syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yes, I meant smart munitions, not gravity bombs. If your target is permanent fixed, not to tough to hit it. If its mobile, that's would on board sensors are for (or external sensors able to provide updates).
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, I meant smart munitions, not gravity bombs. If your target is permanent fixed, not to tough to hit it. If its mobile, that's would on board sensors are for (or external sensors able to provide updates).
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Comparing the F35 maneuverability to our own fighters is stupid. How does it compare to foreign fighters? Thats the key.
Glider
Captain
So to sum up. Your drone has a range of at least 400 miles so the carrier can stay out of range of the defences. Have sensors that can detect any incoming threat, sufficient agility to avoid incoming AA missiles, be immune to jamming, carry a sufficient warhead to destroy the target, presumably have sufficient ECM to help deal with the enemy point defence radars so weapons such as Seawolf and Isreali Iron Dome defence systems don't destroy them at the last layer of defence.
To have all these characteristics and still be small enough so the launch aircraft can carry lots of them and of course they must be cheap. Am I the only one that can see the obvious problem here?
Heaven help you if the target moves or changes after launch as that adds a whole new level of complexity, size and cost.
To have all these characteristics and still be small enough so the launch aircraft can carry lots of them and of course they must be cheap. Am I the only one that can see the obvious problem here?
Heaven help you if the target moves or changes after launch as that adds a whole new level of complexity, size and cost.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And we're developing a B-2 replacement, what's the point?!?!?
Is it stupid?!? That's EXACTLY what the detractors did and OUR fighters were used as a benchmark. Then they did a video game scenario and the Rand Corporation along with Pierre Spey ran with it, THAT'S THE KEY!!!
Sys, give it up, you are so talking out of your @ss you don't have enough 5 year old yahoo news articles to keep up. As we speak the F-35B is going to begin it's sea trials and more offset vendors are being chosen when production ramps up. The plane had problems, they're being fixed, it will enter service and it will perform its job well. I suggest less video games and less Top Gun comparisons, and please once again, update your browser.
F-35B tests to set stage for combat readiness - Military - The Daily News, Jacksonville
Last edited:
FWIW, from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)
Foreign interest:
Vice Chairman of Russia's State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky has urged the fast delivery of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran.[68]
In September 2009, it was reported that the S-400 system is part of a two billion dollar arms deal being negotiated between Russia and Saudi Arabia. As of March 2010, this was still under negotiation. The Saudis want to buy twelve systems, each of eight launchers. The Saudis were trying to buy the more modern S-400, but the Russians reportedly only wanted to sell the older S-300.[70][71]
In March 2014, it was announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin gave authorization to sell the S-400 system to the People's Republic of China.[76] If China should acquire the S-400, reported to initially consist of six batteries, it would significantly improve China's ability to defend its own air space and serve as an effective stand-off weapon against American and Japanese air attacks. With a 400 km (250 mi) coverage range, aircraft in disputed areas off the coast could be targeted by SAMs from the mainland; all of Taiwan would be covered from Fujian Province, and the Diaoyu Islands would be covered from Shandong Province, making it difficult for the US and Japan to deploy combat aircraft over those airspaces. Taiwan seeks to address its potential advantages by locating S-400 batteries once activated using extensive SIGINT units and destroying them with stand-off weapons, cruise and ballistic missiles, and anti-radiation missiles.[77]
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I asked that question too. Why dump so much money into this type of plane?
Are you saying that it is wrong to compare the F35 against foreign fighters? And the only true way of measuring the F35 is against the F15/F16/F18? That's a sure recipe for failure.
So what if its entering service. It will still be an over priced mediocre aircraft that will have a short production life. I like to think of it as being a modern day version of the TFX debacle of the 60's. Out of that came the F15 and F14.
If it isnt a great fighter, then it better be a great bomber. And if its a great bomber, it better not have any air to air capability other than to run away.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This is laughable. If it was possible to develop low cost drones to accomplish a strike or primary air to air mission it would have been done years ago. Drones will supplement manned aircraft but in the end will never replace them, at least not in our lifetime. You say low cost? Tell us what that is?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Because the concept works?
Nope never said that - what I said it our own aircraft were used as a bench mark for comparison. Look at what the foreign contemporaries of say the F-16 and F/A-18 are and then compare away!!! Tornado, MiG-29, J10, to name a few...
Well that's what the Rand study initially did and then attempted simulated comparisons basically guessing on how Russian and Chinese aircraft would perform.
WHAT PROOF OF THAT DO YOU HAVE?!?
Small minds think small...
And you can't comprehend that it has an air to air capability that will enable it to destroy opponents BEFORE it has to run!!!
buffnut453
Captain
Unfortunately, those sensors aren't good enough. You have to be able to see the target - radar just isn't good enough. For confirmation, rules of engagement often demand visual ID either using FAC, targeting pod or ISR assets. At stand-off distances, you can't visually ID the target using onboard sensors due to obliquity (low slant angle, even from high-altitude) coupled with image distortion due to atmospheric conditions. To suggest these physical issues can be overcome, in both day and night operations, to detect relatively small, mobile targets in high-clutter environments like cities is laughable.
If the onboard sensors of your launch platform have to stay outside the threat environment, how are you going to get ISR assets in close enough so offboard sensors can do the job? Something has to go in harms way and that something has to be survivable.
