Aircraft Vs Thread 5

[Noyhauser]

"F-35 will be weaponless and stealthy for first-day ops, then unstealthy when the skies are safe". Yeah? How do you plan on making the skies safe? Better have a bunch of F-22s to clear out the Super Flankers and J-10s. Then you could just send in masses of cheap F-16s...

That brings up a point---SEAD. There's a huge need to take out the SAM sites early on in a war, but we really don't have any steathy SEAD platforms AFAIK---the HARM is too big to be carried internally. We need a smaller HARM that an F-22/35 can carry internally, to approach SAM sites undetected.

I really think SEAD will go to UAVs in the next 15 years; its a high risk mission that seems to play to unmanned vehicles advantages. Thats certainly the line of thinking that seems to come from the Pentagon, especially with the X-47.

As for the J-10/Superflanker threat, its questionable whether it will ever materialize. Its not like we don't have any F-22s and no Russian or Chinese proxy will ever buy more than two dozen next generation fighters... if that.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Noyhauser

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I really think SEAD will go to UAVs in the next 15 years; its a high risk mission that seems to play to unmanned vehicles advantages. Thats certainly the line of thinking that seems to come from the Pentagon, especially with the X-47.

As for the J-10/Superflanker threat, its questionable whether it will ever materialize. Its not like we don't have any F-22s and no Russian or Chinese proxy will ever buy more than two dozen next generation fighters... if that.

Thats how I see things too. Given how they covered up the F-117 for years. It wouldn't be surprising if some new-fangled UAV is already operational or near operational.

Agree 100% with the 2nd paragraph.

Always find it interesting to compare today's 'acceptable attrition rate' to the Schweinfurt and Ploesti missions back in the 40s....

[Bri]

I wonder how much of the choise between the F35 and the F22 projects was based on economic rather then military considerations. The F35 might keep most of the aerospace sector alive during the current harsh economic conditions. That probably carries as much weight as the supposed capabilities of the respective planes. Also the F22 was already in production, most of what could be learned in terms of developing new technologies was already completed.

[Shadow]

As for the J-10/Superflanker threat, its questionable whether it will ever materialize. Its not like we don't have any F-22s and no Russian or Chinese proxy will ever buy more than two dozen next generation fighters... if that.

Quite true, one can never really predict if a sufficient number J-10/Su-35s would be procured by a potential hostile country but the same applies to the opposite scenario. A greater threat to our new fighters particularly the F-35 could be new air defense systems like the S-300, (SA-21/22) system being sold in greater numbers then some new generation of fighter aircraft. Aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-30 are rather prolific among Russian and Chinese proxies. So with an advanced air defense network, a country may not need to invest in the higher end Super Flankers and just rely on their current line of aircraft to still do their job without as much fear of being shot down.

Silly question though, was the Super Flanker re-designated the Su-27M or is it still the 35?

[David Hingtgen]

Depends on which Super Flanker version you're talking about, and whether you mean the "old" Su-35 designation or the "new" Su-35 designation. (Sukhoi is worse than MiG nowadays when it comes to re-using/re-assigning things----there were always a ton of Flankers, but at least they all had their own designation)

[F-ZeroOne]

Thats how I see things too. Given how they covered up the F-117 for years. It wouldn't be surprising if some new-fangled UAV is already operational or near operational.

Agree 100% with the 2nd paragraph.

Always find it interesting to compare today's 'acceptable attrition rate' to the Schweinfurt and Ploesti missions back in the 40s....

Those weren't acceptable attrition rates, they were unacceptable and unsustainable in the long run. I'm not sure if you mean the planning factored in a loss rate the USAAF would have accepted, but that certainly wasn't the result they got. Missions like that forced a serious re-think of long-held USAAF strategic bombing policies, particularly on the issue of fighter escort.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Those weren't acceptable attrition rates, they were unacceptable and unsustainable in the long run. I'm not sure if you mean the planning factored in a loss rate the USAAF would have accepted, but that certainly wasn't the result they got. Missions like that forced a serious re-think of long-held USAAF strategic bombing policies, particularly on the issue of fighter escort.

I know near 10% was unacceptable even back in 43'. I was just comparing today's 'tolerance level' vs the Ploesti/Schweinfurt missions.

And even though 10% was not sustainable back then, we had 'Hap' Arnold saying stuff like 'The loss of 60 bombers were _incidental_'.

But anyhow, ignoring those bloodier WW2 missions, the near 1% loss rates acceptable back then is certaintly not something today's media will be quiet about.

[Noyhauser]

Quite true, one can never really predict if a sufficient number J-10/Su-35s would be procured by a potential hostile country but the same applies to the opposite scenario. A greater threat to our new fighters particularly the F-35 could be new air defense systems like the S-300, (SA-21/22) system being sold in greater numbers then some new generation of fighter aircraft. Aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-30 are rather prolific among Russian and Chinese proxies. So with an advanced air defense network, a country may not need to invest in the higher end Super Flankers and just rely on their current line of aircraft to still do their job without as much fear of being shot down.

Well an interesting tidbit I found in this Rand Corporation book, on the future of american naval airpower; the Navy has committed to fielding at least six to nine UAVs in each Carrier airwing by 2015. There is only one program that can meet the timeframe under consideration at this time; the Northrop Grumman X-47B Pegasus, which was designed with SEAD in mind.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Well an interesting tidbit I found in this Rand Corporation book, on the future of american naval airpower; the Navy has committed to fielding at least six to nine UAVs in each Carrier airwing by 2015. There is only one program that can meet the timeframe under consideration at this time; the Northrop Grumman X-47B Pegasus, which was designed with SEAD in mind.

Wasn't the X-47 canned?

edit: Oh never mind. My mistake.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Nied]

I really think SEAD will go to UAVs in the next 15 years; its a high risk mission that seems to play to unmanned vehicles advantages. Thats certainly the line of thinking that seems to come from the Pentagon, especially with the X-47.

That and manned systems (and unmanned ones for that matter) are going to move to attacking SAMs with the same weapons they use to attack any other target. So an F-35 on a DEAD mission will just drop a JSOW on a radar site it pinpointed using it's extensive ESM suite and be done with it, or one of the handful of Raptors that will be capable of self designating ground targets (more on that in a sec) will do the same and lob a JDAM supersonically.

I've been a big supporter of the Raptor for a long time but I'm finding myself unable to get worked up over this. The big thing that's changed my mind wasn't the Wapo story, it was this story on the planned upgrades for the Raptor, and the recent estimates on how much an export Raptor for Japan would cost. The examiner goes over a lot of the Raptors neato future capabilities , like electronic attack capabilities AIM-9X and AIM-120D integration, but it also makes clear that a lot of them aren't going to be installed on anything but the last 87 planes because the first 100 just don't have that computers to accept them. The closed architecture of it's computer systems means it's difficult (and expensive) to add systems that weren't planned for when the plane was originally designed, especially compared to the F-35's open architecture. Even if you MLUed the early planes they still would end up having integration issues somewhere down the line with a future system. "Fine" some have said "just install the F-35's computers in it," that's where the price of Japanese Raptors comes into play. The price for an export Raptor is going to be somewhere in the range of $290 million dollars per plane, and most of that money is going to re-develop the avionics architecture, and there's the rub. Since Lockheed would almost assuredly have to start from the F-35's export friendly systems, in building an export Raptor, the extra $170 million above the normal fly away cost of the Raptor is a good baseline for what it would cost per-plane to upgrade the F-22 with some F-35 based computer system. That basically eats the price the other 194 planes the Air force wants, and upgrading the full 381 planes the Air force wanted would cost the same as a third of the planned F-35 buy. On top of that the higher life cycle costs of the Raptor would swallow up the money to buy legacy platforms to cover the missing F-35s. In the end it looks like Gates made the decision to sacrifice the Raptor so that we could replace (and upgrade) the rest of the Air Force.

[miles316]

What is going to stop the F-35 from having the same lamination problem the F-22 has?

[electric indigo]

DUCT TAPE!

[F-ZeroOne]

I know near 10% was unacceptable even back in 43'. I was just comparing today's 'tolerance level' vs the Ploesti/Schweinfurt missions.

And even though 10% was not sustainable back then, we had 'Hap' Arnold saying stuff like 'The loss of 60 bombers were _incidental_'.

But anyhow, ignoring those bloodier WW2 missions, the near 1% loss rates acceptable back then is certaintly not something today's media will be quiet about.

Okay. I wasn't completely clear on what I thought you meant. Though, I suspect, given the choice, veterans of those campaigns could have withstood some media griping in exchange for a modern loss ratio...

[Nied]

What is going to stop the F-35 from having the same lamination problem the F-22 has?

The official answer is the 10 years of development time between the two aircraft. But really we don't know that isn't going to happen.

[Nied]

F-35C rollout on Lockheed's Flickr page. I hate the way Lockheed can't be bothered to paint their F-35s before they roll them out. Also WTF happened to AF-1 (the first production standard F-35A)? They rolled it out all the way back in December, and it's disappeared since, where's it been for the past 8 months?

[miles316]

It's blue Yoo Ahh.

[David Hingtgen]

Just a heads-up, but the Rockford airshow is going to be REALLY good this year. August 22/23.

http://flyrfd.com/airfest_performers.html

And, more bad 787 news: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boei...9_boeing30.html

[miles316]

I wonder If the Air force/Lockheed could modify the AMRAAM via a software modification to act as a HARM missile?

[Nied]

I wonder If the Air force/Lockheed could modify the AMRAAM via a software modification to act as a HARM missile?

It would be possible to do though there's no current program for it. The AMRAAM's follow on the JDRADM will in fact replace both it and the HARM though, but that wont be for a while (IIRC 2020 is the year for IOC). Also Raytheon is the manufacturer of the AMRAAM not Lockheed.

[miles316]

It would be possible to do though there's no current program for it. The AMRAAM's follow on the JDRADM will in fact replace both it and the HARM though, but that wont be for a while (IIRC 2020 is the year for IOC). Also Raytheon is the manufacturer of the AMRAAM not Lockheed.

Will the F-22 be able to carry the JDRADM missile internally.

[Knight26]

Just a heads-up, but the Rockford airshow is going to be REALLY good this year. August 22/23.

http://flyrfd.com/airfest_performers.html

And, more bad 787 news: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boei...9_boeing30.html

Oooh, sounds like some materials and structures guys better start looking for new jobs.

[kalvasflam]

"F-35 will be weaponless and stealthy for first-day ops, then unstealthy when the skies are safe". Yeah? How do you plan on making the skies safe? Better have a bunch of F-22s to clear out the Super Flankers and J-10s. Then you could just send in masses of cheap F-16s...

Did someone really make that comment on the F-35? Heh, the question would be, how would the F-35 achieve air superiority, with guns that carry 180 rounds, or do they just plan to ram the enemy? What an idiotic statement.

I think the F-35 cost parameters are grossly optimistic, it'll almost certainly be a cost overrun issue. More F-22 just makes sense. Hell, if they can make the argument on the F-35 with external stores, I can't see why they couldn't do the same with the F-22, add on a bunch of detachable hardpoints so they can load up the F-22 with SBDs.

The problem with the politicians is that they are just looking to fight today's war, and not thinking about the war tomorrow. As opposed to their favorite argument, which is fighting yesterday's war.

[Vifam7]

Japan hasn't yet given up on acquiring the F-22 -

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politic...2-fighter-hopes

[Nied]

Will the F-22 be able to carry the JDRADM missile internally.

That's the plan.

Did someone really make that comment on the F-35? Heh, the question would be, how would the F-35 achieve air superiority, with guns that carry 180 rounds, or do they just plan to ram the enemy? What an idiotic statement.

The ROF on the F-35's cannon is a lot lower than an M61 (it also fires a much larger slug). For comparison's sake the Typhoon's BK27 cannon (which the JSF was originally supposed to carry before Boeing killed the deal out of spite) carries 150 rounds, the same gun mounted in the Gripen carries 120, the Rafale's GIAT30 carries 125, and the Mig-29's GsH-30 carries 100. I have a hard time believing the F-35 is going to have trouble as an air superiority platform, it takes the warload and performance of an F-16 wraps a stealthy airframe around it and adds a quantum leap of avionics on top of everything else (my understanding is that it's practically a piloted UCAV).

[kalvasflam]

The ROF on the F-35's cannon is a lot lower than an M61 (it also fires a much larger slug). For comparison's sake the Typhoon's BK27 cannon (which the JSF was originally supposed to carry before Boeing killed the deal out of spite) carries 150 rounds, the same gun mounted in the Gripen carries 120, the Rafale's GIAT30 carries 125, and the Mig-29's GsH-30 carries 100. I have a hard time believing the F-35 is going to have trouble as an air superiority platform, it takes the warload and performance of an F-16 wraps a stealthy airframe around it and adds a quantum leap of avionics on top of everything else (my understanding is that it's practically a piloted UCAV).

Isn't that kind of like saying the F-16 is good enough, so why bother with an F-15?

I am not arguing that the F-35 isn't possibly a good air superiority platform, but that just wasn't the design for the aircraft. It's stated role is a multi-role fighter with more of an emphasis on ground attack where as the F-22 is designed as an air superiority fighter.

Well, it doesn't matter now, the decision is made, the F-22 is dead unless the Japanese manage to save it somehow.

[miles316]

Isn't that kind of like saying the F-16 is good enough, so why bother with an F-15?

I am not arguing that the F-35 isn't possibly a good air superiority platform, but that just wasn't the design for the aircraft. It's stated role is a multi-role fighter with more of an emphasis on ground attack where as the F-22 is designed as an air superiority fighter.

Well, it doesn't matter now, the decision is made, the F-22 is dead unless the Japanese manage to save it somehow.

The problem is the senate/house wont change their minds does any one know if any members of congress have attempted to introduce legislation to change the Ban on F-22 export?

[Nied]

Isn't that kind of like saying the F-16 is good enough, so why bother with an F-15?

If we're talking a block 60 F-16E vs a Block 5 F-15A yes. While the F-35 is a little inferior to the Raptor in terms of aerodynamics it's light-years ahead in terms of avionics.

[David Hingtgen]

Much as I hate to say it, think of it in Ace Combat terms.

Are the newer, better PLANES in the latter part of the game that much better? Nope. Their WEAPONS and avionics are. Really, for "the final massive battle" you almost never want the aerodynamically best plane--you're looking for the one with jamming, longer radar lock-on-range, better mid-flight tracking for the missiles, ability to launch and support multiple missiles simultaneously, and the ability to find the semi-stealthy enemy aircraft in the first place. Raw agility is actually fairly low on the priority list.

[Lynx7725]

Much as I hate to say it, think of it in Ace Combat terms.

Are the newer, better PLANES in the latter part of the game that much better? Nope. Their WEAPONS and avionics are. Really, for "the final massive battle" you almost never want the aerodynamically best plane--you're looking for the one with jamming, longer radar lock-on-range, better mid-flight tracking for the missiles, ability to launch and support multiple missiles simultaneously, and the ability to find the semi-stealthy enemy aircraft in the first place. Raw agility is actually fairly low on the priority list.

Well, to be honest, for AC6 I just look for the plane with the FAE...

[F-ZeroOne]

Did someone really make that comment on the F-35? Heh, the question would be, how would the F-35 achieve air superiority, with guns that carry 180 rounds, or do they just plan to ram the enemy? What an idiotic statement.

The missile vs gun debate is as old as... well, missiles, but 180 rounds is about typical for a modern day fighter. The Vulcan needs more ammunition because it fires at a much faster rate. Even during World War II, the 333 rounds carried by each of a Spitfires 8 Browning machine guns (for a total of approx. 2,664 rounds) was expected to last for no more than about 8 - 12 seconds of continuous fire (and those were .303 calibre, roughly 7.62mm). As has also been pointed out, the F-35s gun will also fire a much larger and more powerful round. The argument about volume of fire vs destructiveness of rounds that actually hit the target is probably as old as guns themselves, but theres a famous story that when they were testing the MiG-29s 30mm gun, it would tend to jam after about three or so rounds, but those rounds would be so accurate the target was usually destroyed (the MiG-29 was one of the first aircraft to use a laser to aid gun aiming)...

Edited August 1, 2009 by F-ZeroOne

[David Hingtgen]

Another edited clip of "Downfall"---this time for airliner-buffs! Hilarious if you know your pax planes.

"Hitler's 787 order delayed again"

[Nied]

Another edited clip of "Downfall"---this time for airliner-buffs! Hilarious if you know your pax planes.

"Hitler's 787 order delayed again"

"Now I just have 10 A380's that look like pregnant ducks waddling about the airport."

Awesome.

[Knight26]

HOLY SCHNIKIES!!!

One of the Northrup guys here worked on the F-20 and the YF-23 programs back in the day and he pulls me aside today to watch a couple of videos of them he had. Now, the F-20 one was cool, lots of footage I have never seen before, some nice stuff of watching the plane dance around everything up there with it, very cool. But then, he pulls out this tape and puts it in the VCR, I told him he needs to burn them to disk ASAP, and the screen opens with a frigging aviation orgasm of the YF-23 in mil power outrunning an F-15 at full burner. The videos were so freaking cool, and showed images of those planes I have never seen before, hearing the comments from photo-chase was the best part. The Chase guy in one shot starts doing barrel rolls around the YF-23 contrail simply because he can't keep up, he even says on the video, "I'm at full burner, can't catch up, so I'm going to do something I always wanted to do." Then starts to roll around the contrail, and you can see that the YF-23 is still at Mil power, mind you this was PAV-2 with the GE engines, and I was told that with those engines nothing, NOTHING short of a missile could out accelerate it in a flat run. Goram that was so cool.

I can hear DH salivating now, that or plotting to strangle me, it's a bad connection.

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, I need a copy of that NOW. (I'm an F-20 and YF-23 fan---Northrop makes the sleekest planes, period)

[Nied]

First C-17 in civil airline colors (sort of).