Jump to content


Photo

More F-15X Rumors...


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#161 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 01 March 2019 - 1614 PM

No one was going to make a separate STOVL aircraft. Though personally Im fine with that; I think it is a marginally useful capability.
  • 0

#162 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 02 March 2019 - 0325 AM

I dunno if it's been discussed in this thread but...

Can the current iteration of AIM-120 be guided to its target from AWACS or another platform data? IIRC -120 is active radar homing so it's likely to be spotted by enemy aircraft's RWR, yes?

So can -120 home in on its target without going active, relying instead on targeting data from an AWACS safely miles away, or from a high flying stealth aircraft acting as a sort of mini-AWACS using its passive sensors? And if the radars of those -120s are off, how stealthy are those missiles? Can they not trip the RWR of the target by not going active?

I know this shows my ignorance on the topic which is why I'm asking.

And I'm asking because that would make those missile trucks sense. They could launch at near full range with their -120s not going active, the missiles' targeting data being provided by an F-22 or F-35 that's much closer, or AWACS that's sitting safely behind. Against an enemy that doesn't have networked system and relies on GCI or even AWACS but little or crude networking that can be jammed,the enemy fighters will rely on their own sensors forcing them to go active and such.

Anyhow, I'm sure I'm wrong in everything above....ahehe
  • 0

#163 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 02 March 2019 - 0328 AM

No one was going to make a separate STOVL aircraft. Though personally Im fine with that; I think it is a marginally useful capability.

 

I think they would get far more out of STOVL drones. Remove a man from the cockpit you are going to save a lot of weight. Im surprised nobody ever looked at a STOVL arrangement for something like X47. Even a pegasus would prove more than adequate for something that size.


  • 0

#164 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 02 March 2019 - 0704 AM

Where the F-35B will potentially shine in future is in the flexibility and thus survivability of its basing. As Bill Gunston predicted back in the 70s, PGMs have made the use of long concrete runways highly problematic vs a peer opponent. That does assume you don't just line your F-35Bs up on the apron and put all ther supporting infrastructure in a few known locations at the start of the conflict though.
  • 0

#165 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 02 March 2019 - 1552 PM

Where the F-35B will potentially shine in future is in the flexibility and thus survivability of its basing. As Bill Gunston predicted back in the 70s, PGMs have made the use of long concrete runways highly problematic vs a peer opponent. That does assume you don't just line your F-35Bs up on the apron and put all ther supporting infrastructure in a few known locations at the start of the conflict though.

 

I seem to recall hearing that Harriers could be deployed almost anywhere, but lost much of their effectiveness away from a proper airbase or carrier because you do need most of the same infrastructure as CTOL/CATOBAR jets.


  • 0

#166 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 02 March 2019 - 1659 PM

Moreover, without fixed wing support (tankers, AWACs), how effective are the jump jets going to be?


  • 0

#167 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 03 March 2019 - 0815 AM

AWACS, like JSTARS, is an increasingly problematic concept vs a peer opponent in any case. The idea is to network those dispersed, survivable sensors you have. Obviously, that's problematic, but you can't count on either AWACS or fixed site radars surviving more than a few hours into a future conflict in Europe. As for tanking, STOVL enables relatively forward basing - that and the aircraft can be equipped with standoff weapons.  There will be other assets tasked with going deep (the B-21 in particular), but you have to ask yourself what the point will be if you can't establish air superiority and deal with targets up to c. 100 miles back from the FEBA.


  • 0

#168 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 03 March 2019 - 0821 AM

Where the F-35B will potentially shine in future is in the flexibility and thus survivability of its basing. As Bill Gunston predicted back in the 70s, PGMs have made the use of long concrete runways highly problematic vs a peer opponent. That does assume you don't just line your F-35Bs up on the apron and put all ther supporting infrastructure in a few known locations at the start of the conflict though.

 

The whole future norwegian F-35 fleet will be based on one airbase (Værnes) which lies near the sea outside Trondheim with all the supporting infrastructure, originally the base was not supposed to have hardened shelters either.


  • 0

#169 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1215 PM

 

Where the F-35B will potentially shine in future is in the flexibility and thus survivability of its basing. As Bill Gunston predicted back in the 70s, PGMs have made the use of long concrete runways highly problematic vs a peer opponent. That does assume you don't just line your F-35Bs up on the apron and put all ther supporting infrastructure in a few known locations at the start of the conflict though.

 

The whole future norwegian F-35 fleet will be based on one airbase (Værnes) which lies near the sea outside Trondheim with all the supporting infrastructure, originally the base was not supposed to have hardened shelters either.

 

 

I'd hope things would be dispersed far and wide in the event of rising tensions in the region. Vaernes appears to be Trondheim civil airport.


  • 0

#170 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1245 PM

 

 

Where the F-35B will potentially shine in future is in the flexibility and thus survivability of its basing. As Bill Gunston predicted back in the 70s, PGMs have made the use of long concrete runways highly problematic vs a peer opponent. That does assume you don't just line your F-35Bs up on the apron and put all ther supporting infrastructure in a few known locations at the start of the conflict though.