I'm no fan of the costs of the F-35. As a taxpayer, it makes my eyes water, and I still think the STOVL version is an expensive diversion of resources - there's no practical need for a vertically-landing asset these days, other than to maintain the superiority complex of the Harrier mafia. However, my 20 years in the military, including a number of operational deployments ranging from force-on-force to low-intensity conflict to peacekeeping to humanitarian relief, tell me that the F-35 is the right beast for the job. As manoeuverable as the F-18 (and maybe F-16) and yet capable of stealthy approach...sounds pretty good to me as an option for mission success!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Buff with this statement, I couldn't agree more. As you put it the "Harrier Mafia" got their way when the concept of this aircraft was being developed. It was an 'after the fact' proposal when the designer of the lift fan stated that the airframe of the V/STOL could be adapted to other missions.
Portions of this contract were cost plus which meant the LMCO could bill the government for actual expenses. That combined with changing/ adding components had the development costs of the program go hog wild. What should be investigated is who approved some of the add-ons and changes and have them show why they were justified, but it seems that situation is mute. The production portion of the program is Firm Fixed Priced so the contractor is held to keep costs down. I've been told by people who I know who were on the program that some of the vendors fell on their @sses - these vendors were not a choice by LMCO and were not in the US...
The F-35A had met or will meet it's test requirements. The sustained 9G issue is one compromise the USAF conceded to and IMO, why the hell to you have to maintain a sustained 9G turn when you have all these wonderful weapons that should keep you from having to "yank and bank" in a close in combat situation. The F-35C passed it's carrier qualifications with flying colors and the F-35B is about to go to sea. The design is just about proven and anyone who believes that this program will just be a "short production run" is on drugs!!! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND SHOW US PROOF OF THAT!!!!
Like the 4th generation aircraft before it, the F-35 have/ had issues, they are being fixed and I think the latest milestones show the potential of this aircraft. This aircraft is expensive but if it's around 60 years from now I think the costs will be more than justified...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
As we speak, more BS...
With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down - Yahoo Finance
F-35 grounded? Really?
With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down - Yahoo Finance
F-35 grounded? Really?
Glider
Captain
Because its cheaper than a drone, more flexible than a drone, has a better payload than a drone, far more survivable than a drone, has infinitely more weapon options than a drone and is so, so much cooler than a drone. The last one being my nephews contribution
I can confidently say that the USA and its partners would love to test it against a fully equipped, latest Russian standard fighter. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian pilots wouldn't mind such a test but I don't see it happening. Now if we work on the basis that this isn't going to happen what do you suggest the USAF test it against?
I am also confident that the RAF will have compared it against the Typhoon, the French will be testing it against the Rafael and a number of countries against the Grippen.
If it were mediocre the RAF wouldn't be buying it as they already have the Typhoon. If it were overpriced the RAF would have simply dropped the F35 order and purchased more Typhoons. There was a lot of political pressure for that to happen but it didn't and its noticeable that all the UK political parties are sticking with it.
Its a great all round aircraft it will not be the best fighter but it will probably be the best attack aircraft. A lot of countries have been very happy with the performance of the F16 as a multirole aircraft and I have no doubt that the F35 will do the same.
Once again your entire posting is based on no support at all. Who believes that comparing the F35 against the F15 the benchmark for air combat is unreasonable, only you. Who says its a mediocre aircraft again only you. It is an expensive aircraft no doubt, but many nations believe its worth the cost and are proving it by paying the price so who doesn't believe its worth it, only people with an axe to grind.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Meanwhile...
"First-Ever Italian F-35A Rolls Out of Cameri, Italy, Production Facility"
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/fir...rolls-out-of-cameri-italy-production-facility
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-f-35-program-costs-decline-7.5-billion-pentagon-says
Senior admiral reiterates U.S. Navy commitment to F-35 warplane | Reuters
AND PLEASE NOTE THE DATES OF THESE ARTICLES!!!
"First-Ever Italian F-35A Rolls Out of Cameri, Italy, Production Facility"
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/fir...rolls-out-of-cameri-italy-production-facility
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-f-35-program-costs-decline-7.5-billion-pentagon-says
Senior admiral reiterates U.S. Navy commitment to F-35 warplane | Reuters
AND PLEASE NOTE THE DATES OF THESE ARTICLES!!!
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
That must be the grounded one that was being talked about. Or it could be the short production run i.e. only one (so far)Meanwhile...
"First-Ever Italian F-35A Rolls Out of Cameri, Italy, Production Facility"
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/fir...rolls-out-of-cameri-italy-production-facility
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-f-35-program-costs-decline-7.5-billion-pentagon-says
Senior admiral reiterates U.S. Navy commitment to F-35 warplane | Reuters
For the US, has the AV-8B Harrier II been a worthwhile endeavor?
Has the AV-8B shown that the concept deserves to be continued in the F-35?
Supposedly, US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf named the USMC Harrier II as one of the seven most important weapons of the Gulf War.
PS: The AV-8B has provided fixed-wing capability from amphibious assault ships.
It would seem that that is a capability worth continuing.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
Gulf War I was 25 years ago. To put that time shift in context, how many aircraft from 1966 were still considered vital combat assets in 1991? Also, what proportion of USMC missions were flown by AV-8B compared to CTOL USMC aircraft? I'd argue that the whole raison d'etre for Harrier died when the threat of the Soviet 3rd Shock Army rolling over the inner German border evaporated. I just don't see a case where we need rough-field STOVL operations today - it provides nothing that cannot be done with aircraft that can fly further and/or carry more.
The time shift thing seems to have changed though.
For example, how many aircraft from 1991 (and much earlier) are still considered vital combat assets today?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Here is the FY14' report on the F-35. The press doesn't report any of this stuff (even if it's negative) because they're too stupid to look for it.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/da.../DOT-E_2014_Annual_Report_Section_on_F-35.pdf
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/da.../DOT-E_2014_Annual_Report_Section_on_F-35.pdf
Last edited:
