|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 7, 2013 7:34:02 GMT -6
Well, I thought I would be the first to create a thread. This is a continuance of a thread from the old forum about the F-35. I've included other fifth Gen fighters.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 14, 2013 17:23:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 14, 2013 21:23:43 GMT -6
As far as the first incident, it doesn't surprise me that the USAF will make a big deal out of something that is meaningless. Sorry, but I am not impressed. When it goes against a Su-30 or better, flown by a good Russian pilot, then I'll be impressed.
As to the second, we had the same issue with the F-18A center barrels. They developed cracks and had to be repaired. Trust me when I tell you that to fix a center barrel problem requires a complete disassembly of the aircraft down to parade rest, as we used to say.
www.navair.navy.mil/frcsw/fa-18.html - This is a link to the depot at North Island. The bottom picture shows the center barrel of an F-18 being installed after rework. BTW, that is the hanger on the west end of Bldg 317. Notice the state of the bird. It's sitting on supports. This is an assembly area, as the engines are now back in the plane. Hope this helps.Dated Feb 23,2012 - This is the date of the document above. As you can see, the F-18 has center barrel problems again as the plane ages.
Things change and things stay the same.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 16, 2013 20:01:01 GMT -6
As to the F-22/F-4 incident, pretty much. I don't see that airplane ever going into action against the usual pushover suspects - gross overkill against Third World AtoA assets, not much AtoG payload, and a lucky hit or operational loss would be worth more than an entire wing of obsolete MiGs. Unless we get into a scrap with an opponent that has a serious air force, something I'd rather not see in my lifetime, the F-22 is going to spend its days spooking Russian bomber crews and the odd fighter pilot just to let folks know it's around. I imagine an F-15 or F/A-18 with cues from a surveillance platform could have just as easily gotten into that F-4's blind spot and given him the same treatment.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 16, 2013 20:15:05 GMT -6
As to the F-22/F-4 incident, pretty much. I don't see that airplane ever going into action against the usual pushover suspects - gross overkill against Third World AtoA assets, not much AtoG payload, and a lucky hit or operational loss would be worth more than an entire wing of obsolete MiGs. Unless we get into a scrap with an opponent that has a serious air force, something I'd rather not see in my lifetime, the F-22 is going to spend its days spooking Russian bomber crews and the odd fighter pilot just to let folks know it's around. I imagine an F-15 or F/A-18 with cues from a surveillance platform could have just as easily gotten into that F-4's blind spot and given him the same treatment. Oh sure, either of those aircraft could have bested that F-4. Even another F-4 flown by a competent, trained pilot could do it especially with airborne early warning radar platforms. One way was to do a merge but at treetop levels then after you pass underneath, climb up and on their tail. Later F-4's have MTI and look down/shoot down systems but it can be used.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 19, 2013 12:01:54 GMT -6
Following from that, what is the best way to use fifth-gen stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 against an opponent with a quality fighter force and IADS? Do you treat them as a standard line fighter, using their LO capabilities as a means of defeating lock-on by enemy radars in a straight-up fight? Or do you treat them more like submarines or commandos - a specialized, limited-quantity resource to be used for offensive counter-air and bombing strikes in places the enemy doesn't expect them to turn up? This is more an issue with the F-22, given that there are only 182 airframes left in the inventory. The F-35 may be more able to play the numbers game as it's being procured in about ten times the quantity, but it'll be some time before they arrive on the flight line in strength.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2013 12:41:54 GMT -6
Following from that, what is the best way to use fifth-gen stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 against an opponent with a quality fighter force and IADS? Do you treat them as a standard line fighter, using their LO capabilities as a means of defeating lock-on by enemy radars in a straight-up fight? Or do you treat them more like submarines or commandos - a specialized, limited-quantity resource to be used for offensive counter-air and bombing strikes in places the enemy doesn't expect them to turn up? This is more an issue with the F-22, given that there are only 182 airframes left in the inventory. The F-35 may be more able to play the numbers game as it's being procured in about ten times the quantity, but it'll be some time before they arrive on the flight line in strength. You have to do an in-depth analysis in peace time of their doctrine and technology with an eye on developing tactics for both fighters. Each fighter is inherently different, and requires different tactics. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter while the F-35 is a partially stealthy bomb truck. We don't have enough F-22's to really gain air superiority over an opponent without some help from the F-35's, B-2 Stealth bombers, drones and of course missiles. Once your SEAD operations have reduced the opponents IADS to a reasonable level, say thirty to fifty percent effectiveness, your other aircraft including F-18's, F-15's, F-16's, Allied aircraft and possibly B-52's can now proceed to reduce the IADS even further and support ground operations. In answer to your question, they are tools in the toolbox, each tool has a myriad of uses and should be used at the appropriate time and place. Your use of the limited resources of the F-22 will be dependent on the operational objectives and strategic goals. If this is a limited strike to retaliate or to eliminate a weapon or weapons that are deemed a threat to friendly nations, you might not use your limited resources like an F-22. With missiles, F-35's then other non-stealthy aircraft, it is possible to perform such missions. This is a good series of questions and we can pursue this line, if you like.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 19, 2013 13:48:18 GMT -6
Certainly. I think the fifth-gen stuff is all great, but the question is how you use those advantages. I've stated before that I don't particularly care for those studies that show fighters lining up like Napoleonic formations and firing volleys of AAMs back and forth until they get close enough for dogfighting; for that matter tying F-22s to a big radar/ESM target like tankers or AEW aircraft is a waste of the capability. Same with bombing operations; one of the big advantages to the F-35 will be the availability a LOT of LO platforms in a theater. That'll help break up airfield and IADS infrastructure more quickly so the 4th-gen platforms can pile on.