 

The whole future norwegian F-35 fleet will be based on one airbase (Værnes) which lies near the sea outside Trondheim with all the supporting infrastructure, originally the base was not supposed to have hardened shelters either.

 

 

I'd hope things would be dispersed far and wide in the event of rising tensions in the region. Vaernes appears to be Trondheim civil airport.

 

 

Ørlandet is the air base name, was in a hurry and mixed the two up. I would assume it would be a prime target (and a gift for sake of easy destruction) for russian submarine launched cruise missiles further out in the Norwegian sea.


  • 0

#171 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1409 PM

 

 

 

Where the F-35B will potentially shine in future is in the flexibility and thus survivability of its basing. As Bill Gunston predicted back in the 70s, PGMs have made the use of long concrete runways highly problematic vs a peer opponent. That does assume you don't just line your F-35Bs up on the apron and put all ther supporting infrastructure in a few known locations at the start of the conflict though.

 

The whole future norwegian F-35 fleet will be based on one airbase (Værnes) which lies near the sea outside Trondheim with all the supporting infrastructure, originally the base was not supposed to have hardened shelters either.

 

 

I'd hope things would be dispersed far and wide in the event of rising tensions in the region. Vaernes appears to be Trondheim civil airport.

 

 

Ørlandet is the air base name, was in a hurry and mixed the two up. I would assume it would be a prime target (and a gift for sake of easy destruction) for russian submarine launched cruise missiles further out in the Norwegian sea.

 

 

Or simply launching from their moorings. This is the problem I have with out whole concept of conventional deterrence/defence. Huge, very expensive chunks of it are not plausibly survivable. 


  • 0

#172 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1455 PM

I seem to recall hearing that Harriers could be deployed almost anywhere, but lost much of their effectiveness away from a proper airbase or carrier because you do need most of the same infrastructure as CTOL/CATOBAR jets.

 

True and all the more true for the larger, more complex F-35.  Remember that the force and heat of the F-35 downwash was a major issue for US Navy decks that were designed to support Harriers, then there's the maintenance issues and huge fuel consumption . . . 

 

In defensive scenarios, you're not going to do much better than the Swedes did with Viggens and Gripens off of highways in prebuilt, hardened locations, and that does not require VTOL.

 

Or simply launching from their moorings. This is the problem I have with out whole concept of conventional deterrence/defence. Huge, very expensive chunks of it are not plausibly survivable. 

 

I believe this is a major issue that the USAF refuses to address.  The strategy of having small numbers of all high end planes may be much less vulnerable in the air, but an F-35 (or F22 or B2) is just as vulnerable sitting on a runway as any 3rd or 4th gen plane.  This is putting potential opponents with cruise and ballistic missiles in a "use them or lose them" situation; their only good strategy is a massive pre-emptive strike on whatever bases the USAF is on.


  • 0

#173 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 05 March 2019 - 0857 AM

 

 

Or simply launching from their moorings. This is the problem I have with out whole concept of conventional deterrence/defence. Huge, very expensive chunks of it are not plausibly survivable. 

 

 

Launching from their moorings would give fair warning time, launching from offshore near Trøndelag within 10-20 mins of hostilities commencing would be completely devastating as the F-35 is to be the cornerstone of norwegian defence planning. Removing a fair chunk of the F-35 fleet as the opening move in a potential conflict would more or less checkmate Norway in a quick stroke. The army has had no air defence for its single remaining brigade (to be rectified, sort of, by 2025) above 50cal machine guns since 2005, being completly dependant on the air force to secure the skies above.


  • 0

#174 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,411 posts

Posted 12 March 2019 - 2044 PM

Looks like USAF has officially requested eight F-15EX aircraft in the new budget.


  • 0

#175 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,111 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 13 March 2019 - 0433 AM

Impossible.
  • 0

#176 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,955 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Today, 04:08 AM

I suspect there may be a residual effect on the future of the A10 caused by the introduction of new F15 airframes down the road, as they extend the Air Force's ability to argue that strike eagles make the A10 mission redundant. I hope this is not the case, but I can see the groundwork being laid for it by this.


  • 0

#177 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted Today, 06:46 AM

I suspect there may be a residual effect on the future of the A10 caused by the introduction of new F15 airframes down the road, as they extend the Air Force's ability to argue that strike eagles make the A10 mission redundant. I hope this is not the case, but I can see the groundwork being laid for it by this.

 

these aren't 'strike' eagles, they are single seat replacements for the C/D's that do the air superiority mission.

 

they will be multi-role i believe in that they can carry air to ground, but if they go to the units already flying the C/Ds as planned, i dont think it will be an issue. 


  • 0

#178 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,955 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Today, 07:30 AM

Agreed that these will not be strike aircraft, and I am hopeful it will not come down to a choice between the F15 or the A10, as the existence of new F15 airframes will make that choice a relatively easy one in various ways.  


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users