|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The British Navy doesn't have anything they can fly an F/A-18 from. What are they going to do, build new Carriers? I doubt it's possible to retro-fit catapults into the ones you have, is it? Figure that cost into it, and you might just be saving money by purchasing the more expensive aircraft that can fly off the ships you already have. The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.
The ones without catapults? 
I thought they planned on using emals once it was squared away. They might. But they're building their carriers now with a ski-ramp and no cats. Can't fly an F18 off one of those. I think it is a workable solution especially in the Ford class I just wonder about the Queen Elizabeths class ability to generate enough electricity to make it viable. The amusement park world has been using the concept for awhile. I guess we will have to wait and see if it is easily scaled up and made reliable enough for sea duty. They can't, unless they go to a nuke powerplant, which from I understand is not planned. They could make a system to work with whatever power generation they have but if you need huge banks of capacitors and more than likely alot of time between launches it wouldn't be viable. |
|
According to this, Boeing is told the Indians, that the F-18 CAN operate from a no-catapult ski-jump carrier deck with a substantial weapons load.
"Indian Navy Interested In F/A 18 Super Hornets For INS Vikramaditya http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_Hornets.jpg It Is now sufficiently clear that the Indian Navy wants to be able to use the air force’s assets of war. In a revelation so far kept under wraps, the Navy has asked Boeing a contender for India's $10-billion tender for 126 air force fighters if the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can operate off the INS Vikramaditya, the rechristened Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov currently being refurbished in Russia for the Indian Navy. None of the fighters in the IAF’s existing fleet have the capability to operate from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Boeing’s campaign manager for the Indian deal Michael E. Rietz has revealed that after detailed simulations conducted at the company’s test centres, the Super Hornet on offer to India, can in fact operate off the Gorshkov. The significance of Boeing’s finding lies in the fact that the Super Hornet – which by default is launched using a steam-powered catapult on American super-carriers – has never before been known to be able to take off from an angled ski-jump – the launch mechanism on India’s sole aircraft carrier INS Virat, as well as the Gorshkov and the under-construction indigenous aircraft carrier. Rietz told reporters at Lemoore, which holds half of the US Navy’s striking power in the Pacific, “In our simulation, we discovered that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” Landing the Super Hornet on the Gorshkov would pose no problem since the warship comes equipped with an arrester cable. The 16 MiG-29K fighters that will come with the Gorshkov will land using this “trap” method. A typical scenario illustrates the import of the newly identified ability. A Super Hornet flying with the air force from a shore base can fly hundreds of kilometres over the sea, then land on an aircraft carrier, refuel and proceed onward. The reach advantage it would give the aircraft is something the air force has only envisaged with mid-air refuellers so far. Aircraft carriers, by their very nature, can obviously stay out at sea for far longer. In 2004, the Navy had sent out a request for information to another American firm Northrop Grumman about whether the latter’s carrier-based airborne early warning and control aircraft, the E-2 Hawkeye, could operate off the Gorshkov. However, plans to procure the aircraft in a ship-based role have since been shelved. " |
|
Quoted:
According to this, Boeing is told the Indians, that the F-18 CAN operate from a no-catapult ski-jump carrier deck with a substantial weapons load. "Indian Navy Interested In F/A 18 Super Hornets For INS Vikramaditya http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_Hornets.jpg It Is now sufficiently clear that the Indian Navy wants to be able to use the air force’s assets of war. In a revelation so far kept under wraps, the Navy has asked Boeing a contender for India's $10-billion tender for 126 air force fighters if the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can operate off the INS Vikramaditya, the rechristened Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov currently being refurbished in Russia for the Indian Navy. None of the fighters in the IAF’s existing fleet have the capability to operate from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Boeing’s campaign manager for the Indian deal Michael E. Rietz has revealed that after detailed simulations conducted at the company’s test centres, the Super Hornet on offer to India, can in fact operate off the Gorshkov. The significance of Boeing’s finding lies in the fact that the Super Hornet – which by default is launched using a steam-powered catapult on American super-carriers – has never before been known to be able to take off from an angled ski-jump – the launch mechanism on India’s sole aircraft carrier INS Virat, as well as the Gorshkov and the under-construction indigenous aircraft carrier. Rietz told reporters at Lemoore, which holds half of the US Navy’s striking power in the Pacific, “In our simulation, we discovered that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” Landing the Super Hornet on the Gorshkov would pose no problem since the warship comes equipped with an arrester cable. The 16 MiG-29K fighters that will come with the Gorshkov will land using this “trap” method. A typical scenario illustrates the import of the newly identified ability. A Super Hornet flying with the air force from a shore base can fly hundreds of kilometres over the sea, then land on an aircraft carrier, refuel and proceed onward. The reach advantage it would give the aircraft is something the air force has only envisaged with mid-air refuellers so far. Aircraft carriers, by their very nature, can obviously stay out at sea for far longer. In 2004, the Navy had sent out a request for information to another American firm Northrop Grumman about whether the latter’s carrier-based airborne early warning and control aircraft, the E-2 Hawkeye, could operate off the Gorshkov. However, plans to procure the aircraft in a ship-based role have since been shelved. " From the Hindustan Times, eh? That doesn't seem to be reported anywhere else. That doesn't seem feasible to me, and I don't recall the QE class having arresting gear either. I guess we'll see. |
|
Quoted: Flying describes the most important step in the process for an aircraft, don't you think? We know how to build avionics. We know how to build aircraft systems. The JSF will be fully mission capable, and will go to production. Don't forget the USMC is depending on it as well. Take a look at our last presidential helicopter program. It was based on a bird that had been flying for 20 years and still failed. Flying is the easy part. |
wht a boondoggle|
Maybe the MoD just didn't believe the hype... Eurofighter boasts Typhoon reign over F-35 Eurofighter has launched a new campaign to assert the supremacy of the Typhoon against the Lockheed Martin F-35 in air-to-air combat, describing internal simulations giving the former an advantage over a numerically superior F-35 attack force. The campaign is aimed at challenging Lockheed's claims that the F-35 enjoys a 6:1 exchange ratio over modern fighters. Eurofighter also hopes to dispel creeping global acceptance of Lockeed's description of the F-35 as a fifth-generation fighter that is implicitly superior to so-called fourth-generation fighters, such as the Typhoon. The challenge appears as several countries face decisions over buying both aircraft. On 20 July, Italy announced a decision to cancel a planned Tranche 3B contract for 25 Typhoons. In Eurofighter's view, buying F-35s at the expense of fewer Typhoons reduces the air force's overall capability. Eurofighter respects the F-35 as a world-class fighter for the air-to-ground mission, but not as a fighter in the traditional role as an air-to-air machine, says Craig Penrice, a Typhoon pilot and marketing adviser. Lockheed and programme officials have claimed that the days of traditional dogfighting are over. A promotional video released last year by F-35 supplier Northrop Grumman claims, for example, that "manoeuvrability is irrelevant" to a modern fighter. The video shows the F-35 can defeat opponents not with dogfighting skill, but by firing missiles agile enough to turn 180º. Eurofighter, however, claims the F-35 lacks all-aspect, very low observable stealth, and is vulnerable to detection and defeat by non-stealthy opponents. In an internal simulation series, Eurofighter found that four Typhoons supported by an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) defeated 85% of attacks by eight F-35s carrying an internal load of two joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and two air-to-air missiles, Penrice says. According to Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of the future requirements capture, the F-35's frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35's most likely approach path to a target. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Flying describes the most important step in the process for an aircraft, don't you think? We know how to build avionics. We know how to build aircraft systems. The JSF will be fully mission capable, and will go to production. Don't forget the USMC is depending on it as well. Take a look at our last presidential helicopter program. It was based on a bird that had been flying for 20 years and still failed. Flying is the easy part. Really ridiculous comparison. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Flying describes the most important step in the process for an aircraft, don't you think? We know how to build avionics. We know how to build aircraft systems. The JSF will be fully mission capable, and will go to production. Don't forget the USMC is depending on it as well. Take a look at our last presidential helicopter program. It was based on a bird that had been flying for 20 years and still failed. Flying is the easy part. Really ridiculous comparison. The Thales carriers are being designed to incorporate steam cats and traps, that's what the french are using in their version of it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Flying describes the most important step in the process for an aircraft, don't you think? We know how to build avionics. We know how to build aircraft systems. The JSF will be fully mission capable, and will go to production. Don't forget the USMC is depending on it as well. Take a look at our last presidential helicopter program. It was based on a bird that had been flying for 20 years and still failed. Flying is the easy part. Really ridiculous comparison. The Thales carriers are being designed to incorporate steam cats and traps, that's what the french are using in their version of it. Wouldn't that require a boiler to be installed somewhere since this class of carriers is powered by gas turbines? |
|
Quoted:
Flying describes the most important step in the process for an aircraft, don't you think? We know how to build avionics. We know how to build aircraft systems. The JSF will be fully mission capable, and will go to production. Don't forget the USMC is depending on it as well. I don't think the costs are done ballooning yet. What will the 30 year O&M costs be? Does anyone even know? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Flying describes the most important step in the process for an aircraft, don't you think? We know how to build avionics. We know how to build aircraft systems. The JSF will be fully mission capable, and will go to production. Don't forget the USMC is depending on it as well. I don't think the costs are done ballooning yet. What will the 30 year O&M costs be? Does anyone even know? Modern aircraft cost money. Not sure what the point of all the "OMG IT'S EXPENSIVE" crowd is –– if you want aircraft that can be effective, you have to spend the money to build them. Don't forget, the F35 is more than just an aircraft. It's also a testbed for technologies that will go into the next generation aircraft. 30 years from now manned aircraft will be a distant memory. |
|
Quoted:
This article talks about the F-18 ski jump program, is says it lessens the Hornet take-off roll by more than 50%. http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/usafskijumptest_852.gif Your links aren't working. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This article talks about the F-18 ski jump program, is says it lessens the Hornet take-off roll by more than 50%. http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/usafskijumptest_852.gif Your links aren't working. Fixed. 
|
|
Quoted:
Modern aircraft cost money. Not sure what the point of all the "OMG IT'S EXPENSIVE" crowd is –– if you want aircraft that can be effective, you have to spend the money to build them. Sure they cost money. But if they get so expensive that we stop buying them, we will have issues. The Air Force is already running out of planes. The Army's modernization programs all eventually get cancelled as too expensive. The Air Force is starting to feel that. And the Navy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This article talks about the F-18 ski jump program, is says it lessens the Hornet take-off roll by more than 50%. http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/usafskijumptest_852.gif Your links aren't working. Fixed.
Interesting. So if they were testing it in 1979, why did they abandon the ski-jump and go with catapults? There's got to be a reason. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The British Navy doesn't have anything they can fly an F/A-18 from. What are they going to do, build new Carriers? I doubt it's possible to retro-fit catapults into the ones you have, is it? Figure that cost into it, and you might just be saving money by purchasing the more expensive aircraft that can fly off the ships you already have. We are building new carriers http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00865/money-graphics-2008_865266a.jpg These I believe without catapults. I've seen the chatter that says they might someday build catapults into them, but they are not currently planned to have catapults, which means the F/A-18 is not capable of operating from them. Technically, it's possible to get a lightly loaded jet up. You take off with a few air to air or anti-ship weapons and get fuel from a tanker after you're airborne. Launching bomb trucks absolutely needs a cat. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Modern aircraft cost money. Not sure what the point of all the "OMG IT'S EXPENSIVE" crowd is –– if you want aircraft that can be effective, you have to spend the money to build them. Sure they cost money. But if they get so expensive that we stop buying them, we will have issues. The Air Force is already running out of planes. The Army's modernization programs all eventually get cancelled as too expensive. The Air Force is starting to feel that. And the Navy. JSF has a lot more investment than FCS ever did –– and the consequences if it fails are far greater, and encompass most of our allies. Also, FCS spun off several things that are being put into use, IIRC. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The British Navy doesn't have anything they can fly an F/A-18 from. What are they going to do, build new Carriers? I doubt it's possible to retro-fit catapults into the ones you have, is it? Figure that cost into it, and you might just be saving money by purchasing the more expensive aircraft that can fly off the ships you already have. We are building new carriers http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00865/money-graphics-2008_865266a.jpg These I believe without catapults. I've seen the chatter that says they might someday build catapults into them, but they are not currently planned to have catapults, which means the F/A-18 is not capable of operating from them. Technically, it's possible to get a lightly loaded jet up. You take off with a few air to air or anti-ship weapons and get fuel from a tanker after you're airborne. Launching bomb trucks absolutely needs a cat. That's the only thing I can think of, the ski-jump must just not be able to get anything with a decent load off the deck. |
|
Quoted:
JSF has a lot more investment than FCS ever did –– and the consequences if it fails are far greater, and encompass most of our allies. Also, FCS spun off several things that are being put into use, IIRC. NLOS LS is already cancelled. That was one of the bigger spin offs. If the consequences are so high, maybe we should bite off so much. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
JSF has a lot more investment than FCS ever did –– and the consequences if it fails are far greater, and encompass most of our allies. Also, FCS spun off several things that are being put into use, IIRC. NLOS LS is already cancelled. That was one of the bigger spin offs. If the consequences are so high, maybe we should bite off so much. There's a ton of other tech that's spun off though, not just big programs like NLOS. The price of modern warfare is high. It is what it is. |
|
Quoted: ARH and Comanche had flying aircraft too, and they were a little bigger than VH-71. But VH-71 was a little further than just flying - they had all Phase 1 aircraft delivered, and STILL got shit-canned.Quoted: How so? Seriously? JSF is a nearly 3000 airframe international program. The vh-71 program was less than 30 airframes for one specific purpose. On that basis alone, the comparison becomes so ridiculous it doesn't even merit discussion. A flying aircraft is far from a guarantee of program success, regardless of size. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
ARH and Comanche had flying aircraft too, and they were a little bigger than VH-71. But VH-71 was a little further than just flying - they had all Phase 1 aircraft delivered, and STILL got shit-canned.
Quoted:
How so? Seriously? JSF is a nearly 3000 airframe international program. The vh-71 program was less than 30 airframes for one specific purpose. On that basis alone, the comparison becomes so ridiculous it doesn't even merit discussion. A flying aircraft is far from a guarantee of program success, regardless of size. The comparison is still ridiculous. And we lost next to nothing by losing VH-71 –– at least in comparison to JSF. |
|
Quoted:
The price of modern warfare is high. It is what it is. It is unnecessarily high. Allowing it to be that way won't improve anything. If we weren't using ancient systems for so many things we'd really be in a bind for money. In forty years many of our combat vehicles, both planes and armored vehicles, will be approaching 100 years old. Meanwhile we don't pursue realistic modernization plans, so we replace on thing and then the other, and end up with no coherent plan. The Army tried to design FCS as a family of vehicles, but when a few of them failed the concept brought the whole thing down. So we have artillery that can't keep up with tanks, and other such things. The entire procurement system is in shambles. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The price of modern warfare is high. It is what it is. It is unnecessarily high. Allowing it to be that way won't improve anything. If we weren't using ancient systems for so many things we'd really be in a bind for money. In forty years many of our combat vehicles, both planes and armored vehicles, will be approaching 100 years old. Meanwhile we don't pursue realistic modernization plans, so we replace on thing and then the other, and end up with no coherent plan. The Army tried to design FCS as a family of vehicles, but when a few of them failed the concept brought the whole thing down. So we have artillery that can't keep up with tanks, and other such things. The entire procurement system is in shambles. How can you determine how high it should be? How have you determined that "the entire procurement system is in shambles"? What's your qualification to make those statements? What is a "realistic modernization plan"? |
|
Quoted:
How can you determine how high it should be? Start with determining what threats you face, and prioritizing them according to both likeliness and danger. Then determine how to meet those threats, including personnel, personnel systems and equipment. Then determine what the cost will be. Quoted:
How have you determined that "the entire procurement system is in shambles"? My opinion, based on a thorough reading of the last 30 years of procurement failures. Quoted:
What's your qualification to make those statements? Limited. Quoted:
What is a "realistic modernization plan"? One that isn't so large that it will double in cost and be cancelled. We don't need to double down on capability; getting new planes that won't fall out of the sky would be better than designing the world's coolest plane and then not buying it. Did I mention that since it took 20 year to develop the F22 many of the systems in it are antiquated and need to be replaced? This is a plane that just entered production... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How can you determine how high it should be? Start with determining what threats you face, and prioritizing them according to both likeliness and danger. Then determine how to meet those threats, including personnel, personnel systems and equipment. Then determine what the cost will be. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's being done. Quoted:
How have you determined that "the entire procurement system is in shambles"? My opinion, based on a thorough reading of the last 30 years of procurement failures. Quoted:
What's your qualification to make those statements? Limited. Quoted:
What is a "realistic modernization plan"? One that isn't so large that it will double in cost and be cancelled. We don't need to double down on capability; getting new planes that won't fall out of the sky would be better than designing the world's coolest plane and then not buying it. Did I mention that since it took 20 year to develop the F22 many of the systems in it are antiquated and need to be replaced? This is a plane that just entered production... Unfortunately, when you build a brand new aircraft, you need to build the best capability you can into it. There's no point in building a new aircraft that offers only marginal or no improvement over the ones we already have. Yes, the F22 is over 20 years old. That's the best argument for getting the F35 into production I've heard yet. |
|
Quoted:
Unfortunately, when you build a brand new aircraft, you need to build the best capability you can into it. There's no point in building a new aircraft that offers only marginal or no improvement over the ones we already have. I think we should buy news planes so we have fighters and attack aircraft with wings that don't fall off. Quoted:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's being done. Where is that white paper? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately, when you build a brand new aircraft, you need to build the best capability you can into it. There's no point in building a new aircraft that offers only marginal or no improvement over the ones we already have. I think we should buy news planes so we have fighters and attack aircraft with wings that don't fall off. Quoted:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's being done. Where is that white paper? That kind of white paper isn't going to be published in the NYT. And which new planes would you suggest we buy? The F18's we're buying right now to backfill until the F35 comes online? You don't plan to buy outdated technology in place of future development. |
|
Quoted:
That kind of white paper isn't going to be published in the NYT. The Army publishes it concepts. Doesn't everyone? [span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/spa
And which new planes would you suggest we buy? The F18's we're buying right now to backfill until the F35 comes online? Better than nothing. Which is what we will might get. [span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/spa
You don't plan to buy outdated technology in place of future development. As it stands we are getting outdated technology as future development. And at double the advertised price. Then we cut the buy to nothing and act like we got what we wanted. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That kind of white paper isn't going to be published in the NYT. The Army publishes it concepts. Doesn't everyone? [span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/spa
And which new planes would you suggest we buy? The F18's we're buying right now to backfill until the F35 comes online? Better than nothing. Which is what we will might get. [span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/spa
You don't plan to buy outdated technology in place of future development. As it stands we are getting outdated technology as future development. And at double the advertised price. Then we cut the buy to nothing and act like we got what we wanted. The F35 isn't outdated technology by any stretch of the imagination. If you're talking about the F22, it's not outdated either –– the F22 is the most capable aircraft flying in many ways. The buy was cut because we simply don't need more of them. The mission it was built for no longer exists. The technology we gained from the F22 will be incorporated into the F35 –– it's not wasted because we're not building more F22s. Any white paper with the level of detail you're describing would probably not be written for public consumption. I'm not sure what you're looking for. |
|
I'm looking for a rationalization of the way that modernization is being conducted.
