Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#4361960 - 06/04/17 08:06 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: RSColonel_131st]  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon Online content
Veteran
Arthonon  Online Content
Veteran

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
Originally Posted by RSColonel_131st
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
... they will almost always be carrying drop tanks. Making the low RCS capabilities fairly useless for the operational limitations of the F-35.


Which is my main beef with the way Ricunes and some others here are painting the Stubblenose as the next coming of a weaponized Messias, and saying that the European Infidels are too stupid to grasp this relevation.

Unless you are fighting a very high tech enemy - and I don't even count China on that level because most of their copies, err.. own developments are not really so brilliant - you only need Stealth the first two to three days before the air defense network is taken care of and the enemy aircraft have no where to take off from. Then you end up using a very expensive plane with a very high maintenance requirement etc. as a dumb bomb truck for the rest of the campaign.

So unless you expect Euros to go to war versus US or us all together versus Russia (which is good at ground-based air defense, their fighters are still nothing exceptional) there is zero sense in fielding a force full of low-payload, low-RCS aircraft. And that's not even counting the fact that the Eurofighter Typhoon and other European 4+ Gen will also have methods to deal with ground defenses and capable enemy fighters.

That's why I said the LM Marketing Koolaid is cheap in this thread. For everything up to and including messing with Russia and China the "not so stealthy - just lower RCS" European aircraft would be doing a pretty decent job. If Germany should aquire a few F35 then as complimentary option to their own designs. And it's not like EADS/Airbus hasn't started working on Stealth projects themselves.

Uh, wow, really? I mean, there's so much here to address that it's hard to know where to start. I mean, European countries are getting the F-35, so you can't even lump all of Europe together in the thinking of the F-35, and no one is saying that the existing aircraft don't have capabilities.

Also, sure, the F-35 has stealth, but that's not all it brings to the fight, and many say it's not the most important thing it brings, so even if it weren't stealthy, it would still have significant abilities that other aircraft don't have, and couldn't easily have added. As one example, during Red Flag exercises, an F-35 guided an air-to-ground munition while simultaneously taking out an air target. No other aircraft has been able to do that before, and while that might not be a common need, it demonstrates some of what it can do beyond simple stealth, and I'm certain there's a lot more.

You say the LM Marketing Koolaid is cheap in this thread, but I'd say there's a good amount of arrogance. So, tell us, what is it you know that all of the countries buying the F-35 don't? How is it that you are immune from the marketing but Norway, Italy, Britain, Israel, among others, are not? Please tell us, we'd love to hear your inside info.


Ken Cartwright

No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.

http://www.techflyer.net

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4361969 - 06/04/17 09:24 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: F4UDash4]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
Hmm, interesting reaction Ken, for I know you as a very good debater and not usually so emotionally involved.

Besides Stealth, do you think other aircraft might get the same sensor/integration capabilities in the future? Are you aware what a Typhoon or Gripen NG can do? I guess so. So what is the "magic golden ability" that will see the F35 win against a bunch of Su35 (and even easier against a bunch of Jendong-whatever) where an Eurofighter or Gripen will not?

I'm not saying that the EU countries buying the F35 are making a mistake fueled by LM marketing only. But neither did Italy or Britain make a mistake when chosing to purchase and operating the Typhoon, for the foreseeable future. Which is pretty much what I read out of this thread, not from your posts but those by others. Ricunes sounds like everything BUT the F35 is a mistake, outdated, needs to be replaced. Heck, even the USN is a stupid service because they are "too slow to adapt" according to him.

So, I don't think the Stubblenose is a stupid aircraft or devoit of real-life applicable advantages. I do however resent the tone of this thread voiced by some that the only salvation for any Western Air Force these days is to buy F35 and scrap their national or multi-national own designs. That is either patriotism run amok, or LM koolaid, your pick.

#4361970 - 06/04/17 09:30 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: F4UDash4]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
Oh and Ken, if you want something very concrete to address, you can translate me this quote please:

Originally Posted by ricnunes
If the German Air Force wants to be relevant (as well as any other western air forces) it only has a single option -> The F-35.

And also don't get with the Typhoon. The Typhoon and other 4.5th gen fighter aircraft such as the Super Hornet, Rafale, Gripen NG and older 4th gen fighter aircraft are already completely obsolete compared to the F-35 and are already obsolete against modern and advanced air defence systems such as the S-400 as they will be obsolete against 5th gen fighter aircraft currently in development such as the Russian T-50 and/or the Chinese J-20 and J-31.


1) In which scenario would a GAF with a few hundred Typhoon NOT be relevant in the next 20 years?

2) In which scenario will the GAF face a dozen of S-400?

3) Which objective reports exsist on the capabilities of a T-50, J-20 and J-31 that mark them as superior to current European designs?

BTW, here's a somewhat recent article looking at purchase and operating costs of the F35 versus Super Hornet:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21776/f-35-cheaper/


#4361975 - 06/04/17 09:59 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: F4UDash4]  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon Online content
Veteran
Arthonon  Online Content
Veteran

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate that, and thank you for clarifying your view. I thought you were directing your views toward anyone who thought the F-35 was a capable aircraft and the best choice for some AFs, and not specifically responding only to what ricnunes said. I wanted to make it clear that there are things the F-35 can do that you don't have to buy into LM marketing to find unique and useful, and wasn't emotional, I just thought a lot of what you posted was inaccurate and condescending.

I also didn't really get how supporting the F-35 was a dig at Europe, because European countries are buying them and contributing to the design and building of them (and ricnunes even referenced a US aircraft in his list). The F-35 is a very international program with a fair amount of European input, so choosing it is not much different than choosing a Typhoon to me.

When you say things like "I'm not saying that the EU countries buying the F35 are making a mistake fueled by LM marketing only" (emphasis mine), it gives the impression that you still think buying the F-35 is a mistake. I am not sure if that's what you meant, but it is the same impression I've gotten from your other posts, and if that's accurate, I do think it's arrogant to feel you know their needs better than those buying the F-35. If that's not what you meant, then I was mistaken and of course that comment doesn't apply.


Ken Cartwright

No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.

http://www.techflyer.net

#4361976 - 06/04/17 10:01 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 173
WolverineFW Offline
Member
WolverineFW  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 173
Yes they were actually very lucky get that shootdown. According to information I have read, several things had to line up for it to actually succeed. As mentioned previosly, the F-117 squadrons were getting complacent and flying the same routes night after night. The Serbs also only had a 20-30 second window to identifiy the target on radar, lock on to it and fire the missle, otherwise they would have been eating a HARM sandwich for a midnight snack. The only reason they actually got a radar lock was because the F-117 had to open and close its bomb bay doors very briefly while deploying its weapon. This was automated by the jet, so it only was a window of 5-10 seconds where its radar signature increased drastically.


Originally Posted by ricnunes
Also regarding Stealth I find odd to see some here referring to the shot down of the F-117 over Serbia as some sort of evidence on how "Stealth don't work". Really, I though that people here were mostly military aircraft "aficionados" which searched/researched more about the subject of military aviation.

Heck, there's even a Simulator which has its own room here at SimHQ, that sim being "SAM Simulator" which historically depicts this event (the F-117 shot down over Serbia). About this event and what is well known about it, is that the Serbs were lucky, very lucky indeed since:
- The F-117 basically overflew the SAM site! The F-117 was shot down (hit by an SA-3 missile) at a distance of roughly 17-19km from the SAM site and flow as close to the site as 13km away!
- Of course if a Stealth aircraft flies very close to a radar source (like it happened to that F-117) than the Stealth aircraft will be detected. Stealth doesn't means invisibility - It means that it can only be detected at much shorter ranges compared to non-stealth aircraft.
- The F-117 didn't have Electronic Warfare equipment! The F-117 didn't have ECM, it didn't have decoy (Chaffs and Flares) launchers. So even if the missile launch was detected there wasn't much the pilot could do.
- Some sources seem to point out that the F-117 wasn't even equipped with RWRs (although I'm not sure about this).

So go on, play SAM Simulator (its free) - This scenario is among the "easiest" by the way. Or together or alternatively research more about the subject. The commander of that Serbian SA-3 battery (Col. Zoltan Dani) provides very interesting and useful insight about the subject.

Finally between 1991 Desert Storm and 1999 Allied Force how many Non-Stealth aircraft were shot down and how many Stealth aircraft were shot down?? Just to ask... rolleyes

#4361988 - 06/04/17 10:58 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: F4UDash4]  
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Tazz Offline
Junior Member
Tazz  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Wellington, NZ
The most important factor was the F-117s using the same routes and therefore becoming predictable, possibly caused by Air Force planners underestimating the Serbians. That probably has something to do with the USAF not fully understanding or appreciating Yugoslavian culture and independence.

While Yugoslavia had always been supported by the Soviets, it was not a Soviet satellite state and has always remained fiercely independent under Colonel Tito. That also meant that the Serbs did not necessarily apply Soviet doctrine one-on-one, as for example the Iraqi's did.
Also access to education was very different in Yugoslavia than Iraq. In other words, the Serbs weren't Iraqi's, didn't think like Iraqi's and didn't use the same tactics as Iraqi's.

The SA-3 unit that shot down the F-117 was equipped with upgraded Pechora-M SA-3's and also equipped with thermal imaging range finders. Also, the unit was commanded by Col. Zoltán Dani - who very much understood the game surface-to-aerial warfare and seemed to be very knowledge on radar technology. It is said that Col. Dani had his P-18 acquisition radar modified to operate at a much lower frequency, in an attempt to locate the F-117s. Again, this was not your average Iraqi SAM commander.

I think that ultimately the F-117 shoot down was a combination of several factors - being on an a predictable flight path, in close proximity to the SA-3 site itself, with the modified P-18 possibly having been able to alert the SA-3 unit of the F-117s presence and having been able to point the missiles in the right spot. I cannot find any conclusive statement to say that the SA-3 unit was actually able to get a firm lock on the F-117 using the X-band targeting radar or if they used the thermal imaging sights to launch the two SA-3 missiles at the F-117 but the effect remains the same, the close proximity impact was sufficient to knock the F-117 out of the skies.

What I do not believe is that this was a case of sheer luck, with the F-117 being hit by a blind volley of unguided missiles. Regardless of the final acquisition, in my mind the SA-3 unit knew the F-117s were there and were able to accurately target Lt. Col. Zelko's aircraft. Which had neither RLS (which had been removed during the 1980s for being ineffective) nor RWR, given that the F-117 wasn't supposed to be targeted by radar in the first place.


Last edited by Tazz; 06/04/17 11:00 PM.
#4361989 - 06/04/17 11:06 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: RSColonel_131st]  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Franze Offline
Member
Franze  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by RSColonel_131st

Which is my main beef with the way Ricunes and some others here are painting the Stubblenose as the next coming of a weaponized Messias, and saying that the European Infidels are too stupid to grasp this relevation.

Unless you are fighting a very high tech enemy - and I don't even count China on that level because most of their copies, err.. own developments are not really so brilliant - you only need Stealth the first two to three days before the air defense network is taken care of and the enemy aircraft have no where to take off from. Then you end up using a very expensive plane with a very high maintenance requirement etc. as a dumb bomb truck for the rest of the campaign.

So unless you expect Euros to go to war versus US or us all together versus Russia (which is good at ground-based air defense, their fighters are still nothing exceptional) there is zero sense in fielding a force full of low-payload, low-RCS aircraft. And that's not even counting the fact that the Eurofighter Typhoon and other European 4+ Gen will also have methods to deal with ground defenses and capable enemy fighters.

That's why I said the LM Marketing Koolaid is cheap in this thread. For everything up to and including messing with Russia and China the "not so stealthy - just lower RCS" European aircraft would be doing a pretty decent job. If Germany should aquire a few F35 then as complimentary option to their own designs. And it's not like EADS/Airbus hasn't started working on Stealth projects themselves.


The very real problem is that there's a lot of assumptions that stealth, and stealth alone, will win any future fights; this ignores the reality that war isn't just about one small part, but a variety of pieces coming together. One of the key reasons why the F-117 was so successful in ODS, for example, had to do with the huge amount of EW support they received. The EF-111 and EA-6B were invaluable in their jamming roles, and coupled with SEAD aircraft all around, made it very difficult to effectively combat a stealth aircraft like the F-117. Nowadays, the only EW aircraft is the EA-18G and it's exclusively a Navy mission. Is the USAF going to put a full suite of EW systems on the F-35, or will they continue to rely on the Navy to carry out that task?

There can be no doubt that the F-35 represents a massive technological leap in aircraft design, systems integration, software, stealth, etc. but this all has to be tempered by the question of whether or not it will be as practical as less complex aircraft. Does it make sense to have the F-35 when unmanned systems will -- and are -- changing the future of aerial warfare?

It's also worth pointing out that one of the key reasons why the A-10 is so endeared isn't exclusively due to the aircraft itself, but the people around it. You will seldom find people who know how to do their mission as well as A-10 crews, as well as the professionalism they surround themselves with. An F-16 pilot is not going to be well trained on CAS, FAC, etc. as the guys dedicated to that mission -- it is, after all, not his primary job. If the F-35 enters that picture, the guys operating them need to make sure where their focus is -- as well as the guys above them who know and understand that the F-35 in that mission will have to take risks to accomplish it. No amount of technology is going to make up for a pilot that bombs refugees by accident because he doesn't know how to do his mission.

