|
I really like the idea of the F-35B being operated from a FARP. How long will the stealth coating last under those conditions? Does anyone actually expect such a complex aircraft to be used from rough field conditions? There is an article on the Mitchell Institute Website talking about 5th Generation Combat. Between the 'rah-rah-rah' lines, the authors repeatedly emphasized the necessity of continuous maintenance to keep stealth fighter's coating. They warned that if the coating begins to degrade, then the maintenance requirements can rapidly get out of hand. This leads to the problem of an all-stealth fighter wing in a medium to high intensity conflict. Can Air Force maintenance keep the stealth coating in a time of enemy attack and high sortie rates? I don't know and, from what I've seen, I don't know if the Air Force is paying attention to that. As for replicating enemy air defenses, I think one problem is that the USAF may not have the technology to do that. Can the USAF build a high-mobility VHF radar system? Or what about decoys and point defenses for the radar? I don't know.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
I imagine a scenario where the transport helicopters required to bring in F35 maintenance equipment are destroyed by the SAM umbrella that the F35 is designed to operate in.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:This leads to the problem of an all-stealth fighter wing in a medium to high intensity conflict. Can Air Force maintenance keep the stealth coating in a time of enemy attack and high sortie rates? I don't know and, from what I've seen, I don't know if the Air Force is paying attention to that. The F-117 has come and gone in my lifetime, checking to see if RAM is intact is probably a solved - or at least addressed - problem by now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
God dammit Marines, you already hosed up strike fighters for the next 30+ years, don't go loving up my AEW as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:The F-117 has come and gone in my lifetime, checking to see if RAM is intact is probably a solved - or at least addressed - problem by now. The F-117 was an elite force operating from a single airfield. That is very different from a large number stealth fighters operating at every airfield.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:This leads to the problem of an all-stealth fighter wing in a medium to high intensity conflict. Can Air Force maintenance keep the stealth coating in a time of enemy attack and high sortie rates? I don't know and, from what I've seen, I don't know if the Air Force is paying attention to that. Yes. It doesn't really get press but the F-22 has been on semi-regular deployments to the Persian Gulf for years, and they're parked outside in places like Florida and the southwest (ie humidity vs desert). There are plenty of times where sortie generation is pushed. In short this has been a non-factor for roughly a decade, but "this works fine and we do this on a daily basis" doesn't really get the headlines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
It is interesting the way the props shaved away the superfluous parts of the radome.. or is it more like the guns on the old spad, it spins, but with a timing set to keep them from touching?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:It is interesting the way the props shaved away the superfluous parts of the radome.. or is it more like the guns on the old spad, it spins, but with a timing set to keep them from touching? Yeah, presumably it's stationary. That dome (triforce?) is actually one part I wouldn't mind seeing transferred to the E-2. Like CarForumPoster was alluding to, a 360 electronically scanned array would be a lot nicer than the weird hybrid mech/electronic scan antenna that the E-2D is using. Though I'm sure that would take $Umptybillion to implement effectively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yes. It doesn't really get press but the F-22 has been on semi-regular deployments to the Persian Gulf for years, and they're parked outside in places like Florida and the southwest (ie humidity vs desert). There are plenty of times where sortie generation is pushed. In short this has been a non-factor for roughly a decade, but "this works fine and we do this on a daily basis" doesn't really get the headlines. F-22 is double the quantities of the F-117, the F-35 represents a tenfold increase. And the F-22 isn't achieving the highest readiness rate, in spite of its relatively high maintenance cost. I don't think the readiness issue has been completely solved yet. Though, F-35 surface coatings should be easier to maintain than F-22. I have my doubts about the ability to scale up stealth coating maintenance, especially under attack and with a high sortie rate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Yeah, presumably it's stationary. That dome (triforce?) is actually one part I wouldn't mind seeing transferred to the E-2. Like CarForumPoster was alluding to, a 360 electronically scanned array would be a lot nicer than the weird hybrid mech/electronic scan antenna that the E-2D is using. Though I'm sure that would take $Umptybillion to implement effectively. If google is to be believed it was only $5.4 bil in R&D and that included "new" engines, esm, comms, IFF, etc. with a total cost of $20bil. By F-35 standards its nickels. Russian media rendering of AEW V-22 for India:  Sperglord posted:I have my doubts about the ability to scale up stealth coating maintenance, especially under attack and with a high sortie rate. It has been my experience that anything to do with RAM is something no one in the know will ever comment on even in the most vague of terms. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:There is an article on the Mitchell Institute Website talking about 5th Generation Combat. Between the 'rah-rah-rah' lines, the authors repeatedly emphasized the necessity of continuous maintenance to keep stealth fighter's coating. They warned that if the coating begins to degrade, then the maintenance requirements can rapidly get out of hand. As Godholio pointed out, we've been doing this for a decade now. The F-22 basically "cracked the code" on how to deal with LO coatings in an operational environment (as opposed to the F-117/B-2 "requires bespoke hangars and special snowflake treatment"). The F-35 is even better/lower maintenance in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
That Works posted:Why would the Norwegians have that info? The Norns whisper prophecy into their dreams.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:I really like the idea of the F-35B being operated from a FARP. How long will the stealth coating last under those conditions? Does anyone actually expect such a complex aircraft to be used from rough field conditions? I think tactically the USAF doesn't see a need to maintain an all stealth force for the duration of a conflict. Isn't the idea that the stealth planes "kick in the door", i.e. bomb all the air defenses and shoot down all the hostile fighters? Then older planes with more payload do the bomb truck job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Ascension is 4,000 miles from the Falkland Islands. The British would have lost the Falklands without Harriers but managed to win with them. Harriers were necessary and sufficient. Yes, a real carrier would have done the job better. It would have been sufficient but not necessary. It also would have been considerably more expensive, which is why the British didn't have any. We can afford real carriers, so they don't make a lot sense for us. Most countries can't, so if you get say half the capability for a much much lower cost then that makes sense, when your other option is no carriers at all. On the other hand if the STOVL variant didn't exist we would be buying -Cs for our carriers now that we have proper big ones and we wouldn't have put the ski ramp on them to save a few bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think tactically the USAF doesn't see a need to maintain an all stealth force for the duration of a conflict. Isn't the idea that the stealth planes "kick in the door", i.e. bomb all the air defenses and shoot down all the hostile fighters? Then older planes with more payload do the bomb truck job. Well yes and no, the F-15Es will be around for awhile but the F-35 is meant to wholesale replace the F-16 in time. That being said, the F-35 has something like 6 pylons when it in bomb truck mode, plus the internal stowage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Thread posted:Lol, stupid Marines just use a real carrier. The 6 harriers (or eventually F35Bs) of an Amphibious Ready Group (or MEB) are not in place of a Carrier Battle Group. They also aren't intended to establish air superiority over enemy territory during a near peer conflict. It's 6 aircraft in a CAS role. It's a supplement so that the Navy doesn't have to move a (really expensive) Carrier Battle Group (doing other really important things) over to support some dumb humanitarian/show the flag mission every time rebels up in the mountains get a little uppity. Sometimes, just once in a while, they may also want to move them inland a bit to extend their range and there probably isn't a full size air field around but there almost certainly is a small runway somewhere nearby. It's nice to have options in between no response and forward deploy thousands of people/dedicate a carrier battle group/build massive infrastructure/fly sorties from 1000 nmi away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Well yes and no, the F-15Es will be around for awhile but the F-35 is meant to wholesale replace the F-16 in time. That being said, the F-35 has something like 6 pylons when it in bomb truck mode, plus the internal stowage. Still have the B-52 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The 6 harriers (or eventually F35Bs) of an Amphibious Ready Group (or MEB) are not in place of a Carrier Battle Group. They also aren't intended to establish air superiority over enemy territory during a near peer conflict. Bombing the warlord of the month so the UN can bring in humanitarian relief can be done just as well with the various helicopters we have, all of which are also better at basing out of both non-CV ships and primitive airfields. If you REALLY insist on a fixed wing doing that job a bunch of cheap prop driven bomb trucks would work too. As a bonus you could probably get away with non- catapult carriers. Bombing hill tribes who want to steal rice and peanut butter doesn't require a next gen stealth aircraft. If you're in a situation where one of those is needed you need more than six, so calling in that CVN is still the way to go. gently caress, really just make drone carriers for that kind of work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
