No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAT...agree.
Leon...true enough about steam catapults...all the more reason to have them on the E class carrier. they invented RADAR too....I'd like to think your new carrier will have RADAR.
BUT everyone knows its easier to takeoff and land on a ship in motion due to the ''wind'' created by ship moving. ELY was first.
Leon...true enough about steam catapults...all the more reason to have them on the E class carrier. they invented RADAR too....I'd like to think your new carrier will have RADAR.
BUT everyone knows its easier to takeoff and land on a ship in motion due to the ''wind'' created by ship moving. ELY was first.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly enough we always tried to get wind over the deck for VSTOL recovery, but I recently spoke to a USMC fellow who said they didn't! I have no SHOLs to hand to suggest he is incorrect.
Despite our disagreement about landing we both (along with most of Christendom) agreed that a few extra Bernoullis on launch never went amiss.
Despite our disagreement about landing we both (along with most of Christendom) agreed that a few extra Bernoullis on launch never went amiss.
Big Navy's need for the F-35C seems to be being questioned here, no doubt by some liberal peacen.... wait, what?
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/di...-swipe-at-f35/
Full piece here:
Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course | U.S. Naval Institute
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/di...-swipe-at-f35/
Full piece here:
Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course | U.S. Naval Institute
Right, LO. But I always thought most of that was bleedin' obvious. Not criticising your post, just the poeple that hadn't taken the point in the last thousand odd posts. 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where does it end?
Stealth can be countered if the other guys are smart enough and throw enough technology at it, so there's no point having stealthy aircraft.
Modern radars aren't fooled by Electronic Attack techniques, so we might as well not bother with EA as it's expensive.
Modern radars aren't deceived by chaff either, so there's no point putting expensive chaff dispensers in aircraft.
Modern IR missiles have good IRCCM so there's no point putting expensive flares or IR jammers in aircraft.
There's no point using armor plating because some bullets can go through that and it's expensive.
Therefore you're saying the perfect flying war machine is in fact the Wright Flyer. And then you need lots of ships for the Navy with Tomahawks because there's no known counter to the Tomahawk....
Stealth can be countered if the other guys are smart enough and throw enough technology at it, so there's no point having stealthy aircraft.
Modern radars aren't fooled by Electronic Attack techniques, so we might as well not bother with EA as it's expensive.
Modern radars aren't deceived by chaff either, so there's no point putting expensive chaff dispensers in aircraft.
Modern IR missiles have good IRCCM so there's no point putting expensive flares or IR jammers in aircraft.
There's no point using armor plating because some bullets can go through that and it's expensive.
Therefore you're saying the perfect flying war machine is in fact the Wright Flyer. And then you need lots of ships for the Navy with Tomahawks because there's no known counter to the Tomahawk....
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where does it end?
It ends when someone runs out of money
Or else takes a conceptual jump to a new paradigm which makes the opposition irrelevant
guns vs arrows
steam vs sail
tanks vs horses.
its time for such a jump - but most of the options have been negotiated away
It ends when someone runs out of money
Or else takes a conceptual jump to a new paradigm which makes the opposition irrelevant
guns vs arrows
steam vs sail
tanks vs horses.
its time for such a jump - but most of the options have been negotiated away
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is that all the paradigms you mention come with a bigger price tag than the thing they replaced. So history suggests that X-37s, Auroras, hypersonic attack systems or sharks with laser beams on their heads are likely to cost more than a bog-standard F-35.
The other way of looking at it is that you can still do an awful lot if you intelligently operate an aircraft with maneuver, chaff, flares & EA. Wouldn't you be able to do the same things easier, or do much more, if you had a bit of stealth as one of your tools too?
The other way of looking at it is that you can still do an awful lot if you intelligently operate an aircraft with maneuver, chaff, flares & EA. Wouldn't you be able to do the same things easier, or do much more, if you had a bit of stealth as one of your tools too?
Ivor N - I think part of the point is that there is no "ultimate weapon" or indeed ultimate platform, so you don't want to mortgage your future on any one solution.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where does it end?
It can still end because of many things,
beginning with the technology and its continuing troubles to make it both work on a reliable base and easy to maintain, something which is far from being achieved up until today.
It can end because at some point its customers just run out of money, the ongoing recession/depression and the ever increasing pricetag, combined with rumours all around that production volumes will be severely cut by many users which , according to LM, will again severely increase the unit costs, can still bring this whole project to its knees.
It can end because it becomes more obsolete and less cutting edge every time delays are announced.
But last and certainly not least , it can end ,or become the victim of very substantial cutbacks, because too many political influences seem to have taken an aversion of the whole project.
In the US it remains to be seen what will happen once the presidential elections are over, but many scenarios are pointing at severe cutbacks, in Holland it has come so far that a big majority in the parliament is all for selling the 2 testplanes, cutting their losses and retire from the whole JSF project, at the same time there is once again (remember the 2 previous LM scandals) a new scandal emerging involving ministers, high military, and lobbyists about the JSF.
Italy won't be able and politically willing to take up any or all of its initially planned F35's.
It can still end because of many things,
beginning with the technology and its continuing troubles to make it both work on a reliable base and easy to maintain, something which is far from being achieved up until today.
It can end because at some point its customers just run out of money, the ongoing recession/depression and the ever increasing pricetag, combined with rumours all around that production volumes will be severely cut by many users which , according to LM, will again severely increase the unit costs, can still bring this whole project to its knees.
It can end because it becomes more obsolete and less cutting edge every time delays are announced.
But last and certainly not least , it can end ,or become the victim of very substantial cutbacks, because too many political influences seem to have taken an aversion of the whole project.
In the US it remains to be seen what will happen once the presidential elections are over, but many scenarios are pointing at severe cutbacks, in Holland it has come so far that a big majority in the parliament is all for selling the 2 testplanes, cutting their losses and retire from the whole JSF project, at the same time there is once again (remember the 2 previous LM scandals) a new scandal emerging involving ministers, high military, and lobbyists about the JSF.
Italy won't be able and politically willing to take up any or all of its initially planned F35's.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The trouble is that all the paradigms you mention come with a bigger price tag than the thing they replaced"
On a one for one basis yes, but it doesn't need one to one substitution to provide a significant military advantage,
How many horses equal one tank? How many arrows equal one gun? By making the business of killing more efficient, you cam actually keep the cost of that killing static. Indeed by using the advanced technology you can reduce the cost because you can cause the opposing to force to surrender with a smaller number of kills: True shock and awe
The problem is that modern improvements in military technology are incremental. not revolutionary. Aircraft in the last fifty years have got incrementally faster, more efficient, better targeted, but with incremental increases in costs. But what we need is something new - something which will make the aircraft as irrelevant to warfare as the tank rendered the horse, and reduce the overall spend.
What is that change likely to be? Hard to know, but the obvious choices - space based bombardment systems, advanced rocketry, are all curtailed by treaty forcing us down the expense route. Likewise treaties over the use of chemical and biological warfare, which I would argue have prevented the development of cheap low-lethailty incapacitating systems.
Maybe the answer is in pulsed energy weapons, but again our ability to develop those is hampered by space warfare treaties.
On a one for one basis yes, but it doesn't need one to one substitution to provide a significant military advantage,
How many horses equal one tank? How many arrows equal one gun? By making the business of killing more efficient, you cam actually keep the cost of that killing static. Indeed by using the advanced technology you can reduce the cost because you can cause the opposing to force to surrender with a smaller number of kills: True shock and awe
The problem is that modern improvements in military technology are incremental. not revolutionary. Aircraft in the last fifty years have got incrementally faster, more efficient, better targeted, but with incremental increases in costs. But what we need is something new - something which will make the aircraft as irrelevant to warfare as the tank rendered the horse, and reduce the overall spend.
What is that change likely to be? Hard to know, but the obvious choices - space based bombardment systems, advanced rocketry, are all curtailed by treaty forcing us down the expense route. Likewise treaties over the use of chemical and biological warfare, which I would argue have prevented the development of cheap low-lethailty incapacitating systems.
Maybe the answer is in pulsed energy weapons, but again our ability to develop those is hampered by space warfare treaties.
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 3rd Jul 2012 at 20:56.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert makes the very valid point that having a very expensive aircraft to deliver a cheap bomb does not make economic sense. If the risk is that high, send a Tomahawk. If the risk is low, why limit your self to small internal loads only?
The size of the F-35 internal bay is academic - war technology has moved on to make stealth of marginal value.
Where it should still be useful is in A2A and anti-shipping, which suggests that UK's choice of the F-35B was the better one.
The size of the F-35 internal bay is academic - war technology has moved on to make stealth of marginal value.
Where it should still be useful is in A2A and anti-shipping, which suggests that UK's choice of the F-35B was the better one.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where it should still be useful is in A2A and anti-shipping, which suggests that UK's choice of the F-35B was the better one
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 4th Jul 2012 at 09:36.
"Stealth can be countered if the other guys are smart enough and throw enough technology at it, so there's no point having stealthy aircraft."
Simply using a differant radar frequency isn't a massive technological issue, especially when the technology used to do so is 50+ years old.
Simply using a differant radar frequency isn't a massive technological issue, especially when the technology used to do so is 50+ years old.
Last edited by peter we; 4th Jul 2012 at 10:19.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert makes the very valid point that having a very expensive aircraft to deliver a cheap bomb does not make economic sense. If the risk is that high, send a Tomahawk.
Smart weapons have their place at the beginning of a camapign when the targets are high value and well defended, but you end up with the problem that you are using £1m weapons to destroy £5K targets. Smart platforms allow precision strike using dumb cheap weapons, they may be expensive but the return over time is cheaper, as long as you don't lose the platform.
The second argument is whether the additional security of stealth is worth the price.
If you use smart weapons during the first days of the campaign against high threat targets, do you platforms need to ingress and be stealth - particularly if, after the first few days, you hang external tanks, pods and weapons on them and lose the stealth anyway.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Commentary on DoD Buzz concerning the CNO's speech: Did CNO just take a big swipe at F-35?
Interestingly he did, as a naval man, address my point above. I'm sure the air force would contest the figures based on the number of targets over a full campaign, otherwise they've got problems ahead - even more at risk are the carriers and their air wings, if the intent to build/preserve the conventional ship fleet of littoral, destroyer, frigates, cruisers etc.
Interestingly he did, as a naval man, address my point above. I'm sure the air force would contest the figures based on the number of targets over a full campaign, otherwise they've got problems ahead - even more at risk are the carriers and their air wings, if the intent to build/preserve the conventional ship fleet of littoral, destroyer, frigates, cruisers etc.
The ability of a few very-precise standoff weapons to be more efficient and effective than a larger number of less-precise weapons leads to a surprising result. In modern warfare, precision standoff weapons such as Tomahawk or the joint standoff weapon are now more cost-effective in many situations than short-range gravity bombs such as the joint direct attack munition (JDAM). A Tomahawk missile, for example, costs about $1.2 million, while a JDAM is about $30,000. To strike a single target, however, the total training, maintenance, and operations cost to get a manned aircraft close enough to deliver the JDAM is several times higher than the cost of launching a Tomahawk at the same target from a destroyer, submarine or aircraft operating several hundred miles away. That is one of the trends leading us to focus more effort on improving and evolving our standoff sensor and munition payloads.
Last edited by ORAC; 4th Jul 2012 at 11:45.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
USN CNO F-35C Clarification
Apparently all of the CNO UNSI article is here: (scroll down)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewt...-start-30.html
CNO spokesperson clarification here:
The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list By Philip Ewing Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/th...shopping-list/
""There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should.
The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez. So what was all that stealth skepticism in his Proceedings piece this month questioning the value of low-observable strike aircraft? That was Greenert arguing that stealth has a limit, Hernandez said, and that there may come a point at which the Navy has to draw the line or risk diminishing returns...."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewt...-start-30.html
CNO spokesperson clarification here:
The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list By Philip Ewing Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/th...shopping-list/
""There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should.
The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez. So what was all that stealth skepticism in his Proceedings piece this month questioning the value of low-observable strike aircraft? That was Greenert arguing that stealth has a limit, Hernandez said, and that there may come a point at which the Navy has to draw the line or risk diminishing returns...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Jul 2012 at 13:34. Reason: Added Link Title
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we asked what aircraft would ever replace the F-35B once it reaches its sell by date? The reason for this strange question is that a carrier is not a short term ship with a life span of just 10 or even twenty years.
I believe this year sees the retirement of the United States Navy Mighty 'E' a ship that was in service way back in the early 1960's. How many types of aircraft has that ship operated? We were operating sea Vixen and as the years went by these aircraft were superseded by better more modern hardware all capable of operating from that mobile airfield, but the Mighty E remained in service happily accepting these newer types of fast jet.
Is the F-35B the last in the line of STOVL aircraft and is there even a competitor that might encourage development?
When or if we ever get the F-35B and it retires, does that mean we are back to where we are now with an aircraft carrier totally incapable of operating fast jets? This is already more than embarrassing with a carrier pretending top be something it is not.
Why not STOP the build for the second carrier, take an even deeper breath and re-think this done deal. Am I guilty of just bringing previous arguments and if so what other aircraft will these carriers be capable of operating once the F-35B gets retired, what other Navies will be capable of cross decking (apart from the USA) Are we convinced Italy and Spain will stick with their master plan of buying this aircraft?
Today is not a good day and MUCH respect goes to ALL our brave service personnel that are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice
I believe this year sees the retirement of the United States Navy Mighty 'E' a ship that was in service way back in the early 1960's. How many types of aircraft has that ship operated? We were operating sea Vixen and as the years went by these aircraft were superseded by better more modern hardware all capable of operating from that mobile airfield, but the Mighty E remained in service happily accepting these newer types of fast jet.
Is the F-35B the last in the line of STOVL aircraft and is there even a competitor that might encourage development?
When or if we ever get the F-35B and it retires, does that mean we are back to where we are now with an aircraft carrier totally incapable of operating fast jets? This is already more than embarrassing with a carrier pretending top be something it is not.
Why not STOP the build for the second carrier, take an even deeper breath and re-think this done deal. Am I guilty of just bringing previous arguments and if so what other aircraft will these carriers be capable of operating once the F-35B gets retired, what other Navies will be capable of cross decking (apart from the USA) Are we convinced Italy and Spain will stick with their master plan of buying this aircraft?
Today is not a good day and MUCH respect goes to ALL our brave service personnel that are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice