big problem of f35 is that it only has one engine!! if they had two it can super cruise
Yes Padawan, awesomeness is entirely dependent on having two engines… attractiveness is dependent on having three engines.
Four engines is for Richard Hammond (and Po the Panda)
Technically on Typhoon’s airframe there are four hard points capable of carrying heavy weapons: Stations 5, 6, 7 and 8. Wet and inner, able to carry upto 1450kg and 1300kg respectively. It would be safe to say given the weight and dmensions of Harpoon that Typhoon will be able carry Harpoon on it’s inner stations.
Are you sure?
Whitout certainties but i have this idea that the landing gear might disagree.
Cheers
Sintra was missing the complexities involved in assembling, coordinating and sustaining a land-based strike package, against a mobile target, a long way out overwater.
Long range coordinated attacks over sea is JASDF doctrine, they train it regularly with the US States Navy, exercises and deployments to places like Guam happens on a regular bases, on the other hand i am more than willing to bet that we are not going to see a Chinese Carrier capable of actual combat operations with a trained crew and strike capable airwing navigating near Honolulu for the next decade.
My point was to illustrate where the carrier comes in to that picture. Yes reflagging and foreign merchies can complicate the picture, but, the underlying point is that a Chinese carrier group, without US interference, could sit 500 miles west of Honolulu, sink everything heading for a Japanese port, and theres very little effectively Japan could do about it.
.
Thats the point, if we dont take into acount reality, this entire topic is moot.
If we take out the US States and other countries of this scenario, then the JASDF (and PLA) capabilities and hardware would be diferent…
Sintra,
Thats AAR for a fully weighted strike package to loiter indefinitely halfway to Hawaii is it?. The carrier puts the airpower where it needs to be simple as.
Yes, thats about it. Look at the choke points in wich Japanese commercial shipping passes, then look at a map and notice where Japanese, US, Australian and Singapour airbases are, even if by some miracle a Chinese Carrier could pass the island chains without being tagged by a horde of sensors, even if it picked a fight only after being in the “midle of the pacific”, up north there´s Elmendorf, on the east there´s Hickam, southeast there´s Guam and South there´s an helluva lot of airbases in wich American and/or Japanese aircrafts would be welcomed in case a Chinese fleet went beserk nearby.
To have any serious effect a Chinese fleet would always be in range of land based airpower,
Whether it is implausible or not is irrelevant. The question was asked as a hypothetical what kind of carrier would the Japanese need.
If the scenario is “The Chinese are coming” the answer is, well, none.
ISTAR, Submarines and land based air power and the entire Chinese surface fleet is botled in their coastal waters (protected by their own land based air power. The Chinese surface fleet is not survivable (and wont be for foreseable future) in open waters versus the kind of adversaries that it would face in a “Sino-Japanese” face down.
As for a carrier being a poor choice to oppose US sea power I think its quite the reverse – if you limit your definition as to what you want the carrier to deliver. If you look at a Midway carrier-on-carrier scenario then you are probably correct that trying to fight that battle with a design like the Chinese flat top is a losing proposition. That is not the way that the Chinese will use the ship though. She’s a surviveable surveillance and cueing asset used to support their entry denial strategy…and in that role she’s very dangerous and entirely a wise addition. Could use a Sea Avenger type UAV to offload the Flanker clones though.
On that i have to disagree, there´s absolutely nothing “survivable” in a 60,000 ton Chinese aircraft carrier in blue water when facing the likes of the US Navy and/or the Japanese Self Defense Forces, its a coffin.
The vital tasking in any naval scenario with China as a hostile component is sea control…an aircraft carrier is the optimal platform for this owing to its mobility. You present an opponent with a dynamic threat that cannot be left unchecked. Land based air cant do that as it will always be tied to its airbases. Move out of range of the airbase and its toothless. Chinese carrier starts interdicting Japanese shipping beyond range of land-based air and the problem manifests itself.
Jonesy
For a Chinese Aircraft Carrier to start interdicting “Japanese shipping beyond range of land-based air” that would be somewhere near Hawai or Singapore!