It's also a valid line of questioning given that both Russia and China have their own fifth-gen fighters in development. We really don't know how those platforms will measure up against the F-22 and F-35, but I'd be interested to know how much thought they've given to using them in combat.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2013 19:10:19 GMT -6
Certainly. I think the fifth-gen stuff is all great, but the question is how you use those advantages. I've stated before that I don't particularly care for those studies that show fighters lining up like Napoleonic formations and firing volleys of AAMs back and forth until they get close enough for dogfighting; for that matter tying F-22s to a big radar/ESM target like tankers or AEW aircraft is a waste of the capability. Same with bombing operations; one of the big advantages to the F-35 will be the availability a LOT of LO platforms in a theater. That'll help break up airfield and IADS infrastructure more quickly so the 4th-gen platforms can pile on. It's also a valid line of questioning given that both Russia and China have their own fifth-gen fighters in development. We really don't know how those platforms will measure up against the F-22 and F-35, but I'd be interested to know how much thought they've given to using them in combat. Well, it would be interesting to know how much stock has been put into the winning of air supremacy over an operational area. It's information that you keep close to you that don't spread around so that's going to be difficult for us to know what kind of research they've actually done and what intelligence they have. Let me try to examine what we think they know. I will present more later. We need to answer questions like who are our enemies now, and in the coming decades; what kind of technology will they present to us; Will our current technology be sufficient and what are our operational goals.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 20, 2013 10:45:53 GMT -6
In order to answer questions that we might have, we have to examine one term that isn't defined but referred to in many documents; air dominance. It is the " highest airpower state, when the requisite effectiveness of airpower is achieved, .. 100 percent of friendly bombs hit enemy targets while no enemy bombs hit friendly target, ... wars are won quickly, and... few friendly casualties are suffered." Now, how is that for a mouthful. This is the core of the value of the USAF to the nation, as it is put. Remember that the Naval air arm is designed to win sea battles and support sea-borne invasions. According to documents I have accumulated over the years, air dominance lately has meant the ability to dominate the skies so that all other types of air and joint operations can function at peak effectiveness. One problem is DOD's concentration on irregular warfare. As we have seen, our inventory of fighters is aging and the F-35 is not entirely the aircraft that we have expected. It was supposed to replace F-16s, F-18's etc. But alas its capability is not attaining what we had planned. It isn't even that stealthy as a bomb truck.
The fact that we are concentrating on bomb trucks and not purchasing air superiority fighters should give us an indication that air superiority and ACM are not considered as important anymore. Stealth drones and missiles seem to hold the day. SEAD seems to hold the leading point.
Just some preliminary thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 20, 2013 13:15:33 GMT -6
It's said that militaries prepare to fight the last war ... and the last time we fought an enemy that actually gave us a challenge in the air was North Vietnam in the 1970s. In the Gulf and the Balkans the other guy mostly tried hiding on the ground and we had to play whack-a-mole on airfields. US air dominance seems to be based on the tenets of quality over quantity and being able to destroy enemy aircraft on the ground at will in the opening round. Against a Third World air force with crap maintenance and upkeep and low flying hours, that does wonders. Good against a numerically superior, not-too-far-behind opponent with an extensive IADS and hardened airfields located deep within their territory? As Han Solo would say, that's something else.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 20, 2013 14:03:41 GMT -6
It's said that militaries prepare to fight the last war ... and the last time we fought an enemy that actually gave us a challenge in the air was North Vietnam in the 1970s. In the Gulf and the Balkans the other guy mostly tried hiding on the ground and we had to play whack-a-mole on airfields. US air dominance seems to be based on the tenets of quality over quantity and being able to destroy enemy aircraft on the ground at will in the opening round. Against a Third World air force with crap maintenance and upkeep and low flying hours, that does wonders. Good against a numerically superior, not-too-far-behind opponent with an extensive IADS and hardened airfields located deep within their territory? As Han Solo would say, that's something else. Militaries don't really prepare for the last war, it is the only war from which they have concrete facts and data, so they have to use it in their preparations with a few counterfactuals to provide alternatives. Even the NVAF didn't really present much of a problem in the air, it was the ground based anti-aircraft systems and policy. Once we developed MTI for the fighters, Quirk 160 and IFF/SIF interrogation systems, plus improved the AIM-9 and finally put transistors in the AIM-7, it was over. It helped release the fighters and allow them to hit the airfields around Hanoi. We've learned a lot about policy from that war, trust me. It is the IADS's that we really have to concentrate on because aircraft, fourth and fifth gen aircraft, are very expensive to purchase and maintain, not to mention fly. Airfields require an established facilities, long concrete runways, revetments and underground fuel tanks to stay alive. But air defenses can move around to important targets.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Oct 20, 2013 16:42:42 GMT -6
Aww, c'mon. It was a dangerous and tricky manuever. That F-4 could've leaked hydraulic fluid all over his canopy.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 20, 2013 19:43:25 GMT -6
Aww, c'mon. It was a dangerous and tricky manuever. That F-4 could've leaked hydraulic fluid all over his canopy. [laughing] Yea, he might have had a messy canopy but at 540 MPH, I don't think it would bother him. The F-4 smoke probably would have caused more trouble than the leaking hydraulic fluid, which is nasty stuff BTW. Don't get it on your boots. The old stuff was flammable.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 20, 2013 20:02:49 GMT -6
It would have given the F-22 pilot a great Monty Python retort - "What are you going to do, bleed on me?"
|
|