Earlier quoted context omitted.
The F-35 has EODAS for spherical optical threat detection vs OLS front only on a Su-35 Flanker. Also, a Su-35 Flanker cant fire a missile at 50km without radar lock, which would be difficult against a F-35. Even if they did fire a future Long-Range IR missile, the F-35 would detect and release flares to avoid the missile. Also, the kinetics of the missile would make it hard to track a F-35 during terminal phase. A F/…
Sounds pretty much like the latest gens of the french rafale, except for the VTOL ;-)
How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
201–210 of 347 posts
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heav…
Even if we were to face China in a war, we'd own the seas. Once their one (maybe two by now) carrier is sunk, even assuming they sink one of ours, we just bring in one of the other 12. I know people fear China but they are no cold-war Russia. Anything conventional and the US is in the lead by a lot. There's no reason to discuss anything nuclear because everyone loses in that case.
How is a carrier going to protect itself from coordinated submarine attacks?
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's one of the reason that warships in general (including carriers) are designed to be compartmentalized, to have redundant backups (and backups to the backups), etc., is because it is expected they might have to survive battle damage. For a carrier, not-sinking != operational. The flight deck, catapults, and arresting gear are necessarily exposed to anything that explodes above them. Take them out and the carrier…
You're certainly right WRT OOC vs. sunk. However USS Yorktown was "taken out of the action" a couple of times in WWII and still put back into the fight and playing very important roles in that fight, before eventually being sunk by a Japanese submarine. So it's definitely fair to say that simply damaging a carrier is not nearly as catastrophic as sinking one.
It is fair to say that the situations are not equal.
If the carrier can't fight, it's out of the battle until it's fixed. Fixable don't count if the war is over in weeks, or months.
Fixing a modern carrier might can take a while.
Yorktown was not a complex warship. She takes a hit on the deck. Patch up the holes in her deck (I'm simplifying) and she's back in business.
Hit Ford in the same location and you damage catapults, arresting gear. Ford is out of the war until she is fixed and this will not happen soon. How long to replace a catapult: I'd guess months at best. Where do they even keep the spares?
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#204"It could be that China doesn’t know how to build a working lift fan and that’s why they left it off, Aboulafia said. But for a country that has unveiled two different radar-evading stealth warplane prototypes in just the last two years, that seems unlikely. It’s more plausible that China could build a lift fan-equipped plane and has chosen not to." The major difference is in posture. The US military wants to be able…
The War Nerd has a great essay on why aircraft carriers are obsolete in modern warfare: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779
http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-china-joins-the-yacht-club/
The DF 21 is basically unstoppable, best long term solution inho is putting drone carriers underwater
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the F-117 also wasn't a multirole fighter, was built in low quantities [...] It's a one-trick pony designed to sneak in, drop a precision bomb, and get out. These are all good things, though. It's a focused airframe absolutely excellent at what it does. Much like the A10 really. > and was relatively quickly retired Beg pardon? The F-117 reached operational capability in 1983 and was retired in 2008 (the original pl…
25 years is a short lifespan for a military aircraft -- Most military aircraft have been in service between 30 and 50 years.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task." Because the JSF is a shitty bomb truck too. It doesn't have the range, capacity or loiter time of nearly any other option. And for CAS vs bomb hauling, the JSF simply doesn't have the gun (and again, lacks the loiter time). "As a note he says this will be the 'new mainstay of the air f…
The F-35 has EODAS for spherical optical threat detection vs OLS front only on a Su-35 Flanker. Also, a Su-35 Flanker cant fire a missile at 50km without radar lock, which would be difficult against a F-35. Even if they did fire a future Long-Range IR missile, the F-35 would detect and release flares to avoid the missile. Also, the kinetics of the missile would make it hard to track a F-35 during terminal phase. A F/…
If you know how much heat is coming out, then you know roughly what thrust should be being produced. Couple that with known performance characteristics of the aircraft - i.e. aircraft don't just go from manoeuvring in one way to manoeuvring in another - and I would imagine you can tell the two apart fairly easily.
After all, fighter jets don't, at least in the course of normal operation, just change their emission profile and fall out of the sky.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#207A surprising thing is that countries taking part in development are not permitted complete access to program data. The U.S., despite making use of other nations expertise in the development and manufacturing of the F-35,is trying to keep some aspects classified from the nations who are supposed to buy the plane!
Some Canadian pundits have (not seriously) called for the F-35 to be ditched and the Avro Arrow resurrected. The Arrow was developed in the 50's as an interceptor and, other than being significantly faster than the F-35 is probably inferior for Canada's requirements. It was designed in the freakin' 50's! It really is amazing that Canada went from manufacturing other country's WWII propeller plane designs to building prototype's faster than today's state-of-the-art F-35 in just a little over a decade. The fact that the F-35 is significantly slower than a 55 year old jet really shines light on how compromised its design is.
There are many rumors surrounding the cancellation of the Avro Arrow since it was probably superior to any other interceptor of its time, and one that refuses to die is that the U.S. was pressuring Canada to drop the program since Boeing, Lockheed, etc. felt threatened by Avro. Avro was basically destroyed by the cancellation of the Arrow, and guess where Avro engineers wound up!
I mention all this because Canada, despite being a perpetually self-doubting nation, has significant aerospace and weapon expertise. Canada also has some pretty unique design requirements not met by any existing fighters. The budget to build fighters locally may not ultimately exist, but if the Canadian government decides to compromise to cut costs, the F-35 is a horrendous option. It doesn't meet Canadian requirements, isn't on time, is getting more expensive every day, and the U.S. is trying to treat them like turn-key installations rather than selling planes.
Why should the U.S. care? Every nation that bails on the JSF program will raise costs for those that remain. Once one nation leaves, a domino effect will likely ensue. Based on this article, I can't say that's necessarily bad!
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#208"It could be that China doesn’t know how to build a working lift fan and that’s why they left it off, Aboulafia said. But for a country that has unveiled two different radar-evading stealth warplane prototypes in just the last two years, that seems unlikely. It’s more plausible that China could build a lift fan-equipped plane and has chosen not to." The major difference is in posture. The US military wants to be able…
Actually, the Chinese have had a serious problem designing and building quality jet engines for fighter aircraft. The two prototype "stealth" aircraft they've demonstrated (J-31 and J-20) use Russian AL-31 engines pulled from Su-27s, because the native WS-10 engines fail to pass muster consistently. Indeed, the same is true of the J-15 (an Su-33 clone), which is currently the only carrier-capable aircraft they've flo…
That being said, there are still some significant problems with the F-35.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side. The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval for…
The public claim is that the quality control and reliability on the WS-10 production lines is poor, but there's evidence that there's more to it than just that. The WS-10 is produced mostly natively, but its design is largely reverse engineered from the AL-31F. In fact, its turbine blades are imported from Russia. This corroborates reports that the Chinese lack the design expertise at present to design a fighter engi…
Thank you!
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#210Indeed, why not make 5 different planes for different purposes instead of one that does everything... I mean, it's not like they're also building an aircraft carrier that can launch ballistic missiles, cruise at 50 knots, go up rivers and also submerge... or are they :-)?