It really looks good. If the F-15Se really wins in Korea and the Advanced SuperHornet wins in Brazil and Canada(all big ifs)i see Boeing pushing this planes at a very low price for the US...there are a lot of voices in the USAF wanting the F-15Se and in the Navy wanting the ASH...maybe it time the USMC to take a second look at this
i agree. we have enough harriers to last until 2030 so lets take a breather, figure out what we need and how we're going to do it and get started now on building a STOVL jet for the USMC, a fighter bomber for the USAF and a fleet interceptor for the USN.
Do not think F-15SE has a chance of winning in Korea unless Boeing promises its F-15SE to be at least:
1. Bundled with EA-15G (I would call it EA-18Growler for F-15 since Korea has many F-15 already. Later they can turn some of the aged ones into EA-15G Growler Eagle!!!
2. F-15SE comes with center-line enclosed weapons pod, radar blocker
Am a overseas Korean and I support Boeing but Boeing does not have a chance unless their proposal becomes at least as this much sexy, or better...
i think so. besides, the Rafale just had a price spike and i'm sure they'll try and push the F-35 but its expensive too.
this is probably the most affordable, combat proven 4thgen + airplane flying today. it'll get the job done till 2030 and then we can get something newer
In fact, it is the most affordable airplane flying today. Althought the fact Gripen is the cheapest one, its new generation - the NG is far from being full operacional. We need these machines for "yesterday".
The brazilian governement wants so bad that the new fighter brings some new capabilities to the national industry. SAAB says the Gripen would increase our potencial in bulding aircrafts and Brazil would take part in every sales of Gripen around the world. That is a good point, but we all know that a plane`s project is something hard to predict. The history has shown almost all projects involving high-tech fighters had delays and budgets busted.
I think we can not afford this. F-18, in the other hand, has a great growth potencial and we could personalize some features, like Boeing affirmed no long ago, referring to the partnership with AEL Systems.
They should make a larger version of it. 2k worth of weapon space and 2k worth of fuel, perfect for the F-35 inner pylons (rated for 5k, even on the B).
The Rhino can still carry 2 AMRAAMs semi-conformally (minimal cross section) as well as 2 Sidewinders on the wingtips. Maybe my math is rusty, but that's 2 AIM-9s more than a F-35 buttoned up.
For day one to use 2 or 3 Super Honets almost at the same price of one F-35 to launch two big bombs is reasonable. For day two and the next 10 years of campaign to use an F-35 at the same price of 2 1/2 Super Hornets to carry on the same amount of weapons externally...that makes no sense.
You really have no clue how things are done, do you?
It will take you at least three times as long (assuming the SH has the same survivability rate as the F-35, which it clearly does not) to strike all priority and hi threat targets. This additional time allows the enemy to beef up support, move assets, etc. Even after "1st" day ops, large munitions are being used and AAA, SAMs, & MANPADS are still a threat. Throw in the additional support needed and this is not workable.
If this idea would meet the JSF requirement, then Boeing would have bid this solution instead of the F-32. It does not and they did not.
Yeah, Big deal. You can lunch an airplane from a carrier every 45 seconds or less. So 9 minutes to lunch 12 F-35 with a total of 24 big bombs and 24 Amraams internally. In the other hand, you need 18 minutes to put in the air 18 Super Hornets with a total of 18 big bombs internally and 36 Aim-9x on the wins, another 4 extra Super Hornets for escort with 16 Amraams internally and 8 Aim-9X on the tip of the wings and two extra Growlers with 2 Amraams each. That means internally 0.75 times the amount of bombs carried internally by the F-35, and more than 2.33 times the Air to Air missiles and everything for 1/3 of the price. As a plus you have 2 real electronic warfare airplanes, not only to jam radars, but also the enemy communications for the rest of the war. Whats the big difference for the enemy if he has only 9 extra minutes to run? For Day two and the res of the war, you will launch the same number of airplanes and bombs with the Super Hornets or the F-35, but way more cheaper with the Super Hornets.
If you have the money for 24 F-35, that means you have the money for aprox 54 Super Hornets and 4 Growlers. Day one pretty much the same result with both fleets. Day 2 and the rest of the war...voila.... you have 2,5 more punch with the Super Hornet fleet.
What is limited in the USNavy is the budget.is more important to have the sufficient number of airplanes in a carrier than few of them designed plenty of compromises just for the day one of the war. They wont go first minute any way, before will go the Tomahawks launched from very long and safe distance. Then you can send Super Hornets, Growlers, even Harriers of you want. For Australia for example, there is no problem of space in a carrier or money in their budget of defense.
Once again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding. The USN has for years been reducing the carrier wing sized to maximize efficiency. Putting more fighters on a carrier is not a good thing if less F-35s can get the job done. The USN is not going to reverse that trend and put more of a less-capable fighter on the carrier when the F-35 is available. The USN does not have a fighter budget problem.
Is the F-18 cheaper than a F-35, sure. But is also less capable and because deck space is limited, the USN wants the most capable fighter that takes up a spot.
Btw, how many more BILLIONS is it going to take to develop all the toys (EWP, IRST, MAWS, avionics, EPE engine, etc) that Boeing wants to put on the Silent Hornet? Did that figure into your cost equations?
Super Hornet is not a less capable aircraft. Boeing has made the investments in these upgrades, not the USN. Super Hornet and Growler provide equivalent effects, with more flexibility. The Navy could save enough money to pay for their ships and submarines, with zero degradation in carrier ariwing capability by increasing the ratio on deck with more Super Hornets and Growlers.
Boeing has made very little investment in the Silent Hornet tech. These flights are aerodynamic models only, not working units.
Now try some facts: SH cannot fly m1.6 armed while F-35 can SH must take up a weapon slot to mount a FLIR SH does not have a IR MAWS SH cannot survive in the same environments as other VLO aircraft. The fact that it requires EW support to even get close is testament to that. SH cannot supercruise at any speed & altitude. SH's datalinks can give it's position away
Boeing has flown and tested signature reductions enhancements. As a matter of fact, the ADV Super Hornet flew yesterday and reporters were able to see the aircratg up close, and it can combat the same 2030 threats tht other aircraft are designed to do. As for your comments on what Super Hornet can and can't do, well, how do you compare one that is operational to one that is not? The plane you advocate for has not met IOC yet, can't land on an aircraft carrier, and can't go operational becuase of too many issues and problems to mention here in this forum. Furthermore, you might want to do some homework on EW support and check how many VLO aircaraft have flown operational missions without EW support...
You are deluded if you think that ADV_Sh can fight PakFa, J-20, J-31, and advanced ADA networks.
The only thing that flew yesterday was a SH with MOCK attachments in order to verify the aerodynamic characteristics of the CFT and EWP hardware.
As far as the F-35 and it's capabilities goes: It has already flown to m1.6 with a full internal weapons load It already has a VLO airframe (something ADV_SH will NEVER have) It already has a working EODAS, EOTS, LPI AESA radar, MADL, etc
The big difference in EW support: VLO airframes can use EW support as an option while 4th gen assets REQUIRE EW to get the job done.
