ELPOh for f*ck’s sake! Someone post a picture of the Wright flyer (yes it had a Canard) and perhaps this tedious willy measuring can come to an end.
Beat me to it. 😀
ELPVery impressive… Also also a bit scary (man, what if the juice goes off ;)))
You call the help desk…..
…… in India…
….while on a mission…..
:p
ELPI would have faith in the AESA in stock F-18E/Fs to defeat a lot of electronic threats if the hype ( or reality ) of various future uses of AESA pan out as the industry geeks suggest. Depends what cool software they can come up with.
Someone projecting on you with a weapons emitter? Become an electronic attacker that negates the enemy sensor in a varity of geek suggested methods. Again there is a lot of potential here if we are to belief the industry geeks on the future uses of AESA, like what is in the F-18E/F AESA jets, JSF, F-22, Wedgetail etc.
ELPWhat will the US do about it large fleets of Harriers, Warhogs, Hornets, and Vipers? All the while we are currently seeing Typhoons, Rafales, J-10’s, Mig-35, and Advance Flanker enter Service!
Excellent question. USN doesn’t seem to concerned when they put in the Super Hornet. However, consider that the Buick of Stealth JSF will be around for years. It isn’t all that fast, we haven’t totally explored what AESA can and can not do. The first thing we would do by not getting JSF is have about $276 Billion that could be spent on other war winning items I have mentioned already. MiG-35? Legacy fighter. It is still at severe risk facing any of our AIM-9x/helmet jets. It can dance all it wants and still die. Advanced Flanker? Don’t care what the numbers are, they won’t be able to stop a small number of F-22 killing off airfield infastructure and other important first nights of an airwar type of targets. J-10, Well here, this, like the Flanker thing assumes we would meet China force on force if for some reason they went stupid and did something with Taiwan. Besides being a fatal business decision and any number of other things, we don’t have to face a country force on force like that when considering they don’t have enough oil to keep their economy going for very long, we can just cut off everything that moves over water. Of course none of this is going to happen be cause we both aren’t that dumb.
F-22 is still in production. And the first few nights of a war, it, because of supercruise, will sortie gen the hell out of any JSF. Including the fact that it is a better quality product and will do it with less risk. After enemy big SAMs and fighters are killed off, I don’t need a stealth aircraft.
F-16s and F-18s are still in production. And the way we do things now with F-22, it would be rare that they see any enemy fighters. JSF is just a bad decision all the way around. Want to help the Navy? Put in R&D for a Squadron each of no peer group F-22 like performance aircraft on the carrier deck.
None of the legacy fighters you mentioned will keep us from breaking an integrated air defense of our choosing.
We need things that help us fight todays wars too. That means longer range. An FB-22 in small numbers is far more useful. Consider that Besides the A-10 and Apache, the B-1 is more useful product in a bug hunt in afcrapistan than a JSF. The range and staying power including lots of munitons on hand when a GFAC in the bug hunt party calls it in, means the B-1 or any long range aircraft is far more useful for these ops. The Apache, now at night, is an excellent night net centric warfare killer for small war stuff. A-10? It’s paid for and with Hog Up will be good for another 25 years until that needs to be done again. I would rather have something like this that is paid for and low dollar and useful, sitting in some bare basic in hostile country. The NVG training and targeting pod makes it even more deadly. Saying a JSF can “replace” this kind of value on this small ops is a bit strange as the tens of billions for the gold plated turkey JSF means cash isn’t available to pay for something ground troops really need. JSF is going to contribute to GWOT? Not if you didn’t flunk accounting class.
ELPCongress has no sense of smell.
ELPThe Super Hornet maybe a safe play today yet it will likely be obsolete in another 10-20 years. Also, the Raptor was in the same place as the Lighning just a few years back. Just like a good fighter pilot the best ones learn to press the envelope to the limits! Pilots just like there planes win by being “Aggressive” and not by playing it safe……………….. 😮
Which unfortunately has little to do with procurement risk. Especially when the buyer has an unfortunate history of procurement risk and… Especially when you are throwing $15 Billion down on red and spinning the roulette wheel on an untested product. Better to wait on said product and let it get lots of flying hours in, including a customer history. F-18E/F is of course not an uber fighter. However, once the table is cleared of large threats by F-22, the F-18E/F a2g setup with a large menu of weapons and AESA thrown in is more than enough to kill anything that goes over land or sea. Finally a cost of ownership thing. Numbers state x for y on mishaps per 100,000 hours, show single engine jets do well. However over the life of a program with a small fleet, jets still will get dumped. We have a ton of F-16s, therefore losing a bunch of them over the years in mishaps is no big deal. A cost of doing business. A small fleet of two motor jets will have more airframes sitting around after 20-30 years than the same number of one engine jets. Considering there is also a lot of water, and with modern avionics, you still have more of a chance of the software suggesting you shut an engine down ( vibration monitors etc ), as opposed to it going bang with no warning, the comfort of shutting one engine down when over water has a value all it’s own in all interested parties not just the aircrew but the overstressed taxpayer.Single engine jets are one thing. Super expensive single engine jets don’t really do anything for me. Especially when the numbers add up to a total program cost of $15 billion for just 100 airframes.
ELPIn regards to Raptor capability, it has not been cleared yet for most air-to-ground ordnance. I know it’s currently cleared for JDAM, WCMD and SDB but I haven’t seen it cleared for any other munitions yet (I might be wrong). But how long will it take to integrate these other weapons into the Raptor, if at all?
Australia has been expanding it’s range of AG ordnance including AGM-142 and Harpoon Anti-Shipping missiles. Would an F-22 be able to haul this sort of ordnance?
AGM-142 is junk. At least from the B-52 tests I heard of. Roll the dice, it might work and it might not. An Overly expensive legacy man-in-the loop missile that doesn’t give much bang for the buck. It better be some really expensive targets that you try to kill with it. Cheap PGMs are the way to go. A GBU-35 ( forged steel 1000lb BLU-110 pointy tip with JDAM ) will hit fixed targets better, harder and cheaper. Moving target? Well SDB II will take out a lot of things when that becomes available. From littorial to the tin foil things that pretend to live up to the name “warship”. One hit or two with an SDB II is a mission kill. SDB can be set to airburst or penetrate with the quality of a BLU-109 forged steel pointy tip. Recent public consumption tests with SDB I all hit within about….. 4 feet. WCMD in the CBU-105 form with BLU-108B SFW, puts away all kinds of targets in a nasty, nasty way. Add to that the benefit over the life of the F-22 will gain from future development of other weapons put in it. F-22 will also be able to carry JASSM externally. Where Australia has already looked at JASSM. Although, again I am not really big on that either as more times than not, the same target will die cheaper with the GBU-32 or 35 above. One JASSM can buy a whole bunch of cheap PGMs. I doubt you would want to use F-22 for certain tatical things all though you could with no problem, considering the small local ops Australia does. It would be very handy for on call special forces work. It, with the tanker support beats anything the F-111 can do by being able to go into a high threat environ and pretty much do what ever it wants. Again, for overall defense needs, I would team this up with F-18E/F. They would make a good team. F-22 also has a faster reaction time when the Wedgetail wants a pop up target of opportunity killed now. 2 F-22s on call orbiting for that kind of attack dog killing means the action is going to happen a lot faster than with JSF. Where a GFAC’s number one concern in an emergency CAS request is response time. Same with more strategic targets that would pop up on Wedgetails net centric warfare battlespace. It could be an emitter, a known target of any kind. F-22 with supercruise zipping out of ( what we call the JSTARS “stack” ) gives you rapid response time.
Again I point to the risk. A small population spending $15 Billion on a program is large risk potential. F-18E/F and F-22 have known performance. JSF is best looked at after it has some solid test flying under it’s belt. I don’t want to pick up the Sydney Morning Herald a few years from now and read about JSF being the largest Aussie defense screw up ever, any more than you do. ( I might end up living there). The risk is reduced by getting some proven airframes now, and looking at JSF later after it has knowns. $15 billion is a big leap of faith on this program considering life issues on current airframes, something needs to be purchased, now. F-18 upgrades have been hugely unsuccessful. Putting some F-18E/Fs into service soon and getting a delivery date on F-22, is a safe play.
ELPNo tank alone can withstand a modern ATGM. That’s why artillery and infantry is used in joint formations.
Thing I asked myself all the time is how the Iranians get their stuff into Syria, since the Kurds and U.S. forces in Northern Iraq should be capable of shutting down this supply line.
Not possible. We don’t have nearly enough troops there for the job.
ELPWhich, given your location, sort of answers the question really!.
Forget the S-300’s buy a bunch of SA-15’s for point defence of sensitive sites – if the desire is to move away from the Rolands to Russian kit and spend the money on the Flankers.
Hi Jonesy,
SA-15 ? If his goal is to fend off the evil Yankee, that won’t do. SDB, JDAM etc from 30~40,000ft and miles away, will contempt-of-engagement that system to be not worth much.
ELPThe chances of an F-35 cancellation are next to nil. Too much time, money, and effort has gone into developing a pretty darn good all-purpose replacement aircraft for all three branches.
I don’t know where the F-35 “hating” is coming from? This thing is going to fly farther with a greater weapon load than any current generation F-16/18/Harrier and do so with less chance of detection. This thing will have F-16/18 like maneuverability with much improved radar and aerial weapons.
I don’t get all the b!tchin’ here??? What, it’s not as “sexy” as an F-16? I don’t really care what it looks like when it is designed to provide performance and increase our overall capability.
USAF: ok that’s just too easy-more F-22As. Next.
No, that’s not so easy. We can’t buy enough F-22s to reasonably replace all of the F-16s, A-10s and older F-15 in the USAF/AFR/ANG. We need a volume airplane and this is it.
The Navy? They could buy more SHs to fill carrier decks if necessary. So far, the Super Hornet is under time and under budget, so, a follow order is the logical process should an F-35 cancellation occur……..which it most certainly will not.
USMC? There really isn’t another choice for them if they want to stay in the fixed-wing business. They could buy SH’s, but you can’t fly those from LHDs this is a big reason for the VSTOL F-35.
Easy answer. The JSF program right now is at a totol cost of $276 billion. USAF can break any integrated air defense… without it. USAF needs to spend money on any number of other things that win wars. Funds are short. Very short. And we are wasting them. E-10 is on life support. Ditto with J-UCAS. EB-52-cancelled. Dragging on getting C-5 engine/avionics upgrades done and in the field = operation shoestring. A sane C-130 sustainment/buy roadmap. Ditto for tankers. B-1 upgrades that aren’t jittery. Flying hours back where they need to be. I have only scratched the surface. We have very very limited funds. Those funds are being wasted on weapon systems we do not need.
ELPEurofighter makes sense simply because of the payback into local industry and workshare which every politico wants. All that is in place…. NOW…. eveyone is happy. More should be made to take care of Euro needs.
As for F-22. Most of the R&D is water under the bridge, it’s paid for. I don’t give a damn what it cost now. I would rather have 200, 300, 400 of these airframes and legacy fighters rather than puke out all the nonsense on JSF.
ELPWant less MADPAD shots at you…. if you are on a lot of flat ground, go from point A to point B just a few feet off the deck. Works for helos. :diablo:
Once you hang all the munitions on a SU-25 you aren’t going to have anything that resembles stealth qualities no matter what you paint it with. However a nice 3rd party self defense jamming pod might be a better solution.
ELPExpense be damned. Everything about carrier aviation is expensive. So looking at the prime hammer on a carrier deck as a focus to save money is dumb. Carriers are one of the most important and powerful weapons systems we have. I do not care one bit about shaving a few points here or there on cost. Industry gave us a mediocre product: Super Hornet. Great avionics, and the weapons and avionics make it great, NOT THE AIRFRAME. It is a very excellent strike aircraft. I like what it has shown with AESA. However that doesn’t do anything for complete, no peer air domination. Air domination where one carrier can break a flock of SUs far, far from the battlegroups SAM belt. Crush a SU like performance jet as if it was nothing. Long reach stealth and C2ISR on NCW on demand. And I only need one squadron of an uber jet like this per deck. The rest of the work can be done by the SH. JSF is not what is needed. We need something much more powerful on the deck…. AND THE MONEY IS THERE to find for R&D to get it done buy cutting garbage we don’t need like V22 and other dumb ideas. We spend an assload of money on carrier aviation and this is the best we can do? If I want to save money, I would start by firing admirals that don’t bring anything to the fight, or can’t long range plan useful killers for the carrier deck. I want, when a carrier goes into an area, to have such dominating control that it is feared even more than it is today. A no peer group jet with F-22 like performance is money well spent, and makes the idea for the enemy using aircraft anywhere near a carriers area of influence, useless….30 or more years into the future.
ELPThe choice for Europe is easy. Buy Eurofighters. Real Navys have carriers with catapults.
ELPPart of the UK Apache deal that was goofed up was poor planning for training programs. Remember, they sat around a while before they could be used. Funding is so scary thin in the MOD that it goes beyond words. They seem to love to write purchase agreements written on a shoestring and thinking the sustainment dollars are enough. And then find out different.
Nothing wrong with a lease if it is written correctly. Problem is, is that many leases done with militarys ( U.S. especially ) are poorly written and get chopped up easy by critics. For us, the idea of leasing tankers was a good one. Problem is that the lease was poorly written.
As for the C-17, it was available at the time and worked. A400 wasn’t around. Now that RAF has had a chance to use it in ops, they like it. Pricey airplane, but highly useful. Also the UK has J C-130s now too. While it only looks like a C-130 and is very logistically different, and expensive, it has significant ability over the older C-130 when used on common hard runways. It is in service now, A400 is not. It would be better (fantasy) to see the funds used on the A400, pushed into fielding more Eurofighters.
Sign In
