The F-35 is a piece of garbage!

[shimpster]

Second straight spam of your own original post deleted. This constitutes thread crapping. You need to take your shtick elsewhere.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Brian Stirling]

Older aircraft carry drop tanks because "why not"
The F-35 have requirements to perform missions where LO is required so that have huge internal fuel tanks.
Older aircraft like the F-15\G-16\Super Hornet cannot perform those missions.
The missions where F-35's and legacy aircraft overlap will result in F-35 tossing on droptanks.

As for the F-15, its is one of least stealth aircraft in the air today and will be one of the first planes to be detected.

So to say the F-35 has shitty range is nonsense.
Folks are pulling numbers on legacy aircraft packing 3 droptanks and comparing it to a brand new aircraft where the published numbers are based on one particular mission profile that none of the legacy aircraft can even perform.

To say that an F-15C with 2 droptanks on a Hi-HI-Hi mission profile has better range than F-35 on internal fuel only is pointless.
If you are going to try and compare range on aircraft that will be performing similar missions, then at least use apples to apples comparisons.

The F-35 will be getting external fuel tanks.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...greater-autonomy-f-35-fighter-force/82619792/

Once data becomes public than compare away.

Sounds like several teams are working on external fuel tanks and have been for some years. I'm not sure why it's taking so long but it looks like Israel wants something quick and then a better system (conformal) later.

But, no matter, the fact is pretty much all fighter aircraft can use external fuel tanks and therefore range is longer than internal stores alone. For older AC that don't rely on stealth the addition of external tanks is less of a problem but for stealth aircraft you either spend a lot of time and money developing external tanks that retain stealth, a tall order, or opt for something more conventional and drop them before the plane enters the conflict zone. Such an approach will stretch your inbound range but you'd still be limited to internal fuel for outbound.


Brian

 

[maddogchen]

F-35 declared ready for combat

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/08/02/air-force-declares-ready-combat/87971568/

 

[John Connor]

Yeah, I read last week I think it was a squadron was ready. I still think the F-22 and the B2 are the two best AC ever.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Not to change the subject but sometimes I wonder about the decision making process when choosing replacement airframes. I watched a documentary on the F22 when it was undergoing trials with the F23, a superior aircraft, and it was chosen as the winner. The F35 external gun pod makes me wonder about the specs used to generate the configuration. Any conventionally shaped external component will add to the radar signature of the aircraft negating the other stealth qualities. The gun pods I've seen demonstrated are conventionally shaped with no radar deflecting angles on them.

When it comes to air defense I have a completely different mindset to how it should be accomplished. The AF should have a flying AA/AG platform that flies in defense of air and ground forces with a plethora of AA, and AG armaments for troops to call for fire support. When an aircraft or other friendly radar scans an enemy asset it should immediately send that data to the platform, feed it into the fire control system and assign an asset to respond. Being able to have airborne fire support like that would be an enormous plus during combat operations and aid in protecting all assets involved. It could be viewed as an armed over watch platform.

 

[John Connor]

They do this. It's called close air support. Especially for special operators. The AC-130 Gunship or A-10 comes to mind.

Also, JTRS was supposed to be the main communications platform.

One day I suppose it will be like a first person shooter in combat where you have a mini map viewer over your eye showing friendly's, etc.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The ac-130 is not an air to air platform and calling in other aircraft isn't what I'm thinking. In my mind I'm thinking of an airborne battleship that can handle air and ground targets simultaneously in a stand off fashion from a greater distance.

 

[norseamd]

The ac-130 is not an air to air platform and calling in other aircraft isn't what I'm thinking. In my mind I'm thinking of an airborne battleship that can handle air and ground targets simultaneously in a stand off fashion from a greater distance.

Greater distance usually means less accuracy, which means more casualties, since there is more friendly fire, and more enemies still around to shoot your guys.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I'm also thinking about intelligent guided weapons so no dumb ammunitions. I'm thinking about an aerial platform that has long, medium and short range capability for air and ground targets. Something like a C-17 Globe master that is armed to the teeth with a huge AWAC like dish. I also envision such a platform to be able to use a cruise missile deployable anti-submarine weapon if necessary. Maybe I've watched too many marvel movies but something along the lines of those huge carriers but on a smaller scale. The AC-130 started as a transport and became an airborne gunship so the C-17 could become the AC-17 with cruise missiles, hellfires, sparrows, phoenix and other missiles in that huge airframe. Mount some guns radar controlled air defense guns to keep fighters at bay, electronic warfare gear to jam inbound weapons and well you get the idea.

 

[norseamd]

Not only would it be expensive to develop and operate those aircraft, every munition fired would be horrendously expensive.

