Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USAF not F-35 thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by MadRat View Post
    War with China or Russia would be reckless. Not happening. Enuff said.
    Similar sentiments were voiced in the wake of the First World War. There are relatively few absolutes in the world. War with Russia or China is highly unlikely, but needs to be prepared for nevertheless, as means to prevent it if nothing else. China and Russia certainly take the possibility of war with a first rate power seriously enough to spend billions on their military modernization programs.

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Wanderlei View Post
      I also am thinking that stealth as we know it might seize to exist as a dependable protection for an aircraft in the next 10 years, 15 TOPS! What happens then?
      The definitive variants of the PAK FA, J-20 & J-31 will be FOCing in about 10 years time. And in 15 years, they'll be new arrivals coming in from Japan followed by Korea, India and Turkey. Expecting stealth to be obsolete may end up being a lot similar to arguing that a gun was obsolete back in the 60s.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post
        That some F-15C's are going to be kept till 18,000 airframe hours was something that has been known for a while. How you stretch that in terms of times depends upon your utilization.
        Thanks, now I am going to be terrified every time I see the Oregon Air National Guard F-15s fly overhead.
        sigpic

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
          Try actually reading and understanding a post before commenting.

          There was nothing nationalistic in what I said. All I said was that the F-15C/D can stay in service because the F-15C/D will not have to be the top fighter for the US throughout it's whole lifetime.

          Neither the Eurofighter nor Rafale have a replacement on the drawing boards at this time. No, UCAVs are not it either. They are barely in their infancy in an A2G role and even assuming they can compete in an A2A role in the next 10-15 years is wishful thinking.
          Could you develop please? It would be quite interesting...

          Comment


            #45
            Time to start looking at RCS reduction as a starting point for an aircraft rather than a gimmick or an advantage that will prove fleeting. Sure, technology will (and has) eroded the idea that stealth alone is a strength unto itself. The USAF made this assertion with the advent of the F-22 and the retirement of the F-117, yet the idea that somehow "stealth" is the singular power of the maligned "fifth generation" is in signal reduction remains.
            Sensible argument

            e simple fact is: the F-22 is not (arguably) the best air superiority fighter because it is stealthy, or maneuverable, or because can super cruise.
            ok for stealth. for the rest (see famous dogfight video qith Rafale)

            1. They are federated systems, you can plug and play the Elbit SAPIR, or the OSF and the DDM NG on the Rafale, they are not all tied into the ICP as the sensors are in the F-22 or the F-35. These are not opinions, it is a fact.

            No it is your opinion, and a wrong one. They are all linked to MDPU

            The simple fact is that there is no substitute for tying all sensors and defensive countermeasures into the ICP of the aircraft
            Agree. Thats wahat do Rafale and incoming Gripen NG (dunno about EFA)

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by halloweene View Post
              Could you develop please? It would be quite interesting...
              Seems like a simple enough concept...

              The writing is on the wall for 4th generation fighters. In the coming decade or two they will increasingly be relegated to secondary/support roles when facing capable opposition. In the case of the US, Russia, and China (or their export customers) this is of only limited concern because 5th generation fighters will be available to take on the more demanding missions. You don't need to stop flying a 4th generation jet the minute it can't operate on day-1 of a high-intensity war. There are still plenty of tasks available for those aircraft. (see for example the A-10) An F-15C in 2030 will be suitable for air policing, delivering MALD-Js, etc... but the US will have 1,000+ 5th generation fighters available by then.

              We are looking at the end of the European fighter industry, that is unless something truly dramatic changes in the next few years. Small scale UCAV research projects without any definite procurement tied to them aren't going to be able to maintain the industrial base.

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by lukos
                I have already explained and substantiated everything I came to explain:
                1. A distant point source is not confined to one pixel, for this reason an algorithm is useful in determining the spread, since the spread is related to the actual sub-pixel position:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno
                2. Accuracy is not limited to pixel resolution:
                Exhibit A
                http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrar...icleid=1737844


                The same fundamentals are applicable to position determination in other fields. Centroid calculation is a major part of photonics.
                Exhibit B
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staring_array


                Here (at start of article) is an example of what happens at pixel level:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_sensitive_device


                These are just some examples of the kinds of technologies that might be employed. You can get an X and Y-axis current, the ratio of which gives the position of the centroid on a pixel for positional accuracy purposes and the vector some of which gives the light intensity for imaging purposes.


                I imagine space is the main concern internally, though obviously traditional LOBL will be an option for externally carried missiles. Obviously the main idea will be to maintain stealth and surprise though and try and avoid furballs. However HMD has been used to cue missiles into LOAL visually, so in theory, simply having a sensor sending the image to the HMD, or providing an INS reference directly, shouldn't really make a difference.

                I see you are quoting me above. Where did that quote come from?

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                  Similar sentiments were voiced in the wake of the First World War. There are relatively few absolutes in the world. War with Russia or China is highly unlikely, but needs to be prepared for nevertheless, as means to prevent it if nothing else. China and Russia certainly take the possibility of war with a first rate power seriously enough to spend billions on their military modernization programs.
                  You're referencing tactical level strategy earlier then cross over to strategic level strategy. The U.S. has always led the latter and worries about the former in due time. Tactics drive the battle, strategy drives the war.
                  Go Huskers!

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                    Seems like a simple enough concept...

                    The writing is on the wall for 4th generation fighters. In the coming decade or two they will increasingly be relegated to secondary/support roles when facing capable opposition. In the case of the US, Russia, and China (or their export customers) this is of only limited concern because 5th generation fighters will be available to take on the more demanding missions. You don't need to stop flying a 4th generation jet the minute it can't operate on day-1 of a high-intensity war. There are still plenty of tasks available for those aircraft. (see for example the A-10) An F-15C in 2030 will be suitable for air policing, delivering MALD-Js, etc... but the US will have 1,000+ 5th generation fighters available by then.

                    We are looking at the end of the European fighter industry, that is unless something truly dramatic changes in the next few years. Small scale UCAV research projects without any definite procurement tied to them aren't going to be able to maintain the industrial base.
                    The F35 and its effect on the European aviation industry is the main driver behind France and the UK developing their own UCAV and post ECD fighters. Small scale by the standards of US procurement but then European fighters always have been.

                    Whilst the UK will look at what the US plans to do with the F35 beyond the A/B/C variant I don't think we are looking at the F35 replacing the Typhoon or the Rafale.

                    Comment


                      #50
                      The Typhoon and Rafale were meant to be 'pocket' heavy fighters, better than F-15A or Su-27P yet in a package 30-40% smaller.

                      I know people around here are big fans of the F-15, but surely an F-15E driver would never mistake himself for an F-15C Golden Eagle ace. And I'm not so sure that F-15C even kept up with the Typhoon or Rafale F3 when it comes to air superiority, but it's more than ample to supplement the F-22A and F-35A in their roles. Mark the target, let the ninja swoop by and take out his victim with such precise accuracy that he gets the kill with but a stealthy puff of breath using a rice grain lofted through his freshly mowed reed straw. Where or where is the ninja? He's not invisible, but you only catch glimpses. Is that him, or is it a feint distraction? Typhoon and Rafale do not offer that kind of reassurance, but they do have good aim with their long bow that out-ranges the opponent's blunderbuss. Without sure awareness, neither the arrow nor lead shot are true to their goal. While the Europeans were perfecting the art of archery, the U.S. has been perfecting the art of stealth and indirect precision.
                      Go Huskers!

                      Comment


                        #51
                        In any case, the recapitalization of the USAF has been a failure. Originaly the F-16 and F-15 were not supposed to remain in service that long and we know what happened. Now they are trying to avoid a catastophe with their inventory. Talk about a failure...

                        Comment


                          #52
                          Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                          Seems like a simple enough concept...

                          The writing is on the wall for 4th generation fighters. In the coming decade or two they will increasingly be relegated to secondary/support roles when facing capable opposition. In the case of the US, Russia, and China (or their export customers) this is of only limited concern because 5th generation fighters will be available to take on the more demanding missions. You don't need to stop flying a 4th generation jet the minute it can't operate on day-1 of a high-intensity war. There are still plenty of tasks available for those aircraft. (see for example the A-10) An F-15C in 2030 will be suitable for air policing, delivering MALD-Js, etc... but the US will have 1,000+ 5th generation fighters available by then.

                          We are looking at the end of the European fighter industry, that is unless something truly dramatic changes in the next few years. Small scale UCAV research projects without any definite procurement tied to them aren't going to be able to maintain the industrial base.
                          4th generation fighters can operate day-1 provide they can can saturate the battlefield with standoff weopons, having big external jammers, big fuel tanks, big radars to provide situational awareness to every other asset. quantitiy is force in itself. but none of it is going to apply to 4th generation fighters from EU as there main customers the arabs will be in state of decomposition in less than 10 years and Germany will take hold of rest of industrial labor and economic system in EU.

                          Comment


                            #53
                            Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
                            In any case, the recapitalization of the USAF has been a failure. Originaly the F-16 and F-15 were not supposed to remain in service that long and we know what happened. Now they are trying to avoid a catastophe with their inventory. Talk about a failure...
                            I wouldn't go that far. Certainly it was a risk to postpone recapitalization as long as the USAF has, but with the F-35 production ramp now beginning the USAF is only a few years away from seeing large numbers of new fighters entering its force structure on a yearly basis. If you graphed the average age of the fleet, today would be a peak with that number falling fairly quickly from here on out.

                            Lockheed's entire operation is gearing up for full-rate production in 2019, before which the number of jets is set to expand from 62 in LRIP 9 to 98 and 168 in lots 10 and 11, respectively. Production levels should continuing rising to a full-rate production of 240 jets per year.
                            http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-f-35-407970/

                            Not all of those jets will be going to the USAF obviously, but people have to remember the sheer scale of the program. It will soon be producing as many fighters a year as Rafales have been produced to date.

                            Comment


                              #54
                              Do you think there are lessons to be learnt from the F-22 and F-35 programs or do you think things went 'pretty well'? lol

                              Comment


                                #55
                                Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
                                In any case, the recapitalization of the USAF has been a failure.
                                As opposed to the very successful recapitalizations of European air forces? Both the RAF & AdlA are being to reduced to what... about 180 fighters each? Smaller than Turkey, Korea & Israel, and not significantly more advanced either.
                                Last edited by Vnomad; 30th March 2015, 09:22.

                                Comment


                                  #56
                                  Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
                                  Do you think there are lessons to be learnt from the F-22 and F-35 programs or do you think things went 'pretty well'? lol
                                  There are always lessons to be learned...

                                  The point is that the USAF accepted some risks in embracing the strategy it has. It has a huge fleet of relatively un-upgraded 4th generation jets right now, but by ~2019 it will have several hundred operational F-35s in the full block III configuration. Every year after that will see another fighter wing worth of F-35s entering the force structure.

                                  Comment


                                    #57
                                    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                                    There are always lessons to be learned...

                                    The point is that the USAF accepted some risks in embracing the strategy it has. It has a huge fleet of relatively un-upgraded 4th generation jets right now, but by ~2019 it will have several hundred operational F-35s in the full block III configuration. Every year after that will see another fighter wing worth of F-35s entering the force structure.
                                    Like what?

                                    Comment


                                      #58
                                      Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                                      As opposed to the very successful recapitalizations of European air forces? Both the RAF & AdlA are being to reduced to what... about 180 fighters each? Smaller than Turkey, Korea & Israel, and not significantly more advanced either.
                                      The RAF has been reduced much more than the ArlA. The AdlA has much more than 180 planes.

                                      The USAF has the advantage of a very large budget, they can build pretty much anything they want in large numbers if they don't really get overboard with their planes. That is a huge advantage compared to the Europeans who try to do the best they can with what they have.

                                      Comment


                                        #59
                                        The limitations of the Eurocanards over the next couple of decades are largely immaterial, because the threat is nonexistent. What is important is to maintain the institutions, the training, the research & development (supplemented by espionage directed largely at the United States), and to preserve enough of the industrial base so as to provide the ability to ramp up investment and production if required, and to develop and field a next-generation platform in the appropriate timeframe.
                                        Last edited by Rii; 30th March 2015, 13:23.

                                        Comment


                                          #60
                                          Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
                                          The RAF has been reduced much more than the ArlA. The AdlA has much more than 180 planes.
                                          The 2013 White Paper directs the combat fleet to be reduced to 225 aircraft. With 45 of those operated by the MN, that leaves only 180 for the AdlA. The RAF's plans currently project 105 EFs and 70 F-35Bs (with another 70 odd F-35Bs for the RN), though over the short term they may be able to afford only half or so of the latter type.

                                          The USAF has the advantage of a very large budget, they can build pretty much anything they want in large numbers if they don't really get overboard with their planes.
                                          No they can't. The aircraft needs to be relatively affordable as well. Case in point: F-22.

                                          That is a huge advantage compared to the Europeans who try to do the best they can with what they have.
                                          When you choose to run three parallel programs instead of compromising on specifications & work-shares, it doesn't come as a surprise that the end product isn't cost effective. The US could have developed two or three separate types for each of its services, but it would never have achieved the economies of scale necessary to squeeze the unit costs down to 4th gen levels.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X