KapedaniIts an expensive yet useful advantage. The big question is…with the state of the economy…can we afford it?
Well the problem is that it could be more expensive doing it the other way; ie more conventional planes, and more carriers, and more carrier deployments. As for affording it in this economy, there’s miles of fat to cut through, before we get to the F-35. But that’s assuming rational people in gov. And that’s not a rational assumption.
KapedaniMildave, you’re right that 20 Harriers would be cheaper than a couple of F-35Bs. But that’s not the point. 200 Corsairs would be even cheaper. Survivability, and what it can do, matter a lot more. I don’t think there’s a need to go over the survivability and capability advantage of the F-35B over the Harrier.
Second, and again, no naval fighter has any value unless you bring along the platform to launch it and support it from. When you say “for everything else, there’s the USN”, you’re again implying that you’ll need a carrier nearby. But that’s the point of deploying these aircraft on an amphibious deck; you don’t need to bring a carrier with you to places like the Horn of Africa, or conflicts like Libya. You get a big advantage in flexibility, while maintaining an air wing that could challenge virtually any air threat out there except for one of the major powers. I see that as a pretty big advantage.
KapedaniBut cost the same (or less) to buy and *probably* similar to operate (an extrapolation given how the F-22 spectacularly failed to meet its maintainability requirements and the usual rough and ready Russian approach).
I would disagree the F-35 has better weapons, it is the same AMRAAM/9X combo as legacy fighters currently have. I would also disagree it has better sensors on the active side. With all other things being approximately equal, there is no replacement for dish size and the F-35 ain’t got much.
1) The Amraam/aim-9x combo, plus ground attack weapons, even in legacy platforms, are still superior to anything the Russians have. With the F-35s sensors, you get even more. So I don’t see how the F-35 is inferior to any other aircraft out there, except perhaps the F-22 (and that’s debatable)
2) The cost of the PAK-FA can be anything it wants. It is hardly a VLO design, no matter what the claims.
3) Nothing is known about the J-20, other than it is pretty. So no point in discussing it.
Amateurs think each program would have identikit costs… so 2x programs = 2x cost.
However, the majority of the funds are sucked into systems and propulsion design/development work. Nothing is stopping the majority of that work carry straight over into two completely separate airframes. The aero-stress side is not so dominant anymore.
Additionally, by removing the need to compromise across so many more requirements, there will be less trouble with each design meeting its requirements, reducing the cost of panic work to get each design to meet spec.
Nothing said here means that 1 vs 2/3 projects would have been cheaper or not. First of all, if the majority of the cost goes into “systems” and engines (of course it does), designing one set is certainly going to be cheaper than designing 3 sets, unless you assume that that you can apply the same “systems” and engine development to 3 different aircraft with 3 very different characteristics (which as you described them, would have been a 2-engined naval aircraft, plus the VSTOL design). Even if hypothetically we assume them to be the same, 1 vs 2/3 designs is not going to yield any cost savings here. (and of course, this is a silly point. There’s no doubt that designing 3 very different airframes, by possibly 2 or 3 different companies, is going to cost a lot more)
The only argument to be made is the trade-off argument; ie one design had to have some tradeoff to accommodate the other design. Personally, I don’t see this to have been a big issue in the F-35. It would have been a big issue in the X-32, but I don’t see any version of the F-35 suffering from another version. Of course, you can point out to me what these tradeoffs were, and how they would be sever enough to have rendered the entire project “a failure”.
KapedaniHe’s not claimed. I know who he is. BTW, Serbia (or Yugoslavia, as it was when he joined the army) conscripted almost everyone of military age. For a Serb if his age, it would be unusual not to have been a soldier. As for it being the shooting down, you obviously misread what I wrote. It was implicit in it that I did not believe it could be the F-4 coming down on Syrian soil. I misunderstood Kapedani, is all.
The Serb I mentioned reckoned it could have been an MG, not necessarily a rifle. I don’t know what that sounds like, so reported it, as a report by someone who’s heard the same types of weapons as Syria operates fired. He also commented on the poor quality audio, so I didn’t expect too much to be made of it.
Right, no problem. No one is doubting Mr. Bojan’s credibility (I’m assuming that’s who you heard it from).
But nevertheless, the sound does sound like ZSU-23, and the flash in the hills, which I posted a screen-cap above, does seem consistent with something a lot bigger than any MG.
The only relevance to this video, and the fact that there is AAA firing, is that if it is true (ie if it does pertain to this engagement), than it means that the F-4 was close enough to the shore that the AAA battery would open fire at it (not necessarily shoot it down), and that the people on the beach could see the plane from the shore. All this points to a distance a lot closer than 13nm, or Syria’s sea boundary.
KapedaniPerhaps, but the problem was that England couldn’t afford one.
KapedaniWell, I wasn’t talking to you then, but the person making the comparison 🙂
KapedaniCapable? What is your estimate based on? Air and wishful thinking?
What’s yours based on?
KapedaniBut both sides agree that it came down in the sea, & are looking for wreckage. So either both the Turks and Syrians are lying (& why would the Syrians lie if they shot it down on land?), or that is not the F-4 being shot down.
No no. The flash is the AAA firing, not the plane crashing. I was replying to the claim that the video doesn’t show AAA firing, but just rifle fire. To me, it doesn’t seem, nor sound, to be so.
As for Wesley Clarke in 2007…you are keen on bashing us over the head on that one aren’t you! What he said FIVE YEARS AGO has no bearing on official NATO policy NOW! So far every major NATO nation that has said anything about Syria has clearly stated that they don’t want to do any kind of intervention…PERIOD!
Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is a waste of time. He saw a youtube video, read the comments, case closed. What do you expect to gain by arguing with him?
KapedaniYou fancy an F-35A against a PAK-FA or J-20 in 2020? I certainly do not.
Really? A bit off topic, but F-35A is certainly more developed and capable, where it counts; better sensors, better weapons, better stealth, and all this against aircraft which aren’t light fighters.
Your argument of a separate fighter for each service is understandable. However, there is certainly no guarantee that that approach would be cheaper then the current approach. In fact it would certainly be more expensive.
Again, people make the mistake of comparing the costs and problems of the F-35, with that of previous projects. That’s not what they should be comparing it to, but rather what would have been its alternative. The F-35, for all its complexity in scope and size and technology, seems a pretty good success so far to me.
Just fine versus what?
Its a joke and is not fit for purpose.
Really?
KapedaniPlease don’t give me the Falklands. Would the Harrier have been the fighter of choice have the UK possessed at the time a full carrier strike group capability?
The point is that they couldn’t afford one, so they would not have had one. The harrier/small carrier combo worked out better, and cheaper, in the end. Had the UK relied on a conventional carrier; a) they would likely not have had any carriers, period, or b) wouldn’t have been able to put up in the air anywhere near the amount of planes/sorties.
The point being that in order to utilize a conventional fighter, you need a large carrier. And that large carrier comes with a full battle group of ships and support. It’s not just the cost of the fighter A vs fighter B, but all the rest too. Being able to take fighter B with you wherever you want, and get the same (relatively) capabilities as fighter A, is pretty useful (and to think that the new America class ships will be able to carry 20 F-35Bs. That is a larger air-wing than any other country’s carrier)
Add the fact than most modern missiles boat can detect aircraft up to 400 km inland and engage them at least up to 100 km and the necessity for F-35B become less “obvious”.
100km is very short ranged, compared to a fighter.
KapedaniAt 24 seconds you can see this big flash in the hills
Followed by a large puff of smoke. This certainly looks like AAA to me (the sound fits ZSU-23 pretty well)
KapedaniSpecial circumstances is the right word. The interesting question is, what could be going on in the area that is interesting enough to sent an RF-4E and important enough to shoot at this RF-4.
Yakhont perhaps?
*Former soldiers on other fora are amused by the suggestion that the gunfire on the video is AAA. One Serb says “Trust me, that ain’t AA fire. Half of shots are rapid fire semi auto and some might sound like PKM (audio is pretty bad)”.
You can see a large flash when the camera pans towards the hills.
KapedaniLol common, a drone that can cheaply provide either ISR or/and strike at a fraction of what the F-35B
What about the survivability of the drone? Where are you going to launch them from in a maritime setting?
To other variant and other aircraft. You don’t win a war by simply hiding, and you don’t hide effectively by putting a stealth aircraft on very visible and vulnerable launch platforms you depend on because you lack the range and weapon load for persistence.
Well, the point of “stealth” isn’t just in “hiding”, but also making it harder for the bad guys to target and engage you. The primary benefits you get from deploying such capable “stealth” fighters on smaller platforms than carriers, are obvious. You get a dozen more options for deployment, they can carry their own air cover for low-intensity conflicts. I don’t see how that capability could be substituted by any other means, other than an aircraft-carrier.
The value of small carriers has indeed been proven since WW2. Look at the Falklands.
—————-
Sandiego, right! How can a design be a “failure”, if over 700 of them have been build, has served for 40 years, and has operated with more navies and carriers than any other modern plane (and has a spectacular combat record!)
KapedaniF35’s one piece composite skin covers wing-fuselage.
Pinko, do you read anything posted here before? Check out post #700.
I don’t think your picture is even of an F-35, or any part of it.
No the F-5’s wings are likely not detachable, at least easily, but not because of the reasons you’re making up. You don’t need a “one piece skin” in order for it not to be “detachable”. The reason is because, if you look closely, the central bulkheads extend as far as the landing gear bay, so removing the wings involves more than it does in an F-16 for example.
——————–
Again, stop focusing on a pointless point. The main thing about these pictures is the angle at which it is being transported, and the lift it is resting on. How do you transport a “real” aircraft, resting on one side? You can’t just tilt it at an angle and drive it down the road, and not damage it.
If this was a real aircraft, and it was completed to such a degree as to have even a canopy frame in it…why is it not resting on its own undercarriage?
If you look at the supporting lift underneath it, not only does it not look strong enough to support the weight of a real aircraft, but you can see that the plane is resting on only two beams underneath it; one below the middle of the plane, and the second towards the end at the engine bays (and at an angle too!!)
There’s no way you’d transport a real aircraft that way!
KapedaniThe F-35B is more expansive than any other variants or types, yet offers less performances.
Less performance than what? Another F-35 variant maybe.
there is very little offered by VTOL fast jet that could not be provided for by drones, loitering munitions, long range precision artillery etc.
That argument is assuming a lot of things, and ignoring the fact that VSTOL today plays a very different role then the original concept. Today they serve mainly as naval fighters for smaller carriers/ships. That role cannot be filled by any of the methods you describe, or conventional aircraft.
Sign In
