FBWI doubt that you can replace Mig21 and 29 with F/A50 only. You’ll end-up with some serious lack in capabilities.
The Mig-29 never had a credible BVR capability in it’s export state to begin with. This is well documented. The replacement aircraft, whatever the make, will offer improvements regardless of where they come from, be it russia, Europe, or usa. The f/a-50, if offered, would be a considerable upgrade over the Mig-21 or a warmed over -29. The Mig-29 excelled in what it was supposed to be. A point defense fighter of the forward edge of the battlefield, that requirement is limited in this day and age.
FBWWhat is there to say? This is just the media trying to get in a few last shots while they can. We are at a sweet spot in a sense, most of the development money has been spent, but few aircraft have been produced and at inflated prices. The long-lead items for the next LRIP batch were just ordered, 90+ aircraft… prices are falling and the first squadron is going operational this year.
It becomes a heck of a lot harder to bash a program once real operational pilots are taking it to exercises and testifying to its performance. It also gets harder when prices are falling and every year or two another set of new capabilities is being delivered.
Shocking, as a program reached maturity, forces try to kill it. The F-22 has managed to mature from a “must kill to save the Air Force” to a dramatic mistake to curtail. The f-35 has weathered the storm and is in the sweet spot of procurement. There are many who staked their reputation on the F-35 death spiral and “PowerPoint” fighter comments. Now they hide in the shadows and take pot shots. Done deal, it is not what is was supposed to be, but a heck of a lot better than critics claimed It was. Typical pentagon program, and that is both a compilment and a knock.
Anyone older than 40 who lived though the 80’s remembers the Bradley and M1 controversy and how inferior they were to the T-80 and BMP-2. The simple truth is that DARPA and the DoD has been right about capability even when they fail in practicality. The old CIA reports should be standard reading for anyone making comments about weapon capabiltity.
FBWNavy in budget crunch, and lack of direction on UCLASS requirements.
FBWThe irregularity of F-135 unit costs, and their annual variance, is illustrated in the table below, compiled by Defense-Aerospace.com from figures released by the DoD Inspector General:
F-35 engine unit costs by annual production lots
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237900[/ATTACH]
[I]Defense-Aerospace.com analysis of DoD Inspector General data
Is anything being done to fix the engine cost problem?
Long discussion about the back when someone else posted this article. The author takes information from reports and “analyzes it”. In the case of di Briganti, editor of the site, that means very creative use of numbers.
He also has a “study” which shows the Rafale is cheaper than the Gripen.
Not a credible news site, unless it’s a direct link to an actual news article. Defense-aerospace analysis is a bit, um Dassault centric.
FBWSome stuff dug from the FY 2016 budget request
DARPA Air Dominance Work –
According to Aviation Week the budget amount for the Aerospace Innovation Initiative’s X-Plane demonstration is under DARPA’s classified budgetMore on the X Plane plans –
It would seem from the documents that the sixth generation fighter be spread over a series of platforms, manned and unmanned. The “swarm” and the “combat cloud” would seem to be the buzz words of the next generation of US combat aircraft replacing “Joint”. The thing that is concerning to me is that the Navy and Air Force seem to be talking past each other on the emphasis of attributes for the new platform. The navy has been dropping some mixed signals, especially in regard to the adaptive cycle engines. But even the latest comments from the navy regarding the F/A-XX projects suggest that there may be a series of platforms, or optionally manned at the least:
http://news.usni.org/2015/03/27/navy-and-air-force-planning-joint-exploration-of-next-generation-fighter-follow-ons-to-f-22-and-fa-18
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/04/cno-greenert-navys-next-fighter-might-not-need-stealth-high-speed
http://news.usni.org/2015/05/13/mabus-uclass-likely-a-bridge-to-autonomous-strike-aircraft-fa-xx-should-be-unmanned
The Air Force distancing themselves from Mabus comments:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/air-force-begs-to-differ-with-mabus-f-35-not-last-manned-fighter/
Then we have the Lockheed director of the Air Dominance project talking about the continued need for agility. Needless to say any information gleaned from the AOA (which the Navy had said will take some time) will be instructive.
(note- I realize some of the links may be posted already, I put them together to show the gap in Navy and Air Force comments)
FBWFor fighting against the powerful ISIS air force?
IMHO it would much more needed to have some more CAS aircrafts or almost anything that would assure almost a normal mission generation rate and/or a normal payload.
…. but the Raptor ones were just ridiculous.
The Raptor missions were flown relatively early in the ISIS airstrike campaign. Most likely they were committed as the available aircraft as there were no A-10’s an not many other aircraft in theater at the time. The US rotates Raptors through Al Dhafra at regular intervals. They were there, they were available, and the PR for introducing them to combat was a plus. Why did the F-22 missions tail off? I would be willing to venture a guess that the sortie generation rate or CPH of the F-22 fleet is not going to compete with the A-10s, or F-15E, nor the loiter time of the B-1b and drones as they were moved into theater. Doubt it was a conspiracy to get the F-22 combat time, thought the press does not hurt.
Edit- sorry to all in the Pak-fa thread, this is tremendously OT. It did start with a point about five posts ago that was related to the Pak-Fa.
FBWGrow up.
For the exchange you asked for:
F-35 News, Multimedia and Discussion thread
start 8th Jan 2015 post #101 02:45 end post #122 18:28
.
Yeah I went back and read them, and again you posted opinion.
This is the closest to truth you came:
What a load of rubbish FBW.
Twisting and turning in the wind when you can’t face the simple truths.
Late
Over budget
Does not perform
Let’s see late? I did not argue that it was not.
Over budget? I didn’t argue that it was not
Does not perform? well that is not a particularly descriptive rebuttal. In what way?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133321-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)&p=2194415#post2194415
See that’s the problem with your posts, you make vague proclamations, then pronounce everyone else’s posts rubbish or strawman arguments if they don’t fit your views. Opinions are opinions express them if you wish. Yours are no more fact than anyone else’s, accept that.
So I will continue to point out the snide, insulting, trolling comments and lack of substance of your posts if your going to call out others.
FBWI’ve made, got upset when I’ve shown your assertions to be hokum
– great show me one with supporting evidence of your claims and I will retract my statement. Until then you are to single member of my tollers/ ignores list, bye bye.
Snafu’s posts of insult and trolling
Post number 2998
Do you want some cream for your butt hurt?
Post number
couple of classic examples of strawmen from two of the F-35 gang
post number #2963
This response beautifully illustrates your lack of comprehension. Thank you for the confirmation.
Post number#2846
There’s a awful lot of butt hurt here…perhaps you both should see a doctor. I found a couple of posts very amusing and commented to that
Post number##111
Mirage 2000-9 lukos. Yet again you show how little you comprehend. Just stop embarrassing yourself.
Post number #2611
Have you any experience…of working with the Indian workforce at all?
(I’m guessing from your statement above the answer is probably no.)
Some experience of things you wish to offer an opinion on may make the opinion more worthwhile
.
This is just a few taken from a couple of minutes of looking. The last one is particularly galling. Perhaps moderators, it is time to review this poster’s style and lack of decorum.
FBW“by the time any kind of any kind of plan to properly address low observables(LO) technology in the ATF program could be formulated, the CDI RFP was already out”
Look at B-I-O’s response and what I had posted. What he giant text you posted is referring to was before the seven design teams submitted their proposals. ALL of them included LO characteristics. So, again the requirement was part of the design process from as early as 1982, and written into the RFP by 1985. So what you have posted from a book is from the CDI (concept definition) phase, BEFORE THE RFP was formally issued in Sept, 1985.
FBWJust put the trolls / less than thoughtful ones lukos mig-31bm solarwarden etc. on ignore.
Once nobody engages with them they will depart to pollute another forum.
It is revealing that despite abusing me and others at every opportunity they still choose to engage with those that they call all sorts of names.
That in itself shows that they are here for the trolling rather than for a reasoned exchange.
There are few real trolls on this forum. The arguments between Msphere, Mig-31, Lukos are annoying as they have spread over 3 different threads and everyone else is sick of the arguments, but it’s not trolling. They all do at least, to a degree, explain their points and link some source to those arguments. The personal insults between Msphere and Lukos are unpleasant and bad form, but trolling?
If there is one poster who brings nothing: information, insight, links, or discussion to a thread it is well… you. Insult and arguments without context. Stop pointing fingers at others for transgressions that you are a major culprit.
FBWIf ATF had been designed on the premise you just wrote up,
-it would have been at least twice the size and a much higher fuel fraction than is the case.
On contrary the stealth aspect was added to ATF project when it was already underway, when it seemed feasible.Now when is the engine for PAK-FA going to be ready ?
Demonstrably false, reduced observables were part of the ATF programs as early as 1982. The RFP that was issued in ’85 was adjusted to include an increased LO requirement for before the designs were submitted. Hence, all of the proposals included LO characteristics to one degree or another.
@Marcellogo
Basically the idea was to have, thank to stealth, a fighter able to stay for a long time deep into enemy territory, practically invisible to enemy AD, so not allowing them even to let their own plane to take off.
For gaining this a 360° stealth was an absolute need as F-22 would not only need to push itself deep into enemy territory but also to stay there for a consistent period of time, hovering and attacking enemy planes that would pop up.
The RFP was for a combat radius of 800 miles with 300 miles in hostile territory at supersonic (supercruise). So you are mostly correct about the design drivers. All aspect LO was considered crucial for operating over enemy territory and it was supposed to have supersonic persistence.
This is not quite OT as there have been many comments on these forums and in publications about the lack of all around LO characteristics on the T-50. Frankly, if it is designed as a air superiority platform with an emphasis on the DCA mission, why would it need all aspect LO? If the design is driven by the requirements, it is no surprise that the Pak-Fa differs from the US fifth gen designs.
FBWNot what you started out saying.
Sigh, parse all you want. Both statements I made are congruent. Your response was overly simplistic as Turkey does not support Kurdish independence, did not want Kurdish fighters transiting the border to Kobane, and while the relations of late have improved, that is not saying much as there are still bombings and violence as Turkish elections near.
FBWKurdish autonomy within Turkey. Turkey has a lot of trade with the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq. Big Turkish firms are heavily involved there, e.g. a Turkish construction firm built the new international airport at Erbil. Turkey allowed Peshmerga units from Iraqi Kurdistan to travel through Turkey to fight ISIS around Kobane, in Syria. The Turkish government (& Turkey in general) feels it can do business with the autonomous Kurdish state in Iraq.
It helps that Iraqi Kurdistan uses Sorani, written in Arabic script, for official purposes, while most Turkish people who identify as Kurds speak & write Kurmanji or Zazaki, written in the Latin alphabet. These are separate languages, not mutually intelligible.
PS. Which city is widely reckoned to have the biggest Kurdish population of any city in the world?
Istanbul, and yes Turkey did allow the Peshmerga fighters to transit to Kobane, but if you recall, they dragged their feet and it was only after a month of international pressure that they assented.
Turkey fought the PKK insurgency for more than 15 years so the mutual animosity is not going to heal overnight. And yes, considering that the majority of Kurds live in Turkey, any talk of a united Kurdish homeland (outside of the autonomous regions in Iraq, read buffer) does not sit well with the Turkish government.
FBWWell that flies in the face of everything I’ve been picking up on it then. I’m getting the impression that if it goes operational this year it will be a half ready system and in need of years of tweaking to make it a viable proposition. All the information that’s been released so far points to it not just being over budget (what military procurement isn’t) but under capable to boot.
The plan for the Marines to go to IOC with the block 2b software has been in place for several years. It provides roughly 87% of the full software capability with limited weapons integrated. It is far from half ready. The tweaking, software wise, is in the latter 3F, or full mission capability planned for 2017-18 (which is 98% complete). There has been a drumbeat of negative press from some who chose to ignore the roadmap set out in the re-baselining schedule set up after the program ran off the rails in the mid 2000’s. The software logjam is not out of the woods yet but there has been a definite uptick in progress. I guess it depends on where you are getting your information.
As far as under capable, the block 2b software will still provide the Marines with an aircraft that is more capable than the Harriers being replaced at least in sensor sophistication, ISR, survivability, and targeting but perhaps not in breadth of weapons that can be deployed.
FBWYou normaly do not send supersonic long range bombers on someones backyard……It is to aggravate or to irritate and is seen in military language as offensive, yes. They have to be shot down in time if the threat is real.
Its not just that, they interfere with flight space and with normal passager planes, as they run without transponder turned on….like its ******* war or something. That is disrespectful towards human life.
The Russians are not doing anything that has not been done over and over during the cold war. Testing reaction time and looking for weaknesses is commonplace. These stories pale in comparison to the underwater cat and mouse games between rival submarines and ASW forces.
There is one area of serious concern as of late, the Russian flights turning off the transponders that make them visible to air traffic in the crowded European airspace. In this, the nations that are being “visited” have a legitimate complaint because it puts civilian lives and commerce at risk.
Sign In
