thobbesCause Aussie Air Power blog is generally a load of sh!te dedicated to flogging certain views.
Some of the technical data there is ok but the analyses often seem poor and are skewed towards certain outcomes. Lexington Institute is the same except they get paid to spout a certain line!
thobbesAhh… like Rii.
Given that he was comparing the US military to China on one thread, Russia on another, India on yet another, you can see why… 🙂
Que?
For what it’s worth I don’t think all Western NATO forces are made the same either.
The Germans for example seem to be on their way to a pure defence force and I’ve read somewhere that the Eurofighter equipped JaBoG 231 (31st Fighter Bomber Wing – other Luftwaffe Eurofighter units are Fighter Wings) is only doing enough Air to Ground to maintain basic capability.
That kind of means that after Tornado goes, Luftwaffe loses versatility.
thobbesI doubt anyone disputes that the USAF is in a completely different league compared to the IAF. The debate arose because of what appears to be an off-the-cuff assertion by you placing non-US NATO forces in the same supposedly ‘world class’ category ahead of the ROKAF, JASDF and RSAF, in addition to the IAF. An assertion that is not supported by facts.
Actually ROKAF and JASDF are both interesting cases.
Both are quality airforces in terms of human resources but both have some very curious issues.
– JASDF is politically and thus operationally restricted to defensive operations only. The vast majority of its combat fleet is the superb but air defence only F-15C/D. I’m not sure if the F-4EJ has any serious ground attack capability (unlike say Turkish, Israeli or former Israeli F-4s). That leave the F-2 which as far as I am aware is multirole but was procured in limited numbers and mainly as an anti-shipping platform using ASM-1 and ASM-2.
I’m not sure how much CAS, interdiction or other offensive ground attack missions the JASDF trains for – I’d be happy to hear otherwise.
In terms of force multipliers, there’s 17 AWACS (13 E-2C and 4 E767) as well as superb ground based coverage. The tanker fleet is small – 4 KC767 to support a fleet of 350-ish combat aircraft.
However the defensive nature of the force makes it less versatile than most NATO forces that are truly swing role even if they operate less airframes.
– South Korea is also interesting:
1. It’s a force designed around a very specific mission – i.e. defeating the North Koreans.
2. It’s fleet is remarkable in that at least 50% of the fleet is 3rd generation F-4E and F-5E/F and none of those have been significantly upgraded that I am aware of.
Both are to be replaced by FX-III and F/A-50 respectively.
I’m not sure how capable the F/A-50 is. It seems fine for smashing ancient MiG-21s and J-6s out of the sky but I’m not sure how effective they are in a modern environment.
Furthermore none of these two or RSAF have any combat experience whatsoever, unlike many Western NATO squadrons that have seen anywhere up to 20 years of continuous combat ops over Balkans, Middle East or Afghanistan.
thobbesI said UCAV’s and put a Question mark next to (UCLASS) and it’s also a UCAV and would make up future CVW’s. Never said the UCLASS would be the only UCAV on Carrier Decks. Grow up……
Sure but why even mentioned UCLASS when it’s not meant to be a primary striker?
I doubt the Super Hornets will be the majority of the CVW’s in post 2035………You can of course believe what you like.
Last F/A-18C/Ds as well as F-16s are due to be retired by 2030. That would imply large number of F/A-18E/Fs still in service.
The Super Hornet’s wouldn’t be replaced until all the of Hornet’s are replaced in USN Service. So, not like they will need the money tomorrow!
So you’re still looking at replacement of F/A-18E/F in 2030-40 scale. Remember that the F/A-18C/Ds are due out by 2030.
LOL 20-30 years ago I doubt many would have predicted that Poland would be flying F-16 Blk 50’s!
Actually from memory, the predictions were about Eastern Europe operating a lot more Western gear than what they actually do. I remember a circa-1996 article in a European mag predicting a Croatian AF on 30+ F-16s in the near future and not 12 barely serviceable MiG-21s.
What probably surprised people is how many airforces have basically collapsed.
So, what Albania can’t improve enough to purchase F-35’s at a future date???
Their economy can improve.
However their politicians and generals have decided they don’t need fighter planes and they’ve subcontracted air policing to Italy.
And they’re not the only ones – New Zealand is a very rich country that scrapped it’s combat fleet.
Funny, Denmark can and it’s a same NATO Country.
So what?
Do you understand that different countries have different requirements?
Some countries require top of the line 5th generation stealth jets, some require 4th gen only and other’s require armed trainers and gunships only. And then some don’t require any fighter/combat aircraft at all.
As for how old you are, I’m more talking about comprehension than maturity.
thobbesSo now Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert is clueless.
In case English isn’t your first language:
1. F-35 cut along with other aircraft is for 2014 fiscal year, not long term future. It also covers an insanely small number of aircraft.
2. Kendell’s statement is about long term future – also he said no change its plans in any fundamental way. That means they’ll still aquire about 260 F-35C for USN, give or take a few aircraft.
But you’ve already implied you don’t believe Frank Kendall either especially about any upward changes to numbers procured.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123991-F-35-News-amp-Multimedia-thread/page21
As I said many times I believe the USN will purchase more F-35C’s than the current plan. Yet, that decision is many years off. Like many things will have to wait and see….
So in Scooter land, “no fundamental changes to plans” means:
1. No short term cuts or delays to aircraft numbers.
2. No long terms cuts or delays to aircraft numbers.
3. USN to triple it’s F-35 buy from 260 to 720 to replace F/A-18E/F.
4. USN won’t fund new fighter ever because there is no money and F/A-XX is just a figment of imagination. I guess if they brought 500 extra F-35Cs there’d be no money for any new aircraft in the future either.
So the US can only increase F-35 purchases but cutting numbers is completely and utterly impossible. I guess cutting F-35 numbers must violate the laws of nature.
I guess the world must have ended when the USN cut its F-35 requirement from about 480 aircraft to 260 aircraft.
By the way not saying F-35 will be cut before you misunderstand me. Merely pointing out “inconsistencies” in your argument.
thobbesWhich part of changes to UCLASS don’t you understand?
UCLASS is now a recce drone with limited strike capability. It’s been cutback in terms of requirements!
In 2030-35 period, F/A-18E/F will still be on carriers as a main combat force unless you start drastically chopping numbers of carriers.
You won’t see any major funding for the F/A-XX for the foreseeable future. The US is having a hard enough time funding the current Military Programs.
But apparently there is billions of dollars around for an extra 300-500 F-35Cs to replace F/A-18E/Fs! :stupid:
As stated, you see anything positive for F-35 as TRUE even if it’s as ridiculous as Albania buying F-35s. And then you view any anti-F-35 as UNTRUE even when it comes out of the mouth of a USN admiral.
How old are you dude?
thobbesBecause the US and it’s Allies can provide Air Superiority. Which, will also be the case with the F-22 and F-35.
Sure it can. Except that capability probably won’t be used nearly as much as bombing.
]What???
Read about wars since 1945 and you’ll understand especially if you note how they’ve changed from the previous one.
Compare say Ogaden War (dog fighting and mechanised warfare) between Somalia and Ethiopia and compare them Ethiopian-Somali fighting of last few years (low tech, mainly infantry).
I said such countries like Poland would likely procure the F-35 at some point. Never said Latvia or Albania by name…………..Yet, considering the F-35 will be produced for decades. It is possible as no one could honestly rule it out.
As stated number of AF operating jet aircraft is in decline. Latvia never operated them and Albania has retired all of them. For most air forces their MiG-21s and F-5s will be the last jets they operate – too expensive and too little utility.
thobbesDoes anyone think that Scooter may in fact be X-35 PAV002 that’s become sentient and now posts on this forum because it’s boring being a museum piece at Patuxent River Naval Air Station Museum?
