F-35: The Smart Fighter for the Warfighter

Gently provided to you by
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249984[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]249985[/ATTACH].
As the logo in the lower right portion of video clearly indicate.

Could be wrong here, but aren’t “polk” the same as battalion?

Regiment AFAIK.

Even in a F-35 you can run into nasty surprises. Here you are in the need of the optimum energy-level (= high subsonic). Every manouver (= g-forces/drag) eats into that level of every fighter and reduces your ability to react in time. In every danger zone the F-35 driver is well advised to mantain the optimum energy-level without delays. The main opponent of the F-35 will be the SAM-threat.

I’m not denying that it can be an advantage, just asking if is so a fundamental thing to brag about.
Try to explain myself better: for subsonic accelleration I assume the one in horizontal flight at a well determined quote: I have no doubt that a 5 gen plane, with a good T/W ratio and armaments in internal bay can acellerate better than one with external loads at such regimes, still when one says that X plane have better subsonic accelleration than Y one, it automatically imply that in the transonic and supersonic the other is equal or also superior.
Now, it’s subsonic accelleration operatively more advantageous than the other two? Seems me not.
I’ve made the example of a QRA because it seems me the only case in which such paramether seem to matter something but even in such case I would prefer to look at climb rate and overall accelleration to max speed instead.
So, anyone there knew in how much time the F-35 can get to 10.000 mtrs in a scramble?

Can it match this?
Climb to 10,700 m (35,000 ft): 1 min 20 sec
Climb to 17,100 m (56,000 ft): 2 min 40 sec
Ballistic zoom: > 27,400 m (90,000 ft)

Acceleration to 12,000 m and Mach 2: 5 min.

In the moment West attention (and faked outrage) was all concentered to Aleppo, the war has processed steadily also in other fronts.
One of most notable changes is that the Loyalist has begun to press some of the small rebels enclaves that dotted their otherwise controlled territory.
Most important one was Darayya some month ago but they are actually completing the taking of the west Ghouta (around Damascus) and Al-Tall between Damascus and Homs.
It’s the Green Bus strategy, they hardly pressed them one by one, offering to rebels the possibility of be evacuated (always to Idlib, no other zones), usually local guys choose to surrender instead while extremist/foreign Jihads leave.
That’s because it’s not true that the SAA/NDF suffer a manpower shortage in absolute terms, just they have them dispersed into many fronts, grounded into security controls and generally in case of the locally based NDF unwilling to move to others front until their neightborought are danger free.
So emptying one of such pocket actually save both resources needed to siege them and help loyalist recruitment effort.
Result of this strategy is that they are actually they are setting up a 5th corp offering a good pay to conscripted soldiers that decide to prolong their own stays or to pass from locally based militia to Field Army.

Eyeball mk1 strikes again!

While the whining about black smoke and oceanic tug were just some gratuitous trolling, we are now into an A grade embarassment.
Kutnetsov was send to acquire combat experience and to provide additional firepower in the form of an additional air base to the just overcrowded Latakia one, probably the idea was to keep it there until a new airstrip and shelter construction would be complete.
Now, saying it will still be able to operate helicopter is pointless, as they could be operated with much more efficacy and with a way lesser footprint than fighters planes from a land base near to combat fronts.
Russians have now learned in the harshest possible way (and we with them) how in carrier based operation, experience and individuation of correct practises cannot be learned along the way.
Let’s hope those problem would be addressed in the near future or the same existence of russian carriers would be put in jeopardy.

The French FTI also uses Aster 30 missiles and AESA radar and is explicitly being developed for export in addition to domestic sales. I suspect export sales are under key discussion inside Italy even if the English language press coverage is not explicit. While competition is good for customers, the number of customers looking to buy heavily armed 4000 ton frigates is presumably low.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-unveils-new-fti-frigate-ship-is-designed-for-the-french-navy-and-for-export

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/press-release/thales-develop-sea-fire-500-new-multifunction-fixed-array-radar

The French FTI also uses Aster 30 missiles and AESA radar and is explicitly being developed for export in addition to domestic sales. I suspect export sales are under key discussion inside Italy even if the English language press coverage is not explicit. While competition is good for customers, the number of customers looking to buy heavily armed 4000 ton frigates is presumably low.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-unveils-new-fti-frigate-ship-is-designed-for-the-french-navy-and-for-export

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/press-release/thales-develop-sea-fire-500-new-multifunction-fixed-array-radar

That’s is the difference, FTI are constructed to be (also) exported, PPA not!
It was not absolutely my intention to made a comparison with some other project, just to clarify that we are actually engaging in a comprehensive naval program to renown a good half of our own fleet, not in building a product oriented to foreign market.

To be more clear, the PPA are not conceived to be a second rank ship built on a downgraded standard for better export sales.
It will instead be a class of ship built with the intention to became immediately operative in order to respond to a “clear and present danger”, although not of military nature, our country is actually facing and that they will be so constructed according to our own construction standard and will feature top tier characteristic, in some cases superior to the ones actually present in our own version of the Horizon and Fremm (see above post).

Like with the Typhoon, also in the sector of naval construction the multinational approach used in such programs failed: operational doctrine and constructive standard was too different between the different partners
So, given that our main problem was about the construction standards (redundancy, software architecture and safety measures) building export oriented (i.e. with lower standards )ships would have meant to go in the exactly opposite direction of what our navy is searching for.
So, only way left to us was to concentrate extra budget fundings in just a large scale program of concentrated acquisitions in the most sensible sector of our own order of battle, so to achieve a mass effect without compromising quality.

In any case, the fact France would built those five FTI to replace Lafajette means that they have abandoned the idea of building more than 8 Fremm?

The problem with European fighter development is that the Rafale and Typhoon compete with upgraded F-15E’s for export sales. The F-15E is integrated with almost every US weapon in the book and had both air to ground and air to air ability when it went IOC in 1989. The Typhoon is only getting full air to ground capability in January 2019, when the version capable of replacing the Tornado enters UK (and only UK for now) service. The F-15E has had major export success: Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Israel, the latter with US subsidies.

The long and expensive development cycles of the Rafale and Typhoon contributed little to the defense of the West given that the F-15E has many of the same capabilities. Based on reports in the press, I conjecture the latest Rafale has better sensors than the latest export F-15E’s, although the latest export F-15E’s are usually exported to countries that keep the details of their fighters confidential.

Another market the European countries seem to be dueling over future export sales for around 2030 is the 4000 ton frigate market. It seems like France (the FTI), Germany, Italy and the UK (type 31) are all entering this market by developing new ships for the mid or later 2020’s. I am not sure so many countries competing for a limited number of export sales makes a lot of sense.

Doesn’t know about the other countries but my own is not developing PPA (pattugliatore polivalente d’altura/multirole patrol vessel) for export at all.
We plan to renew all our current offshore patrol fleet with them in a row, contract for the first batch of seven has been already signed but plan is to acquire the whole sixteen of them in a ten year span as we have actually to face practically alone a cataclismatic migration problem.
Fact is that we call it offshore patrol because they have a modular inborn logistical capability akin danish Absalon and german F125 classes but even the basic version of them would be armed to the teeth and the full capability one will be actually at same level of a Freem frigate but with even better electronics.
Obviously if we would be able to gain some foreign customer they will be absolutely welcome but given that those ships will be built according to our own’s navy costructive standards i.e. above the NATO military ones, would feature a dual band AESA radar and Aster 30 missile and sport a world’s premiere CoDeLaGoD engine scheme capable of a max speed of 31+ knt and a cruise one of 22+ with diesels alone i’m sure that the list of them would turn to be drammatically short.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249898[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249899[/ATTACH]