Posted on 07/03/2015 8:55:41 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
I wonder how long Taiwan has?
With Obama in charge, I’m surprised it still exists as an Independent Country.
He wouldn’t lift a finger to help Taiwan, no doubt.
It's difficult for me to post on any thread relating to the F-35. For one, I always strive to cut through bias and evaluate something on merit (based on available information, of course), and that is definitely a difficult task when it comes to the F-35.
Why?
Well, in quick-point form:
1) The F-35 as a great plane: The F-35 will 100% guaranteed be a great plane, but with a very important caveat. That the US continues to engage the countries it has fought against militarily in the last three and a half decades. The likes of Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, etc. In essence, nations that really do not have advanced technological ability (or even anything close to parity - e.g. B-1B bombers sending JDAMs against Taliban positions in what may as well have been evil magic to the Tallies), have a qualitative mismatch (e.g. the NATO forces in the Balkans), have a quantitative mismatch (e.g. the Allied forces, which had a multitude of countries, including little Niger, against Iraq), a total dominance of situational awareness (looking at Iraq again, the Iraqi MiGs didn't even have radar-warning-receivers, and they were up against allied AWACS), proper battle strategy, etc etc etc. If the US/West continues to engage such countries, then the F-35 will have a superlative record and will be an amazing plane. Goodness, even an upgraded F-4 Phantom would be a wonderful platform in such a case! Thus, that is the F-35 as a great fighter, and as I mentioned, I 100% guarantee that as long as that caveat is maintained.
2) The F-35 as a great fighter that was betrayed by reality: What do I mean here? Well, simply put, the JSF project that gave birth to the F-35 has to be looked at as originally envisioned. What was the original plan? Well, you would have the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter, which gave birth to the YF-22/23 competition that was won by the F-22) breaking down doors and destroying any advanced opposition, and the ATF would be supported by the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter, which gave birth to the X-32/35 competition that was won by the F-35). Thus, it was envisioned to have hundreds of ATFs supported by thousands of JSFs. Reality? The F-22 numbers were decimated from over 800 to less than 183-187 (due to crashes), and now the JSF (F-35) has to cover roles that were intended for the ATF (F-22) such as air-dominance. Now, there is a reason the ATF had a long list of attributes requested ...such as supercruise, high stealth, maneuverability etc, because it was meant to be the absolute best bar none. The JSF, on the other hand, was to have relatively good stealth, a great sensor suite, and be able to support the ATF. Now, the JSF project also has to be the ATF project as there are not enough F-22s. This means that the F-35 is being judged against something it was not meant to cover had reality not changed ...it is like a top NFL team being asked to play at the Soccer World Cup. They can do the job, but they will never be super. Maybe a better analogy would be comparing an F1 car (Raptor) go a Nascar vehicle (35).
3) The F-35 as a dog: Finally, the F-35 as a dog. There are two ways of looking at this:
a) the first is the program itself, and I will channel a FReeper called PukinDog who (a DECADE AGO) listed all the issues the F-35 is facing today. The program has been a failure in terms of meeting its targets ranging from systems/avionics to weight management. And then there is budget, which is sad considering one of the reasons the F-22 was cancelled was cost ... Also, apparently they have had to shift their judgement metrics several times for the F-35 to 'pass,' and I suspect that the fact the (clean configuration) F-35 was fighting against a F-16 with fuel tanks attached was another example of 'fudging' the test. Anyways, the program has encountered a lot of difficulty, which is something many military systems go through ...but the F-35 (as opposed to other systems, like the Abrams tank, Seawolf sub, and even F-22, that had difficulties as well) is having its difficulties in fundamental areas, which is the main difference from the three I have mentioned. That is troubling.
b) the second issue is how the F-35 will fare against top-level global threats. I am not talking about the usual Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya hammering, but rather a war against a near-peer adversary that actually has working sh!t. For example, a war with China or Russia. Those are countries that will have working systems and that have been working towards an anti-US solution. Now, I know on FR many are quick to say that the US would 'crush' China/Russia (and I believe the US would win btw, just that it would not be easy), but ask yourself if that is the case then why is the US so hesitant at 'smacking' the likes of Iran, north Korea and Pakistan? Yes, I know ...they have nuclear weapons would be the most likely response (even though it ignores that China/Russia have more than those three countries combined, but this is not the place to discuss lack of logical congruence). But Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons currently, so why not go in and 'smack' them? Because they have a military that the US could quickly dismantle, but at cost. It is never as simple as what people in forums think! The Gulf War turkey shoot that had the Allied forces hammer Saddam's forces still left 75 Allied aircraft (including 52 fixed wing aircraft) shot down, and that was against an Iraq that had a SAM system that was created to prevent a small-scale attack from Iran and/or Israel. Now, imagine the Chinese integrated air-defense system. Simply put, the only fighter jet currently known to be flying that can survive a Chinese IADS is the F-22, and even then it would be at the edge of the IADS engagement envelop. Sure, war is never about one asset ...it is an integrated system, and the US military machine would have launched hundreds of tomahawks to degrade the IADS, launched all sorts of cyber attacks to cripple the network, etc etc etc ...if we know this China knows this as well. It would never be that easy, and the F-35 acting as both JSF and ATF would have a hard time to put it mildly.
Thus, what's my conclusion?
Simply that the F-35 was intended to be a great plane as originally envisioned, it has been let down by reality (cancellation of continued ATF production) and rising costs/weight/timelines. However, even though the F-35 would have a difficult time in Russian or Chinese airspace, it WILL BE a great fighter due to the simple reason that it will be used against the likes of Libya, Afgahnistan and Iraq, countries that at most need a B-52H, and at worst need an F-15 with supporting F-16 Wild Weasel support and an occasional smattering of Tomahawks.
Thus, the F-35 will go down as a great fighter
Back in the late 1970’s, my squadron sent a CH-53D (helicopter) to China Lake (Top Gun) to see what, if anything, we rotorheads could do about fighter attacks, other than trying to get above them and throw the tie-down chains out the ramp at them.
Our helo was fitted with a gun camera and plugged into their Air Combat computer system as being armed with Sidewinder missiles. Back then, few of the fighters had “look-down, shoot-down” radar and had difficulty picking the helo out of the ground clutter. The best technique was to stay low, looking for the fighter. If you saw him first, turn TOWARD him. His angle for a shot soon became too steep and he’d have to break off. Once he did that, do a 180 turn and pop him up the tailpipe with the Sidewinder.
The CH-53D, according to the China Lake computers, won about 50% of the time against most fighters in the inventory. The exception was, naturally, the Harrier, which won about 90% of the time. I’ve been told that below 15,000ft, the Harrier is quite formidable against other, much faster, fighters.
Uh, and no. The veracity of your story starts falling apart with China Lakd (Top Gun) and CH-53 and Sidewinders.
Take the Hornet and the F-16, which both have Helmet Mounted Cueing systems and the AIM 9X. Put them in the phone booth with the F-22 (No HMCS) and the Raptor pilot is going to have to fly very well to survive.
High off boresight weapons and the ability to cue them is radically changing the dog fight arena. As high off boresight envelopes expand, the window for dog fighting is shrinking.
There is nothing in the air currently that can match the F-22 in maneuverability, but the success of the F-22 in training engagements has been based upon this "fighting in a new way.".
And so it goes ... at the onset of the Korean War, US jets had no need of machine guns becuse they had missles. Now they have a new color of lipstick which makes them invisible.
This is just more BS for a very expensive and very bad aircraft.
It started 18 years ago and still hasn’t been deployed....
Mr Linstead’s attempt to “polish a turd” is explained in the sentence below.
“Previously pilots might have had to fight their way in to a hostile area,” said Mr Linstead, who now works for Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35 programme.”
Despite the mission statement type BS the fact is the F35 lost an engagement with a previous generation fighter it was expected to win. That does not bode well.
When it takes over 15 years to go from design concept to deployment, any new aircraft will be obsolete by the time it sees service.
If you do not know what you are talking about, please be slow to accuse people of falsehoods.
Since your "About" page is empty, I can only make inferences from your screen name, 'USNBandit', which hints that you might have been a Navy fighter jock. (I was on a USMC ALO/FAC team with an F-4 jock whose nom-de-guerre was "Bandit".)
#1 While I did not fly the bird for this project, the pilot who did fly the CH-53 for this project was a good friend of mine, both inside the squadron and out, and a man of absolute veracity, calm and reasoned demeanor and the antithesis of the Tom Cruise character in the Top Gun movie . The squadron sent the pilot best able to evaluate, make suggestions, learn and return to teach the rest of us.
#2 I've seen the photos of the CH-53 after the gun camera mounts were installed on the sponson (left sponson, IIRC). Just for "grins", since these mounts were the same as hardpoints for ordinance, they hung a blue Sidewinder on the hardpoints and took a few quick photos before any of the brass got too upset.
#5 At one time, the Israelis were evaluating arming a CH-53 with Phoenix missiles for air defense. Since I cannot find any documentation and you doubt my veracity, we'll give that one a pass.
#7 When I was transitioning from Hueys to the CH-53D, I was told (never had a chance to try it) that a 53 and an A4 Skyhawk pulled onto parallel runways at military airbase (Cherry Point?) at the same time for takeoff. The 53 pilot, feeling his oats, broadcast "Beat you to five grand". A bit of silence, then the Tower came on and said, "How 'bout it?" Maybe the Skyhawk wasn't trying, but the 53 won. I was also told that this performance edge applied (from a dead stop) to an F4 and 4,000 AGL. I HAVE seen 6,000 fpm in a zoom climb and 3,000 fpm in a hover. and this was the OLD 53D. No telling what the 53E or 53K would do.
#8 Rant OFF
Another f-35 article to skim, but read post # 22 by spetznaz. Also, Post #23 on CH-53s being tested with sidewinder missiles to take on attacking aircraft as self-defense
Years ago when the Generals and their advisers were deciding how to best prepare for current and future aerial combat 10, 20 or even 30 years out, their mindset was the one who brings the biggest computer to a gun fight wins.
And the F-35? Well...is that a computer in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
Boy howdy, love/hate to see that thing angry.
Not only that, but if you want it bigger, it can easily be enhanced when necessary.
Bottom line, if they can get it up in the heat of the moment and it performs well in close, it should be very satisfying for the pilot and will no doubt be very popular.
Wanna know what this thing does???
put it up against an F-8...
then we will know
It is an unfortunate trait in military aviation that many communities come to the conclusion that they can best another community at its primary mission. I have had helo guys tell me they can shoot fighters down (just like you did), I even had a P-3 guy tell me he could beat a fighter in a 1 circle fight.
Fortunately, most of the time they don't really try it in real life. An exception would be the Apache unit in the second Gulf War. They thought they could conduct a "deep strike" against a defended target. It didn't work out that well.
Be proud of what your platform does, don't try to do what it can't do.
Thanks for the ping. I think the next generation fighters will be unmanned.
“next generation of fighters will be unmanned.” But what if only we can afford unmanned jet fighters, will those remotely piloted jets be able to out fly a piloted jet of a generation earlier?
Unmanned fighters can pull more G’s than the pilot of a manned fighter can endure; thus they are more maneuverable.
The Chaparral and Sea Chaparral programs addressed the problems with a "Zero-Zero" launch. Son of Chaparral: Surface-Launched AIM-9X IIRC, the Israelis shot down one or more enemy aircraft with their Chaparrals, but I cannot locate the link I saw earlier.
While not "fast" the 53 will hit 170kts quickly, which is considerably better than "Zero-Zero".
The issue here is not whether a CH-53 is an Air Superiority Fighter. It is not. The issue is your statement:
The veracity of your story starts falling apart with China Lakd (Top Gun) and CH-53 and Sidewinders.
I stand by my original comment. In late 1977 or early 1978 the USMC sent a CH-53D to participate in tests to see how it would perform, if equipped with a Sidewinder, against then current US fighter aircraft. When he returned, the pilot doing the testing told me, face to face, that the computer referees said that the CH-53 won about half the time, except against the Harrier, which won 90% of engagements.
“the chinese will be coming with tens of thousands of ucavs”
UCAV pods wil be destroyed early on in engagement.
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.