Dutch Force 21 Blogspot takes to task the idea that the platform is the key to war winning and instead looks at the payload.
Quite honestly I sat back in shock.
The US Navy is choosing payloads over platforms in its push for the LCS. Mission modules are the key they say, not the performance of the ship. With the LX(R) they're doing the same thing.
Payload is the driver, not the platform. He said simply what the Navy has been struggling to get over with the LCS. But he does one other thing. He again shows how that same concept should be applied to airplanes...
Read it here.
NOTE: I didn't want to pollute the concept by stating the obvious but it must be pointed out. The US Navy is choosing this same concept with their evolution of the Super Hornet. This payload over platform theory is why the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet can be a low cost but effective platform into the future.
This payload over platform theory works in A2G and CAS cases only; it doesn't work in the A2A case where the fighter jet's kinetic and sensor performance is a part of the equation. Of course the F-35's kinetic performance sucks and is not supposed to be an A2A platform in the first place.
ReplyDeletereally? so if the Navy is ever able to develop a laser that is capable of being carried by a C-130 with a turret. if the Navy further develops a rotatable turret for that C-130 both on top and bottom of it. if they create a large AESA that can detect targets out to 500 miles out.
Deleteare you telling me that the slow lumbering C-130 wouldn't be able to shoot down high speed fighters?
amazing.
payloads are the key. yes. it matters the fighters performance but the key is the payload. make hypersonic maneuvering missiles and agility of the fighter becomes less and less important because they can't escape and expect the pilot not to turn to jelly.
don't be argumentative just for the sake of the argument.
THINK!
Solomon
DeleteYAL-1 was able to fire 20 shots per flight. Typical medium to small jets simply do not have enough generation capacity to make a laser weapon a reality in the first place. This is no Star Wars X-wings.
Oh, I looked up when you were talking about C-130 and found this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Tactical_Laser
DeleteIt says the system weigh 7 tons and has a range of 20 km. This system is obviously useless in A2A combat, where the C-130 carrying laser would be shot down by enemy BVR A2A missiles long before the enemy fighter jet gets within the range of the C-130 laser.
wow. i can't reach you. i'm done trying.
DeleteWell He is named the slow Man.
DeletePayload over platform.
DeleteAn SOC AC-130 is, currently, the only four-engined (propeller driven) "fighter" to be able to shoot down a low-flying Mi-8 during the first Iraq invasion.
that was like what....20 years ago??? much has been done in the ensuing years. the fact remains.
ReplyDeletepayloads is what matters.
and no. it isn't Star Wars i'm talking about but near future warfare.
The key issue with laser weapons is energy source and a laser weapon isn't practical on an airborne platform unless the power source is nuclear. But no one would risk a flying nuclear reactor in the first place.
DeleteWhat many fail to grasp is that F35 is offered as do it all fighter ,and most allies don't have big enough airforces for 2 fighter plane combo like (F35 and F22 or F16 F15) plus purchase of F35 will in most cases reduce their air force fighter count by 50% so it almost definetly the wrong choice
ReplyDeletePayload over platform.
ReplyDeletePayload = 155 mm artillery shell
Platform = Single well motivated Japanese soldier with a hammer sitting in a camouflaged hole in the road.
Purpose = anti mechanized platform.
Payload over platform for purpose.
The F4F Phantom was a multiple purpose platform a good one too, yet MiG 15's and MiG 17's shot them down with cannon fire because the platform did not carry the correct payload of a gun.
I'm thinking the Modular ships and multipurpose F-35 are throw away's and expendables until the then direly needed and affordable Kill-O-Zap jets, ships and weapons come on line under pressure of a real gut bustin' Naval air war.
ReplyDeleteThey expect to lose ships and aircraft and do not wish to waste the effort and cash to keep them in a more superior mode.
These weapons systems are disposable.
The administration views Veteran's G. I. education money as welfare, they view the military as expendable criminals.
Hence, LCS and F-35's.
what's more affordable: build a stealthy platform that will cost a trillion dollars to penetrate enemy airspace or build thousands of weapons that can be fired from standoff distances at a fraction of the cost.
ReplyDeleteit's why the F35 is a phony. Manned penetration of contested airspace is suicide. It's better to develop stealthy UCAVs and stealthy cruise missiles with submunitions than send manned fighters into harm's way,
and quite honestly its why the US Army should be going after the Next Generation Bomber with a vengeance. its the next money pit that the USAF is going to hoist on the services. the sad thing is that we've faced this issue before with Jimmy Carter and the B-1 Bomber.
DeleteThe Empire chose the cheapo route. You saw where it got them!
DeleteHaving said that, it's classic question of what's more important? The Death Star? Or it's big laser that it carries around?
I'm going with Sol. It's the big ass laser.
DeleteThe US Navy was right not wasting their time and money with a Navy F-22. They shouldn't make that mistake now.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=cvRlSufXaAc
And they started already the study for their next UCLAS, probably with a Laser and JSOW .
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mtvZoq4N0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Every generation someone falls for the "silver bullet" thinking that "This System is Die In a Ditch Important and we can't live without it!"
ReplyDeleteNo single system is "die in a ditch important." It is more important to have the RIGHT MIX of weapon systems and capabilities than a "silver bullet" solution.
And if the F-35 wasn't designed for A2A, what the hell was it designed for? Instead of having the right mix of aircraft to fill all warfighting roles we are getting an aircraft that will do nothing particularly well. Now in fairness, the JSF program was meant to save money, but I can't even say that out loud with a straight face anymore.