Of course. It was one of the most striking examples of disingenuousness I have read from a so-called 'professional' journal.
F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC)
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Guardian52
New Member
First, let's take a look at the Combat Radius for the F-35C (it doesn't make a helluva lot of sense to compare the A or B models to any model of Hornet because the A model will replace the F-16 while the B will replace the AV-8B, and C will replace Hornets): Approx 600 nm.
Now, let's look at the F/A-18C/D Hornet's Combat Radius: 290 nm.
Now, let's take a look at the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's Combat Radius: 390nm
So, now that we've established that: yes, the combat radius of the F-35C significantly exceeds that of all current F/A-18C/D-E/F Hornet/Super Hornet Models.
So let's say that the mission requirement is a precision strike on a particular building being indetified by a group of Special Operators (SF, SEALs, Rangers, Raiders, USAFSOC, etc.) that has an evil guy in it and he needs to die. Oh, and by the way; the area is swarming with SAMs and enemy fighters.
Keeping that mission in mind, let's take a look at the internal payload capabilities of the F-35C: 2x AIM-132 ASRAAM (for self-defense), and 2x GBU-31/32/38 JDAM. This is just the internal capacity; the F-35 has a total of 6 external underwing hardpoints.
Now, let's look at the weapon payload for this mission of the F/A-18F Super Hornet (I'm going with the two seat version because, why not): M61 Vulcan 20mm (520 rounds), 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder, and 6x GBU-31/32/38 JDAM.
So, the Super Hornet might have the greater self-defense capability because the M61 comes standard, but the F-35 has greater Combat Radius and survivability due to its stealthy nature.
Thank you for your time, have an excellent day.
Keep up The Fire
- Guardian
ope :ar15 :gun "Mortis Prius Infamia"
Sources:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/aircraft/fa18/fa18ord.html
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1
Last edited:
Guardian52
New Member
Is the JDAM system not laser guided?You are aware that, apart from the much more complex real life approach of strike packages and multi platform systems, laser designation and JDAM doesn't fit very well?
Clearly I'm ignorant.
Educate me.
Guardian52
New Member
I'd like to apologize for the inaccuracy of my previous post. I am currently correcting said issue.You are aware that, apart from the much more complex real life approach of strike packages and multi platform systems, laser designation and JDAM doesn't fit very well?
Thank you for bringing to my attention that, in fact, JDAMs are GPS, not laser, guided. But, GBU-10/12/24 are laser guided.
Won't happen again.
Guardian52
New Member
But the GBU-54 LJDAM is laser guided. But that is a capability exclusive to this variant of the JDAM platform as far as I can tell at this point.
LJDAMs are a GPS JDAM with a laser-seeker added and Paveway IVs are a LGB with GPS Added...
Dual-mode Enhanced Paveway II / III exist in USAF / USN / USMC inventory which provides GPS/INS and Semi-active laser guidance on the same bomb body, similar to Laser JDAM.
Laser JDAM is a dual mode guided weapon that evolved from a GPS / INS only weapon.
Enhanced Paveway II / III / IV is a dual mode guided weapon that evolved from a Laser guided only weapon.
You say POtato, I say PoTato...
there's a message in here for the hand wringers....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/qualitative-advantage-1091
"If you hear someone say, 'Well, I heard the F-16 accelerates from 200 knots to 400 knots faster than the F-35,' you need to immediately acknowledge that you’re dealing with a dinosaur who’s asking the wrong questions, who misunderstands the capabilities of the platform.... A lot of people either underestimate or misunderstand the actual capabilities of the F-35. It’s almost impossible to overstate how significant the emergence of this airplane is for the Marine Corps and the joint war force in general.... It’s really difficult for me to say how good the airplane is because it’s so much better than anything we even thought of building, let alone have actually built.... I’ve always said this: the greatest advocates of the F-35 are the people closest to the program. The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of it. If you ever hear someone pining away for the F-16 of 1979 or the F-18 of 1983 or the F-15 of the mid 70’s, you’re talking to a someone who’s so far behind the technology and what the airplane can do that to me, his criticisms are just totally unwarranted. The people that know the most about the jet are the people who are the biggest advocates for it. And keep in mind these are people with experience in other airplanes and other warfighting assets. I didn’t grow up on the F-35. I had three previous operational experiences with amazing airplanes prior to the Joint Strike Fighter. My opinion of the F-35 is vastly higher than that of anything else, and that’s just because I understand it." -- LtCol "Chip" Burke, USMC
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/qualitative-advantage-1091
"If you hear someone say, 'Well, I heard the F-16 accelerates from 200 knots to 400 knots faster than the F-35,' you need to immediately acknowledge that you’re dealing with a dinosaur who’s asking the wrong questions, who misunderstands the capabilities of the platform.... A lot of people either underestimate or misunderstand the actual capabilities of the F-35. It’s almost impossible to overstate how significant the emergence of this airplane is for the Marine Corps and the joint war force in general.... It’s really difficult for me to say how good the airplane is because it’s so much better than anything we even thought of building, let alone have actually built.... I’ve always said this: the greatest advocates of the F-35 are the people closest to the program. The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of it. If you ever hear someone pining away for the F-16 of 1979 or the F-18 of 1983 or the F-15 of the mid 70’s, you’re talking to a someone who’s so far behind the technology and what the airplane can do that to me, his criticisms are just totally unwarranted. The people that know the most about the jet are the people who are the biggest advocates for it. And keep in mind these are people with experience in other airplanes and other warfighting assets. I didn’t grow up on the F-35. I had three previous operational experiences with amazing airplanes prior to the Joint Strike Fighter. My opinion of the F-35 is vastly higher than that of anything else, and that’s just because I understand it." -- LtCol "Chip" Burke, USMC
To put it in perspective if someone tried to tell you a Camel was superior to a North American P-51D Mustang because it was more maneuverable and the pilot had better visibility / situational awareness, you would slap them. Same if someone tried to tell you the Mustang was better than any 1960s fighter or attack aircraft. People just don't get that technology evolves and that things change.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
To me the narrator voice sounds like Pete 'Wizzer' Wilson - Lead F-35B STOVL test pilot.
VIDEO: Carrier Queen Elizabeth, night F-35B rolling landing Wharton Simulator I guess
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBFv11tFsU[/nomedia]
VIDEO: Carrier Queen Elizabeth, night F-35B rolling landing Wharton Simulator I guess
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBFv11tFsU[/nomedia]
another example of how damaged the JSF is....
Lockheed reports successful F-35 integration with Aegis system - UPI.com
/sarcasm off
Lockheed reports successful F-35 integration with Aegis system - UPI.com
/sarcasm off
the road runner
Active Member
Gf the integration issues with Tiger and Eurogrid type systems into the ADF have been said to be an issue with platforms being able to share information. As Australia uses a number of US based systems such as Awacs, F-18's,Aegis,Romeo,chooks soon to be P-8,Tritons,JSF and the like ...
Are we better just purchasing "smaller " US platforms as they can share information a lot easier than purchasing "smaller" Euro type platforms like helicopters ?
I assume that bigger platforms such as Ships and MRTT have large areas to integrate things like Link 16 to share information from one platform to the next...
It seems as tho when we purchase a US system ,the integration work for platforms to share information has already been achieved by the US
In no way am i riding off European kit ,i hope the Germans win Land 400 !
when we buy into an FMS acquisition, especially an ITARs tagged capability we also buy into the development and integration train for that capability - as long as we stay in relative lockstep with the US in-service version release then all is well and good - there is a caveat - the broad number for staying within step is to stay within 2 major generations of a US OC - once we start slipping beyond 2 generations then its incredibly difficult to stay current as the US obviously wants to move forward and loses interest on maintaining older versions.
so for australia its critical that we stay focused and involved with US developments to ensure that we don't fall back and lose access to the "then" current US developments
IMO, we are better served staying with US systems as they are focused on delivery of the latest capability improvements - and in most cases have the added motivation of other partners (esp NATO) wanting to also get upgraded and updated at time of release - so falling back and becoming an orphan "version" user is just not in our interests.
I don't have any objection to Euro systems - but to my mind we should be interested in those systems if they are across NATO partners and where there is host and buyer motivation to ensure that they are STANAG compliant etc....
Australia has been caught out before in losing version lock step - so there are already lessons there that bean counters need to be reminded of so as to help motivate them in allocating the monies needed to stay at the edge of development
edit
in various lives I've worked with French and Israeli systems where we were caught with our pants down - it doesn't matter that we lost our strides - the fact is we did and probably wouldn't have if those systems had been mainstream AND/OR adopted by principle partners etc....
the risk assessment of being a tech and platform orphan should be front and centre whenever an acquisition and evaluation is undertaken
Last edited:
More detail on the test here including video. All the previous theoretical musings of the F-35's primary value as a flying sensor node now come into sharp focus with this remarkable demonstration. And to think direct F-35-to-AEGIS MADL link was never really envisioned to begin with.
https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/vi...-expansion-networked-naval-warfare#more-21593
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/F-35-and-Transformation.pdf
note within the body of this doc what I have said ad-nauseum re the F-22 ie that it cannot be upgraded with similar sensor capability
note within the body of this doc what I have said ad-nauseum re the F-22 ie that it cannot be upgraded with similar sensor capability
Dare I say it?
Wouldn't this make acquiring F-35B to deploy a short squadron on each of the LHDs worthwhile for that capability alone?
I wonder if the AEW system based on the F-35s radar would have, or could be upgraded with the same capability?
Such a capability must make the acquisition of carriers even more attractive as the benefits having even a small number of these aircraft operating with the fleet are absolutely transformational. Just imagine the impact even a destroyer sized carrier (such as Chakri Naruebet) would make, even with only six F-35B and a similar number of Romeos (and maybe a couple of Sierras).
t68
Well-Known Member
The part in bold seems to be what the F35 will be for those who use it to its full advantage, but you will get shown to the naughty corner for using the C word