dark light

Jessmo23

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 372 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2176249
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Everyone stand down,

    Msphere is a long standing memeber with passionate views. Lets approach this intelligently.

    Msphere explain how the F-35 at 80k is a bad fit for these missions:

    1.Air policing, whether your intercepting bears, or a stealthy interception of an Iranian F-4 harassing your drones?
    2. Scud/iskalander hunting?
    3. Sead?
    4. Pacific tac air, where basing versatility is a must? Because remember you may not have runways for the 1st hours.
    5. Stand off maritime strike?
    6. Bomb trucking in permissive air space? Because in a theoretical load out it beats most tactical fighters.

    Do most nato countries even have an organic SEAD capability? If god forbid the flag goes up with a country with S-300s or advanced tacair, could 4.5 generation fighters even penetrate such air space? The new Tor-m1 fires on the move. Do you think your Rafael with 2 paltry stand off weapons, versus an F-35 with 8 sdb is a good sortie rate?
    Could, and will Eurocanards be effective, in a Desert storm scud hunting scenario? You have to look at the history of conflicts to see why the USAF. Wants a stealthy fighter with net worked 360 degree sensors.

    Package Q
    The Ds1 scud hunt
    F-18cs being shot down
    Loss of F-117
    British tornado losses in GW1
    All factors influencing design.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2177518
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    you forgot to mention the one criteria that matter: cost per target, F-16 does it cheaper.

    Still, on a long range strike mission, F-4 may well come on top.
    UAV will trump all of em by a large margin tho

    Id bet if it takes 6 F-16s to do the job of 2 F-35s the Lightening is cheaper per target.

    in reply to: The truth about the F-22 #2178268
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Is school out?

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2178463
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Spud who should take Canada’s planes and work share? India, Japan, another partner?

    Jessmo23
    Participant

    No haavarla. The Chinese are the best at everything, because they are Chinese right?

    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Nonsense the Chinese can figure out anything. I mean they have an exact copy of the F-119 right?

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2179344
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791

    Canadian politicians threaten to scrap F-35

    I wish they would get on with it. We could offer there workshare to India.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2179365
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Has physics changed in 50 years? Do missiles go faster today than back then? You can put
    gps on a scud, its still a scud. If you make it dance around it will.just use up fuel. Its physics.

    Well, no, because it’s already used its fuel by the time you maneuver. As for energy, don’t forget that a ballistic missile or an artillery shell will reach the ground at the same velocity at which it left the barrel or finished boost, minus air resistance. Some of that energy is useful if you have a penetrating warhead, but most of it is not, so you do what any glider does and trade it for maneuver or distance along the ground.

    Im sorry, in this case Bill not just fuel but energy.
    I was thinking of some kind of boost systems in the warhead, that vector some kind of thrust.
    If you start putting vanes, spoilers or brakes on the re-entry vehicle to make it dance your slowing it down. The most efficient way would be lateral boosters of some kind. Do you suggest a better solution.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2181079
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    The exact package Q scenario today? No it wont.

    Pick a pair of Tornados (Hornets, Eagles, whatever), four Taurus LFK, shoot them 200 km´s inside Saudi Arabia, go home. Twenty five minutes later, one and a half tons of high explosive arrives at a great big FIXED target outside Baghdad and blows the place to pieces, few minutes later a recon satelite confirms it, the end.
    Did i forget to mention that the cost of ATOG PGM´s have been steadily declining for the last three decades?

    Cheers

    What If I need to hit a HAS from the opposite side of my approach? What if I need to hit the bunker or tunnel entrance? How about putting weapons through a vent or precise in a bunker?
    Do you realize places like Hainan island are fortresses?

    Im making the point that exspensive cruise missiles have a niche.

    Btw another F-35 hit piece is out on war is boring.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2181192
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    those are 1960s era TBMs not built for 21st century.

    Has physics changed in 50 years? Do missiles go faster today than back then? You can put gps on a scud, its still a scud. If you make it dance around it will.just use up fuel. Its physics.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2181436
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Do you think Russia with all of there might could pacify Syria? I would like to see them try.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2181487
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    I think your forgetting that, the U.S. has faced massed TBM attacks before.
    In fact, didn’t the US Navy train against massive cruise missile, and TBM attacks for years during the cold war?
    Tactical fighters fill an important niche.
    Also it can’t be lost on someone in the USN that it takes twice the fighters in a strike package to do the job of a lightening.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2181515
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Of all the services, I dont get why the USN doesn’t get this? You would think that with limited space on a ship, you would try and hit a target with less assets if you can help it. A target that can be hit with a 4 ship of F-35C would likely need:
    4-6 F-18E because fighters manuvering when shot at drop stores resulting in mission kill.
    2 or more growlers
    2+ buddy tankers

    We are already at a 10 plane package compared to a 4 ship. Its likely more if there is significant red air.
    I don’t think the Navy bean counters have realized this.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2181585
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    SAMs are SA-3 generation, or some modern modification of Hawk.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) – Take two #2181590
    Jessmo23
    Participant

    Spud in your own terms if you compare the top tac-air penetrating strikers, on a 1st day package Q senario, HOW would you rate Block 4 F-35?

    Versus:
    Llol latest deployed version of SH
    The Rafael
    F-15E
    Advanced F-16
    Im interested in your candor.
    If you had to Go down town hit a target
    Within 500nms but su-27s are on standby its day light. lest even assume
    SAMs wont be tracking like package Q until.the 1st bombs fall (for fear of HARM) in order to give the 4 gens a chance.
    SAMS Lock and start tracking on egress. Your planes are a 4 ship, any package youd like.

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 372 total)