quite subs arent getting detected by the passive sonars, and thus the need for active. You giva away your position, but as you say if the carrier is sunk they already know it sposition.
And Syria did really well protecting a prized nuclear facility from conventional F-16s.
Someone mentioned that the F-117 is more “stealthy” than the F-35C. They also said between B-2 and TLAM we don’t need the F-35C. No offense but those comments are not only biased, they are laughable.
NOTHING exist in the public domain that would allow for any kind of accurate comparison of how stealthy these aircraft are. Both are highly classified and the F-35 uses stealth technologies that are several generations ahead of what was available during the F-117s development. The only thing that can be accurately stated is that the F-35 is a purpose built LO aircraft designed to penetrate the best IAD is the world built by a company with decades of combat experience with LO platforms against live unpredictable opponents. It’s probably a fair guess that they will get the F-35 right as far as LO is concerned.
With respect to B-2 negating the need for F-35C, well that ignores completely the different requirements of the two types. Within reason there are missions where platform capabilities overlap. But there are things a B-2 can do and F-35C cannot and vise versa. Also, the USAF only operates 21 B-2’s. Factoring in maintenance and logistics, there are only 6 to 10 combat ready B-2s available at anytime and they have to travel thousands of miles to reach their targets at subsonic speeds. B-2’s would be very hard pressed to compensate for the F-35C role.
TLAMs are specialty weapons that do not have the flexibility or cost effectiveness of a manned aircraft with JDAMs or other PGMs which cost tens of thousands of dollars vs hundreds of thousands to millions for a cruise missile. Especially over time. The USA would be giving up a ot of capability to rely on just B-2/TLAM for these duties.
–DA
Darth,
A year or so ago the COS of the Air Force talked about the relative capabilities of the LO planes. It was something to the effct that the F-22 was comparable to a marble, the B-2 was comparable to a golf ball, the F-117 was comparable to a baseball. The F-35 was supposedly between the F-22 and the B-2. At least thats how I recall it. Now describeing LO signature in this way is a very crude oversimplification, I think its a good illustration for comparaison and general capability. Useing this scale I suppose a B-1 would be Basketball and the B-52 would be a LARGE beach ball:)
I’m familiar with those comments. Believe me though. They are in no way accurate enough to do any kind of comparison of stealthiness. Stealth is so much more than just RCS. Also, if we were strictly speaking RCS and graphing relative RCS vs cost we would be looking at the margin of diminishing returns past a certain point. RCS reduction is just part of the equation and beyond a certain point its not the determinant characteristic because there are limits to what signatures the enemy can harvest as well as other types of signatures to be managed.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that of all publicly known stealth platforms, the F-35 is using the latest generation of signature management relative to others and it would not surprise me if the F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117. Especially since it has evolved beyond the shaping techniques of the F-117.
–DA
The friend took me to the game, but she own was leaving the game. A person to game is boring, every day, I only know to upgrade and earn ro zeny. I can not sad dot this mess of feelings and moving. Once, the two boys for me quarreled utterly, until I leaved and tool sad. Later, I found a boy to married, I think perhaps all this to change, and I pray to become a reality, a few days after he disappeared. A person was playing a marriage number, what would it have taken place.
Three years ago, after friends introduced, I played the Rappelz game. At that time, I dazed and confused, I like to go my own way, I have a lot of rappelz rupees, but I became the most evil villains in the game. Until I encountered her, I found the meaning of survival.
My negative, as my boss