svtol coupled with LO seems to emerge as a very useful capability in just about every wargame or sim I see. A10s from a hardball field are great but if your opponent had a bunch of patriot-beaters aimed at your runways it can really throw a wrench in your sortie generation numbers. I get the appeal of the assumption you'll always have 2 miles immaculate reinforced concrete within the combat radius of the ground fight but that can get iffy really quickly against a peer opponent. I dislike very much the fact that marine fixed air has saved the army's butter in bunch of these scenarios but thems the breaks. also for those who think the USMC "ruined" the f35 or whatever your ire should be directed at the JROC, not the navy dept. bewbies fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:also for those who think the USMC "ruined" the f35 or whatever your ire should be directed at the JROC, not the navy dept. USMC deserve all flak they get throw at them, because they think they're special snowflakes who deserve special snowflake equipment, this is just one example in a long history of examples.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:USMC deserve all flak they get throw at them, because they think they're special snowflakes who deserve special snowflake equipment, this is just one example in a long history of examples. It's goofy how they simultaneously have a reputation of demanding all kinds of unique stuff but then sucking hind tit and getting generations-old army cast-offs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think tactically the USAF doesn't see a need to maintain an all stealth force for the duration of a conflict. Isn't the idea that the stealth planes "kick in the door", i.e. bomb all the air defenses and shoot down all the hostile fighters? Then older planes with more payload do the bomb truck job. This is basically accurate. However it doesn't apply to the Marines' variant. The entire reason that thing exists is the claim that the Marines might someday need to go in alone. For some reason they are in position and there's no USAF basing nearby, and no CVN in range. And the situation is important enough that for the first time in over a century, we don't have time to move any of those pieces into place. So the Marines are going to put boots on the ground (I guess this is supposed to be an amphibious assault most of the time), which means they're going to need CAS. So they need a low-observable aircraft because air superiority won't be established yet. <END> There are several fundamental problems with this. First, that scenario is incredibly unlikely. It's entirely based on WWII wet dreams with a sprinkling of "gently caress you dad, we don't need your help." There's nothing so important that the US isn't going to take the time to mass forces. See, that also gives the opportunity for the State Dept to fail at it's job, which makes us the good guys in the public eye. So double-whammy on the compressed timeline that precludes USAF/USN involvement. On top of the fact that the areas we care about have USAF basing nearby and usually a CVN or two. We kind of do that on purpose. So another strike on that one. Next, we have the tactical reality. STOVL payload is weak sauce. Same for fuel load. Which means few weapons and short mission duration...which I guess doesn't matter since if you're actively rotating F-35Bs on TIC situations from an LHD they're going to have to go back to rearm after 10 minutes on station anyway. Oh, and the LHD isn't going to carry enough F-35s to actually maintain CAS coverage or establish a DCA cap, much less both. So you've got a weapons system incapable of doing its non-existent mission, and for this we seriously compromised the fighter that ultimately will be the backbone of the USAF, USN, RN, etc tacair fleet. Edit: And Cyrano nails the low-intensity argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:svtol coupled with LO seems to emerge as a very useful capability in just about every wargame or sim I see. A10s from a hardball field are great but if your opponent had a bunch of patriot-beaters aimed at your runways it can really throw a wrench in your sortie generation numbers. How many carrier battle groups could have been bought with the cost of that capability? How likely is it that patriot beaters are going to be aimed at your runways but the forward base the F-35s are operating from isn't going to get a prompt dose of the drone visit and artillery hammerblow craze that's sweeping Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Meanwhile, an international tribunal has ruled against Chinese claims to rights in the South China Sea, backing a case brought by the Philippines. Not that the Great Harmonious People's Republic and its Most Righteous Two Thousand Year Historical Claim give any fucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Godholio posted:So you've got a weapons system incapable of doing its non-existent mission, and for this we seriously compromised the fighter that ultimately will be the backbone of the USAF, USN, RN, etc tacair fleet. Hey, that's better than it being incapable of doing a mission that does exist. hogmartin posted:It's goofy how they simultaneously have a reputation of demanding all kinds of unique stuff but then sucking hind tit and getting generations-old army cast-offs. It's illuminating how that second-generation stuff is small arms, tanks, light vehicles, etc. i.e. the things that are essential for their core function.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:How many carrier battle groups could have been bought with the cost of that capability? How likely is it that patriot beaters are going to be aimed at your runways but the forward base the F-35s are operating from isn't going to get a prompt dose of the drone visit and artillery hammerblow craze that's sweeping Ukraine? the big issue driving a lot of these problems is the carriers are forced to operate at much further distances from the target than what we have gotten used to. couple that with an actual air and subsurface threat and it ties up a big portion of the air wing on other missions. in addition it is a whole lot easier to conceal/harden facilities for land based aircraft than is to hide a carrier, and counter ISR is massive consideration in defeating standoff weapons like ballistic and cruise missiles. the problem is that you can't really conceal a runway, and few are sufficiently hardened to withstand a dedicated attack from a capable opponent. thats where the vstol capability is so useful....it isn't in operating from a cutout in the woods or a flat spot on the beach like a lot of you seem to think....it is being able to continue using the hardened and concealed static facilities at an airbase that are really hard to pop, while not being grounded by a holed runway (which is relatively easy to do)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:various helicopters Sure, you don't need F-35s to win that fight. You could just do what the Russians do and not give a poo poo how many 70s vintage aircraft get shwacked by the hut-dwellers, but that sort of bloody- mindedness plays better on RT than CNN.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
I have a real hard time believing that the F-35 is noticeably more survivable against MANPADS than an F-16 or 18.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I have a real hard time believing that the F-35 is noticeably more survivable against MANPADS than an F-16 or 18. load-bearing laser defense, obviously
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
A STOVL stealth fighter is dope as hell, the question is were the compromises made for the AF/USN worth it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress, really just make drone carriers for that kind of work. I get the sneaking suspicion that the teething problems with EMALS and the next-generation arresting system, even with the "fixes," that the Ford will become a drone majority carrier because they're lightweight and who cares if you cold cat a drone?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:if by "significant parts" you mean "all of them". ukip, the fn, the golden dawn, jobbik, they all get checks from moscow. Basically you know how in the cold war unions and left wing parties got support from the ussr? that, only now it's swivel eyed loons
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:As Godholio pointed out, we've been doing this for a decade now. The F-22 basically "cracked the code" on how to deal with LO coatings in an operational environment (as opposed to the F-117/B-2 "requires bespoke hangars and special snowflake treatment"). The F-35 is even better/lower maintenance in that regard. CarForumPoster posted:It has been my experience that anything to do with RAM is something no one in the know will ever comment on even in the most vague of terms. Ok, point taken. Smiling Jack posted:A STOVL stealth fighter is dope as hell, the question is were the compromises made for the AF/USN worth it. This is the question. The F-35 is tightly packed and has internal heating issues. That will make upgrades difficult. Would those have been half as serious if the AF/USN version was designed completely separately from the lift fan requirement? Arglebargle III posted:I think tactically the USAF doesn't see a need to maintain an all stealth force for the duration of a conflict. Isn't the idea that the stealth planes "kick in the door", i.e. bomb all the air defenses and shoot down all the hostile fighters? Then older planes with more payload do the bomb truck job. That's the theory, but I think that won't work against Russia / China. Remember that the Serbs maintained a fairly effective ADN, in terms of sorties cancelled and support aircraft required, using 70s and 80s equipment. (ADN can work even if it doesn't shoot down aircraft. If it drops sortie rates by half because of the need for SEAD escorts, etc., then it is still succeeding.) Modern and mobile ADNs should be able to retain a significant residual capability even after initial SEAD campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Yeah, virtual attrition is a real and effective thing, and I'm thinking it's the backstop of what bewbies is saying, and he's got a different picture of what's causing how much of it, and how much certain forces are suffering.bewbies posted:the big issue driving a lot of these problems is the carriers are forced to operate at much further distances from the target than what we have gotten used to. couple that with an actual air and subsurface threat and it ties up a big portion of the air wing on other missions. I'm not really surprised that random guy on the internet #10 is asking questions that have been answered, I'm more curious about what those answers are because some are changed basic assumptions even from pretty recently that probably seem pretty obvious to dudes who do it professionally but haven't really percolated out. I'm guessing that carriers would have to operate spread enough that they wouldn't see much economy of scale defending against threats, and that resupply for those land based vstol planes would be reasonably safe or at least safe enough to be feasible despite proximity, likely through use of prepositioned and heavily protected stores? So while carriers are trying to kill everything getting eyes on them and protect from every angle and having their actual sorties working towards the actual objective reduced to nothing by all the overhead friction of staying alive, the F-35s are maybe not generating a huge number of sorties, maybe not the most heavily laden ones, but they're reliable and all going towards the objective? xthetenth fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
A mobile carrier is generally more survivable than a fixed airfield. And if we're talking about F-35s using their STOVL capabilities, that is the shortest ranged option of all of these situations. If the CVNs are forced to operate from long range, so are the LHDs...but the CVNs' aircraft have longer legs. Much longer. And the LHDs are only carrying ~16 F-35s anyway. When you start taking standard maintenance attrition rates into consideration you start running out of available aircraft very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:A mobile carrier is generally more survivable than a fixed airfield. And if we're talking about F-35s using their STOVL capabilities, that is the shortest ranged option of all of these situations. If the CVNs are forced to operate from long range, so are the LHDs...but the CVNs' aircraft have longer legs. Much longer. And the LHDs are only carrying ~16 F-35s anyway. When you start taking standard maintenance attrition rates into consideration you start running out of available aircraft very quickly. The LHD as baby carrier doesn't make sense to me either, it sounds like bewbies is talking about using an airfield with hardened hangars and everything that's otherwise out of action because it's close to the front line being useful, and that does make some sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The LHD as baby carrier doesn't make sense to me either, it sounds like bewbies is talking about using an airfield with hardened hangars and everything that's otherwise out of action because it's close to the front line being useful, and that does make some sense. Sure, but how does that require a $140M fifth generation fighter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Sure, but how does that require a $140M fifth generation fighter? That's why I was curious about how much analogous capability from other sources could be bought for its price tag, since at least my understanding had them rated high enough that they should be able to win the comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
If you look at the F-35B from the direction of - The USMC needed to replace the AV-8B as they will soon be too worn out to continue flying and they don't want to lose the fixed wing capability off their LHA/LHD's - There is absolutely no way they were going to be able to get a completely separate clean sheet VSTOL aircraft built just for them. - Their only option was to get a version of the JSF built for them. Do they need 5th gen or stealth for their mission? Probably not but they weren't getting a clean sheet 4th gen+ bespoke plane built for them. Did it make the A and C varients less capable? Maybe but there are probably dozens of cost and capability related compromises that make the F-35 less capable than it could have been. This isn't 1958 and the Air force/Navy/Marines aren't fielding a dozen different Fighter/Strike airframes tailored for a specific role. The F-35 program may be a complete boondoggle, but its looking more and more like its going to poo poo out a strike fighter that will along with the F-22 be able to continue to give the US an edge over any other countries airforce/adf forces for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Yeah the way I look at it is there's no real way we don't end up with a strike fighter vastly superior to the F-16 at the role given the avionics advancements, significantly higher power generation, and the AESA, we just had to let LockMart butffuck us a little bit on the way there (and also I blame the DoD/program office for coming up with the shitstorm development plan they did). The only thing that the F-16 really does better is the role it was explicitly designed for (surprise!), which is the light AtA daytime fighter poo poo, but we really are at the point that missiles like the AIM-9X and AA-11 change the knife fighting dynamic quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:48
|
|