Today´s “tatical aviation” is yesterday´s strategic one, and when we stick KC767´s into the equation, well, cutting it short, its an awfull lot of range.
And this entire scenario is implausible, for the foreseable future there´s no way that a Chinese fleet would be allowed to exercise sea control in the midle of the Pacific Ocean or near the Singapour straights without a direct US Navy “muscular” intervention.
And (my personal opinion) a Flat Top is a lousy platform to pick a fight with the US Navy.
Costs are going down, according to Norwegian MoD:
The 52 F-35 Norway is to get is now estimated to cost 62.6 billion NOK (2013 estimate).
Total costs for 30 years of operation was estimated to 230 billion NOK in 2012.
Nice, more or less what that same MOD said in 2008… “The costs are coming down”… (If i am seeing correctly, its a Norwegian translation, taking the 2008 report the numbers have multiplied by almost 3X)
Now the real question is, how many jets will the Norwegian MOD be able to acquire and operate without slashing operational capabilities in the Navy and/or army?
Sorry, but its true. If you read articles about indian defense programs or watch their shows in English, Hindi or other native Indian language EVERYDAY like some of us do, then you will notice how pathetic most indian defence journalists are.
Sure, there are a few good ones, but most are pretty bad.
While i dont follow Indian defence publications i can imediatly think of Shiv Aroor and Vishnu Som has dam good journos. If a Portuguese can think of some good Indian defence journalists it cant be all that bad, can it? :confused:
Yes and this just proves Obligatorys point. F-35 crosssection is bigger than every fighter exept SH, which is about the same size.
Would i remind you that SH is in another weightclass?
Hardly, the diference in weight between the F-35A and the SH is identical to the diference between a Rafale and a Typhoon, slightly more than one ton. On the other hand the F-35C is one and (almost) half a ton heavier than a SH.
The great big diference is that while having identical cross sections the SH is three metters longer and has a wingspan three meters wider than the F-35A.
The F-35A size matches almost perfectly the two Eurocanards, but has a much bigger crossection/front profile and is a lot heavier.
Cheers
Personally, I am more interested in performance than looks!:D Of course I was talking about fighter jets.:diablo:
Interested in performance?
Great.
While we are talking about performance, Dave C is so dynamicaly uninpressive (AKA “Captain Slow”) that we could start a topic of jokes mixing “US Navy” and “Sopwith Camel” about it…
Or something in the lines of “the accelaration KPP for DAVE C was made by the US Navy Psychologists, the SH fleet was getting into a depression by being called the Super “Slow” Hornet”…
I´ll get me hat… 😀
I know….many americans are into obesity
Best answer of the week…
When did Boeing? It did not keep them from picking most of the JDRADM/NGM development contracts.
ATK? Good choice…
How´s the “Delta” engine coming along?
You also never know if there are sub-contractors involved. ATK is the likely motor MFG and Lockheed would likely adapt the PAC-3 seeker and maneuver jets.
(tongue in cheek comment)
Adapt the seeker and the maneuver jets of the PAC3?
I would imagine that the seeker, the maneuver jets and the associated equipment of the PAC3, weight´s more than the entire CUDA! 😀
Cheers
Failed or not, it was still combat tested, proven to be ineffective vs fighters
Good point… Hats off
AIM-54 used active terminal guidance.
True, but how reliable are the accounts of combat experience in the Iran Iraq war?
AFAIK (and someone correct me if i am wrong) all the AIM-54 shots made in anger by the US Navy failed.
Oh dear God….
That is so much my BAD 🙂
That is what I get for working till and posting at 1 in the morning.
Been there, done that (with similar results… :p)
Sorry, I meant to say Active AAM.
Entirely correct
Not quite! What makes PIF-PAF so effective is that the sideforce is applied around the missile’s centre of gravity. Move your thrusters forward to the sort of location used the PAC-3, and they lose quite a bit of effectiveness.
Thanks for the correction Mercurius.