 

[John Connor]

I'm also thinking about intelligent guided weapons so no dumb ammunitions. I'm thinking about an aerial platform that has long, medium and short range capability for air and ground targets. Something like a C-17 Globe master that is armed to the teeth with a huge AWAC like dish. I also envision such a platform to be able to use a cruise missile deployable anti-submarine weapon if necessary. Maybe I've watched too many marvel movies but something along the lines of those huge carriers but on a smaller scale. The AC-130 started as a transport and became an airborne gunship so the C-17 could become the AC-17 with cruise missiles, hellfires, sparrows, phoenix and other missiles in that huge airframe. Mount some guns radar controlled air defense guns to keep fighters at bay, electronic warfare gear to jam inbound weapons and well you get the idea.

You once again described an already used platform in the air force arsenal. You mention no "dumb munitions." We have the JDAM (Joint, Direct, Attack, Munition) kit that straps to "dumb bombs." They use GPS and steer towards the target.

Also, you have to think about what's already being used to do what you propose. The F-22 and B2 pretty much does everything you mention. The F-22 is low observable and can fire an air to air missile from 50 miles away. You won't even see the aircraft that killed you. Also, if I can remember from my reading, the B2 could take out Navy ships with an ordinance of which the name escapes me at the moment.

There's a lot to be said for the military might of the USA.

Edit-

Looks like it was the B1. http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/...l-moving-boat-tests-larger-anti-ship-missile/

Have a look at the wrath a B2 can dish out! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Armaments_and_equipment

 

[norseamd]

I'm also thinking about intelligent guided weapons so no dumb ammunitions. I'm thinking about an aerial platform that has long, medium and short range capability for air and ground targets. Something like a C-17 Globe master that is armed to the teeth with a huge AWAC like dish. I also envision such a platform to be able to use a cruise missile deployable anti-submarine weapon if necessary. Maybe I've watched too many marvel movies but something along the lines of those huge carriers but on a smaller scale. The AC-130 started as a transport and became an airborne gunship so the C-17 could become the AC-17 with cruise missiles, hellfires, sparrows, phoenix and other missiles in that huge airframe. Mount some guns radar controlled air defense guns to keep fighters at bay, electronic warfare gear to jam inbound weapons and well you get the idea.

Something like that would be a huge fat target, and thus it could never survive in a high-intensity war, especially since munitions are much cheaper than platforms, and ground platforms and munitions are cheaper than sea and air platforms and munitions, thus such an arsenal ship would have to survive a never ending barrage of missile attacks.

You should read up about the concept of distributed lethality.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-01/distributed-lethality

 

[desura]

I really hate how the media always declares something a total failure. The F35 has had a flawed development, but it has made legit progress.

 

[norseamd]

I really hate how the media always declares something a total failure. The F35 has had a flawed development, but it has made legit progress.

Which is very true. But only after the government took control over the whole project. Which just shows what neoliberal capitalism gives America.

 

[John Connor]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-air-force-legend-general-142648567.html

I did make my thread title say crap, but it was changed to garbage. I thought CRAP was far more effective. LOL

 

[norseamd]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-air-force-legend-general-142648567.html

I did make my thread title say crap, but it was changed to garbage. I thought CRAP was far more effective. LOL

Dude, that guy has been doing nothing but spewing absolute bullshit on twitter. Forget about him.

 

[Svnla]

I will put this here - http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-could-not-dogfight-typhoon-su-35-2016-8

 

[norseamd]

Next up, the ocean is blue, and the sky is blue.

 

[norseamd]

The Su-35 sacrifices stealth to carry more missiles under the wings. The F-35 carries missiles in an internal bay to preserve stealth.

I also take issue with this sentence. The Su-35 never had stealth to sacrifice to begin with. It is an evolution of a 4th generation fighter, at the fundamental baseline it was never designed for stealth, even if the newer versions of the Su-27 platform may have changes that improve the RCS signature.

 

[SSSnail]

Which then brings back the puffnstuff's point, which I think does have some merits. So, why not just turn the A/C-130 into a giant battleship in the air if you're going to use advance weaponry to engage beyond visual range anyways? And then have F-16s or F-15s escorts if anything gets close?

I'm sure it can be made to carry a ton more rockets and stuff.

 

[sdifox]

Which then brings back the puffnstuff's point, which I think does have some merits. So, why not just turn the A/C-130 into a giant battleship in the air if you're going to use advance weaponry to engage beyond visual range anyways? And then have F-16s or F-15s escorts if anything gets close?

I'm sure it can be made to carry a ton more rockets and stuff.

