Comments on: Eagle Update

By: gw gold

gw gold — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:47:25 +0000

My negative, as my boss

By: rappelz rupees

rappelz rupees — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:23:22 +0000

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.

By: ro zeny

ro zeny — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:20:38 +0000

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.

By: DarthAmerica

DarthAmerica — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:24:49 +0000

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

By: NTV

NTV — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:29:00 +0000

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:)

By: DarthAmerica

DarthAmerica — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:36:36 +0000

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

By: NTV

NTV — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:35:59 +0000

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.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:51:02 +0000

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.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:41:21 +0000

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

By: NTV

NTV — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:12:27 +0000

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?