I understand that the F22 is an improvement over everything in the world. It is still improving an existing advantage. If we keep cutting buys we won't have enough fighters in range to make a difference, no matter how capable. We are going to have something like 186 when all is said and done. With ~26 in training units and a 60% OR rate you are going to be able to put up 96. Worldwide. So unless they are all in one place you won't have that many. Add in cycles to keep the crew and the plane topped off on fuel, ammo, food and sleep how many can you put up? |
|
Quoted:
I'm looking for a rationalization of the way that modernization is being conducted. I understand that the F22 is an improvement over everything in the world. It is still improving an existing advantage. If we keep cutting buys we won't have enough fighters in range to make a difference, no matter how capable. We are going to have something like 186 when all is said and done. With ~26 in training units and a 60% OR rate you are going to be able to put up 96. Worldwide. So unless they are all in one place you won't have that many. Add in cycles to keep the crew and the plane topped off on fuel, ammo, food and sleep how many can you put up? I did mention why we cut the F22, right? It was built for a war that is never going to happen. It's so far technologically advanced beyond anything else anyone in the world can field that there's no need for it to be employed in the manner it was originally envisioned. We're not going to deploy squadrons of F22s against Russia or China –– there's no reason to. By the time those countries catch up, it won't matter anymore. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe the MoD just didn't believe the hype... Eurofighter boasts Typhoon reign over F-35 snip
Eurofighter press releases about black box simulations is not good evidence that MOD doesn't believe LM promises for the F-35. No more convincing than their latest brochure trying to define 4th vs. 5th gen to ensure they sell to somebody besides their own govts and the Saudis (who plan to buy more F-15s for some reason). Not saying you or Eurofighter is wrong, but I'd think a more neutral source would be more convincing (can't use Canada anymore since they, another F-18 operator, decided to buy F-35s for some reason). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm looking for a rationalization of the way that modernization is being conducted. I understand that the F22 is an improvement over everything in the world. It is still improving an existing advantage. If we keep cutting buys we won't have enough fighters in range to make a difference, no matter how capable. We are going to have something like 186 when all is said and done. With ~26 in training units and a 60% OR rate you are going to be able to put up 96. Worldwide. So unless they are all in one place you won't have that many. Add in cycles to keep the crew and the plane topped off on fuel, ammo, food and sleep how many can you put up? I did mention why we cut the F22, right? It was built for a war that is never going to happen. It's so far technologically advanced beyond anything else anyone in the world can field that there's no need for it to be employed in the manner it was originally envisioned. We're not going to deploy squadrons of F22s against Russia or China –– there's no reason to. By the time those countries catch up, it won't matter anymore. Sorry to muscle in on your argument, but I think you both have a point: -The F35 was the post-cold war F22, meant to fill in the low end of TacAir for the AF and also to do it economically, which meant it didn't quite fit in the Navy's plans (not high end enough or quick enough to replace F14s or F18A/B, but probably good enough for today's and tomorrows wars). It's only obsolete if X-47B quickly matures and actually works in real world scenarios. -F35 will be a failure if one or both of two things happen (1) It costs too much (since the goal was affordable stealth), and (2) Stealth without F22 speed doesn't work (stealth just makes tracking & targeting harder at longer range, speed makes tracking infinitely harder) F35 avionics will work eventually. AH-64 is the classic case of a high tech bird that came into serivce, was difficult to maintain, didn't work very well, and also had to adapt to new post-cold war warfare. The Army has fixed the TADS/PNVS so that it works as designed and they have finally fixed their tactics to use it to advantage in the current wars. Block III should continue the march forward. Many of the Army's procurments have followed this same path of being so-so at introduction and radically improved once in service. The F35 may follow a similar path after introduction (and it does have some planned improvements in the pipeline since we've learned to plan ahead -spiral - because of past procurement fuck ups). From the get-go, having a stealthy F-16 with no external stores to slow it down will be a big improvement over what anybody else has for a long time and gives us a chance to go downtown against S-300/400 and do DEAD without crazy losses. And yes, I wish the dipshits in charge had allocated some of the wasted stimulous to buy another 40-80 F-22s as a bridge until the F35 is proven. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The British Navy doesn't have anything they can fly an F/A-18 from. What are they going to do, build new Carriers? I doubt it's possible to retro-fit catapults into the ones you have, is it? Figure that cost into it, and you might just be saving money by purchasing the more expensive aircraft that can fly off the ships you already have. The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers. The ones without catapults? I thought they planned on using emals once it was squared away. They might. But they're building their carriers now with a ski-ramp and no cats. Can't fly an F18 off one of those. I seem to recall seeing an article (proibably here) where Boeing was asked about it and came back with the answer that a Superhornet can, in fact, be flown off of a ski-ramp. I don't know what kind (if any) resctrictions there would be for fuel or payload, but at least according to Boeing, it can be done. I'l see if I can find the article when I get home. -K |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm looking for a rationalization of the way that modernization is being conducted. I understand that the F22 is an improvement over everything in the world. It is still improving an existing advantage. If we keep cutting buys we won't have enough fighters in range to make a difference, no matter how capable. We are going to have something like 186 when all is said and done. With ~26 in training units and a 60% OR rate you are going to be able to put up 96. Worldwide. So unless they are all in one place you won't have that many. Add in cycles to keep the crew and the plane topped off on fuel, ammo, food and sleep how many can you put up? I did mention why we cut the F22, right? It was built for a war that is never going to happen. It's so far technologically advanced beyond anything else anyone in the world can field that there's no need for it to be employed in the manner it was originally envisioned. We're not going to deploy squadrons of F22s against Russia or China –– there's no reason to. By the time those countries catch up, it won't matter anymore. Sorry to muscle in on your argument, but I think you both have a point: -The F35 was the post-cold war F22, meant to fill in the low end of TacAir for the AF and also to do it economically, which meant it didn't quite fit in the Navy's plans (not high end enough or quick enough to replace F14s or F18A/B, but probably good enough for today's and tomorrows wars). It's only obsolete if X-47B quickly matures and actually works in real world scenarios. -F35 will be a failure if one or both of two things happen (1) It costs too much (since the goal was affordable stealth), and (2) Stealth without F22 speed doesn't work (stealth just makes tracking & targeting harder at longer range, speed makes tracking infinitely harder) F35 avionics will work eventually. AH-64 is the classic case of a high tech bird that came into serivce, was difficult to maintain, didn't work very well, and also had to adapt to new post-cold war warfare. The Army has fixed the TADS/PNVS so that it works as designed and they have finally fixed their tactics to use it to advantage in the current wars. Block III should continue the march forward. Many of the Army's procurments have followed this same path of being so-so at introduction and radically improved once in service. The F35 may follow a similar path after introduction (and it does have some planned improvements in the pipeline since we've learned to plan ahead -spiral - because of past procurement fuck ups). From the get-go, having a stealthy F-16 with no external stores to slow it down will be a big improvement over what anybody else has for a long time and gives us a chance to go downtown against S-300/400 and do DEAD without crazy losses. And yes, I wish the dipshits in charge had allocated some of the wasted stimulous to buy another 40-80 F-22s as a bridge until the F35 is proven. All good points. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The British Navy doesn't have anything they can fly an F/A-18 from. What are they going to do, build new Carriers? I doubt it's possible to retro-fit catapults into the ones you have, is it? Figure that cost into it, and you might just be saving money by purchasing the more expensive aircraft that can fly off the ships you already have. The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.
The ones without catapults?
I thought they planned on using emals once it was squared away. They might. But they're building their carriers now with a ski-ramp and no cats. Can't fly an F18 off one of those. I seem to recall seeing an article (proibably here) where Boeing was asked about it and came back with the answer that a Superhornet can, in fact, be flown off of a ski-ramp. I don't know what kind (if any) resctrictions there would be for fuel or payload, but at least according to Boeing, it can be done. I'l see if I can find the article when I get home. -K Somebody posted an article earlier in this thread from Hindustan Times saying Boeing says it could be done, and KA3B posted a link to some testing that was done in 1979 with ski-ramps. I suspect the problem is that you can't effectively utilize them though –– I think the weight restrictions would simply be too low. |
|
Quoted:
I did mention why we cut the F22, right? It was built for a war that is never going to happen. It's so far technologically advanced beyond anything else anyone in the world can field that there's no need for it to be employed in the manner it was originally envisioned. We're not going to deploy squadrons of F22s against Russia or China –– there's no reason to. By the time those countries catch up, it won't matter anymore. I agree with this to a large extent. I think we have 20 years before our enemies can catch up with what we can do now. We should skip a generation and time it so that we are 20 years ahead of them then, if not now. I also think that the future is unmanned. I just wonder if we should save out money until we can buy something unmanned. Particularly a little bomber to fly off carriers, that can carry SDBs and take out C2 nodes and something to take down ADA threats. Then we can roll in and do what we want. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did mention why we cut the F22, right? It was built for a war that is never going to happen. It's so far technologically advanced beyond anything else anyone in the world can field that there's no need for it to be employed in the manner it was originally envisioned. We're not going to deploy squadrons of F22s against Russia or China –– there's no reason to. By the time those countries catch up, it won't matter anymore. I agree with this to a large extent. I think we have 20 years before our enemies can catch up with what we can do now. We should skip a generation and time it so that we are 20 years ahead of them then, if not now. I also think that the future is unmanned. I just wonder if we should save out money until we can buy something unmanned. Particularly a little bomber to fly off carriers, that can carry SDBs and take out C2 nodes and something to take down ADA threats. Then we can roll in and do what we want. Already in development, dedreckon named it above. You almost perfectly described the X-47B. |
|
Quoted: Do you know how much ordnance weight a harrier can carry even in STO/VL mode? Pathetically little, pretty much helicopter equivalent. The F-35B likewise, will carry only a small fraction of the amount of ordnance a superbug launched by catapult can. If you operate Superbugs off of ski-ramp equipped ships, they can carry air to air loads and small air to ground loads, and can also operate from land based fields with much larger ordnance loads. That should suit the UKs and Marines needs just fine. They are both operating very weight restricted aircraft already.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The British Navy doesn't have anything they can fly an F/A-18 from. What are they going to do, build new Carriers? I doubt it's possible to retro-fit catapults into the ones you have, is it? Figure that cost into it, and you might just be saving money by purchasing the more expensive aircraft that can fly off the ships you already have. The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers. The ones without catapults? I thought they planned on using emals once it was squared away. They might. But they're building their carriers now with a ski-ramp and no cats. Can't fly an F18 off one of those. I seem to recall seeing an article (proibably here) where Boeing was asked about it and came back with the answer that a Superhornet can, in fact, be flown off of a ski-ramp. I don't know what kind (if any) resctrictions there would be for fuel or payload, but at least according to Boeing, it can be done. I'l see if I can find the article when I get home. -K Somebody posted an article earlier in this thread from Hindustan Times saying Boeing says it could be done, and KA3B posted a link to some testing that was done in 1979 with ski-ramps. I suspect the problem is that you can't effectively utilize them though –– I think the weight restrictions would simply be too low. |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter