F-35 First Flight Comments...
- Thread starter Kurt Plummer
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #182
Mod edit. Obviously you don't care for warning signs. No matter who puts them up, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
Your rampant racism is appaling... I will no longer respond to it. Good Day sir
Good on ya Kurt! your techno crap, know it all attitude and Hitler like ramblings have ruined another thread.....:lul
Mod edit: Relax guys. He won't be rambling on Dt for 3 months now... AD.
Mod edit: Relax guys. He won't be rambling on Dt for 3 months now... AD.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks AD,
I just could not take a breath big enough to get to the end of one of his sentences let alone, paragraphs, never mind understand the import of what had been written.
It was becoming a waste of bandwidth, good call.
Chris
I just could not take a breath big enough to get to the end of one of his sentences let alone, paragraphs, never mind understand the import of what had been written.
It was becoming a waste of bandwidth, good call.
Chris
He doesn't like F-35. He likes F-22 & UAVs.
I started trying to follow his detailed arguments, but I was put off by his preference for obscure language (acronyms, jargon, circumlocutions, emotionally-charged nicknames, very long sentences ended in mid-flow, & apparently random use of upper case & assorted methods of highlighting), digressions, & determination never to use one word when ten would do. The ratio of information to effort was too low for me to bother with most of his posts. His reaction (hostility & aggression) to an attempt to engage in debate over some of what he'd posted also put me off.
He does the same on other fora. Same message, same style.
Kurt was on my ignore list for a while. Kurt was preaching, and I don't like being preached to. While I maybe simple minded, and wrong much of the time, I do have my opinions and I do listen and read others.
We all know the F-22 is the best stealth fighter. Unfortunately, not even the USAF can afford more than 183, a force backed by 300 million taxpayers. How could a nation of 20 million afford even half that number?
As far as the UAVs, I'm still for man operated aircraft that aren't interfered by jamming radio waves. While I see UAVs useful in bombing and search missions, in my opinion UAVs can't drop an inflatable boat to rescue survivors in distress at sea. Only a man in a larger aircraft can do that. Search yes, rescue no.
Kurt also had the impression every nation is as large and rich as America. Unfortunately not to many nations do.
I still have worries whether the USAF will ever get their F-35s in any large numbers, or any at all. We'll know more about the Democrats intentions with defence spending in the next year.
And I still believe while having stealth aircraft is a must for the first waves of a war, simply put, I also still believe that every fighter in the fleet need not be stealth. After winning the air superiority, I still think 4th generation fighters will be as useful as AEW/AWACS and tankers and transport aircraft.
Currently there aren't many fifth generation fighters, the Super Hornet is rightly a 4.5 generation aircraft, with the legacy Hornets are fourth generation aircraft. Well that's my opinion. If others disagree, that is their opinion but I will stick with mine.
We all know the F-22 is the best stealth fighter. Unfortunately, not even the USAF can afford more than 183, a force backed by 300 million taxpayers. How could a nation of 20 million afford even half that number?
As far as the UAVs, I'm still for man operated aircraft that aren't interfered by jamming radio waves. While I see UAVs useful in bombing and search missions, in my opinion UAVs can't drop an inflatable boat to rescue survivors in distress at sea. Only a man in a larger aircraft can do that. Search yes, rescue no.
Kurt also had the impression every nation is as large and rich as America. Unfortunately not to many nations do.
I still have worries whether the USAF will ever get their F-35s in any large numbers, or any at all. We'll know more about the Democrats intentions with defence spending in the next year.
And I still believe while having stealth aircraft is a must for the first waves of a war, simply put, I also still believe that every fighter in the fleet need not be stealth. After winning the air superiority, I still think 4th generation fighters will be as useful as AEW/AWACS and tankers and transport aircraft.
Currently there aren't many fifth generation fighters, the Super Hornet is rightly a 4.5 generation aircraft, with the legacy Hornets are fourth generation aircraft. Well that's my opinion. If others disagree, that is their opinion but I will stick with mine.
Last edited:
It is difficult to get through all that in his posts, but I do believe that the core of his message is sound.
It's unfortunate that he doesn't try to simplify, de-jargon, and tone down the emotional aspects.
