New F-35 Report

Milosh · Jul 7, 2015

It's called Blitzkreig. Invented in 1939 by the Luftwaffe.

Blitzkreig:
describing a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorized or mechanized infantry formations with close air support, breaks through the opponent's line of defense by short, fast, powerful attacks and then dislocates the defenders, using speed and surprise to encircle them. Through the employment of combined arms in maneuver warfare, blitzkrieg attempts to unbalance the enemy by making it difficult for them to respond to the continuously changing front and defeating them in a decisive Vernichtungsschlacht.

It was a Heer not a Luftwaffe concept first mentioned in 1935.

buffnut453 · Jul 7, 2015

wuzak said:
It was done by the RAND corporation and was about a conflict with China. It involved the F-35 located in the Pacific region - or about half of them.

And what were the assumptions about an allied coalition working with the US? Where were the F-35s based? Were any F-22s deployed to the region? Putting a single aircraft type (actually a proportion of a single aircraft type if it's just the PACAF-assigned F-35s) up against an entire nation without considering wider global involvement would be ludicrous. To use one small example, the Five Powers Defence Agreement (UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore) would logically come into play if China started a rumble in the region which would likely bring all those nations in on the side of the US.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2015

wuzak said:
Here is the problem Flyboy, in Australia, as with many other JSF partner countries, the F-35 will have to perform the air to air role as much or more so than the strike role. We don't have the luxury of dedicated air to air aircraft like the F-22.

And as much as im a supporter of the F-35, that should have been thought out by each partner nation. The F-35 isn't for eveyone for both cost and capability.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2015

GregP said:
Changes should be disallowed except at the conclusion of milestones ... no more than 1 set of changes per year until the prototypes have flown. Then fly them, see what needs to be improved, make those changes that are REQUIRED and built it that way. The only excpetions should be if something goes obsolete and requires repalcement durign a build.

The issue is the CUSTOMER is inducing the changes!!!!

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2015

wuzak said:
It was done by the RAND corporation and was about a conflict with China. It involved the F-35 located in the Pacific region - or about half of them.

The toliet paper I used this morning has more value than the RAND report. For example, in writing the report no one ever considered the Mission Capability rate of the Chinese AF - it was assumed that all their aircraft operated perfectly. Do you think the Chinese build weapons better than consumer products? I could go on with other RAND BS, I have to go fly...

Juha · Jul 7, 2015

FLYBOYJ said:
... Do you think the Chinese build weapons better than consumer products?...

Why not, look Soviet weapons vs Soviet consumer products. At least up to mid 70s weapons were good, most of the consumer products not. AK 47, mortars, arty, SAMs, SSMs at least were world class, MiG-17s and -21s did rather well in Vietnam, maybe partly because of the US ROEs but anyway.

Kryten · Jul 7, 2015

I'm curious why so many people are getting hung up on WVR turn and burn dogfighting, how exactly are the opposition supposed to locate the F35's to engage them in this brawl in the first place?

If the F35 knows where you are and you don't know where it is, your going to be very busy dodging missiles!

GrauGeist · Jul 7, 2015

If the scenario calls for engaging hundreds of enemy aircraft, causing the F-35 to deplete it's stores, what fighter did the report suggest to take it's place?

At some point, during an engagement, ANY aircraft will deplete it's stores, whether it's MG/cannon or hard-point mounted...

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2015

Juha said:
Why not, look Soviet weapons vs Soviet consumer products. At least up to mid 70s weapons were good, most of the consumer products not. AK 47, mortars, arty, SAMs, SSMs at least were world class, MiG-17s and -21s did rather well in Vietnam, maybe partly because of the US ROEs but anyway.

Those weapons mentioned were not Chinese built, that's my point. There's little data about PLAAF FMC rates but info from intelligence sources and defectors say their FMC rates are horrible as same with component reliability.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2015

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-chinese-military-is-a-paper-dragon-8a12e8ef7edc

Totalize · Jul 7, 2015

the defence minister here in Canada was queried something to the effect that, is there concern with the F35 having a single engine versus two engines which the RCAF preferred given issues with the CF104 while partrolling the far north? Answer no. He was then asked but what if the engine fails during one of these long partols? His answer? It won't. Not a knock against the F-35 but anyone who places supreme confidence in any weapon system is bound to be dissapointed. History bears this out.

But hey here's our F-35.

buffnut453 · Jul 7, 2015

Totalize said:
But hey here's our F-35.

Shouldn't that be "But here's our F-35, eh?"?

Sorry...couldn't resist. I'll get my coat.

GrauGeist · Jul 7, 2015

And this breaking news of a tragic incident between an F-16 and a Cessna. The F-16 pilot successfully ejected, but the Pilot/people aboard don't seem to have survived.

Officials: F-16, small plane collide in midair - Yahoo News

However, if we want to put a spin on it like they're doing between the AF-2 and F-16 "dogfight" that's been circulating the internet, then we could say that "Cessna downs F-16!" and create a social media frenzy bashing the F-16 for it failing to "outmanouver the smaller aircraft".

grampi · Jul 7, 2015

Why do we need another mega-buck fighter anyway? There's nothing in any air force's inventory that can take what we already have...

buffnut453 · Jul 7, 2015

grampi said:
Why do we need another mega-buck fighter anyway? There's nothing in any air force's inventory that can take what we already have...

But there are plenty of highly-capable SAM systems that can take out all our attack airframes quite readily. With Putin continuing his sabre-rattling and tweaking NATO's nose, how long will it be before we see yet more capable SAM systems being sold to countries that are hostile to the West? At that point, it's too late to do something with our existing fleet. We need a modern, low-observable fast jet platform capable of precision attack...and that would be the F-35.

GrauGeist · Jul 7, 2015

grampi said:
Why do we need another mega-buck fighter anyway? There's nothing in any air force's inventory that can take what we already have...

Because resting on your laurels is the fastest way to get your azz kicked.

Russia is currently developing the Sukhoi T-50 and the MiG-1.27

China is in the process of developing the Chendu J-20 and Shenyang J-31

And so on...

Oh yeah...then there's Iran's world beater: the Qaher F313

Almost forgot about that fearsome beast

Greyman · Jul 7, 2015

buffnut453 said:
Sorry...couldn't resist. I'll get my coat.

Indeed, the Canadian variant of the F-35A ... the CF-35EH

pbehn · Jul 7, 2015

GrauGeist said:
And this breaking news of a tragic incident between an F-16 and a Cessna. The F-16 pilot successfully ejected, but the Pilot/people aboard don't seem to have survived.

Officials: F-16, small plane collide in midair - Yahoo News

However, if we want to put a spin on it like they're doing between the AF-2 and F-16 "dogfight" that's been circulating the internet, then we could say that "Cessna downs F-16!" and create a social media frenzy bashing the F-16 for it failing to "outmanouver the smaller aircraft".

This prompted me to read about F16 accidents. Sadly there have been over 80 pilots lost and hundreds of accidents. Some can be be expected like engine failures bird strikes collisions on low flying. There have however been a lot purely down to improper maintenance or lack of it, a large number of costly crashes purely down to burst tyres and landing gear problems. Then there are the outlandish ones like hitting a wild boar on take off, not lowering the landing gear and testing an engine without securing the plane first. The UK has ordered the F35B and maritime AC are more easily lost, with the cost of this baby the UK cant afford one.

GregP · Jul 7, 2015

When I lived in Phoenix, AZ for 23 years, we had a spate of accidents from the mid 80s to mid 90s when we were seeing quite a few F-16 crashes. Luke AFB was the F-16 training site and they had (and probably HAVE) a LOT of F-16s.

We took to calling the F-16 the "Lawn Dart" because they were hitting the ground so often. It was more than 60% engine failures, probably from maintenance issues mostly, but the USAF won't TELL you that.

gjs238 · Jul 7, 2015

GregP said:
When I lived in Phoenix, AZ for 23 eyars, we had a spate of accident from the mid 80s to mid 90s when we were seeing quite a few F-16 crashes. Luke AFB was the F-16 training sire and they had (and probably HAVE) a LOT of F016s.

We took to calling the F-16 the "Lawn Dart" because they were hitting the ground so often. It was more than 60% engine failures, probably from maintenance issues mostly, but the USAF won't TELL you that.

Probably the victims of Crypts and Bloods MANPADS.

New F-35 Report

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Captain

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Major

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads