Posted on 10/25/2010 11:21:00 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Thanks for the link. Would you rate the Super Hornet in the ‘teen’ series of aircraft? Mot me.
I think they have the right idea with the F-35. A hard jink plus its stealth capabilities will break the lock long enough for it to do its work. And with its integrated sensor/missile capability it can toss a missile in any direction so fast it will make their heads spin. Its internal payload capabilities are way more than the F-22, dont even mention external. And it has the most powerful engine of that type ever developed.
I don't understand the cultural bias against the F-35 here, guess I better pick up my Sarah Palin banner also.
Most of the advanced sensors and RCS-reduction capabilities the Super Hornet employs can be employed in other contemporary aircraft (Teens/Euro-canards and even some SU-27 variants). All this is dependent on government funds; we’ve seen it with the Silent Eagle prototypes, the SU-35BM and there is even talk of a more discrete Rafale.
No doubt the F-35 and Super Hornet have been been at the forefront of a transformation but the question of whether sensors and a degree of stealth can match everything remains unanswered. And it will remain so till the next big war-not aerial shooting demos seen in Iraq or the Balkans.
No need to pick your Ms Palin banner sir. It's easy to see why the F-35 makes some feel uneasy. The issue stems from what the JSF concept, which spawned the X-35 and X-32, which led to the F-35 once the competitive dust settled, was quite different in use and concept from what the F-35 will be used for. The JSF was supposed to supplement the ATF (which the F-22 had won many many years earlier), with the F-22 supposed to knock down the door and lob off the heads of any cogent adversary, after which the F-35 would be a capable workhorse to smash any roaches still scurrying about.
The problem is the number of F-22s have been cut to less than a quarter of the original target, and more than that, the F-35 has been given a starting role. Now, that is all well and good, particularly if the US continues to fight against its usual set of foes (eg Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, bombing of Tripoli Libya). However, should the US find itself against a near-peer adversary (what another FReeper called a real war instead of an aerial shooting demonstration), then the JSF will (guaranteed) lead to the death of US airmen, sailors and army (since the army needs US air dominance to operate safely) than if a more capable airframe was used. For instance, you mention maneuverability is no longer important - after all we are in the age of sensor fusion and super agile missiles coupled to helmet mounted sensors. The problem is that near-peer potential enemies either have the same or are about to. Some nations like Russia and India will soon have supercruising airframes with an element of stealth. Several nations have or are working on BVRAAMs that have exceptional range and terminal maneuverability (eg using ramjets like the Meteor). The F-35 is a great airplane, but even its stealth is significantly limited ...non existent in the rear hemisphere and certain angles, and only optimized against X band radar. Quite unlike the Raptor. In a conflagration involving a near-peer adversary (eg China), you can be assured that (say USN F-35Cs) will be running into a gauntlet of double-digit SAMs (eg S300 derivatives, the HQ-9, etc ....or even, in a bad case scenario, maybe the S400 ....Russiais working on a S500). These are connected to advanced IADS that are quite different from the Kari defense network used in Iraq that many like to gloat on how quickly it was destroyed (funny because Kari was a mishmash of French, UK and Soviet hardware that was supposed to stop a limited Iranian and/or Israeli attack, particularly after Osirak. How was it supposed to withstand the combined might of 4000 US, NATO and Allied airmight? Don't get me started on the F-15's unbeaten record against monkey model Soviet junk without BVR missiles, trained pilots, situational awareness, or even radar warning receivers. The SU-27 variants flown by the Russians would have the same unbeaten streak if they were flying against the Kenyan airforce's Northrop F-5s and BAE Hawks, with similar lack of awareness, BVR missiles, etc. An unbeaten record it is, and for sure the F-15 is a superlative aircraft that is very good, but late model F-4 Phantoms from the 80s and late model F-8s with evolved Sparrows would have had the same victory record against Iraq and in Kosovo).
Anyways, the problem with the F-35 is not that it is a bad plane. It is that it is a good plane that will end up doing a role it was not meant to. It was supposed to play second fiddle to the Raptor. Due to cuts under the Bush and Obama administrations, it will step up first in many cases. Which is ok if we want to pound Benin or teach somw Haitian despot a lesson. However, as China develops, the F-35 may find itself facing off against deeper and deeper L and S band IADS and hoping its limited X band stealthiness in the front hemisphere and limited kinematics may work. They may.
The Iraqi Airforce of 1990 had modern aircraft.
I don't like the F-35, but my previous posts were about the foly of selling any advanced equipment to Muslim states.
To this mix add Allied F-15s, 16s, 18s, 14s, Tornados etc, and what do you have? An 'unbeaten' record that leads to the shootdown of 4 Su-7s (a 1950s Soviet design), 2 Su 22s (first flight 1966), 1 Mi-8 (a helicopter that first flew in '67), 1 Il-76 (a transport/cargo plane), 2 Su-25s (a close airsupport plane that was the Soviet analogue to the A-10), two observation helicopters, 9 Mirage F1s, 6 MiG 29 Fulcrums, 2 MiG 25s, 4 MiG 21s (a vintage that the fathers of the pilots in the Gulf War knew quite well), and 9 MiG 23s.
That was a shooting demonstration as someone said. It doesn't take away from the valiant work of the brave US and allied pilots, but the Iraqis didn't have a chance against an opponent that had greater numbers, greater quality, greater training, greater awareness and support, and every other advantage one can think of.
Against a near-peer adversary, like China, those advantages would still be geared towards the US, but it wouldn't be a situation like that in Iraq. Which is the issue ....there are many airframes that can work against an Iraq type situation that would not work against an enemy who actually thinks. Also, equipment matters. For instance, now Pakistan is getting the Block 52 F16 and Amraams. Before that they only had 16As with no BVR missiles. India's MiG29s (the same aircraft American 16s were chewing up like cheap tobacco in Iraq) would have obliterated Pakistani Vipers with perfect ease. Bring in the Su30MKI, and a done deal would have been cooked further!
Iraq's 'modern' equipment was not.
That has to be one of the most insightful informative posts I have ever read here on these topics, and I must agree with it all in the way you argued it. There may be more variables involved than is ‘need to know’, and we might have things they cant even dream of yet.
Yes those other conflicts were just shooting matches for us because they were so overwhelmed, and yes that is also why makes the record of the F-15 inflated.
Yes if we are ever in a near-peer shooting war there will be great losses if its based on what we have out there for public consumption, and probably even if we do have some really advanced technology out there.
Now this is from another of my posts and maybe some could accuse my imagination of running wild, but I do have an extensive aviation background and I understand aviation engineering concepts and aviation history.
But even back in the 60’s we already had Mach 4 capable aircraft and drones. So I can forsee that we may already have hypersonic aircraft operational, which may be a drone or be manned as their choice, they could probably adapt the airframe either way. I have no idea how many there might be in existence.
All the leading edge surfaces engine inlets etc would probably be pyro- ceramic, as would large parts of the engine/s, with something like inconel-718 holding the engines together, maybe inconel-718 for the airframe also.
The plasma generated by the heat should give it natural stealth while in hypersonic flight. But its been awhile since I am up to date on all the factors so I could be wrong on some of the conceptual details.
It would probably use solid rocket boosters from a land based launch to get up to altitude and speed for the scramjets to operate as it would be to much for a B-52 etc to carry.
Since it would be way to hot in the combution area to put a turbine back there to take power off for the accessory drive boxes, the aircraft would use small ram air turbines deployed at high mach numbers/altitudes/speeds to to power all the electronics, fuel, attitude control etc.
For some of those missions you would definitely need a man in the cockpit.
The drone has the advantages, it also has its limitations.like you said. It can be a force multiplier but its definitely not ready for prime time IMO
good insight.
The only problems I foresee for the US are 2:
i) The US has been too victorious too often against nations that do not warrant much celebrating. It is like the LA Lakers beating the Rwandese highschool girls basketball team. This may make some perceive that winning is a 'right' rather than a product of money, brains, training, technique and equipment. I have read FReeper comments on why the Predator UCAV and the A-10 are more necessary over the 'useless' Raptor, yet without air superiority the Predator and Raptor are useless (a quip I heard once by some cold war warrior was that if the Soviets had invaded through the Fulda Gap, the argument between Apache pilots and Warthog pilots was which one of them would go down first). Beating up on Iraq and the other countries I listed in my other post should NOT give false confidence. China would be a different slab of pork, and while the US would not lose it would receive a butcher's bill that would make the media make Viet Nam look like child's play.
ii) My second problem is at the other end of the spectrum, and appears incogruent with my first issue. This problem is that, even though I am a strong proponent of technology, I am cognizant of the problem of cost and numbers. The costs keep going up, and the numbers keep going down. This can bring a serious problem some decades down the line - for instance, while the Indian-Russian PakFa is totally an anti-China weapon (unlike what some here think, that it is anti-US), let's imagine for the sake of it there were a thousand of them against 183 Raptors. A Raptor is better than the PakFa concept, but the PakFa concept (with its supercruise and kinematics, fuel fraction, sensor suite, new weapons and limited stealth) is better than any other plane out there (eg F15/16/18, Typhoons, Rafales, etc ....I would add F-35, but that would only bring an argument, so I won't ....but I would add it...). 183 Raptors are not enough. Anyways, the costs are going uo, and the numbers are going down. What's the problem? Well, I could wax poetic and bore you with my long posts, or I could simply direct you to the shirt science fiction story 'Superiority' by Arthur C Clarke and you can see what the problem might be.
Google it and read it - you will probably find it interesting.
Now imagine China with stealthy JXX fighters (which are not even as good as the PakFa, but are even more numerous), Aegis like destroyers (that are not as good as the Burke, but are planned to be more and NOT as far dispersed), a whole lot of AIP DE submarines (that are not as advanced as the Virginias, but only operate in littoral waters and have long range supersonic missiles), and so on. The US would not lose, for the next 4 decades at least, but it would get its nose bloodied. A US Aegis ship sunk, the media picking up the story, the US public being as polarized as it is now (where it is 50:50, meaning any Dem prez will have half the country against him/her, and any Pub prez also has 50% against as well) and the war is lost. China would not have to win ....or for that matter EVEN fight!!!! All it needs to do is develop the capability to bloody the nose of the US, and no American president from either party woild step in to save Taiwan (directly). People call Obama weak, and he is, but not even a resurrected Reagan or a Palin would send American boots! If the US did nothing to China during the Korean war, it would now step in when China is now much stronger (old saying ...the besttime to kill a crocodile is when its in its egg. Change that African saying to Dragon to make it apply to China). Anyways, read the story. Have a blessed day.
without air superiority Predator and Raptor are useless = Predator and A10 are useless
spetznaz I totally hear what you are saying, and I agree with it.
I am just not up to getting into as a long winded detailed reply right now (which is about 100% on the same page as you are) so I will just draw the analogy to the Russian T-37 vs the Tiger and the Panzer.
Oh BTW I was/am always a fan of Arthur C. Clarke, he was absolutely the best!
We probably already have several different platforms which are way beyond the Raptor. I would not be surprised if some of them were not based on the F-23 platform.
On another note, we probably have hypersonic stuff that can leave the atmosphere under its own power and re-enter.
We probably have like you say, things that conceptualization of it borders on the magic to the layman.
I was aware of the scramjet back in 1981.
just my take
I got to read that Arthur Clarke short story you mentioned! My two favorites of all time were ‘childhoods end’ and ‘rendezvous with rama’
Best regards friend
ps; I am having a hell of time getting a logon to Pravda, I cant find a screename that has never been used. I like their blog dialogs.
J.
Something related to what you two are discussing-
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TMpoj7I8OII/AAAAAAAALiY/tmdXoGbB5sY/s1600/ef1.JPG
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TMpojgvHIrI/AAAAAAAALiQ/_NJg-eCxv-k/s1600/ef2.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TMprt7bPOLI/AAAAAAAALig/c0mG2xtZAa0/s1600/ef3.JPG
These are scans from the Eurofighter consortium’s in-house magazine.
Thumbnails available on this blog-
http://livefist.blogspot.com/
Thanks for this
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.