Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 30th Jun 2012, 11:24
  #1301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 244
The F22 is quite capable of flying A LOT faster than it's stated max speed after all it has pleanty of thrust to reach M2.0 and faster (probably at least as fast as an F15). It was decided at the design stage to set the top speed at M1.7 because the F15 in service didn't oftern reach it's max speed of M2.5. To have the F22 reach such speeds the leading edges of the wings, intakes and stabs etc would need to be lined with titanium. Several other small mods would be required so if needed it can be done. Why nobody told this to the politicians is beyond me. If I was the head of the USAF I'd modify one Raptor in this fashion and take back the time to height records from the Russians.
dat581 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 12:42
  #1302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,990
Longer_Ron

Well said, Sir
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 12:54
  #1303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,990
Oh, and I believe a historic point of order...

and COLD: if I am not mistaken it was an American named ELY who showed the world that airplanes could take off and land from a ship in the first place.
Cdr Charles Rumney Samson RN became the first Naval Aviator on 9 May 1912 when launched off HMS HIBERNIA whilst she was underway. The US Navy trials the year before were from a ship at anchor, which is no different than an airfield on a small island. Samson later became an Air Commodore in the RAF.

I also believe the UK invented the steam catapult?

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 13:00
  #1304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
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.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 15:50
  #1305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,121
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.
orca is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 18:30
  #1306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
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
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 18:36
  #1307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
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.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 18:47
  #1308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
The CNO's feelings about buying an even more expensive Stealth jet for the Marines can only be guessed at.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 19:03
  #1309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Is this what happens when we put submariners into these decision making positions?
glojo is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 19:34
  #1310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7
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....
Ivor Nydia is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 20:05
  #1311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,176
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
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 20:22
  #1312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7
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 [email protected] 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?
Ivor Nydia is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 20:23
  #1313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
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.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 20:33
  #1314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
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.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2012, 20:55
  #1315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,176
"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.

Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 3rd Jul 2012 at 20:56.
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2012, 06:21
  #1316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 568
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.
peter we is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2012, 09:33
  #1317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 92
Posts: 1,899
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
Seems a bit of a non-sequitur, not compared to 'C' anyway.

Last edited by Willard Whyte; 4th Jul 2012 at 09:36.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2012, 09:54
  #1318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 568
"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.

Last edited by peter we; 4th Jul 2012 at 10:19.
peter we is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2012, 11:14
  #1319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,715
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.
Two different arguments here. One is the smart platform+dumb weapon vs the smart weapon - the other is stealth.

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.
ORAC is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2012, 11:42
  #1320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,715
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.
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.
ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.