Re: T-50 versus the F-35

The T-50 is a competitor to the F-22 -an air superiority aircraft, while the F-35 is an attack aircraft. It has a slightly larger RCS from the direct front but, from the sides it has a lower RCS than the F-22. A typical apples versus oranges debate.
The F-35 borrowed heavily upon the technology from the F-22 program. While it doesn’t have stealth through materials, it does use techniques the F-22 does not use to reduce the RCS. Things such as protecting the gap between the fuselage and access panels has wire embedded in the edge of the two sections to prevent the foreign radar signal from entering the gap and being reflected back to the point of signal origin. Other places where stealth can not be used like the F-22, the F-35 has wire grids, layers electrically charged (at different voltages) to prevent from penetrating the aircraft’s skin, reflecting off the insides of the aircraft, back out to the point of signal origin. The F-35 is tremendously different from the F-22 in philosophy of reduction of RF energy. Some parts of the F-35 are similar to parts of the B-2 in RF reduction techniques. The cost of maintenance of the F-35 is far less than that of the F-22. The cost of maintenance of the F-22 is less than the F-15! One reason so many countries are putting up with the crap associated with the F-35’s development is because its operational cost is so much less than other aircraft for the life of the program.

Janes Book of Aircraft (the big annual book) has some great articles on the F-35 aircraft and the program.

RE: Collins Strikes again

The “Collins” class subs seemed so great while the RN was having them designed. Now it appears the class had a PR network that had a lot of smoke and mirrors!

Re: Naval aviation video’s

You also might search You Tube for the following topics;
Pitching Deck ___ Carrier landings in bad weather, from the PBS video Carrier
Night Carrier Landings
Carrier Landings Gone Wrong
Night Carrier Landings

Enjoy Adrian

Re: (APG-63)-(V)3 radar is very capable of detecting low-RCS platforms…

Rules of engagement (altitude, in this specific case) have nothing to do with it. Either the Super Hornet is able to lock on the F-22 or it is not. The altitude at which it is flying is meaningless.

It wish it were that simple, which it is not! RoE have everything to do with it, the F/A-18 broke as many as he could to get this photo while the F-22 did not.
RoEs limitations have made it possible for many fighters (such as a T-38) to get on the “six” (slightly high) and camp there. With RoEs the F-22 could not pull more than “5G’s” at an altitude of around 25,000-ft. RoEs are the only reason the F-22A would be caught below 30,000-ft., pulling only “5G’s”!

sferrin, posted a response writen by Dozer in Sept 06 -post #1 URL;
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=62119

This posting was originally done on the Fence Check Forum. Read Dozer’s words then, you decide for yourself.

Re: Russian air defence gap?

Do they never deploy fighters to bases up in the North there?
And what is there in that area is there to protect? No point in defending Siberian wasteland.

As for worth defending, what’s the stand-off launch range for B-52/B-1/B-2s?

Before the economic collapse, yes interceptor bases and radar stations covered several hundred miles from Soviet land towards the artic.
The point of covering that so called waste land is, it provided time (a very vital element in air defense) to sort out the real bombers from the bogus intersections of jamming strobes. The other aspect is that it is easier to detect a low flying bomber over water than it is over land. Thirty plus bombers coming over the artic, most jamming radars and a few that were not. Then the few that were not would pop up, jam while a few others would turn off their jammers and, most likely descend in altitude. B-52s launching decoy missiles -the Quail Missile (Note) adding to the confusion. Some bombers launching air launched cruise missiles (ACLM) -AGM-86, with their 1,500 plus miles (2,400 plus kilometers) range, would attack interceptor bases long before the bombers get in the area. The small RCS of the ACLM along with the jamming of the B-52’s would make the ACLMs extremely difficult to detect.
Note:
The Quail Missile (ADM-20) is the opposite of stealth. A small UAV that has the RCS of a B-52.

Perhaps a pipeline or two, some oil refineries but nothing else of interest.

If B-52 was trailing over North Pole the Russian would know for sure, and plenty of time to intercept..

The PVO would know nothing until the bombers started jamming shortly before the bombers entered the radar coverage.

I just found it odd that there were no RuAF fighter bases up north covering, at the minimum, the area opposite NW Alaska.

The area near Alaska is not the threat, the real threat during the Cold War were the B-52s leaving North America through Canadian airspace and flying over the Artic.

The one in control of network will decide how to react and what to send in. Fighters alerted somewhere were not in need by landing back at home base

some like the MiG-31s could be supported by arial-tankers down to buddy-refuellers.

In this situation, an air defense would want to use as much tanker support as possible. Then keep as many fighters in the air as possible. An interceptor base can be put out of action for awhile by a cruise missile dropping cluster bombs. Destroying aircraft on the flight line or cratering the runways.

in general the areas north of the polar-circle does not offer targets for a few long-range bomber capable of going there at all.

The Artic and approaching the USSR from making a wide highway through the PRC, were the two main means of the B-52s and B-47s attacking the USSR.

Russia and the USA have over-horizon radars to cover areas behind the Arctis supplemanted by some filler radar at the coast-line.

Over the horizon radars have existed for a long time. These are the radars extreme range, 2,000 miles plus.

FROM WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_the_horizon_radar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OTH-B_coverage.gif
The resolution of any radar depends on the width of the beam and the range to the target. For example a radar with a 1/2 degree beamwidth and a target at 120-km (75-mi) range will show the target as 1-km (0.62-mi) wide. Because of the long ranges at which OTH radars are used, the resolution is typically measured in tens of kilometers. This makes the backscatter system almost useless for target engagement, although this sort of accuracy is more than adequate for the early warning role. In order to achieve a beamwidth of 1/2 degree at HF, an antenna array several kilometers long is required.

One idea that was proposed scare (caused bowel spasms) NORAD and the PVO was the concept of developing the B-747, DC-10 or, etc. loaded with ACLMs, Tomahawks, etc. These transport aircraft would not penetrate, instead they would stand-off about five hundred miles and from behind the bombers jamming start to launch their cruise missiles. In the USAF, eight ACLMs can be fitted to on rotary launcher. The DC-10 could carry eight rotary launchers! That is sixty-four ACLMs in one transport, ten transports could overwhelm an air defense. If the US made them, the Soviets would have also and neither defense wanted any part of dealing with that threat. Soviet transports or bombers would head southeast to cross the Pacific Ocean, launch one or two cruise missiles at significant targets in Mexico. Then penetrate and enter the USA over Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, etc. and fly into the interior of the USA! Therefore bypassing the three major radar networks (the DEW line, Mid-Canada line and the Pine-tree line) in Canada.
One nuclear explosion in an area would cause so much electromagnetic pulse interference that jamming in that general direction would no long be needed for awhile!

This is the world I live through having to endure the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Re: viability of using the T-AKE-1 design as a amphib

It just seemed implied that these Euro-LPD/LHD couldn’t take LCAC.

I was mistakenly referring to the FS Tonnerre. The tight fit of around a meter on a side, the LCAC will fit but, I wouldn’t want to steer the LCAC in heavy seas with a load of cargo into a well deck that tight.
I saw on the Discovery Channel a program about the amphibious fleet. In one exercise an LCAC left a LHD, went to the ‘beach’ and, loaded an M-1 Abrams MTB. Then traveled several hours back to LHD to rendezvous, in heavy seas and move into the well deck. Having meters of space on either side of the LCAC, seeing the difficulty the pilot had getting into the well deck, I wouldn’t want to see someone try that with less room.
America has a desire to have the biggest, baddest, costliest etc. systems available. Compare the USN’s LHD/LPD versus the same combination anywhere else, America has the largest, most expansive, etc.
France’s carry C. DeGaulle is a good carrier but, considered to small for America’s needs. Or, the Typhoon or Rafale and fine aircraft but, the USAF has the F-22A. For better or worst it is the American mentality.

You Tube;
“US NAVY LCAC entering the Well Deck”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyYoHvzn9Q&NR=1

“F.S. Tonnerre passes interoperability tests with U.S. Navy”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1bs8hLsYDY

Re: viability of using the T-AKE-1 design as a amphib

With all the hate directed to the San Antonio class, I was wondering what any other options the USN had on a new amphib and honestly the only thing that would come to mind is the Lewis and Clark class ship converted to a amphibious role.

The idea behind the San Antonio Class amphibious ships is, that nine ships will replace thirty-four other amphibious ships scheduled to be retired. While retaining much of their total capabilities. So the bulk of the USN amphibious capability will be in the eight USS Wasp (LHD) and the nine USS San Antonio (LPD) Class ships. America’s amphibs are intended to insert very large numbers of Marines onto a “opposed entry” beach. Something few countries are currently able to do.
Another aspect is when you look at what the US Navy requires, the smaller amphibs are not up to the task.
One aspect not previously mentioned is the reality that Congress is fickle! The idea of making many less costly systems is nice. But only a few times it has worked out….. the F-16, USS Los Angeles (SSN), USS Perry (FFG), USS Burke (DDG), etc. Many times we start with this idea, make a bunch and then the political winds change and the US Government decides it doesn’t need as many as planned and the program gets cut short. Much like the F-22, which Washington told Lockeed back in 1991 to change the schedule, operational status would be seven years later (1996 to 2003), and the production run would cut at least in half! This is what drove the cost of the F-22A by at least 30%. These are all weapon systems started or produced in the Cold War.
I have little faith that the F-35s will be built in the numbers originally intended. Cost will cited as the reason but, the reality is the ‘political winds’ will have changed!

The Spanish have proven that they can design an excellent amphibious ship at a great price, and how long have they been in the modern Amphibious warfare business?

The Spanish Navy has some nice ships but, are to small and to limited to fit USN’s needs. No ability to use LCACs means no heavy armor could be sent to the beach.

when one considers that the U.S Navy from mid WWII to the 1990’s was the world leader in Amphibious warfare, in both design, strategy and excerption!
And then they come up with the ultra modern, ultra expensive and yet backwards design like the San Antonio class!

Look at the USA’s participation in foreign military involvements (legitimate or otherwise), it would be foolish to downgrade the USA’s amphibious capabilities.

If you check the registry for the Spanish Navy you will see they have purchased the LST’s from the USN. (Both built in 1972.) The Pizarro “L-42” (formerly the USS Harlan County) and the Hernán Cortés “L-41” (formerly the USS Barnstable County). Sold to the Spanish Navy in 2002. The Hernán Cortés “L-41” was decommissioned in 2009.
LPD “The Galicia Landing Platform Dock” (LPD) 524-ft long, 82-ft beam and, 13,900-tons displacement. Built in 1998.
The USS San Antonio is 684-ft long, 105-ft beam and, 24,433-tons displacement. It can carry two LCACs or, one LCAC and one LCU or, fourteen “expeditionary fighting vehicles” and, 2,200 troops!
The landing platform dock (LPD) is made for support in amphibious operations with the LHD class dealing with the most violent amphibious operations.
When one considers the USA has not gone more than twenty years (since the late 1800s) without military intervention, the USS San Antonio and Wasp class amphibs would serve this country better.

One could say, no one is threatening the USA now but, the same thing could have been in May of 1950 (a month before the Korean War), in July of 1964 (a month before the Viet Nam War) or, July of 1990 (a month before Kuwait was invaded). What will trigger the next military involvement, I have no idea? I would bet my paycheck that the US military will be used before 2021, twenty years after 09-11-01.

Pioneer, I understand your frustration. It is so evident in your writing… hang in there! I would like to see a better solution but, considering all aspects involved… I don’t know what that solution would be.