It would make for a more powerful argument.
He does himself a disservice. Many, whom might otherwise take something from the substance of his posts, are put off by the style of delivery.
Last edited:
This is an odd thing to say, considering we're looking at spending a total of $276 billion on the F-35 program. The entire F-22 program "only" cost $65 billion.
Certainly we could afford more F-22s if we were willing to cut elsewhere.
Has this ever been a mission for UAVs or tactical fighter aircraft?
RF jamming does interfere with manned aircraft too. But effective enemy RF jammers would be super high-priority targets.
I personally believe the threat from jamming is overblown. We have ways of dealing with it.
I'm more worried about anti-sat weapons knocking out GPS and comm satellites. This would cripple both manned and unmanned aircraft and PGMs.
So a robust backup plan would need to be in place, in either case.
For UCAVs, this may mean having a manned aircraft acting as a handler/FAC - using LOS comms.
For PGMs, this may mean having an LGB, IIR/MMW fallback.
Relying on INS-only for JDAMs/SDBs would be a significant hit to their utility.
There's nothing stopping a UCAV from having an EOTS/MTS-B level laser/EO/IR capability, controlled from a manned aircraft using difficult to jam LOS comms.
I don't believe the Democrats are going to do anything that makes them look "soft on defense". However, budget realities may force cuts to weapon systems across the board - regardless of who's in control.
Well I don't think anyone would disagree with the need for non-stealthy AWACS and tankers.
OTOH, there is a strong case to be made that we could use a stealthy tanker and transport, IMHO. But the entire fleet does not need to be stealthy.
Whether we can get by with a mix of 4th gen & stealthy 5th gen fighters largely depends on you assessment of the threat. If we think there will be a large proliferation of Su-35+ with advanced AAMs backed by AWACS and S-300-400 class SAM systems, then the need for stealth is greater.
If you think we'll be fighting more Iraqs, Afghanistans and Serbias of the world, then maybe not.
The nicest thing about UCAVs, IMHO, is they promise an extremely stealthy, high-endurance airframe, at the cost of a low-end 4th gen fighter.
If you can solve the comm/limited-autonomy issues, then for the price of one F-35, you could have three A-47 class UCAVs with three times the DMPI strike capability - all of which having longer range and a higher degree of stealth.
This seems far more transformational to me.
Manned aircraft can, but they lose the huge utility of GPS guided munitions.
I believe UCAVs can as well.
TLAM and CALCM were flying precision, fixed target strikes before GPS munitions became all the rage. So if they can do it, I don't see why a UCAV couldn't.
Even if a UCAV had to resort to dropping self-designated LGBs, I think it could do so in a completely autonomous fashion.
For navigation, it would use a INS backup, supplemented by the same type of terrain mapping used in CALCM/TLAM. Only a UCAV could do it one better - with its more capable SAR radar, and more sophisticated avionics.
Targeting of LGBs could be done autonomously as well, using image mapping techniques.
Now add to this, the backup ability to have a manned aircraft control the strike with LOS comms, and I think you would have a robust capability.
Striking moving targets, or hunting for targets would require automatic target recognition (ATR), and would be significantly enhanced by a man in the loop, who's job it would be to review targets selected by the ATR system and manage strikes.
CAS could be done this way too. Or with a direct uplink to the UCAV from a GFAC (ala ROVER).
The reason I ask is because in the event of any conflict with a major power the satelites will be the first casualties of war. For UCAV to be autonomous sacrifices alot and turns it into nothing more than a reuseable first generation Tomahawk. On another note... autopilot landings are anything but a sure thing. You can expect alot of lost vehicles.
Well, even today, what major power has the proven ability to knock out large numbers of satellites? Has China ever tested an ASAT weapon? The Russians had, way back when. But who knows what state it's in.
And is a first-generation TLAM really that bad of a thing? How many fixed targets will there be in the early stages of a conflict?
Plus, if UCAVs have a LOS backup mode, then you just have to have enough capable combat controller aircraft to back them up.
I agree though. I said in an earlier post that I thought automated AAR and carrier landings would be the biggest hurdles.