They work just fine for the software build that they are running at (the hardware is not changing, just the software that fuses the data). Some of them have been flying for almost 10 years.
Flies the same, with no additional training needed. Additional cost is about 10 increase depending on options selected, which is still more affordable--by far--than other options. See this link and interview with the test pilot: http://bit.ly/15ws4yq
SpudmanWP, it is now clear to me that you don't know anything about the way the Navy operates. The space on a carrier deck is limited, but the number of carriers is not. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated that the cuts in the size of airwings and carriers is to protect the F-35 Program because it is so damn expensive. In case you need that simplified: THE NAVY IS MAKING CUTS IN ITS FORCE SIZES BECAUSE OF THE F-35 PROGRAM'S HIGH OUT TO SPACE PRICE TAG. The F-35 is the source of the problem.
Normal Navy doctrine puts 2 carriers near a warzone for the duration of the heavy fighting. Two carriers with full loads of Advanced Super Hornets is fully capable of taking on and overwhelming any known threat with the one exception being a Chinese take over of Taiwan, which the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations specifically have said even the F-35 when/if it is made fully operational is not sufficient for. Why do you think the Navy is making the F/A-XX program?
The current estimates for an ASH are at roughly $90 million, which is still less than half the cost of the current F-35C, the price tag of which has not gone down, but has in fact gone up to $199.4 million flyaway cost according to the FY 2013 budget estimates, which are publicly available online: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
The price of the F-35C is anticipated to go up because the only way to solve the problem of it not being able to land on a carrier is to stretch out its airframe, which will cause drastic price increases that would greatly exceed whatever it would take to fully develop the ASH upgrades. The cost required to get the F-35 actually functional greatly exceed what the Navy would spend developing the ASH. Boeing did a chunk of the work for us already. (I'm in the Navy by the way, which is why I refer to it as "us.")
While the ASH is not yet using fully functional CFTs and an EWP, it is still far less difficult and far less expensive to develop than a fully functional F-35 of any variant because it is using off the shelf technology and does not require development of any brand new technologies. The longest thing to develop would most likely be the software changes, and don't get me started on the software setbacks that the F-35 has in place. Even the most optimistic F-35 supporters say that the software still experiences a significant level of "risk."
By the way, SpudmanWP, since you take Lockheed F-35 marketers for the word on costs like a blind zombie I think it's only fair that you give Boeing Super Hornet marketer cost estimates a fair amount of legitimacy too don't you think?
Aside from that, lets face it, the fact that we have Tomahawk cruise missiles and other long range ordnance means that our enemies will more than likely never get their aircraft off the ground. The PAK-FA will not be made in enough numbers to be effective at anything except homeland defense for Russia. The J-31 and J-20 scare is unreal since those aircraft are really far out in their operational timelines, more like late 2020s timeline. The Advanced Super Hornet also doesn't need to be more stealthy than the F-35 if it has the right ordnance, like a long range stand-off anti-radar missile of incredibly high speeds that could kill SAMs.
The F-35 is soaking up funds for that (the T3 missile and then another one was killed called the JDRADM missile) and other much more cheap ways of getting the job done more effectively. It is only still going because it puts money in the right pockets and jobs in the right places. It is a bad joke and a total cluster fuck for the armed forces, but it is a money maker for the military industrial complex.
The Super Hornet is a program the Navy built with a purpose and the upgrades to it would make it roughly just as good as the F-35 (and better in some areas) while being only a fraction of the cost. The Navy is trying to pull itself away from the F-35 but Lockheed has their hooks in deep.
A fraction of the cost... at a fraction of the capability.
Nice try.
If the ASH was "good enough" then that's what the USN would be buying and would not be pushing for F/A-XX either.
The DoD (not LM) puts the FRP cost of a F-35C at $110 mil. So for a mere $20 mil you get all the benefits of the F-35C. I base all my numbers on official DoD docs (SAR, budget projections, etc), not LM marketing.
btw, Who pays for the development and did that play a part in your calculations?
As far as soaking up funds goes, all of that is heading towards social programs and not the military. T3/JDRADM were put on hold due to not being needed in the near term. The AIM-120D is good enough for now.
SupdmanWP you are a fucking retard. Any google search will show that the F-35C is at 199Mil per aircraft FLYAWAY F.Y. 2013. With the Simpleist form, the F-35A for the airforce being 153mil a mere 3.5mil more per aircraft than the F-22 (yet having a smaller internal carrying capacity. Outside of a few talking heads who have been specifically chosen, and a some idiot nonners who don't work anything related to aircraft, almost nobody likes the F-35 procurement plan. The F-22 should have been upgraded in avionics and done with new coatings and sealant to fix the maintenance timeframe (most of it is waiting for sealants on panels to cure). Nothing has been done about replacing the Raven that's been retired, requiring the airforce to solely rely on AWACS and JSTARS for communication jacking the already over-taxed naval air fleet of E/A-18's and E/A6's for jamming.
The F-35B (which is another story) is the most god-damn expensive fighter in history, has an extremely limited range and capabilities. A project that is obviously kept alive by the marine corps need to keep their "blue water" expeditionary ship construction funded at the cost of practical fighter acquirement for other branches and at the cost of equipment procurement for their ground forces (who are already under funded and under-equipped.
What should happen is that the F-35B and F-35C should be abandoned. The F-35A should be cut in production to a level required to play as a support unit to the F-22 for hitting ground targets (as was intended with it's avionics package), the F022 should get a new avionics and radar suite and fix the maintenance issues (aka sealant and coatings with a TCTO, which is cheap as USAF maintenance specialists can handle it ourselves).
The F-15 silent eagle upgrade with a electronic-warfare suite for either the F-15 or F-16 is the last upgrade the airforce would need to maintain world-wide air dominance. Add that with the ability to fill up the navy's aircraft carriers back to full capacity with F-18 Advanced super-hornets and growlers and we would see a program cheaper, and more capable than the F-35.
The F-35 is not the all around solution Lockheed is selling it as. CAN it does a multitude of missions? Sure, so can the F/A-18. F-16, F-15, and F-22. It does one mission real well (deep range ground attack) while being a compromise (at the least) at everything else (CAS, air superiority, electronic warfare, escort, etc.) with an effectiveness (when not purposely set up to the F-35's strengths) as any other fighter while paying half as much to double the cost depending on the air frame upgrades it could be replaced with.
One F-35 for day one of conflict using passive stealth (against surface radars) gives you an airplane with just one engine, one pilot, one Aesa Radar, EO/IR sensors, two big bombs of 1000 lbs and two amraams.
For the same price and also for day one of conflict using passive VLO enhancements (against surface radars) you can have one advanced SH with two engines, (two lifes) two pilots (two brains), two mid size bombs of 500 lbs; two amraams and two Aim-9X, one Aesa Radar, EO/IR sensors plus an extra Growler (active stealth against surface and air/air threats), also with two engines, two pilots, 2 high speed antiradiation missiles, two Amraams one Aesa Radars and a real electronic warfare capability to jam enemy radars and disrupt their troops communications.
At the end and for the same money you have in the air:
1 engine vs 4 engines 2 Big Boms vs 2 Mid size Bombs 2 Amraams vs 4Amraams plus 2 Aim-9X 1 single Pilot vs 2 Pilots and 2 co-pilots for battle management, ellectronic warfare,reconnaissance and in the near future control of drones. 1 Aesa Radars vs 2 Aesa Radars Passive Stealth design (effective only against surface redars) vs VLO and active stealth (effective agains surface and air/air threas).
The F-35 design is passive Stealth just at the front and sides (against surface radars). Any 4gen fighter (like the Sukhoys or Migs) Flying higher in CAP mission (carring a lot of missiles), is able to detect the masive and round engine and the cockpit back of the F-35, using just a conventional radar (not even an Aesa one)
And you still talking about better capabilities for the money?
And all of that is just for day one of conflict. For day two when you don't need to carry on weapons internally the SH/Growler fleet is even twice as effective than the F-35 fleet.
Watch another of my videos, maybe this way you will finally understand the point.
You will not be able to buy 2 ASH for the price of one F-35. Stop comparing today's LRIP F-35 vs the then (post development) cost of an ASH. You are raising disingenuous to a whole new level.
btw, The F-35 has all-around passive stealth. Every panel is aligned, every edge treated, and the nozzle has interweaving sawtooth edges.
In the end the ASH will not end up in USN inventory in place of the F-35 although I would not mind seeing it as upgrades on current SH airframes.
The fact that you do not know what I (and everyone else with half a brain) mean by "aligned" speaks volumes to you lack of knowledge about how RCS and VLO methods work.
Mig31 SERVICE ceiling 67000 ft. Max Speed at high altitude Match 2,83 This was before the upgrade www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyBjlchyBEg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
F-35 max Ceiling 60000 ft Max speed at high altitude Mach.1,6
The F-22 top for their two smaller engines looks flat compared with the huge and cilindrical top of the F-35. BTW the F-35 flyes at match 2.85 at 65000ft with their weapons inside, but an very high cost too.
Not totally true. Talks on material aside, remember the old F-117s? Angled like no plane has been angled before. Of course you are right in saying that the reflection in one direction may be better, but IIRC, the concept then was to bounce the reflection off in a direction without a receiver, so even with flat panels, a F-117 had better stealth characteristics than a "rounded" F-16 or F-18, so the case is hardly as clear cut as "curved>flat"
Congrats on being an architect, but you display a profound lack of knowledge about aircraft tactics & capabilities:
1. You did not know what alignment was and how it affected RCS 2. You think the SH is a VLO airframe 3. You think that the Triton has an A2A radar and that it can detect a F-35 at any significant distance 4. You compare LRIP F-35 pricing to FRP F-18 pricing. This applies to today’s price but ignores tomorrow’s. 5. You compared the F-18’s frontal view to the F-117/22/35 (notice the lack of a chine, or what it’s for?) 6. You completely ignore tactics in your “vs” comparisons
1. You did not know what alignment was and how it affected RCS Prove it 2. You think the SH is a VLO airframe It is at certain angles 3. You think that the Triton has an A2A radar and that it can detect a F-35 at any significant distance As I told you, any 2D radar can give you the distance, speed and direction of any small airplane at long ranges, with simple geometry fusioned with the IR/Sensor can give you the altitude. 4. You compare LRIP F-35 pricing to FRP F-18 pricing. This applies to today’s price but ignores tomorrow’s. Waht every body ignores is the final price of the F-35 5. You compared the F-18’s frontal view to the F-117/22/35 (notice the lack of a chine, or what it’s for?) I'm not comparing it's frontal view with the F-117/22 I just compare with the F-35 and I put you a view to prove it. 6. You completely ignore tactics in your “vs” comparisons Prove it.
BTW, I'm enjoin my holidays seen how desperate is some F-35 fans trying to justify it's necessity. The better solution for USA should be to built more Raptors and Silent Ealges for the USAF, More Super Hornets for the USNavy and Sea Gripens for the Marines corp. Those small wonders can take of and land in a small carrier like the Marines use. It won't be the first time they buy airplanes from outside.
1. “Prove it” --I said “Every panel is aligned” and you replied “aligned to what?”. The correct answer is that they are aligned to each other and the edges of the wings and control surfaces.
2. “It is at certain angles (SH being VLO)” --Boeing does not even claim this. All they claim is a ” 50% Improvement Over (it’s) Current LO Signature”. This of course is while being clean. Add CFTs, weapons, flir pods, etc and it goes up from there.
3. “any 2D radar can give you the distance, speed and direction of any small airplane at long ranges,” --You have yet to provide a source that says a maritime A2G radar can track ANY airplane, let alone one designed NOT to show up on radars DESIGNED for detection of planes.
4. “Waht every body ignores is the final price of the F-35” --I do not care what you think everybody else does, just what is applicable within a given timeframe. It would take several years (likely 5 due to the EPE engines) and over a BILLION dollars to get into production. To be intellectually honest you need to compare the F-35 price at what it will be 5 years from now, not today’s price. Btw, don’t forget to add that $Billion to the price to buy ASH as somebody has to pay for it.
5. “I'm not comparing it's frontal view with the F-117/22 I just compare with the F-35 and I put you a view to prove it.” --You actually said “That's why the alignments and angles on the F-117, F-22 and F-35 at the front and sides. Even the Rhino at the front uses exactly the same design.” Sure seems like you are equating the F-117/22/35 to the frontal view of the SH. Besides, they look nothing alike. No chine, no aligned panels, no slab sides, etc. This is what determines RCS, not general layout items like intake location, wing location, etc.
6. “Prove it” --Easy, you assume the enemy knows where the F-35s are, when they are coming, and that the F-35 will not respond to ESW warnings but will instead fly blindly towards an approaching enemy.
Sea Gripens, which exist only on paper and would cost BILLIONS more to develop, cannot take off from LHA/LHD platforms as they have no ramp. They also are unable to operate from austere basing. The F-22 is not coming back and the F-15 costs more than the F-35.
Try to do some research before posting as this feels like you are bringing a knife to a gunfight ;)
Panel alignment is the process of redirecting creeping wave radar signals so that they reflect off in a uniform manner in a direction not the same as the emitter. The highest threat of incoming radar will be from the front so any reflection will be directed to the sides. Here is a pic of the panels on the sides and back of the F-35 showing this intentional reflection to the sides. Notice that all the angels are arranged in parallel so that the reflected radar signals are not scatter in numerous directions, but in defined controlled ones. This feature is completely lacking on the SH.
So in order to be LO, it must have Growlers?? So you admit that a single ASH cannot do it alone? Well, there goes your affordability. What happens when even the F-35 needs a Growler, how will the ASH survive?
This is exactly what I mean when I say you ignore tactics. If B-2s were being sent against an enemy where thy have the capability to attack the B-2s before they can release their stores, then there are several things that you would do before sending in the B-2s.
In order to complete their mission, the attackers would use one or more of the following: 1. Send in attack aircraft (F-35s, B-2s, B-1, etc) with ARMs, JASSMs, etc that would attack the long range radars first, then any remaining radars that pose a threat.
2. Operate MALD and MALD-J from either F-16s, F-35s, F-18s, or B-52s
Under no circumstances will a lone B-2 knowingly fly straight into this type of IADS network without some pre work being done.
To launch a stand off weapon from 500NM you don't need any stealth airplane. If you want to go closer, with a fleet of ASH and Growlers you can do it wit out any problem.
For A/A as I told you before you will have more missiles in the air with the ASH/G Fleet than with the F-35s an it's small internal load capacity optimized against frontal surface radars, not Airplanes like the Mig31 or Pakfa flying above them.
For any F-35 you will have 2 Super Hornets. For every 2 F-35 you will have 3 Super Hornet plus a Growler and so on.
You need to get close enough to target the mobile IADS. Russian systems are very mobile. You are not going to be able to target the long range radars from 500nm away.
Again, stop comparing LRIP F-35s to FRP SH (let alone ASH) pricing. You are rising disingenuous to a whole new level.
There is a reason why every service, all our international Partners, Russia, China, and many other nations are pursuing 5th gen systems. The know that in the very near future 4th gen systems, even ones backed up by EW, will not be enough to get the job done.
1-The F-15Se is actually much cheaper than the F-35...Boeing as a fixed price of 100 million(including engines and spares)...all F-35s are more than 100 million sans engine 2-No nation is after an all stealth fleet...Russia is buying MiG-29/35s and Su-30/35s...China is buying Flanker knock offs,J-10s,JH-7s and is developing a single seat version of their trainer L-15/JL-10 designated Q-6 for the replacement of the Q-5 ...they started fielding the H-6K bomber... No air force wants an all stealth force exept the USAF....
Cough... we would if the stealth is a bonus feature without compromise of the aerodynamic performance and cost. And I want to be young forever and have a harem to boot. :P
If the US had opened sales of the F-22 to international markets, there would have been buyers. Pity they played their cards so close to their chest that now the capability to produce more is lost. I fail to see how Australia or Japan getting F-22s is a security risk, or even Germany. The UK has their own pet Typhoon project so they probably won't bite.
Super, I think you might be overstating the advantages of the F-18 a bit. There is no "God" plane, each have their own roles and strengths and weaknesses, even the F-22, -35 and the -18.
The F-18's strength vs the F-35 is it's payload and the fact that it was designed for air superiority from the onset, while the F-35's advantage is that it is a versatile platform with multiple variants and that the RCS is better than the F-18.
Does it make the F-35 a "God" plane? No. If it gets caught in a dogfight against an F-18, it's going to have a bit of trouble if it plays too long. In return, does it make the F-18 a "God" plane? No. If the F-35 can sneak up on one, there is a chance of it getting the first shot off. They each have their own roles and purposes.
BTW, which company are you with? I might know them.
I don't think the F-35 is more versatile than the SH. Just imagine the possibilities and combinations you can obtain with this modular an versatile aproach of Boeing.
In fact you don't need to have your complete fleet as Advanced SHs
For example you can send in front an Advance SH with 2 missiles and 2 bombs internally detecting all the threats in a stealthy fashion and at the rear and at longer distance an Low Observable Super Hornet carrying 10 missiles or stand of bombs.
For the enemy both airplanes will be extremely difficult to detect.
So, you will have 12 missiles and 2 bombs in the air for ptetty much the same price of a single F-35 carring 2 misiles and 2 bombs internally.
And the nex day of conflict, with those two airplanes you will be able to carry the double of ordenance than with a single F-35
It really looks good.
ReplyDeleteIf the F-15Se really wins in Korea and the Advanced SuperHornet wins in Brazil and Canada(all big ifs)i see Boeing pushing this planes at a very low price for the US...there are a lot of voices in the USAF wanting the F-15Se and in the Navy wanting the ASH...maybe it time the USMC to take a second look at this
i agree. we have enough harriers to last until 2030 so lets take a breather, figure out what we need and how we're going to do it and get started now on building a STOVL jet for the USMC, a fighter bomber for the USAF and a fleet interceptor for the USN.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIf the USMC gives up stealth and the Darth Vader helmet and you use the work done in the F-35 you could have a jet for half the price...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletehay sol old boy,
Deleteif you give up, on your f-35b, we'd want our harriers back, broken promises and all that !!!!
but it'll never happen too many pups at the breast suckling of uncle Sams saggy tits....
lol gives you a horrible picture doesn't it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDo not think F-15SE has a chance of winning in Korea unless Boeing promises its F-15SE to be at least:
Delete1. Bundled with EA-15G (I would call it EA-18Growler for F-15 since Korea has many F-15 already. Later they can turn some of the aged ones into EA-15G Growler Eagle!!!
2. F-15SE comes with center-line enclosed weapons pod, radar blocker
Am a overseas Korean and I support Boeing but Boeing does not have a chance unless their proposal becomes at least as this much sexy, or better...
This would be perfect for Brazil.
ReplyDeletei think so. besides, the Rafale just had a price spike and i'm sure they'll try and push the F-35 but its expensive too.
Deletethis is probably the most affordable, combat proven 4thgen + airplane flying today. it'll get the job done till 2030 and then we can get something newer
In fact, it is the most affordable airplane flying today. Althought the fact Gripen is the cheapest one, its new generation - the NG is far from being full operacional. We need these machines for "yesterday".
DeleteThe brazilian governement wants so bad that the new fighter brings some new capabilities to the national industry. SAAB says the Gripen would increase our potencial in bulding aircrafts and Brazil would take part in every sales of Gripen around the world. That is a good point, but we all know that a plane`s project is something hard to predict. The history has shown almost all projects involving high-tech fighters had delays and budgets busted.
I think we can not afford this. F-18, in the other hand, has a great growth potencial and we could personalize some features, like Boeing affirmed no long ago, referring to the partnership with AEL Systems.
Sorry Lucas, the Brazilian F-X decision will NOT be made this year, so Brazil will retire their Mirage 2000s with no replacement.
DeletePlus, Ms. Rousef has said she "will not buy jets from a nation that spies on Brazil" meaning the USA.
Also, the French are building 6 new subs for Brazil and will do ANYTHING for another Rafale export order.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt would be perfect for Canada too. We could get 120 of this babes with no problem instead of 65 F-35 that we can't even predict their final price.
ReplyDeleteHave you see the doc from boeing?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.usni.org/2013/08/27/document-boeings-advanced-super-hornet?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=document-boeings-advanced-super-hornet
Did you notice that in many cases you would need 2-3 Superhornets to do the job of ONE F-35?
ReplyDeleteWhen loaded with 1k or 2k class weapons, the EWP cannot carry AMRAAMs. It is also limited to 1 large munition.
So, to protect and deliver 2 large munitions, you would need 2-3 Superhornets...
Yeah, that makes sense :)
Remember too that space on a carrier is very limited, so using this will limit your sorties rate well below that of the F-35C.
Not true...according to the paper released by Boeing the SH can carry the EWP also under the wings...so it can carry ut to 3 of those...
DeleteIt low rcs & range values are based on only carrying one EWP. Carry more and you loose range and your RCS goes up. Still needs an escort.
DeleteBesides, I think the EWP is a good idea... and should be bought for the F-35 :).
They should make a larger version of it. 2k worth of weapon space and 2k worth of fuel, perfect for the F-35 inner pylons (rated for 5k, even on the B).
DeleteThe Rhino can still carry 2 AMRAAMs semi-conformally (minimal cross section) as well as 2 Sidewinders on the wingtips. Maybe my math is rusty, but that's 2 AIM-9s more than a F-35 buttoned up.
DeleteF-35 can't even land on an aircraft carrier. It will be tough to load weapons and refuel as the plane still cant catch the wire.
DeleteFor day one to use 2 or 3 Super Honets almost at the same price of one F-35 to launch two big bombs is reasonable. For day two and the next 10 years of campaign to use an F-35 at the same price of 2 1/2 Super Hornets to carry on the same amount of weapons externally...that makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteYou really have no clue how things are done, do you?
ReplyDeleteIt will take you at least three times as long (assuming the SH has the same survivability rate as the F-35, which it clearly does not) to strike all priority and hi threat targets. This additional time allows the enemy to beef up support, move assets, etc. Even after "1st" day ops, large munitions are being used and AAA, SAMs, & MANPADS are still a threat. Throw in the additional support needed and this is not workable.
If this idea would meet the JSF requirement, then Boeing would have bid this solution instead of the F-32. It does not and they did not.
Sorry, this thread is for jerking off the the pod laden super Hornet.
DeleteI bet that thing flies like a PIG with all the crap hanging off it.
Yeah, Big deal.
ReplyDeleteYou can lunch an airplane from a carrier every 45 seconds or less. So 9 minutes to lunch 12 F-35 with a total of 24 big bombs and 24 Amraams internally.
In the other hand, you need 18 minutes to put in the air 18 Super Hornets with a total of 18 big bombs internally and 36 Aim-9x on the wins, another 4 extra Super Hornets for escort with 16 Amraams internally and 8 Aim-9X on the tip of the wings and two extra Growlers with 2 Amraams each. That means internally 0.75 times the amount of bombs carried internally by the F-35, and more than 2.33 times the Air to Air missiles and everything for 1/3 of the price.
As a plus you have 2 real electronic warfare airplanes, not only to jam radars, but also the enemy communications for the rest of the war.
Whats the big difference for the enemy if he has only 9 extra minutes to run?
For Day two and the res of the war, you will launch the same number of airplanes and bombs with the Super Hornets or the F-35, but way more cheaper with the Super Hornets.
If you have 24 Sh with a total of 18 bombs, they you can have 24 F-35s with 44 bombs...
ReplyDeleteGee, 48 vs 18 SH fail again. Then there is the whole surprise factor (VLO and not needed EW letting everyone in the neighborhood know you're coming).
Btw, the F-35 can carry:
6x2k weapons to the SH's 4
10x1k weapons vs the SH's 6
Then there is the whole EODAS, EOTS (another thing not included in the EWP setup), MADL, etc.
News Flash: Day One last much longer than a day (often the entire time).
If you have the money for 24 F-35, that means you have the money for aprox 54 Super Hornets and 4 Growlers.
ReplyDeleteDay one pretty much the same result with both fleets. Day 2 and the rest of the war...voila.... you have 2,5 more punch with the Super Hornet fleet.
Space is limited on a carrier. It's more important to have the most capable jet take up a spot than the cheapest.
ReplyDeleteWhat is limited in the USNavy is the budget.is more important to have the sufficient number of airplanes in a carrier than few of them designed plenty of compromises just for the day one of the war. They wont go first minute any way, before will go the Tomahawks launched from very long and safe distance. Then you can send Super Hornets, Growlers, even Harriers of you want. For Australia for example, there is no problem of space in a carrier or money in their budget of defense.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding. The USN has for years been reducing the carrier wing sized to maximize efficiency. Putting more fighters on a carrier is not a good thing if less F-35s can get the job done. The USN is not going to reverse that trend and put more of a less-capable fighter on the carrier when the F-35 is available. The USN does not have a fighter budget problem.
ReplyDeleteIs the F-18 cheaper than a F-35, sure. But is also less capable and because deck space is limited, the USN wants the most capable fighter that takes up a spot.
Btw, how many more BILLIONS is it going to take to develop all the toys (EWP, IRST, MAWS, avionics, EPE engine, etc) that Boeing wants to put on the Silent Hornet? Did that figure into your cost equations?
Super Hornet is not a less capable aircraft. Boeing has made the investments in these upgrades, not the USN. Super Hornet and Growler provide equivalent effects, with more flexibility. The Navy could save enough money to pay for their ships and submarines, with zero degradation in carrier ariwing capability by increasing the ratio on deck with more Super Hornets and Growlers.
ReplyDeleteBoeing made these investments because they don't want the Super Hornet line to SHUT DOWN in 2015 or so.
DeleteWhy is Lockheed Still upgrading the F-16?????
Boeing has made very little investment in the Silent Hornet tech. These flights are aerodynamic models only, not working units.
DeleteNow try some facts:
SH cannot fly m1.6 armed while F-35 can
SH must take up a weapon slot to mount a FLIR
SH does not have a IR MAWS
SH cannot survive in the same environments as other VLO aircraft. The fact that it requires EW support to even get close is testament to that.
SH cannot supercruise at any speed & altitude.
SH's datalinks can give it's position away
Boeing has flown and tested signature reductions enhancements. As a matter of fact, the ADV Super Hornet flew yesterday and reporters were able to see the aircratg up close, and it can combat the same 2030 threats tht other aircraft are designed to do. As for your comments on what Super Hornet can and can't do, well, how do you compare one that is operational to one that is not? The plane you advocate for has not met IOC yet, can't land on an aircraft carrier, and can't go operational becuase of too many issues and problems to mention here in this forum. Furthermore, you might want to do some homework on EW support and check how many VLO aircaraft have flown operational missions without EW support...
DeleteYou are deluded if you think that ADV_Sh can fight PakFa, J-20, J-31, and advanced ADA networks.
DeleteThe only thing that flew yesterday was a SH with MOCK attachments in order to verify the aerodynamic characteristics of the CFT and EWP hardware.
As far as the F-35 and it's capabilities goes:
It has already flown to m1.6 with a full internal weapons load
It already has a VLO airframe (something ADV_SH will NEVER have)
It already has a working EODAS, EOTS, LPI AESA radar, MADL, etc
The big difference in EW support:
VLO airframes can use EW support as an option while 4th gen assets REQUIRE EW to get the job done.
Working EODAS, EOTS, AESA and MADL???? Not 100% working by a long shot bud.
DeleteThey work just fine for the software build that they are running at (the hardware is not changing, just the software that fuses the data). Some of them have been flying for almost 10 years.
DeleteI bet the Super flies and accelerates like SHIT with CFTs and all those pods hanging off it.
ReplyDeleteplus, a Super with all those goodies will cost $100 million.
Flies the same, with no additional training needed. Additional cost is about 10 increase depending on options selected, which is still more affordable--by far--than other options. See this link and interview with the test pilot: http://bit.ly/15ws4yq
DeleteAnd those numbers come from where???
DeleteLockheed martin accounters.... Xp
ReplyDeleteSo LM said that the ADV_SH will not require any more training and will only be a 10% bump over basic SH? Are the pods and CFT included in that price?
DeleteAlso, are the SDD costs included in that price?
Time for me to step in:
ReplyDeleteSpudmanWP, it is now clear to me that you don't know anything about the way the Navy operates. The space on a carrier deck is limited, but the number of carriers is not. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated that the cuts in the size of airwings and carriers is to protect the F-35 Program because it is so damn expensive. In case you need that simplified: THE NAVY IS MAKING CUTS IN ITS FORCE SIZES BECAUSE OF THE F-35 PROGRAM'S HIGH OUT TO SPACE PRICE TAG. The F-35 is the source of the problem.
Normal Navy doctrine puts 2 carriers near a warzone for the duration of the heavy fighting. Two carriers with full loads of Advanced Super Hornets is fully capable of taking on and overwhelming any known threat with the one exception being a Chinese take over of Taiwan, which the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations specifically have said even the F-35 when/if it is made fully operational is not sufficient for. Why do you think the Navy is making the F/A-XX program?
The current estimates for an ASH are at roughly $90 million, which is still less than half the cost of the current F-35C, the price tag of which has not gone down, but has in fact gone up to $199.4 million flyaway cost according to the FY 2013 budget estimates, which are publicly available online: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
The price of the F-35C is anticipated to go up because the only way to solve the problem of it not being able to land on a carrier is to stretch out its airframe, which will cause drastic price increases that would greatly exceed whatever it would take to fully develop the ASH upgrades. The cost required to get the F-35 actually functional greatly exceed what the Navy would spend developing the ASH. Boeing did a chunk of the work for us already. (I'm in the Navy by the way, which is why I refer to it as "us.")
While the ASH is not yet using fully functional CFTs and an EWP, it is still far less difficult and far less expensive to develop than a fully functional F-35 of any variant because it is using off the shelf technology and does not require development of any brand new technologies. The longest thing to develop would most likely be the software changes, and don't get me started on the software setbacks that the F-35 has in place. Even the most optimistic F-35 supporters say that the software still experiences a significant level of "risk."
By the way, SpudmanWP, since you take Lockheed F-35 marketers for the word on costs like a blind zombie I think it's only fair that you give Boeing Super Hornet marketer cost estimates a fair amount of legitimacy too don't you think?
Aside from that, lets face it, the fact that we have Tomahawk cruise missiles and other long range ordnance means that our enemies will more than likely never get their aircraft off the ground. The PAK-FA will not be made in enough numbers to be effective at anything except homeland defense for Russia. The J-31 and J-20 scare is unreal since those aircraft are really far out in their operational timelines, more like late 2020s timeline. The Advanced Super Hornet also doesn't need to be more stealthy than the F-35 if it has the right ordnance, like a long range stand-off anti-radar missile of incredibly high speeds that could kill SAMs.
The F-35 is soaking up funds for that (the T3 missile and then another one was killed called the JDRADM missile) and other much more cheap ways of getting the job done more effectively. It is only still going because it puts money in the right pockets and jobs in the right places. It is a bad joke and a total cluster fuck for the armed forces, but it is a money maker for the military industrial complex.
The Super Hornet is a program the Navy built with a purpose and the upgrades to it would make it roughly just as good as the F-35 (and better in some areas) while being only a fraction of the cost. The Navy is trying to pull itself away from the F-35 but Lockheed has their hooks in deep.
That last paragraph should say "...just as good as the F-35 was meant to be..." Somehow I skipped that in my mind while I was typing.
DeleteA fraction of the cost... at a fraction of the capability.
DeleteNice try.
If the ASH was "good enough" then that's what the USN would be buying and would not be pushing for F/A-XX either.
The DoD (not LM) puts the FRP cost of a F-35C at $110 mil. So for a mere $20 mil you get all the benefits of the F-35C. I base all my numbers on official DoD docs (SAR, budget projections, etc), not LM marketing.
btw, Who pays for the development and did that play a part in your calculations?
As far as soaking up funds goes, all of that is heading towards social programs and not the military. T3/JDRADM were put on hold due to not being needed in the near term. The AIM-120D is good enough for now.
SupdmanWP you are a fucking retard. Any google search will show that the F-35C is at 199Mil per aircraft FLYAWAY F.Y. 2013. With the Simpleist form, the F-35A for the airforce being 153mil a mere 3.5mil more per aircraft than the F-22 (yet having a smaller internal carrying capacity. Outside of a few talking heads who have been specifically chosen, and a some idiot nonners who don't work anything related to aircraft, almost nobody likes the F-35 procurement plan. The F-22 should have been upgraded in avionics and done with new coatings and sealant to fix the maintenance timeframe (most of it is waiting for sealants on panels to cure). Nothing has been done about replacing the Raven that's been retired, requiring the airforce to solely rely on AWACS and JSTARS for communication jacking the already over-taxed naval air fleet of E/A-18's and E/A6's for jamming.
DeleteThe F-35B (which is another story) is the most god-damn expensive fighter in history, has an extremely limited range and capabilities. A project that is obviously kept alive by the marine corps need to keep their "blue water" expeditionary ship construction funded at the cost of practical fighter acquirement for other branches and at the cost of equipment procurement for their ground forces (who are already under funded and under-equipped.
What should happen is that the F-35B and F-35C should be abandoned. The F-35A should be cut in production to a level required to play as a support unit to the F-22 for hitting ground targets (as was intended with it's avionics package), the F022 should get a new avionics and radar suite and fix the maintenance issues (aka sealant and coatings with a TCTO, which is cheap as USAF maintenance specialists can handle it ourselves).
The F-15 silent eagle upgrade with a electronic-warfare suite for either the F-15 or F-16 is the last upgrade the airforce would need to maintain world-wide air dominance. Add that with the ability to fill up the navy's aircraft carriers back to full capacity with F-18 Advanced super-hornets and growlers and we would see a program cheaper, and more capable than the F-35.
The F-35 is not the all around solution Lockheed is selling it as. CAN it does a multitude of missions? Sure, so can the F/A-18. F-16, F-15, and F-22. It does one mission real well (deep range ground attack) while being a compromise (at the least) at everything else (CAS, air superiority, electronic warfare, escort, etc.) with an effectiveness (when not purposely set up to the F-35's strengths) as any other fighter while paying half as much to double the cost depending on the air frame upgrades it could be replaced with.
One F-35 for day one of conflict using passive stealth (against surface radars) gives you an airplane with just one engine, one pilot, one Aesa Radar, EO/IR sensors, two big bombs of 1000 lbs and two amraams.
ReplyDeleteFor the same price and also for day one of conflict using passive VLO enhancements (against surface radars) you can have one advanced SH with two engines, (two lifes) two pilots (two brains), two mid size bombs of 500 lbs; two amraams and two Aim-9X, one Aesa Radar, EO/IR sensors plus an extra Growler (active stealth against surface and air/air threats), also with two engines, two pilots, 2 high speed antiradiation missiles, two Amraams one Aesa Radars and a real electronic warfare capability to jam enemy radars and disrupt their troops communications.
At the end and for the same money you have in the air:
1 engine vs 4 engines
2 Big Boms vs 2 Mid size Bombs
2 Amraams vs 4Amraams plus 2 Aim-9X
1 single Pilot vs 2 Pilots and 2 co-pilots for battle management, ellectronic warfare,reconnaissance and in the near future control of drones.
1 Aesa Radars vs 2 Aesa Radars
Passive Stealth design (effective only against surface redars) vs VLO and active stealth (effective agains surface and air/air threas).
The F-35 design is passive Stealth just at the front and sides (against surface radars). Any 4gen fighter (like the Sukhoys or Migs) Flying higher in CAP mission (carring a lot of missiles), is able to detect the masive and round engine and the cockpit back of the F-35, using just a conventional radar (not even an Aesa one)
And you still talking about better capabilities for the money?
And all of that is just for day one of conflict. For day two when you don't need to carry on weapons internally the SH/Growler fleet is even twice as effective than the F-35 fleet.
Watch another of my videos, maybe this way you will finally understand the point.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-v-ldaHM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
You will not be able to buy 2 ASH for the price of one F-35. Stop comparing today's LRIP F-35 vs the then (post development) cost of an ASH. You are raising disingenuous to a whole new level.
Deletebtw, The F-35 has all-around passive stealth. Every panel is aligned, every edge treated, and the nozzle has interweaving sawtooth edges.
In the end the ASH will not end up in USN inventory in place of the F-35 although I would not mind seeing it as upgrades on current SH airframes.
All around aligned to what?.At the top it's RCS is as round and bigger than an F-16. At the back it's huge engine is as stealth as an saturn rocket
ReplyDeletehttp://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35A_JSF_Head-On_lg.jpg
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-16B_lg.jpg
The fact that you do not know what I (and everyone else with half a brain) mean by "aligned" speaks volumes to you lack of knowledge about how RCS and VLO methods work.
DeleteYou are never going to see the F-35 from the top unless it's in a very sharp bank. So 0000001% of the time.
ReplyDeleteThe F-22 & B-2 are large from the top yet are also VLO assets.
Mig31 SERVICE ceiling 67000 ft. Max Speed at high altitude Match 2,83
ReplyDeleteThis was before the upgrade
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyBjlchyBEg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
F-35 max Ceiling 60000 ft
Max speed at high altitude Mach.1,6
The F-22 top for their two smaller engines looks flat compared with the huge and cilindrical top of the F-35.
DeleteBTW the F-35 flyes at match 2.85 at 65000ft with their weapons inside, but an very high cost too.
You are aware that a flat surface reflects radar better than a curved one, right?
DeleteNot totally true. Talks on material aside, remember the old F-117s? Angled like no plane has been angled before. Of course you are right in saying that the reflection in one direction may be better, but IIRC, the concept then was to bounce the reflection off in a direction without a receiver, so even with flat panels, a F-117 had better stealth characteristics than a "rounded" F-16 or F-18, so the case is hardly as clear cut as "curved>flat"
DeleteJust tossing an anchor windward.
ummm, what?
DeleteA Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR designed to sly after and shoot down B1s and maybe cruise missiles.
It can't use A to ground munitions and is incredibly maintenance and fuel hungry.
It also has the radar signature of barn, and the thermal singature of a small star.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOh dear Lord, this coming from the person who yesterday did not know what aligned meant.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRhino, which one? I may know them.
DeleteCongrats on being an architect, but you display a profound lack of knowledge about aircraft tactics & capabilities:
ReplyDelete1. You did not know what alignment was and how it affected RCS
2. You think the SH is a VLO airframe
3. You think that the Triton has an A2A radar and that it can detect a F-35 at any significant distance
4. You compare LRIP F-35 pricing to FRP F-18 pricing. This applies to today’s price but ignores tomorrow’s.
5. You compared the F-18’s frontal view to the F-117/22/35 (notice the lack of a chine, or what it’s for?)
6. You completely ignore tactics in your “vs” comparisons
i think Superrhino is profoundly ignorant of the F-35
Delete1. You did not know what alignment was and how it affected RCS
ReplyDeleteProve it
2. You think the SH is a VLO airframe
It is at certain angles
3. You think that the Triton has an A2A radar and that it can detect a F-35 at any significant distance
As I told you, any 2D radar can give you the distance, speed and direction of any small airplane at long ranges, with simple geometry fusioned with the IR/Sensor can give you the altitude.
4. You compare LRIP F-35 pricing to FRP F-18 pricing. This applies to today’s price but ignores tomorrow’s.
Waht every body ignores is the final price of the F-35
5. You compared the F-18’s frontal view to the F-117/22/35 (notice the lack of a chine, or what it’s for?)
I'm not comparing it's frontal view with the F-117/22 I just compare with the F-35 and I put you a view to prove it.
6. You completely ignore tactics in your “vs” comparisons
Prove it.
BTW, I'm enjoin my holidays seen how desperate is some F-35 fans trying to justify it's necessity.
The better solution for USA should be to built more Raptors and Silent Ealges for the USAF, More Super Hornets for the USNavy and Sea Gripens for the Marines corp. Those small wonders can take of and land in a small carrier like the Marines use.
It won't be the first time they buy airplanes from outside.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saab-India/About-Saab-India/Saab-in-Focus/Sea-Gripen-Force-Multiplier-For-The-Indian-Navy-IN1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SyUtmn2YOs
1. “Prove it”
ReplyDelete--I said “Every panel is aligned” and you replied “aligned to what?”. The correct answer is that they are aligned to each other and the edges of the wings and control surfaces.
2. “It is at certain angles (SH being VLO)”
--Boeing does not even claim this. All they claim is a ” 50% Improvement Over (it’s) Current LO Signature”. This of course is while being clean. Add CFTs, weapons, flir pods, etc and it goes up from there.
3. “any 2D radar can give you the distance, speed and direction of any small airplane at long ranges,”
--You have yet to provide a source that says a maritime A2G radar can track ANY airplane, let alone one designed NOT to show up on radars DESIGNED for detection of planes.
4. “Waht every body ignores is the final price of the F-35”
--I do not care what you think everybody else does, just what is applicable within a given timeframe. It would take several years (likely 5 due to the EPE engines) and over a BILLION dollars to get into production. To be intellectually honest you need to compare the F-35 price at what it will be 5 years from now, not today’s price. Btw, don’t forget to add that $Billion to the price to buy ASH as somebody has to pay for it.
5. “I'm not comparing it's frontal view with the F-117/22 I just compare with the F-35 and I put you a view to prove it.”
--You actually said “That's why the alignments and angles on the F-117, F-22 and F-35 at the front and sides. Even the Rhino at the front uses exactly the same design.” Sure seems like you are equating the F-117/22/35 to the frontal view of the SH. Besides, they look nothing alike. No chine, no aligned panels, no slab sides, etc. This is what determines RCS, not general layout items like intake location, wing location, etc.
6. “Prove it”
--Easy, you assume the enemy knows where the F-35s are, when they are coming, and that the F-35 will not respond to ESW warnings but will instead fly blindly towards an approaching enemy.
Sea Gripens, which exist only on paper and would cost BILLIONS more to develop, cannot take off from LHA/LHD platforms as they have no ramp. They also are unable to operate from austere basing. The F-22 is not coming back and the F-15 costs more than the F-35.
Try to do some research before posting as this feels like you are bringing a knife to a gunfight ;)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePanel alignment is the process of redirecting creeping wave radar signals so that they reflect off in a uniform manner in a direction not the same as the emitter. The highest threat of incoming radar will be from the front so any reflection will be directed to the sides. Here is a pic of the panels on the sides and back of the F-35 showing this intentional reflection to the sides. Notice that all the angels are arranged in parallel so that the reflected radar signals are not scatter in numerous directions, but in defined controlled ones. This feature is completely lacking on the SH.
ReplyDeleteSo in order to be LO, it must have Growlers?? So you admit that a single ASH cannot do it alone? Well, there goes your affordability. What happens when even the F-35 needs a Growler, how will the ASH survive?
Not even the manufacturer of Triton claims airborne detection capability.
So? The shape at the top still as stealth as a whale.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/f35.jpg
Since when anybody lunches an airstryke with one airplane?
I just show you how an ASH/Growler attack is more effective for day one and twice or more as effective for day two than the F-35
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFunny how the B-2 has more & larger rounded fuselage components yet nobody seems to mind.
ReplyDeleteSpecially the Russians.
ReplyDeleteThis will happens if you don't bring the Growlers to the fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlfoxbtBeMU
This is exactly what I mean when I say you ignore tactics. If B-2s were being sent against an enemy where thy have the capability to attack the B-2s before they can release their stores, then there are several things that you would do before sending in the B-2s.
ReplyDeleteIn order to complete their mission, the attackers would use one or more of the following:
1. Send in attack aircraft (F-35s, B-2s, B-1, etc) with ARMs, JASSMs, etc that would attack the long range radars first, then any remaining radars that pose a threat.
2. Operate MALD and MALD-J from either F-16s, F-35s, F-18s, or B-52s
Under no circumstances will a lone B-2 knowingly fly straight into this type of IADS network without some pre work being done.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteTo launch a stand off weapon from 500NM you don't need any stealth airplane.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to go closer, with a fleet of ASH and Growlers you can do it wit out any problem.
For A/A as I told you before you will have more missiles in the air with the ASH/G Fleet than with the F-35s an it's small internal load capacity optimized against frontal surface radars, not Airplanes like the Mig31 or Pakfa flying above them.
For any F-35 you will have 2 Super Hornets. For every 2 F-35 you will have 3 Super Hornet plus a Growler and so on.
You need to get close enough to target the mobile IADS. Russian systems are very mobile. You are not going to be able to target the long range radars from 500nm away.
ReplyDeleteAgain, stop comparing LRIP F-35s to FRP SH (let alone ASH) pricing. You are rising disingenuous to a whole new level.
There is a reason why every service, all our international Partners, Russia, China, and many other nations are pursuing 5th gen systems. The know that in the very near future 4th gen systems, even ones backed up by EW, will not be enough to get the job done.
1-The F-15Se is actually much cheaper than the F-35...Boeing as a fixed price of 100 million(including engines and spares)...all F-35s are more than 100 million sans engine
Delete2-No nation is after an all stealth fleet...Russia is buying MiG-29/35s and Su-30/35s...China is buying Flanker knock offs,J-10s,JH-7s and is developing a single seat version of their trainer L-15/JL-10 designated Q-6 for the replacement of the Q-5 ...they started fielding the H-6K bomber...
No air force wants an all stealth force exept the USAF....
Cough... we would if the stealth is a bonus feature without compromise of the aerodynamic performance and cost. And I want to be young forever and have a harem to boot. :P
DeleteIf the US had opened sales of the F-22 to international markets, there would have been buyers. Pity they played their cards so close to their chest that now the capability to produce more is lost. I fail to see how Australia or Japan getting F-22s is a security risk, or even Germany. The UK has their own pet Typhoon project so they probably won't bite.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSuper, I think you might be overstating the advantages of the F-18 a bit. There is no "God" plane, each have their own roles and strengths and weaknesses, even the F-22, -35 and the -18.
DeleteThe F-18's strength vs the F-35 is it's payload and the fact that it was designed for air superiority from the onset, while the F-35's advantage is that it is a versatile platform with multiple variants and that the RCS is better than the F-18.
Does it make the F-35 a "God" plane? No. If it gets caught in a dogfight against an F-18, it's going to have a bit of trouble if it plays too long. In return, does it make the F-18 a "God" plane? No. If the F-35 can sneak up on one, there is a chance of it getting the first shot off. They each have their own roles and purposes.
BTW, which company are you with? I might know them.
I don't think the F-35 is more versatile than the SH.
DeleteJust imagine the possibilities and combinations you can obtain with this modular an versatile aproach of Boeing.
In fact you don't need to have your complete fleet as Advanced SHs
For example you can send in front an Advance SH with 2 missiles and 2 bombs internally detecting all the threats in a stealthy fashion and at the rear and at longer distance an Low Observable Super Hornet carrying 10 missiles or stand of bombs.
For the enemy both airplanes will be extremely difficult to detect.
So, you will have 12 missiles and 2 bombs in the air for ptetty much the same price of a single F-35 carring 2 misiles and 2 bombs internally.
And the nex day of conflict, with those two airplanes you will be able to carry the double of ordenance than with a single F-35
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t_uw1mGohw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrZ7jWT_GY&feature=youtube_gdata_player