#4361992 - 06/04/17 11:14 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Originally Posted by ricnunes


Nope!
You are completely missing the point that it's not only the detection ranges that have their range increased. You are missing the fact that all sorts of weapons also have had their ranges increased and vastly extended.
For example with since the 1980's one of the western longer range guided air-to-ground weapons was the AGM-65 Maverick with a maximum range of around 12 Nautical Miles (or 22Km) which today is being replaced by weapons such as the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which have a maximum range in excess of 60 nautical miles (or 110km).
Another example is for example the 40N6 Surface-to-Air missile (SAM) developed by the Russians for their S-400 Air Defence System, this missile (40N6) has a range of 400km (Yes, four hundred kilometers)!
Modern Air-to-air missiles have longer ranges then their predecessors, and so on...

Therefore Non-Stealth aircraft are far more vulnerable to these newest weapons (SAMs and Air-to-Air missile) while at the same time still being ineffective at releasing the newest and longer range air-to-ground weapons (without being engaged by the enemy).
So yes, Stealth will be more relevant than ever!

And there's another evidence that completely dismisses your "anti-stealth" theories which is the FACT that other countries such as Russia and China are developing their own 5th gen STEALTH fighter aircraft (T-50, J-20 and J-31).
If Stealth was so "useless" and without any future why would these other countries also try to develop such aircraft??

Again, like it or not Stealth is the future together with net-centric warfare. Actually Stealth is an extremely important component of net-centric warfare since it allows sensors to get closer to the enemy and thus providing more reliable information.

Resuming, NOT jumping into the F-35 = 2nd tier Air Force.
If Canada wants to become a 2nd tier Air Force it's their (wrong) choice. Apparently Germany doesn't want to remain a 2nd tier Air Force hence why it seems interested in the F-35.


I don't know much about the Chinese efforts, but PAK FA was intentionally only designed to be stealthy to the degree that would minimize aerodynamic compromises and make things easier on its very powerful onboard ECM system (something which the F-35 seems to lack at this point). They, like the Israelis, simply don't expect the degree of passive radar stealth that can be applied to a 5th generation fighter to be particularly useful in 10 or 15 years.

In fact, PAK FA now seems to be getting de-emphasized somewhat as its figured that further evolved Flankers would be nearly as capable, for the most part, which would allow the Flanker series to remain viable until the next generation effort is ready. That next generation effort may not even be a stealth design either.

#4361995 - 06/05/17 12:13 AM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: Franze]  
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Tazz Offline
Junior Member
Tazz  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Wellington, NZ
Originally Posted by Franze

It's also worth pointing out that one of the key reasons why the A-10 is so endeared isn't exclusively due to the aircraft itself, but the people around it. You will seldom find people who know how to do their mission as well as A-10 crews, as well as the professionalism they surround themselves with. An F-16 pilot is not going to be well trained on CAS, FAC, etc. as the guys dedicated to that mission -- it is, after all, not his primary job.


I have a lot of love for the A-10C but that statement about FAC is not true. The 310th FS at Luke AFB provides the dedicated F-16 Forward Air Control-Airborne or FAC(A), school house in the Air Force, along with the general F-16 B-Course syllabus.
Depending on the specialization of the squadron, F-16 pilots *are* well trained in fast FAC operations.

#4362051 - 06/05/17 12:34 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: Tazz]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster Offline
Member
MigBuster  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
Originally Posted by Tazz

What I do not believe is that this was a case of sheer luck, with the F-117 being hit by a blind volley of unguided missiles. Regardless of the final acquisition, in my mind the SA-3 unit knew the F-117s were there and were able to accurately target Lt. Col. Zelko's aircraft. Which had neither RLS (which had been removed during the 1980s for being ineffective) nor RWR, given that the F-117 wasn't supposed to be targeted by radar in the first place.



I would agree with that not sheer luck.......maybe a bit of luck perhaps in that it came within range of their site I guess. (Dani also claimed David Goldfiens F-16CG did he not)

What I find interesting is that although Dani had advance warning through base spotters and could track it......he couldn't put any kind of fire control system on it until around 8 miles out after several attempts (Possibly aided by the open bomb doors)...the F-117A still dropped its bombs and was coming off target when it was hit.............so despite the propaganda coup and the fame I am not sure they defended a single target.....so all that moving around may have made them hard to destroy but they were border line irrelevant from a strategic point of view.

So bad planning and perhaps complacency on the USAF side quite possibly although I don't think you could plan for every dynamic threat out there............O Grady was had 4 years earlier by CAPing over an area thought to be SAM free.


'Crashing and Burning since 1987'
#4362162 - 06/05/17 07:10 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Making the low RCS capabilities fairly useless for the operational limitations of the F-35. Clearly, the want a larger sized, longer ranged aircraft like the F-22.


And what are the F-35 limitations, may I ask??

Range??
Let me tell you this: The F-35 has a much bigger range on internal fuel than the Super Hornet has with full internal fuel plus 3 external fuel tanks. Heck, the F-35 has more range on internal fuel than the F-22 with internal fuel only as well!
I don't know why people keep insisting that the F-35 has "shot legs" when it's clearly proven otherwise. Another example is that in order for a Typhoon to get close to having a similar range as a F-35A (the F-35C as even a bit longer range due to extra fuel) it must carry 3 External Fuel Tanks!

Weapons?? Let me tell you this: The F-35 can carry a total of 18,000lb of weapons payload (15,000lb external and 3,000lb internal) while the Super Hornet carries a bit less, or 17,750lb. People seem to forget that the F-35 can carry 6 external pylons (4 of them can carry heavy air-to-ground weapons) plus 4 more internally (2 of them can carry heavy air-to-ground weapons) making a total of 8 pylons (6 of them can carry heavy air-to-ground weapons) while the Super Hornet can also carry 10 pylons where "only" 4 of them can carry heavy air-to-ground weapons - BTW, I'm excluding the center fuselage pylon on both aircraft. So and for example, good luck strapping 6 (six) 2000lb JDAM bombs (or similar weight ordinance) on the Super Hornet! Doing this on the F-35? No problem! And what do I mean with this? The F-35 performs the "bomb tuck" role even better than the Super Hornet but has the chance of going Stealth (which the Super Hornet does not) and further if desired.

What about the role of long range interceptor?? No problem on with the F-35 with it's long range (seem above) and very good weapon carrying ability (Block 4 will be able to carry 6 AMRAAMs internally) and on top of this it can give other aircraft missiles (other AMRAAMs for example) and even guide SAM missiles fired from Destroyers and Cruisers like the SM-6.

Don't worry, the US Navy will end up buying the F-35C. That's your "F-14 with a F-22 twist plus the A-6"!


The problem with the F-35 critics is that they keep ventilating the same theories from back 2010 but instantly forget (or choose to forget) that we are already in 2017 and things do evolve and get fixed. The F-35 critics for some reason believe that the F-35 development remains static while for some odd reason the development of old and already outdated (like it or not) aircraft like the existing 4.5th fighter aircraft (Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen NG) can magically match the F-35 capabilities.
This is like hoping that a P-51 could match the capabilities of a F-86 Sabre, this back in the late 1940's or early 1950's.

#4362164 - 06/05/17 07:30 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: F4UDash4]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Even if the F-35 lives up to its lofty billing, the fact remains that its sucked up a disproportionate share of funding out of this procurement cycle, so that its primary users are forced to make do with upgraded legacy SAMs, armored vehicles, EW platforms etc etc, because the Jesus Jet ate up too much R&D.

#4362168 - 06/05/17 07:45 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: RSColonel_131st]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted by RSColonel_131st

Which is my main beef with the way Ricunes and some others here are painting the Stubblenose as the next coming of a weaponized Messias, and saying that the European Infidels are too stupid to grasp this relevation.


It seems that you have some sort of quarrel with me. Don't know why but it seems from your post that's because I'm saying (clearly and without any doubt) that the European military aviation in terms of fighter aircraft lags WAYYYY behind the American one. I don't get you "quarrel" since everything I post I try to back it up with facts (or the best that I can).
So let me be the bearer of the "bad news" --> The European military aviation in terms of fighter aircraft lags WAYYYY behind the American!!
Sorry but that's the sad truth and stating that you have a problem with my own posts won't make this "problem" or "situation" go away!
I could spend several lines of this thread explaining you why this happens but I'll stay with this:
- The European military aviation in terms of fighter aircraft lagging behind the American is not a recent phenomenon. For example, while the US was fielding advanced aircraft such as the F/A-18 legacy Hornet with fully digital cockpit displays (MDF displays) in the early 1980's the Europeans were fielding aircraft like the Mirage 2000 or Tornado Gr.1 which cockpit displays were basically and mostly analog instruments, CAPICHE?? And I could go on, and on, and on, like the old Duracell Battery bunny commercial.

So sorry, if this bothers you so much... rolleyes


Originally Posted by RSColonel_131st

Unless you are fighting a very high tech enemy - and I don't even count China on that level because most of their copies, err.. own developments are not really so brilliant - you only need Stealth the first two to three days before the air defense network is taken care of and the enemy aircraft have no where to take off from. Then you end up using a very expensive plane with a very high maintenance requirement etc. as a dumb bomb truck for the rest of the campaign.



Again the old "F-35 is like the F-117 and only serves for combat against very high tech enemy" argument?? No it isn't and the F-35 does everything that all current 4th and 4.5th fighter aircraft does and way more.
And with it's extremely advanced sensors where 4.5th gen fighter aircraft can only dream to even get close, the F-35 will also be a great ISTAR (Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and Reconnaissance) platform, a role where existing 4.5th gen aircraft cannot even get close.
If you want I could tell you why...

About your "you only need Stealth the first two to three days before the air defense network is taken care of and the enemy aircraft have no where to take off from", that's a "genius statement" indeed! rolleyes
What would prevent the F-35s from carrying, day 3, day 4, day X missions even if the enemy doesn't have any more Air Defence Systems, may I (again) ask??
Again, strap in the external pylons and the F-35 can even carry more ordinance than the most of other 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft - Oh, and at longer range! And Oh, with much better sensors with full sensor fusion which means that the F-35 would not only be a Strike asset but at the same time an ISTAR asset!

But if you still think otherwise, well history as usual will prove you wrong as it has proven many like yourself in the past.

By the way, quoting the US General Gen. Mark Welsh:
“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter the latter dies”
And this has always have been the case: The previous generation will end up being retired (and becoming obsolete) when the new generation arrives why would in hell this change now??

Oh, by the way I was also one of those who were wrong in the past. For example I remember to have discussed, this circa 2004 (if my memory doesn't fail me) on how the F-22 wasn't much superior to the Super Hornet - Oh boy, how was I wrong! wink

#4362173 - 06/05/17 07:56 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: Crane Hunter]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted by Crane Hunter
Even if the F-35 lives up to its lofty billing, the fact remains that its sucked up a disproportionate share of funding out of this procurement cycle, so that its primary users are forced to make do with upgraded legacy SAMs, armored vehicles, EW platforms etc etc, because the Jesus Jet ate up too much R&D.


LoL, the lobby comment rolleyes
Oh and the other companies don't lobby too? What has Boeing being doing with the Super Hornet together with the US (and also Canadian) government, may I ask?

And Airbus with the Typhoon? And Dassault with the Rafale?? Or Saab with the Gripen NG?? They don't lobby, right? rolleyes

And what the heck are you talking about the F-35 "ate up too much R&D"?? Really could you care to expand? This promises to be fun... popcorn

Yes, the F-35 development was expensive but again critics such as yourself choose to ignore (again and again) that the F-35 is indeed a 3-in-1 aircraft - A CTOL variant (F-35A), a STOVL variant (F-35B) and a CTOL variant (F-35C). Add that to being NEW and CUTTING EDGE technology and plus a 40 year maintenance/sustainment cost that was never considered in ANY OTHER PROGRAM IN THE PAST and yes, you'll get a "massive value".
Try making a cutting edge Conventional Takeoff Aircraft, plus a completely different cutting edge STOVL aircraft plus a completely different cutting edge carrier aircraft and add it the 40 year sustainment cost and then tell me you got a cheaper value?? Really??

#4362199 - 06/05/17 09:15 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by ricnunes
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Making the low RCS capabilities fairly useless for the operational limitations of the F-35. Clearly, the want a larger sized, longer ranged aircraft like the F-22.


And what are the F-35 limitations, may I ask??


You just quoted them. Without external drop tanks, the F-35 doesn't have the range the Navy seeks. And you loose the low RCS in the process. The majority of sorties the USN will be using the F-35 for will require drop tanks. There are reasons why the USN has little interest in it - it isn't the right tool for their job. It is an incremental upgrade over the Super Hornet. They want diversity in mission profiles. The F-35 is essentially a F-16 / F-18 replacement. They're looking for something else.

Internally the F-35 has a number of restrictions for payload as well. You mentioned weight, but not size and compatibility. Weight is only a fraction of the equation. If you need to carry 6 missiles with a total weight of 8000 lbs but they can't fit inside, then you're running into shortcomings of the platform. External stores bring about the same problems mentioned above. Minimizes low RCS abilities and adds drag, greatly reducing range.

To carry the same amount of A2A weaponry as the F-22, the F-35 needs to carry four missiles externally. This will kill its low RCS and add considerable drag whereas the F-22 will have a clean profile. it is a good plane, but given what USN's needs, it is not surprising they are not too fond of it. They want a weapon tailored to their mission profile.

#4362207 - 06/05/17 09:35 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Franze Offline
Member
Franze  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by ricnunes

Yes, the F-35 development was expensive but again critics such as yourself choose to ignore (again and again) that the F-35 is indeed a 3-in-1 aircraft - A CTOL variant (F-35A), a STOVL variant (F-35B) and a CTOL variant (F-35C). Add that to being NEW and CUTTING EDGE technology and plus a 40 year maintenance/sustainment cost that was never considered in ANY OTHER PROGRAM IN THE PAST and yes, you'll get a "massive value".
Try making a cutting edge Conventional Takeoff Aircraft, plus a completely different cutting edge STOVL aircraft plus a completely different cutting edge carrier aircraft and add it the 40 year sustainment cost and then tell me you got a cheaper value?? Really??


Would developing three different platforms be cheap? No, of course not. I don't think anyone is arguing that three programs would cost as much or more than what an F-35 costs. What we're arguing about is whether or not a platform designed exclusively for CTOL, one exclusively for STOVL, and one for conventional use would be able to do each mission better than an F-35 shoehorned into each role. The point was made earlier in this thread that, for example, an F-14 made a good fighter-bomber. But by what standard? It didn't match the A-6's payload nor range, so was it really better as a bomber than the A-6? Hence, will the F-35 be a better CAS aircraft than the A-10? A better fighter than the F-15? A better CAS aircraft than the AV-8B? There seem to be a whole bunch of people who either believe the missions won't be necessary in the future or that the F-35 can do them good enough that there won't be any need for anything else. That's very shortsighted and ignores the lessons we've learned since the 1960s.

If you look at the F-35 exclusively as a replacement to the F-16, it makes a lot of sense; since the USAF neglected to take advantage of incremental improvements done to the F-16 over the past two decades, the F-35 is a great leap ahead. Replacing the A-10? Eh... I'm not sure how they're figuring how that's going to work. Legacy Hornet? OK, that makes sense, though they're having to do a #%&*$# ton of mods to squeeze carrier capability out of the airframe. Super Hornet? No, I'm not seeing how the F-35 is going to replace a strike aircraft. AV-8B? How about we instead research STOVL exclusively and either come up with a new design for it or redefine the USMC's requirements.

I realize that not everybody may believe this, but the US DOD is very, very, very wasteful with the money it gets. Few people are going to argue what the F-35 brings to the table; what they're going to argue is if it's the right solution for the problems at hand. I saw many of the same arguments back when the RAH-66 was on the chopping block; despite it getting canned, much of what was learned was applied to other aircraft and further, we made out just fine after it was all said and done.

#4362236 - 06/05/17 11:29 PM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,737
F4UDash4 Offline
Veteran
F4UDash4  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,737
SC
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Originally Posted by ricnunes
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Making the low RCS capabilities fairly useless for the operational limitations of the F-35. Clearly, the want a larger sized, longer ranged aircraft like the F-22.


And what are the F-35 limitations, may I ask??


You just quoted them. Without external drop tanks, the F-35 doesn't have the range the Navy seeks. And you loose the low RCS in the process.


I've read that low RCS drop tanks are in the works.


"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4362258 - 06/06/17 01:20 AM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: F4UDash4]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
The IDFAF seems to not think much of the level of passive radar stealth present on the F-35...

“We think the stealth protection will be good for 5-10 years, but the aircraft will be in service for 30-40 years, so we need EW capabilities [on the F-35] that can be rapidly improved."

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/israel-us-agree-450-million-f-35-ew-work

#4362276 - 06/06/17 03:35 AM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon Online content
Veteran
Arthonon  Online Content
Veteran

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Originally Posted by ricnunes
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Making the low RCS capabilities fairly useless for the operational limitations of the F-35. Clearly, the want a larger sized, longer ranged aircraft like the F-22.


And what are the F-35 limitations, may I ask??


You just quoted them. Without external drop tanks, the F-35 doesn't have the range the Navy seeks. And you loose the low RCS in the process. The majority of sorties the USN will be using the F-35 for will require drop tanks. There are reasons why the USN has little interest in it - it isn't the right tool for their job. It is an incremental upgrade over the Super Hornet. They want diversity in mission profiles. The F-35 is essentially a F-16 / F-18 replacement. They're looking for something else.

Actually, I know someone fairly high up in the Navy, and they are quite bullish on the F-35 because of some of the unique capabilities it brings. Where are you getting your info?


Ken Cartwright

No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.

http://www.techflyer.net

#4362710 - 06/08/17 09:03 AM Re: Germany Thinking of Buying F-35? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted by Flogger23m


You just quoted them. Without external drop tanks, the F-35 doesn't have the range the Navy seeks. And you loose the low RCS in the process.



Then you missed entirely my post or only you simply choose to ignore the parts that don't interest your preconceived idea.

What part of the F-35 with internal fuel HAS MORE RANGE than the Super Hornet (and most legacy fighters, BTW) with external tanks, that you didn't get??

The fact that the F-35 doesn't have external tanks is because IT DOESN'T NEED them. Again and in case you missed my last sentence, the F-35 has more range than legacy fighters with external fuel tanks and this again includes the Super Hornet.



Originally Posted by Flogger23m

The majority of sorties the USN will be using the F-35 for will require drop tanks. There are reasons why the USN has little interest in it - it isn't the right tool for their job. It is an incremental upgrade over the Super Hornet. They want diversity in mission profiles. The F-35 is essentially a F-16 / F-18 replacement. They're looking for something else.


Again if the F-35 has more range than the current US Navy combat aircraft inventory - legacy Hornet and Super Hornet - why would the F-35 require fuel tanks? Moreover, the F-35C is the variant with the longest range.
BTW, did you know that external fuel tanks are expensive and take up place, specially in more "limited spaces" such as a carrier? And as such relying on external tanks isn't that effective?


Originally Posted by Flogger23m

Internally the F-35 has a number of restrictions for payload as well. You mentioned weight, but not size and compatibility. Weight is only a fraction of the equation. If you need to carry 6 missiles with a total weight of 8000 lbs but they can't fit inside, then you're running into shortcomings of the platform. External stores bring about the same problems mentioned above. Minimizes low RCS abilities and adds drag, greatly reducing range.


LoL, so more options are now restrictions?? Really you should get your facts straight!
The F-35 is not limited! The F-35 has actually MORE OPTIONS than any other legacy fighter, LOOK:
Option 1 - You want to go Stealth? Carry the weapons internally. Yes, internally you carry less weapons than externally but you'll go Stealth.
Option 2 - You want to CARRY the MORE WEAPONS with the SIMILAR PERFORMANCE compared to legacy fighters? Carry WEAPONS EXTERNALLY!

So as you can see if, there are LIMITED fighter aircraft out there, these are the legacy fighters such as the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, etc... since you will only have OPTION 1 available to you! Capiche?

Moreover with the superior network capabilities, you can have for example a 4 ship flight of F-35s where 2 of them are "Stealth configured" with internal weapons only and can get near the enemy (due to Stealth combined superior EW capabilities) while the other 2 are fully armed with external weapons. The 2 "stealth configured" F-35s will be able to detect, designate and guide the weapons of the external weapons equipped F-35s while these later F-35s stay well behind in safe airspace.

This is something that legacy aircraft can only "dream of"!
So and again as you can see the F-35 has MORE CAPABILITIES and thus LESS LIMITED than legacy aircraft and not otherwise as you claim or have "wet dreams" about.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m

To carry the same amount of A2A weaponry as the F-22, the F-35 needs to carry four missiles externally. This will kill its low RCS and add considerable drag whereas the F-22 will have a clean profile. it is a good plane, but given what USN's needs, it is not surprising they are not too fond of it. They want a weapon tailored to their mission profile.


And the F-22 doesn't have a 360º IRST in the form of DAS and doesn't have a frontal high resolution and long range IR sensor in the form of the EOTS, or resuming it can't detect enemy aircraft in the passive IR spectrum, so what's your point??

By the way, a Block 4 F-35 will carry 6 (six) AMRAAMs internally while the F-22 carries also 6 AMRAAMS plus 2 Sidewinders, so as you can see the difference isn't that big, specially considering that the F-35 is more advanced and cheaper than the F-22!

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0