The rest seems to be just extensions of what we do with various platforms today, though on a larger scale.
We're looking at an impending budget crunch due to the war in Iraq. Essential programs like new USAF tankers, Global Hawk, the Long Range Strike initiative, etc., are seeing funding shortfalls.
I just look at the $276 billion being spent on the F-35 and wonder if we couldn't get by with some other combination of systems, and use the money saved to fund other critical programs.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Hmm.
276 billion $ for 3,100 F-35. That's 89 million $ PAUC.
Oi!
A UCAV will have to cost at least half that number...
276 billion $ for 3,100 F-35. That's 89 million $ PAUC.
Oi!
A UCAV will have to cost at least half that number...
Hmm, no, I believe that's $276 billion for ~2400 aircraft.
In 2001 it was $181 billion for 2,866 aircraft.
How much more is it going to jump (or how many fewer aircraft will we get) before all is said and done?
That jump alone would've covered the ENTIRE F-22 program to date, with billions to spare.
Or it would've covered 593 additional F-22s (at a procurement average unit cost of $160 million)! Just the jump!
The price that's been thrown around for an A-45C/A-47 type UCAV is somewhere in the $20-30 million range. (Though it's anybody's guess how much it'd actually be)
IMHO, UCAVs are significantly more appropriate for the CURRENT conflict.
If automated AAR can be perfected, a UCAV could have nearly limitless endurance. And range/endurance is king in the GWOT. No worry about Al Qaeda jamming or killing satellites.
This is one of China's expressed space initiatives... without doubt it will come to pass. It isn't that hard to do. We will have more to lose than they will in such an event.
Dealing with China there will be too many targets to count.
And how long is non-sat range... not long enough to conduct strike missions.
Which means many losses for a rather expensive piece of equipment.
If we enter a high tech war with China the satellites are PLAAFs #1 target, it helps even the playing field. Jane's has reported Chinese attempts to block and track US space systems. If they can find them they can kill them... they are defenseless. The F-35 meets the requirements of a high tech war or a low one giving us the advantages we need. The aged air fleet needs to be replaced ASAP and it needs to be done with BETTER equipment than we currently field.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
When that 276 billion $ number is being tossed around, I've never been able to figure out if it includes the partner nations buy, which is something like 700+.
I agree on endurance, but not on flexibility, at least in medium term.
I am quite amazed that if you do away with life support, interface avionics etc, you can get VLO, engines, sensors etc., at less than half the cost...
Last edited:
So anything we devise will need a robust backup - including manned aircraft tossing GPS guided PGMs.
Agreed. And all of which (fixed targets), are strikeable by a UCAV. Assuming appropriate munitions are available, and the target is within range.
I don't know, but i would guess up to several hundred miles.
The efforts to turn AESA radar antennas into high-bandwidth comm arrays is particularly interesting in this regard.
Yes, there would be growing pains. This would have to be factored in to the costs.
China would also undoubtedly also target fixed airfields and carriers in the opening stages as well. So a short-ranged system like the F-35 might not be much, if any, more valuable.
Plus, UCAVs could still strike the numerous fixed targets TLAM-style, assuming it had airfields or carriers to fly from.
Slamming Shut
The current production line (jigs, tooling, space, etc.) is capable of producing 15 to 20 additional aircraft per year on top of the plans for 183. Watch this space.
Anyone care to have a little wager on the side on this, just to make things interesting?
The current production line (jigs, tooling, space, etc.) is capable of producing 15 to 20 additional aircraft per year on top of the plans for 183. Watch this space.
Valid concerns but not for the reasons you have stated. It is the level of compromise in design coupled with trying to do too much with such a small airframe that will be this aircraft program's undoing.
Try Air Dominance and you have got it right, provided such non stealthy aircraft are fitted with current generation avionics and systems (not a difficult task) and have that equally important capability - persistence aka. fuel, weapons load, range, endurance.
Not quite right here. Sure, the systems (avionics, sensors) may be 4th generation but these do not maketh the aircraft, particularly since all these 'systems' can be ported on to other aircraft - legacy as well as new - for a hell of a lot less than acquiring this platform.
Sadly, the sound of a mind closing!