I don't think the AC-130 is going to last against missiles.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Which then brings back the puffnstuff's point, which I think does have some merits. So, why not just turn the A/C-130 into a giant battleship in the air if you're going to use advance weaponry to engage beyond visual range anyways? And then have F-16s or F-15s escorts if anything gets close?

I'm sure it can be made to carry a ton more rockets and stuff.

Big fat target (huge RCS and bigger physical target), no transience (no speed + maneuverability) = no survivability in a contested airspace. It would also need the avionics to perform the fighter mission. The closest thing to what you're imagining is the B-1R concept, wherein the B-1 is turned into an AMRAAM arsenal/missile truck, but is given a proper A2A radar, reengined with F119s (which is in the F-22), intakes to better suit the aircraft and engines for higher supersonic speeds. The original B-1 prototypes were infact Mach 2 capable at altitude. When Reagan restarted the program, it had been concluded that even higher altitude Mach 2 speed wasn't going to make the aircraft survivable, so the aircraft design was shifted to low-level penetration with improved RCS characteristics. Part of this redesign process was new intakes to better mask the engine fan at the cost of speed. It's still a mildly supersonic aircraft at least and capable of Mach .92 at extremely low level.

Interestingly, you could argue that is a stealth aircraft with it's 1 m² RCS, vs 125 m² for a B-52. The B-1R concept would likely increase the RCS because of new intakes, making it more vulnerable without other stealth mods. Versus other low RCS types, it would have to get closer to the merge to detect and launch munitions.

 

[pauldun170]

Big fat target (huge RCS and bigger physical target), no transience (no speed + maneuverability) = no survivability in a contested airspace. It would also need the avionics to perform the fighter mission. The closest thing to what you're imagining is the B-1R concept, wherein the B-1 is turned into an AMRAAM arsenal/missile truck, but is given a proper A2A radar, reengined with F119s (which is in the F-22), intakes to better suit the aircraft and engines for higher supersonic speeds. The original B-1 prototypes were infact Mach 2 capable at altitude. When Reagan restarted the program, it had been concluded that even higher altitude Mach 2 speed wasn't going to make the aircraft survivable, so the aircraft design was shifted to low-level penetration with improved RCS characteristics. Part of this redesign process was new intakes to better mask the engine fan at the cost of speed. It's still a mildly supersonic aircraft at least and capable of Mach .92 at extremely low level.

Interestingly, you could argue that is a stealth aircraft with it's 1 m² RCS, vs 125 m² for a B-52. The B-1R concept would likely increase the RCS because of new intakes, making it more vulnerable without other stealth mods. Versus other low RCS types, it would have to get closer to the merge to detect and launch munitions.

For a B1R, you are looking at a major hit in range if you tried to shove the F119 in there. Even a F135 might be a challenge balancing range.
As for the radar, they are already rolling out new AESA to the B1b fleet. Its a derivative of the APG83 which is has a lot of goodies from the APG81 and 77 (F-35 and F22 set)
Similar to what they are shoving in f-16's except with a huge array

As for the concept, I don't think we are ready for the endless TU-28 jokes from the Kremlin if we were to move forward with it.
My house is a stealthy compared to a B-52.

 

[norseamd]

For a B1R, you are looking at a major hit in range if you tried to shove the F119 in there. Even a F135 might be a challenge balancing range.
As for the radar, they are already rolling out new AESA to the B1b fleet. Its a derivative of the APG83 which is has a lot of goodies from the APG81 and 77 (F-35 and F22 set)
Similar to what they are shoving in f-16's except with a huge array

As for the concept, I don't think we are ready for the endless TU-28 jokes from the Kremlin if we were to move forward with it.
My house is a stealthy compared to a B-52.

If anything, the B1 missile truck would need the range, since it sure as shit is not going to get close to the action with how stealthy it is compared to true stealth aircraft. What it needs is long range missiles, which the US hasnt had, and have been massively outranged by the Russians and especially Chinese. We are improving the range of our missiles right now however, especially the new 120-D AMRAAM.

 

[Ventanni]

I will put this here - http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-could-not-dogfight-typhoon-su-35-2016-8

The Eurofighter Typhoon is designed to be a highly agile dogfighter, as is the SU-35, however in an Air-to-Air environment, the US would be fielding F-22's.

The F-35, on the other hand, is designed as a multipurpose aircraft with good dogfighting characteristics, however the real meat of a fighter aircraft is not how agile it is or how fast it is, but the avionics package, and that's something the F-35 trumps both the Typhoon and the SU-35. It's even better and more advanced than the F-22.

I think people will find the F-35 to be exceptionally lethal in most environments.