Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 41 of 44 FirstFirst ... 313738394041424344 LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,230 of 1298

Thread: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread

  1. #1201
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    virginia beach, VA
    Posts
    226
    A nice pic.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #1202
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,681
    Hey, thats pic is awsome!
    Are there more pics with the F-35 carrying external load?
    Thanks

  3. #1203
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    I live in Belgium
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by 19K11 View Post
    A nice pic.
    Indeed, a very nice picture, also one that demonstrates two major weaknesses of the whole stealth idea:

    - external stores ruin stealth

    - no matter how stealthy the jet, the obligatory tanker certainly is not

  4. #1204
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    I live in Belgium
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Well not useless (you're talking about the CVFs here aren't you?).
    just needs to avoid getting into a turning fight
    This is something the US has been trying in about every conflict since WW II.

    It often went another way!

  5. #1205
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Leicestershire
    Posts
    1,514
    But it does give you options.

    They needn't fly with external stores in the first few days of operations when stealth is most important, once the threat is lifted then external stores can be used.

    Also, stealthy external weapons pods have already started developments for legacy aircraft to make them harder to detect.
    "Quicquid agas age"

  6. #1206
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by jbritchford View Post
    But it does give you options.

    They needn't fly with external stores in the first few days of operations when stealth is most important, once the threat is lifted then external stores can be used.

    Also, stealthy external weapons pods have already started developments for legacy aircraft to make them harder to detect.
    Or you send in Stealthy UCAVS for most hairy operations of the first few days, accompanied with stand off missiles like Storm Shadow or JASSM-ER launch from normal platforms.

    F35 is overkill for anything else that the first few days of war, and yet you pay for the extra cost for all peace time flying & all missions when you don't need stealth.

    I see the USN seeing that and retainging a UCAV+SH combo.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  7. #1207
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    2,714
    Far more likely they see that and retain the F35C and a UCAV.

    Like France will retain Rafale and a UCAV, and like the USMC will retain the F35B and operate the new UK VSTOL UCAV

    Most of the time the F35 with advanced weapons will be far far more than its operators need.

  8. #1208
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    Quote Originally Posted by drabslab View Post
    Indeed, a very nice picture, also one that demonstrates two major weaknesses of the whole stealth idea:

    - external stores ruin stealth
    Internal-Only is only needed for the most dangerous missions.

    Quote Originally Posted by drabslab View Post
    - no matter how stealthy the jet, the obligatory tanker certainly is not
    Which is why they will be 600+ miles away from the action. Good luck finding them and then getting to them.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  9. #1209
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Which is why they will be 600+ miles away from the action. Good luck finding them and then getting to them.
    They will operate from known ABs. To destroy the "Hornets" you have to destroy their "nest". A serious opponent will not allow the US-forces to start the action under optimum conditions.

  10. #1210
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    They will operate from known ABs. To destroy the "Hornets" you have to destroy their "nest". A serious opponent will not allow the US-forces to start the action under optimum conditions.
    Seriously?? Those IFR assets could come from CONUS, good luck stopping those.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  11. #1211
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Seriously?? Those IFR assets could come from CONUS, good luck stopping those.
    A few B-1B, B-2A maybe and they will inflict some limited temporary damage but they will not win a ground-war. Even something limited like the Iran is a problem the claims of US military in mind. The F-35 is a tactical tool to be operated close to the theater.

  12. #1212
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    Initial F-35s would be IFR'd in and would also come from carriers if there was a serious threat of ABs being taken out. Besides, what are you going to take them out with? Anything short of a nuke has defenses designed to stop it.

    You can't stop IFR.

    Assuming that the target nation even has the ability to go after IFR AB (or the IFR assets them selves), the first few days IFR could come from CONUS. These days are spent taking out the airfields close to the border.

    After that when enemy assets have to come from deep in-country (assuming those fields are safe from targeting), IFR assets can be based closer to the front to support a more intensive campaign. Even then, those IFR bases could be well over 1000nm outside the range of any assets that could reach them.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 25th April 2012 at 19:20.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  13. #1213
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    4,896
    A rather big deal is if the B has the serviceability to operate from highly improvised airfields,
    has there been any notion of operating them in that way ?
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  14. #1214
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    SpudmanWP :
    Which is why they will be 600+ miles away from the action
    You can 't have tankers so far away from the action . The F-35 (on internal fuel) doesn 't have the range to go in and come back . Re-check your numbers .

    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  15. #1215
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    If the A has the combat radius (ie taking off from an airstrip, attaining altitude, roundtrip to target, landing) of 600+nm, then it certainly can do the same (if not a bit more) without spending the fuel to gain altitude.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  16. #1216
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Hey, thats pic is awsome!
    Are there more pics with the F-35 carrying external load?
    here you go


    do you have a picture of Pak-fa with external load in exchange?

  17. #1217
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    A rather big deal is if the B has the serviceability to operate from highly improvised airfields, has there been any notion of operating them in that way ?
    This is EXACTLY what the B was designed to do.

    Google F-35B austere basing

    The EAF and VTOL Pad AM-2 surfaces are representative of current US Marine Corps austere/forward deployed basing capabilities. These surfaces will be used to test F-35B compatibility during Short Takeoff (STO), Vertical Landing (VL), and Slow Landing (SL).
    http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/in...5-6838819A5C10

    The F-35B supports the Marine Corps’ tactical and operational needs for close air support in austere conditions and locations that may be inaccessible to traditional fighters.
    http://www.marines.mil/unit/2ndMAW/P...x#.T5iyaFKQm70

    The F-35B uses a specially-designed shaft-driven lift fan system to achieve vertical lift and will be able to operate from ship-to-shore and austere battlefield locations.
    http://www.eglin.af.mil/library/fact...t.asp?id=15686

    STOVL capability gives the F-35B the unique capability to operate from a variety of ships, roads and austere bases near frontline combat zones, greatly enhancing sortie generation rates. The unmatched basing of the F-35B – ashore and afloat –provides more employment flexibility in any scenario.
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...-34324f003.pdf
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  18. #1218
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    4,896
    Thanks.
    IMO B is more survivable than A for smaller nations facing a much stronger AF,
    they won't be able to keep up CAP far out anyway so range isn't such a set back,
    the catch is the cost, so it will only fit small countries with lotsa cash.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  19. #1219
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    507
    The crux of the matter is STOVL is niche ability only really there for users who really need it, the RAF got the Harrier to provide close air support in West Germany to support the BAOR as the RAF Germany airbases would be battered in in the first strikes by Warsaw pact forces along with the other NATO airbases. The RN, Spain & Italy got Harriers as they didn't have carriers large enougth to carry conventional carrier aircraft. The USMC need it as their mission is expeditionary warfare also operating from ships incapable of using conventional carrier aircraft.

    They only complement mainstream conventional aircraft, they are not a viable alternative to them, if they were then countries would be opting for the B over the A !.

    To be honest if LM had been able to keep to its promises then the B would have been much closer to the A in performance and capability which could have tempted more users

  20. #1220
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    SpudmanWP :
    If the A has the combat radius (ie taking off from an airstrip, attaining altitude, roundtrip to target, landing) of 600+nm, then it certainly can do the same (if not a bit more) without spending the fuel to gain altitude.
    That 's right but don 't forget the safety margin , any aircraft with less than 1,5 Ton of fuel left is approaching the "Bingo" stage and is usualy seen as a non-combat capable aircraft from the chain of command .

    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  21. #1221
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    The safety margin is likely compensated for by the fuel saved in not needing to gain altitude after takeoff.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  22. #1222
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,814
    er, the safety margin includes much more than the fuel spared for "not having to climb to altitude"...

    either that, or you have even less endurance than the first mig29 versions

  23. #1223
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    4,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    SpudmanWP :


    That 's right but don 't forget the safety margin , any aircraft with less than 1,5 Ton of fuel left is approaching the "Bingo" stage and is usualy seen as a non-combat capable aircraft from the chain of command .

    Cheers .
    Wrong thinking, it depend how much the aircraft consume/minute.
    A space shuttle and a Viper consume entirely different amount of fuel,
    and so the space shuttle need several times magnitudes more Ton of safety.

    Better say 15 minute cruise safety, and then calculate how much fuel is needed for that
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  24. #1224
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,814
    civilian minimums are 20 min for day VFR and 45' for night. (and this is what you MUST still have in your fuel tank after you landed)... I'm not sure that the military go below that.

  25. #1225
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    They don 't .

    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  26. #1226
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    They do and did before except those not bound to some NATO-standard. Romania operates MiG-21s and Hungary Gripen f.e. and that have to call Bingo after take-off nearly. :diablo:
    In general it is ~10 minutes loiter reserve to bring back or to become an incident not doing so. As someone claimed before it differs for every fighter and enviroment.

  27. #1227
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    You are forgetting about EODAS. If you are close enough to be in a turning fight, then you are likely within the NEZ of the Aim-120D regardless of the launch angle.
    So are the other members of the shooter's formation.

    Neither AIM-120D nor EO-DAS are magic. The former requires more time to turn off-boresight than a thrust-vectoring HOBS missile and I believe the seeker gimbal is +-45 degrees. The latter is trying to maintain a dynamic 3D situational picture with only Az-El position and rate data. Plus the standard missile datalink functions only within the fighter radar FOV, as far as I know.

    Re: Austere landings - 2 free internetz awarded to anyone producing a pic of an F-35B doing an ashore VL on anything other than concrete protected by AM-2.
    Last edited by LowObservable; 29th April 2012 at 18:21.

  28. #1228
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    They do and did before except those not bound to some NATO-standard. Romania operates MiG-21s and Hungary Gripen f.e. and that have to call Bingo after take-off nearly. :diablo:
    In general it is ~10 minutes loiter reserve to bring back or to become an incident not doing so. As someone claimed before it differs for every fighter and enviroment.
    in french air force:

    when you land, you have to have the fuel to fly to your diversion base, plus the "security reserve" which is:

    in VFR:

    reserve for abort landing (so take off again) and economic cruise of 10min,

    in IFR:

    fuel for a ground controlled approach (GCA), GCA go around and one last abort and climb for ejection


    basically, significantly more than just 20 min cruise

  29. #1229
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,586
    Quote Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
    Re: Austere landings - 2 free internetz awarded to anyone producing a pic of an F-35B doing an ashore VL on anything other than concrete protected by AM-2.
    Why would it do a vertical landing if it had an austere airstrip, or even a road base?
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  30. #1230
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    540
    Swerve - Sure, you can do an RVL. But if it is a slow-roller, there are still ground impact issues, and the faster it is, the more other issues (like getting weight on wheels for braking and steering, and TD point scatter) become important. And VL allows you to recover off your primary runway, which is useful if you have only one RW.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES