F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.
StingrayOZ said:
I dunno, ever been to a US embassy. I would say in some areas they would be able to hold their own against any regional threat in the short term. US could cut back on troops in Germany for example and let the europeans keep Stuttgart safe...
Click to expand...

Thats true, but not all locs are fully resourced

eg some of the smaller african states and some of the stans might have a few advisers, but the list is about presence. presence can be 2 military advisers.

generally speaking they do have meaningful presence and some embassy locs do have a decent USMC protection element, but their job is to hold and protect as long as possible, not necessarily fight their way out. eg time to protect staff and deal with sensitive material and then if nec, lay down arms and let politics take over to get them home.
 
StingrayOZ said:
I dunno, ever been to a US embassy. I would say in some areas they would be able to hold their own against any regional threat in the short term. US could cut back on troops in Germany for example and let the europeans keep Stuttgart safe...
Click to expand...

Stuttgart isn't under threat. It's actually a city in the south west of the country. Unless Switzerland or France are going to invade...;)

The bases in Germany are just a left over from Cold War times and are now used as some kind of forward deployed bases. The US plans to move east, as eastern European countries are members of the NATO now.
 
StingrayOZ said:
I dunno, ever been to a US embassy. I would say in some areas they would be able to hold their own against any regional threat in the short term. US could cut back on troops in Germany for example and let the europeans keep Stuttgart safe...
Click to expand...
US troops in Germany aren't there to defend Germany. That role went away years ago. They're there because it's a convenient point from which to deploy to other places, the US military hospitals are relatively well-placed to evacuate severe casualties to, etc.

How many troops do you think the USA has in Germany nowadays?
 
How many troops do you think the USA has in Germany nowadays?
Click to expand...

More than enough... They still have that law stating us service personel are not policed by local courts and laws.. that still weighs big on germanys mind (although no one will ever admit it..) There are still some huge bases in germany. The US proberly could looking at reviewing where they are and move bases to Poland Ukraine etc..

Last I saw they still had 50-70,000 in germany. But only merely 35,000 in japan, 28000 in korea.
 
The german public couldn't care less about the law stuff.

How many of these troops do you think are combat formations? And how many of these combat formations are not rotating in and out due to ongoing oversea conflicts?

The reasons for the US presence in Germany are just like stated by others before.
The bases in Germany provide the US with lot's of important facilities much closer to alot of hotspots than bases in CONUS and they serve as a jump of point if the balloon goes up somewhere close by like the middle east, Africa,...

The US would gain nothing from relocating these facilities further east. Building everything new would cost a fortune. And guess where US soldiers prefer to be stationed. In southern Germany or somewhere in the east of Poland or the baltics.
Not to talk of the excellent training opportunities here (good facilities and lots of competent sparring partners near by).
 
guys, I need a bit of knowledge on IR, lets call them plane x and y
plane x uses 18k lbs of fuel as a heat sink and has low bypass
plane y uses 18k of fuel as a heat sink and increased its already higher bypass for heat reduction, reducing range

simplistic comparison and I may have the wrong end of the stick, x flys at 60k ft y at 30k ft
does the different mission alt. equal it out,.. higher is colder, so less bypass does the job ?
or would it be that y has better specs in the IR
 
Last edited:
Waylander said:
The german public couldn't care less about the law stuff.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I've met several people who had incidents (hit by a US servicemans car and in a bar fight) they seem to think there were issues. But as a whole its no its not causing riots.
How many of these troops do you think are combat formations? And how many of these combat formations are not rotating in and out due to ongoing oversea conflicts?
Click to expand...

Yes, but 50,000+ is huge. Double what they have in Korea which is still in a defacto state of war and with the most irradic government/leader in the world!?

Im not saying a full bail out, germany will always be important for US/Nato etc. But winding numbers down to mere Korean levels or atleast below Afganhistan levels. Sure it means less forward basing for africa, but it would save a lot of money too.

Us did lower numbers of german based personel after the first gulf war. Maybe they will look at that again in light of recent finances.
 
jack412 said:
guys, I need a bit of knowledge on IR, lets call them plane x and y
plane x uses 18k lbs of fuel as a heat sink and has low bypass
plane y uses 18k of fuel as a heat sink and increased its already higher bypass for heat reduction, reducing range

simplistic comparison and I may have the wrong end of the stick, x flys at 60k ft y at 30k ft
does the different mission alt. equal it out,.. higher is colder, so less bypass does the job ?
or would it be that y has better specs in the IR
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about the F-22 and F-35? In which case the F-22 is not going to be flying at 60,000 feet unless it is in Streak Eagle configuration. It is also not going to be flying at over 50,000 feet without a pressure suit for the pilot.

But anyway you don’t really give enough information to compare the IR signatures. Plane X is going to need a lot more thrust to fly at the higher altitude all things being equal compared to Plane Y. The coldness of the air at altitude is less significant for the heat of the aircraft surfaces than the lower air density causing a lot less friction on the surface of the aircraft. But if the plane flies faster (as it likely would at 60,000 feet) it is going to cause more friction even with less air density.

As to the heat signature of the engines a lower bypass engine of same thrust has to produce hotter exhaust (hotter equals faster) to match the higher mass flow of the high bypass engine. But on the other hand the higher plane is further away from any ground based or low altitude sensor (but conversely closer to space based IR) so is going to be harder to detect.

So plenty of variables there and you need to tighten your comparative to make more of a call either way.
 
AG. I was right when i said I needed a bit of knowledge, doing a janes spec like apa:) isnt working for me
I'm trying to get my head around bypass use in heat management and the obvious difference in the f-22 f-35
 
jack412 said:
I'm trying to get my head around bypass use in heat management and the obvious difference in the f-22 f-35
Click to expand...

Well a high bypass engine of similar thrust to a low bypass engine (like F135 and F119) is going to have a lot lower heat exhaust plume at similar non reheat settings. The key difference but is low bypass engines tend to be better performers at transonic and supersonic speeds. Which is of course demonstrated in the different design requirements of the F119 and F135 engines.
 
StingrayOZ said:
More than enough... They still have that law stating us service personel are not policed by local courts and laws.. that still weighs big on germanys mind (although no one will ever admit it..) There are still some huge bases in germany. The US proberly could looking at reviewing where they are and move bases to Poland Ukraine etc..

Last I saw they still had 50-70,000 in germany. But only merely 35,000 in japan, 28000 in korea.
Click to expand...
52440 in Germany, 35668 in Japan, 28500 in S. Korea. Altogether, 77917 in Europe.

52000 in Germany may sound a lot compared to S. Korea, but it's a very different force. Korea is a spearhead force. Most of its support is elsewhere. The troops in Germany (& elsewhere in Europe, e.g. Italy) are providing support to forward deployed troops in Iraq & Afghanistan. It's the main US military depot & source of intervention forces & rapid reinforcements for Africa & the western half of Eurasia.


StingrayOZ said:
I
Im not saying a full bail out, germany will always be important for US/Nato etc. But winding numbers down to mere Korean levels or atleast below Afganhistan levels. Sure it means less forward basing for africa, but it would save a lot of money too.

Us did lower numbers of german based personel after the first gulf war. Maybe they will look at that again in light of recent finances.
Click to expand...
Numbers in Germany already are less than in Afghanistan.

Numbers have been cut, BTW. There were over 200000 in the 1980s, down to 58000 by 1998 - and that went up again after 2001, to 73500 in 2003, because of Afghanistan & Iraq. Without those commitments, there'd be fewer US forces in Germany, & probably fewer in Europe as a whole.
 
swerve said:
US troops in Germany aren't there to defend Germany. That role went away years ago. They're there because it's a convenient point from which to deploy to other places, the US military hospitals are relatively well-placed to evacuate severe casualties to, etc.

How many troops do you think the USA has in Germany nowadays?
Click to expand...


This is false. "We" are there to defend Germany. Our mere presence represents a flesh and blood commitment to the defense of Germany and NATO and serves as a visible reminder. It's not numbers, it's the fact that we have established and continue to maintain a physical presence.

-DA
 
DarthAmerica said:
This is false. "We" are there to defend Germany. Our mere presence represents a flesh and blood commitment to the defense of Germany and NATO and serves as a visible reminder. It's not numbers, it's the fact that we have established and continue to maintain a physical presence.

-DA
Click to expand...

That may have been the case during the Cold War, but after the Berlin wall fell that mission also fell... We maintain what bases and forces in Europe more for forward presence today than to defend Europe. The Europeans are quite capable of defending themselves presently...

Without our bases abroad today, the US wouldn't have the influence it has outside North America... This includes Asia as well as Europe and Africa...

While we could reduce defense expenditures some by bringing our forces home, we would also reduce our presence and influence in the world abroad as well...
 
Sea Toby said:
That may have been the case during the Cold War, but after the Berlin wall fell that mission also fell... We maintain what bases and forces in Europe more for forward presence today than to defend Europe. The Europeans are quite capable of defending themselves presently...

Without our bases abroad today, the US wouldn't have the influence it has outside North America... This includes Asia as well as Europe and Africa...

While we could reduce defense expenditures some by bringing our forces home, we would also reduce our presence and influence in the world abroad as well...
Click to expand...


You're contradicting yourself. Reducing influence decrease the strength of our ability to influence German and EU politics which makes the US vulnerable. Trust me when I tell you that EU security I'd backed by US blood.

-DA
 
The US Forces in Germany (just like for example the ones in Italy) are supporting the world wide reach of the US. Nothing more and nothing less. 2 Stryker Brigades and a light Cav regiment which are constantly rotating to oversea deployments is not a heavy presence...

If it would be about the defense of NATO we would see a heavy Corps in the Baltics or Poland.

Without the bases in Germany and the support units stationed there the US would not be able to support their oversea commitments as good as it can now.
 
This is the F35 thread right??
Just checking , whilst I find this discussion very interesting , I'm a little bit more interested in reading more info in relation to the mighty Lockheed Martin 5th gen stealth fighter we're all keen to see in service.
 
StevoJH said:
DA,

Defending Germany from what exactly?

Stephen
Click to expand...

It's insurance. It represents a commitment. When the Iraqis went into Kuwait, the US deployed a light infantry unit FIRST to Saudi Arabia as a symbolic commitment. It was meant to say, "you're an important enough ally that we will spill blood on your behalf". US troops remain in Iraq for that purpose except now it's to check Iran. Basing and logistic infrastructure means that a small token force can be rapidly expanded!

This is part of what makes the F-35 so special. The "joint" in "joint strike fighter" means that if you buy in, you're part of a global logistics network and coalition that can shift weight at "lightning" speed.(no pun intended) Your air arm will be prepared to facilitate coalition warfare much more quickly. This is why Russia HATES hearing about US BMD sites in Poland or rotations of F-16s from the USA. the same applies when nations buy F-35s and it's here where the true power of the F-35 is. Stealth and avionics are just part of it.

It's insurance as well as logistics. This same concept applies to US basing in Germany.

-DA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top