Oh and new cuts to USN F-35 procurement for 2014 fiscal year
Most likely a delay to procurement and it’s probably a very small number of airframes but it shows that even might F-35 can get cut!
thobbesBecause you and some other usually refer to the F-35 as being tailored to that role. (excluding it fighter capabilities)
I don’t focus on fighter capabilities cause that’s not how Uncle Sam and Co fight. They blast the enemy on the ground and make it suicidal for the enemy to launch.
And air wars since 1991 have featured less and less A2A combat. And less and less air forces actually fly jet fighters let alone large amounts that could threaten US/NATO air armadas.
In the 21st millenium there was only 1 A2A combat between 2 IDF/AF F-15s and 2 SyAAF MiG-29s.
Even in areas where tensions are rising, there is not even air skirmishing unlike in Cold War days.
E.g Chinese don’t do dog fights over Senkakus or Spratleys, unlike say in 1950s when it was ROCAF F-86s v PLAAF MiG-15/-17! Or Iran – in the past skirmishes with USSR PVO or Saudi Air Force.
And once the main area for aerial combat, the third world has seen A2A and mechanised warfare completely die and replaced by roving militias armed with nothing more complicated than the old AK/RPG/RPK/RPD/DshK combo.
So for US and Co, bomb dropping capabilities are far more useful
They are also for Russians who gladly engage in COIN and operations in buffer zone against opponents who also lack fighter planes.
The A2A capability is a just in case scenario for WWIII type scenarios between those who can afford such toys and who are usually nuclear capable.
That is not true because I have stated a number of times that some Air Forces don’t face a serious threat and could make do with 4.5 Generation Fighters. (i.e. Middle East Countries like the Saudi’s)
I remember you claiming the likes of Latvia and Albania were going to eventually buy F-35s!
thobbesI doubt that being optionally manned leads to less weight or more fuel. I would tend to think otherwise.
Depends on how modular they can make the pilot component. But then I might treading into the realms of science fiction!
thobbesBut of course all F-35 plans are carved in stone, probably by Moses himself.
This is the problem with all your posts – anything regarding F-35 = TRUTH, anything regarding anything else/contrary to F-35 = FALSE.
thobbesThe Future FA_XX would need to have longer legs, and longer supersonic legs among other things.
Optional manned would help here – either more fuel or less weight!
thobbesNo, but on high level issues it would probably vote pro-Western. It probably also would with a lot of lower level ones as they often involve human rights type issues that Germany ascribes to and Russia/China do not.
Also UNSC isn’t just about intervention – in fact most of their resolutions don’t even result in any type of sanction.
thobbesLOL I could say the same about your criticism of the F-35. You just can’t stand to hear anything positive about the Program.
Except in the last page and a half I’ve talked about how I think F-35 is better than anything the Russians/Chinese are doing and will be a superb cog in the US warmachine.
However you even view a comment such “F-35 will blast it’s opponents on the ground without even needing to resort to A2A” as a negative comment.
And you also think every AF, no matter how small and what their role, needs F-35.
Further, as long as you bring it up. The original procurement plan for most US Fighters has usually been far less that what was ultimately purchased. Which, include the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 Hornet, and Super Hornet. (plus many more) So, when you want to say I am disregarding statement from Admirals.
In Scooterland a captain outranks an admiral. :stupid:
Also in case you haven’t noticed far fewer B-2, F-22, DDG1000, Sea Wolf’s have been acquired. Oh and RAH-66 got cancelled.
Those same Admirals said Super Hornet production was going to end years AGO!
Some references would be nice.
Yet, guess what it’s still going. The original order for Super Hornets is long since pass………..Which, is exactly what I am predicting with the F-35.
Ironically you do realise that part of requirement for more Hornets was that F-35 was delayed? :applause:
thobbesI toally agree on Super Hornet replacement needing to be in an all new ballpark in terms of capability (let’s say 6th generation for lack of better term).
I think the other thing where a big leap is required is range. Pacific is a big place. I actually think the Russians got it right here in terms of Flanker range capability. At the time US didn’t really need it.
But with shift on Pacific, range becomes more important.
Sign In
